# Lack of officers leaves army short of 'heart and soul'



## the 48th regulator (29 Nov 2011)

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/canada-in-afghanistan/Lack+officers+leaves+army+short+heart+soul/5780927/story.html

Lack of officers leaves army short of 'heart and soul'

Sergeants, captains and majors; Training mission in Afghanistan puts 'long-term health' at risk, report says

By LEE BERTHIAUME, Postmedia NewsNovember 29, 2011



Canada's new training mission in Afghanistan is putting the army's "longterm health" at risk because of the demands being placed on the force's small number of sergeants, captains and other mid-level leaders, a new defence department report indicates.

There are now 19,500 fulltime soldiers in the Canadian army, 3,000 more than in 2004.

The force shrank significantly through the 1990s and early 2000s because of deep budget cuts, but began expanding again with Canada's involvement in combat operations in Kandahar starting in 2005.

That growth, however, hasn't been without its own problems, says the departmental performance report, an annual, internally produced publication that looks back at the department's work over the past year.

"While Regular Force expansion has resulted in the Army having the right number of personnel, they are not distributed through the necessary ranks," the report reads.

It goes on to note that the army is "heavy" in lower ranks like privates, corporals and lieutenants, but "light" when it comes to senior noncommissioned officers such as sergeants as well as midlevel officers such as captains and majors.

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk recently highlighted the importance of trained NCOs and mid-level officers.

"I cannot go onto the street and hire a sergeant, hire a major, hire a colonel," he told the Commons defence committee on Nov. 3. "If you want a sergeant with 10 years of experience, it takes 10 years."

According to the performance report, military officials had anticipated that the end of the combat mission in Kandahar this past July would free up much-needed sergeants, captains and majors for other tasks.

But the government has since committed Canada to helping train the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police to ensure those two institutions are ready to take responsibility for the country's security by 2014.

The performance report says the Canadian military personnel who will be responsible for this task "are the same ranks which are (in) short (supply) in the army and are required in the training establishments (in Canada) where they preserve the long-term health of the army."

Instead, "the army has been drawing heavily on the militia to fill these gaps."

The militia is the army's name for its 16,000-strong reserve force.

The role of the reserves has come under scrutiny in recent months after a senior general, Andrew Leslie, noted the number serving in the Canadian Forces has grown in recent years by 23 per cent, or more than 6,600, because regular force personnel were needed in Afghanistan.

This growth outpaced the regular force, with many of the so-called "weekend warriors" taking up full-time positions in headquarters and administrative positions.

Leslie recommended slashing the number of full-time reservists to 4,500 as part of an effort to find $1 billion in defence department savings.

The Conservatives blasted past Liberal governments for overcommitting Canada's military, but University of Calgary defence expert Rob Huebert said the Harper government is in danger of doing the same thing.

The sergeants, captains and majors are the "heart and soul" of the army, he said, and their heavy commitment to Afghanistan is worrying for the army's longterm viability.

"Because it's always full capacity in Afghanistan instead of coming back to Canada to do the training," he said, "ultimately you end up eating your own young, so to speak."
© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette


----------



## 57Chevy (29 Nov 2011)

Same article in The National Post with an additional paragraph;

"Huebert said the report also highlights the dangers that are on the horizon as the defence department works to find billions in savings over the next few years."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/28/canadian-armys-long-term-health-at-risk-due-to-shortage-in-mid-level-leadership/


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (29 Nov 2011)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> It goes on to note that the army is "heavy" in lower ranks like privates, corporals and lieutenants, but "light" when it comes to senior noncommissioned officers such as sergeants as well as midlevel officers such as captains and majors.


I found this line particularly interesting because while getting a Captain with a sufficient amount of time in and experience takes relatively the same amount of time as it would a Sgt (10 years), having a "heavy" number of Lt's is a good sign if we're short Captains.  Since an Lt is supposed to remain in rank for 3 years and then be promoted to Captain (in some cases they are accelerated and promoted in only 2), we're at most only 3 years away from having more Captains available as long as attrition does not outpace intake/training.

We're still hurting from the FRP of the 90's though, and my fear is that with 2013 coming up fast with potential budget cutbacks galore, the government may not have learned from their mistakes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Nov 2011)

A bit more from the "Land Readiness" section of the DPR to show you a bit more of what's written in the source document around the media-quoted bits:


> *Lessons Learned*
> A strategic reconstitution directive should be issued to ensure that activity is co ordinated across the Department. A clear and agreed understanding of expected readiness levels is essential for the development of plans for equipment fielding and repair, and collective training programmes. A joint and comprehensive approach to planning is necessary if reconstitution and reorientation planning is to be effective and efficient. Army commanders and staff continue to engage with the Air Force and Navy as new capabilities such as MHLH and C IED are institutionalised, and with OGDs such as NRCan as Arctic capabilities are further developed.
> 
> While Regular Force expansion has resulted in the Army having the right number of personnel, they are not distributed through the necessary ranks. The Army is heavy in Privates, Corporals and Lieutenants, but light in Senior Non Commissioned Officers (NCO), Captains and Majors. The Army has been drawing heavily on the Militia to fill these gaps. It was anticipated that the end of Op ATHENA would result in a lowered demand for Militia augmentation. This is not the case, due to the mid level leadership bill associated with Op ATTENTION. These are the same ranks which are short in the Army and are required in the training establishments where they preserve the long term health of the Army. Long range operational planning must be coupled to the Army's personnel plans in order to anticipate shortfalls in high demand ranks and trade qualifications and to mitigate such spikes in demand.


"Land Readiness" section attached in full - full DPR available here.


----------



## Maxadia (29 Nov 2011)

I find the below quote to be confusing:



> According to the performance report, military officials had anticipated that the end of the combat mission in Kandahar this past July would free up much-needed sergeants, captains and majors for other tasks.



"Military officials" had figured that come this past July, that everyone would be pulled out?  It's been obvious for years that we'd be staying to train, not as a combat force.  However, that's me speaking as a current civvie, not an active member.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Nov 2011)

Personnel are a long lead-time item.  Want a new Sergeant?  It will be 10-15 years, minimum, so get your orders in today.

Unfortunately, military personnel management and force generation from civilian to trained soldier is not well understood, even within the military.  If you're late to define the requirement, the requirement will be late to be filled.  And if your "new" thing is a high priority, it means you'll be robbing people from lower priorities until the recruiting and trainng systems can catch up.  Worse still is new demands without new people - and a lack of will to divest functions to free up the positions for the people needed.


