# Staffing PRes Summer IT (From: Cutting the CF/DND HQ bloat)



## Sadukar09

Certainly hope this move may get more training for the reserves...


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Certainly hope this move may get more training for the reserves...



Huh?


----------



## Tow Tripod

Sadukar09,
Come out to Wainwright. Their is still lots of tasks for the PRes summer training period. Bring a positive attitude and a great work ethic and you could be employed until 17/08/12.


----------



## aesop081

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Certainly hope this move may get more training for the reserves...



Has nothing to do with reserve training.


----------



## Sadukar09

Tow Tripod said:
			
		

> Sadukar09,
> Come out to Wainwright. Their is still lots of tasks for the PRes summer training period. Bring a positive attitude and a great work ethic and you could be employed until 17/08/12.


I have to bring it up with my CoC. Doubt it would happen, but I totally would. Waiting 2 years to be trained as a Pte. is a bit annoying. I had hoped to earn my cap badge this summer. Not happening until next year.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Huh?





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Has nothing to do with reserve training.


I'm saying maybe it will free up funds for use in other areas, preferably training.
What I hear from my CoC is the budget cuts affected a lot of summer courses. We have many pers on PAT platoon for way too long. Not helping the fact is that next year standards are changing.


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I would agree CDN Aviator. This is what the US did to flesh out units that had been hollowed out under Clinton. The best move Gen Shinseki ever made as Army Chief of Staff.
> We did what Canada probably cannot do without some additional legislative authority. Much of our Army's combat support units were moved into the reserve force.Reserve/NG units can be Federalized to meet the needs of the Army. Reservists/Guardsmen have their jobs protected by law.We can call up entire reserve units as needed. If Canada could do that it would ease the pressure on the regular force.



I agree. Trying to get a couple of trucks and drivers for a weekend exercise without causing a scene can be too difficult at times. 

It should be easier in Canada as we are all 'federal'. Unfortunately it won't happen as there is little political will to incur the extra costs associated with changing our legislation to make the CF reserves more like the US model.


----------



## Haggis

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Waiting 2 years to be trained as a Pte. is a bit annoying. I had hoped to earn my cap badge this summer. Not happening until next year.
> I'm saying maybe it will free up funds for use in other areas, preferably training.
> What I hear from my CoC is the budget cuts affected a lot of summer courses. We have many pers on PAT platoon for way too long. Not helping the fact is that next year standards are changing.



Courses are being cut due to lack of staff, not resources or money.  If Reserve NCMs don't want to go to Meaford and teach, then Reserve soldiers are not going to get trained.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Bingo.


----------



## ArmyRick

Interesting. In the case of my unit, there are no NCOs left in my Coy. All are tasked out this summer to Meaford, Borden, gagetown or Pet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haggis said:
			
		

> Courses are being cut due to lack of staff, not resources or money.  If Reserve NCMs don't want to go can't take a summer off of their civvie work to go to Meaford and teach, then Reserve soldiers are not going to get trained.



TFTFY

Reservists aren't Regular Force that can just throw their ruck into the truck and fuck off to a training base for three months. Even though we go through the same bullshit, year after year, the training system still tries to lump all the blame on lack and back of Reservist Instructors.


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> Reservists aren't Regular Force that can just throw their ruck into the truck and frig off to a training base for three months. Even though we go through the same bullshit, year after year, the training system still tries to lump all the blame on lack and back of Reservist Instructors.



And I concur. Several of my soldiers are police officers and can't get time off work. 

In addition, our NCOs were on Arctic Ram, Bison Warrior plus other "fastballs".


----------



## Haggis

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reservists aren't Regular Force that can just throw their ruck into the truck and frig off to a training base for three months.



Really???   :



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Even though we go through the same bullshit, year after year, the training system still tries to lump all the blame on lack and back of Reservist Instructors.



The blame is well placed when those same Reservist Instructors would take a 3 month task in Borden, Kingston, Ottawa or Petawawa but not Meaford.



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And I concur. Several of my soldiers are police officers and can't get time off work.
> 
> In addition, our NCOs were on Arctic Ram, Bison Warrior plus other "fastballs".



Noted, Jim, and in this case, I'd agree with you in LFWA.  Howerver, the poster I responded to originally is in LFCA where courses are being cancelled or amalgamated/shrunk weekly due to a shortage of instructors, both officer and NCM.   LFCA has no shortage of "fastballs" and 2CMBG has already been tapped to backfill for some Arty serials, but they have their priorities, too.

However, when I see NCMs stating quite forcefully that "I want a tasking this summer_ anywhere but Meaford_" then I know where the problem lies.

Mods:  perhaps it's time to split this off as a new topic?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

We don't fill the 'jammies' unless our students are taken care of.

You must be thinking of someone else. :

The majority of our 'trainers' have already given up most weekends and holidays this year to fill those positions for courses.

We're also filling those 'fastballs', in many cases, over and above our (unit) weight. Over 50% of the returns from the last cancelled ex, in 31, came from us.

I get sick and tired of people sitting in their high perches demanding we do more than our share and shitting on us when we run out of people for them to push around.


----------



## McG

Haggis said:
			
		

> Mods:  perhaps it's time to split this off as a new topic?


Done.  While potentially there was a link to the idea of resourcing PRes Summer training through the reduction of HQs (by reallocating full time PRes from sp to Reg F back to supporting the PRes), the link was tenuous.  A separate discussion is warranted.


