# Rank inflation/appointments/ranking above one's weight (split from CDS promos)



## Pusser (8 Feb 2014)

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> Its an unfortunate reality that for many of the positions the rank of General is expected, if not required, in order for CAF officers to function among our Allies.  Can a Col effectively fill the position in Israel?  Most likely but he/she won't be viewed the same or receive the same level of cooperation, support and respect from others as he/she would as at least a BGen.  I remember having a Col as a Defence Attache at an Embassy for a while and he was virtually ineffective in his job.  Once he was promoted to BGen the doors opened for him and he was able to effectively do his job because he was seen as being more credible by the Host Country's military and the other Defence Attaches who expected the position to be filled by a General.



This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Feb 2014)

Brihard said:
			
		

> "We're going to spend the day... Maaaahching up an' down the SQUARE! That is of course any of you lot have anything you'd... raaaaahther be doing, than maaaahching up and down the square?"



Well the be honest I'd rather be home with the wife and kids!


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.




I take the opposite view.

I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to _value_ people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was ___appintment___ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some ___insert country here___ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely *ordered* more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks _x_, _y_ or _z_ when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a _[rank]_ bossing about a _[rank+1_ and even, once _[rank+2]_; nor did I. One officer _suggested_, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I _invited_ him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.

We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I take the opposite view.
> 
> I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to _value_ people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was ___appintment___ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some ___insert country here___ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely *ordered* more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks _x_, _y_ or _z_ when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a _[rank]_ bossing about a _[rank+1_ and even, once _[rank+2]_; nor did I. One officer _suggested_, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I _invited_ him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.
> 
> We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.



In a similar vein, we can also see this in the NCO ranks.   I am sure even Pusser will admit to having seen or experienced this while working with allied and other foreign militaries.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Well the be honest I'd rather be home with the wife and kids!



Heretic!


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In a similar vein, we can also see this in the NCO ranks.   I am sure even Pusser will admit to having seen or experienced this while working with allied and other foreign militaries.



As can I. I have personally been subject to comparative analysis based on cultural perceptions of what a Sgt Maj does and how much experience and influence a Sgt Maj has.

Canadian NCOs as a whole usually punch far above their weight when held against our allies of similar rank.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Feb 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> As can I. I have personally been subject to comparative analysis based on cultural perceptions of what a Sgt Maj does and how much experience and influence a Sgt Maj has.
> 
> Canadian NCOs as a whole usually punch far above their weight when held against our allies of similar rank.


I remember many years ago receiving a tasking to send a sergeant clerk on a NATO exercise to work in a headquarters - AMF(L) springs to mind, but I'm not sure. After much negotiating we were allowed to send a master corporal, which we still considered excessive. On his return he reported that he had been employed as a typist, and that his fellow augments were all conscripts in their last months of service, and hence had been trained to type and had become sergeants automatically.


----------



## Haggis (8 Feb 2014)

I was RSM of a multinational battalion on a NATO Training exercise last decade.  After helping to arrange the CO's O Gp with our DCO, an Adriatic nation LCol, the DCO said "Sergeant Major, go get coffee for everyone".  After seeing my incredulous facial expression, the DCO was taken aside and counselled on the role of an RSM by his US Army mentor.

I dutifully returned with coffee, but only for the CO and I.


----------



## Pusser (9 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I take the opposite view.
> 
> I have done some, but not a huge amount of multi-national soldiering and there is, indeed, now and again, a tendency to _value_ people by their apparent rank but we, Canadians, were assigned to specific positions and I never had any difficulty in reminding colleagues, foreign and (once or twice) Canadian, that I was ___appintment___ because I was qualified for that job, and my rank, and the ranks of others 'at the table' was not an issue ~ I had a point of view, I was making (recommendations or) decisions and I expected them to be (considered or) executed. I suppose that now and again some ___insert country here___ officers said, in private, "Well, he's a pushy SOB, isn't he?" I didn't care, so long at they did things the way I (recommended or) ordered. I was, once, in the normal, to me, position, of being a principle staff officer who was outranked by almost everyone else. I was the principle staff officer; I acted like it; I routinely *ordered* more senior officers, sometimes quite peremptorily, to do tasks _x_, _y_ or _z_ when I wanted them done and how I wanted them done. The (foreign) commander saw nothing odd in a _[rank]_ bossing about a _[rank+1_ and even, once _[rank+2]_; nor did I. One officer _suggested_, once, that his rank (and age) made him better qualified than I to hold the principle staff position. I _invited_ him to return to his national delegation for reassignment. He got on with his job: doing what I said when I said it.
> 
> We have a problem, in Canada, in my opinion, with over ranking of staff officers. Following the bad examples of some allies is not the right way to get out of a bad patch.



