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

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Yard Ape
  • Start date Start date
Because National Service was so well received last time? ;)

Jack Nicholson Yes GIF

Michael Caine endorsing Plan A in 2010

Michael Caine on his first fighting patrol in Korea.
 
Michael Caine endorsing Plan A in 2010

Michael Caine on his first fighting patrol in Korea.

Survey says...


National service in Britain: why men who served don’t think we should bring it back


Ukraine compelling all men aged 18-60 to stay in the country and fight the Russian invasion is a reminder of the reality of military conscription in many countries in Europe and around the world.

In recent decades, military service in Britain has been voluntary, with conscription regarded as a characteristic of less liberal, more militaristic nations. But this hasn’t always been the case – during the second world war and for a decade and a half after, around 2.3 million men completed two years of national service under the National Service Act.

Politicians, journalists and other public figures have periodically called for a return to national service. Some have cited anxieties about the supposed lack of discipline among the degenerate “youth of today”.

My research team has interviewed over 100 ex-national servicemen – mainly from working-class backgrounds across five different regions in Britain: the Glasgow area, north-east England, the West Midlands, south Wales and south-east England. We wanted to find out how conscription shaped their feelings about masculinity, class and British character. Our research shows that among those who experienced national service, there is not a strong sentiment to bring it back. Nonetheless, most viewed national service as a positive time in their life.



 
Just spoke to a young man back from National Service in the Singapore Army. He enjoyed it quite a bit. But then you have a lot of educated people, new equipment, strong sense of purpose and generally well organized and supplied. Funny enough people scramble to try to get their kids there into the "right regiments" as this is where you build your future business networks and some units are better for that than others. This guy spent his time learning to be a ATGM operator.
 
Survey says...


National service in Britain: why men who served don’t think we should bring it back


Ukraine compelling all men aged 18-60 to stay in the country and fight the Russian invasion is a reminder of the reality of military conscription in many countries in Europe and around the world.

In recent decades, military service in Britain has been voluntary, with conscription regarded as a characteristic of less liberal, more militaristic nations. But this hasn’t always been the case – during the second world war and for a decade and a half after, around 2.3 million men completed two years of national service under the National Service Act.

Politicians, journalists and other public figures have periodically called for a return to national service. Some have cited anxieties about the supposed lack of discipline among the degenerate “youth of today”.

My research team has interviewed over 100 ex-national servicemen – mainly from working-class backgrounds across five different regions in Britain: the Glasgow area, north-east England, the West Midlands, south Wales and south-east England. We wanted to find out how conscription shaped their feelings about masculinity, class and British character. Our research shows that among those who experienced national service, there is not a strong sentiment to bring it back. Nonetheless, most viewed national service as a positive time in their life.




The key element is compulsion.

Proposed system in Britain is not compulsory. Everyone is automatically signed up. Everyone has the opportunity to drop out.

Just like your cable subscriptions.
 
In my opinion, why would many be interested in serving Canada in it's current economic state brought on by the Trudeau government. Add the factor of the low esteem perceived internationally of Canada, outdated equipment, lack of recognition of the CAF by the Liberals.

Of course a recession could fill the ranks with recruits who cannot get trained, will have outdated equipment, but 3 squares, a roof and a paycheck.
 
I believe I'll take an informal survey of the young people I know before I accept some enthusiast's assertion about the temperature of the craving for "national service".
 
In my opinion, why would many be interested in serving Canada in it's current economic state brought on by the Trudeau government. Add the factor of the low esteem perceived internationally of Canada, outdated equipment, lack of recognition of the CAF by the Liberals.

Of course a recession could fill the ranks with recruits who cannot get trained, will have outdated equipment, but 3 squares, a roof and a paycheck.
100%. Major changes to both Reg Force and Reserve personnel management to solve issues of recruitment and training timelines, retention issues, manning shortages and equipment availability would have to be made before you could ever even begin to consider any type of National Service. It simply makes zero sense at this time.
 
In my opinion, why would many be interested in serving Canada in it's current economic state brought on by the Trudeau government.
It would be a height of stupidity to implement "national service" when - if reports are to be believed - employees are in high demand in many places.

Then of course the insult factor - people who don't particularly agree with the way Canada is going, being obligated to prop it up.
 
What part of voluntary is not clear?

And the programme is not exclusively military.

It is voluntary public service.

The military could benefit if it wanted to. But so could SAR teams, hospitals, meals on wheels and fire departments.

So could police and night watchmen.
 
What part of voluntary is not clear?

And the programme is not exclusively military.

It is voluntary public service.

The military could benefit if it wanted to. But so could SAR teams, hospitals, meals on wheels and fire departments.

So could police and night watchmen.
It may be voluntary for the participants but is it also voluntary for the organizations taking on the volunteers? Are they compensated by the Government for the costs they incur in running the programs?
 
Here is the portal to the British scheme - National Citizen Service. It targets 16 and 17 year olds.



 
Survey says...

National service in Britain: why men who served don’t think we should bring it back


Ukraine compelling all men aged 18-60 to stay in the country and fight the Russian invasion is a reminder of the reality of military conscription in many countries in Europe and around the world.

In recent decades, military service in Britain has been voluntary, with conscription regarded as a characteristic of less liberal, more militaristic nations. But this hasn’t always been the case – during the second world war and for a decade and a half after, around 2.3 million men completed two years of national service under the National Service Act.

