# Future of ATHENA: Manning issues & LAV III upgrades



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

I've highlighted a few tidbits in this one, shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Canada bolsters Afghan mission*
Casualty ID'd. Top soldier promises more infantry troops, upgraded vehicles
Renata D'Aliesio, CanWest-Global, 1 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=a3ebdae3-5f8e-4af0-8004-31fdc406c6c2&k=67716

In the face of increasing threats from explosive devices in Afghanistan, the Canadian military is working on upgrades for its mainstay armoured vehicle, Canada's top soldier told troops yesterday.

*A host of changes are being designed to boost the LAV III's ability to withstand ambushes and improvised explosive devices (IEDs), * General Rick Hillier said during an afternoon stop to speak with troops stationed on Ma'sum Ghar Mountain in Panjwaii District of southern Afghanistan.

*He also told soldiers that a plan has been hatched to significantly bolster the number of combat troops in Canada.  The plan would see more recruits being trained as infantry soldiers, even if they requested other assignments..*

But an immediate concern to the troops in Afghanistan are the IEDs and their effect on the light-armoured vehicles.

"We've got an entire series of upgrades dealing with the LAVs," Hillier said.

*Those upgrades cannot be revealed under operational security rules* for journalists embedded with the military.

"We have a real weight restriction here about what we can put on," he said. "It's a good vehicle, we are going to (put in) place some lessons we have learned here, and improve it even further."

IEDs are posing a great risk to Canadian troops working in Kandahar province. Most of the anti-tank mines and other explosive contraptions have been placed on dirt roads used by military vehicles and local Afghans.

They're also turning up on new roads bulldozed through farm fields during Operation Medusa, a major two-week offensive against the Taliban in Panjwaii and Zahri districts in early September.

(. . . .)

Canada is committing to boost its numbers to 2,500 from 2,200 troops, and to send additional equipment. Hillier said yesterday Leopard tanks are expected to arrive in the next few days, while arrangements are being made to deploy another 21 Nyalas: four-wheel-drive jeeps designed to withstand anti-tank mine blasts.

Beyond the equipment, NATO has stressed it needs more boots on the ground - infantry soldiers.

Canada has committed to staying in Afghanistan until 2009. With its infantry already stretched thin, Hillier said a plan is afoot to boost the number of combat soldiers.

*"Back home in the army, across the Canadian Forces, we are going to be rerolling a whole bunch of folks in the training pipeline now into the infantry," Hillier said.  "They might be signed up to be an armoured soldier or an artillery man or woman, but for the next two years or so we are going to turn them into infantry men or women."*

_Edit - last Hillier quote added from a longer version of this story that's not online yet_


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (1 Oct 2006)

Is making new recruits into infanteers going to work? Especially for those that never signed up to be an infanteer? I fear this plan of the CDS will only backfire....


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Oct 2006)

Just as long as we don't have Luftwaffe Field Battalions....


But, in all seriousness, yes, infantrymen, but....

For all the LAVs and other vehicles, technicians.  And spare parts!


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

The "everyone's an infanteer" actually drew my eye more than the LAV mod stuffs (although +1 on VG's call)....

The discussion presumes, of course, that the reporter paraphrased the CDS properly (although if there's a verbatim quote in quotation marks, most reporters are pretty scrupulous about getting the words right).

Does this mean more of, say, a USMC approach - all combat arms will be infanteers first and foremost?  My understanding of the Marines, though, is that they all train as riflemen/women, but not EVERYONE ends up in a rifle squad/platoon to start.  

Or is it going to be more like the US Army, where a lotta non-riflemen have had to pick up rifleman skills PDQ because of the wars they face?

Lotsa questions.......


----------



## honestyrules (1 Oct 2006)

To me, it sounds like they will "rebadge" non-trained armour and arty brand new privates to infantry. Not much for the combat engineers I think, due to the situation in A-stan (IEDs, mines, UXOs). This could mean a lot of VRs though...


----------



## MJP (1 Oct 2006)

I guess we will see soon how they plan to do this.  I just fear that there isn't enough instructors to go around right now.  We already have two BIQs running in Edmonton itself in the upcoming months due to the fact that wainwright seem to be busy due to CMTC and a number of instructors that are on waivers and can't go down there to teach.  This is on top of units trying to run PCF cycles and send NCOs on other career courses.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

I was never in the Regs, so I need enlightenment:  is there any clause that says once you sign the line to get into MOS x, you can STILL get moved to MOS y if needed?

Edit - thinknig too American  - changed MOC to MOS


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Oct 2006)

_"We've got an entire series of upgrades dealing with the LAVs," Hillier said.

Those upgrades cannot be revealed under operational security rules for journalists embedded with the military._

I wonder if these are the "hover LAVs" that a not-to-be-named General once apparently alluded to during a speech at RMC?


 :dontpanic:


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Oct 2006)

My guess is that these are all symptoms of an army that is preparing for more intensive ops in theatre and perhaps another mission somewhere else.  I wonder if the other services [navy, air force] have been asked to help out somehow?* 


*edit- not to go infantry, but perhaps train to assume some domestic role of the army in order to free up troops.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

The US army has been doing "blue to green" for a bit now (mind you, they're taking in people being made redundant in the blue trades):

http://www.goarmy.com/btg/index.jsp

"Operation Blue to Green will allow you to continue to serve your country, to maintain the benefits of military service, and to expand your horizons by gaining new training and trying new things."  An understatement, to be sure.... ;D


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2006)

> Is making new recruits into infanteers going to work? Especially for those that never signed up to be an infanteer? I fear this plan of the CDS will only backfire....



+1  If this is indeed the case, and we don't have the full context of the CDS' remarks or any indication whatsoever of a "plan", this is a disaster in the making.  As delavan pointed out, the number of VRs, redresses and human rights complaints could be epic.  It smacks of the US Army's "stop loss" programmes, forced activations, forced extensions to retirement dates, and forced re-musters.  Are we really there yet, especially given that the strains on the training system haven't been resolved and that we're struggling just to train what we have now?  I certainly hope not.  After all, there are things that we could do to improve the situation without forcing people to do anything:


Where are the re-signing bonuses for veterans willing to re-engage?
Where are the incentives to keep people in?
Where are the financial bonuses - beyond FSP increments - for extra tours?  How 'bout a lump sum payment for (say) a third tour?
Where is the effort to encourage CT - beyond a lot of talk?
Where is an initiative to bring Reservists on to long term contract and all the talk of "full-time/part-time"?
Where is the guarantee of a remuster after a certain amount of time in the infantry?

I could go on, but you get the idea.  There's been a lot of talk over the past few years, but very, _very_ little in the way of concrete action.



> The US army has been doing "blue to green" for a bit now (mind you, they're taking in people being made redundant in the blue trades):



Right, but this is a voluntary programme.

Edited to be more constructive...


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> +1  If this is indeed the case, and we don't have the full context of the CDS' remarks or any indication whatsoever of a "plan", this is a disaster in the making.  As delavan pointed out, the number of VRs, redresses and human rights complaints could be epic.  It smacks of the US Army's "stop loss" programmes, forced activations, forced extensions to retirement dates, and forced re-musters.  Are we really there yet, especially given that the strains on the training system haven't been resolved and that we're struggling just to train what we have now?  I certainly hope not.



I suppose they could first use a bonus system for voluntary transfers before arbitrarily moving people around, although that would probably cause the current infantry soldiers to flip out. Not sure about the redress and VR processes, but I don't think there is a substantive human rights issue in play here - unless one suddenly gets invented to fit the situation. [been known to happen].


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *"Back home in the army, across the Canadian Forces, we are going to be rerolling a whole bunch of folks in the training pipeline now into the infantry," Hillier said.  "They might be signed up to be an armoured soldier or an artillery man or woman, but for the next two years or so we are going to turn them into infantry men or women."*



I wonder what this means for the armoured corp attrition to OT and VR?From the way this is stated it sounds pretty strait forward that armoured and artillery will not get recruits.

Interesting times indeed.


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2006)

What's missing here is any mention of the number of volunteers from the other forces. If there is (and there probably is) a fair number of guys/gals willing to do a tour but are not eligible because they are in the AF or Navy, why not take them up on it? 

my 1 cent, I need the other


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2006)

A number of courses in Cornwallis and later St Jean (or so I am told about St Jean) have been voluntold into a different trade.

However I would hazard a guess that it will be voluntary -- they can get out or go 031


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Oct 2006)

Will Reserve armoured recruits be re-rolled into infantry, or is this only in the Regular Force?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Oct 2006)

Just what we need.  People that don't want to be there.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> What's missing here is any mention of the number of volunteers from the other forces. If there is (and there probably is) a fair number of guys/gals willing to do a tour but are not eligible because they are in the AF or Navy, why not take them up on it?
> 
> my 1 cent, I need the other



Hell I'd go infantry just to get out of the school....

Also I guess that would apply to armoured/atry officers as well?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Oct 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Is making new recruits into infanteers going to work? Especially for those that never signed up to be an infanteer? I fear this plan of the CDS will only backfire....





			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> The "everyone's an infanteer" actually drew my eye more than the LAV mod stuffs ....





			
				delavan said:
			
		

> To me, it sounds like they will "rebadge" non-trained armour and arty brand new privates to infantry. ...





			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> A number of courses in Cornwallis and later St Jean (or so I am told about St Jean) have been voluntold into a different trade.
> 
> However I would hazard a guess that it will be voluntary -- they can get out or go 031





			
				Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Just what we need.  People that don't want to be there.




How many times have we seen the suggestion here at army.ca that "everyone should start in the combat arms".

Well, perhaps this is going to be a big dose of "be careful what you wish for ...."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Oct 2006)

Everyone should, however if your going in knowing your starting with cmbt arms its a little different then going in to be a clerk then being told your doing something else first.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

So besides courses ran for trained troops (mcpl and above) if armoured officers and recruits are re-directed the armoured school will slow down considerably.Maybe freeing up quite a few people to move back to the regiments.

Actually looking foward to hopefully hearing more of this tomorrow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

Don't know about "human rights" issues, but it's not impossoble someone could make a contract law point ...


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Oct 2006)

I think it maybe less of the people who are in the pipe right now so to speak and more of change in the contratc type to follow on recruits making them aware that for X years you well be trained as an Infanteer them employed for y years as an Infanteer, then after thats time ( likely the length of the BE) you will be moved into the trade of your inital choice.


Or mayb the CDS has been drinking lot's of Grog of late and has decided to start press gangs again  "Drink up boy's for tomorrow you'll be in Meaford"


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> So besides courses ran for trained troops (mcpl and above) if armoured officers and recruits are re-directed the armoured school will slow down considerably.Maybe freeing up quite a few people to move back to the regiments.
> 
> Actually looking foward to hopefully hearing more of this tomorrow.



That proposal would throw the Schools back into the "Hole" they found themselves five to ten years ago.  It would only aspirate the problem.   Less Instructors and Staff only means less people being trained to fill the Regiments.   We would be recreating the problem we found ourselves with and are only now correcting for.  It would be a gigantic step backwards to cut back at the Schools to fill up the Regiments.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

I'm under the whole "its the army you'll do as told or bye bye"clause.Personally if General Hillier says your going infantry you are.I can't see it working for everyone but seldom do plans ever work for everyone.

I'm confused on what happens for the corp and other trades for the next two years.But I'm sure someone has a plan for that too.Speaking with the news I'm sure General Hillier never got the question"what about attrition rates in other trades?"Hopefully we all will be addressed as to the plans pertaining to each of our trades.

As for human rights its an employer saying we currently have no positions in these trades.How the heck is that against human rights?It's like going to a work site and them saying listen I know you came out to be a carpenter but we got no positions left.So how about we pay you the same wages to be a laborour.Then as a free person you can decide.




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> That proposal would throw the Schools back into the "Hole" they found themselves five to ten years ago.  It would only aspirate the problem.   Less Instructors only means less people being trained to fill the Regiments.   We would be recreating the problem we found ourselves with and are only now correcting for.  It would be a gigantic step backwards to cut back at the Schools to fill up the Regiments.



Probably but as I alluded to in the earlier paragraph,were proably not seeing the whole story.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I think it maybe less of the people who are in the pipe right now so to speak and more of change in the contratc type to follow on recruits making them aware that for X years you well be trained as an Infanteer them employed for y years as an Infanteer, then after thats time ( likely the length of the BE) you will be moved into the trade of your inital choice.



Yeah - going in with it over your head from the start is VERY different than pushing someone down a different fork in the road later in the process.


----------



## childs56 (1 Oct 2006)

Human rights issues I think not.


----------



## Patrolman (1 Oct 2006)

Working in the training system I repeatedly see young soldiers enrolled as armd,eng.arty, and so on who really want to be infantry. Some are duped at the recruiting centers where they are told that once they complete there basic they will be able to change trades. Which is a lie ! As of now soldiers are not able to change trades until at least after they have completed there DP 1.  Which in my opinion is a huge waste of resources and money.

Many young soldiers on SQ's are exposed to what the infantry actually does, then want to change trades to do the cool stuff. I see this almost every time I teach on a SQ course. So in my opinion re-roling people should make it easier for all those who really want to be infantry but for whatever reason are in trades that are not their first choice.


----------



## Gunner (1 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> I'm under the whole "its the army you'll do as told or bye bye"clause.



So does this mean we no longer have to hear you bitch about being posted to the armour school?

Just asking.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

Nope.It's a god given right with posting.Said so on my posting message. ;D
I don't mind the school,just want to get back to being a soldier again.


----------



## Gunner (1 Oct 2006)

Roger that!


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Oct 2006)

Since i teach DP 1 INF (RegF), it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Is it just arty and armored, or will they include other trades (a few log folks perhaps from CFSAL?)  ;D


----------



## 392 (1 Oct 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Is it just arty and armored, or will they include other trades (a few log folks perhaps from CFSAL?)  ;D



Who knows. Hopefully they throw a few extra bodies our way too....


----------



## rampage800 (1 Oct 2006)

Might be a short term solution, but I really think the CDS is robbing Peter to pay Paul with this. I know that the TF is based off 3 Inf Coys(4 including the one going to the PRT) but I know all the other Cbt Arms units are short too and when 08 roles around and Areas start having to do sole sourcing(meaning they'll have to draw from units within the Area, unlike whats going on now) it'll really start to show.
I agree that the Inf should get the lions share of recruits but if the other units don't get anyone say for a year and a half, with attrition, postings, etc they won't have time to train they're guys for the tours ie PCF and when they do get the guys the trainers will be doing workup training themselves.
I don't know what the answer is on this one, maybe they could look at bringing in more reservists for when the TF originally stands up or before that(a year as opposed to 6 or 7 months) That would allow the host Bn to place the pers on PCF course as well that aren't run in their home units ie LAV Gnr instead of trying to plug holes based on what quals a guy shows up with. Anyhow just a thought(I'm gonna get hammered on this, I just know it. 
Anyhow just my 2 cents


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2006)

I may be waaaay out of my lane now but, about twenty plus years ago, I challenged some of my friends in the upper echelons of some of the more attractive, technical branches to consider reviving and reforming the old LOTRP (Land Operations Trade Reassignment Programme – I think; maybe the Alzheimer’s is kicking in already).

Why, I asked, did we need to have private level soldiers in e.g. the C&E and EME Branch technical trades?  Why could we not insist that soldiers ‘re-muster’ into these trades from combat trades – after, say, three and a half years of good service which would mean that by the time they completed trade training they would be corporals?

I understood that such a process could not happen all at once – those technical trades need a steady stream of people, but it could be accomplished, I thought over a fairly short, say three year, period.  New Zealand, if I recall correctly used to do this – maybe they still do.  (They also did much (most? all?) of their _theoretical_ (academic) technician training in their _polytechnic colleges_ which are the equivalent of our community colleges.)

I never did get a good, solid “cannot be done, and here’s why” answer.  Most of the people to whom I spoke liked the idea but wondered if they would get enough of the right people – if, in other words, youngsters who wanted to be technical tradesmen/soldiers would join the army knowing that they had to serve three plus years in the combat arms first.

One (or more) of my colleagues offered that such a programme would work if and only if it was applied to all army trades and, maybe, even to air force trades, too.  He (they) saw nothing wrong with that.

One stumbling block was gender equality.  Could enough women, some wondered, complete combat arms training and serve for three plus years?  Enough, they asked to help meet the overall personnel needs of the CSS trades and to satisfy the (then) unwritten quotas? 

It still seems to me that such a system would be desirable and fair IF it could be implemented efficiently and effectively.


----------



## GAP (1 Oct 2006)

Edwards suggestion would go a long way to eliminating the empires in the CF. Everyone is initially a grunt...the rest later. 

Do we have the time?


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Oct 2006)

Just going to play devil's advocate here for a bit.  So every shiny face that walks into BMQ knows they're bound for 3 years combat arms, and, after that 3 years, they get the trade they want.... riiiiiiight.  What happens at the purple schools when 300 air frame or whatever techs all show up at once?  Where do the 300 fully trained infanteers come from to replace them?  How does the admin train keep up with the OT paperwork?  At the end of three years, does the kid just stop showing up at battalion until his trade training starts?  Riiiiiiight, pt2.  There would be a dodecadillion "the checks in the mail, Pte. Slivo, now hump that ruck" memos flying around the regiments. Okay, pile on... >


----------



## Jed (1 Oct 2006)

I completely agree with and support Edwards suggestion / proposal for giving the CFs best long term End State however; in my opinion we do not have the time to allow the process to produce the results; a steady state of trained, qualified service men and women.

As before both world wors and probably Korea, we need to cut a lot of red tape, and reward our personnel for producing results not just for doing the right thing according to whatever rules and regulations apply. For example, do we really need to waste time, money and equipment to accredit folks for 404s on a milcot (Civi chev truck), or do other training that people already have ?

The Army needs people now, not just infantry, but tradesmen, cooks, etc. In my opinion, the Army is at war and we need to mobilise. It is debatable whether the Navy and Air Force are though.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2006)

I can see the sense in Edward's position.

What is the status of someone that signs up to drive a LAV or man a turret?  Is he an infanteer or a Black Hat?  Carry a radio: infanteer or signaller?  Man a mortar: infanteer or gunner? Crew a TOW det: infanteer or blackhat or gunner (they have all claimed the job)?  Lay or clear and obstacle:  pioneer or engineer?  Drive a truck: infanteer or transport?

Maybe this is just one radical attempt to eliminate parochialism and push towards a single Combat Arms classification.

The "every soldier a rifleman" ethos may not have to be pushed back beyond the combat arms (including engineers) to include the technicians of the world responsible for repairs and maintenance where there is more emphasis on competing with the civvy world for skills and less emphasis on, shall we say, recruiting those that wish to aggressively engage with the enemy.


----------



## big bad john (1 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I may be waaaay out of my lane now but, about twenty plus years ago, I challenged some of my friends in the upper echelons of some of the more attractive, technical branches to consider reviving and reforming the old LOTRP (Land Operations Trade Reassignment Programme – I think; maybe the Alzheimer’s is kicking in already).
> 
> Why, I asked, did we need to have private level soldiers in e.g. the C&E and EME Branch technical trades?  Why could we not insist that soldiers ‘re-muster’ into these trades from combat trades – after, say, three and a half years of good service which would mean that by the time they completed trade training they would be corporals?
> 
> I understood that such a process could not happen all at once – those technical trades need a steady stream of people, but it could be accomplished, I thought over a fairly short, say three year, period.  New Zealand, if I recall correctly used to do this – maybe they still do.  (They also did much (most? all?) of their _theoretical_ (academic) technician training in their _polytechnic colleges_ which are the equivalent of our community colleges.)



In the Royal Marines if you want to be in a CSS trade their are two ways to go: A) Join the Army and take the All Arms Commando Course and then get posted to the Commando Logistics Regiment.

or B) Spend three years as a Marine, then apply to be a signaller or any of the other 26 trades.


----------



## Spring_bok (1 Oct 2006)

delavan said:
			
		

> To me, it sounds like they will "rebadge" non-trained armour and arty brand new privates to infantry. Not much for the combat engineers I think, due to the situation in A-stan (IEDs, mines, UXOs). This could mean a lot of VRs though...


Crewman and Artilliaryman are in high demand on current ops also, why would engineers be safe from these changes.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Oct 2006)

Because we're awesome.


----------



## Spring_bok (1 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Because we're awesome.


Other than that.


----------



## honestyrules (1 Oct 2006)

IEDs are one of the biggest threats to CF pers in A-Stan nowadays... lots of crap UXOs from previous conflicts in that country also, and they're hurting for people too. Plus, their second role is to train as infantry. That's why I think the FEs could be out of the "rebadging" deal...


Just my 2...


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Crewman and Artilliaryman are in high demand on current ops also, why would engineers be safe from these changes.



 :

Geez we had almost managed to phase out the armoured trade - and I wouldn't consider a troop of Guns deployed to be high demand.


----------



## 392 (1 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> Other than that.



To support the 9 Inf Bns, we only have 4 units - all of which are severley undermanned. I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty here due to potential OPSEC stuff, but let's just say if you think the Inf Bns are undermanned, you should swing by the CER lines. We just cannot stand to lose any more fresh troops coming in, we already lose enough due to other reasons....


----------



## Bert (1 Oct 2006)

From my understanding and relating to Edward Campbells reply #34, the
MOSART project addresses a number of these issues CF wide.

www.internationalmta.org/2004/Powerpoints/Ppt%20093%20-%20Thompson.ppt

...as a backgrounder.

I tend to think it solves many problems in terms of providing a deployable pool of 
semi-qualified members.  However, the plan may create problems by lengthening the 
time it takes to become useful/qualified in a critically staffed specialty MOS after the 
initial engagement.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (1 Oct 2006)

Well, where to start?

First - CSS to remuster to infantry or "all CSS soldiers infantry first"...  Ain't gonna happen.  We are far shorter of personnel in the technical trades than we are in the combat arms.  We cannot - and I must stress this - maintain the equipment we have now, let alone support the addition of new units or missions.  We're at the point where some trades are being tasked by _individuals_ in an effort to fill holes.  If we decide to pull people out of CSS trades to go infantry, the Army will collapse; we're not far from it now.

CSS training is controlled by the big purple machine.  They set the standards and control intake - not the Army.  If the Army required its CSS personnel to undertake three years in the Infantry first, it would result in a huge imbalance in production within the schools.  An airforce or navy MSE Op would proceed on training right from basic, while his/her Army counterpart spends his time at a battalion.  This would have a knock-on effect in the production of these trades for the Army, reducing the numbers of personnel available.  Guys break, get fed up, decide not to leave the infantry, or fail infantry training - all before getting to their "final" trade.  In an Army without manning issues, a combat arms tour might be a good thing but right now this is something we can ill-afford.

Finally, I fail to see - when all units are significantly undermanned - how this idea represents any type of "solution".  We're merely robbing Peter to pay Paul.  We'll have a crunch manning tank squadrons in the next few months, there are increased demands for recce, and we've read repeatedly how valuable the guns are on operations (not to mention the additional tasks we've assigned to the artillery), yet we'll denude these trades in an effort to bolster one element of the Combat Arms.  It smacks of desperation and expediency. 

There are other ways to address this problem - starting with retaining those soldiers we have.

All IMHO, of course...

TR


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2006)

Sounds like more spraying from the hip by the CDS... the folks I know in the trg system will be pulling out what's left of their hair - there is no spare capacity in the trg system right now, and the shortfalls in the trained strength aren't in the Infantry.  There are many threads touching on this, but the Army will run dry in other occupations before a shortage of Infantry slows up rotos.

That's my one big concern with this CDS - he seems very prone to announcing ideas before determining whether they're viable or even a good idea (ie instituting a Canadian purple heart vice the wound stripe - not even the CF's decision; all honours and awards vest from her Majesty - the CF can make recommendations, that's all).  This creates expectations or opposition that results in a lot of needless work and/or angst.


Think first, then engage mouth.


----------



## honestyrules (1 Oct 2006)

Maybe the CDS takes this opportunity (timing) and the situation as a occasion to beef up the military. It's all about timing, IMHO.
Maybe we need th **** to hit the fan to get the stuff...and numbers... as  it is the case in every military in the world...



IMHO,
DELAVAN

edited for spelling.


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this.He didn't say CSS trades.He said armoured and artillery.A few summers ago when I was out supporting a phase 4 a general showed up (I'm ignorant on the name) and said his vision was to be able to take a vandoo and a strat and put them together in a working unit.Maybe we will see a combination of combat arms.Why the engineers are not involved with it may be due to the extreme amount of time it takes to produce a combat engineer.maybe this is the "big changes" the army was suppose to go through.Those rumblings of moving away from the regimental system.Where a lav CC is a lav CC.Recce det commander is a recce det commander.Not a Strat,not a royal etc.
And as I said earlier basically I'm jumping the gun by even saying this.

