# A proposal for combined arms training for Reserve officers



## daftandbarmy (13 Jul 2021)

A modest proposal… do what we're supposed to do, instead of whatever we think we're doing right now to add value 

A proposal for combined arms training for Reserve officers​Combat results in the last decade indicate that an appropriate amount of time should be made available for combined arms training, especially for those who do not have experience in this regard. As the recent Nagorno-Karabakh War has demonstrated, combined arms operations under good execution are always more effective than single arm operations.

Yet, with only one night per week and one weekend per month, scheduled training time is very limited for Reserve officers. Therefore, planning, coordinating, and executing capabilities should be the training aim of Reserve officers.

In the post-war years, the lethality of combined arms operations has rapidly increased with the improving accuracy and power of modern weaponry. Examples in the Gulf War have shown that, when aerial protection is not guaranteed, all that is required to eliminate battalions of tanks are a handful of helicopters and fixed-winged aircraft. Of course, the concept of combined arms operations is not constrained to land warfare. The losses of HMS _Coventry_ and HMS _Sheffield_ in the Falkland’s War show that it is much the same at sea. Both ships were capable destroyers on radar picket duty when sunk at exposed positions. The failure of continuous air cover on the part of the British task force gave the Argentines opportunities to sink the ships, leading to tragic consequences.

These examples show that mastery of combined arms is no less important than competency at individual stations. It is imperative that the idea is well understood at every level of command.

The mastery of the combined arms principle has expanded as new domains of warfare have come into effect, from cyberwarfare to space-based intelligence capabilities. These have imposed higher demands on the command staff to process increased amounts of intelligence and to coordinate operations in each domain.

There should be no illusions: The learning curve to meet this demand is steep and requires continuous effort over sufficient time to develop the necessary skill. Training with regards to these capabilities is largely neglected for Reservists and could prove fatal in a war against a structured and well-armed enemy.

Modern combat requires fast responses, and the responsibilities of coordination and initiative are transferred to some extent from a centralized command to each component unit. This means the regimental commanding officer cannot be the only person with the skillset to coordinate operations among friendly assets – every officer should be able to do so.

*We believe that the introduction of regular joint exercises between local Reserve units and the development of a battlespace simulation software intended for Reservists’ use can remedy the current training deficiency. For instance, combat and support units based around Vancouver, including the Seaforth Highlanders, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, the British Columbia Regiment, the 39th Signal Regiment and the 39th Service Battalion can organize a joint exercise once a year to test their interoperability. If possible, involvement of air and naval assets would increase the realism of the exercise. In essence, Reserve units should be encouraged to hold their own “mini-Exercise Maple Resolve.”*

On the other hand, the battlespace simulation software developed should support map-based wargaming of hypothetical scenarios and hence provide proof of concept and theoretical backing for combined arms exercise plans. The simulation process could include optional battle domains, such as electronic warfare, that are not normally explored. Some commercial options provide good starting points, such as Command Modern Operations on Steam.

Reservists will command units in the form of operation debriefs and the training software should include weapon systems available to the CAF. The simulation should be run by two opposing teams while requiring very few or no umpires.

It is imperative that before engaging in a battlespace simulation, teams prepare staff plans encompassing as much detail as possible. The goals of battlespace simulations are to develop in Reservists the ability to “foresee” the progression of an operation and to learn potential shortcomings at the planning stage which could cause mission failure.

The first goal is supportive of regular field exercises. It should be expected that eventually Reservists will be able to visualize the battlespace given limited intelligence and to make appropriate adjustments accordingly in real time in a field operation.

The second goal is integral to the training to staff officers whose responsibility is to ensure mission success by planning and elimination of variables and threats. The simulation can provide experience in the training regime.

The above two additions to training should be sufficient to enhance understanding and execution of the combined arms concept among Reserve officers.

As the Canadian Armed Forces struggles to maintain its current strength while preparing for the next generation of warfare, Reservists will be expected to be as competent as Regular Force members. Their interoperability should hence be guaranteed by advanced combined arms simulation and exercise experience. Only in this way can the combat effectiveness of the force be maintained.

A proposal for combined arms training for Reserve officers | Canadian Army Today


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2021)

First there has to be some Res F combined arms training.  I suppose this still varies by trade and classification, with people receiving bits and pieces of hands-on on single-arms courses, some more hands-on on a combat team commander's course (if they get one), and MCSC being the full suite but limited to theory and map-based exercises.  Meanwhile the non-commissioned stream gets practical experience working directly with other branches on ...?



