Author Topic: Chance of Deployment [Merged]  (Read 129113 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,778
  • All your base are belong to us.
Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« on: February 18, 2006, 18:07:17 »
We've had several threads revolving around the issue of deployments.  One common theme seems to be that soldiers want to go on deployment.  Another is that Regular Force soldiers want the deployments and quit when they do not get them, attributed in part to having to include Reserves on deployments.  Another is that the Reserves want tours but are blocked from doing so.

Running counter to this is the perception that the army is burned out from too many tours.  Is this disonnance a generational thing?  In my last tour at the Regiment the number of people trying to get on a deployment vastly outnumbered those trying to get out of one (I actually can't think of anyone trying to get out of a tour).

The early and mid-nineties saw multiple deployments at the same time that the Army was reducing in size.  These deployments were high stress with an Army not really geared towards doing them.  Benefits were also less than today, especially when the tax break for high-risk is considered.  Is the "burned-out" army image a holdover from 1994 or a current phenomenon?

Today's tours seem to have more clear aims and the public has been engaged in them.  Tours also bring many benefits.  Money, prestige, medals, excitement, the fulfillment of "why I joined" all make going on a deployment attractive.  The negatives are there as well, of course.  Family separation, living in a highly controlled environment, loss of freedom, danger to life and limb and even boredom all make tours difficult things as well. 

How many tours is too much?  What is the right break between tours?  I suppose the answer will depend on the person and the type of tour that they had.  Is one tour every three years a reasonable tempo (ie a two year break between getting back and going over).  How long should a new soldier have to wait before going on a deployment?  What tempo will satisfy the desire to deploy without burning out the troops?
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,388
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,816
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2006, 18:30:54 »
I think deployment rates are totally dependant on what you do and where you are posted.

An individual infantry soldier does not deploy as often as an Armour soldier, they do not deploy as mush as Engineers. And there is always a whack of CSS going over.

As there are more Res infantry then any other, it is those soldiers who get to go over in place of Reg F pers more then anyone else.

Min of 24 months between 6 month tours would be good (double the Pers Tempo recommendations). We have troops here in Petawawa who will be going on thier 3rd Afghan tour this summer. That is too much.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline reccecrewman

  • Another fine day to be in the Corps..............
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 3,191
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 575
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2006, 21:30:58 »
My .02 on the newbies going over;  Soldiers should have to spend a minimum of 1 year in REGIMENT prior to deployment.  This ensures he has a few FTX's under his belt, has an idea of the way we work in the field and gives his superiors a good assessment before throwing them into the breech.  There were guys on Roto 3 who got to the Regiment in November and were in Afghanistan in February.  Not one FTX, crew commander had no clue if he was a thud or switched on.............  Meanwhile, back at the Farm in Pet, there were plenty of troops who hadn't been deployed since Roto 13 Palladium or longer, and for some mind boggling reason, they were not sent.  I can understand the leadership wanting to get the young troops experience by sending them overseas, but JC, come on!  These guys didn't even do the TMST training.  I can't be alone in thinking that the youngsters with less than 1 year in the Regiment should only be sent over if they can't find other people. (And they can ALWAYS find a Corporal somewhere in the Regiment who wants a tour)
Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference....... Soldiers don't have that problem.

Better to die fighting, standing on your feet than to live life serving on your knees.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,529
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2006, 22:48:39 »
I can't be alone in thinking that the youngsters with less than 1 year in the Regiment should only be sent over if they can't find other people.

Although I agree, not everyone shares your opinion:

No one is quitting because they are deployed too much in the Infantry. They are quitting because of the regular crap, like weekend duties, taskings to Wx, and sitting around doing nothing for 3 years as a Pte.

But some do:

It seems that in many cases the Units are sending over the same guys over and over again, an many who want to do a Tour are being passed over.  This does nothing for retention either.  Those who don't go become disillusioned.  Those who continually go, get burnt out and disillusioned.

Then this:

Another is that Regular Force soldiers want the deployments and quit when they do not get them, attributed in part to having to include Reserves on deployments.
 

To which I reply: If not on deployments with the Reg F, then where are Reservists supposed to gain operational experience?

Another is that the Reserves want tours but are blocked from doing so.