----------



## Journeyman (29 Nov 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Worse still is new demands without new people - and a lack of will to divest functions to free up the positions for the people needed.


   :nod:

Known variously as "my personnel-intensive 'leading change' bright idea" and "my empire" are more important than your operation's pers requirement.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (29 Nov 2011)

The other danger, not mentioned yet in this thread, is that to catch up to the numbers we need, the army will happily accept sub-par personnel into those ranks, based simply upon qualification, not merit. Something I am witnessing already.


----------



## Pusser (29 Nov 2011)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I found this line particularly interesting because while getting a Captain with a sufficient amount of time in and experience takes relatively the same amount of time as it would a Sgt (10 years), having a "heavy" number of Lt's is a good sign if we're short Captains.  Since an Lt is supposed to remain in rank for 3 years and then be promoted to Captain (in some cases they are accelerated and promoted in only 2), we're at most only 3 years away from having more Captains available as long as attrition does not outpace intake/training.
> 
> We're still hurting from the FRP of the 90's though, and my fear is that with 2013 coming up fast with potential budget cutbacks galore, the government may not have learned from their mistakes.



Unfortunately, this isn't really true.  Newly promoted captains (even if not accelerated) do not solve this problem.  In the Canadian Forces especially, there is significant difference between a new captain and a senior captain (i.e. with a few years of experience under his belt), yet they are all lumped together when people start playing the statistics game.

The problem with promoting people too quickly based simply on them having all the ticks in the box is that these folks really only know how things are *supposed* to work.  They don't have the experience to be able to deal with things when they don't.

"Where's the kaboom?  There was supposed to be a great earth-shattering kaboom!"


----------



## jeffb (29 Nov 2011)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> I found this line particularly interesting because while getting a Captain with a sufficient amount of time in and experience takes relatively the same amount of time as it would a Sgt (10 years), having a "heavy" number of Lt's is a good sign if we're short Captains.  Since an Lt is supposed to remain in rank for 3 years and then be promoted to Captain (in some cases they are accelerated and promoted in only 2), we're at most only 3 years away from having more Captains available as long as attrition does not outpace intake/training.



Sort of... There are Captains and then there are Captains. It's one thing to say that a position needs a Captain but when you have guys taking 2 years to get through the training system, like me, getting promoted after only spending one year at the Regiment does not mean that you are an experienced officer.  There is a big difference between the recently promoted Captain on his/her first Regimental employment and the AOC qualified Captain at the end of his/her first ERE. As a junior Captain (and I'm 2 months away from being one) you don't know very much about the Army outside of your trade and especially not outside of your element. Never mind AOC, most Lt's get promoted without ATOC. 

There is a big bulge in the Artillery trade right now of Lt's and in 3-4 years the problem of a lack of Capt's will be solved. That being said, the experience that my generation is gaining is arguably not as good as those of previous generations. Because of the lack of experienced Capt's in the Regiment, we are probably not getting the same level of mentoring that we would have received in the past. This means that we are probably better as figuring out things on our own but I am sure that I have numerous "unknown, unknowns" right now that will only come to light in time. 

My  :2c: on the situation right now.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (30 Nov 2011)

If you guys re-read my post while I didn't go into huge detail detail I did say "...getting a Captain with a sufficient amount of time in and experience..."  So yes, there is a difference between a Captain and a Captain with experience and time in to a sufficient level to make them effective at many levels and positions.  I was just simply stating that if there is a bulge of Lt's right now it's a good sign because there is a light at the end of the tunnel to at least help to solve the lack of Captain's in the mid-term.  In this short term we are still left with the lack of personnel, nothing we can do at this point except continue to train, grow and take our lessons learned from the past in the hopes to not repeat them.


----------



## Wookilar (30 Nov 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Never mind AOC, most Lt's get promoted without ATOC.



ATOC, I think, is part of the current problem. ATOC, in my mind, was never meant for Lts to go on. It is for Capts that have a little bit of experience and they know, in general terms, how things work outside of their trade. Unfortunately, that is not how most Army trades seem to look at it. 

Sending Lts 6 months out of Phase 4 on ATOC will not fix our problem of having too many Lts and not enough Capts. An Lt with ATOC is....still an Lt, not a Capt waiting to be promoted and still has that lack of experience and knowledge.

The only thing that can fix that, is time. A course qualification will not.

Wook


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2011)

Wookilar,
Exactly, how many times over the years on this website have I read things from folks who couldn't do certain things because they weren't the right rank?  From an outsider the military seems to think that promoting rank also promotes experience and intelligence.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Nov 2011)

ATOC is an excellent course for Lieutenants.  It should be targetted towards Lieutenants and be a prerequisite for promotion to Captain (and not after 6 months from DP1 completion).

JeffB has raised an issue that I've harped before with the problem with 2nd Lieutenant being a training rank and Lieutenant being a speed bump to Captain.


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Nov 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ATOC is an excellent course for Lieutenants.  It should be targetted towards Lieutenants and be a prerequisite for promotion to Captain (and not after 6 months from DP1 completion).
> 
> JeffB has raised an issue that I've harped before with the problem with 2nd Lieutenant being a training rank and Lieutenant being a speed bump to Captain.



Can't we just make sure that they get the right experience in the units before being promoted? I've got a sneaking suspicion that we are layering on more formal courses in place of proper mentoring and hands on experience. I'd prefer the latter, especially for junior officers who've already spent over a year in one kind of training or another.


----------



## Grapeshot (2 Dec 2011)

However, the CF has at last count over 114 General Officers and over 350 Colonel or equivalent officers! Talk about overkill, get rid of 1/2 and devote the $$$$ resources to the areas where they can be better used.


----------



## The Anti-Royal (2 Dec 2011)

Grapeshot said:
			
		

> However, the CF has at last count over 114 General Officers and over 350 Colonel or equivalent officers! Talk about overkill, get rid of 1/2 and devote the $$$$ resources to the areas where they can be better used.



Which half?

What areas where they can be better used?

How 'bout I take your question, delete "over 114 General Officers and over 350 Colonel or equivalent", and insert "X artillery"?


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Dec 2011)

Grapeshot said:
			
		

> However, the CF has at last count over 114 General Officers and over 350 Colonel or equivalent officers! Talk about overkill, get rid of 1/2 and devote the $$$$ resources to the areas where they can be better used.



