Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

A "threat" doesn't have be mean Canadian tanks facing Chinese/Russian tanks either here or abroad. As adversarial states they can stir up and disrupt regions of the world that are a political or economic threat to our wellbeing which might require us to use military force to defend our interests.

Including our home region.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that they are both threats. They both wander around looking for low-hanging fruit to pick.

I'm not worried about a Russian or Chinese div coming at us over the Arctic or Pacific. I am concerned about our response when either Russian or Chinese mineral exploration ships start setting up in our territorial waters. Or all of Vancouver city council and then the BC legislature starts getting populated by Chinese ex-pats. Or our communications and other sensitive electronic data systems start acting weirdly. How do we respond. My preference is to not be seen as low-hanging fruit by building our international strength and support amongst like-minded allies and a military that fosters those relationships by commitments in their back yard as well as creating strength in our own.

A reason for doing something very illiberal and "militarizing" society. It increases awareness.

It was Gladstonian Liberals that promoted Territorial and Volunteer service, school cadet corps, the Boy Scouts and Wolf Cubs, the Girl Guides and Brownies, the Boys Brigade (Church of England's Establishment scouts) ... auxiliary constables.

They were promoted as a civic duty, as an alternative to the Continental conscription system, because liberal Brits did not do compulsion.

Canadian Liberals have spent my lifetime demilitarizing Canada and Canadians.

And a very large portion of the modern population doesn't have a cultural memory of that Gladstonian society.

So now we find ourselves facing compulsion or farming out the job to a standing army.

 

[KevinB]

A reason for doing something very illiberal and "militarizing" society. It increases awareness.

It was Gladstonian Liberals that promoted Territorial and Volunteer service, school cadet corps, the Boy Scouts and Wolf Cubs, the Girl Guides and Brownies, the Boys Brigade (Church of England's Establishment scouts) ... auxiliary constables.

They were promoted as a civic duty, as an alternative to the Continental conscription system, because liberal Brits did not do compulsion.

Canadian Liberals have spent my lifetime demilitarizing Canada and Canadians.

And a very large portion of the modern population doesn't have a cultural memory of that Gladstonian society.

So now we find ourselves facing compulsion or farming out the job to a standing army.

The world has changed there’s a lot of things you really cannot do with the home guard. The National Guard down here has compulsory summer training as it is required to maintain proficiency.

 

[Kirkhill]

The world has changed there’s a lot of things you really cannot do with the home guard. The National Guard down here has compulsory summer training as it is required to maintain proficiency.

You really don' t get it, do you?

It is not about what volunteers can do.

It is about guardsmen and terries, scouts and guides, perceiving the threats and supporting government military spending, including investing in the world's best trained and equipped, but small, standing army.

It is about creating a society that values military service, that does not fear it. It is about creating a pool of willing volunteers for the regular forces.

 

[Kirkhill]

The world has changed there’s a lot of things you really cannot do with the home guard. The National Guard down here has compulsory summer training as it is required to maintain proficiency.

Further to...

I know a lot of regs consider all of this a waste of resources, a waste of time, people and money.

I would posit the effort as an investment, an investment with two net benefits for the regs:

People voluntarily pay more taxes to pay your salaries and pensions and supply you the best available kit

People voluntarily acquire skills and knowledge that reduce the training delta when you take them under control.

 

[FJAG]

@Kirkhill

I may not have agreed too much with this concept in the past - and my frame of mind was very much on the basis of what value for resources invested does one get out of it. That's very much a RegF mindset.

I've changed my viewpoint over the years. I'm acutely aware of the role that things like the military sponsorship (to the point of providing ammunition) of rifle associations and shooting clubs and that the cadet movement played in providing the foundation of the reserve force and subsequent mobilization in world wars.

Even if not a direct and immediately useable military force, these agencies inculcated an understanding and familiarity of the military that created a general benefit in later years.

