# Odds are the extra "militia" G Wagons do a Bison act...



## 12alfa (14 Aug 2004)

What are the chances of this happening?

I would like to hear from ya all, but  no ranting res vs regs please.

Also we know what the gov and the army has said, just words so far as none have been set to the reserv's.
So the answer should be...about 60% they will do the same as the Bison.

For mune it more like 75% they will be some reason for the "false words"

Sound off..............


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Aug 2004)

Someone please enlighten me by what is meant by "do a bison act". I tried a search but nothing and its not the first time I've heard this phrase.  Thanks


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Aug 2004)

Instead of going to the Reserves the Bisons were "acquired" by the Regs.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Aug 2004)

Thank you,....one question..justified?


----------



## pbi (14 Aug 2004)

Well, maybe taking the Bisons from the Reserve wasn't justified, on the face of it. But, here's a thing. I have heard, anecdotally, that the real reason for purchasing the Bison was not to equip the Militia at all, nor even to equip the Regular Army. Instead, the actual immediate cause of the purchase was to encourage General Motors not to close its Diesel Division in London, ON, where the Bison (and now the LAVIII) was built. Apparently, declining sales were leading GM to consider this option. This would have had two negative effects:

-loss of jobs (both primary and secondary losses; ie: suppliers lose business and close, unemployed people spend less and merchants close); and

-the existence of a manufacturer who could (and would) continue to produce wheeled AFVs for us would end, with little prospect of another suitable firm on the horizon. Given the emphasis on wheels vs tracks that was beginning to emerge then, this seems to make sense.

Again I stress this is not hard copy: just what I've heard a couple of times over the years. Anyway, once the decision was taken to purchase these vehicles, where would they go? To RegF battalions that were already being issued AVGP? Hard to justify. How about putting them in Reserve units? Perhaps not well thought out, but an option.

On the subject of whether or not the Res Inf units really need (or want) to be mech, I offer the collective opinion of the five Inf units in our CBG. During the Town Hall sessions for the Reserve Missions and Tasks Review that was part of LFRR Phase II, they roundly rejected the idea of being mech under LFRR. They wanted nothing to do with it at all. They much preferred to concentrate on doing good, solid Infantry training in the dismounted role (some people want to call it "Light", but that's another argument...) I agree with their views and I'm proud of them for bucking the trend.

Cheers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2004)

The story as we got it was that the military wanted the Bison. It was sold as being a Reserve vehicle, purchased with Reserve funds. Happy days for the Reserve! Almost immediately after the purchase, under the guise of Total Force, they were taken away from the Reserves. Seemed the regs really wanted them, but didn't have the budget, so they used the ploy that they were Reserve vehicles. This caused a great rift in the trust between Reg and Reserve and many high up, influentail old timers in the Reserve world have not forgiven Ottawa for the misdeed. The Brass knew they did wrong, apologized profusely, said it would never happen again, but never compensated the Reserves for the vehicles or loss of budget. Since that day, the Reserve has looked with a jaundiced eye at any promise of new equipment. I'm pretty sure I got the story right. That is the way it passed to me by the bosses. Maybe someone else can confirm.


----------



## Spanky (14 Aug 2004)

Another theory was that they were purchased as compensation to London for reducing CFB London to an ASU and sending the RCR to Pet.  The common factor in all the various "scenarios" was that they were purchased with Rederve funds, only to be taken away.


----------



## KevinB (14 Aug 2004)

Spanky said:
			
		

> Another theory was that they were purchased as compensation to London for reducing CFB London to an ASU and sending the RCR to Pet.   The common factor in all the various "scenarios" was that they were purchased with Rederve funds, only to be taken away.



Gee, and the regs did not need them for overseas useage?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2004)

Kevin,
Not saying that they weren't needed or shouldn't have been used for Ops. It's the sneaky, backhanded way it was done that had (still has) people torqued. Don't know why they couldn't have just been up front about it.


----------



## Zoomie (15 Aug 2004)

Back to the issue at hand...

I personally think that the G-Wagen C&R variant will be dotting the Canadian landscape at local Armouries in the years to come.