> *to test their interoperability*



Literally interpreted, this has to be a practical evaluation to be of any use.  Not sure what kind of company team emerges, based on infantry (customary) and recce (atypical).  The loggies provide a correspondingly sized echelon, which - be realistic - would not include any officers.  A FOO party, not gun dets attached directly to the team.  A handful of signallers, not a troop.  I foresee the same kind of "for-show, pretend we can do level 4+" performance I witnessed during the days of the mighty Pac Mil Area / 11 Bde.  Also, if there is going to be one exercise a year to test this stuff, maybe there should be one or more exercises a year to practice it, first.

So maybe what is meant is "to test their knowledge of combined arms doctrine and planning processes", and to do it at (preferably above) the battalion group level.  That would be map-based exercises involving people (officers and senior NCOs) with adequate knowledge of everything involved.  Since I don't know what combined arms training below MCSC is currently given to reservists, I can't be certain if the training void is as big as I suspect .

Battle simulation software is best used to generate outcomes at arms length from the troops being exercised.  No umpires, just operators with sidekicks who send information over radio nets (lower control).  What I suppose is still called a CAX.  An exercise in which the people make a plan and then execute it standing beside the game operators is, I decided after a couple of exposures, fun but worthless.

The way for the Res F to do this is to gather together, form HQs (units and brigade), put the troops being exercised under canvas somewhere in the training area (not in comfy barracks) at least out of line of sight of each other, and have higher/lower con running the "game".  Do it for a week.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Jul 2021)

I recall playing Arty CP for a combined unit map exercise in the BCR Armoury around 1980. Basically each element was represented by officers from each unit in the Lower mainland and each had some theoretical forces, our job was to provide arty fires and when to say "sorry can't do that". There JR's from each unit basically handling the signals and requests for resources.


----------



## MilEME09 (14 Jul 2021)

it is a great concept and such a concept the army is potentially looking into on a national scale, while the IT and network requirements would be huge, this could create huge opportunities. imagine a virtual brigade EX over a weekend where you say have 39 CBG vs 41 CBG in a virtual environment. IT is the biggest draw back of making this happen, our current main programs VBS and Mil SIM are limited mainly due to the army not setting up dedicated virtual centers.

What I mean by this is DND will not set aside computers just for VBS, they burrow computers that are already loaded with tons of other software. Which according to one gentlemen I talked to who helps run VBS for the army means that VBS encounters countless errors due to conflicts with other programs on the computers. If we want success in a virtual training environment then we essentially need a simulator only networked computer lab.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> it is a great concept and such a concept the army is potentially looking into on a national scale, while the IT and network requirements would be huge, this could create huge opportunities. imagine a virtual brigade EX over a weekend where you say have 39 CBG vs 41 CBG in a virtual environment. IT is the biggest draw back of making this happen, our current main programs VBS and Mil SIM are limited mainly due to the army not setting up dedicated virtual centers.
> 
> What I mean by this is DND will not set aside computers just for VBS, they burrow computers that are already loaded with tons of other software. Which according to one gentlemen I walked to who helps run VBS for the army means that VBS encounters countless errors due to conflicts with other programs on the computers. If we want success in a virtual training environment then we essentially need a simulator only networked computer lab.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jul 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> First there has to be some Res F combined arms training.  I suppose this still varies by trade and classification, with people receiving bits and pieces of hands-on on single-arms courses, some more hands-on on a combat team commander's course (if they get one), and MCSC being the full suite but limited to theory and map-based exercises.  Meanwhile the non-commissioned stream gets practical experience working directly with other branches on ...?
> 
> *Since I don't know what combined arms training below MCSC is currently given to reservists, I can't be certain if the training void is as big as I suspect .*



Picture 'nothing'.

Add a dash of 'if you are available next weekend, there's a CAX in another town about a 4 hour drive away' about once every three years. 

This CAX will be virtually the same one you did in 1980, against the same enemy, using the same friendly forces orbat, except with RPVs (if you're lucky).


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2021)

> Which according to one gentlemen I talked to who helps run VBS for the army means that VBS encounters countless errors due to conflicts with other programs on the computers.