I don't think we're actually in disagreement on this issue.  My point was that Canadians often (at least initially) have difficulty in multi-national environments because we send captains where everyone else sends majors.  It's not a huge problem in that we can usually prove our abilities in quick time, but there is sometimes an initial awkwardness.  

I was lucky on one mission in that I was a SME on a particularly sensitive subject at the time.  Even though I was only a Lt(N) at the time, foreign colonels and generals were eager to hear my recommendations and they acted on them.  In fact, one division commander ordered that nothing was to be done in certain areas without first consulting me.  Other two ringers, however, were essentially ignored and were simply expected to do as they were told.  They were given no opportunity to express an opinion, let alone devise or execute a plan.

In the CF, there can be a huge difference between a senior captain and a junior captain, but they both dress alike.  Often, the only discernible  difference is the jobs they’re given.  In other countries though,  a captain is still considered a very junior officer, perhaps even still under training.  This, combined with cultures where rank is far more important than competence or position, often means that Canadian officers may not garner the respect they deserve in some cases.  I remember being informed by one South American officer that he was obviously more competent than me because he had more rings than I did.  This, despite the fact that each of his promotions was based on seniority.  He knew from the day he graduated from his naval academy on what date all of his promotions would fall all the way up to four rings.  Combining staff officers from countries that run their armed forces this way along with those from countries with merit based systems leads to some interesting situations - like a south Asian brigadier being put in his place by a Canadian major....


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In the CF, there can be a huge difference between a senior captain and a junior captain, but they both dress alike.  Often, the only discernible  difference is the jobs they’re given.



Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2014)

So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.

If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?


----------



## Tibbson (9 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.
> 
> If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?



Personally I don't see it that way.  If the rest of the world wants to do it that way then let them.  In the end it works out to our advantage doesn't it?  If a Canadian Colonel can do the job that the rest of the world sends BGens for....then we send a BGen who is, by extension, able to do the work of a MBen in the rest of the world.  By doing that our BGen performs even better then expected and as a result positions us even better in the eyes of our allies.  Its a win/win.


----------



## Pusser (9 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....



I agree with you wholeheartedly on this.


----------



## Pusser (9 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.
> 
> If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?



I certainly never said that.  Personally, I think this situation is more indicative of what is wrong with other countries' armed forces than what is wrong with ours.


----------



## Ralph (9 Feb 2014)

American coy OCs are usually captains. I'm not sure which side of the argument that supports.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, if I understand the thought process:  All the other militaries do this, so we should too.
> 
> If that's a mindset we won't tolerate in a five year old, why do we let it infest our senior "leadership"?



From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :

Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;

Camp 2 - the (insert country or army here) do it like this - we should too no matter how stupid it is;

Camp 3 - we need to find the best solutions to our problems no matter what everyone else is doing. If we copy what (insert country or army here) is doing and it works for us so be it. If it doesn't it needs to be tossed out.


----------



## McG (9 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....


And merit based promotions to the rank of Capt.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :
> 
> Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;
> 
> ...



In the bad old days Camp 2 always won if (insert country or army here) was the Brits, no matter if the policy or procedure was designed for a much different country, society and army.


----------



## Haggis (10 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> From what I have seen in 30 + years is three different camps :
> 
> Camp 1 - we must be distinctly Canadian no matter how ridiculous it is;
> 
> ...



I like to believe that I live in Camp 3.  However, I have been forcibly dragged to Camps 1 and 2 on occasion and didn't enjoy my time there.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I like to believe that I live in Camp 3.  However, I have been forcibly dragged to Camps 1 and 2 on occasion and didn't enjoy my time there.



Same here. Camp 3 uses common sense.......rather than inferiority complexes and penis envy to solve problems. 



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In the bad old days Camp 2 always won if (insert country or army here) was the Brits, no matter if the policy or procedure was designed for a much different country, society and army.



While there is much to admire about the Brit and the Americans, I don't think we need to slavishly copy them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Feb 2014)

As far as my own, personal, experience is concerned: we were (and I believe you, serving members, still are) always mired in Camp 2. Only the country changed from the UK to the US.