----------



## HollywoodCowboy

Last time I instructed in Meaford was 98, sounds like nothing has changed.
I recall when I got my civi career going and could not go away for summer anymore, I would get the guilt trip and then I was out of the "circle" in the unit.
So maybe part of the problem is those Res Senior NCO's that have career's and families can't make it out and do a summer tasking like they used too in the "old" days like myself.

What is the solution?
Does the military restructure the training so reg and res recruits train together like the USMC does?
Could that be a possible cost saving measure as well?


----------



## X Royal

Although I agree it's not the best option as far as training goes, but weekend courses for reserves from Sep. through May can be options for both students & instructors that can not get extended time off through the summer.


----------



## Dkeh

Haggis said:
			
		

> However, when I see NCMs stating quite forcefully that "I want a tasking this summer_ anywhere but Meaford_" then I know where the problem lies.



It isn't just instructors. Even on a weekend EX, people will not go if the locations is Meaford. But, like Recceguy said, most of us have civvy jobs we can't just leave for the entire summer. 

Look at the average age of a MCpl - approximately 23-24 would be a fair estimate, I would say. At that age, people have either rent to pay, mortgages, insurance, etc. Many people do not want to (or can't afford to) sacrifice a good job for a summer of employment. Not to mention the Army can be a very uncertain place- book the summer off work, and then the position you were to fill suddenly closes. Great. 

I personally have lost 3 civvy jobs due to military trg, and I was always upfront about why I would be gone for a month (In the case of the G8), couldn't work weekends (in the case of courses), or whatever else. Many (not all) employers do not want someone who is in the reserves and goes away for varying periods of time. All of which contributes to a lack of instructors on summer courses. 

Is the solution to use Reg.F instructors on reservist BMQL / DP1 / QL3 courses? Possibly. On my DP1 Infantry, our sister platoon had Reg.F instructors, who had their plans for the summer yanked out from underneath them. Needless to say, they were less than happy, and were over the top during trg.


----------



## Haggis

One solution, in LFCA anyway, is to decentralize Regional Summer Training (RST) back to the brigades to run for thier own soldiers in their own geographical areas rather than shoe-horning everyone into Meaford.  

Another solution - which I know is being entetrtained (not entirely successfully) in LFCA - is split taskings.  (If you're only available for 2 or 3 weeks and the course is six weeks, split the task between two instructors.)

There are many ways to skin a cat.  We just have to get the cat out of Meaford.

*How about some comments from those in LFAA, SQFT and LFWA.  Do similar challenges exist and how were they overcome?*


----------



## dangerboy

LFWA is in the same boat, at the school we don't have enough permanent instructors to man all the course that are tasked to us during the summer.  We need addidtional instructors (either reserve or reg force), we are desperatly short WO qualified instructors.  There are I think 3 courses that we have had to submitt under rank/under qualified waivers as the course 2ICs are Sgts without their WO course.  How to get the instructors to come here is the ultimate question, which we have not come up with an answer to.


----------



## chrisf

We've been running several BMQ/SQ serials over the summer locally for the last five years... we've encountered a number of problems. The end product troops however are on par with the troops trained at the area training centres.

If I have one major beef with the locally run platoons, it's the decision to go with either mixed Class A and Class B instructors (Usually what's been done has been either the section IC or 2IC for each section has been class B, with the other and swing instructors being Class A)

Typically, starting the course, there's a substantial list of available class A instructors. Unfortunately, of that list, maybe half are only available evenings or weekends, several more are available one or two days a week, and several more become unavailable for whatever reasons...

There have also been Class B staff poached by the area training centres during the course as well...

End result sees the course being run by less than a full staff, somtimes as little as 50%.


----------



## Harris

Shouldn't the sytem be looking at why is Meaford preceived as being such a terrible place to work?  Why don't the instructors want to go there?


----------



## OldSolduer

Harris said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the sytem be looking at why is Meaford preceived as being shuch a terrible place to work?  Why don't the instructors want to go there?



If some of the horror stories I've heard are true I can hazard a guess why.


----------



## Dkeh

Harris said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the sytem be looking at why Meaford is a terrible place to work?  Why don't the instructors want to go there?



Fixed. 

I have heard a few reasons, such as instructors not getting to go home on weekends, getting treated like candidates, the weather, lack of phone coverage (fixed now), bugs, poison ivy, etc. Basically, why would they go to that place, when they could go somewhere nicer. 

Another possibility no one has mentioned is that a large part of the Reserves in southern Ontario go to Meaford ROUTINELY, whereas places like Wainwright, Gagetown, etc are a treat. Why would they take a summer tasking to a place they go every few weekends, when they can go somewhere _different?_


----------



## dangerboy

It is a lot harder to get instructors from one area to instruct in another area, with the exception of Gagetown for national courses.  Why would LFCA units send instructors to LFWA to instruct LFWA candidates and vice versa.


----------



## McG

dangerboy said:
			
		

> It is a lot harder to get instructors from one area to instruct in another area, with the exception of Gagetown for national courses.


I wouldn't be certain that it is easy for schools running national courses to get staff out of the areas.  I have known of certain LF Areas to declare that no external taskings would be filled before all tasks were filled in the Area's TC - even when it came to supporting MOS for which all occupational training is done in a national school.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be certain that it is easy for schools running national courses to get staff out of the areas.  I have known of certain LF Areas to declare that no external taskings would be filled before all tasks were filled in the Area's TC - even when it came to supporting MOS for which all occupational training is done in a national school.



