# Reserve Restructure



## army

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com>* on *Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:18:32 -0500*
The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
consideration:
1.  If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
a high attrition rate? 
2.  If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
renaming, reroling and change. 
3.  If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
Engineers? 
I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
serving without leadership.
Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
Mike
*******************************
Saturday, March 25, 2000
Historic regiments face support roles
James Cudmore
National Post, with files from The Canadian Press 

Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
combat in a recent evaluation.
...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.

South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...

EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan. 
Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs. 
In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether. 
A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
Newfoundland Regiment. 
The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
and retain soldiers. 
A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
restructuring plan into high gear. 
The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
provide service and support functions. 
"What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support." 
Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle. 
But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
perhaps Web page design, the colonel said. 
In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
its ****son report in 1995. 
The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
and to reconsider how best they might be employed. 
As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
country‘s defence policy. 
As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
from reserve regiments. 
"In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann. 
"But the new concept is complimentary capability. 
"There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
said. 
For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
wrong-minded. 
"It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
willingness to serve. 
"Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said. 
"They‘d all quit!" 
Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
to speak of, anyway." 
NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS: 
St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Sat, 25 Mar 2000 10:45:52 -0700*
Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
the story and I could speak on this issues for hours.  However, a couple
of comments:
A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
that particular time.  The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR.  And
finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
from units in LFWA.  Did you not notice that there are no French
Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not.  As
another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
fault, however, they pay the price.  
To answer your questions:
1.Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring.  Esprit de Corps
manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
your roots with the PL Fus.  You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F.   This is a
difficult topic.  As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
attrition rate.
2.I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
strategic direction for the Reserves.  The trouble is most of the
Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
which is a liberal stronghold.  There is a election coming in
2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle?  The Army reg
and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
current Reg F structure. 
3.I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
will remain the same.  That being a part time job, extra income,
comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO.  I think some of
the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
devote the time to rebadging.  You mention the Elgins going to engr. 
Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots. 
No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
agree with them.  The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
in the CF.  Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
has been chronically underfunded.  To simply say the Res are a waste of
money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
F and we now must make some painful decisions.  The Navy, Airforce and
DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
the army did the same and became "One Army".

Gunner sends....
Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> 
> The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> consideration:
> 
> 1.  If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
> de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
> a high attrition rate?
> 
> 2.  If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
> reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
> a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> renaming, reroling and change.
> 
> 3.  If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> Engineers?
> 
> I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
> are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
> use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> serving without leadership.
> 
> Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
> 
> Mike
> 
> *******************************
> 
> Saturday, March 25, 2000
> 
> Historic regiments face support roles
> 
> James Cudmore
> National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
> 
> 
> Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
> during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> combat in a recent evaluation.
> 
> ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
> 
> South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
> 
> EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
> some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
> relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
> 
> Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
> adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
> 
> In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
> be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether.
> 
> A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
> across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> Newfoundland Regiment.
> 
> The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> and retain soldiers.
> 
> A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
> restructuring plan into high gear.
> 
> The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
> alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
> and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> provide service and support functions.
> 
> "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
> 
> Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
> 
> But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
> 
> In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
> its ****son report in 1995.
> 
> The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
> and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
> 
> As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> country‘s defence policy.
> 
> As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
> including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> from reserve regiments.
> 
> "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
> ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
> 
> "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
> 
> "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
> said.
> 
> For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
> wrong-minded.
> 
> "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
> the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> willingness to serve.
> 
> "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
> 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
> 
> "They‘d all quit!"
> 
> Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
> of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
> retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
> look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
> to speak of, anyway."
> 
> NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
> 
> St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
> 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
> Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
> Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
> Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
> 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
> Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
> Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
> Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
> 
> Michael O‘Leary
> 
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
> 
> Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net>* on *Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:05:04 -0800*
Attrition in the reserves is also caused by its total focus on the student
as a manpower source.  Once a person leaves school and begins to work, it is
difficult to attend training course.  They primarily take place in the
summer,  as a person just starting work, your seniority is low.  The chances
of even getting two weeks off in the summer are slim.  If trade level
courses were made more available during the rest of the year, then more
people would have a chance to progress within their units. I couldn‘t
balance my work schedule with a constantly changing training schedule at my
squadron, I was forced to miss exercises when they were postponed to later
dates.  It is during these weekend Ex‘s, and they Mil-Con‘s that unit pride
is fostered.  Nothing builds a great team like mutual exhaustion and
suffering.
Chimo
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunner" 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
> the story and I could speak on this issues for hours.  However, a couple
> of comments:
>
> A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
> that particular time.  The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
> the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR.  And
> finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
> Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
> from units in LFWA.  Did you not notice that there are no French
> Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
> criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
> Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not.  As
> another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
> their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
> fault, however, they pay the price.
>
> To answer your questions:
>
> 1. Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
> many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
> commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
> is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
> to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring.  Esprit de Corps
> manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
> your roots with the PL Fus.  You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
> Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F.   This is a
> difficult topic.  As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
> attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
> attrition rate.
>
> 2. I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
> strategic direction for the Reserves.  The trouble is most of the
> Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
> which is a liberal stronghold.  There is a election coming in
> 2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
> the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle?  The Army reg
> and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
> of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
> of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
> current Reg F structure.
>
> 3. I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
> soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
> will remain the same.  That being a part time job, extra income,
> comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO.  I think some of
> the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
> devote the time to rebadging.  You mention the Elgins going to engr.
> Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
> reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots.
>
> No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
> closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
> Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
> Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
> agree with them.  The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
> in the CF.  Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
> has been chronically underfunded.  To simply say the Res are a waste of
> money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
> F and we now must make some painful decisions.  The Navy, Airforce and
> DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
> the army did the same and became "One Army".
>
> Gunner sends....
>
> Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> >
> > The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> > regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> > outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> > consideration:
> >
> > 1.  If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and
esprit
> > de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there
such
> > a high attrition rate?
> >
> > 2.  If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is
not
> > reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not
exactly
> > a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> > renaming, reroling and change.
> >
> > 3.  If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> > predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> > Engineers?
> >
> > I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> > we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes
inevitable,
> > are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> > ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship
to
> > use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> > serving without leadership.
> >
> > Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> > Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > *******************************
> >
> > Saturday, March 25, 2000
> >
> > Historic regiments face support roles
> >
> > James Cudmore
> > National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
> >
> >
> > Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their
battle-readiness
> > during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> > combat in a recent evaluation.
> >
> > ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
> >
> > South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
> >
> > EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away
with
> > some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in
public
> > relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
> >
> > Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> > have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers,
or
> > adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> > their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
> >
> > In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation
might
> > be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions
altogether.
> >
> > A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> > evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve
regiments
> > across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> > Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> > Newfoundland Regiment.
> >
> > The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> > individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> > disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> > and retain soldiers.
> >
> > A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> > showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the
reserve
> > restructuring plan into high gear.
> >
> > The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will
dramatically
> > alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> > brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve
regiments
> > and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> > provide service and support functions.
> >
> > "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> > Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> > plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
> >
> > Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> > Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> > Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
> >
> > But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> > train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> > perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
> >
> > In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> > combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> > conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves
issued
> > its ****son report in 1995.
> >
> > The report called for the military to commit more resources to the
reserves
> > and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
> >
> > As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> > country‘s defence policy.
> >
> > As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian
Forces,
> > including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> > from reserve regiments.
> >
> > "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization
requirements
> > ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> > supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
> >
> > "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
> >
> > "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> > and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col.
Kampmann
> > said.
> >
> > For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> > Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments
is
> > wrong-minded.
> >
> > "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result
in
> > the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> > willingness to serve.
> >
> > "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take
the
> > 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> > Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
> >
> > "They‘d all quit!"
> >
> > Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse,
one
> > of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I
consider
> > retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> > believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> > worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way
they
> > look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not
one
> > to speak of, anyway."
> >
> > NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
> >
> > St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> > Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer
Regiment,
> > 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> > Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> > Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon,
21
> > Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> > Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> > Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18
Service
> > Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own
Cameron
> > Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> > Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> > Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron
Edmonton
> > 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15
Service
> > Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge
18
> > Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12
Service
> > Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> >  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
> >
> > Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> > Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:36:21 -0800*
If my anecdotal old experience means anything: come disbandments of
units "they won‘t walk across the parade square". In late 1964 there was
a sudden major purge of units across Canada. One very viable regiment
was the 19th Alberta Dragoons headquartered in Edmonton. At least two
full squadrons and RHQ in Southside Edmonton and other squadrons
elsewhere. One field officer, some junior officers and Sr NCOs
transferred to other units. Only ONE Cpl. and NO Privates before the
days of MCpls transferred anywhere. And not that there weren‘t
vacancies. The Militia had just gone through about 5 years of a focus on
National Survival training sitting in the back of duce and a halfs
within mobile support columns expected to reenter built up areas after
the Bomb had dropped without doing real damage. Consequently, members
had left in droves and most units were crying for members and nothing
changed, it just got worse. There were jobs on civvy street,
girlfriends and wives to pacify, weekend mornings to sleep in, and all
just turned the page and got on with their lives and never looked back.
1964 - 2000, what‘s the dif?
Gunner wrote:
> 
> Mike, the comments by The National Posts James Cudmore only tell part of
> the story and I could speak on this issues for hours.  However, a couple
> of comments:
> 
> A Res F unit being termed non-viable is simply a snapshot of the unit at
> that particular time.  The results quoted by James Cudmore are simply
> the third year of the three year evaluation process used by LFRR.  And
> finally, each Land Force Area interpretated the guidelines of the
> Evaluation differently, therefore units in SQFT were judged differently
> from units in LFWA.  Did you not notice that there are no French
> Canadian Units listed - they used different interpretation of the LFRR
> criteria...does that mean the Royal Montreal Regt will be moved to
> Winnipeg as the Royal Wpg Rifles were non-vialble...of course not.  As
> another example, all the units in 41 CBG Alberta Based failed because
> their CBG HQ failed to manage their budget properly not the units
> fault, however, they pay the price.
> 
> To answer your questions:
> 
> 1.      Attrition - Attrition is a problem in the Res F and its causes are
> many....component transfers to the Reg F, family commitments, education
> commitments, work commitments, boring unit and summer trg i think this
> is one of the biggest, Res F units are caught in a rut always trying
> to recruit and then they leave as the trg is boring.  Esprit de Corps
> manifests itself in alot of ways, take yourself as an example, stressing
> your roots with the PL Fus.  You know very well the AC/NC challenges the
> Res F must face and the burden it places on the Reg F.   This is a
> difficult topic.  As an aside the Reg F is now grappling with the
> attrition problem in its units that rivals the Res F problems...30
> attrition rate.
> 
> 2.      I hope our political masters approve the changes or at least bless a
> strategic direction for the Reserves.  The trouble is most of the
> Infantry units that will be disbanded and reroled will be in Ontario,
> which is a liberal stronghold.  There is a election coming in
> 2001...will the liberals want to cause that type of negetive media ie
> the Toronto Scottish struck from the order of battle?  The Army reg
> and res have to decide what they want each component to do and use each
> of their strenths and weaknesses to cover off one another. The reroling
> of Res F units to CSS will help cover off an extreme weakness in the
> current Reg F structure.
> 
> 3.      I agree with you, I don‘t think there will be a mass exodus of
> soldiers from the unit as the reason they will remain with the military
> will remain the same.  That being a part time job, extra income,
> comraderie, chance to participate with the UN and NATO.  I think some of
> the older soldiers offr and NCOs will leave as they are not able to
> devote the time to rebadging.  You mention the Elgins going to engr.
> Another success is the 1st AD Landark and Renfrew Regt...I think they
> reroled well to Arty and maintained their scottish roots.
> 
> No one in the Res F will deny the Res F needs to be restructured unit
> closures, amalgamation, etc, however, there is so much mistrust in the
> Res Community towards the Reg F, I admire the work of R2000 and the
> Council of HCols in pushing this issue although I don‘t necessarily
> agree with them.  The Res have never been treated as an equal partner
> in the CF.  Although the Reg F has been underfunded for years, the Res F
> has been chronically underfunded.  To simply say the Res are a waste of
> money doesn‘t take into the fact they were ignored for years by the Reg
> F and we now must make some painful decisions.  The Navy, Airforce and
> DISO are way ahead of the Army with a true "Total Force", its high time
> the army did the same and became "One Army".
> 
> Gunner sends....
> 
> Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> >
> > The following story about possible restructure and re-roling of Reserve
> > regiments is from the National Post website. Setting the emotional
> > outbursts aside, I offer the following obssrvations/questions for
> > consideration:
> >
> > 1.  If Reserve soldiers join "a Regiment" rather than seek jobs, and esprit
> > de corps is "so high" because of the "Regimental System", why is there such
> > a high attrition rate?
> >
> > 2.  If our political masters intend to force some degree of change, is not
> > reroling or amalagamtion better than risking disbandment? It‘s not exactly
> > a new experience in our Army, historically, the norm is amalgamation,
> > renaming, reroling and change.
> >
> > 3.  If individual unit pride is so high that mass resignations are
> > predicted as likely, than how did the Elgin Regiment survive reroling to
> > Engineers?
> >
> > I‘m not lokikng to start a fight, just thinking out loud. I do realize
> > we‘ve covered much of this ground before. But if this becomes inevitable,
> > are the Regiments preparing back-up plans to maintain unit histories and
> > ties through an era of change? Or do they plan to go down with the ship to
> > use a Senior Service metaphor, leaving the troops who wish to continue
> > serving without leadership.
> >
> > Fideleter PLFus, 1979-82
> > Pro Patria The RCR, 1983 - present
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > *******************************
> >
> > Saturday, March 25, 2000
> >
> > Historic regiments face support roles
> >
> > James Cudmore
> > National Post, with files from The Canadian Press
> >
> >
> > Members of Vancouver‘s Seaforth Highlanders show off their battle-readiness
> > during the Second World War. The regiment is one of 41 judged unfit for
> > combat in a recent evaluation.
> >
> > ...Royal Newfoundland Regiment did not.
> >
> > South Alberta Light Horse passed muster...
> >
> > EDMONTON - The Department of National Defence is preparing to do away with
> > some of its historic combat regiments in favour of units trained in public
> > relations, the Internet and civil affairs, according to a new army plan.
> >
> > Under the Land Forces Reserve Restructuring LFRR plan, army units that
> > have failed to balance their budgets, recruit and retain their soldiers, or
> > adequately prepare them for battle are facing the possibility of losing
> > their historic roles in favour of newer, non-combat jobs.
> >
> > In addition, regiments that fail to pass an army viability evaluation might
> > be disbanded and lose their celebrated histories and traditions altogether.
> >
> > A report released this week detailed the military‘s new viability
> > evaluations and revealed that as many as 41 of 139 army reserve regiments
> > across the country were classified as non-viable, including Vancouver‘s
> > Seaforth Highlanders of Canada and the 1st Battalion of The Royal
> > Newfoundland Regiment.
> >
> > The evaluations considered a unit‘s size, its soldiers‘ collective and
> > individual skills, and tasks such as providing soldiers for natural
> > disasters. Army commanders also judged the regiments‘ ability to recruit
> > and retain soldiers.
> >
> > A similar report last year described 36 units as non-viable. That poor
> > showing prompted Art Eggleton, the Minister of Defence, to kick the reserve
> > restructuring plan into high gear.