The fact was that neither model served us well. 
     
      The Brits had (maybe still have) a better ~ far better in my, personal, opinion ~ C2 model, but almost everything else, especially the _socialization_ model, was unsuitable.
     
      The Americans have - my opinion, again - a poor C2 model. Their socialization model might be better now, but when I served (60s, 70s, 80s and 90s) it was, mostly, a failure.

I worked in the C2 _system_ business for a (blessedly short) while back in the late 1970s. My lasting impression was that our, Canadian, view was the opinion of the senior officer present at any moment, and that opinion was "_informed_" by his (they were all men in those days) most recent visit to Brussels, London or Washington and was totally unencumbered by anything like research or thought.​
There are, in my view, a handful of *principles* that can and should guide C2. One of them is understanding the role and functions of command and staff. I'm not sure most of you, the CF, from Gen Lawson down to OS ____ in the recruit school, do understand that. At least that's my impression based on the actions and opinions of many (most?) of the people in the upper levels of the CF, in so far as I can see and hear them.

One principle I, personally, regard as important is *clarity*. I think the C2 system, especially the chain of command and the _system_ of control must be absolutely clear and unambiguous ~ especially in a real crisis when people are tired, frightened and confused. Clarity often equates to simplicity and we should know that simple things are, usually, robust things and robust things (and systems) work best in war.

One way to ensure clarity is to make sure that everyone knows who gives the orders (commanders) and who does the _management of resources_ (the staff). The simplest way to understand that is by rank. We all understand ranks. Higher rank = authority and responsibility. So, if the division commander, let's say, is a two star and his brigade commanders are colonels then I would argue that the divisional staff should always, without exception, ever, be outranked by the brigade commanders ~ so that there is no possibility, ever, of any confusion about who commands. That means that the principle staff officers in a Div HQ must be LCols (or even lower). (If you think the COS Ops and COS Adm&Log at Div HQ should be Cols (and I do) then I would (and do) argue that the brigade commanders ought to be BGens.) If the principle commandrrs of commands in the CF are VAdms/LGens then the principle staff officers in NDHQ ~ the guys and gals who plan and _manage_ CF combat operations ~ ought to be RAdms/MGens. I think we have failed the clarity (simplicity) test - everywhere.


Edit to add: "most of" I'm sure, I know for a fact, that _some_ people do understand that but I am equally certain that many, too many, do not.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2014)

Contributing nothing but bitchin'.....



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Same here. Camp 3 uses common sense.......rather than inferiority complexes and penis envy to solve problems.


Sadly, I don't live in Camp 3; I used to think I could see it just down the lane, but I'm increasingly thinking that distant shimmering was just a mirage.

In _my_ Camp, B-Vehicles are parked because of support 'issues,' boots & mukluks are problematic, it's better for Infantry soldiers to divide the day between hangar cleaning / classrooms of non-warfighting powerpoints than to waste that day on a PWT range, exercise planners must include the Base Fire Chief in Ex Development, Safety directives stating "soldiers with weapons cannot smoke because the gun-oil could ignite," ......but hey, we've got pips & crowns on order, Chinese-made 1812 pins, sign-painters are having a field day appending "Royal" and "Divisional" to everything.....so apparently things are good.

Mind you, the guys on the other side of Camp keep getting told things like "your fixed-wing SAR aircraft is enroute....along with the Sea King replacement," and "tie-up to the jetty,  but send _x_-number of sailors across to that other ship."  
Those tribes seems upset about things like that.  :dunno:


Edit: on proofreading, I see I mentioned nothing relating to the thread's title, so......there are some places within my Camp, that groups of 50-60 soldiers require a LCol, 3-4 Maj, a CWO and 2-3 MWOs for provide adequate leadership.  Those troops must be _awesomely_ well-led.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2014)

In my unit(s) we have one LCol, two majors, three Captains, a few OCdts, one CWO, One MWO (on ED&T due to health issues.....the poor bugger has cancer) two WOs for about 230-250 troops, of whom just over 100 parade.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2014)

Is that for both units sharing the Armouries?  I know of one armoury that is shared by two units and has a parallel HQ for both units, including RSS staff.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2014)

Both units are tactically grouped under one CO and one RSM.





