• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Disband Regiments or Amalgamate all the Inf Regiments into 1 like the Aussies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mkbb
  • Start date Start date
M

Mkbb

Guest
What do people think about turning the "Corps" into 1 Regt Like other Commnwealth countries? This would be more cost effective and give greater flexibilty for promotions, postings,and hopefully eventually eliminate the rivalries and favouratism we currently have. Obviously there would be a number of objections from old diehards who believe in maintaining their regimental heritages but as the veterans pass on and few of the younger generations care about or identify with the old army (ie asians in a highland regt????)why not go generic the Canadian Marine Corps maybe? While we are at it how about getting rid of DEU‘s and the like in favour of Cbt‘s only, including a "Parade Grade" set that could have some tactful accoutriments for Remembrance day etc. (ie Israeli armed forces) Is this a good idea?
 
BAD IDEA, and here are a few reasons why. If regimental tradition and history is so unimportant, try and get the various regiments to give up their individual uniforms and badges. The one thing you have missed here is this. At any reunion, veterans day parade, or in any mess, I will be instantly drawn to the guy who wears the same head dress as me, or the same reigmental tie, or has the same title on his shoulder. WE ARE FAMILY, it‘s just not a song from the 70‘s, it‘s what we believe in.

Yes, we are all part of the same army, and we are all CANADIANS, but my buddies are also part of my battalion family, and we are the custodians of the REGIMENTAL HISTORY, which in my case goes back to 1891. When we are on parade, in the armouries across Canada, and the OLD COMRADES are also there, watching us on the floor, we stand that much taller, knowing we are their legacy. We owe it to them to be the best, to make their loses in battle worthwhile, even now. This idea also makes a mockery of the idea that our history is not important to the young guys who will come along in the future. If we follow your idea, we will become a vanilla flavoured bland hodge-podge with no descernable identity, at all.

Feather bonnets, kilts, and sporrans are not practical items of clothing for soldiers now, BUT, they were issued in the past, and worn with great pride by my regiment, and we will continue to do so. Reserve units are being threatened with extinction, and the best way to avoid that is to be as active as possible in the community. Too manytimes, the local units are unseen, and unheard of by the public, except on annual parades, and at the Cenotaph, on November 11. This has to change, and the best way to change is to be in the public‘s eye as much as possible.

As far as Isreal is concerned. I have had the pleasure of training with the IDF, and I can say without exception they were very professional soldiers, BUT, as for apperance, they leave a lot to be desired. They are very sloppy in appearance, and don‘t have any sort of idea of making an impression. They are all for action, not show. JIM
 
I also agree with the keeping of the "Regiment". As always your loyalty works upward - detachement, Battery, Regiment and so on. (I‘m a gunner but the same applies to the infantry. As to the younger gererations not caring, talk to any recruit of any rergiment and you will get a different answer. We are not diehards and the regimental tradition is the foundation of the Canadian Army. You looked to the Aussies, but look to the Brits as a better example. As to the Marines, we don‘t have the same mandate or role as they do although we pay lip service to every soldier being a rifleman first.
As to uniforms, at least we are getting away from the multitude of unforms we used to have. In the army, I feel we need only two - cbts and dress (DEUs if you wish). Formal parades require us to be spiffed up and there is no harm in that.
Thats my two cents worth.

Ubique
 
Re-1 Regt: good idea , actually, bandied about 12-15 years ago. makes sense given the small size of our force. Bad idea, you would still have inter unit rivalry( battalion level), so there would be no real gain to the situation. I like our present system( being a "no brainer diehard!")
Re- uniforms: good idea, I have always felt we have had too much "non functional " kit issued. Bad idea, One always feels a little sharper( drive the body!),a little more proud on parade, when wearing scarlets, et al. Thank god, we finally, binned that "work dress"crap(utterly useless).
 
