Adopting the regiment as a regular force formation & exploring other new regimental systems

[tomahawk6]

I am very impressed with the quality of discussion on this Board.

The Canadian regimental system [regular force] seem's to work better than in the UK version. Multi-battalion regiments allow for more upward mobility than do single battalion/regiments. This is a problem in any force- stagnation.The US Army regimental system keeps alive the history of our battalions/regiments but recruiting is done nationally and soldiers/officer's dont serve out their military career in any single unit. This method allows for soldier's to receive promotions and experience at squad/platoon/company/battalion level. Soldiers can be assigned to training, recruiting and staff posts before returning to a line unit. Unit cohesion is being addressed by standing up battalions/brigades and keeping the soldiers together for a 36 month cycle. At which point soldiers are cycled to schools or other jobs while the brigade reconstitutes for another 36 month cycle. The size of our force makes this system the best one for our needs. This is new for us. Until recently the Army has been based on the single replacement system which meant individual soldiers were leaving at 2 - 3 year intervals. Experience with this new system will show how successful it will actually be.

 

[Infanteer]

Sounds something like the COHORT system?

I see you've got lots of experience; was COHORT one of those, tomahawk6?

What were your perceptions?

 

[tomahawk6]

COHORT was tried and discarded in the late 80's. The reason I think it failed was that the personnel system wasn't changed to mesh
with COHORT. This time the personnel system is being changed to support the modular force structure. Not sure how this will work out but it will be interesting to watch as it developes.

 

[Zipper]

I agree with 2Bravo. The Armoured Corp and its component regiments have quite strong ties to one another. We are all "black caps" and proud of it. To change between regiments is a little stressful, but in the end you are still part of the Corp.

As for the Brits ability to amalgamate so easily and we not so much. Why do we have too? Many people are quite attached to their units, and those units often represent a geographical area more then anything (at least militia wise). Considering how spaced out we are, is this a bad thing? It also allows for promotion. Do we have more then enough regiments as it is?

Since we are already of a multiple battalion system, why would we need to form "super regiments"? What we really need to do is recruit more people period and bring them up to some kind of strength.

 

[McG]

Many people are quite attached to their units, and those units often represent a geographical area more then anything (at least militia wise).

There are different relevant factors to the reserve structure.  This would be why we are discussing the reserve regimental system in a separate thread.

I agree with 2Bravo. The Armoured Corp and its component regiments have quite strong ties to one another. We are all "black caps" and proud of it. To change between regiments is a little stressful, but in the end you are still part of the Corp.

Would this still hold true if we were to transform into heterogeneous manoeuvre battalions (mixed infantry & cavalry)?

 

[Zipper]

Ok, I think you summed it up as far as my opposition to some of the ideas presented here MCG.

One being the fact that your separating the regular and reserve regimental structures from one another. Why? Your just throwing a wrench into the works and making things more confusing then they are already. KISS is the way to go.

And as for the heterogeneous idea...        ...hmmm.

On one hand it could mean the death of the Corp system that we hold onto so dearly.

But maybe not.

Is there any reason why those who are tasked with the different jobs within this system cannot keep their beret colours to identify them with their job and thus keep the Corps alive? Their cap badge would be the only thing that would be the same.

Now, it seems everyone here is going towards this all branch's in one regiment thing, and going to Mobility command structure instead of the status quo as Army, Air Force, Navy.

I think some people including Kirkhill will fall over dead here, but I'll for arguments purposes go along with it for now.

Now some people here want to get rid of the Regimental system entirely. Well I think we would lose all our history that way and once again walk down the "American" path. No thanks.

How about a compromise? I think Rusty ol Joint was hitting near to where I am thinking. Why not keep the regimental names as are (Thus keeping tradition) and then fit our unit tasking into them?

Thus:

The PPCLI (Key word LIGHT) would become either an Air mobile, or a Light mechanized (read wheels) regiment (3 Inf and 1 light (recce) armoured).

The RCR would be a Medium to Heavy mechanized (wheels or track) regiment.

While the RCD would be something heavier (2 Inf and 2 Armour). What these units would be would (battalions/squadrons. etc.) be up to command.

Thus the regiments keep their names and history, and fill the roles that their names imply.

Just a suggestion.

 

[ArmyRick]

I see some problems with what you suggest, Zipper.
First the patricias are all stationed out west and in spite of its name, western Canada is much more conducive to any type of mounted training (Heavy mech or Medium stuff). Just look at the terrain in Wainwright, Shilo, Dundurn and Suffield. So the RCR and the RCD would be moving west to make it more productive for training value.

