# Bringing back the 19th Alberta Dragoons, split from Re: Halifax Rifles



## Dennis Ruhl (11 May 2009)

The revival of The Halifax Rifles got me thinking about my pet militia unit the 19th Alberta Dragoons plus some other historic regiments.  I added up a few numbers and was shocked.  Northern Alberta has 1 historical militia unit in 1 location.  The Maritimes have 9 regiments in 23 locations.  The populations are similar.

I used to go to national militia courses and there were endless regiments represented.  I didn't understand at the time that existence of militia units was a political thing and not a fair representation thing.

The 19th Alberta Dragoons were struck in 1965 and scheduled to be revived in 1978.  When they were revived it was as B Sqn, The South Alberta Light Horse, a unit 600 km away with very tentative historical connections ie none.  A total coincidence was that Bud Olson, a Liberal cabinet minister, was Honourary Colonel of the SALH.

The simple renaming of an existing unit seems to create a brick wall.  The Cape Breton Highlanders exist, why aren't they called the Cape Breton Highlanders?  The North Shore (New Brunswick) Regiment exists, why can't it be called The North Shore (New Brunswick) Regiment.  An infantry unit exists in Saint John.  Why can't it be called the Saint John Fusiliers or the New Brunswick Rangers, both or The New Brunswick Rangers (Saint John Fusiliers) or the reverse.  It is not simple sentimentality.  Having units with historically significant local names takes nothing away from their existing structure.

I suggest anyone on northern Alberta who is displeased with their region being represented by 1/23 of the militia of other regions to contact their MP.  I think they're getting tired of me.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 May 2009)

Maj Gallant!  Time flies, I was his C c/s not that many years ago and have worked with him many times since then and shared some good laughs and a few pints over the years.  I am curious who the RSM is, anyone know?

Dennis,

Cape Breton isn't a province, its part of Nova Scotia, hence why they are called 2 NSH.  I've known many of them and never heard them complain about their name.  

I don't know many people who 'join the militia' anymore.  Lots do join the Army Reserves though.


----------



## dapaterson (11 May 2009)

The Army Reserve is over-headquartered already; the Hfx Rifles have been restored to the ORBAT as a purely local political move by a local politico, the MND.  (Look at the date of the original announcement - then look at the date a writ was dropped.  Not subtle at all.)  An objective assessment would see fewer Reserve unit HQs, not more - but fewer HQs with more sub-units beneath them.

We don't need more RHQs - we need more Sqns, Batteries and Coys with real troops.  The 19th Dragoon option, of amalgamating units to provide one CO with a greater span of control should be the norm, not the exception.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 May 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Dennis,
> 
> Cape Breton isn't a province, its part of Nova Scotia, hence why they are called 2 NSH.  I've known many of them and never heard them complain about their name.
> 
> I don't know many people who 'join the militia' anymore.  Lots do join the Army Reserves though.



Thanks for the Geography lesson.  So Calgary is a province.  Is Seaforth?

I just fail to understand the need to create new names for old things back in the 1950s when nothing changed in the battalions other than names.

We all called it the militia.  I suppose some people nobody like called it army reserves.  The militia won all the wars, the Army Reserves are duct tape for the regular army.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (11 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Army Reserve is over-headquartered already; the Hfx Rifles have been restored to the ORBAT as a purely local political move by a local politico, the MND.   An objective assessment would see fewer Reserve unit HQs, not more - but fewer HQs with more sub-units beneath them.
> 
> We don't need more RHQs - we need more Sqns, Batteries and Coys with real troops.  The 19th Dragoon option, of amalgamating units to provide one CO with a greater span of control should be the norm, not the exception.



As I've learned all militia units that have survived have done so by political means.  20 years ago, at least, regimental headquarters had maybe 6 soldiers gaining valuable administration experience.  Maybe there's more paper today.

The SALH has one CO in Medicine Hat but the Edmonton squadron was in a different militia district and operated independently and had a headquarters not unlike a regiment.  They are 600 km apart - seriously.  The naming was political not administrative.  The SALH had previously been threatened with extinction and co-opting the unit in Edmonton was insurance.


----------



## dapaterson (11 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The militia won all the wars, the Army Reserves are duct tape for the regular army.



What a load of tripe.

"The militia" in WW2 spent 3-4 years training on the Salisbury Plain before deploying to Italy or France.  After that length of full-time training, the differences between militia and regular were semantic at best.

To view "the militia" as a stand alone organization outside the larger Army and outside the larger CF is a one way path to oblivion.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 May 2009)

> Another great and often perpetuated myth is the degree of participation by the Militia in the First and Second World Wars. A simple comparison of Reserve strength figures prior to each war to the numbers deployed overseas in 1914 and 1939 quickly dispels this claim. The number of trained personnel in the Canadian Militia for the year 1913-14 was only 57,527 while the Canadian Expeditionary Force saw a total of 628,462 Canadians in its service.
> 
> While a better case may be made for the participation of the Militia in the mobilization of 1939, their role was as often to form local defence units as it was to help generate battalions for the Canadian Active Service Force. Granatstein notes that "the Permanent Force had only 4,261 all ranks in mid-1939, every unit being under strength."  The Militia saw another 46,251 train in 1938-39.  So who, exactly, were the other men and women that made up the wartime strength of the Canadian Army, which saw the service of 730,625  soldiers and support personnel, in Canada and abroad, during the Second World War. They were Canadians, not the Regular Army of pre-war years, and equally not the Reserves to the degree some would advocate. They were Canadians, most of whom had given little thought to Army service before 1939.



Article link.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What a load of tripe.
> 
> "The militia" in WW2 spent 3-4 years training on the Salisbury Plain before deploying to Italy or France.  After that length of full-time training, the differences between militia and regular were semantic at best.
> 
> To view "the militia" as a stand alone organization outside the larger Army and outside the larger CF is a one way path to oblivion.



Nothing wrong with tripe - ever eat a weiner?

So 90% of battalion commanders and most of the company commanders didn't come from the pre-war militia?  Given a 20 to 1 expansion of forces nobody would expect the complete army to be composed of milita.  Or is this more tripe.

Into the 1950s the militia was the primary defense force in Canada.  The stated purpose of the army was the training of the militia.  Until the 1950s the Canadian army, consisted of 3, usually understrength, battalions.


----------



## Scott (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with tripe - ever eat a weiner?



I'm sure the more seasoned posters here are ignoring this statement and treating it as I see it, as a troll. I, however, will not ignore you. Knock it off. If you have something to contribute then please do so, otherwise keep little snipes like that to yourself. This will be your only warning.

Scott
Army.ca Staff


----------



## Monsoon (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> The revival of The Halifax Rifles got me thinking about my pet militia unit the 19th Alberta Dragoons plus some other historic regiments.  I added up a few numbers and was shocked.  Northern Alberta has 1 historical militia unit in 1 location.  The Maritimes have 9 regiments in 23 locations.  The populations are similar.