Do you mean reduce the CF establishment by 232 personnel then ask Treasurey Board not to claw back the MILPAY $$$ from Vote 1 allocations, but rather let the CF keep the personnel-related money to use for capital acquistition and in-service support?  An honest question here...how familiar are you with the FAA and pers-related TB policies and guidelines?  

As an aside, I'm intrigued with your assessment of the need to elimiate "1/2" of the GO and Colonels.  With the effort that you potentially put into your assessment, perhaps you meant that the actual figure for deliberate reduction should be 5.0000x101% (accurate to five significant digits) 


Regards
G2G


----------



## Grapeshot (6 Dec 2011)

Sorry, never did a tour in NDHQ, unlike some who spend their entire careers there!  This was posted as food for thought, in particular since DND is undergoing Strategic review which usually translates into a 5% budget cut along with the potential 5% or 10% options that all federal departments must preset to TB this fiscal. Looking at the actual cost of the higher ranks as contained in the Cost Factors Manual, getting rid of 1/3 of the Senior Officers would provide sufficient funds to pay for a light battalion of soldiers! In the current climate, what is the better value? Better still, maybe we could purchase a tail fin for an F-35.

I also noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to have identified where the "bloat" is in all the extra HQ's that General Rick was attempting to cut! Perhaps you could be of help; send your resume in to work as a consultant! Genreal Andy left some $$$ to hire a few of them.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Dec 2011)

So you don't have much to offer except conjecture and cheapshots ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2011)

The premise of the original article is wrong. The "heart and soul" of the CF, not just the army, is found in ships, regiments and squadrons - in the officers', sergeants' and, indeed, junior ranks' messes. The "heart and soul" are the committed, career NCOs and officers who "soldier on" (and the Navy and RCAF equivalents thereto) despite the cuts and despite the less than fully coherent _guidance_ from a plethora of HQs.

But, the "heart and soul" leaves the fleet and the field and flying forces and they go to HQs, including to NDHQ and to schools and bases and all manner of strange places.

I would argue that the top two levels of HQ (NDHQ and the _dot coms_ and some functional and regional HQs are _bloated_. I suggest, based on a lot of experience, that almost all HQs are almost always overstaffed - except that every so often, when the you know what hits the fan, one or two HQs are actually worked off their feet and could use a few extra hands, if only to answer the inane queries from HQs that are "fat."

There are a couple of groups who are not part of the "heart and soul:" the junior folks, officers and ORs who have too little experience to have, yet, made the deep emotional commitment that is characteristic of the _professional_ naval and military man and woman; a small slice of the more senior folks who have replaced their commitment with careerism; and a rather general, across the board, slice for whom the CF is just a job. But the youngsters are learning and some will take their places in the ranks of the "heart and soul;" some, maybe most of the careerists did give us good value at one time - and they will all be gone, eventually; and even the "job doers" make a contribution.

Some of the "heart and soul" is indeed away from units, schools and HQs, where their skills and knowledge would help - but the rest of the "heart and soul" will take up the slack and will, indeed, be better for having risen to the challenge.

It's a tempest in a teapot and it's a damned small tempest in a damned small pot at that.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

Grapeshot said:
			
		

> Sorry, never did a tour in NDHQ, unlike some who spend their entire careers there!  This was posted as food for thought, in particular since DND is undergoing Strategic review which usually translates into a 5% budget cut along with the potential 5% or 10% options that all federal departments must preset to TB this fiscal. Looking at the actual cost of the higher ranks as contained in the Cost Factors Manual, getting rid of 1/3 of the Senior Officers would provide sufficient funds to pay for a light battalion of soldiers! In the current climate, what is the better value? Better still, maybe we could purchase a tail fin for an F-35.
> 
> I also noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to have identified where the "bloat" is in all the extra HQ's that General Rick was attempting to cut! Perhaps you could be of help; send your resume in to work as a consultant! Genreal Andy left some $$$ to hire a few of them.



Maybe you should tone it down. As you have admitted you have never done an NDHQ tour. Neither have I - nor would I want to - but having said that the people I work with at NDHQ have their hearts and souls in the right place.


----------



## Tow Tripod (6 Dec 2011)

The performance report says the Canadian military personnel who will be responsible for this task "are the same ranks which are (in) short (supply) in the army and are required in the training establishments (in Canada) where they preserve the long-term health of the army."            

Really? We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Dec 2011)

Grapeshot said:
			
		

> *Sorry, never did a tour in NDHQ*, unlike some who spend their entire careers there!  This was posted as food for thought, in particular since DND is undergoing Strategic review which usually translates into a 5% budget cut along with the potential 5% or 10% options that all federal departments must preset to TB this fiscal. Looking at the actual cost of the higher ranks as contained in the Cost Factors Manual, getting rid of 1/3 of the Senior Officers would provide sufficient funds to pay for a light battalion of soldiers! In the current climate, what is the better value? Better still, maybe we could purchase a tail fin for an F-35.
> 
> I also noticed from some of your other posts that you seem to have identified where the "bloat" is in all the extra HQ's that General Rick was attempting to cut! Perhaps you could be of help; send your resume in to work as a consultant! Genreal Andy left some $$$ to hire a few of them.



Maybe that's something you need to work on then, to help enhance your perspective on how things work throughout the CF, the Dept and the GoC?  The CF doesn't get all its gear from annual sacks of gifts from Santa Claus, you know.  Some folks work hard within the Defence Services Program to get stuff for the very units, the likes of which you are implying you have spent your entire career within.

Whether you like it or not, there are important jobs to be done in strategic HQs interacting in the rest of the Government's machine, many of those being of appropriate rank to have an element of integration and understanding with Departmental and OGD civilians.  A rectal-plucked "1/2"...or a 'new and improved' "1/3" of the "Senior Officers" (I'm assuming you are actually using this term to address your previously mentioned GO and Col reductions and not the pure sense of Maj-LCol-Col type 'senior officers') will do little to increase the operational capacity of the CF.  If you want further analysis on my comments in the other thread you refer to, ironically (juxtaposed against your senior officer comment quoted above), I would characterize the majority of bloat to be in the Maj-LCol and CWO ranks within overlapping/conflicting/friction generating HQs.

If you take another swing through the CFM, perhaps you could help us better understand your ideas for creating a "light battalion" (do you mean something like a LIB or LIAB?) from the offsets in Departmentally offset General Officers and Colonels in NDHQ?  I would certainly be interested to see what such a LIAB/LIB would look like...seriously...perhaps you're on to something?


