Army Reserve Restructuring

[Eaglelord17]

I don't know about those countries, but if you think the Reserves are unprofessional now, wait until you add every teenager in there. It'll be awful.

I found the Regs generally acted less professional than the Reserves did. Mainly because many in the Reserves were trying to compensate and act how they thought they should.

I also found the most unprofessional people in the military were usually the more senior ranks. Jr ranks might do dumb stuff but generally they were acting as they should because they were afraid of being yelled at, given extra tasks, etc. well the more senior people who knew better generally didn’t because no one would hold them to task when they were unprofessional.

Can’t tell you the amount of lectures I sat in where the jr ranks were silent and the sgts/wos were just chirping away to each other.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's common sense that if you slacken restrictions, or make people join the military when they don't want to, professionalism will go down.
Do you remember your highschool class? Would you want them to handle weapons? how would they fair in an inspection?
There's people when I went to highschool who are illiterate, people who are very out of shape, etc. etc. If we were to have more people go through training, we'd have to lower the quality or "harshness" of the training...
People talk bad about the reserves saying that if there would be a real war, we wouldn't know if they'd actually be effective, this would be a level lower!

That is a problem with the Canadian system of raising children in the modern era. It wasn't always thus and in many countries it still isn't thus.

There is no difference in the feedstock of countries with kids that make their beds, do well in school and accept discipline and thse that don't.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I don't know about those countries, but if you think the Reserves are unprofessional now, wait until you add every teenager in there. It'll be awful.

It's common sense that if you slacken restrictions, or make people join the military when they don't want to, professionalism will go down.
Do you remember your highschool class? Would you want them to handle weapons? how would they fair in an inspection?
There's people when I went to highschool who are illiterate, people who are very out of shape, etc. etc. If we were to have more people go through training, we'd have to lower the quality or "harshness" of the training...
People talk bad about the reserves saying that if there would be a real war, we wouldn't know if they'd actually be effective, this would be a level lower!

Though Canada has no tradition of conscription (but the times we used it, the negatives were primarily political), there are still plenty around (mostly old farts like myself, but a few who are still serving) who served alongside NATO allies whose forces were conscripted. Others may have differing opinions, but I don't recall any experience where I thought that the terms of their enlistment made them any less proficient than one from an all volunteer military. Oh yes, I do remember one incident when I questioned the professional capacity of allied soldiers sailors - that was in a US Navy (all volunteer) LPD in 1979; not only did it seem that they didn't know the simplest skills, but obvious drug use made them unfit for duty.

During the waning days of the Cold War, I had the opportunity to work with German, French, Dutch, British, and American forces among others. The first three were conscript armies. Though most of my interactions were with officers and SNCOs (mostly professional, career pers), I did observe junior soldiers (i.e., conscripts). They may have not wanted to be there (though a lot probably did - in some conscript militaries the only way to join is by conscription - they select the professional NCOs and officers from the best of the bunch), but invariably they knew their jobs and did them proficiently. And in those European militaries, that's where their Reserves came from. They did their obligatory full-time military service and then had to go into the Reserves.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Though Canada has no tradition of conscription (but the times we used it, the negatives were primarily political), there are still plenty around (mostly old farts like myself, but a few who are still serving) who served alongside NATO allies whose forces were conscripted. Others may have differing opinions, but I don't recall any experience where I thought that the terms of their enlistment made them any less proficient than one from an all volunteer military. Oh yes, I do remember one incident when I questioned the professional capacity of allied soldiers sailors - that was in a US Navy (all volunteer) LPD in 1979; not only did it seem that they didn't know the simplest skills, but obvious drug use made them unfit for duty.

During the waning days of the Cold War, I had the opportunity to work with German, French, Dutch, British, and American forces among others. The first three were conscript armies. Though most of my interactions were with officers and SNCOs (mostly professional, career pers), I did observe junior soldiers (i.e., conscripts). They may have not wanted to be there (though a lot probably did - in some conscript militaries the only way to join is by conscription - they select the professional NCOs and officers from the best of the bunch), but invariably they knew their jobs and did them proficiently. And in those European militaries, that's where their Reserves came from. They did their obligatory full-time military service and then had to go into the Reserves.

From my experience, the Continental system's main effort was for the (mandatory) periods of full time service to feed and develop a much, much larger Reserve Force. A short term of regular service is enough to get 90% of the troops up to the standard required on mobilization, especially if there's annual continuation training.

It's pretty much the other way around in the 'Expeditionary System' we have inherited from the British.

To change that culture/ system would represent the most difficult transformation the CAF has led since WW2, probably...

 

[Eaglelord17]

Though Canada has no tradition of conscription (but the times we used it, the negatives were primarily political), there are still plenty around (mostly old farts like myself, but a few who are still serving) who served alongside NATO allies whose forces were conscripted. Others may have differing opinions, but I don't recall any experience where I thought that the terms of their enlistment made them any less proficient than one from an all volunteer military. Oh yes, I do remember one incident when I questioned the professional capacity of allied soldiers sailors - that was in a US Navy (all volunteer) LPD in 1979; not only did it seem that they didn't know the simplest skills, but obvious drug use made them unfit for duty.

During the waning days of the Cold War, I had the opportunity to work with German, French, Dutch, British, and American forces among others. The first three were conscript armies. Though most of my interactions were with officers and SNCOs (mostly professional, career pers), I did observe junior soldiers (i.e., conscripts). They may have not wanted to be there (though a lot probably did - in some conscript militaries the only way to join is by conscription - they select the professional NCOs and officers from the best of the bunch), but invariably they knew their jobs and did them proficiently. And in those European militaries, that's where their Reserves came from. They did their obligatory full-time military service and then had to go into the Reserves.

Conscript doesn’t equal dumb or incompetent.

If anything it is likely to up the quality of recruits we receive as currently most your best and brightest choose not to serve or decide against it due to how long the process is.

Being a volunteer is a choice, but it doesn’t mean you are competent or capable, it just means you want to do it.

 

[Kirkhill]

From my experience, the Continental system's main effort was for the (mandatory) periods of full time service to feed and develop a much, much larger Reserve Force. A short term of regular service is enough to get 90% of the troops up to the standard required on mobilization, especially if there's annual continuation training.

It's pretty much the other way around in the 'Expeditionary System' we have inherited from the British.

To change that culture/ system would represent the most difficult transformation the CAF has led since WW2, probably...

The Brits ran National Service until 1960 with the last National Servicemen being released in 1963 having served in WW2, post war India, Dutch East Indies, Greece, Palestine, Libya, Cyprus, Egypt, Borneo, Malaya, Kenya and multiple other places that the sun never set. Famously that included Michael Caine as a Fusilier in Korea and Sean Connery as an Able Seaman anti-aircraft gunner on HMS Formidable before he turned 19.

The Aussies only gave up their National Service in 1972 when Viet Nam became unpopular.

Britain has often had reason to call up the Fyrd since Alfred organized his Anti-Dane Burgs and navy.

It doesn't really matter what the weapons or skills are. The organization matters. Weapons and skills can be taught to meet the demands of the times.

 

[CadNav]

This is why im i am a fan of the Swiss model of national service, it aint just the military any more, the add things like life guards, nursing homes etc. Then you get the ones who would want the military there.

Maybe I'm lost, but why would the military pay for life guards?