# Traditions



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:24:22 -0700*
I have a question for the group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, 
so hopefully, it will generate some interesting thoughts.
"How much weight should tradition have, when looking at roles, where to 
cut, etc., especially in Militia Regiments?" There are some Units that 
have very old, and proud histories, and though numbers on paper may not 
look good now, I am sure there is some vaguely measurable value, when 
push comes to shove, in having generations of traditions, unit pride, 
etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just know that 
reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some of 
these very old units on the block, especially ones that have been 
centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many years.
Ubique
MacFarlane
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
I have a 
question for the
group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, so hopefully, it will 
generate some
interesting thoughts. 
"How much 
weight should
tradition have, when looking at roles, where to cut, etc., especially in 
Militia
Regiments?" There are some Units that have very old, and proud 
histories, and
though numbers on paper may not look good now, I am sure there is some 
vaguely
measurable value, when push comes to shove, in having generations of 
traditions,
unit pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just 
know that
reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some of 
these very
old units on the block, especially ones that have been centerpieces in 
their
small communities, for many, many years.
Ubique
MacFarlane
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:58:05 -0500*
Then again, should such tradition be given sufficient weight to counter 
or skew arguments for force structure and distribution, demographics 
and/or proven efficiency and effectiveness at maintaining manning and 
training levels?
Admittedly these arguments likely encapsulate all the problems with 
restructure to date. And I am sure they are not different from those 
presented during past reorganizations throughout the past hundred years, 
for restructure is neither a new concept nor a new experience for the 
Canadian Army despite what some might infer.
Regardless, to return to your original question, by what parameters do 
we evaluate these traditions?
    Do we simply count Battle Honours?
    Do simultaneous theatre, battle and tactical incident Honours count 
separately?
    Do we include those Battle Honours won by CEF units where the 
perpetuation was only assigned by the Otter Commission in 1919?
    Do we include Battle Honours gained only through amalgamation?
    Do we allow claims of lineage that date from before unit origins as 
stated in Canadian Army Orders?
    Can units which have undergone earlier amalgamations claim all of 
the joint traditions of their predecessors? This alone makes an 
interesting counter-argument, for it proclaims that an amalagamated 
regiment is to be considered a stronger adherent of "tradition" than one 
which has been maintained without amalgamation. Why then, therefore, 
would we not make more such "strong" regiments by further amalgamations?
It‘s certainly not an easy question. And there are no easy answers. Most 
importantly, I believe we must acknowledge that no matter which units 
may be amalgamated or made inactive, it must be in the interests of 
having a remaining structure that is coherent, logical and that meets 
the needs of our nation.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com    
2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: The MacFarlanes‘
  To: Army List
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:24 PM
  Subject: Traditions
  I have a question for the group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, 
so hopefully, it will generate some interesting thoughts.
  "How much weight should tradition have, when looking at roles, where 
to cut, etc., especially in Militia Regiments?" There are some Units 
that have very old, and proud histories, and though numbers on paper may 
not look good now, I am sure there is some vaguely measurable value, 
when push comes to shove, in having generations of traditions, unit 
pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just know 
that reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some 
of these very old units on the block, especially ones that have been 
centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many years.
  Ubique
  MacFarlane
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Then again, should such tradition be 
given
sufficient weight to counter or skew arguments for force structure and
distribution, demographics and/or proven efficiency and effectiveness at 
maintaining manning and training levels?
Admittedly these arguments likely 
encapsulate all
the problems with restructure to date. And I am sure they are not 
different from
those presented during past reorganizations throughout the past hundred 
years,
for restructure is neither a new concept nor a new experience for the 
Canadian
Army despite what some might infer.
Regardless, to return to your original 
question, by
what parameters do we evaluate these traditions?
 Do we simply count 
Battle
Honours?
 Do simultaneous 
theatre, battle
and tactical incident Honours count separately?
 Do we include those 
Battle
Honours won by CEF units where the perpetuation was only assigned by the 
Otter
Commission in 1919?
 Do we include Battle 
Honours
gained only through amalgamation?
 Do we 
allowclaims of
lineage that date from before unit origins as stated in Canadian Army
Orders?
 Can units which have 
undergone
earlier amalgamations claim all of the joint traditions of their 
predecessors?
This alone makes an interesting counter-argument, for it proclaims that 
an
amalagamated regiment is to be considered a stronger adherent of 
"tradition"
than one which has been maintained without amalgamation. Why then, 
therefore,
would we not make more such "strong" regiments by further
amalgamations?
It‘s certainly not an easy question. 
And there are
no easy answers. Most importantly, I believe we must acknowledge that no 
matter
which units may be amalgamated or made inactive, it must be in the 
interests of
having a remaining structure that is coherent, logical and that meets 
the needs
of our nation.
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod. 
com
2001 Canadian Military History
Calendar
  ----- Original Message -----

  From:
  The
  MacFarlanes‘ 
  To: Army
  List 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 
2000 9:24
  PM
  Subject: 
Traditions