The Iltis' time has come and gone.  They are leaving numerous Iltis' in Afghanistan, some of which belong to Militia Units.

The Milverado can not possibly attempt mud recce and the standard variant of the G-Wagen is useless to the black hatters too.  As it is, some recce tactics/doctrine may have to change.  Does the CC sit in the Cupola and command the C/S from there, or does he rely on his Observer/Gunner to give the calls to the driver while adopting hull down / turret down positions?

Only time will tell...


----------



## pbi (15 Aug 2004)

12 Alfa: To answer your original question, my gut feel is that the "extra" G-wagons (I assume you mean the additional "add-on" buy that was done...) will go pretty well where they were supposed to. I say this for two reasons:

-the Army has changed considerably since the days of the Bison decision. The Army Reserve is treated with far more respect and consideration now, and there is far more visibility of Army dealings with the Res than there was then. A large part of this respect has been earned by the increased operational role the Army Reserve has assumed (both international and domestic). The erst of the credit should go  the efforts of  our last CLS who worked very hard to bridge the "hatred gap", and to the various Reserve types (and "Friends of The Reserves") who kept the issues in the spotlight. The equipment situation in the Reserve has a long way to go, but I do not think that is because of lack of good will on the part of the Army. I believe that both Reg and Res have learned some lessons about living together; and

-the Army is committed to getting rid of the Cougar (about time....), and of converting the Cougar units to wheeled recce. In order to do this, they will have to come up with some more vehicles that can be used for training. The LUVW commercial pattern has some limitations: it is not really a recce vehicle.

The only thing I could see stopping it would be an urgent operational need overseas. And, I don't think that anybody on these pages would seriously argue that our soldiers deployed overseas should have first call on any and every piece of kit they need to carry out their mission.

Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2004)

I don't want to be the eternal pessimist, but figures tend to have me believe that the G-Vagen will do a Bison Act to an extent.  If we look at all the equipment purchases the Liberals have done to replace all Army vehicle fleets over the last thirty years, we see that they have made purchases of one half of what the existing fleet was.  128 Leopards replace over three hundred Centurions.  Those Leopards are being replaced by 66 MGS.  The MLVW fleet replace a 2 1/2 Ton fleet that was twice its' size.  The G-Wagon is replacing an Iltis fleet that is twice its' size and the Iltis again replaced a M551 "Mutt" fleet that was twice its' size.  Following those illustrious statistics, I would figure that there will be a serious shortfall in the Regular Force vehicle fleet, especially when there is talk of replacing the LSVW with G-Wagons also. 

12alpha has put forward a good question that has good possibilities of becoming fact.  'Reservists' are still being treated as the "poor cousins" by Regs, and any changes to that will be a long time coming.  It has been what has been happening for so long that they have the right to be skeptical.

GW


----------



## pbi (15 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:

_12alpha has put forward a good question that has good possibilities of becoming fact.  'Reservists' are still being treated as the "poor cousins" by Regs, and any changes to that will be a long time coming.  It has been what has been happening for so long that they have the right to be skeptical_.

Now, I don't want to provoke an "us vs them" feud here, but I have to ask in what ways are our Army Reserve being treaetd as "poor cousins" by the Regs? I think you may be lacking some historical perspective here. I agree fully that there are still some people in the Regular Army with stupid attitudes towards the Reserve, but the situation overall is nothing like when I joined the Militia in 1974, or even ten years ago. I think if you honestly examine the track record, you will see that things have improved for the Army Reserve, and that is has a place in the Army it never had in peacetime before.  They are not on the same scales of equipment, training and readiness as the Regular Force, but show me one Army reserve component that is. Certainly not the USARNG, or the USARES, or even the UK Territorial Army. Does the Army Reserve have everything they think they should have? Of course not, but neither does the Regular Army.