Interesting times indeed.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this.He didn't say CSS trades.He said armoured and artillery.A few summers ago when I was out supporting a phase 4 a general showed up (I'm ignorant on the name) and said his vision was to be able to take a vandoo and a strat and put them together in a working unit.Maybe we will see a combination of combat arms.Why the engineers are not involved with it may be due to the extreme amount of time it takes to produce a combat engineer.maybe this is the "big changes" the army was suppose to go through.Those rumblings of moving away from the regimental system.Where a lav CC is a lav CC.Recce det commander is a recce det commander.Not a Strat,not a royal etc.
> And as I said earlier basically I'm jumping the gun by even saying this.
> 
> Interesting times indeed.



OH! CRAP!  Do I see that ole "Plug 'n Play" hidden away in that fine print?


----------



## orange.paint (1 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OH! CRAP!  Do I see that ole "Plug 'n Play" hidden away in that fine print?



Thats my thought also.Guess we will all see tomorrow.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Oct 2006)

The engineers have already suffered significant skill fade over the last 20 years, every QL3 is shorter than the one before, with more training left out.  We have already basically become infanteers with an interesting hobby, as half our role these days is dismounted, and in the teeth of the enemy.


----------



## KevinB (1 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Recce det commander is a recce det commander.



Not even close.


----------



## x-grunt (1 Oct 2006)

The idea that you can be accepted into one trade and then be arbitrarily trained in another seems a bit dishonest, and a bit desperate. I see issues of unit morale and individual disatisfaction here.  I wonder what the media impact would be if they got their teeth into it. 

The plug and play idea seems more workable, but I suspect, from my outsiders viewpoint, that this would result in fragmented and potentially less effective units, yes? It seems unpopular with George and 099*so I assume it's generally unwanted.

I note there are 15,500 Army reservists. Largish numbers of those are R031. Seems like a good manpower pool of soldiers who already have some skills. Call up would be political dynamite, but perhaps incentives for full time commitment for 18 or more months full time service, or try to task full time sub units from each brigade or whatever. Get creative with the reserves. I have no idea what all the issues would be, but darn it they signed up to serve - take 'em up on it. What is being done here, if anything, other than individual augmentation for specific TF's? That would seem a reasonable route for the short term (say 5 years or so) until recruiting and training catches up to the expansion needed.

The argument could be made that any Res that really wants to serve can CT to the regs, but from what I read on the forums that's a bit of a mess and extensive Class C augmentation seems simpler to implement. This would seem a better solution then rerolling the unwilling.


----------



## HItorMiss (1 Oct 2006)

099,

It's not even close an Armoured recce Det commander is nowhere near the same as an Infantry Recce Det commander, It's two very separate skills, just like an Armoured recce crewman is not an Infantry Recce soldier. I am an Infantry Recce soldier I cannot use a Coyote to it's fullest potential like an Armoured recce crewman can, and in that same breath the Armoured recce crewman cannot do the close target or dismounted recce like I can. Now take that skill and amplify it immensely and you'll get an idea of just how false that statement was.

But your point on the plug and play style of Task Forces is not lost, it's already being done as we speak with TF 03-06 2 Companies of RCR, 1 Company of PPCLI, 1 Company of R22R and then you add on RCD, 23 field Sqn (might be 22 I am fuzzy on that) and then the CSS trades and you see just how Plug and Play is being used.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Oct 2006)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> *It seems unpopular with George and 099* so I assume it's generally unwanted*.


 :rofl:    You don't certify opinion polls for the NDP do you? 
George has gone over to the dark side (sorry George  )...and, well, 099* is bitter about EVERYTHING...and most of us here have him on the <ignore> list


----------



## rampage800 (1 Oct 2006)

X-Grunt

Couldn't agree with you more, I think if they start taking guys from one trade(s) to keep the another one topped up its going to lead to a lot of problems not too far down the road. I'm of the same mind, utilize the reserves more, at least you're not starting from scratch.
Infidel- Its actually 2 tps of guns with talk of a third one, with 4 OP Parties, a BC's Party and once the UAV stuff comes around those guys too, so yea it is high demand when the TO&E is actually larger than the actual bty strength.


----------



## MJP (1 Oct 2006)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> Infidel- Its actually 2 tps of guns with talk of a third one, with 4 OP Parties, a BC's Party and once the UAV stuff comes around those guys too, so yea it is high demand when the TO&E is actually larger than the actual bty strength.



How many Reg force Batteries do we have?  I ask because quite frankly I just don't know.  I was under the impression that the airforce was running the UAV stuff?  Or is that just interim until the arty guys are up to snuff/speed?  The arty guys that were over with us had mention that the only stressed part of their organization was the FOO/FAC parties and they were pretty stable between the Reg force units to man the guns.  The only thing they weren't able to do and has been pointed out several times here on the board was to man both the 81s and the 155s at the same time.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2006)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> I note there are 15,500 Army reservists. Largish numbers of those are R031. Seems like a good manpower pool of soldiers who already have some skills. Call up would be political dynamite, but perhaps incentives for full time commitment for 18 or more months full time service, or try to task full time sub units from each brigade or whatever. Get creative with the reserves. I have no idea what all the issues would be, but darn it they signed up to serve - take 'em up on it. What is being done here, if anything, other than individual augmentation for specific TF's? That would seem a reasonable route for the short term (say 5 years or so) until recruiting and training catches up to the expansion needed.



Not as simple as it sounds (nor as complex as other would make it).  Of the 16K active pers in the Army Reserve, you have to deduct those not yet occupationallyqualified, then look at how many are already serving full-time.  The numbrs aren't nearly as rosy once those calculations are made.  And while the Army Reserve has no where near as many senior folks with no real job as the Reg F (9 Reg F Inf bns, over 100 Reg F Inf LCols strikes me as excessive), there are still structural issues that reduce the number of folks available in the ranks and trades needed.

Reservists are currently augmenting in up to platoon strengths; in Bosnia there were Reserve companies serving (composite companies).  But as has been stated earlier in this thread, the Army's breaking point isn't with the Infantry - it's with the other trades.


----------



## JBP (1 Oct 2006)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> The idea that you can be accepted into one trade and then be arbitrarily trained in another seems a bit dishonest, and a bit desperate. I see issues of unit morale and individual disatisfaction here.  I wonder what the media impact would be if they got their teeth into it.
> 
> The plug and play idea seems more workable, but I suspect, from my outsiders viewpoint, that this would result in fragmented and potentially less effective units, yes? It seems unpopular with George and 099*so I assume it's generally unwanted.
> 
> ...



SO many people from my unit would be far too happy to be 'activated' and sent on work-up training to go on a roto! But I really do think that would be a political nuclear bomb for the current government in power and the CDS would probably be made the scape-goat... 

But in anycase, I think this is a perfect stop-gap temporary solution and what the reserves are partially meant for. But we all know nothing like this will even be remotely considered....

 :crybaby:


----------



## x-grunt (2 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :rofl:    You don't certify opinion polls for the NDP do you?



What do they pay?  ;D

You're right though, I made a sweeping generalization from two posters opinions.


----------



## Retired45 (2 Oct 2006)

My God this sounds like a Momma's boy army, Human rights voilations, redresses, what the hell do you think this is the boy scouts!!!.

 People once you signed the dotted............... line they can put your A$@% anywhere they please, period! 

 Gen. Hilliar has the right idea and this should have been done years ago

*GRUNT FIRST. TRADES MAN SECOND*. 

 If you don't like it then don't sign up or get out AND STOP the WHINING!

 As far as our AF goes we don't have one, most of our CF-18's have been moth balled with the exception of a few that are still flying and a hand full of 130's and helicopters still in the air. What we need a few hundred airframe and engine techs to take care of them? NO, so give them some trainning a rifle and kick their butts into the combat arms. Same goes for many other non combat arms trades. Even if we were only able to retain 10-20% of these people it would go along way to solving the "Boots on the ground" problem. 

 I'm all for activating reservist for long term Class B contracts, 12 to 24 months would be ideal.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2006)

Oh I forgot the Arty went to a 4 gun Bty  :  (there used to be 4 gun troops )  from the 6 Gun batteries.  An Arty Reg't is hardly raped to provide the tool they are being asked too.

I have not paid attention to the Arty since E Bty became track toads -- but they used to have 3 gun Bty's (at 6 tubes /bty) and a AD Bty (this is 93-94 timeframe went I left for the Pat's) plus a HQ Bty.
I think the AD guys died or all retired.

Not surprised with the FOO/FAC when you get that gig and a NCO you tend to hang on and beat others off with a stick and just rotate officers thru.


----------



## Korus (2 Oct 2006)

> I'm all for activating reservist for long term Class B contracts, 12 to 24 months would be ideal.



Why not Class C?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (2 Oct 2006)

> As far as our AF goes we don't have one, most of our CF-18's have been moth balled with the exception of a few that are still flying and a hand full of 130's and helicopters still in the air. What we need a few hundred airframe and engine techs to take care of them? NO, so give them some trainning a rifle and kick their butts into the combat arms. Same goes for many other non combat arms trades. Even if we were only able to retain 10-20% of these people it would go along way to solving the "Boots on the ground" problem.



Brilliant... :  Why do you think we have a "handful" of Hercs?  

You signing on again?


----------



## cplcaldwell (2 Oct 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Why not Class C?



10-90?

_ 'Pile on' to begin in 3.. 2... 1..._


----------



## orange.paint (2 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> 099,
> 
> It's not even close an Armoured recce Det commander is nowhere near the same as an Infantry Recce Det commander, It's two very separate skills, just like an Armoured recce crewman is not an Infantry Recce soldier. I am an Infantry Recce soldier I cannot use a Coyote to it's fullest potential like an Armoured recce crewman can, and in that same breath the Armoured recce crewman cannot do the close target or dismounted recce like I can. Now take that skill and amplify it immensely and you'll get an idea of just how false that statement was.
> 
> But your point on the plug and play style of Task Forces is not lost, it's already being done as we speak with TF 03-06 2 Companies of RCR, 1 Company of PPCLI, 1 Company of R22R and then you add on RCD, 23 field Sqn (might be 22 I am fuzzy on that) and then the CSS trades and you see just how Plug and Play is being used.



Your absolutely right.I'm not saying today with today's mindset/training that recce det and a recce troop is the same.What I was trying to allude to was the ability to intertrain where there is one combat arm.Where you qualifications put you where you belong.IE, infanteer with speciality level Sig's courses=Sig op.Infanteer with mounted training=armoured.


It becomes almost a loyalty issue when you support or don't the idea of ridding the CF of the regimental systems.That's what me and GW were referring to.It was dreaded at the regiment while we both served there.

As for the whole topic it is voluntary.He even spoke of how B sqn RCD was rerolled as infantry for Bosnia.If they don't get their numbers they will volunteer people.DP1 armoured is still going foward,checked today. ;D

As for journeyman. Personal insults on the internet for no reason,that's a stand up act.<ignore>
 :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Oct 2006)

> GRUNT FIRST. TRADES MAN SECOND.
> 
> If you don't like it then don't sign up or get out AND STOP the WHINING!



Thanks for the gross over-simplification of a complex problem.  You comments are very helpful.  :


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Oct 2006)

~RoKo~ said:
			
		

> Why not Class C?



wait for it!


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Oct 2006)

I hope not...Were sending barely up to speed Reg guys now, the last thing we need are a bunch under trained reservists that eat up more training time we don't have.

NOTE: I said under trained not poorly trained or not trainable, I just think training up the Res guys will take more time and money then it's worth honestly


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Oct 2006)

well perhaps offering a reserve soldier a 36 month contract (including a trip downrange) could fix that training delta...


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Oct 2006)

Not disgreeing with that Cobra but why take 36 months when a Reg F guy is tarined to snuff in 4-6 months?


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Not disgreeing with that Cobra but why take 36 months when a Reg F guy is tarined to snuff in 4-6 months?



I think you missed the point on that.  He isn't saying it is going to take 36 months to get them trained up to snuff.  He is saying give them the incentive of 36 months Class C Pay.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2006)

I think the issue was simply sending reservist to a unit to bring it up to wartime strenght and the 36 mo contract ensures they are a true part of the unit.
 (heck they will have more time in the unit that a Pte on a first BE)

I think one of the biggest issues should be streamlining the CT process.


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think one of the biggest issues should be streamlining the CT process.



you're absolutely right, unfortunately that change is not happening fast enough, it should be as simple as a posting message...


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Oct 2006)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think the issue was simply sending reservist to a unit to bring it up to wartime strength and the 36 mo contract ensures they are a true part of the unit.
> (heck they will have more time in the unit that a Pte on a first BE)
> 
> I think one of the biggest issues should be streamlining the CT process.



Now that I agree with to an extant, I would like to see a minimum days in time though to beat the avg BE Pte and I think minimum rank of Cpl should also be used.

Agree 100% on the CT thing though, too many people are getting hung up by hoarding units.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Now that I agree with to an extant, I would like to see a minimum days in time though to beat the avg BE Pte and I think minimum rank of Cpl should also be used.
> 
> Agree 100% on the CT thing though, too many people are getting hung up by hoarding units.



Perhaps the solution lies in those Bns that Harper wanted to put into the Major Centers.  Reg Force nucleus, and 36 month Class C Call Outs.  Get the support of the Bde Units, and use it as a stepping board also for those who want to CT.


----------



## KevinB (2 Oct 2006)

HoM -- If a reservist has completed a BIQ - he should be good to go.  The training and experience he/she will get in a Reg unit with a year (min) before the deployment date - will make them a seamless fit.  Right now the Reg BIQ people are incompetant when they come out of training - your not getting screwed anyworse by putting a reserivst there too.

C-6 -- yeah the formula for res->reg or reg->  is pretty simple -- I know some units that wait on troops CT's until summer concentrations etc


----------



## orange.paint (2 Oct 2006)

Putting reserve guys on full time contract....no offence but doesnt that go against the reason for having a reserve force?

(Note:I know res guys with 15 years b class etc.Im just stating that while the reserves deploy,taking time off work I would think if they wanted full time they would join the regs.Am I not correct?)


----------



## COBRA-6 (2 Oct 2006)

Most reservists join in HS or university, so this would look to hire them when they complete school (IMO). It is far, far easier to put them on full-time contract (done in days) than CT to the Reg F (weeks to months!).


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2006)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> Most reservists join in HS or university, so this would look to hire them when they complete school (IMO). It is far, far easier to put them on full-time contract (done in days) than CT to the Reg F (weeks to months!).



This would allow them to continue with their Trades Trg and Progression, and make them better candidates for the CT.  If the Clerical Staff handling them during this employment period had control of their files, not their original Unit, the CT process may be quicker also.  Treat this employment as a Posting, as it would be in the Reg Force.


----------



## Spring_bok (2 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> Putting reserve guys on full time contract....no offence but doesnt that go against the reason for having a reserve force?
> 
> (Note:I know res guys with 15 years b class etc.Im just stating that while the reserves deploy,taking time off work I would think if they wanted full time they would join the regs.Am I not correct?)


I don't believe you went there.  Your on your own buddy.


----------



## orange.paint (2 Oct 2006)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> I don't believe you went there.  Your on your own buddy.



No no!It aint a slag! Im just wondering why they would call out guys for three years when they are volunteering now.Plus the guys who have good jobs in their local area wouldnt want to leave for 3 years im sure.

No slag intended.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Oct 2006)

The fastest way to fill personnel short falls is to reclassify soldiers from overstrength MOC's I think you call them ? Another way is to lure soldiers away from reserve units. This last method hurts the reserves but the regular army units have to be filled.Primary reserve units dont deploy as units overseas,you arent affecting the combat readiness of these units, particularly since many just have one rifle company.


----------



## Spring_bok (2 Oct 2006)

099* said:
			
		

> No slag intended.


I know its not a slag but those kids of questions have been known to totally derail an otherwise informative thread. That is all.





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The fastest way to fill personnel short falls is to reclassify soldiers from overstrength MOC's I think you call them ?


Do we have any overborne trades right now?  Not sure if we do but cbt arms trades are significantly underborne right now.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2006)

They're not done yet. Not just personnel re-org, but I see some structural changes coming too. 

Trade A being told they're now doing A + 1/2 B; Trade C, you're now doing C + 1/2 B. Trade B, you're now zero manned and your PYs just became Infantry. Giddyup.

Of course, this discussion should have been moved down to the Mess several "uninformed future guesses" ago.


----------



## geo (2 Oct 2006)

There is no doubt that, while we are standing up the CSOR, we're robbing Peter to pay Paul....


----------



## scas (2 Oct 2006)

From my understanding of this, it could work. Look at the number of people in PRETC in Borden. Almost 400-600 on strenght, with some doing EWAT to other places. Some ways to go around this strenght problem, as I see it, is get the trained and qualifed cpls, m/mpls and Sgts. that CT'd from the resevres, and send them to Meaford to instruct on BMQ, SQ and INF, or whatever its called. I just left PRETC, and for over the better part of the year there was around 15 Qualified instructors running around with the untrained guys. At least 3 were sgts before CTing, and one that was qual'd for his WO. They could run a few BMQ and SQ courses, while clearin the way for some of the other guys to return to units or even run more courses.

Instead of having trained and qualifed people running around, put them to use, instead of putting back in the reserve units they came from  on reg force pay.


----------



## McG (2 Oct 2006)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> The idea that you can be accepted into one trade and then be arbitrarily trained in another seems a bit dishonest, and a bit desperate.


The QR&O have for a long time established the authority to move members between environments & occupations without the members' concent.  This is not new.  However, I do not know how well new recruits are briefed on this when they enroll.



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> CSS training is controlled by the big purple machine.  They set the standards and control intake - not the Army.


Could it possibly be that the certain trade schools are so short on capacity, to process current back-logs & match current enrollment objectives, that the army could train their PATs as infantry & get a tour out of them before a spot becomes available on the original intended trade course?

I don't really know the CDS's intent, so I won't comment on it specifically.  Forced remusters could cause much discontent if done poorly, but that does not mean that a selective approach could not be made to work.  I'll watch and shoot on this.



			
				x-grunt said:
			
		

> I note there are 15,500 Army reservists. Largish numbers of those are R031.


We are tapping into the reserves for operations already.





			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I hope not...Were sending barely up to speed Reg guys now, the last thing we need are a bunch under trained reservists that eat up more training time we don't have.


There are a large number of reservists already over there; filling combat arms jobs and doing an excellent job of it.

I like the idea of using reservists to bring all operational units up to strength, but I also think it needs to be an interim solution.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> *Quote from: HitorMiss on Today at 17:03:42*
> 
> 
> > I hope not...Were sending barely up to speed Reg guys now, the last thing we need are a bunch under trained reservists that eat up more training time we don't have.
> ...


And most of _them_ knew enough to duck.  ;D

(sorry D, couldn't be helped   )


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> .
> We are tapping into the reserves for operations already.There are a large number of reservists already over there; filling combat arms jobs and doing an excellent job of it.


I'm not saying they aren't doing an amazing job, I have bled with them, what I am saying is that if were going to spend money on training for units lets spend the money where it counts which in my mind is the regs, I don't think anyone on here would argue that on avg Res F pers are under trained then their Reg counter parts (note under trained not poorly trained). I don't have an issue with say 3 year commitment to by the Res Pers where we are getting our bang out of the money we are putting into them.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> .
> I like the idea of using reservists to bring all operational units up to strength, but I also think it needs to be an interim solution.



I completely agree 100% it needs to be interim.


----------



## HItorMiss (2 Oct 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *We are tapping into the reserves for operations already.There are a large number of reservists already over there; filling combat arms jobs and doing an excellent job of it.*
> And most of _them_ knew enough to duck.  ;D
> 
> (sorry D, couldn't be helped   )



Ha Ha Ha No worries JM can't be sorry for the truth


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2006)

A little bit more detail (highlighted), shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Military fine tunes troop replacement in Afghanistan, says Cda's top soldier *  
Les Perrault, Canadian Press, 2 Oct 06
http://www.cp.org/premium/ONLINE/member/elxn_en/061002/p100201A.html

The Canadian military will refine the way troops are replaced in the Afghan mission to avoid troop shortages and exhaustion, Gen. Rick Hillier said Monday. 

The chief of defence staff said the army needs to streamline the replacement process for troops who are hurt and killed to shorten the time from the current 21 to 30 days. "Our replacements coming from Canada have been slow coming in," Hillier told reporters at Kandahar Airfield as he completed a visit with troops. 

"We're going to accelerate that program and have them here in a week." 

*Hillier says he also wants to shift recruits and troops in other trades into infantry on a voluntary basis. 

"We need to make sure we have infantry to do the job," Hillier said. 

"We want to ensure to the extent possible, and it won't be 100 per cent, that folks coming on this mission will be folks coming here for the first time." * 

Canada has committed troops to Afghanistan for the next 2 1/2 years and the army already has shortages in a number of trades, including the infantry. 

The casualty rate for Canadian troops has accelerated dramatically since they moved into the restive Kandahar region over the past year. 

While a couple hundred extra troops are already on their way to Afghanistan, Hillier said he is confident no more reinforcements are needed. 

Thirty of the 37 Canadian military deaths on the mission have come since the move south. At least 153 have been injured so far in 2006, according to reports compiled by The Canadian Press. Many of those injured return to duty. 

Faced with mounting casualties that have damaged the military readiness of some units, military officials have avoided giving out precise counts of injured in recent incidents. 

Canada has about 2,200 soldiers in Afghanistan, but only about 800 of them are frontline troops. 

*Hillier said the army has shifted soldiers from other trades into infantry before. Armoured troops were retrained for the infantry for the Bosnia mission in the 1990s. 

"We have to make sure the men and women who are bearing the brunt of the stress and operations here, that we have lots of them and we're not turning to the same folks," Hillier said.*


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (3 Oct 2006)

> Hillier says he also wants to shift recruits and troops in other trades into infantry on a voluntary basis.



That's better....



> Hillier said the army has shifted soldiers from other trades into infantry before. Armoured troops were retrained for the infantry for the Bosnia mission in the 1990s.



True, but (IIRC) this wasn't by remustering individual soldiers.  Instead, squadrons performed the _function_ of infantry - we dubbed them "panzergrenadiers" (heh) - in a comparatively benign environment.  There was no suggestion that the squadrons actually fight as infantry, unless in an _inextremis_ situation.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> True, but (IIRC) this wasn't by remustering individual soldiers.  Instead, squadrons performed the _function_ of infantry



SFOR Roto1 saw the Strats re-role Recce Sqn into an Inf Coy. They did very good work in Drvar, which was arguably one of our more troublesome areas. 

The down-side is that they then took a Cougar Sqn and said, "you're now Recce." They knew how to drive the truck, but they were absolutely fucking abysmal er, perhaps not up to the standard one expects from qualified recce troops.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> A little bit more detail (highlighted), shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
> 
> *Military fine tunes troop replacement in Afghanistan, says Cda's top soldier *
> Hillier says he also wants to shift recruits and troops in other trades into infantry on a voluntary basis.



So if a armoured crewman wants to go infantry would he still not have to go through BPSO,battle school and the whole OT process?This would take up to 2 years.Are they planning on an accelerated course?Is anything put into place to get people from other trades into the infantry?

It leaves a lot of questions unanswered IMHO.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2006)

Guess you missed this:



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *Hillier said the army has shifted soldiers from other trades into infantry before. Armoured troops were retrained for the infantry for the Bosnia mission in the 1990s.
> 
> "We have to make sure the men and women who are bearing the brunt of the stress and operations here, that we have lots of them and we're not turning to the same folks," Hillier said.*



As has been mentioned before, Armour and Artillery Units have been 're-roled' as Infantry to do Tours.  This seems to be more of what he is talking about, than OTing other Trades to Infantry.


----------



## orange.paint (3 Oct 2006)

Yes but who would they hit up would be the question.Maybe some naval types?Everyone elses tempo seems to be quite high as well.What trade can they rape?

CANFORGENS??


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Oct 2006)

BPSO-doubt it in the traditional sense
battle school-why they aren't regimental anymore
OT-doubt it in the traditional sense

Other combat arms troops KNOW a lot of what 031 does if not all of it so they shouldn't have a problem re-rolling. Other trades will take time to get to speed such as potential clerks etc.  However given you example of an armoured crewman you picked a relatively easy transition (that's not to say that the armoured crewmen aren't in short supply either).


----------



## Haggis (3 Oct 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I'm not saying they aren't doing an amazing job, I have bled with them, what I am saying is that if were going to spend money on training for units lets spend the money where it counts which in my mind is the regs, I don't think anyone on here would argue that on avg Res F pers are under trained then their Reg counter parts (note under trained not poorly trained). I don't have an issue with say 3 year commitment to by the Res Pers where we are getting our bang out of the money we are putting into them.