  I have a 
question for the
  group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, so hopefully, it will 
generate
  some interesting thoughts. 
  "How much 
weight should
  tradition have, when looking at roles, where to cut, etc., especially 
in
  Militia Regiments?" There are some Units that have very old, and proud 
  histories, and though numbers on paper may not look good now, I am 
sure there
  is some vaguely measurable value, when push comes to shove, in having
  generations of traditions, unit pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong 
survive,
  too bad.." I just know that reductions are disheartening, and it is 
even more
  sad to see some of these very old units on the block, especially ones 
that
  have been centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many
  years.
  Ubique
  MacFarlane
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:57:56 -0500*
I‘ll take the liberty of leaving this whole column together while Ian 
assembles his thoughts as to whether the LER‘s being struck up as "4 
PPCLI" made the PPCLI a stronger unit, or the LER a stronger 
unit...because in my OPINION, neither was the case.  By what I saw, in 
and of my day.
Would it benefit the Total Force, if we were to abandon our "Local 
Regimental" affiliation, and go back to "numbered Battalions", such as 
in the late 19th Century and WWI that would meet the "tradition" 
requirement, wouldn‘t it?
Could we have "Super Battalions" from larger urban areas, such as 
Toronto, Montreal Vancouver etc or even Winnipeg, with outlying 
companies and platoons in say, Thunder Bay, Saskatoon and Regina?  Would 
this promote pride of service, local recognition etc?
Is any community not proud that one of their sons or daughter‘s 
performed well enough to be awarded one of Canada‘s rare decorations for 
service?
The recent column on compelled conscription is really out to lunch.
We must work on our retention problem these service persons we have 
invested so much in in terms of training costs must get...duh..think 
it through..RECOGNITION...if communities recognize the iron on the 
chest, lets issue a few medals...RESPECT..in equipment, uniforms, 
housing and PAY.  If we are to develop a professional force, we must be 
prepared to EDUCATE them this means teaching skills that may be 
marketable, including an out placement agency for those leaving the 
Forces, for any reason.  I we want them to be COMPETITIVE, we, as 
taxpayers, must fund this competitively.
Our historical style of leadership, no matter how much it has changed 
over the past 30-40 years, is likely totally unprepared to have a mass 
of bodies injected to it who do not wish to be there, and for whom there 
is nothing you could trust them to realistically do.  No matter how 
clever, smart, educated or dumb.  If you don‘t have their loyalty coming 
in the door...God help us all!  Talk about a wasteful and silly 
idea...can‘t you just imagine the immediate and final parade of 
professionalism that walk away from unfinished careers when they get an 
unwilling draft forced on them.  What would you expect to happen?
Sixty Thousand Reservists?  Get a life Stockwell!  Break glass only in 
case of war...
Sometimes I just despair...
John
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Mike Oleary
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 11:58 PM
  Subject: Re: Traditions
  Then again, should such tradition be given sufficient weight to 
counter or skew arguments for force structure and distribution, 
demographics and/or proven efficiency and effectiveness at maintaining 
manning and training levels?
  Admittedly these arguments likely encapsulate all the problems with 
restructure to date. And I am sure they are not different from those 
presented during past reorganizations throughout the past hundred years, 
for restructure is neither a new concept nor a new experience for the 
Canadian Army despite what some might infer.
  Regardless, to return to your original question, by what parameters do 
we evaluate these traditions?
      Do we simply count Battle Honours?
      Do simultaneous theatre, battle and tactical incident Honours 
count separately?
      Do we include those Battle Honours won by CEF units where the 
perpetuation was only assigned by the Otter Commission in 1919?
      Do we include Battle Honours gained only through amalgamation?
      Do we allow claims of lineage that date from before unit origins 
as stated in Canadian Army Orders?
      Can units which have undergone earlier amalgamations claim all of 
the joint traditions of their predecessors? This alone makes an 
interesting counter-argument, for it proclaims that an amalagamated 
regiment is to be considered a stronger adherent of "tradition" than one 
which has been maintained without amalgamation. Why then, therefore, 
would we not make more such "strong" regiments by further amalgamations?
  It‘s certainly not an easy question. And there are no easy answers. 
Most importantly, I believe we must acknowledge that no matter which 
units may be amalgamated or made inactive, it must be in the interests 
of having a remaining structure that is coherent, logical and that meets 
the needs of our nation.
  Mike
  The Regimental Rogue
   http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com    
  2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: The MacFarlanes‘
    To: Army List
    Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:24 PM
    Subject: Traditions
    I have a question for the group, and I don‘t even know my own 
opinion, so hopefully, it will generate some interesting thoughts.
    "How much weight should tradition have, when looking at roles, where 
to cut, etc., especially in Militia Regiments?" There are some Units 
that have very old, and proud histories, and though numbers on paper may 
not look good now, I am sure there is some vaguely measurable value, 
when push comes to shove, in having generations of traditions, unit 
pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just know 
that reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some 
of these very old units on the block, especially ones that have been 
centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many years.
    Ubique
    MacFarlane
I‘ll take the liberty of leaving this whole column 
together
while Ian assembles his thoughts as to whether the LER‘s being struck up 
as "4
PPCLI" made the PPCLI a stronger unit, or the LER a stronger 
unit...because in
my OPINION, neither was the case. By what I saw, in and of my
day.
Would it benefit the Total Force, if we were to 
abandon our
"Local Regimental" affiliation, and go back to "numbered Battalions", 
such as in
the late 19th Century and WWI that would meet the "tradition" 
requirement,
wouldn‘t it?
Could we have "Super Battalions" from larger urban 
areas, such
as Toronto, Montreal Vancouver etc or even Winnipeg, with outlying 
companies
and platoons in say, Thunder Bay, Saskatoon and Regina? Would this 
promote
pride of service, local recognition etc?
Is any community not proud that one of their sons or 
daughter‘s performed well enough to be awarded one of Canada‘s rare 
decorations
for service?
The recent column on compelled conscription is 
really out to
lunch.
We must work on our retention problem these service 
persons
we have invested so much in in terms of training costs must 
get...duh..think
it through..RECOGNITION...if communities recognize the iron on the 
chest, lets
issue a few medals...RESPECT..in equipment, uniforms, housing and 
PAY. If
we are to develop a professional force, we must be prepared to EDUCATE 
them
this means teaching skills that may be marketable, including an out 
placement
agency for those leaving the Forces, for any reason. I we want 
them to be
COMPETITIVE, we, as taxpayers, must fund this 
competitively.
Our historical style of leadership, no matter how 
much it has
changed over the past 30-40 years, is likely totally unprepared to have 
a mass
of bodies injected to it who do not wish to be there, and for whom there 
is
nothing you could trust them to realistically do. No matter how 
clever,
smart, educated or dumb. If you don‘t have their loyalty coming in 
the
door...God help us all! Talk about a wasteful and silly 
idea...can‘t you
just imagine the immediate and final parade of professionalism that walk 
away
from unfinished careers when they get an unwilling draft forced on 
them.
What would you expect to happen?
Sixty Thousand Reservists? Get a life 
Stockwell!
Break glass only in case of war...
Sometimes I just despair...
John
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  Mike
  Oleary 
  To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 
2000 11:58
  PM
  Subject: Re: Traditions

  Then again, should such tradition be 
given
  sufficient weight to counter or skew arguments for force structure and 
  distribution, demographics and/or proven efficiency and effectiveness 
at
  maintaining manning and training levels?

  Admittedly these arguments likely 
encapsulate all
  the problems with restructure to date. And I am sure they are not 
different
  from those presented during past reorganizations throughout the past 
hundred
  years, for restructure is neither a new concept nor a new experience 
for the
  Canadian Army despite what some might infer.

  Regardless, to return to your 
original question,
  by what parameters do we evaluate these traditions?

   Do we simply count 
Battle
  Honours?
   Do simultaneous 
theatre,
  battle and tactical incident Honours count separately?
   Do we include 
those Battle
  Honours won by CEF units where the perpetuation was only assigned by 
the Otter
  Commission in 1919?
   Do we include 
Battle Honours
  gained only through amalgamation?

   Do we 
allowclaims of
  lineage that date from before unit origins as stated in Canadian Army
  Orders?

   Can units which 
have undergone
  earlier amalgamations claim all of the joint traditions of their 
predecessors?
  This alone makes an interesting counter-argument, for it proclaims 
that an
  amalagamated regiment is to be considered a stronger adherent of 
"tradition"
  than one which has been maintained without amalgamation. Why then, 
therefore,
  would we not make more such "strong" regiments by further
  amalgamations?

  It‘s certainly not an easy question. 
And there
  are no easy answers. Most importantly, I believe we must acknowledge 
that no
  matter which units may be amalgamated or made inactive, it must be in 
the
  interests of having a remaining structure that is coherent, logical 
and that
  meets the needs of our nation.