There is already a "cap" on Reserve participation on international ops which is regularly exceeded, despite hearing (in this thread and others) that there are more than sufficient Reg F soldiers to deploy.  In Bosnia now the majority of the soldiers there are Reservists.  Now it's only 80 or so, but two years ago it was upwards of 300 out of a TF of 1200.

My thoughts are that if the chain of command is hearing from the soldiers "we want to deploy" then our commitments can be increased, allowing us to truly "punch above our weight" in the international arena.  Also, Reserve augmentation could be reduced or eliminated altogether.

However, if the chain of command is hearing "we need a break" then either our commitment needs to be scaled back or Reserve augmentation increased.

In any case, is the chain of command listening?





Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline delavan

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 317
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2006, 23:21:17 »
First off, I'd like to say that in my environment, there is not enough tours to be sick of it, tired, exhausted, type of thing.

The only thing I'd like to say ref. tours these days is that with all the benefits involved, lot of people want to go to get those benefits, but aren't interested in the mission or the experience that comes with it.

I think that a better screening of individuals would help weed out from operations all soldiers who are getting away with taskings (or "bad go"), duties, and such ,and then are fighting to death to get a position on a tour.

Everybody knows people who are playing the social worker/injuries/dag red/ game to get away from stuff. Somehow, the same bunch are the ones the more willing to be deployed to "max benefits locations".

Don't get me wrong, I'm not stupid, if you give me the choice between ALERT or Afghanistan, I would pick Afghanistan....(benefits), BUT to me ,if you sign on the dotted line ,you should go wherever you're told (UNLESS VALID REASONS, and true reasons).
If you join for the benefits but are reluctant to do  anything that take you away from your family or make you sweat or work long hours, I just hope that it will not stay un-noticed.

I feel better now...
I'll go wherever I have to, because that's what I believe in...

But at the same time, I won't buddyf**k anybody to get the money...

Now, in Afghanistan, with the risks/accidents and such, I guess you want to go with guys that are professionals, believe in what they are doing, and are team players...period...Roger out.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2006, 23:37:31 by delavan »

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2006, 00:26:47 »
The "Field Army" is no busier now than it was in the seventies or Eighties -  in fact, probably much less so.  The trouble is, starting in the nineties, we began to deploy out of the NATO AO, and that meant bringing a lot of 'deep' CSS with us, and that meant deploying the "Garrison Army", most of whom had never spent four years on two hours notice to move in 4CMBG, or had been away from their family an average of six months a year on exercise, taking a course or teaching a course.

I do not believe the emergence of the MFRC Mafia is merely coincidental either.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,529
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2006, 10:09:01 »
The "Field Army" is no busier now than it was in the seventies or Eighties

The "Field Army" is 25% smaller now.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,388
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,816
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2006, 14:34:27 »
TCBF,
You are incorrect because we do not have a "Field Army" anymore, no battalions (other then in name only), no brigades and certianly no divisions.

We have large grouping of deployable company level units, for the sole purpose of force generation.

There is no use in lingering over comparisons of what we have now to what we had until the closure of 4 CMBG.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2006, 14:53:06 »
Your science is skewed by your sampling.

 ;D

Since individuals, not orgs, are the crux of the matter, I merely compare the workload of the individuals - me and my cohort - of the seventies and eighties with the work load in the ninties and now.

My wife can confirm it (with the wives in her cohort), we were  away much more in the eighties - field ex, course, etc - than we were in the later years.

Let's take a look: 
1. Return fm Ann Lv Aug 78.
2. Final prep for Cyprus, then 10 days Emb Lv.
3. Oct 78 - Mar 79_ Cyprus.
4. Disembark Lv.
5. Apr: Prep for Ex.
6. May-Jun, Ex.
7. Jun-Jul: teach summer courses.
8. Aug79: Ann lv.
9. Sep-Nov: On crse Gagetown.
10. Dec: On crse Petawawa.
11. Dec-Jan: On lv
12: Jan 80-winter trg.
13. Feb, on Crse in Wainwright.
14. Teach crses in Pet.
15. May- Field Ex.
16. Jun-Jul: Teach summer courses.
17. Aug: Leave.
18. Fall 80, teach TQ3 Crmn.

On the plus side, when we took leave - we TOOK it.  4 to 6 weeks to burn it off.  I accumulated nothing.  I visited relatives, friends, and went canoeing, backpacking and fishing. 

