Divining the right role, capabilities, structure, and Regimental System for Canada's Army Reserves

[GR66]

Has the Canadian army failed to generate a task force for an operation in the last twenty years ?

How's that Brigade for Latvia coming? Frankly we've just been lucky that we haven't been called on so far to fight in a major conflict. You can equally say that Canada didn't fail to show up when called for WWI and WWII, but would you say that the Canadian Army in 1914 and 1939 were properly prepared for what was to come? There's a big difference between scraping by with a bare minimum capability and actually being prepared in case called upon.

Name one part of Canada currently occupied by a foreign invader.

I'm grateful every day that I won the lucky sperm contest and was born in Canada where by fluke of geography and history the risk of invasion by a foreign invader (other than the US) is virtually nil. Maintaining our independence and defending our way of life in a World that in increasingly threatening however requires that we be able to exert influence outside our own territory. Defending your way of life is just as important as defending your physical territory.

 

[markppcli]

How's that Brigade for Latvia coming? Frankly we've just been lucky that we haven't been called on so far to fight in a major conflict. You can equally say that Canada didn't fail to show up when called for WWI and WWII, but would you say that the Canadian Army in 1914 and 1939 were properly prepared for what was to come? There's a big difference between scraping by with a bare minimum capability and actually being prepared in case called upon.

Show me where we said we were deploying a Bde to Latvia. Like anyone in Canadian Govt or Military leadership stating it will be a Canadian Bde not a Canadian lead Bde.

 

[markppcli]

Question reframing- name one element of the CAF that's delivering appropriate capability per dollar relative to comparable peer nations

You’d need to define the deliverables I think.

 

[GR66]

Show me where we said we were deploying a Bde to Latvia. Like anyone in Canadian Govt or Military leadership stating it will be a Canadian Bde not a Canadian lead Bde.

We haven't said that we're deploying a Canadian Brigade because we are simply not capable of deploying a Canadian Brigade. I have no doubt that there is a large delta between what our Allies have asked us to do and what we will end up doing.

The words of our Prime Minister "Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now" are just as true for this situation as they were when he originally spoke them.

If you don't think that the inability of a G7 country the size and wealth of Canada to be able to generate a single combat capable Brigade Group with all the required support capabilities with the budget that we have is anything less than a failure of both our Government and our military leadership then I don't know what else to say in response.

 

[Rifleman62]

I don't disagree with your post, but as an aside markppcli, you took that photo you titled "the regiment" out of context. It was a special ceremony with a representation from the QOR of C.

On January 22nd, 2023, The Queen’s Own Rifles of Canada held a change of appointment to Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel ceremony at Casa Loma, Toronto.
During the ceremony HLCol Manjit Minhas was appointed replacing HLCol Vicky Sunohara, who completed her 3-year term. The ceremony, which was presided over by Honorary Colonel Major-General (Retired) David Fraser, CMM, MSC, MSM, CD, was attended by the Honourable Anita Anand, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. In front of the unit’s leadership—Commanding Officer LCol Scott Moody, CD and RSM Jeff Johnston, CD—LT Oksana Toffan led the Honour Guard, with incoming HLCol Minhas being marched on followed by the exchange of a ceremonial sword, signifying the change and then HLCol Sunohara being marched off. After the ceremony, a reception was held in the Regimental Museum and Archives, located on the third floor of Casa Loma.

Confined space for the "Honour Guard" in Casa Loma.

P.S. Google the qualifications and experience of the current CO and RSM. You may be impressed.

You might, but I don’t know that we need a Lt Col, CWO, Maj, MWO, and a hockey sock of Captains through WOs to supervise that platoon of sharp young troops.

Agree but what PRes unit has a hockey sock of Captains through WO?

 

[markppcli]

We haven't said that we're deploying a Canadian Brigade because we are simply not capable of deploying a Canadian Brigade. I have no doubt that there is a large delta between what our Allies have asked us to do and what we will end up doing.