  Mike

  The Regimental Rogue
   http://regimentalrogue.tripod. 
com

  2001 Canadian Military History
  Calendar


    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From:
    The
    MacFarlanes‘ 
    To: Army List 
    Sent: Wednesday, November 
15, 2000
    9:24 PM
    Subject: 
Traditions

    I have a 
question for the
    group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, so hopefully, it will 
generate
    some interesting thoughts. 
    "How much 
weight should
    tradition have, when looking at roles, where to cut, etc., 
especially in
    Militia Regiments?" There are some Units that have very old, and 
proud
    histories, and though numbers on paper may not look good now, I am 
sure
    there is some vaguely measurable value, when push comes to shove, in 
having
    generations of traditions, unit pride, etc. Or is it "Only the 
strong
    survive, too bad.." I just know that reductions are disheartening, 
and it is
    even more sad to see some of these very old units on the block, 
especially
    ones that have been centerpieces in their small communities, for 
many, many
    years.
    Ubique
    MacFarlane
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:16:44 -0700*
I agree with most of what John Gow has to say. I have a nagging fear
that if "super battalions" are created if by amalgamation of several
smaller battalions then it is only a matter of time until we only have
"small battalions". Here, I‘m speaking from the heart, not from the
paper, as I understand the economies of scale argument. I think that the
concept reduces healthy competition.
I am a little reluctant to wash regimental laundry in public about one
of my two former infy units in the PRes. Oh well. First of all it‘s
NOT "the LERs". While that may role off the tongue easier, the official
written abbreviation is LEdmnR. I‘ve always felt that using LER in
writing was the practice of some lazy, slack-assed stores clerk.
However, once in a while I too have been lazy this way. Damn. But I
digress.
I joined The Loyal Edmonton Regiment 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia‘s
Light Infantry in 1959. We had been renamed in 1954. The vets were and
still are outraged as they fought in two world wars in the same brigade
as the PPs and without any doubt were just as good as the PPs when real
bullets were heading their way. "We" also practically formed 2PPCLI for
service in Korea. In the era 1959-65 we then in the LEdmnR were
DELIGHTED that we were part of the Patricia family. At one point in the
early 60s BOTH COs of the Regular Force PPs were former, WW2, officers
of the LEdmnR and were friends with our last two WW2 officers in our
unit who were our COs in that later time. As one of the PPs bns was
stationed in Edmonton the other in W. Germany we received excellent
assistance. Since then the marriage has fallen apart, to the point
where, whenever possible, the supernumerary title 4PPCLI is not even
used. I have correspondence filed at National Archives written by the
infamous MGen Chris Volkes early 1954, as OC Western Command, wherein
he attempted to rename the LEdmnR to 3PPCLILEdmnR. He didn‘t quite
have his way and if he did there would have been a riot, not just a
quarrel, fray or mutiny.
Today the LEdmnR officially "shares" Lady Patricia Braebourne, The Right
Honourable Countess Mountbatten of Burma, CD, JP, DL as
Commander-in-Chief but the PPs have their own Colonel of the Regiment
and the LEdmnR have their own HCol and HLCol.
I‘m not quite willing to concede that the only role for the PRes is
augmentation of the Reg Force and if that is the case then perhaps all
the PRes is is just a glorified Manning Depot. BTW, there is a strong
rumour perhaps more than a rumour that the LEdmnR will form a full coy
for rotation next year in Bosnia. Doubtless will require its own
augmentation from other PRes units in the west, as the current effective
strength of the LEdmnR, while the highest in Western Canada at 175 not
counting Band is still small we were 350-375 circa 1960. And again,
that coy will still be a sub unit of someone else.
I have to assume that the parent/child relationship works for 4RCR and
the PRes bns of the R22eR, but then none of them have much in the way of
recent WW2 battle honours. And one of the R22eR PRes bns managed to
pull out of the forced union soon after it was promulgated. I just don‘t
see why it is necessary/practical to effect such union.
The ONLY roll of the Permanent Force 1920-39 was to support the
Non-Permanents and it seemed to have worked OK, given the extremely lean
budgets of the times. It will for you know whoms to argue that that
was then and this is now, so I am only pointing out a difference in
attitude born of a different set of priorities. No Yugo, etc then.
Super battaions with "out coys/pls" in smaller locations? If units are
going to stay small, then why not cut some of the fat out by making the
COs the rank of Major, as is done still, I believe, help me out
someone with the SaskD in Moose Jaw, SK. BTW, what is the total annual
pay of one PRes Class A LCol, drawing his 35-38 days, compared with a
RSSO Captain or Major? Other than the current RSSO of the PLFus, MOST of
them aren‘t worth a damn, and haven‘t been in 25 years since they
started that practice. I once thought they were all supposed to rebadge
when they transferred-in? Is that the case today?
As far as 60,000 in the PRes: would probably take 10 years to build up
to without harm. Perhaps that should be an aim. One thing DND could do
is stop giving the recruiting ad campaign to Liberal hack PR companies.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:01:49 -0700*
Great comments, all. I guess I wasn‘t thinking amalgamation as much as 
evaporation. Amalgamation, redesignation, etc., isn‘t scary to me at 
all. I guess my Unit‘s 100 year plus community presence, disappearing 
without a trace, was what I had in mind, when posing the question. Not 
my Unit specifically, but as an example. I think its kind of like 
extinction, or perhaps evolution, where, once all that history 
disappears, its gone forever. Interestingly,  my Battery, or the Regt of 
which it was part, was re-designated as infantry during WW II. I can‘t 
recall the details - some of the others on the list may remember - I 
think 1st Light Ack Ack, became part of Argyll  Sutherland. I‘ll check 
it out. Great discussion, though. Thanks
Ubique
MacF
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
Great 
comments, all. I
guess I wasn‘t thinking amalgamation as much as evaporation. 
Amalgamation,
redesignation, etc., isn‘t scary to me at all. I guess my Unit‘s 100 
year plus
community presence, disappearing without a trace, was what I had in 
mind, when
posing the question. Not my Unit specifically, but as an example. I 
think its
kind of like extinction, or perhaps evolution, where, once all that 
history
disappears, its gone forever. Interestingly, my Battery, or the 
Regt of
which it was part, was re-designated as infantry during WW II. I can‘t 
recall
the details - some of the others on the list may remember - I think 1st 
Light
Ack Ack, became part of Argyll amp Sutherland. I‘ll check it out. 
Great
discussion, though. Thanks
Ubique
MacF
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"CSM Dan Sebby" <webmaster@militarymuseum.org>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:17:38 -0800*
Has Canada considered doing what Australia did in in the 1960‘s with 
it‘s militia regiments?  The took the the various infantry battalions 
and amalgamated them into a single regiment per state yes, they call 
them states  For instance, the 30th Infantry Battalion New South Wales 
Scottish Regiment became the 30th Battalion, The Royal NSW Regiment.  
They maintained their traditions under the new designation.  When the 
Australian Army started to Australiianize the uniforms  in the last 
decade, the Army went to great lengths to link units to the history and 
insignia of the 1st and 2nd Australian Imperial Forces.
The British Army certainly has done this too. 
Also, if regiments were converted to combat support regiment, rather 
than disbanded, the lineage, honors and tradiions  could be maintained.  
Again, the British do this as well as US Army National Guard units 
who‘s lineage and honors are based on the unit‘s location, not it‘s 
designation as is the case of the Regular Army or Army Reserve.
Canada could do the sames with battalions and companies maintaining the 
lineage and tradition of the traditional units.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: The MacFarlanes‘
  To: Army List
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 6:24 PM
  Subject: Traditions
  I have a question for the group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, 
so hopefully, it will generate some interesting thoughts.
  "How much weight should tradition have, when looking at roles, where 
to cut, etc., especially in Militia Regiments?" There are some Units 
that have very old, and proud histories, and though numbers on paper may 
not look good now, I am sure there is some vaguely measurable value, 
when push comes to shove, in having generations of traditions, unit 
pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just know 
that reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some 
of these very old units on the block, especially ones that have been 
centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many years.
  Ubique
  MacFarlane
Has Canada considered doing what Australia did in in 
the
1960‘s with it‘s militia regiments? The took the the various 
infantry
battalions and amalgamated them into a single regiment per state yes, 
they call
them states For instance, the 30th Infantry Battalion New South 
Wales
Scottish Regiment became the 30th Battalion, The Royal NSW 
Regiment. They
maintained their traditions under the new designation. When the 
Australian
Army started to Australiianize the uniforms in the last decade, 
the Army
went to great lengths to link units to the history and insignia of the 
1st and
2nd Australian Imperial Forces.
The British Army certainly has done this too.
Also, if regiments were converted to combat support 
regiment,
rather than disbanded, the lineage, honors and tradiions could be
maintained. Again, the British do this as well as US 
ArmyNational
Guard units who‘s lineage and honors are based on the unit‘s location, 
not it‘s
designation as is the case of the Regular Army or Army 
Reserve.
Canada could do the sames with battalions and 
companies
maintaining the lineage and tradition of the traditional 
units.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From:
  The
  MacFarlanes‘ 
  To: Army List 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 
2000 6:24
  PM
  Subject: Traditions

