# How big is the Army?  How big is the CF?  What about the DND civilians?



## G I JAY (3 Jan 2001)

ive been woundering this for a while and have not been able to find it anywherebut how big is canadas army.by aemy i mean naval troops,air force troops and just normal troops.


----------



## the patriot (3 Jan 2001)

The size of the Canadian Military, taking into account all 3 service elements is currently at a strength of 60 000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen.  To add further to that is our primary reserve units which currently claim to have about 40 000 members.

-the patriot-


----------



## Argyll 2347 (4 Jan 2001)

I found the figures for the size of the army.  I don‘t know how accurate they are though.

Here they are: 22, 686 Reg. 23, 895 Reserves


----------



## G I JAY (5 Jan 2001)

I THOUGHT OUR ARMY WOULD BE BIGGER THEN THAT CONSEDERING FINLAND(A COUNTRY WITH 5 MILLION PEOPLE ) HAVE AN ARMY ALMOST AS BIGG AS OURS AND POLAND( A COUNTRY THTA HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LOSER COUNTRY THAT HAS LOST EVERY WAR  THEY HAVE EVER BEEN IN)  HAS AN ARMY WITH 400 000 PEOPLE


----------



## 2 Charlie (6 Jan 2001)

Have a second look at the numbers.  In reality the CF has dropped below the 60, 000 benchmark to 58,000 and is dropping, dropping fast, faster than a jumper with a candle.  

There is a comment in the Current Affairs section about this, in the next three years there are in excess of 14, 000 scheduled to retire.  I have checked this and it is scarily accurate.

Without a masters in statistics and B Comm, I can see that the intended recruiting drive of 9,000, still leaves a forcasted shortfall of 5000.  This is of course if the numbers remain constant.

Col Gordan Grant has been selected as the CF‘s head hunter for recruiting.  He has a belief that the CF is loosing a large number to private sector, how correct.  When will NDHQ accept that soldiers vote with there feet.  Col Grant also believes that he can recoup this loss.  Hmm, do I here recruit centre standards dropping.  "Well son, you want to be in the army, don‘t worry, don‘t worry about only having grade 8".  No life like it.    

At present the CF needs between 8 and 9% per annum to stay constant for recruiting, in most cases, they are between 2 and 3%.  With over 33 of 100 trades deeemed  stressed due to operationally requirements, hmm, you tell me.  Time for someone to shake the head shed, don‘t want them to miss their wake up call, or is that curtain call.


----------



## Mud Crawler (6 Jan 2001)

I got to say it, we‘re maybe not alot, but the people who serve their country are quality ones(based on the people on this forum).
I think that if the CF really wanted those 9 000 recruits, they SIGNIFICANTLY ammeliorate the life quality, boost salary and do more TV ads that say what kind of salary u get(wich for someone who lives by himself, that doesnt have a family , is quite good i should say).By the way, i wanted to ask, can anyone portrait the typical social life on a base?


----------



## G I JAY (6 Jan 2001)

I AGREU WITH U MUD CRAWLER CANADA MAY HAVE VERY FEW TROOPS BUT WE HAVE BETTER TRAINING FOR THEM SO WE GET MORE FOR LESS. CANADA HAS EVEN RECEIVED AWARDS FOR OUR MILITARY TACTICS BUT WE COULD STILL STAND TO GET MORE


----------



## 2 Charlie (7 Jan 2001)

Well Ladies and Gents, to state that Canada has received accolades as a result of her soldiers is a fact.  From the inception of modern day artillery tactics for fire control created by McNaughton and Crerar in the First World War which resulted in such things as Vimy Ridge and later used by all nations employing Artillery.  We have seen our nations young go forth in many conflicts, peacekeeping, and training.  We have a lot to be proud of.

Too say our soldiers are highly adaptable and able to perform many functions on the battlefield is also true.  Lets reflect, was this out of necessity due to shortages, etc or more effective training of our soldiers.  I am not yet decided, as a soldier I revel in the thought of being able to out perform other nations when put to the test.  But in todayâ€™s CF too what end.  We have Cplâ€™s doing the job of MCplâ€™s and senior ranks, Ltâ€™s and Captâ€™s doing that of senior officers, and in the milieu, we are still overburdened with officers and senior NCOâ€™s.