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is that for both units sharing the Armouries?  I know of one armoury that is shared by two units and has a parallel HQ for both units, including RSS staff.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In my unit(s) we have one LCol, two majors, three Captains, a few OCdts, one CWO, One MWO (on ED&T due to health issues.....the poor bugger has cancer) two WOs for about 230-250 troops, of whom just over 100 parade.



A bit harsh putting an MWO on Extra Drill & Training, isn't it?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Feb 2014)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> A bit harsh putting an MWO on Extra Drill & Training, isn't it?


ED&T = Exempt Drill and Training

Figured I would peek around and drop that in with the hopes that your post wasn't sarcastic.  50/50 shot  ;D


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2014)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> ED&T = Exempt Drill and Training
> 
> Figured I would peek around and drop that in with the hopes that your post wasn't sarcastic.  50/50 shot  ;D



Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it_ could_ happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts 

(...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im   :nod:  )


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (10 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it_ could_ happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts
> 
> (...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im   :nod:  )


That's why I threw the caveat in there.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it_ could_ happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts
> 
> (...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im   :nod:  )



I refuse to answer under advice of council, as to do so might tend to incriminate me.


----------



## McG (10 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Both units are tactically grouped under one CO and one RSM.


Does that mean the other CO and RSM do not exist?  I have heard of tactically grouped reserve units where both RHQ still exist and take turns (alternating years) as the controlling HQ.  I would like to think that is not the case.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Does that mean the other CO and RSM do not exist?  I have heard of tactically grouped reserve units where both RHQ still exist and take turns (alternating years) as the controlling HQ.  I would like to think that is not the case.



The  CO is a Cameron Highlander and the RSM is a Rifle. The next CO in all likelihood will be a Cameron and the next RSM will probably be a Rifle.

There are no Rifle LCols or Cameron CWOs. Our issue in the west is recruiting and retaining the good ones.


----------



## Haggis (11 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The  CO is a Cameron Highlander and the RSM is a Rifle. The next CO in all likelihood will be a Cameron and the next RSM will probably be a Rifle.
> 
> There are no Rifle LCols or Cameron CWOs. Our issue in the west is recruiting and retaining the good ones.



The "R" in RSM stands for "Recycled".  I know several CWOs who are on their second and third RSM tours with different units.  It has become increasingly difficult to force generate Infantry CWOs (and MWOs).  There are a lot of capable and competent WOs and MWOs but due to the scarcity of DP3B, DP4 and SLP vacancies in the Army Reserve, we cannot get them the qualification courses required to advance.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Feb 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The "R" in RSM stands for "Recycled".  I know several CWOs who are on their second and third RSM tours with different units.  It has become increasingly difficult to force generate Infantry CWOs (and MWOs).  There are a lot of capable and competent WOs and MWOs but due to the scarcity of DP3B, DP4 and SLP vacancies in the Army Reserve, we cannot get them the qualification courses required to advance.



Agreed. I am on my first tour as RSM. In addition, many of our top performers have very good civilian careers and their civvie employers are sometimes.....reluctant to give our troops the requisite time off to complete their courses.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Feb 2014)

Legally, the Cameron Highlanders are a unit of the Canadian Forces, embodied in the Reserve Force, and allocated to 38 CBG.  The Royal Winnipeg Rifles are a unit of the Canadian Forces, embodied in the Reserve Force, and allocated to 38 CBG.

Right now, the same individuals are appointed to fill the position of CO and RSM in both units.  While I suspect HRMS can't handle one person / two positions, that's the reality on the ground.

So there are establishment positiosn for two command teams; only one set is currently filled.


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

Interesting to see how all this tac grouping is playing out in 38 CBG. I was COS when we put forward the original submissions to LGen Mike Jeffries' Army Reserve restructure process (can't remember the acronym anymore...)

The Gunners (including their Hons) were quite happy to go well beyond tac gp and simply amalgamate into "38 Fd Regt RCA". We put this amalgamation idea forward and not only was it shot back at us like a hot potato by the Army staff with the warning never to speak or write the "A" word again: our Bde Comd of the day also received a rather menacing phone call from a fairly senior person in the lobby group Reserve 2000, dropping all sorts of innuendo (not to say "threats"...) about what would happen if we pursued this heresy. We also wanted to amalgamate our three feeble and struggling Service Battalions: this had general consensus but never happened when I was there.