  I have a 
question for the
  group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, so hopefully, it will 
generate
  some interesting thoughts. 
  "How much 
weight should
  tradition have, when looking at roles, where to cut, etc., especially 
in
  Militia Regiments?" There are some Units that have very old, and proud 
  histories, and though numbers on paper may not look good now, I am 
sure there
  is some vaguely measurable value, when push comes to shove, in having
  generations of traditions, unit pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong 
survive,
  too bad.." I just know that reductions are disheartening, and it is 
even more
  sad to see some of these very old units on the block, especially ones 
that
  have been centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many
  years.
  Ubique
  MacFarlane
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:09:54 -0500*
----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Edwards 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 1:16 AM
Subject: Re: Traditions
> I agree with most of what John Gow has to say. I have a nagging fear
> that if "super battalions" are created if by amalgamation of several
> smaller battalions then it is only a matter of time until we only have
> "small battalions". Here, I‘m speaking from the heart, not from the
> paper, as I understand the economies of scale argument. I think that the
> concept reduces healthy competition.
> snip
> I‘m not quite willing to concede that the only role for the PRes is
> augmentation of the Reg Force and if that is the case then perhaps all
> the PRes is is just a glorified Manning Depot. >snip I have to assume that the parent/child relationship works for 4RCR and
> the PRes bns of the R22eR, but then none of them have much in the way of
> recent WW2 battle honours. And one of the R22eR PRes bns managed to
> pull out of the forced union soon after it was promulgated. I just don‘t
> see why it is necessary/practical to effect such union.
When I was in London I never really noticed a great interdependecy between 1
and 4 RCR. Although strongly tied to one another through The Regiment, each
seemed to conduct its own affairs. This may well be personality and time
dependent.
> The ONLY roll of the Permanent Force 1920-39 was to support the
> Non-Permanents and it seemed to have worked OK, given the extremely lean
> budgets of the times. >snip Super battaions with "out coys/pls" in smaller locations? If units are
> going to stay small, then why not cut some of the fat out by making the
> COs the rank of Major, as is done still, I believe, help me out
> someone with the SaskD in Moose Jaw, SK. BTW, what is the total annual
> pay of one PRes Class A LCol, drawing his 35-38 days, compared with a
> RSSO Captain or Major? Other than the current RSSO of the PLFus, MOST of
> them aren‘t worth a damn, and haven‘t been in 25 years since they
> started that practice. I once thought they were all supposed to rebadge
> when they transferred-in? Is that the case today?
Trimming the command and control slice to match force numbers is certainly
an option. There would need to be some careful consideration to maintain
sufficient pers to cover off the necessary coordination and secondary duties
that just do not go away when you trim establishments. Trimming a LCol has
the corollary effect on redcing the number of subordinate Majs, Capts,
Sgt-Majs, etc., so the savings i.e., funds available to be reverted to
soldiers‘ pay are greater than simply reducing one LCol to a Maj.
We haven‘t rebadged Inf RSS yet Reg F COs and DCOs posted in do change
accoutrements. I have heard that the Prince Edward Island Regiment RSS has
rebadged on the request of their new Reg F CO. And my original Fusilier cap
badge and collar dogs are ready.   
Mike
The Regimental Rogue
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com 
2001 Canadian Military History Calendar
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:47:03 -0800*
I think the QRO posted on the WWW include the latest pay increases tables are
dated 05 Oct 2000.  The accumulated pay of a Class A LCol, assuming 60 days
paraded for year and a 3-year appointment, would be $35859.60.  This does not
include PILL "vacation pay", and assumes the CO is promoted on appointment
ie. starts at the lowest pay scale.  For a Maj, the bill would be $30,982.80.
The difference of $4876.80 average $1625.60 per year would be the equivalent
of 48 funded days for planning purposes the rate used in my neck of the woods
is $101.00.  So over 3 years, we could save just a little more than a month‘s
salary for a Reg F Capt with 2 years‘ prior service as Capt or lay on one extra
half-day per year for 32 people.
As implied by Mike, the net savings would most likely be slightly larger due to
a commensurate decrease in rank levels all around, which would also push down
the daily rate planning figure.
Two observations which I always have when this discussion arises:
1 What exactly is "fair wage" for the person charged with stewardship of a
reserve unit?
2 There is so much variation in unit size that I don‘t see how a Maj appointed
CO of a minor unit is necessarily doing less work or carrying less
responsibility than a LCol of a major unit.  They typically have all the same
headaches with which to deal.  I suppose they should either all be LCol or all
be Maj.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:57:27 -0800*
I have heard very little details about the reserve expansion plans.  While
it is a glorious dream, I can‘t see how it would be implemented.
The economy is going quite strong, lots of job opportunities are out there.
How will we entice 40  thousand people to suddenly join as reservists.  Is
there a vast waiting list now, to join the reserves???????????
In these politically correct days, how will we train that many people,
without proven methods of induction.  One of the reasons i joined the
forces, was the pride i would feel in accomplishing something.  Knowing that
not everyone had the "Stones" to make it through all the various levels of
training.
Do todays recruits get that lifechanging feeling at the end of thier basic,
you know that "superman/woman" feel?
I do remember a "whitepaper" that came out during the Mulrooney years,
promising many things for the forces.  I was very disappointed with how it
turned out.  i can‘t help but be sceptical about Mr. Day‘s promises to that
effect.
I hope he is not just getting everyone‘s hopes up again!!!!1
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
I have
heard very little details about the reserve expansion plans. While 
it is a
glorious dream, I can‘t see how it would be implemented.
The
economy is going quite strong, lots of job opportunities are out 
there.
How will we entice 40  thousand people to suddenly join as 
reservists. Is
there a vast waiting list now, to join the
reserves???????????
In
these politically correct days, how will we train that many people, 
without
proven methods of induction. One of the reasons i joined the 
forces, was
the pride i would feel in accomplishing something. Knowing that 
not
everyone had the "Stones" to make it through all the various levels of
training.
Do
todays recruits get that lifechanging feeling at the end of thier basic, 
you
know that "superman/woman" feel?
I do
remember a "whitepaper" that came out during the Mulrooney years, 
promising many
things for the forces. I was very disappointed with how it turned
out. i can‘t help but be sceptical about Mr. Day‘s promises to 
that
effect.
I hope
he is not just getting everyone‘s hopes up
again!!!!1
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:00:42 -0500*
snip
> > Super battaions with "out coys/pls" in smaller locations? If units are
> > going to stay small, then why not cut some of the fat out by making the
> > COs the rank of Major, as is done still, I believe, help me out
> > someone with the SaskD in Moose Jaw, SK. BTW, what is the total annual
> > pay of one PRes Class A LCol, drawing his 35-38 days, compared with a
> > RSSO Captain or Major? Other than the current RSSO of the PLFus, MOST of
> > them aren‘t worth a damn, and haven‘t been in 25 years since they
> > started that practice. I once thought they were all supposed to rebadge
> > when they transferred-in? Is that the case today?
>
> Trimming the command and control slice to match force numbers is certainly
> an option. There would need to be some careful consideration to maintain
> sufficient pers to cover off the necessary coordination and secondary
duties
> that just do not go away when you trim establishments. Trimming a LCol has
> the corollary effect on redcing the number of subordinate Majs, Capts,
> Sgt-Majs, etc., so the savings i.e., funds available to be reverted to
> soldiers‘ pay are greater than simply reducing one LCol to a Maj.
>
.snip
Gentlemen, I believe the above to be negative thinking, of the "eat your
young" variety.
BTW, Sask D‘s are indeed a squadron, commanded by a Major, and in and of my
time they were a damned fine group.  Their problems included that once you
asceded to either MWO or Major, you had three years and you were, basiclly,
"out".  You weren‘t a LCol, so you could never be offered another command
without completely re-badging and retraining.  The MWO‘s tended to stay
longer, but even so, they worked hard to graduate soldiers to Sr NCO‘s, and
wanted those guys to have a chance at the big-name job...and professional
suiide was the only way out.  ie it was written in stone that you‘d never
be  Chief  Mind, its typically a little easier to rebadge as an MWO, but
today, you‘d be on for a complete summer‘s retraining, so for all but those
MWO‘s who are independently wealthy, or unemployed and unmarried, thats no
option.
Further, the smaller the unit‘s manning level was, the harder it was to
evolve good people.  If you "downsize" an independent
squadron/compan/battery to platoon level, you have a staff of ONE officer.
How do you decide on who that would be?  Popular ballot by the troops?
I do not know good hard facts on the size and/or cost of bureaucratic fat in
DND today, ie to suggest they cut this but its pretty obvious that they
are up against the wall financially...you cannot pay the men with the money
required for equipment, ammo, food, etc.
So it comes back to that hard point that the government must, very quickly,
decide what the role of the CF is, and have the CF‘s accountants explain
what this must cost.
Then the country will just have to pay it.
The Ice Storm, Sagunay River and Red River showed that there is a domestic
need for an Armed Force on hand.  I don‘t know if it is commonly appreciated
what would have happened if that Ice Storm had hit starting maybe 150-200
miles further west, and carried on to Montreal...what if, simultaeneously,