I don't know what numbers you added up but according to LFWA, northern Alberta has 6 units in 41 CBG: The Loyal Edmonton Regiment, 20th Field Regiment, The South Alberta Light Horse (in Edmonton), 41 CER, 15 Svc Bn, and 15 Field Ambulance. The lesser number of locations is probably due to the fact that the population of northern Alberta is located principally in Edmonton; there's no need for 23 detachments all over the map the way you'd need to get the same number of people in the Maritimes. The western alienation bandwagon doesn't play the tune you're asking it to.

Sure, they may not all be "historical" regiments, but... who cares? Maybe 15 Svc Bn would get more recruits if it were called the Kilted and Loyal Company of Service Provisioners (Edmontonians), but The Management doesn't seem to think so.


----------



## Teflon (12 May 2009)

> the Kilted and Loyal Company of Service Provisioners (Edmontonians)




That';s got a real catchy ring to it, but I can't see dancing to it!


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Scott said:
			
		

> I'm sure the more seasoned posters here are ignoring this statement and treating it as I see it, as a troll. I, however, will not ignore you. Knock it off. If you have something to contribute then please do so, otherwise keep little snipes like that to yourself. This will be your only warning.
> 
> Scott
> Army.ca Staff



Sorry, it's just that while going to university I had a summer job making weiners and actually know what goes into them.  No disruption meant.  Tripe is simply a cow's stomach with the lining removed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

None of us should get wrapped up in thinking only combat arms units with battle honours, etc., are worthy of eternal existence and lobbying support groups.  There are more than enough references on these forums to shortfalls in many supporting trades that would support a strong argument that any new or reroled Reserve units should be predominantly combat support and service support units.


----------



## Newt (12 May 2009)

I think it's more likely we'll see 3 R NFLD R stood up in Fort McMurray than ever see the 19th Alberta Dragoons reactivated.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Newt said:
			
		

> I think it's more likely we'll see 3 R NFLD R stood up in Fort McMurray than ever see the 19th Alberta Dragoons reactivated.



Don't put any money on it.  It was reactivated in 1978 but the name was changed to the SALH.  All the early recruits thought they were 19th Ds


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> The lesser number of locations is probably due to the fact that the population of northern Alberta is located principally in Edmonton; there's no need for 23 detachments all over the map the way you'd need to get the same number of people in the Maritimes. The western alienation bandwagon doesn't play the tune you're asking it to.



Approximately half the population of northern Alberta lives in Edmonton.  Red Deer, Fort Mcmurray, and Grande Prairie have in excess of 50,000 people and no infantry or armoured units.  St. Albert and Sherwood Park are in the Edmonton region with similar size.  The Lloydminster area has 25,000 people and no militia unit.  There are at maybe a dozen more cities and cities with over 10,000, candidates for sub-units. Over its history the 19th Ds had units in 17 different towns.

I am not sure what western alienation has to do with anything.  I am trying to work within the system.  It just so happens that some of my friends hold high office and might appreciate what they're hearing.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> None of us should get wrapped up in thinking only combat arms units with battle honours, etc., are worthy of eternal existence and lobbying support groups.  There are more than enough references on these forums to shortfalls in many supporting trades that would support a strong argument that any new or reroled Reserve units should be predominantly combat support and service support units.



Most WWI battalions went through 6-7,000 soldiers to maintain 850 or somewhat more in the field.  The WWII average may have been half that as most units fought for less than a year.  Do you plan for the first day of a war or the last day?


----------



## Newt (12 May 2009)

Probably time for a thread split.

I agree in principle that detachments in some of the smaller cities in Alberta would be a good thing. I'm told that the reserve units in Calgary (Calgary Highlanders, King's Own Calgary Regiment, 41 CER, 14 SVC, HMCS Techumseh, 746 Communications) are having trouble recruiting and retaining; if I'm wrong on that please correct me. If a city of over a million people has trouble recruiting and retaining, how feasible would it be in a city of 50,000?

I doubt cities like Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray could sustain anything above platoon or troop strength (I would love to be proven wrong,) and a detachment like that raises some serious logistical issues. How does a detachment that remote train with the rest of the regiment? What about vehicle maintenance, are we going to co-locate sections from the service battalions?


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Most WWI battalions went through 6-7,000 soldiers to maintain 850 or somewhat more in the field.  The WWII average may have been half that as most units fought for less than a year.  Do you plan for the first day of a war or the last day?



Which war are you planning for? What military threat are you perceiving we must be ready to counter? How will one reserve armoured recce subunit tip the balance in our favour?

Have you seen any documents that define a specific military threat that support the raising of your "pet militia unit"?

The system you are working within, as the Halifax Rifles did, is a political one, not a military one.  Please do not try and say there is an historical military justification when that is not the basis of your argument.


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Army Reserve is over-headquartered already; the Hfx Rifles have been restored to the ORBAT as a purely local political move by a local politico, the MND.  (Look at the date of the original announcement - then look at the date a writ was dropped.  Not subtle at all.)  An objective assessment would see fewer Reserve unit HQs, not more - but fewer HQs with more sub-units beneath them.
> 
> We don't need more RHQs - we need more Sqns, Batteries and Coys with real troops.  The 19th Dragoon option, of amalgamating units to provide one CO with a greater span of control should be the norm, not the exception.



What he said....

I swear some people would want to reform the "29th Lower York Fencibles" because they fended off some Fenian raid and are this instrumental to maintaining tradition and cohesion in today's Army.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which war are you planning for? What military threat are you perceiving we must be ready to counter? How will one reserve armoured recce subunit tip the balance in our favour?
> 
> Have you seen any documents that define a specific military threat that support the raising of your "pet militia unit"?
> 
> The system you are working within, as the Halifax Rifles did, is a political one, not a military one.  Please do not try and say there is an historical military justification when that is not the basis of your argument.



Canada plans for wars by day-dreaming, not by manning and equipping.  We have never prepared for war until we found ourselves in one.  In the summer of 1939 our regular army had something like 3,600 soldiers, or maybe that was the complete military, I forget.   If we have no threats, why do we have a military of over 50,000 people costing an average of $400,000 each while we discuss a few militia soldiers costing maybe $10,000 each.  The most serious threat is the one we don't see coming.

As I've said the existence of militia units has always been political.  The military has always been one of the most political departments of the government.  I don't think a decision is ever made without regard to politics.  You could come up with 100 examples, I know I could.  Am I supposed to somehow be embarrassed using the system as it seems to have been intended?

All I'm talking about is the name of an existing that essentially operates as an independent squadron.  The 19th Alberta Dragoons were the 1st Division Cavalry Squadron and also perpetuate the 3rd Canadian Mounted Rifles who served in France until they were converted to infantry and disbanded.

Armoured recce?  That brings up another point.  17 or so regiments of armoured recce?  The Canadian Army in WWII had only 2 - The 12th Manitoba Dragoons and the RCDs.  The South Alberta Regiment was a divisional recce regiment in WWII and had 3 squadrons of Shermans and a recce troop of Stuarts.  The Cougars made fine tank trainers, I was sorry to see them go.  Replacements would be nice.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What he said....
> 
> I swear some people would want to reform the "29th Lower York Fencibles" because they fended off some Fenian raid and are this instrumental to maintaining tradition and cohesion in today's Army.



