- Reaction score
- 4,648
- Points
- 1,160
I could use a few Signallers too.
Infanteer said:(now that there is 3 times less staff to feed)
CDN Aviator said:Yeah well, funny story about that.............
rifleman said:They'll likely need more people now to keep track of domestic, international and support issues all withing one organization.
Infanteer said:Thank f**k. Now, are we going to get some PYs reinvested into the units? I'll trade 3 x staff wanks (now that there is 3 times less staff to feed) for a rifleman/gunner/crewman/sapper.
I hope we do. This unified CANOPSCOM will be a good thing if it reduces the size of the staff.Infanteer said:Thank f**k. Now, are we going to get some PYs reinvested into the units?
Jim Seggie said:I got a question:
Why can't the CDS FIRE those who display significant resistance to orders and directives?
Just say - "listen bucko, take the rankoff the shoulders, pack your kit and get out of the office - 2 I/C take over. You have a month...."
Jim Seggie said:I got a question:
Why can't the CDS FIRE those who display significant resistance to orders and directives?
Just say - "listen bucko, take the rank off the shoulders, pack your kit and get out of the office - 2 I/C take over. You have a month...."
NinerSix said:<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimation_%28Roman_army%29>Decimation</a>
>
MCG said:I hope we do. This unified CANOPSCOM will be a good thing if it reduces the size of the staff.
PPCLI Guy said:Interesting stat from Comd CA this weekend: of the Army strength (ie those not already employed outside of the Army) 74% are emplyed in the field force (defined as Brigade and below), 23 % in the Institutional Army (bases and the training system) and 3 % in HQs above Brigade.
Seems to me we have it about right in the Army at least.
I think you would find the ratios roughly hold for the three force generating elements (adjusting for the fact that RCN and RCAF units have fewer people in them by their very nature). The "problem" (such as it is) is that VCDS Group, say, is entirely "HQ", likewise IM Gp, CANADA COM, CEFCOM, Adm(Mat), etc. These all serve to aid the pointy-end in the FG elements, so it's a bit disingenuous to pare out the least HQ-y components of the CF and say that they don't have the institutional problem of the rest of the force.PPCLI Guy said:Interesting stat from Comd CA this weekend: of the Army strength (ie those not already employed outside of the Army) 74% are emplyed in the field force (defined as Brigade and below), 23 % in the Institutional Army (bases and the training system) and 3 % in HQs above Brigade.
Seems to me we have it about right in the Army at least.
PPCLI Guy said:Interesting stat from Comd CA this weekend: of the Army strength (ie those not already employed outside of the Army) 74% are emplyed in the field force (defined as Brigade and below), 23 % in the Institutional Army (bases and the training system) and 3 % in HQs above Brigade.
Seems to me we have it about right in the Army at least.
Journeyman said:I have to admit that when he said that, I thought it was the weakest part of his presentation.
'OK, if we don't consider the National Capital Region, we're looking fine'....coming on the heels of discussions about losing a platoon each, likelihood of ever seeing a fourth rifle Coy again, eating the infantry to come up with other folks' PYs....
:dunno:
Don't panic people; much of this was just marginal discussing by people with no authority to harm your fiefdom.
Just don't critique LFDTS >
I'm afraid any Res leadership in attendance is still in the Chicken Little-mode about a separate comment made.daftandbarmy said:If you want a 4th rifle company we should OP Task each reserve brigade to provide it.