The RegF - especially the army - in its attempt to squeeze every penny out of its budget has very much sunk into a "what have you done for me today?" view of the world. There is little or any understanding of how to build a society or defence structure which will lead to a successful mobilization of the nation in times of crisis other than as items of academic theory amongst too few of them. I sometimes marvel that the Ranger program still exists.

The current "Inflection Point 2025" initiatives are, to me, a strong signal that the RegF is moving further away from the rest of the army. Yes, there is a need for a deployable expeditionary division but it doesn't have to encompass the vast portion of the RegF establishment and relegating the reserves (primary and Rangers) into what is clearly seen as a "self-sufficient" secondary defence of Canada role. IMHO, defence of the north is a much more complex undertaking than expeditionary ops in Europe (we have the formula for that and can easily integrate reservists into those roles) True northern operations, and not just camping trips with a range practice, are highly complex, joint operations requiring much planning and training. But they aren't as sexy so . . . give it to the reserves.

We need a much stronger cadet program that is more oriented to the military - give them proper uniforms and some basic webbing and concentrate more on military arts. The Brits still seem to do this well. We need a much stronger force of Canadian Rangers, - a 100,000 isn't to few - spread throughout the country, given uniforms, enough training to operate a weapon, assist in disasters, but capable, with little additional training, of standing as armed guards at vital points and facilities. Provide them with tiered ResF and RegF leadership.

Most importantly we need an organized, cohesive, and integrated national structure that melds all forms of reserve and regular force service. Balkanizing the army is just plain short-sighted and destructive.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re Inflection 2025

For me I would let the regs run with the expeditionary div. That clearly is where their heart is.

On the other hand I would draw the Light Infantry Regiment into the Continental div along with the Militia Brigades and the Rangers. I would expand both the Militia and Rangers on the basis of voluntary service. Turn nobody away. Pay the volunteers on the basis of the skills they learn and the commitment they are willing to make.

Further I would refocus the CADTC on supporting and developing the Continental div.

Finally I would opcon the entire div to NORAD via the RCAF.

IAMD. CUAS. VP defence.

And the model for the infantry and cavalry units would be the 180 pers RAF Regiment Field Squadron. The RAF AA Squadrons would be the dominant model for the Arty.

Sigs, Svc, Eng, MP and Fd Amb already have defined and recognizable tasks across all scenarios.

 

[KevinB]

Further to...

I know a lot of regs consider all of this a waste of resources, a waste of time, people and money.

I would posit the effort as an investment, an investment with two net benefits for the regs:

People voluntarily pay more taxes to pay your salaries and pensions and supply you the best available kit

People voluntarily acquire skills and knowledge that reduce the training delta when you take them under control.

You misunderstand my point.

I see a role for the volunteers, and like @FJAG I think there is a huge opportunity that is missed now in things like the DCRA, Cadets etc.

I think the Rangers are a great value add as well.

I also firmly believe in a total force Army between RegF and PRes.

Frankly I’d have the vast majority of the heavy metal in the PRes in Hybrid Units, as those aren’t day to day operations for the most part.

I’d focus the majority of the Regs on rapid deployment capabilities as well as CS and CSS, and the training pipeline.

However I think Canada needs to revisit the way the PRes are handled, as the current system of ‘duty’ doesn’t work. There needs to be job protection, and more.

 

[Kirkhill]

You misunderstand my point.

I see a role for the volunteers, and like @FJAG I think there is a huge opportunity that is missed now in things like the DCRA, Cadets etc.

I think the Rangers are a great value add as well.

I also firmly believe in a total force Army between RegF and PRes.

Frankly I’d have the vast majority of the heavy metal in the PRes in Hybrid Units, as those aren’t day to day operations for the most part.

I’d focus the majority of the Regs on rapid deployment capabilities as well as CS and CSS, and the training pipeline.

However I think Canada needs to revisit the way the PRes are handled, as the current system of ‘duty’ doesn’t work. There needs to be job protection, and more.

Job protection is only necessary if the government demands service.