The words of our Prime Minister "Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now" are just as true for this situation as they were when he originally spoke them.

If you don't think that the inability of a G7 country the size and wealth of Canada to be able to generate a single combat capable Brigade Group with all the required support capabilities with the budget that we have is anything less than a failure of both our Government and our military leadership then I don't know what else to say in response.

They aren’t asking for a single, they’re asking us to rotate one on a constant basis. Who else is doing that? The reasons we’d be hard pressed to do it (arguably we were doing exactly that from 2006-2011) is because of our manning issues, simply as that. I don’t see that as a structure problem as much as a military administration problem. Although I do think our structure exasperates it vs helps.

 

[dapaterson]

Has the Canadian army failed to generate a task force for an operation in the last twenty years ?

The Army shapes the higher level decisions to avoid such failure, and is sometimes sidelined by other, Special organizations, which are more capable and agile.

The Army has permitted the RCA to become irrelevant on the modern battlefield, unable to field survivable guns, or towed guns in any operationally relevant numbers, or any air defence. It lacks support vehicles in any quantity. It lacks modern anti armor systems. It somehow justifies ten Inf LCols employed for every Inf LCol command position.

Capability decay and bloated structures combined with a difficulty in sustaining a half brigade deployed are not the hallmarks of a well run organization.

 

[markppcli]

I don't disagree with your post, but as an aside markppcli, you took that photo you titled "the regiment" out of context. It was a special ceremony with a representation from the QOR of C.



Confined space for the "Honour Guard" in Casa Loma.

P.S. Google the qualifications and experience of the current CO and RSM. You may be impressed.

Okay, they have some courses (and wear wings incorrectly but that’s a different conversation), what does that have to do with the larger issue’s we’re talking about ?

Agree but what PRes unit has a hockey sock of Captains through WO?

The ones I served in had 4 Capatains, an Lt or two, and a couple OCdts at any given time. I know a few of your new OCdts, good guys but how many platoon commanders do you really need?


This is a comment that points to the larger issue. As soon as we talk about rationalization of a reserve regimental structure, everyone has to fight for why their unit is actually special / has some extra bit of history / the CO is super qualified. If I had posted an image, and I apologize that the one I chose was out of context, of the Grey and Simcoe Foresters the exact same response would have happened. Because the concern isn’t about “are we still of value to the CAF” it’s “are we still the X Y and Z regiment.”

 

[dapaterson]

Look, the Royal Mukluk Fusiliers of Flin Flon parade 17 on a good night, but must have a LCol and a CWO to perpetuate the memory of LCpl Bloggins who, in a 1984 flyover to Germany, got drunk at Pearson airport and spent the entire deployment wandering around the airport, unable to find his flight or contact anyone.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Look, the Royal Mukluk Fusiliers of Flin Flon parade 17 on a good night, but must have a LCol and a CWO to perpetuate the memory of LCpl Bloggins who, in a 1984 flyover to Germany, got drunk at Pearson airport and spent the entire deployment wandering around the airport, unable to find his flight or contact anyone.

But the Boeing left early!!!

 

[Brad Sallows]

Question reframing- name one element of the CAF that's delivering appropriate capability per dollar relative to comparable peer nations

In fairness, you need to provide the quantitative benchmarks. No point trying to answer a question and do your research for you.

 

[Rifleman62]

I know a few of your new OCdts, good guys but how many platoon commanders do you really need?

More than one/two. Pl Comd life expectancy is short in wars, as you realize. The problem really is how do they get experience in leading when you only have 40 troops more or less? Sounds like the Second World War when Inf Coys ran at 80 pers or so.

When we send the Cdn Army to e.g. Latavia, are we prepared to immediately reinforce due to casualties? Bet not.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Before I could possibly identify one element effectively defending Canada's interests, the challenger would first need to provide two things:
1. Complete list of "elements".
2. Complete list of Canada's interests.