To what concerns me, the continued unrelenting rust-out of the CF, when scrutinized we are not dealing with too little, too much, get the job done.  We are faced with the dilemma that has continuously plagued us from the start of this nation as a Dominion.

Our politicians see little value in a large strong military, yet they understand the need for a military none the less.  Especially the understanding that in order to have an international voice, one must be able to project military might, even if it is just a Lt, Sgt and four Cplâ€™s manning a roadside outpost under someone elseâ€™s flag or banner such as a coalition or peace keeping operation.  

Of recent time our greatest threat has come about with the break down of effective leadership within the CF. We have seen an evolution in our near history with the emphasis on management and threat assessment, vice leadership and preparation.  We have a top-heavy chain of command that is responsible to our elected government.  It is very easy to staff something to show everything is fine, when in reality we have limited resources, limited personnel to operate or utilize those resources and a continuing high Op tempo.  

In days of past Op tempo and Mission Creep could be considered two separate realities of our CF because there were enough personnel to meet the challenge and keep them separate.  In todayâ€™s reality they seem to be becoming one continuous cycle, eating our personnel and equipment up.

So, in short yes we have some of the best soldiers, but for how long before they all vote with their feet or go on SPHL.


----------



## RCA (7 Jan 2001)

2 Charlie - you make a strong case and you are bang on. I‘v ebeen in a few years now and I have seen mangement taking over leadership and part of the reason is the incresingly strong inflence of the civilian part of DND.

As to numbers- thee sobering fact is that the total Forces is appox 60,000 give or take - and before anyone wonders why so low - 60,000 is the the Reg F cieling. Asd to the reserves - if you cut out the NES and non-effectives we are streching to say there is 20,00 of us (I‘m being geneous).

Now out of this 60,000 is included the Air Force and Navy. The Army strength I would say is no more than 20,000. Now subtact the support trades and I‘d bet that there are less than 15,000 combat arm troops. As to the Militia I guesiing less than 12,000 are combat arms.

The military has just started a campaign to recruit 10,000 more troops becasue someone woke up to the fact that we are hemmoraging. However there are plans afloat (see previous posts) 
to reduce the size of the Reg F Regts. So the question is: How many of the "magic 10,000" will end up in the combat arms ?- my guess not many. And Ops tempo isn‘t changing, causing more burn out, causing more pulling the plug, causing more burn out, causing more pulling the plug, ad infernitum.


----------



## 2 Charlie (7 Jan 2001)

Yes RCA, I see that you are up on your AT drills, line of site, charge 8, FIRE.  Too the point, our problem stems from lip service.  

The same senior officers who lead the CF in retreat out of Germany and Cyprus are the same who lead us into the Balkans.  The same, who spun the Somalia fiasco, had their fingers in Rwanda, Haiti, and again back in the Balkans.

Things donâ€™t change, because the people responsible for change have really not changed physically or in ethical responsibilities.  The same people it would seem keep dropping the ball.  Is it ironic that Col (is that correct, hmm, what happened to being demoted) Serge Labbe keeps rearing his disgraced face every now and then with a good spin story attached.  How about Vanier, and the rest of the Vandoo mafia who fell by the wayside to the chagrin of the CDS, those who he hand picked to lead the CF into the new millennium.

Why should we expect things to change when in fact the elected government accepts at face value what a wonderful job our senior officers are doing?  Too date we have more senior officers and senior NCOs employed with special projects or staff projects than ever before.  Yet there are on the books no major contingency plans for equipment replacement, personnel recruiting (except of course the recently announced damage control for 9000) etc, by the way most of the CF‘s long term forecasting extends to the 10 year mark.  So other than the LAV project, new choppers (not that the CF has a choice) and the Iltis replacement thatâ€™s it.  Nothing for the air force, which is disappearing like the great dodo bird into extinction.  The navy, well with the culmination of the Tribal, the Frigate the Coastal Defence and Sub projects, they are ahead of the game marginally.

In summation, my point with only limited changes at the senior levels there has been an incredible back loading of promotions, individuals are seeking higher education to better themselves but to what end.  Individuals are being employed above their base rank levels, i.e. Cplâ€™s; with only slight visions of promotion.  Many of the personnel caught in the Catch 22 of today are doubly faced with their retirements in the next 2 to 5 years.  NDHQ will never openly admit it, but these people are not deemed promotable.  Old school leadership, etc.  They do not conform to the new vision of management.