Hamilton, Toronto and Mississauga were likewise paralyzed?
While world peacekeeping is an onerous cost and burden, most especially to
those that must do it up front, I don‘t see the Canadian public backing away
from the challenge of doing it they would, and could, be asked to pay a few
dollars more towards it.  I do not understand where a Federal government
would find it hard to make this point, and divert some of their whopping
surplus with this in mind, to DND where it is so badly needed.
However, carving off our left foot today, so we have meat for dinner
tomorrow is not a good answer.  It is a fact of life that Sergeants will
make a lot less than Majors, who will likewise make less than Colonels.  Its
time for the taxpayer to pony up.
John
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:21:17 -0700*
I concur.
> dave wrote:
> 
> I have heard very little details about the reserve expansion plans.
> While it is a glorious dream, I can‘t see how it would be
> implemented.
> The economy is going quite strong, lots of job opportunities are out
> there.  How will we entice 40  thousand people to suddenly join as
> reservists.  Is there a vast waiting list now, to join the
> reserves???????????
> In these politically correct days, how will we train that many people,
> without proven methods of induction.  One of the reasons i joined the
> forces, was the pride i would feel in accomplishing something.
> Knowing that not everyone had the "Stones" to make it through all the
> various levels of training.
> Do todays recruits get that lifechanging feeling at the end of thier
> basic, you know that "superman/woman" feel?
> I do remember a "whitepaper" that came out during the Mulrooney years,
> promising many things for the forces.  I was very disappointed with
> how it turned out.  i can‘t help but be sceptical about Mr. Day‘s
> promises to that effect.
> I hope he is not just getting everyone‘s hopes up again!!!!1
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Mathew Snoddon" <msnoddon@hotmail.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:21:00 EST*
In theory I think the idea of reducing ranks to save cash is a great idea.  
It‘s definitely been discussed more than once in our mess.  Here in Montreal 
we have 6 infantry regiments and one not that far away 6R22eR.  It would 
be great to amalgamate the regiments into two bn 1 eng, 1 fr and do some 
real training.  Each regiment could keep its traditions within its company.  
Being in the reserves the only time most of us get to do combined ops is on 
a callout.  It would be nice to do a full scale company attack for once.  
Not to mention we would also have two armoured squadrons, an engineer 
regiment and an artillery regiment to work with.  Not many units have that 
kind of support so near to them, yet we never use it okay, apart from 
concentration.  HOWEVER, I don‘t have any confidence that the government 
would actually take the money it has saved and throw it back at us.  In the 
end we would be selling our past for a future that would likely never come.  
Companies would be combined for ‘training purposes‘ and slowly the 
traditions would be lost.  Granted, new ones would form, but a lot can be 
said for relying on history to motivate troops.
Matt S
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at 
 http://profiles.msn.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:07:43 -0500*
Matt, I‘m sorry, but I have to ask...a disturbing question.."what rank and
age are you?"
I understand you thoughts, perhaps better than you think, as you express
them.
But Geez, you can only eat the system down to the bone so far, and there is
simply no more.
As a business manager waiting for the coals of fire to come from Ian in
Alberta, the accountant there comes a point at which its put up or shut up
directed to the politicos, not the serving members
The longer and higher you stay and serve, the harder it will be to accept,
that if you are a qualified WO, for instance, with demonstrable ability to
do that job, after a year or two, why are you wearing stripes?  Went
through this myself...
Likewise, if you are a Captain, qualified Major, or demonstrably good enough
to do the job as good, or perhaps better than others with that rank or
higher why can you not get either the course or the promotion?
This model, obviously, ends as you make either MWO or Major...
In my own, no doubt perverted and unacceptable opinion, a CWO is an MWO who
is selected amongst his peers, to be "paired" with an LCol subsequent
LCol‘s have their choice of him to retain or release...and, if they
arensmart, to divert to his strengths to further the Forces.
Its a little fuzzier at Officer levels, I think never having been one in
the military, but my civvy job gives me the notion...you might be the best
available "Major of the Moment" that we could expend at this time, in the
interest of developing as good, or better Majors or LCol‘s in the
future...and you will be terminated at Battalion Commander level, but
CERTAINLY that‘s no shame is it?
Not even suggesting that your Bn CO or SrNCM‘s are in ANY way
"weak"...there‘s a budget, and all Command Levels would no doubt extend
their arms and BLEED to do, as you suggest, sub-unit live training, etc.
So I‘ll ask...would YOU, or your buddies, do it for FREE?  For how long?
Under what circumstances?  Under live fire?  Want to pay for the gas, the
rations, the ammo?  Of course not... so try to accept, its a national
financial question/problem.
The people of Canada have to decide what we should do with people like you.
You have my vote.
With the Very Best of Respects
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mathew Snoddon" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: Traditions
> In theory I think the idea of reducing ranks to save cash is a great idea.
> It‘s definitely been discussed more than once in our mess.  Here in
Montreal
> we have 6 infantry regiments and one not that far away 6R22eR.  It would
> be great to amalgamate the regiments into two bn 1 eng, 1 fr and do some
> real training.  Each regiment could keep its traditions within its
company.
> Being in the reserves the only time most of us get to do combined ops is
on
> a callout.  It would be nice to do a full scale company attack for once.
> Not to mention we would also have two armoured squadrons, an engineer
> regiment and an artillery regiment to work with.  Not many units have that
> kind of support so near to them, yet we never use it okay, apart from
> concentration.  HOWEVER, I don‘t have any confidence that the government
> would actually take the money it has saved and throw it back at us.  In
the
> end we would be selling our past for a future that would likely never
come.
> Companies would be combined for ‘training purposes‘ and slowly the
> traditions would be lost.  Granted, new ones would form, but a lot can be
> said for relying on history to motivate troops.
>
> Matt S
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
>  http://profiles.msn.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Kevin Knight" <kknight@nunanet.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:01:32 -0500*
  At the end of the day we have to ask if the hoary old regimental 
traditions should be a sticking point when it comes to maximum "bang for 
the buck" in the Militia.  While many regiments have old and proud 
histories, that are not viable in the current context.  I could give 
examples, but I will refrain to spare anyone out there the hurt 
feelings.
  Lets look at this in a historical context:
  The Gordon Highlanders had an old and proud history, as did the 
Camerons, as did the Seaforths but at the end of the day practicality 
won out over the more emotional arguments.  I think it would be 
difficult to argue that there is any less of a sense of regimental pride 
in The Highlanders
  Even in Canada units with proud regimental traditions and histories 
have been amalgamated eg.  The North Nova Scotia Highlanders, The Pictou 
Highlanders and the Cape Breton Highlanders To form the Nova Scotia 
Highlanders, the Carleton  York Regt with the North Shore Regt. to 
form the Royal New Brunswick Regt.  amongst others.
  Speaking as some one who has served in two such regiments the Calgary 
Highlanders and the Princess Louise Fusiliers. I can honestly say that 
excercising with a full battalion in the field more than once a year, 
would come first to me than the color of my puttee‘s.  Im just getting 
sick of the whole "1 Platoon with conduct a delibrate attack on hill 123 
as a part of the notional company commander‘s plan to sieze Scottie Dog 
Wood in support of our notional battalions plan to....in order to allow 
the notional brigade to advance on Blissville.  I appoligize for the 
lack of GQ Gagetown Quotient but it‘s been 3 years.
  That being said I do think the regimental system is the way to go.  
One proposal which until now never left the Halifax Garrison Junior 
Ranks was to have 9 different regiments of 1 battalion each and several 
militia battalions which would be full strength.  Another solution 
would be to arbitrarily decide to amalgamate chose infantry regiments 
In reality the numbers aren‘t there to justify more than 1 regt in each 
province, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, Lock the CO‘s. 
RSM‘s and Honoraries in a room together and don‘t feed them or let them 
out until they‘d figured out which traditions were keepers and which 
ones would fall to the wayside.
  ----- Original Message -----
    From: The MacFarlanes‘
    To: Army List
    Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:24 PM
    Subject: Traditions
    I have a question for the group, and I don‘t even know my own 
opinion, so hopefully, it will generate some interesting thoughts. 
    "How much weight should tradition have, when looking at roles, where 
to cut, etc., especially in Militia Regiments?" There are some Units 
that have very old, and proud histories, and though numbers on paper may 
not look good now, I am sure there is some vaguely measurable value, 
when push comes to shove, in having generations of traditions, unit 
pride, etc. Or is it "Only the strong survive, too bad.." I just know 
that reductions are disheartening, and it is even more sad to see some 
of these very old units on the block, especially ones that have been 
centerpieces in their small communities, for many, many years.
    Ubique
    MacFarlane
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
  At the end of the day we have to ask if the hoary 
old
  regimental traditions should be a sticking point when it comes to 
maximum
  "bang for the buck" in the Militia. While many regiments have 
old and
  proud histories, that are not viable in the current context. I 
could
  give examples, but I will refrain to spare anyone out there the hurt
  feelings.