If the service is voluntary, if it is freely donated by the volunteer, if it doesn't discomfit the volunteer unduly, then no job protection is required.

We deride Russia and Cuba and such for trying to run countries on command economies just like Colbert's dirigisme.

de Toqueville marvelled that the American system worked without coercion and relied on voluntarism.

The regs, used to operating in a command environment, cannot manage a volunteer force. They don't know how to appeal to recruits, how to engage volunteers, how to get the most out of them or how to accept their limitations.

 

[KevinB]

Job protection is only necessary if the government demands service.

If the service is voluntary, if it is freely donated by the volunteer, if it doesn't discomfit the volunteer unduly, then no job protection is required.

Except that you cannot run a Military on 100% Regular Force. It would bankrupt any nation.

There needs to be a Reserve Soldier who is subject to being held to account, and service demanded.

The fair weather soldier/sailor/aircrew you seem to think can act as your home guard doesn’t exist anymore.

We deride Russia and Cuba and such for trying to run countries on command economies just like Colbert's dirigisme.

de Toqueville marvelled that the American system worked without coercion and relied on voluntarism.

The Militia in America was incompetent, for pretty much anything but ambushes and raids. Which required a Regular Army to be created to fight the British in the fields.

The regs, used to operating in a command environment, cannot manage a volunteer force. They don't know how to appeal to recruits, how to engage volunteers, how to get the most out of them or how to accept their limitations.

I was both a PRes member and a Regular Force member - you’re making some blindingly false assumptions in your point.

1) At the end of the day every Canadian military member is a volunteer.
Once you sign a contract and swear allegiance, you are a commodity of the Crown.

2) You seem to think vast swathes of personnel could be leverage for free. Except they won’t get any training and can’t be relied upon.
I fail to see the benefits there for anyone.

3) This isn’t Europe, there is no remembrance of the World Wars decimating peoples towns. Canadians as a population are blind to the threats of the world. So the national security aspect of volunteering isn’t there like it is in Europe.

4) The GOC and CAF themselves have maligned the CAF over actions of a minuscule fraction of the force. Wonder why recruiting is down, the GoC and CAF have made people think there is a racist pedophile murderer under every uniform, and most of the equipment is on its last legs (or past), or simply non existent for many PRes units. It’s hard to drum up esprit de corps in those circumstances.

 

[FJAG]

Job protection is only necessary if the government demands service.

It does and it should. History is replete with states that fell when its army decided to go away. Think Afghanistan as the most recent example.

If the service is voluntary, if it is freely donated by the volunteer, if it doesn't discomfit the volunteer unduly, then no job protection is required.

You only have to read the many posts in this forum to see that it's pay and benefits which drives Canada's military population. Job protection isn't something that is 'required' for the reserves - it's what the government 'owes' to the volunteer in gratitude for his volunteerism.

We deride Russia and Cuba and such for trying to run countries on command economies just like Colbert's dirigisme.

I had to look that up to see where you're going with it. It didn't help. A better explanation won't either.

de Toqueville marvelled that the American system worked without coercion and relied on voluntarism.

Tell that to the 50,000, mostly draftees, that died in Vietnam.

The regs, used to operating in a command environment, cannot manage a volunteer force. They don't know how to appeal to recruits, how to engage volunteers, how to get the most out of them or how to accept their limitations.

The problem is neither the regular nor the reservist. It's a system that keeps them separated in silos that fosters a system where one doesn't fully understand or appreciate the other. That's a situation that can be corrected through construction a modified hybrid system. It will take time and will have many challenges in its formative years, but with time will create a modified attitude on both sides as they learn to understand how the one needs to rely on the other. Will there be a number of dipshits who don't get it? Of course there will. With time, good leadership will reduce that to an inconsequential level.

 

[FJAG]

Re Inflection 2025

For me I would let the regs run with the expeditionary div. That clearly is where their heart is.

Missed this the first time I went past it.