> >
> > The plan, which has yet to be approved by the minister, will dramatically
> > alter the shape of the Canadian militia. It calls for a restructuring of
> > brigade formations to provide a more seamless mix between reserve regiments
> > and their regular forces counterparts so that reserves would primarily
> > provide service and support functions.
> >
> > "What we‘re looking at is a transformation in the army reserves," said
> > Lieutenant-Colonel Mike Kampmann, director of the reserve restructuring
> > plan. "Changing them from a combat focus to a focus on support."
> >
> > Traditionally, units such as the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, The Royal Regina
> > Rifles, the Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders or the Canadian Scottish
> > Regiment trained their citizen-soldiers in the art of infantry battle.
> >
> > But under LFRR, these storied regiments will lose that role, and instead
> > train in logistics, public affairs, postal delivery, civilian liaison or
> > perhaps Web page design, the colonel said.
> >
> > In fact, the idea of changing the function of the reserve force from a
> > combat-oriented role to a support role has been the subject of much
> > conjecture since the Special Committee on Restructuring the Reserves issued
> > its ****son report in 1995.
> >
> > The report called for the military to commit more resources to the reserves
> > and to reconsider how best they might be employed.
> >
> > As the Canadian Forces are called upon to do more with less, Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann said, the reserves are playing an even more vital role in the
> > country‘s defence policy.
> >
> > As early as 1991, all overseas operations conducted by the Canadian Forces,
> > including Bosnia, Somalia and, most recently, Kosovo, required soldiers
> > from reserve regiments.
> >
> > "In order for the regular force to meet its full mobilization requirements
> > ... we have to depend on the reserves to provide us with additional or
> > supplementary forces," said Lt.-Col. Kampmann.
> >
> > "But the new concept is complimentary capability.
> >
> > "There‘s a heck of a lot of high- tech expertise in the Canadian public,
> > and we would like our reserves to be able to tap into," Lt.-Col. Kampmann
> > said.
> >
> > For his part, Brigadier-General Jim Hanson, a military analyst for the
> > Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, is worried that Lt.-Col.
> > Kampmann‘s plan to disband and amalgamate some historic combat regiments is
> > wrong-minded.
> >
> > "It would be devastating," the general said, adding it would only result in
> > the loss of a militia soldiers‘ regimental pride, and ultimately the
> > willingness to serve.
> >
> > "Soldiers don‘t join the reserves, they join a regiment. You can‘t take the
> > 48th Highlanders of Canada and suddenly try to turn them into [Toronto
> > Scottish soldiers]," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said.
> >
> > "They‘d all quit!"
> >
> > Lt.-Col. Brian Hodgson, the commander of The South Alberta Light Horse, one
> > of the "viable" regiments, agrees. "Under no circumstances would I consider
> > retraining my regiment into some postal corps," he said, adding that he
> > believes the majority of his soldiers would feel the same way. "I‘m
> > worried," Brig.-Gen. Hanson said, "that if things keep going the way they
> > look like they‘re going, that Canada isn‘t going to have a militia. Not one
> > to speak of, anyway."
> >
> > NON-VIABLE REGIMENTS:
> >
> > St. John‘s 1st Battalion of The Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service
> > Battalion Sydney 35 Medical Company Saint John 31 Service Battalion, 3
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Montreal 3 Field Engineer Regiment,
> > 51 Service Battalion Ottawa 2 Intelligence Platoon Kingston Princess of
> > Wales‘ Own Regiment Toronto 2 Intelligence Company, 2 Field Engineer
> > Regiment London 22 Service Battalion Windsor 21 Military Police Platoon, 21
> > Service Battalion Sudbury 2 Irish Regiment of Canada North Bay Algonquin
> > Regiment, 26 Service Battalion Sault Ste. Marie 49 Field Regiment Royal
> > Canadian Artillery Thunder Bay Lake Superior Scottish Regiment, 18 Service
> > Battalion Kenora 116 Independent Field Battery Winnipeg Queen‘s Own Cameron
> > Highlanders, Royal Winnipeg Rifles, 17 Medical Company, 17 Service
> > Battalion Brandon 26 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery Regina 10
> > Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, Royal Regina Rifles, 16 Medical
> > Company, 16 Service Battalion Calgary 33 Field Engineer Squadron Edmonton
> > 15 Medical Company, 20 Field Regiment Royal Canadian Artillery, 15 Service
> > Battalion, 8 Field Engineer Regiment, 6 Intelligence Company Lethbridge 18
> > Air Defence Regiment Vancouver Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, 12 Service
> > Battalion Victoria Canadian Scottish Regiment, 11 Service Battalion
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> >  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
> >
> > Leadership is the practical application of character. - Colonel R.
> > Meinertzhagen, CBE, DSO, Army Diary, 1899-1926, 1960
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Wyn van der Schee <vandersw@cadvision.com>* on *Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:44:38 -0700*
Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
platoons of second line gas station attendants.
A report on Reserve Restructuring is being prepared for the Minister of
National Defence by John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons and
current Honourary Colonel of The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. The
Seaforths, incidentally, were one of the units listed as unviable in the
National Post article.
The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he
has seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the
restoration and viability of the Militia, but it is the Cabinet and the
Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide what is to happen to the
Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are located. Those MPs
have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more than
Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
Reserves 2000 has sent blank mail-in cards supporting a viable,
well-equipped and adequately funded Militia that you can complete and send
to your MP, the Ministerof National Defence and the Prime Minister. They
have been sent to all Honourary Colonels with a request to make them
available to unit members. Please obtain copies locally and send them in.
If you can not get them through your Honourary  Colonel, call Reserves 2000
in Toronto at 416-868-1186 and request copies for yourself, your family and
your friends. The life of the Militia is surely worth the cost of one
long-distance phone call. Call at night and leave a message if you want a
cheap call rate.
Canada needs a strong Reserve Army and the politicians need to be made
aware of the need.
Wyn van der Schee
403-253-4585
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net>* on *Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:19:23 -0500*
At 19:44 27/03/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
>National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
>DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
>platoons of second line gas station attendants.
I am unable to resist pointing out that the Post‘s story was beaten by a
long clean day by Canada‘s national wire service, The Canadian Press. CP‘s
article, which contained a full list of this year‘s list of non-viable
units later re-used, with acknowledgement, in the Post‘s article,
appeared Friday morning in papers in Halifax and Winnipeg, on the Web sites
of the Globe and Mail and National Post, and and in adapted forms in the
Winnipeg Free Press and the Kingston Whig-Standard. 
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax:    416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Rhett <lawson@cclacbrome.qc.ca>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:52:35 -0500*
Go for it!!!!!!
Rhett Lawson
Wyn van der Schee wrote:
> Those who read the article on Canada‘s Reserve Army in last Saturday‘s
> National Post are aware that the Militia is at a critical point in Canada.
> DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into
> platoons of second line gas station attendants.
>
> A report on Reserve Restructuring is being prepared for the Minister of
> National Defence by John Fraser, former Speaker of the House of Commons and
> current Honourary Colonel of The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada. The
> Seaforths, incidentally, were one of the units listed as unviable in the
> National Post article.
>
> The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he
> has seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the
> restoration and viability of the Militia, but it is the Cabinet and the
> Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide what is to happen to the
> Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are located. Those MPs
> have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more than
> Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
>
> Reserves 2000 has sent blank mail-in cards supporting a viable,
> well-equipped and adequately funded Militia that you can complete and send
> to your MP, the Ministerof National Defence and the Prime Minister. They
> have been sent to all Honourary Colonels with a request to make them
> available to unit members. Please obtain copies locally and send them in.
> If you can not get them through your Honourary  Colonel, call Reserves 2000
> in Toronto at 416-868-1186 and request copies for yourself, your family and
> your friends. The life of the Militia is surely worth the cost of one
> long-distance phone call. Call at night and leave a message if you want a
> cheap call rate.
>
> Canada needs a strong Reserve Army and the politicians need to be made
> aware of the need.
>
> Wyn van der Schee
> 403-253-4585
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 11:17:09 -0800*
>DND is trying its best to demolish units or trying to turn them into platoons
of second line gas station attendants.
There‘s nothing like hyperbole to destroy the last shred of reasoned debate.
>The Minister has delayed any decision to reorganize the Militia until he has
seen Colonel Fraser‘s report. That report will be critical to the restoration
and viability of the Militia,
It will?  Pardon my scepticism, but wasn‘t the SCRR report supposed to have the
same impact?
>but it is the Cabinet and the Members of Parliament who will ultimately decide
what is to happen to the Militia in each of the 125 communities where they are
located.
Herein lies a problem.  Extend this attitude to encompass the Regular Force, and
the entire CF becomes nothing more than a pork barrel.  The Militia should not
simply exist for the sake of itself, and if its structure is not driven by
military requirements, then by what?  Decisions at the political level should be
no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular and
reserve.
>Those MPs have to be made aware that the Militia needs to be something more
than Office Overload for the Regular Force if it is to survive.
So, what exactly is "something more"?  Before we became "Office Overload", we
were something less, and next to useless.  I have yet to see anyone offer a
reasonable counterproposal to the half-baked plan floated last year which
envisioned a downsizing of combat arms and upsizing of combat support and
service support.  What exactly do we go to the MPs with - a suggestion that we
spend money we don‘t have to build up a combat support and service support
structure that justifies the existing combat arms, or a suggestion that we
simply return to the good old days of training without validation and structure
without reason?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 14:49:21 -0500*
At 11:17 28/03/2000 -0800, Bradley Sallows wrote:
>Decisions at the political level should be
>no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular
and
>reserve.
>
That‘s very problematical. The people ultimately responsible to the public
for the Canadian Forces are the PM and the MND. If their job is only to
affirm recommendations, then there‘s no point in having a defence minister
the job could be done by a signature machine. 
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax:    416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 12:37:22 -0800*
>>Decisions at the political level should be
>>no more than affirmation of recommendations made by the military - regular
and
>>reserve.
>>
>That‘s very problematical. The people ultimately responsible to the public
>for the Canadian Forces are the PM and the MND. If their job is only to
>affirm recommendations, then there‘s no point in having a defence minister
Sure there is.  Not all decisions are beyond the ken of a MND.  I‘m specifically
talking about restructure here.  Canadian politicians with detailed knowledge of
military matters and the CF are rare, and I haven‘t seen one in the MND‘s chair
lately in fact, I haven‘t seen one occupy the chair long enough to become
knowledgeable.  It would make as much sense to have, say, a plumber be elected
to parliament, be appointed Minister of Finance, and start dictating tax policy.
Try it another way: if the MND isn‘t going to go with the recommendations of his
military advisors on military matters, why have any military advisors?  Reserve
restructure is such a political minefield that we might as well admit from the
outset there‘s no point trying to accommodate any special political interests
and go ahead and make the decisions based on purely military considerations.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 16:19:28 -0500*
At 12:37 28/03/2000 -0800, Bradley Sallows wrote:
>Try it another way: if the MND isn‘t going to go with the recommendations
of his
>military advisors on military matters, why have any military advisors?  
When you ask someone for advice, do you commit yourself to following
whatever they say? Of course not. Advice is advice, and recommendations are
recommendations. If you *have* to follow recommendations, then they are
really instructions: it‘s like the constitutional fiction of the Queen
being advised by her ministers. If the MND *has* to follow instructions
from his subordinates, then there is no point in the office existing, and
meaningful civil control over the military may be said to have ended. 
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax:    416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 15:24:26 -0800*
Perhaps the discussion can be redirected without digressing too far into the
traditional roles of advisor and advised.
It was stated that Cabinet and the MPs will decide the fate of Militia.  I
countered that such decisions specifically those pertaining to reserve
restructure should affirm the military‘s recommendations - notwithstanding
everything you correctly say about advisors and advice, Patrick.
This does not exclude the politicians from exercising judgement, but I am
suggesting it would be best if they employed minimal to no discretion since I
believe that on this particular issue Cabinet and the MPs are incapable of
making even a wild-***  guess as to what would best suit the needs of the CF.
Whatever military good sense they might display will be occluded by a cloud of
political self-service.
I fully realize that the recommendations of the military regular and reserve
will be affected by military politics, but I would rather see the process
command-driven based on force structure and needs.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:49:24 -0500*
As someone who is currently in a combat arms reserve unit the Black Watch I
can tell you that
if we were rebadged to something else especially if it was not a combat arms
then virtually the entire
men‘s mess, myself included, would walk.  For myself, I already have a load of
committements work, family, etc
which pressure me not to show up on a weekend ex, and have hit a point where I
will probably release from
the military soon.  However, these pressures were there for the last four years,
since I started work.  Why
didn‘t I release sooner?  Because I enjoy being in the infantry. Not in the CF,
but in the infantry and in particular
 the Black Watch I enjoy going out on an ex and pushing myself, and learning how
to lead.  I can‘t say that I am
great at it, or even good at it, and lord knows, I have to get myself in better
physical shape if I want to keep doing this -
but I do it because it challanges me.  **** , I‘m a CA - and I‘ve been offered
the finance clerk position at the unit - and
I‘ve turned it down, because that‘s not why I‘m in the army.  And its not why my
mates are in the army.
Just my opinion.....
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *edward@IslandNet.com* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 18:39:15 (PST)*
It is apparent from the discussions in this forum that members are concerned and very interested in the outcome of reserve restructure.  I am firmly of the opinion that the Army Reserve is broken and needs fixing, however I have yet to see any proposal eminating from NDHQ that addresses this issue meaningfully.
The proposals to date will not work because the structural conditions which have lead to the weakening of the Army Reserve have not been discussed, and little has been done to fix them.  I encourage all of  you to visit the Reserves 2000 website www.saveourreserves.com where an excellent rebuttal of the VCDS paper "Rethinking the Total Force" is found.
It is a useless exercise to imagine that simply reroling or amalgamating units into CSS is going to solve our problems.  As many on this list have already observed, they joined their particular unit because of the esprit de corps associated with their units, the truly identify with the Regimental System.  I find it difficult to believe that the 6th Battalion of the 521st Laundry Regiment will inspire the type of loyalty that many of our historic regiments do.
A partial list of observations in no particular order
- Does anyone else find it odd that the proposals being floated by NDHQ for the Reserve are similar to what has happened to the USAR?  The USAR has been retooled to being almost entirely CSS, however, Canada‘s Army Reserve is more like the Army National Guard in terms of service.  The Army National Guard has seen an increase in the combat arms roles and equipment in the last 15 years - not the opposite. 
- If rerolling to CSS is the objective, is it not fair to say that the range of skills and knowledge found in a CSS unit would require skilled recruits, many of them allready established in their civilian trades?  If so how will the Army Reserve make CSS attractive to semi skilled applicants how will the Army Reserve retain skilled applicants in the CSS once they realize that the current AC/NC course structure caters to high school students and not the skilled applicants. 
- Senior Reserve Leadership.  Centralized training establishments may have inadvertently killed most opportunities for senior reservists to learn to command anything beyond pl size.  Under the old though flawed NRQS system many reservists were able to polish their leadership skills as they held senior NRQS positions such as OC, RSM, CSM etc.  With the senior positions at the centralized training establishments now mostly held by Regs, the few opportunities left for reservists to learn the art of command are at the Brigade HQ‘s.
- Army Reserve units do not regularly conduct combined arms training.  Infantry, Artillery, CSS, Armour, etc all pursue their own unit training plans without co-ordination or co-operation with each other - this within the context of Reserve Brigades.  This has the net effect of encouraging parochialism.  Reserve units concentrate on matters pertaining to their own corps and because units do not have an established pattern of working together in the field or otherwise, we are often ineffective in working together to protect ourselves.
