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

[Infanteer]

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

Your stock just went up by saying that.  At least you can reflect on what others have said to you (unlike others) 

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.

Sometimes reform is all that is needed, while sometimes Transformation is required.  I believe that our years of neglect of any strategic direction for the Forces combined with the pace of RMA/RHA change means that Transformation is the way to go.

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....

That's largely in line with what many of us have been proposing.

 

[McG]

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. ...   But small changes...

Small changes would only be window dressings.

The current British changes validate the multi-battalion regiment for a regular force paradigm.   However, our Armd regiments exist as single units.   They would not be directly convertible to multi-battalion manoeuvre regiments.

We could convert the third bn off of each infantry regt and form two two-battalion regiments in each brigade, or we could convert all of a brigade to a single manoeuvre regiment (either by rolling all the armd regts into the infantry regts, or my reducing brigades to three manoeuvre units and perpetuating four of the existing regiments through a fourth formation).  This raises the question: at what point do we start to see limiting returns from more battalions being included into fewer multi-battalion regiments?

 

[Zipper]

Small changes would only be window dressings.

The current British changes validate the multi-battalion regiment for a regular force paradigm.  However, our Armd regiments exist as single units.  They would not be directly convertible to multi-battalion manoeuvre regiments.

We could convert the third bn off of each infantry regt and form two two-battalion regiments in each brigade, or we could convert all of a brigade to a single manoeuvre regiment (either by rolling all the armd regts into the infantry regts, or my reducing brigades to three manoeuvre units and perpetuating four of the existing regiments through a fourth formation). This raises the question: at what point do we start to see limiting returns from more battalions being included into fewer multi-battalion regiments?

So if I am reading you right. We of course would have to get rid of more reg force regiments by rolling personal and equipment in few formations in order to achieve these so called manoeuvre units? Otherwise good question. Its hard to see where the returns would drop off without some form already in existence somewhere.

 

[pbi]

We of course would have to get rid of more reg force regiments by rolling personal and equipment in few formations in order to achieve these so called manoeuvre units?

A good question, and one that I touched on briefly in my "Combat Branch" article in the CAJ last year. At the time, I didn't try to offer a conclusive answer about the role of the Regimental system, except to outline (rather sketchily...) a few options, and to make the point that IMHO we need to preserve the good things that the system brings us. What I was opposed to then, and remain opposed to now, is the idea that the Regimental system in its current state and form is somehow the only desireable end-state. It isn't.

Cheers.

 

[big bad john]

Sounds like what the UK is doing.

 

[McG]

So if I am reading you right. We of course would have to get rid of more reg force regiments by rolling personal and equipment in few formations in order to achieve these so called manoeuvre units?

Maybe.   We can keep the same number of units, but move people between them to get the right balance of skill sets.   This may or may not result in fewer regiments.

Option A -   Regimental Formation

PPCLI Regt HQ & Sigs 1 PPCLI (Light Bn) 2 PPCLI (Light Bn) 3 PPCLI (Light Bn) 1 Cbt Engr Bn 1 Fd Amb 1 Svc Bn 1 RCHA

RCR Regt HQ & Sigs 1 RCR (Mvr Bn) 2 RCR (Mvr Bn) 3 RCR (Mvr Bn) 2 Cbt Engr Bn 2 Fd Amb 2 Svc Bn 2 RCHA

RCD Regt HQ & Sigs 1 RCD (Mvr Bn) 2 RCD (Mvr Bn) 3 RCD (Mvr Bn) 4 Cbt Engr Bn 4 Fd Amb 4 Svc Bn 4 RCHA

R22eR Regt HQ & Sigs 1 R22eR (Mvr Bn) 2 R22eR (Mvr Bn) 3 R22eR (Mvr Bn) 5 Cbt Engr Bn 5 Fd Amb 5 Svc Bn 5 RCHA

LdSH(RC) LdSH (Mvr/DFS Bn) Engr Sp Coy UAV Coy CMTC OPFOR Coy

Option B â “ Two Battalion Regiments

1 CMBG 1 CMBG HQ & Sigs 1 PPCLI (Mvr Bn) 2 PPCLI (Light Bn) 1 LdSH (DFS Bn) 2 LdSH (Mvr Bn) 1 CER 1 Fd Amb 1 Svc Bn 1 RCHA