Points taken, these are the same arguments I expected to hear but I‘m not sure that making a larger regimental family would diminish esprit de corp. First of all "vanilla bland" pretty much desribes the USMC (except dress blues) yet it would be difficult to find a Regt with more pride,and even though they identify each other as marines first they also have a pride in their battalions the same way we feel about our regt‘s. By the way I don‘t imply that we should have a mandate like the marines even though it might be worth some discussion. As to the comparison with the IDF being sloppy isn‘t something we would emulate however maybe we should be more action and less show especially with the tight budgets we have to work with.RCA I‘m not sure I understand your points since your trade is pretty much organized in a structure like I‘m talking about. JR inter unit rivalry is a good thing,competition brings out the best in people as long as it is tempered with respect. Finally again the benefits would be better options for postings, more room for promotions,less staff personell at RHQ and at the career shop,it would hopefully get rid of some of the favouratism (though certainly not all of it)given to the current regt‘s by whom ever is in a significant position of influence CDS, VCDS, etc.
 
Interesting conversation! I have had the same over many years. My regiment , the RCR has one reserve Bn to which I belonged. I never felt threatened, never lost any regimental pride or the advantages that have been spoken of above. Our pride is in the accomplishment of our Bn and it‘s predessors. In fact I think we were a little more protective of the Regiment than some of our Regular Bns.

It is interesting to hear the "protectionists" of this issue. They claim all kinds of emotional attachment. The Brits who gave us this system, have done more with amalgamations and experimentation than I suspect any in Canada would approve. It‘s funny, a last outpost of the British Regimental system here in Canada, the first Dominion, paochial to the death. I like the system. The "system" is wonderful! But will we destroy an operational capability the nation needs for a simple issue of a capbadge, tartan, or bonnet?

I have served for 18 years is one regiment, bland by the militia‘s standards, but proud of my regiment. MY other units were equally distinct and I was proud of their traditions as well. But I soldiered on when circumstances caused me to move.

Sometimes we move, sometimes it moves on us. This is an interesting conversation.

As for uniforms, two will do just fine thanks.

OB
 
I‘m not so sure that the amalgamtion of all molitia units into one Regiment will facilitate postings and promotions. I‘m not so sure that it will nescesarrily reduce the amount of command and support staff required eihter. Here‘s why:
First, Molitia units by design and character are naturally territorial with its members drawn from a specific region. The fact that its members are volunteers is usually because they are a member of a community first and a unit second. I‘ll agree that some reservists have served with many units but that is normally by choice usually directed by a change or relocation in their civilian life.
Secondly, Since Molitia units are scattered across the country and some are located in remote areas they require the command staff to be able to run their day to day operations seperate from a RHQ. Although most reserve units are organised in a Regimental fashion they lack all the support elements that a regular force unit would have, as well in Molitia units many staff positions are held by the same person. This allows each unit to operate as a Regiment with out all the staff.
Finally, I would like to close by saying that I am very proud of my unit and the fact that we are "the best", the only way we got that way was by identifying ourselves as such. In reality we may not be the best but telling ourselves that we are sure goes a long way on the battle field.
 
Back on line.
gobrien-- Good point! The Brits have amalgamated more REGT/BN in the last the eight years than we have in the last 25!(Reg F only) My last count of the Res F Inf units/ BNs/ Regts?? was 54! I have not seen too many comments here supporting the " Canadian Highland Mechanized Light Infantry Voltiguers(PEI to BC)! Would such an amalgamation result in cost saving ? -- YES! where is the arguement against such coming from? Res F units! Reg F Regts have already seen it!( Black Watch, QOR, CDN GDs.)

Mkbb-- I believe your arguement in support of amalgamation was directed ,primarily, to Reg F units. Have you seen Reg F Inf RHQ/ career manager positions lately? There are more people, occuping these posn( RHQ only/ there is NO career management, at all!) at a Res F unit of 200 pers than at a Reg F Inf branch of appox 8000! I believe your point is not well defined. RE:Your comment on the IDF "looking sloppy" take a look at CDN inf units before D-Day and 30 Days later! Hello!!!! They have figured out you do not have to look "pretty" to do a job! We have not!

Shabadoo-- Res F Mbrs are NOT "posted" any where! They go Where they WANT to!
 
JRMACDONALD- In some cases Molitia members are posted, many units have more than one comapny/support platoon etc. and members are in fact posted to different positions (even thought they are sometimes in the same building). For example, I was posted to a Recce platoon for three years, then a line company then a training company then back to a line company.

I guess the ultimate question here is would any of us be willing to give up the history and traditions of our own units and agree to start anew for the sake of oragnisational simplicity? I doubt many of us would, and if we would I think it demonstrates the sad level of our pride in ourselves and our past. Those of you that have no problem with it really ought to take a close look at you unit history and maybe speak to a few veterans before deciding it means nothing.
 