The solution as I see it is to spend more money on the Reservist while s/he is still on the armoury floor.  Kit him properly, get him his shots/dental/ I Card (not the "you're not a real soldier so we won't give you a real I card" card)/dog tags.  Give him more than 50 odd rounds/year.  Keep him fit.  Then when it's time to deploy him, he's mostly ready to start training withtout tha administrative handicaps we impose on Reservists now.   And, for chrissakes, ensure he is properly and fully briefed on his pay and benefits up front BEFORE he signs on the dotted line.  Don't jerk him around.



			
				HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I completely agree 100% it needs to be interim.



Yep, and when Afghanistan calms down you can replace Reg F inf Coys with Res F Inf Coys, run by guys with recent tour experience with a Reg F unit.  That'll release the Reg F Coys to go on the next Roto 0 in the new hotspot.


----------



## Pencil Tech (3 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think you missed the point on that.  He isn't saying it is going to take 36 months to get them trained up to snuff.  He is saying give them the incentive of 36 months Class C Pay.



What's the difference between a 36 month Class C res contract and a three-year Reg Force contract?


----------



## Haggis (3 Oct 2006)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a 36 month Class C res contract and a three-year Reg Force contract?



Nothing, really, except that the soldier could retain his Reserve parent unit affiliation and cap badge/headdress.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2006)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> What's the difference between a 36 month Class C res contract and a three-year Reg Force contract?



Nothing.

The end of the contract is different though.  The Reservist goes back to their Parent Unit and parades with them.  The Reg Force Soldier either signs a 'Re-engagement' or becomes an unemployed civie.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> I am still missing something here - not unusual I know.  But sticking with the armoured/infantry transition how difficult would if be to re-role/re-task/re-assign current Coyote crews from Coyotes to LAVs and assign a half-section of infanteers to each crew to generate a LAV with 7 soldiers including a 4-man dismount?
> 
> Everybody stays with the job they know.
> 
> Is it all about the capbadge?  Couldn't it still work with both teams keeping their capbadges?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am still missing something here - not unusual I know.  But sticking with the armoured/infantry transition how difficult would if be to re-role/re-task/re-assign current Coyote crews from Coyotes to LAVs and assign a half-section of infanteers to each crew to generate a LAV with 7 soldiers including a 4-man dismount?
> 
> Everybody stays with the job they know.
> 
> Is it all about the capbadge?  Couldn't it still work with both teams keeping their capbadges?



The Turret Crew would have no problems as the turrets are 99% the same.  The Driver would be required to take a week long Air Brake Crse and then a D&M Crse.  

After that, most would have little more of a 'Learning Curve' to go through.

Questions of Hatbadges and Berets are already heated discussions in other forums.


----------



## HItorMiss (3 Oct 2006)

It's working well for the Engineers in theater now, the RCDs crew and fight the vehicle and the the Engineers are free to concentrate on thier job.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

> Questions of Hatbadges and Berets are already heated discussions in other forums.



And I would hate to see that become the focus of this discussion.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Oct 2006)

D&M???

The drivers compartments are totally different.

Also are there armoured guys to spare??


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Oct 2006)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> D&M???
> 
> The drivers compartments are totally different.
> 
> Also are there armoured guys to spare??


D & M Course = Driver and Maintenance Course

So yes they will show them the difference in drivers compartments  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Oct 2006)

Thanks.  That LAV cockpit has a lot of bells an whistles.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (3 Oct 2006)

I know, had to jump in one for my Air Brakes course.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Oct 2006)

It sounds like "managed readiness" should be expanded to "managed growth".  Cut tempo (if necessary) and add a 6-month "man the schools" phase before the "reconstitution" phase (assuming there is still a "reconstitution" phase in whatever is the current evolution of MR) in order to run the next booster shot of recruits through BMQ/SQ/B?Q.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Oct 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> add a 6-month "man the schools" phase before the "reconstitution" phase


The only snag that leaps to mind is, I hope you're talking local BSL courses. Coming home off pre-depl training, then six-months in the box, only to be told you're now off to CTC to support some advanced courses...  ...I think the only one to benefit would be the divorce lawyers. 

(I did a year unaccompanied, followed by the Airborne Regt - - we were out in the boonies a fair bit. When I was packing for SFOR, the 'ex-' said, "have a nice tour - - I'm out").


----------



## vanislerev (3 Oct 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Cut tempo (if necessary) and add a 6-month "man the schools" phase before the "reconstitution" phase (assuming there is still a "reconstitution" phase in whatever is the current evolution of MR) in order to run the next booster shot of recruits through BMQ/SQ/B?Q.



All this will accomplish is more Pte's like myself and the hundreds of others on PAT platoons...


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Oct 2006)

Not talking about cap badges, but the gunners (all trades) now receive one course, standardised army wide.  It's called Turret Operator.  At the end, the graduate is qualified to be employed as a gunner.
Crew Commanding a LAV and Crew Commanding a Coyote are different.  Coyote is more technical and I don't mean from the crew supervision skills, but the overall job of crew commanding an armoured recce vehicle.
One disadvantage of having armoured crewman operating a LAV for engineers is that vehicle now has 7 engineers (only) and three crewmen.  Ideally, with all 10 being engineers, when they leave the LAV, you have ten engineers (or 9, or whatever the ORBAT is for a field section in LAVs).  Conversely, when fighting as infantry, and assume that the LAV is being employed as an OP, there are then (in theory) only two persons qualified to operate that turret.
Having homogenous sections is much preferable, in my opinion, then heterogenous.  This is irrespective of capbadge.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

VG +1


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

VG, would it be a manageable method of spreading out the workload until more 031s and 011s can be trained and units plumped up a bit?


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill
I'm not sure.  I'm not privy to the state of manning affairs across the nation.  Perhaps in theory as a stop-gap, but it should be avoided, lest the LAVs end up as glorified taxis.  

Let's not forget that the 011s have a job to do, and they are very good at it.  Crewing the LAVs for the Engrs, in this case, I believe was due to the situation at the time.

As I said, the Turret Operator is a new course, the result of a lot of good work out of my cell (I'm like a proud daddy on this one).  It's not a perfect course (none is), but from all reports, much better than the myriad of courses that used to exist, and problems such these are one of the reasons we went to DAT a year ago about this course.  Lo and behold, less than 10 months later, it was signed off by the CLS.  That's courseware, TP, QS, everything


----------



## Meridian (3 Oct 2006)

Not to throw more mud in the fray but (and I recognize most of these questions are going to be above everyone's paygrade, but, since I dont see any gold leafs around here...):

1) How much of a problem do we really have?  Put another way, how much of it is it based on immediate and pressing need to have more infantry troops to deploy?

2) How long until (ballpark guesses are expected) we are able to sustain required volumes of troops? Essentially, how long would this measure have to go on for, or would it be quasi-permanent?

3) How long to implement anything realistically?  From today until additional 31 troops on the ground wherever we want them?

4) What is the likelyhood of us having a new federal government in the interim who decides we are cutting back our presence (and thus optempo)?  (I realize this sort of belongs in another thread, but I mean, with recent polling data showing over half of Canadians feel we are not succeeding in Afghanistan, and with the Cons coming into budget season soon with budget amendments that are not popular with any of the other parties.... a non-confidence motion could easily happen next spring).      Perhaps better aligned with the thread; if optempo were reduced by a new government marginally or even considerably...  would we still need to readjust manning along the lines discussed here?

5) the capbadge and beret thing is nothing new, and does not exist solely in the military world.  I used to have customer service staff who worked under me who were revolting because we wanted them to upsell and do "sales".  They didn't sign up for it, and its not what was familiar, so they dragged their feet and made what should have been a very marginal training/learning curve become  near impossible.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

> I used to have customer service staff who worked under me who were revolting because we wanted them to upsell and do "sales".



Funny.  You must have worked for the same company I did.  We too had revolting service.  ;D


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Hmmm.... LAV upgrade?
does he mean the LEOs that have started to arrive at KAF?
(no Opsec here - on CTV.ca)


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Oct 2006)

>The only snag that leaps to mind is, I hope you're talking local BSL courses.

Yes.

For the comment about PAT platoons, I was unaware that people were placed in PAT platoons after completing BMQ, SQ, and their basic trade qualification.  I had assumed at that point they're ready for employment in a field unit (collective training and operations).  I don't see how we get out of chasing requirements except by starting to grow new leaders and trainers from larger intakes of recruits and outputs of trained private soldiers.


----------



## big bad john (3 Oct 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... LAV upgrade?
> does he mean the LEOs that have started to arrive at KAF?
> (no Opsec here - on CTV.ca)



Yes, the LAVIII's will be upgraded.  That is all that will be said on this subject.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Soldiers to be limited to one combat tour in Afghanistan: minister*
Murray Brewster, Canadian Press, 18 Oct 06
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/061018/n101885A.html

To avoid wearing out his troops, Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan, if possible. 

*Gordon O'Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that with a little luck and good planning, the army won't have to ask soldiers to return again and again to battle Taliban insurgents. 

"There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said. 

"I don't anticipate anybody being there five or six times." * 

Most soldiers on coming deployments will hopefully be going to Afghanistan for the first time, said Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff . 

"We aim as much towards that as we can," he said. 

Both O'Connor and Hillier were responding to questions and concerns from the all-party committee about how the army will deal with the extended, often dangerous mission and the rising casualty rate. 

Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died and more than 168 have been wounded in the bloody struggle to wrestle Afghanistan from Taliban control. 

Typically, Canadian battle groups - roughly 2,300 front-line soldiers and support elements - are deployed for six-month rotations. 

*In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling. 

When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry. 

It's not new concept. In the 1990s, armoured soldiers were retrained to fight as infantry in Bosnia. * 

The Conservative government is hoping its plan to recruit 13,000 new members of the regular forces will also help swell the ranks. 

*There will be some exceptions to the one-deployment rule, most notably for command assignments, Hillier said. * 

"You can't have a rapidly changing face if you're going to develop a relationship with the governor of Kandahar, the governor of Helmand," he said. 

Several times during the session, O'Connor was called upon to defend the mission in Afghanistan from opposition attacks. 

Liberal and Bloc Quebecois MPs accused him of keeping Canadians in the dark about the progress of the mission by denying the committee's request for regular briefings. 

O'Connor said he wasn't about to endanger troops by discussing plans for operations in southern Afghanistan. 

But committee members insisted they were not interested in asking questions coming missions, but rather what has already taken place. 

O'Connor said he'd reconsider whether to sanction the briefings.


----------



## tlg (18 Oct 2006)

What about soldiers that wish to return. I'm sure there are more than a few that wish to do so.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2006)

Question for those wiser than me in these issues:  Any possible career implications, say, of one soldier up for promotion who was only allowed to go once, competing against someone pre-rules who's been more than once?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (18 Oct 2006)

That just doesn't make sense....I'd rather have experienced guys on my tour that know alot about what has or is going on over there..then all new people. I don't think they can make it work.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

This is going to be almost impossible to accomplish in a strict sense. There are not that many major units to draw the various rotations from (thanks to 20 years of downsizing), and I cannot see them increasing the recruitment, training, et al  at such a rate as to eliminate the need to send over seasoned troops.

In addition, you need those seasoned troops the guide the newbies. Makes the transition dramatically shorter.

This is kinda like saying I'm going to fight you, but will not use my strongest arm. duh...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2006)

I VP has soldiers that were on 1-06 slated for 1-08 - all of whom are volunteers.


----------



## tlg (18 Oct 2006)

Not to sound like an idiot, but what does 1 VP stand for?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2006)

1 VP = 1 PPCLI


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I VP has soldiers that were on 1-06 slated for 1-08 - all of whom are volunteers.



Is that the difference that's not being said. If you volunteer, you are not being required, therefore do not count in the one deployment issue?


----------



## tlg (18 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 1 VP = 1 PPCLI



Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2006)

Based on this quote, and assuming it's correct (transcripts not available yet on the committee's web page),



			
				milnewstbay said:
			
		

> "There are exceptions in some support trades, but we should have enough people, if we do our recruiting right, to get us through to the end of February '09 without committing large numbers of troops back there again," he said.  "I don't anticipate anybody being there five or six times." [/b]



it appears the Def Min figures they'll be able to recruit enough bayonets between now and 2009 to be able to ship new faces every ROTO.  A touch optimistic, no?


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Oct 2006)

Wow... uh... I don't see this happening either.  There's not enough people. especially when they're increasing the number of troops over there.  What do they plan to do, make everyone join infantry first, do a tour then force them to change trades? Hmmm... can't wait to see how this pans out.


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> Wow... uh... I don't see this happening either.  There's not enough people. especially when they're increasing the number of troops over there.  What do they plan to do, make everyone join infantry first, do a tour then force them to change trades? Hmmm... can't wait to see how this pans out.



In that article was there not comment as to the possibility of someone doing a Roto prior to be trained in their trade/specialty?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Oct 2006)

> Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan



 :rofl:


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

> Canada's defence minister is proposing to limit combat troops to one deployment in war-torn Afghanistan



That's not nice....funny...but he said it with a straight face....gotta be true...no?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Oct 2006)

Sorry about that, but I was speechless, particularly knowing how many op waiver requests are in the offing for the West's next venture to the 'Stan...


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2006)

Just from these boards, the message is that the guys/gals would like to get back and finish the job. I can well imagine waivers will abound once everyone has been back, settled down and recovered from the last ROTO.


----------



## RHFC_piper (18 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> In that article was there not comment as to the possibility of someone doing a Roto prior to be trained in their trade/specialty?



Yeah.

"When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry."

The way I'm interpreting this, and I may be wrong, is join to be a clerk, do BMQ, SQ (like normal) then DP1 infantry, do a tour and then your pushed out of the infantry.  So, you have to do a tour as a grunt to be a Mat tech later.  It just doesn't seem right to me.
What about people who join a trade 'cause they have civilian training in that field; eg. guy joins to be a veh tech, is a licensed Mechanic in the civilian world and has a lot of experience and just wants to serve his country... as a mechanic.. he has to do a tour first? That means that after training and a tour he will have been out of a shop, away from his trade for over 2 years. Like I said; just doesn't seem right.
But thats just me.

- Piper


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Well some of 1VP's TF1-08 offering will be on #4...
If my volunteer int is right.


I know some folk getting ready for #5


----------



## Infanteer (18 Oct 2006)

Score another one for the Member from Carleton-Mississippi Mills....


----------



## Patrolman (18 Oct 2006)

Maybe they should start clearing out the schools in the CF. I am reg force infantry posted to a school and have never been to A-Stan yet. My last tour was Haiti in 04 (for a half tour). I know task force 1-07 is undermanned but no one has canvassed the infantry at my unit to see if we would be willing to go. In my opinion all reg force staff should be replaced by those who have the best and latest experience.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Score another one for the Member from Carleton-Mississippi Mills....



In case some have forgotten.......
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/3-JTF2-Violates-Spirit-of-Landmine-Treaty.html


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Patrolman -- its in the works -- I heard there will be a 3 year max at the schools and they are trying to feed the 1VP and 1RCR (plus the 2VP hanger's off from both tours  ;D)
into the schools to give some current combat experience


----------



## boondocksaint (18 Oct 2006)

It pains me to agree with Teddy, but the emoticon thingy he used about some it up.




			
				Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> into the schools to give some current combat experience



IF the schools listen


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Oct 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> Maybe they should start clearing out the schools in the CF. I am reg force infantry posted to a school and have never been to A-Stan yet. My last tour was Haiti in 04 (for a half tour). I know task force 1-07 is undermanned but no one has canvassed the infantry at my unit to see if we would be willing to go. In my opinion all reg force staff should be replaced by those who have the best and latest experience.



I agree with you. The Marines and US Army both are following this practice. Combat experienced trainers save lives and give focus to training.


----------



## Jay4th (18 Oct 2006)

Back to the post about the career implications of having only had the opportunity of one tour vs. a guy who has two or three before the "new rule".

THE GUY WITH ONE OR NO TOURS ALREADY GOT PROMOTED PAST THE REST OF US WHILE WE WERE GONE....AGAIN


----------



## KevinB (18 Oct 2006)

Sad but Jay brought up a hugely valid point.


----------



## boondocksaint (18 Oct 2006)

One of my C-9 gunners, on his first contract, has 2 tours to Afghanistan.

No courses cause he's always doing work up training.

He has fired the 25mm very effectively ( really really effectively ) ( twice ) at the enemy. 

No course. ( doubt it'll get written off for him )

Absolutely one of the best troops most of us know.

He's getting out.

Multiply his story by....alot.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> One of my C-9 gunners, on his first contract, has 2 tours to Afghanistan.
> 
> No courses cause he's always doing work up training.
> 
> ...



PM inbound


----------



## MJP (19 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> One of my C-9 gunners, on his first contract, has 2 tours to Afghanistan.
> 
> No courses cause he's always doing work up training.
> 
> ...



Same thing in my Platoon dude.  Sucks we are losing so many good troops with experience after this tour.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2006)

MJP said:
			
		

> ...  Sucks we are losing so many good troops with experience after this tour.



Bingo!

Before we recruit 10,000 new soldiers let's *retain* the good ones 'we' are driving out due to systemically inept management.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2006)

Not having been in the CF, is the problem that qualified people are not getting promoted because, while they have the time in and fit the bill, they have not attended the appropriate NCO, etc courses? Easily solved. Promote them, then worry about the courses or parts of courses they require. 

If they have the time in, good evals, good recomendations, can do the job, why wait. The beauracracy will sort itself out later, but right now promote them and get busy training them on an ad hoc basis. If they re-up to stay in, provide them with a bonus system. 

my 1¢, I need the other


----------



## Echo9 (19 Oct 2006)

Obviously, the statement was either not well thought out, or did not capture the full expression of the thought behind it.

If he's saying that soldiers shouldn't have to do multiple tours in a short time, sure.  If it's no multiple tours at the same rank level, then that's perhaps also defensible.  However, almost by definition, you want your section, and company commanders (and just as importantly 2i/c's at all levels) to have multiple tours in their backgrounds.  2 or 3 tours spread out over 10 years does not constitute an extreme stress on the system (though certainly 1 tour can be more than enough for many individuals- if the tour is traumatic enough).


In terms of the coming attrition problem- I'd ask those who are closer to the situation whether there's anything that can be done to avert at least a part of it.  In other words, are soldiers leaving simply because they have no desire to go back to the 'stan, or is it because of chain of command issues?  In either case, is component transfer a meaningful option- because the CF as a whole could stand to gain substantially from not losing this experience.  If the attrition is not avertable, is the answer to switch to year long tours?  That way, you're subjecting fewer people to the attrition driver. Or, does that increase the attrition rate as more people burn out?


Lots of things to ponder.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not having been in the CF, is the problem that qualified people are not getting promoted because, while they have the time in and fit the bill, they have not attended the appropriate NCO, etc courses? Easily solved. Promote them, then worry about the courses or parts of courses they require.
> 
> If they have the time in, good evals, good recomendations, can do the job, why wait. The beauracracy will sort itself out later, but right now promote them and get busy training them on an ad hoc basis. If they re-up to stay in, provide them with a bonus system.



That is the problem and a solution.  Unfortunately our system will not currently accept that solution as being feasible, except in the cases of WSE (While So Employed) in Theatre.  It should behove our Leadership to sort out this problem, as they are the ones who are Course Loading the people left behind.  Time for them to give up that old "I want to take this guy because I know him." and thus screw him out of Career Courses while he is on Tour, and someone else with no experience gets the Crses just because he is left behind and available.  We at times are our own worse enemies.


----------



## Echo9 (19 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Not having been in the CF, is the problem that qualified people are not getting promoted because, while they have the time in and fit the bill, they have not attended the appropriate NCO, etc courses? Easily solved. Promote them, then worry about the courses or parts of courses they require.
> 
> If they have the time in, good evals, good recomendations, can do the job, why wait. The beauracracy will sort itself out later, but right now promote them and get busy training them on an ad hoc basis. If they re-up to stay in, provide them with a bonus system.



Actually, there is a recognition of this, and the rules are either out, or soon to be out that Op Tours should not constitute a negative on the merit boards- including the fact that if a soldier missed a planned course due to tour, that acting/lacking would be considered if all other factors suggested that the member was promotable.  Whether this rubber has hit the road yet or not is another matter.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2006)

This is a really poorly worded and/or thoughtout statement from the Minister.  We do not now, nor in the near future, have the manpower to implement such a plan.  There are several problems other than that which should also be considered.

Some of the smaller Units and Trades that are necessary for Force Protection are stressed to the limits now.  They are also being told that they will double, triple or even quadruple their tasking requirements in Theatre.  They are finding problems manning the next three ROTO's as is, this just makes their capabilities impossible.  

To re-role Armour and other Trades as Infantry, compounds the problems of those Trades to fill their requirements in Theatre.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, or 'Plug 'n Play', is not the solution.

Next question on the wisdom of these statements is what kind of experience must the Junior Leaders and Senior Leaders have on Tour?  Do we want our Section/Platoon/Coy Commanders to have as little experience as the Privates they are leading?  That is a ridiculous theory.  We need that operational experience in our leadership at all levels.

Another related problem being faced with the manpower shortages, is also the equipment shortages.  Some of the equipment we currently have in Theatre have stripped Units in Canada of nearly all of their resources.  With more requirements in Theatre for that equipment, they are being left with nothing to continue training on.  As equipment is destroyed in Theatre, there will soon be nothing left to replace it with.  This just aspirates the problems faced by the CF due to the neglect over the last two or three decades.  With no equipment left to train on back in Canada, the Troops will be ill-equipped to operate equipment in Theatre.

All the flesh and blood and steelwool in the world will not be enough to knit the Troops and equipment to fulfill the Ministers ill-thoughtout statements.


----------



## warrickdll (19 Oct 2006)

On the other side of this is that there will be those who have not been to Afghanistan because of the courses or taskings they were assigned. Wouldn't sending these people over on the next available tour be a priority? 

Sending the same people over again and again in order to have experienced leaders would deny the CF the ability to gain depth in its experience pool (no pun) - there would be a few very experienced leaders and a bunch of leaders completely lacking in experience.

I am not agreeing with a hard cap on tours, but priority should be given to gaining overall experience. Rerolling trades to fill Infantry tasks is not required (perhaps a limited use as individual augmentees to spread some skills - but not from recruit schools).

In general, there is not a shortage of Infantry (...in general).


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> On the other side of this is that there will be those who have not been to Afghanistan because of the courses or tasking they were assigned. Wouldn't sending these people over on the next available tour be a priority?


Announcements from the top typically don’t get down into the weeds.  However, in order to make a best effort at achieving the MND’s intent, then the military will have to do more to rotate newly returned soldiers into schools (and to get soldiers that have spent time in schools back to units).  This same dynamic will have to apply to all EREs.  I think it this is a good thing.  It will ensure the soldiers making decisions with operational & strategic implications have fresh operational experience.  It will ensure fresh operational experience in the soldiers training our new soldiers & leaders.  

Things like managed readiness (in its ever changing form) must drive individual training cycles on national courses and it must drive when pers will be posted into & out of units.  The CANFORGEN is out.  Missing a career course because you were on Ops will not delay a promotion any more (however, you’d better expect to be doing that course some time shortly after the requirements for any pers tempo waivers expire).

Despite the potential to improve the efficiency, WRT personnel stagnating in ERE positions while other pers in units are doing 18 month operational cycles, I am doubtful that we will come close to meeting the MND’s goal.


----------



## acheo (20 Oct 2006)

Has anyone heard that untrained personnel could be re-directed infanteer should the army needs it? I heard this from 2 different guys this week. Seems like this was mentionned on national TV.

Could anyone confirm or unconfirm these news?

Thanks


----------



## McG (20 Oct 2006)

Read here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-464346.html#msg464346


----------



## acheo (20 Oct 2006)

> _In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling.
> 
> When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry. _



then my next questions would be:

For a DEO officer:
1. Is this applicable for someone who has been in the service for sometime and is in the process to be qualified in his own trade or only for new applicants?
2. Is this applicable for someone who has been removed from training because of accademic/training failure even if this one is considering other technical trades ?


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

> In order to keep fresh troops headed toward the battlefield, defence planners are working on a series of options, including a process called re-rolling. When someone signs up for one particular branch of the military, the enrolment can be made conditional on them serving time in the infantry.





			
				acheo said:
			
		

> then my next questions would be:
> 
> For a DEO officer:
> 1. Is this applicable for someone who has been in the service for sometime and is in the process to be qualified in his own trade or only for new applicants?
> 2. Is this applicable for someone who has been removed from training because of accademic/training failure even if this one is considering other technical trades ?