  Lets look at this in a historical 
context:

  The Gordon Highlanders had an old and proud 
history, as did
  the Camerons, as did the Seaforths but at the end of the day 
practicality won
  out over the more emotional arguments. I think it would be 
difficult to
  argue that there is any less of a sense of regimental pride in The
  Highlanders

  Even in Canada units with proud regimental 
traditions and
  histories have been amalgamated eg. The North Nova Scotia 
Highlanders,
  The Pictou Highlanders and the Cape Breton Highlanders To form the 
Nova
  Scotia Highlanders, the Carleton amp York Regt with the North Shore 
  Regt.to form the Royal New Brunswick Regt. amongst
  others.

  Speaking as some one who has served in two such 
regiments
  the Calgary Highlanders and the Princess Louise Fusiliers. I can 
honestly
  say that excercising with a full battalion in the field more than 
once a
  year, would come first to me than the color of my puttee‘s. Im 
just
  getting sick of the whole "1 Platoon with conduct a delibrate attack 
on hill
  123 as a part of the notional company commander‘s plan to sieze 
Scottie Dog
  Wood in support of our notional battalions plan to....in order to 
allow the
  notional brigade to advance on Blissville. I appoligize for the 
lack of
  GQ Gagetown Quotient but it‘s been 3 years.

  That being said I do think the regimental system 
is the way
  to go. One proposal which until now never left the Halifax 
Garrison
  Junior Ranks was to have 9 different regiments of 1 battalion each 
and
  several militia battalions which would be full strength. 
Another
  solution would be to arbitrarily decide to amalgamate chose infantry 
regiments
  In reality the numbers aren‘t there to justify more than 1 regt in 
each
  province, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, Lock the CO‘s. 
RSM‘s and
  Honoraries in a room together and don‘t feed them or let them out 
until they‘d
  figured out which traditions were keepers and which ones would fall to 
the
  wayside.