Actually it was The Queen's Own Rifles and I think they are proud of the Battle of Ridgeway.  Although the results weren't all that positive, the Fenians withdrew.  I didn't think regimental histories were all that humourous.  The QOR have always been front and centre in the Canadian army.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Actually it was The Queen's Own Rifles and I think they are proud of the Battle of Ridgeway.  Although the results weren't all that postive, the Fenians withdrew.  I didn't think regimental histories were all that humourous.  The QOR have always been front and centre in the Canadian army.



What exactly do you know about the Battle of Ridgeway?

For example, what were the approximate strengths of both sides?

What was the title of the Fenian force? What was its military status?

Which side broke and ran? Further to that, what action by the other side caused that action?

Were there any other British/Canadian forces in the area? If so, where?

For Extra Credit: Did the Queen's Own Rifles ever attempt to obtain a battle honour for Ridgeway?


----------



## helpup (12 May 2009)

I recently did cover this for my DL and, since I wrote my 750 word argumentive piece  on it will not go there again.  
Agreed this is political however my own two cents.  I will take an increase in the ORBAT vice a decrease generally done for the same political reasons. Reg or Reserves. ( Militia)

We are what we are and it is our lot to make it work.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Armoured recce?  That brings up another point.  17 or so regiments of armoured recce?  The Canadian Army in WWII had only 2 - The 12th Manitoba Dragoons and the RCDs.  The South Alberta Regiment was a divisional recce regiment in WWII and had 3 squadrons of Shermans and a recce troop of Stuarts.  The Cougars made fine tank trainers, I was sorry to see them go.  Replacements would be nice.



If we are going to talk about WW2 and recce lets not forget the PLDG, 7th Hussars and 14th Hussars. While we are at it, while the two armoured division recce regiments did have tanks they were Recce. I am not sure how any of that relates to the question at hand except that legacy WW2 structure seems to have greatly influenced the structure of the Reserves. We can argue about the value of the Cougar as a tank trainer, but again I am not sure how it relates. There are equipment issues that re-naming units will not solve.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A -What exactly do you know about the Battle of Ridgeway?
> 
> B -For example, what were the approximate strengths of both sides?
> 
> ...



A - I know it happened

B - no clue - more Fenians;  status? - mostly civil war vets

C - name - no clue

D - the Canadians heard the cry of "cavalry" and formed square and began taking casualties and retired from the field.

E - other forces - more militia on the way; British ???

F - I hoped they tried for a battle honour; there was a policy not to honour defeats but in my opinion it was an honouable defeat.

Do I get the prize?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> If we are going to talk about WW2 and recce lets not forget the PLDG, 7th Hussars and 14th Hussars. While we are at it, while the two armoured division recce regiments did have tanks they were Recce. I am not sure how any of that relates to the question at hand except that legacy WW2 structure seems to have greatly influenced the structure of the Reserves. We can argue about the value of the Cougar as a tank trainer, but again I am not sure how it relates. There are equipment issues that re-naming units will not solve.



I have never checked out what kit the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd division recce regiments had but the 4th and 5th division recce regiments had one troop each.  

The Cougar was preferable to the 1960s pattern Jeeps that I remember.  I was never trained on Cougars but they made a big boom and militia gunners could take out man-sized targets at 600 metres.  I think they broke down a lot and the gun was too small for war but it was a gun.  The armour was too light for war but no news there.  The things were ugly and a big target and amphibious but I think you went to jail if you floated one.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> A - I know it happened
> 
> That is pretty basic.
> 
> ...



What do you think?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What do you think?



Maybe a C.

The difference between a victory and defeat is often out of the hands of a regiment.  A great victory in the annals of the PPCLI is the Battle of Kapyong and it certainly was.  At least one historian has suggested that after defeating and forcing the retreat of an American and Korean division, the PPCLI was spared because the Chinese reached the planned extent of their advance.

I note that the RCR had a very similar battle being over-run on Hill 187 on May 2, 1953, suffering more casualties than at Kapyong and similarly retaking their positions.  No battle honour was awarded.  I can't even begin to understand the awarding of battle honours.  To me, if it's in the history books, it's a battle.  If you were there it's a battle honour.  I'm not sure that applying judgement is always fair.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

I've asked this elsewhere, but its applicability remains sound in the absence of any credible military estimate for expansion or organizational reform, even the "simplistic" renaming of units and subunits that then affects command stuctures, inter alia:

_"Should any regiment’s continued survival be primarily dependent on the degree of activism of its supporters?"_


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I can't even begin to understand the awarding of battle honours.  To me, if it's in the history books, it's a battle.  If you were there it's a battle honour.  I'm not sure that applying judgement is always fair.



Some resources for on the Canadian system of battle honours can be found on my site here: Canadian Army Battle Honours


----------



## Infanteer (12 May 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> For Extra Credit: Did the Queen's Own Rifles ever attempt to obtain a battle honour for Ridgeway?



Ooohh, I remember reading this one in the endnotes.  They pushed for it and were summed up for trying.  Basically it amounted to "you guys ran away, so don't ask for an honour".

As for the Fencibles and the Fenians and your "I got you" post, I just made that shit up to prove a point.  As T2B pointed out, we get fixated on old structures/units when considering current or future force structures.    "But its tradition!" some argue - in reality, if it doesn't contribute to battlefield effectiveness (which raising old reserve regiments from the days of yore doesn't), who cares?  Certainly everyone who joins after any significant change don't - they're too busy making history as opposed to dwelling on capbadges or war diaries.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I've asked this elsewhere, but its applicability remains sound in the absence of any credible military estimate for expansion or organizational reform, even the "simplistic" renaming of units and subunits that then affects command stuctures, inter alia:
> 
> _"Should any regiment’s continued survival be primarily dependent on the degree of activism of its supporters?"_



Renaming B Sqn SALH to the 19th Alberta Dragoons would involve ordering badges from the cadet unit supplier and having shoulder flashes done locally for $2 each or from DND's lowest bidder for $20 each.  As the unit has been an independent squadron, nothing else need change.  Some major may find himself a LCol but he wouldn't be the first LCol in the Canadian Forces whose rank exceeds his responsibilities.

I think there is a perception that a regiment is a regiment on the order of battle and positions are to be jealously guarded when most regiments are large platoon to company sized.  The reality is that there is no order of battle and if there is it would be totally ignored as in every other mobilization.  I seriously doubt that any significant study has been done regarding militia cost because it is insignificantly small in the total picture.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

Mr Ruhl, do you really think that renaming the unit would take nothing more than changing the troops' shoulder titles?  Or are you hoping to convince others who haven't thought about it that it's really that simplistic?

And what about the many soldiers who have served in B Sqn SALH since 1978? What about their loyalties to Regiment and cap badge? Should that simply be swept away?  Are not their attachments to their Regiment equally valid and worthy of protection?