I'm a yes and no kind of guy on this.

The problem is that the RegF wants to consolidate more as a solution of a perceived force management problem than the creation of a required tactical entity. The inclusion of the "light regiment" is the dead give-away.

I'm redrafting "Unsustainable" and am quite frankly sponging-in many of the discussions here in order to distill a sound and workable solution to that tactical requirement and the overall force development concept.

My heart right now says: "sure, give them their div but don't give them all the full-timers - that's just a killer"

I'm toying with the idea of compact armoured div - 2 armoured brigades with an armoured regiment and two mechanized infantry battalions each; an artillery brigade with two SP regiments, an AD regiment, an STA/EW regiment and a HIMARS regiment; a sustainment brigade with a maint bn, a logistics battalion, a field ambulance, and three bde svc bns allocated to the manoeuvre and arty bdes; a heavy divisional cavalry regiment, a divisional armoured engineer regiment, a divisional signals regiment. That's it. 10,000 and no more.

I see the rest of the RegF distributed amongst a second ARes heavy hybrid compact armoured div and a "Homeland" div. It would have, amongst other things a predominantly RegF hybrid light brigade. I'm still writing and need to rerun numbers since my last napkin force was mostly ARes heavy hybrid. (Honestly, I still think its the better solution and I'm asking myself whether or not the new structure is just catering to RegF insecurities )

 

[daftandbarmy]

@Kirkhill

I may not have agreed too much with this concept in the past - and my frame of mind was very much on the basis of what value for resources invested does one get out of it. That's very much a RegF mindset.

I've changed my viewpoint over the years. I'm acutely aware of the role that things like the military sponsorship (to the point of providing ammunition) of rifle associations and shooting clubs and that the cadet movement played in providing the foundation of the reserve force and subsequent mobilization in world wars.

Even if not a direct and immediately useable military force, these agencies inculcated an understanding and familiarity of the military that created a general benefit in later years.

The RegF - especially the army - in its attempt to squeeze every penny out of its budget has very much sunk into a "what have you done for me today?" view of the world. There is little or any understanding of how to build a society or defence structure which will lead to a successful mobilization of the nation in times of crisis other than as items of academic theory amongst too few of them. I sometimes marvel that the Ranger program still exists.

The current "Inflection Point 2025" initiatives are, to me, a strong signal that the RegF is moving further away from the rest of the army. Yes, there is a need for a deployable expeditionary division but it doesn't have to encompass the vast portion of the RegF establishment and relegating the reserves (primary and Rangers) into what is clearly seen as a "self-sufficient" secondary defence of Canada role. IMHO, defence of the north is a much more complex undertaking than expeditionary ops in Europe (we have the formula for that and can easily integrate reservists into those roles) True northern operations, and not just camping trips with a range practice, are highly complex, joint operations requiring much planning and training. But they aren't as sexy so . . . give it to the reserves.

We need a much stronger cadet program that is more oriented to the military - give them proper uniforms and some basic webbing and concentrate more on military arts. The Brits still seem to do this well. We need a much stronger force of Canadian Rangers, - a 100,000 isn't to few - spread throughout the country, given uniforms, enough training to operate a weapon, assist in disasters, but capable, with little additional training, of standing as armed guards at vital points and facilities. Provide them with tiered ResF and RegF leadership.

Most importantly we need an organized, cohesive, and integrated national structure that melds all forms of reserve and regular force service. Balkanizing the army is just plain short-sighted and destructive.

Glass half full: A new 2 star job for the ARes and you won't even need to leave home

 

[FJAG]

Glass half full: A new 2 star job for the ARes and you won't even need to leave home

Oh, please, please, please - do not make that an ARes position. That would be the kiss of death.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Oh, please, please, please - do not make that an ARes position. That would be the kiss of death.

Of course they will because the rationale all along has been: 'it's only fair'.

I can think of at least three ARes people who would desperately lunge for that position, and you would be right

 

[Kirkhill]

Except that you cannot run a Military on 100% Regular Force. It would bankrupt any nation.