He'll have to do better than that.  I've spent my working life doing a mix of development and application support for projects affecting multiple customers, so I routinely run a hockey sock of third-party and home-grown applications simultaneously.  None of these has any problem "conflicting with other programs".  Either VBS is a PoS and should be discarded immediately, or the "problems" are not what he thinks they are, or he doesn't understand what he is talking about (eg. maybe the servers are maxing out on CPU and physical memory usage).

If the problem is simply the last one, then yes: compared to the value of the time of the people who have to spend hours remediating problems because the people responsible for authorizing expenditures are stingy, servers are cheap.

Until we reach the point at which a virtual training centre can put everyone into vehicle/turret mockups with VR goggles so that they can enjoy the illusion of conducting mounted operations as a combat team, I reiterate that the only real training value of military simulations (for the army) is to achieve a closer approximation to battlefield results than human umpires, in order to feed those outcomes as events into a CPX (CAX).  (There's a small, secondary value in being able to run real-time vignettes on a screen to develop time and space appreciation.)  If we're willing to settle for a point between "human" and "sophisticated military simulation", a copy of "Steel Panthers" or "TacOps" or "BCT Commander" (all ancient) would do; the main limitation is that with only one operator, the number of elements in play has to be limited.

Before investing in anything fancy, I'd simply augment a simulation to spit out its own radio traffic in real-time for facilitators to parrot into applicable radio nets.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jul 2021)

There are few Res F units in Canada which can field a full up company.

Combined arms: with two sections of infantry, a MRT with the vehicle driven by the Reg F WO since he's the only one with the qual, a sigs det of seven people, one gun but no FSCC from the Artillery... this does not a combined arms exercise make.

Res units are mandated to train platoons in a company context.  They fail to do this.  They fail to develop and maintain the baseline junior solider skills necessary.  Somehow adding "combined arms" for a weekend does not address that foundational problem.  It wastes resources, the most important of which is time.


----------



## FJAG (14 Jul 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There are few Res F units in Canada which can field a full up company.
> 
> Combined arms: with two sections of infantry, a MRT with the vehicle driven by the Reg F WO since he's the only one with the qual, a sigs det of seven people, one gun but no FSCC from the Artillery... this does not a combined arms exercise make.
> 
> Res units are mandated to train platoons in a company context.  They fail to do this.  They fail to develop and maintain the baseline junior solider skills necessary.  Somehow adding "combined arms" for a weekend does not address that foundational problem.  It wastes resources, the most important of which is time.


Agreed.

I'm an advocate for reforming the reserves so that they can and should do combined arm operations.

Unfortunately as it stands that's just not in the cards. Yes, we can mash together various battalions on a summer exercise to form a company, maybe even two and yes we can put out recce troops and yes a dismounted couple of FOOs but that's far from "combined" arms. 

As DAP says, reservists can't form a proper FSCC much less an ASCC, there are no real combat support capabilities, and the echelons are barely in existence. The basic building blocks simply aren't there but more important than anything else, the individual components that go together in a proper combined arms team are barely capable of performing their own basic functions.

Before you can form an orchestra, every player needs to know how to master his own instrument. For the majority of the reserves there's a lot of instrument mastery yet to be done.

I have little against attempting to learn and practice above your paygrade but when there is limited time available then the proper course of action is to keep hammering away on the basics. Unfortunately the way the reserve system is presently set up and with its annual attrition and influx of fresh blood, there's rarely a chance to move forward beyond those basics.

As an aside, BGen Beno and Col Van Weelderen put out a publication on collective training for reservists several years ago which might be of interest to folks. It has a small para on combined arms training. You can find it here.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2021)

I see he gets the Reserves just from this quote: 
_Time is the most precious resource for a Reservist. He or she gives up time that
could be spent on studies, a civilian job, or with family to volunteer to help
defend our nation. It is vital that this time not be wasted. Too often, poorly
planned or ill-focused collective training results in dissatisfaction in a unit with
a resulting decrease in parade strength. Reservists ‘vote with their feet’ and
the lack of planning of coordination in collective training can quickly result in
negative effects on the armoury floor._


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'm an advocate for reforming the reserves so that they can and should do combined arm operations.
> 
> ...



For ages I tried to invite a FOO party on my dismounted platoon focused training, just so the Pl Comds could work with a FOO.

The Gunners were willing, but their training program was never synchronized enough to allow anyone to attend.

Alot could be done if we were able to manage a simple action like aligning training programs.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> For ages I tried to invite a FOO party on my dismounted platoon focused training, just so the Pl Comds could work with a FOO.
> 
> The Gunners were willing, but their training program was never synchronized enough to allow anyone to attend.
> 
> Alot could be done if we were able to manage a simple action like aligning training programs.