Work hard - play hard.

Sure, Spring 99 to summer 04 was busy, including Roto 6 Zgon and Roto 0 Kandahar.  But I was away a lot more whwen I was younger. Even in Germany, with Boeselager.  I may not have been as FAR away - but that's not the point, is it?

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Iterator

  • Returning the favour.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
  • Identidem
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2006, 18:09:03 »
... I merely compare the workload of the individuals - me and my cohort - of the seventies and eighties with the work load in the ninties and now.
... we were  away much more in the eighties - field ex, course, etc - than we were in the later years.

Let's take a look: 
1. Return fm Ann Lv Aug 78.
2. Final prep for Cyprus, then 10 days Emb Lv.
3. Oct 78 - Mar 79_ Cyprus.
4. Disembark Lv.
5. Apr: Prep for Ex.
6. May-Jun, Ex.
7. Jun-Jul: teach summer courses.
8. Aug79: Ann lv.
9. Sep-Nov: On crse Gagetown.
10. Dec: On crse Petawawa.
11. Dec-Jan: On lv
12: Jan 80-winter trg.
13. Feb, on Crse in Wainwright.
14. Teach crses in Pet.
15. May- Field Ex.
16. Jun-Jul: Teach summer courses.
17. Aug: Leave.
18. Fall 80, teach TQ3 Crmn.


Could this difference in your own deployment tempo be due to your own career progression?

Of the many differences discussed between the members of 1RCR London and 3RCR Germany when they amalgamated (not the correct term) into 1RCR Petawawa, op tempo wasn't one of them. Both found exercises to be shorter but this was expected as you were already in the training area.

Problems with tempo at the time seemed to be more affected by rank and rank/life progression Pte/Cpls in the Battalion never complained of tempo, whereas an NCO would return from Deployment and then be sent to Gagetown to instruct. Rank progression played a big part in this: A M/Cpl in 1RCR in the late 80s and early 90s was probably only in the Battalion for 3 or 4 years before being promoted (and sometimes less); but by the mid-90s you were looking at a person who had at least twice that much time in. This difference in rank progression meant that an NCO was much more likely to have married and have kids - which would seem significant.

Note: I quoted your list because I see no differences in the amount of time from service in the 90s (aside from non-Germany operational deployments).
Pro Patria

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2006, 20:56:29 »
Exactly.  Most persons complaining about Op Tempo can't compare with the eighties because they weren't in the Army then.  This Op Tempo thing started when we began sending units away who had not deployed before (Avn Sqns, etc), and began telling our CSS types that they existed to support the Army, not be in it.  Predictably, a few believed it, and were mildly surprised at the pace. "What do you mean this isn't Cdn Tire?"

I bet we have a MUCH higher ratio now of people who NEVER go on exercise or deploy overseas than we had in the 80s, because no one has the balls to tell them to get out.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Iterator

  • Returning the favour.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
  • Identidem
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2006, 04:19:12 »
Ahhh... The light! It shines brighter now.

It seems most are in agreement that there is only a limited problem with tempo.

Regarding the topics 2 main questions:

 1) When should first deployment occur? An NCM minimum would be initial training (Inf == 6 months), then familiarization with the unit (at least a month) and then the full workup training (depends on the mission... say 3 months). More is better, but as a minimum.

 2) What should the Tempo be? Is there a way to maximize temp for junior members (even as high as 18 months) and at the same time lower the tempo as time/rank increases (as these will already be more heavily tasked as instructors or on lengthy courses)? Or is that already being bashed around in the Attrition Rates within the Infantry/SITREP ON MILITIA INFANTRY UNITS/Armd Recce Reserves on Deployment threads?
Pro Patria

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,778
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2006, 08:25:13 »
I started this thread to get at the tempo issue without getting too hung up on the Reserves issue.  I put those impressions in the preamble to set the stage.  Nobody seems to want out of deployments and resent other components when they do not (both Reg and Res). 

I'm looking for impressions from the forum on their experiences, as well as their thoughts on what the tempo should be (related, of course, to pre-deployment training).  Looking at my last unit, we deployed four Recce Sqns, a HQ Sqn and two RHQs over a two year period.   I think that everyone who wanted a deployment got one.  I think that many actually wanted more, but that impession may have been wrong.

