# Reserve Training



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2021)

Infanteer said:


> Found an interesting self-assessment.
> 
> _"Our tactical methods are thorough and methodical but slow and cumbersome. In consequence our troops fight well in defence and our set-piece attacks are usually successful, but it is not unfair to say that through lack of enterprise in exploitation we seldom reap the full benefit of them. We are too flank-conscious, we over-insure administratively, we are by nature too apprehensive of failure and our training makes us more so."_
> 
> Does this describe the Canadian Army today?



I couldn’t comment. Being a reservist, with over 30 years in the PRes, I was never engaged in any kind of joint exercises with the Reg F.

Hey, maybe that’s an issue too


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I couldn’t comment. Being a reservist, with over 30 years in the PRes, I was never engaged in any kind of joint exercises with the Reg F.
> 
> Hey, maybe that’s an issue too


Or ones where I wasn't used as GD instead of my intended task.


----------



## FJAG (27 Jun 2021)

Interesting thought just crossed my mind (well at least to me).  Just watched a little filmstrip of Ex Agile Ram showing some Leo's jockeying and doing live fire support as a fire base. It reminded me of the numerous Black Bear exercises we did in Shilo firing 400 rounds of HE from a reserve force battery in support of a single battalion level (two tank coys and one Marder coy) live fire attack across the prairie. There was very little jockeying - just a hell bent for leather high speed attack with a few halts to deliver some direct fire into the target area which was basically smoke and ruin from the guns crashing down into it. Yes there was recce on the flanks but basically it was sheer violence pushing forward. Oh! By the way. Those were the days of the 9 month conscript in the German Army.

So, on reflection, and based on one very short video, yes. We are a bit slow and cumbersome tactically.

For D&B the Reg F gunners in Ontario used to spend a fair bit of time supporting Res F arty units especially during Milcon. Praire region not so much. I gather its the same now in that 2 RCHA has expended some good efforts in training reservists as det members and even det commanders on the M777. During the little dustup in Afghanistan reservists filled anywhere from 15 to 25% of the gun battery jobs.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I couldn’t comment. Being a reservist, with over 30 years in the PRes, I was never engaged in any kind of joint exercises with the Reg F.
> 
> Hey, maybe that’s an issue too


Hmm we were ops tasked so worked with 3rdherd and the Germans, they airlifted our entire battery of 6 guns to Shilo a couple of times.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jun 2021)

FJAG said:


> Interesting thought just crossed my mind (well at least to me).  Just watched a little filmstrip of Ex Agile Ram showing some Leo's jockeying and doing live fire support as a fire base. It reminded me of the numerous Black Bear exercises we did in Shilo firing 400 rounds of HE from a reserve force battery in support of a single battalion level (two tank coys and one Marder coy) live fire attack across the prairie. There was very little jockeying - just a hell bent for leather high speed attack with a few halts to deliver some direct fire into the target area which was basically smoke and ruin from the guns crashing down into it. Yes there was recce on the flanks but basically it was sheer violence pushing forward. Oh! By the way. Those were the days of the 9 month conscript in the German Army.
> 
> So, on reflection, and based on one very short video, yes. We are a bit slow and cumbersome tactically.
> 
> ...




What were the conscripts in the back of the Marders doing during hell bent for leather high speed attack?


----------



## FJAG (27 Jun 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> What were the conscripts in the back of the Marders doing during hell bent for leather high speed attack?


Mostly hanging on for dear life. The Marders chimed in with their cannons (in those days they didn't have any Milans for a while and even after they mounted the launchers, they didn't use them during Black Bear that I recall) On some traces they had some grenadiers up in the back hatches but for most of them they went in fully buttoned up.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jun 2021)

FJAG said:


> Mostly hanging on for dear life. The Marders chimed in with their cannons (in those days they didn't have any Milans for a while and even after they mounted the launchers, they didn't use them during Black Bear that I recall) On some traces they had some grenadiers up in the back hatches but for most of them they went in fully buttoned up.
> 
> 🍻



Don't relish the idea of hosing them out after the ex.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jun 2021)

FJAG said:


> Interesting thought just crossed my mind (well at least to me).  Just watched a little filmstrip of Ex Agile Ram showing some Leo's jockeying and doing live fire support as a fire base. It reminded me of the numerous Black Bear exercises we did in Shilo firing 400 rounds of HE from a reserve force battery in support of a single battalion level (two tank coys and one Marder coy) live fire attack across the prairie. There was very little jockeying - just a hell bent for leather high speed attack with a few halts to deliver some direct fire into the target area which was basically smoke and ruin from the guns crashing down into it. Yes there was recce on the flanks but basically it was sheer violence pushing forward. Oh! By the way. Those were the days of the 9 month conscript in the German Army.
> 
> So, on reflection, and based on one very short video, yes. We are a bit slow and cumbersome tactically.
> 
> ...



The 'molisha' is a fully segregated organization within the CAF in a Two Solitudes kind of fashion, based on my experiences. I assume that the PRes CoC has as much to do with this ridiculous state of affairs as their Reg F counterparts.

Annual 'camps' tend to be train to excite focused with little in the way of working towards achieving any deeper and meaningful training, or integrating with the Reg F beyond them setting up and running some stands etc. In the very few cases where we conducted joint FTX's, with a Reg F enemy force for example, the Reg F mission seemed to be humiliate the Reservists in various ways under the guise of providing learning opportunities.

Conversely, during the various AFG tours reservists were fully integrated into Reg F units quite successfully.

It's odd that we don't do that more during training because, you know Train as you Fight, and we have thousands of people who could easily augment Reg F units on exercises as required given some favourable conditions (e.g., run the big exercises in the summer when Reservists are available).

However, I assume that small p politics will defeat sound doctrine when lives aren't immediately on the line.


----------



## quadrapiper (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> The 'molisha' is a fully segregated organization within the CAF in a Two Solitudes kind of fashion, based on my experiences. I assume that the PRes CoC has as much to do with this ridiculous state of affairs as their Reg F counterparts.
> 
> Annual 'camps' tend to be train to excite focused with little in the way of working towards achieving any deeper and meaningful training, or integrating with the Reg F beyond them setting up and running some stands etc. In the very few cases where we conducted joint FTX's, with a Reg F enemy force for example, the Reg F mission seemed to be humiliate the Reservists in various ways under the guise of providing learning opportunities.
> 
> ...


Did that become significantly worse for BC units when the Regular Army shifted to points East?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2021)

quadrapiper said:


> Did that become significantly worse for BC units when the Regular Army shifted to points East?



It was always pretty bad, for the Infantry anyways, even when 3 VP was here. We were not part of their mandate or on their radar screen, in any fashion, unless they needed to poach some of our troops of course.


----------



## Underway (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Conversely, during the various AFG tours reservists were fully integrated into Reg F units quite successfully.


It's amazing what happens when you have a six-month pre-deployment training.  Perhaps that's the goal.*  Foundational training on which to build.

My OC pointed out to me (late night in the CP chats) that the difference between a PRes and Reg F Cpl did not exist after pre-deployment.  There was also little difference between a Ref F and PRes Lt in dismounted operations after the same.  The difference he saw was MCpl and above, where the years of experience really start to show.  There were, of course, exceptions (like Class B instructors or PRes who had done multiple tours) but generally, that was the take.



daftandbarmy said:


> However, I assume that small p politics will defeat sound doctrine when lives aren't immediately on the line.


Or the $ in budget.

*edit: not intended to be snarky though on reread it sounds that way...


----------



## MilEME09 (28 Jun 2021)

Underway said:


> It's amazing what happens when you have a six-month pre-deployment training.  Perhaps that's the goal.*  Foundational training on which to build.
> 
> My OC pointed out to me (late night in the CP chats) that the difference between a PRes and Reg F Cpl did not exist after pre-deployment.  There was also little difference between a Ref F and PRes Lt in dismounted operations after the same.  The difference he saw was MCpl and above, where the years of experience really start to show.  There were, of course, exceptions (like Class B instructors or PRes who had done multiple tours) but generally, that was the take.
> 
> ...


And this whole Sgt in 5 years thing won't help that either. Wisdom passed to me years ago was become the best you can in your current role before you seek advancement. I'll be a MCpl a long time before I am really good at it. Until then I will not consider my sgts course and units should be trying to force inexperienced troops on leadership courses. Especially in the PRes


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> It's odd that we don't do that more during training because, you know Train as you Fight, and we have thousands of people who could easily augment Reg F units on exercises as required given some favourable conditions (e.g., run the big exercises in the summer when Reservists are available).