Would help a lot, we plan a year in advance so why am I getting an MRT support request on two weeks notice? We know what EX's support would be needed so why wait till zero hour to ask for it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jul 2021)

Because someone just reminded the Planning Officer that they will need it.


----------



## GR66 (15 Jul 2021)

If only there was some way to have an annual training schedule shared between multiple units.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Jul 2021)

If only.  One of the things I liked best about HQ was providing them with the annual training plan, with its monthly training calendar (which had everything, not just training), and then being told to provide a monthly training forecast (ie. a calendar) each month.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> If only there was some way to have an annual training schedule shared between multiple units.



Yeah, I mean, all the full time staff at Bde HQ wouldn't have time to do that, especially in the G3 and G5 shops, because they're already too busy not planning annual BTEs


----------



## FJAG (15 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> For ages I tried to invite a FOO party on my dismounted platoon focused training, just so the Pl Comds could work with a FOO.
> 
> The Gunners were willing, but their training program was never synchronized enough to allow anyone to attend.
> 
> Alot could be done if we were able to manage a simple action like aligning training programs.


That made me think.

The two years I was the RSSO with 26th Fd in Brandon, we never had an exercise with any of the infantry or recce units in Manitoba (the sigs and meds yes) ... except summer Milcons.

A few years later when I ran a company  of Camerons in Winnipeg we never had an exercise with any FOOs from 26th Fd ... except summer Milcons.

 .........


----------



## MilEME09 (16 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> That made me think.
> 
> The two years I was the RSSO with 26th Fd in Brandon, we never had an exercise with any of the infantry or recce units in Manitoba (the sigs and meds yes) ... except summer Milcons.
> 
> ...


In my experience it is people protecting their own empires. I have experienced it in my own unit if "if we let a team go on (insert unit here)'s exercise, then there would be less people on our own exercises! We can't have that " and thus requests for support get no filled.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> In my experience it is people protecting their own empires. I have experienced it in my own unit if "if we let a team go on (insert unit here)'s exercise, then there would be less people on our own exercises! We can't have that " and thus requests for support get no filled.



I have had that argument with my (Senior Officer) peers about a thousand times, and they never budged.

It reflects the deepest levels of leadership insecurity which we, somehow, manage to successfully train into our chains of command.


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> In my experience it is people protecting their own empires. I have experienced it in my own unit if "if we let a team go on (insert unit here)'s exercise, then there would be less people on our own exercises! We can't have that " and thus requests for support get no filled.





daftandbarmy said:


> I have had that argument with my (Senior Officer) peers about a thousand times, and they never budged.
> 
> It reflects the deepest levels of leadership insecurity which we, somehow, manage to successfully train into our chains of command.


I could buy that but I really don't because in both cases I was the one in charge of creating the units' training plans and setting the exercises. And if there's one thing I am its cooperative and a believer in joint training ... yet over a period of four plus years I never organized any such training.

I'm genuinely wondering about why I never did. What I keep coming up with is that the complexities of a short combined exercise for reservists gets in the way of the teaching points for the individual elements of the participants and as a result, at the junior level, the training is not as thorough as it might be if they were being exercised individually.  

 ... Of course I'm not sure if that's just a rationalization.


----------



## Loch Sloy! (16 Jul 2021)

> *We believe that the introduction of regular joint exercises between local Reserve units and the development of a battlespace simulation software intended for Reservists’ use can remedy the current training deficiency. For instance, combat and support units based around Vancouver, including the Seaforth Highlanders, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, the British Columbia Regiment, the 39th Signal Regiment and the 39th Service Battalion can organize a joint exercise once a year to test their interoperability. If possible, involvement of air and naval assets would increase the realism of the exercise. In essence, Reserve units should be encouraged to hold their own “mini-Exercise Maple Resolve.”*




*41 Bde has been doing this (the weekend CAX part) for several years. The simulations are quite good and the operators hired by the contractor (Calian?) are top notch: all highly experienced former or serving officers/ NCOs who add significant value. Our plans for a few combined arms weekend field exercises this year were unfortunately frustrated by COVID.

We are also heading back to Wainwright for our first real summer concentration exercise in years (Western Sabre) which I see as a step in the right direction. 