Next, you would be moving the "new" PPCLI to Petawawa and Gagetown. These bases are ideal for light infantry and airmobile training. Especially those who have been to Pet. It is predominantly thick wooded country. Only the east side of the base and the DZ are realistic for mech trg.

What about the Van Doos? What type of regiment would they become? Would dislodge them from Quebec? And do so without a huge political fight?

Lets ditch the Regt names to their roles idea.

Last, the CDS is quite clear. We will not have Heavy mech forces in the near future. Too many people go on and on about the "wishes". Lets stay grounded in reality. In 10 years the CF will have LAVIII, MGS, TUA and MMEV. We will also have some of the cool new things the engineers have been playing with and maybe (its not too costly) 120mm mortars.

Lets figure out a better force structure based on what we can forsee us having.

 

[Infanteer]

First the patricias are all stationed out west and in spite of its name, western Canada is much more conducive to any type of mounted training (Heavy mech or Medium stuff). Just look at the terrain in Wainwright, Shilo, Dundurn and Suffield. So the RCR and the RCD would be moving west to make it more productive for training value.

You're forgetting the Canadian Rockies, the Temperate Rainforests of British Columbia, and the Pacific Coast littoral.

As well, Rusty Old Joint has made a convincing argument before on the suitability of Edmonton for locating an Airmobile unit - the airhead their provides the best area to act as a "launch pad" for global deployment.

We shouldn't limit our garrisoning of troops to where they can train.  The American's have units from around the US go to Ft. Irwin to train at the NTC - we are trying the same with the Canadian Maneuver Training Center in Wainwright (although it seems a little too small for Brigade level exercises).  Remember, the last Bde exercise when 2 CMBG deployed out West?

Lets ditch the Regt names to their roles idea.

Agree - Regimentalism isn't about Roles and Tasks (these change frequently as the face of war changes) but rather on tradition, heritage, and a shared sense of belonging.   Remember, before the Armoured units were cruising around in tanks, they were riding around on horses and quite frequently dismounting and fighting and Infantrymen.   Clearly, the"Cav" role and regiment has historical precedent - it's a matter of giving those who would play a key role in it (from any trade) an equal share in the Regiment.

Lets figure out a better force structure based on what we can forsee us having.

Yep, agree with you hear as well.   We need to focus on best applying our ideas to what we got so we can get the best "bang for the buck".   This applies to everything - kit, organization, manpower, etc.

 

[McG]

... your separating the regular and reserve regimental structures from one another. Why? Your just throwing a wrench into the works and making things more confusing then they are already. KISS is the way to go.

There is no requirement that reserve & regular share a common regimental system.  Attempting to find one solution that fits the needs of the regular force and the reserve force is probably more definitive of complex than applying simple unique solutions to each.  As it is, the systems are already different with multi-battalion regiments being the regular force standard and single battalion regiments proliferating in the reserves.

Why not keep the regimental names as are (Thus keeping tradition) and then fit our unit tasking into them?

In keeping things simple, I don't think regimental names need to become a factor.  The RCDs could be the light formation for all that it really matters.  This would allow us to make the decision based on important factors like where we want a given capability to be located.

Is there any reason why those who are tasked with the different jobs within this system cannot keep their beret colours to identify them with their job and thus keep the Corps alive? Their cap badge would be the only thing that would be the same.

I don't consider this an important point.  We can decide to base beret colour on regiment or we could decide to base beret colour on MOC.  The RSMs can decide in the mess because it will not affect how the manoeuvre regiments will function.

 

[Zipper]

There is no requirement that reserve & regular share a common regimental system. Attempting to find one solution that fits the needs of the regular force and the reserve force is probably more definitive of complex than applying simple unique solutions to each. As it is, the systems are already different with multi-battalion regiments being the regular force standard and single battalion regiments proliferating in the reserves.

Are you forgeting that the whole purpose of the reserves is to be a base upon which to build a multi-battalion force? You guys are continuing to look at our forces as something that will always just be a small entity that sends a few troops here, and a few troops there with reserves to fill in the gaps. If you think that way, then we will be caught with not only our pants down, but off and downstairs in the wash when something BIG comes along. Why are so many people unable to think that something like that can never happen again?