Having been in a mixed PRes and RegF unit, the fastest way to destroy morale and sow division between the PRes and RegF elements is to do exactly what you propose. You're saying we should bin summer block leave for RegF pers to go on exercise with the PRes instead of being with their families in the summer when their kids are off school.... even the STALWART GUARDIAN series in August has a lukewarm reception, mostly because it's an extra exercise, not a replacement for one the RegF folks are going to do in the Fall/winter anyways.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Having been in a mixed PRes and RegF unit, the fastest way to destroy morale and sow division between the PRes and RegF elements is to do exactly what you propose. You're saying we should bin summer block leave for RegF pers to go on exercise with the PRes instead of being with their families in the summer when their kids are off school.... even the STALWART GUARDIAN series in August has a lukewarm reception, mostly because it's an extra exercise, not a replacement for one the RegF folks are going to do in the Fall/winter anyways.



That's why we'd need some enlightened senior leadership to figure out this integration thing.

As I recall the British Army, for example, has no such thing as 'Summer Block Leave' in the same way that it is regarded as a Gawd Given Right for most in the CAF.

In accordance with some master plan, developed somewhere and referred to as the 'Arms Plot' I think, as I recall some units might be taking leave while others are spooling up (or returning from) operations, while others support training in the UK or elsewhere. Everyone gets their leave, just not all at the same time, more or less, because: National Defense Priorities. (I especially like how it was referred to as a 'Plot').

We're smart enough to figure out the way, if there is the will to do some unofficial 'union busting'. 

Which I strongly doubt there ever will be of course


----------



## FJAG (28 Jun 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Having been in a mixed PRes and RegF unit, the fastest way to destroy morale and sow division between the PRes and RegF elements is to do exactly what you propose. You're saying we should bin summer block leave for RegF pers to go on exercise with the PRes instead of being with their families in the summer when their kids are off school.... even the STALWART GUARDIAN series in August has a lukewarm reception, mostly because it's an extra exercise, not a replacement for one the RegF folks are going to do in the Fall/winter anyways.


It all depends how you do it. Most army units block off all of July and Aug from training and that's when kids are free from school and leave starts.

In 2 RCHA we always supported the two week Milcon's pretty heavily with one Reg F pers at each detachment (be it gun or CP or recce or OP) as DS plus safety and supply and maint staff but we arranged it so that people designated for the exercise still had over a month available for leave. A little preplanning as well as a little job swapping ensured everyone had plenty of time for annual leave or postings and Militia support. OTOH in Shilo we provided safety officers and little else.

You're right though. It would be close to impossible to have the whole outfit do a summer exercise together ... and quite frankly it's probably not necessary as long as key supervisors are involved.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2021)

FJAG said:


> It all depends how you do it. Most army units block off all of July and Aug from training and that's when kids are free from school and leave starts.
> 
> In 2 RCHA we always supported the two week Milcon's pretty heavily with one Reg F pers at each detachment (be it gun or CP or recce or OP) as DS plus safety and supply and maint staff but we arranged it so that people designated for the exercise still had over a month available for leave. A little preplanning as well as a little job swapping ensured everyone had plenty of time for annual leave or postings and Militia support. OTOH in Shilo we provided safety officers and little else.
> 
> ...



If the mission is something like 'The Reserves will fully augment the Regular Force on EX KILL EM ALL', then it would be of critical importance to run a joint exercise preceded by relevant work up training aligned with the exercise goals during the training year. We'd then join 1 CMBG (or whoever) in Wainwright (or wherever), in May (or whenever), and add a couple hundred + more troops to the Bde Gp, and then head off and do things together. Hell, do it once every two years if annually is too difficult.

If the mission is something like 'Keep the Reserves happy so they don't all quit, while making sure that their over promoted bosses think they're super awesome leaders even thought they probably aren't because we haven't invested in training them properly over the years', then you send a few Reg F people to support the Molitia to do its own thing, even if it isn't well aligned with anything else the Army is doing right now, while the rest of the Reg F goes on leave


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> As I recall the British Army, for example, has no such thing as 'Summer Block Leave' in the same way that it is regarded as a Gawd Given Right for most in the CAF.



But the British, or more specifically that element of the British that rise to the higher levels, don't particularly like their children and thus only see having to coordinate vacation time as a burden.  And, if they pack them off for someone else to care for, they are reimbursed the expense. 🙄


----------



## FJAG (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> If the mission is something like 'The Reserves will fully augment the Regular Force on EX KILL EM ALL', then it would be of critical importance to run a joint exercise preceded by relevant work up training aligned with the exercise goals during the training year. We'd then join 1 CMBG (or whoever) in Wainwright (or wherever), in May (or whenever), and add a couple hundred + more troops to the Bde Gp, and then head off and do things together. Hell, do it once every two years if annually is too difficult.
> 
> If the mission is something like 'Keep the Reserves happy so they don't all quit, while making sure that their over promoted bosses think they're super awesome leaders even thought they probably aren't because we haven't invested in training them properly over the years', then you send a few Reg F people to support the Molitia to do its own thing, even if it isn't well aligned with anything else the Army is doing right now, while the rest of the Reg F goes on leave


You see that's what bugs me ... because there is too much truth in what you say.

I suspect that there's something about the salty tang of the West Coast that brings out some of the worst in upper PRes leadership but I do agree that there is a definite tendency that once you get above the rank of major, even if you've been a good one, to get into administering the unit, including its varied mess life, than in furthering the soldiers' training which is left to the young NCOs and junior officers. I'll be kind here. I think that's because the units are so small and the scope of training at such a low level that the training really should be left to the NCOs and junior officers (with a little bit of mentoring perhaps). When I think of our Reg F training cycles, we didn't see much of the CO or RSM either during our troop and battery training. It wasn't until we got to regimental shooting that the CO was all over us (usually at the sharp end at the OPs) with several tours around the gun line.

Since there is no real collective training phase in any PRes units cycle, there really is no useful job that the CO could do, in general, that wouldn't be looked on as getting into the junior officer's way.

We have a fundamentally flawed structure. It might have worked fine in the days of 1,000 man Militia battalions but it really makes no sense these days. Considering we can't call up a PRes battalion and march them off to a ship to take them to war like they did in '39, what use is the battalion structure at all? Quite frankly the aim of virtually all exercises the PRes do these days are to "keep the troops happy so that they don't quit". While there is a side benefit that they become marginally better at their jobs with each course they take and each exercise that they participate in, the only true "aim" that I see is to keep a large enough manpower pool to draw on when the RegF can't seem to adequately meet the body count they need for the few operational tasks they are given. And there's no way with our current structure that we could even contemplate the first mission that you contemplate because the current RegF leadership will not even try to find a way to make that concept a viable one.

I can think of a dozen ways to have a better, less expensive structure for the Army - from having a core of leaders and recruiting people off the streets for three years with one year of intensive training followed by two years of foreign duty and then releasing most of them to having an equipped and trained national guard that you mobilize when needed. All of these are more cost effective then our present structure which seems to revel in keeping folks in expensive in administrative jobs to well after their best before dates and having them "unready" for two thirds of their time in service. The dysfunction of the PRes leadership which you point out is just a small part of an unhealthy whole.

🍻


----------



## Eaglelord17 (28 Jun 2021)

One thing that could really help with training differentials and increase the practicality of the Reserves is to completely change how parading is done. Move to more like the Swiss method where they train you for a year (maybe make some summer course type options for those in school to work up the training) with a large exercise every year for a month which is guaranteed time off from work and mandatory for troops to attend (exemptions being medical leave). Maybe choose to have a week or two of refresher training (range qualification, fitness tests, IBTS type stuff) and two to three weeks of actual exercise for the yearly month.

At the same time do away with the Class A parading in general other than random taskings as it doesn't really accomplish too much (maybe make a exemption for Remembrance day parades and Christmas dinner). That one month in the field will get much more accomplished in retaining and developing skills than all these scattered parade nights and weekends throughout the year will. Considering someone can show up 8-10 half days a year and still be considered effective strength, this would be a huge difference in training levels.

You would have units actually functioning as units (not platoons or sections) and since it would be mandatory to attend with guaranteed time off your civilian job you would actually get everyone out who potentially could be there.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Jun 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> But the British, or more specifically that element of the British that rise to the higher levels, don't particularly like their children and thus only see having to coordinate vacation time as a burden.  And, if they pack them off for someone else to care for, they are reimbursed the expense. 🙄


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's why we'd need some enlightened senior leadership to figure out this integration thing.
> 
> As I recall the British Army, for example, has no such thing as 'Summer Block Leave' in the same way that it is regarded as a Gawd Given Right for most in the CAF.
> 
> ...