At the time, there was absolutely no appetite on the part of any of the Infantry either for tac gp or for amalgamation, nor did we ever think there would be: it's interesting to see how the arrangement between the Rifles and the Camerons has developed.

The manning and retention problems you are describing now were already a big struggle for us then, particularly in Thunder Bay where there were too many CF Res organizations of various types for a static/declining population base. SK, except for the SaskD, was not much better.


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.



Agree and disagree. Most of the world's Armies (and the USMC) use a Capt as the commander of a coy/bty/sqn or equivalent. It tends to be only us Commonwealth types who use Majs. I've had US officers tell me that our system is a trainwreck of over-ranking that must produce a huge pile of Majs looking for jobs after they've had sub-unit command. In some former Eastern-bloc armies, rank is not tied that closely to level of command: companies are usually commanded by Capts, and battalions can be commanded by Majs.

That said, having been a company commander on operations, I think that we actually have the better arrangement in terms of the experience and maturity you have in your Coy HQ: a Maj, a fairly experienced Capt  as 2IC, maybe another as OpsO (maybe), a Sgt Maj and an experienced WO as CQMS. I'll grant that's ideal manning but that's the template. On the kinds of semi-autonomous operations which sub-units often find themselves engaged in these days, it's good to have that team, both for ops and to set up and run good sub-unit training.

I do agree that Canadians tend to stack up quite well against other militaries. I'm getting a bit out of date, but I think that we are almost unequalled at the Sgt/WO/Sgt Maj level, and again at the staff-trained Capt. Give me one good staff-trained Canadian Capt and I'll trade you a sack full of Majs and LCols from most of the armies I've come into contact with. (Most--not all). Our Majs and LCols are better than their equivalents in pretty well anybody else's army, and as good as their immediate superiors in a lot of armies. 

Its at Col and above that we start to fall apart when compared to our closest allies. With a few very honourable exceptions, most US and UK GOs I've seen are quite superior to Canadians. Perhaps it comes from having "real" command jobs.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2014)

It was "Land Force Reserve Restructure" or LFRR.

Since then, the Res Svc Bn amalgamations were done nation wide, giving one per Res Bde now.  Of course, Inf, Armd and Arty are sacred, so we can't do the same there.

Reserves 2000 is a band of mathematically challenged blowhards, who don't understand that an Army Reserve of 20K, all ranks, can never support 51 infantry Bns and 18 Armd and 17 Arty and 10 Engr and 10 CSS and 10 Sigs and 5 Int and 10 Bde HQs, and still have any meaningful number of troops below each HQ.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ......5 *6* Int Coys.....


Having an Int Coy in Toronto and an Int Pl in Ottawa only allowed for 1 Major line-serial.....so now they're both Int Coys.

......and don't forget the IA cultists


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Having an Int Coy in Toronto and an Int Pl in Ottawa only allowed for 1 Major line-serial.....so now they're both Int Coys.
> 
> ......and don't forget the IA cultists



Not sure where #6 came from - one per LFA + the pl now a Coy = 6.

But it wouldn't surprise me to see another pop up - sort of like whack a mole.


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Having an Int Coy in Toronto and an Int Pl in Ottawa only allowed for 1 Major line-serial.....so now they're both Int Coys.
> 
> ......and don't forget the IA cultists



Still trying to figure out why "IA" isn't spelled "INT", as most of that (save some direct CIMIC functions) are largely sub-sets of spookdom...and even then you could even argue that CIMIC is spookdom.  There, you could chop one large tree down, take some of the acorns away and revitalize a forest that's already there...

Of course, because that makes sense (at least to this dumb meduck guy  ;D), we do the more expensive opposite, correct?

Edit for spelling/intracranial flatulence


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not sure where #6 came from - one per LFA + the pl now a Coy = 6.
> 
> But it wouldn't surprise me to see another pop up - sort of like whack a mole.



There are only 5:

3 INT Coy in Halifax
4 INT Coy in Montreal and Quebec City/Valcartier
2 INT Coy in Toronto
6 INT Coy in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver
and 
7 INT Coy in Ottawa, which was larger than all the rest when it was 2 INT Platoon (historically a Reserve offshoot from the SSF Int cell, not the Coy in Toronto).


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2014)

Mistakenly included 1 Int Coy in the count.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Feb 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There are only 5:
> 
> 3 INT Coy in Halifax
> 4 INT Coy in Montreal and Quebec City/Valcartier
> ...



