Author Topic: Reserve Restructure  (Read 76922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #25 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #26 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #27 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #28 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #29 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2002, 15:59:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #33 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #34 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #35 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Reserve Restructuring
« Reply #36 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #37 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #38 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve restructure
« Reply #39 on: September 21, 2002, 16:00:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve restructure
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2002, 16:01:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve restructure
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2002, 16:02:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2002, 16:02:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2002, 16:02:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2002, 16:02:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2002, 16:03:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
RE: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2002, 16:03:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2002, 16:03:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2002, 16:03:00 »
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.

Offline Milnet.ca

  • Guest
  • *
  • -285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 0
    • Milnet.ca
Re: Reserve Restructure
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2002, 16:03:00 »
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.