Bringing back the 19th Alberta Dragoons, split from Re: Halifax Rifles

[OldSolduer]

Mr. Ruhl:

I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present.
It must be gratifying to know that the worst that can happen to you is to be banned from this site.
You, sir, are a COWARD, Mr. Ruhl and not fit to be present amongst warriors.

Thank you.

Rant Ends.

 

[Shec]

We do not need more over-ranked unit COs & RSMs presiding over micro-units.
We do not need more units too small for effective collective training.
We do not need to fund new capbadges, shoulder flashes & buttons for the glory of another regiment.
We do not need the 19th Alberta Dragoons simply for the glory of the 19th Alberta Dragoons.

Evokes memories of the 1 WUCR, first mobilized as a distinct "regiment" for Milcon '73 consisting of the 6 Western Militia armoured recce units organized into 3 weak squadrons.  Talk about a surplus of CO's & RSM's.  A capbadge collectors heaven though.

At the regimental smoker we were finally told that 1 WUCR  = 1st Wainwright Used Car Regiment.

 

[Towards_the_gap]

Mr Ruhl,


It's nice that you show such an interest in reviving long lost regiments. But bear in mind some truths:

- the Canadian Army (that one which you disparage as ''INBRED'') is fighing a war right now. Yes that war will end in 2011, but what other wars will come afterwards.
- After 6 years of deployments to Afghanistan, both our kit, vehicles and troops are run-down.

- We are only on the cusp of what could become a long long recession, with massive gov't deficit projected for the next little while.

With all that, how dare you have the arrogance to think your 'pet militia' regiment should waste more scarce taxpayers dollars on a tp/pl strength unit, for the sole sake of reviving a long dead capbage? Before you spout off about past WWI and WWII glorys, try to understand the world which we inhabit, and the wars we are fighting.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

So, this remark:

wasn't insulting?  Where you claim that the SALH's notable achievements equate to attending Militia exercises, while "your pet Militia regiment", the 19th Alberta Dragoons, "put 2 units into a war"?



Secondly:  The 19th Alberta Dragoons did not "put 2 units into a war", it provided one cavalry squadron and perpetuated other units of the First World War. The 19th Alberta Dragoons initially provided a separately badged volunteer squadron, the 1st Divisional Cavalry Squadron, that unit later became A Sqn, The Canadian Corps Cavalry Regiment (in 1916), and then it became A Sqn, The Canadian Light Horse (in 1917).

The 19th Alberta Dragoons perpetuated the 3rd Regiment Canadian Mounted Rifles, 9th Battalion CEF, 66th Battalion CEF, 138th Battalion CEF, and 202nd Battalion CEF.

I do understand perpetuation but I do see a distinction between a unit that fought in the field and one that was essentially a training battalion.  The 3rd CMR did serve as a unit in France but was acquired by the 19th Ds by perpetuation of another unit.  I knew that but maybe used some careless wording  The 19th Ds was in fact the only Alberta unit to fight under its own name.  All other Alberta battle honours were acquired by perpetuation of fighting or absorbed units.

 

[Loachman]

I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present.

That was a response/retort to:

This almost seems to be a plea for small, inbred, inward looking groups.

In that regard, I consider it legitimate, if not exactly sparkling with diplomacy.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Interesting.....

http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2008/09/06/why-reactivate-the-halifax-rifles.aspx

Dennis Ruhl  September 13, 2008 6:33 PM

Until 1945 the regular force's function was to train the militia.  Somehow I bet that a PPCLI serrgeant heading on his fourth tour in Afghanistan isn't objecting to more militia.  Generally militia do a tour and go away.  Increasing regular army size means in all liklihood paying them for 20 or 30 years.  When I was in the militia, when the budget ran out and pay stopped, everyone still showed up.  Militia is the best bargain for Canadian taxpayers and brings the military home to communities where it is otherwise foreign.