I'd wager that no-one will be able to answer your questions until the defense planners are done their planning and the actual options are indeed laid out on the table. All that we know for now is that they are exploring some options, including re-rolling, the actual specifics of which remain to be seen. I'm betting that you're also not the only anixiously awaiting the word on what exactly any of these options will encompass.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2006)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*You're in the army now*
Military could start using sailors to replenish troops in Afghanistan
Chris Lambie, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 21 Oct 06
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/535722.html 

Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan.

Military planners are looking at several possibilities to avoid sending soldiers to the devastated country more than once. Those include "re-rolling," which means taking members from a branch of the Canadian Forces and putting them in the infantry.

"We’re all part of the same family. It doesn’t matter if we’re in the navy or the air force or the army — we all signed on the dotted line," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a navy cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan.

"We’re all here to defend our country, and that’s what we’re paid to do."

Canada has promised to keep a force in Afghanistan until 2009. Forty-two Canadian soldiers have been killed there since 2002.

"The military is looking at a number of ways to generate the required troops to meet the commitments in Afghanistan, with the goal of minimizing the number of personnel that must re-deploy," National Defence spokeswoman Karen Johnstone said.

"So they’re looking at a whole bunch of options to meet that goal, and one of them is this temporary use of people outside of their primary role."

Afghanistan is "not just an army deployment," said Kenneth Summers, a retired rear admiral.

"There are lots of navy people over in Afghanistan right now," he said, pointing out that clearance divers are being used to defuse bombs and naval logisticians are filling support roles at Kandahar airfield.

It’s "entirely possible" to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier, Mr. Summers said.

"The only danger that you run into is some of the ships are short-staffed right now," he said. "So I think you have to look at the old robbing Peter to pay Paul approach."

Sailors who serve on naval boarding parties could become excellent infantry soldiers, Mr. Summers said.

"Those guys going on the small boats boarding rogue ships — that can be pretty dangerous, too. You don’t know what’s around the corner," he said. "In many ways, what they’re doing in Afghanistan is not too dissimilar. They’re going down alleys with big walls, and they don’t know what’s on the other side of the wall or what’s just around the corner. They’re trained in the same type of weapons and they’re trained in the same type of discipline."

One aspect of the transformation "that’s supposedly going on" within the military is "that everybody’s supposed to be a soldier," said Dan Middlemiss, a defence analyst at Dalhousie University.

"This is back to basic principles that we’re not supposed to have cooks in the army that can only cook," he said. "They’re supposed to know what the business end of a rifle’s like and what to do with it."

As time goes on, it will be increasingly difficult for the military to keep a force of about 2,200 in Afghanistan, he said. "They’re just desperately trying to find stop-gap measures to get by."

( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> It’s "entirely possible" to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier, Mr. Summers said.



Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free. We all just have to stick together until this war craze blows over. 


w601


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free. w601



Uhh....you've got that confused with taking showers...  ;D


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Uhh....you've got that confused with taking showers...  ;D


I'm not so sure there GAP, ever seen a bunch of soldier's let out of the asylum on a 60?


----------



## 284_226 (21 Oct 2006)

We had a briefing yesterday by the Air Force CWO, and he assured all those in attendance that the media is reading far more into this than what the CDS stated.  He stated that the "re-roling" (which is a term I hate already) will be done on artillery and armoured personnel, and not to any other trades.  He went on to say that command is quite aware that diverting personnel from AF or Navy production streams would cause significant hardship on organizations that are already having manning problems.  From the AF point of view, "re-roling" personnel in the AF production stream couldn't be done because of the requirement to maintain the existing aircraft fleet, as well as train personnel on the C-17, MHP, the new tactical transport (probably the C-130J), and Chinooks.


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure there GAP, ever seen a bunch of soldier's let out of the asylum on a 60?



The only "deep down sailor" in soldiers is the time they spend playing with the little yellow duckies and going "vroooom" as they push their plastic tub boats around.  ;D


----------



## Petard (21 Oct 2006)

I had hoped this idea of re-rolling Artillery soldiers, or whatever term you want to use, was losing steam. Unfortunately it seems to have momentum. Maybe it's because some are thinking along the same lines as what Infidel 6 is:

"Oh I forgot the Arty went to a 4 gun Bty    (there used to be 4 gun troops )  from the 6 Gun batteries.  An Arty Reg't is hardly raped to provide the tool they are being asked too.

I have not paid attention to the Arty since E Bty became track toads -- but they used to have 3 gun Bty's (at 6 tubes /bty) and a AD Bty (this is 93-94 timeframe went I left for the Pat's) plus a HQ Bty.
I think the AD guys died or all retired.

Not surprised with the FOO/FAC when you get that gig and a NCO you tend to hang on and beat others off with a stick and just rotate officers thru."

Normally I would say I-6's MPI is on the mark, but not in this case, and worse it appears he's not alone. I suspect they are making an assumption based on what used to be, but in reality never was, and in any case has changed quite a bit.

I left E Bty (Para) in the summer of 91, and the manning situation wasn't that good then. I had to leave my gun (or mortars) in the gun park and become the Recce Sgt (good for me) simply because there weren't enough soldiers to man the 6th and sometimes 5th gun (bad for the Regt). F Bty could barely put a troop of 3 guns out, and in most cases it was only 2. D Bty fared a bit better because of their AMFL role, but not by much. The numbers improved a little with the close of Germany, but this was quickly eliminated with the force reduction of the 90's. Pre-2005 add on a growing question of the relevance of Artillery, and even contempt, and the Artillery never quite recovered.

Things have changed quite a bit. The role of the guns in theatre has proven that it is very relevant. But manning those guns has made the Artillery look towards the Reserves in order to sustain just that capability. Now add on the re-roling of gun dets into FOO's, FACs and UAV operators (and no the Air Force has not taken over the Spewer TUAV completely, but I wish they would, as well Gunners are operating the min-UAV until the Armoured and Infantry Recce can take them over), plus sound ranging, all with 0 PY growth, and a very different picture emerges of whether or not the Artillery can sustain losing even 1's and 2's to the infantry. We need those ones about to be trained, every damned one of 'em. 

What needs to be looked at, IMO, is a more deliberate plan to employ reservists and deal with the retention problems we're having. Maybe we should take another look at 10/90 units? I served with 30Fd in Ottawa for 2 years doing this, and although there were some teething problems at 1st, eventually it produced what I would say is at least a gun Tp that could be relied on to deploy, with the work up training, as a whole. Maybe posting more Reg Force Artillery NCO's and some Officers to reserve units may also help with QOL and retention problems. Don't know for sure, It would take some researching which locations would support this idea, but I think its worth looking at. Could this work for the infantry too?


----------



## boondocksaint (21 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Blasphemey. Everybody knows that deep down in the heart of every grunt soldier there's a sailor trying to get free.



I just threw up a little bit, in my mouth  ( humour- not an indication of my opinion of sailors )

Someone mentioned more of an attempt at retention, I agree. We just spent $XXXX on an Infantry Pte to train him up, offer him a cookie, keep him.

The potential for a radically new army 10 years down the road is being wasted by losing these guys. When I was a new guy ( 91), the only experience the bulk of my leadership had to dazzle us with was Cyprus or RV XX. Both of which contained more drinking antidotes then anything to do with soldiering. There were of course some outstanding leaders and mentors, but none with combat experience.

Now we have some young guys, with new ideas and the experience to back them up. Lets keep those guys before expending effort in forcing someone to 're-role'

Once we lost the CBT support companies, we lost a spot where someone could go for a break from the 'colony', now these young guys can look forward to being shuffled between sections, or platoons as a break. Seniority gains them little, where before it meant going to mortars or pioneers to be treated like a mature soldier. Noone enjoys being 3i/c of a section as a senior Cpl. He'd be a #1 on a gun tube, or given lead roles in pioneers.

Dont get me started on Tow.

Signing-resigning bonus maybe

Hopefully not too 'Hijacked'


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Oct 2006)

I am more than just a little offended at the notion that "anyone can be re-roled infantry".  The modern infantry is not a dumping ground, and requires specific skills and attributes.  Moreover, it will take just as long to train a re-roled sailor as it will a newbie - and the sailor will come with all kinds of preconcevied notions and bad habits.  Just keep sending BIQ platoons to the Battalions - 1 PPCLI will be getting one in Jun 07, and nothing else is on the horizon.

As to BDS' comments on retention - he is bang on.  We need to fight to retain every single experienced soldier out there - particularily if they are combat hardened.  The CLS intends to bring back Pioneers, which is good.  Now we have to start cycling people through Recce and E Coy to give them a new challenge - and be willing to get way outside the box in terms of other retention initiatives. 

The next two years should be interesting...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (21 Oct 2006)

I couldn't agree more and have posted this before.  What does the CF do to keep people in?  Unless they're a doctor or a dentist, the answer's _nothing_ - zero.  Where are the financial bonuses for signing after a BE? Where are (aside from the miniscule increase in FSP) the bonuses for multiple tours?  Where is the bonus for signing on past 20 years?  

All of our structural decisions over the past 10 years have been aimed at doing one thing:  saving the almighty dollar.  Enough is enough.  Our structures were originally built for very valid reasons - as BDS points out - and we're only now seeing the effect of _trashing_ them.

Instead of trying to retain trained people, we're looking at re-rolling untrained people  : .  We have aircraft that cannot fly because of a lack of support, ships that are laid up for want of crews, CSS units that are severely undermanned and shortages in just about every trade.  We cannot afford to force some wannabe shipdriver into the infantry just for short term gain.  Keep the people we've got, and work on filling the holes. 

Until they those holes are filled, and structrual issues are coherently addressed, perhaps it's time to examine exactly what we're committing to deployments and rationalizing those commitments to meet reality, rather than vice versa.


----------



## Booked_Spice (21 Oct 2006)

Bare with my response.

My husband is one of the new soldiers with combat experience who right now is considering his release. He loves his job and the infantry. However during the last week things have happend since coming back to work that have frustrated him and as he said It is not worth the BS. He also said that he went through his tour and would do it again in a heartbeat but if he has to sit back here and deal with what has been happening this last week then it is not worth it. He has been saying he wants to release for a little while but he always changes his mind because deep down he loves his job and the guys he works with. Something changed this week and I never seen him want to release so bad as he has now. From what I gather through the conversations with him ,he has indicated to me from his company alone there have been several of releases already going in. Retention is  an issue. If we are loosing our guys/gals with experience then who is there to lead the new guys coming in?

From conversations I don't think it is a money issue such as a signing bonus. I think it is more of they get respect overseas and then they come home and they are treated him like crap again. Then to come home and find that guys that get kicked off tour for a variety or reasons are getting promoted over the guys on tour because they just happened to be at home. I think we need to realize that there are more issues that guys are releasing then money. I do believe that a lot of the reasons are quick fixes, we just need to try and fix these reasons and take the time to do so.

Just my 2 cents and hubby would throat punch me for writting this but I do know a couple of guys from his section would agree with this post.


Edit cause I can't spell today or even have nice grammar


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2006)

This goes back to the "manning priorities thread" that was going on a week or so ago.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51429.0.html

I still don't understand the rationale behind re-rolling other trades (in any forum); as PPCLI Guy says, Infantry is a highly skilled trade (like any other in today's force) and other trades are all equally depressed in their manning.  How are we supposed to maintain batteries of M777 to support our infantry if we've taken all their future gunners and turned them into grunts?

As I said earlier and Teddy and PPCLI Guy pointed out above, the key is retention.  1 battle-tested Private 3 who just got back from Afghanistan is worth 5 to 10 Privates that we put through the meat-grinder at CFLRS.  Just recently, the CF was offering $40,000 for certain trades with certain backgrounds.  They were giving much of this money to guys before they were even qualified in their trades (which can be quite extensive and demanding for those like Combat Engineer Officer).  If so, why would it be so hard to justify giving a signing bonus to key guys finishing their first BE?  Stick 20,000 - 40,000 bucks on a 5-year extention (everybody wants to pay a huge chunk of their house or car down) and you get a two-fold advantage:

1.  You got a young Private or Corporal who will be ready to become a JNCO and provide a steady and experienced hand to those 5-10 Privates who are coming through the CFLRS pipeline.

2.  After serving an additional 5-years, you're probably more likely to keep the guy for a career, gaining a SNCO out of the deal.  I have nothing to prove this guess, but I figure it's easier to walk away from 3-years of Service than 8 (when a pension and all that seems much more palatable).

Of course, money isn't going to solve alot of the key problems that drive guys away - you can't buy guys off if the job sucks.  I just see it as an added incentive to get guys thinking about more longer term commitments.  Other structural things like specialists units (Pioneer, etc), specialist courses (that "Command Course" idea or jump courses) that keep young Type-A folks interested.  As well, for our CS/CSS pers, we have to look at what - tradewise - keeps them interested (I was talking with MedCorps about this last night WRT to the Medical side; things like more chances for clinical work in cities or something?).

Anyways, I'm nursing a hangover and felt the need to ramble.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## McG (21 Oct 2006)

I think the key thing that we lose in re-rolling for a mission is much of what the Sr NCO provides: experience.  Sure, it is possible to teach a whole group of people, that happen to have the right ranks, how to be infantry.  However, they will not have the corporate knowledge of real infantry.  They likely become those individuals we refer to as knowing just enough to be dangerous to themselves.

As is noted above, money is not the retention panacea; job satisfaction is the answer.  The promotion problem should be solved through a recent CANFORGEN, but this is not likely to resolve dissatisfaction resulting from missed promotions during the last many years (including the first half of this year).


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2006)

This is not a new problem. We were offered signing bonus's of up to $1500.00 ( back when money was real) and a step up in grade (sgt to Ssgt) to reup for 4 years. I would have gone for it if I had been able to go back on tour to Viet Nam immediately, but they insisted that I stay in the states for at least a year. 

I had just spent the most exciting 26 months doing what I loved to do, to go back to garrison crap and spit and polish with no purpose. It's the change in mentality that is affecting the guys. You have shown you have the right stuff, and some REMF dweeb is going to have you painting rocks, etc., just because he can? I don't think so. 

They are opting out because they don't think they can handle the same old crap all over again after going through Combat. Give them some leeway and an objective. The input ideas on "Lessons Learned" is an excellent point. How about listening to what they think they can contribute initially to upgrading the training regime? Let them do a show and tell, while things are being fleshed out, that will at least take their minds off of the day to day garrison duty stuff. (and BTW get them used to the normal "Canadian" routines again in the process)

my 1¢ I need the other


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> This is not a new problem. We were offered signing bonus's of up to $1500.00 ( back when money was real) and a step up in grade (sgt to Ssgt) to reup for 4 years. I would have gone for it if I had been able to go back on tour to Viet Nam immediately, but they insisted that I stay in the states for at least a year.
> 
> I had just spent the most exciting 26 months doing what I loved to do, to go back to garrison crap and spit and polish with no purpose. It's the change in mentality that is affecting the guys. You have shown you have the right stuff, and some REMF dweeb is going to have you painting rocks, etc., just because he can? I don't think so.



1 PPCLI will NOT be painting any rocks - and the troops will be accorded the respect that is their due based on their experience.



> They are opting out because they don't think they can handle the same old crap all over again after going through Combat. Give them some leeway and an objective. The input ideas on "Lessons Learned" is an excellent point. How about listening to what they think they can contribute initially to upgrading the training regime? Let them do a show and tell, while things are being fleshed out, that will at least take their minds off of the day to day garrison duty stuff. (and BTW get them used to the normal "Canadian" routines again in the process)



1 PPCLI will be conducting a 3 day AAR after Remembrance Week in order to capture lessons learned - and then the Battalion will lead the Brigade Leadership Symposium in January.  The Symposium will not have academic talking heads - it will feature M203 gunners, section commanders, senior NCOs and junior officers talking about their exxperience in theatre, and passing on what they have learned.

This war is a section commanders war - and they are the ones that need to tell the story.  That is why, where possible, speaking engagements are being filled by junior NCOs, vice majors...


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2006)

Wow...nice!


----------



## tasop_999 (21 Oct 2006)

As I was on the road this morning, CBC reported that there is a plan to 're-role' some CF members in order to cover off the manning shortages in Afghanistan.  I have heard of this before, as it was on the news two days ago.  The difference with this morning's broadcast was that they specifically mentioned taking people off ship to perform the duties of an Infanteer in Afghanistan.  This seems a little strange to me, as the media tends to skew things quite often, but this really got some of us talking today and some very interesting points were made.

1. North Korea is flaring up and may call for a deployment of ships in the next six months to enforce UN sanctions.  With people robbed from already deprived ships' companies this would become unsustainable.

2. We have some of the best infanteers on earth over there right now who have more experience fighting a war than I'll ever have and unfortunately they are having a hard time with the Taliban as it is now.  These men and women trained their entire careers for a mission like this and there is no way that a few months of Army training can make a sailor ready for what is happening over there.

3. How could you possibly accomplish the logistics of training and equipping so many people without a concerted effort on the part of a very vulnerable government?

4. More casualties in Afghanistan as the result of troops who have been pressed into service there will leave the government and the mission very open to attack from other political parties and a very anxious public.  People will begin to wonder what is going on and the public mood could turn drastically against the Afghanistan mission.

5. Domestic security is going to suffer, as there will be no one manning the ships conducting the business of maritime security along our coastlines.  Does anyone remember the boat people from the late 90's? Well, they are part of the reason the Navy brought back the sovereignty patrol.

6. Lastly, there are sailors who will just not want to be pushed into such service and they will take release.  Not everyone is capable of performing the duties of an infanteer.  Believe it or not QL 3 infantry is a good deal more than DIG HOLE 101.  There is some serious skill required to perform the duties of an Canadian soldier.There is a unique ability possessed by infanteers to be able to cope with "the suck."  There are many more people out there who do not share this wonderful gift/curse (however you look at it) and cannot cope with some of the necessary BS that follows with being in the Army.  

There's a sample of some of the discussion we had today.  I know there are those who will not agree with much of what I have written, but these thoughts are out there and they are matter of fact.  I have written this as objectively as possible and left out my own bias (nobody needs another opinion on something like this) so please don't shoot the messenger.


----------



## dglad (21 Oct 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> As I was on the road this morning, CBC reported that there is a plan to 're-role' some CF members in order to cover off the manning shortages in Afghanistan.  I have heard of this before, as it was on the news two days ago.  The difference with this morning's broadcast was that they specifically mentioned taking people off ship to perform the duties of an Infanteer in Afghanistan.  This seems a little strange to me, as the media tends to skew things quite often, but this really got some of us talking today and some very interesting points were made.
> 
> 1. North Korea is flaring up and may call for a deployment of ships in the next six months to enforce UN sanctions.  With people robbed from already deprived ships' companies this would become unsustainable.



This assumes there's a role for Canadian ships in this effort.  Even then (and being mindful of the fact that the news media is hardly an authoritative source), I doubt that sufficient numbers of personnel to completely render the navy dysfunctional would be pulled away, because a) it's not smart, as you point out below and b) we have limited training resources anyway, again as you point out below.



> 2. We have some of the best infanteers on earth over there right now who have more experience fighting a war than I'll ever have and unfortunately they are having a hard time with the Taliban as it is now.  These men and women trained their entire careers for a mission like this and there is no way that a few months of Army training can make a sailor ready for what is happening over there.



Again, probably not the intent.  The government and military are, I'm sure, well aware of the optics around this idea.  However, there are jobs in the SW Asian theatre currently being done by otherwise combat-capable personnel, that don't entail the same risk as that faced by those who work routinely outside the wire.  Some of these probably fall well within the skill sets of naval personnel (who, I might add, should not be sold short.  There are very capable and tough naval personnel that could probably be trained quite quickly to a standard reasonable for some types of even fairly risky employment in the region).



> 3. How could you possibly accomplish the logistics of training and equipping so many people without a concerted effort on the part of a very vulnerable government?
> 
> 4. More casualties in Afghanistan as the result of troops who have been pressed into service there will leave the government and the mission very open to attack from other political parties and a very anxious public.  People will begin to wonder what is going on and the public mood could turn drastically against the Afghanistan mission.



I'd take care with that term "pressed into service".  The connotations of "press gangs", "draft" or "conscription" it carries aren't at all applicable.  Consideration is being given to employing military personnel in a job that doesn't necessarily fall into their "day job".  That's very different.  There's a long history of personnel being re-employed, usually because of need, but sometimes because it just made sense.  Consider the following, from the Wikipedia entry on the "Glider Pilot Regiment":



> _Massed airborne landings at Sicily, Normandy and Arnhem achieved success but at great cost. The Airborne Forces at Arnhem did not lose the battle, they were ordered to hold for two or possibly three days, they held out for eight days. The Regiment's casualties were the highest at Arnhem, 90% were killed, wounded or taken prisoner of war.
> 
> *These losses were made up by the secondment to the Regiment of Royal Air Force pilots and several hundreds of them took part in the greatest and most successful airborne operation of the war, Operation Varsity, the Crossing of the Rhine. The RAF pilots acquitted themselves with great gallantry, in the air and on the ground, 60% of the Regiment's killed in action on that day were RAF pilots seconded to the Glider Pilot Regimen*t._






> 5. Domestic security is going to suffer, as there will be no one manning the ships conducting the business of maritime security along our coastlines.  Does anyone remember the boat people from the late 90's? Well, they are part of the reason the Navy brought back the sovereignty patrol.



This is a possibility.  However, it's a case of assessing, and then accepting risk.  The greater strategic risk to Canada right now is in SW Asia, not in its coastal waters.



> 6. Lastly, there are sailors who will just not want to be pushed into such service and they will take release.  Not everyone is capable of performing the duties of an infanteer.  Believe it or not QL 3 infantry is a good deal more than DIG HOLE 101.  There is some serious skill required to perform the duties of an Canadian soldier.There is a unique ability possessed by infanteers to be able to cope with "the suck."  There are many more people out there who do not share this wonderful gift/curse (however you look at it) and cannot cope with some of the necessary BS that follows with being in the Army.
> 
> There's a sample of some of the discussion we had today.  I know there are those who will not agree with much of what I have written, but these thoughts are out there and they are matter of fact.  I have written this as objectively as possible and left out my own bias (nobody needs another opinion on something like this) so please don't shoot the messenger.



No shooting intended.  You raise some valid concerns.  However, I don't think the issue is as dire as you generally imply.


----------



## 284_226 (21 Oct 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> As I was on the road this morning, CBC reported that there is a plan to 're-role' some CF members in order to cover off the manning shortages in Afghanistan.  I have heard of this before, as it was on the news two days ago.  The difference with this morning's broadcast was that they specifically mentioned taking people off ship to perform the duties of an Infanteer in Afghanistan.  This seems a little strange to me, as the media tends to skew things quite often, but this really got some of us talking today and some very interesting points were made.



It seems strange because it is strange.  As I mentioned in my previous post... 

There was a briefing yesterday by the Air Force CWO at Shearwater, and he assured all those in attendance that the media is reading far more into this than what the CDS stated.  He stated that the "re-roling" will be done on artillery and armoured personnel, and not to any other trades. He was quite emphatic that little Johnny who joined up as a Sonar Op, Boatswain, ATIS Tech, AVS tech, or any other Air Force or Navy trade will *not* be heading off to Battle School.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> He stated that the "re-roling" will be done on artillery and armoured personnel, and not to any other trades. He was quite emphatic that little Johnny who joined up as a Sonar Op, Boatswain, ATIS Tech, AVS tech, or any other Air Force or Navy trade will *not* be heading off to Battle School.



.....or that is his line in the sand.


----------



## 284_226 (21 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> .....or that is his line in the sand.



No, he was quite clear that the re-roling initiative was right from Force Development.

Edit:  ...and that Navy/AF personnel were never on the table as part of the initiative.


----------



## McG (21 Oct 2006)

I know Force Employment & Force Generation, but what is this referece:


			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> Force Development.


----------



## 284_226 (21 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I know Force Employment & Force Generation, but what is this referece:



Force Development was at the bottom of the Powerpoint presentation.  The new DND org chart was whipped through fairly quickly, but I got the impression it's part of the new organization.

If the VCDS site wasn't down, there'd probably be more information here - www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/cfd/intro_e.asp


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Oct 2006)

As a sailor I am not concerned at all about this crapola, the media is running away with what they think is a good story.  Honestly, they make it seem they can take Joe Bosun off the ship and drop him off in Kandahar to kick ass.  I am not an Infanteer, but I have lived the army life as a brat, and my brother currently resides at CTC Gagetown where he trains officers....  I know there is a great deal of training required to bring guys up to the standard set by our Army, now I could see them taking some fellas out of recruit school and throwing them in the Army, but you just can't neglect the other services.
As a Naval Communicator I could easily perform the duties of a SIG OP (with a little training on army kit).  I hear some people saying that they are looking at tying up ships, out of a ships company of 230 I would bet you would be lucky to get 50 solid infanteers.  Sure we have the boarding party, but neglecting the fleet/air services would just be plain stupid.  
There are many support roles that Naval personnel could play in this, and if that would free up combat capable troops then lets go.