Quite the little empire and IA is starting to become one as well


----------



## George Wallace (12 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Quite the little empire and IA is starting to become one as well



There has been quite a trend in the last decade or so to amalgamate some Trades.  Look what they did to the Fin Clks and Admin Clks to give us what we have today in the RMS Clk Trade.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ......and IA is starting to become one as well


And what an empire it is.  When even the LCol who's herding them refers to IA as "the land of the misfit toys," you _know_ they're not getting the pick of the litter.


----------



## medicineman (12 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And what an empire it is.  When even the LCol who's herding them refers to IA as "the land of the misfit toys," you _know_ they're not getting the pick of the litter.



So you're saying that even the spooks don't want them?


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2014)

:dunno:


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...Reserves 2000 is a band of mathematically challenged blowhards, who don't understand that an Army Reserve of 20K, all ranks, can never support 51 infantry Bns and 18 Armd and 17 Arty and 10 Engr and 10 CSS and 10 Sigs and 5 Int and 10 Bde HQs, and still have any meaningful number of troops below each HQ.



Yes: that is a polite term for R2000.  I was sitting in the Comd's office when he took the call from this clown, and I thought he handled it quite well.  When this cretin was finished threatening, the Comd said  "Sir : I speak for the soldiers on the armoury floor. Who do you speak for?". I couldn't hear the answer but I hope it floored him.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It was "Land Force Reserve Restructure" or LFRR.
> 
> Since then, the Res Svc Bn amalgamations were done nation wide, giving one per Res Bde now.  Of course, Inf, Armd and Arty are sacred, so we can't do the same there.
> 
> Reserves 2000 is a band of mathematically challenged blowhards, who don't understand that an Army Reserve of 20K, all ranks, can never support 51 infantry Bns and 18 Armd and 17 Arty and 10 Engr and 10 CSS and 10 Sigs and 5 Int and 10 Bde HQs, and still have any meaningful number of troops below each HQ.



the Arty reserve units are very political. For instance, one of the biggest obstacles to the plan to replace the 105mm with the 120mm mortar is the task to do gun salutes for the opening of the provincial parliaments and honourary colonels of the units.  It might seem odd, but some some these are no fail tasks


----------



## Container (12 Feb 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> the Arty reserve units are very political. For instance, one of the biggest obstacles to the plan to replace the 105mm with the 120mm mortar is the task to do gun salutes for the opening of the provincial parliaments and honourary colonels of the units.  It might seem odd, but some some these are no fail tasks



Oh? The combat arms trades aren't as heavy with the politics? Since getting back in, and in arty,I'm very surprised by the emphasis of networking and politicking. I'm not here to change everything. It's just a new ball of wax and thought I was on my own.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> ....one of the biggest obstacles to the plan to replace the 105mm with the 120mm mortar is the task to do gun salutes for the opening of the provincial parliaments .....


I think opening Parliaments and other government institutions with 120mm mortar rounds could be an awesome idea.   :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (13 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think opening Parliaments and other government institutions with 120mm mortar rounds could be an awesome idea.   :nod:









One of your ancestors?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think opening Parliaments and other government institutions with 120mm mortar rounds could be an awesome idea.   :nod:



With mortars full of confetti.......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think opening Parliaments and other government institutions with 120mm mortar rounds could be an awesome idea.   :nod:



Can mortars fire flaming bags of shit?


----------



## Journeyman (13 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One of your ancestors?


Uncle Guy was framed.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One of your ancestors?



The last man to enter parliament with honest intent.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Can mortars fire flaming bags of crap?



I am not sure but maybe if we propose it someone will give us the ok to open a project shop that can keep us amused for 10 years....and get paid for it.


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I think opening Parliaments and other government institutions with 120mm mortar rounds could be an awesome idea.   :nod:



You could open up Parliament that way, but it would take a lot of 2x4's and plywood to cover up the opening afterwards.... >


----------



## Old Sweat (13 Feb 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It was "Land Force Reserve Restructure" or LFRR.
> 
> Since then, the Res Svc Bn amalgamations were done nation wide, giving one per Res Bde now.  Of course, Inf, Armd and Arty are sacred, so we can't do the same there.
> 
> Reserves 2000 is a band of mathematically challenged blowhards, who don't understand that an Army Reserve of 20K, all ranks, can never support 51 infantry Bns and 18 Armd and 17 Arty and 10 Engr and 10 CSS and 10 Sigs and 5 Int and 10 Bde HQs, and still have any meaningful number of troops below each HQ.