----------



## PMedMoe (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Approximately half the population of northern Alberta lives in Edmonton.  Red Deer, Fort Mcmurray, and Grande Prairie have in excess of 50,000 people and no infantry or armoured units.  St. Albert and Sherwood Park are in the Edmonton region with similar size.  The Lloydminster area has 25,000 people and no militia unit.  There are at maybe a dozen more cities and cities with over 10,000, candidates for sub-units. Over its history the 19th Ds had units in 17 different towns.
> 
> I am not sure what western alienation has to do with anything.  I am trying to work within the system.  It just so happens that some of my friends hold high office and might appreciate what they're hearing.



So let me guess.  Are you trying to get a Reserve unit in Whitecourt, AB, (population 9,202 - 2008 Census)?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Mr Ruhl, do you really think that renaming the unit would take nothing more than changing the troops' shoulder titles?  Or are you hoping to convince others who haven't thought about it that it's really that simplistic?
> 
> And what about the many soldiers who have served in B Sqn SALH since 1978? What about their loyalties to Regiment and cap badge? Should that simply be swept away?  Are not their attachments to their Regiment equally valid and worthy of protection?



Worthy of protection?  My vote says no.  Mind you I was there a long time ago.  It was a very odd unit compared to the Fort Garry Horse, my only comparison.  A lot of people transferred in and then transferred out.  Maybe it's changed, maybe they've gained a rudder.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> So let me guess.  Are you trying to get a Reserve unit in Whitecourt, AB, (population 9,202 - 2008 Census)?



Too small and I'm too old.


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Worthy of protection?  My vote says no.



So, in brief it's: _"Screw what they have, force them to accept what they don't remember."_

I am at a loss for words over that sentiment.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I am at a loss for words over that sentiment.




I thought names are irrelevant.  You can't be all that shocked.


----------



## Monsoon (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Worthy of protection?  My vote says no.  Mind you I was there a long time ago.  It was a very odd unit compared to the Fort Garry Horse, my only comparison.  A lot of people transferred in and then transferred out.  Maybe it's changed, maybe they've gained a rudder.


Gad, sir! Transferred in _and_ transferred out? Why if this alarming trend towards cross-training were to spread CF-wide, the whole system would fall apart! Imagine if an armoured reservist in Calgary were able to move to Edmonton and just up and join a unit there, like it were the most normal thing in the world! What would Major-General Isaac Brock have said about such heresy?


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I thought names are irrelevant.  You can't be all that shocked.



And I have, in fact, stated that names (among other attributes) are extraneous to the purposes, intents and values of the Regimental System, but this is in the context that these attributes are separate from that value system.  You offer nothing in trade for imposing this "simple name change" on a unit, no increase in relevance, no increase in operational capability within the Army's requirements structure, no purpose ... other than your personal satisfaction.  And that is not enough.

The 19th Alberta Dragoons were placed on the Supplemental Order of Battle on 31 March 1965 - 44 years ago.  

B Squadron, The South Alberta Light Horse has existed since 1978 - 31 years of service.

In my opinion, your personal desire to see the SALH cap badge and heritage stripped away has not yet been sufficiently substantiated.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 May 2009)

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Gad, sir! Transferred in _and_ transferred out? Why if this alarming trend towards cross-training were to spread CF-wide, the whole system would fall apart! Imagine if an armoured reservist in Calgary were able to move to Edmonton and just up and join a unit there, like it were the most normal thing in the world! What would Major-General Isaac Brock have said about such heresy?



They were a reliable source of troops for the Loyal Eddies.  This was some time ago.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And I have, in fact, stated that names (among other attributes) are extraneous to the purposes, intents and values of the Regimental System, but this is in the context that these attributes are separate from that value system.  You offer nothing in trade for imposing this "simple name change" on a unit, no increase in relevance, no increase in operational capability within the Army's requirements structure, no purpose ... other than your personal satisfaction.  And that is not enough.



Right now General Motors would pay $1 billion to have a corporate culture anything close to a regimental culture.  Much smarter people than me define elements of corporate culture as symbols, stories, heroes, slogans, and ceremonies.  I am not convinced that the symbols, stories, heroes, slogans, and ceremonies from 600 km away are as motivating as those that are home grown.  Impose Toronto regiments on Montreal or vice-versa and I'm sure there would be no problem.  They're only 600 km apart.  Just don't impose a southern Alberta regiment on northern Alberta, it's a whole other culture down there.


----------



## dapaterson (13 May 2009)

This almost seems to be a plea for small, inbred, inward looking groups.

Populations are mobile and urban today, not the reality of the 1930s.  So it's not unusual to have reserve soldiers (they are soldiers in their heart, after all, not Footguards or Hussars or Highlanders, but soldiers all) who have served in two or three or four cities, in different units.  So the influences of one place are brought to other routinely.


I am a soldier of her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.  The rest, as they say, is noise.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Right now General Motors would pay $1 billion to have a corporate culture anything close to a regimental culture.  Much smarter people than me define elements of corporate culture as symbols, stories, heroes, slogans, and ceremonies.  I am not convinced that the symbols, stories, heroes, slogans, and ceremonies from 600 km away are as motivating as those that are home grown.  Impose Toronto regiments on Montreal or vice-versa and I'm sure there would be no problem.  They're only 600 km apart.  Just don't impose a southern Alberta regiment on northern Alberta, it's a whole other culture down there.



When was the last time you sat down with a young soldier of B Squadron, The South Alberta Light Horse and asked him or her:

_"What do you miss most about the 19th Alberta Dragoons?"_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2009)

Mr Ruhl,

Understand something very clearly. I have read through this whole thing and found your opinion all over the place. You switch subjects like people change socks. You seem to be taking any stance that is wholly opposite anything else that's said and have changed your own opinion while arguing against yourself. 

On the internet, we call that trolling. It is against our rules. Rules the Mods here WILL enforce.

I suggest, sir, you go and read our site guidelines and pay particular attention to the rules about escalating disturbances and trolling, and the consequences of the Warning System. You obviously missed them when you clicked the box agreeing to abide by them.


Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## helpup (13 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mr Ruhl,
> 
> Understand something very clearly. I have read through this whole thing and found your opinion all over the place. You switch subjects like people change socks. You seem to be taking any stance that is wholly opposite anything else that's said and have changed your own opinion while arguing against yourself.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Thanks recceguy, I thought I was the only one who was lost tracking Ruhls, opinion.  


Anyhow if this topic is going to continue on the reserves/militia in general vice the Halifax Rifles ( and the orriginal post is a very old one ) then is it not as suggested earlier time for a split.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This almost seems to be a plea for small, inbred, inward looking groups.
> 
> I am a soldier of her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.  The rest, as they say, is noise.



Last time I heard all regiments have the same training.

Why not a soldier of the world, not the small inbred Canadian Army?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mr Ruhl,
> 
> Understand something very clearly. I have read through this whole thing and found your opinion all over the place. You switch subjects like people change socks. You seem to be taking any stance that is wholly opposite anything else that's said and have changed your own opinion while arguing against yourself.
> 
> ...



Again I apologize.  The extraneous topics were introduced by others and I shouldn't have delved into them with so much energy distracting from my central thesis.  