Personally I'd rather see fewer exercises done right than a poorly attended and resourced one every month during the training year... weekend exercises should not be optional. As I understand it in a US National Guard Unit if you fail to attend a training weekend a warrant is issued for your arrest by the civilian authorities. I get that this would require huge legislative and cultural shifts but it sure would be nice. *


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> I could buy that but I really don't because in both cases I was the one in charge of creating the units' training plans and setting the exercises. And if there's one thing I am its cooperative and a believer in joint training ... yet over a period of four plus years I never organized any such training.
> 
> I'm genuinely wondering about why I never did. What I keep coming up with is that the complexities of a short combined exercise for reservists gets in the way of the teaching points for the individual elements of the participants and as a result, at the junior level, the training is not as thorough as it might be if they were being exercised individually.
> 
> ... Of course I'm not sure if that's just a rationalization.



I constantly pushed for joint exercises, to no avail, along the lines of "we all plan to train on the same weekends, so why not just all plan to show up at the same training area, for example, and we all do our own things for awhile, and then we do some stuff together for awhile."

This required a CO to CO agreement, of course, which was never possible to arrange because of, mainly, big egoes and small thinking IMHO.

The only time joint exercises during the training year ever managed to be organized was during range exercises where, because our Infantry Officers and NCOs (except for a very few from the other units) were the only ones qualified to run the ranges, we would usually wind up putting dozens of troops from other Bde units through their TOETs and PWTs.

It was kind of like being used as a local 'public convenience', while earning the CO a big bag of brownie points from the Bde Comd.

Oh, wait, guess who became the next Bde Comd? What a coincidence....


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Oh, wait, guess who became the next Bde Comd? What a coincidence....



Some day I must make my way out to Victoria and have you take me on a pub crawl to some of these messes so that I can meet all these folks.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> Some day I must make my way out to Victoria and have you take me on a pub crawl to some of these messes so that I can meet all these folks.



The most effective 'butt snorkelers' are most likely working out closer to where you live on a regular basis


----------



## GR66 (16 Jul 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I constantly pushed for joint exercises, to no avail, along the lines of "we all plan to train on the same weekends, so why not just all plan to show up at the same training area, for example, and we all do our own things for awhile, and then we do some stuff together for awhile."
> 
> This required a CO to CO agreement, of course, which was never possible to arrange because of, mainly, big egoes and small thinking IMHO.
> 
> ...


Does the Brigade HQ not take any role in coordinating training between their units?  

If not, is it because they are not staffed for that role?  They play just an administrative role for their Regiments rather than a command role so lack the authority?  Lack of initiative?  Just because that's just the way things have always worked in the Reserve Brigades?

Honestly curious.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2021)

During the entire time I was in, HQ let units conduct their own training most of the year and coordinated training at concentrations.  Over the years this became a little more focused with the imposition of standards.

Isn't training evaluation supposed to be done two-up (ie. a brigade commander evaluates the training of sub-units)?  With most units training as platoons, that means a unit CO.

If units are failing to produce platoons that can achieve core BTS, then the army should try an experiment: have the HQs plan and execute the training for a year or two.  If the HQs fail to get anywhere, then they've likely shown that the problem is beyond the ability of most units to solve.  If they succeed, they've likely shown that at least one tier of Res F unit leadership is valueless and either should be replaced or just eliminated.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> Does the Brigade HQ not take any role in coordinating training between their units?
> 
> If not, is it because they are not staffed for that role?  They play just an administrative role for their Regiments rather than a command role so lack the authority?  Lack of initiative?  Just because that's just the way things have always worked in the Reserve Brigades?
> 
> Honestly curious.



To say they did nothing would merely reflect my ignorance of their true role in the planning and coordination of training for units. 

But I doubt it.

They have very little to do with unit training plans, with most of that being delegated to the units. We used to wait for months before they declared a training focus e.g. ‘Offensive operations‘, but eventually just gave up and figured it out for ourselves because we have to book ranges, training areas and equipment months in advance.

Bde level concentrations were usually delegated to a ‘lead unit’ to organize and plan, adding immensely to the load of the RSS and other leaders in that unit of course. Ambitious COs, with their eyes on on Bde Comd’s job, willingly volunteered their units for this onerous task. The Bde staff helped out with bookings etc in support of this lead unit, as I understand it.

At no time in my three decades or so of service did I ever see Bde staff lead anything, or even be in the field with us, apart from the infrequent CAX. 

