# Canadian Reserve Forces Vs US Reserve Forces



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

This is not a Thread on who can beat who, but on WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO?

In various threads we have heard it said over and over again that the Reserves should have better equipment.  That they should be equipped the same as the Regular Force.  We can all see that the Regular Force is under equipped, and the chances of the Reserves therefore getting equipment scales the same as the Regular Force are very slim.  

Would equipping our reserves the same of the Regular Force (if it were also completely equipped.) be viable?  Would they need more?  Would they need to have Pay and Pension equal to the Regular Force?  Would they need Job Protection Legislation from the Government to protect their civilian jobs?  Would they be able to get Courses that are to Regular Force Standards?  Would they have to sign legally binding forms stating that they are "Deployable" in the event of an 'emergency'?  Would we loose people from the Reserves, due to the fact they only joined for the Social Factor or the LCF?  Would it attract more to the Reserves?

As we all know, American Reservists are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as complete Units.  What is different in their system that allows them to deploy as such, and we are unable to?  Are our Reservists, in this light, not really RESERVISTS, but truly part-time employees?  What would we have to do to truly make our Reservists a true RESERVE FORCE to work with the Regular Force in times of emergency?


What are the comparisons?  Where and what do we need to change?  Can the American model be the way to transform our Reserves?

Lots of questions.  Do we have any solutions?


----------



## Roger (6 Dec 2005)

I think you can relate it to money, in Canada there is not a lot of money spent on defence. Hence the regular force is under financed under equipped. Because of that the reserve gets what is left over. That includes training and so forth.

You must also look at society in general and the outlook on the military in Canada. I do not think that Canada is ready to have a reserve or militia unit from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver get wiped out by some suicide bomber, not that anyone is prepared for such a thing, but I do not think that our politicians have the courage to risk such a thing. When a regular force unit goes overseas no mater the unit it is made from Canadians all over the country.


----------



## onecat (6 Dec 2005)

Quote
I do not think that Canada is ready to have a reserve or militia unit from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver get wiped out by some suicide bomber, not that anyone is prepared for such a thing, but I do not think that our politicians have the courage to risk such a thing.  

But the politicians in 1914, 1939, and 1950 (to a lesser extent) had the courage?  Something doesn't add up, maybe is that successive Canadian governments have relied on the US government to subsidize (man- there goes that word again, sounds like time for a NAFTA challenge ) their defense? 

Totally have to agree with you on that. successive Liberal party governments( yes there was a term Tory gov't that does change the policies set in place by Liberals) have relied on the US to most the defence work for this country, and that needs to be changes but it will take years and years to make that change stick.  Statement like no one will invade canada or the terrorists won't attack here, are all to common and until they ahve been chaged.  Canadians will still pay the reaL PRICE FOR OUR DEFENCE.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This is not a Thread on who can beat who, but on WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO?
> 
> In various threads we have heard it said over and over again that the Reserves should have better equipment.   That they should be equipped the same as the Regular Force.   We can all see that the Regular Force is under equipped, and the chances of the Reserves therefore getting equipment scales the same as the Regular Force are very slim.
> 
> ...



You answered most of your own questions.

Give this page a thorough read:

http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/161.htm

I think it encapsulates a lot of information regarding the two units, one Canadian, one American.  Note the standard of fitness among the Canadian unit, but note the employment of the US unit.  I think can't say how well we would do in an "operational" setting but I'd be willing to say individual fitness and/or "battle task standards" (perhaps in certain areas only) are as high as in US reserve units.  BUT this is all very sweeping and things would obviously be different from unit to unit, or year to year.

Certainly, they have the equipment to train with, and it is all maintained from what I can tell.  I just got two long emails from an Armorer in the 161.  We don't have our own vehicle techs, weapons techs, etc., but they have fully fleshed out establishments.  Bring back our tradesmen, and give us room to park our vehicles (and our damn POVs while you're at it!)


----------



## Spazz (6 Dec 2005)

Well in a way we don't really know if the government would send reserve troops or not because we haven't really been to war since 1945. I mean since then I don't think we have ever required our full military in a conflict. I'm sure politicions wont really think about it until it becomes important. Just my thoughts.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

So what is the major difference between our System and the US system, whereby whole Units are mobilized and sent off to foreign lands like Iraq and Afghanistan and Canadian Reservist Units have a hard time sending only a couple of soldiers?  Besides "Money", our two systems are very different.  Money has not bought us equipment, Pay, or Pensions.  There are other factors too.  Training.  Credentials.  Where are we headed in the way of tranformation, and what American examples will we have to adopt?  Which ones should we not adopt?


----------



## GO!!! (6 Dec 2005)

Michael,

The Canadian militia will never be able to form independent units unless it agrees to submit to MANDATORY training and enforced minimum capabilities at the soldier level. While legislated job protection would go a long way to facilitating this, the fact of the matter is, that Canadian reservists show up exactly when they feel like it. The only action that can be taken against them is to kick them out. Giving militia units millions of dollars worth of kit needed by the reg force will not remedy this situation.

Another key difference between Canada and the US in terms of the reserves is that US troops are expected to be deployed, often as part of regular deployments, without invoking the war measures act. They can be coerced to do so, and are punished for not showing up. There is no such system in place here. You rely on the entusiasm of your unit to claim that everyone will show up for a deployment or operation, but what if we are fighting an unpopular war, as our southern neighbors are? Will we simply accept the reservist shrug and answer "I don't believe what we are doing is right - so I'm not going". The national good is not always synonomous with the preferences of the individual soldier.

Basically, you are asking to "have your cake and eat it too" You want formed militia units under their own leadership deployed with all the latest kit. But you won't accept mandatory training of sufficient duration (1.5 months or more per year) to ensure a high level of quality at all times, not simply when the opportunity to deploy arises. Complaining that "retention and recruiting will suffer" is not valid. If you are unable to recruit soldiers who are dedicated to service of Canada, and not merely superimposing their own preferences onto the CF, perhaps the viability of your unit should be addressed.

I believe that the militia should continue in it's existing roles of aid to civil power, supplementing on an individual basis of regular units, and the continuance of low risk and missions (Bosnia for example). The reg force currently has a lack of opportunity to deploy, this should not be further aggravated by sending reservists with no obligation to further service once they are finished.

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

EDIT - GO!!! has some excellent points, and on first read, I must say I agree with them.   At work and posting on the sly so I'll try and come back during the next lull....

Anyway, original comments were:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So what is the major difference between our System and the US system, whereby whole Units are mobilized and sent off to foreign lands like Iraq and Afghanistan and Canadian Reservist Units have a hard time sending only a couple of soldiers?   Besides "Money", our two systems are very different.   Money has not bought us equipment, Pay, or Pensions.   There are other factors too.   Training.   Credentials.   Where are we headed in the way of tranformation, and what American examples will we have to adopt?   Which ones should we not adopt?



It's changing though. Our CO is determined to send at least a company sized battlegroup on an actual operation in a few years' time.   There are a lot of naysayers, some on this board, who call it pie-in-the-sky.   There are some real concerns, of course, from my perspective the biggest show stopper is manpower.   Even if a reserve unit recruited a full company, you're talking about mostly guys with 1 year of experience in the Army going on a tour, after training in a rather insular background (ie no outside influences).   If the regular force were larger, or we went to a true 10/90 system, you could get larger training cadres out to Militia units and ensure their suitability for deployment.

Everyone I talk to about this laughs the idea off.   It's unfortunate; I think a can-do attitude instead of a can-don't attitude would go a long way, but unless the regular force ever gets serious about losing out on missions to reserve units, it is not going to happen.   I think the rivalry is the show stopper.   

But that's only my semi-informed opinion.

EDIT 2 - to GO!!!, we have large numbers from our unit going on the next roto - guys will take vacation, LOA and long leaves from civvie jobs to do work up training and tours, they would do the same for 1.5 month training sessions.  Some of them.  For some it is just a part time job, no doubt.  I think that is ok, too.  Legislation would go a long way, and that too is a major stumbling block.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

I think Go!! has hit on an important factor.  Reserve Units must be prepared to conduct 1.5 months or there abouts of concentrated Full-time training as a Unit each year.  They must be prepared to deploy in that training period to facilities outside of their host cities.  During Reforger Exercies in Germany, it was not uncommon to have whole USAR Units flown in for two months to conduct their training and partake in this major NATO Ex.  There has to be a "dedicated" to the job mindset built up.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think Go!! has hit on an important factor.   Reserve Units must be prepared to conduct 1.5 months or there abouts of concentrated Full-time training as a Unit each year.   They must be prepared to deploy in that training period to facilities outside of their host cities.   During Reforger Exercies in Germany, it was not uncommon to have whole USAR Units flown in for two months to conduct their training and partake in this major NATO Ex.   There has to be a "dedicated" to the job mindset built up.



It's all about retention - the really serious guys go to the regs when they get bored with the Militia.  Going to train in locations other than Wainwright is always a treat.  Having three years in a row of the same MTSC exercises on the same terrain kills retention.  Expanding training to something more challenging might change that, and give a new sense of purpose. 

As for showing up when you feel like it, there are indeed "fair weather" soldiers who suddenly have final exams when the weather forecast for snow comes in.  Can't imagine they'd be jazzed about 1.5 month training sessions, but I guess you don't want that type anyway.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

We also need a major turn around in Political Thinking among our elected officials.  We need a Government who will look on the Reserves, not as "Week-end Warriors", but as a valuable part of the CF, who are deployable as complete Units.  Do we start at the bottom and try to rebuild our Reserve Units, or start at the Top and bring forth Legislation that will bring about Transition and increase Funding?  Not really a cut and dry question.