Enough ranting for now
Comments?
Ted Underhill 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
> 
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:35:34 -0800*
Brad, not quite up to your usual high standards of debate grin:
For starters, the Feds could get the money for DND if they‘d stop
spending money on the useless gun control measures. Hand guns have been
required to be registered for decades, and although I favour their
continued registration albeit with what little results the idea of
registering shot guns and single shot bolt action rifles is a complete
no-brainer, blah blah, blah. HRDC waste, etc, ad infinitum., I digress.
Trouble is, "we" haven‘t been going to our MPs with anything in the way
of public backed support and that‘s why there is no money. I took Wyn‘s
advice and phoned for a set of reply cards 30 to pass around at a
meeting this coming weekend. They are being sent to me my Priority Post
hope they get here, that‘s another government renown for its
efficiency. So let‘s ALL do something similar - if WE don‘t then it‘s
no use complaining in the future.
Bradley Sallows wrote:
to be fair, snip
>  What exactly do we go to the MPs with - a suggestion that we
> spend money we don‘t have ....
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Tue, 28 Mar 2000 23:59:08 -0800*
Tell that to Lois Hole the Lt. Gov. of Alta.check the CP story first
then HCol Black‘s chain if you must. She wasn‘t too happy with some guy
named Bill 11 working for Ralph Klein.
Patrick Cain wrote:
>  it‘s like the constitutional fiction of the Queen
> being advised by her ministers.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Rhett <lawson@cclacbrome.qc.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 09:04:31 -0500*
Hello James
Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular unit and sticks
with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia.  In fact I do recall when the
Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck from the order of
battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, the others all retired,
having lost their enthusiasm.
Let us all hope that some semblance of intelligence will prevail and we will in fact
find that our future is not determined by a Uniformed Civil Servant who must balance
a budget.
Rhett Lawson
james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com wrote:
> As someone who is currently in a combat arms reserve unit the Black Watch I
> can tell you that
> if we were rebadged to something else especially if it was not a combat arms
> then virtually the entire
> men‘s mess, myself included, would walk.  For myself, I already have a load of
> committements work, family, etc
> which pressure me not to show up on a weekend ex, and have hit a point where I
> will probably release from
> the military soon.  However, these pressures were there for the last four years,
> since I started work.  Why
> didn‘t I release sooner?  Because I enjoy being in the infantry. Not in the CF,
> but in the infantry and in particular
>  the Black Watch I enjoy going out on an ex and pushing myself, and learning how
> to lead.  I can‘t say that I am
> great at it, or even good at it, and lord knows, I have to get myself in better
> physical shape if I want to keep doing this -
> but I do it because it challanges me.  **** , I‘m a CA - and I‘ve been offered
> the finance clerk position at the unit - and
> I‘ve turned it down, because that‘s not why I‘m in the army.  And its not why my
> mates are in the army.
>
> Just my opinion.....
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
> it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
> review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
> in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 08:36:51 -0700*
Well we‘ve all myself included have bitched, whined and complained this
problem pretty much to death.  Lets turn our thoughts to getting inside the
decision making process of the enemy for lack of a better term - no
disloyalty intended.
What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would then
be asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider so
as to prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would
re-badge to a non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
It‘s not Angus Reid, but at least that way the decision makers would be
acting on positive data and debates on both sides would be centered around
real data and not merely the anecdotal evidence we see here -- in short we
have to get our collective poop grouped on this issue or we could be dog
meat.  
What‘s everyone think and who wants to start the pool on how long it takes
you-know-who to get back on his horse.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 12:49:51 -0800*
>Trouble is, "we" haven‘t been going to our MPs with anything in the way of
public backed support and that‘s why there is no money.
I think the money is there, if it‘s spent more efficiently.  Simply lobbying for
more money will achieve little when competing with health care and social
benefits lobbies.
Reserves 2000 is chiefly concerned with preserving the infantry and, to a lesser
extent, the armour.  There‘s nothing wrong with that, but it‘s something we
should not forget since it has caused them to situate their estimates - at
least, it stood out to me from between the lines when I read their proposal.  I
disagree with a few of their assumptions and deductions.
Much of the discussion has been triggered by the fear of wholesale
reorganization from combat arms to service support.  I think such an approach is
wrong, unless the project lifetime is 20  years.  In addition to the literal
problem of convincing soldiers to beat their rifles into wrenches, the service
support units and training system have to prove that they can increase the
numbers of CSS soldiers.  Reservists and regulars now take the same courses in
most logistical and maintenance trades, and the courses are long.  I speculate
that some of the reservists with time available to attend these courses are
unemployed.  How many are receiving enticements to undertake a component
transfer on completion of a course?  Right now, trading combat arms for CSS is
not an option since we are most likely to end up reinforcing failure, so to
speak.
I am content with the current funding I see at my own unit.  I am more concerned
that we sort out exactly what the Regular Force should be and fund it
adequately, while preserving existing reserve funding levels until such time as
we can approach reserve restructure knowing exactly what is needed to sustain,
complement, and augment the Regular Force.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:05:00 -0700*
So - what - did I scare everyone off with my suggestion?
I can usually count on someone taking issue with a post of mine -- or is
everyone still pondering the idea...
> -----Original Message-----
> Fromerrick Forsythe [SMTPerrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca]
> Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 8:37 AM
> To:‘army@cipherlogic.on.ca‘
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
> 
> Well we‘ve all myself included have bitched, whined and complained this
> problem pretty much to death.  Lets turn our thoughts to getting inside
> the
> decision making process of the enemy for lack of a better term - no
> disloyalty intended.
> 
> What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would
> then
> be asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider
> so
> as to prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would
> re-badge to a non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
> 
> It‘s not Angus Reid, but at least that way the decision makers would be
> acting on positive data and debates on both sides would be centered around
> real data and not merely the anecdotal evidence we see here -- in short we
> have to get our collective poop grouped on this issue or we could be dog
> meat.  
> 
> What‘s everyone think and who wants to start the pool on how long it takes
> you-know-who to get back on his horse.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:41:34 -0800*
>The proposals to date will not work because the structural conditions which
have lead to the weakening of the Army Reserve have not been discussed, and
little has been done to fix them.
Would anyone care to identify any structural conditions which have led to the
weakening of the reserves?  I have long wondered about the effect of direct
component transfers, for example.
>As many on this list have already observed, they joined their particular unit
because of the esprit de corps associated with their units
I think people join their unit because it is the only game in town, or in those
towns with multiple units, because it is the only one with the role of interest.
Regimental parochialism is something we instill after the fact.  It‘s
unfortunate that we insist on turning soldiers into regimental fanatics in
wartime an inability to work together will probably cost lives as it has in the
past.  CSS units are perfectly capable of instilling unit loyalty, if not branch
fanaticism.
We must learn to instill unit pride in such a way that it doesn‘t interfere with
cooperation between units, arms, and branches.
>Does anyone else find it odd that the proposals being floated by NDHQ for the
Reserve are similar to what has happened to the USAR?
Perhaps this is simply coincidence.  We lack CSS capability in both the reserve
and regular forces and there is a notable lack of CSS reservists employed in
trade as operational augmentees drivers being the exception.  From those two
facts one can easily conclude it might be a good idea to increase our reserve
CSS.
>how will the Army Reserve retain skilled applicants in the CSS once they
realize that the current AC/NC course structure caters to high school students
and not the skilled applicants.
This is the critical problem, and must be addressed before any reroling takes
place.
>With the senior positions at the centralized training establishments now mostly
held by Regs, the few opportunities left for reservists to learn the art of
command are at the Brigade HQ‘s.
"Art of command"?  That is a bit of a stretch, don‘t you think?  The training
schools and brigade HQs are all administrative organizations.  There‘s not much
command and leadership once you get past the platoon level.  Senior ranks would
benefit more from CPX, TEWTs, and so forth conducted within the scope of a
brigade.
>- Army Reserve units do not regularly conduct combined arms training.
This is difficult to do properly outside the scope of a concentration.  Once we
get used to mastering our core BTS and we must fight against BTS creep if we
are ever to reach a level at which combined arms activities are useful we can
train together.  In the past I‘ve seen some very lame attempts at combined arms
training which taught no useful lessons at all and in fact reinforced some
improper ones.
>all pursue their own unit training plans without co-ordination or co-operation
with each other - this within the context of Reserve Brigades.
Again, unless I‘m mistaken each reserve brigade exists purely for administrative
purposes to hold the gaggle of units in its geographical area together and
provide the requisite control and support.
>This has the net effect of encouraging parochialism.
I have observed parochialism being heavily overshadowed by simple unfamiliarity
with procedures and practices when different arms and services work together.
Parochialism mainly presents when two or more units of the same branch are
amalgamated into a single training element.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:47:56 -0800*
>Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular unit and
sticks with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia.  In fact I do recall
when the Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck from the
order of battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, the others
all retired, having lost their enthusiasm.
Am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Wherever this attitude exists, I can
only see that the soldiers involved are less interested in service to their
country or soldiering than they are in having their unit as a private social
club.
If and when reroling and amalgamations occur, I hope the leaders show some spine
and lead the soldiers into the new task rather than going home because they
don‘t like the change of venue.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:51:50 -0800*
>What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would then be
asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider so as to
prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would re-badge to a
non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
What we, collectively, need to do is decide whether we are soldiers or mess
members and lead accordingly to instill the idea that all army jobs are worth
doing and ensure soldiers are retained if and when change occurs.  The only
soldiers we should be losing are those who are 100 committed to a particular
trade, not to a particular unit.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:03:55 -0700*
I guess what I‘m saying Brad is that no one knows for sure what the impact
of re-badging will have on the rank and file membership ofthe Reserves as
presently constituted.  Sure it‘s great to lead - my question is will there
be anyone there following....in my trade without soldiers the guns we serve
will collect rust on a parade square.  Likewise developing intricate re-supp
and DP exercises are pointless if no one is there to load and drive the
trucks.
Until we have positive data on the question of what will be left in the wake
of any proposed re-structure any gnashing of teeth and waving of fists is
pointless.  The question is how best to gather that "hard data" if indeed
that is required.  Given the number of responses in this forum I would argue
some form of polling of existing and potential members of our Reserve Army
is required prior to implementation of any decision.
It‘s called informed leadership - maybe you heard of it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Bradley Sallows [SMTP:Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com]
> Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 2:52 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
> 
> 
> 
> >What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would
> then be
> asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider so
> as to
> prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would re-badge to
> a
> non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
> 
> What we, collectively, need to do is decide whether we are soldiers or
> mess
> members and lead accordingly to instill the idea that all army jobs are
> worth
> doing and ensure soldiers are retained if and when change occurs.  The
> only
> soldiers we should be losing are those who are 100 committed to a
> particular
> trade, not to a particular unit.
> 
> Brad Sallows
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:17:11 -0700*
Ted - you out there?
do you have an e-mail address for the Fraser Committee?  I wonder if
they have looked at the question of retention relative to a re-strucutre.
May prove interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ted Underhill and Heidi Schmidt <edward@IslandNet.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:53:32 -0800*
wait - out.
At 03:17 PM 3/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Ted - you out there?
>
>do you have an e-mail address for the Fraser Committee?  I wonder if
>they have looked at the question of retention relative to a re-strucutre.
>May prove interesting.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Patrick Cain <patrickcain@snappingturtle.net>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 17:52:00 -0500*
At 13:51 29/03/2000 -0800, Bradley Sallows wrote:
>
>What we, collectively, need to do is decide whether we are soldiers or mess
>members and lead accordingly to instill the idea that all army jobs are worth
>doing and ensure soldiers are retained if and when change occurs.  The only
>soldiers we should be losing are those who are 100 committed to a particular
>trade, not to a particular unit.
Well, maybe. In my own experience, morale and MOC were closely related. The
unit did one really interesting thing: some soldiers and officers got to
participate in it, and cam back from weekend exes all pumped and happy, and
others didn‘t, because of their capbadge. The effects on morale followed,
particularly for CSS officers and senior NCOs, who can‘t easily be slotted
into a combat-arms subunit structure. Log and EME officers got to go on
exercise annually at best. If you missed the concentration, that was it for
your training for the year, apart from Warrior. It wasn‘t surprising, under
the circumstances, that they went through supply officers with discouraging
regularity. Recruit, train, disillusion, process release. Repeat on an
18-month cycle.
Patrick Cain
voice: 416 539-0939
fax:    416 515-3698
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ted Underhill and Heidi Schmidt <edward@IslandNet.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:06:54 -0800*
A quick search of the DND website I was unable to find an email address for
the Fraser Committee.  Perhaps other list members know of it?
Chapter 7 of their report does deal with the reserves but not much
specifically about the problem of retention.
At 03:17 PM 3/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>Ted - you out there?
>
>do you have an e-mail address for the Fraser Committee?  I wonder if
>they have looked at the question of retention relative to a re-strucutre.
>May prove interesting.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:03:00 -0700*
It‘s an interesting question though - I mean what is the expected retention
rate my suspicion is it‘s "optimistic and can the Reserves fulfil their
mandate should the projections be inaccurate.  If not what then?
All good questions in my humble opinion.
Wyn - what do you think.
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Ted Underhill and Heidi Schmidt [SMTP:edward@islandnet.com]
> Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 4:07 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
> 
> A quick search of the DND website I was unable to find an email address
> for
> the Fraser Committee.  Perhaps other list members know of it?
> 
> Chapter 7 of their report does deal with the reserves but not much
> specifically about the problem of retention.
> 
> At 03:17 PM 3/29/2000 -0700, you wrote:
> >Ted - you out there?
> >
> >do you have an e-mail address for the Fraser Committee?  I wonder if
> >they have looked at the question of retention relative to a re-strucutre.
> >May prove interesting.
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> >to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> >message body.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Steve Kuervers" <skuervers@HOTMAIL.COM>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:50:52 PST*
Well said Bradley.  I think many of us and by us I mean Officers and NCO‘s 
of the Reserve Force are so busy complaining about the system NOT working 
that we forget that sometimes we have to make the system work despite 
itself.
It‘s amazing how often a bit of thought and consultation can give us a 
method of forcing the system to work.
I guess the thing to note here... we are all Soldiers first... not 
politicians, and although a few on this list might be ‘in the know‘, the 
majority of us have a very simple yet significant job to do.  That is 
‘soldier-on‘.  We follow the orders issued, with loyalty, upwards and 
downwards as we were taught.
I honestly believe in the Reserves and the Regular Force, but I don‘t 
believe the current system works properly.  To fix it is going to take 
political and higher level military decisions that may make some of us 
unhappy.
But realistically, take a look around.  Can any of us, Reg or Reserve 
actually say that our current situation is viable?  We need more money, more 
equipment, and more soldiers.  But us ‘peons‘ can‘t make these things 
happen!  Those of you on this list that don‘t currently or may never have 
worn a uniform can act to help us through whatever connections you have.  
Those of us in uniform will make it work because WE HAVE NO CHOICE.  It is 
is OUR JOB, whether reserve or regular force.
I hope that those leaders out there remember this.  Bitching is all well and 
fine, but remember the time and place to do so.
Steve
Now I‘ll get down from my high horse.
