# RG-31 ideal for the PRes?



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Eland said:
			
		

> . In my estimation, the RG31 would be near-perfect for army reserve infantry, armour and artillery units, because it could operate as an APC, recce vehicle, mini-CP, signals vehicle, gun tractor and liaison vehicle all rolled into one, without requiring you to create expensive variants to fulfill each of the roles. The big bonus is that the RG31's armour would let such units operate in conditions where the more traditional soft-skinned vehicles typically employed in these roles could not.
> 
> At a million bucks a crack, the price can't be beat.



 :   Why buy the reserves anything with a price tag like that?  Reserve units are not deployed and cannot man even sub unit strength for deployments beyond the odd angry shot (Cyprus w/ SnowGoose Roto 59, Bosnia w/ Paladium Roto 11 and 12)  Those basically bankrupted the reserve system to provide the manpower.

Too me that is pissing away dollars that could be used to fund the operational Army, of which some reservists chose to be a part of...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Dec 2005)

I agree with Kevin on this one.   I think that available dollars would be better spent on just supplying the Reserves with a fleet of good, solid, soft-skinned tactical and logistic vehicles with good cross-country mobility and an ability to mount heavy weapons.   Good enuff for domestic training, suitable for some overseas deployments (rapid reaction types) but more importantly readily available for domestic crises.   A small fleet of RG-31s, or Bisons or other easily learned APCs for training and domestic ops would also be in order.   You can buy 10 soft-skin vehicles for the price of one RG-31, 20 to 30 for a LAV.

Something is better than nothing.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Dec 2005)

> Reserve units are not deployed and cannot man even sub unit strength for deployments



Chicken and egg. Why show up for training and talk the job up to your friends ( a prime source of new recruits) when all your kit is older than you, falling apart, and there's no replacement in sight?

Taking eg Cougar away from the Reserves hurt recruiting and retention in a big way.

Give the Reserves some modern kit - not necessarily the best of the best, but something cool - and watch unit strength shoot way up.

DG


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2005)

DG - I sympathise -- but only AFTER operational units are equipt.

I feel for all the reservists that have shitty equiptment and train in a unreal way for somethign they are not properly trained or equipped for.   However it is not chicken and egg at all, we have no method of effectively mobilizing reserves and as such any equiptment they are given will only benifit the operations side of the Army but 5% (those PRes pers who deploy with regular units).  So it is a 95% loss other than cool toys to talk to people about.  The unfortunate solution to not wasting 95% is to have long drawn out selection/training period for the PRes to deploy as they have a sharp learning curve to train on all the kit (but then so do the Regs as most kit is operational use / training only).  Until DND restructures the reserves in an operational effective manner and comes up with some way of manadating trainign and protecting their jobs I would prefer not to see a penny more given to the PRes.



> Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bloggins,
> 
> Your little Johnny was killed by an IED today, we had to send him out in a vehicle that was not up to standard, but we sent all the new armoured vehicles to the Reserves so they could improve recruiting and score with more girls.
> LCol Blimp




Harshly sarcastic - but let it sink in.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

See what 50 years of enjoying the "PEACE DIVIDEND" has done.  The Defence Budget has consistently been cut back, with the Reserves being the first to loose.  Way back, before my time, the Reserves had Shermans, then budget cuts came into effect and the Reserves got a new role as "Civil Defence" and trained to evacuate people from buildings and such.  Then they got back into being soldiers, but with low end kit.  Today's equipment isn't cheap and even the Regular Force can't get enough to equip itself completely.  Operational Units have the priority.

To make the Reserves more viable, we will have to look at the US.  Their Reserve Units are a lot different than ours.  They are in Iraq fighting as Units.  Our system is not set up the same.  The only fix, would be to totally equip the Reserves as the Regular Force.  Can it be done?  How much would that involve?  Lots and lots of cash.  We would have to begin by equipping the Regular Force Units properly first, then work down to the Reserves.  We would have to put more emphasis on the Reserves, training and career wise.  No more two year Cpls and six week BMQs.....all training will have to be to Reg Force Standards.  More time will have to be spent Parading.  Legislation will have to be passed to provide Job Protection.  Wages and Pensions will have to be en-par with the Regular Force.  Reservists will be required to heed the call and go as a Unit on a Tasking or Tour.  No longer will they have the freedom to say "I don't want to go!" on Exercise or Deployment.   They will in actual fact become RESERVE Soldiers. 

How long will it take to make those changes, if ever?  How many Reservists would stay under those conditions?  How many have joined now just for the Social Status or the LCF?  How many employers would tolerate loosing an employee for year long periods?  How many Reservist Families would survive the extra training required?

People are always asking to be shown the "Peace Dividend".  Well it is staring us in the face.  It has demolished our Armed Forces.  Now the Regular Force are hurting as much as the Reserves.

How long can this rant go on...........................


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

As a Hijacking may be taking place here, I have started another thread on the major differences in our Reserves and those of the US.  Mostly questions on whether we need to transform to the American Model:
  
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/37163.0.html


----------



## DG-41 (6 Dec 2005)

Kevin, how about having to tell somebodies' mom, dad, or spouse that their son/daughter/husband/wife was killed when the rusted-out floorboards of their Iltis gave way and dumped them onto the highway, and then nobody could call for help because there wasn't a functional radio in the troop?

Yeah, I agree that deployed troops have priority in most things, but we've been robbing Peter to pay Paul for so long that poor Peter is in danger of dying from exposure and malnutrition.