----------



## mdh (6 Dec 2005)

I think Michael Dorosh has put his finger on an issue that also needs consideration: how can anyone with a fully developed civilian career attend 1.5 month training exercises on a regular basis? I know that some employers are tolerant and believe in the cause, but you can only go to the well so many times before it starts to have a severe impact on your civilian career progression (not to mention a potential economic hit every year). Even under the current system the training demands (in addition to the regular parade nights and weekends) can be a difficult balancing act. When you add 1.5 months of exercises per year plus weekends plus parade and admin nights plus duty officer plus 5 weeks BOTC, 11 weeks CAP plus 8 weeks platoon commander MOC training (I'm using IO as an example here)...you get the picture. I'm not sure what the solution is (I don't think job protection legislation is a panacea) except to completely refocus the reserves on students - but that still won't help the retention issue once the kids move along and develop their own civvie careeers.

cheers, mdh


----------



## mdh (6 Dec 2005)

> I do believe their is a stronger commitment by employers to honor their commitment to their reservist employees, there are also some protections built into laws.



Just so. There is a lack of what I call "patriotic employers" in the private sector here who are going to bend over backwards to provide a reservist with gobs of time off (paid or unpaid). Dare I say that it's a cultural nuance between the US and Canada? (There is a reason why there tends to be a preponderance of cops and teachers and the odd civil servant in the Canadian reserves - they are one of the few groups who enjoy contract provisions giving them time off to participate.)

If participating in the National Guard is regarded proudly as a patriotic duty in America - service in the Canadian reserves is often regarded by the public as an alternate lifestyle.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Dec 2005)

Some Canadian employers will pay the difference between the military wage (lower) and the civilian wage a guy is missing out on while training - but I think mostly in Civil Service or other governmental jobs.  That would certainly be a bonus; mdh made an excellent point about civvie career progression and pay hits.


----------



## rw4th (6 Dec 2005)

The US National Guard/Reserve system works the way it does because of a few things:

1- The contracts are binding, of a limited duration, and require you to train and/or deploy when ordered to do so. Not doing so is a chargeable offence.
2- Members have their jobs legally protected to support point 1
3- When mobilized, reserve and NG units go through a standardized workup process. This process brings them up to speed when they are needed, regardless of whether or not standards are maintained during periods of inactivity.
4- Most importantly, there is a political will in US to support the above listed measure.


----------



## KevinB (6 Dec 2005)

Perhaps we should have the US Gov't run the CF PRes system...


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

Was at a conference in Ottawa a couple of months ago. US reps attended and there are some cracks showing up in their Reserve / NG System.
Some years ago, their Reg army "gave" specialty skill taskings to their reserve counterpart so that the Reg army could get on with the war fighting. This is how that reserve MP Battalion ended up in the Abu grail prison (and we all know how that worked out). These units are going thru some major recruiting / viability problems and it is a probable outcome that no occupation will remain 100% Res/NG.

While there is "job protection" in the US... I can imagine the chances of a reservist getting the job in the 1st place - should several other equaly qualified individuals have applied.

The issue of Res/NG members going off on deployment after deployment is also creating some problems - some are "going  back" for an extra 18 months... and some aren't all that happy about it. There were instances of 50 yr old officers who retired but forgot to "surrender" their commissions - surprise: they got called up and most made every effort to get up to speed.

Have worked on the Civy and Mil sides of the house. Employers have a problem giving up something (the reservist) for nothing in return.... and if we enact a law - it's still going to be a case of giving up something for nothing in return. Remember that there is no law and "why should he be expected to give up something that he has never had to give up before"?

If the government wants to get serious about it; make real use of it's reserve assets, then they will have to do:
1. Beef up it's units (coy sized Battalions led by LCols & CWOs aren't viable).
                            (Platoon sized Coys led by Maj & MWOs aren't either)

2. The Gov't has to sell itself to business - make itself meaningful and make it worth the employer's while to hire reservist AND give them time off to go on courses / deployment.... eg: tax credit for 100% of your salary while reservists are away. Training tax credit for the training of new employees that they have to hire to cover off the position of the fella who is away.....

#1 thing that has to get done is for the Gov't & it's minions to get serious. 
Have seen many instances where fella gets time off to go on course (2, 3, or 6 wk course) AND the course gets cancelled at the very last minute for whatever reason.... try to motivate employee & employer then!

OK Rant over!


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2005)

geo

You must also admit that some USAR Units in Iraq are doing quite well.  The same can be said for USMCR Units who are also doing well, although some are suffering heavy loses.  One could say very similar things about Regular Units - both good and bad.  

With the "Fall of the Wall", many Nato countries, not only Canada, cut back on their Troops.  The US made drastic Troop cuts in the '90s.  Now it is all coming back to haunt us all.  The only thing is, the US has valuable Reserve Units that it can and does use to relieve the pressure on the Regular Forces.  Canada has no significant Reserve Force reserves to draw on, only a trickle of Reservists to fill individual positions in an already stretched out Regular Force Unit.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

George,
would tell you that man for man, our reservists are (or would be) as good at their US counterparts... given the time to shake it out and do some training.

When the US cut back on it's regular forces, they FRPd their people into the guard & reserve units. They made it worth the pilots while(example) to leave the Reg AF/Navy to join the Reserve/NG while getting a civy career at the same time... 
If I base myself on Maj Schmidt, I think he was still flying 100% of his time while in the guard - which tells me that the Fed Gov't got the state Gov't to pay for it's full time military capacity...

Let me ask you; did anyone approach you, as you got out of the Regs, if you would consider joining a Reserve unit?... and did you?


----------



## Haggis (6 Dec 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Canada has no significant Reserve Force reserves to draw on, only a trickle of Reservists to fill individual positions in an already stretched out Regular Force Unit.



Some posters would have you beleive that there is NO shortage of Regular Force troops and that Reservists are only deploying for political reasons.  So why invest in the Reserves?



			
				geo said:
			
		

> The issue of Res/NG members going off on deployment after deployment is also creating some problems - some are "going   back" for an extra 18 months... and some aren't all that happy about it.



Folks I know in the AR and NG now talk of a recruiting and retention crisis.  Additionally, (as Geo stated) a form of reverse discrimination is becoming apparent as employers are now reluctant to hire USAR, USNG and USMCR member as they KNOW they will be deployed.


----------



## Donut (6 Dec 2005)

By starting this now, I've just guaranteed my pager will go off, as it has the previous three times I've tried to get this started, but here goes.

I'd like to do a quick and dirty comparison of the health care components of the USAR/NG/USMCR with the CF HS Res, employment, tng, deployability, complementary civi skills, etc.

Employment:   As discussed, the USAR etc deploy as a formed unit, whereas the CF HS Res deploy (few)individual augmentees to add numbers, but not new capabilities, to ops.

Training:   USAR etc identical across reg/res spectrum, CF HS Res is now beginning to move to a QL3 equivalent (-) skill set.   Achieved in approx 4(!?!) years of res f tng.   The CF will provide all tng except the Primary Care Paramedic credential to make a res mbr deployable.

Equipment:   USAR CSH units are almost identically to their USA counterparts.   CF HS Res units don't even come close.   Very hard to train on kit you've never seen.

Range of Skills:   A USAR etc.   Cbt Support Hospital will have a wide range of skills, including anaesthesia, lab, x-ray, physio, pmed, NBC, a couple of PA's, a general surgeon, perhaps on orthopod, etc.   A CF HS Res Fd Amb considers itself lucky to have an RN or a couple of paramedics.   Virtually no PA in the Res, no surgeons, no anaesthesia, no lab, no x-ray, no Respiratory Therapists.   

Deployable?   USAR etc:   Big YES.   CF Res Fd Amb-God I hope not.

Fitness:   USAR (esp USNR 2nded to USMCR) Extremely high.   Released if drops below standard, with loss of benefits.   CF HS Res: about as good as most reservists, but these people didn't want to face the rigours of Cbt Arms experience for the most part.

Health Care experience: USAR Virtually every mbr works in a civi health care facility.   CF HS Res: Very few work in a clinical setting.

WRT mandated training, that's all well and good, but lets keep a couple of salient points in mind here:
Our HS Res has already handed down an annual training plan.   As a result, many of our troops are expected to parade 3 out of 4 weekends most months.   

Now, most health care professionals have a few problems with this:   Shift work, to start with.   Professional competence, for another.   If I don't do a couple of good (ie a pt trying hard to leave this world)   ambulance calls a month, I notice skill fade fairly quickly, a little slower to get to a treatment plan, a little more hesitant on my sticks, a little less aggresive in my interventions.   

If you take a surgeon out of his OR for 6-8 weeks to go live in a tent at WATC and try to simulate what he's been doing for 60 hours a week for the other 45 weeks of the year, you think he might have the same issues?

That being said, taking the surgeon from TO who's had 6 thoracic GSW's on his table this week and dropping him in K'Har is a good thing, likewise with his anaesthesiologist, the medic doing the pickup at the CCP, the nurse flying him to Germany, etc.   HS Res can provide a level of clinical currency that the Reg F has to work extremely hard to maintain, having to fit it in around all the other day-to-day soldiering as, even if clinically employed on base, you just don't see the right injuries show up on the average sick parade.

I'm not saying the CF Res isn't in rough shape, but a one-size-fits-all solution isn't around the corner.

DF

Edited for spelling


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

Reserve unit ARE establishments have been allowed to develop "willie nillie" for far too long and we consequently have shot ourselves in the foot.

Some Res units had med sections and even had their own MOs. Competent individuals in their field who were instant Captains.... and did a great job at what the did AND provided some support to the local Med unit. AND then some rocket scientist figured out that units did not need their own MO, thinking that the MDs would move over to the Med units.... guess what? most of em have all gone, they've never been replaced and the CF Medical branch is a basket case for it's trouble.