In keeping things simple, I don't think regimental names need to become a factor. The RCDs could be the light formation for all that it really matters. This would allow us to make the decision based on important factors like where we want a given capability to be located.

I agree to a point. In WWII, the RCD were an armoured car regiment, and some of the normally Infantry regiments were moved up into the Armoured role (Hell, the Foot Guards were an Armoured unit! Good grief! ). However, we should at least TRY to keep some semblance of our pasts and traditions alive. Regiments with no identifying role could be tasked into whatever job is most suitable. If we get rid of our regimental system (as well as the rest of our capabilities), then we may as well become American sub-units only. Oh, and hand over the keys to the country while your at it.

We can decide to base beret colour on regiment or we could decide to base beret colour on MOC. The RSMs can decide in the mess because it will not affect how the manoeuvre regiments will function.

No it may not have anything to do with function, but something far more deeply rooted. What you are doing is basically scrapping everything to do with our roots and re-inventing the military in some other model.

We shouldn't limit our garrisoning of troops to where they can train. The American's have units from around the US go to Ft. Irwin to train at the NTC - we are trying the same with the Canadian Maneuver Training Center in Wainwright (although it seems a little too small for Brigade level exercises). Remember, the last Bde exercise when 2 CMBG deployed out West?

Agreed. However, I believe units can change places. The PPCLI were not always in the west. As well, the Van Doos/RCR can be made into a light unit/Air cav, whatever. They don't have to be med/heavy mech. Hell, the RCD and Strats could made into the med/heavy mech with tank support.

Last, the CDS is quite clear. We will not have Heavy mech forces in the near future. Too many people go on and on about the "wishes". Lets stay grounded in reality. In 10 years the CF will have LAVIII, MGS, TUA and MMEV. We will also have some of the cool new things the engineers have been playing with and maybe (its not too costly) 120mm mortars.

Sure we can stop wishing. But whats the point? As for us having all of the above. I can almost see it now...        ...in 10 years, half of the vehicles above are either parked and rusting out because they were either non-effective in theatre (like our LSVW's), or because they were considered "endangering" to their crews because on their first "peacemaking" mission, several crews got cooked from multiple RPG hits. All of this of course was kept on a need to know basis within NDHQ and was leaked to the media several months after the fact causing the collapse of yet another government because of mis-management of Canadian lives.

Lets figure out a better force structure based on what we can forsee us having.

No argument there. I guess I'll just continue to wish until the budget comes out and then wait for the other shoe to drop. What the Government foresees for us, and what others do is usually two very different things.

I guess I'll just have to write another letter to my MP.

Sigh

 

[pbi]

then we may as well become American sub-units only. Oh, and hand over the keys to the country while your at it.

Have you ever heard of the US Army's Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS)?  Try http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/lineage/CARS-QA.htm

You might want to look into it before you make throwaway statements like that. Most US Army Cbt A units that I am familiar with are quite proud of their unit history and can often trace it back to the Revolution. They wear a Regimental badge on their uniforms, and are quite able to tell you the symbolism of the various devices in their badge. Do not make the assumption that we are the only ones with a functioning system of unit lineage and heritage. What rally matters is not the system but the quality of the people in it. If that were not true, the CEF would probably not have worked out, because we mobilized it by pretty well scrapping the Regimental system as a mobilization and warfighting tool.

Cheers.

 

[ArmyRick]

Zipper, RPGs have been bad news for every armored vehicle in Iraq including the almighty abrams (Fire at its back side). Ask the yanks who have been in Theater.

The LAVIII is very popular choice with the guys I know in 1 RCR and 2 PPCLI who use them. Its a huge step up from the "Ice cooler with a 50" (M113) or the midgets only Grizzly.

 

[Zipper]

Have you ever heard of the US Army's Combat Arms Regimental System (CARS)? Try http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/lineage/CARS-QA.htm

You might want to look into it before you make throwaway statements like that. Most US Army Cbt A units that I am familiar with are quite proud of their unit history and can often trace it back to the Revolution. They wear a Regimental badge on their uniforms, and are quite able to tell you the symbolism of the various devices in their badge. Do not make the assumption that we are the only ones with a functioning system of unit lineage and heritage. What rally matters is not the system but the quality of the people in it. If that were not true, the CEF would probably not have worked out, because we mobilized it by pretty well scrapping the Regimental system as a mobilization and warfighting tool.