And from the forecasts that I've been seeing, the Reserves are going to be deploying in numbers larger than ever before. I'm sending two of my guys on tour and another to the Regs; out of a notionally 8 car X 3 pers = 32 pers troop, that's 9%. And the plan is that we'll start sending an all-Reserve recce troop along on each roto starting soon.

I don't have a current number for "% of pers on each roto that are Reserves", but the numbers I have heard bandied about are pretty big - like 50% big (although I cannot vouch for that accuracy)

We're at the point where Peter has nothing more to give, and Paul is being hurt by the quality of pers that Peter is able to provide.

DG


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2005)

DG,

 Money...  

IMHE In the current format reserves can do a better job with soft skins.  Reserve "Armoured" Recce units will never deploy as such - they should (IMHO) be scrapped, or given proper access to Coyote's to run courses on and hopefully train at the 2 car patrol level (pick you best and brightest that will show up...)

 From the sources I have heard from there have been NO reserve augmentees in the 011 trade employed in trade in Recce Sqn's in theatre, nor due to training issues are their any plans.

 BTW - The regs still could not radio for help either  



UNLESS We get a drastic increase (like budget X3) we cannot afford the reserves, and I agree that it is robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Dec 2005)

There is a plan afoot to send a fully-staffed Reserve Recce troop (as in - all pers in the troop are Reserve) on each roto starting soon. That plan is going full-bore ahead. I intend to command one of them, if at all possible.

More Reservists are coming online into rotos. We have to - there just aren't enough Regulars to maintain the operational tempo.

I agree on training us on soft-skins first, especially of there is a certain amount of similarity between the soft and hard veh (as there appears to be between GWagon Recce and RG-31)

DG


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Dec 2005)

As much as I hate to say it, the reserve RG-31 trainer is staring them straight in the face...LSVW.   Sure it's a crappy Italian bread truck, but it's roughly comparable in terms of load-out (2 pers up front (driver and section commander) with the remainder of the section in the back) to the RG-31.   Do a mod to it where you've got a centre bench with troops facing outboard and put a simple pedestal mount for a C6/C9 (for section carrying purposes, ditch the cargo bed tarp so as to not interfere with the MG traverse, or at least roll up the sides safari wagon style) and you have a vehicle the reserve infantry units can practice mounted patrolling from so that if/when they go on deployment, it's an smooth transition to working with the RG-31.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

Matt....
LSVW is the crummy Cdn copy of a relatively decent Italian truck... but I would venture to say that a Dodge Powerwagon, a CUCV, or something of that nature would be "good nuff" for most section training... with benches in the centre and troops facing out... add a turret ring - the soft skin isn't a big deal - so long as the vehicle can go into brush, ford a little bit AND you can practice black out drive a little.

DG brought up the matter of killing the reserve armoured units when the cougars were taken away.... it's more a case of what happened when they took away Cougars AND Iltis at the same time and the Armoured were told to do it like the Infantry. Between the Milcots & the GWagons, Reserve Armd recce units can go thru their drills and maintain their basic skills.

With respect to reserves on Roto... theoretical max of 20%
Haven't a clue of how we're doing right now.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (6 Dec 2005)

Geo,

I threw LSVW out there as it's a vehicle that's already in the system and the reserve units have them.  I am more than aware that it leaves alot to be desired, but it would perform the task as an infantry section carrier for reserve unit training so as to get the guys used to vehicle mounted patrol drills, some driver training, etc. Milcots wouldn't be too suitable due to non-offroad clauses in the maintenance agreements with GM, etc. and CUCV isn't in the system any longer.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

Yeah... then again... I don't see too many LSVWs out there anyway.
Some Sigs vans, some ambulances but pretty much all LFQA units lost their LSVW vehicles years ago.... where they went? Search me.

So, from a local point of view - they're gonna have to rustle together something else and the best / cheapest bang for the buck you could ask for is for a commercial / militarized pickup.


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2005)

I think Cougar with a LAV turret is ideal for reserves.   It is low cost, but develops technical skills that can be used in augmentation.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

unfortunately, a good hunk of them were placed "on loan" and we'd have to fly to Sudan to use em 

You're right the cougar, grizzly and Bison would have all been great reserve trainer.
Hey! weren't they bought as reserve trainers in the 1st place?


----------



## Craig B (8 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> You're right the cougar, grizzly and Bison would have all been great reserve trainer.
> Hey! weren't they bought as reserve trainers in the 1st place?



I remember the MILLAV (Militia Light Armoured Vehicle, now know as Bison) , those things we had for all of 1 year before they disappeared ?

Don't mention MILLAV in mixed company, its a real conversation stopper  ;D

Craig


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> There is a plan afoot to send a fully-staffed Reserve Recce troop (as in - all pers in the troop are Reserve) on each roto starting soon. That plan is going full-bore ahead. I intend to command one of them, if at all possible.
> 
> More Reservists are coming online into rotos. We have to - there just aren't enough Regulars to maintain the operational tempo.



 ???

20% cap currently

 Most are CSS/CIMIC postions which unlike the Cbt arms are overworked.

 With a rotaton schedule like TF106
  1 BN INF, 1 Recce Sqn, 1 Eng Sqn, 1 Arty Bty

We have 9 BN's of INF  so that makes 1 tour in 4.5 years hardly a hardship
Same ratio to the other Cbt Arms units.

As such augmentation is the only required or rationale method -- replacing a scheduled reg unit is DUMB - it would be a BS political decision, and cost more money to place troops that are less trained in position.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2005)

What is illustrative is how some armies have been able to man, equip and train their reserve armies with top of the line kit without breaking the bank, and apparently getting good results as well.