The big problem (IMHO) is that we have allies in Afghanistan that are sitting back doing nothing, these guys have to get off their collective a$$es and start contributing to the mission, after all it is a NATO mission, not a Canadian one.


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

And then we've got the purple trades.

I see no reason why the Naval and Air purple people can not do the work-ups and deploy into a purple posn in-theatre. That might even free up some of the Army purple trades such as myself for some other hard-army training and usage.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2006)

However, this raises one of the concerns I've always had with the idea of a purple trade - it denies that each environment has it's own specific demands which interfere with "interoperability" (for lack of a better word).  Take a logistics Petty Officer who's been on a ship for 18 years and pop him in Afghanistan on convoys and he may be a bit overwhelmed, no?


----------



## tasop_999 (21 Oct 2006)

I know that there are some purple trade personnel in A-stan right now.  Specifically pay and admin clerks and cooks who have all done some time on the ship.  These guys are used to deployments in the Army world because if anyone has every looked, outside the Army the people with the most medals belong to the Logistics branch.  It seems to me though, that under the current trend from NDHQ purple could easily be considered green for all intents and purposes.


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> However, this raises one of the concerns I've always had with the idea of a purple trade - it denies that each environment has it's own specific demands which interfere with "interoperability" (for lack of a better word).  Take a logistics Petty Officer who's been on a ship for 18 years and pop him in Afghanistan on convoys and he may be a bit overwhelmed, no?



Let's say purple tradesmen then.

There are alot more of them than Log Os in theatre and our rank levels are the ones seeing numerous tours. Granted Sea Log Officers have their own unique qualifications but all Logistic Officers have the basic essential log quals and courses. 

I can assure you that, as a Loggie who has served in all 3 enviornments, there is absolutely no reason why all of us non-commisioned types can not serve in-theatre, regardless of the colour of uniform we wear.


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2006)

As our resident Librarian has said "deploy into a purple posn in-theatre. That might even free up some of the Army purple trades such as myself for some other hard-army training and usage"

Use the Army "lite purples" in the green (tan) roles for the trade -- and fill the inside the wire "deep purple" roles from the blues


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

Trying to decipher what I6 has just said....


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Trying to decipher what I6 has just said....



Color-coordinating the uniforms?  ;D (a little heavy on the purple though, tans need something more subtle)


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Color-coordinating the uniforms?  ;D (a little heavy on the purple though, tans need something more subtle)



I think he's really telling me that I would then have 'permission' to do DPs et al again!!  ;D


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2006)

Cool - I'll defer to your lane-ownership on this one.  

I6 seems to have said what makes sense.  Many Purple trades are more than suited for a deployment to KAF.  Filing claims and memos is the same whether on a ship or in an operational Army base.  Take the super-green ones (with jump wings, etc, etc) and send them outside the wire to push stuff to the tip of the spear.

And Tasop, I wasn't begrudging the CSS folks.  Lord knows the RSM of the school in these parts (Log) has the biggest salad bar around.


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I6 seems to have said what makes sense.  Many Purple trades are more than suited for a deployment to KAF.  Filing claims and memos is the same whether on a ship or in an operational Army base. Take the super-green ones (with jump wings, etc, etc) and send them outside the wire to push stuff to the tip of the spear.


Now you're talking!! I know some of us get outside the wire, but not all. And although we Army loggies may indeed find ourselves more comfortable carting a C7 or other around with us we're not as highly skilled/trained with our weapons as the boys and girls at the pointy end. 

An intensive bit of shyte in Wainwright prior to deployment would help with that situation.


----------



## KevinB (21 Oct 2006)

I guess I only speak PPCLIese


----------



## battleaxe (21 Oct 2006)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> My guess is that these are all symptoms of an army that is preparing for more intensive ops in theatre and perhaps another mission somewhere else.  I wonder if the other services [navy, air force] have been asked to help out somehow?*
> 
> 
> *edit- not to go infantry, but perhaps train to assume some domestic role of the army in order to free up troops.



I guess it all depends on what spin local media wants to put on any given story.  I don't know the specifics of the planning on this..but our biggest paper (Chronicle Herald) in Halifax (slanting story to attract navy readers) put this out this morning. 

"Sailors could be turned into infantry soldiers under a new plan the military is considering to keep fresh troops headed to Afghanistan".  

A Rear-Admiral is quoted as saying "It's entirely possible to turn a sailor into an infantry soldier".

Trenton and  Cold Lake newspapers are probably getting airforce families worried as we speak.

I'll wait to hear the official CF policy on this one, and ignore all newspaper reports until I do.


----------



## tasop_999 (21 Oct 2006)

battleaxe, you are quite right in that the media has had alot to do with some of this current conversation.  There is a grain of truth to the old addage that states "the media runs the country, not the government." The media picks up on stories which will sell well to the mass market, and many of those involve extreme amounts of controversy.  Stuff like sending sailors to Afghanistan, which really has people talking right now.  I too am waiting on the official word from the powers that be, simply to satisfy my own perverse curiosity.  

While such a move to send sailors to Kandahar may work on paper, and maybe in some policy wonk's head, it does not seem like a sane man's move in the current state of the CF.  Everyone who wears their uniform with pride knows why they are here in this outfit.  There is not one person who is totally oblivious to the state of manning in the frontline units of the CF.  There may be no harm in taking a limited number of people out of the recruiting stream for a while and augmenting the Infantry, but the brass needs not forget that there is also a list of distressed trades out there which are crying for butts to fill chairs.  

Extreme care must be taken to ensure that people who are veterans of the first Roto to Kandahar actually stay with the CF.  These people are needed within not only the Combat Arms world, but all the other branched involved in this operation.  If successive battle groups are sent over without the benefit of the previous one's experience, then it is like starting at square one.  Combat experience in the Canadian sense is something relatively new to alot of people and it must be passed on in the schools and training establishments.  I read earlier in this thread that many people returning from the Stan are getting out.  That is a shame.  They are needed more now than ever to train the next group going over.  

In sum, other occupations do have something to contribute, but not at the expense of operational readiness in the other services.  That is just lunacy, straight up craziness.  I am a bit cynical, but even I don't think that the Brass is that dumb.  I am pretty sure that our leadership has some sort of plan and I am interested to hear it.  CBC news said this morning that there was to be a decision on using sailors and others in the next week or so.  I look forward to it with eager anticipation.


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Once we lost the CBT support companies, we lost a spot where someone could go for a break from the 'colony', now these young guys can look forward to being shuffled between sections, or platoons as a break. Seniority gains them little, where before it meant going to mortars or pioneers to be treated like a mature soldier. Noone enjoys being 3i/c of a section as a senior Cpl. He'd be a #1 on a gun tube, or given lead roles in pioneers.
> 
> Dont get me started on Tow.
> 
> ...


+100%


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 1 PPCLI will NOT be painting any rocks - and the troops will be accorded the respect that is their due based on their experience.
> 
> 1 PPCLI will be conducting a 3 day AAR after Remembrance Week in order to capture lessons learned - and then the Battalion will lead the Brigade Leadership Symposium in January.  The Symposium will not have academic talking heads - it will feature M203 gunners, section commanders, senior NCOs and junior officers talking about their exxperience in theatre, and passing on what they have learned.
> 
> This war is a section commanders war - and they are the ones that need to tell the story.  That is why, where possible, speaking engagements are being filled by junior NCOs, vice majors...


As for rock painting, leave that to the  RCR (j/k)
Actually, very well said, and hopefully this will transfer out of 1 CMBG to the rest of the army.  Knowing the Bde Comd, I bet it will


----------



## gaspasser (21 Oct 2006)

I think someone said something about MOSID a while back.  It is supposed to group us all into job knowledge groups so the powers that be can employ us accordingly.  But, I can't see an MSE Op doing a Sup Techs job or and AVS's job in a pinch.  It just won't happen.  Okay, so we put hard Air force trades in the field overseas, the squadrons are already hurting for people to do the work, who will fix the planes ( I know, don't go there) to fly the supplies.  Will they put pilots or Naval officers in the field to replace infantry officers?  Probably not!  
I'm all for doing your field stuff first, even going combat arms first then VR out to you choice.  I don't begrudge the lads thier positions or mean to belittle them, they're our heros and deserve our utmost respect for what they're going thru, but putting trained techs and operators in the rough now would be a waste of training and talent.
my 0.02


----------



## Petard (22 Oct 2006)

Just wondering aloud here for a moment, bear with me, but what of my suggestion of looking at 10/90 units? What I'm suggesting here is to somewhat mobilize reserve units with Reg force cadre leading and augmenting Coy size reserve units, the Reserve side of it made up by soldiers given 2-3 year contracts.

The cadre I'm suggesting would be made up of volunteers from the infantry units that just returned, and post them summer 07 to Reserve units that can sustain building up Pl+ within their geographical area, and can be supported by a Reg force infrastructure not too far away. These Regulars would be from Cpl to Lt in rank, granted the equivalency for their experience overseas and promoted one up. This Reg Force cadre would not supplant the Reserve one but augment it, they would be the mentors to Reserves given a 2 to 3 year class C contract. These sub-units would begin their initial training locally in the fall of 07, eventually taking part in collective training by Winter 08, deploy as a whole with their cadre's summer 08. In addition, on return these reserve units could then become the building block for these Territorial Bn's some have mentioned we need. This process could be repeated in each area in sequence, ie West, Central, Que and Atlantic, although it would be unlikely given the commitment timelines the other areas would deploy such units to Afghanistan, they would be available for other tasks. Who knows what that might be by then?

I realise this would go against the current idea being floated about limiting soldiers to one tour, but would this not be more acceptable than this re-rolling of non-infantry units? Does getting these people volunteering to be cadre away from the mother Corps to help shape a Reserve unit to deploy as a whole, not give them a worthwhile goal to stay? 

Ok just a straw man I've built here, now I guess I'll have to stand back and let the winds blow it apart.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

Petard,
Have a look here:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48605.0.html


----------



## Petard (22 Oct 2006)

Thanks MCG
I suspected my approach was going to be seen as too coarse

At anyrate, g'bye straw-man


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (22 Oct 2006)

Have we all forgotten the military basics.

 The Infantry is still the backbone and pointy end of the stick as far as i know. Your basic training trained you to be a soldeir first.

 The support trades are there to support and augment the infantry not the other way around, boots on the ground win wars and everything else is there to support the grunts who fight those wars. 

 And as for being reclassed to the combat arms. My old Seargeant Major always drilled into our heads that once we signed the dotted line they can put your A**** anywhere they please and if you were lucky enough to remuster to a trade from the comat arms it was a gift, not a given. If the BPSO said you could go fine, if he/she said you were staying in your present MOC, you weren't going anywhere. If the big guy says your going infantry, thats were your going, period. Some may have to switch from the blues and whites to green and cam, but i'm sure there are many brave trademen and women who will step up and volunteer on their own. 

 As for the problem of the instructor shortage, reactivate some of the older Snr Nco's & NCO's, Cpl's MCpl's that have retired over the past several years, give them a sign up bonus. i'm sure many will return. After all we all signed a clause that stated we could be called back within 5 years if you were released or retired. Hell i'd come back in a heart beat if they could find a uniform to fit me. XXL "LOL"


----------



## Link (22 Oct 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/22/afganistan.html 

The Canadian military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six, a general told soldiers gathered in Edmonton on Saturday.

Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore spoke after a change of command ceremony that put him in charge of army forces in Western Canada.

The career soldier from London, Ont., took over the job from Brig.-Gen. Tim Grant, who will become commander of Task Force Afghanistan for six months.

"If you're a member of the Canadian military, particularly a soldier with a skill set that's required in Afghanistan, and you haven't been yet, I think chances are very good that the opportunity is going to be there to serve," Skidmore told the assembled troops at the Jefferson Armouries.

Also appearing before the committee, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor proposed limiting combat troops to one rotation in Afghanistan, if possible.

'Sailors into soldiers'

CBC News has since learned that no branch of the military would be exempt from serving in Afghanistan, and that any decision on the matter would be made by generals, not politicians.

Ujjal Dosanjh, the Liberal defence critic, said talk of turning sailors into soldiers has surfaced because the Conservative government has extended the Afghan mission.

"If your mission is only for one year, you have enough soldiers for the rotation. If your mission is for three years, you need more soldiers who can fight," Dosanjh said. "It's that simple."

Last May, members of Parliament voted to approve an extension of the military mission to Afghanistan to 2009. The vote, which passed with the support of 30 Liberal MPs, means Canadian soldiers will remain in Afghanistan two years longer than previously planned.

Since 2002, 42 Canadian soldiers have died and more than 168 have been wounded in the struggle against resurgent Taliban fighters.


On Wednesday, Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces will be looking outside combat units to find troops.

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," he told the Commons defence committee.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2006)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Have we all forgotten the military basics.
> The support trades are there to support and augment the infantry not the other way around, boots on the ground win wars and everything else is there to support the grunts who fight those wars.



I am sure that many here follow the same sentiments, but there is a flaw in that statement.  If there are no Trades left to support the Infantry, they are in the shyte-locker.  The Infantry need the support of many Trades in this war.  They need the Armour Crewmen, who are also in short supply.  They need the Engineers and Artillerymen.  They need the Sigs, the EW, the INT, the Air Force, etc. to give them timely support.  They need the Sup Techs, the RMS Clerks, the Doctors and Medics, the Traffic Techs, Electricians, Wpns Techs, FCS Techs, Veh Techs, Cooks, etc.    All of whom are in Trades that a crying for personnel.  Unless we ever get into a war that is only one day long, the Infantry are screwed without this support.  

That is the flaw with this decision - we are robbing Peter to pay Paul.  It may be a quick fix for tomorrow, but the next day we will have a much larger problem.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Have we all forgotten the military basics.
> 
> The Infantry is still the backbone and pointy end of the stick as far as i know. Your basic training trained you to be a soldeir first.


There is also a matter of using the right tool for the job.  If we need infantry, why would we not use infantry?


----------



## armyvern (22 Oct 2006)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Have we all forgotten the military basics...



Well as a point, the infantry are indeed the back-bone of the Army and the support trades in the Army are indeed roled to support them. Indeed we are soldiers first.

Just as the ships are the back-bone of the Navy and the support trades there are roled to support them. Indeed they learn that they are sailors first...as for the Air Force...the planes are the "pointy end" and thus their support trades roled accordingly as well.

The Canadian Forces IS a TEAM effort...and all must exist and perform their respective roles if we are to succeed, and *we all* must be adaptable and evolve to performing other functions in both defense and offense in service to this country if that is what the situation dictates.


----------



## Fabius (22 Oct 2006)

Aside from the significant cbc liberal bias, the article raises an interesting question on the lenght of tours. I am not sure as to the rational behind the 6 month roto. I can speculate that it was related to quality of life concerns. However I believe a very valid case can be made for longer tours from a tactical and operational persepctive. It is generally accepted and proven that a force suffers a higher casaulty rate in the first third of its tour due to the inexperiance with the terrain, tactics, and general nature of the conflict (experianced troops will mitigate this to a degree yes) longer tours also minimise the amount of confusion and relative ineffectiveness that results for a brief period during a change over. Longer tours allow the units to maitain local relationships with intel sources such as local villagers somewhat more effectivley in my opinion. On the down side the troops will possibly face more significant problems of burnout while in theater which may be a trade off in favor of less overall burn out among the whole army. Although I am not sure how much a 3 month extension of the tours will really affect the turn around times in the Canadian  Army due the relatively small number of deployable combat units.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

I used to think that 9 months tours were the way to go.  That may still be true for theatres like Cyprus & Bosnia in their later years.  However, I think we would burn-out far too many soldiers in places like Kandahar.

In fact, I think a lot of the solutions we are looking at for Op ATHENA (longer tours and re-rolling complete sub-units to infantry) are fully appropriate to Bosnia in 2001 but questionable solutions for combat operations.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I used to think that 9 months tours were the way to go.  That may still be true for theatres like Cyprus & Bosnia in their later years.  However, I think we would burn-out far too many soldiers in places like Kandahar.
> 
> In fact, I think a lot of the solutions we are looking at for Op ATHENA (longer tours and re-rolling complete sub-units to infantry) are fully appropriate to Bosnia in 2001 but questionable solutions for combat operations.



By the time a 6 month tour is up, the men have just got up to speed about month 3 or 4 and are finally being effective. They know the ground, the people, the normal indicators of enemy activity, and are able to spot abnormalities. 2 months later they are sent home and the next set has to learn the same stuff. 

We had a 13 month tour. Write off the first month, we weren't good for shyte nor were we acclimated. Month 2, 3 & 4  got you into the zone, allowed you to learn from the salts most that you needed to know, and gave you enough contact to determine what you did and did not know.

You were reasonably effective for the next 9 months, and because we did not rotate units, but rather men, there was a constant flux of people coming and going passing on "lessons learned". 

Burnout...if you know you go home at month 6, then if you stay longer you start burning out. If you know you are there for 9, 10 or 11 months, then you are just as anxious to go home as you would have been at the 6 month mark. It a mental state, not a physical one.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> It a mental state, not a physical one.


It is a mental burn-out that I am talking about.


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> It is a mental burn-out that I am talking about.



It is the expectation that you start with that counts....


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2006)

Countering this, you could claim that doing a longer tour would prevent burnout by ensuring that the soldier doesn't have to come back a year and a half later to do it all over again.

General Eric Shinseki warned of planning and fighting a 12-division war with a 10-division army (or something to that effect) - it seems that we're fighting a four brigade war with three understrength ones; perhaps this would help to address that.


----------



## Jed (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> I used to think that 9 months tours were the way to go.  That may still be true for theatres like Cyprus & Bosnia in their later years.  However, I think we would burn-out far too many soldiers in places like Kandahar.
> 
> In fact, I think a lot of the solutions we are looking at for Op ATHENA (longer tours and re-rolling complete sub-units to infantry) are fully appropriate to Bosnia in 2001 but questionable solutions for combat operations.


IMO I agree with your comments, MCG. I think the year longs get tough on about 9 or 10 months. They are all doable of course but you are going to start to get family issues coming up even on the easy tours. With the tough combat tours we are now getting into, and the fact that we are " fighting a 4 brigade war with a 3 understrength brigade army" I don't think year long tours are sustainable for the CF. The early Bosnia / Croatia 6 month tours in the early 90's were pretty devastating for 1 CER wrt to having mentally healthy troops with things being relatively fine on the home front.


----------



## boondocksaint (22 Oct 2006)

9 months, or even year long tours are do-able, IF we could have had a bit more down time in KAF. Some of our Pl's did 25 plus days outside the wire, rotate in to camp for 2-3 days and out again. Some guys did 40 and 50 plus days outside the wire, 3-4 days of refit, and back out. Or calling the FOB a place to relax...uhuh. If it didnt have icecream, it wasnt relaxing.

The easy solution, that isnt, is of course more people. Not gonna happen. 

In hindsight, I think that instead of working ourselves out of a job, Canadians became so relied on, we were always in demand. Between the Lav, and our natural Canadian charm, someone, somewhere always had a requirement for us to be out there. Not a bad thing in many ways, we just didnt get much of a break.

We do have folks over there doing 9 month tours, IIRC they are generally in KAF for all or most of it, so getting their opinion might shed some light here as well.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

This may sound RTFO to some, but I think reduced HLTA times would reduce burn-out risk.  The BG was down by a Coy Gp at any given point in time, so while on the ground everyone was forced to work at 30% (ballpark) higher tempo.  More R&R, less/no HLTA and extra leave & decompression at the end. 

. . . mind you, longer tours would also serve to space out the HLTA blocks more.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2006)

hell I could do a year IN KAF.  Outside, ehh not so much, mortars and IED's have a way of making one ansie.


----------



## dglad (22 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> This may sound RTFO to some, but I think reduced HLTA times would reduce burn-out risk.  The BG was down by a Coy Gp at any given point in time, so while on the ground everyone was forced to work at 30% (ballpark) higher tempo.  More R&R, less/no HLTA and extra leave & decompression at the end.
> 
> . . . mind you, longer tours would also serve to space out the HLTA blocks more.



I'd be extremely wary of that.  First, the messaging and optics--we're going to send you on longer tours, but we're also going to curtail or eliminate HLTA--could do more psychological harm than practical good.  Second, and again from a psychological point of view, HLTA breaks the mission into pieces...intermediate milestones to be achieved.  I spent seven months in Bosnia, but in my mind, I actually spent four months, and then three months (actually, two and a half, because of the HLTA).  That's a world of difference, particularly since the human mind instinctively wants to break large tasks or problems into smaller ones, to be solved individually.

I suppose the details of HLTA could be tweaked, but there needs to be something to ensure our personnel don't think they're being screwed and to give them those psychological milestones through the tour.  Mind you, more, but shorter blocks of leave (my initial thought) just compounds the logistics around scheduling, moving people, backfilling key capabilities with TAVs, etc.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2006)

Gents word here is that the ONLY thing the boys are counting on/looking forward to is HLTA.  So take that for what its worth.


----------



## tasop_999 (22 Oct 2006)

Agreed! That is one of the most logical things I have heard in a while.  Don't let the brass hear it or they might do the opposite. ;D


----------



## PhilB (23 Oct 2006)

Having just come back from a fucked up 9month afghan tour I have a bit of insight into this. Its not bad and it is doable, the problem as I see it is time frame. I am only speaking for reservists here but when you couple the riduculously long work up commitment the army is asking for (for TF 1-08 we have been told start date is 1-Apr-07, deploy date same time frame as TF 1-06 and rtn date the same.). This amount of time makes it very difficult for reservists to take time to go, and with the man power crunch we need to consider every option.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> This may sound RTFO to some, but I think reduced HLTA times would reduce burn-out risk.  The BG was down by a Coy Gp at any given point in time, so while on the ground everyone was forced to work at 30% (ballpark) higher tempo.  More R&R, less/no HLTA and extra leave & decompression at the end.
> 
> . . . mind you, longer tours would also serve to space out the HLTA blocks more.



On the topic of leaves, would it be more feasible to have Platoon leave blocs - take the entire sub-sub-unit "out of the line" and give them HLTA and/or R&R.  That way, it can operate at full strength whenever it is out of the wire.


----------



## gaspasser (23 Oct 2006)

That sounds like a great idea!
The platoon/section could blow steam as a team.  It wouldn't hurt the line of battle and there would be no need to mix around troops to cover off leave positions.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

If companies had four platoons it could be done.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Oct 2006)

you also wouldn't have to worry about keeping a back up section commander/driver/gunner around


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2006)

How about short/high tempo tours of 2-3 months for platoons or companies?  Fast rotations in and out of theatre as well as keeping the platoons/companies cohesive for longer periods of time?


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> How about short/high tempo tours of 2-3 months for platoons or companies?


Are you thinking the same thing the Air Force does?  1 year tour doing it three months on, three months off, three months on . . .


----------



## Infanteer (23 Oct 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> How about short/high tempo tours of 2-3 months for platoons or companies?  Fast rotations in and out of theatre as well as keeping the platoons/companies cohesive for longer periods of time?



Would this hinder the "edge" that soldiers develop from being on the ground for an extended period of time?  GAP related his Vietnam experience, stating that it wasn't until about month 4-5 that guys were really at the top of their game with respect to understanding how things worked on the ground.  Short ins-and-outs would deprive our units of this time to "harden up" while in-country, no?


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2006)

Potentially it could be similar but the air force focusses on tradesman (aircraft tech does the same thing in Camp Mirage as he does in Trenton, etc).  Bring a platoon in, 1 week to sort itself out, and then it is off on ops lasting ~3 weeks, in for a 2-3 day break, back out for ~3 weeks, and handover to the next platoon.  Keeps everyone fresh and the cycle is quick enough to keep the level of knowledge within the theatre.  Just tossing the idea out.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

It might work as a way to surge for directed ops (though probably too slow to react for these) but I don't think it would result in the familiarity needed of the guys that "own the ground."


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Would this hinder the "edge" that soldiers develop from being on the ground for an extended period of time?  GAP related his Vietnam experience, stating that it wasn't until about month 4-5 that guys were really at the top of their game with respect to understanding how things worked on the ground.  Short ins-and-outs would deprive our units of this time to "harden up" while in-country, no?



As you well know, you understand your role in theatre after 4-5 months but you also begin to focus on going home and you begin to lose your focus (I'm sure you have seen that stupid chart back in Bosnia about complacency, etc).  "Hardening" up is affected by casualties and HLTA, anyway isn't it?  