I know of one unit that, after losing their MO, still had a Sgt & Cpl who were Paramedic & ER Nurse respectively. They were there because they wanted to be... and the CF said - off to the Med Coy you go!... and "go to hell" they snapped back.
ER Nurse now fills a clerical job and the Sgt has gone back to his original infantry trade... Pissing away resources if you ask me - cause we allowed a system to develop half assed and aren't smart enough to implement changes properly.

OK rant #2 over


----------



## pbi (6 Dec 2005)

On the subject of the US Reserve situation, I had an interesting chat with a US officer here at CFC today. He told me that the US Reserve system, especially the ARNG and the USAR are considered by some to be reaching their breaking point in terms of sustaining rotations into OIF/OEF. I saw some signs of this when I was in Afgh last year. He also said something else that I found quite surprising: that a group he described as the "Rumsfeld crowd" was now of the opinion that the Reserve were in fact a liability, and were no longer sufficiently reliable to meet the Active Army's needs. He went on to suggest that the US Active Army is looking for a manning increase of 100-200, 000 to let it absorb the rotation stresses without having to rely too much on the Res component. Although he is a very credible and well-connected individual, I can't vouch for the accuracy of what he said. All to say that even the best and biggest Res system in the world has its limitations.

Cheers


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

pbi...
pretty much dovetails with what I got @ my conference.... but with the disastrous recruiting problems they are having for their Regular forces, those 200K of troops are gonna be awful hard to fill..... unless Rumsfeld is thinking of a limited draft.

all teens are expected to register for the SSS when they hit the ripe old age of 16. There have been no call ups in a generation but.... it could still happen.


----------



## Armymedic (6 Dec 2005)

One difference I noted when working with USANG troops in Afghanistan was that many..I even say most had served time with the active service. They "retire" and move back home where they serve with the local units (local is relative, as one medic drove 200 miles to parade) and maintain the level of training while with the NG. In addition, as per Tomahawk's point above, they attend the same schools with same standards as active duty troops.

That level of expertise is not replicated at all in our Armed forces. One way to improve this is put all emphasis on Reg F recruiting and making transferring to Res F an option. Currently in our CF, a Reg F member must release, and then re enroll in the Res F. Greasing this process may keep expensive expertise in the CF.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Dec 2005)

To touch on other points made, there has to be some kind of incentive and/or legislation to protect reservists civilian jobs so they can take time off of work to train and/or deploy on operations.

Along with incentives/legislation, then the units can more effectively make training and deployments mandatory for it's soldiers.  There will not be any excuses for them to skip out.  If they do, they find themselves in a world of hurt, or bounced out entirely.  As well, the reserves will be able to retain good soldiers who otherwise would have had to leave due to civi career commitments.


----------



## Donut (6 Dec 2005)

Ranger Ray, legislation for job protection can be a double edged sword, there are cases in the US of employers refusing to hire reservists.

DF


----------



## RangerRay (6 Dec 2005)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Ranger Ray, legislation for job protection can be a double edged sword, there are cases in the US of employers refusing to hire reservists.
> 
> DF



Thanks.  I realise that.  You'll see I also made reference to incentives as well.  I don't know...the status quo isn't working for the Canadian reserves.  They aren't as effective as they could be.


----------



## GO!!! (6 Dec 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Some posters would have you beleive that there is NO shortage of Regular Force troops and that Reservists are only deploying for political reasons.   So why invest in the Reserves?


IMHO, we should'nt. The reserves (and the reg force too) should be forced to use it's resources more efficiently, and not "over man" paper units just on principal. These are units best employed as an aid to civil power unit, and emergency individual backfill troops for regular formations. 

e.g. A certain unit calls itself a "regiment" it has a full Bn Complement of officers, from 2Lt right up to LCol. It has a CWO, a couple of MWOs, and not more than 25 men who parade regularly between Pte and Sgt. Why not turn this regiment into a company, and fire all of the strap hangers, who are sucking up valuable funding with PD, salaries, summer trg, officers messes etc., and pour that funding into a better exercise in an exotic locale.  If the reserves is to be about forming fighting units, the emphasis must be on training to fight, and not ceremonial dress and drill. There is a great surplus of officers of all ranks in this military, they can be used for the purpose of administration, without hiring yet another level of management on the local level for the militia. I should mention as well that the Reg F is also bloated with inefficiencies, this is not an exclusively militia problem.



> Folks I know in the AR and NG now talk of a recruiting and retention crisis.   Additionally, (as Geo stated) a form of reverse discrimination is becoming apparent as employers are now reluctant to hire USAR, USNG and USMCR member as they KNOW they will be deployed.


----------



## Spr.Earl (6 Dec 2005)

I have heard through the grape vine that DND is looking at some form of legislation so Reservist's can go on course,long term attached postings and over seas Op.'s.They are trying  meet the middle ground,to keep employers,DND happy and at the same time to increase the availability and effectiveness of the Reserves.
Those R.Force. who have served over seas with Reserves that I know of have had little complaint about the quality of soldier the Reserves have/has provided,just the amount of time it took/takes to bring a reservist up to speed.

Over all we do produce a good citezen soldier even though Faulty Towers has neglected the Reserves for years.

I'm going on 30yrs now as a Reservist and have given a lot off my vacation,saved overtime to go on course exercise etc.,volunteered for Bosnia twice,first time was the tour that was canceled in 95,I stayed with the Reg. till the April of 96,then early Sept 96 Kevin Kennedy (RSS WO,6FD) saw me at Lonsdale Quay and asked if I wanted to go again,I says yup and was off I to Wain and came home for my embarkation leave after three and half months of work up,my wife god bless her has stood by my since we married in 91 I may be the odd one out but many a Reservist has or has done close to what I have done this past 30yrs and I say it is about time that we get some protection for our job's.
Here's the kicker, I still owe my company pension close on $8,000 for my two leave of absence's from 95 to 97!


----------



## Spartan (7 Dec 2005)

Anyone know exactly how Australia's reserve legislation is working out - from what I've skimmed through while looking for something else-  is that  the reservist can be called out for peace enforcement operations in addition to national emergency/local emergency. It also looks like the reservists of Australia must attend a two week event a year, and that employers are not to penalize them by using vacation/ leave time acquired for the year. It also looks like the employers are supported in this as well - and it's a farely recent peice of legislation.


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2005)

SB - good points- glad to hear that Cbt Arms trades are obtaining high retention rates.

Spartan - will try to track down copy of Aussie legislation. Wes Allen should be around here somewhere. He might have a few opinions to throw into the stew.

Earl - yup, company pension plans.... Interesting, hadn't thought of that but, then again, all companies I have ever worked for expected employees to look after themselves with RRSPs. Any reason you didn't look after your plan with Roto $? (never mind - MYOB!)

GO!!! - over the last 3 yrs, LFQA made composite Inf Bns, Armd & Engr Regts to exercise the senior ranks as well as the troops. There has been some decent training. Have worked as OC on some of their Ex's and Majors, MWOs, LCols & CWOs have pretty much full complement of troops to look after & lead... Can't say it's always been "elegant" but they do & did function and the jobs did get done. Could they depoly "as is"?... not at this time - but they can/could fill in as required.


----------



## Haggis (7 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> IMHO, we should'nt. The reserves (and the reg force too) should be forced to use it's resources more efficiently, and not "over man" paper units just on principal. These are units best employed as an aid to civil power unit, and emergency individual backfill troops for regular formations.



With the Reserves in it's current form and state of funding, Aid to Civil Power is not a viable role.   It is time and labour intensive to get it right.  And a public relations nightmare to get it wrong.  Reserves are prohibited by DCDS direction from conducting ACP/ALEA or CCO training (and rightfully so).   Even the Reg F only train on it when the MSIT calls for it.   The _other_ aid to civil power role of "National Survival Training" in the 1960's, what revisionists now call Heavy Urban SAR, stripped away any remaining traces of a warfighter heritage that the Army Reserve had left.   Units were decimated of weapons, equipment and personnel.  Even in an emergency they couldn't have provided even their own Force Protection.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> e.g. A certain unit calls itself a "regiment" it has a full Bn Complement of officers, from 2Lt right up to LCol. It has a CWO, a couple of MWOs, and not more than 25 men who parade regularly between Pte and Sgt. Why not turn this regiment into a company, and fire all of the strap hangers, who are sucking up valuable funding with PD, salaries, summer trg, officers messes etc., and pour that funding into a better exercise in an exotic locale.



There are Reserve units at the other end of the scale, too, with too many troops and not enough leaders.   Our training system cannot even manage to produce enough Reg F Sgts, WOs and MWOs in the Cbt A, let alone producing Reserve leaders.   Could we use Reg F members to backfill?   Probably not.   Reserve postings are priority 6 on the VCDS Manning list.   They are filled last and we can't even manage that.   In many Reserve Cbt A units,  the Reg F Ops O and Ops WO positions are now filled with experienced Reserve Capts and MWO/WOs. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If the reserves is to be about forming fighting units, the emphasis must be on training to fight, and not ceremonial dress and drill.



Drill and ceremonial instills and preserves discipline and tradition.   Just like the Reg F.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> There is a great surplus of officers of all ranks in this military, they can be used for the purpose of administration, without hiring yet another level of management on the local level for the militia. I should mention as well that the Reg F is also bloated with inefficiencies, this is not an exclusively militia problem.



.... and next week, when I'm attending the CF Transformation Team briefing, I'll ask exactly this: "Why is so much effort expended in making administration the single most time consuming thing we do for our soldiers and how does CF Transformation aim to fix that?"

Unless I get told to "Shut yer cake hole sar'major!" I'll post the reply here.   Fair nuff?


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2005)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> By starting this now, I've just guaranteed my pager will go off, as it has the previous three times I've tried to get this started, but here goes.
> 
> I'd like to do a quick and dirty comparison of the health care components of the USAR/NG/USMCR with the CF HS Res, employment, tng, deployability, complementary civi skills, etc.
> parade.
> ...