The number one on the list is the United States National Guard and Reserve, which if fielding complete combat and CSS units in Iraq. These units are in the thick of the fight, and certainly perform their jobs "over there". From what I remember, the NG normally trains one or two weekends a month, and has an annual concentration, roughly the same amount of time our reservists spend training as well.

Sweden hasn't gone to war in a long time, but their troops are concripts, and after the end of their terms they are mustered into the reserves. They undergo no continuation training, but do an annual two or three week concentration. Their Leopard 2 tanks, FH 70 cannons and CV-90s are held in warehouse-like bases and maintained by a full time cadre, only to be taken out on EX for the concentration. Most of the air force is maintained by conscripts and reservists as well, but they have no trouble with the Gripon or Viggen jet fighters.

There is no reason the Reserves could not be manned to "real" unit status, kitted with first or second line equipment and tasked to perform as formed units if there was the will to do so from the electorate and government. Reservists fall on the bell curve like any other group of people, and would add a certain depth to the regs because of their varied skill, educational and experiential backgrounds. Starting from such a small foundation and starved of resources as is the case today, it is no surprise the Reserve is unable to do more than they already do.

Should the "will" become manifest, then the title of the thread would indeed be correct, the RG-31 (or comparable vehicles like the ADI Bushmaster) would indeed be ideal for the Reserves, and for a lot of tasks in the Reg force as well (think way outside of the box and picture a "Canadian AirForce Regiment" tasked to protect airfields, for example) that do not fall in the high end of Full Spectrum Ops.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> There is no reason the Reserves could not be manned to "real" unit status, kitted with first or second line equipment and tasked to perform as formed units if there was the will to do so from the electorate and government.



There is a reason in that personal friction is a killer.   What's the point of keeping a tank for reservists if the crew fails to show up because it has final exams?   What is the purpose of having a reserve sub-unit if there is no possible way to ensure that the command and staff gets enough time guaranteed through legislation to ensure it is properly trained?

There is no point in really equipping and organizing reserve units if "individual augmentation" continues to be the primary role of the Reserves.   If Reservists exist as a feeder pool, then put the resources in the regs where they will be utilized best by the Regs and their Reserve cousins who augment a ready unit.   The CRC's were promising, but to date, the use of any reserve augmentation above the individual level seems to be limited to force protection "gate guard" tasks or specialized support roles (CIMIC).   No point adding million dollar RG-31's or command and staff intensive fighting organizations to such structure.

I fully believe Art's bell-curve principle that the average Canadian reservist, if properly trained and employed, could be utilized in such a manner.   American Reserve units, which have more equipment and less "parade" days to use it, prove this.   However, those US units are structured correctly - contracts, mandatory attendance, job protection and tighter relationships and integration with the Active Army (ie: far easier to go between the two).   If the same political imperative isn't given to Canada's Army Reserve, then there is no point in organizing and equipping Reserve units as warfighting organizations.   Save the resources and continue to use them for what they currently are, "farm teams" that maintain basic soldier skills.


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I fully believe Art's bell-curve principle that the average Canadian reservist, if properly trained and employed, could be utilized in such a manner.   American Reserve units, which have more equipment and less "parade" days to use it, prove this.   However, those US units are structured correctly - contracts, mandatory attendance, job protection and tighter relationships and integration with the Active Army (ie: far easier to go between the two).   If the same political imperative isn't given to Canada's Army Reserve, then there is no point in organizing and equipping Reserve units as warfighting organizations.   Save the resources and continue to use them for what they currently are, "farm teams" that maintain basic soldier skills.



+1

  However until that changes I view 90-95% of the reserves money poorly spent.

I fully beleive the typical reserve soldier could be just as good is not better in some areas that his regular force counterpart - given the tools -- however tool #1 is an effective system.


----------



## xFusilier (8 Dec 2005)

> There is a reason in that personal friction is a killer.  What's the point of keeping a tank for reservists if the crew fails to show up because it has final exams?  What is the purpose of having a reserve sub-unit if there is no possible way to ensure that the command and staff gets enough time guaranteed through legislation to ensure it is properly trained?



Then whats the point of spending the money recruiting, and training a crew if you don't have a tank for them to crew?  It sounds pejoritive, I know, but it seems despite policy document after policy document, we are nowheres further to defining what it is we want the reserves to do.  Once that decision is made then the changes that need to be implemented can bemade.  Job protection legislation seems to be the number one stumbling block, however, and I don't see the political will for such legislation coming abot anytime soon.    

If however, you accept the fact that many of the changes that are needed are not going to happen (Contracts, Job Protection, etc) what then is the solution?  Do we simply allow the reserve Army to wilt on the vine?


----------



## Infanteer (8 Dec 2005)

Pretty much.  I wouldn't want to see them expanded beyond their "farm team" role - they can get advanced training if they augment a unit (and thus show that they need and will use the skills).


----------



## xFusilier (8 Dec 2005)

But, to use the sports analogy, nobody says to the farm team, here's a pair of running shoes (olive drab truck) pretend they're a set of skates (an AFV).  The realization has to be made that some amount of investment has to be made in reference to equipment to get the desired product of a "farm team".


----------



## KevinB (8 Dec 2005)

But you dont buy or rent a 20,000 seat stadium for a Farm team either...

 I think you guys are focused too much on your tree than looking at the rest of the forest is not exactly getting a lot of water either...


We had over 50% N/S rifles in a sub-unit in a reg force INF unit before getting the C7A2's  -- now sit back and ponder that.
We have REG FORCE INFANTEERS that have not shot a PWT each year.

  We have troops in Afghan that get kit in theatre - some time a WEEK AFTER they get to theatre that they have never trained on and are expected to deploy and use immediately.