2 CMBG 2 CMBG HQ & Sigs 1 RCR (Mvr Bn) 2 RCR (Light Bn) 1 RCD (Mvr Bn) 2 RCD (Mvr Bn) 2 CER 2 Fd Amb 2 Svc Bn 2 RCHA

5 CMBG 5 CMBG HQ & Sigs 1 R22eR (Mvr Bn) 2 R22eR (Light Bn) 1 bn 12 RBC (Mvr Bn) 2 bn 12 RBC (Mvr Bn) 5 CER 5 Fd Amb 5 Svc Bn 5 RCHA

National 4 ESR

 

[Infanteer]

I'd vote for Option A - it is pretty similar to an outline I worked out a while back when playing with the idea.  Option A presents a decent structure that could be built with minimal hassle off of the existing TO&E plus our little bonus that the Liberal Government is talking about.

 

[McG]

I also prefer Option A.  To work, it would require a few hundred people more than Option B.  However, it provides a more capable force structure.  I also suspect that two battalions would not be enough to provide the spectrum of benefits that arise from multi-battalion regiments (especially since the battalions will not be homogeneous).  However, even without touching the promised 5,000 soldiers there is room to reduce the personnel demand this option will come with.

4 Cbt Engr Bn would be created from 4 ESR, while 4 Fd Amb, 4 Svc Bn, and 4 RCHA would be created by drawing personnel from their already existing sister units (which would now have one fewer manoeuvre unit to support).  If the light formation were modeled on 3 RM Cdo and the US Rangers, I think it could reduce the need for some of the planned enlargement of JTF 2 (allowing these pers to be used for the re-org).

 

[Zipper]

I agree. Option A would be easier to work with. Less suffleing of units and such. I especially like the fact that the PPCLI would finally be what their name suggests. It also leaves room for expansion of capabilities in the future.

 

[ArmyRick]

Option B is more realistic. Where in the dickens did you plan on recruiting all those people in Option A?

Also I am sure the LdSH would love to be a 300 man unit while the RCD  turn into multi-battalion regiments? Do you have any idea how $$$ powerfull the Strat association is ? More financially so than the Dragoons.

Where does 12RBC fit into this one ?

As a former Patricia, would guys knock it off with this obsession of making the PPCLI all light? Its the name of the regiment for petes sake. Why aren't the RCD and LdSH travelling around on Horse back as their name suggest?
Not too mention why switch around all these regiments? If you do not switch their locations then you are asking for trouble with Light Inf being stationed out west (better for mech trg) and LAV BNs being stationed in Petawawa (Friendlier for light to fight guys).

I definately say option B. You shouldn't have all your forces of a certain type concentrated in spot anyways.

Cheers. :dontpanic:

 

[McG]

Where in the dickens did you plan on recruiting all those people in Option A?

The 5,000 new soldiers that the government has committed to.  

Option A is not that much greater than Option B, and it would still leave the remainder of the 5,000 soldiers to increase the manning of the manoeuvre units. You will note that the formations each consist of only 3 manoeuvre units (as opposed to the 4 manoeuvre units of our current formations).   The only new units created are 4 Fd Amb, 4 Svc Bn, and 4 RCHA.   Many of the personnel in these units would be found by moving the pers that were previously used to support the manoeuvre unit lost from each Bde.   ASR will balance the pers between the Svc Bns and CFMS can do the same with the Fd Ambs.   4 RCHA could be based on C Btys of 2 RCHA and 5 RCHA (while 1 RCHA would give over its UAV Bty to the LdSH).   The biggest draw on new personnel would be the one surveillance unit that would have to be created in order to transform 1 CMBG without the LdSH.

Overall, the transformation could be done with only drawing on a very minimal number of the new 5,000 pers.   At this point we would have a slightly more capable force, but with the individual units just as under strength as they currently are.   The bulk of the 5,000 new personnel would then be used to beef-up the units and sub-units themselves.   Finally, we would have a significantly more robust force structure than exists today.

Where does 12RBC fit into this one ?

The same place they started (and still exist) as a primary reserve unit in Trois-Rivieres.

As a former Patricia, would guys knock it off with this obsession of making the PPCLI all light? Its the name of the regiment for petes sake. Why aren't the RCD and LdSH travelling around on Horse back as their name suggest?

Names don't really matter.   The RCD could be the light formation for all that it matters in the big scheme of things.