I think I know of this area MCG  ;D at least this year they have allowed members out.... but still I know that we are in a bad shape only standing at about 51% manning.... 41/80 CFTPO positions filled.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Haggis said:
			
		

> One solution, in LFCA anyway, is to decentralize Regional Summer Training (RST) back to the brigades to run for thier own soldiers in their own geographical areas rather than shoe-horning everyone into Meaford.
> 
> Another solution - which I know is being entetrtained (not entirely successfully) in LFCA - is split taskings.  (If you're only available for 2 or 3 weeks and the course is six weeks, split the task between two instructors.)
> 
> There are many ways to skin a cat.  We just have to get the cat out of Meaford.
> 
> *How about some comments from those in LFAA, SQFT and LFWA.  Do similar challenges exist and how were they overcome?*



We've asked for those options and been turned down.

We also provide, regularly, enough instructors for our own candidates. If not more. If the other Units don't send enough instructors, at least let us instruct our own people instead of penalizing us for others failings.


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> We also provide, regularly, enough instructors for our own candidates. If not more. If the other Units don't send enough instructors, at least let us instruct our own people instead of penalizing us for others failings.



I didn't know you were from Winnipeg Infantry Tac Group.....


----------



## a_majoor

Harris said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the sytem be looking at why is Meaford preceived as being such a terrible place to work?  Why don't the instructors want to go there?



Getting down to first principles; Meaford is only set up with the physical infrastructure for @ 300 people max. Watching everyone running around with their heads cut off when TF-1-10 sent 450 people to Meaford for IBTS training (in Sept, when there were no other competing courses or drains on their resources) was very instructive.

Now wedge 600-1000 people into that space for summer RST and imagine what happens. As an exampple, getting a 1/4 defense pack for my 50 man platoon to do the defensive training exercise and you should start to understand what instructors and staff have to deal with.

Add in an obtuse CBO staff and a fully manned and equipped kitchen that can't match the performance of 6 cooks and a kitchen trailer at Aspeden after the G-8 (cooking hot, plentiful and delicious food for @ 2000 people; that's impressive) and there is no upside to doing RST in Meaford. The fact that 99% of thise issues have been identified year after year w/o resolution or change should go a long way to explain why Meaford is not the "Employer of Choice".


----------



## Dkeh

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...and a fully manned and equipped kitchen that can't match the performance of 6 cooks and a kitchen trailer...



Excellent point. I forgot about that. In laymans terms, the food sucks, hard. Every place I have ever been has had better food than Meaford. I understand that cooking for 1000+ is by no means an easy task, but the food in Wainwright, Borden, Trenton, etc is better by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Dkeh said:
			
		

> Excellent point. I forgot about that. In laymans terms, the food sucks, hard. Every place I have ever been has had better food than Meaford. I understand that cooking for 1000+ is by no means an easy task, but the food in Wainwright, Borden, Trenton, etc is better by leaps and bounds.



Guess you haven't been to gagetown then........food has gone down hill considerably since the closure of both the Officers and SNCO's eating mess.....


----------



## PuckChaser

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Guess you haven't been to gagetown then........food has gone down hill considerably since the closure of both the Officers and SNCO's eating mess.....



Wasn't Meaford bad, but I'll agree it was subpar when I was there on predeployment training. Couple that with having to shave on weekends to go eat at the mess... I just ate out a lot.


----------



## Remius

Well there could be a lot of reasons.

But I wonder how much the class b cuts have to do with this. In  2010 the Army (LFCA at least) cut a lot of daytime class b staff.  Some units had them all cut.  These people found work elsewhere.

These were people that were/could have been tasked.  Now we have units that cannot/might send  anyone because it would put them below minimum manning.  

Also, I'd wager that instructor fatigue is an issue.  If you've spent four summers in a row teaching in Meaford, asking or expecting something else seems normal to me.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wasn't Meaford bad, but I'll agree it was subpar when I was there on predeployment training. Couple that with having to shave on weekends to go eat at the mess... I just ate out a lot.



Yeah just heard about the "must shave on weekends to eat at mess" thingy... good thing I don't eat at the mess on weekends.....  ;D


----------



## Cardstonkid

The issue of staffing for summer courses is vexing at the best of times, but it seems to be getting worse. 


Most of my Sgt's and MBdr's  have been teaching courses all fall and winter. Then they get the pressure to take their summer off to teach in Shilo. It is too much to ask. The Reserves are too small to do all that is asked of them. The Reg Force is too small to grow the Reserves, without the help of the Reserves. It is a catch 22.   Frankly, we need many more RSS. We could even have Reserve contracts to fill a similar purpose, but they would need multi -year contracts to make it marketable. The solution won't happen easily or quickly, but as always, the Army will do more with less. 

More with Less should be the motto of the Army, after all, it is its curse and its blessing.


----------



## Infanteer

HollywoodCowboy said:
			
		

> What is the solution?
> Does the military restructure the training so reg and res recruits train together like the USMC does?
> Could that be a possible cost saving measure as well?



RSS postings are being filled again, so this should help (we know what they are doing every summer).