  I had to sit down and spent a week getting a company's weapons zero'd with their IR lasers and NVG's since they did not know how.  (Jay4th, MJP and others can confirm that FACT)
 We had no mags for pistols for a few weeks etc.

 If you want me to cry for a reserve armoured unit that does not have kit its not going to happen for they will never deploy in the manner they think they will -- to bad it would be kind of funny to watch a bunch of loons ride around like clown car all over hells half acre with a C6 bungeed to the window of their jeep Maybe they could prove a route for us.  :  

I'd much sooner spend money to bring reserve engineer units up to par.


----------



## COBRA-6 (8 Dec 2005)

The Reserves don't need RG-31's at a million per pop, we need simple trucks so that we can deploy ourselves in a DomOps situation without relying on yellow school busses.   

Get us un-armoured G-wagons, MLVW replacements and/or new-build HLVW's to use and train on so we can deploy without having to learn to drive new vehicles. We need to focus our training on what we could use overseas. Less company-level defensive live fire ammo orgys, more 2 vehicle urban patrolling, convoys, VCPs, IED cordons, vital point security etc... so when you do it on pre-training it's not a brand new idea...

The Brits here patrol in open land rovers and SUV's, along with many other contingents (something about SA and being able to react to fire), so the reserves don't need LAV's, Coyotes or RG-31's to do realistic training in Canada... I wish we practiced firing from vehicles (SUV) once or twice at home, cause it's gonna suck if I have to do it for the first time on a two-way range! 



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> However until that changes I view 90-95% of the reserves money poorly spent.
> 
> I fully beleive the typical reserve soldier could be just as good is not better in some areas that his regular force counterpart - given the tools -- however tool #1 is an effective system.



Completely agree. How the Generals can justify spending butloads of money on soldiers they can't rely on 100% short of "mobilization" is beond me. Simple solution, you sign up, you sign a contract. They call, you haul. Job protection legislation requires no capital expense. As for employer discrimination, you make it the same as any other discrimination, illegal. Not hiring a soldier cause they might get called up for a tour should be just as wrong as not hiring a woman beacuse she might get pregnant and go on mat leave.


----------



## Spanky (8 Dec 2005)

I've been in the reserves for a long time.  I truly believe in it's existance and it's *potential *contribution.  There is certainly no need for us to have million dollar pieces if kit when the reg force require them on ops.  In a perfect world there should be enough for both, but all know the reality. Choices have to be made based on priority.  The likelihood of a formed sub-sub-unit of reservists being sent on an op to replace a comparable reg force one is not likely to happen unless changes are made to the system.
That being said, I also have a responsibility to the soldiers under my command.  Our sqn is sending 4 soldiers to an operation in the new year, and I want to do the best I can by them.  I want them trained to the best of my ability.  To accomplish that aim, I need the tools.  Don't give us the best of kit when others with a higher priority are lacking.  Give us something cheaper, with fewer bells and whistles that we can use to make the transition from reserve to a "temp reg force" easier.  If that means using LSVWs instead of the new stuff...fine, just give us the LSVW.  If it means using rented civvie pick up trucks.... fine, just give us enough bungii cords to tie the milk crate seats down the center of the bed.  Give us the best *available!*


----------



## geo (8 Dec 2005)

For Res Recce units, am baffled that they did not redistribute the fleet of good Iltis to them along with the new GWagons.... sort of a fleet multiplier - till they all die away. They're bought and paid for - get as much mileage as you can with them.

KevinB. you mention the TF of 1 Inf Bn, Recce & Engr Sqns & Arty Bty... 
they are raising 2 TF at any one time.... so multiply those numbers X2 or half that 4.5 year go round


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Dec 2005)

Geo...I don't think the issue for the reserve recce. units, as it's been explained to me by friends still in, is G-Wagen or Iltis centric.  It's more a problem that relates to things such as not having TCCS in the units, causing skills attrition amongst the troops by not being able to use 'real' equipment (rather than leased morotolas, etc.).  Additionally, they're tied to an organization which when it comes to a TF model, their role is redundant.  

A good friend of mine was doing his Reserve Armoured 6A/Crew Commander course this summer in Gagetown and during opening remarks to the course being made by the Armoured School's Commandant, the Commandant stated that he couldn't understand why anyone would be in the reserve armoured recce. field.  He then elaborated that given the TF model, it is the reg. force infantry recce. platoons that provide the 'mud recce' G-Wagen mounted force.  The current model of deploying a Troop Plus or Squadron Minus of a Coyote based recce. sqn with a reg. force infantry recce. platoon integrated would continue and the reserve recce. wouldn't have a deployable role, other than G-Wagen drivers in support taskings.

I see great utility in the reserves training in some kind of soft-skinned vehicle capable of carrying an infantry section.  There has been alot of complaints made by members of this board about the armoured recce. squadrons losing their assault troops.  Why haven't the reserves been integrated to fill this role?  Again, training for an assault troop tasking could be done via an LSVW/ML.  Not perfect, but cost-effective and allows for smooth transition and integration into a LAV when deployed (although crewing issues may come up, but this is probably nothing that cannot be addressed during the work-up phase).


----------



## geo (8 Dec 2005)

Interesting.
Must say that if the school's commandant is questionning what the "H" everyone is doing there.... there's a big problem!!!!
Time to work on doctrine OR ... time to convert some Armd units into some more Combat Engineers (JK) or some other valuable resource....


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

Or, despite the Commandants suggestion, have the Reserve armoured units focus on the "mud recce" role and other vehicular ops for domestic ops.  Reserve inf have an awful lot on their plates without spending their limited training time on those types of training - Vital Point Defence, Complex Terrain, Close Combat come immediately to mind.