>From: "Bradley Sallows" 
>Reply-To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
>To: army@cipherlogic.on.ca
>Subject: RE: Reserve Restructure
>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:51:50 -0800
>
>
>
> >What if we were to, collectively, generate a clear question that would 
>then be
>asked to the members of our respective units hopefully by an outsider so 
>as to
>prevent a charge of mutiny to determine how many troops would re-badge to 
>a
>non-combat arms unit if directed to do so by DND.
>
>What we, collectively, need to do is decide whether we are soldiers or mess
>members and lead accordingly to instill the idea that all army jobs are 
>worth
>doing and ensure soldiers are retained if and when change occurs.  The only
>soldiers we should be losing are those who are 100 committed to a 
>particular
>trade, not to a particular unit.
>
>Brad Sallows
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at  http://www.hotmail.com 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:06:48 -0800*
>It‘s called informed leadership - maybe you heard of it.
I understand your point and agree the information has value.  I don‘t see why
simple information gathering should be seen as disloyal or mutinous.  However,
if it‘s not done carefully and with absolute clarity of intent, imagine the
rumours that might start in response to questions about reroling and
amalgamation.  Consider what has already been achieved with LFRR evaluations.
Knowing the results of such a survey would place the commanders in an unusual
position.  Are they to bend to the desire of the majority of soldiers in
determining the structure of the reserves?
It‘s only after reading the messages of the last couple of days that I have
thought perhaps leaders have a responsibility to start reigning in parochialism
and promoting a culture of all-arms and inter-unit cooperation.  This is a
positive end regardless whether any restructure takes place.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:29:55 -0800*
>In my own experience, morale and MOC were closely related.
The problem you describe marginalized CSS soldiers seems to be one which
plagues any combat or combat support unit right now, and is not likely to be
affected one way or the other by reroling.  Unless they are being run into the
ground by poor officers, I don‘t think CSS units have a morale problem with
being who they are - presumably their soldiers want to be there.
The restructure morale problem at its most extreme is whether an infantry unit
could be reroled to CSS without every soldier releasing in disgust.  It‘s a
serious consideration, but it‘s still well behind the immediate concern of
determining whether the system is capable of ramping up the size of existing CSS
units.  Until we‘ve proven we can recruit, train, and retain volumes of
maintainers, logisticians, medics, and so forth, why even consider reroling a
single unit?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <forsythe@tic.ab.ca>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:21:43 -0700*
It‘s not a question of bending to the will - it‘s the question of will the
decision meet the aim.  If the position is the Reserve army has to be
re-structured to a CSS-type role to be effective in the larger picture a
position I do not hold then so be it.
However if the impact of that decision is to see 50-75 hypothetical
numbers turn in their kit AND have a negative impact on future recruitment
then the decision makers should probably look at other options.
My concern is we have a narrow focus at the top that accuents the positives
and disregards elements or potential downstream consequences. 
My assertion is that if the powers that be proceed and this blows up with
something like the numbers above leaving we are in a world of hurt because
most of that experience will not come back if the decision is reversed and a
lot of valuable talent, experience and, yes, dollars has gone straight down
the tubes.
It‘s a question of looking beyond the trees at the larger forest.  I, for
one, will do my job as a soldier, however, I will contine to question
direction that I believe is questionable - that is my JOB and RESPONSIBILITY
to the people that, in my opinion, count the most - the soldiers under my
command.
your point on inter-unit cooperation is well taken - we always take drivers
and medics from the Svc BN and Med Coy - we supply FOOs to the infantry and
tankers - there is even the notion of bringing some of them to the hill to
practice indirect fire drills live.
Our curreny Brigade Commander is keen on this stuff - good on him
let‘s hope it continues

At 04:06 PM 29/03/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>>It‘s called informed leadership - maybe you heard of it.
>
>I understand your point and agree the information has value.  I don‘t see why
>simple information gathering should be seen as disloyal or mutinous.  However,
>if it‘s not done carefully and with absolute clarity of intent, imagine the
>rumours that might start in response to questions about reroling and
>amalgamation.  Consider what has already been achieved with LFRR evaluations.
>
>Knowing the results of such a survey would place the commanders in an unusual
>position.  Are they to bend to the desire of the majority of soldiers in
>determining the structure of the reserves?
>
>It‘s only after reading the messages of the last couple of days that I have
>thought perhaps leaders have a responsibility to start reigning in parochialism
>and promoting a culture of all-arms and inter-unit cooperation.  This is a
>positive end regardless whether any restructure takes place.
>
>Brad Sallows
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:41:42 -0700*
Derrick, although I don‘t believe we‘ve ever met, I‘ve noticed we share
alot of similar views...must be the field arty school mentality that is
drilled into you during ph trg!
Two points: First for the Res F to be valid it must have a mission not
the moronic bureaucratic mantra of recruit, train, retain, it must be
resourced adequately, and it must "fit into the army org puzzle".  We
are currently missing all three in the Res F.  I think we all agree the
militia is too bulky, bureaucratic and stale and needs to be reorg...but
what is the answer?  While I admire R2000, I don‘t think they necessary
represent the right view in terms of a role for the Res F they seem to
be too fixated on the mobilization plan.  Reality is the youth/society
of today are not as interested in a part time military career.  There
are lots of reasons for it, however, suffice it to say a lot of people
don‘t even know there are army folks up at Steele Barracks.
Secondly, careful how you conduct yourself in terms of questioning
direction that you are given.  Yes you are responsible to your troops,
however, you are also responsible to your superiors for a certain amount
of faith that they have the best interests of the Res F in mind.  I
don‘t think you meant your comment in this way, however, questioning all
direction you don‘t agree with, will make you a poor gun position
officer.  Sometimes we simply have to say...you want the battery in that
group of trees...are you sure?...then lets‘ do it!  If you impose your
will on your subordinates, you will make them do what you want
unquestionably.  
Lastly, I really like your Bde Comd, he was the CI MCSC when I went
through and although I didn‘t agree with him all the time, he had the
best interests of the Res F in his heart...he will do some very good
things for 41 CBG whether you want to or not.
Gunner sends....
Derrick Forsythe wrote:
> 
> It‘s not a question of bending to the will - it‘s the question of will the
> decision meet the aim.  If the position is the Reserve army has to be
> re-structured to a CSS-type role to be effective in the larger picture a
> position I do not hold then so be it.
> 
> However if the impact of that decision is to see 50-75 hypothetical
> numbers turn in their kit AND have a negative impact on future recruitment
> then the decision makers should probably look at other options.
> 
> My concern is we have a narrow focus at the top that accuents the positives
> and disregards elements or potential downstream consequences.
> 
> My assertion is that if the powers that be proceed and this blows up with
> something like the numbers above leaving we are in a world of hurt because
> most of that experience will not come back if the decision is reversed and a
> lot of valuable talent, experience and, yes, dollars has gone straight down
> the tubes.
> 
> It‘s a question of looking beyond the trees at the larger forest.  I, for
> one, will do my job as a soldier, however, I will contine to question
> direction that I believe is questionable - that is my JOB and RESPONSIBILITY
> to the people that, in my opinion, count the most - the soldiers under my
> command.
> 
> your point on inter-unit cooperation is well taken - we always take drivers
> and medics from the Svc BN and Med Coy - we supply FOOs to the infantry and
> tankers - there is even the notion of bringing some of them to the hill to
> practice indirect fire drills live.
> 
> Our curreny Brigade Commander is keen on this stuff - good on him
> let‘s hope it continues
> 
> 
> At 04:06 PM 29/03/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It‘s called informed leadership - maybe you heard of it.
> >
> >I understand your point and agree the information has value.  I don‘t see why
> >simple information gathering should be seen as disloyal or mutinous.  However,
> >if it‘s not done carefully and with absolute clarity of intent, imagine the
> >rumours that might start in response to questions about reroling and
> >amalgamation.  Consider what has already been achieved with LFRR evaluations.
> >
> >Knowing the results of such a survey would place the commanders in an unusual
> >position.  Are they to bend to the desire of the majority of soldiers in
> >determining the structure of the reserves?
> >
> >It‘s only after reading the messages of the last couple of days that I have
> >thought perhaps leaders have a responsibility to start reigning in parochialism
> >and promoting a culture of all-arms and inter-unit cooperation.  This is a
> >positive end regardless whether any restructure takes place.
> >
> >Brad Sallows
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> >to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> >message body.
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 18:38:50 -0800*
Being a member of a reserve regiment is exactly like a social club.  A
soldier can spend his entire Militia career in the same unit, going to the
same mess with the same people, for years and years.  They don‘t get posted
away to other units, or posted to out of trade positions.  Many join the
same unit that their fathers and grand-fathers did.  They also have an
entire other life, their job or educational pursuits.  Many join a combat
arms unit because of extreme physical challenges it offers.  They do it as a
hobby, something that takes up their spare time.  They serve their country
in the time a regular force soldier takes off as holidays.  I don‘t think
you really want to doubt their motivation, just because they have esprit de
corps and pride in their units.  Of course they are loyal to their
Regiments, that is who they joined.
By the way, many a former reserve soldier died serving his country, while
being a member of the Regiment he joined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley Sallows" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> >Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular unit
and
> sticks with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia.  In fact I do
recall
> when the Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck
from the
> order of battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, the
others
> all retired, having lost their enthusiasm.
>
> Am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Wherever this attitude exists,
I can
> only see that the soldiers involved are less interested in service to
their
> country or soldiering than they are in having their unit as a private
social
> club.
>
> If and when reroling and amalgamations occur, I hope the leaders show some
spine
> and lead the soldiers into the new task rather than going home because
they
> don‘t like the change of venue.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ted Underhill and Heidi Schmidt <edward@IslandNet.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 19:35:09 -0800*
Gunner wrote:
>for the Res F to be valid it must have a mission not
>the moronic bureaucratic mantra of recruit, train, retain, it must be
>resourced adequately, and it must "fit into the army org puzzle".  We
>are currently missing all three in the Res F.  I think we all agree the
>militia is too bulky, bureaucratic and stale and needs to be reorg...but
>what is the answer?  
Well said.  Once again, any attempt to restructure the Army Reserve must be
contemplated within a complete reorg of the Regular Army.  The Regular Army
must determine what roles it is realisticaly going to be able to fulfil
given limited funding, few numbers, and many committments.  Despite what
the White Paper of 94 states, I believe that the Regular Army cannot meet
all of the committments presently required of it.  Perhaps this means
giving up certain capabilities in order to equip and train for more
specialized roles.  Lets recognize that as an army we can no longer afford
to equip ourselves with the latest kit in a mechanized environment. As a
result, the Regular Army and by extension the Res F - but due to chronic
underfunding and equipment shortages the Res F already trains in the light
role may have to equip as light brigades across the board.  As much as I
would hate to see my corps give up the M109 isn‘t about time to admit that
we can no longer maintain them to deploy in significant numbers, and it is
increasingly less likely that the Royal Regiment will receive modern
replacements. 
This type of brutal realism must be applied to all corps within the Army,
and then once achievable roles have been settled on, then contemplate
concurrentrestructure of the reserve.  There are certainly things that
the CF could do for the Army Reserve to make it easier to recruit, train
and retain but I don‘t think it requires a drastic measures to achieve that
end. 
The Ministers Monitoring Committee on Change recommends in Chap7 that Op
Red Tape be applied to the Reserve Force. Why not?  I‘m all in favour of
reducing/rationalizing the number of reports and returns required for
submission to various HQ‘s.  Everyone on this list can think of processes
which with a little tweaking could become more streamlined and reduce the
aggravation and improve morale within the Res F.
Do we need reserve restructure?  Not before regular force restructure.
Cheers, Ted Underhill
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
>to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
>message body.
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Wyn van der Schee <vandersw@cadvision.com>* on *Wed, 29 Mar 2000 21:32:23 -0700*
Thanks for all the interest shown by members of this newsgroup in the
subject of reserve restructuring during the past few days. I am not going
to try to rebut particular points with which I disagree but rather I want
to present a broad overview of what I think Reserves 2000- is trying to
accomplish.
The urgent matter at the moment is to let politicians know that there are
constituents out there who think the Reserves are important, and that if
the new Fraser  Report should be given favourable consideration. I‘m
assuming for a number of reasons that the report will propose a "better
deal" for the Militia. The immediate issue is not in the details of how
much more money the Militia needs, or how to keep people in, or how to
train them, or even what kinds of units are needed. The issue is that if
something is not done immediately to start the revitalization process, the
whole organization will collapse.
The revitalization would include a whole range of actions, including an
admission that militia members can not be trained to Regular standards at
every level and an accompanying change to individual training standards, an
easing of the barriers to transfer between components, provision of
opportunities to train beyond rifleman or equivalent level, and all the
other improvements that have been suggested on this net for the past two
days.
But, the start has to come from NDHQ with a change in attitude on the part
of the senior officers. The VCDS has already demonstrated, by his proposal
for wholesale conversions to CSS, that he has absolutely no understanding
of how the Militia works.  Instead of disbanding a unit when it runs into
trouble, there has to be a willingness to look at other avenues such as
working with the community to solve recruiting and strength problems,
linking community institutions with the unit, providing additional full
time training and administration help to get the unit back on its feet,
relocation, conversion, different tasking, etc. Let us by all means have
CSS units in the Militia but not at the expense of combat arms units. We do
not have enough of these as it is for Stage 3 mobilization. It is ironic,
incidentally, that while the VCDS is pushing service support roles for the
Militia, a disproportionate number of Service Battalions were listed as
unviable in the latest unit evaluations. However, that is a function of not
having meaningful training, roles and tasks for individuals and units in
this area of activity
What DND does not realize is how much it needs the Militia and that it
needs the Militia in as many communities as possible across the country.
The Militia is needed even more now that the Army Regulars have holed up in
about four large bases and a couple of smaller ones across the country away
from the centres of population. Most Canadians seldom see a soldier. The
sad fact is that the Armed Forces has become disconnected from just about
every level and segment of Canadian society . The only way the connection
can be re-established is by having as many people as possible serve as
part-time soldiers it would cost too much to accomplish the goal with
Regulars. And, the reason the connection is needed is so that Canadians
will have enough knowledge to express confident opinions on defence issue
to politicians, with the hoped-for result that we will finally get a
Canadian defence policy that looks beyond next week. Brad would call that
hyperbolic, but you understand what I mean.
Once the Militia is re-established as a viable force across the country,
then it can be used for whatever the defence planners want. They can be
used as individual up to sub-unit augmentation for follow-on task groups
overseas, for m short service units for UN or NATO standby, or be tasked
for assistance to the civil authority as individuals or complete units. The
point is that the Militia is a reserve army, but it needs to have the
resources to fulfill that role. Otherwise we may just as well disband the
whole damned works. The patient is critically ill but might recover with
proper treatment.
I would urge readers again to get mail-in cards from local units, and send
them to the PM, MND and local MP.  Add what ever views you have on the
card. Politicians need to know what is going on but you have to tell them
I have to withdraw from this debate for a couple of weeks while I complete
a longish term paper, on the regimental system by the way, and prepare for
a final exam in military anthropology, but I will try to follow the
postings. I‘ll be back during the third week of April.
Wyn van der Schee
Calgary
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com* on *Thu, 30 Mar 2000 09:48:29 -0500*
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 13:47:56 -0800
From: "Bradley Sallows" 
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>>Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular unit and
>>sticks with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia.  In fact I do
recall
>>when the Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck from
the
>>order of battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, the
others
>>all retired, having lost their enthusiasm.