To answer the million dollar question you posed, I offer two points:

1.  Guys in SNCO ranks tend to have jobs that they can't leave.  We need to acknowledge this in the way we restructure reserve training.  What level do we really need reservists to operate at.  I think the general consensus is that Reservists will (or should) be used as augmentees or as formed platoons/companies after Roto 0 (ie. There is time to train them).  In that case, we can probably afford a wide delta between reservist and regular force skill sets.  Taking another look at what we need to train Reservists is probably required.

2.  Critical to this is, in my opinion, the CT/IT ratio.  Can the same training objectives be met by integrating affiliated reserve platoons/companies with their Reg Force counterparts?  A lot of Reserve horsepower and resources goes into creating exercises (this seems to tap a lot of the available time) where we integrate leadership training and other sorts of skills.  Do you want to use NCO hours to run a PLQ or do you want to give Reserve Cpls/MCpls time to lead actual sections in good, sustained Regular Force exercises?


----------



## OldSolduer

Infanteer said:
			
		

> RSS postings are being filled again, so this should help (we know what they are doing every summer).



So when are you coming to Winnipeg...... >


----------



## MJP

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So when are you coming to Winnipeg...... >



I think they want to send good people...  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

What are you talking about - the only guys that go to Winnipeg are our cast-off loggie types!   >


----------



## GAP

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What are you talking about - the only guys that go to Winnipeg are our cast-off loggie types!   >



Oh....neat!! That means they keep the good ones in Edmonton?  ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I have a better idea....

warning this opinion is infantry centric and may shred a few shibboleths

Somehow, we became convinced that part-time soldiers MUST be trained to the same standard as their full-time brethren (notwithstanding that this is, of course, completely impossible for the obvious reason that a part-time soldier is....part-time).  We collectively decided that in order for 10% of the Militia to be able to deploy on operations, we need to train 100% of the people to the 100% standard.

This is where the heresy sets in....

The ONLY operational output we expect from the Militia is A) Domestic Response Companies (in a TBG structure), B) individual augmentees for Roto 1 of a LOO3 mission, and C) in F2013, a FP Coy on R1 of LOO 3.

Given the relative lead times for option A (now) and options B and C (7 months from now, and an eleventeen month road to war), how about we train 100% of the Militia to the standard required to meet op task A, and then train only those who will deploy to the standard required for B and C?

That would mean that MCpls in the Bugtussle Fusiliers would actually get a chance to do something other than run BMQ - like, say, command a section on a cool challenging exercise.  It would also mean that we do not need to stand down our 3 Reg F Bdes every summer in order to train Militia soldiers to an unjustifiably high standard that is completely divorced from any operational requirement.

As Infanteer said, the problem, as always (and it is worse on the Reg F side of the fence) is that the IT / CT balance is completely out of whack.

So, what would that look like?  Rct Snuffy makes it through the ludicrously Byzantine recruiting system (a topic for another rant) and reports at Depot Coy on 1 May (a Tuesday night) at aforementioned BT Fus.  He gets kitted up, and gets yelled at by the happy MCpl.  3-5 weeks later, he shows up at a Training Center (Area, Bde, Unit - I care not).  He spends a summer learning to be the best darn BT Fus since D Day - and finishes the summer as a bonafide Fus, capable of being a productive member of a DRC, and an apprentice infanteer learning the other stuff on exercise, as opposed to a course, led by the cheerful MCpl.  Two years later, he volunteers for R15 of OP SISYPHUS.  He receives his 18-24 month contract, gets time off of work due to a kind employer, and reports to the leading mounting area Battle School (name chosen deliberately).  He receives 2-3 months of "Delta Training", reports to the Battalion for Road to War, does 4 months of that bumf, deploys, kills MFers That Need Killing, comes back for reintegration, and rejoins his unit. 

Simple? Yes.  Simplistic?  Not at all.

We need to rethink this entire construct.  We cannot continue to fuck over the summer of every single man-jack in the Army to maintain an artificially high standard that is divorced from any sort of reasonable and reasoned Force Employment concept.

Let the flames begin.  Please don't bother with the picayune details such as 2 months versus 4 of Delta Trg, or whether or not we need Job Protection Legislation, the impact that this would have on the fabled "mobilization base" etc.  I am however quite interested in feedback about the complete disconnect between training standards and FE concept.


----------



## OldSolduer

Can I be RSM of the Buggtussle Fusiliers?   > Bugtussle is just down the road from Petticoat Junction.


----------



## dapaterson

There's a larger issue for force structure/force balance between the Reg F and Res F not addressed above.  If we accept the skill delta philosophy, it is therefore reasonable to assume that we will vest most of the high training and expensive training requirement skillsets in the Reg F.  That suggests that, in an environment constrained to 68K/27KL Reg F/Res F, we will concentrate the lower-training burden skillsets in the Res F.

So, does that in turn suggest a need to rebalance the Reg F into more support trades, with a small cadre of combat arms to provide Roto 0 in full and a rapidly diminishing cadre for Rotos 1 through whatever, while the Reg F is also force-generating the majority of certain support trades (technicians, primarily) throughout?

Or, in other words, does that proposal see us shrinking the Reg F to, say, five Bns of infantry, and re-investing the resulting PY savings into mechanics, supply techs and the like?


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Hmm.  Clever sounding, but not all that clever.  

We need to align the Force Employment (FE) concept with the Force Generation (FG) base.  Given the 4 Army LOOs, at least on the infantry front, we have the FG base of 50 odd Militia Inf Coys right in order to meet the FE requirement. Any changes to the FG base must be related to the FE concept - kind of like demand driving supply (bad economics - even worse Force Development (FD), but I digress...).