My remarks are primarily referred to the Reg F but as a positive side for the militia the change in dress (to a common inf regt) would be an added bonus in that there would be less of a distinction between Reg F and Militia, especially since the first thing that a reg feels when they see a non reg hatbadge is at best contempt. This is something I have witnessed over 14 years of service as a member of both organizations. JRM good point about the career shop they have been cut back to min manning levels even if all the regts were combined, w/ regards to the sloppiness issue what my comments and some of the other are trying to say is on operations "sloppy dress is to be expected" but when in the public eye it is definitely preferable to be "presentable".Andyboy nobody is advocating giving up our history or traditions (except some relating to dress) that doesn‘t have to happen just because of a name and uniform change. Short term pain for long term gain anyway regardless how we feel about this issue I expect that something like this will happen in our lifetimes I think it is inevitable.
 
First of all, I‘ll put in terms that will make everyone totally agree on NOT brandishing "one" regiment for the whole entire infantry. WE ARE NOT AMERICANS!!!!! The regimental system we have today allows a soldier to exhibit pride in his/her regiment and the community that they come from. This is the best form of citizenship that anyone could ever partake in. Dismantling it so that we can look like a U.S. Marine Corps. would totally disgust the Dickens out of any former CF member, let alone those veterans who lay in their graves presently.

-the patriot-
 
Furthermore, this is an aside to the main topic of this thread. Why not use your regimental affiliation as a selling tool for recruiting purposes. The QOR could hype up it‘s jump tasking, the Princess Louise Fusiliers could hype up their connection to Canadian Forces Europe. Your unit‘s numbers will not increase dramtically (thus escaping the non-effective list) unless you market your regiment‘s history in such a way that the younger generation will feel moved enough to sign the dotted line. Just standing there at a booth, praying someone will talk to you is not going to increase the enrollment numbers. One must get creative these days to get someone‘s attention. Welcome to the "sound bite" days of marketing your product. Your product is yourself, your unit, and your regiment‘s history and pride.

-the patriot-
 
Scruffy looking soldiers don‘t make bad soldiers - who wouldn‘t rank the Israeli Army among the top five in the world?

Good point about Canadians in Normandy. I‘ll also point out that the biggest trouble makers when the Canadian Army was in England (I‘m talking about your real shit-disturbers who were always on charge parade) were among the most useful troops out in the field once the units were in action. Any number of regimental histories will tell you that.

Super-troopers with polished boots and creased creases often don‘t hold up well in a real fight, and that‘s a fact.
 
I‘ll also point out that while I agree with you, patriot, that the majority of troops will be disgusted if we were turned into one regiment, be advised that that was practically what happened back in the 1960s with Unification. A lot of people left the Forces (and I do realize they kept their cap badges) but the CF still limped along. It would survive even a drastic re-organization such as the one being discussed here.

I think your post about "we are not Americans" and how regimental pride is essential all goes to support what I was saying in the discussion about Trudeau earlier. I don‘t think our Army has ever recovered from Unification, nor do I think we ever will. Getting rid of the regiments altogether is just another inevitable extension of those policies, instituted by people who don‘t know and don‘t care. We could agree with each other til we‘re blue in the face.

go to http://www.c4mp.org - maybe they can do something?
 
I think that, in discussing the regimental system in the reserve force, it is important to separate real costs and benefits from imagined costs and benefits.

There are costs associated with any administrative structure you create. In the case of reserve force regiments, you may find that "There are more people, occuping these posn( RHQ only/ there is NO career management, at all!) at a Res F unit of 200 pers than at a Reg F Inf branch of appox 8000!‘ as JRMACDONALD (Hi, WO Mac) said. You may also find that this doesn‘t cost a great deal in comparison with some other items.

I heard a Commander of LFWA say to a group of troops a few years ago that his HQ estimated that the amount of money spent by that HQ to administer the militia in the west was about $20,000,000 a year. This compares to the 1980s when the militia in the west was run by two area HQs, each with 40 people including about 15 full-timers each. If the 1980s HQs cost a similar amount to the new HQ, DND would have been paying about a quarter million dollars for each HQ wallah. I run a business which is fairly similar to an HQ in terms of information processing. My payroll costs are about 50 percent of my total costs including rent for office space and equipment and such. In HQ terms, this would have meant that the average (full-time and part-time) annual pay for the old HQ staff would have had to have been $125,000 per year to be equivalent to the new structure. I don‘t think that this was the case. Has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for area HQ?