Yet, unfortunately we see some of the true dinosaurs coming out of the closet and challenging such things as QOL, SHARP, etc.  Agree or not this is our new found discipline, not in self through the 3 Dâ€™s, but in the assimilation of gender and belief neutrality.  Personally I agree with this, just too bad that our leaders, err, managers pay it frivolous lip service.

Incidentally, the same folks who still purport that Gulf War and now Balkan syndrome are purely mental ailments.  I beg to differ.  To accept anything else is to admit failure as leaders, but they have managed the situation well...

No it is not the same military, in some regards it is better, less abusive, etc, but to make it work we need to see an overhaul at the top.  Like an old car, they rebuilt the engine and chassis, but it just isnâ€™t the same, needs a new paint job and new owners to give it some TLC and shine.


----------



## Gunner (8 Jan 2001)

2Charlie, you make some pretty major assumptions and rely heavily on opinion in your comments.  While I don‘t think all is right with the government‘s treatment of the CF or for that matter our leadership within the CF.  However, instead of seeing the glass half empty, let‘s think of it as half full.

It‘s hard to argue the army is hard done by right now when we are undergoing the most extensive re equipment program since WWII.  The capabilities that the new eqpt gives us are among the cutting edge of technology.  

Most of the decisions the military makes are based on political direction.  I‘ve never heard the senior leadership ever say that we are doing something because they were told to do it by the government.  Most argue logically that it is the right thing to do and implement changes based on their position not the governments.

The CF has undergone a decade of incredible change.  To assume that there is no problems would be foolhardy, however, to assume that the sr leadership does not recognize this is also foolhardy.  Moreover, I think your comments should be directed towards the politicians vice the leadership as the CF can only work with what is given them.


----------



## 2 Charlie (9 Jan 2001)

Go to this site, read it, then read it again with ref to my rhetoric.

http://www.vcds.dnd.ca/cds/strategy2k/intro_e.asp

2 Charlie, closing down, Out.

UBIQUE


----------



## Gunner (9 Jan 2001)

2 Charlie, Strategy 2020 is a strategic document to focus the direction of the CF.  What are your concerns about it?


----------



## 2 Charlie (9 Jan 2001)

Show me any supporting documents, plans, equipment studies, etc.  You do the research and when you can come up with something conclusive or technically correct, not peice meal and reactive, we can talk in another forum.

As for this topic, 

2 Charlie, withdrawing to rear eche for a DP and R&R, Out.


----------



## 2 Charlie (10 Jan 2001)

As an after thought, amazing what a little R&R and a DP run can do for you.  

If you have not, also read the CDS report for 1999-2000, maybe you should and note the capitol projects (B1).  This document paves the way for 2020.  Good staffing paper, but get into it and pick out the hard facts and issues: 

http://www.vcds.dnd.ca/cds/anrpt/dwnld/cds_report99-00_e.pdf

For the reservists and militia who read this, check out page 10 second last para, I think you will get a warm fuzzy.

You challenge my comments about politico lead decisions re the CF.  This document forms the info passed to our elected government, this is what they base and temper their instructions to DND/CF upon.

As I indicated, if you wish to further this, do the homework and lets do it in another forum topic.  The size of the CF if we haven‘t already established it is has been put to rest like a Herbie, sans marker.

This truely ends my involvement on this topic.


----------



## Gunner (10 Jan 2001)

2 Charlie, your choice if you don‘t want to speak about this subject anymore.

You haven spoken alot of rhetoric and blatenly call all sr offrs and senior NCOs (by which I believe you mean WOs?) self serving.  You really haven‘t given any rational for such a blanket statement.

Politics - Has the CF been well served by governments past?  Not really.  However, the government is representative of the people of Canada and if you want someone to blame, blame the taxpayers for the state we are in.  What type of military do you want and multiply it by the with the cost of procuring and training such an organization.  Does the current threat to Canada justify an monetary and resource outlay of that magnitude?  By the way it is political decisions that take us out of Cyprus and Germany, not military ones.  Direct your concern about those initiatives to DFAIT.  Remember the military is funded by taxpayer dollars.  Taxpayers elect the politicians. Therefore the military becomes a political institution.  When the government tells DND to do something, the CF is expected to carry out the will of the people.  To not follow the will of the people is just plain wrong.   The military does, and will continue to, modify government policy to suit is own specific requirements (Code of Service Discipline, certain policies, etc).  