The trick is maintaining the cohesiveness of the platoon as it rotates in and out of country in order to maintain the experience.  The first "tour" would be learning as it is for all tours, but you rotate back to Canada, sort yourself out, practice what went right, what went wrong, take some leave and you go back in. Second "tour" has a much smaller learning curve, and you are much more effect as you have the experience of the first tour and have conducted an AAR to improve your platoon's performance.  Third "tour" has no learning curve at all and you can hit the ground running.


----------



## KevinB (23 Oct 2006)

Run an On Cycle: 3 months on - 3 months off 3 months on. -then an Off cycle.

You need a matrix to work the system -- but it keeps the subunits together.


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2006)

It would be bulky and probably require more assets than what is currently called for but it may provide for a higher tempo on the ground.


----------



## McG (23 Oct 2006)

What would be the rotation of the BG HQ?


----------



## Gunner (23 Oct 2006)

Probably 6-9 months to provide the C2 consistency.


----------



## Navy_Blue (23 Oct 2006)

In the Chronicle Herald on Saturday.  

http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/535722.html

It seems they really are desperate for bodies.  



> Sailors who serve on naval boarding parties could become excellent infantry soldiers, Mr. Summers said.



Wont be the first time they have used us as infantry.  My MS got pulled off the tanker back in the 90's in Somalia handed a weapon and was used for convoy escorts.

Good or bad I kind of fit the bill for a re-roll.   Prior infantry training, boarding team, fit,  and locked into the forces for three years once this course is done so I'm not likely to release.  If I were the one hunting files I would be looking for people like me.   :warstory:  




(Edit to correct spelling in thread title.)


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Oh man, what are they thinking in Ottawa? Are they so delusional that they really believe that they can train combat infantrymen for a theatre as volatile as Afghanistan in THIRTEEN WEEKS? 

Holy crap on a malmac plate, brothers and sisters, can this be anything other then an the defintion of DESPERATION! 

And its all cause NATO is to gutless to step up to the plate and our government is to fey to make then accept their responsibilities. 

As have we! 


Critics slam Afghan naval mission
Throwing sailors and air force members into ground combat a mistake, experts say

ALEX DOBROTA

From Monday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Throwing sailors or air force members into ground combat in Afghanistan would be a colossal mistake, military experts said yesterday.

The proposal from the Department of National Defence is an option offered to avoid sending major army units back to Kandahar for a second time. But the plan encountered nothing but hostile fire yesterday.

It could lower troops' morale, would take too long to implement, place too great a strain on navy and air force ranks and generally makes no sense, a variety of critics said.

"I just can't see how you turn a sailor into a soldier without taking as long to do it as it would take for you to take a recruit off the street," said David Bercuson, the University of Calgary professor who is one of Canada's leading military analysts.
"It's an act of desperation, there's no question about that," echoed Scott Taylor, editor of Esprit de Corps military magazine. "It's a whole different mentality, a different role, different everything from being a sailor to a combat arms soldier."

Canada has 2,300 army personnel on the ground in Afghanistan and has made a commitment to keep that presence until 2009. But the army is too small to fulfill that mission without calling some units for a second tour of duty, said Capt. Richard Langlois, a spokesman with DND.

The use of members from other services, known as "re-rolling," is being studied as the Forces seeks ways to avoid sending soldiers to Afghanistan more than once.

"It's just an option that was brought up to alleviate the rotation tempo," Capt. Langlois said.

The proposal came up in discussions between the office of Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor and that of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier some time before last week, Capt. Langlois said.

The idea was quickly dismissed yesterday by Jack Granatstein, professor emeritus of history at York University in Toronto, who said it could limit efficiency.

"Our regiments are close-knit groups and it's tough to put an outsider in," Mr. Granatstein said.

Currently, the Royal Canadian Regiment from Petawawa is almost midway through its rotation, which ends next February.

It will be replaced by a formation composed of several units across the country that is currently assembling at Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, and then in August, 2007, the Royal 22nd Regiment (Vandoos), is scheduled to take over. That's when the army will have to start second tours if no other plan emerges.

If DND approves the re-rolling policy, the ground force could also draw reinforcements from the 9,900-strong navy and from the 13,600-strong air force.

But one military expert estimated the reassignment could take as long as 12 months, as navy and air force personnel would have to undergo extensive training to qualify for ground service.

For instance, sailors would be hard-pressed to switch their Zodiac patrol boats for a LAV III armoured personnel carrier, said Mr. Bercuson, who is director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"They have to know not only how to run the bloody beast, but also how to keep it running under the most adverse of circumstances."

All Canadian Forces personnel undergo a 13-week-long boot camp before advancing to specialized training. While all of them receive some weapons training, most sailors and air force members serve for years without using a firearm, Mr. Bercuson said.

In the navy, only sailors that make up a ship's boarding party carry side-arms. And those sailors account for only a small percentage of the force, Mr. Bercuson said.

By contrast, mechanized battalions in Afghanistan operate in 10-strong sections that include a machine gunner, a LAV III driver, a navigator and a radio operator.

One of the most notable examples of sending sailors into ground combat happened during the Second World War, when entire units of the Soviet Red Navy were thrown into the slaughter of the Battle of Stalingrad.

In dire circumstances, even the Canadian army has reassigned some of its troops to different trades, though it seldom called upon the navy or the air force in recent history.

In 1944, many anti-aircraft gunners joined the ground offensive in Europe. And in 1994, several artillery and tank squadrons bolstered the infantry ranks of Canada's peace-keeping contingent in Bosnia.

Resorting to re-rolling to buttress the Afghanistan mission is a short-sighted policy, Mr. Granatstein said. "One of the hazards is that the navy is also short of personnel and that's not going to solve its problem," he said.

Capt. Langlois acknowledged the criticism.

"It has to be studied," he said. "Not everybody would be encouraged to re-roll, because there are some trades that are also desperate for people so you have to take that into account."

If re-rolling becomes a policy, it would happen only on a voluntary basis, he insisted. Sailors and air force members would be fully trained before being sent into combat. Preferably, they would fill administrative positions.

Extending the six-month tour of duty to nine months is also being studied, Capt. Langlois said.

But some sailors showed no reserve at trading their berets for helmets and rifles.

"It doesn't matter if we're in the navy, in the air force or the army -- we all signed the dotted line," said Petty Officer (2nd Class) Derek Speirs, a cook based in Halifax who has done a peacekeeping stint in the Golan Heights and is willing to serve in Afghanistan.

"We're all here to defend our country and that's what we're paid to do."


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

Already posted in another Thread.

Next time give the proper Credits and a Link:      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061023.wxafghans23/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

It seems to me that convoy escort and protecting the PRC's is precisiely how all the lads are dying, eh? Soldiers train for all their life for this, swabeees do not. Take thirteen weeks just to get them in shape, let alone train them in the delicate arts of killing people for a living. 

And BTW, whats the point? 

This mission will not be successful unless NATO steps up to the plate with thousands of  soldiers. Trained soldiers.  

Not piecemeal fixes ala Bush lite.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Ok George, I will do that.


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Oct 2006)

Volunteers


No one is going to come in to your office and order you to meaford for some battle school a$$ kicking.   IF this happens, I would bet it would be on a VOLUNTEER basis.....  Think about the big picture and I doubt it will happen, why take our naval pers, when other NATO allies have perfectly capable combat troops sitting in Afghanistan RIGHT NOW, doing sweet F all while our boys do all the dirty work.  These other "freeloaders" have to pick up the slack or send them home........


----------



## Navy_Blue (23 Oct 2006)

Listening to Scott Taylor on CBC tonight on the way home.  It sounds like they are trying to bump infentry out of training positions, desk jobs, etc first.  It would not be beound the scope of things for them work out the logistics of us getting trained to do things filled by our well trained infantry.  They have two years plus to get desperate enough to come after us.  I just wouldn't put it past them.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Listening to Scott Taylor on CBC tonight on the way home.  It sounds like they are trying to bump infentry out of training positions, desk jobs, etc first.  It would not be beound the scope of things for them work out the logistics of us getting trained to do things filled by our well trained infantry.  They have two years plus to get desperate enough to come after us.  I just wouldn't put it past them.



An unfortunate problem with that is......Now you will have a lower calibre of Recruit being trained to lower standards.  When I was an Instructor at the Armour School, I could tell by the calibre of the students we got who had Cbt Arms Instructors and who had Navy or Air Force Instructors in Cornwallis and St Jean.  It just means that the next stage of their training is now more difficult and perhaps more time consuming for the Students as well as the Staff.


----------



## warrickdll (23 Oct 2006)

The time being taken to become familiar would have to be compressed, but think of it in the historical context of Canadian units being sent from one sector of the Front to another. It shouldn't take months to understand the local layout; a relieving unit can acquire the information that was passed on by the preceding unit and put it to use. In the past, combat units would be at the front for a period of time and then placed in reserve to recuperate, we should view Canada as this.

A professional army needs to be able to show up and get a handle on the situation in a short amount of time. I think this would allow for a more continuous operational approach to matters without having to actually increase the amount of time overseas.

Going from 6 months to 9 months will make deployments even more of an "Event", something that is built up towards and then torn done upon completion. Instead, a 3 or 4 month deployment (at all levels) will keep the army focused on operational effectiveness, which is something that a small professional army is best suited for (what is required for mission success - not on recreating a CFB everywhere we go).




The inability to move units through the operational area in less than 6 month increments may be an indication of some form of institutional failure. 

	- Before deployment a CF soldier is already fully trained and familiar with those they will be serving with - if it still takes a couple of months to get up to speed then could there be something wrong with the training?

	- Canadian units are replacing Canadian units (or NATO type units) if the information is not being adequately passed on, or not adequately understood, then could the problem be in the command and control or information structure?

If the CF is not capable now of achieving success with shorter deployments, what would it take?


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Oct 2006)

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html


Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.

Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.

"There is no intention of employing sailors or airmen or airwomen in infantry roles," O'Connor said. "As well, there's no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they're in active operations."

O'Connor was responding to reports that the Department of National Defence was considering the option of "re-roling" troops, which means using members from other services of the Canadian Forces in infantry roles.

Last week, Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of defence staff, said the Armed Forces would be looking outside combat units to find troops.

He said the demands of the mission are prompting military commanders and defence officials to look for new ways of finding personnel.
Continue Article

"We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.

"We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"

On the weekend, Brig.-Gen Mark Skidmore, who is in charge of army forces in Western Canada, said the military wants to increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months.

Canada has more than 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and is in charge o


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

I wouldn't get to comfy lads. 

I can recall the MND saying there was no tanks heading to afghanistan either....


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

I hope this isn't off topic but if Gordon O'Connor and Gen. Hillier are saying two different things.  I respectfully submitt that I would be inclined in most cases to give more credibility to the later.  I know that is a rather harsh statement,  but I think we can look at the difference between a politician in a minority government and a General in charge of an army and see who's motivations for saying what and when lend itself to forthrightness.  One is conserned with public opinion,  the other is letting people know of the discussions that are going on higher up,  so they can prepair and be ready if it is decided a certain way.  If I was a sailor and suddenly it was anounced I'm being put on infintry training, I'd be shocked.  However, if a little forshadowing was out there,  I'd be a little less upset about it.


----------



## armyvern (23 Oct 2006)

gravyboat said:
			
		

> It takes longer than that to get a new tunic in Halifax, not happening.


It only takes a week from Logistikunicorp....

So if you're going to clothing stores no wonder!!


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Oct 2006)

True.   That being said some common sense has to prevail here, look at the big picture..   I know sailors/airmen were used as soldiers before, but times are nowhere near as desperate now as they were then.  I am for the mission in Afghanistan but if it gets to the point where Canada is considering uprooting its entire CF and mobilizing them for a mission in Asia while our NATO allies sit on their A$$es doing nothing then I say it is time to rethink our position.   

Personally I don't think we will see sailors take from the fleet to augment the forces over there, I can see guys who signed up as a sailor being rerolled into army trades.  But again, you just can't stop the training cycle nearly every trade needs people.  We could be looking at a bigger mess if that cycle is disrupted.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

I think sailors have good reason to be shocked. 

We all chose what we wanted to do when we signed on the dotted line, that is what a volunteer army is all about.  To change the rules out of sheer desperation is only a sign of weakness and violates the trust between government and soldier. 

Infantry is not for the weak, the lighthearted or those who joined looking for a trade to fall back on when one decides they have served enough. Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened. 

There is only one function, close, engage and neutalize the enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, particualrly in todays high tech combat theatre... 

most importantly, it takes desire. 

Not back door conscription


----------



## NCSnotty (23 Oct 2006)

It looks like the idea was short-lived; no re-rolling (and no 9 month tours):

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061023/oconnor_rerolling_061023/20061023?hub=TopStories


----------



## career_radio-checker (23 Oct 2006)

At my unit they have started asking more persistently "who wants to go to Afghanistan?"
Our unit has never sent anyone to Afghanistan (Sig_Des please confirm) so this somewhat BIG news. I personally find it hilariously stupid on my units part. After 3 years of trying to get on a tour -- even as a dishwasher in ALERT -- and being met with ridiculous roadblocks (IE "You must be PLQ qualified to go to Afghanistan."). And it's not just me, everyone was getting this BS. So I finally decided to finish my degree at University. And within the first week of school they started asking people. Well I'm in the process of transferring out of that unit But I will be glad to go on tour with my new unit (int) once this school year is done and I have done my trades training.

PS if this new policy (air force and navy doing grunt work) goes ahead, just think, in the future there would be Air Force Generals with more than just an OMM and CD on their DEUs.  ;D

I kid I kid... well it is *Army.ca*


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

ProPatria Mike said:
			
		

> I think sailors have good reason to be shocked.
> 
> We all chose what we wanted to do when we signed on the dotted line, that is what a volunteer army is all about.  To change the rules out of sheer desperation is only a sign of weakness and violates the trust between government and soldier.
> 
> ...



Mike

You left out some major points that follow "Its dirty, stinky work with great hardships that cannot be undertaken by those who have not been hardened." and is common to all the Combat Arms is the sense of pride and accomplishment that one gets after completing those 'Tasks' and the camaraderie that is felt amongst 'Brothers in Arms'.


----------



## 284_226 (23 Oct 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html
> 
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.



Hate to say I told everyone so (on Saturday), but......   ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Oct 2006)

I certainly hope there isn't one person surprised but this announcement.  Sure we all signed the dotted line, and we could (in theory) be used as soldiers, but a balanced force needs the three services.  To think that sailors and airmen would be used as soldiers is foolish, I also think that it is not possible to limit soldiers to one tour in Afghanistan, but then again I am a sailor.........


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Well, George, I could wax poetic all night.... but then everybody would want to be a infanteeerrrr!!!! snicker.


----------



## Michael OLeary (23 Oct 2006)

Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
CBC News

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-466891.html#msg466891


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Well, Mike, they said they woudn't be sending any tanks either... 

Do you ever get the feeling someone in Conservative party deliberately floats these things in the public then, depending on public response, the party responds? 

And was it not General Hillier who created this controversy when, On Wednesday, he told the senate about rerolling? I find it difficult to believe that general Hillier came up with this idea by himself and more so that he mentioned it unless it was a program under active discussion with in DND.


----------



## tasop_999 (23 Oct 2006)

I have to say that some of the comments by Granatstein and Bercuson are right on the money for the re-rolling issue.  They both basically came out and said that the idea of putting sailors and airmen in combat roles especially is ludicrous.  Now I am interested to see how the government plans to get to 2009 out of this mission.  I am glad that common sense prevailed (for once) and this idea is now one for the history books (hopefully).


----------



## Rob221 (23 Oct 2006)

What about all the re-musters from the Cbt Arms who have gone Airforce or Navy?  If you look at the air maintenance trades they are full of re-musters, out of the 9 people in my section there are only 2 who are not re-musters from the cCbtarms.  Maybe they could send out a call for volunteers who are in this type of situation.  
Just a thought.




> There is only one function, close, engage and neutralize enemy. It takes years of training to perfect these skills, ßparticularly todays high tech combat theatre...
> 
> most importantly, it takes desire.



I'm not slamming you at all Mike, but from what I've heard (please correct me if I'm wrong) 1RCR is sending guys over to augument for the wounded, who have approx. 10 weeks Basic, 16 weeks Battle School and a few weeks in Wainwright to prepare them for the mission specific stuff.


----------



## warspite (23 Oct 2006)

Implications...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html


> Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
> Last Updated: Monday, October 23, 2006 | 3:55 PM ET
> CBC News
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2006)

More on the backpedalling.....

*Canada sailors, airmen won't fight in Afghanistan*
Reuters (UK), 23 Oct 06
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/CrisesArticle.aspx?storyId=N23397561&WTmodLoc=World-R5-Alertnet-2

Canada will not retrain sailors and air force personnel to fight as ground troops in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Monday, contradicting information put out by his own ministry.  Earlier in the day a National Defence spokeswoman said military commanders -- facing a shortage of troops -- were looking at retraining members of the navy and air force to give them infantry skills. She also said Afghan tours of operation could be extended to nine months from six.  "There is no intention of employing sailors, airmen or airwomen in infantry roles. As well, there is no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they are in active operations," O'Connor told Parliament ....


*Sea, air personnel won't go into combat: O'Connor*
CTV News Online, 23 Oct 06
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061023/oconnor_rerolling_061023/20061023?hub=TopStories

The Canadian military is looking at options to keep the Afghanistan mission going, but Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he doesn't intend to use air force or navy personnel in combat roles.  "As well, there is no intention of extending the time that people are in Afghanistan if they are in active operations," he said Monday in Parliament's question period.  NDP Leader Jack Layton told the government that since the military appears to be stretched in Afghanistan, "won't the prime minister finally acknowledge and admit that it should be changing the direction of the mission rather than arranging hasty photo ops?" ....

More, once Hansard is online....


----------



## warspite (23 Oct 2006)

Everybody calm down now...
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html#skip300x250


> Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor
> Last Updated: Monday, October 23, 2006 | 3:55 PM ET
> CBC News
> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor denied on Monday that there are any plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

OK

That article is getting "SPAMMED" throughout the site.  I think we have the idea now.  OF COURSE LIKE EVERYTHING IN THE CF.........IT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE!   :


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Oct 2006)

What did everyone learn at boot camp.... How to pick up a rifle and stand a post. Now that is far from the training required to be in the infantry and deployed to Afghanistan, however Naval and Air Force trades could fill roles normally occupied by Army trades........some examples are:

Army                          Navy       
LCIS Tech                   NET(C)
Sig Op                        NAVCOMM
Electrical Tech             Marine Electrician           
Materials Tech             Hull Tech
RM Tech                     Marine Engineer
Land Wpns Tech          Naval Weapons Tech

These would be positions that wouldn't go on patrol, however they could augment the personnel required to go on tours.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

I don't think your solution is any better than sending in a Navy NET(C).  The LCIS Tech would be just as outside his element as the Navy NET(C).  The same goes for all the other Trades you have pointed out.  Just because one is Navy Blue and the other is Green, doesn't make any difference.  If you are suggesting we send RM Techs outside the wire, and have Marine Engineers replace them inside the wire, you are as fruity as the Minister.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

... who have approx. 10 weeks Basic, 16 weeks Battle School and a few weeks in Wainwright to prepare them for the mission specific stuff....

Well, I cannot say for certain if this is happening or not. 

What I can tell you is, it would not bother me in the least if it were. 

First of all, they volunteered for The Regiment. 

They made a conscious choice to go to the very point of the stick, to learn how to wage warfare, not support those that do. 

Secondly, they earned the Eight-Pointed Star. This is not an easy accomplishment, deliberately so. When you finally present yourself in front of the commanding officer on that glorious day, you are fitter then you have ever been in your life and your combat skills have been well instilled. Ingrained to the point of never forget, I dare say.  

Yes, when they join a battalion, they are green... but such has been the case since Christ was a lance corproal... and a necessary part of the process. I can tell you one thing with great sincerity, my friend. What they learned during the process of earning the right to wear the Regimental hatbadge will ensure full integration within the Regimental family very quickly indeed. 

Because they are riflemen. Willing, confident through training and, as a part of a Regimental team, more then ready to do their part.


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Oct 2006)

George,

I'm not suggesting that Naval or Air Force trades be sent into Service and Support roles and consequently have those Army trades then start patrolling. However the Navy has sent Marine Engineers, Marine Electricians, NAVCOMM's to roto's in Bosnia, Golan Heights and many other similar deployments and there are Naval MOC's currently deployed in Afganistan. If there are shortcomings in those Service and Support positions, it would be easy for Naval and Air Force MOC's to fill some roles if required.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Oct 2006)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Naval or Air Force trades be sent into Service and Support roles and consequently have those Army trades then start patrolling. However the Navy has sent Marine Engineers, Marine Electricians, NAVCOMM's to roto's in Bosnia, Golan Heights and many other similar deployments and there are Naval MOC's currently deployed in Afganistan. If there are shortcomings in those Service and Support positions, it would be easy for Naval and Air Force MOC's to fill some roles if required.



I agree and that will probably continue to be the solution to shortages in CSS Trades.  Problem is when they start 'Robbing' from CS and CA Trades, they are creating more and longer lasting problems.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Heres the problem as I see it. Those slots you would send the navy to are not the ones in question. 

Out of the twenty three hundred soldiers on the grund, about eight hundred are actually waging the battle. 

Nor will this war be won anywhere else but beyond the wire. We cannot win the battle for hearts and minds with any of the trades that have been listed because in order to win the battlke we must secure the land... by force. 

Against a well entrenched, well armed and hateful enemy.

Be like sending sheep to the slaughter house.


----------



## Navalsnpr (23 Oct 2006)

George/Mike

Understand both your views. However if the Navy/Air Force can spare qualified personnel to augment the ROTO's in Afghanistan, then every additional person on the ground can only help IMHO.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (23 Oct 2006)

Well, O'Connor has said they will not be used in a combat role so if it's behind the wire and helps out the support staff... 

Unfortunately, that leaves us confronted with the fundemental dillema that drew us to this point in the first place. 

Insufficient combat resources to effectively manage the situation and allies who are lacking the guts to fill in the vacancies. 

BTW... I do not think rerolling armoured or artillerymen into infanteers is a solution, they have a job to do already!


----------



## 284_226 (23 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> More on the backpedalling.....



Now see, that burns my butt.  The Government didn't backpedal, and DND didn't backpedal.  The media took a quote from the CDS that said:



> "We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else,"
> 
> "We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"



And, from that, the media morphed it into meaning that anyone wearing a uniform was fair game.  I don't think that's what the CDS intended to convey, and based on the briefing we got from the AF CWO last week, it appears the CDS dumbed down the terms he used for the media just a little too much.  The AF CWO sure didn't seem all that surprised at the media misinterpreting it, though.


----------



## Petard (23 Oct 2006)

284_226 said:
			
		

> Now see, that burns my butt.  The Government didn't backpedal, and DND didn't backpedal...  The media took a quote from the CDS that said:
> 
> And, from that, the media morphed it into meaning that anyone wearing a uniform was fair game.  I don't think that's what the CDS intended to convey, and based on the briefing we got from the AF CWO last week, it appears the CDS dumbed down the terms he used for the media just a little too much.  The AF CWO sure didn't seem all that surprised at the media misinterpreting it, though.



but isn't this the same CWO that gave you the info that:



			
				284_226 said:
			
		

> It seems strange because it is strange.  As I mentioned in my previous post...
> 
> There was a briefing yesterday by the Air Force CWO at Shearwater, and he assured all those in attendance that the media is reading far more into this than what the CDS stated.  He stated that the "re-roling" will be done on *artillery and armoured * personnel, and not to any other trades. He was quite emphatic that little Johnny who joined up as a Sonar Op, Boatswain, ATIS Tech, AVS tech, or any other Air Force or Navy trade will *not* be heading off to Battle School.



Is the CWO right on this and the media missed it by focusing only on the Navy and Air Force?
My point being is it appears the door is still open on drawing in Artillery and Armoured soldiers.
And unlike what some of the comments from I-6 and others would lead you to believe, I would say the Artillery is in a high demand situation right now and can't afford this


----------



## 284_226 (23 Oct 2006)

Petard said:
			
		

> Is the CWO right on this and the media missed it by focusing only on the Navy and Air Force?
> My point being is it appears the door is still open on drawing in Artillery and Armoured soldiers.



Based on what he said, that was the entire scope of the program from the get-go.  I think the media saw an opportunity to extrapolate and ran with it.  Of course, this is the same media that reported a successful medevac from a container ship off the coast of Nova Scotia using a Hercules helicopter this past weekend.



> And unlike what some of the comments from I-6 and others would lead you to believe, I would say the Artillery is in a high demand situation right now and can't afford this



You may be right.  I'm not terribly familiar with the state of the Arty trade right now.  But, I'm inclined to believe that re-roling anyone to infantry is at best only a marginally shorter process than training them specifically to be infantry from square one.  May as well train them for the role from the beginning than mess with career progression issues related to re-roling later on down the line.