You are right though - we have failed to FD the required sustainment forces for either FG or FE.  Not sure how to fix that one, short of either a) completely rewriting our doctrine, or b) accepting that our sustainment model is based on every soldier having high-speed internet 12 minutes after arriving in theatre on R0....

editted for finger-fuckery problem


----------



## Infanteer

He said picayune.  Milnet.ca word of the week material right there!


----------



## Tow Tripod

I have taken apart the rubics cube. I have taken off the individual stickers. Now I will rebuild my manning slate to run X amount of P Res courses based on NCO's that won't be able to complete IST or haven't shown up at all and drivers that are not qualified to drive. 
It has been like this every summer at WATC for my entire stint here.Their has to be a better way without Recce Guy freaking out on me!

Peace sells but who's buying?


----------



## Haggis

Infanteer said:
			
		

> He said picayune.  Milnet.ca word of the week material right there!



I had to look that one up - and I'm from NDHQ!


----------



## Haggis

The construct that PPCLI Guy is advocating will look eerily familiar to anyone who has been around the Army Reserve (Militia) more than fifteen years.

The Army/CF has to realize that:

- a Reservist is not a part-time Regular any more than an O.P.P. Auxillary member is a cop.

- Reserve training cannot/should not equal Reg F training in length and content.  There are some things a reservist does not need to learn on BMQ/BMOQ and some things that the Reservist does need but not to the same level of detail.  These skills/knowledges/tasks can be learned at the unit during continuation training.  This falls neatly under the PD pillar of "experience".

- our PLAR process has to be more flexible and responsive in recognizing civilian skills/qualificatiopns that Reservists have.

- P Res training/PD has to be packaged around the availability of the P Res solder/sailor/zoomie accounting for the unique circumstances of balancing two careers.  Job Protection Legislation is not the universal panacea for P Res availability that many in the IT&E world believe it to be.

- courses cannot be getting longer (ask a Reg F guy for his opinion and he will violently agree with this, too)

There is nothing inherently wrong with the way that we trained (Army) Reservists "back in the day".  In fact, many of them are now commanding our units and brigades and quite successfully so.

Finally there is a reason why the "Road to War/High Readiness" is as long as it is - because _everyone needs it_ - not just the P Res augmentee.  If that were the case, it would have gotten shorter with every roto we launched as more experienced and capable Reservists (and Reg F) returned for their second and third tours.


----------



## Dkeh

During my DP1 Infantry course 5 years ago, there were a few things we didn't learn that a Reg.F DP1 course would do, such as Improvised weapons, Pugil Sticks, Carl Gustav, and absolutely 0 mounted operations. That stuff was all taught a a unit level. 

I'm curious, what else should be slashed from the reserve courses?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dkeh said:
			
		

> During my DP1 Infantry course 5 years ago, there were a few things we didn't learn that a Reg.F DP1 course would do, such as Improvised weapons, Pugil Sticks, Carl Gustav, and absolutely 0 mounted operations. That stuff was all taught a a unit level.
> 
> I'm curious, what else should be slashed from the reserve courses?



We appreciate the question, don't get that wrong, but that will lead us too far into the weeds at this point.

We're not speaking to an individual course. We're looking at the big broad picture, that covers the entire spectrum of Reserve training. We're discussing the BIG stuff. If we can figure that out, little stuff like # of days behind the wheel doing trails and tracks will take care of itself.

IIRC, there are already threads in the Inf forum dedicated to your question.


----------



## Dkeh

Rog. Consider my question redacted


----------



## McG

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The ONLY operational output we expect from the Militia is A) Domestic Response Companies (in a TBG structure), B) individual augmentees for Roto 1 of a LOO3 mission, and C) in F2013, a FP Coy on R1 of LOO 3.
> 
> Given the relative lead times for option A (now) and options B and C (7 months from now, and an eleventeen month road to war), how about we train 100% of the Militia to the standard required to meet op task A, and then train only those who will deploy to the standard required for B and C?


Hopefully this type of thinking informs more & more JBS writing boards.  However, I know a lot of things are being written into military job descriptions based on a "train to excite" mentality & not military requirement.  This will keep IT time & ress requirements up.


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy:  My proposal (rough form) to reduce the number of cbt arms pers required to FG.  Units are formed, trained, deploy twice, dissolve.  Repeat as necessary.


D - 12 months:  CO, RSM, DCO, Ops O & Ops WO, OCs and CSMs report.  Initial planning, recces conducted, training plan established.

D - 6 months:  Troops arrive and begin training.

D - 1 month: Pre-deployment leave

D: Deployment, tour 1.  No HLTA.

D + 6 months: RIP.  2 months block leave.

D + 8 months: Return from leave.  Refresher training, application of lessons learned.

D + 11 months: Pre-deployment leave.

D + 12 months: Deployment, tour 2. No HLTA.

D + 18 months: RIP.  3 months block leave.