Proactive Officers - you seem to dwell quite abit on the fact that senior officers and senior NCOs (by which I once again believe you mean WOs?) do not "stand up to the government"?  How do you know that they do not?  Have you ever been in the room when politicians and generals speak to each other?  How about when the CDS discusses initiatives with his executive?   The Army Commander with his Area Commanders?  Area Commander to his Formation Commander?  Formation Commander to his unit COs?  Unit COs to his sub-unit OCs?  Sub-unit OCs to the sub-sub unit Commander?  Do you propose that someone who disagrees with the final decision a Commander makes should air his grievances publically?  Do you want a unit CO to stand in front of his entire battalion and state the Brigade Commander is full of it and doesn‘t know his head from his behind?  Is this what the military should be?    Do you want to see senior officers publically condemning the policies of the government (read the voting public)?  Do you not recall the Admiral‘s Revolt in the 70s over unification?  What effect did Admiral Landymore‘s actions have to make the CF better?  All it did was make the politicians mistrustful of the military even more.  The mini - army general revolt in the early to mid 90s didn‘t accomplish anything either.  Oh, I know, what about Admiral Anderson (the CDS prior to Boyle) publically stating that if the government did not buy the EH 101 he would resign?  Ever hear his name spoken anymore?

You seem concerned with the contents of Strategy 2020 and the CDS annual report.  Once again I ask you what your problem is with these documents?  They are strategic level analysis and do not get into "nut and bolts" type issues.  If that is what you are looking for, it‘s not there.  Check out the Army SORD/SORP if you are interested in eqpt acquistion programs, etc.  Unfortunately I don‘t know if its online.  All you‘ve done so far is expressed your disgust of their contents.  I again ask...what is wrong with the two documents?  What don‘t you like about them?    

I note that you stated you worked at NDHQ (either in this forum or the email you sent me).  I don‘t doubt you have a feeling of helplessness in an organization of that size.  This is a common occurence when one works in a headquarters environment.  It is very impersonal and compartmentalized.  Try to get out with a unit and remember the good things the military offers.  It puts everything we do back into perspective.

Soldiers are getting paid, they are conducting individual and collective training, we are deploying soldiers all over the world.   New equipment is coming into effect, solutions are being developed for problems, and we are moving forward.  There are lots of issues that need to be discussed but I think you are foolish to be running around shouting that the "sky is falling" <grin>.  

I close my comments by simply stating once again that instead of seeing the glass being half empty, let‘s think of it as half full.     

Gunner Sends....


----------



## Mud Crawler (10 Jan 2001)

Gunner-How can you still believe that "the government is representative of the people of Canada" and "In the end, it‘s the people  who decide".Fuck That.In teh end all we decide, is by who we‘re going to get fuck for the next 4 years.It‘s the same for all government.Politicians have their personnal agendas and they base their political actions on it and they don‘t give a fuck what the people want or what the people need.This makes me think of the Municipal fusions here in Quebec.The Court Statuated the government owns the municipalities, that it‘s the government who allow the municipality to exist.I‘m going to ask you a question, think about it, don‘t answer me:Who allows the government to exist?Now you come telling me that politicians care about what the people think instead of how the world will remember them when they leave, or the best way to keep the power.


----------



## Gunner (10 Jan 2001)

Mud Crawler, call me a realist but with the way our present governmental system works the party with the majority of seats forms the government even if they don‘t take the popular vote.  That‘s the will of the people.  Don‘t believe for a second that I voted for the Liberals but until the right wing in this country can sort itself out, the Liberals will continue to dominate the political scene.


----------



## 2 Charlie (10 Jan 2001)

Gunner, your up, go to the current affairs section.  By the way, does the tail wag the dog (kidding).


----------



## Mud Crawler (11 Jan 2001)

By "the right", i assume you mean S. Day and the Alliance.Are you ready to buy an ak su-74 to go to teh convenience store cause his gun laws will allow easier entry of automatic weapons in this country wich means criminals will also have easier acces to full auto weapons.But my point of view is that if they want an automatic weapon, they will have it anyways so might as well be allowed to won one and blast the bastard who tries to rape your 7 year old daughter in ur own house he  Plus i personnaly have nothing against possessing an ak but what i really want is an mp5sd5 and a Colt AR15A2 Gov‘t Carbine with AR6721 Flattop HBAR & C-More Colt Tactical Red Dot Sight with AWC HRT Suppressor .And it would be easier for me to get my Ruger .40 cal kp-94b.