There is an alternative: ask no ridiculous questions.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You’d need to define the deliverables I think.

Simple proxies. Pick suitable countries, calculate a ballpark multiplier- call itt he average of population and GDP multiple * percent GDP defense spend multiple. Apply the multiplier to their forces and compare it to what we have.

Ex (rough) Denmark: ~(6.4xpop+ 5xGDP)/2 * (1.27/1.39) = 5.2
So in rough terms, relative to Denmark we should be able to field forces of comparable capability but 5.2 times the size.
Focusing just on heavy metal, fighter aircraft, naval combatants, ignoring trivialities like GBAD, rocket artillery, SP mortars, modern ATGM's)
44 Leo 2A7 x 5.2 = 220+ fully updated, common fleet MBT's
44 CV9035 x 5.2 = 220 + tracked IFV's (plus nearly 1900 Pirhana V's)
19 155mm SPG x 5.2 = 98 SPG's
23 F35 x5.2 = 119 5th generation fighters
3 Iver Huitfelt = 15 21st century AD frigates
2 Absalon = 10 21st centrury ASW frigates

Ex (rough) UK: ~ (.57xpop +.64xGDP)/2 * (1.27/1.39) = .36
227 Challenger 2's x .36 = 81 MBT's
721 Warriors x.36 = 259 track IFV's (plus 235 CVR(T)s and 558 Protected Mobility Vehicles)
89 155mm SPG's x .36 = 32 SPG's
101 Typhoons x.36 = 36 4th generation fighters
80 F35s = 28 5th generation fighters
10 Assorted SSN/SSBN = 3-4 SSN's
... the surface Navy gets messy based on the carrier/amphib weighting


Do the same for the US, France, Norway, is the CAF going to come out looking like it delivers value?

Edit Norway super rough - multiplier 3.3
=
178 Leos
475 CV90's
79 155m SPGs
89 F35s
18 SSKs
15 Destroyers

 

[markppcli]

Simple proxies. Pick suitable countries, calculate a ballpark multiplier- call itt he average of population and GDP multiple * percent GDP defense spend multiple. Apply the multiplier to their forces and compare it to what we have.

Ex (rough) Denmark: ~(6.4xpop+ 5xGDP)/2 * (1.27/1.39) = 5.2
So in rough terms, relative to Denmark we should be able to field forces of comparable capability but 5.2 times the size.
Focusing just on heavy metal, fighter aircraft, naval combatants, ignoring trivialities like GBAD, rocket artillery, SP mortars, modern ATGM's)
44 Leo 2A7 x 5.2 = 220+ fully updated, common fleet MBT's
44 CV9035 x 5.2 = 220 + tracked IFV's (plus nearly 1900 Pirhana V's)
19 155mm SPG x 5.2 = 98 SPG's
23 F35 x5.2 = 119 5th generation fighters
3 Iver Huitfelt = 15 21st century AD frigates
2 Absalon = 10 21st centrury ASW frigates

Ex (rough) UK: ~ (.57xpop +.64xGDP)/2 * (1.27/1.39) = .36
227 Challenger 2's x .36 = 81 MBT's
721 Warriors x.36 = 259 track IFV's (plus 235 CVR(T)s and 558 Protected Mobility Vehicles)
89 155mm SPG's x .36 = 32 SPG's
101 Typhoons x.36 = 36 4th generation fighters
80 F35s = 28 5th generation fighters
10 Assorted SSN/SSBN = 3-4 SSN's
... the surface Navy gets messy based on the carrier/amphib weighting


Do the same for the US, France, Norway, is the CAF going to come out looking like it delivers value?

Edit Norway super rough - multiplier 3.3
=
178 Leos
475 CV90's
79 155m SPGs
89 F35s
18 SSKs
15 Destroyers

Well were certainly well ahead of the UK. You’re flawed in your value approximation though because that has to be a factor of what’s actually spent. We spend a smaller portion of our GDP on defence and that much be reflected in the value.