>Am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Wherever this attitude exists, I
can
>only see that the soldiers involved are less interested in service to their
>country or soldiering than they are in having their unit as a private social
>club.
>If and when reroling and amalgamations occur, I hope the leaders show some
spine
>and lead the soldiers into the new task rather than going home because they
>don‘t like the change of venue.
>Brad Sallows
Brad,
I think the point being made here is about converting the combat arms regiments
into CSS.  For the
record, if the power-that-be decided to amalgamate infantry units for the
record, there are at least 5
infantry units in Montreal, more including Laval, depending on how they do it,
it may not be such a bad thing.
Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch above
the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
and I know some officers who would prefer to be a proper battalion commander
than a CO of a glorified platoon calling itself a
company in a notional regiment.  I know in the UK, the City of London Regiment
consists of 4 very different companies, one highland, and each
company is like its own mini-regiment.  We could follow that model, and not lose
the regimental identities just an idea.  Preserving regimental
identities is a strength of our system, not a weakness .
If the infantry units were united as a common regiment, there would be some
problems, and I know a number of people who would walk.
Not the entire mens mess, perhaps, but definately some senior NCO‘s, most of the
the senior officers.  A large number of the "kids" would
properly stay on, though.  I won‘t get into the innumberable other problems now
of retiring the Black Watch,
CGG, Maissoneuves, and FMR for some bland amalgamation unit inevitiable, I
suppose it would be 4  22‘ieme
- there would, at the very least, be a huge  loss for the reserves in Montreal,
both in PR value and in history.
However, I take great exception to you‘re calling the mess a "private social
club".  For the record, as VPMC of the Mens‘ Mess, we have exactly
the opposite problem - no one really drinks anymore, after an ex everyone clears
out, to their books, their wives, their lives.  NO ONE is here for the
social side.  Believe me, I have a much better time with my two year old.  And
if we were  no longer in the combat arms, well, I may work overtime at my civvy
job and sacrifice time with my kids to go out and dig a trench, go on patrol,
defend a position, etc, but I am not going to do so in order to wash someones
laundry, or to take care of showers, or to deliver mail.  No one in my mess will
either, and if that makes me and them bad soldiers and bad Canadians in your
eyes, than so be it.
James Hanna
Nemo me impune lacessit.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Thu, 30 Mar 2000 12:55:51 -0800*
>It‘s not a question of bending to the will - it‘s the question of will the
decision meet the aim.
I only half meant the question about bending to the will of the majority when
I asked it.  I too think it would be folly to ignore the probable adverse
effects of reroling on retention.  If I haven‘t been clear before, I reiterate
that I think simple widespread reroling is fraught with danger.
Wyn‘s basic theme of sounding out the politicians is good.  I believe one of the
chief reasons Fraser‘s committee was formed was because MND wanted all the
information instead of a different spin from each lobby, and therefore I don‘t
think there is much concern that the report will be overlooked.  Thus, we do
need to question what we are saying to politicians to ensure it is objective.
Unsubstantiated claims and scaremongering will destroy our credibility.
I‘m not convinced we are on the verge of collapse.  There is already de facto
admission that reserves can‘t all be trained to regular standards, otherwise all
my courses would be longer and there would be more of them to attend.  I can‘t
imagine the barriers to component transfer being much lower than they are right
now.  Opportunities to train beyond rifleman or equivalent level already exist,
or we wouldn‘t have any trade progression.  The funding my unit receives
directly and via brigade financial codes is adequate for weekly evening parades
from September through May, 4 or 5 weekend exercises, 3 or 4 weekend training
days, and a week-long concentration.  Most soldiers aren‘t willing to give up
much more of their free time.  The resources my unit has to train have in most
respects increased, not decreased, since the supposed golden years of the late
1980‘s.  It‘s not the current state of the reserves that is a problem, but
rather some of the visions of the future.  The only weakness I can identify
right now is the apparent shortfall of summer training courses.
I was intimately involved with preparing my unit‘s final viability report and
spent the year prior managing its budget we "passed".  There are several
innocent reasons why healthy units could score non-viable while some marginal
ones scored viable, not to mention the state of units prior to the 3 year
evaluation period.  LFRR evaluation should simply be an indicator that perhaps a
unit should undergo a detailed audit to determine where it stands and what
assistance it might need.  LFRR viability listings for now would be most
appropriately used if spliced onto the end of a roll of tissue paper.
>Instead of disbanding a unit when it runs into trouble, there has to be a
willingness to look at other avenues
Absolutely.  We can‘t stress enough the difficulty of overcoming even a small
reduction in personnel.  Effective soldiers are easily lost and difficult to
replace.
>What DND does not realize is how much it needs the Militia and that it needs
the Militia in as many communities as possible across the country.
Also true.
>with the hoped-for result that we will finally get a Canadian defence policy
that looks beyond next week. Brad would call that hyperbolic
Hyperbole is when one makes a comment such as "DND is trying its best to
demolish units or trying to turn them into platoons of second line gas station
attendants" in the absence of any objective evidence.  See my comment above
about destroying our credibility.
>Once the Militia is re-established as a viable force across the country
What exactly will constitute a viable force?  Most militia units have consisted
of a single mission element one size down from the nominal unit size as long as
I can remember.  Have we therefore always been a non-viable force?  I don‘t
believe the militia will ever be expected to provide any augmentation other than
individual unless we are mobilized by law, and I think we have managed to meet
augmentation needs to date.  For Stage 1 and 2 mobilization needs we are
probably already a viable force.
>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch above
the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is usually to
identify the numbers of "extras" by rank.  A unit with more than 2 majors is
probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed upon us
require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs.  I can‘t imagine
how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to doing
everything on Class A time.  All my real work is done on my own time.  If all
those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element free
to concentrate on training.  In my estimation a unit must recruit between 6 and
10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line.  The other thing to
remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage 3 and
4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight.  I think it
better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting on the
nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
>However, I take great exception to you‘re calling the mess a "private social
club".
I didn‘t specifically mean the mess.  I meant the attitude that develops in
which a person decides "I‘m  or I‘m nothing", which
disappoints me.  There‘s nothing wrong with being committed to infantry or any
other trade I just think it would be productive if we leaders promulgate the
attitude that soldiering in another trade might be OK.  I agree that it‘s a real
stretch to expect combat arms to convert to CSS.  Reality dictates that we can
succeed if we only move a little ways over to say, engineers.
My own idea: given the increasing importance of information on the battlefield,
we should consider marrying up some recce and infantry units into armoured
cavalry units - lots of trades that get to blow things up.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *james.hanna@ca.pwcglobal.com* on *Thu, 30 Mar 2000 18:56:05 -0500*
>>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch above
>>the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
>When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is usually to
>identify the numbers of "extras" by rank.  A unit with more than 2 majors is
>probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
>TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed upon
us
>require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs.  I can‘t
imagine
>how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to doing
>everything on Class A time.  All my real work is done on my own time.  If all
>those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element free
>to concentrate on training.  In my estimation a unit must recruit between 6 and
>10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line.  The other thing
to
>remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage 3 and
>4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight.  I think
it
>better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting on the
>nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
I wasn‘t complaining about the "head shed" per say, it was merely an observation
that in
Montreal, we happen to have 5 BOR‘s, 5 CO‘s, 5 RGMS, 5 RSM‘s etc, each dealing
with a unit
that is barely company size.  An idea floated around 3-4 years ago would be to
maintain the
unit identities, but downgrade their official status to company size.  For
example, in my unit,
we would have a CQ instead of an RQMS....well, I‘m sure you get the picture.
The other officers and senior NCO‘s wouldn‘t disappear - the idea then called
for a battalion HQ
to be formed, which would directly command all the companies.  There would be
the resources
to do all the other jobs necessary for the mission element to do its job.
Senior officers and NCO‘s would float
around in the battalion structure.
Now, I remember a major in our unit stating he would prefer to command a working
battalion as a
real commander, than being the CO of our unit, which is a mostly
admin/ceremonial type role.
This isn‘t an idea which would be restricted to larger cities: a similar
reorganization could be made incorporating
units from several smaller towns.  Perhaps towns which no longer have units
could support a platoon - which
would bring us back into the community, as another writer mentioned.
Now, its just an idea, I don‘t know if it would work, or if there are some
weaknesses with it: I‘m not advocating it or defending it,
 I really don‘t have the experience or knowledge to assess it critically
especially in this forum, but I thought it was a neat way
of squaring the circle:  maintaining regimental identies, while trying to find a
more viable militia structure.
>>However, I take great exception to you‘re calling the mess a "private social
>>club".
>I didn‘t specifically mean the mess.  I meant the attitude that develops in
>which a person decides "I‘m  or I‘m nothing", which
>disappoints me.  There‘s nothing wrong with being committed to infantry or any
>other trade I just think it would be productive if we leaders promulgate
the
>attitude that soldiering in another trade might be OK.  I agree that it‘s a
real
>stretch to expect combat arms to convert to CSS.  Reality dictates that we can
>succeed if we only move a little ways over to say, engineers.
>My own idea: given the increasing importance of information on the battlefield,
>we should consider marrying up some recce and infantry units into armoured
>cavalry units - lots of trades that get to blow things up.
>Brad Sallows
----------------------------------------------------------------
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which
it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material.  Any
review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action
in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received this in error, please
contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com>* on *Thu, 30 Mar 2000 21:24:47 -0500*
At 06:56 PM 3/30/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>>Personally, the fact we have a whole level of people in the Black Watch
above
>>>the A Coy level is an administrative burden,
>
>>When someone complains about the "head shed", my first question is
usually to
>>identify the numbers of "extras" by rank.  A unit with more than 2 majors is
>>probably overborne at that rank if it has a single company, but until Op RED
>>TAPE bears fruit for the militia the administrative requirements imposed
upon
>us
>>require significant numbers of junior officers and senior NCOs.  I can‘t
>imagine
>>how many more people my unit would need if we all restricted ourselves to
doing
>>everything on Class A time.  All my real work is done on my own time.  If
all
>>those extra helpers are doing their jobs, that leaves the mission element
free
>>to concentrate on training.  In my estimation a unit must recruit between
6 and
>>10 OCdts to obtain one trained Capt somewhere down the line.  The other
thing
>to
>>remember is that if we are serious about preparing to expand during Stage
3 and
>>4 mobilization, majors and warrant officers are not grown overnight.  I
think
>it
>>better to have the extras pulling some weight in a unit HQ than sitting
on the
>>nominal roll of a training cadre organization.
>
>I wasn‘t complaining about the "head shed" per say, it was merely an
observation
>that in
>Montreal, we happen to have 5 BOR‘s, 5 CO‘s, 5 RGMS, 5 RSM‘s etc, each
dealing
>with a unit
>that is barely company size.  An idea floated around 3-4 years ago would
be to
>maintain the
>unit identities, but downgrade their official status to company size.  For
>example, in my unit,
>we would have a CQ instead of an RQMS....well, I‘m sure you get the picture.
>The other officers and senior NCO‘s wouldn‘t disappear - the idea then called
>for a battalion HQ
>to be formed, which would directly command all the companies.  There would be
>the resources
>to do all the other jobs necessary for the mission element to do its job.
>Senior officers and NCO‘s would float
>around in the battalion structure.
>
>Now, I remember a major in our unit stating he would prefer to command a
working
>battalion as a
>real commander, than being the CO of our unit, which is a mostly
>admin/ceremonial type role.
>
>This isn‘t an idea which would be restricted to larger cities: a similar
>reorganization could be made incorporating
>units from several smaller towns.  Perhaps towns which no longer have units
>could support a platoon - which
>would bring us back into the community, as another writer mentioned.
>
>Now, its just an idea, I don‘t know if it would work, or if there are some
>weaknesses with it: I‘m not advocating it or defending it,
> I really don‘t have the experience or knowledge to assess it critically
>especially in this forum, but I thought it was a neat way
>of squaring the circle:  maintaining regimental identies, while trying to
find a
>more viable militia structure.
>
Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises
when the composite battalions are formed?
If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t
it work as an administrative structure as well?
Thinking out loud.
Mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:50:31 -0800*
>Fundamentally, isn‘t the concept of reserve units fielding subunits under a
composite unit HQ already taking place for collective training exercises when
the composite battalions are formed?
>If it has become an accepted method for collective training, why wouldn‘t it
work as an administrative structure as well?
It works in the former instance because the units revert to their individual
identities and control after the exercise.  In practice, what can happen after
amalgamations is that members of one former unit gradually dominate the command
structure of the amalgamated unit and if they are not wholly fair, they can and
do stifle the less well-represented elements.
For example, in at least one case allegedly there were ongoing feuds between
transport and maintenance officers for years after various companies were
amalgamated into a service battalion.  This is hearsay, but hearsay from some
who were there at the time.
It can work provided we rise above the temptation to favour our own in the wake
of any amalgamation.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"S. Brent Warne" <sbw@netidea.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:15:15 -0800*
Dave
You hit the nail on the head  pretty good for a thumperhead !! .
The regular army has forgotten their roots since integration.  In the 
old days, soldiers joined regiments and corps and stayed there for most 
of their military life.  They advanced through the ranks to assume 
higher and higher responsibility or if they were duds, they were shunted 
to dead-end positions or out of the regiment.  The worst scenario for a 
regular was to have been shunned by his or her regiment or corps.  They 
usually got out very quickly after that.
Take this to the reserve restructure model that we are pursuing and one 
cannot help but be concerned about the soldiers of units who will be 
amalgamated/reverted to SOB.  They joined a particular unit and stay 
with their regiment or corps most of their lives.  They have intense 
pride in their capbadge and will likely not be interested in 
transferring.  Yes, of course some will.  But the majority will leave, 
because they want to be with their buddies/mess/traditions.
We are facing the same questions with the ARE  Army Reserve 
Establishment .  You will notice that most units no longer have 
positions for mech‘s, medics and other support trades.  These people 
join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a member of the 
Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
Hopefully Col Fraser and his committee will be able to bring some sense 
to the restructure process and we retain the best traditions and members 
of the reserve.
CHIMO
-----Original Message-----
From:dave newcombe [SMTP:davebo@seaside.net]
Sent:Wednesday, March 29, 2000 6:39 PM
To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
Subject:Re: Reserve Restructure
Being a member of a reserve regiment is exactly like a social club.  A
soldier can spend his entire Militia career in the same unit, going to 
the
same mess with the same people, for years and years.  They don‘t get 
posted
away to other units, or posted to out of trade positions.  Many join the
same unit that their fathers and grand-fathers did.  They also have an
entire other life, their job or educational pursuits.  Many join a 
combat
arms unit because of extreme physical challenges it offers.  They do it 
as a
hobby, something that takes up their spare time.  They serve their 
country
in the time a regular force soldier takes off as holidays.  I don‘t 
think
you really want to doubt their motivation, just because they have esprit 
de
corps and pride in their units.  Of course they are loyal to their
Regiments, that is who they joined.
By the way, many a former reserve soldier died serving his country, 
while
being a member of the Regiment he joined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley Sallows" 
To: 
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> >Very well said, it is the essence of why anyone joins a particular 
unit
and
> sticks with it, it is the driving force behind the Militia.  In fact I 
do
recall
> when the Victoria Rifles One of Canada‘s Oldest Regiments was struck
from the
> order of battle, of the members of the unit, only 10 went to another, 
the
others
> all retired, having lost their enthusiasm.