Here is an entry from the November Washington Report from CDLS...

10.	US Military Struggles To Recruit Medical Professionals.

a.	The Pentagon, already straining to fill the ranks, is facing a new headache: Army medical officials said they are struggling to recruit enough doctors, dentists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals to treat soldiers on the front lines and to care for the growing physical and mental health needs of troops returning from combat.  For the first time in five years, the Army has missed its goal for student applicants seeking medical or dental scholarships in exchange for military service, officials told a House armed services subcommittee.
b.	The Army is also falling short of personnel in some key medical specialties, including cardiology, officials said.  Meanwhile, unable to compete with the private sector in pay and compensation, the Air Force is also struggling to retain physicians and recruit new specialists.  The Army bears the greatest burden.  Since 2001, more than 40 percent of the active-duty personnel in the Army's Medical Command have been deployed to the Middle East at least once, according to Pentagon statistics.  Some healthcare providers are returning for their second or third tour of duty in four years.
c.	The Army alone has cared for some 24,000 injured or ill soldiers during the same period, including a large number of combat-related amputees.  The need to retain and recruit doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers and specialists is only expected to grow as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan grind on and as the military becomes more involved in the global war on terror.  The military medical research community also helps the nation prepare for broader health threats such as biological terrorism and the possible pandemics by researching and developing new vaccines for deadly toxins and conducting cutting-edge epidemiological studies.  (Contact â â€œ CFMLO)


----------



## Roger (8 Dec 2005)

I do not want to throw this subject in a other direction. But I know that many Canadian Reservists cannot go on tour because of their employment. I know that if I was to go on tour, I would lose my job. So if I want to go I have to really think about what my options are when I get back. 

As far as training as a reservist the one thing the Regular force guy's never think about is when was the last time a committed reservist actually had a holiday, I bet the are a few who have been in 10 years, can say 10 years with no holiday's, worked every Tuesday or Wednesday night and committed a lot of weekends......

But also there are many intelligent young guy's in the Reserve's that are looking for work and cannot find a job, one thing the provincial and federal government can do is do what they did after WWII, is give priority to military or ex military members to government employment. All ex-military or existing military would be perfect as custom agents, prison guards just to name a few, look at all of the trades that could also get work in there related fields.


----------



## geo (8 Dec 2005)

Chop,
Wouldn't want everyone to transfer to civ service & quit their Res positions.
BUT
Starting in Jan 06, We'll be able to "compete" for Civ service job postings. Still, we'll have to meet the posting's qualifications & take an interview... still - a step in the right direction


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2005)

S_Baker said:
			
		

> I wanted to add something about hiring reservists in the US, I do not know of any current stories where an employee was fired or someone was not hired because of their affiliation with a reserve or NG unit.   Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are few an far between.   I would ventur.e to guess that most employers consider it an honor to have one of their employees serve and would do everything in their power to ensure a smooth transition back to their job.   For the life of me, I can't see why someone would discriminate against a reservist, in fact in the US, most with skills are in high demand.   Not just for their military training skills, but also because most are self starters!   If I was a businessman those are the sort of employees I would want in my organization!



Well, I can't cite any individual cases either, but I offer three pieces of supporing (if somewhat circumstantial...) evidence that strongly suggest the problem does exist.

First, from a historical perspective. When I attended CF Staff School (a now defunct institution) in 1987, I wrote a paper on employer incentives versus job protection legislation for Reserves. I used mostly US sources for my   reseach work.What I found at that time was that the major cause of attrition for US Reserve personnel was conflicts with civ work or pressure from civ employers. The worst employers were identified as being small police depts and fire depts, which had to maintain a fixed level of service with limited manpower, and could not afford frequent or extended absences by Res.

A little more recently, when I was with 38 CBG, about three years ago, we received a briefing team from 34 ID, the USARNG Div we trained with. One point that was made during the briefing was that the average ARNG soldier was soon to be expected to make one year-long deployment every three-five years. This was as opposed to the "once per ARNG career" that was thought to be the norm. The briefer very specifically stated that they anticipated difficulties with civilian employers.

Finally, last year,(IIRC) the Chief of the US Army Reserve (I am sorry but I can't recall his name) announced publicy that he was very concerned about the effect that the increased op tempo would probably have upon the demographic of Res soldiers. Instead of the "solid citizen", he feared that the Res would be filled with the "chronically unemployable" or words to that effect.

So, IMHO where there has been some smoke for a while, there is probably fire. In any event, I didn't mean this post nor my earlier one to slag the ARNG or USAR in any way. The soldiers on activated duty are getting tons of excellent experience, including combat, which we are mostly not (yet). Our Res system would crumble very quickly under a similar strain (even were it to be proportionally reduced), and we lack much of the capacity and capabilities that the US has in its Army Res components.

All to say, though, that all Res forces have distinct limitations built into them, and if you rely too heavily on them you will have to accept not only those limitations but whatever second-order effects those limitations create.

Cheers


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Dec 2005)

> I wanted to add something about hiring reservists in the US, I do not know of any current stories where an employee was fired or someone was not hired because of their affiliation with a reserve or NG unit.  Yes, I know there are exceptions, but they are few an far between.  I would ventur.e to guess that most employers consider it an honor to have one of their employees serve and would do everything in their power to ensure a smooth transition back to their job.



Well, not to detract from what pbi just stated, but.....

I can tell you that I have lived and worked in the US for almost 15 years now. That includes several years in management. I have never seen, nor heard of, any type of discrimination against NG or Reserve troops. I have not seen/heard of it from my employers, nor have I heard of it from friends or aquaintances in the Guard. That includes in today's increased op tempos. When I am interviewing employees, being a reservist is a plus.


----------



## Gunner (8 Dec 2005)

I swore to myself that I would not post in this thread.    



> Reserves are prohibited by DCDS direction from conducting ACP/ALEA or CCO training (and rightfully so).



Haggis, do you have any reference for this statement as DDDOs do not state this at all.

DDDO's state:



> SECTION 6
> NATIONAL DEFENCE ACT, PART XI - AID OF THE CIVIL POWER (ACP)
> 59. In Canada, the administration of justice is primarily vested in provincial authorities. However, Canadian provinces and territories may not maintain military forces and have no internal recourse for situations beyond the control of their law enforcement agencies. Therefore, each province and territory has the power, under the National Defence Act Part XI (ref N) to requisition the CDS to take action to restore the authority of the Civil Power, if the attorney general of that province or territory declares in writing that a disturbance of the peace is, or is likely to be, beyond the capability of its law enforcement agencies to deal with.
> 60. The CDS exercises sole discretion in determining the necessary CF response, but must act to restore the situation to a level within the capability of the civil power to discharge its responsibilities.
> ...



Ok, so the CF won't train for Aide to the Civil Power nor Aide to a Lawful Authority.   



> USE OF RESERVISTS
> 84. The CDS has directed (ref I) that in all cases where there is a risk of injury, reservists employed on domestic operations shall be on Class C reserve service. This is to ensure that all CF members serving side-by-side on a mission are equally entitled to compensation and benefits in the event of injury or death while employed on operational tasks.
> 85. No Reservist will be employed in a domestic operation without that member=s consent to serve. Reservists employed on Class C contracts who have consented to serve with regular force units may be employed on operations without the need for further consent. In all other cases, consent in writing must be given before employment.
> *86. Authority to employ individual reservists on domestic operations is delegated to the operational level commanders, operating from within their own resources. There is a critical legal distinction between the employment of individual Reservists who have volunteered for operational duty, and the deployment of Reserve units per se. The mustering and deployment of Reserve force units must be authorized by government and may only be ordered by the CDS. *
> 87. The force generation agency which provides each Reservist is responsible for the suitability of reservists in terms of training standard to meet the anticipated operational requirement, his or her availability for the duration of the operation forecast, and supporting administration for his/her employment.



Ok, nothing prohibiting Reserves from doing Aide to the Civil Power here either.   The legal activation (ie bringing to active service) a reserve unit must be authorized by the government.



> TRAINING FOR ROLES WHERE USE OF FORCE IS AUTHORIZED
> 92. CF units will deploy for domestic operations with their integral vehicles, equipment and weapons, recognizing that any restrictions placed on the use of particular capabilities (such as tracked or other armoured vehicles) will limit flexibility in unit selection for a particular operation, or affect the capability and/or increase the administrative impact on the unit selected. Instructions concerning the deployment and potential use of specific types of equipment or weaponry will be specified in each case by the CDS.
> 93. The CF will not develop any capability for which it does not have a mandate. Specifically, training for law enforcement duties such as crowd and riot control shall not be conducted. The CF will not acquire equipment (including ammunition) for specific use in the civil law enforcement context. This policy must not be confused with the fact that the CF possesses certain equipment which has been acquired for operational and training reasons. Such equipment may have application in CF assistance to law enforcement operations.
> 94. ECSs and other force generators are responsible for conducting use of force training for domestic operations as judged necessary and prudent to meet any anticipated need. Such training will be carried out with standard combat equipment and weapons, and with strict emphasis on the policy and legal limitations which apply to domestic operations.
> *95. The minimum training on use of force required before individuals are operationally ready for domestic operations where force might be used shall be in accordance with ref V. The requirement to conduct or confirm training in the use of force may increase preparation time, and this must be allowed for in planning. Commanders and subordinate officers will require a more detailed knowledge of the application of ref V, including the process for requesting rules of engagement, and the implications of the authorization or denial of various measures. *



Still nothing about using Reserves in an aide to the civil power role. 

I'm not trying to single you out Haggis, but I am unsure of where you are getting this DCDS prohibition from.   If you have any experience with Dom Ops, ALEA, etc you will know that they occur quickly and the military, as the force of last resort, must respond with adequate measures.   