However, they do get involved in a lot of force generation and maintenance work for tasks, courses, DOMOPS and other similar big picture activities. Since the big fire season of 2003, and 9/11, more and more of their work seems skewed to serve these requirements.


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2021)

My experience is now more than a few decades out of date but I always found that the brigades varied very much in their involvement. Some created brigade training companies to do things like run recruit training or they ran things like professional officer and NCO training, or organize and run concentrations and/or regional rank and trade schools. Almost all provided some basic supervision of unit training by at least mandating and reviewing unit training plans.

The differences usually depended very much on the qualities of the current brigade commanders and senior regular force staff officer and frequently on the cooperation or friction from the unit commanders. 

I'm not sure if the current divisional concepts has much impact on that but my guess is that if it does it's a negative effect coming from a headquarters twice removed from the parade square.

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2021)

FJAG said:


> My experience is now more than a few decades out of date but I always found that the brigades varied very much in their involvement. Some created brigade training companies to do things like run recruit training or they ran things like professional officer and NCO training, or organize and run concentrations and/or regional rank and trade schools. Almost all provided some basic supervision of unit training by at least mandating and reviewing unit training plans.
> 
> The differences usually depended very much on the qualities of the current brigade commanders and senior regular force staff officer and frequently on the cooperation or friction from the unit commanders.
> 
> ...



They do nothing of the sort these days AFAIK.

There is no unit accountability for achieving training goals beyond the minimums e.g., FORCE Fit, GBA+, PWT etc. All of this is tracked through MM. Woe betide those who do not keep MM up to date. All of these boxes have to be ticked, as the highest possible priority, usually between September and December. No one cares about achieving any other training goals after that really,

I exaggerate a bit but, as an OC, I could probably deploy for a weekend to a local training area and we could sit under Mod tents eating IMPs, and nothing else, and we’d be good. I would, of course, post a sentry to keep an eye out for the CO and the RSM in their rented white SUV so we could do our dog and pony for the hour that they spend with us that weekend before they go home to watch the game. If they visit at all.

Experiences differ, and I trust that someone here will zoom in and poke me in the eye, but the Bde staff never come to the units apart from SAV and Tech visits. We never see the Bde Comd. Hell, we hardly see the RSS or CO where the boots leave pavement.

We are seldom in the position of being given a training goal, like we used to, for the Spring/ Summer milcon for which we must train. More often than not this event is cancelled due to budget constraints or OP LENTUS.

Along the way we may run courses, like Drivers courses, which will see Bde G3 staff visit for Standards purposes/ pissing matches With course staff. I get the sense that their value add is questionable.

Again, I think the Op tempo of being a temp agency for the Reg F, and non stop Domops (that rhymes!), has significantly changed the roles of Bde HQ and the units, and we really haven’t taken a step back to figure out what we need to do, and how we need to be organized and led, to address this ongoing reality.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

The nice thing about reserve artillery is that its a bit of a rhythm that comes together annually. There are four basic skills: gun number, arty signaler, arty technician/FOO tech, and arty driver. Courses for each are run throughout the summer at various schools or during the winter with units on training nights and weekends. Basically you teach then confirm the training through dry deployments followed by live fire exercises. 

You do this and repeat it every year as you feed new people in and then push trained ones further up the skill and rank chain. Along the way people you also train officers and NCOs usually on special courses.

Basically gun batteries don't care if the phase of training is demolition guard or advance to contact or defence. The rhythm remains the same with maybe some small adjustment by the FOOs and BC (who rarely if ever deploys a real FSCC)

Gunners generally do not care if the brigade does its job or not as long as there are a few hundred rounds of HE to send down range every year and there's a place to hold a summer training school which, I presume, these days are divisional affairs run at divisional training centres.


----------



## GR66 (17 Jul 2021)

Curious, by comparison how much involvement do the Reg Force Brigade HQ's have in coordinating the training of their Regiments/Battalions?  

What about Divisional involvement with the Brigade HQ's?  Do they have focus more on the Reg Force Brigades and ignore the Reserve Brigades?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Jul 2021)

GR66 said:


> Curious, by comparison how much involvement do the Reg Force Brigade HQ's have in coordinating the training of their Regiments/Battalions?
> 
> What about Divisional involvement with the Brigade HQ's?  Do they have focus more on the Reg Force Brigades and ignore the Reserve Brigades?