 

[Zipper]

Also I am sure the LdSH would love to be a 300 man unit while the RCD   turn into multi-battalion regiments?

I think he was meaning that the 1,2 and 3 RCD are actually A,b,and c sqn's. At least I hope thats what he meant.

As a former Patricia, would guys knock it off with this obsession of making the PPCLI all light? Its the name of the regiment for petes sake. Why aren't the RCD and LdSH travelling around on Horse back as their name suggest?

Sorry I'm a traditionalist. The Dragoons and Sallie Horses would stay Armoured as their name suggest, or if you really want to go back, the dragoons could be mechnized infantry. But the PPCLI is light. You can walk. ;D

 

[Infanteer]

McG, do you thing we'd be better off the have 2 "Light Capability" Brigades and 2 "Maneuver Capability" Brigades, ensuring that both capabilites can be on an even footing with regards to readiness, availability, etc, etc.

Option B is more realistic. Where in the dickens did you plan on recruiting all those people in Option A?

Also I am sure the LdSH would love to be a 300 man unit while the RCD turn into multi-battalion regiments? Do you have any idea how $$$ powerfull the Strat association is ? More financially so than the Dragoons.

Where does 12RBC fit into this one ?

This is one reason why I would be supportive of dropping the existing regiments - so much infighting about who gets what when there is no difference on what is named what.   Perhaps Option A should have been labelled Regiments "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E" - it really doesn't matter, as long as the capability and readiness is improved with such a proposal.

You guys are missing the point by argueing about which regiment gets what - the factors to key into are:
1) That the Regiment becomes a "Combined Arms" as opposed to a "Branch Pure" organizational
2) Regimental Affiliation is moved from the unit level to the Brigade Level.

I think he was meaning that the 1,2 and 3 RCD are actually A,b,and c sqn's. At least I hope thats what he meant.

No, he meant 3 maneuver battalions, which would be 1,2 and 3 battalions of the "RCD" - along with the RCD Artillery Battalion, the RCD Engineer Battalion, the RCD Support Battalion, and RCD Regimental Headquarters.  Being part of the "Regiment", all soldiers, regardless of trade, would wear the RCD capbadge in that Brigade.   With regimental affiliation moving to the Brigade level, "Regiment" no longer fits a battalion-sized unit of Armoured, Engineer, or Artillery sub-units.

Sorry I'm a traditionalist. The Dragoons and Sallie Horses would stay Armoured as their name suggest, or if you really want to go back, the dragoons could be mechnized infantry. But the PPCLI is light. You can walk. ;D

We can make the Dragoons "Air Mobile Rocket Artillery" for all I care - lets not let semantics get in the way of capability and transformation.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm a little skeptical about the benefits of having the Regiment as a Formation.  Would it really create efficiencies and reduce in-fighing?

Given the nature of  our deployments perhaps we need to get away from the CMBG model and the whole concept of Formations.  We like to say that we've left the Cold War but in Canadian terms a CMBG is really a Cold War instrument.  Deployed Task Forces will be formed from multiple units.  Soldiers will still belong to a Regt but they will not necessarily deploy as such.  Before we get into ATOF, the previous Battle Groups were usually only able to deploy after they had robbed other units.  Perhaps we invest the 5,000 extra soldiers into having complete Battalions and Regiments instead of forming new units.

Going to first prinicples, do we want the focus of the army (and I'm talking about where soldiers and officers place their identity) to be on the Army or on the Regiments?  Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.  I would say that most Canadian soldiers think of themselves as part of a Regiment and we lack an identity as a force.  I'm not saying that this is good or bad at this point. 

If we really want to get rid of regimental in-fighting we would have to get rid of the whole system.  Other forces work outside of the Regimental model (ie, the Regts exist but they have transient membership and little meaning outside of the present in terms of corporate identity).  Is this what we want?  If this is the case then let's be clear about it.  I'm a bit of a traditionalist I guess in that I think that we have a good thing with the Regiments.  Inter-branch and inter-service rivalries cause much more harm than inter-regimental fighting.  Having the Regiment as Formation would, in my opinion, create problems and solve few.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

One of the biggest impediments to change in the British Army seemed to be the very tight connection from Squaddie to Regimental Senate.  This seems to have been particularly the problem in Scotland with the 6 single battalion regiments.  I am guessing that a good chunk of the decision-making on promotion happened within a very tight Mess.