LFWA support to Op GRIZZLY (2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis) was an ALEA operation.   A full company of Reservists provided ALEA during the operation.   There was no special DCDS authority to do so.   They were trained to do the role and they did it in a similar fashion as any other sub-unit on the operation.

Unless you have some type of reference, I believe you are wrong.   Your CCO reference as it relates to the Reserves is also wrong.


----------



## Haggis (8 Dec 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I swore to myself that I would not post in this thread.



My apologies for causing you to do so.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Ok, so the CF won't train for Aide to the Civil Power nor Aide to a Lawful Authority.





			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Ok, nothing prohibiting Reserves from doing Aide to the Civil Power here either.   The legal activation (ie bringing to active service) a reserve unit must be authorized by the government.





			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Still nothing about using Reserves in an aide to the civil power role.





			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to single you out Haggis, but I am unsure of where you are getting this DCDS prohibition from.   If you have any experience with Dom Ops, ALEA, etc you will know that they occur quickly and the military, as the force of last resort, must respond with adequate measures.



I don't feel singled out.  I feel "educated".  ;D

I do have ALEA and Dom Ops experience and I fully agree with you.  At the time I was posting from home and didn't have access to the references.  Although I do not have a soft copy, this goes back to Op ABACUS direction that Res units were NOT to be employed in ALEA or CCO, but only in HA and those types of ACP that supported Category "A" units (Reg F manouever units that could be employed in ALEA and CCO).  I'll admit, this is quite dated and your quotes from DDDO are current.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> LFWA support to Op GRIZZLY (2002 G8 Summit in Kananaskis) was an ALEA operation.   A full company of Reservists provided ALEA during the operation.   There was no special DCDS authority to do so.   They were trained to do the role and they did it in a similar fashion as any other sub-unit on the operation.



They were also part of the 1PPCLI BG training for Op PALLADIUM Roto 11, correct?  They would have receievd the requisite training as part of their pre-deployment, been properly equipped and were quite capable of doing the job.  Similarly during Roto 13, the RCD BG's Reserve Infantry company was warned as part of LFCA's IRU (as every Reg F infantry company in Ontario had been stripped for Op ATHENA Roto 0) without any specific DCDS direction.


			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> Unless you have some type of reference, I believe you are wrong.   Your CCO reference as it relates to the Reserves is also wrong.



My original post's point was that neither the Res F or the Reg F was mandated to maintain a domestic CCO capablilty.  I stand by that as DDDO also states: 
"120.	Crowd Confrontation Operations (CCO)

1.	In Canada, crowd confrontation is strictly a law enforcement agency function and the *CF will neither train for nor equip itself * for such domestic duties without specific CDS direction.  *Direction to conduct crowd confrontation training in preparation for a domestic operation must be specifically approved by the CDS and will only be authorized for operational and/or extraordinary reasons.*

The point I wanted to make to GO!!! was exactly this, as well as to reiterate the disasterous effect that NST had on the Reserves in the 60's.


----------



## Gunner (8 Dec 2005)

My quotes are dated as they come from DCDS 2/98 (its on the DCDS intranet site).  The current version was released on 1 Apr 05 but I did not have a copy at the time of my posting.  I've quickly scanned it but I don't see any different themes from the previous version.

I was focused on your "prohibited" comments which are not the case at all.  If the situation required, I would feel quite comfortable taking a company from just about any reserve infantry unit, *training it accordingly*, and using it in any one of these roles.

GO!!! has a different view on Reserves based on his perception in an infantry battalion.  From a larger perspective, the Reserves can and do provide flexibility for the army in domestic and international operations. If the situation requires it, we could send a company, a battalion, etc overseas.  All it takes is resources and some time to build it, sort it out and make it cohesive.


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2005)

In defence of Haggis, while our current written policy certainly appears to give latitude to employ Res on Dom Ops as we see fit, and Res today have a much greater role in Dom Ops than ever before, anybody on this site with more than a few years in uniform knows very well that the "common wisdom" or "unwritten rule" or whatever we may wish to call it was that we would not use Res in a CCO or "hard" ACP/ALEA (ie: ALEA IV) role. I see very little insult to the Res in this: anybody who has done any serious CCO training knows how demanding it is, and anybody who has watched public order units struggle with dangerous and angry crowds knows how risky it can be. Just as we would not send Res on a cbt op with less than 90 days of trg, we would not send them on an ACP/hard ALEA task without the proper levels of fitness, weapons handling, discipline and MST needed. Problem is, public order situations tend to flare up so quickly that the option of training Res to the required standard does not normally exist.

I asked our friends in 34 ID how they handled the issue with their ARNG units, who typically have fewer days of annual training than our Res. The answer I was given was that not all units had the task at once: the equipment was rotated around a state, along with a training package. Pehaps some of our US friends can comment.

Cheers


----------



## Gunner (8 Dec 2005)

> In defence of Haggis, while our current written policy certainly appears to give latitude to employ Res on Dom Ops as we see fit, and Res today have a much greater role in Dom Ops than ever before, anybody on this site with more than a few years in uniform knows very well that the "common wisdom" or "unwritten rule" or whatever we may wish to call it was that we would not use Res in a CCO or "hard" ACP/ALEA (ie: ALEA IV) role. I see very little insult to the Res in this: anybody who has done any serious CCO training knows how demanding it is, and anybody who has watched public order units struggle with dangerous and angry crowds knows how risky it can be. Just as we would not send Res on a cbt op with less than 90 days of trg, we would not send them on an ACP/hard ALEA task without the proper levels of fitness, weapons handling, discipline and MST needed. Problem is, public order situations tend to flare up so quickly that the option of training Res to the required standard does not normally exist.



I think you mean ALEA Class 1 (not 4) (CF assistance in support of law enforcement operations, where a disturbance of the peace is occurring or may occur, and where the support is in the form of CF personnel and/or operational equipment) ;D

pbi, ack, no argument with your comments but they reflect a different approach than "prohibited".   As I mentioned, the reserve coy on roto 11 was involved in ALEA for Op GRIZZLY and I believe it was a Class 1 ALEA.   I'm not talkiing about calling up the CO of the R Wpg R and telling him to gather what troops he can, and report to the Headingly Penitentiary to conduct prisoner riot control.   We wouldn't do that to the Reserves and we wouldn't do it to a regular unit either....common sense prevails.


----------



## Haggis (8 Dec 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> My quotes are dated as they come from DCDS 2/98 (its on the DCDS intranet site).   The current version was released on 1 Apr 05 but I did not have a copy at the time of my posting.   I've quickly scanned it but I don't see any different themes from the previous version.



Essentailly true.  I quoted the '05 version.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> I was focused on your "prohibited" comments which are not the case at all.   If the situation required, I would feel quite comfortable taking a company from just about any reserve infantry unit, *training it accordingly*, and using it in any one of these roles.



I was witness to the training of a total force Infantry CCO unit in 1990.  It never deployed but was fully capable of doing so.



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> If the situation requires it, we could send a company, a battalion, etc overseas.   All it takes is resources and some time to build it, sort it out and make it cohesive.



Having taken a Res coy overseas, I agree.  However to do anything larger or do it repeatedly requires a major shift in funding, resources, legislation and, more importantly, Reserrve political and public mindset.

OK... "Prohibited" was a bad word.  Can we move on?


----------



## Gunner (8 Dec 2005)

> OK... "Prohibited" was a bad word.  Can we move on?



No problem.  As I mentioned, I didn't want to get sucked into this thread as I can't stand reading some of the fiction that gets quoted as gospel on this site.  I'll be back at it after 13 Dec during xmas leave.  

Dom Ops is close to my heart and is one of my pet peeves, you were just the unlucky poster that caught my eye.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (8 Dec 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> I think you mean ALEA Class 1 (not 4) (CF assistance in support of law enforcement operations, where a disturbance of the peace is occurring or may occur, and where the support is in the form of CF personnel and/or operational equipment) ;D
> 
> pbi, ack, no argument with your comments but they reflect a different approach than "prohibited".   As I mentioned, the reserve coy on roto 11 was involved in ALEA for Op GRIZZLY and I believe it was a Class 1 ALEA.   I'm not talkiing about calling up the CO of the R Wpr R and telling him to gather what troops he can, and report to the Headingly Penitenture to conduct prisoner riot control.   We wouldn't do that to the Reserves and we wouldn't do it to a regular unit either....common sense prevails.



You are right: Class I not Class IV. I have a good memory: it's just short.

I was on GRIZZLY too (I was CO of   the TFC's Res) so I am aware of the Res Coy. My point was really not to differ with the facts you presented, but rather to reflect what the common practice and wisdom were until quite recently. As an aside, as a young Res Cpl in 1976 I was trained in CCO and some ACP skills as part of Task Force Two of OPGAMESCAN, the CF support to Olympic security in Montreal. I can tell you that the CF quite definitely had "law enforcement equipment" and trained very actively for crowd control, at least for that op.

Cheers


----------



## DOOG (8 Dec 2005)

Greetings..
As I recall, there was a fair amount of shields, batons, face shields and gas guns in Kanasatake in 1990 and they were being used 
( practised with) by 2RCR including the Reservists that were augmenting them. As for Reserves being used on Aid to Whomever.. I think it will very much depend on where and how bad and how busy the nearest Reg F guys are. I seem to recall travelling around the Montreal area with a bombed up Cougar and nobody said "you can't be here with real bullets cuz yer not trained enough". They said "go there, do that".