----------



## SoF (23 Oct 2006)

Jiminy jillikers radioactive man . That certainly wasn't a fun thread to read but I'm glad that the situation has a been addressed. I highly respect the work the grunts do but it's just not for me.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Oct 2006)

There is no talk of re-roling those personnel who are already trained - and certainly not from the equally stressed comabt arms.  Rather the intent is that pers currently in the early training stages (ie BMQ or SQ and whatever the purple equivalents are) will then move on to BIQ, vice Aire Tfc Tech trades training (or whatever trade they thought they joined for).  

This is called a) serving at the Queen's pleasure, and b) an appropriate focus for an Army, if not a country, that is at war.


----------



## tasop_999 (23 Oct 2006)

Bottom line here, and I think that many people are dancing around the issue, is that Afghanistan is turning into a longer commitment than we are able to handle.  The previous government (yes, the same one who starved the CF into an anorexic shell of a military) committed us for a year.  The five year commitment seems to have been made without much thought as to how to sustain it.  I know that this is not the case and that there are plans in place, but the optics of it are really bad and the press knows it.  

I think that Afghanistan is a worthwhile mission and those people over there have lived with the legacy of post-colonial war for so long that we need to be there.  Here is my solution and I am sure that there are a few people who will disagree with me, but hey we are in a democracy.

1.  Continue the mission as is for the next year to two years.

2.  During that two year period place the most significant effort since the Korean War on selling this mission to the Canadian public.  Coupled with this is an intense recruiting blitz and an actual effort on the part of the recruiting system to ramp up and process some new people.  That fact that we need bodies is not new...we just need them now.

3.  Continue rebuilding the CF.  We are in a terrible state in all branches of the CF: there are constant manning issues, delays in equipment, and delays in training which make it difficult to maintain readiness.  It is time that the famine stops and that there is real money put back into equipment.  The Army has benefitted from alot of the latest cash due to Afghanistan, and rightfully so, but the other two branches are needed for sealift and strategic and tactical airlift for the Army.  Promises made need to be kept, not caught up in government red tape and BS for another 15 years.

4.  Bring a couple new regiments worth of infantry into the permanent mix of the regular force.  More people means more capability and this means more boots on the ground and fewer tours for those who don't want a repeat of seven tours in Bosnia.

5.  Finally, once we have achieved a true joint force concept (ie not having to rent an Antonov or charter a civie cargo ship to move our kit) our other branched are truly ready to make a significant contribution to supporting the Army in Afghanistan.

I know alot of this is already underway through CF transformation, but there are some items like equipment purchases which take entirely too long.  Streamlining the procurement process will go a long way to remedy the current state of affairs.

If we just sit back and continue the mission as is there will be a significant rise in attrition rates, domestic opposition to the war will grow, and Afghanistan will become Canada's quagmire.  I believe that Canada needs to be there, but there needs to be more of an effort on planning for the next four years.  Hopefully success will follow and that country can finally have some peace after so much war.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2006)

Those are valid points, half of which will not happen for a variety of reasons. 

The present commanders seem to be taking a pro-active approach to the deployments and given enough time, material and leeway will succeed above past rotos. I really think there is light at the end of the tunnel, now if someone does not block it, it will work out, but it won't be easy.


----------



## tempest77 (24 Oct 2006)

> "We will re-role people that are in the training system right now but who are designed to be something else," Hillier told the Commons defence committee.
> 
> "We'll say, 'For the next two or three years, you'll be infantry, and then go back to your primary role.'"



Taken from;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/23/rerole-afghan.html

Wow.  Am I reading this right?  I 've seen multiple threads pop up about this all over army.ca recently and I have to say that I am quite disappointed with what I just read.  I havn't actually accepted a job offer yet and I'm still in the "processing" stage.  However, I AM STRONGLY CONSIDERING NOT JOINING THE FORCES after reading above quoted text.

I am interested in becoming a NavComm and I've devoted a lot of time on my own learning the skills of the trade.  I've learned Semaphore, International flags and Morse Code.  A+ and Network+ curriculum and some other misc. things that directly relate to this trade.  I don't know how many hours I've spent learning all of this, but after reading that little blurb in an article tonight "We'll re-roll the people in the training system right now AND possible commitment of 2-3 YEARS??!!!", I'm asking myself "Do I really have to be an infantry soldier?!" 


"Screw that!" I'm thinking.


I really dislike the idea of being infantry.  I chose Navcomm because it's on a ship!  Something I've always wanted to do.  I like the sea.  Last I checked, Afghanistan was VERY landlocked!  I don't understand why I would have to waste a couple years of my life doing a trade I hate, only to be 2 years behind in training after I complete this re-rollment!  

This may seem more of a rant, however I actually would like my question to be addressed and clarified.  Will all new recruits have to become infantry?  Even people who chose a Navy or Air force trade? 


Here's a big question for all the new hopeful recruits... If knowing you would HAVE to be infantry for a couple of years, would you still go through the process and join the Armed Forces or would this deter you from signing up, knowing you can't do what you originally wanted to do?



Mods, I request this topic not be locked or moved as I'd like to see this thread focused on the new recruitment aspect of this article only.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

You obviously havent read everything that been going on lately and missed the MNDs comment in the house.....


Dont worry, the lock will come


----------



## Trinity (24 Oct 2006)

WTF

You put a better spin on things than reporters do

The title of the article is called "Navy, air force won't serve as infantry in Afghanistan: O'Connor"


Your thread is called  "navy, air force recruits will serve"

You took the most selective quote possible, ignoring the BULK of the article.

That is trolling at its best.. if not selective stupidity and outright lying.

Someone should be introduced to the warning system (other than me :)

from the same article


> Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor *denied on Monday that there are plans to have sailors or air force members take part in ground combat in Afghanistan.
> *
> Speaking in the House, O'Connor also denied reports that the government would increase the time served by its troops in Afghanistan to nine months, up from six.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Oct 2006)

tempest77 said:
			
		

> This may seem more of a rant, however I actually would like my question to be addressed and clarified.  Will all new recruits have to become infantry?  Even people who chose a Navy or Air force trade?



Please pay attention to the following - YESTERDAY'S COMMENTS BY THE DEFENSE MINISTER SAID IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Until formal policy is published directing re-rolling of any trades, it is only a discussion point.

See this post - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51210/post-466891.html#msg466891

Clear enough based on the available information?



			
				tempest77 said:
			
		

> Mods, I request this topic not be locked or moved as I'd like to see this thread focused on the new recruitment aspect of this article only.



Please do not try and dictate the path of the thread.


----------



## ProPatria Mike (24 Oct 2006)

You would be surprised how many who believe the infantry is, as you say, not for them.


----------



## Navy_Blue (24 Oct 2006)

I'm not suggesting we send navy people into the heat of combat but there are people within the navy that can preform tasks to relieve the work load put on our well trained combat troops in theater and allow them get out after the bad guys.  Of the hundreds of people who have re mustered from combat arms (add in bos'n and boarding party members for the experience in small arms) you could easily find a list of 300 people in the navy who are suitable.  Take away older unfit members, people who run to the padre and the "oh my back hurts" guys and you have yourself down to a list of 30+ switched on individuals (that's like a platoon+).  These people could do allot of the Molly Made stuff around the camp and releave the real army guys too what they do best.  Give them a ten week round of workups and away you go.  

I didn't join the navy because I was week or unfit.  I wanted a trade and I truly miss my time in the res infantry.   

If they told me I was off to AFGN after my course I wouldn't run and hid I would stand up dust off my combat boots kiss my family goodby and do what I am told no questions no complaining.  I think (hope) there would be a few more like me too.  :warstory:


----------



## Sub_Guy (24 Oct 2006)

There pretty much is no reason why a Navcomm could do the same job as a SIGOP in Afghanistan, that would assist in the "one" tour to Afghanistan plan that someone in Ottawa mentioned. 

I read through the posts and I get this image of Army fellas laughing at us sailors, they throw the old "Soldier first" at us.  Hey we will do what ever we are told, but this whole thread was foolish, to sit there and think that our entire CF would be mobilized for this mission is pure silliness.  The thought of having one soldier do "ONE" tour is just as silly, it will no happen like that, you need experience, IMHO you can't send FNG's over there every 6 months, you need guys with experience, the kind of experience you only get from being over there.  Also it would have been political suicide if such a proposal went forward.

I have heard this statement made at various outlets, "how hard would it be to give a sailor a weapon and tell him to stand there".  It isn't hard to tell him that, but that statement says to me that some people have no idea what our guys are doing, or how they prep for a mission, there is much more to this mission.  There is more to this mission than a bunch of kids driving around in LAV's drooling over the vast fields of pot (I bet the Vandoos are itching to go!)

As for the infantry, that job is NOT for me.  Not at all.  I have a brother who is RCR, I respect his job, I know how much he puts into his job and the training involved.  Some people think that Infanteers are fellas who couldn't get anything else, well that's not the case these guys give 110% all the time.  His thoughts on the Navy, not for him, not at all, throw a sub into the mix and he thinks I am a retard......


----------



## ProPatria Mike (24 Oct 2006)

Well, if it is going to happen, I have a suggestion. 

Send women sailors and airmen. 

Im serious, things are supertense there, or will be once again once the snow melts. The guys on the line will find great comfort in seeing a non-burqua'd Canadian woman when they come in from beyond the wire and it will make those trips to the MIR, dental , stores or the mess hall at least a bit more bearable. 

This is not a sexist remark, btw. I medically remustered into the Dental Corps and served with some damn fine women before releaae, in fact, Im certain some have already deployed.


----------



## Petard (24 Oct 2006)

To PhilB, I somewhat suggested something similar earlier but as MCG pointed out to me here:



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Petard,
> Have a look here:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/48605.0.html



drilling down into that other thread, and the other thread within it, it quickly becomes obvious it's a thornier issue than what it appears to be.

None the less if the message is the holding Pl's for Arty and Armoured DP1 are going to be combed for infantry volunteers, and I haven't actually seen that happen yet, but if it does then I would make a couple of assumptions from that.
One is that the only logic behind drawing them from a holding Pl is that they've already done St Jean and they'll arrive a bit sooner for Inf DP1 than those just getting to the recruiting centre. 
Secondly, if the first is true, then the problem really is that urgent and the Artillery better start planning to draw even more from the reserves than they have already. Not sure about the Armoured but they can't be much better off, maybe worse. Either way a more deliberate method of sustaining reserve force augmentation needs to be developed too, if there really is a plan afoot to take from the Reg force holding Pl's.


----------



## boondocksaint (24 Oct 2006)

tempest77 said:
			
		

> Wow.  Am I reading this right?
> 
> "Do I really have to be an infantry soldier?!"
> 
> I really dislike the idea of being infantry.



Question #1, No, you arent reading it right. 

Question #2, No, it is a privelage to serve in the Infantry, noone is guaranteed a spot, you _earn_ it.

Note #3, I dislike doing up my bottom button, but  being in the Infantry is one of the few things in the world that gives me pure satisfaction.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Note #3, I dislike doing up my bottom button, but  being in the Infantry is one of the few things in the world that gives me pure satisfaction.



We have to do up our bottom button???  When did that start?  

Next thing you know, we will not be allowed to wear black toques...


----------



## armyvern (24 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We have to do up our bottom button???  When did that start?


Crap, how convenient...I got nailed for that today by one of my troops. Must buy him a beer. I'll wait until the Men's Junior Ranks Christmas Dinner...it's cheaper!!


----------



## aesop081 (24 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Next thing you know, we will not be allowed to wear black toques...





			
				The Librarian said:
			
		

> Crap, how convenient...I got nailed for that today by one of my troops. Must buy him a beer. I'll wait until the Men's Junior Ranks Christmas Dinner...it's cheaper!!



You guys crack me up     :rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2006)

boondocksaint said:
			
		

> Question #2, No, it is a privelage to serve in the Infantry, noone is guaranteed a spot, you _earn_ it.


+1!!!!!


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2006)

Crantor,
Toops belonging to the even numbered TFs will prolly fill immediate shortfalls in the odd numbered TFs.
Territorial defence / composite reserve battalions will continuously face the problems caused by the Fleet management program.  No AFVs, hell.... no vehicles!


----------



## tasop_999 (25 Oct 2006)

So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty.  

Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.


----------



## armyvern (25 Oct 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty.
> 
> Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.



I just watched the CDS on the news...he mentioned those support (purple trades) serving in blue and Black uniforms on Naval & Air bases.

Not hard Sea trades and not hard Air trades. Purple trades. 

Convoy duties (ie DPs etc) already fall well within the scope of duties/tasks for Sup Techs, TN etc serving in support of Land Forces.


----------



## Collin.t (25 Oct 2006)

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> There is more to this mission than a bunch of kids driving around in LAV's drooling over the vast fields of pot (I bet the Vandoos are itching to go!)



I don't know what you are trying to imply in that remark but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. I know it's a joke, but I'm sure that if some of them Vingt-deux are reading this topic would find the joke being of poor taste.

However I must agree that they must be itching to go there.

just my 0.02$


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2006)

Here's the CP take on the testimony.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=2429740

I found this interesting;



> The army's staffing problems stem from budget cuts in the 1990s, when moving expenses were slashed, leaving many soldiers perpetually assigned to combat units and constantly rotated overseas.



Apparently the problem isn't that the CF was downsized in the '90s at all.  There were lots of soldiers. They were just stuck on the wrong base because the Army didn't have the funds to hire moving vans.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Oct 2006)

Further to the discussion on re-roling I thought I would contribute this.   It is from a UK MOD press release on Helicopter operations in Afghanistan.  It seems that the CF is not the only force to use "sailors" far from the sea.  Not to mention Marines, both US and Royal.




> Squadron Leader Paul Shepherd, officer-commanding 1310 Flight JHF(A), said one of the unit's main strengths was that it had personnel from all three Services: "At any given time, the unit is faced with a variety of challenging tasks across Helmand," the Chinook pilot said. "Out here we have Army Air Corps and Royal Marine pilots flying RAF Chinooks, and Royal Navy pilots in the Apache attack helicopters.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2006)

A bit more detail (if what is written is, indeed, what was said) - although transcripts aren't available yet at the Foreign Affairs Committee web page:
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e21_&COM=10475

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Newest Forces recruits may be forced to fight*
Mike Blanchfield, CanWest News Service, 25 Oct 06
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2e2f9a26-ade2-48fa-84a5-98fd3fa09966&k=15013

New Canadian Forces recruits learned Wednesday that for the next two years they will have to be prepared to fight in the trenches of Afghanistan before they are allowed to move into more high-tech trades in the Air Force or Navy.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of the defence staff, made that announcement Wednesday in an appearance at the House of Commons foreign affairs committee, immediately sparking criticism such a move would have a "chilling effect" that would dissuade young people — said to be "flocking" to the military — from signing up at all.

Hillier, along with Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, gave additional details of the Canadian Forces attempts to overcome the personnel challenges it faces to find enough troops to sustain its military commitment in Afghanistan to February 2009, or beyond.

*The new measures include making it mandatory that for two years new recruits be eligible to spend time fighting in the infantry on the front lines of Afghanistan, as well as giving soldiers who test positive for drug use, second or even third chances to clean up their act so they can be shipped overseas.*

Hillier and O'Connor had to deflect speculation this would involve having Navy and Air Force personnel retrained as front-line Army infantry fighters.

*O'Connor said Navy and Air Force specialists could make up as many as half the 2,500 contingent of Canadian troops currently stationed in Afghanistan. * 

But potentially well-educated new recruits, who had designs on careers in the Air Force or Navy working with the latest technology, learned they will have to do time in the infantry to keep the same army personnel from doing repeated tours of duty in Afghanistan.

"Are there people in the recruiting system right now that we could, for a two year period, put into to some of those combat trades, train them completely as infantry men and women and then use them for a period of time before they go on to where they want to go?" Hillier told the committee. "We're looking at how we share the burden, completely across the Canadian Forces so that no one man or woman has to carry an inordinate amount of it on their shoulders."

*Hillier said military planners are trying to staff the first half of 2008 — the Forces sends troops on six-month rotations — and that the 252 new cadets currently in training could find themselves in Afghanistan "so we're not asking somebody whose just come out this summer to go back in then."*

Hillier said young people are "flocking" to recruiting centers doubling the rate of new recruits so far this year from the previous year.

Liberal committee member Dan McTeague told Hillier his new plan could have a "chilling effect" on recruiting.

The military announced modest annual pay raises Wednesday,

And the measure drew criticism because it amounted to a 2.6 per cent increase for non-commissioned officers, while colonels and other senior officers saw 3.5-to-4.4-per cent increases.

*O'Connor added the Forces were going to give troops who tested positive for drugs a second, or even a third chance to clean up their act so they could be sent to Afghanistan.

If a soldier tests positive twice for drugs, they will be sent for counseling, he said.

O'Connor said the rate of drug usage in the military is no higher than in the civilian population.*


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> A bit more detail (if what is written is, indeed, what was said) - although transcripts aren't available yet at the Foreign Affairs Committee web page:
> http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e21_&COM=10475
> 
> Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
> ...



I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the _attractive_ military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:

First: to raise the standards in those _attractive_ trades by ensuring that members have good, solid, operational military experience and the _ethos_ which, I believe extensive service in combat units and ships provides; and

Second: provide a steady stream of bright young people to fill the junior ranks of the combat arms and hard sea trades – secure, as I am, in the knowledge that some (probably many) young soldiers destined for the _attractive_ occupations will change their minds and stay at sea or in combat units once they realize that’s where the _*real soldiering*_ is, complete with its immense personal and professional satisfaction.

I was and remain convinced that the selected _attractive_ trades must:

•	Be the exclusive domain of the remuster system – as, for example, the Canadian Intelligence Corps and Canadian Provost Corps (Military Police) (for officers, only) were when I first served.  That means those few (not all) selected trades will, most likely, have very few privates – most members will have four years of good service under their belts by the time they have finished their combat/sea commitment and their new classification/trade training; and

•	Be from _across the board_ – not just the technical trades which have stiff recruiting standards so that we are not dealing with a small, select group of people.

Obviously, I still think this idea has some merit or, despite being turned away more than once, I would not raise it again.

I advocated that one other rank trade or specialty from each of the administration, aerospace/technical, communications-electronics, logistics and navy weapons/electronics groups and one or two army officer occupations – and I specifically suggested Signals/EW and MP – be selected for this process.

I have gone further and recommended that some trades be taken away from their present branches and *returned* to the combat arms and services – specifically: admin clerk.  Until the ‘70s all army clerks came from regiments and corps – although the Army Service Corps provided uniform, army wide clerk standards and advanced training.  Thus, when you walked into the BOR in 2RCR all the clerks were infantrymen/clerks – the same as all the mortarmen were infantrymen/mortarmen and for the same reasons: the admin function is _integral_ to the battalion and almost every soldier in the battalion should be trained and able to fight as an infantryman.  When you walked into the OR at, say, Western Command HQ in Edmonton, AB, all the clerks, from the WO1 (CWO) chief clerk on down wore the flashes of their parent regiment or corps.  They were all trained, skilled clerks (and some had been nothing else for several years) but you knew that most of them understood, even if they no longer _practiced_, the *basic* skills related to their cap badges.

Until about 30 years ago all clerks, and most drivers and storemen (supply techs) started their careers in one of the arms (or services).  Remusters, for storemen and drivers, to the Ordnance and Service corps were common and, if I recall correctly ammo techs could only come from the combat arms.

----------

Anyway, all that to say that I think there is some merit in the idea.  I would like to see more detail.  Some military forces, including, I believe the Royal Marines, have a similar system and a few (French Foreign Legion?) even go as far as to require that specialists return to a combat role, for training and assessment, before being selected/trained for leadership (sgt and above?) positions.

With regards to drug testing: when I served alcohol was the big problem.  Too many well trained, experienced people (officers and NCOs) were ruining themselves and damaging their units due to alcohol abuse.  We _test drove_ a couple of programmes while I served in units* - they involved _intervention_ by the CO, treatment and counselling by the medics and retention with ongoing supervision, assessment and support by the unit.  Our view was that alcohol abuse, like most disciplinary infractions, reflected on both the individual and the military’s training and discipline system – when a soldier turns away from the _party-line_ (to either alcohol or misconduct) ‘we’ must accept part of the blame, ‘we’ _failed_ him/her by not providing sufficient training, leadership, motivation, example, etc.  Thus I support ‘second chances’ (but maybe not third ones) provided there is some treatment, support and assessment.  I grew up in a relatively hard drinking era and the army reflected, perhaps over-reflected it – I suspect the all pervasive nature of drug use/abuse in Canadian society means that the CF must expect and accept some and deal with it, too.

----------

* We dealt, fairly or not, with alcohol abuse amongst staff officers and senior NCOs in HQs differently.  I do know, personally, of one senior officer who was sent for counselling/treatment, monitored by his boss and, eventually, _encouraged_ to take early retirement.  I know of occasions of warning staff officers about the effect that too many lunches in the mess was having on the team – sometimes, oddly enough, the individual’s own work was always done to a very high standard but subordinates suffered by the staff officer’s absence and (commendable) reluctance to make decisions in the afternoon.  The _offenders_ were, probably, treated more _gently_ that would have been the case for a too hard drinking sergeant in a field unit but the _rules_ are often applied differently (not less, just differently) in HQs.


----------



## ArmyRick (26 Oct 2006)

Edward, well said, young man, very well said.


----------



## Eland (26 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the _attractive_ military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Until about 30 years ago all clerks, and most drivers and storemen (supply techs) started their careers in one of the arms (or services).  Remusters, for storemen and drivers, to the Ordnance and Service corps were common and, if I recall correctly ammo techs could only come from the combat arms.



I'm not sure that what you're saying was universally true. An uncle of mine spent 23 years in the army. He joined in '61, did his basic training, and afterwards went directly into RCOC to become a storesman. He remained in Logistics, permanently attached to 1RCR, acquired many promotions, became the Adm O for the Highbury Street supply depot at CFB London and then retired shortly after achieving the rank of MWO. If he did do a brief stint in one of the combat arms before going into what would now recognized as a supply tech's job, he never told me about it.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> So once again as I was driving home, the CBC had a story about the MND and CDS in front of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.  The bottom line was that the MND reiterated the point he made about no sailors or airmen will be converted to Infantry and sent off to Afghanistan.  No sooner than he was done, the CDS chimed in talking about how sailors and airmen can serve in other roles, such as convoy duty.


 ;D
Perhaps it is time to stop listening to the radio while you drive.


			
				tasop_999 said:
			
		

> Again this shocks me, because it seems as though there is a complete lack of common sense happening in Ottawa right now regarding the manning issue.  I have made the case that if sailors and airmen are to serve in Afghanistan, it should not be in positions where they will become targets and potential liabilities to the mission.  What happens when OS Bloggins, Bosun, goes out on convoy duty and hits a land mine? Well, a team of engineers and infanteers have to go tow his a** back to KAF, putting more people in potential danger.  Leave the hard army stuff to the hard army troops.  This is what they are trained for and it is why people like OS Bloggins are not in Afghanistan.  All my respect goes out to those who go outside the wire to do the business, that is why I do not want anyone from my branch of the service becoming a liability to the mission and potentially getting someone killed.



Why did you join the ARMED Forces; "ARMED" being the keyword?

If that driver were an Infantryman, then the Infantry would have been short a 'man' from the start in doing their tasks.  It doesn't matter who the driver of that vehicle is, the Engineers and Infantry will have to go out and recover both driver and vehicle, accompanied by Maintainers and Medics.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2006)

Eland said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that what you're saying was universally true. An uncle of mine spent 23 years in the army. He joined in '61, did his basic training, and afterwards went directly into RCOC to become a storesman. He remained in Logistics, permanently attached to 1RCR, acquired many promotions, became the Adm O for the Highbury Street supply depot at CFB London and then retired shortly after achieving the rank of MWO. If he did do a brief stint in one of the combat arms before going into what would now recognized as a supply tech's job, he never told me about it.



*You are correct*; that's why I said most.  Perhaps I should have said 'some' or 'many.'

Many storemen and drivers did, indeed, enlist, as storemen and drivers, in the the RCOC and RCASC - they served in Ordnance units and Service Corps units - including in brigade admin area units.

Many others enlisted in the RCAC, RCA, RCE, RCCS and infantry regiments and served, as storemen and drivers, in F Ech units; many of those then re-mustered into the RCOC and RCASC, usually, I think with minimal retraining being required.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2006)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> I have, in the past – way back in the ‘80s – advocated that some of the _attractive_ military occupations should be open only to members of the combat arms or hard sea trades.  My motivation, then as now, was double-edged:
> 
> First: to raise the standards in those _attractive_ trades by ensuring that members have good, solid, operational military experience and the _ethos_ which, I believe extensive service in combat units and ships provides; and
> 
> ...