I‘m not sure how much the brigade HQs in the west cost in the year I heard the area commander, but in Alberta we had over 40 people (mostly full-time) doing a job that used to require a total of 48 people (about 12 full time) in two district HQs. Certainly, this change increased cost at the district/brigade level. Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for district/brigade HQs?

In the year I heard the area commander, my unit budget for full-time staff was about 1/3 of the total unit pay budget. A decade before, this would have been about 1/6. Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for full-time staff at unit level?

At higher levels, in the 80s FMC HQ had 14 Captains and above working for the DCOS Mil running the reserve army at a national level. Does anyone seriously suspect that there are fewer than 14 LCols and above involved in this now? Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for national-level command and control?

When considering whether it is worthwhile to have 11 LCols and 11 RSMs on class A service to command what is essentially 11 rifle companies worth of infantry in LFWA, consider that the total class A budget (about $20,000,000) for LFWA (including LCols and CWOs) in the year I heard the area commander was about the same as the reserve-allocated cost of LFWA HQ alone.

The adminstrative burden on a garrison of infantry (be it a company or a "battalion" that is really a company) nowadays requires a huge number of staff (mostly full-time) at various levels. This problem won‘t be solved by renaming the Royal Regina Rifles as B Coy, 10th Battalion, The Canadian Infantry.

There are certainly benefits to be had from letting a CO command a unit that actually has two or three or even four companies. Perhaps this should be done by moving money that is currently in the system from HQ functions to the armoury floor of our existing units rather than amalgamating or renaming units.

Ducimus
Rick
 
Exactly - put the money into the units instead of the headquarters. Everyone raved about the RPSR; I had a couple months hands on with it, and then they were stripped from the units and sent up to brigade - as one NCO explained it to me, "they want to have their own little empire." That empire building, at all levels of the Forces, means that headquarters troops are competing directly with the troops for budget dollars. And since it is headquarters types who allocate the funds in the first place...it seems a lot like Members of Parliament spending 100s of thousands of dollars to build themselves a new underground walkway into the House of Commons....out for themselves above all.

Equally troubling is the removal of support trades from the combat arms units - how far has this progressed everywhere else? In Calgary, our infantry unit lost its medics and Fin O. Rumours are flying about other "support" troops such as veh techs, wpns techs, logistics officers, storesmen, etc. Our medical sergeant was as proud a Highlander as ever was; regimental pride doesn‘t stop or start with the rifleman/gunners/troopers.
 
I have to agree with you Dorosh but I‘ll take it a step further...

A company needs a company command staff, but a company also needs a Regimental command staff, unfortunately in the Molitia pratically every company has it‘s OWN Regimental HQ. All of these "RHQs" require (following normal, logical progression) Brigade, and Area staff as well. Fantastic isn‘t it? Jobs jobs jobs! Staffed by who? Officers. Who makes the "Rules" Re: manning? Officers. It only makes sense, the CO of any given unit is simply looking to preserve his own current job as well as any future job he might someday get. Just imagine if we were to reduce each Molitia unit to a level it could reasonably man (ie company level) the number of officers that would be out of a job! And what officer is going to back that?

Perhaps the answer is slower promotion rate for reserve officers to that of their Reg force peers. I spent eight years as a Section commander/2ic, and there‘s likely to be a few more before I go any further. How many Platoon Commanders can say the same? Heres a number to illuminate my point, my unit has around 100-150 on strength, 31 of which are officers. Few of which spent any longer than two or three years as a Pl comd maybe there wouldn‘t be so many floating around if they had to wait five to seven years before moving on to new command positions and perhaps a spinoff would be better pl comanders, company commanders etc.
 
Andyboy- I think you have picked up on my comment about Militia "RHQ" Re:- "postings" I am using the Reg F definition- ie you actually move "house and home" not change floors or buildings/ rooms.
LCOL Goebel- Hi Sir! Did you really think I could listen to all this without piping up!!??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

army
To Gunner
Replies
0
Views
4K
army
army
Back
Top