As R23A, Matt and many others have suggested it seems that training and domops don't need large fleets of armoured vehicles and the skills learned can be transferred to an active"armoured" role if the armoured vehicles are just armoured trucks, not AFVs.

A "large" domestic fleet of soft-skinned tactical vehicles with a "small" number of centrally held "hardened" vehicles for training and for domestic support.  Leave the AFVs to support the regs in crisis interventions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2005)

There are really only two criteria for a reserve unit's existence when you consider its role:

1) It mirrors or shadows an existing regular force capability, and the reserve units are sufficiently trained and equipped to be able to augment the regular units after a reasonably short pre-deployment phase.

2) It provides a capability not resident in the regular force:
2a) the capability is expected to be used in the near future, and therefore some - not necessarily all - of the reserve capability must be ready to support the regular force on short notice
2b) the capability is "old war" or "cold war" that we aren't ready to give up completely, and the reserve units only need to be sufficiently trained and equipped to act as a mobilization base.

If the role of a unit doesn't fit; if it simply isn't ever going to be close to useful for augmentation or mobilization within reasonable expenditure; if we have no intention of paying to "sufficiently equip and train it" to meet its purpose - cash it in for something we do need and will use.


----------



## Sandbag (8 Dec 2005)

I just wanted to add my .02 for what it is worth.  No plan exists for the reserves to get the armoured NYALA.  We weren't even given enough money to buy the original forecasted amount for TFA.  Having said that, the reserve Armd Regts are getting the LUVW and will it be the C&R, no.   Why? Because we do not have enough to go to 2 lines of operation and the current kitting of all reg units, CTC, CMTC and others who are in need of it.

Will the LUVW basic variant going to the res armd regts be equipped with radio, sadly no.  Areas have been told that due to this critical shortage, units will have to continue using civilian systems or some other work around.  Why is there a shortage?  More vehicles going into theatre, read Nyala, and other such things which have a priority and operational need for kit.  Couple this with the closing of the assembly line, and guess what...we are lacking equipment again.

Will there be reserve troops geared up to deploy on operations?  It is seriously being considered, and the info from the CO of the Armoured School is out of date.  The Reserves have offered up the capability to Force Generate one troop per unit per line of operation.  This is being studied, as well as reserve engineer augmentation.  When I say studied, the Army wants to do it, if the training standards can be met and the armd and engr troops are viable operational units.

Now will this guarantee deployment?  Of course not, being ready to deploy under the high readiness cycle doesn't mean you will go.  It simply means you are available to go when our country says so.  Life of a soldier, no change.  Just my .02
Sandbag


----------



## Armymedic (11 Dec 2005)

Sorry to stir the pot here...

But why do we have reserve armour recce?

And why would Res armour recce use a Nyala?

(remember, before being a medic, I was armour)


----------



## George Wallace (11 Dec 2005)

Well, before I was Armd, I was Res Armd.  In those days a Mark One Eyeball was all you needed to do Recce.  Now with all the High Tech, even the Regs can't afford to equip themselves.  Doesn't mean though that we can forget the "Basics".


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2005)

> In those days a Mark One Eyeball was all you needed to do Recce.  Now with all the High Tech, even the Regs can't afford to equip themselves.  Doesn't mean though that we can forget the "Basics".



In WW2 Britain was defended by a high tech radar screen to detect incoming aircraft.  Unfortunately the technology of the day demanded that the sites be positioned on the coasts.  Once the aircraft were past the screen their progress was reported over telephones by guys with binoculars and massive "megaphones" that they listened to rather than spoke into.

Mark One Eyeball (and a radio/cell phone) is still all you NEED to do recce.  All the other stuff may help you do it better, day or night, at longer stand-off distances but recce (gathering intelligence) can still be done without all the bells and whistles.

A-Majoor is famous/infamous for insisting that ISTAR is a process not a unit.  Recce is also a process. 

As a civilian operating in a civilian environment I regularly gather intelligence and conduct recces to gain info so as to prepare and support my business plans.

The critical part of training recce types IMHO should not be teaching them how to use the tools and/or toys, but how to conduct recces and figure out what is useful info from what is a waste of time.  How to read situations and how to report them..... the tools, and vehicles, will always change but the procedures for finding, understanding and reporting are pretty unchanging.

A Toyota Corolla, a map and a cell phone allow for recce to be conducted.

Cheers, Rant Off.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2005)

Make that a Toyota Land Cruiser and you get decent cross country performance as well  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2005)

Fair enuff  ;D


----------



## armybuck041 (12 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Most are CSS/CIMIC postions which unlike the Cbt arms are overworked.
> 
> With a rotaton schedule like TF106
> 1 BN INF, 1 Recce Sqn, 1 Eng Sqn, 1 Arty Bty
> ...



I don't nessesarily agree with you on this.....

For TFK Roto 3 my Sqn had more than 40% on waiver. We are slowly getting the TF 3-06 Engr Sqn stood up and i'm pretty sure its gonna be similar.... Our contribution is 1/3rd larger and we still have a half Sqn oversea's. 

Not sure whats going on in the "Chicken Ranch" down the road, but this is about as crazy as its ever been as a Sapper. Lets look back on the last couple of years from my Unit of under 400 pers, keeping in mind we have to disband a Sqn to mount one for Operations:

2003: Palladium Roto 13 = 1 x Fd Sqn, Athena Roto 0 = 1 x Fd Sqn +, and a Sqn on a SOVOP
2004: Reconstitution
2005: Athena Roto 3 = 1 x Fd Sqn, DART = Fd Tp +, Athena Roto 4 = 1 x Fd Sqn
2006: TF 3-06 = 1 x Fd Sqn +
2007: TF *-** = 1 x Fd Sqn +

Nobody is relaxing in lawn chairs around here.......