Regards
G2G


----------



## Franko (6 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!



Never heard of any DS picking and choosing the courses they wanted to instruct before.

Don't want to instruct? Then quit. No one is forcing you to stay.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) *and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses *  in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!



Oh no! Not a Reserve course anic: How fucking horrible that you'd even have to associate with those red headed step children.  :facepalm: I guess now that things are winding down it's ok to forget that they backfilled, with honour, over 20% of the mission that the Reg force couldn't. It's ok now to kick them back to the gutter now that they've been used up.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Pretty hard to think about going off to fight against bigotry somewhere in the world, when there are so many pathetic, useless tit practitioners of it here. :

Your last sentence "The above statement is complete bullshit!" just neatly summed up your own post.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Dec 2011)

CF instructors.......teaching CF courses......in CF schools.........in Canada........


----------



## Tow Tripod (6 Dec 2011)

Nerf Herder,
I plan on taking you up on that offer! It wont be a big loss for me or the institution I belong too.
Recce Guy, Come spend another summer in Wainwright for maximum negative effect on oneself. I feel as though I should genuflect to your awesomeness. As for fighting bigotry I'm not sure what war that was but I'm sure you served honourably in your war. Thank you for you service and a hug is being emailed as I speak.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Nerf Herder,
> I plan on taking you up on that offer! It wont be a big loss for me or the institution I belong too.
> Recce Guy, Come spend another summer in Wainwright for maximum negative effect on oneself. I feel as though I should genuflect to your awesomeness. As for fighting bigotry I'm not sure what war that was but I'm sure you served honourably in your war. Thank you for you service and a hug is being emailed as I speak.



I quite enjoy Wainwright myself. Call me crazy.

I see you concentrated on the wrong part of the message................. again


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, this isn't really true.  Newly promoted captains (even if not accelerated) do not solve this problem.  In the Canadian Forces especially, there is significant difference between a new captain and a senior captain (i.e. with a few years of experience under his belt), yet they are all lumped together when people start playing the statistics game.


Somewhere I've posted that every rank should have both training and TI requirements for promotions, and promotion from Lt to Capt should be merit based.  Such a system would certainly clear-up the problem identified here where the only difference between some Lt and Capt is enrolment programme (and not even TI).



			
				Wookilar said:
			
		

> ATOC, I think, is part of the current problem. ATOC, in my mind, was never meant for Lts to go on. It is for Capts that have a little bit of experience and they know, in general terms, how things work outside of their trade.


Actually, this should be a lieutenant course.  By the time someone is promoted to Captain, they should already be able to think broader than "this is my occupational lane."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Somewhere I've posted that every rank should have both training and TI requirements for promotions, and promotion from Lt to Capt should be merit based.  Such a system would certainly clear-up the problem identified here where the only difference between some Lt and Capt is enrolment programme (and not even TI).
> Actually, this should be a lieutenant course.  By the time someone is promoted to Captain, they should already be able to think broader than "this is my occupational lane."



I am reminded that, in the late 1980's and early 1990's when I was a subaltern,  that the promotion even to Lt was not automatic.  The promotion rate each year varied from 70% to 90% of those eligible.  Each unit usually had it's token 7 year Lt that could not make it out of the bottom 20% to Capt and was on the edge of not being offered further terms of service and therefore given a gratuity to leave at 12 years service.

Lately, we have become used to 100% TOS conversion rates.  That is not the historical norm for the CF and I predict that we will see the return of limited TOS offers/ career gating.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Really? We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time. The above statement is complete bullshit!



If you don't like it, you do have the option of taking your release. 

Your Sgts don't want to train Reservists? Well...guess what....we don't particularly like Reg Force pers who display "attitude" that Reservists are beneath them.


I've worked both sides of the street - Reg and Reserve. We are on the same team.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> We could fire up a DP1 in January but the infantry is still a closed trade. Then Sgt's that thought that they came here to train DP1 candidates get nailed with doing BMQ(L) and *even worse DP1 Primary Reserve courses in the summer time*. The above statement is complete bullshit!


What COULD be worse?  Oh yes, being taught by instructors who feel that way....


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Dec 2011)

recceguy-

I am not trying to add any fuel to the Reg/Res battle but you realize there are RegF people who never had a chance to deploy to Afghanistan right? As I recall, many positions were held especially for reservists, were they not? I know of a handful of reservists who deployed to Afghanistan with barely 2 years experience, and a lot of that was pre-deployment. Why were people like that selected for tour when there were RegF guys with 4-5 years experience at the time, who were marking time in Canada? Especially considering some positions it didn't really matter what trade you came from...just curious.  It's not like every single RegF person was stretched to the breaking point. 

If you have any insight, I'd be much obliged.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Dec 2011)

Spectrum,

Not to be a dink, but can you show me where in your enrolment documentation you (or anyone else) was promised a particular tour?

I have 27 years of experience to say that Afghanistan is not Canada's last war.  We will find even an crappier part of the world for your tour (they have been slowly going down hill since the 1980s)  

Trust me- you hang around, you will deploy.  Someplace.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Dec 2011)

I always thought the heart and soul was the NCO corps. :camo:


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Dec 2011)

Oh no, for sure I understand that. I am more asking a question than complaining. It's not even for me that I ask. I just happen to have a good friend with 8-9 years in, and no tour.  He's had good write ups, solid performer etc, fit. Pretty close to a model soldier (better than I will ever be!) so I just don't see why he wasn't utilized, considering some reservists were deployed before they even had 2 years in...He had to sit back and watch people come in, and train on something he was already qualified in, and then deploy. 

I won't get specific but I can tell it bothers him...and he feels his lack of a tour may eventually hurt his credibility as a leader. With that said, he certainly doesn't need any help "cutting it" as an excellent Jnr NCO. I just don't see why someone like that wasn't given a shot - especially considering that he has made this a career and plans to "hang around". 

But you are totally correct, there will always be something else. Sorry for the hijack.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Dec 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Oh no, for sure I understand that. I am more asking a question than complaining. It's not even for me that I ask. I just happen to have a good friend with 8-9 years in, and no tour.  He's had good write ups, solid performer etc, fit. Pretty close to a model soldier (better than I will ever be!) so I just don't see why he wasn't utilized, considering some reservists were deployed before they even had 2 years in...He had to sit back and watch people come in, and train on something he was already qualified in, and then deploy.
> 
> I won't get specific but I can tell it bothers him...and he feels his lack of a tour may eventually hurt his credibility as a leader. With that said, he certainly doesn't need any help "cutting it" as an excellent Jnr NCO. I just don't see why someone like that wasn't given a shot - especially considering that he has made this a career and plans to "hang around".
> 
> But you are totally correct, there will always be something else. Sorry for the hijack.