D + 21 months: All pers posted out


Thoughts?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> PPCLI Guy:  My proposal (rough form) to reduce the number of cbt arms pers required to FG.  Units are formed, trained, deploy twice, dissolve.  Repeat as necessary.
> 
> 
> D - 12 months:  CO, RSM, DCO, Ops O & Ops WO, OCs and CSMs report.  Initial planning, recces conducted, training plan established.
> 
> D - 6 months:  Troops arrive and begin training.
> 
> D - 1 month: Pre-deployment leave
> 
> D: Deployment, tour 1.  No HLTA.
> 
> D + 6 months: RIP.  2 months block leave.
> 
> D + 8 months: Return from leave.  Refresher training, application of lessons learned.
> 
> D + 11 months: Pre-deployment leave.
> 
> D + 12 months: Deployment, tour 2. No HLTA.
> 
> D + 18 months: RIP.  3 months block leave.
> 
> D + 21 months: All pers posted out
> 
> 
> Thoughts?



Here's one. Can we stick to the topic of Staffing PRes Summer IT?

Start another thread if you wish, but let's not get mired in something that doesn't go here.


----------



## Ostrozac

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Getting down to first principles; Meaford is only set up with the physical infrastructure for @ 300 people max. Watching everyone running around with their heads cut off when TF-1-10 sent 450 people to Meaford for IBTS training (in Sept, when there were no other competing courses or drains on their resources) was very instructive.
> 
> Now wedge 600-1000 people into that space for summer RST and imagine what happens. As an exampple, getting a 1/4 defense pack for my 50 man platoon to do the defensive training exercise and you should start to understand what instructors and staff have to deal with.
> 
> Add in an obtuse CBO staff and a fully manned and equipped kitchen that can't match the performance of 6 cooks and a kitchen trailer at Aspeden after the G-8 (cooking hot, plentiful and delicious food for @ 2000 people; that's impressive) and there is no upside to doing RST in Meaford. The fact that 99% of thise issues have been identified year after year w/o resolution or change should go a long way to explain why Meaford is not the "Employer of Choice".



This would seem to be at the crux of LFCA's problems with filling Meaford taskings. Couple with the fact that the Reserve Force is now actively discouraging personnel from bringing their POMV's to tasks (as discussed in another thread) it would certainly be a good idea to ensure that the base itself has better than adequate food and recreation. I suspect that the quarters for staff are not up to Accommodation 2020 standard, either?

If you want volunteers to fill tasks at a camp, it will be difficult if the camp itself is not up to standard. Candidates will train wherever you tell them -- staff are people you have to treat like the valued professionals they are.


----------



## Infanteer

So is this thread about staffing summer IT or b**tching about Meaford?


----------



## ArmyRick

I want to chime in. I was at LFCA TC Meaford 2004-2011 as permanent staff .

1. The horror stories. Enough and grow up. The worst cases are people that beast the guts out of candidates and go too far. This forces the CO to "watch" all augmentee instructors more closely (including Reg F tasked from P Res units). Also some poor leadership calls get made by AUGMENTEE OCs, 2ICS and CSMs. However sometimes, you get strong OC, 2IC and CSM (E Coy, RST 2011 was a perfect example of one th best teams ever).

2. Reg Force DP1 does not do mounted ops at all, where did that come from (I instructed as a section commander on 7 DP1 Infantry Reg Force)

3. CBO is for the most part, excellent. They will bail your *** out on numerous occassions. I was a CQMS for my last job up there and they are very reasonable. I also know plenty of augmentee staff who agree.

4. The kitchen there truly does suck bad and turns out a very poor product. What you get with a sub contracted company

5. My NCOs were begging to go to Meaford for the summer and could not BECAUSE the CFTPO positions were filled (??? and they can't get people to go?). Someone with CFTPO access may confirm.

6. There is no "inside club". Thats a load of crap.

Running solid courses takes good and proper planning from Course WO down. Sometimes due to constraints (such as brigade exercises at end of summer) courses are compressed and thus the "no/less weekends off". Beleive me, most of permamnent staff at Meaford do not agree with compressing courses to get troops on summer concentrations. keep in mind, TP requirements must be satisfied.

I have heard people from out west ***** about never going back to Shilo or Wainwright and people out east don't seem to ***** although I have heard some LFAA horror stories as well (Don't know if they were true or not).

Meaford has good points and not so good points. No matter where you teach, people will *****.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So is this thread about staffing summer IT or b**tching about Meaford?


You're right. Removed.


----------



## Dkeh

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 2. Reg Force DP1 does not do mounted ops at all, where did that come from (I instructed as a section commander on 7 DP1 Infantry Reg Force)



Totally my mistake. I don't know what I was thinking :S


----------



## dogger1936

I've been reading this one from afar as the infantry land is not one I am totally familiar with. However I believe a nexus between a R011 and a 011 is worth a look.

Whenever a reservist armd crewman is attached to a regular force unit for pre-deployment he is sent to the unit months ahead of time to obtain a PCF (if he does not have one..usually driver of GIB) during the "regimental schooling cycle" He is then put into the sqn to learn his job. He is usually treated as a "new guy" as he hasnt been in a coyote or a reg force unit to see how it works, and how it pertains to him. 

So why are we so wrapped around centralized training and matching up all PO/EO when the member is being brought to the regiment and taught a new PCF? Treated like a new guy from the res and deploy?

We have had no more problems deploying a very young cpl from the res than from the reg. The training from res to reserve is totally different in the armd trade.

My suggestion let the reserve units run their own battle school (dp1). This keeps some units from always getting dinged to do centralized training; and the reg units train them to the standard pre deployment.

If such a huge delta already exists why not refrain from worrying about "standards" and let the reserve units train their own men and women.