There needs to be a Reserve Soldier who is subject to being held to account, and service demanded.

The fair weather soldier/sailor/aircrew you seem to think can act as your home guard doesn’t exist anymore.



The Militia in America was incompetent, for pretty much anything but ambushes and raids. Which required a Regular Army to be created to fight the British in the fields.

I was both a PRes member and a Regular Force member - you’re making some blindingly false assumptions in your point.

1) At the end of the day every Canadian military member is a volunteer.
Once you sign a contract and swear allegiance, you are a commodity of the Crown.

2) You seem to think vast swathes of personnel could be leverage for free. Except they won’t get any training and can’t be relied upon.
I fail to see the benefits there for anyone.

3) This isn’t Europe, there is no remembrance of the World Wars decimating peoples towns. Canadians as a population are blind to the threats of the world. So the national security aspect of volunteering isn’t there like it is in Europe.

4) The GOC and CAF themselves have maligned the CAF over actions of a minuscule fraction of the force. Wonder why recruiting is down, the GoC and CAF have made people think there is a racist pedophile murderer under every uniform, and most of the equipment is on its last legs (or past), or simply non existent for many PRes units. It’s hard to drum up esprit de corps in those circumstances.

You make it too complicated.

You create a structure around which volunteers can coalesce.

They offer their time.

You ask for part-timers to take shifts, for part-timers willing to turn out locally when called, for people willing to take on a short term contract with the regs.

And you contract them.

And you don't muck them around. You pay them on time. You kit them appropriately. You stick to your schedules.

I know profitable businesses that operate on those principles.

The key is having more people in your rolodex than you need.

Ordering the unwilling to do the unwanted is not going to generate a functional organization.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is about creating a society that values military service, that does not fear it. It is about creating a pool of willing volunteers for the regular forces.

The US has arguably created the worlds pre-eminent society-that-values-military-service.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Tell that to the 50,000, mostly draftees, that died in Vietnam.

Criticizing Americans for not volunteering in adequate numbers for a proxy war on someone else's behalf in a country few knew much about in order to clean up a French mess doesn't really resonate as a criticism of American civic spirit where America is concerned.

 

[FJAG]

Criticizing Americans for not volunteering in adequate numbers for a proxy war on someone else's behalf in a country few knew much about in order to clean up a French mess doesn't really resonate as a criticism of American civic spirit where America is concerned.

That wasn't my point at all.

My point was in response to @Kirkhill 's statement, "de Toqueville marvelled that the American system worked without coercion and relied on voluntarism." America had for well over a century abandoned the reliance on volunteers and the minuteman spirit and instead coerced their citizenry to go to a war up to and including one that few wanted any part of and which led to the death of over 50,000 of them.

My point, simply enough is that the spirit of volunteerism alone isn't enough to build a viable army. You need a system whereby those who volunteer to serve are held accountable to their oath. As @KevinB put it: "Once you sign a contract and swear allegiance, you are a commodity of the Crown."

 

[MacNav63]

That wasn't my point at all.

My point was in response to @Kirkhill 's statement, "de Toqueville marvelled that the American system worked without coercion and relied on voluntarism." America had for well over a century abandoned the reliance on volunteers and the minuteman spirit and instead coerced their citizenry to go to a war up to and including one that few wanted any part of and which led to the death of over 50,000 of them.

My point, simply enough is that the spirit of volunteerism alone isn't enough to build a viable army. You need a system whereby those who volunteer to serve are held accountable to their oath. As @KevinB put it: "Once you sign a contract and swear allegiance, you are a commodity of the Crown."

Civil War, First and Second World Wars, Korea. All conscript armies. Civil War conscription provoked riots by those who didn't want to fight. You might be able to rely on volunteers in the first instance but once you start sustaining casualties the supply of volunteers is unlikely to keep up with the demand, as I believe we learned in '43-'44.