>
> Am I the only one who sees a problem here?  Wherever this attitude 
exists,
I can
> only see that the soldiers involved are less interested in service to
their
> country or soldiering than they are in having their unit as a private
social
> club.
>
> If and when reroling and amalgamations occur, I hope the leaders show 
some
spine
> and lead the soldiers into the new task rather than going home because
they
> don‘t like the change of venue.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.
eJ8 IhEVAQaQCAAEAAAAAAABAAEAAQeQBgAIAAAA5AQAAAAAAADoAAEIgAcAGAAAAElQTS5NaWNy
b3NvZnQgTWFpbC5Ob3RlADEIAQ2ABAACAAAAAgACAAEEkAYAtAEAAAEAAAAQAAAAAwAAMAIAAAAL
AA8OAAAAAAIB/w8BAAAASwAAAAAAAACBKx kvqMQGZ1uAN0BD1QCAAAAAGFybXlAY2lwaGVybG9n
aWMub24uY2EAU01UUABhcm15QGNpcGhlcmxvZ2ljLm9uLmNhAAAeAAIwAQAAAAUAAABTTVRQAAAA
AB4AAzABAAAAFwAAAGFybXlAY2lwaGVybG9naWMub24uY2EAAAMAFQwBAAAAAwD DwYAAAAeAAEw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 bQMQF7AK
wBmgJdBmZe8gARxBGaAZAHYAcB8gJBIxA2B1Z2gX0x gbmt5BCB0bxpABBAakBjBaZ8n4ASQItMp
VQlwc3ACIP0AkGIlwhmgBbEGkBfSGaBidyRSZHVkIREryHO/GoAfYSQRKMABABkALQnw/xkQKqAA
kB/CBCAFsQhgJQb/IjcmhCwABbAk8QTwCfAKwPcf0BoFHIZ3HWEosQ AFoDcIGIJ4S1TIgJiHTEE
AL8rUio0ImQrUiMjJoZ1KQB9B0BsGaIlAS BFoAmEXHQdWljazcxYQGAKZHPF AfsBt7G VhaxgA
F BvNLEosS/kD7ByM3EqcXT6chSAdAhwGAAEYgMgORJ3LAEc8RgAcAhwKQALgGfXItMCIBgAYwBw
bjdxF/D8bHAzkC BM6AjER8RBKD/IhEBoC9yF IhRyUhLYAXsHkEIHdoKMAD8DcgP/Jh2QDAbGdD
US2hLwlwN HxLaVTT0ImhiHVGlAKsf0fwGMcs0IyI3dCwRfgHib/NW4kzSXQFoA2VzNTH1IAgD89
0QUQAQAfQR4lPwBwYv0ZAGc9kSLxQtMl0DqgNzF/PzJAAR9SPBIiEUxSKFFz3SZgcgUQFXAgAVkH
kCEgfyUhBaA AUFSKSFC0iABQv9BBQDAIdAFEBmRTbQY8BaA/yEgM6A/ADbgOrIr4gBwF8EvKMBA
AUepP8BkIXFzL78HgVbAT8EhcC7jG3tXPZT ZgDQPkJBM0NQGAA4MDwh5y7zR6YP8FJFGSEHEB0h
ulI7pUUjwQJgBABoNZP/G2BQkRdxQtM/MThQOrI9Uf8k00I0PzAmMAIgTUA08TNi5y6oJJMFkGgn
IREHgCFw3mMixB3QKYIpAHAqoAAgz0 yAQA2VUvCZW8LUBgA2yHSQiUtTmYFoG8ogWE5/z/CH6Ep
glVUGlAHgAbQKZFvL7UGYDiwCRFoUOEFwEX/FXAh8UHDMsE5IUQiSE8okftFRht7SGSAARAcsDcx
CFB9AyBGH6A7sSm1BCAFoG3/JbAd4VHUQxMCYDqxVWFQQr9RlA wS7I7KDxHEUBvHyD/BBFNcxxi
AZBMVDORJPFXOB8i02hUQeM7WRt7Q0hJPE1POW8KkwswJdAzNn8BQBUQAUBzkR3wPHAQhDH2NmVw
fBJPBRBqIQdABdD9VvFhTUB8ExameyR68QsTwXsmaS0xNDQBQCXQuDE4MAFADNB/s2JusfUDcDoM
g2IP4CDgM3EiAAZ3b7FAAVtTTVRQdjqB0gbgQA wHWBMES75IgB0XRalgOAGYAIwgUe1WKBkIgBz
IOEhIE0KwHEPcCAyOSEgAdCAQCCANjozOSBQTYRHrFRvgUcdAkBZMHAkQXMJACJgYy4f4T8AhEh1
3GJqe1GBR1vwOlvnW/FfPEZ9v37KenQVUjQVkDX7C6cWs0IeUD5SaEkyQju20zV1NLFleADQdDcx
TgKvGkEhQFkwfMFjCkBiIAH QRakIUU 8h7gGrBvRSKR x5gGABNJcIHMD7xCdErcf8YhFnDQjIh
IBnAWUM7M5VF/1nSVuJaqFnDZGQhIBoSI/CvD5Ei05zjJoZkAiAnBUDfTUAFQC6hLaEWpGEy4Bmg
/yixYpRCM2mznvSf8y FY4L3LpggAYZQbkVkmg1Gwz0zvx40WRAkMiLEH5Ei8C2l5vUhcGQmh2wh
QDNEAHAWpP XBWKUJkIsox5hIdCA4AWx/wmAFIAfs3zBPfQewKM7l9H/gmEfsJ9VHRAEIEbDVDYl
Ie TYDxAaGA90WghADhQlJL/D4A3IAnwTUAEIBexJSBQEd dybFCHWGKRUKgYjRwISL/B4A60VlT
pVI6ka5xP6AeNP8qkD2yH8AHgCaGO7RMhQhg/wIwJhAWpHTFthIyORoRHyH/laa0xLGBsrJCoCXQ
IOIgAuueRbQSaxakeRdxCXA3E/9VBp5QivClZgRgH8AnIB/C/SEgajbgrsgrwzNTKoFTIb8uARak
IyhL/UIzIAFPURf3K8M9sgkAeXzBOyQeYBak/1vwImUsoj1RNLFCkmyHCYD9G3VCn Ew4oYSA4Em
4RoC/weAKlM7w5WmIXEjoTvBPkL/b3S3syEgQpADEBaVM6CRDv8X4sbmGNHInHwTxGB8fXwE4xak
gQMgIkJXQVPAGaADBhA3IG93cyIgPPXT5V/UZUAEAAbQieBvsf4 G WIUNTgiP KA9aVhNPDhZ G
qDE6NDeHh4rmH4vfjO0WyNaV3xYgPlb/N/IsEELxWcBMECEgF7E68v8X8VbxCfAfISUhQpAm4aOA
/z7CIdIiwUYOn1Ui8N WWkHvOGBalZlC4ShkBRDMk7nE/zOgtCEkE5dmIARZEQVAvCJ/FqQJcLBh
CVDfpUKQHgQg/lY4UCiwByEH8AaQU8AEIGwoTz7RJSFDAHAZAGHfYaDEYCCwdULG5yky0zwz/7zl
A1KaCN/wBbAEgSUSrbH/k6BUAS 1dn2ZJAIgNzEVkP8sAVUkAHBikyyjFqRikw9A/9 lNxF0cpcx
4PEzUT5CCQC/dVIeQyKRGoAAkB1gbRt1/d HQfBgvCAgY/QSPsJCkn8PsAeR44EDYHDh8GAkQj/9
IBBXJEJrIjrT8dEXsCxw/cFReAQAoMEWpLwgPwHwt9/0EvvxpSchOAuAdgbwFoD/QLHFcnPSTuzM
Y15i6iXGOf/f8LeVK1IhRbQ1GIPFRK0x//fVw5iys0viv4GaNpRjBWf7lNLfLUmR4U2C64ITAB6Q
7yXQPlVDVy70Y0Zg9WG8IH9CoBqwF9NTwfFRHtFCoHf7UZOVRXAh8faHIvEQQgE 5zslgiG0sXNr
Z1cHUpmE/0KguPFUNQS3t/Xf8J5Uk PfFDKwoV/hJRKDMG5aIPme/9Pi1Fbev9/DfBMdTx5fH2/h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=
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:50:57 -0800*
>You will notice that most units no longer have positions for mech‘s, medics and
other support trades.
This is a grave miscalculation.
>These people join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a member of
the Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
Some people do join to be a cook or mech in a particular unit.  Some people tire
of digging holes and decide to do a VOT, but remain within the unit.
Particularly in the smaller communities it is important to be able to offer a
selection of trades in addition to the unit primary trades.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:55:28 -0700*
It will be a great tragedy if the current Reserve structure is cast off -
some of our Regimental traditions pre-date the country and should not be
lost.
I, in fact, would argue we need to go the other way and re-instate a
Highland Reg Force unit as a precursor to rebuilding our traditions.  
> -----Original Message-----
> From:Bradley Sallows [SMTP:Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com]
> Sent:Friday, March 31, 2000 2:51 PM
> To:army@cipherlogic.on.ca
> Subject:RE: Reserve Restructure
> 
> 
> 
> >You will notice that most units no longer have positions for mech‘s,
> medics and
> other support trades.
> 
> This is a grave miscalculation.
> 
> >These people join units - not be cooks or mech‘s, but rather to be a
> member of
> the Seaforth, or Engineers or whatever regiment or corps they join.
> 
> Some people do join to be a cook or mech in a particular unit.  Some
> people tire
> of digging holes and decide to do a VOT, but remain within the unit.
> Particularly in the smaller communities it is important to be able to
> offer a
> selection of trades in addition to the unit primary trades.
> 
> Brad Sallows
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:20:55 -0800*
>I, in fact, would argue we need to go the other way and re-instate a Highland
Reg Force unit as a precursor to rebuilding our traditions.
Or simply remove the 2nd and 3rd battalions of the existing regular regiments in
order to bring 1 battalion of each of 6 other regiments back into the regular
order of battle.
Hopefully that would reduce the political infighting to a dull murmur since
there is no way everything could be split 9 ways.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Sean Stepan" <sean1994@HOTMAIL.COM>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:30:45 PST*
perhaps i am the exception, rather than the rule, but i joinedwell, am in 
the process of joining : an infantry regiment, not for its proud history 
or traditions, although they are of course important. i joined because i 
want to be in the infantry, and this particular regiment happens to be the 
most convenient of the two infantry regiments in my immediate area. and i 
believe that if the regiment converted to anything other than combat arms, i 
really dont think i would want to continue on. does this make me disloyal? 
or a bad person? i dont know, perhaps. all i know is i want the challenge of 
combat arms, and doing support services just isnt something i could see 
myself hanging around to do. i am joining for infantry and infantry alone, 
and i believe that a vast majority of those who are joining now would feel 
the same way. any thoughts?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at  http://www.hotmail.com 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:06:09 -0800*
Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
tradesmen second.  As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
infantry.  Does this hold true for other trades.  If so are they given
training opportunities to practice that role.
In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
huge losses.  They are the ones we need to find replacements for.  A
mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
can learn how to fight in it.
CHIMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:38:36 -0800*
>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
tradesmen second.
I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside that it
would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
regardless of role.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Michael O‘Leary" <moleary@bmts.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:03:37 -0500*
At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
>tradesmen second.
>
>I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
>infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside that it
>would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
>regardless of role.
>
>Brad Sallows
I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
the same for our soldiers?
Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
fighting patrols, etc.
QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre classificatiuon
range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less basic
soldier skills training?
mike
Michael O‘Leary
Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
 http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:36:37 -0800*
Oh, I dunno. Some of the armoured regiments in NW Europe suffered very
huge losses too.
And the RCEME LAD wasn‘t a cushy billet either. And there were a few
occasions in Holland where I wouldn‘t want to have been an Engineer
building bridges ahead of both the infy and the armd.
An Engineer and all others needs to know how to be an infanteer
because when the **** hits the fan someday they may find it necessary to
put down their spades and pick up their rifles in self defence. The rear
echelon types are often culled-out of their safe havens and remustered
when things get desperate - can‘t say they didn‘t sign up to be combat
arms, and there isn‘t time to start from scratch to train them when the
enemy is about to appear over the nearest hill. I would have expected
all soldiers would have had that explained to them on Day 1 of QL1 in
case it didn‘t sink in back at the CFRC.
dave newcombe wrote:
> 
> Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second.  As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
> infantry.  Does this hold true for other trades.  If so are they given
> training opportunities to practice that role.
> In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
> huge losses.  They are the ones we need to find replacements for.  A
> mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
> can learn how to fight in it.
> CHIMO
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net>* on *Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:31:06 -0800*
Good point, lets hear feed back on this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bradley Sallows" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 5:38 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> >Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second.
>
> I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside that
it
> would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
unit
> regardless of role.
>
> Brad Sallows
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"William J <andy> Anderson" <aanderson@sk.sympatico.ca>* on *Sat, 01 Apr 2000 05:41:43 -0600*
on 31/3/00 19:06,  dave newcombe at davebo@seaside.net wrote:
> Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> tradesmen second.  As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role was
> infantry.  Does this hold true for other trades.  If so are they given
> training opportunities to practice that role.
I guess that is what ‘arte et marte‘ means Dave... by skill and by fighting.
Tasks for CSS are often tactical instead of ‘trade‘ specific. Rear area
security often involves partroling and brigde demolition guards. This
training is in the trade specification so it has to be taught and it is up
to unit commanders to put it into their training plan to insure the skills
are practiced. The decentralised CSS soldiers in the CS units are not much
farther than two tactical bounds away from the smell of cordite. Take it up
a notch when attached to an infantry company and it is often hard to tell
who is the grunt and who the RCEME rat is. The soldiering skills are
normally used for self preservation rather that offensive but the skills are
required nonetheless.
> In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that suffers
> huge losses.  They are the ones we need to find replacements for.  A
> mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18 year
> can learn how to fight in it.
> CHIMO
Today‘s tanks are a lil more complex and need more than a fitter and a
crewman. It is a very ‘kewl‘ engine but frightfully finacky, as are the
comms, the gunnery, the surveilance and the rest of the goodies that let it
roam around on the modern battlefield.
arte et marte
andy sends:
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gordan Dundas <dundas@prairie.ca>* on *Sat, 18 Mar 2000 06:25:58 -0600*
I find myself in total agreement with you both and have at least some personal
experience to back it albeit a trifle removed .On 4 feb,1945 L / Cpl. K.M.Dundas
RHLI was wounded by shell /mortar fragments while attempting to lead/herd a
former brigade clerk who had been re-assigned as an infantryman.
                                        regards Gordon K.yep his sonDundas
Michael O‘Leary wrote:
> At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> >tradesmen second.
> >
> >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside that it
> >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every unit
> >regardless of role.
> >
> >Brad Sallows
>
> I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
> common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
> the same for our soldiers?
>
> Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
>
> QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> fighting patrols, etc.
>
> QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
>
> QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
>
> And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre classificatiuon
> range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less basic
> soldier skills training?
>
> mike
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
>
> Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave newcombe" <davebo@seaside.net>* on *Sat, 1 Apr 2000 07:01:55 -0800*
Maybe the previous suggestion of everyone being QL2-3 infantry trained might
be a way to start.  Just have to convince our politicians that we need both
tradesmen and infanteers.  I get the feeling that the powers that be take
our soldiers for granted.  They figure we‘ll always have plenty of warm
bodies to fill out the regiments that go on U.N. missions.  Without knowing
that they are topping up with reserves.