----------



## KevinB (12 Dec 2005)

Well sorry.

 Where I work there is a 3months in country one month on leave issue.

 The Brits, Australians and Americans I work with have had some pretty horrific deployment schedules that I am not going to be brying a river for the CF -- especially for pers that signed a waiver -- they could have chosen not to do so.


  IMHO Reserve Armoured bring exactly ZERO (0) to the table in terms a capability that the reg force Inf and Armoured recce's cannot do and they offer a small area of (preexisting) overlap at a lesser capability.


----------



## armybuck041 (12 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The Brits, Australians and Americans I work with have had some pretty horrific deployment schedules that I am not going to be brying a river for the CF -- especially for pers that signed a waiver -- they could have chosen not to do so.



I don't wanna go into the weeds on this, but not everyone who is waiver'd, has any choice in the matter short of going to the social worker/padre.

I'm not bitching (I can't deploy on this one because I am 2 years behind in my Career Crses), but it should be known that the pace is very high around here right now. 

As a side note, our LAV III mounted sections will most likely be crewed by Reg Force Armoured Corp Drivers and Gunners.

Lastly, keeping on topic, the RG-31 has no place in the reserves. We (Regs) are very lucky to get them for where they are much needed.... Across the pond.


----------



## DG-41 (12 Dec 2005)

My Regiment had the honour of hosting the D ARMOUR at our Regimental Mess Dinner this weekend.

The plan to send all-Reserve Recce troops on rotos, employed as actual recce troops, is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.

DG


----------



## Armymedic (12 Dec 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.



if I had a looney for every time I heard that....


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.



Infanteer, why were you being so coy about this?   ;D


----------



## geo (12 Dec 2005)

could very well see the Armd Recce drivers, crew commanders & gunners working with the Infantry & the Engineers...
There are plenty of oportunities for foot patrols for the Infantry to carry out in the hills surrounding Kandahar & the Pakistani border... the Infantry & engineers have their hands full.
large areas linked by ribbons of highway offer plenty of oportunities for Light RECCE formations.... you've trained in the field.... go ahead and Lead... by all means - lead the way IMHO.


----------



## KevinB (13 Dec 2005)

DG-41 said:
			
		

> My Regiment had the honour of hosting the D ARMOUR at our Regimental Mess Dinner this weekend.
> 
> The plan to send all-Reserve Recce troops on rotos, employed as actual recce troops, is supported at the highest levels and is moving forward.
> 
> DG



 :

I'd love to hear CLS and CDS's thoughts on this...


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

I wouldn't


----------



## John Nayduk (13 Dec 2005)

One way or another, I'd like to know.  
If we are training to do a job that is not required of us, then it's time to go to a different unit or turn in my kit.  I'm not going to keep lying to my troops and wasting my time training for nothing.


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2005)

The role of Res Armd recce could be to augment the infantry recce (but not to form sub-sub units of thier own).  Eventually, the recce platoons may lack the manpower to provide all the capability desired for a given BG.  However, while not neccisarily able to cover all the tasks of the infantry recce, a 2-3 car reserve patrol could certainly do some and reduce the burden on the infantry recce tms.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Dec 2005)

If that's the case then, why not re-role them as infantry units so that permanent bonds with the infantry recce. community are formed?


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> One way or another, I'd like to know.
> If we are training to do a job that is not required of us, then it's time to go to a different unit or turn in my kit.   I'm not going to keep lying to my troops and wasting my time training for nothing.


Recceguy,
don't think that you guys are out of a job..... not by a long shot

The Infantry Recce guys are best suited for foot recces while you guys are trained for motorised/mech recce drills, tactics & doctrine. If given enough time, your boys can train & team up with the Coyote crews - otherwise, go out & get close...


----------



## Spanky (13 Dec 2005)

Geo, that's what we want to do.  That's what our chain of command is telling us we will be doing.  If our chain of command is wrong, (it wouldn't be the first time), and the observations and opinions of the more respected, senior and experienced posters in this thread are correct, then another recce guy is asking some very valid questions.   :brickwall:


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

New show, new doctrine for a number of branches... some things will take time to get their act together.

Can tell you that the Engr branch was really impressed when they "canned" the Pioneers and gave the Engineers the job without providing the additional hands.
Can we do it - yeah, done it and then some BUT some of our boys are being pulled in a number of different directions at the same time.

Infantry did not really have the concept of "battle captains".... something the Armd developed & specialised in. You guys have a job out there - if you want it.


----------



## John Nayduk (14 Dec 2005)

I have heard rumours of combining all RECCE tasks into one MOC.  Of course they are just rumours and everyone will fight to protect their piece of the pie while trying to grab as much of everyone else's as possible.  Sort of like a Royal Canadian Reconnaissance Corp.  
Of course, this doesn't help the present situation where our guys not going to be deployed to do what they are training for.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2005)

Another Recce Guy said:
			
		

> I have heard rumours of combining all RECCE tasks into one MOC.   Of course they are just rumours and everyone will fight to protect their piece of the pie while trying to grab as much of everyone else's as possible.   Sort of like a Royal Canadian Reconnaissance Corp.
> Of course, this doesn't help the present situation where our guys not going to be deployed to do what they are training for.



That might work if we also rolled things into a combined arms "Cavalry" Corps in place of the Armoured. Then again, I have heard runors that I will either be the next CDS or GG....