Almost half of the US soldiers in Iraq are reservists of one stripe or another.  Formed National Guard units with local identities are employed.  These units trace their histories back to past wars.  Uncle Sam has figured out how to save the bucks but has pretty much destroyed the Guard in the process.  Work for free?  I sure did.

 

[Michael OLeary]

All other Alberta battle honours were acquired by perpetuation of fighting or absorbed units.

Which makes them no less worthy of preservation, and does not strengthen the case for your argument.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Mr. Ruhl:

I find that your statement "inbred Canadian Army" (or words to that effect) to be insulting and demeaning. You have insulted the entire Canadian Army, past and present.
It must be gratifying to know that the worst that can happen to you is to be banned from this site.
You, sir, are a COWARD, Mr. Ruhl and not fit to be present amongst warriors.

Thank you.

Rant Ends.

Civil dialogue?

My statement was not a declarative statement.  It was a question in response to a declarative statement labeling militia units as inbred.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Almost half of the US soldiers in Iraq are reservists of one stripe or another.  Formed National Guard units with local identities are employed.  These units trace their histories back to past wars.  Uncle Sam has figured out how to save the bucks but has pretty much destroyed the Guard in the process.  Work for free?  I sure did.

Within your argument, what makes a soldier a Reservist/Militiaman?  Is it the part-time nature of service, on top of civilian career? Or is it solely what badge they wore?

Surely those soldiers of the 19th Alberta Dragoons who were standing on the parade square before August 1914 were.  But what about those that attested for overseas service after the Regiment sailed, and only put up that badge when they joined overseas? How many of them had never set foot in the home town of the 19th AB Dragoons, and never would after the War?  Were they part of that single-unit Reserve-specific heritage you are trying to uphold? 

Those soldiers with only overseas service never fell under your theory of a cheap soldiery in contrast to full time soldiers.  They never worked "for free" after the annual budget ran out.  They weren't Regulars and they weren't Militiamen - the were Canadian soldiers, for the duration of the War.

You continue to grasp at extraneous details that fail to hold up under examination.  Where is the sound military justification for your proposal?

 

[bick]

If the British Army can amalgamate and disband units with a 300 + year history.  We Canadians can make due without the 19th AB Dragoons

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Which makes them no less worthy of preservation, and does not strengthen the case for your argument.

You are right but almost everyone who served in a battalion that lasted for 6 months of training served in one of the fighting battalions. 

 

[OldSolduer]

Mr. Ruhl:

This is about as civil as I get with someone of your ilk. You come in here and insult us with the words "inbred Canadian Army" and then expect a free pass? I think not.
You will not get one from me. I really don't care who you are or what the reasoning is behind the 19th Alberta Dragoons. Your stance is irritating many of us.

 

[Teflon]

Reading this thread is like picking at a scab,

You know you really shouldn't, but just can't stop yourself,

And in the end, no answers, just a tiny little scar!

 

[dapaterson]

As much as I enjoy a good old fashioned Internet pile-on, I'll speak up in Mr Ruhl's defence.  He was turning my own words around in referrign to the Canadian Army as inbred.; thus, any opprobrium should start with me for introducing the term into the debate.

Plenty of other points to argue in this discussion; let's not fixate on a single word.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Within your argument, what makes a soldier a Reservist/Militiaman?  Is it the part-time nature of service, on top of civilian career? Or is it solely what badge they wore?

Surely those soldiers of the 19th Alberta Dragoons who were standing on the parade square before August 1914 were.  But what about those that attested for overseas service after the Regiment sailed, and only put up that badge when they joined overseas? How many of them had never set foot in the home town of the 19th AB Dragoons, and never would after the War?  Were they part of that single-unit Reserve-specific heritage you are trying to uphold? 

Those soldiers with only overseas service never fell under your theory of a cheap soldiery in contrast to full time soldiers.  They never worked "for free" after the annual budget ran out.  They weren't Regulars and they weren't Militiamen - the were Canadian soldiers, for the duration of the War.

You continue to grasp at extraneous details that fail to hold up under examination.  Where is the sound military justification for your proposal?