The infantry have had the situation of the "operational pause" of the last 18 months cutting their own deployment cycle back.  The phenomenon of infantry Ptes wanting tours and not getting them may vanish.

I like the idea of the three year cycle, but I think that we need to put in some institutional stability at the sub-unit level in order to get the maximum benefit out of it.  We have the managed readiness plan which identifies units, but until we can say what will be in those task forces and have soldiers know what sub-unit they will be in we will continue to be in the dark until the warning order.
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 435,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,572
  • Crewman
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2006, 09:01:59 »
I'm looking for impressions from the forum on their experiences, as well as their thoughts on what the tempo should be (related, of course, to pre-deployment training).  Looking at my last unit, we deployed four Recce Sqns, a HQ Sqn and two RHQs over a two year period.   I think that everyone who wanted a deployment got one.  I think that many actually wanted more, but that impession may have been wrong.
As you know, I was there with you and you are wrong.  There were many who wanted to go and didn't.  I was 10% and passed over on the "Double" Tours in 2003 and actually cut 24 hours prior to getting on the plane.  In 2004, Ottawa refused to give me an extension to do a Tour with my Sqn (Previously OK'd by the Reg't, if Ottawa were to approve.).  That made three in a row.  The thing that really rotted my socks was when I was on the 10% List; that a couple of people not 10% listed, with Med Cats, were sent instead.  There were also many instances of troops doing quick turn arounds and heading back over on Tour. 


[Edit to add]  Since the Op Tempo of that Unit has been so high in the last three to four years, there are very few left (with the exceptions of those Posted), who would not have gone now, or won't be going in the next year.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 09:19:05 by George Wallace »
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,778
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2006, 14:30:55 »
I guess the point remains that the Regt was going to deploy you and you wanted to go, but Ottawa intervened (DMilC?) for whatever reason.  I will also grant that at certain rank levels, timing could mean missing all the tours depending on postings/positions.  How many Tpr/Cpls were in the Regt in Aug 03 and were not on a tour over the next two years unless they were on category or mata/pata leave (or had other deployment "issues".)   Many had two tours.  B Sqn probably felt pretty down when everyone deployed in 03, but they formed the basis of Roto 3's Recce Sqn one year later.  The 10 % lists got eaten up before the chalks left in my recollection.

I'm sure, however, that there were guys who were on Roto 13 that wanted on Roto 3 or 4 and are now fighting to get on TFA Roto 2 (TF 3-06 whatever its called).  This speaks to the desire for tours.  Perhaps new theatres have an added attraction? 
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 435,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,572
  • Crewman
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2006, 14:36:37 »
....  B Sqn probably felt pretty down when everyone deployed in 03, but they formed the basis of Roto 3's Recce Sqn one year later.  .

The majority of Crew Commanders were Posted out, replaced by people from the School and ERE.  It was nearly a new Sqn when it left.

But that is all water under the bridge and there will indubitably be time, that no one will find themselves without a Tour; unless they don't desire one, and then that begs other questions.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,388
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,816
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2006, 16:38:57 »
I'm sure, however, that there were guys who were on Roto 13 that wanted on Roto 3 or 4 and are now fighting to get on TFA Roto 2 (TF 3-06 whatever its called).  This speaks to the desire for tours.  Perhaps new theatres have an added attraction? 

I know of medics (yes that is more then 2) who did Roto 8, Roto 13/ISAF Roto 0, Roto 3 and now going on Roto 2 (03-06). Some also did G8 summit and all did the BTE in 03. How is that not busy?

Tom,
You say people do not go out the the field as often now....I disagree, they just do field for a different reason. I was going to put up my 5 yr schedule, with the tours, fd ex, domestic ops and courses. It is as busy as yours, albiet more leave because of pre and post deployment.

where are all the people who use CMTC (out in the Fd) training to go?
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #17 on: February 20, 2006, 21:19:30 »
Okay, busy, but we like it busy, right?  Who exactly are the people who keep hiding behind the curtain and crying to the padre that they are too busy?

My point is that, if they can't hack it now, they could not have hacked it in the bad old days either.  The pace was hectic then as well.