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Dec 2005)

GG's Mine I tell you, All Mine.  ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Dec 2005)

Back to the original topic...

CASR approached me to do a 'Modest Proposal' on my opinion that the LSVW may make a workable RG-31 trainer for the reserves.

They broke it into 2-3 stages of development:

Stage 1:  LSVW with centre mounted troop bench and pedestal mount for C-6/C-9.
Stage 2:  LSVW fitted with fibreglass/sheet metal mock up of RG-31 troop compartment
Stage 3:  Training RWS fitted to RG-31 mock up.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-rg31trainer.htm


----------



## geo (19 Dec 2005)

I like it.

Hate the LSVW but this workaround could work with other cargobed trucks
additional benefit would be that placing the spare tire on the side would eliminate the arm breaker spare release lever.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2005)

Matt inadvertently brought yet another example of how stovepiped and mixed up our system has become. 

The RG-31 is (if I remember correctly) built from a modified UNIMOG chassis. When we bought "replacement" LUVWs we ended up purchasing MILCOTS Chevy Silverados and Mercedes "G-Wagons". How much better if the replacement for the LSVW had been the UNIMOG, which would lead to a commonality of parts and training with the RG-31, and of course UNIMOGS kitted out to act as RG-31 simulators would be much more useful and realistic. I wonder if it is too late to start buying UNIMOGS as an in theater prioraty.....

Actually, given the size of the RG-31, the UNIMOG model it is built on would make an excelent MLVW replacement.

Matt's proposal on a UNIMOG:


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The RG-31 is (if I remember correctly) built from a modified UNIMOG chassis.


No the hull is the chassis.  However, the manufacturer did attempt to maximize the use of UNIMOG parts in the Mamba.  I'm not sure it this carried over to the Nyala.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> No the hull is the chassis.   However, the manufacturer did attempt to maximize the use of UNIMOG parts in the Mamba.   I'm not sure it this carried over to the Nyala.



I stand corrected. The point about planning for commonality still stands, though. Buying MILCOTS with their very limited ability to be converted into anything else was expensive and a loss of flexibility. Buying RG-31s in a penny packet for Afghanistan is a short term and expedient solution to be sure, but will be very expensive to sustain in the long run. (Can you imagine having to abandon them in Afghanistan when we end the mission because it is too expensive to support them here?)

If RG-31s were bought in large numbers for the PRES and as support vehicles for the CF, or UNIMOGS were bough in large numbers to act as CSS platforms (*or both*) then we would have a sustainable fleet, large stocks of parts, a pool of trained users and maintainers and the depth of experience to make the most out of these pieces of kit. As it stands right now, the first time most people will ever see them is either in pre training or when they get off the plane, a very short time to get familier, much less add to the stock of corporate knowledge and make things better with new mods or TTPs.


----------



## Gunnerlove (22 Dec 2005)

A a reservist I would rather see 17.5 MILCOTS in the parking lot than 1 armoured vehicle worth 1 million. 

As Gunners we have a close relationship with the reg force Artillery, love us or hate us we do our jobs and do them well.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2005)

What if we gave the reserve armoured the job of crewing Infantry LAV's?

  Given that the 031' typically punch out majority of their crews ina  PCF prior to departing -- I fail to see how a Armoured Reserve unit could not maintain a skill set and max out in DLOC trg -- that woudl give the R011's a role and free of 031's to dismoutn and do foot recce...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2005)

Kevin,

Go see the medic! Your sick man!! Tossing a bone like that the the Reserves?!! and Armored Reserves at that??!!!

Kev, my son, your delerious!!

However, I love your idea to death and think it certainly has merit. Maybe something else that can be looked at seriously. Thanks.


----------



## KevinB (22 Dec 2005)

Beleive it or not I am not a reserve hater -- I just want to find a viable way to employ people to the best of their abilities.

 Anyone can dismount from a LAV - so the lack of LAV training in day to day Bn operatiosn would not kill it.  Plus it would save a lot of budget dollars in not running the LAV 24/7 per sa.  As well 99% of 031's join to be INFANTRYMAN not crewmen.  It woudl help retain a lot of 031's who leave the mech units do to disappointment they could not get into the 3rd BN's.  It would raise the dismounted skills set - and create a better pool for the CSOR as well.

The Reserves would get a modern and viable platform to train and deploy with -- raising their moral (IMHO), deployability and thus utility.  The skills and training from the regular armoured would carry over better as well.  Reserve pers could also be nearly seemlessly intergatred into Coyote (well driver and surv would require add trg).

Thus the 011 trade could monopolize the vehicle crewing throughout the Mech Fleet.


----------



## brihard (12 Jan 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Beleive it or not I am not a reserve hater -- I just want to find a viable way to employ people to the best of their abilities.
> 
> Anyone can dismount from a LAV - so the lack of LAV training in day to day Bn operatiosn would not kill it.  Plus it would save a lot of budget dollars in not running the LAV 24/7 per sa.  As well 99% of 031's join to be INFANTRYMAN not crewmen.  It woudl help retain a lot of 031's who leave the mech units do to disappointment they could not get into the 3rd BN's.  It would raise the dismounted skills set - and create a better pool for the CSOR as well.
> 
> ...



Kevin;

As a possible addendum to this idea, what would be your views of R011s employed in class B positions for varying durations to serve with the reg battallions to crew LAVs for training purposes? I'm nto sure what youre trainign schedule is like- I'm rpesuming taht as it stands each sub unit provides and crews its own LAVs, but for regular training could there not be a platoon or company set of training LAVs crewed by Class B reserves who would circulate throughout the battallion as necessary to conducted mounted training?