From time to time it becomes apparent that the original name for the Canadian Army was the Permanent Active MILITIA.

Gotta git home to git them crops in.


----------



## GR66 (17 Jul 2021)

In re-reading this thread it really does lead one to despair.  I see no real hope of the Reserves ever getting the type of equipment and support (logistical, technical and legislative) that would allow them to field fully formed Reserve units into a combat situation.

At the same time the lack of matching equipment, out-of-sync training cycles, no integrated command structure and general culture of separation don't even make it possible to rapidly and easily plug in platoon sized Reserve elements into a Reg Force unit without an extended work-up period.

What makes matters worse is that low levels of manning in the Reg Force units make Reserve augmentation a requirement for sustained deployments.  What happens when we don't have the luxury of a 6-month work-up period to prepare our forces for deployment?

The impression I get is that we're basically treating our Army Reserves as a pool of partially pre-trained conscripts that we can use to bring our Reg Force units up to full strength in less time than it would take to train people right off the street and without the political issues that would surround actual conscription.  

Maybe this system wouldn't be so horrible if the Reg Force units were for the most part up to strength and didn't have to rely on the Reserves so much for augmentation for a rapid deployment and if the Reg Force had all the CS and CSS elements it needed to succeed in a peer conflict.

What's the path out of this without unrealistic expectations of buckets of money to throw at the problem?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> In re-reading this thread it really does lead one to despair.  I see no real hope of the Reserves ever getting the type of equipment and support (logistical, technical and legislative) that would allow them to field fully formed Reserve units into a combat situation.
> 
> At the same time the lack of matching equipment, out-of-sync training cycles, no integrated command structure and general culture of separation don't even make it possible to rapidly and easily plug in platoon sized Reserve elements into a Reg Force unit without an extended work-up period.
> 
> ...



As usual: pray for a war to sort it all out 

It's not all that dire. 

Troops get trained, courses get run, exercises happen, people get recruited, everyone gets paid. DOMOPS come along just about every year to keep people keen and engaged. Some CT over to the Rag F, which is normal, and some come back from the Reg F to continue serving, which is less common. Mess life goes on. Activities in the platoons are generally well run and there's a good core of Junior Officers and NCOs that make the world go round, in many ways much better than in the past. A well trained militia Cpl/Pte can just about be the equal of their Reg F counterparts.

If there happens to be a bad CO or RSM in place, people check out for awhile and come back when things improve, without any horrible consequences: 'Sorry sir, I just got really busy at work/had a baby/ started a new course at school etc'. If there's a bad Bde Comd & staff in place, there's enough wiggle room in the system to be abe to do what you know is right because, in many ways, they are really not the boss of us. I've rarely seen anyone ever get fired, even for being openly disrespectful. No one who is any good really cares about their PERs, they just want to be good soldiers. The ones who do really, really care about their PERs are fast tracked out of the untis so it's easy to wait them out. It's a  great little government job, with alot of choice and security and without a union, but with guns.

It's a wonderful little low cost temp agency, that the Reg F doesn't have to manage with all its weirdness, that keeps the lights on for a larger mobilization framework of some kind which, of course, is what it was all designed for in the first place.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

One of the nice little things I remember about being a young gunner in the sixties was that I didn't know about all the troubles all above me and really didn't care. 

Someone taught me how to shoot a rifle and then let me do it several times a year. Someone taught me how to fire a howitzer, how to be a radio operator (including how to charge the lead acid batteries) how to drive a deuce with a gun on the back and finally how to compute firing data and then let me practice all of that several times a year with rather large bullets -- and I got to hang out with my buddies in the canteen (the whole time I was still too young for the wet canteen so we had to do our beer chugging somewhere other than the armories). 

I knew that there was a major who commanded the battery as I saw him on parade every week but for me the highest officers that I actually got to talk to were a couple of lieutenants who were the gun position officers and they were pretty decent guys. As far as the senior NCOs were concerned, we had a bunch but never saw them as they hung out in the mess and were rarely on exercise with us. On one exercise in Meaford I was made a detachment commander still as a gunner because there were too few NCOs around to do it. Bombardiers ran the show and I was over the moon when I finished my junior NCO course and was finally promoted to one and got to carry a swagger stick.

One day, just before making bombardier, I was standing sentry on the guns on the parade square during a smoke break and the troop commander came over to me and suggested I should go for officer training. I was gobsmacked but I did apply but for the regular army because by then I was skipping school to do maintenance on the CP 3/4 ton I was in charge of as a driver/Sig, and other things that I liked doing. Even Basic arty officer training was fun. It wasn't until about a year into being with the regiment that all the negative things about budgets, and troop reductions, and reductions in units and regimental bull shit and Trudeau that I became a cynic - there was an unspoken competition amongst us subbies for who could be the most cynical - I conceded the win to Randy Stowell.

I won't say that I and my fellow gunners lived in blissful ignorance, but all the noise and negativity that was all around us simply didn't matter as long as we got to do cool things. Hell, we wore battle dress with putties and that didn't get us down as long as you got a little bling every once in a while to put on it (I don't mean medals. A lanyard, a forage cap and layer's badge when you qualified as gun number would do nicely for boosting your ego - did I mention a swagger sticks?).

Long winded way of saying that I agree with D&B. Things could be massively improved to make the whole system so much more effective but, in the meantime, even what there is, it provides a service for the country and more importantly, it fulfills the needs of a whole lot of young folks looking for something exciting and different from all the other things that drive their lives.

I wouldn't change a day of my time as a young gunner. The day that my buddy Brian got a $10.00 bounty for bringing me down to the armouries as a potential recruit pretty much changed the direction of my entire life.

🍻


----------



## GR66 (17 Jul 2021)

So if this is the case, then maybe the pipe dreams of Reserve Brigades and Battalions from the Force 2025 thread should be forgotten.  Maybe that means that the Mission Tasks from the Army Reserve StAR program are the way to go?  Something "bite sized" but operationally useful that each individual Reserve Regiment can focus on without the materiel, logistical and command requirements of fully deployable Reserve maneuver units.

I understand that the intent was for each Reserve Unit to have at least 7x the manpower requirements to fulfill the Mission Task assigned.  So maybe focus on consolidating those Reserve units that aren't large enough to take on a Mission Task so that every Reserve unit has a Mission Task assignment?    

Personally however I think that a general expansion of the Artillery Reserve (towed, SP, SHORAD and Loitering Munitions) is something that I believe would have a significant impact on the overall combat capability of the Army.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2021)

The estimate can be simplified.

Accept the following limitation on the aim: "Minimum BTS appropriate to each position must be achievable within 21 days each year, not more than 7 of which may be contiguous".

Now, what can you do with that?


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> So if this is the case, then maybe the pipe dreams of Reserve Brigades and Battalions from the Force 2025 thread should be forgotten.  Maybe that means that the Mission Tasks from the Army Reserve StAR program are the way to go?  Something "bite sized" but operationally useful that each individual Reserve Regiment can focus on without the materiel, logistical and command requirements of fully deployable Reserve maneuver units.


Nah. I always think that if we can see that we can do better than we are doing then we should aspire to a higher goal and develop a plan to get there.

🍻


----------



## GR66 (17 Jul 2021)

To dream the impossible dream?  I know Canada can and should do better than what is currently being done and Canadians deserve better for what we are paying, but it looks like there are so many different fundamental changes that need to be done that a whole series of incremental steps will need to be taken to get there.  The question is, what first step(s) are the ones that are most important to building a strong foundation on which to build going forward?

Is it breaking down the Reg Force/Reserve Force divide?  Tackling the issues caused by having such a large number of Reserve Regiment fiefdoms? Equipment issues?  Legislation?  Each one of these is a difficult task to take on and can't all be done at once, so where do you start?


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> To dream the impossible dream?  I know Canada can and should do better than what is currently being done and Canadians deserve better for what we are paying, but it looks like there are so many different fundamental changes that need to be done that a whole series of incremental steps will need to be taken to get there.  The question is, what first step(s) are the ones that are most important to building a strong foundation on which to build going forward?
> 
> Is it breaking down the Reg Force/Reserve Force divide?  Tackling the issues caused by having such a large number of Reserve Regiment fiefdoms? Equipment issues?  Legislation?  Each one of these is a difficult task to take on and can't all be done at once, so where do you start?


The very first thing is that you have to structure any reforms as part of an overarching business transformation plan and get all the proper ducks in a row. Most government initiatives to transform an agency fail because too little attention is paid to the fundamentals of change management. It is a difficult and lengthy process but if the steps are ignored, the chance of failure increase dramatically. 

