Army Reserve Restructuring

[FJAG]

second time this year CFLRS is full house with 27 platoons, over 1440 troops on BMQ. Our capacity issue is now facilities, we will need to start running BMQ's in borden, and wainwright and other locations if we want more.

Summer's coming. We have the tents.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Summer's coming. We have the tents.

Mattawa Plain enters the chat...

 

[PuckChaser]

according the CFLRS commandant on Twitter, pass rate is about 90% for the FORCE test, Candidates do get a second shot if the fail as well after 24h, CFAT is gone now and been replaced.

Did they bin fat camp?

 

[Eaglelord17]

second time this year CFLRS is full house with 27 platoons, over 1440 troops on BMQ. Our capacity issue is now facilities, we will need to start running BMQ's in borden, and wainwright and other locations if we want more.

Meaford is always a nice place to host it…

 

[ueo]

I see it as busing or flying from the local armoury to the training ranges

That follows the general flow of the population. It was an opportunity post WW2 that was missed.

There is always land. Tear down or convert defunct shopping centres. Abandon industrial sites etc. It's just money - money the government is saying its delaying for years because they can't spend it. Then there are the billions DND gives back each year. It isn't land that's missing. It's a plan and a champion.

That's a factor that aims us towards new facilities in the suburbs rather than improving the old ones in the core of the cities.

I'm against it but it becomes necessary as a short term solution because it will take years to build the equipment and the reorganization and training needs to take place now. The government and army combined are just deluding themselves if they think that having half the force unequipped and earmarked merely as augmentees. We'll probably lose equipment at least at the same rate we lose people.

There is still some Fed land remaining in Toronto, London and Montreal that could be repurposed. Other land needs buying or expropriation. In part the costs can be offset by selling the old armouries which usually sit in prime downtown land.

I think in urban settings they ought to be battalion-sized with possible satellite coy ones. Let's face facts, most of our ResF battalions are barely company sized already. I'm against platoon facilities. They are frequently an administrative burden and don't generally generate the people needed to form a platoon. That said, I can see circumstances where the juice might be worth the squeeze, but as an exception to the rule.

No. Hybrid bases. We have enough RegF bases. What we could use is several rural properties, lets say 2-3 square kilometres, close to urban units where they can conduct low level dry training in field conditions. Augment that by nearby small arms ranges.

There's another area where training can take place and that is in Latvia. If one had a fully equipped brigade in Latvia but mostly manned by flyover personnel then several hybrid battalions could fly their personnel over to Latvia for two week concentrations using the equipment there in the summer while their full-time personnel could exercise there during the remaining months.

I agree with that. After DP1 I think the ARes needs to conduct mandatory trg on one weekend per month and a two week concentration. DP2 and thereafter should be at centralized locations (and not necessarily a RegF base unless the PO requires live fire. The Tuesday night and Thursday night routine has a low return on investment albeit it has a socialization aspect to it.

True enough, unless you there is an epiphany that smacks them between the eyeballs which makes it plain that a) the defence of Canada is very important and the current establishment is hollow to the core; and b) a recognition that a large portion of that defence can be provided by part-timers that cost substantially less than full-timers on a recurring annual basis.

That's clearly an answer. I see the Toronto - Hamilton - London triangle easily able to sustain two full 30/70 brigades and additional div units on existing infrastructure albeit that infrastructure needs substantial improvement - lets say 3,000 full timers and 7,000 part-timers. Montreal-Quebec another brigade. Other areas are more suitable for widely deployed sub units. The difficulty - but not the impossibility - of more rural units is the ability to attract and keep sufficient full-timers for the roles that they need to fill in a total force structure. It's very difficult to do with the current model of RegF as the only full-timers (and the Class B phenomenon is a misuse of reservists, but points the way to another type of continuing, full-time service if it is properly structured as a sub-component of the RegF)


That's because Wpg and London were RegF bases with travelling vagabonds, outsiders for the most part, and not hybrid units of full-timers and part-timers essentially raised from within the community. I'm not advocating to move RegF units into cities, I'm advocating a new type of full-time service combined with part-timers - something like this:

View attachment 92640

Note that the amalgamation of existing ResF battalions into companies of a "mother battalion" who all keep their identities is not just to placate the honourary colonels. It forms the core of a Stage 4 mobilization and expansion plan activated if needed. Effectively a single hybrid battalion has sufficient full-time and part-time leadership and expertise to form the core of a new brigade that is rounded out by newly raised recruits. Each 10/90 company, with some additions from the 100/0 company forms a new battalion based on its historic name. (Note that in my model, these battalions do not have a CSS company. That company is part of the brigade's Svc Bn and is habitually designated for attachment to the infantry battalion.