----- Original Message -----
From: 
To: 
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> on 31/3/00 19:06,  dave newcombe at davebo@seaside.net wrote:
>
> > Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> > tradesmen second.  As an ENGINEER we were told that our secondary role
was
> > infantry.  Does this hold true for other trades.  If so are they given
> > training opportunities to practice that role.
>
> I guess that is what ‘arte et marte‘ means Dave... by skill and by
fighting.
> Tasks for CSS are often tactical instead of ‘trade‘ specific. Rear area
> security often involves partroling and brigde demolition guards. This
> training is in the trade specification so it has to be taught and it is up
> to unit commanders to put it into their training plan to insure the skills
> are practiced. The decentralised CSS soldiers in the CS units are not much
> farther than two tactical bounds away from the smell of cordite. Take it
up
> a notch when attached to an infantry company and it is often hard to tell
> who is the grunt and who the RCEME rat is. The soldiering skills are
> normally used for self preservation rather that offensive but the skills
are
> required nonetheless.
>
> > In the event of a shooting war, it is primarily the Infantry that
suffers
> > huge losses.  They are the ones we need to find replacements for.  A
> > mechanic can familize themselves with a Tank engine faster than an 18
year
> > can learn how to fight in it.
> > CHIMO
>
> Today‘s tanks are a lil more complex and need more than a fitter and a
> crewman. It is a very ‘kewl‘ engine but frightfully finacky, as are the
> comms, the gunnery, the surveilance and the rest of the goodies that let
it
> roam around on the modern battlefield.
>
> arte et marte
>
> andy sends:
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Lawson" <kplawson@csolve.net>* on *Sun, 2 Apr 2000 09:42:56 -0400*
The regular force  Royal Canadian Army 
 Other Ranks attempted and was successful in a great part, with the Infantry
Basic Training that was part of all Schools Basic and of course career
leadership course‘s were for the most part ran to an infantry standard.
 The Offices Training prior to CFOCS was Basically an Infantry Course
exceptions were the specialty required of Armored and Artillery Officer
Cadets plus the Service Support specialty training allowed those individuals
to take only the last portions of Arms Training during a specific phase.
  I took part in CAS OF Cadet training in 1967  68 at Borden and training
areas. Still trying to figure out how with my static posting to Borden, I
was constantly in the field with various schools as either a RCASC Support
NCO, Training Cadre or Warm Body  Gofer. Qualified on 106 during this period
a lot of the decisions taken for the Army prior to Tri Service were still
being implemented Carl Gustoph cold weather trails, storage of ammunition
under same conditions laser sighting trails,etc.
  The concept that the basic structure of the Army came from the Infantry is
not new, most good military organizations have practiced this idea to one
extent or another. In my experience such armies are readily identifiable and
very easy to work with.
  In the Canadian past following WW II and Korea a ready made cadre of
infantry experienced Officers and NCOs existed, they not only set the
Infantry standard they firmly believed the concept, another tri service more
man power to the Administration Base side of the house and less for the
Brigades. of course destroyed it.
   Remember frequently to day a field experienced individual can be caution
as being too military  field oriented and once again I am quite willing to
provided names and locations of events.
  NIL SINE LABORE
  K  Lawson
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael O‘Leary 
To: 
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first and
> >tradesmen second.
> >
> >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass QL2/3
> >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside that
it
> >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
unit
> >regardless of role.
> >
> >Brad Sallows
>
> I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with a
> common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to do
> the same for our soldiers?
>
> Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
>
> QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> fighting patrols, etc.
>
> QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
>
> QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and comms
>
> And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre
classificatiuon
> range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less
basic
> soldier skills training?
>
>
> mike
>
>
> Michael O‘Leary
>
> Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
>  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
>
> Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Elizabeth Fredette" <a4688@kelcom.igs.net>* on *Sun, 2 Apr 2000 22:58:28 -0000*
I concur 100 .
U Should see FUBAR at 31 CBG
Recce Sqn
As For all troops completing Ql2/3 Inf:
I concur as well.  Have seen to many Cmbt Arms and REMFs who have NO
soldiering skills.  Regretfully this also occurs in Infantry due to the
B/Schools having to turn out troops to replace guys who retire from Reg
Force after their umteenth million tour with no rest.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawson" 
To: 
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
> The regular force  Royal Canadian Army 
>  Other Ranks attempted and was successful in a great part, with the
Infantry
> Basic Training that was part of all Schools Basic and of course career
> leadership course‘s were for the most part ran to an infantry standard.
>  The Offices Training prior to CFOCS was Basically an Infantry Course
> exceptions were the specialty required of Armored and Artillery Officer
> Cadets plus the Service Support specialty training allowed those
individuals
> to take only the last portions of Arms Training during a specific phase.
>   I took part in CAS OF Cadet training in 1967  68 at Borden and training
> areas. Still trying to figure out how with my static posting to Borden, I
> was constantly in the field with various schools as either a RCASC Support
> NCO, Training Cadre or Warm Body  Gofer. Qualified on 106 during this
period
> a lot of the decisions taken for the Army prior to Tri Service were still
> being implemented Carl Gustoph cold weather trails, storage of ammunition
> under same conditions laser sighting trails,etc.
>   The concept that the basic structure of the Army came from the Infantry
is
> not new, most good military organizations have practiced this idea to one
> extent or another. In my experience such armies are readily identifiable
and
> very easy to work with.
>   In the Canadian past following WW II and Korea a ready made cadre of
> infantry experienced Officers and NCOs existed, they not only set the
> Infantry standard they firmly believed the concept, another tri service
more
> man power to the Administration Base side of the house and less for the
> Brigades. of course destroyed it.
>    Remember frequently to day a field experienced individual can be
caution
> as being too military  field oriented and once again I am quite willing
to
> provided names and locations of events.
>   NIL SINE LABORE
>   K  Lawson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael O‘Leary 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 10:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Reserve Restructure
>
>
> > At 05:38 PM 3/31/00 -0800, you wrote:
> > >
> > >>Maybe we could take seriously the addage that we are soldiers first
and
> > >tradesmen second.
> > >
> > >I continue to believe it would be useful to have all soldiers pass
QL2/3
> > >infantry prior to moving on to any other trade.  Possibly alongside
that
> it
> > >would be necessary or useful to have a rifle/training platoon in every
> unit
> > >regardless of role.
> > >
> > >Brad Sallows
> >
> > I agree with Brad here. We‘ve scratched the surface of this concept with
a
> > common officers‘ Phase 2, so is it really that great a leap of logic to
do
> > the same for our soldiers?
> >
> > Off the top of my head, a quick comparison of the Rgular QL3 courses for
> > combat arms inf/arty/armd goes like this:
> >
> > QL3 Infantry - 16 weeks - about ten weeks of what I would call basic
> > soldier skills and 6 of "advanced" infantry skills platoon tactics,
> > fighting patrols, etc.
> >
> > QL3 Artillery - 14 weeks - 7 of basic skills and 7 for gun drills
> >
> > QL3 Armour - 8 weeks - equal parts basic skills, driver training and
comms
> >
> > And what about the other trades? I suspect they most often tend to the
> > lower end of the spectrum. I would yhink a common Army QL3 of about ten
> > weeks would ensure a good baseline set of skills for any soldier
> > subsequently deployed on operations. So, do we still send tradesmen
> > overseas having rarely fired a weapon except on a 600 metre
> classificatiuon
> > range? Or are we going to depend on having enemy trained to a lower
> > standard also, just for confrontations with those troops we gave less
> basic
> > soldier skills training?
> >
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> > Michael O‘Leary
> >
> > Visit The Regimental Rogue at:
> >  http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/index.htm 
> >
> > Change is not to be feared. Simultaneously, change is not necessarily
> > improvement. An effective leader improves through change. An ineffective
> > leader seeks improvement through change. The first is sure of his
> > end-state, the latter never is. - MMO
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> > NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> > to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> > to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> > message body.
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <davidwillard@home.com>* on *Thu, 25 May 2000 23:33:19 -0400*
Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
army.
Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
esprit de corps magazine.
The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment.  One of the reasons given
for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance, mainly
through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
Navy or Air Force.
The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time soldiering
no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve." I
surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have seen
some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the required
support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The only
thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it is.
I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched the
top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of "The
Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
"Lest We Forget"
The Canadian Scottish Regiment
The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
The Irish Regiment of Canada
The Algonquin Regiment
The Royal Regina Regiment
The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
Anyone for a coup? Joke
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Thu, 25 May 2000 22:13:55 -0600*
The reserve viability study that is discussed in esprit de corps is
taken out of context hard to imagine Scott Taylor would ever do that. 
If you are a reservist and don‘t believe there have to be changes in the
reserve system then you are a fool.  There are too many units, too
little resources and too few reasons for talented soldiers to stay in
the Reserves quite honestly I think it is boring/frustrating for most
people now - when was the last time you had alot of fun doing
interesting and stimulating training on exercise?.
Getting back to the Reserve viability study ... it is simply one
criteria in the restructuring of the Reserves.  The likelyhood of some
of the Regiments you quote being disbanded is highly unlikely and it
should be noted that just because a unit is deemed "viable" does not
determine automatically "save" that unit...viable and non-viable are
simply a snapshot in time of a reserve unit.  
Compounding the problem of the viability study is that fact that all
four areas used different criteria.  Let‘s say the Royal Montreal
Regiment is a viable unit is it going to be moved to Calgary because
the Calgary Highrs is non-viable...no of course not.  If the Royal
Winnipeg Rifles is unviable as an infantry unit, what makes you think
they will be viable as a mess tin repair outfit or a NBCD unit?
I have a certain amount of trust in the Army, our Honorary Colonels and
other stakeholders COs, RSMs, etc and hopefully they will come to an
agreement and a workable solution that can be implemented.  Hopefully it
will address some of the structural weaknesses in the Reserve system.
Anytime a unit regular or reserve is relegated to the supplementary
order of battle is a sad day.  However, recognition must be given to the
fact that the reserves have not been well taken care of by our
government or by the Regular Force.  They are sorely neglected and need
solution fast money will not solve all their problmes.  I think
compounding the problem is changing demographics within Canada, changing
youth attitudes and a largely apathetic society toward the military. 
Either we have a political will to pump more money into the Reserves or
we restructure them to make them relevant, or perhaps a combination of
both.
I‘d love to hear what others think.     
dave wrote:
> 
> Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
> army.
> 
> Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
> esprit de corps magazine.
> 
> The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
> of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment.  One of the reasons given
> for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance, mainly
> through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
> judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
> single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
> and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
> Navy or Air Force.
> 
> The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
> the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time soldiering
> no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
> veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve." I
> surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have seen
> some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
> funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
> soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
> support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
> soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
> course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
> with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
> credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
> Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
> military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the required
> support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
> secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
> embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The only
> thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
> repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
> fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
> 
> The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
> consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it is.
> I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched the
> top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of "The
> Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
> faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
> 
> "Lest We Forget"
> 
> The Canadian Scottish Regiment
> 
> The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
> 
> The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
> 
> Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
> 
> The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
> 
> The Irish Regiment of Canada
> 
> The Algonquin Regiment
> 
> The Royal Regina Regiment
> 
> The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
> 
> Anyone for a coup? Joke
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"dave" <dave.newcombe@home.com>* on *Thu, 25 May 2000 22:39:01 -0700*
It disgusts me to think that the fate of any regiment is in the hands of
people who have never served.  I think this list is a good place to start a
grass roots movement, to fully back the adequate funding of our reserves, as
well as the regs.
Your right people haven‘t lost interest in the militia, the feds don‘t see
enough photo op‘s thats all.
Recruiting is full time endeavor, do they still visit schools, and explain
the reserves to students?
Why don‘t we ask them to prove the units are not viable?
there must be thousands of former reservists out there who will fight this,
can everyone contact some?
Is there any more lists that we can cooperate with.
----- Original Message -----
From: dave 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 8:33 PM
Subject: Reserve Restructuring
> Here is something many may find refreshing albiet sad, a subject about the
> army.
>
> Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of
> esprit de corps magazine.
>
> The article talks about the "viablity" aspects, or rather the non-viabilty
> of certain regiments earmarked for disbandment.  One of the reasons given
> for these units becoming non-viable was, "their current performance,
mainly
> through lack of numbers, does not merit their continued existence, being
> judged unfit for battle." I would argue that there is probably not one
> single unit in the Canadian Forces today that is properly manned, equipped
> and supported non-supported by government that is fit for battle, Army,
> Navy or Air Force.
>
> The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join
> the reserves, they join a regiment." It goes on that, "part time
soldiering
> no longer attracts young men as it did before the two world wars, whereas
> veterans have long since passed the age when they can continue to serve."
I
> surely don‘t buy that statement. In my short time on this planet I have
seen
> some of these regiments flourish when they were ably equipped and properly
> funded. When the funding allows training and other activities that reserve
> soldiering should be providing it does attract young men. Without the
> support of government society, of course all aspects of part time
> soldiering shrinks or becomes next to non existant, apathy sets in and of
> course the viability of the whole thing lessens. This has everything to do
> with government neglect and the shirking of responsibilty of providing a
> credible national defence for our country. Not only does our government
> Liberals not fulfill it‘s overall responsibity to maintain a credible
> military, it doesn‘t even come close to providing anywhere near the
required
> support to provide for peacekeeping, supposedly a safer, less costly
> secondary duty. This Liberal group of MEGA-PRETENDERS are a total
> embarrasment not only to the military but the population at large. The
only
> thing worse than this current state of inept, mindless insanity is the
> repeated re-election of these nincompoops by what has to be an apathetic,
> fence sitting and uncaring population of Canadians.
>
> The regiments earmarked for disbandment are a good chunk of our heritage
> consisting of gallant men who bled and died to make this country what it
is.
> I won‘t go into the thoughts that rocketed through my mind as I watched
the
> top dog Chretien stand with his head bowed in front of the coffin of
"The
> Unknown Soldier." There are pretenders, then there are are pretenders. Two
> faced contradictory vote getting stunt.
>
> "Lest We Forget"
>
> The Canadian Scottish Regiment
>
> The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Royal Winnipeg Rifles
>
> Queen‘s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada
>
> The Princess of Wales Own Regiment
>
> The Irish Regiment of Canada
>
> The Algonquin Regiment
>
> The Royal Regina Regiment
>
> The Royal Newfoundland Regiment
>
>
> Anyone for a coup? Joke
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Derrick Forsythe <Derrick.Forsythe@gov.ab.ca>* on *Fri, 26 May 2000 09:24:59 -0600*
There are too many units, too
little resources and too few reasons for talented soldiers to stay
in
the Reserves quite honestly I think it is boring/frustrating for
most
people now - when was the last time you had alot of fun doing
interesting and stimulating training on exercise?.
This goes to the heart of my ongoing argument:
too many units?
Maybe, but remember those units give the CF, as a whole, a larger
footprint in communities across the country.  I mean outside of Steele
Barracks and maybe Gagetown most Reg Bases are in isolated locations and as
such contact with civilians is limited. It‘s difficult to put a price tag on
the important role these units play in raising the overall profile of the
organization - I am willing to argue toe-to-toe with anyone Reservists
generate more good will, pound for pound, than any/all of the Regular units.
too little resources?