  ----- Original Message ----- 

    From:
    The
    MacFarlanes‘ 
    To: Army
    List 
    Sent: Wednesday, November 
15, 2000
    9:24 PM
    Subject: 
Traditions

    I have a 
question for the
    group, and I don‘t even know my own opinion, so hopefully, it will 
generate
    some interesting thoughts. 
    "How much 
weight should
    tradition have, when looking at roles, where to cut, etc., 
especially in
    Militia Regiments?" There are some Units that have very old, and 
proud
    histories, and though numbers on paper may not look good now, I am 
sure
    there is some vaguely measurable value, when push comes to shove, in 
having
    generations of traditions, unit pride, etc. Or is it "Only the 
strong
    survive, too bad.." I just know that reductions are disheartening, 
and it is
    even more sad to see some of these very old units on the block, 
especially
    ones that have been centerpieces in their small communities, for 
many, many
    years.
    Ubique
    MacFarlane
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Donald Schepens" <a.schepens@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:26:02 -0700*
I hate to say it John, but any CO or RSM does a lot of what we do for free.
Its hard to quantify the extras that you have to put in to make a unit work.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Gow 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: Traditions
> Matt, I‘m sorry, but I have to ask...a disturbing question.."what rank and
> age are you?"
>
> I understand you thoughts, perhaps better than you think, as you express
> them.
>
> But Geez, you can only eat the system down to the bone so far, and there
is
> simply no more.
>
> As a business manager waiting for the coals of fire to come from Ian in
> Alberta, the accountant there comes a point at which its put up or shut
up
> directed to the politicos, not the serving members
>
> The longer and higher you stay and serve, the harder it will be to accept,
> that if you are a qualified WO, for instance, with demonstrable ability to
> do that job, after a year or two, why are you wearing stripes?  Went
> through this myself...
>
> Likewise, if you are a Captain, qualified Major, or demonstrably good
enough
> to do the job as good, or perhaps better than others with that rank or
> higher why can you not get either the course or the promotion?
>
> This model, obviously, ends as you make either MWO or Major...
>
> In my own, no doubt perverted and unacceptable opinion, a CWO is an MWO
who
> is selected amongst his peers, to be "paired" with an LCol subsequent
> LCol‘s have their choice of him to retain or release...and, if they
> arensmart, to divert to his strengths to further the Forces.
>
> Its a little fuzzier at Officer levels, I think never having been one in
> the military, but my civvy job gives me the notion...you might be the
best
> available "Major of the Moment" that we could expend at this time, in the
> interest of developing as good, or better Majors or LCol‘s in the
> future...and you will be terminated at Battalion Commander level, but
> CERTAINLY that‘s no shame is it?
>
> Not even suggesting that your Bn CO or SrNCM‘s are in ANY way
> "weak"...there‘s a budget, and all Command Levels would no doubt extend
> their arms and BLEED to do, as you suggest, sub-unit live training, etc.
>
> So I‘ll ask...would YOU, or your buddies, do it for FREE?  For how long?
> Under what circumstances?  Under live fire?  Want to pay for the gas, the
> rations, the ammo?  Of course not... so try to accept, its a national
> financial question/problem.
>
> The people of Canada have to decide what we should do with people like
you.
>
> You have my vote.
>
> With the Very Best of Respects
>
> John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mathew Snoddon" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Traditions
>
>
> > In theory I think the idea of reducing ranks to save cash is a great
idea.
> > It‘s definitely been discussed more than once in our mess.  Here in
> Montreal
> > we have 6 infantry regiments and one not that far away 6R22eR.  It
would
> > be great to amalgamate the regiments into two bn 1 eng, 1 fr and do
some
> > real training.  Each regiment could keep its traditions within its
> company.
> > Being in the reserves the only time most of us get to do combined ops is
> on
> > a callout.  It would be nice to do a full scale company attack for once.
> > Not to mention we would also have two armoured squadrons, an engineer
> > regiment and an artillery regiment to work with.  Not many units have
that
> > kind of support so near to them, yet we never use it okay, apart from
> > concentration.  HOWEVER, I don‘t have any confidence that the
government
> > would actually take the money it has saved and throw it back at us.  In
> the
> > end we would be selling our past for a future that would likely never
> come.
> > Companies would be combined for ‘training purposes‘ and slowly the
> > traditions would be lost.  Granted, new ones would form, but a lot can
be
> > said for relying on history to motivate troops.
> >
> > Matt S
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
 http://www.hotmail.com. 
> >
> > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> >  http://profiles.msn.com. 
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:06:55 -0500*
Hi Don
I was honestly trying to get that point across to a man who is trying to
make a point we already understand.
Enough paychecks given to men that had nothing, when I had a job...well, I
don‘t need to go on, you know the circumstances, and me as well...and, damn
it all, we shared our number of CO‘s and RSM‘s, some of which were not that
bad, at least...
So tell me, did I not put it out on occaision, at least?  You did...and
succeeded splendidly and rightly...
Mark you, Matt these are old types talking...you need to put in a couple
decades to get there...
John Where‘s my Geritol?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Donald Schepens" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: Traditions
> I hate to say it John, but any CO or RSM does a lot of what we do for
free.
> Its hard to quantify the extras that you have to put in to make a unit
work.
>
> Don
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gow 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Traditions
>
>
> > Matt, I‘m sorry, but I have to ask...a disturbing question.."what rank
and
> > age are you?"
> >
> > I understand you thoughts, perhaps better than you think, as you express
> > them.
> >
> > But Geez, you can only eat the system down to the bone so far, and there
> is
> > simply no more.
> >
> > As a business manager waiting for the coals of fire to come from Ian in
> > Alberta, the accountant there comes a point at which its put up or
shut
> up
> > directed to the politicos, not the serving members
> >
> > The longer and higher you stay and serve, the harder it will be to
accept,
> > that if you are a qualified WO, for instance, with demonstrable ability
to
> > do that job, after a year or two, why are you wearing stripes?  Went
> > through this myself...
> >
> > Likewise, if you are a Captain, qualified Major, or demonstrably good
> enough
> > to do the job as good, or perhaps better than others with that rank or
> > higher why can you not get either the course or the promotion?
> >
> > This model, obviously, ends as you make either MWO or Major...
> >
> > In my own, no doubt perverted and unacceptable opinion, a CWO is an MWO
> who
> > is selected amongst his peers, to be "paired" with an LCol subsequent
> > LCol‘s have their choice of him to retain or release...and, if they
> > arensmart, to divert to his strengths to further the Forces.
> >
> > Its a little fuzzier at Officer levels, I think never having been one
in
> > the military, but my civvy job gives me the notion...you might be the
> best
> > available "Major of the Moment" that we could expend at this time, in
the
> > interest of developing as good, or better Majors or LCol‘s in the
> > future...and you will be terminated at Battalion Commander level, but
> > CERTAINLY that‘s no shame is it?
> >
> > Not even suggesting that your Bn CO or SrNCM‘s are in ANY way
> > "weak"...there‘s a budget, and all Command Levels would no doubt extend
> > their arms and BLEED to do, as you suggest, sub-unit live training, etc.
> >
> > So I‘ll ask...would YOU, or your buddies, do it for FREE?  For how long?
> > Under what circumstances?  Under live fire?  Want to pay for the gas,
the
> > rations, the ammo?  Of course not... so try to accept, its a national
> > financial question/problem.
> >
> > The people of Canada have to decide what we should do with people like
> you.
> >
> > You have my vote.
> >
> > With the Very Best of Respects
> >
> > John
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mathew Snoddon" 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:21 PM
> > Subject: Re: Traditions
> >
> >
> > > In theory I think the idea of reducing ranks to save cash is a great
> idea.
> > > It‘s definitely been discussed more than once in our mess.  Here in
> > Montreal