Wasn't this tried and disgarded late 80;s early 90'? An RCR Bn in Borden augmented I think.

 

[ueo]

Meaford is always a nice place to host it…

Again been done befor. Someone discover history?

 

[ueo]

ARTS and NRQS are notorious for equipment returns being horrible.

When 2 RCHA used to provide equipment for ARes arty units to fall onto we would assemble it on the parade square with each vehicle having a DS. The ARes det comd would review and sign for the EIS being included with the veh. Often the DS stayed with the det as a real DS during the exercise. Regardless if he accompanied the vehicle in the field or not, at endex the DS would be there, observe and approve the cleaning of the equipment and account for and take the EIS back off charge from the ARes det comd. This is why I think that a 30/70 hybrid structure is viable when equipment needs to be shared.

Worked like a charm but its not a system that works well at ARTS.

I ran ARTS and NRQS in Shilo as CI for two years and with the best of intentions, its a system that doesn't work well primarily because of the scramble to PUFO at the end when you try to marry up returning equipment with returning people all squeezing themselves through a tiny and temporary QM and admin staff. I'd resolved to do better than my predecessor had but failed twice. Taking extra time would cure the problem but that needs funding for people that isn't available and often, the people needed aren't available after the folks on courses and firing troop are RTUd. Permanently assigned equipment and QM and maint staff would fit the bill, but that means extra eqpt and PYs that aren't there.

Was the basic concept behind the original LRMP that has morphed into the Meaford of today.

 

[FJAG]

Wasn't this tried and disgarded late 80;s early 90'? An RCR Bn in Borden augmented I think.

Not really. At the time that 4 CMBG stood down, a lot of PYs (and the people attached to them) were repatriated to Canada. For a while there was a surplus of both gunners and infantry which caused the formation of 10/90 units. This "experiment" worked well for the artillery but the eventual redistribution of the PYs into existing RegF units and other RegF positions basically drained the 10/90 batteries of their "10" componenet thus ending the program.

For the infantry in the meantime, things went very poorly. Eventually in 1996 the three 10/90 battalions were reformed as the 3rd battalion (light) of each existing RegF infantry regiment.

There is very little available on the 10/90 system under open source. The best I've found is part of this university paper starting at Ch 3 at p 61

https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/30788/1/Drysdale%20thesis%201996%20PDF-A.pdf

There are significant differences between how 10/90 was implemented and my suggestion for how a 30/70 (and that ratio is approximate) unit would function which includes some legislative and regulatory changes to set the foundation for the organizational ones.

See here.

https://www.amazon.ca/Unsustainable-At-Any-Price-Canadian/dp/1926521269

 

[FJAG]

Every once in a while we touch on the possibility of creating and even deploying a division or part thereof as a goal of army restructuring.

Here's a recent article by a Brit exchange officer with a US armoured division talking about the considerations when projecting a division either as part of a rotational forward presence or in the event of a crisis.

https://chacr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/IDB-89-US-Army-Force-Projection.pdf

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not really. At the time that 4 CMBG stood down, a lot of PYs (and the people attached to them) were repatriated to Canada. For a while there was a surplus of both gunners and infantry which caused the formation of 10/90 units. This "experiment" worked well for the artillery but the eventual redistribution of the PYs into existing RegF units and other RegF positions basically drained the 10/90 batteries of their "10" componenet thus ending the program.

For the infantry in the meantime, things went very poorly. Eventually in 1996 the three 10/90 battalions were reformed as the 3rd battalion (light) of each existing RegF infantry regiment.

 

[KevinB]

Technically APS 1995 had folks posted to the 3rd BN’s as that was when the Airborne Holding Unit was shut down.