Tom
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline bobthebui|der

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -75
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,069
  • I got a axe
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #18 on: February 20, 2006, 21:43:23 »
Okay, busy, but we like it busy, right?  Who exactly are the people who keep hiding behind the curtain and crying to the padre that they are too busy?

My point is that, if they can't hack it now, they could not have hacked it in the bad old days either.  The pace was hectic then as well.

Tom

I cant help but think that the simple answer to who is having difficulty with this 'busy' routine, are those with families and commitments other than that which the Military demands of them. On the flip side, I cant see the single living Soldiers, unhindered by much other than their workplace to be crying about deployments.

From a Reservists perspective, its the Tpr.s and Cpl's that are predominantly itching for a tour, whereas they seem to be digging for MCpl's and higher for the latest deployment.

At least thats what its looking like, from our latest contribution to the upcoming TF. I can only take uneducated guesses concerning RegF, but that would classify as "out of my lane" (and rightfuly so).

On that note, i'll leave my .02 limited to that.  ;)
The true measure of a man is how well he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good

Munit Haec et Altera Vincit

"2..4..6..8..tiptoe, sneak, and infiltrate, yaaaaaay, recce!" - Kat Stevens

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,778
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #19 on: February 20, 2006, 22:19:27 »
The point I was trying to make was that over the past 18 months (between ATHENA Roto 1 and TFA Roto 1) the number of infantry companies deployed was scaled back, while most of the other branches were not.  To a new Pte in an Infantry battalion this would probably be frustrating.  The CSS slice for the smaller task forces stayed relatively large (fixed "costs" I suppose).

I suppose we will see how the new tempo works out if we deploy a second line of operations.  With one line we will have, on average, 2 LAV and 1 Light sub-unit deployed at any one time.  With 18 and 9 sub-units available respectivley the tempo will result in one deployment every three years or so.  Probably too long for some folks.  Go with two lines and we'll see the same sub-unit back in the breach roughly eighteen months after getting home.  Perhaps too quick for some as well, given that the pre-deployment training would start six months earlier.

Another issue with tempo is the state of our sub-units.  Can all of our sub-units be considered up to strength?  How much cascading or collapsing is required?  Is this were the reserves could best fit in (fleshing out sub-units)?

Another interesting wrinkle is what happens to the morale of a task force that trains up for a line of operations and does not deploy?
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline Iterator

  • Returning the favour.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
  • Identidem
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2006, 02:58:01 »
The point I was trying to make was that over the past 18 months (between ATHENA Roto 1 and TFA Roto 1) the number of infantry companies deployed was scaled back, while most of the other branches were not.  To a new Pte in an Infantry battalion this would probably be frustrating.  The CSS slice for the smaller task forces stayed relatively large (fixed "costs" I suppose).

So why was there a scale-back? It appeared purely political at the time (Canada won't say No to deploying but we will slow deployment down and beg poverty hoping Afghanistan will solve itself). But if there is still a tempo problem why the dysfunction in deploying a small force of about 2 battalion equivalents (indefinitely with 12 battalion equivalents)? Is it CSS specific?

Quote
Another issue with tempo is the state of our sub-units.  Can all of our sub-units be considered up to strength?  How much cascading or collapsing is required?

Aside from some flex why would they not be?
 - Is there a shortage of applicants?
 - Are there enough applicants but no budget for recruits?
 - Is there a sufficient recruit training budget but insufficient numbers of instructors?

I guess with 1 line of operations then cascading and collapsing (all new terms in this context for me) would solve any numbers deficiencies, but with 2 lines then ensuring unit strengths would seem to be prudent.

Quote
Is this were the reserves could best fit in (fleshing out sub-units)?

I thought for the good of humanity you wanted to avoid opening that up? Depends on why you have reserves - at a guess full recruiting would be more cost effective than to have an entire army reserve structure to provide some augmentees. But if reserve augmentation is required to fulfill the reasons you have the reserves - then yes.

Quote
Another interesting wrinkle is what happens to the morale of a task force that trains up for a line of operations and does not deploy?

Bitterness can be character building. As much as trying to get that force on to the next tasking would be great, there is also the reality that many individuals would be sent elsewhere in the interim. Disappointment is part of all life, military or not.
Pro Patria

Offline Tango2Bravo

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,778
  • All your base are belong to us.
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #21 on: February 21, 2006, 05:37:20 »
You're right.  Bringing up the Reserve bit was risky!  The danger of thinking on the fly and posting late at night.