To borrow your line, I am not trying to add any fuel to the Reg/Res battle but you realize your little friend may be leaving a little out about why he has not deployed, in a war we have been fighting for over 10 years....

Food for thought, before you go over to cord of wood, and to come back to add fuel to the fire.

dileas

tess


----------



## Troopasaurus (6 Dec 2011)

Maybe the attitude towards the reservists was noted and he wasn't deployed because it would cause problems in a platoon of 20% reservists.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Dec 2011)

See this is exactly it. It must be his fault, right? I think there is something wrong with simply jumping to that conclusion just because someone didn't deploy. 

Anyways he's put it behind him, and thus I shall too. Just didn't feel recceguy's statement to be completely accurate.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> See this is exactly it. It must be his fault, right? I think there is something wrong with simply jumping to that conclusion just because someone didn't deploy.
> 
> Anyways he's put it behind him, and thus I shall too. Just didn't feel recceguy's statement to be completely accurate.



I agree with recceguy, not because we're ancient but he is making sense. You are seeing and considering one point of view: his.

Have you thought - hmmm why didn't he deploy? There is a reason that we may not know or ever know - and its not a Reg vs Reserve issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Dec 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> See this is exactly it. It must be his fault, right? I think there is something wrong with simply jumping to that conclusion just because someone didn't deploy.
> 
> Anyways he's put it behind him, and thus I shall too. Just didn't feel recceguy's statement to be completely accurate.



Read what I said again 





> over 20% of the mission that the Reg force couldn't.



I didn't say 'why' they couldn't. I just said they couldn't.

Maybe those spots were destined for someone else.

Maybe the Regs couldn't fill every spot.

Maybe your buddies Unit said 'Not a friggin' chance'.

Maybe...maybe...maybe.

You can quit jumping to conclusions and quit the derail now.

Read a little slower next time and try tackle the nuances before you mount your steed and come charging out.


----------



## the 48th regulator (7 Dec 2011)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> See this is exactly it. It must be his fault, right? I think there is something wrong with simply jumping to that conclusion just because someone didn't deploy.
> 
> Anyways he's put it behind him, and thus I shall too. Just didn't feel recceguy's statement to be completely accurate.



I don't know, you tell me.

10 Years, and he could not get deployed because of reservists..... :

Yep, a super keen soldier, he is.

dileas

tess


----------



## Tow Tripod (7 Dec 2011)

I've worked both sides of the street - Reg and Reserve. We are on the same team. 

Jim, believe me we are on the same team! You may still like it but I'm looking to get traded! I need as serious change of scenery!


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Dec 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I always thought the heart and soul was the NCO corps. :camo:



It used to be until they started making the Officers do NCO work more and more, with predictable results!  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> I've worked both sides of the street - Reg and Reserve. We are on the same team.



I've never had any doubt


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Dec 2011)

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> I've worked both sides of the street - Reg and Reserve. We are on the same team.
> 
> Jim, believe me we are on the same team! You may still like it but I'm looking to get traded! I need as serious change of scenery!



Not a problem. Waingwright isn't everyone's "cup of tea" although I personally like the place.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (7 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Somewhere I've posted that every rank should have both training and TI requirements for promotions, and promotion from Lt to Capt should be merit based.  Such a system would certainly clear-up the problem identified here where the only difference between some Lt and Capt is enrolment programme (and not even TI).
> Actually, this should be a lieutenant course.  By the time someone is promoted to Captain, they should already be able to think broader than "this is my occupational lane."



I think your absolutely right and in my limited time at the bn (3 RCR Pl Comd for a year and a half) I have seen the problems of having pers be automatically promoted to Captain.  In fact I will have spent 3 years in the bn before I can be promoted to captain (not really a problem with this as it means more time on the floor) whereassome guys will show up having spent 2 1/2 years in the training system and be promoted to Captain 6 months after arriving.  

I know of one individual who spent 3 years as a Lt with a combat tour to Afghanistan and when he arrived home there were people who were captains with less experience then him, no tours, operating as coy 2IC`s.  Is that right?  I don't know; however, what you end up with sometimes is guys being out of their depth.


----------



## M Feetham (9 Dec 2011)

Im not in the army, but i can tell you that we have much the same problem in the navy. You see Slt's and LS getting promoted very quickly into positions that they don't always have a lot of experience for. For the Subbies, sometimes they are being sent on director level courses and have only qualified as Bridge watchkeepers in the last 6 months to a year. Then they go on career courses and are then given control of weapons systems. Don't get me wrong you get some very good officers sometimes, but the level of experience isn't the same as we would get say 15 years ago. FRP back in the 90's had a definite effect of the NCO corp in the navy as well. 
As for the training system.  It will be many years befor the training system could possibly fill the gaps. With budgets cuts coming in the futur, attrition and just plain lack of patience for some people, they have to take in a large number of candidates and retain them through 4 or 5 levels of taining before they ever reach the ranks we are looking for. It is going to take time, time, time. 

Marc


----------



## X Royal (9 Dec 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> I know of one individual who spent 3 years as a Lt with a combat tour to Afghanistan and when he arrived home there were people who were captains with less experience then him, no tours, operating as coy 2IC`s.  Is that right?  I don't know; however, what you end up with sometimes is guys being out of their depth.


In the past I've seen the opposite happen with the exception of "_out of their depth_" part.
Company 2IC's only be given the position due to being so long in the tooth that it's their turn and this will be their career summit posting before retirement.
IMO anyone getting a Company 2IC position should also be a person who has the prospects of advancing further.
That being said I don't mean to infer that "_one individual who spent 3 years as a Lt with a combat tour to Afghanistan_" was not an individual without advancement possibilities but my guess is timing & availability may have played a factor here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Dec 2011)

Sounds like the policy of having an old experienced hand mentor/babysit the up and coming Major to keep him out of trouble on his run to CDS.