I also wouldn’t inherently seperate tracked vs wheeled IFVs myself since that’s really a question of how a country employs them, ie would you assume France has terrible value for money relative 10 years agobecause they don’t field the VCBI instead of the AMX 10p now?


I’ve backed myself into a weird corner here why I don’t really think we are a well run organization that delivers good value, but I’m not of the “burn down all our structures it’s a total failure” camp either.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Well were certainly well ahead of the UK. You’re flawed in your value approximation though because that has to be a factor of what’s actually spent. We spend a smaller portion of our GDP on defence and that much be reflected in the value.

I also wouldn’t inherently seperate tracked vs wheeled IFVs myself since that’s really a question of how a country employs them, ie would you assume France has terrible value for money relative 10 years agobecause they don’t field the VCBI instead of the AMX 10p now?

That's accounted for in the % GDP spend multiplier ie Denmark- our 1.27 versus their 1.39 translates into a .91 multiplier on the size factor.

That was just applying the multiple to provide a proxy of what we should have relative to them, keeping it simple and trying to stick to their primary IFV. What I'd say is more misleading is the exclusion of the list "trivial" (core) capabilities that I left out for the sake of expediency.

This isn't meant to be an indictment of the CAF, but an exploratory exercise to get to loose apples to apples comparison. see where we fit pound for pound.

 

[childs56]

The Military is its own worse nightmare when it comes to recruit, train and retain. One of the biggest ones is the loyalty the Military (or lack of) shows to the troops. For so many years courses cancelled, budgets slashed training diminished equipment failures etc. It kept getting worse and worse then wham covid comes around and literally destroyed what was left. The Army has all kinds of reasons for not keeping up on house keeping. Ultimately they suck, promoted to many losers, to many buddy buddies and left the upper decision making in the hands of protectionists.
Now those people who have Degrees in Law of Armed Conflict have no clue how to Recruit, Train and Retain because they spent all their time getting a Masters in something which does not apply to their actual job of Leading the Members of the Canadian Forces.

Fix the problem, get the Military out of the news for all the sexual assault crap that was and is going on. Many people think it is a big orgy and not safe for young people to be in.
Get the Military real military equipment not an offshore fleet of non armed vessels and oversized armored cars that are seen crashing on highways and in the news for catching fire.
Stop every fleet procurement from turning into a billion dollar catastrophe by defining properly what we need, then buying what we need with what is currently available. That might mean we only get so many pieces every year. For example we want 200 new tanks, We order 100 right away and then we order another 25 a year for the next 4 years or what ever can be done Make it fit in the budget so it looks feasible.

Recruit Recruit and Recruit, keep recruiting until you have to run back to back courses for the Reserves and hire Class C to run those courses.
Where would you recruit you ask? High Schools Collège/ Universities/ job fairs , start with Grade 10 students. Put the bug in their ear that the Reserves works well with going to college/ university as a part time job. (you have to follow through and employ them some what regularly for that plan to work) Then hit up the 11,s and 12 to actually sign up. You wont keep many after a three year commitment but you will keep at least 25% of them but the nice thing is you will always have a steady influx of new excited people. Some of those who leave will leave to the Regular Force especially if you make it available for them to go into other trades/ occupations easier then it is now.

Get out into your community at events and challenge people to Basic Army tasks such as Donning CBRN suits, hands on with our equipment. Ask them if they think they could do the job. Many will say not a chance they don't think they could do it. Then tell them they can as a Citizen Soldier part time. Explain the requirements and a few will bite and join. Community relationships are huge in recruiting for Reserve Units. When you see units with low numbers it usually means they have little public/ poor engagement one on one with their community. ( many Foreigners I talked to while I was serving have a sense of pride and duty to serve) many of those felt they are not allowed to serve for various reasons. Build upon that and encourage those groups to positively engage with us. Set the example and hire recruit them.