There's a quick view at five principles here. 

Rand has looked at the methodology of implementing integration of reserve and active force components in the US armed forces and from those experiences (hint thy think the Marines did it best) have set out some best practices here.

It's not like there aren't any roadmaps available, but number one of the best practices is "Establish a Need and the Vision for Change". I think the Canadian Army basically trips on this threshold because neither the Reg F nor the Res F has ever truly established a need or a vision. There has been no high placed champion for change come forward to articulate it, nor have we  had a crisis demanding a change, nor has there been a unified approach come from the ground up. 

The number two best practice is "Create a Coalition to Support the Change". We consistently fall down on that one too.  Just read 

There's little sense in even talking about the remaining best practices are or what incremental steps need to be taken because without the first two best practices being met it simply becomes a hollow exercise like discussing line diagrams and what gear falls into which slot - fun but totally meaningless.

So ... because I like fun and meaningless things, here are my sine quo nons:

1) minor changes to legislation and regulations which will provide for fixed year terms of service and minimum mandatory training so that training competence to a collective level can develop. I say minor because most of the legislation and regulations are already there but are not being fully used and have some minor impediments to their usage;

2) legislation which establishes a covenant between the Army and the reservist, his family and his employer which ensures to the maximum extent possible that the reservist's service is predictable and fair to all parties and causes the least amount of disruption;

3) a restructured recruiting and training establishment within the Army to streamline training and create parity at the DP1 - 2 level between Reg F and Res F members;

4) a clear analysis of which trades/classifications and units are required for day-to-day, full-time service because of their need to be available on short notice or who have special skills that need continuous training and those which are not required on a day-to-day basis and can be manned by part-time personnel; and

5)  structure of hybrid units of Reg F and Res F members with the ratio of Reg F and Res F members established as a result of item 4).

Everything else, from organizations to equipment etc is up for grabs because they simply don't matter if you don't get the first five right.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2021)

I will still advocate the slow growth of useful Class B positions in the armouries, Service Battalions, arty units, CE units and Armoured units should all have a full time vehicle tech with the Service battalions having two-three and supporting the unit guys. Basic equipment sets for each position and they are committed to supporting each other and have the authority to order spare parts or even buy them locally for Milcots. Give the infantry and armour units, Class B gun plumber, who can also help the other units maintain and inspect MG['s, Carl G, mortars, etc. Sigs get a Class B to maintain electronics. Slowly but surely you see a increase in vehicles ready for service, weapons that work properly, if you encourage cross unit support at the armoury floor level, then there will be more and more willingness to work with each other and connections are made. In the Lowermainland, we had a tightknit group of Class B QM's that always helped each other and no memo's were needed.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> *So if this is the case, then maybe the pipe dreams of Reserve Brigades and Battalions from the Force 2025 thread should be forgotten*.  Maybe that means that the Mission Tasks from the Army Reserve StAR program are the way to go?  Something "bite sized" but operationally useful that each individual Reserve Regiment can focus on without the materiel, logistical and command requirements of fully deployable Reserve maneuver units.



Yes. I would say so.

And the Militia can only accomplish the 'Mission Tasking' thing if we have an 'OMLT' of Reg F trainers, plus all the right kit, allocated to each unit.


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I will still advocate the slow growth of useful Class B positions in the armouries, Service Battalions, arty units, CE units and Armoured units should all have a full time vehicle tech with the Service battalions having two-three and supporting the unit guys. Basic equipment sets for each position and they are committed to supporting each other and have the authority to order spare parts or even buy them locally for Milcots. Give the infantry and armour units, Class B gun plumber, who can also help the other units maintain and inspect MG['s, Carl G, mortars, etc. Sigs get a Class B to maintain electronics. Slowly but surely you see a increase in vehicles ready for service, weapons that work properly, if you encourage cross unit support at the armoury floor level, then there will be more and more willingness to work with each other and connections are made. In the Lowermainland, we had a tightknit group of Class B QM's that always helped each other and no memo's were needed.


Every unit should have an F echelon, including support trades. As long as they are supported properly, my unit in the past has successfully attached class A techs to other units and units were very welcoming if it, unit politics ended it though


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I will still advocate the slow growth of useful Class B positions . . .



If significant changes were to be made to full time unit support (FTUS - to borrow an acronym from south of the border) then I suggest that the best continuity could be achieved by instituting programs similar to MILTECH (Military Technician - US Army) and ART (Air Reserve Technician - USAF).  The "technician" moniker doesn't mean that these pers are exclusively wrench turners, they're not.  What they are is dual status - civil service and military reservist.  They are paid as civil servants for their Mon to Fri full time jobs filling positions in reserve organizations and additionally paid as drilling reservists on those occasions (one weekend a month drill, yearly 2/3 week training, military courses, etc) when required to be exclusively a reservist.  They also accrue the normal pension and benefits of a civil servant and additionally get the same benefits as any other reservist (including the military retired pay, i.e. pension).  One of the requirements of the CS position is being in the reserves (and being able to maintain that status) and the different positions (and CS pay grade) are tied somewhat to the military qualifications/rank/unit position the person is filling.  I known a few who have done it (as a career, including advancement) from enlisted wrench turners up to and including the Chief of Air Force Reserve.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Every unit should have an F echelon, including support trades. As long as they are supported properly, my unit in the past has successfully attached class A techs to other units and units were very welcoming if it, unit politics ended it though


----------



## FJAG (18 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Every unit should have an F echelon, including support trades. As long as they are supported properly, my unit in the past has successfully attached class A techs to other units and units were very welcoming if it, unit politics ended it though


I like the US Army's Brigade Service Battalion concept. Rather than having A Echelons integral to each manoeuvre battalion, all supply and maintenance functions in the brigade are carried out through the BSB. The BSB has both a maintenance company and a distribution company which service the entire brigade but also one Forward Support Company for each manoeuvre battalion which is designated and equipped specifically to support the manoeuvre battalion it is assigned to. 

In effect the FSC is the A Ech company of the manoeuvre battalion and acts just like ours but with the benefit of being under the command of the BSB which is responsible for the training and manning of each FSC. This allows for a more flexible response to the support needs of the various components of the brigade and means that each technician, section, platoon and company within the brigade is managed and assessed by a single chain of command that specializes in these services. It does make for a very large BSB. 

In the National Guard, the FSCs are geographically located with the manoeuvre battalions they support.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (18 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> I like the US Army's Brigade Service Battalion concept. Rather than having A Echelons integral to each manoeuvre battalion, all supply and maintenance functions in the brigade are carried out through the BSB. The BSB has both a maintenance company and a distribution company which service the entire brigade but also one Forward Support Company for each manoeuvre battalion which is designated and equipped specifically to support the manoeuvre battalion it is assigned to.
> 
> In effect the FSC is the A Ech company of the manoeuvre battalion and acts just like ours but with the benefit of being under the command of the BSB which is responsible for the training and manning of each FSC. This allows for a more flexible response to the support needs of the various components of the brigade and means that each technician, section, platoon and company within the brigade is managed and assessed by a single chain of command that specializes in these services. It does make for a very large BSB.
> 
> ...


On of our issues is the lack of maintenance officers in the Reserves, my unit has the first one finishing their DP1 for the first time in 10 years. Reality is reserve log officers do not seem to get any training on how to utilize their maintenance assets in a service battalion context. We seem to act independent and oblivious to the other unless we are needed. There are two solutions in my mind either;

A) create a CSS common course for officers and senior NCOs to allow them to understand and coordinate all CSS functions, including some type of 1 week of shadowing a mentor.

B) separate service battalions back into separate log and maintenance battalions and concentrate all resources in these units. Maintenance companies would then have Light Aid detachments that would be assigned to support field units and be given the specialized kit and training needed depending in who they support.


----------



## FJAG (18 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> On of our issues is the lack of maintenance officers in the Reserves, my unit has the first one finishing their DP1 for the first time in 10 years. Reality is reserve log officers do not seem to get any training on how to utilize their maintenance assets in a service battalion context. We seem to act independent and oblivious to the other unless we are needed. There are two solutions in my mind either;
> 
> A) create a CSS common course for officers and senior NCOs to allow them to understand and coordinate all CSS functions, including some type of 1 week of shadowing a mentor.
> 
> B) separate service battalions back into separate log and maintenance battalions and concentrate all resources in these units. Maintenance companies would then have Light Aid detachments that would be assigned to support field units and be given the specialized kit and training needed depending in who they support.