On the contrary, I find that much of Div HQ's efforts are aimed at the Res Bdes, but this can certainly shift a bit when a Reg F Bde is going into something like UNIFIED RESOLVE and MAPLE RESOLVE. CADTC is quite involved in the Reg F CMBG training, at least in terms of priorities, resources and scheduling the major training activities (UR, MR, JRTC Rotos etc). 

While Reg F units don't necessarily need a lot of support/supervision, the Reg F Bde HQs are certainly involved in coordinating the training of their units. Unit COs are accountable to their CMBG Comd for the training of their units. The CMBG HQs will certainly run combined arms computer assisted exercises (CAXs) and other types of training that involve their units. Units will usually cooperate with each other as well to practice working together and supporting each other. 

My Reserve time is dated (89 to 97), but I found that when I was the G3 IT of a CBG the span of control was quite wide with fifteen units. I thought it was positive when what became IBTS was imposed circa 1993, and the collective counterpart also provided focus. Having done an exchange with a USMC Reserve Battalion, I think that our own Reserve units should focus their training on one weekend a month with no training evenings. Focus on training objectives like weapons qualification (to include field firing) and leave collective training above platoon/troop for one or two week concentrations. 

I believe that the current CBGs have access to the Sim Centres who will run great little combined arms CAXs. One of these weekends in the winter months can be a good PD/training opportunity for the leadership of the CBGs to get together to practice their craft. VBS can be used for lower levels to provide a change of pace - as long as it doesn't just become a video game. We should also manage our expectations of what will come out of those weekends!


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

TangoTwoBravo said:


> ... Having done an exchange with a USMC Reserve Battalion, I think that our own Reserve units should focus their training on one weekend a month with no training evenings. Focus on training objectives like weapons qualification (to include field firing) and leave collective training above platoon/troop for one or two week concentrations....


I'm fully on board with this. When I was an RSSO in 76-78, our unit had Tues nights as admin nights, Thurs night as training nights and every second weekend for training as well (starting Fri night if we went into the field). And a two week Milcon.

I agreed with the two-week Milcon (would actually prefer three if real collective training is to take place) but thought that the Thursday night and second weekend per month training was useless. This was mostly because the attendance was so spotty that much of each session was catching up the guys that weren't there for the last one and that because of the amount of training to be done many instructors burned out and prepared pretty poor lesson plans.

If a single training weekend is scheduled each month and set out at the beginning of the year then there is no reason why you can't achieve fuller attendance and properly organized and conducted training activities on those weekends.

🍻


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Jul 2021)

A three week mandatory mil con would go a long way to increasing our training and standard of readiness.


----------



## medic5 (17 Jul 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> A three week mandatory mil con would go a long way to increasing our training and standard of readiness.


When would you have those three weeks? Can someone who is not a student even take 3 weeks off of work? 

If you schedule it during Christmas break, would people be willing to give up their holidays for the Army? Essentially if you schedule it during a holiday, people will be unwilling to give up their holidays for the Army. If you schedule it anytime else then people need to take vacation, which means employment protection, real employment protection. 

I have no idea how many students are part of the Reserves, but it probably means it would need to be in the summer.


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Jul 2021)

medic5 said:


> When would you have those three weeks? Can someone who is not a student even take 3 weeks off of work?
> 
> If you schedule it during Christmas break, would people be willing to give up their holidays for the Army? Essentially if you schedule it during a holiday, people will be unwilling to give up their holidays for the Army. If you schedule it anytime else then people need to take vacation, which means employment protection, real employment protection.
> 
> I have no idea how many students are part of the Reserves, but it probably means it would need to be in the summer.


I'm well aware it would take a lot if changes for time off, etc... but humor me for a second, this is a hypothetical exercise.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2021)

medic5 said:


> When would you have those three weeks? Can someone who is not a student even take 3 weeks off of work?
> 
> If you schedule it during Christmas break, would people be willing to give up their holidays for the Army? Essentially if you schedule it during a holiday, people will be unwilling to give up their holidays for the Army. If you schedule it anytime else then people need to take vacation, which means employment protection, real employment protection.
> 
> I have no idea how many students are part of the Reserves, but it probably means it would need to be in the summer.



The biggest draw for this would be high school, college and university students where you could trade full-time summer employment for a contract of service that takes them, for example, for three years service post qualifying DP1. Couple that with paying tuition for colleges and universities for course in college that would favour trades like heavy equipment mechanic, heavy transport driver, health services, food services etc coupled with summer training/employment and compulsory service like we do for doctors, RMC students etc.