A link to their website was recently circulated on our regimental net. 
http://www.reserves2000.org/


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A link to their website was recently circulated on our regimental net.
> http://www.reserves2000.org/



I see not much has changed, although one hopes the thuggery has stopped. Their list of "issues" is a grab bag of ill-defined (but perennial) gripes that might have some value if explained in a logical and coherent manner, but instead are defined at the bumper-sticker intellectual level.

Just as they were years ago, these people are still pining for an imaginary past (I was in the Militia in the 1970's: I know how "good" the "good old days" actually were). The constant use of the term "Militia" reinforces this point of view. Unfortunately, to most Canadians today "Militia" probably means a nasty gang of armed rabble fighting in a dirty  little war somewhere. "Army Reserve" is more likely to convey an accurate and useful mental image, but then that would require these people to accept that the reserve organization is actually part of the Army and subject to its chain of command, as opposed to a loosely affiliated group that does what it wants, but somehow still gets money from the Government.

Naturally, their latest "communique" hails the return of pips and crowns, former service titles and the redesignation of the LFAs as "Divisions", since these trappings are necessary parts of their World That Never Was.

IMHO these people are the mirror image of those idiotic "reserve haters" one finds in the Regular Army. They need each other to survive.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Feb 2014)

PBI



> We also wanted to amalgamate our three feeble and struggling Service Battalions: this had general consensus but never happened when I was there.



Unless the words amalgamate and tactically grouped are being used interchangeably, you were there when it happened.

I would not go so far as to say 17 and 18 Svc Bns were feeble and struggling.  Sure, some command ability problems. !8 (TB) Svc Bn fits the F & S.

BUT, the main reason for the struggling was CSS trades training, the lack there of.

Part 1 to 4: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/112930/post-1271507.html#msg1271507art


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Can mortars fire flaming bags of crap?



Sure, I bet they could make that happen... I wouldn't want to be the foo though. Puts a new meaning on "splash"


----------



## pbi (13 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> PBI
> 
> Unless the words amalgamate and tactically grouped are being used interchangeably, you were there when it happened.
> 
> ...



I left in 2005. I don't recall anything significant happening on the Svc Bn front, but as you were the CO in Wpg, I defer to your memory of the facts.

My recollection of the Svc Bns was that SK and NW ON were struggling (the Det Coy in Toontown was parading more than the parent unit in Regina), but I do remember that under your leadership Wpg was doing OK. I would not have called any of the three units "vibrant".

I agree fully with your view of the hopeless approach the CSS world was taking toward Res CSS trg. It was almost as if somebody wanted the Res units to fizzle out. The endless and very ridiculous struggle over the operation of the HLVW wrecker comes to mind.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Sure, I bet they could make that happen... I wouldn't want to be the foo though. Puts a new meaning on "splash"



You may have to change the title of the FOO to POO.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Feb 2014)

Container said:
			
		

> Oh? The combat arms trades aren't as heavy with the politics? Since getting back in, and in arty,I'm very surprised by the emphasis of networking and politicking. I'm not here to change everything. It's just a new ball of wax and thought I was on my own.



I wasn't attempting to say that the other arms dont have their politics, simply staying in my lane. But yes, arty is heavy on politicking and networking. I presume the other trades are the same, but as I mentioned, have no real basis for that. On the other hand,I always enjoyed working in HQs as being around other trades took away the arty politics, which was nice.


----------



## Haggis (14 Feb 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> Just as they were years ago, these people are still pining for an imaginary past (I was in the Militia in the 1970's: I know how "good" the "good old days" actually were). The constant use of the term "Militia" reinforces this point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2014)

> Sadly, in my experience, many of those "reserve haters" are former Reservists themselves, many seeking to ingratiate themselves with their new "professional" brethren



Yes, I met a few of these over the years. One RegF officer I knew served in the same Res unit as I did, but was absolutely death on ever mentioning it. IMHO this was worse in the 80s and early 90's than it is now, but no doubt these folks are still around.

They need somebody to feel "better than".


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yet another reason we need to invigorate the rank of 2Lt and Lt in the Army, but I digress....


I keep coming back to the Duffle Blog headline: "Captain Charged With Manslaughter After Leaving Lieutenant Unattended In Parked Car"


----------