These seem to be very sound points.  It would solve some of the problems we currently have with 'Purple' Trades in training their personnel in Cbt functions and Fieldcraft to a common standard.  If Cbt Arms is the prerequisite for these Purple Trades, then they could remove related Cbt Trg from their Crse TPs and concentrate more on the Technical aspects of their training.  In the end there is possible monetary savings and/or more qualitative technical training.  We would also have Technicians in our Cbt Arms Units, who would already be familiar with life in the 'Field' and a good indoctrination of Field Unit SOPs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> These seem to be very sound points.  It would solve some of the problems we currently have with 'Purple' Trades in training their personnel in Cbt functions and Fieldcraft to a common standard.  If Cbt Arms is the prerequisite for these Purple Trades, then they could remove related Cbt Trg from their Crse TPs and concentrate more on the Technical aspects of their training.  In the end there is possible monetary savings and/or more qualitative technical training.  We would also have Technicians in our Cbt Arms Units, who would already be familiar with life in the 'Field' and a good indoctrination of Field Unit SOPs.



I will tell you, George, that good idea or not, it would not be as simple as I make it sound, nor as easy.  Several senior people gave me a careful hearing back when and then told me why it would be problematical and difficult.  That being admitted, I still think it, or something like it, can work.  I had (still have) rather specific models in mind.  Better minds than mine, I hope, will, I also hope, devise something workable.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2006)

I constantly read references of comparisons between the CF and USMC.

The one advantage the USMC had was that no one hesitated to grab their rifle and man the wire, be they cook, driver, whatever. Now while I think the CF personnel are probably capable of doing that, it is not ingrained that you are first and foremost the "armed" in Armed Force.

We had many situations where the REMF's pulled together and accounted themselves very well (also some that were pure comedy), but at no time did I ever hear any one group/person argue that that wasn't their "thing".


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2006)

I could see it being very problematic if instituted 'instantly'.  If it, as a policy, were implemented over a period of five to ten years, and then became common practice, it should become more workable.  Of course, there may arise occasions where we will have to recruit "straight off the street" to make up for shortages from time to time, or if there were certain 'Specialties' that could not be found within the current 'system'.

Technology, may be the biggest consideration in this idea's implementation.  Technology is advancing so quickly today, and getting faster daily.  The CF would have to look at sending its members off to Technical Schools, much the same as we send members off to RMC, to gain the higher education required to keep our ever increasing technical skills and abilities up to date.  Just as our Junior Leaders should be given the opportunities of gaining a higher education at RMC (a whole different Topic) our Cbt Arms soldiers seeking another Trade, desiring to better their education with technical skills and Trades, should be given the opportunity.  

As opposed to taking recruits off the street and training them in highly technical Trades, only to see them leave the CF after their initial contract, creating shortages in their Trades and loss of millions of dollars spent on their educations, we would have members who had worked hard and contributed to the CF earning the 'right' to progress in their own 'betterment', rewarded with further training and education.   It would seem less of a case of 'Spending Billions of Dollars on Technical Skills, that walk out the door on completion of Training' and more of a reward for Service Rendered.  

We are running an Army, not a Technical School so that people can get a better job at Nortel or JDSI.


----------



## GAP (26 Oct 2006)

> I could see it being very problematic if instituted 'instantly'.  If it, as a policy, were implemented over a period of five to ten years, and then became common practice, it should become more workable.



+1


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Technology, may be the biggest consideration in this idea's implementation.  Technology is advancing so quickly today, and getting faster daily.  The CF would have to look at sending its members off to Technical Schools, much the same as we send members off to RMC, to gain the higher education required to keep our ever increasing technical skills and abilities up to date.  Just as our Junior Leaders should be given the opportunities of gaining a higher education at RMC (a whole different Topic) our Cbt Arms soldiers seeking another Trade, desiring to better their education with technical skills and Trades, should be given the opportunity.
> 
> ...



The New Zealand Army was (still is?) doing that for their technical trades.  Would be electronics technicians were trained (_circa_ 1990), first off, as equipment/system 'operators' and then sent to their polytechnical institutes (our community colleges) for a few (several?) semesters of theoretical education, supplemented by _'hands on'_ equipment training in their respective corps schools.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2006)

I see the CF as having a "Brain Drain" when it comes to training people straight off the street in our more technical Trades, only to see them leave the CF within a few years.   Constantly training new technicians with little or return (Service) seems not to be very frugal.  In the meantime we have many in the Cbt Arms, who have made a commitment, being held back from OT's into Technical Trades.  

I suppose this is the result of being Cbt Arms (Army as a whole) and having an attitude towards 'Duty' and 'Service' that many Non-Cbt Arms Air Force and Navy 'Purple Trades' don't seem to have.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (26 Oct 2006)

There is an underlying issue here - the Army is at war, but the rest of the CF and the nation are not.  Perhaps this policy will narrow the divide.


----------



## Remius (26 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> There is an underlying issue here - *the Army is at war, but the rest of the CF and the nation are not*.  Perhaps this policy will narrow the divide.



Wow,  I'm making that my quote of the day.  Very well put.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Oct 2006)

There is another point here, I think.

The R(C)ASC was instituted to serve the needs of armies of millions in an era when small engines could only carry small loads, there wasn't a highly developed civil transport system that can "Fedex" a package anywhere in the world in 2 days and where very few people new how to drive and maintain vehicles.

Prior to the rise of the internal combustion engine it was common for armies to rely on civilian transport to move themselves around the country-side.  The debate then, as now, centered not on skills but on willingness to serve close to the firing line.

We can find lots of civilians willing to act in the supply chain as long as they don't need to hear the "crack-thump".  We can even find some that are willing to operate in that environment as well.

I think a similar argument could be made for depot level maintenance.

The government only allows for a small number of people to be put into uniform.  It seems reasonable that those uniforms should be reserved for those people willing to put themselves at risk.

And by putting themselves at risk I mean deploying to "forward" locales such as KAF as a maintainer or driver or service on board a vessel, which is always "forward".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (26 Oct 2006)

An updated version of Blanchfield's hatchet job:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=a6f8ebef-9418-40a8-9094-389593b19083

Fair dealings, blah, blah, blah...  



> Raw recruits in line for combat roles
> Hillier's plan will have 'chilling effect' on enlistment, critic says
> 
> Mike Blanchfield, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...



I am getting increasingly concerned at the "spin" being put on this in the media and the abjectly pathetic lack of knowledge and research that goes into reporting on Afghanistan.

Let's start with this.  The CDS is merely addressing a long-held concern that the burden for deploying some support trades has not been shared equitably throughout the three services.  This is not new and has been a complaint by the Army for many years.  Most air force and navy installations have personnel in "purple" trades (indeed many wear army uniform) who have been "untouchable" for deployments because they don't belong to the army.

For example, and this is a real one, a Leopard mechanic might be posted to, say, CFB Comox in Base Maintenance.  The army can't get at him for tasking because he belongs to the air force.  That entire base maintenance organization has, until now, avoided being tasked en masse for deployments.  Where has _anyone_ suggested that these people will be forced to remuster to infantry to "fight in the trenches"?

Moreover, when has anyone suggested that "raw recruits" be used as infantry?  For the love of God, the media needs to get a grip.  What has been suggested - in the past - was that some trades (armour and artillery were mentioned) might be asked to _volunteer_ to remuster to infantry.

I meant to address Blanchfield's use of inflamatory language ("raw recruits"?  "trenches of Afghanistan"?  "cadets in training"?) but am too annoyed with the crux of the story.

Finally - Ruxpin to Dosanjh:  You have no - zero - idea of what you're talking about with references to pay and how the increases work.  STFU.


----------



## 3rd Herd (26 Oct 2006)

I can just see it now. CIC officer's resigning their commissions to either:
A) Go to Afghanistan 
B) To avoid going to Afghanistan

Can West News to carry exclusive interviews shortly ;D


----------



## GDF 005 (26 Oct 2006)

My first post here, been CBT Arms for 11 years, PPCLI guy has it right, you joined the Army/CF. This does not qualify you to a desk job/ spec pay for passing Basic"Training" Spending 2 years in LPC's should start to weed out the wannabe's from the pers who are commited. All that I have to say.


----------



## boondocksaint (26 Oct 2006)

Twice this month, I agree with Teddy


----------



## Bigmac (27 Oct 2006)

Recent article below clarifying General Hillier's ideas.



> Chief of defence fires up rhetoric on plans to drum up more military personnel for deadly Afghan combat
> Oct. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
> BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
> OTTAWA BUREAU
> ...


----------



## GAP (27 Oct 2006)

Please supply a link when quoting public articles


----------



## Bigmac (27 Oct 2006)

> Please supply a link when quoting public articles



As requested:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1161899442937&call_pageid=968332188774


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (27 Oct 2006)

> Hillier concedes that personnel "in every part of the Canadian Forces" can expect to be tapped for the Afghanistan mission that runs to February 2009.
> 
> "Logistics, military police, signallers and medics spring to mind — even though they are not in operational units," wrote Hillier, who spoke to a Commons committee this week about the changes, but declined to speak with the media afterward.
> 
> ...



Is the CDS not saying _exactly_ what some of us *ahem* have been saying here?  See my previous post...  Why all the media spin?  Oh yeah  :


----------



## armyvern (27 Oct 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Is the CDS not saying _exactly_ what some of us *ahem* have been saying here?  See my previous post...  Why all the media spin?  Oh yeah  :


Totally agreed Teddy. That listing seems like a whole bunch of purple trades to me.


----------



## Sub_Guy (27 Oct 2006)

Signallers is the only thing I am thinking about.   A Naval Communicator pretty much does the same job, U know there will be some comms at work freaking out over this.  

I read that as Signallers posted to places like Comox/Greenwood or other non Army field units.  We have seen several SIGOP's from ESQ already make the trip over, some have completed 2 tours.

But I agree guys working in Purple trades shouldn't be surprised if they end up going over.


----------



## hank011 (27 Oct 2006)

From what I have seen there are always ten times more volunteers than positions. This is amongst 226 and 227 techs(since we are talking purple trades). The last tour that we were offered was Kabul, they turned down 12 people to submit one name...and he was told he wasn't needed. 
If there is a personnel crunch in the Army they sure arent looking very hard for replacements. ???


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2006)

Misconceptions and misreporting (hopefully) dealt with, all in one column - I've highlighted some points that'll appeal to the "more teeth, less tail" caucus of Army.ca enthusiasts.  As usual, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Forces deployment: for the record*
CDS Gen Hillier, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 2 Nov 06
HCH link - Permalink, if HCH link expires

Much has been said in recent days on how the Canadian Forces (CF) intends to meet its commitments in Afghanistan utilizing the maximum number of men and women in uniform to therefore minimize the number of times a soldier will have to deploy to that country. While this debate has gone on, there has been much speculation as to our intentions, the breadth and depth of any actions we might be contemplating, and often criticism of the effects that may result. Given the variety of opinions expressed, and the obviously keen interest, I thought it would be useful to put on record a bit of context in the aim of better informing the debate. 

While we are looking at various options to achieve the goal – balancing the demand and thus minimizing the number of an individual’s combat deployments – *our guiding principle remains that military missions are Canadian Forces missions and will involve all parts of the Canadian Forces*. We have extremely competent men and women throughout our organisation and we want to make sure they are all given an opportunity to contribute, without asking any single one to carry an inordinate share.

To put the right person with the right training in the right position is a complex task – but, more important, a necessary one. Our intention is to make the smartest and the most sustainable use of our resources.

*Our mission in Afghanistan differs from others in the past, in that the structure required to support the troops involved in active operations is much larger. That support structure, however, does not need to be entirely operated by army personnel, and that, in past operations, has been the default setting.* We already have personnel from the navy and the air force in some of these support positions and, as you know, reservists, who are also an important part of this mission, both in combat and support roles.

Part of the solution to ensure we meet our commitments will simply be to do what we are already doing, this time on a larger scale, both in terms of numbers and in terms of where we look for these people, utilizing people from every part of the Canadian Forces in their primary role – logistics, military police, signallers and medics spring to mind – even though they are not in operational units. Thus, *we are willing to shrink headquarters, task every wing, station, base and unit to ensure specialists are available, trained and deployable to do the job.*

Second, making available combat arms soldiers from traditional static jobs, to ensure our units are filled, will occur.* We’ll live with smaller headquarters to do this.*

Third, recruiting and the efficient training of those combat arms soldiers already in the pipeline will ease the individual burden, as will the opportunity for former Canadian Forces members in our Supplementary Reserve to re-enrol under flexible terms for service in Canada or overseas. 

*Temporarily employing uniformed personnel in other than their primary role, re-roling them, will also be an option* and is not something new to the military when it comes to adapting to changing situations. Our military personnel are extremely capable, and their training allows them to perform duties effectively that extend beyond their primary roles. This happens daily not only in operations, but also in non-operational functions in headquarters and support areas. 

It is clear that re-roling must be done smartly to be effective.* Infantry personnel employed in non-combat roles in Canada can be made available for deployment by replacing them in their current positions by navy, air force, reserve and civilian personnel*. We are looking at all options that will allow us to augment the infantry’s ranks with minimum impact on other services and on our serving members’ career progression. In fact, the operational experience will have a significant positive impact.

Our fine members wearing the uniform do so proudly and with the understanding that they are part of one big team. Most of them have already been employed in the past in other than their primary roles and they know this is part of our business. *We are not looking at taking trained sailors and air force personnel and making soldiers out of them. We will find the right spot for each member. If it makes sense to train temporarily as infantry for some people who have not yet begun trades training, we will consider it.* But once again, this will be done only after careful consideration of effects, and only if taking such action would provide an effective and more timely result than those actions that we already employ. 

The length of deployment is also something we are looking at. *Troops participating in active or combat operations in Afghanistan will continue to deploy for approximately six months. Troops involved in other functions may see the length of their tour being extended for a total of nine months or longer. * This, as well, is not something new. We already have some members in Afghanistan serving one-year tours. Brigadier-General David Fraser, the Task Force Afghanistan Commander is one of them. As Commander Multi-National Division (South West) in Bosnia, I served there for 12 months. The relationship building at these levels of command takes time, so in order to get the positive effect we seek, longer command tours are necessary.

Some changes will occur sooner than others, but we don’t expect they will affect the current rotation in Afghanistan. *We will make the logical and sensible choices to ensure we fulfil our commitment, take care of our troops and continue to assist the Afghan people on their way to a better life, free of oppression and violence.* Canadians can be assured that the troops we send to Afghanistan will continue to be trained to the highest standard and ready for the challenges ahead.

- edit:  fixed spelling in subject line -


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Nov 2006)

Interesting article sounds like he has some good solutions.

I would suggest two points he missed that may help.

One - Go beyond sup reserve and invite back the wounded and injured soldiers who have been released that could work in the training system. I for one was released medically while sitting in a training position which I could do with my med issues just could not run around like a 19 year old anymore.

Two - Change the the deployment cycle to meet the enemy at its weakest. That would mean going back to the spring fall deployments not the  summer winter changes that appear to serve no strategic aim other than the system was geared for that since IFOR deployment Jan 05.


----------



## paracowboy (2 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> One - Go beyond sup reserve and invite back the wounded and injured soldiers who have been released that could work in the training system. I for one was released medically while sitting in a training position which I could do with my med issues just could not run around like a 19 year old anymore.


being done already.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (2 Nov 2006)

Para,

   Thats good news, I have not heard of the program, do you have any info on that program? I know guys are still being released out of key training places and some converstations have occured at the local base to bring back some key SME people for training but due med cats they were told they could not. Also how would they bring them back? Those that are beyond Sup Res are not med cat to even be in the Cadets let alone Sup Res.


----------



## paracowboy (2 Nov 2006)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Para,
> 
> Thats good news, I have not heard of the program, do you have any info on that program? I know guys are still being released out of key training places and some converstations have occured at the local base to bring back some key SME people for training but due med cats they were told they could not. Also how would they bring them back? Those that are beyond Sup Res are not med cat to even be in the Cadets let alone Sup Res.


all above my pay grade. I don't have hard facts, and can only supply RUMINT, and considering it affects people's lives, I don't think it right to do so. (As I'm in the beginning stages of the process, I'll keep the boards info'd as applicable.)


----------



## dapaterson (2 Nov 2006)

It's called contracting out - hiring pers outside the miltiary to provide training for the military.  Trg billets are partially intended to provide relief for field force soldiers - giving them a break from deployments.  Filling HQs and trg positions with medically unfit pers just increases the burden on everyone else.

That being said, DND is noptoriously bad at doing such things.  See, for example, the CITT ruling at http://www.citt-tcce.gc.ca/procure/determin/pr2g008_e.asp, where one bidder successfully complained that serving members working inthe shop that was contracting out skewed the playing field.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Nov 2006)

By Gen. Hillier himself.  I won't try to excerpt in order that no possible distortion occurs.

TheChronicleHerald.ca  	
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA | Thursday November 2, 2006
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/538154.html

Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## orange.paint (2 Nov 2006)

Patrolman said:
			
		

> Maybe they should start clearing out the schools in the CF. I am reg force infantry posted to a school and have never been to A-Stan yet. My last tour was Haiti in 04 (for a half tour). I know task force 1-07 is undermanned but no one has canvassed the infantry at my unit to see if we would be willing to go. In my opinion all reg force staff should be replaced by those who have the best and latest experience.



I couldn't agree more.I constantly hear the CF/media talking about finding serviceable troops to go to Afghanistan.Yet I look around the armoured school and see many many people who have not deployed to theatre in years.3 years for myself actually.I have put in memorandums requesting to return,one reason being I have not yet deployed and have not got the response I was expecting.I'm still "up in the air" on going back.

As for the armoured school we NEED guys who are current on op's as possible.Our jobs as armoured recce has changed a lot.And there is a lot of difference in a member reading a report and disseminating the info to students and a member disseminating personal experience to augment the lessons learned.

If you have no Afghanistan time you should be posted in my opinion.Someone just seemed to over look the schools.
And no MOST of the schools are full of fit prepared soldiers unlike the not so distant past.

I have not deployed in three years.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2006)

Here is a new wrinkle in the system

It would appear that some industrious CF individuals are taking all of the parental leave that they can so that they can avoid the deployment ..........

Sheesh!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Nov 2006)

How would that help?  A CO has the right to deny parental leave or recall someone, with 5 days notice, from parental leave for operational reasons (just had my briefing  ) 

Blame the CO for approving it, not the member.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2006)

Am supposed to get my briefing on the "problem" tomorrow
will post when I get the details


----------



## Haggis (2 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> It would appear that some industrious CF individuals are taking all of the parental leave that they can so that they can avoid the deployment ..........
> 
> Sheesh!



Well, then, they can watch my kids while I go!  Hooyah!!  "Pack kiddies, you're goin' to visit your new uncle for six months.  Don't forget your pet dobermans.  ;D"


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Nov 2006)

All i can say after reading this subject in it's entirety, is i'm glad that i'm retired and to damn old to be re-enrolled.

 If the arm chair generals in "Toon town" go through with this rebadging fiasco and think it's going to succeed, their in for a shock. 

 What a mess.


----------



## tasop_999 (2 Nov 2006)

I read the article by the CDS today and it made sense for the most part.  I hope things stay in the common sense vein, because I know that things can get really silly really quick in this outfit.  Now maybe this is me being a little jaded, but I'll give everyone a little example of some fantastic foolishness I experienced a few years ago.  

No doubt there are some people here who went on Op Peregrine out in BC.  Our particular wave, deployed from Esquimalt, was kitted with everything you could want for living in a camp...even one of those nice cots (I actually slept really well on that thing!).  What we didn't get sent with was cold weather kit for the high mountains in which we were working in the beginning of September.  We were also working the fire line with NCDs on as our primary uniform.  While both stylish and fire-resistent, this kit is not really meant for dirty work in the field...not to mention the Strathconas we were working near were laughing at us the whole time because we looked like fools.  Everyone there wished that we could have got our hands on a set of green combats.  The only army green clothing we received was raingear, which did come in handy.

I guess my point is that I hope whatever happens with the Afghanistan mission, re-roleing, and any other creative manning solutions coming out of the smoke cloud around NDHQ, I hope the brass makes sure that everyone going overseas is properly kitted, trained, and totally ready (including some army work-ups) for the mission.  If people from my branch of the service are heading over I want them to be fully prepared for whatever comes from Uncle Mohammed Omar.  I have faith at this moment that things will not get too silly, especially when there are so many Canadian lives at stake.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> I guess my point is that I hope whatever happens with the Afghanistan mission, re-roleing, and any other creative manning solutions coming out of the smoke cloud around NDHQ, I hope the brass makes sure that everyone going overseas is properly kitted, trained, and totally ready (including some army work-ups) for the mission.  If people from my branch of the service are heading over I want them to be fully prepared for whatever comes from Uncle Mohammed Omar.  I have faith at this moment that things will not get too silly, especially when there are so many Canadian lives at stake.



These are not evil or stupid people - in fact they are us, just in different jobs.  It will all work out.


----------



## geo (3 Nov 2006)

Tasop,
Prior to deployment overseas, there is a battery of things to take care of - Kit & training being only two of them..... If you get the nod, you'll be prepared - otherwise they won't send ya.


----------



## KevinB (3 Nov 2006)

small hi-jack -- at the Fires all we (PPCLI - hence Army) where allowed to wear was the nomex coveralls we where given by the BC Forestry folk 
 B Coy got a unit comendation since we went into Kelowna and did the job - stuck on fire trucks with only nomex coveralls for more than 21 hours the first night out.

The military will do the job -- ideally by well trained and well equipt troops -- if not, then by who ever is there.

Suck it up you take the Queen's Shilling at your peril.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2006)

Ruxted has weighed in here: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/29-Ordering-Priorities-Retention,-Recruiting,-Reassignment.html stating that reassignment (re-roleing (if that’s a word)) is just a band-aid on a symptom.  The real problem, Ruxted says, is: too few people – navy, army and air force, combat and support.

Ruxted agrees that we need to recruit many thousand new soldiers but it suggests that *retention* is the key – on the basis that if we retain more then we can recruit and train fewer.

Ruxted is also worried that a failure to retain our good people means that we deprive ourselves of a corps of leaders which we need for our longer term future.

Ruxted:

•	Offers a few concrete suggestions for both retention and recruiting; and

•	Suggest that the solutions are well within the purview of Defence Minister O’Connor and Gen. Rick Hillier.


----------



## Victor17 (22 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> It would appear that some industrious CF individuals are taking all of the parental leave that they can so that they can avoid the deployment ..........



Would be an interesting time to do a quick stat check and see if there's a sudden increase in members having kids...


----------



## kierankyllo (29 Nov 2006)

I just hope we don't end up outsourcing support roles to KBR and Halliburton in a futile attempt to get more boots on the ground.  Discuss.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (29 Nov 2006)

kierankyllo said:
			
		

> I just hope we don't end up outsourcing support roles to KBR and Halliburton in a futile attempt to get more boots on the ground.  Discuss.



And why not?  What makes you say "futile"?


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Nov 2006)

kierankyllo said:
			
		

> I just hope we don't end up outsourcing support roles to KBR and Halliburton in a futile attempt to get more boots on the ground.  Discuss.



Are you referring to security contractors or technical support, if it's the latter then we have done this with CANCAP previously. Some trades are critically short, and utilizing tech contractors for inside-the-wire tasks would help take the load off. I think we are doing this with CFS Alert already.


----------



## kierankyllo (30 Nov 2006)

I suppose futile is not the best choice of word, outsourcing does allow for more soldiers being soldiers.  Corporations have their own profitability in mind when conducting business and these goals may not be in line with the goals of a particular military operation.


----------



## bilton090 (1 Dec 2006)

01-07 roto has been changed from 6 month's to 7, some of the purple trades or support trades do 9 month's no problem, but don't go past 
the wire at the Kaf. The Inf. & Eng's do 3 weeks + at the FOB's, 2-3 days in KAF (R&R), then back to the FOB's, they are getting burned out. One Hvy. Eqpt. Op. there now has had 3 piece's of kit blow-en out from under him in a month, talk about shell shock !
  2,500 per's there now but only 800 fighting troops ?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Dec 2006)

bilton090 that rest and reschedule program hasn't been in effect in many places for a long time.  Guys have done anywhere between a month to 2 months without a chance to get into KAF.  Now I should also mention many of these FOB's are getting the niceties now BUT the equipment needs to be fixed, laundry needs to be done, and those that never had shower kit before the showers arrived and warm get need to get that as well.


----------