It's kind of funny, my experience with the supply and maintenance system goes back to the 70s and early 80s, and I always considered the maintenance establishment of the day to be one of the most knowledgeable and best run organizations in the Army. My battery's and our regiment's systems for maintaining heavy tracked vehicles were magnificent although sometimes the system worked at less than par when an item had to leave the unit for higher level servicing. Parts generally flowed okay which was good because the best maintainers can do very little without the parts.

Reading these threads for the last few days has me worried not only because of the parts issues that I knew have been an issue for some time but also because it seems, reading between the lines, that the training system for maintainers--especially the reserve maintainers--seems to be having serious issues.

The fact that vehicles change or that there a varying fleets at varying ages is not something new. It's built right into the commercial automobile industry which has long ago adapted to a parts and maintenance system that can meet customer requirements over a very broad category of vehicles. So there should be lots of "best practices" for training and service delivery to model on.

I get very concerned when I hear how often a young recruit has to wait to get the necessary DP 1 training at Borden. That too seems to have gone on for a long time and should have been fixed ages ago.

I'm too far away from things to know how deep the problem runs (or even if there truly is a problem) but as I've said several times on this board, for three years as a BK of a heavy tracked battery, my maintenance section were by far my favourite people. Without their dedication and hard work we wouldn't have rolled out of the gun park.

🍻


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (19 Jul 2021)

_I have always thought since I was a Private that  reserve units should be paired up with another reserve unit to train with.  Inf Regiment A trains with Inf Regiment B.  A Unit  acts as the aggressor unit for one exercise, does the attacks, does the reccees etc on B Unit. B Unit trains on the defenders side of the house. The next exercise they switch sides. Nothing worse than knowing the HQ Coy , made up of supply techs, drivers, clerks, cooks and officers and SNR NCOs who had no troops or actual job in the field  were going to be the attacking force. You knew when it was coming because suddenly they are all gone, you knew something was coming. The enemy force would be so small there was no effective training as they could not attack the whole position. Having another unit doing the planning, the attacking, their logistical support group doing their jobs. The defenders preparing for an attack, using patrols, night vision equipment etc to spot the attack coming.  The aggressor unit can send out patrols, to bring back information to help plan the attack etc. In my mind this would be real training, and have realistic out comes in the training world. Leaders would be training to do their jobs better as they are not planning both sides of the battle so to speak.  Unit A CO plans his side, Unit B CO plans his side.  Then switch the next month for the other role. 

Range training would be more effective, more safety staff, more access to coaches etc, most of more competitive out coming because one Unit wants to be known as the home of the better shooters.

Once the Major summer exercise comes along and units are put together there is some sort of group bonding and co-operation between units.

I realize it is not as simple as I made it out to be but it could be made to work. 

As for training with the Reg force as a Res pay clerk doing CAC 92 as Inf as this was the last time my  former regiment would be INF ( was rebadged in the fall )  it was very interesting to watch the Reg Force act as enemy force. I think the French Commando unit of the CAR was our enemy force.  Watching them move thru the woods at speed, watching them attack and run away , then attack again was very good training and every bit as educational for training purposes. After the attacks the enemy force would tell us our mistakes, what we did right, and how to improve.  

The Reg Force and Res Force can work together once the leadership on both sides can put aside the jokes and the put downs. 
Examples UN op the Force Commander needed skilled troops to rebuild a school,  after asking around he found out he tradesmen who could do the job because that was the real trade they had back home in Canada, not just handymen but actual tradesmen who could lead to get the job done.

Road damage assessment after an earthquake was carried out by  a Reserve Member for Canadian and US troops giving aid to the country,  why was it done by Res Force guy?  Because his real job was doing high way damage assessments for the Ontario Government. 

Medak Pocket shows with leadership Res Troops can do the job required. 

A-Stan lots of Reserve troops and officers were sent as quick as they could volunteer and get upgraded training. Just like the Reg Force some of the troops were very good, others were just boot fillers.

Some of the Reg Force are going to point to the quick promotions in the Res world as reasons to not think of quality soldiers, but when there is no one else to do the job, and bloggins shows up every week night and weekend for training, then goes home and works his full time job or goes to school without missing a beat there has to be some sort of reward for that.  Sometimes doing the job of some one 2 ranks higher because no one showed up or there is no one to do the job that is training in itself.  Sometimes all that shows up because of family and work is the younger high school age privates and corporals , some very low ranked officers, but some how the exercise gets pulled off or the range weekend. 

Res Force also has to learn the Reg Force guys do this job every day and giving up a weekend to train the Res Force is a drag, take away from their family and social life, with no extra pay, maybe they get CTO, maybe get FOA.  So there is give and takes to both sides.

But what do I know I spent 5 years on class B at an Army HQ working along side the Res and Reg force everyday.  I found it a drag to give up a weekend off to go do the unit exercise because I was expected to show up and do my job. Been out 26 years and know everything can be improved


_


----------



## Kilted (15 Oct 2021)

So we had some information come down that the terms of service for the reserves are changing.  It's not going to be one night a week and one weekend a month anymore.  Don't know what that means.  Has anyone heard anything else?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Oct 2021)

In my day it was one night and one weekend day per week with a weekend exercise every couple of months.


----------



## ArmyRick (29 Dec 2021)

Kilted said:


> So we had some information come down that the terms of service for the reserves are changing.  It's not going to be one night a week and one weekend a month anymore.  Don't know what that means.  Has anyone heard anything else?


Keep us in the loop. Very interested in what they plan to do.


----------



## MilEME09 (29 Dec 2021)

Kilted said:


> So we had some information come down that the terms of service for the reserves are changing.  It's not going to be one night a week and one weekend a month anymore.  Don't know what that means.  Has anyone heard anything else?











						‎Canadian Army Podcast: Army Reserve Individual Readiness (S3 E3) on Apple Podcasts
					

‎Show Canadian Army Podcast, Ep Army Reserve Individual Readiness (S3 E3) - Dec 15, 2021



					podcasts.apple.com
				




I posted this else where but the Army podcast did an interview recently that explains some of the changes, essentially its changing from a once a month to parade a minimum of 10 training events, plus IBTS becomes mandatory each year to complete for a member to be considered active strength. Podcast puts it into better perspective then I can.

It's a change to the minimum requirements, that's all.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2022)

MilEME09 said:


> ‎Canadian Army Podcast: Army Reserve Individual Readiness (S3 E3) on Apple Podcasts
> 
> 
> ‎Show Canadian Army Podcast, Ep Army Reserve Individual Readiness (S3 E3) - Dec 15, 2021
> ...



Thanks for that!

10 training events equates to about one weekend exercise per month during the normal training year, kind of like what happens already, isn't it? Not sure how that's a big change.

Making an 'IBTS Pass' mandatory is a change, but it's not much pf a change from what normally happens during the first ouple of months of the trainign year, and not a very high bar to leap.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Jan 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Thanks for that!
> 
> 10 training events equates to about one weekend exercise per month during the normal training year, kind of like what happens already, isn't it? Not sure how that's a big change.
> 
> Making an 'IBTS Pass' mandatory is a change, but it's not much pf a change from what normally happens during the first ouple of months of the trainign year, and not a very high bar to leap



May not seem much yet, but devil will be in the details when they are released.  The IBTS markers may be more then what is current.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Jan 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> 10 training events equates to about one weekend exercise per month during the normal training year . . .



Only if the definition of "training event" is weekend exercise.


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Jan 2022)

To be honest, its sounds like a lot of huff and puff to make sure IBTS is done. I also listened to the "big changes" our army commander said were coming. Basically we will make the troops behave and stop talking trash. 

F#*$% me, I can't take the army I served for so long very seriously anymore. Its like post Afghanistan, we have become a "play" army.


----------



## Haggis (3 Jan 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> F#*$% me, I can't take the army I served for so long very seriously anymore. Its like post Afghanistan, we have become a "play" army.


As a US Army Sgt in Vietnam is reputed to have said' "I'll be glad when this f&#king war is over so we can get back to some _real_ soldiering!".


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2022)

ArmyRick said:


> To be honest, its sounds like a lot of huff and puff to make sure IBTS is done. I also listened to the "big changes" our army commander said were coming. Basically we will make the troops behave and stop talking trash.
> 
> F#*$% me, I can't take the army I served for so long very seriously anymore. Its like post Afghanistan, we have become a "play" army.



As you probably know, IBTS is rarely the challenge in making sure that most reservists are ready to deploy anywhere.

Now, if we're talking medical/dental fit, pay sorted out etc etc...


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2022)

...almost as if solid, reliable admin support needs to be in place, and not torn away for random tasks and left as an afterthought...