I am not sure that I have changed my opinion.  I think that celebrating a regiment that put 2 units into a war and had hundreds of casualties means something more than celebrating a unit that had a real tough Milcon 2002.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 May 2009)

One thing that has constantly amazed me since I became a member here years ago is how, to the point of psychoticness , some people are attached to a name. I spent 8 of my 10 years in 2RCHA and if tomorrow they decided to call it "The Second LEO Regt." [Lobbers of Exploding Ordnance}, I could care less,...its just a name, folks, a friggin' name!

The people matter....


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think that celebrating a regiment that put 2 units into a war and had hundreds of casualties means something more than celebrating a unit that had a real tough Milcon 2002.



*The South Alberta Light Horse*


1954.09.28  	The South Alberta Light Horse (29th Armoured Regiment)
formed with HQ at Calgary, Alta., by amalgamation of The South Alberta Regiment, 41st Anti-Tank Regiment (Self-Propelled), RCA, and 68th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RCA
1958.05.19 	The South Alberta Light Horse
1959 	HQ moved to Medicine Hat
19uu 	reduced to A Sqn at Medicine Hat
1978 	B Sqn re-formed at Edmonton

Battle Honours  [combined battle honours of 15th Alberta Light Horse and The South Alberta Regiment]

*North West Canada 1885*

_The Great War_: *Mount Sorrel, Somme 1916 '18, Arras 1917, Vimy 1917, Hill 70, Ypres 1917, Passchendaele, Amiens, Cambrai 1918, France and Flanders 1915-18*

_The Second World War_: *Falaise, Falaise Road, The Laison, St. Lambert-sur-Dives, Moerbrugge, The Scheldt, Woensdrecht, The Lower Maas, Kapelsche Veer, The Rhineland, The Hochwald, Veen, Twente Canal, Bad Zwischenahn, North-West Europe, 1944-194*5 (awarded 1958 for service of The South Alberta Regiment)

*19th Alberta Dragoons*


1946.04.01  	19th Armoured Car Regiment (Edmonton Fusiliers)
formed with HQ at Edmonton, Alta., by amalgamation of 19th Alberta Dragoons, and The Edmonton Fusiliers
1949.02.04 	19th Alberta Armoured Car Regiment
1954.11.01 	19th Alberta Dragoons (19th Armoured Car Regiment)
1958.05.19 	19th Alberta Dragoons
1965.03.31 	disbanded (placed on Supplemental Order of Battle)

Battle Honours [combined battle honours of 19th Alberta Dragoons, and The Edmonton Fusiliers, with the following emblazoned:]

_The Great War_: *Ypres 1915 '17, Somme 1916, Arras 1917 '18, Vimy 1917, Hill 70, Amiens, Hindenburg Line, Cambrai 1918, Pursuit to Mons, France and Flanders 1915-18*

_The Second World War_: [none]


Both regiments are the result of amalgamations and both carry battle honours through perpetuation. You bring no honour to the 19th Alberta Dragoons by insulting the heritage and honours of the South Alberta Light Horse.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2009)

We could re-activate every dormant Canadian regiment that ever existed, and de-amalgamate every current-day combo regiment. I'm sure that we still have enough troops in the Regular and Reserve Forces combined to be able to have nothing smaller than a section or equivalent wearing each cap badge. Think how many more LCols we could employ - promotions for everyone all around.

Why should your pet favourite regiment get special treatment over every other one?

Where does it stop?

Bring back the Perths!

My major effort for the next while is going to be getting the Monty Python Parrot Sketch out of my head...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Both regiments are the result of amalgamations and both carry battle honours through perpetuation. You bring no honour to the 19th Alberta Dragoons by insulting the heritage and honours of the South Alberta Light Horse.



No insult.  In the whole schmozzle only 3 units that actually fought in France in WWI are perpetuated.  The SALH perpetuates the 31st (Alberta) Battalion.  The 19th Alberta Dragoons served ander their own name plus they perpetuate the 3rd Regiment Canadian Mounted Rifles which served maybe 6 months in France until it was converted to infantry and merged into other CMR battalions.

The 31st Battalion was also perpetuated by North Alberta Regiment, long dead.  The SALH is a wonderful regiment with an excellent war record.  It's just that it is a record of a regiment 600 km away.


----------



## Teflon (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl

Why not a soldier of the world, not the small inbred Canadian Army?


inbred Canadian Army?

There is an inbred here you T***, but I can assure you it isn't us!

(Mods - I gladly wear the warning if you consider it required but that statement is way too far for me!)


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 May 2009)

Warning??..methinks not.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

So, this remark:



			
				Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think that celebrating a regiment that put 2 units into a war and had hundreds of casualties means something more than celebrating a unit that had a real tough Milcon 2002.



wasn't insulting?  Where you claim that the SALH's notable achievements equate to attending Militia exercises, while "your pet Militia regiment", the 19th Alberta Dragoons, "put 2 units into a war"?


Firstly: Yes, it is insulting, to every soldier of the SALH, including those of B Sqn since 1978.  You know, those soldiers you expect would be happy to be rebadged for your personal pleasure.

Secondly:  The 19th Alberta Dragoons did not "put 2 units into a war", it provided one cavalry squadron and perpetuated other units of the First World War. The 19th Alberta Dragoons initially provided a separately badged volunteer squadron, the 1st Divisional Cavalry Squadron, that unit later became A Sqn, The Canadian Corps Cavalry Regiment (in 1916), and then it became A Sqn, The Canadian Light Horse (in 1917). 

The 19th Alberta Dragoons perpetuated the 3rd Regiment Canadian Mounted Rifles, 9th Battalion CEF, 66th Battalion CEF, 138th Battalion CEF, and 202nd Battalion CEF.

Perpetuation is an important distinction, though one that has been greatly misunderstood. For more on the concept of perpetuation, see Perpetuation and the Centenary of the Great War


You have yet to make a militarily suportable argument for your desire to rebadge B Sqn SALH, to the 19th ALberta Dragoons.  While actions such as the return of the Halifax Rifles (or your own proposal) are widely admitted to be politically driven decisions rather than military ones, if you are seeking widespread support here, you may want to consider trying to form credible military arguments.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 May 2009)

Interesting.....

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/09/06/why-reactivate-the-halifax-rifles.aspx

_ Dennis Ruhl  September 13, 2008 6:33 PM 

Until 1945 the regular force's function was to train the militia.  Somehow I bet that a PPCLI serrgeant heading on his fourth tour in Afghanistan isn't objecting to more militia.  Generally militia do a tour and go away.  Increasing regular army size means in all liklihood paying them for 20 or 30 years.  When I was in the militia, when the budget ran out and pay stopped, everyone still showed up.  Militia is the best bargain for Canadian taxpayers and brings the military home to communities where it is otherwise foreign._


----------



## X-mo-1979 (13 May 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> We could re-activate every dormant Canadian regiment that ever existed, and de-amalgamate every current-day combo regiment. I'm sure that we still have enough troops in the Regular and Reserve Forces combined to be able to have nothing smaller than a section or equivalent wearing each cap badge. Think how many more LCols we could employ - promotions for everyone all around.
> 
> Why should your pet favourite regiment get special treatment over every other one?
> 
> ...