To keep people past their first term of enlistment offer resigning bonuses.

Yep, you need better employment legislation which would for example mandate three weeks summer unpaid leave over and above the standard employment legislation or union contracts for paid leave.

Do the summer exercises in a specific month (say August) so that families still have time for vacations in July.

If you limit mandatory time to three weeks in the summer and ten monthly 2.5 day weekends per year that totals 48 days per year - not too onerous and leaves the majority of the weekends and the summer free for other things including voluntary DP 2 and above training, if desired. The point being that you want everyone trained quickly and thoroughly to a DP 1 standard in some form of depot training institution and then turn them over to the unit which focusses exclusively on refresher and collective training.

Make regular force contracts term ones as well with no voluntary release (the NDA does not mandate voluntary releases - it says once enrolled you are in until your enlistment period ends or are released - voluntary releases are a creature of CAF regulations and policies which can be changed.) - For those who want out of the Reg F early let them do it by transferring their contract (maybe bumped up a little) to the reserves. There's a lot of flexibility in how we craft terms of service.

Its really not that difficult once you wrap your mind around it. The trouble is the moment you start throwing ideas like this around folks start coming up with reasons why it can't be done - most of which are "the government won't do that". Put together a coherent plan and maybe they will.

Costs. There's flexibility here too. The starting point is part-time reservists are less expensive than full-timers and therefore, if trained to DP 1 standards, are immediately useful to the forces as volunteer augmentees or as compulsory placement on active service in an emergency. Through fixed term contracts attrition is drastically cut meaning less costs are wasted on instructors and replacements. There are already an adequate number of RSS in the system. Even more would be added if you form hybrid Reg/Res units. Even better if a command or staff position by RSS staff in a fully manned reserve unit is considered an equivalent experience level for Reg F staff career advancement rather than a back water.

If this type of regime is less attractive to recruits (and why should it be with full summer employment and education benefits) then that would be offset by a more qualified and capable reserve force. 12,000 DP1 and higher trained folks with collective training skills are better than 16,000 half trained folks.

Equipment? Not a big issue up front. We already have a sufficient supply of individual and some crew served kit to equip the force. In the first instance and for a number of years while the force is transformed, the heavy equipment needed by the reserve force is mainly for training and exercises in the summer which is when the regular force generally doesn't need theirs except what's down for maintenance. Same for instructors. Block off three summer months, June, July and August for annual leave, APS and support to the reserves. Its a scheduling/management issue. That gives the Reg F nine months to themselves to meet their own training requirements. The end result will be reserve force personnel with DP 1 training the equivalent of the regular force and on the regular force's equipment thus greatly cutting down on predeployment training for reservists volunteering for deployments.

The current status of our reserve force is a problem looking for solutions. There are hundreds of solutions available if one opens their mind to them. The project requires a very high ranking champion. Any Minister of Defence worth his salt should welcome such a challenge instead of running away from it. I had high hopes for the present guy but as D&B keeps reminding us constantly, there's a whole group of Molitia leadership that looks to their own interest before the common good. I actually sent the current guy a copy of my book "Unsustainable at Any Price: The Canadian Armed Forces in Crisis" and didn't even get "Thanks for the book, now piss off" from a staff flunky.

😉


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Sep 2021)

medic5 said:


> When would you have those three weeks? Can someone who is not a student even take 3 weeks off of work?
> 
> If you schedule it during Christmas break, would people be willing to give up their holidays for the Army? Essentially if you schedule it during a holiday, people will be unwilling to give up their holidays for the Army. If you schedule it anytime else then people need to take vacation, which means employment protection, real employment protection.
> 
> I have no idea how many students are part of the Reserves, but it probably means* it would need to be in the summer.*



Spring Break/ Easter used to be 'Gun Camp', where all the heavy weapons courses would finish their qualifications with a one week shooting camp of some kind. Concurrently, non-Support Weapons folks would do field firing, which is the next logical step after PWT3 (which is where we seem to stop and stagnate these days).

After the Gun Camps units would transition into 'pre-summer course' mode as people started to disappear for training.

Milcon used to be 2 weeks every summer, usually near the end of August so that summer courses would feed nicely into the exercise. It seemed to work well timing wise, and I led 100 soldier rifle companies on a couple of them. IMHO the exercises were crap in many cases, sadly, but we had a good number of bodies available.


----------

