Army Reserve Restructuring

[McG]

Hmmm... interesting comparison

Where was this from?
The table is missing the new Army Training Centre (the formation) which will own the Army Training Centres (former div TCs) and (I believe) also the reserve battle schools.

 

[PrairieFella]

The same or more headquarters isnt necessarily a bad thing - it depends on deliverables. Like if the new fires brigade works out in the divisional fight context, thats a win. A sustainment brigade is absolutely a win long-term. We plan on growing the Army substantially so this will buff as we grow.

 

[FJAG]

Hmmm... interesting comparison

Where was this from?

Yeah. Where is this from?

As a long time advocate for reducing admin overhead in the past, I tend to reject the argument made in that paper. In fact, my position now is that we have too few headquarters at the unit to div level.

My change of opinion comes almost exclusively from the change in the world in the last decade. I used to think two divisions was adequate; now I believe that five aren't enough. Mind you my view of the size of a division is significantly smaller than the army's current view.

In short we need more units and formation headquarters trained and equipped to mobilize and deploy. The current CBGs are entirely inadequate as is our basic training structure which has a limited production pipeline. I can't see any other solution that does not include more full-time headquarters at that level even when the bulk of the troops are part-time. OTOH, I think there are a lot of efficiencies that could be gained at the national level to reduce admin overhead.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And the post-secondary sector is gasping for cash right now...

How Canadian Universities Can Help Build a Stronger Army Reserve​

Every summer, Canada’s universities and the Canadian Army Reserve confront opposite versions of the same problem. Thousands of young citizens make themselves available for military service just as universities enter the most flexible part of their operating year. The Army must find places in which to house, feed, and teach them, while residences, classrooms, and dining facilities on many campuses operate below their regular academic-year demand. Canada has treated one as a military problem and the other as a matter of campus scheduling, although together they suggest a practical answer to a pressing defence need.

The deeper case, however, rests with the citizens who have already stepped forward. Canada cannot reasonably ask young people to arrange their studies, civilian work, and family lives around military service while the country’s other institutions remain politely uninvolved. Universities need not become military institutions in order to accept a practical share of responsibility for the society that sustains them. They need only offer, on clear terms and at full cost, the ordinary things they already know how to provide, while allowing the Army to do what only the Army can do.

Beds, meals, and classrooms may seem too prosaic to belong in a discussion of national preparedness, yet durable national capacity is usually built from ordinary things made dependable before they are urgently needed. Young Canadians are already volunteering to serve. Canada’s universities should be ready to serve beside them.

How Canadian Universities Can Help Build a Stronger Army Reserve | CDA Institute

Every summer, Canada’s universities and the Canadian Army Reserve confront opposite versions of the same problem. Thousands of young citizens make themselves available for military service just as universities enter the most flexible part of their operating year. The Army must find places in...

cdainstitute.ca