Agreed 100%.
If we are activating old regiments why don't we put the 155th heavy Nfld Arty back on as well?However they were NOT Canadian....see how things change over a mere 60 YEARS!Things change,why would be bring back retired regiments that would exist as a section?And a  lot of brass making money.
Why not have the NFLD regiment attached to the Brits with Brit equipment,THAT was only 60 years ago to.

Last time I heard stuff like this we were drunk and I was a pte and was forced to listen to old ramblings from poeople who were so out of touch that they occasionally woke up thinking they were in Bergen Hohe.

(And yes I have been to Bergen)


----------



## McG (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl,
The Land Force Reserve does not exist for the glory of its regiments.  In fact, regimental glory is not a guiding purpose for any element of the Canadian Forces.

We exist to meet the domestic and international defence needs of Canada.  We are structured, organized, trained and equipped to meet those needs as best as we are able to anticipate their existence.  Units & regiments exist, in the regular force and in the reserves, to fill some specifically defined capability requirement.  If there is no military requirement for the unit, then the unit does not need to exist.

We do not need more over-ranked unit COs & RSMs presiding over micro-units.
We do not need more units too small for effective collective training.
We do not need to fund new capbadges, shoulder flashes & buttons for the glory of another regiment.
We do not need the 19th Alberta Dragoons simply for the glory of the 19th Alberta Dragoons.

We need units & sub-units filling roles and providing capabilities that contribute toward the overall CF capability to provide for Canada’s defence.

If you have an argument based on a military requirement, then by all means try to convince us why we need another regiment in Alberta.  Otherwise, I might suggest you simply accept that you and your position are irrelevant to the Canadian Forces, to the Army and to the Reserves.  If you are going to keep going, you will need to accept that your desire is an issue larger than a single historic regiment.  You will first need to address the required roles & capabilities of the reserve force, convince us of a deficiency and show how some regimental re-alignment will fix or reduce this deficiency.  You might want to start here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/24381.0.html


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I think that celebrating a regiment that put 2 units into a war and had hundreds of casualties means something more than celebrating a unit that had a real tough Milcon 2002.



I have been trying to establish what casualties you are referring to when you state the 19th Alberta Dragoons had "hundreds of casualties".

I have consulted the Advanced Search page at the Canadian Virtual War Memorial.  The 19th Alberta Dragoons is not listed as a unit in their database.

I then tried these searches:

Regiment:  *Canadian Corps Cavalry Regiment*
24 records found.

Regiment:  *Canadian Light Horse*
64 records found.

Of course, those latter searches would also include the other squadrons, not just the one fielded by the 19th Alberta Dragoons.

Can you provide a source for the Roll of Honour you are referencing?


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2009)

Mr. Ruhl:

I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present. 
It must be gratifying to know that the worst that can happen to you is to be banned from this site.
You, sir, are a COWARD, Mr. Ruhl and not fit to be present amongst warriors.

Thank you.

Rant Ends.


----------



## Shec (13 May 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> We do not need more over-ranked unit COs & RSMs presiding over micro-units.
> We do not need more units too small for effective collective training.
> We do not need to fund new capbadges, shoulder flashes & buttons for the glory of another regiment.
> We do not need the 19th Alberta Dragoons simply for the glory of the 19th Alberta Dragoons.



Evokes memories of the 1 WUCR, first mobilized as a distinct "regiment" for Milcon '73 consisting of the 6 Western Militia armoured recce units organized into 3 weak squadrons.   Talk about a surplus of CO's & RSM's.  A capbadge collectors heaven though.

At the regimental smoker we were finally told that 1 WUCR  = 1st Wainwright Used Car Regiment.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 May 2009)

Mr Ruhl,


It's nice that you show such an interest in reviving long lost regiments. But bear in mind some truths:

 - the Canadian Army (that one which you disparage as ''INBRED'') is fighing a war right now. Yes that war will end in 2011, but what other wars will come afterwards.
- After 6 years of deployments to Afghanistan, both our kit, vehicles and troops are run-down. 

- We are only on the cusp of what could become a long long recession, with massive gov't deficit projected for the next little while.

With all that, how dare you have the arrogance to think your 'pet militia' regiment should waste more scarce taxpayers dollars on a tp/pl strength unit, for the sole sake of reviving a long dead capbage? Before you spout off about past WWI and WWII glorys, try to understand the world which we inhabit, and the wars we are fighting.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, this remark:
> 
> wasn't insulting?  Where you claim that the SALH's notable achievements equate to attending Militia exercises, while "your pet Militia regiment", the 19th Alberta Dragoons, "put 2 units into a war"?
> 
> ...



I do understand perpetuation but I do see a distinction between a unit that fought in the field and one that was essentially a training battalion.  The 3rd CMR did serve as a unit in France but was acquired by the 19th Ds by perpetuation of another unit.  I knew that but maybe used some careless wording  The 19th Ds was in fact the only Alberta unit to fight under its own name.  All other Alberta battle honours were acquired by perpetuation of fighting or absorbed units.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present.



That was a response/retort to:



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> This almost seems to be a plea for small, inbred, inward looking groups.



In that regard, I consider it legitimate, if not exactly sparkling with diplomacy.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Interesting.....
> 
> http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/09/06/why-reactivate-the-halifax-rifles.aspx
> 
> ...



Almost half of the US soldiers in Iraq are reservists of one stripe or another.  Formed National Guard units with local identities are employed.  These units trace their histories back to past wars.  Uncle Sam has figured out how to save the bucks but has pretty much destroyed the Guard in the process.  Work for free?  I sure did.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> All other Alberta battle honours were acquired by perpetuation of fighting or absorbed units.



Which makes them no less worthy of preservation, and does not strengthen the case for your argument.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Mr. Ruhl:
> 
> I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present.
> It must be gratifying to know that the worst that can happen to you is to be banned from this site.
> ...



Civil dialogue?

My statement was not a declarative statement.  It was a question in response to a declarative statement labeling militia units as inbred.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Almost half of the US soldiers in Iraq are reservists of one stripe or another.  Formed National Guard units with local identities are employed.  These units trace their histories back to past wars.  Uncle Sam has figured out how to save the bucks but has pretty much destroyed the Guard in the process.  Work for free?  I sure did.



Within your argument, what makes a soldier a Reservist/Militiaman?  Is it the part-time nature of service, on top of civilian career? Or is it solely what badge they wore?

Surely those soldiers of the 19th Alberta Dragoons who were standing on the parade square before August 1914 were.  But what about those that attested for overseas service after the Regiment sailed, and only put up that badge when they joined overseas? How many of them had never set foot in the home town of the 19th AB Dragoons, and never would after the War?   Were they part of that single-unit Reserve-specific heritage you are trying to uphold?  

Those soldiers with only overseas service never fell under your theory of a cheap soldiery in contrast to full time soldiers.  They never worked "for free" after the annual budget ran out.  They weren't Regulars and they weren't Militiamen - the were Canadian soldiers, for the duration of the War.