With the 5 Battalion regiment, the history of the regiments are maintained, red hackles and all, but the power of the Mess seems likely to have been diluted.  This is because soldiers will transfer from one battalion to another throughout their career.  The CO will be less "god-like", although the Colonel/Commandant of the Regiment will likely be moreso.

In the Canadian context, how much movement is there amongst cap-badges?  Is there enough cross-posting and re-badging going on out there so that there is less parochialism?

 

[McG]

Given the nature of our deployments perhaps we need to get away from the CMBG model and the whole concept of Formations. We like to say that we've left the Cold War but in Canadian terms a CMBG is really a Cold War instrument. Deployed Task Forces will be formed from multiple units. Soldiers will still belong to a Regt but they will not necessarily deploy as such. Before we get into ATOF, the previous Battle Groups were usually only able to deploy after they had robbed other units. Perhaps we invest the 5,000 extra soldiers into having complete Battalions and Regiments instead of forming new units.

ATOF is gone and has been replaced by a similar Managed Readiness System.   What stands out about the new managed readiness is the commitment to maintain a strategic reserve BG in addition to indefinitely sustaining two deployed BGs (in the same or separate theatres).   I won't go far in to the deficiencies of either the new or old system as they have already been well covered:   http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16825.0.html

I will say that my proposed force structure was designed around meeting the same set of tasks as managed readiness, but it would do this while maintaining unit integrity better even than the previous ATOF.   9 Mvr Bns and the LdSH Mvr/DFS Bn would be able to sustain two â Å“robustâ ? Bn Gps indefinitely on a 2.5 year rotating cycle.   The three Lt Bns would be able to sustain the strategic reserve indefinitely on a 1.5 or 3 yr cycle (depending if rotations are 12 or 6 months).   The lt bns would also support DART, JTF2, do MAJAID, NEO, and a bulk of the SOVOP.

McG, do you thing we'd be better off the have 2 "Light Capability" Brigades and 2 "Maneuver Capability" Brigades, ensuring that both capabilites can be on an even footing with regards to readiness, availability, etc, etc.

In fact, I had not put any thought into changing our current ratio of mech to lt.   However, such a move would allow us to maintain one light and one medium Bn Gp to be sustained indefinitely on a 3 year cycle but would leave no excess capacity for surge/strategic reserve units (not that managed readiness really gives us a full units available in reserve now anyway).

I'm a little skeptical about the benefits of having the Regiment as a Formation. Would it really create efficiencies and reduce in-fighing?

...

...   Inter-branch and inter-service rivalries cause much more harm than inter-regimental fighting. Having the Regiment as Formation would, in my opinion, create problems and solve few.

I tend to think that a regimental formation and manoeuvre battalions would dampen inter-branch rivalry as both manoeuvre arms would start speaking with a single voice.   I don't see inter-regimental rivalry rising to the level of inter-branch rivalry as the regiments would not be competing with each other for â Å“territoryâ ? defined by roles, equipment, and other capabilities.

all soldiers, regardless of trade, would wear the RCD capbadge in that Brigade

I still don't see it going quite that far.   All soldiers would wear the Regt patch on thier arm.   Only the manoeuvre amrs would wear the regt cap badge and those in occupations that are likely to see postings to other regiments (especially purple trades) would continue in their corps cap badge.   For the Engrs to have the multi-battalion depth, they must have the freedom to fluidly move between regiments (as we currently move between brigades at the Sr NCO level and above).

 

[Infanteer]

I still don't see it going quite that far.   All soldiers would wear the Regt patch on thier arm.   Only the manoeuvre amrs would wear the regt cap badge and those in occupations that are likely to see postings to other regiments (especially purple trades) would continue in their corps cap badge.   For the Engrs to have the multi-battalion depth, they must have the freedom to fluidly move between regiments (as we currently move between brigades at the Sr NCO level and above).

Hmm...I've usually approached it the other way around - all soldiers will wear their trade patch on their arm and share a common hatbadge.   My rationale for doing this is to espouse a "higher loyalty" that is not based around trade or branch but rather upon the unit that one will deploy and fight with.   Past examples that utilized this format include the United States Marine Corps (Every Marine wears the Globe and Anchor), the GrossDeutchland of WWII fame, in which all members wore the GD patch, regardless of trade, and (I think) the Airborne Regiment of the early days when the Airborne Batteries and Engineers wore the "Ex Coelis" hatbadge and were, first and formost, "Airborne".