We‘ve been squeezed by the same budgetary pressures as the rest of
government - but that is only half of the equation. Ultimately full-timers
set our budgets and when the fiscal noose tightens they look after their own
first so there‘s less of the reduced money trickling down to units.
too few reasons...?
This is the flipside of the para immediately above.  In addition to
having budgets reduced we are being required to conduct increased levels of
what I call "remedial training" under the warrior program. It‘s not rocket
science to see that as the two opposing forces approach achieve?
cross-over there is going to be "leadership challenges" to keep soldiers
motivated.
fun and interesting training?
Given the pressures resident in the above two paras it can be
difficult to build exciting training plans.  Not impossible however, it
takes a little creativity and a willingness from higher to allow units to
"think outside the box." It also requires us to maximize value for dollars
invested in training.  That means outside of winter indoc we should be
training "in the green" which means Sep-early Nov and early Apr-May time
frames.
Brigades too must work to ensure concentrations maximize training
value including integration with Regular Force timetables - augmentation is
our primary role after all.
On a larger scale there has to be a re-focus on training philosophy.
For instance QL2 should revert to training every soldier to the warrior
standards - yes it takes longer and yes it costs more up front, but it will
lessen the amount of remedial training required at the unit level and will
allow greater focus on trade training during QL3.  In fact many units could,
with proper support, conduct their own QL3 courses and work early on at
building the values inherent within a "Regimental Family".  That would allow
Jr. and Sr. NCOs and Jr Officers to develop their leadership skills and
provide challenges on a range of levels.
As for the nature of unit training exercises, perhaps more should be
placed on integrating training - for instance we are starting to send FOOs
out with tankers and grunts lending an added level of realism on both sides.
It would be valuable as well to integrate with the Svc Bns to
exercise facets of our business like DPs and operating Fd kitchens.
Those are a few of my incoherent ramblings - questions, comments? 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 26 May 2000 12:25:55 -0700*
The media continue to bat 1.000 in their inability to correctly interpret
anything military.
>Just read an insightful article by Strome Galloway in the May edition of esprit
de corps magazine.
"inciteful" might be more appropriate, although I suppose I should first read
the article.  To my knowledge there is not, as yet, any correlation between
"non-viable" and "disbandment".  Once again, the "assume" principle seems to be
demonstrated.
The LFRR evaluations employed some unusual metrics.  Low numbers on a unit
nominal roll were not the only source of a low score.  I thought the same
methodology was applied across Canada in the final assessment, but perhaps not.
Anyway, in LFWA one of the magic numbers was a count of "effective soldiers".
To be "effective", a soldier had to be trade-qualified QL2 alone was
insufficient, pass Warrior, and parade a minimum of 70 if memory serves of
scheduled unit parades and training activities.  Again if memory serves,
although the total score of 20 was divided into 4 major sub-scores of 5 points
each, Warrior pass rates had a direct bearing on no less than 11 points and
some spare change of the total score owing to the methodology.
Thus, a large unit with a predominance of QL2-level soldiers, low Warrior pass
rates, or a large number of soldiers each attending only 2/3 of all activities,
could score low - and it in all likelihood might reflect a temporary state of
affairs hence the term, "snapshot".  If one doesn‘t have access to the final
LFRR evaluation report submitted by a particular unit, then one doesn‘t know
jack s*** about why that unit scored "viable" or "non-viable" and should refrain
from commenting on the probable future of that unit.
>The article also quotes one militia general who said, "Soldiers don‘t join the
reserves, they join a regiment."
This is not an accurate representation of all reservists.  I first enrolled at a
"regiment", but was joining "the reserves for a summer job" - the "regimental
identity" was irrelevant.  I transferred to a different unit when I returned to
university.  Any reservist in a one-unit town doesn‘t exactly have a choice to
"join a regiment".  Where choice exists, I suspect soldiers join to be "a
gunner", "a crewman", "a rifleman" rather than to be a "1st Battalion
somethingorother", or join simply because they already have friends in the unit.
Clearly the service support soldiers are not joining "a regiment".  Most
recruits are a blank slate when it comes to their "regiment" until they have
been indoctrinated.  Is this an Ontario-centric thing, where regiments are thick
on the ground?
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Bradley Sallows" <Bradley_Sallows@ismbc.com>* on *Fri, 26 May 2000 12:31:03 -0700*
>However, recognition must be given to the fact that the reserves have not been
well taken care of by our government or by the Regular Force.  They are sorely
neglected and need solution fast money will not solve all their problmes.
My belief is that if the Regular Force truly believes it needs the reserves as a
source of individual augmentees and direct component transfers, then the single
most beneficial thing it could do would be to commit as a highest priority to
staffing summer courses to make up shortfalls of available reserve instructors
who, in some cases, are on an operational rotation or have transferred to the
Regulars.
Brad Sallows
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"Dave Kenney" <cao@lf.ab.ca>* on *Fri, 26 May 2000 17:04:28 -0600*
Brad Sallows wrote:
>Is this an Ontario-centric thing, where regiments are thick on the ground?
No.  I joined the Ontario Regiment in 1968 because
1 I wantd a job to earn some money
2 They were recruiting
3 They were the only unit within walking distance of home.
4 It wouldn‘t have mattered if they were Artillery, Armoured, Infantry or
Postal
5 Pride in unit came later
6 Dedication came later
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Fri, 26 May 2000 17:41:46 -0600*
Good comments Dave Kenney. I think your comments of 1968 are valid today
as they were then.  I agree with you that a minority of soldiers join a
certain Regt because of the tradition of that unit.  A soldier may join
because a member of their family had joined...but I think they are few
and far between.  
When I joined the artillery it was it was the only unit in my hometown
and within walking distance.  I stayed in though when I took pride in
my unit and dedicated to it.  When I leave full time service, I will
join the Reserves again, because I enjoy doing it.
I think we put to much emphasis on the Regt system and not enough
emphasis on the Army.  If the Regt system is so important...why was the
Soviet Union no Regt system the main winner of WWII?  What about the
runner up of the US no Regt system?  Loyalty to your country above all
else, followed by the CF, the army, and your unit not the reverse. 
Dave Kenney wrote:
> 
> Brad Sallows wrote:
> >Is this an Ontario-centric thing, where regiments are thick on the ground?
> 
> No.  I joined the Ontario Regiment in 1968 because
> 1 I wantd a job to earn some money
> 2 They were recruiting
> 3 They were the only unit within walking distance of home.
> 4 It wouldn‘t have mattered if they were Artillery, Armoured, Infantry or
> Postal
> 5 Pride in unit came later
> 6 Dedication came later
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *freegroup@acbm.qc.ca HLCOL Dennis Dwyer* on *Wed, 23 Aug 2000 11:05:26 -0400*
The following comments were submitted by
HLCOL Dennis Dwyer freegroup@acbm.qc.ca on
Wednesday, August 23, 2000 at 11:05:25
to the Canadian Army Mailing List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To All,
I‘m initerested in opinions, articles, letters, books, etc that will help me to better understand how we in Canada and people in other countries can improve our Militia, get a better bang for our buck for our tazpayers yet imrove morale within our units and brigade headquarters.
Dennis Dwyer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information, please see The Canadian Army Home Page at:
 http://army.cipherlogic.on.ca 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Rhett <lawson@cclacbrome.qc.ca>* on *Wed, 23 Aug 2000 14:40:14 -0400*
Hello Dennis
As you know the system is in poor repair and we are all hoping that somehow LGEN Jefferies will be able to pull the rabbit out of the hat.
Be glad to talk to some time about this
Rhett Lawson
HLCOL Dennis Dwyer wrote:
> The following comments were submitted by
> HLCOL Dennis Dwyer freegroup@acbm.qc.ca on
> Wednesday, August 23, 2000 at 11:05:25
> to the Canadian Army Mailing List.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> To All,
>
> I‘m initerested in opinions, articles, letters, books, etc that will help me to better understand how we in Canada and people in other countries can improve our Militia, get a better bang for our buck for our tazpayers yet imrove morale within our units and brigade headquarters.
>
> Dennis Dwyer
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For more information, please see The Canadian Army Home Page at:
>
>  http://army.cipherlogic.on.ca 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Gunner <randr1@home.com>* on *Fri, 25 Aug 2000 16:44:09 -0600*
To all: 
I‘ve been reading alot of the good comments that are being made by all
the members of this newsgroup.  Whether the correct amount of class A
days is 35 or 36, I think it is difficult to narrow it down to merely
this one area that is effecting reserve effectiveness.  Although it has
been several years seven at last count since I was a member of a
Reserve Unit, I have dealt with reserve issue at the Area HQ and
interacted with many reserve officers and NCMs on trg, etc.
There is no magic solution to the problems plaguing the reserves as they
are widespread and far reaching problems.  The limited number of full
time Res/Reg F assigned to each unit, limited trg ammo, limited trg
eqpt, limited trg realism at unit level, limited Cl A mandays, limited
opportunities for Reg F crses, limited call outs to Reg F units,
benefits and pay that will help keep trained and experienced people in,
lack of a percieved role besides a reg f manning pool that takes the
best and most motivated, lack of recognition by the Reg F much better
now then it was, etc, etc.  
I‘m a firm believer in the Govt, MND and the CF deciding what the Res F
must do and what it should be capable of becoming and allocating
resources that are adequate plus vice the current scrappings of the
bottom of the defence budget that the militia currently is allocated. 
Will this mean the closing of units?  Sure it will and this is not a bad
thing. I don‘t advocate a militia of postal and NBCD units, however they
have their place and reservists could fill that role.
The militia has always been a very poor second cousin compared with both
Reg F understandably and especially compared with our cousins in air,
sea, and comm reserve.  Why is this?  Why has it been allowed to
happen?  I really haven‘t seen anything from any of the studies
commissioned that really address the heart of the matter.  The reserves
are on life support and it will take an intensive shock therapy to get
them into the 21st century.  
My two cents....
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *"The MacFarlanes‘" <desrtrat@amug.org>* on *Fri, 25 Aug 2000 21:14:22 -0700*
One problem that I identified personally while in my unit - with no
mandatory work release from employers, and very little PR, even, generally
the people that we were sending on courses, callouts, peacekeeping duties,
whatever, were people who didn‘t have long term, stable careers. Chances
are, if you were a leader as a soldier, you were a leader at your civilian
job. Not knowing much about the Militia, and having no legislation to back
you up, your employer could ill afford to let you go on course for 6 weeks.
Thus, again, generally the people getting qualifications and eventual
promotion were not the best people in your unit. They were the people who
couldn‘t/wouldn‘t/didn‘t want to have a regular, full time career.
Obviously, there were some exceptions to this, especially as you got higher
up in rank. No severance packagethen, no pension, relatively low pay,
morale suffering - those of us who stayed in the Unit a long time were there
because we were loyal, and enjoyed it. Incidentally, I lived in a border
town, and there was a National Guard unit 15 minutes away. They were
artillery like us, so we compared notes a lot. We seemed to be much better
trained, but utilized much less, and had, of course, generally crappy
equipment, compared to theirs. They used guard personnel to assist US
Customs in drug interdiction work, the Border Patrols‘ mechanics were NG,
they were mobilized for the Gulf.. you name it. I tried to organize an "Aide
to the Civil Power" exercise once assist/observe local mounties or town
police at a DUI checkpoint, and it got blasted by higher ups. Too much
liability, not PC, etc. For the most part, people in our town were
supportive of our local unit - well, those who knew anything about it. The
lack of knowledge regarding the Armed Forces, and Militia in particular, is
making it even easier to shut down units, strip away traditions, etc. What
our Government has done to our Army, Navy and Air Force, regular and
reserve, has hurt me more than any other thing as a Canadian. If the average
citizen understood some of the traditions/history of these units, knew the
esteem in which the average Canadian soldier is held in the rest of the
world, and understood the dedication of our troops they want to volunteer,
and are not allowed??!!!, I am sure they would be ashamed too. I had some
other points when I started out, but I digressed, rambled, and forgot them.
I will try to remember them for next time.
Ubique
M J MacFarlane
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gunner" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 3:44 PM
Subject: Re: Restructuring the Militia
> To all:
>
> I‘ve been reading alot of the good comments that are being made by all
> the members of this newsgroup.  Whether the correct amount of class A
> days is 35 or 36, I think it is difficult to narrow it down to merely
> this one area that is effecting reserve effectiveness.  Although it has
> been several years seven at last count since I was a member of a
> Reserve Unit, I have dealt with reserve issue at the Area HQ and
> interacted with many reserve officers and NCMs on trg, etc.
>
> There is no magic solution to the problems plaguing the reserves as they
> are widespread and far reaching problems.  The limited number of full
> time Res/Reg F assigned to each unit, limited trg ammo, limited trg
> eqpt, limited trg realism at unit level, limited Cl A mandays, limited
> opportunities for Reg F crses, limited call outs to Reg F units,
> benefits and pay that will help keep trained and experienced people in,
> lack of a percieved role besides a reg f manning pool that takes the
> best and most motivated, lack of recognition by the Reg F much better
> now then it was, etc, etc.
>
> I‘m a firm believer in the Govt, MND and the CF deciding what the Res F
> must do and what it should be capable of becoming and allocating
> resources that are adequate plus vice the current scrappings of the
> bottom of the defence budget that the militia currently is allocated.
> Will this mean the closing of units?  Sure it will and this is not a bad
> thing. I don‘t advocate a militia of postal and NBCD units, however they
> have their place and reservists could fill that role.
>
> The militia has always been a very poor second cousin compared with both
> Reg F understandably and especially compared with our cousins in air,
> sea, and comm reserve.  Why is this?  Why has it been allowed to
> happen?  I really haven‘t seen anything from any of the studies
> commissioned that really address the heart of the matter.  The reserves
> are on life support and it will take an intensive shock therapy to get
> them into the 21st century.
> My two cents....
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------



## army

Posted by *Ian Edwards <iedwards@home.com>* on *Sat, 26 Aug 2000 13:00:05 -0600*
Gunner from Ian: good posting and I agree with everying you say. Phew,
isn‘t that a relief :
But to snip out all but one remark:
Gunner wrote:
> 
> To all:
> ... The reserves
> are on life support and it will take an intensive shock therapy to get
> them into the 21st century....
Ian on his soapbox sez:
The Militia reached a postwar postWW2 peak strength in numbers about
1964. As an example I was on two annual "garrison" parades of 23 Mil Gp
Northern Alberta and we had 1800 I saw them no exagggeration on
parade each year. We had no equipment but shiny boots and highly
polished brass. Even the Dental Corps unit in Edmonton had over 50 on
parade that‘s a lot of teeth.
Then came the fold-up of units the Dental Corps unit bit the dust as
did Northern Alberta‘s only armd unit, the 19th Alberta Dragoons.
Everyone knew the 19D were going to be cut because Ottawa took away
their perfectly serviceable/usable Ferret Scout Cars without any
replacement the armd cars were sold for scrap. Then came the
hippy-dippy long hair popular culture and dislike of anything military
due to the Viet Nam war. And cut backs almost constantly thereafter one
step forward and two steps back. The Militia body is, indeed, still on
life-support. Why? Because between then and now no-one, in Ottawa or in
our lobby groups sic has a LONG RANGE PLAN to garner public support
for the Reserves nor for a "favourable" foreign policy that drives the
raison d‘etre for the Reserves local natural disasters
notwithwstanding.
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
> to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@cipherlogic.on.ca from the account you wish
to remove, with the line "unsubscribe army" in the
message body.


----------