By cascading I was referring to taking soldiers from one sub-unit that has recently returned and placing them with a different sub-unit about to deploy.  By collapsing I was referring to combining two sub-units to make one.  They certainly aren't doctrinal terms!  Hopefully the fruits of any increased recruiting will first be used to bring units up to strength (with deployable people).

There was an "operational pause" at the end of ATHENA Roto 1 to give the Army (and the CF I suppose) a chance to regenerate.  APOLLO, PALLADIUM and ATHENA had resulted in two rather large battlegroups being deployed simulataneously to different theatres, although there was a break between APOLLO and ATHENA.  The first two ATHENA rotos were particularly large.  The new managed readiness plan was also put on the street around the time of the pause being announced, so I do think that the pause was instituted to get the Army tuned up for potential increased efforts.   

The smaller rotos (Roto 2 through 4) had one Recce Sqn, one small Infantry Coy (between 2 and 3 Pls depending on the Roto), an Engineer Sqn, the NSE, HSS (medics etc) and the NCE (forgive me if I forgot some elements). 
In Petawawa we mounted two of these Rotos in a row, so the "pause" was a relative term.  Still, its hard to judge the level of operational exhaustian before, during and after the pause.  We take lots of surveys, but I'm not sure if we track that particular metric.  Perhaps the sentiment in the infantry regarding disatisfaction with not getting tours was a side effect of the "pause", and therefore a temporary thing?

We are now coming out of that pause, with a large task foce in the process of deploying and another "on deck" to fill a potential second line.  If we do end up running two lines of operations, I think that most soldiers will satisfy their demand for deployment.  Is 12 to 18 months too quick for turnaround between tours?
Well-trained, older Panzer crews are the decisive factor for success...It is preferable to start off with fewer Panzers than to set out with young crews who lack combat experience.

 - Verbal report of Gen Balck 1943

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 435,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,572
  • Crewman
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2006, 07:34:09 »
Another interesting wrinkle is what happens to the morale of a task force that trains up for a line of operations and does not deploy?
Example:

CAR prepped and set to go to the Sahara.  Stop Dropped.  Later went to Somalia.

Yes, the morale of a unit takes a S_____ Kicking when they train for a deployment and then don't go.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Cataract Kid

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 3,715
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 754
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2006, 07:52:16 »
Yes, the morale of a unit takes a S_____ Kicking when they train for a deployment and then don't go.
I can defiantly sympathize with that statement...2 PPCLI 1995 "The Tour That Never Was...", months of work-up training in Canada, and the US (Fort Ripley). We were told by the Bde Comd
Quote
" %99.99 that your are defiantly going"
at the beginning of the exercise in Ripley. End Ex was called, we even had a BG picture taken! (lol), BG Comd flies in on his helo, gets off and basically says 'Oh yeah, you're not going, the VanDoos are'

Talk about a kick in the nuts...

Offline Iterator

  • Returning the favour.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 253
  • Identidem
Re: Chance of Deployment [Merged]
« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2006, 16:29:37 »
By cascading I was referring to taking soldiers from one sub-unit that has recently returned and placing them with a different sub-unit about to deploy.  By collapsing I was referring to combining two sub-units to make one.
Thanks for the clarification 2Bravo.

One day, while shooting the breeze with others (so I can't claim credit for the idea - and can possibly avoid any blame) we discussed whether 1 year instead of 6 months would be more practical. At the end of the discussion it turned out that most would have preferred to do 4 months but with less support.
As in: No leave; No leave centers; No Atco breeding grounds; No fixed address. So operate as in the field for the 4 months complete with Rolling Replen, Mobile LBU, and ensuring that the longer we stay the less we recreate a garrison. It would require an orientational shift in some CSS assets.
Now this might be the way it is now (I don't know Afghanistan), but the longer the CF stayed in Yugo (or anywhere for that matter) it seemed the more we began to reside there. Of course this is probably completely unrealistic, as it would see an increase in the number of training cycles, more transportation costs, and increased concerns about local knowledge. But perhaps knowing why we don't approach this problem from other angles might reveal the best course available.
Pro Patria