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2022)

dapaterson said:


> ...almost as if solid, reliable admin support needs to be in place, and not torn away for random tasks and left as an afterthought...


----------



## Ignatius (3 Jan 2022)

Another major change that they need to do with some of us Class A Reservists and I can only speak for myself in this unique situation. Seeing that some of us Class A Reservists work more than one job, they need to make things easier and "normal" so that Reservists like myself who work multiple jobs can work just the ONE damn job which should be a revolving Class B! That way, it eliminates having to work multiple jobs, in my case unhealthy 12 hour shift work schedules, lack of sleep and the list goes on. 

With the current sad state of manning in the Reserves and Military in general, the top brass need to look into this and create some normalcy and better quality of life for (again, I can only speak for myself) for some of us who are working more than one job. And that solution is a revolving permanent Class B contract. You should be able to just re-sign it annually or every 3 years. 

And yes, there might be a few places that I doing this for a handful of Reservists, but they need to make it commonplace. This would create and entice some of us Annuitants to stay. This would make too much sense!


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jan 2022)

Ignatius said:


> Another major change that they need to do with some of us Class A Reservists and I can only speak for myself in this unique situation. Seeing that some of us Class A Reservists work more than one job, they need to make things easier and "normal" so that Reservists like myself who work multiple jobs can work just the ONE damn job which should be a revolving Class B! That way, it eliminates having to work multiple jobs, in my case unhealthy 12 hour shift work schedules, lack of sleep and the list goes on.
> 
> With the current sad state of manning in the Reserves and Military in general, the top brass need to look into this and create some normalcy and better quality of life for (again, I can only speak for myself) for some of us who are working more than one job. And that solution is a revolving permanent Class B contract. You should be able to just re-sign it annually or every 3 years.
> 
> And yes, there might be a few places that I doing this for a handful of Reservists, but they need to make it commonplace. This would create and entice some of us Annuitants to stay. This would make too much sense!


Class B is meant to be short term, not your career, if you want full time army, put in a CT. Class B is designed to be a short term stop gap to shortage of some kind or for continuous pay while on course.


As to the topic of the reserves, in the pod cast they did touch on medical and dental, but I am skeptical they will implement anything tangible unless they come out with a standard form we take to a doctor and get a physical done.


----------



## Kilted (3 Jan 2022)

Ignatius said:


> Another major change that they need to do with some of us Class A Reservists and I can only speak for myself in this unique situation. Seeing that some of us Class A Reservists work more than one job, they need to make things easier and "normal" so that Reservists like myself who work multiple jobs can work just the ONE damn job which should be a revolving Class B! That way, it eliminates having to work multiple jobs, in my case unhealthy 12 hour shift work schedules, lack of sleep and the list goes on.
> 
> With the current sad state of manning in the Reserves and Military in general, the top brass need to look into this and create some normalcy and better quality of life for (again, I can only speak for myself) for some of us who are working more than one job. And that solution is a revolving permanent Class B contract. You should be able to just re-sign it annually or every 3 years.
> 
> And yes, there might be a few places that I doing this for a handful of Reservists, but they need to make it commonplace. This would create and entice some of us Annuitants to stay. This would make too much sense!


This is a good point, the reserves and those who support them are designed to fit around the schedule of someone who only worked 9-5 Monday to Friday and has no other commitments on weekends.  Part of that is just organizational, "hey we need you to drop everything and do this thing we need to be done this weekend that we should have reasonably known about four months ago."  I can speak from experience that it sometimes becomes much more difficult to find a job as a reservist because you are limited to 9-5's, so afternoon shifts are out and potentially night shifts depending on when they start and where they are located.  I wonder how many hundreds of people have left because they were tired of both the military and their civilian jobs being mad at them for trying to get time off or not being able to get time off from the others.  I remember one time a section competition popped up and we needed to provide people for it the next day and were told that if enough people didn't volunteer, that every request for courses or employment would be denied for the entire company (this was about 15 years ago).  
The increased use of email (and the retirement of those who refused to use it) has helped to hasten communication, but for some people, this almost means that they are on call 24/7 having to take time away from life (sometimes from their normal job) to deal with these things and are then told that they can't sign in for them.


----------



## Ignatius (3 Jan 2022)

Exactly part of my point. In my case, I am just fed up with having to ask for time off from my civilian job aka LOA (Leave of Absence) every year or so to go on a 2 or 3 month Air Force Class B contract. It's just a complete pain having to go through all the hoops of doing yet another LOA. That is just one of the disadvantages, I can easily mention an arm's length, but won't go into detail. You get the point. It would be better (given the current poor manning state)  if I was on a Permanent Class B WORKING ONE JOB VICE TWO. This way they could retain my skills and knowledge.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Jan 2022)

Ignatius said:


> Another major change that they need to do with some of us Class A Reservists and I can only speak for myself in this unique situation. Seeing that some of us Class A Reservists work more than one job, they need to make things easier and "normal" so that Reservists like myself who work multiple jobs can work just the ONE damn job which should be a revolving Class B! That way, it eliminates having to work multiple jobs, in my case unhealthy 12 hour shift work schedules, lack of sleep and the list goes on.
> 
> With the current sad state of manning in the Reserves and Military in general, the top brass need to look into this and create some normalcy and better quality of life for (again, I can only speak for myself) for some of us who are working more than one job. And that solution is a revolving permanent Class B contract. You should be able to just re-sign it annually or every 3 years.
> 
> And yes, there might be a few places that I doing this for a handful of Reservists, but they need to make it commonplace. This would create and entice some of us Annuitants to stay. This would make too much sense!


I can't say I agree with a lot of what you're saying here.

The military should make up a 3 year revolving class B job for you just because it will stop you from having to work other jobs? 

You're basically arguing to turn reserve units into local reg force units. Under your proposition could your unit post you to the other side of the country because they need you out there for 3 years?


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jan 2022)

Ignatius said:


> Exactly part of my point. In my case, I am just fed up with having to ask for time off from my civilian job aka LOA (Leave of Absence) every year or so to go on a 2 or 3 month Air Force Class B contract. It's just a complete pain having to go through all the hoops of doing yet another LOA. That is just one of the disadvantages, I can easily mention an arm's length, but won't go into detail. You get the point. It would be better (given the current poor manning state)  if I was on a Permanent Class B WORKING ONE JOB VICE TWO. This way they could retain my skills and knowledge.


You signed the dotted line for the reserve terms of service. It is by definition a part time commitment. There are ways to make it work, I was a chef for 12 years, members of my unit are police officers, fire fighters, mechanics, health care worker, all not 9-5 jobs. If you are having a hard time with your work life balance, take a step back and analyze your situation. If you want full time continuous employment from the military,  CT, while employment legislation could be better, it also requires you to be engaging, yes not all employers are supportive, I have had plenty of those, but being a reservist isn't easy, nor is it a free pay cheque.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2022)

Kilted said:


> This is a good point, the reserves and those who support them are designed to fit around the schedule of someone who only worked 9-5 Monday to Friday and has no other commitments on weekends.



Actually, the Reserves are perfectly designed to fit the lifestyle of students, aged 16 to 25, before they leave school and start a 'real life'. All of our major training periods are built around the school year.

As such, the Reserves should be a force packed with students, led largely by teachers and people in other public service occupations who have fairly stable local jobs that are 'Reserve schedule friendly'. A guy like me, self-employed in the professional services sector, is perfectly unsuited (in more ways than one  ) for Reserve employment.

Ignoring that reality, and not integrating more with the educational/ public sector systems across the country, further distances the Reserves from a truly transformational refresh.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jan 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Actually, the Reserves are perfectly designed to fit the lifestyle of students, aged 16 to 25, before they leave school and start a 'real life'. All of our major training periods are built around the school year.
> 
> As such, the Reserves should be a force packed with students, led largely by teachers and people in other public service occupations who have fairly stable local jobs that are 'Reserve schedule friendly'. A guy like me, self-employed in the professional services sector, is perfectly unsuited (in more ways than one  ) for Reserve employment.
> 
> Ignoring that reality, and not integrating more with the educational/ public sector systems across the country, further distances the Reserves from a truly transformational refresh.


Exactly right - with the possible exception of the leadership part. 

Reserve service needs to be Class A oriented which means young folks with the time to learn all the appropriate skills and practice them during summer holidays until they are proficient in them and thereafter go into a routine minimum refresher training cycle (rigorously set a year in advance) which can be easily accommodated into family and work schedules.

Class B's should be the exception rather than the rule for longer career courses and filling in for short duration events such as parental leave rather than the plugging of long term holes due to poor Reg F recruiting and training of replacements or to fill ad hoc positions where no actual Reg F PY exists.