----------



## Pusser (9 Dec 2011)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> Im not in the army, but i can tell you that we have much the same problem in the navy. You see Slt's and LS getting promoted very quickly into positions that they don't always have a lot of experience for. For the Subbies, sometimes they are being sent on director level courses and have only qualified as Bridge watchkeepers in the last 6 months to a year. Then they go on career courses and are then given control of weapons systems. Don't get me wrong you get some very good officers sometimes, but the level of experience isn't the same as we would get say 15 years ago. FRP back in the 90's had a definite effect of the NCO corp in the navy as well.
> As for the training system.  It will be many years befor the training system could possibly fill the gaps. With budgets cuts coming in the futur, attrition and just plain lack of patience for some people, they have to take in a large number of candidates and retain them through 4 or 5 levels of taining before they ever reach the ranks we are looking for. It is going to take time, time, time.
> 
> Marc



This is not a new problem in the Navy.  More than 15 years ago (i.e. when I was a younger subbie) they/we were complaining that we were being rushed off on director courses after having just barely gotten our BWKs.


----------



## Snakedoc (10 Dec 2011)

M Feetham said:
			
		

> Im not in the army, but i can tell you that we have much the same problem in the navy. You see Slt's and LS getting promoted very quickly into positions that they don't always have a lot of experience for. For the Subbies, sometimes they are being sent on director level courses and have only qualified as Bridge watchkeepers in the last 6 months to a year. Then they go on career courses and are then given control of weapons systems. Don't get me wrong you get some very good officers sometimes, but the level of experience isn't the same as we would get say 15 years ago. FRP back in the 90's had a definite effect of the NCO corp in the navy as well.
> As for the training system.  It will be many years befor the training system could possibly fill the gaps. With budgets cuts coming in the futur, attrition and just plain lack of patience for some people, they have to take in a large number of candidates and retain them through 4 or 5 levels of taining before they ever reach the ranks we are looking for. It is going to take time, time, time.
> 
> Marc



I think the situation in the reg force Navy is different however.  I'm not sure how it works in the army but for reg force MARS officers, you don't get promoted to Lt(N) until you've been awarded your bridge-watchkeeping ticket from your Captain, and sat and passed your Naval Officer Professional Qualification (NOPQ) board which are two things that are not necessarily an easy thing to do.  If you do well, are fairly competent, and have your ducks all lined up in a row, you can get it done quickly even in the span of two years for some.  However, I've also known several SLt's who have been stuck at that rank for 4-5 years due to delays in getting one or both of the qualifications (either due to CO's constantly changing making bwk's difficult to obtain, not enough sea time, or just failing their boards).  However any person with their NOPQ qualification and therefore at the Lt(N) level can be assumed to have a fairly decent level of competency.

My point is that in the reg force Navy, promotion to the Lt(N)/Capt level is competency based whereas in the Army it appears to be based more on time-in so therefore they can't necessarily be compared as apples to apples.  In a competency based system (where the Navy loves making their officers sit boards), it may take little time or a very long time depending on the person.

Also on a side note for the NCM side of things in the Naval Reserve (not sure of the situation for the reg force), I know that it now takes longer to get promoted to the LS level as the goal posts have been moved further with sailors having more extensive packages to complete on board ship first before even reaching AB.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Pusser (12 Dec 2011)

Don't confuse competency with merit.  *ALL* promotions in the CF are *competency* based.  If you don't pass the course or board, you don't get promoted, period (or, you lose your acting promotion if you were A/L).  However, all  you have to do is *pass*.  In this regard, the Army, Navy and Air Force are all the same.  All officers get promoted to captain/lieutenant(N) as soon as they meet the criteria (i.e. time and qualification).  To go beyond captain/lieutenant(N) is based on merit.  Simply passing courses/boards isn't good enough (although still required).  You also have to demonstrate that you are better than the majority of your peers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2011)

X Royal said:
			
		

> In the past I've seen the opposite happen with the exception of "_out of their depth_" part.
> Company 2IC's only be given the position due to being so long in the tooth that it's their turn and this will be their career summit posting before retirement.
> IMO anyone getting a Company 2IC position should also be a person who has the prospects of advancing further.
> That being said I don't mean to infer that "_one individual who spent 3 years as a Lt with a combat tour to Afghanistan_" was not an individual without advancement possibilities but my guess is timing & availability may have played a factor here.



Agreed, this goes back to how I feel the system is a little bit screwy.  I understand that promoting DEO's ahead of ROTP serves the purpose of compensating DEO's for paying for university; however, why don't they just make two different Lt pay scales if this is the case.  Its problematic when you get Captains working HQ Posn's and looking after the Concept of Sustainment piece that in reality probably need a little bit more polishing on the floor before they are given that responsibility.  

It is what it is, but should it be that way?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2011)

It's not just the Army.  

A 'few' years ago, I spent a couple of years on the Squadron's strength as a Lt.  My duties as relayed to me by my OC were (in priority): 1) fly and learn my machine and how to use it; 2) fly and learn my machine and how to use it; and if I could do neither 1) nor 2), then I was to do 3) fly and learn my machine and how to use it.  It pretty much worked out that I and other Lts upgraded operationally to aircraft captain at about the same time as we were promoted to Captain.  Odds were, if you saw a Captain in the squadron lines, he/she was an experienced aircraft captain.  These were usually the folks who were also assigned as ALOs to the brigade units.

Today, a flying Lt with hundreds of hours of operational flight time is quite rare as they seem to most often hit the "administrative" promotion window prior to getting much, if any operational time on the machine.  Due to significantly increased post-basic training wait times, Captains now pretty much run the gamut from "doing OJT" while waiting for their operational type conversion course to the classic "thousands of hours in the cockpit" long timers.

As Stymiest says, "it is what it is" and something that the CoC needs to keep an eye on (monitor) so that assumptions are not made regarding aptitude based solely on rank.


Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2011)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ....so that assumptions are not made regarding aptitude based solely on rank.


I've been posted to NDHQ; there's not a chance I'd blindly assume any direct rank/aptitude correlation.   


Edit: typo, in a post mocking aptitude  :facepalm:


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2011)

Stymiest said:
			
		

> .. why don't they just make two different Lt pay scales if this is the case.


"They" have done that:  http://www.forces.ca/en/page/payscales-131#officersregular-1


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Dec 2011)

Evening all - we are encountering a problem in the Reserve world - very few junior officers. Those that do sign up mostly turn out to be duds OR CT to the Regular world.

We have to look at some bright corporals, as we have invested time in developing MCpls to be Sgts etc....


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Evening all - we are encountering a problem in the Reserve world - very few junior officers. Those that do sign up mostly turn out to be duds OR CT to the Regular world.
> 
> We have to look at some bright corporals, as we have invested time in developing MCpls to be Sgts etc....