You continue to grasp at extraneous details that fail to hold up under examination.  Where is the sound military justification for your proposal?


----------



## bick (13 May 2009)

If the British Army can amalgamate and disband units with a 300 + year history.  We Canadians can make due without the 19th AB Dragoons


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which makes them no less worthy of preservation, and does not strengthen the case for your argument.



You are right but almost everyone who served in a battalion that lasted for 6 months of training served in one of the fighting battalions.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2009)

Mr. Ruhl:

This is about as civil as I get with someone of your ilk. You come in here and insult us with the words "inbred Canadian Army" and then expect a free pass? I think not.
You will not get one from me. I really don't care who you are or what the reasoning is behind the 19th Alberta Dragoons. Your stance is irritating many of us.


----------



## Teflon (13 May 2009)

Reading this thread is like picking at a scab,

You know you really shouldn't, but just can't stop yourself,

And in the end, no answers, just a tiny little scar!


----------



## dapaterson (13 May 2009)

As much as I enjoy a good old fashioned Internet pile-on, I'll speak up in Mr Ruhl's defence.  He was turning my own words around in referrign to the Canadian Army as inbred.; thus, any opprobrium should start with me for introducing the term into the debate.

Plenty of other points to argue in this discussion; let's not fixate on a single word.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Within your argument, what makes a soldier a Reservist/Militiaman?  Is it the part-time nature of service, on top of civilian career? Or is it solely what badge they wore?
> 
> Surely those soldiers of the 19th Alberta Dragoons who were standing on the parade square before August 1914 were.  But what about those that attested for overseas service after the Regiment sailed, and only put up that badge when they joined overseas? How many of them had never set foot in the home town of the 19th AB Dragoons, and never would after the War?   Were they part of that single-unit Reserve-specific heritage you are trying to uphold?
> 
> ...



In my community I never met anyone who served in a unit other than a prairie unit.  My great uncle joined the 194th (Edmonton Highlanders) Bn and served in the 49th (Edmonton) Bn.  An effort was made to put replacements in home units first and regional units second although it wasn't always possible.  I would guess that the majority of wartime 19th Ds came from northern Alberta.

Training is the largest predictor of military success but motivation can lead to results beyond expectations.  Two recent armies that had significantly more success than warranted by numbers and equipment were the British and German armies.  The both employed a system of locally raised regiments.  Your friends and relatives signed you up, saw that you were trained, and looked after you.  You didn't like your officers but they talked like you and shared many of your values.  The system worked.  The more one feels part of the system, even as a cog, the more superior the performance.  Besides you wouldn't want to let down your second cousin, the RSM.


----------



## old medic (13 May 2009)

Once again, this thread and some of the arguments presented are becoming Silly. 

Most (all) of the people replying and jumping on have no experience with said units,
and as dapaterson pointed out, nearly all of you are talking about something he didn't 
say.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Mr Ruhl,
> 
> 
> It's nice that you show such an interest in reviving long lost regiments. But bear in mind some truths:
> ...



It's a name.  Alberta has 4 infantry or armored militia units in 3 armouries.  I think there are 4 more armouries without infantry or armoured units.  The Maritimes has 9 units in 23 armouries with half the population.  There is a thing called political reality.  

Regardless of the state of the Canadian Forces and the economy there will always be lack of funds, another political reality.  Renaming a unit isn't going break the bank.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2009)

Who, besides you, wants this?

Have you canvassed B Squadron SALH?


----------



## dapaterson (13 May 2009)

There's more than just a political reality.  The Maritimes contribute a disproportionate number of members to the CF (and yes, one can argue chicken/egg in that case).

However, more interesting is an examination of reservists joining the Reg force; when expressed per capita (that is, CTs expressed as a ratio of average parade strength) it's clear that Reservists from down east are far more likely to join the Reg F; recruiting is also far more successful down east than out west.  "Reinforce success" is a basic military concept.

The military does have a responsibility to remain a national institution, and maintain a presence across the country.  That needs to be balanced by considerations for efficiency and effectiveness.  Renaming B Sqn SALH would not contribute to efficiency or effectiveness, but would rather worsen the current pressures to produce LCols and CWOs - many of who rise to unit appointments without enough depth of experience to be effective.  Providing greater opportunities for development as Capts & Majs, and as Sgts, WOs and MWOs prior to taking command will lead to a stronger institution.

Perpetuating the myth that a unit of 100 can create a LCol and CWO every 3 years does no one any favours.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Training is the largest predictor of military success but motivation can lead to results beyond expectations.  Two recent armies that had significantly more success than warranted by numbers and equipment were the British and German armies.  The both employed a system of locally raised regiments.  Your friends and relatives signed you up, saw that you were trained, and looked after you.  You didn't like your officers but they talked like you and shared many of your values.  The system worked.  The more one feels part of the system, even as a cog, the more superior the performance.  Besides you wouldn't want to let down your second cousin, the RSM.



Since I expect there are very few "transfers" between the two SALH garrisons, how does this "local unit" approach not apply to B Sqn, SALH?  In this case the second cousin would be the SSM, right? 

This is one more red herring argument that does not specifically strengthen the argument to rebadge them.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 May 2009)

dapaterson has elucidated my point in a much more literate manner.

The question remains, does this idea enhance the *Operational Effectiveness * of the Army, and does it do so *efficiently*.

I would argue, wholeheartedly, no, for the same reasons dapaterson pointed out. And would add that there are far more important things to worry about than capbadges, collar dogs and all the accoutrements needed to rename a unit that seems to be doing fine in its current incarnation.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (13 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perpetuating the myth that a unit of 100 can create a LCol and CWO every 3 years does no one any favours.



I don't know about all militia regiments but I can comment about a couple from 25 years ago.  One major had 20 years in the RCD retiring as captain due for promotion.  Another taught at a university and spent his summers with the brigade in Germany, a captain whose occupation escapes me did the same.  A third major was a school teacher who had served as RSM spent every summer for the previous 15 years doing militia duty.  Another regiment with which I am familiar had major, later LCol who was a Canadian and was ex-British Army and made his living as a federal security agent.  Another officer was a career ex-British Army Sandhurst graduate.  Both these guys had served in Northern Ireland and one had the privilege of being shot at by East-Germans.   Maybe it's different today but in 2 regiments all the majors and most of the captains would have made fine COs.  Not one was wet behind the ears.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't know about all militia regiments but I can comment about a couple from 25 years ago.



The state of units in 1984 is irrelevant to a discussion about reorganizing the Reserves in 2009.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't know about all militia regiments but I can comment about a couple from 25 years ago.  One major had 20 years in the RCD retiring as captain due for promotion.  Another taught at a university and spent his summers with the brigade in Germany, a captain whose occupation escapes me did the same.  A third major was a school teacher who had served as RSM spent every summer for the previous 15 years doing militia duty.  Another regiment with which I am familiar had major, later LCol who was a Canadian and was ex-British Army and made his living as a federal security agent.  Another officer was a career ex-British Army Sandhurst graduate.  Both these guys had served in Northern Ireland and one had the privilege of being shot at by East-Germans.   Maybe it's different today but in 2 regiments all the majors and most of the captains would have made fine COs.  Not one was wet behind the ears.