As for leadership. Regretfully, I think the age of the civil servant or teacher commanding officer went its way with the C1 rifle (if not the Lee Enfield). There will always be a place for the special individual who can make the time and has the talent to earn his place but the two-week major qualifying MITCP company commander no longer has a place in the system. They are now part of the problem and not the solution. 

🍻


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2022)

FJAG said:


> As for leadership. Regretfully, I think the age of the civil servant or teacher commanding officer went its way with the C1 rifle (if not the Lee Enfield). There will always be a place for the special individual who can make the time and has the talent to earn his place but the two-week major qualifying MITCP company commander no longer has a place in the system. They are now part of the problem and not the solution.
> 
> 🍻



Most of them were never part of the solution.  Initial commitment to become trained was always necessary, but waived.  Few made it through the two weeks a year process, but were valued for their 2-3 evenings a month where they could run the mess or other such priorities.


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jan 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Most of them were never part of the solution.  Initial commitment to become trained was always necessary, but waived.  Few made it through the two weeks a year process, but were valued for their 2-3 evenings a month where they could run the mess or other such priorities.


It just shows our priorities are wrong, and is yet another symptom of a broken system


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2022)

Retention in the CAF writ large is focused on quantitative measures (number of bums in seats) vs qualitative measures (get rid of the bums and keep the quality instead).


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Jan 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Retention in the CAF writ large is focused on quantitative measures (number of bums in seats) vs qualitative measures (get rid of the bums and keep the quality instead).


It's always a numbers game, which in the long term wastes administrative resources and money on troops who get in and then are released cause 3 years later they can't complete BMQ.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Feb 2022)

We need more Bayonet drill


----------



## Blackadder1916 (5 Feb 2022)

But done in a Canadian manner . . .


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Feb 2022)

Blackadder1916 said:


> But done in a Canadian manner . . .



That's awesome! I've never seen that one before....

This one's my favourite. The British always treated bayonet fighting like a demented PT lesson


----------



## OceanBonfire (16 Mar 2022)

Army Soldier Readiness Policy - Reserve [SRP-R]:








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504110254295969796


----------



## Weinie (16 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> That's awesome! I've never seen that one before....
> 
> This one's my favourite. The British always treated bayonet fighting like a demented PT lesson


It appears that these lessons translated well.

Bayonet charge foils enemy ambush


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2022)

Pro tip: When you're under assessment on phase training, the ammo resupply didn't happen so all your sleep deprived subordinates are running out of blank, and the enemy persist, giving the order "Fix Bayonets!" gets DS attention, the enemy ordered to withdraw, a nice forced rest, and a pass on your assessment in the defensive.


----------



## Remius (16 Mar 2022)

Wrong thread


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2022)

Weinie said:


> It appears that these lessons translated well.
> 
> Bayonet charge foils enemy ambush



"I asked them if they were happy."

Awesome. I've done this myself, in much less dire circumstances. 

Asking 'Everyone happy?', after giving orders for an activity that could be described as pretty sketchy, usually gets a positive response. 

And some raised eyebrows


----------



## FJAG (16 Mar 2022)

Posted this before. Still my favorite anytime someone says "bayonets"






😁


----------



## Kilted (17 Mar 2022)

dapaterson said:


> Pro tip: When you're under assessment on phase training, the ammo resupply didn't happen so all your sleep deprived subordinates are running out of blank, and the enemy persist, giving the order "Fix Bayonets!" gets DS attention, the enemy ordered to withdraw, a nice forced rest, and a pass on your assessment in the defensive.


I can say from experience that no matter how fast you can get get the BFA off to fix bayonet, it feels like forever when you are trying to protect yourself from large wildlife.


----------



## GK .Dundas (17 Mar 2022)

Kilted said:


> I can say from experience that no matter how fast you can get get the BFA off to fix bayonet, it feels like forever when you are trying to protect yourself from large wildlife.


Oh there's a story there. Tell?


----------



## Kilted (20 Mar 2022)

I've heard that the Armoured Regiments in the reserves are moving away from the reconnaissance role. What is their new role going to be?


----------



## Harris (20 Mar 2022)

Kilted said:


> I've heard that the Armoured Regiments in the reserves are moving away from the reconnaissance role. What is their new role going to be?


Calvary.  More advance to contact, less sneaking and peeking.


----------



## Remius (20 Mar 2022)

Kilted said:


> I've heard that the Armoured Regiments in the reserves are moving away from the reconnaissance role. What is their new role going to be?


Just make them infantry.  If they aren’t really going to be armoured why pretend. Maybe they can be the new AT capability if it ever comes to pass.  make them Into anti armour platoons.


----------



## markppcli (20 Mar 2022)

Remius said:


> Just make them infantry.  If they aren’t really going to be armoured why pretend. Maybe they can be the new AT capability if it ever comes to pass.  make them Into anti armour platoons.


Or, crazy idea here, they can train on the TAPV as cavalry and reserve joint training can make moves towards TAPV motorized reserve units.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

Remius said:


> Just make them infantry.  If they aren’t really going to be armoured why pretend. Maybe they can be the new AT capability if it ever comes to pass.  make them Into anti armour platoons.




<Zipper Heads everywhere screaming at the thought having to carry their kit vs. their kit carrying them>


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2022)

If we don't make them cavalry with a strong anti armour capability we're missing an opportunity.

Top that off with solid training to work with enablers like deep strike artillery and UCAVs

🍻


----------



## markppcli (21 Mar 2022)

Cavalry in TAPVs is already a failed experiment.


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> Cavalry in TAPVs is already a failed experiment.


Why?

🍻


----------



## GK .Dundas (21 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> Cavalry in TAPVs is already a failed experiment.


Somehow that does not surprise me at all.
Does have even a clue as to why they were ever purchased ?
I have over the years heard a least a half dozen reasons not one of them made any sense whatsoever.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> Why?
> 
> 🍻



IIRC for the same reason that the camel is a horse designed by a committee.


Defining the TAPV​
Perhaps because of its dual role, it might take some time before the Army fully defines how it plans to employ the TAPV. While the original intent had been to acquire the vehicle for infantry and armoured reconnaissance units and the light battalions, the TAPV is not an infantry fighting vehicle.







						Defining the TAPV | Canadian Army Today
					






					canadianarmytoday.com


----------



## markppcli (21 Mar 2022)

FJAG said:


> Why?
> 
> 🍻


Well it’s proclivity for lighting itself on fire while simultaneously locking its doors aside; it’s size, armament, and mobility make it ill suited for reconnaissance or direct engagements. It’s good for what it was built for, providing a platform for mobile patrols in low to mid intensity conflict areas.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> Well it’s proclivity for lighting itself on fire while simultaneously locking its doors aside; it’s size, armament, and mobility make it ill suited for reconnaissance or direct engagements. It’s good for what it was built for, providing a platform for mobile patrols in low to mid intensity conflict areas.



Airfield perimeter control for the win!


----------



## markppcli (22 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Airfield perimeter control for the win!


If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.



Wait, we still have LIBs right?


----------



## GK .Dundas (22 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> If we were giving them to a Canadian version of the RAF Regiment I’d be all for it.


Just what do you have against the Airforce anyway?


----------



## FJAG (22 Mar 2022)

daftandbarmy said:


> Wait, we still have LIBs right?


That's were my mind is drifting. 

Too bad. I was kind of seeing the TAPV as something to build a cavalry regiment around (with the addition of a few more high end weapon stations) It's height has always been problematic but I can see where that adds to its mine resistance.

In my stubbornness I might just leave it in my napkin force in the cavalry role at least for phase 1. Whenever I play with this I look to a) what do we have that will work perfectly in its role; b) what do we have that can be made to work in a given role; c) what do we have that absolutely needs to be replaced (either now or later); and d) what don't we have that is vital and needs to be acquired.

I see the TAPV as a b) with cavalry now and LIB later when it's replaced by something better in the cavalry (not Ajax).

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Mar 2022)

> Calvary.



Hallelujah.  Amen.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Mar 2022)

If we ever do cavalry, I'd hope we do it properly.  Start by learning from the US, who seem to have a particular suite of equipments they favour.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Mar 2022)

GK .Dundas said:


> Just what do you have against the Airforce anyway?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2022)

The Air Force is the next best thing to being in the military.


----------



## markppcli (22 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> If we ever do cavalry, I'd hope we do it properly.  Start by learning from the US, who seem to have a particular suite of equipments they favour.