We were carrying 40 rounds amin armament, a couple of boxes of coax and 150 rds 5.56 each. No ROEs, very little prep for the job. Thank &**##!! nothing bad happened. What I am getting at is if the "Powers That Be" need soldats, and the nearest professionals are away in some desert, or are stretched thin or held up by lack of aircraft etc, you can be pretty sure that all your careful planning will go bye bye and the local Reservists will have to do whatever. That is what wearing a uniform is all about. Not what we do, or what we know, or even what we are trained for..it is about what we are prepared to do.

Later..


----------



## Spr.Earl (9 Dec 2005)

Geo re; My company pension is the same as the DND " Superannuation" and if and when the Reserve pension comes in and I retire from the Forces I can transfer x years to my company pension which will give me 35yrs or a full pension and the remainder stays with the DND pension.At the time I would have had to pay a full year up front,i.e $X,000 's to keep current or buy back which I can still do.
Yes I'm bit a dummy and did not salt away in RRSP's but we do have a spousal RRSP which we can't transfer only the memshib can but only in her name,there again when I was single I enjoyed my self by travel,wine,women and song. ;D :
Oh I was a late bloomer,I got married when I was 38. ;D


PBI re your comment " The worst employers were identified as being small police depts "
I know of a gent who was a Maj. in the Reserves ( F.E.) who was a constable with the Vancouver P.D. and asked for a leave of absence to go over to Bosnia,he was denied the leave so he promptly quit,did his tour came back and got a job with another local P.D. with in a month and still there but has since retired from the C.F.

 On the same note about 3yrs ago I was down in Dallas,Tx. for two week's when one night watching the local news was an item were the Dallas P.D. had cut off all the benefits for the families of P.D. members who were serving in the Reserves and ANG overseas,Iraq,Afg. and had been for a year or more.The members of tthe P.D. and citezen's set up a fund to cover these families.
My self I had to pay the full medical and dental for my wife while I was on class C with the Regiment,the Co. paid nothing once my vacation time and over time was all gone.


----------



## pbi (10 Dec 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> PBI re your comment " The worst employers were identified as being small police depts "
> I know of a gent who was a Maj. in the Reserves ( F.E.) who was a constable with the Vancouver P.D. and asked for a leave of absence to go over to Bosnia,he was denied the leave so he promptly quit,did his tour came back and got a job with another local P.D. with in a month and still there but has since retired from the C.F.
> 
> On the same note about 3yrs ago I was down in Dallas,Tx. for two week's when one night watching the local news was an item were the Dallas P.D. had cut off all the benefits for the families of P.D. members who were serving in the Reserves and ANG overseas,Iraq,Afg. and had been for a year or more.The members of tthe P.D. and citezen's set up a fund to cover these families.
> My self I had to pay the full medical and dental for my wife while I was on class C with the Regiment,the Co. paid nothing once my vacation time and over time was all gone.



By the same token some police services have very good policies on Res service. The Winnipeg Police Service, for example, had a policy granting so many weeks for Res duty to each WPS member. We had a number of people in our Bde who were members of the WPS: I know of at least two who were given LOA beyond the stated Res leave in order to deploy with SFOR.

Cheers


----------



## Spr.Earl (11 Dec 2005)

PBI,I'm a 3rd Eng. on B.C. Ferries and have not gotten anything from them in regards to a so called gratuity because I'm in the Militia but it still erk's me they still question me why and denie me time off.
I can't count how much of my earned time I have given. 
But still a loyal Sapper.  

UBIQUE


----------



## Baloo (12 Dec 2005)

Well, my impression (sorry, if this was discussed before in the thread) is that one difference between the two, is training time.

From what I have gathered, US NG soldiers will receive one weekend a month, two weeks a year in training. Where as, Canadian Reservists will acquire more or less the same in terms of that, but with an extra day a week, and perhaps more weekends in between due to courses. I admit, I am not familiar with NG course loading. I will also admit, that that extra time may not seem like much, but it does definitely improve unit cohesion, co-operation and morale. So, it can't be that we aren't sending guys overseas for lack of training.

In addition, we had a USMC colonel come to Ft. York a few weeks back, to talk to some of us about their experiences in Iraq, and about OBUA. In an offhand question, one individual asked how much work-up training a USMC Reservist gets prior to deployment. The answer came back, VERY shocking, at roughly two weeks. Two weeks to prepare someone for war. Granted, I will assume they are already fully trained, but here in Canada, after being qualified, Reservists spend three months or more on solid exercises.

My question is now, what are we doing so differently? Why can we not seem to send troops over? It can't be a simple "lack of training" issue. Is it only a political one, like is being talked about here?


----------



## geo (12 Dec 2005)

Baloo,
you have to understand that NDHQ has intentionaly inserted a "delta" between the Res & the Reg. The general consensus is that the reservist is given a +/- 25% handicap that will be filled, as and when the individual is required... as part of a managed readiness (oxymoron) plan.

The reservist, stark naked (as is) is competent enough in his basic soldier skills, without talking about some of his "external" capabilities (from Civy street) that he brings into the equation... to a degree, this is why the reservist is paid @ 85% or the Regular soldier's pay scale.

Have worked with US NG/Res & Reg military over the years... (without talking about reservists & Regs from the UK, France & Germany)
All in all, taking everything into consideration, our reservists measure up quite well. Much can be improved but a good starting point nevertheless.


----------



## Roger (13 Dec 2005)

Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not trues that during WWI, WWII and Korea. That a soldier came from the street and was sent to war after 6 weeks?

And now in Canada, a reservist might have to go on a 6 months pre-training?


----------



## George Wallace (13 Dec 2005)

Chop said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but is it not trues that during WWI, WWII and Korea. That a soldier came from the street and was sent to war after 6 weeks?
> 
> And now in Canada, a reservist might have to go on a 6 months pre-training?


The answer to that is Yes, and No.   In WW I and WW II we saw troops training in Canada prior to going off to war, buy then moving into Camps in England where they sometimes spent years before crossing over to mainland Europe.   Korea, is another story altogether.   Most of those first to go were WW II veterans who reinlisted and trained at their units, then moved to Ft Lewis, Washington, to train more prior to embarkation to Camps in Korea.

I imagine if you took into account all the time training in Canada, all the time training in the UK or US and then the length of time between enlistment and actually encountering the Enemy, you will have quite a bit more than six months in the majority of cases.


----------



## geo (13 Dec 2005)

WW2, troops started to ship out to England in 1939. Ist Cdn troops to be engaged were in Dieppe in 1942 so: saaaay 3 years (36 mths of training)

WW1 troops started to ship out to France & UK in Oct 14 but these troops were, for the most part, Cdn militia + Brit troops who had retired & moved to Canada.

Korea.... as George said....

So; yeah, lots of citzen soldiers fought in the great war(s) but, they too had a chance to train, organize and get their act together.


----------



## pbi (16 Dec 2005)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Well, my impression (sorry, if this was discussed before in the thread) is that one difference between the two, is training time.
> 
> From what I have gathered, US NG soldiers will receive one weekend a month, two weeks a year in training. Where as, Canadian Reservists will acquire more or less the same in terms of that, but with an extra day a week, and perhaps more weekends in between due to courses. I admit, I am not familiar with NG course loading. I will also admit, that that extra time may not seem like much, but it does definitely improve unit cohesion, co-operation and morale. So, it can't be that we aren't sending guys overseas for lack of training.
> 
> ...



A few comments:

While USARNG (and, I think USAR) do spend fewer annual training days than the typical Cdn Res soldier, they do have an added benefit that their early MOC training is usually done to the same standard as the Active Army, full time at an Army school, so this gives them a head start over our Res. As well, the USARNG has (IIRC) been   well in advance of us in getting training to the Reservists by means of correspondence, mobile training teams (ie: Bradley UCOFT trainer mounted in semi-trailer) and now Distributed Learning (although we are making good progress on DL now).

I would be cautious comparing the USMCR with the USARNG. The USARNG officers and NCOS I met and interviewed in Afgh (from a Lt Inf bn from Virginia ARNG), did far, far more than two weeks of training before going overseas, including a cycle through Ft Polk "Light Fighter" centre. The USARNG Mech Inf bn that I was familiar with when I was in 38 CBG, the "Bearcats" of north Minnesota, began its training for Bosnia nearly a year before it deployed.

The USMCR is quite different from the USARNG/USAR. IIRC, all of its members are former Active Duty Marines: there are no "off the street" USMCR (unless things have changed since I attended Quantico 97/98). In particular, physical fitness standards are the same for Res Marines as for Active Duty: a huge difference for us as we are still fiddling about with this issue for our Res. It seems to me that, depending on how long ago the person left active duty, and how many tours he has been on recently, two weeks for a USMCR might be quite possible. You can ask the same questions about our Army Res today, as we have a number of ex-Regs and a very good number of Res with more than one tour recently. These Res soldiers, I suggest, might require less pre-deployment training than the "traditional" Class A Res soldier. Having been a Res Inf soldier myself, having commanded Res soldiers on ops, and having been responsible for coord of Res force generation at Area and Bde levels, I would not want to see our average Res soldier deploy on ops with less than 90 days of solid trg. Nor, for that matter, a goodly number of our RegF people, especially those not from the Army field side.

Cheers


----------



## BruceinAlberta (16 Dec 2005)

I just retired from 20 years in the US Army (1985-1994 Active; 1994-2005 National Guard)   I just got back from Iraq earlier in '05 where I commanded an NG mech inf BN from the 256th INfantry BDE (M)(E).   Believe me when I say we have struggled for years on how to use reserve forces in the USA.   Years ago the reserve component (RC) was for many a social club, and the active duty force had little respect for it.   However, in the 1980s that began to change with the concept of the round-out BDEs where NG BDEs were made part of active divisions.   For example, my last BDE was the roundout for the 5th ID(M) in the 80s.   Desert Storm showed the RC could do it's job but it would take time to fully bring the combat arms RC units into the same respect as the RC CS and CSS units.   It was the drawdown in the 90s that heightened the importance of those units.   Also RC combat arms units began to get experienced active duty (AD) officers and NCOs in their ranks (I am an example of that.   I took an early out bonus to get my MBA but I stayed in the NG simply to supplement my income at the time.   In 1994 when I got off AD I had fought in Desert Storm and Somalia)   

I also believe the US learned many lessons from earlier wars where replacements were thrown into units where they were treated as though they" did not belong."     Keeping unit integrity prevents this.   Also, my last BDE is an enhanced BDE, meaning we had identical equipment, MTOE and requirements as our AD cousins.   My BN deployed as a BDE and except for a bit of a longer train-up for us, we did everything in combat in Iraq that our AD cousins did.   After about a month in country our standards were no different than AD units.   