Very True. However their more likely to the "fighting 12th", or the "mean 6th". They identify with mostly numbers. Yes, some of them have names or nick names that were coined at the time. But lets keep our names just the way they are and work with it, instead of re-creating the entire system.

Zipper, RPGs have been bad news for every armored vehicle in Iraq including the almighty abrams (Fire at its back side). Ask the yanks who have been in Theater.

The LAVIII is very popular choice with the guys I know in 1 RCR and 2 PPCLI who use them. Its a huge step up from the "Ice cooler with a 50" (M113) or the midgets only Grizzly.

True as well. But how many times did they have to get hit from behind? And if their getting hit from behind means they moved beyond their Infantry support or the support left them.

The LAV III is really the only piece of kit that is actually a bonus. If it used for the task it was meant for. However, that being a IFV means that we still need the rest of the components to be suitable as well.

 

[McG]

Ack!  The LAV III debate is out there in a plethora of other threads.  It does not need to be fought here.  Any new regimental system should be flexible enough that equipment debates are not relevant here.  Defining a unit by its equipment and not its roll will only result in stubbornness/resistance when that equipment becomes obsolete.

Are you forgeting that the whole purpose of the reserves is to be a base upon which to build a multi-battalion force? You guys are continuing to look at our forces as something that will always just be a small entity that sends a few troops here, and a few troops there with reserves to fill in the gaps. If you think that way, then we will be caught with not only our pants down, but off and downstairs in the wash when something BIG comes along. Why are so many people unable to think that something like that can never happen again?

So What? Reserves could mobilize in brigades that fight along side the regular regiments.  However, a time of mobilization will be distinctly different from how things work in "peace."  Our standing requirement is for a regular force regimental system that is able to sustain an on going high tempo of deployed operations and a reserve force regimental system that can sustain itself, develop trained individuals & sub-units, and mobilize in time of war.  Nothing would prevent a mobilised reserve brigade from fighting along side a regular force regimental formation.  In fact, the two formations would be equal in time of war but would be better suited to the needs of their respective components in â Å“peace.â ?

 

[Infanteer]

Very True. However their more likely to the "fighting 12th", or the "mean 6th". They identify with mostly numbers. Yes, some of them have names or nick names that were coined at the time. But lets keep our names just the way they are and work with it, instead of re-creating the entire system.

It doesn't make a difference if Regiments are Numbered or Named regiments - that is irrelevant to the core of functioning Regimental system.  I'm looking at a copy of the Regimental History of the 5th Marines Regiment(The Fighting Fifth) and it is just as storied and illustrious as our Regimental histories.  Heck, we in Canada have the 48th Highlanders, the 1st Hussars and the Royal 22ieme Regiment.  Seems like a numbers thing there as well.

 

[a_majoor]

Regimental pride and Esprit de Corps (unit, not the magazine), come from sharing experiences and overcoming obstacles together. Long service professionals can mold newcomers into the Regimental Family, and the deep histories of some regiments (some British and Swedish Regiments have histories going back 300 years) gives everyone a standard to aspire to.

"New" regiments can achieve the same with a baptism of fire, the numbered battalions of the CEF often had no history whatsoever, yet few would say they were slouches in the Esprit de Corps department. I would think that forming an SSF battalion for some PSO could be done today with a mix of Reg, reserve and even newbies if they were forged by a few intensive months of "tiger" training at WATC or Gagetown prior to deployment. (The first Canadian contingent in the Korean war was given this treatment, and it certainly helped).

Arguments based on Corps affiliations are coming from the same background, but overlook the "new" security environment. Just as there are no Hussar regiments equipped with horses and muskets anymore, units in the 21rst century may accept new roles and equipment sets, yet keep storied traditions alive. (In the US, the 2nd Armoured Cavalry Regiment is converting to a SBCT, which most people would call an "Infantry Battalion". I doubt anyone in the unit will think of themselves as anything but "Cav"). If you get posted to the "Internet Fuisiliers", why, that is the roughest, toughest bunch of hackers and crackers going, and don't even think of comparing them to those pussies in Space Command.....

Circling back to the beginning, Regiments are repositories of people, histories, attitudes, skillsets and (almost as an afterthought) equipment. Sometimes the equipment helps mould the attitudes and skill sets, but in general, the more flexible and far reaching your mindset is, the better you and your regiment will adapt to those nasty surprises on the battlefield

 

[Zipper]

Ok. Agreed with you on that Majoor. But why the hell do people around here want to get rid of the entire system? Fine, change the roles, change the equipment, even change the tasks. But leave the damn regiments alone. They work fine. Its been tried before in past conflicts to change things to just a number, and has always reverted (in days to months) back to time honoured names.