And here's the origin of that phrase to which you are referring: 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rob-peter-to-pay-paul.html


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> "They" have done that:  http://www.forces.ca/en/page/payscales-131#officersregular-1




Roger, I will re-phrase.  The problem lies in the fact that by the book you are supposed to be promoted to Capt 3 years after your commissioning.  This is all fine and dandy, except that guys are being commissioned right out of basic then spending 2 1/2 to 3 years in the training system.  When they hit their units they are overdue for promotion to Capt.  Meanwhile you have another group of folks who only get commissioned once they complete university.  By this time if they are, lets say, done all their phase training, they will enter an operational unit at the same time as these other group of people, who 6 months after arriving are being promoted to Capt.

I think the money issue is irrelevant, I got my education for free, DEO's didn't so I believe they should be initially entitled to a bit more cash; however, I think a disservice is being done to them by not giving them more time as a Lt to really grasp how things work before they get thrust into a job they aren't necessarily ready for.  Who knows though, maybe their are other factors and considerations that I am missing or am unaware of.


----------



## jeffb (14 Dec 2011)

I do not know of anyone who spent 3 years in the training system without failing a course or suffering some serious injury. Perhaps, those that do fail a course need to have their seniority dates, and the related EPZ, amended when they fail. That being said, there is another factor in this. Generally, and generally being the operative word, DEO's tend to have a bit more life experience then ROTP types. There are exceptions on either side but I would suspect that the concept is that a 28 years old entering the CF will bring more to the table then a similarly educated 22 year old finishing high school under ROTP. Thus, the 28 year old after 3 years in the CF, albeit with only 1 year in the Regiment, should be able to handle to promotion to Capt in fairly short order given the requisite mentorship. However, I've posted already about the lack of mentorship due to the shortage of experienced Captains so I guess I am back where I started.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (14 Dec 2011)

The promotion clock stops if an officer is a training failure, and re-starts when they recommence the course that they failed. This does not apply, however, to medical cease-training.

The speedy promotion to Captain for DEOs does make for some odd situations. In the mists of time when the earth was cooling one could indeed assume that a Captain had some time under belt at a unit. That is no longer the case, but rest assured that new officers at the regiment are treated like new officers whether they are Captains or 2Lts. 

A more pressing issue, I believe, is the experience that new officers receive during their "first tour" at their regiment/battalion. The massive throughput of the past years means that the majority are getting only a year as a Troop Leader/Platoon Commander. Two years used to be fairly standard, and I know that some guys used to get three. Balancing this, though, is the outstanding operational experience that many have received by going to war as Troop Leaders/Platoon Commanders. I think that the army is going to reap _tremendous_ benefits over the the next fifteen to twenty years as this generation moves up.


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2011)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I think that the army is going to reap _tremendous_ benefits over the the next fifteen to twenty years as this generation moves up.



It has already. LCol Mike Wright, current CO of 2VP, although not a subbie, by all accounts performed very well as a coy comd in 2006 with  the RCR (3 RCR?) BG.

Blowing my own horn here - but I was his first Pl 2I/C when he arrived fresh out of Phase trg.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> LCol Mike Wright, current CO of 2VP, although not a subbie, by all accounts performed very well as a coy comd in 2006 with  the RCR (3 RCR?) BG.


How could a Patricia _not_ stand out when serving with the RCR?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How could a Patricia _not_ stand out when serving with the RCR?



LOL by his outstanding dress and deportment? Or by his tactical acumen and outstanding people skills?


----------



## dangerboy (14 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It has already. LCol Mike Wright, current CO of 2VP, although not a subbie, by all accounts performed very well as a coy comd in 2006 with  the RCR (3 RCR?) BG.
> 
> Blowing my own horn here - but I was his first Pl 2I/C when he arrived fresh out of Phase trg.



Jim, It was the 1 RCR BG.  I think it was more to do with his Pl Signalller  ;D


----------



## Greymatters (14 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It used to be until they started making the Officers do NCO work more and more, with predictable results!  ;D



Unfortunately the results arent that funny - now we have a whole rank level being treated like experienced privates instead of like the mid-level leaders that they have historically been...

Im intrigued by the way you phrased that - 'started making the officers do NCO work' - was there a direct command from some higher office for officers to do the work that was previously done by Sergeants and WO's?


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Dec 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the results arent that funny - now we have a whole rank level being treated like experienced privates instead of like the mid-level leaders that they have historically been...
> 
> Im intrigued by the way you phrased that - 'started making the officers do NCO work' - was there a direct command from some higher office for officers to do the work that was previously done by Sergeants and WO's?



I'm not aware of any kind of order that said officers were supposed to do NCO work. Our domain, as WOs, Sgts, MCpls and Cpls is to take care of the 5 Ds - Drill, Dress, Deportment, Discipline and Duties. We also mentor junior officers to ensure they don't attempt ridiculous things at the expense of the troops welfare and well being.
WRT discipline - I give chats to junior officers and I tell them point blank - leave discipline to us...the WOs , Sgts and MCpls. If we need you, we'll call and keep you informed.


----------



## Pusser (14 Dec 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the results arent that funny - now we have a whole rank level being treated like experienced privates instead of like the mid-level leaders that they have historically been...
> 
> Im intrigued by the way you phrased that - 'started making the officers do NCO work' - was there a direct command from some higher office for officers to do the work that was previously done by Sergeants and WO's?



Perhaps not a direct order, but from the creation of a culture that refuses to accept mistakes of any kind?  Unfortunately micro-managers who believe the only way to ensure something is done right is to do it themselves, thrive in this environment and are often rewarded with promotion to a level where they can make even more subordinates miserable.  Although I have been thanked by subordinates for letting them do their jobs, I have also been burned by my superiors for the same thing.  In other words, I have suffered because my subordinates' work did not meet the (unrealistic) textbook standard that my superiors thought it should (notwithstanding the fact that my superiors did not in fact have the experience or training to know that - such is the dilemma when your superiors are not the same occupation or even Branch as you).  In retrospect (which is always 20/20) I sometimes think that if I'd simply done it myself, I might have gotten further ahead.  On the other hand, I don't have an ulcer, I'm still married to my first wife, my kids talk and are willing to be seen in public with me and the list of past subordinates who hate me is much shorter than it could have been.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Dec 2011)

It - pushing work "up" rather than providing more and better challenges "down" - has been going on for years.