If Reservists as a group seriously believe this (and have facts to back up their beliefs) then we have a problem in our Army which has to be brought out into the open and fixed, now. If, on the other hand, this is a minority opinion, or just an off-hand comment, then maybe we don't have anything to worry about. I, for one, do not want to see us slip back to where we were. Cheers.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2004)

Perhaps on some levels the problems have seen some improvement, but on a whole I'd say that there have been only slight improvements over the last thirty plus years in the Res/Reg relationship.  Reservists continue to be maligned at the lower levels.  The quality of Reservists and their inexperience on taskings to the Regular Force are the physical indicators that young Reg Force soldiers use to develop their opinions.  One bad apple from a Reserve Unit will distroy any credibility of all the Reserves in the Reg world.  

I just came from a tasking where Reserve Cpls, with two years experience, tried to pull rank on Reg Ptes of four years experience.  As Martha Steward would say; "Not a Good Thing".  

One must take into account that many Reg Force pers are former Reservists, so when they develop a negative attitude towards Reservists, it must have come from some experience with a "lawn dart" who has overstepped his bounds.  The Reg response to lump all Reservists into the same boat because of a few bad apples still continues to be a problem where it really counts.  If at some levels that fact is ignored, only compounds the issue.  It won't go away if all you do is ignore it.

Again, at some levels (at the top) there has been great improvement, but they were being improved on in the 1970s with more Reserve Officers being placed into administrative roles in higher HQs.  Even there, there was problems of incompetence with the odd officer (both Reg and Res), but that is a normal occurrence in all walks of life.  Many Reserve officers have done very fine jobs in places like NDHQ and such, and in some cases made it a full time career.   At the lower end of the spectrum, however, there has been little change in attitudes.

GW


----------



## pbi (16 Aug 2004)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> _Perhaps on some levels the problems have seen some improvement, but on a whole I'd say that there have been only slight improvements over the last thirty plus years in the Res/Reg relationship. _
> 
> There is no way I can agree with that. Everything I see around me tells me this is just not true. Perhaps I am blinded because I am an officer, or because we have better relationships in our CBG: I don't know. The relationship is nothing repeat _nothing_ like as bad as it was thirty years ago. In 1974 we hated the Regs and they returned the favour. The idea that Reservists would do responsible jobs on operations, or do any of the other things they have done and do now, would have been laughed out of the park. One of the huge differences that I have noticed is the much improved degree of professionalism of Reservists: it is night and day even from when I last did RSS in 1986-89.
> 
> ...


----------



## Poppa (16 Aug 2004)

Coming back to issue at hand ie. will the Gwagon do a Bison act....
As far as I was aware the only PRes element that was to get the Gwagon were the armd recce guys. When the whole veh replacement issue came up the armd elements lobbied for the Gwagon citing factors such as interoperability w/reg counterparts, need ed for recce role etc etc. When the rollout came and and the blackhatters had a 1 for 4 (could be off) exchange they dropped their *ss. Rightly or wrongly it's up to the black hats to say what they need.
as for the MILCOTS. Sure they're not as robust but now I have veh..that work and I can fight them. Sure some cahnges are needed as to how we operated...we can't treat them like garbage and I'll personally drop my *ss the first time one of my little meatheads mentions "drive it like you stole it"

So will the new Gwagons come to us? Don't know...can we make do without I think so yes.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Aug 2004)

Pbi

I think we've both fallen into that "Generalization trap" ( at least I have) and are arguening two extremes of the spectrum and sliding off topic some.

GW


----------



## pbi (17 Aug 2004)

GW: perhaps. But therein lies the beauty of this site: people can do both, and then give each other supporting fire on a different thread Cheers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2004)

Many interesting rumours of the past...

What exactly are the "extra" G-Wagens?   A recap: for the LUVW replacement project, the budget was based on (almost) 1:1 replacement Iltis:MILCOTS.   The armoured corps subsequently sold the case for something more versatile than MILCOTS for reserve recce, but the catch was: no additional project money.   The reserve recce units would get fewer G-Wagens for the same money as a given number of pickup trucks. Further, this was before the decision to re-role the reserve armoured units to recce units.   So: from where comes the idea that any "extra" G-Wagens are available?

[Question partly answered...357 seems like more than needed for Reg F recce platoons and reserve armoured unit conversions...]


----------