> > > we have 6 infantry regiments and one not that far away 6R22eR.  It
> would
> > > be great to amalgamate the regiments into two bn 1 eng, 1 fr and do
> some
> > > real training.  Each regiment could keep its traditions within its
> > company.
> > > Being in the reserves the only time most of us get to do combined ops
is
> > on
> > > a callout.  It would be nice to do a full scale company attack for
once.
> > > Not to mention we would also have two armoured squadrons, an engineer
> > > regiment and an artillery regiment to work with.  Not many units have
> that
> > > kind of support so near to them, yet we never use it okay, apart from
> > > concentration.  HOWEVER, I don‘t have any confidence that the
> government
> > > would actually take the money it has saved and throw it back at us.
In
> > the
> > > end we would be selling our past for a future that would likely never
> > come.
> > > Companies would be combined for ‘training purposes‘ and slowly the
> > > traditions would be lost.  Granted, new ones would form, but a lot can
> be
> > > said for relying on history to motivate troops.
> > >
> > > Matt S
> > >
> _________________________________________________________________________
> > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
>  http://www.hotmail.com. 
> > >
> > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > >  http://profiles.msn.com. 
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:47:06 -0800*
Just as a point to ponder, considering the topic.
Wouldn‘t it be better training, for an Officer, if he were in command of a
large company, rather than a small Battalion?  A Major, in command of a full
strengthor as close as we can getCompany, would be better employed, than a
LCol with a small Battalion.
Have a reserve regt. perpetuated by a comp. sized formation.  Still
retaining the name and honors of the former unit.  Organized and funded as a
company, it should be more efficient to run.
Perhaps this would allow the formation of units in smaller urban
centers???????
I think It would be terrible, if the proud Regiments of Canada, are allowed
to disappear.  They represent the history of our country, and must be
allowed to thrive.  I think the cost of maintaining thier identities will
never be too high, and should be gladly borne by our taxpayers.
Just a view points that I would like feedback on........
CHIMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Donald Schepens" <a.schepens@home.com>* on *Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:27:04 -0700*
John, its not necessaily directed at you, but maybe at other people who
don‘t know waht really happens at the senior levels in Reserve units.  I
know that I didn‘t untill I got there.  When I first became CO, I logged my
unpaid time.  I don‘t think its changed much.  In addition to the paid
parades I put in an average of 2 hours a day, seven days a week on something
to do with the unit or members of the unit.
I also think that the person who was trying to figurs out what COs actually
are paid was somewhat off.  Reserve general service LCols make between
approximately $200 and $210 per day.  Average paid days, the last
information I saw, was 70 days per year not including call outs.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Gow 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: Traditions
> Hi Don
>
> I was honestly trying to get that point across to a man who is trying to
> make a point we already understand.
>
> Enough paychecks given to men that had nothing, when I had a job...well, I
> don‘t need to go on, you know the circumstances, and me as well...and,
damn
> it all, we shared our number of CO‘s and RSM‘s, some of which were not
that
> bad, at least...
>
> So tell me, did I not put it out on occaision, at least?  You did...and
> succeeded splendidly and rightly...
>
> Mark you, Matt these are old types talking...you need to put in a couple
> decades to get there...
>
> John Where‘s my Geritol?
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donald Schepens" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 11:26 PM
> Subject: Re: Traditions
>
>
> > I hate to say it John, but any CO or RSM does a lot of what we do for
> free.
> > Its hard to quantify the extras that you have to put in to make a unit
> work.
> >
> > Don
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Gow 
> > To: 
> > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 9:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Traditions
> >
> >
> > > Matt, I‘m sorry, but I have to ask...a disturbing question.."what rank
> and
> > > age are you?"
> > >
> > > I understand you thoughts, perhaps better than you think, as you
express
> > > them.
> > >
> > > But Geez, you can only eat the system down to the bone so far, and
there
> > is
> > > simply no more.
> > >
> > > As a business manager waiting for the coals of fire to come from Ian
in
> > > Alberta, the accountant there comes a point at which its put up or
> shut
> > up
> > > directed to the politicos, not the serving members
> > >
> > > The longer and higher you stay and serve, the harder it will be to
> accept,
> > > that if you are a qualified WO, for instance, with demonstrable
ability
> to
> > > do that job, after a year or two, why are you wearing stripes?  Went
> > > through this myself...
> > >
> > > Likewise, if you are a Captain, qualified Major, or demonstrably good
> > enough
> > > to do the job as good, or perhaps better than others with that rank
or
> > > higher why can you not get either the course or the promotion?
> > >
> > > This model, obviously, ends as you make either MWO or Major...
> > >
> > > In my own, no doubt perverted and unacceptable opinion, a CWO is an
MWO
> > who
> > > is selected amongst his peers, to be "paired" with an LCol subsequent
> > > LCol‘s have their choice of him to retain or release...and, if they
> > > arensmart, to divert to his strengths to further the Forces.
> > >
> > > Its a little fuzzier at Officer levels, I think never having been one
> in
> > > the military, but my civvy job gives me the notion...you might be the
> > best
> > > available "Major of the Moment" that we could expend at this time, in
> the
> > > interest of developing as good, or better Majors or LCol‘s in the
> > > future...and you will be terminated at Battalion Commander level, but
> > > CERTAINLY that‘s no shame is it?
> > >
> > > Not even suggesting that your Bn CO or SrNCM‘s are in ANY way
> > > "weak"...there‘s a budget, and all Command Levels would no doubt
extend
> > > their arms and BLEED to do, as you suggest, sub-unit live training,
etc.
> > >
> > > So I‘ll ask...would YOU, or your buddies, do it for FREE?  For how
long?
> > > Under what circumstances?  Under live fire?  Want to pay for the gas,
> the
> > > rations, the ammo?  Of course not... so try to accept, its a national
> > > financial question/problem.
> > >
> > > The people of Canada have to decide what we should do with people like
> > you.
> > >
> > > You have my vote.
> > >
> > > With the Very Best of Respects
> > >
> > > John
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Mathew Snoddon" 
> > > To: 
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 10:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Traditions
> > >
> > >
> > > > In theory I think the idea of reducing ranks to save cash is a great
> > idea.
> > > > It‘s definitely been discussed more than once in our mess.  Here in
> > > Montreal
> > > > we have 6 infantry regiments and one not that far away 6R22eR.  It
> > would
> > > > be great to amalgamate the regiments into two bn 1 eng, 1 fr and
do
> > some
> > > > real training.  Each regiment could keep its traditions within its
> > > company.
> > > > Being in the reserves the only time most of us get to do combined
ops
> is
> > > on
> > > > a callout.  It would be nice to do a full scale company attack for
> once.
> > > > Not to mention we would also have two armoured squadrons, an
engineer
> > > > regiment and an artillery regiment to work with.  Not many units
have
> > that
> > > > kind of support so near to them, yet we never use it okay, apart
from
> > > > concentration.  HOWEVER, I don‘t have any confidence that the
> > government
> > > > would actually take the money it has saved and throw it back at us.
> In
> > > the
> > > > end we would be selling our past for a future that would likely
never
> > > come.
> > > > Companies would be combined for ‘training purposes‘ and slowly the
> > > > traditions would be lost.  Granted, new ones would form, but a lot
can
> > be
> > > > said for relying on history to motivate troops.
> > > >
> > > > Matt S
> > > >
> >
_________________________________________________________________________
> > > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> >  http://www.hotmail.com. 
> > > >
> > > > Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
> > > >  http://profiles.msn.com. 
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > > message body.
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------
> > > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > > message body.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