Training and Retaining I feel go hand in hand. Offer courses, offer taskings and don't cancel them on a whim. Right now with deployments we should be able to keep the interest up even for those who have professional careers outside of the Reserves for them to deploy. Who doesn't want to help Ukraine.

Re org every Brigade into a Battle Group. For example 39 Combat Group, lead by a Col, Every Current Regiment back to Company status lead by a Major.( keep their Regimental Affiliations). If they recruit more then a 150 soldiers then they split off into two Companies.
Make up in BC

The British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own) Give them LAVs

The British Columbia Dragoons Give them LAVs

5th (British Columbia) Field Artillery Regiment, RCA Give M777

15th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA give them new SP 155

39 Combat Engineer Regiment Give them Lavs, and a few Armored recovery vehicles.

39 Signal Regiment They do their own thing I think anyways

The Rocky Mountain Rangers Light Infantry Mountain specialty

The Royal Westminster Regiment Re role Mech Infantry

The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada Light infantry

The Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's) Re role Mech

39 Service Battalion give them work at base maintaining the fleet. Give them the trucks and equipment they need to do the job to support the Battle group.

Unless the Military is willing to put the effort in they will get nothing. I think the budgets are there, they just need to be redistributed to work more efficiently.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we committed to building up to a Brigade in Europe to be stationed there for 20 years, then you could start by sending over a small detachment to setup the base, I guessing a base in Western Poland or Eastern Germany. The advantage of Poland is likley more flexible environmental laws allowing better training, however putting it closer to threats, which is the advantage of Germany. Land is likley cheaper in Poland than Germany as well. As is labour. Reserve a good chunk of land for barracks, PMQ's and recreation facilities. Select units in Canada to provide the basic units there. So start out with a company of infantry in LAV's, with some engineering support. Slowly build our force there, adding, tanks, artillery. Likley splitting our tank force to a training Squadron here and active duty Squadron there.
I think with 5 year postings there, you find it easier to retain people as it makes for a good posting for career and family.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I’ve backed myself into a weird corner here why I don’t really think we are a well run organization that delivers good value, but I’m not of the “burn down all our structures it’s a total failure” camp either.

I think that's the natural conclusion if you set the scandic witchcraft aside. Looking at UK/France the two big things that I notice are

-they have the core capabilities we've divested since 2000,
-asymmetry- we actually stack up decently well (on paper) in terms of pro-rated tank quantity, but where we differ is that we have an outsized number of our primary IFV but nothing behind it (mainly due to the TAPV disaster)


UK- pro-rated
259 Warriors, 235 CVR(T), 558 Wheeled Protected Mobility Vehicles - full Bn's of 3 different mounted infantry weights, regiments of 3 different armoured weights (including tank)
France-pro-rated
276 VCBI, 1100 VAB, 108 AMX 10 RCR, 623 VBL, - again, multiple specific mounted infantry weights, cavalry weights,
Canada actual
550 6.0, 66 LRSS, 500 TAPV... - 1 weight of infantry battalion, misequipped armoured regiments hunting for a role

Apologies for drifting from the reserve topic, but I think where it becomes relevant is that if a force has an employment model includes something like VAB or Mastiff battalions, then it provides something cheaper and easier to maintain that the reserves can provide more of.

 

[GR66]

I’ve backed myself into a weird corner here why I don’t really think we are a well run organization that delivers good value, but I’m not of the “burn down all our structures it’s a total failure” camp either.

Perhaps the physical structure doesn't need to be burned down, but it certainly needs to be put up on jacks so the foundation can be replaced. The CAF/DND in my opinion has ceased to see it self as an organization that needs to be focused on preparing to fight a war if asked to. It has instead become a peacetime institution that is focused on maintaining that institution rather than creating and supporting an effective fighting force. That's how you end up with 300 soldier Battalions and a lack of key war fighting equipment, or warships that put to sea without meeting civilian safety standards or an Air Force with 40-year old fighter aircraft.