Politicians, journalists and other public figures have periodically called for a return to national service. Some have cited anxieties about the supposed lack of discipline among the degenerate “youth of today”.

My research team has interviewed over 100 ex-national servicemen – mainly from working-class backgrounds across five different regions in Britain: the Glasgow area, north-east England, the West Midlands, south Wales and south-east England. We wanted to find out how conscription shaped their feelings about masculinity, class and British character. Our research shows that among those who experienced national service, there is not a strong sentiment to bring it back. Nonetheless, most viewed national service as a positive time in their life.





 
United Kingdom

Army Reserve must expand by 100,000​

Britain is not ready for conscription. But it is essential to build up our forces – it can be done
DAVID DAVIS18 February 2024 • 5:43pm


A few weeks ago, listening to the Today programme, I suddenly felt that never in my adult life had World War Three seemed so close.
As a young reservist, I returned from a parachute training jump to observe, on a black and white television, Russian tanks driving through Prague during the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Only a couple of decades later, as the Soviet empire collapsed, I watched as Western Europe casually reaped what it called a “peace dividend”. But it has not turned out to be quite so peaceful.
General Patrick Sanders, Chief of the General Staff, warns that the British people are now part of a “prewar generation” and that it is “not merely desirable, but essential” to place our society on a war footing.
Our allies echo the same warnings. Carlos Del Toro, the US secretary of the navy, urges the UK government to invest more in the Royal Navy.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the deteriorating situation in the Middle East, and China’s belligerent behaviour towards Taiwan has worsened an unstable global landscape.
Against this backdrop, the British Army is predicted to have a professional force of 72,500 soldiers by 2025; in the past few decades our forces have been halved to their smallest size in 300 years.
It is not just the Army. The Navy is struggling to find the manpower to keep its remaining ships at sea. The Air Force is so shrunken that the US state of Montana has more F35s than the RAF.
We need to increase the size of our standing Army to at least 100,000
but, most importantly, we must increase the size of our Reserve Force.
General Shirreff, a former Nato chief, has stated we may need to consider conscription. Does he have a point?
I do not think Britain is ready for conscription. But our closest allies all have large reserve forces. America depends massively on its National Guard, which stands at nearly half a million. The speed at which Israel mobilised its response to the atrocities of October 7 was, in large part, possible due to a reserve force of 465,000 – in a country of 9.5 million people.
Most Ukrainian soldiers are not regular soldiers: reserve units are crucial to preserving their nation.

Britain is severely lagging behind. Our reserves are currently just 33 per cent the size of the Regular Army; our allies within the Five Eyes partners average 80 per cent.
Future wars will likely rely heavily on new technologies, and reserves can more rapidly bring new ideas in from the civilian world.
Specialist units like the 77th Brigade focus on information warfare. They are heavily reliant on reservists. It puts people from varied backgrounds at the heart of operations. Journalists, media executives, and tech specialists are brought in to bolster our forces in the face of new types of warfare.
Reserve forces cost one quarter that of regular forces and are pretty effective. In Afghanistan, a British reserve unit won three Military Crosses in a single six-month deployment.
Rather than a call for conscription, it is time we made joining our Reserve Forces much more attractive.
So how can we do this?
How do we create a new cadre of officers and innovative technical staff?
The natural place to start is in our universities. The Army operates the University Officer Training Corps. But it is under-resourced and under-used, with only a few thousand students taking part out of over two million.
This diminutive organisation should be replaced with a much wider scheme that pays students properly and pays off their tuition fees if they serve for their whole course.
Beyond this, the Government should be incentivising civilians to volunteer as reservists. Currently the recruitment process is desperately bureaucratic and slow. With the right policy, enrolling in the Reserve Forces should be a form of public service to be proud of. I am certainly proud of my service, and still meet my old contemporaries every year – the camaraderie is still there decades later.
It is time we expand the reserves to well over a hundred thousand, not the paltry numbers that we have now.
Otherwise, if and when a European war comes, we will be faced with no choice but to enforce conscription, placing poorly trained young men into the murderous path of an attacking army. The casualties caused by such a strategy would be likely intolerable to British society.
It would be a failure that future historians would rank alongside Chamberlain’s government, an unforgivable failure of a whole generation.

Rt Hon Sir David Davis MP is a former Cabinet minister and served as an Army reservist

 
United Kingdom



To do the same here though we would need to burn the sacred cow that is our 100+ year old armouries. We can't expand when we don't have the infrastructure to do so. The reserves are already suffering from Infrastructure reductions in the mid 20s that occurred.
 
To do the same here though we would need to burn the sacred cow that is our 100+ year old armouries. We can't expand when we don't have the infrastructure to do so. The reserves are already suffering from Infrastructure reductions in the mid 20s that occurred.

@FJAG 's already come up with a solution. A hangar at the local airport.

You could keep the armoury as a local HQ - keep the helpers as far away from the training as possible.
 
Last edited:
FJAG's already come up with a solution. A hangar at the local airport.

You could keep the armoury as a local HQ - keep the helpers as far away from the training as possible.
Absolutely or just build additional space onto existing armouries, we just can't status quo our infrastructure any more and demand more results
 
Absolutely or just build additional space onto existing armouries, we just can't status quo our infrastructure any more and demand more results
In most cases the existing are land locked. Don't think I'd like to take on a BIG corp over expropriation Airport is most logical and supportable.
 
Back
Top