----------



## 2 Charlie (11 Jan 2001)

MC, you are scaring me.  As for the gun control law, I think a look at what was just imposed upon us, and what some of the alternatives are, well hmm, for a Liberal - I think my next vote is going else where.

So MC, why not post this in Current Affairs and let the size post be just that, because size matters.

2 Charlie,


----------



## JRMACDONALD (11 Jan 2001)

MUD- your statement on gun laws only prove to me ,and others , you know nothing about the laws in existance or proposed alternatives. as for the guns you "want", you‘ll be lucky to own a picture of them. please become better informed.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (11 Jan 2001)

MUD- your statement on gun laws only prove to me ,and others , you know nothing about the laws in existance or proposed alternatives. as for the guns you "want", you‘ll be lucky to own a picture of them. please become better informed.


----------



## G I JAY (12 Jan 2001)

THERE IS TOMUCH WRITING TO READ EVERYTHING YOU GUYS SAID SO I WILL JUST MAKE MY STATEMENT ABOUT THE ORIGONAL TOPIC.CANDAS ARMY WOULD BE BIGGER IF WE WERE LIKE THE U.S AND HAD COMERCAILS  TRYING TO GET PEOPLE IN THE ARMY BUT IN CANDA WE HAVE NO COMMERCAILS ABOUT  THE ARMY SO PEOPLE THINK THAT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME JOININH


----------



## RCA (12 Jan 2001)

What are planning to do Mud - what are planning to do - go postal. Your statements prove that this country needs effective gun control laws. There is absolutly no reason to own all that firepower.

I hope your not planning to join the forces beacuse you think it will be a blast to play with all sorts of neat weapons and and get to go on all the niffty super soldier course. It doesn‘t work that way. You will send the first part of your career -whether officer or NCM - of learning your basic soldiers skills (in your case inf) to become a well trained and effective infinteer. It invoves a lot of tedious work. Even in the Reg F you don‘t get as much field time as you would think. 

I‘m just giving you a heads up beacuse I have a sneaking supision that you don‘t quite know what you are getting yourself into. By the way if you want to an officer you will ahve to make the decision soon, To become an officer from the ranks, you are basicly chosen not you chose.

Ubique


----------



## G I JAY (29 Jan 2001)

this thing is sweet know but anyway we need to find a way tio get or army bigger and better so if you have any ideas reply to this


----------



## pat (29 Jan 2001)

Well I won‘t comment on the other comments or points made beyond the original question.  The largest complaint I have is that every one compares our size of military to every one else‘s which is wrong. The most common one that I hear is "look at how big the American army is." 

Well the reason they are so large is that their trades are very specific. If you are a driver you are taught how to drive and operate a certain type of truck. That is why you get your name painted in the corner of the windshield. 

As for here you are taught on several types of vehicles and on any given day you could be driving and iltis or an HLVW or any thing in between. Don‘t get me wrong, I fully agree that our numbers should be doubled (tripled if I had my way), I just wish every one would stop trying to compare our forces strength to other forces.


----------



## colgan (29 Sep 2001)

I was just watching the news it thay said that the toronto police force had more men(7700) than the army.Does anybody know the right numbers for the army,navy and airforce.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Nov 2004)

Where can I find a current Canadian Army TOE????
Many thanks....



Matthew.


----------



## Da_man (9 Nov 2004)

Troops, Organization & Equipment?


----------



## OLD F of S (9 Nov 2004)

Table of  equipment


   I don't know your location but any unit in your area would have a TOE. I have only used them at Regt level. I am not sure one exists on a National basis if it does the only copy is likely in Ottawa.



             Cheers


----------



## pbi (9 Nov 2004)

Look in any copy of the 2004 Army DayTimer: your unit should have several copies.  Page 27 at the rear has a good breakdown of the structure of the Army.(There is alot of other good info in the Daytimer as well...) If you want to know detailed TOEs for each unit, check the Army Electronic Library under LFDTS on the Army site. Cheers.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (9 Nov 2004)

Yeah, I was looking for something similar to this: 
*http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/unit/toe/*

I guess that means there isn't one online....