In my opinion our problems began with Mr. Hellyer's well intentioned attempt to solve a pay problem by messing with the rank structure: making directors (first level executive) in NDQ colonels instead of lieutenant colonels (which is the appropriate rank for ALL director jobs) making lieutenants and captains equivalents, making sergeants into section commanders and making all _journeyman_ soldiers into corporals. Don't get me wrong: his heart was in the right place - we (me when I served and you today) are all financially better of for what he did.

About 30 years ago, when in command of a unit, I tried to fight back - as did most other COs before and after me - but the _system_ is powerful and we have, I fear, allowed some training standards to slip - i.e. what used to be on a junior NCO course is now not taught until 6A or even 6B and some officer training that used to be pre 1st posting is now a career course.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Dec 2011)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the results arent that funny - now we have a whole rank level being treated like experienced privates instead of like the mid-level leaders that they have historically been...
> 
> Im intrigued by the way you phrased that - 'started making the officers do NCO work' - was there a direct command from some higher office for officers to do the work that was previously done by Sergeants and WO's?



Oh yes, although we speak long, loud and proud about our 'Strategic Corporals', I would say that the day of the 'Tactical Colonel' is well ensconsced. I've got about a million examples (OK, I exagerate a little, which may be why I'm micromanaged all the time?). Images of Adolf in the bunker moving his imaginary divisions around Berlin flash to mind. And these people are frequently destined for higher command... lucky Army.  :

Of course, the typical extreme micromanager will expect the same of his/her subordinates with the result that, usually, about 50% of the leaders in any given organization will find somewhere else to serve if they can manage it, and the rest will 'quit and stay', which means that senior people have to do more and more on their own, and so the circle of suck continues.


----------



## Ralph (16 Dec 2011)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The promotion clock stops if an officer is a training failure, and re-starts when they recommence the course that they failed. This does not apply, however, to medical cease-training.
> 
> The speedy promotion to Captain for DEOs does make for some odd situations. In the mists of time when the earth was cooling one could indeed assume that a Captain had some time under belt at a unit. That is no longer the case, but rest assured that new officers at the regiment are treated like new officers whether they are Captains or 2Lts.
> 
> A more pressing issue, I believe, is the experience that new officers receive during their "first tour" at their regiment/battalion. The massive throughput of the past years means that the majority are getting only a year as a Troop Leader/Platoon Commander. Two years used to be fairly standard, and I know that some guys used to get three. Balancing this, though, is the outstanding operational experience that many have received by going to war as Troop Leaders/Platoon Commanders. I think that the army is going to reap _tremendous_ benefits over the the next fifteen to twenty years as this generation moves up.



Why not get rid of the different pay scales altogether? Give DEOs a signing bonus to compensate for them having paid for their own university education (half after having completed trades training, half after having served how-many-ever years MilCol grads are under contract) and have everybody do a couple years as 2Lts? I, for one, would have appreciated a couple more years to learn the ropes...


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2011)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps not a direct order, but from the creation of a culture that refuses to accept mistakes of any kind?  Unfortunately micro-managers who believe the only way to ensure something is done right is to do it themselves, thrive in this environment and are often rewarded with promotion to a level where they can make even more subordinates miserable.  Although I have been thanked by subordinates for letting them do their jobs, I have also been burned by my superiors for the same thing.  In other words, I have suffered because my subordinates' work did not meet the (unrealistic) textbook standard that my superiors thought it should (notwithstanding the fact that my superiors did not in fact have the experience or training to know that - such is the dilemma when your superiors are not the same occupation or even Branch as you).  In retrospect (which is always 20/20) I sometimes think that if I'd simply done it myself, I might have gotten further ahead.  On the other hand, I don't have an ulcer, I'm still married to my first wife, my kids talk and are willing to be seen in public with me and the list of past subordinates who hate me is much shorter than it could have been.



Many excellent points there, I had simlar experiences...


----------



## Greymatters (16 Dec 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Oh yes, although we speak long, loud and proud about our 'Strategic Corporals', I would say that the day of the 'Tactical Colonel' is well ensconsced. I've got about a million examples (OK, I exagerate a little, which may be why I'm micromanaged all the time?). Images of Adolf in the bunker moving his imaginary divisions around Berlin flash to mind. And these people are frequently destined for higher command... lucky Army.  :
> 
> Of course, the typical extreme micromanager will expect the same of his/her subordinates with the result that, usually, about 50% of the leaders in any given organization will find somewhere else to serve if they can manage it, and the rest will 'quit and stay', which means that senior people have to do more and more on their own, and so the circle of suck continues.



One positive thing I can say is that it wasnt as bad in my trade as it was when working with the army units on deployment - it was always a wind sucker to find out that while i was in Canada my written declaration or signed forms were good anywhere, but as soon as I put foot down on foreign soil I had to have everything countersigned by a unit commander (who in turn wasnt too happy about it either).


----------



## McG (19 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... making lieutenants and captains equivalents ... making all _journeyman_ soldiers into corporals. Don't get me wrong: his heart was in the right place - we (me when I served and you today) are all financially better of for what he did.


Maybe.  Maybe he would have done us a better service to introduce a "Master Private" (or PFC) instead of the instant corporal promotion?

Given the changes that were made, what is the effect the every time someone takes a close look the military work in comparison to civilian counterparts for the purpose of setting pay?  Has the insta-cpl diluted the value of the rank such that the pay increment gained back then will eventually be eroded away?  What will be the impact on Capt pay where at the lower end it is effectively the same as Lt?  Will we see (as exists at the MCpl appointment level) the top incentive at one level being higher than the bottom incentive at the level one-up?  I know our current structure has been in place for a very long time now, so maybe I am worrying for nothing  ... but, when was the last time military ranks were compared to the PS in order to benchmark the pay?

If this is a potential real boogeyman on the horizon, then maybe we want to take a look at our structure before that happens - to set ourselves for success.  I have previously suggested (although 50% tounge-in-cheek) that we move to a new system that does away with insta-ranks.


----------



## dogger1936 (25 Dec 2011)

Heart and soul...I recommend bass guitars and more jazz hands.


----------



## PanaEng (3 Jan 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Heart and soul...I recommend bass guitars and more jazz hands.


don't forget more cowbell 
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/80a71ef8cb/more-cowbell


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jan 2012)

Solved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwrYMWoqg5w


----------



## Pusser (3 Jan 2012)

Ahh the 80s!  Will we ever see hair like that again?


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2012)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Ahh the 80s!  Will we ever see hair like that again?



Not likely with those long skirts  ;D


----------