You're living in the past. It IS different today! And you are out of touch with the real world as it stands concerning the CF. Reg or Reserve. YOU are going to change nothing.  :deadhorse:

Jesus wept. Let it go and go have a drink with your crones in the Association. :brickwall:


----------



## Towards_the_gap (13 May 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Maybe it's different today



EDITED cause recceguy beat me to it with the witty reply of ''IT IS'' and I didn't see it.

Cold warriors are one thing. Being shot at by East Germans is certainly a good bar story. But it is no longer relevant.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 May 2009)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Cold warriors are one thing. Being shot at by East Germans is certainly a good bar story. But it is no longer relevant.



The UK lost 705 soldiers in Northen Ireland and patroling the East German border wasn't necessarily all giggles.  We had a Vietnam vet - he had better bar stories.  I was trying to show that militia units attracted talented people.  I can't imagine that they don't still.


----------



## dapaterson (14 May 2009)

We should be careful not to dismiss any "old" experience out of hand.  There is value to things we trained for before - throwing it all away just because "it's so 1980s (or even 1970s)" means we can repeat easily avoided mistakes.  There are valuable tactical and strategic lessons from the Cold War that may not seem to have immediate application now, but may well be needed in another situation - try to find the Army's interest in IEDs and COIN in July 2001, if you can.

Re: unit succession.

Having a steady influx of experienced officers and senior NCOs from the Regular Force or foreign militaries is fine - but it's not every unit that gets them.  (on a tangent: the Army does a poor job of internal recruiting, convincing soldiers leaving the Regular Force to continue on a part-time basis with the Reserves.  A low-cost, high payoff strategy would be to have a full-time Reserve recruiter in each ASG, tasked with encouraging and assisting those retiring from the Reg F in joining Reserve units, vice the current system where one of the 1,279 questions asked by the release clerk is "wanna join the Reserves Y/N").  

Without an influx of outsiders, given traditional rates of attrition, you need to bring in about three to five OCdts each year to have breadth and depth in succession for the CO (as a LCol).  Few units do so, resulting in a weak pool to draw from and often a linear succession plan - if Fred gets a job out of town or John quits to spend more time with his family, there's no one to substitute.  Make some of those units commanded by Majs (a reasonable rank to command the 80-100 of many units) and the pressure is reduced significantly, and there is more time to provide depth of experience.  Better still, that seasoned Maj will then make a better LCol, and command a group approaching 400 soldiers (geography will always play a part in limiting the span of control).


----------



## SARSgt (12 Jun 2009)

Last night I attended the 19th AB Dragoons 2009 Annual Cadet Review, The Cadet corps is doing very well, The Reviewing Officer last night was Col Arnie Mottershead, who was a serving officer in the 19th AD in the 50's and 60's. Col Mottershead is extremely proud of "his" Corps!

I assisted Reg Hodgson in bringing a Staghound Armoured car and a Lynx Armoured Scout car to their parade. Col Mottershead had a great ride and thoroughly enjoyed his night with the Dragoons. They have a proud history and they ably perpetuate the regimental traditions, uniforms and esprit de corps of their Milita Parent Regiment.

The South Alberta Light Horse have recently applied and have been granted an amalgamation with the 19th AB Dragoons by DHH so that their history and lineage will not be forgotten. Please see the SALH Website at www.salh.net for further details. The History of the 19th AB Dragoons is entwined with our predecessor Units, the SAR had a company/later a Sqn of soldiers made up from the 19 AD. 

The SALH soldiers of today proudly wear the cap badge of one their early regiments, the 15th Light Horse. Many soldiers transfer between Medicine Hat and Edmonton for Schooling, Employment and personal reasons. When we go on exercise together A Sqn from Medicine Hat and B Sqn from Edmonton form C Sqn for administrative and tactical training. We proudly embrace the traditions of the Dragoons and the SAR and the 15th Light Horse as well as the myriad of other units we perpetuate.

I have served the SALH for 20 years, I have been on Operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan and the reason I have stayed in the Reserves/Militia is the "Regimental Family" atmosphere we enjoy. Wether my cap badge or collar dogs have a 15th Light Horse Antelope, SAR AB Shield or the Horse of the Dragoons, I serve the Queen, My country and those who cannot defend themselves, badges and names are irrelevant. 

The 19th Ab Dragoons will not be stood up again, neither will they be forgotten.

Sgt McCue
RHQ
SALH


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (12 Jun 2009)

SARSgt said:
			
		

> Wether my cap badge or collar dogs have a 15th Light Horse Antelope, SAR AB Shield or the Horse of the Dragoons, I serve the Queen, My country and those who cannot defend themselves, badges and names are irrelevant.
> 
> The 19th Ab Dragoons will not be stood up again, neither will they be forgotten.



Badges and names irrelevant - sure.  I think that's part of my argument.  If a unit exists, why not a local historical unit that our grandfathers went to war in?

While the SAR had a company of soldiers from the 19th Alberta Dragoons, it also had some from The Edmonton Fusiliers, The Calgary Regiment, The 15th Alberta Light Horse, and the SAR itself.  It was a composite regiment actually formed in Edmonton and were it not infantry at the time may very well have been named the 19th Alberta Dragoons.

In its history The 19th Alberta Dragoons was represented in 18 northern Alberta communities and Whitehorse.  It went to war as the 19th Alberta Dragoons and the Vegreville sqn helped form the 3rd Canadian Mounted Rifles which they perpetuated.  The 3rd CMR spent over 6 months in France before it was converted to infantry and disbanded. 

The 19th Alberta Dragoons was one of the strongest armoured regiments in Canada with over 200 soldiers when it was stood down in 1964.  That it was not revived in 1978 seems more than a coincidence as Bud Olsen, a Liberal cabinet minister, was The South Alberta Light Horse's honourary colonel.  I suspect that it was the South Alberta Light Horse that was saved from extinction.

While the Maritime provinces has just slightly more people than northern Alberta and they can maintain 9 armoured or infantry regiments/battalions in 23 locations while northern Alberta has 2 units in 1 location there is certainly room for a regional armored regiment.  Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie, Red Deer, Sherwood Park, and St. Albert all have over 50,000 people and no infanry/armoured unit.  Camrose has 16,000, Lloydminster has 27,000, Fort Saskatchewan has 15,000, Spruce Grove has 20,000, and Leduc has 17,000.  I don't know that all 10 cities would support a reserve unit but cities that size do elsewhere.

It is not as if northern Alberta lacks historical regiments aside from the Loyal Eddies or the 19th Dragoons.  The Edmonton Fusiliers were folded into the 19th Dragoons in 1946 and the North Alberta Regiment that shared perpetuation of the 31st Battalion with the SAR was disbanded in 1936.  Through accidents of history southen Alberta has maintained 3 historical regiment while northern Alberta has maintained 1 only.

They won't be stood up?  Never say never.


----------