----------



## McG

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> My suggestion let the reserve units run their own battle school (dp1). This keeps some units from always getting dinged to do centralized training; and the reg units train them to the standard pre deployment.


There are fixed costs (including manpower) that come with running courses.  Decentralizing courses may save units "getting dinged to do centralized training" but the fact is that more smaller courses will actually cause more work across the PRes as units get "dinged" to provide the 1-of Crse O, Crse WO and Admin NCO for every at or below min-load course going.



			
				dogger1936 said:
			
		

> ... why not refrain from worrying about "standards" ...


Because that would be absolutely stupid.  Without standards, we (the Army) can have no idea of what has been trained & what guys actually know.  A Cpl from the Buckshot Fusiliers would be wildly different in comparison to a Cpl from the Kootney Highlanders, and as an institution we would have no idea what to expect.  Should we choose to "refrain from worrying" about standards, then PRes IT would become an elaborate means of throwing away money.  

Do not confuse the Reg-Res training delta as a deviation of standards.  The delta is consciously built into the standard so that the PRes is not burdened with training unnecessary or unsustainable skillsets.  If the training burden is to be eased, maintaining standards and widening the delta is a potential option.


----------



## Jarnhamar

There isn't a very big difference between Pte/cpls in the reserves and Pte/cpls in the regular force, at least as far as the typical infantry soldier goes. I would suggest reserves have the edge on morale.

From the horror stories I've heard of Meaford and how staff are treated I personally would not want to go there.


There are a bunch of reasons why the general consensus is "I'll teach anywhere but Meaford". If the cf or whomever want to fix the reserve teaching issue in Meaford then go up there speak to the instructors that ARE there and you'll begin to understand why no one wants to instruct there.


----------



## Petard

This year seems to be especially bad for Meaford
I've eaten at Gagetown and Meaford's mess facilities, Meaford is far worse.
But below are some thoughts on what might help increase RST attendance, marginally, and something to consider WRT training delta's (which affect duration of RST courses)

Something that might make a few more staff, and possibly some students as well, more available, is to not run CT events in April and May. These events burn up the available time these folks can get away for any type of training, and frankly I don't see the value in these spring CT events. 
Running a CT then inevitably has a significant part of the unit's leadership missing because a) they took an RST task and are at an ATC getting crse ready  or b) took an RST task but can only get so much time away and so are holding off taking it until the summer. Consequently the CT event in Apr and May has a low turn out, and does not have the bulk of the PTA it seeks so why do them? If they're intended to be work up training for an August concentration, I would say the August Ex then is probably a bit too ambitious.

This year, there's one other factor somewhat unique to LFCA meeting RST tasks: all these 1812 tasks. I've seen the priority go to RST first, which is as it should be, but then seen one message after another for 1812 bicentennial events too, all stressing their importance. These might be seen as jammy goes, ordinarily, but they do require fill. Fill RST first? Sure, but if they don't go, they can't be forced. With these 1812 tasks this summer having the importance they do, I'm not surprised to see some people that turned down RST show up for the 1812 ones. 

As for training delta and what level to train to: for the artillery, because of the increased responsibilities to actually FG more capabilities without increase of PY, an entire gun Bty per Regt was converted to STA, FSCC, and observer tasks. This has meant, within ea area, P Res Arty units are to FG, and sustain, a Gun Bty for the Reg F Arty Regt in their area. Even with a 7+ month lead time, the technical skill sets are already wide apart, and getting wider with digitization. Reducing the IT time to make the RST more doable is not helping close that gap.

For P Res Arty units I think they should focus on IT more, some CT as a formed Bty, preferably within a Reg F CT event context (by the way, 2 RCHA has been trying to get this lined up this year, but timing was out of sync, but perhaps next year)


----------



## Ostrozac

Petard said:
			
		

> within ea area, P Res Arty units are to FG, and sustain, a Gun Bty for the Reg F Arty Regt in their area. Even with a 7+ month lead time, the technical skill sets are already wide apart, and getting wider with digitization. Reducing the IT time to make the RST more doable is not helping close that gap.
> 
> For P Res Arty units I think they should focus on IT more, some CT as a formed Bty, preferably within a Reg F CT event context (by the way, 2 RCHA has been trying to get this lined up this year, but timing was out of sync, but perhaps next year)



The force generation of complete batteries of tube artillery is certainly extremely ambitious, both from an individual and a collective level. What are the guns and prime movers that the reserve artillery are training on? Is it M777 and HLVW? Are the guns dispersed among armories, or are the reservists travelling on weekends? Pet and Shilo certainly have some major travel issues involved for reservists -- Val isn't so bad, given that it's located so much closer to major population centers.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The force generation of complete batteries of tube artillery is certainly extremely ambitious, both from an individual and a collective level. What are the guns and prime movers that the reserve artillery are training on? Is it M777 and HLVW? Are the guns dispersed among armories, or are the reservists travelling on weekends? Pet and Shilo certainly have some major travel issues involved for reservists -- Val isn't so bad, given that it's located so much closer to major population centers.



I believe it would be MLVW/MSVS w/ C3 105mm or LG-1


----------



## Petard

Most reseve Artillery units have C3's, the Atlantic areas have LG1's, a few have 81mm mortars as well; the prime mover is still the MLVW (if working) or improvising with MSVS cargo until the MSVS MilCOT gun tractors show up.