In my community I never met anyone who served in a unit other than a prairie unit.  My great uncle joined the 194th (Edmonton Highlanders) Bn and served in the 49th (Edmonton) Bn.  An effort was made to put replacements in home units first and regional units second although it wasn't always possible.  I would guess that the majority of wartime 19th Ds came from northern Alberta.

Training is the largest predictor of military success but motivation can lead to results beyond expectations.  Two recent armies that had significantly more success than warranted by numbers and equipment were the British and German armies.  The both employed a system of locally raised regiments.  Your friends and relatives signed you up, saw that you were trained, and looked after you.  You didn't like your officers but they talked like you and shared many of your values.  The system worked.  The more one feels part of the system, even as a cog, the more superior the performance.  Besides you wouldn't want to let down your second cousin, the RSM.

 

[old medic]

Once again, this thread and some of the arguments presented are becoming Silly.

Most (all) of the people replying and jumping on have no experience with said units,
and as dapaterson pointed out, nearly all of you are talking about something he didn't
say.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Mr Ruhl,


It's nice that you show such an interest in reviving long lost regiments. But bear in mind some truths:

- the Canadian Army (that one which you disparage as ''INBRED'') is fighing a war right now. Yes that war will end in 2011, but what other wars will come afterwards.
- After 6 years of deployments to Afghanistan, both our kit, vehicles and troops are run-down.

- We are only on the cusp of what could become a long long recession, with massive gov't deficit projected for the next little while.

With all that, how dare you have the arrogance to think your 'pet militia' regiment should waste more scarce taxpayers dollars on a tp/pl strength unit, for the sole sake of reviving a long dead capbage? Before you spout off about past WWI and WWII glorys, try to understand the world which we inhabit, and the wars we are fighting.

It's a name.  Alberta has 4 infantry or armored militia units in 3 armouries.  I think there are 4 more armouries without infantry or armoured units.  The Maritimes has 9 units in 23 armouries with half the population.  There is a thing called political reality. 

Regardless of the state of the Canadian Forces and the economy there will always be lack of funds, another political reality.  Renaming a unit isn't going break the bank.

 

[Loachman]

Who, besides you, wants this?

Have you canvassed B Squadron SALH?

 

[dapaterson]

There's more than just a political reality.  The Maritimes contribute a disproportionate number of members to the CF (and yes, one can argue chicken/egg in that case).

However, more interesting is an examination of reservists joining the Reg force; when expressed per capita (that is, CTs expressed as a ratio of average parade strength) it's clear that Reservists from down east are far more likely to join the Reg F; recruiting is also far more successful down east than out west.  "Reinforce success" is a basic military concept.

The military does have a responsibility to remain a national institution, and maintain a presence across the country.  That needs to be balanced by considerations for efficiency and effectiveness.  Renaming B Sqn SALH would not contribute to efficiency or effectiveness, but would rather worsen the current pressures to produce LCols and CWOs - many of who rise to unit appointments without enough depth of experience to be effective.  Providing greater opportunities for development as Capts & Majs, and as Sgts, WOs and MWOs prior to taking command will lead to a stronger institution.

Perpetuating the myth that a unit of 100 can create a LCol and CWO every 3 years does no one any favours.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Training is the largest predictor of military success but motivation can lead to results beyond expectations.  Two recent armies that had significantly more success than warranted by numbers and equipment were the British and German armies.  The both employed a system of locally raised regiments.  Your friends and relatives signed you up, saw that you were trained, and looked after you.  You didn't like your officers but they talked like you and shared many of your values.  The system worked.  The more one feels part of the system, even as a cog, the more superior the performance.  Besides you wouldn't want to let down your second cousin, the RSM.

Since I expect there are very few "transfers" between the two SALH garrisons, how does this "local unit" approach not apply to B Sqn, SALH?  In this case the second cousin would be the SSM, right?

This is one more red herring argument that does not specifically strengthen the argument to rebadge them.