As I see it it would free up 031s for fundamentals training instead of being crewers, would preserve the equipment each sub unit has in a better (less used) condition, and could concentrate LAV maintenance tasks into one group of training vehicles, likely having some positive contributions towards maintenance efficiency- and of course, the unit's 'real' LAVs would still be available for collective training or deployment.

And of course at the end of the day it gives some reservists some damned good experience to filter back down to their units- at 85% of the normal regs pay. 

Jsut a thought...


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2006)

I'm out - so dont look at me for current training regime.  
 With managed readiness I think the reg mech BN's are down to Coy of LAV's at the unit.

IF they took the LAV's from the units and gave a Pl worth to a few Armoured Reserve units - they could gain familiarity on them -- saving Class B jobs for R011's at the Manuver Centre when units come to play mechwarrior- 

Thus all 1,2,3 Bn's would be Light and train Light -- only acting as crew for tours that "require" a LAV/VBL contingent.  Fitness and Infantry skills would go up in the 031 units and create a better pool for JTF and CSOR -- and the R011 and thus 011 support would have a viable skill set to employ.


----------



## Armymatters (13 Jan 2006)

I think what should be looked at is what role does our LAV III operate in? Is it more of a IFV or is it more of a APC? There is a big difference between the roles of either. One is designed to carry some infantry around and support that infantry with covering fire, while the other is a battle taxi, where everyone gets out to engage the enemy once contact with the enemy is established. Once we defined the role of the LAV III, everything will fit in. The RG-31 is a excellent patrol vehicle, and will make a great convoy escort vehicle for non-sensitive cargo and escorting the PRT's around. It will be a lot better than the G-wagon's we are currently using, and it is a hell of a lot more durable than the HMMWV for these tasks. However, if that convoy is critical, I would want heavier firepower to escort that load.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2006)

The 25mm on the LAV if overkill for Afghan missions unless the militia forces pull out tanks -- then it is too little anyway.

  The LAV is good for intimidation of local warlords - but thats about it.


----------



## TCBF (13 Jan 2006)

"The Reserves would get a modern and viable platform to train and deploy with -- raising their moral (IMHO), deployability and thus utility.  The skills and training from the regular armoured would carry over better as well.  Reserve pers could also be nearly seemlessly intergatred into Coyote (well driver and surv would require add trg).

Thus the 011 trade could monopolize the vehicle crewing throughout the Mech Fleet."

This has some merit.  It won't happen, because the Infantry Reserves would say "Why not us?".  A lot of Inf don't really want to go to a Light Bn, or be an 'operator' etc, and if we crewed AFVs with Reserve Crewmen, they (Inf) would have issues.  

If you used Regular Crewmen, then someone would cut 1000 LAV crew 031 Infmn PYs from the Inf and give 1000 PYs to the 011 Crmn trade to crew the LAVs, and the purple people eaters in the Career Shops in Ottawa would go "Whoaaaa...."

I think giving the Inf P Res a greater role in the LAV would help, and use the P Res 011 Crmn to rotate through the '1st Cdn Tank Bn' in Wainwright.

But then, I also think we should form the 'Baffin Island Regiment' , and hire starving university students in the spring, give them a YTEP military training, send them up north until June the next year, then on leave and release so they can go back to school having missed a year but in better shape and with more money.  Plus, with lots of tent-in-the-winter arctic stories.

 ;D

Hope things are going well for you on the outside, Kevin.

Tom


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2006)

Tom - the Bn's are way below their PY anyway -- rerolling to strict light would actually add troops as the TOE would have more bayonets.

 Things are good on the outside  ;D  This way I can look in make observations and not be hurt when the CF stuff that is assinine


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Jan 2006)

The Rg-31 does give Canada a vehicle that fits into the gap between the armoured G-wagon and the LAV. The views I hear here are typical of a “culture of survival” that has taken over the forces. This not to knock people, but to remind them that asking for the bare minimum will result in getting less than you barely need. If you ask the present government for 50 vehicles likely you will get 25 as they assume that’s what you figured you need at least. The Forces and the Citizens of Canada need to say the lowest possible amount of gear is no longer acceptable. So yes you need to think bigger and build the push for new equipment for both the Regs and the Reserves. 

The one concept that is lost on Regular force people is that you have to “sell” the Reserves to people, and not having decent equipment makes that impossible. When I joined up the Reserve units had GPMG armed jeeps and a Lynx or access to them. At the very least each squadron needs 6 softskinned G-wagons armed with MG’s and AT weapons. A number of them should receive some sort of wheeled armour, generally the ones near the bases.

If the Crap really hits the fan (Korea, Iran) then we will have to go with whatever you might have. Having the reserves equipped with equipment that can serve overseas in combat means that the military has some sort of “surge” capacity. This is how almost every modern military works around the world, does it have problems yes it does is it perfect no it’s not.

Also the reason the unit cost is so high (beside a certain unnamed party giving out favours) is that we are rush ordering so few of them, at the same time everyone else want the same thing. Do we even have enough armoured G-wagons to replace combat losses without stripping other units? I doubt it. Our forces suffer from a culture of thinking small, we are kind of like the abused spouse, that when the government stops beating you for a day, you say thank you. I know that lots of people try their best, but I think all of us, especially those of us outside the service have to keep the pressure on the politicians.


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2006)

(at least the GWagon is a vehicle in current production and additional units can be had - "if the need arises") but you are correct ColinP - always dealing with minimum quantities will always leave us chasing our tail, always looking to cover deficiencies instead of taking care of business.


----------

