3 RCR transfers to the Light Infantry Regiment

[Kirkhill]

Am I hearing this right?

3 RCR from 2 CMBG to 3rd Canadian Light Infantry Regiment?

8.1K views · 230 reactions | Some damn fine drill by the troops | Armyguygraphics Robbie Robinson

Some damn fine drill by the troops

www.facebook.com

 

[ytz]

Correct. It was in the CA Modernization Implementation Order.

 

[MilEME09]

Am I hearing this right?

3 RCR from 2 CMBG to 3rd Canadian Light Infantry Regiment?

8.1K views · 230 reactions | Some damn fine drill by the troops | Armyguygraphics Robbie Robinson

Some damn fine drill by the troops

www.facebook.com

Yes, under CAMO the 3rd battalions of each regiment and being moved together under the light infantry regiment. The brigades will only have 2 mech infantry battalions each now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Correct. It was in the CA Modernization Implementation Order.

Thanks. Not on the distribution list.

So the Light Infantry Regiment is designated the 3rd Canadian Light Infantry Regiment?

 

[ArmyRick]

Thanks. Not on the distribution list.

So the Light Infantry Regiment is designated the 3rd Canadian Light Infantry Regiment?

Its a regiment in formation, not in ceremony and name. so 3 RCR still wears the 8 point star and green/maroon berets. But under command of the new LIR

 

[ArmyRick]

Can anyone provide a non-facebook link? I can't access facebook at work

 

[exspy]

Its a regiment in formation, not in ceremony and name. so 3 RCR still wears the 8 point star and green/maroon berets. But under command of the new LIR

Didn't Command learn from the confusion of naming a Formation (ie The Canadian Airborne Regiment 1969-1977) a Regiment?

 

[brihard]

Didn't Command learn from the confusion of naming a Formation (ie The Canadian Airborne Regiment 1969-1977) a Regiment?

Anyone who finds something this simple confusing, just don’t give them a position of responsibility.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I can only imagine the stress over what to put in the signature block.

 

[MilEME09]

And important note about the LIR, is the Army wanted to keep the door open to making it a Light Infantry Brigade in the future if allowed to grow.

 

[McG]

Didn't Command learn from the confusion of naming a Formation (ie The Canadian Airborne Regiment 1969-1977) a Regiment?

Apparently “group” did not sound cool enough, and “brigade” implied something bigger with more than just infantry.

 

[Infanteer]

Formal title is 3rd Light Infantry Regiment.

 

[PuckChaser]

Formal title is 3rd Light Infantry Regiment.

Tracking its 3rd Canadian Light Infantry Regiment because we have to add Canada to everything like CANSOF adds Special Operations to every course they run.

 

[FJAG]

Just a little speculation on my part.

When I joined in 65, there was a 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade Group in Gagetown It was a mechanized brigade tasked to reinforce/sustain 4 CMBG in Germany. It was dissolved during the 1968 -70 RegF slaughter in favour of an Airborne Regt and 5 Combat Group. Up until then there had been a 1, 2, 3 and 4 brigade groups (The Korea and early NATO vintage 25 and 27 CIBs having been transformed). 3 CMBG disappeared, 4 went in the 90s leaving basically 1, 2 and 5 brigade. . . . and now 6 CCSB.

It actually makes a lot of sense to name the LIR 3rd LIR because from there it is a short step to rename it 3 CLB or 3 CLBG (if a few bde group enablers are added.

I'm actually somewhat surprised that we are going through the rigamarole of naming it a "regiment" in the first place. Back in the day of divisions, "infantry brigades" merely had three infantry battalions and a brigade headquarters and nothing else. That's where "brigade group" had its genesis - "infantry brigades" became "infantry brigade groups" when we downloaded divisional engineer, artillery, recce and service support enablers onto them.

As far as I'm concerned they should have simply named it 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade right from the get go.

 

[McG]

Was it 3 Combat Group when it was shut down?

 

[FJAG]

Was it 3 Combat Group when it was shut down?

I don't think that it ever was. I went to 3 RCHA in 1970 and we were in 1 CIBG at the time but changed to 1 Combat Gp shortly after. I think 3 was 3 CMBG until the end (It had M109s, M113s and Centurions). I think 2 CIBG actually went light and became 2 CG a few years before we did in the 1st. 5 was created as 5 CG right from when it was formed in 1968.

The aim was that in Canada we were all rerolling into light rapid deployment organizations while 4 CMBG was the heavy outfit (but not as heavy had been in the 1960s because it too underwent some Trudeau downsizing). We might have been designated as light in Canada - we gunners all went to L5s here - but tankers still had Centurions and then Leopard 1s for quite some time and some of the battalions were in M113s while others were wheeled in 3/4 ton trucks.

It was a confusing time to study doctrine. We were making it up as we went along.

 

[McG]

We were making it up as we went along.

When has that not been the case?

 

[FJAG]

When has that not been the case?

You know when I went to the old army command and staff course and used Corps 86 as a model, doctrine actually was easy and made sense.

The fact that the Corps 86 structure bore no resemblance to what we had on the ground confused a lot of folks but if you frame things in the aspirational then at least you have a vision to build and train for. You need a vision and a path to get to its end state.

 

[MilEME09]

You know when I went to the old army command and staff course and used Corps 86 as a model, doctrine actually was easy and made sense.

The fact that the Corps 86 structure bore no resemblance to what we had on the ground confused a lot of folks but if you frame things in the aspirational then at least you have a vision to build and train for. You need a vision and a path to get to its end state.

Its very likely 3 CIR will work closely with the planned aviation brigade

 

[brihard]

Its very likely 3 CIR will work closely with the planned aviation brigade

That’s crazy talk. You’re cut off for the night.