As you can see, the effort with proposing such a change is to allow for Regimental loyalty and esprit de corps to be posited into an all-arms (as opposed to trade centered) loci in order to foster a combined-arms mentality (Every soldier is a rifleman first, etc, etc) instead of turning regiments into the branch-pure fiefs that they currently are.  The regimental makeup affects our unit level organization - I think pushing the "combined arms" approach can allow us to eliminate those nagging questions like "Who's going to drive the IFV's?", "Who is going to man the mortars?", and "Who is going to do the Recce?".

As for the "gene pool" for the Engineers and Artillery soldiers, my hope was that between the sub-units organic to the maneuver battalions, the formation level unit, and any national level support units would offer a good enough mix for Gunners and Sappers to be as "Regimental" as the Infantry and Armoured types.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

MCG,

When we got the brief on managed readiness last Fall we quickly did the math and came up short in terms of Recce Sqns.  We can kick out 12 x "Battlegroup Headquarters" with our current structure but we need more sub-units to fill them up (given that the current concept includes mixed Task Forces).  If each "Regiment/Battalion" had four sub-units (not counting CSS and CS) we could handle the managed readiness with a little more ease.  We could adjust the "Mech to Light" ratio somewhat in the direction of Light but that is just my opinon.

My own experience has been that inter-branch rivalries are more powerful than inter-regimental rivalries.  Perhaps this is because the Armoured Corps has a certain sense of unity.  I do not begrudge the LdSH or 12 RBC any capabilities or equipment.  I do see quite a bit of infigting between the Armd, Inf and Arty for tasks and therefore resources.  I believe that a branch re-shuffle would gain us more than a regimental one.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Infanteer]

My own experience has been that inter-branch rivalries are more powerful than inter-regimental rivalries.   Perhaps this is because the Armoured Corps has a certain sense of unity.   I do not begrudge the LdSH or 12 RBC any capabilities or equipment.   I do see quite a bit of infigting between the Armd, Inf and Arty for tasks and therefore resources.   I believe that a branch re-shuffle would gain us more than a regimental one.

Exactly, thus the the thrust behind eliminating branch patriarchy when it comes to forming at the sub-unit and unit level.

A "Light" Battalion could conceivably have Sappers (Pioneers), Gunners (Mortars), Infantry (Riflemen), etc, etc in a single unit.

 

[McG]

Infanteer,
A US Marine will always be a US marine and will never be a 1 ID soldier.  That would not be the case with the model I have proposed (as soldiers of most occupations would have to move between regiments and some occupations even rotate through air force and navy units).  The US Marines hold a unique role and capabilities in the US military, and the Airborne Regiment also held a unique role with unique capabilities in the Canadian Army, so much of the esprit was derived from that uniqueness.  This would not work in any of the models that have been proposed as each sees a certain combination of uniform formations.

A formation has no requirement for the number of Engr that would be required to establish a healthy gene pool.  Most would become wated PYs if we grew by that much.  I expect the same is likely true of most or all CS and CSS occupations (how many MPs does a Bde need anyway).

However, with the capbadge debate, we may be getting into the lesser mechanics that could be decided over beer and arm wrestling. (but, I still see a formation patch worn on a brassard in garrison as the way to go and it could be worn by air force and navy pers posted into army regiments.)

2Bravo,
The expectation is that certain capabilities will not be required on all missions and we don't need one of everything for all the missions.  The problem is that there is no guarantee that the right combination of sub-units (or capabilities below sub-unit) will be in high readiness when a new mission needs them.  The other problem is that certain capabilities are required on all missions and some of these do not exist in enough numbers.

You will find that your math has the same results when applied to just about any type of sub-unit out there.  The Engrs are already transforming to correct for that.  In fact, the notion of two unit sized TFs deployed indefinitely is unachievable even for the infantry.  Based on the light, medium, and â Å“robustâ ? Bn Gps anticipated in the managed readiness system, the second mission would have to continuously change between light and medium. It is not realistic to expect that a light force could replace a medium force to carry on the same mission (or vice versa).  

The solution goes back to being more specific about the type of missions that we can do and the frequency at which we can do them (not any two, anytime, and anywhere).  My proposal does this by assigning different roles to light and medium forces in the readiness cycle and then fitting the structure to that.