I don't think its necessary to get too hung up on the weapon system just yet; P res units are not going to get M777's, and only rarely will get trained on them. 
But the concept of shared Ex aims, and training deltas, was discussed recently at LFCA arty conference, and CO 2 RCHA encouraged P Res units to seek opportunities for participation on Reg F Ex, using their C3's or mortars; if for no other reason than to help maintain awareness of each others capabilities and limitations. Seems like a reasonable goal for next year's Op Planning

This weapon discussion has all the potential of taking this thread off on a tangent: my key point was P res units shouldn't be participating in any type of CT event after March so there's a better chance their pers will be available for RST


----------



## bcbarman

From someone that spent way too much time at LFWA-TC as a reservist augment, it all comes down to treatment of staff.  My first few years (2001-2004) were crap. No support, minimal recognition and who was the duty staff on every weekend?? the "Mo bitch" 

It got better in the later years, but the feedback from my co-patriots said that the treatment has gone back to the "Mo Bitch" days.  

One thing that I found from my unit is that in the last 3-4 years there has been a real shortage of class B positions at the units and the HQ.  This is where the majority of the instructors have come from.  As the Class B positions went away, there was no reason to help the unit out.  Why would I go to Wainwright and teach, when I can get $$$ to sit on my tush on the dole , and most importantly, LOOK FOR A REAL JOB!!

As I know I was not the only one to do this, it all comes down to motivating the younger kids to teach while they are still in school, and ensuring that there is a cadre of sr NCO's/WO that are the admin staff for the courses, and let the younger ones do the heavy lifting.

Here I am going to go completely away from the current doctrine.  I think that BMQ-PLQ should be taught at the schools, and DP3-DP5 (Sgt and WO courses) should be taught at the unit level.  These are the rank levels that are hard to get away to train, and are the longest courses.  As for staff, those that passed it previously, and the great resource of the RSS officers/WO that are now at the unit.

My opinion, and that's all.


----------



## Ralph

38 CBG ATG will be taking part in both of 1 RCHA's CT events this FY, along with its own gun ex at the beginning of the training year. The ATG deployed as a third battery on 1 Horse's spring ex two months ago, with no major delta concerns. Once the EMOs resulting from the MID are signed off, there are already enough trained pers to man all avail tubes as well. Things could be a lot worse out here...


----------



## Gunner

Ralph said:
			
		

> 38 CBG ATG will be taking part in both of 1 RCHA's CT events this FY, along with its own gun ex at the beginning of the training year. The ATG deployed as a third battery on 1 Horse's spring ex two months ago, with no major delta concerns. Once the EMOs resulting from the MID are signed off, there are already enough trained pers to man all avail tubes as well. Things could be a lot worse out here...



We did this quite a bit back in the 80s and it was a very good experience as c/s 4 with 3 RCHA.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The force generation of complete batteries of tube artillery is certainly extremely ambitious, both from an individual and a collective level. What are the guns and prime movers that the reserve artillery are training on? Is it M777 and HLVW? Are the guns dispersed among armories, or are the reservists travelling on weekends? Pet and Shilo certainly have some major travel issues involved for reservists -- Val isn't so bad, given that it's located so much closer to major population centers.



I'll dispell some myths on this one.  The PRes Arty units are not expected to generate a gun bty per Area (yes they are but in a different manner).  Units have specific stream tasks to provide to their affiliated batteries. for example an indep bty provides say a gun det (8-10 dudes) while another will provide a CP, Halo Det, Dismounted OP and the like.

Given that the Reg Force Deploys 1 Battery at a time the entire reserve FE task bill is never that high. 1 Troop at a time tops.  (30 folks) 2 Guns, CP, Recce, FOO Party (DSMNT) and nope form an entire bty by themselves.


----------



## Snakedoc

HollywoodCowboy said:
			
		

> What is the solution?
> Does the military restructure the training so reg and res recruits train together like the USMC does?
> Could that be a possible cost saving measure as well?



I find the direction of the discussion interesting as most people seem to be advocating for an increase in the training delta between Reg and Res in the army.  To give a different perspective, NAVRES has traditionally done the opposite for mbrs up until the OFP and looks to be further decreasing the training delta between Reg and Res in the future.  This decrease in training delta is in line with the transition to a 'strategic reserve' allowing for further interoperability on other operational platforms not traditionally manned by reservists.

For example in the MARS naval officer training world, there is no difference in training standards between a Reg officer and Res officer and Res courses are often taught by either Reg or Res instructors.  Res courses will also often have a few Reg students loaded on it and it was not unusual in the past to have Res students attend Reg courses during the year.  This also goes the same for BMOQ training as well.  BMQ/NETP is undergoing some changes in order to make it more navy oriented and reduce repetitive training while still maintaining the same Reg course standards however.

Within NAVRES, Int has also gone a similar route, more and more Navcomms are attending Reg courses, Bosns are becoming more and more interchangeable between platforms, and I've heard some scuttlebutt about Log coming in line with Reg courses too (not confirmed however).

Navy requirements are clearly going to be quite different from the Army however.  Food for thought but interesting perspective nonetheless.


----------



## dapaterson

The challenge with a part-time Reserve is training cost and skill fade.  Even in the Reg F skill fade is a constant issue; move from 24/7 to 1 night a week, 1 weekend a month and the impact is even more severe.

Providing a sound base of skills that can be maintained and then augmented when required is a more sensible allocation of training time and training dollars than throwing everything iagainst the wall and seeing what sticks.


----------