One problem we have now is overuse of the RC.   Many soldiers (like me) have done multiple tours since 9/11, and this takes a toll on our civilian lives.   Also, many CS and CSS RC units have been pulled apart to bring units up to strength and this has caused the problem of replacements not being "part of the family" attitude again.   

Once Iraq is done, the US has plans to prevent overuse of the RC and I hope they implement them.   Also, the wars need to show US planners that our AD strenth should be higher.   This is being addressed by a major restructuring of MTOEs now


----------



## pbi (18 Dec 2005)

Greetings Bruce. I am not sure if this is your first post here, but anyway welcome to Army.ca. Folks with US experience are always much needed to add a note of actual knowledge to some of our discussions here.(Hope you have thick skin...) In the interests of offering some of that enlightenment here, can you outline the career progression and training background of, let's say, a typical rifle squad leader in your NG Bn, from civvy street to Staff Sgt? How is initial MOC (US=MOS) training completed today? Out of a typical NG year, how many day's training does a "traditional" NG soldier do? (I'm not referred to Activated NG or full time unit staff). I offered some opinion below,but I am conscious of the fact that I may well be out of date.

Cheers


----------



## BruceinAlberta (18 Dec 2005)

Today there is one basic route to becoming an infantry squad leader, and it is about the same as active duty (AD) with a few differences.  Every enlisted inf.man must attend Basic Combat Training (BCT) at FT Benning, GA (other MOSs attend BCT at other posts..i.e. artillery at FT Sill OK, Engineers, Chemical and MPs, FT Leonard Wood, MO,  Armor, FT Knox, KY, Combat Service Support MOSs, FT Jackson SC but then they go on to other posts for further training).  All BCT is 9 weeks.   Next comes Advanced  Individual Training(AIT) www.armybasic.homestead.com/ait.html  (This link lists the posts for AIT)  In infantry it is called One Station Unit Training (OSUT) and it lasts 14-16 weeks which combines BCT and AIT.  (for college students they allow them to split summers between basic and AIT)  After that he can attend other schools such as anti-tank weapons,  airborne, ranger, javelin, master gunner etc.  The progression of ranks is as follows Private E1, Private E2, Private First Class E3. Corporal or SPecialist E4, Sergeant E5, Staff Sergeeant E6, Sergeant First Class E7, Master Sergeant or First Sergeant E8 and Sergeant Major or Command Sergeant Major E9.  More school are required for promotion.  From E4 to E5 a soldier must attend Platoon Leaders Development Course, from E5 to E6 they must attend Basic NCO Course, from E6 to E7 Advanced NCO Course, E7 to E8 First Sergeants Course, from E8 to E9 Sergeant Majors Academy.  ON AD a soldier attends the course but NG allows a combination of correspondence courses and school attendence.  Nowadays alot of NG soldiers are taking the courses just like AD soldiers.  In my BN most of my squad leaders were either E5s or E6s.  However the majority were E6s.  These young men are the backbone of an infantry company, and they did a tremendous job in Iraq.  I cannot tell you how many times these young men made critical decisions on patrols that meant life or death.  An ambush could spring up instantly and there was no time to have commo with their platoons or company.  I cannot describe how proud they all made me.  I also lost quite a few great men over there, and each one of them are true heroes who I can never forget.


----------



## pbi (18 Dec 2005)

Thanks Bruce. I had the same impression of US Inf squad leaders (both Army and Marines) when I was in Afgh last year.

Cheers


----------



## BruceinAlberta (18 Dec 2005)

and I was impressed with the Canadians I saw in Afghanistan.  True professionals.


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Dec 2005)

"I do not think that Canada is ready to have a reserve or militia unit from Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver get wiped out by some suicide bomber, not that anyone is prepared for such a thing, but I do not think that our politicians have the courage to risk such a thing."
 In fact several Canadian units have been wiped out on the battlefield by Canadian political decision, the Newfound Regt. for one. This practice was stopped thanks to some fine Generals like Crerear and the likes. Canadians under Canadian control, new tactics, etc. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of fine "generalship" at NDHQ these days. It is also another Canadian tradition that in time of crisis the youth of our nation flock to the colours. After all the militia bagged General Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham and two hundred years later stood up again in the Medak Pocket. The one difference I noticed when I was working with the 2/75 Rangers was Money. Several US buddies of mine received huge reenlistment bonus and university/college funding certainly had me green with envy.


----------



## enfield (21 Dec 2005)

Newfoundland Regiment was part of the British Army when it was wiped out in WW1, as Newfoundland was part of the Empire, not Canada. I'd also suggest that some excellent British officers did some very good work building up and directing the Canadian Corps in WW1, and that the lack of trained Canadian senior/staff officers led to many problems in 1939-45. 

I'm not sure if Canadians flock to the colours like we may want to believe - witness manpower shortages that led to the conscription crises in both world wars, as well as the problems with the "Zombies" in WW2. In neither case - especially WW2 - was a satisfactory solution found to shortages of troops. 

But, to get back on topic...
American Reserves have serious money, a real mission, and the political/legislative support to carry it out. 
Then again, that may describe the differences between US and Canadian forces in general....


----------



## 3rd Herd (21 Dec 2005)

Enfield, you forgot the mutiny in Veron during WW2 and the mutiny of a certain Canadian ship. Yes the Newfies were commonwealth BUT until Canadian troops came under Canadian control it was line them up and mow them down. It has been a constant defence policy in Canada for the last 100 years to have a small reg forces and to relay on "patriotism" in time of crisis. This issues seems to get revisited about every 15 to 20 years( 1910, 1920,1936.....)  but stays the same. The only caveat in this it seems has been in the last 20 years or so with the quality of troops in the militia being improved. This I would suspect is due to the amount of reg force vets who get out then get board and rejoin their local militia units. A practice that the US has been encouraging for years.


----------



## geo (21 Dec 2005)

3rd herd
Yes the Newfies were commonwealth BUT until Canadian troops came under Canadian control it was line them up and mow them down. 

You have to take into account that the Brit Generals were treating their own UK troops the same way - Cdn troops were not the whipping boys of the Imperial army.
If you think about it, the fact that some of our Generals stood up to the Brit leadership - had an across the board effect on the whole Imperial Army. Troops were not to be thrown away as had been practice till then.


----------



## pbi (22 Dec 2005)

> In fact several Canadian units have been wiped out on the battlefield by Canadian political decision, the Newfound Regt. for one. This practice was stopped thanks to some fine Generals like Crerear and the likes. Canadians under Canadian control, new tactics, etc. .



I'm not too sure about that. Hong Kong and Dieppe come to mind, during WWII by which time the doctrine of Canadian National Command was over two decades old. Hong Kong involved the destruction in battle of two Militia units: the Royal Rifles of Canada and the Winnipeg Grenadiers, who were not supposed to have been sent into a high-risk area of operations because they were deemed unready. And   I am not certain that retaining Canadian National Command (which IIRC first happened during WWI not WWII) actually saved that many Canadian lives. I would want to see the casualty rates before and after. At any rate, I think we established this setup fairly early in WWI. Maybe some of resident WWI experts can refresh my memory.



> Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of fine "generalship" at NDHQ these days. .



I beg to differ. I have had the experience of serving under a range of Canadian general officers since 1974, and today (in the Army, at least) we enjoy a quality at this rank level that I have never seen before. Youth,   extensive operational experience and better education characterize much of our Army's GOL today. I have seen us suffer for far too long under the exact reverse: individuals whose skills topped out at Platoon Commander or, if they were lucky, CO, but somehow got stars, much to the suffering of the rest of us.



> It is also another Canadian tradition that in time of crisis the youth of our nation flock to the colours. .



Initially in WWI, yes, Less so in WWII, and very much less so in Korea. I tend to agree with Enfield here.



> After all the militia bagged General Wolfe on the Plains of Abraham



They did? How do we know today who shot General Wolfe? How do we know it wasn't a French Regular, or an Irish or Swiss mercenary, or an Indian? (This is a genuine question not a rhetorical one.) I never heard that the shooter had been identified as belonging to one component or another.



> and two hundred years later stood up again in the Medak Pocket.



True, and did a fine job. Agreed.



> The one difference I noticed when I was working with the 2/75 Rangers was Money. Several US buddies of mine received huge reenlistment bonus and university/college funding certainly had me green with envy



True-we still have a way to go on some benefit areas, but I believe we are ahead in others such as travel costs and relocation expenses. Don't forget the reason for the "huge re-enlistment bonus": it is part of a strategy to deal with recruiting and retention shortfalls in the US Army (in particular). I do agree that we should have something equivalent if we need it, but we will never have the bottomless cookie jar that US forces get under a Republican Govt.

Cheers.


----------



## c_canuk (22 Dec 2005)

there was a serious shortage of soldiers for WWII? I was under the impression that the population of Canada was 16 million at that time, and we had fielded a military of or close to 1 million members... that's a very significant portion of a population. if so that's not a failing of the youth in that day, just a lack of potential soldiers avalible.