Do they though? Because what defines a Cav Squadron in the US Army is nebulous. ACR vs Cav Bn for example


----------



## FJAG (23 Mar 2022)

markppcli said:


> Do they though? Because what defines a Cav Squadron in the US Army is nebulous. ACR vs Cav Bn for example


There's no wonder why Cavalry is a nebulous term in the US.

There is a distinction between the cavalry function and the titles of units.

For example, every BCT has a cavalry squadron (battalion) which perform reconnaissance and security functions as set out in FM 3-98. Like all US battalion sized units each BCT squadron belongs to an "administrative" Regiment. For example, the 1st Cavalry Regiment now has its 1st Sqn as an armoured Cavalry Sqn with the 2 ABCT of 1st Armd Div while it's 2nd Sqn is the Recce and STA squadron of the 1st IBCT of 4th Inf Div. The 6th Cavalry Regiment provides Air Cavalry Squadrons to four separate divisional Combat Aviation Brigades.

On the other hand, several "Armoured Cavalry Regiments" have been converted to "Cavalry Regiments" (brigades) that are organized and equipped basically as Stryker BCTs (e.g. 2nd and 3rd Cavalry Regiments) or Abrams and Bradley equipped Armored BCTs (for example the Idaho ARNG 116th Cavalry BCT).

As such a given "cavalry squadron" can be anything from a Stryker battalion, a combined arms battalion or one of various different types of reconnaissance and security battalions including aviation units.

I think in discussing the term cavalry for Canada's purposes we are discussing what are in essence the reconnaissance regiments of the CMBG and comparing them to the cavalry squadron in an IBCT, SBCT or ABCT. Tactically and organizationally speaking we should be looking at their roles as set out in FM 3-98. What must be remembered, however, is the current difference in equipment as between Canada's Recce Regts and the BCT cavalry squadron. In particular, the addition of an Abrams tank company with the ABCT Cav Sqn and an Wpns Tp (of 12 MGS and 9 ATGM) with the SBCT Cav Sqn. The IBCT Cav Sqn is basically dismounted scouts or ones mounted in HMMWVs. 

I'm not advocating adoption of their organization or doctrine but merely to look at them for research to see what direction Canada might wish to go. Similarly there is a lot to be learned from the deep strike concept in the UK. With what we're seeing in the Ukraine as to the use of ATGMs and GBAD there seems to be room for a more robust role for a properly equipped cavalry in the defence.

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Mar 2022)

What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions?  Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions?  Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?



The principles of 'reinforce success' suggest that they need to be backed up if they find/punch a way through.


----------



## FJAG (25 Mar 2022)

Brad Sallows said:


> What I'm thinking of is, how much do you expect them to fight while conducting cavalry-oriented missions?  Enough to require tanks, IFVs, and aviation?


Whatever we may have thought cavalry should be doing; we're relearning it right now from what's going on in Ukraine. 

There'll be some lessons coming out of what the Brits are doing with deep strike as well.

I'm not thinking tanks and IFV's - that's more the guard battle. 

I'm more thinking recce, anti-armour missiles, deep strike artillery including UCAVs and loitering munitions. Maybe aviation but I'm not to sure we need to risk them that far forward with armed UCAVs/loitering munitions available. If it pans out well it might replace the guard battle. We've got a lot of learning to do.

🍻


----------



## OceanBonfire (6 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> Army Soldier Readiness Policy - Reserve [SRP-R]:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1533524055487172608


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1533524055487172608




Thank you, CAF, for defining the lowest common denominator and helping us escalate the 'race to the bottom' before you have clearly articulated the preferred standard e.g., parade 30+ days per year and be ready to 'kick ass' on order.

Now COs and Bde Comds can officially spend more time on Freedom of the City parades and other similar ego building junkets, where they can grab self-aggrandizing media coverage with their troops in the background, as opposed to building a truly combat ready Reserve force


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jun 2022)

Fair enough, but get it all on one form.  Make the system easy for the users, not the administrators.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jun 2022)

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1533524055487172608


You've. Got. To. Be. Shitting. Me.

This is a managed irrelevance program.

😖


----------



## Underway (6 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> There's no wonder why Cavalry is a nebulous term in the US.
> 
> There is a distinction between the cavalry function and the titles of units.
> 
> ...


Been doing quite a bit of research on this lately.  Cavalry and armored recce are not the same thing though they have overlapping responsibilities.

Cavalry: the mounted maneuver capability that can move, shoot and communicate, including the spirit of an aggressive maneuver element capable of operating across vast distances for extended durations. Our allies use cavalry as an aggressive and spirited maneuver capability.

Armored Reconnaissance: uses superior mobility and aggressive action to obtain timely and accurate information to the Commander which leads to the defeat of an adversary.  And then add on all the Recce security tasks.

In some ways you could argue that cavalry is just a clever naming convention so that armoured recce doesn't get pigeonholed into specific roles, but most articles I've read seem to view cavalry as a general-purpose mounted maneuver element, and armoured recce as a specialized armoured formation.

Either way a TAPV is not the aggressive manouver element you're looking for and as such its probably not useful in a cavalry role.


----------



## Underway (6 Jun 2022)

As an example of the above, the US Armoured Brigade Combat Team has a Calvary Squadron where we would put an Armoured Recce Squadron in a CMBG. The squadron has an HQ Troop and 3x Scout Troops, Support Company and Tank Company.

The Scout Troop consists of a Troop HQ, Mortar Section, and Two Scout Platoons, medical/maintenance support and a FOO/FAC Bradley.

HQ has 1x Bradley, 1x M113 CP, 1x M113 APC, Truck with water trailer for supplies
Mortar Section has 2x120mm M113 Mortar Carriers and a LUVW equivalent for ammo/supplies
Platoon has HQ of 2x Bradleys, and two sections of 2x Bradleys.

This means the troop is able to better fight for information and survive contact with enemy formations.

Added to this Squadron is a Company of M1 tanks, organized as you would think, into an HQ and three platoons, FOO/FAC Bradley and medical/maintenance support.

HQ is 2x tanks and 2x humvee's (signals support and master gunner support), MII3 APC and truck with water trailer.
Platoon has 4x tanks in two sections.

They have a modified standard tank mission and do not perform recce duties.  Depending on the situation the Cavalry unit will sometimes swap in six Bradleys the tank company.  This will allow them to pair three Bradleys with two tanks creating a combined platoon called a hunter-killer team.
The new tank company is then Tank HQ, one tank platoon (4 tanks) and two hunter killer platoons (two tanks, three Bradleys).
The Scout Troop then has a Scout HQ, tank platoon (4x tanks) and a scout platoon (6x Bradley)

As you can see this formation is designed to fight and maneuver aggressively.  TAPV would have a limited role here, replacing perhaps the humvee's or light trucks.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jun 2022)

Underway said:


> Been doing quite a bit of research on this lately.  Cavalry and armored recce are not the same thing though they have overlapping responsibilities.
> 
> Cavalry: the mounted maneuver capability that can move, shoot and communicate, including the spirit of an aggressive maneuver element capable of operating across vast distances for extended durations. Our allies use cavalry as an aggressive and spirited maneuver capability.
> 
> ...


I think that needs context. Yours too @Underway.  In an ABCT the cavalry squadron is M3 Bradleys and the M1 tank in its Armor company. In an SBCT its M1127 Stryker Recce vehicles with M1128 Stryker MGS and M1134 Stryker ATGM in its Weapons Company. In an IBCT its basically HMMWVs.

There are degrees of aggressiveness. I can see a TAPV nearer the M1127 Stryker role and certainly superior to the IBCT's HMMWVs if a) we slap an ATGM turret on about a third of them b) provide them capable recce and armed UAVs and c) tie them tightly to general support artillery. Being aggressive doesn't necessarily mean a stan-up fight. One can be aggressive in a stand-off fight as both the SBCT and IBCT need to be.

There are roughly 70 armored vehicles in a cavalry squadron (battalion). We have some 66 LAV Recce/Surveillance systems and 500 TAPVs. That could give us 4 cavalry regiments with 1 x LAV surveillance squadron, 2 x TAPV recce squadrons and 1 x TAPV weapons squadron with hundreds of TAPVs left over.

One needs to watch out reading articles on US cavalry because it has been massively misused during the GWOT as what could be termed economy of force infantry battalion which, as you point out, is a more general purpose role. Here's a brief article that discusses that issue in an SBCT context.



> https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2016/JAN_MAR/1Hoovestol16.pdf



🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Jun 2022)

FJAG said:


> You've. Got. To. Be. Shitting. Me.
> 
> This is a managed irrelevance program.
> 
> 😖



Agreed. Who invented this abomination?


----------