 

[Infanteer]

Ok. Agreed with you on that Majoor. But why the hell do people around here want to get rid of the entire system? Fine, change the roles, change the equipment, even change the tasks. But leave the damn regiments alone. They work fine. Its been tried before in past conflicts to change things to just a number, and has always reverted (in days to months) back to time honoured names.

That is nothing but an argument based on sentiment rather than fact.  Look at the history of the British Regimental System - for a couple hundred years before the Cardwell Reforms the British Regiments were numbered.  Yes, all those battle honours on their Colours from the Napoleonic Wars, 7 Years War, etc, etc were earned by the numbered Regiments, not "time honoured names".  Read (and educate yourself) about the Regimental System here:

http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/lists/bargts.htm

Zipper, you're approaching this concept from the wrong angle.  You don't seem to realize that no one is really arguing to "do-away" with the Regiments.  The Regimental system has been a constantly evolving concept since the days of the Roman Legion.  Even the British system, with Regiments with 300-year old battle honours, is in a constant state of change.  We aren't doing ourselves any favours by thinking we can rest on our laurals and pretend that what worked 100 years ago still works today.

Rather, the general aim is to ensure that the Regimental system in Canada's Army is "in tune" with the operational realities on the ground.  As A Majoor pointed out, the strength of the Regiment is not its fancy name, snazzy uniforms or a specific piece of gear - they are repositories of histories, attitudes, skillsets, etc, etc and these are abilities that we all seek to preserve when promoting a transformation in Regimental structure.  If we don't and the Regimental system gets "stale" and out of touch with the modern battlefield, then that repository has a negative effect on the combat power of our units.  In order to avoid this, it is necessary to accept that the "time honoured" Regiment, like any other factor in war, must change with the times.

 

[Zipper]

Zipper, you're approaching this concept from the wrong angle.   You don't seem to realize that no one is really arguing to "do-away" with the Regiments.   The Regimental system has been a constantly evolving concept since the days of the Roman Legion.   Even the British system, with Regiments with 300-year old battle honours, is in a constant state of change.   We aren't doing ourselves any favours by thinking we can rest on our laurals and pretend that what worked 100 years ago still works today.

Rather, the general aim is to ensure that the Regimental system in Canada's Army is "in tune" with the operational realities on the ground.   As A Majoor pointed out, the strength of the Regiment is not its fancy name, snazzy uniforms or a specific piece of gear - they are repositories of histories, attitudes, skillsets, etc, etc and these are abilities that we all seek to preserve when promoting a transformation in Regimental structure.   If we don't and the Regimental system gets "stale" and out of touch with the modern battlefield, then that repository has a negative effect on the combat power of our units.   In order to avoid this, it is necessary to accept that the "time honoured" Regiment, like any other factor in war, must change with the times.

Agreed. I am looking at from a fondness as opposed to a operational ability. One of the benefits of sitting in a chair.

I guess what disturbs me most is the fact that what you say above takes time. Many of the changes were slow and took much time to carry out. And what I see here is something that will turn the Forces on its ear overnight.

Hell, its taken me a week of chewing on the idea of all arms regiments (thanks to all here) to see the benefits of what I initially thought of as a crazy idea. It makes sense in many way to me now. Although some of the ideas still seem like your wanting to change things simply for the sake of changing them.

The way I see it, our regiments and their names are just fine. Leave them be and work within them, but change them to all arms with new taskings (light, Air mobile, Cavalry, etc) and I think something would work and make us more effective. I even think changing the reg force regiments to all arms, and leaving the militia to their single tasks would suit just as well. You just pull from each one to fill in your gaps in the reg force for overseas operations. How that would effect training on the whole, I don't know. But small changes...

 

[ArmyRick]

Ah here we go...
RCD, correct me if I am inaccurate.

When the RCD first became what it was, it was a cavalry school and then a cavalry regt (Horse back).
Obiously, horses are long gone except for ceremony.

When did the RCAC actually form? Wasn't it during the WW2?

The corps may change, but if we play our cards right, the regiments will live on.

For example, RCD and RCR in the fututre may both become combat arms units in a "new combat arms corps"

Just a thought. Cheers with beers and no fears.