----------



## Pikache (22 Dec 2005)

Shortage in certain trades, such as infantry as not enough replacements were available, so some units were sent into battle understrengthed.


----------



## geo (22 Dec 2005)

in the last couple of months of the war (WW2) many gunners were rerolled to infantry, given a short indoc session and pointed in the right direction.....

Not an ideal situation but, for political reasons, dispanding some Units/ Bdes/Divs would have resulted in the end of the 1st Cdn Army... which had several elements from the occupied countries (Poles, French & Dutch)


----------



## Gunner (22 Dec 2005)

It began well before the last couple of months of the war.  As an example, James Doohan, of Star Trek fame, was rerolled infantry with the Royal Winnipeg Rifles as was the former HCol of my former unit.  Both were reroled gunners and both went ashore with the unit on D Day.


----------



## BruceinAlberta (26 Dec 2005)

How does the Canadian Militia work in terms of training a reserve soldier.  Is basic and skills training done all at once or in different years?  Does Canada ever deploy a militia unit as a unit?   

                                                              The US guy in Calgary


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2005)

easy answer 1st
Canada has not deployed Militia / Reserve units overseas since WW2
Reserve units have been kept small - usually about 150 to 200 per "Battalion" Though there has been recent developments allowing units to grow to 300 or 400 

By tradition, Reserve/Militia units have reflected the same Trade Occupations as in the Regular forces. Members would act as augmentees to Regular formation - filling in the blank files. BUT
Over the last 10 to 15 years, they have periodicaly gathered together large numbers of Militia/Reserve personnel, cobbled them together into a Sqn or Troop sized formations for deployment as part a sub unit of a Regular formation.

New reserve units have been formed to provide services like Cimic, Psyops, NBCW and the like - some success, some dismal failures.


Reserve training?
Well - the CF does not have a unified thought on this matter.
Navy, Airforce & Comms send their Reserve personnel on the same courses as their Regular countreparts.
Army; they've decided to break things down into Must, Should & Could knows and give all the reservists training in the Must (and most of the "should") knows. They figure that the remainder can be taught in predeployment training.... it works most of the time.

Basic & Soldier qualifications = 40 days Trg in 2 x 20 day courses. 
Basic trade/section member course follows; 35 days for Sapper
next year, Small party tasks - team leader course 20 - 35 days (changing)


----------



## pbi (28 Dec 2005)

BruceinAlberta said:
			
		

> How does the Canadian Militia work in terms of training a reserve soldier.  Is basic and skills training done all at once or in different years?  Does Canada ever deploy a militia unit as a unit?
> 
> The US guy in Calgary



Bruce: Geo has given you a very good answer. It is tempting but not accurate to try to draw direct parallels between the USARNG/USAR and our Army Reserve (traditionally called "The Militia"). With the probable exception of some aspects of individual training, our land reserves will almost always come off a very distant and weak second to the US reserves. This is not to slag the people in it (often very dedicated) but just a reflection of our different political and military cultures.


Cheers

Cheers


----------



## Douke (29 Dec 2005)

My unit, the Voltigeurs de Quebec, started to tighten the pressure on reservists to show up for training (especially for recruit, they understand these changes can't be made in one year). You now require a proof of either school exams, death in the family, or any other event of that sort to absent yourself of training. Repeated offense to that rule will get you kicked out. Some may argue that getting kicked out is not a punishment, but I think it allows us to keep the more dedicated people and is as far as it can go in the actual state of mind. We also started boosting our numbers, recruitment efforts doubled the regiment numbers and we are now approaching two full companies, and starting a charlie company next year.

All that to say that there is some effort made to make reservist more deployment ready, and I don't think it should go further than that. Currently regular forces have no problem filling the rotos and the pre-deployment training seems sufficient to bring reservists filling holes to an acceptable preparation level.

As for the role of the reserve, it is a wonderful recruitment tool, many soldiers in my unit are currently transfering to regular forces. It allows them to try military life without binding themselves to a 3 year contract and decide wheter or not it was made for them. I would rather see that than someone joining the regs, finding he don't like that and train backward for 3 years. It also ensure that should the need arise, we have a sufficient number of people already familiar with what you must know, only needing a refresh on what you should know and training in what you could know for the best few (the must should and could know is based on a previous post, i just loved that way of seeing things).


----------



## ghazise (30 Dec 2005)

pbi,

"The USMCR is quite different from the USARNG/USAR. IIRC, all of its members are former Active Duty Marines: there are no "off the street" USMCR (unless things have changed since I attended Quantico 97/98). "

The current form of the USMCR is not composed of only prior service Active Duty Marines,  I think what you were referring to was the process of augmentation for Marine Officers, where all Marine Officers once completed OCS were commissioned as Reserve Officers on active duty and within a couple of years of observations performing Officers had there commission augmented to Active duty status, while non-performing officers were dropped to Reserves.  Continuing to paraphrase a Marine Corps article, I think congress now wants to the Marine Corps to change the augmentation process to allow for an all active duty Officer corps.  
Now in practical application, for my unit I can not think of any Marine above the rank Sergeant who has not done a tour on active duty, and this is unique in that we are on Camp Pendleton (home of 35,000 Marines) that we have excellent recruitment base for our Officer and NCO corps.  The biggest advantage of the Marine Corps Reserve over the our Army counterparts (correct me if I am wrong)  but when new equipment is fielded to the Corps, equipment is alloted to the Marine Forces Reserve, though we are last in line, we will see the equipment within 2 years of the Active duty force.  Take for the example 2 1/2 ton trucks that the USR/ NG operate rather than being fully fielded the FMTV,  while we have had our full complement of the 7 ton trucks for quite some time now, and everything equipment fielding plan I have seen, every piece of equipment fielded to the Marine Corps has always had allocations for the Marine Corps Reserves.  Having equipment and training commonality with our active duty counterparts, allows for easy transistions for individual augmentations, and complete unit deployments.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2006)

sounds about right to me.
Cda, not having been at war for a long time; our politicians and our CF leaders and budget considerations have resulted in the Reserves having to deal with (pooling of kit) and doing without some of the bells and whistles needed to get the job done.


----------



## Gunnerlove (2 Jan 2006)

The Canadian Reserve system is not very well advertised. 
The USNG has a better advertising campaign going on in Canada right now than the CF. Pick up a Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine and there are a half dozen adds for the US military. I hear adds on the US radio stations and see them on TV a couple of times an hour for all branches. These adds are selling the benefits of joining, not a multi cultural group holding hands without a weapon in sight. 

I remember the last Radio spot my Brigade paid for, well actually I don't because like most people young enough to be soldiers I do not listen to AM Talk Radio so I missed it. They were concerned about the public perception if they advertised on a rock station.  If the Regs want fleshed out Reserve Units to draw troops from they really need to take the handcuffs of of our recruiting efforts and push funds down to the Unit level where there some boots on the ground.

Just my two cents


----------



## 3rd Herd (2 Jan 2006)

Besides the advertising in the commerical sector they also have come up with NASCAR sponsorship, IHRA drag bikes and some other very creative means of getting their message out.


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Jan 2006)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> The Canadian Reserve system is not very well advertised.
> The USNG has a better advertising campaign going on in Canada right now than the CF. Pick up a Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine and there are a half dozen adds for the US military. I hear adds on the US radio stations and see them on TV a couple of times an hour for all branches. These adds are selling the benefits of joining, not a multi cultural group holding hands without a weapon in sight.
> 
> I remember the last Radio spot my Brigade paid for, well actually I don't because like most people young enough to be soldiers I do not listen to AM Talk Radio so I missed it. They were concerned about the public perception if they advertised on a rock station.  If the Regs want fleshed out Reserve Units to draw troops from they really need to take the handcuffs of of our recruiting efforts and push funds down to the Unit level where there some boots on the ground.
> ...



I heard a Canadian Reserve commerical on the radio a few months back, as I was driving through St Catherines. Honestly, if more people just came to the schools and explained what its all about.. It works at my school.


----------



## Pte_Martin (2 Jan 2006)

ShawnSmith said:
			
		

> I heard a Canadian Reserve commerical on the radio a few months back, as I was driving through St Catherines. Honestly, if more people just came to the schools and explained what its all about.. It works at my school.



I agree they need more people comming in to schools i know that when they did send people in they had more students apply


----------



## Haggis (2 Jan 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> I agree they need more people comming in to schools i know that when they did send people in they had more students apply


It's not that Rerserve recruiters don't visit schools.  It's that some schools won't let them visit.  For many schools, the CFRC crews get there first.  When the Reserve units want to visit, they're told "You were just here."  Knowingly or not, CFRCs and Reserve recruiters compete for the same applicants.


----------



## pbi (3 Jan 2006)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's not that Rerserve recruiters don't visit schools.  It's that some schools won't let them visit.  For many schools, the CFRC crews get there first.  When the Reserve units want to visit, they're told "You were just here."  Knowingly or not, CFRCs and Reserve recruiters compete for the same applicants.



This can certainly be true, but it can also be avoided.If the Res Bde G1 Branch are doing their jobs, they establish a close working relationship with the CFRC that covers their Bde area, and coordinate the Bde's recruiting activities with the CFRC's, including joint visits, or ensuring that "stand alone" CFRC visits within the Bde's AO include information on the Res. I have seen this work so I know it can be done, but it should not be left at unit level to coordinate or confusion will probably result, unless you are in a single unit location.

Cheers


----------



## geo (5 Jan 2006)

Within LFQA the Res Bdes work closely with the CFRC dets.... some improvement.
One of the problems in the past with CFRC guys going into HS' for recruiting is that guidance counsellors perceived them as coming in with the express intention of convincing their students to drop out & join the army... while that is the last thing reservist recruiters have in mind.
End result is that, in the not too distant past, recruiting teams did not always get a warm reception at schools.


----------