Matthew.   ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2004)

TO&E = *T*ables of *O*rganization *&* *E*quipment


----------



## P Kaye (29 Dec 2004)

Does anybody know the current numbers for the total strength of the CF in terms of number of people in uniform?
How many are regular force vs reserve?
How many are Army vs Air vs Navy?


----------



## M16 (29 Dec 2004)

The CF has about 60,000 members in the Regular Force and about 20,000 in the Primary Reserve Force. DND employs about 20,000 Public Servants.


----------



## PViddy (29 Dec 2004)

and about 55 000 Air/Army and Sea Cadets......that's scary!


----------



## Scott (29 Dec 2004)

Cadets are NOT included in the strength of the CF.


----------



## PViddy (29 Dec 2004)

I'm quite aware of that fact.  Posted, rather as a comparison.  Interesting tidbits if you will.

cheers

PV


----------



## M16 (29 Dec 2004)

We have almost as many Cadets as we have regulars.  That is scary.

55 000 Cadets
100 000 CF/DND

I got the figures off of the defense site so its actual statistics.  I was kinda doubting that it's that small.


----------



## P Kaye (30 Dec 2004)

How many of the "Reserves" are actually CIC??


----------



## McG (30 Dec 2004)

M16 said:
			
		

> 100 000 CF/DND
> 
> I got the figures off of the defense site so its actual statistics.   I was kinda doubting that it's that small.


Also keep in mind, DND numbers would reflect civilian employees and not members of the CF.   Can you post a link to your source?


----------



## PViddy (30 Dec 2004)

> 100 000 CF/DND
> 
> I got the figures off of the defense site so its actual statistics.   I was kinda doubting that it's that small.






> Also keep in mind, DND numbers would reflect civilian employees and not members of the CF.   Can you post a link to your source?



These are taken right from their corresponding sites.




> The Cadet Instructors Cadre (CIC) consists of approximately *4,500 * commissioned officers of the Canadian Forces whose primary duty is the safety, supervision, administration, and training of over 54,000 cadets. As members of the Canadian Reserve Force, they represent the three elements: Sea, Army and Air



http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dres/pubs/components_e.asp



> . How many CF members and DND employees are there? [Top]
> 
> A. The CF has about *60,000 * members in the Regular Force and about *20,000 * in the Primary Reserve Force. DND employs about *20,000 * Public Servants.



http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/faq/index_e.aspx#q17

then...wow check this out.



> The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is the second-smallest of the five branches of the United States armed forces, with 170,000 active and 40,000 reserve Marines as of 2002



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

wow...indeed.


----------



## Bill Smy (31 Dec 2004)

With regard to the size of the Reserve Force:-

The MND has repeatedly stated that the number one raison d'etre of the Reserve Force is to provide the mobilization base for the CF. Until 1939, that meant (in the case of the Militia) a Reserve of over 100,000, and a very small Regular Force. In fact, the Militia in 1939 was the Canadian Army. I don't wish to argue specific numbers, but it is logical that if you are going to have a pool from which to draw in an emergency, the pool must be significant.

The concept of "forces in being" developed during the Cold War relegated the Reserves to the back bench (so far back that they became irrlevant). And the Reserves have never recovered.

In Boldstep 84, planners (of which I was one) accepted the fact that on Day 1, no matter what the size of the Militia, about 1/3 would be availible immediately (medical, training, etc), 1/3 would be available in 60 days, and 1/3 would not be employable (medical, discipline, marital, etc). I'm not sure how you can validate this assumption, but it seems reasonable (look at a regular formation warned for overseas duty, and how fast numbers drop).

I would argue that if the Militia were to be of a meaningful strength on general mobilization, it should be 4 to 5 times the strength of the Regular Army, and for the most part mirror it in rank and trade. Otherwise, on a mobilization, by day five there would be no mobilization pool from which to draw.

It's interesting to note, that Reserves 2000 now estimates that there are so many Militiamen on full time service, the Army is now well into stage two of mobilization. That means the well draws dry even faster.


----------



## PViddy (31 Dec 2004)

what a great post.  It all comes down to money i suppose  ???

cheers

PV


----------



## Sgt. Tremblay (2 Jan 2005)

well that is pretty damn disapointing, but im doing my part, and joining the reserves when i turn 17, then when i do my university ill join the regs


----------

