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

[Mountie]

I've discussed this in other threads so I won't go into too much detail.  But why not re-organize the under strength Militia brigades into full strength battle groups.  Each brigade group would become a battle group with each battalion/regiment reduced to sub-unit size and maintained as a sub-unit. (I would split 38 & 39 CBGs into two battle groups each for ease of organization.  I don't know if the increased personnel numbers that are promised would support this or not.)  This is just for conversation sake:

38 Canadian Battle Group
- 38 CBG Headquarters (non-unit specific)
- Royal Winnipeg Rifles (rifle company)
- Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada (rifle company)
- Lake Supior Scottish (rifle company)
- Fort Garry Horse (recce squadron)
- 26th Field Regiment (artillery battery)
- 116th Independent Field Battery (air defence troop)
- 38 Field Engineer Troop
- 17 Service Battalion (service company)
- 17 Field Ambulance (medical platoon)

 

[COBRA-6]

That's pretty much the idea/structure of the proposed Territorial Defence Battalions.

 

[McG]

the proposed Territorial Defence Battalions.

Is that the name being applied to the Conservative's big city emergency-responce battalions?

 

[Haggis]

Is that the name being applied to the Conservative's big city emergency-responce battalions?

i've heard the term "Territotial Defence Battle Groups", inferring a combined arms team.  Not quite sure if the Army Reserve is ready to be referred to as "Tee-Dee-Bee-Gee".  Sounds pretty '70's to me....

 

[George Wallace]

......referred to as "Tee-Dee-Bee-Gee".  Sounds pretty '70's to me....

So that is why BG's went out of fashion.  ;D

 

[Gunner]

i've heard the term "Territotial Defence Battle Groups", inferring a combined arms team.  Not quite sure if the Army Reserve is ready to be referred to as "Tee-Dee-Bee-Gee".  Sounds pretty '70's to me....

I believe the correct name is Territorial Defence Battalions (TDBNs).

 

[McG]

Sounds like an unrealistic role.  I like the idea of regional 10/90 BGs for the addition it will provide to our overall force capability, but I don't think that "territorial defence" is a likely requirement a traditional BG in a regional capacity.  "Regional Battle Group" would be more accurate (me thinks).

 

[Gunner]

I wouldn't use the "battle group" moniker as it is as unrealistic as calling reserve formations "Brigade Groups".  Territorial Defence is perhaps also a misnomer as you state.  "Regional Domestic Response Battalion (RDRB)" would probably be a better title.

 

[Haggis]

TDBG
TDBn
RBn
RDRB
CBG

It's all just more ABL used to obscure the fact that nothing is happening in LFRR.

 

[McG]

I wouldn't use the "battle group" moniker as it is as unrealistic as calling reserve formations "Brigade Groups". 

Well, there is a CANLANDGEN that says we (the army) must use “battle group” for combined arms manoeuvre units.  I’d rather go with “battalion group” but that was also ban from use.

As a work around, let’s go with “Standing Regional Contingency Force (city name here).”

 

[dglad]

The term being used is "Territorial Defence Battalion".  They're still a work-in-progress.

 

[McG]

The term being used is "Territorial Defence Battalion".  

Yeah, we've already got that.  The name needs some fixing.

 

[dglad]

Yeah, we've already got that.  The name needs some fixing.

Ah...my bad.  I thought there was some uncertainty around what the name was, not that we're looking for a better one.

 

[McG]

This is Army.ca.  We fix the important & trivial as though they were both important (and as though we were army council).  ;D

 

[dglad]

Rather like the way we prioritize things i.e. this item is priority 1, and this item is...well, it's priority 1 as well, and so's this one...and this one, well it's not quite priority 1, but it's pretty close, so let's call it priority 1a....

 

[pbi]

Once upon a time, I was posted into a Toronto Reserve unit as the "RegF guy."
I looked around and asked why they didn't amalgamate units...

Man, having those nails driven into your palms and feet really stings!

Funny that you got that reaction. I served in the RRegtC 1974-1982, leaving as a WO. Many were the times my fellow Sgts and I stood around the bar in the WOs &Sgts holding forth on how there should just be one decent sized Res Inf Bn in Toronto instead of five understrength "company equivalents". It made sense to us then, and I bet that it makes sense to a lot of Res today, who are not as bound by old thinking, and do not see a RegF devil behind every tree.

Cheers

 

[Danjanou]

Funny that you got that reaction. I served in the RRegtC 1974-1982, leaving as a WO. Many were the times my fellow Sgts and I stood around the bar in the WOs &Sgts holding forth on how there should just be one decent sized Res Inf Bn in Toronto instead of five understrength "company equivalents". It made sense to us then, and I bet that it makes sense to a lot of Res today, who are not as bound by old thinking, and do not see a RegF devil behind every tree.

Cheers

Ah what a difference a decade makes. Less than 10 years later when I arrived across the floor at FYA as a transfer in to the Tor Scots, I had that same conversation in that same Mess with those same WOs (now MWOs and CWO for the most part I'd bet). they went looking for the nails and lumber that they'd used on JM.  ;D

 

[Donut]

39 CBG is adopting a "Tactical Grouping" plan that will see (I believe) all of our Cbt Arms units under "Shared HQ's" until they achieve a 200 pers parade state, i.e. the Rocky Mountain Rangers and Seaforth will share a HQ until one or the other parades 200 pers, at which point they will regain their independant HQ.  Same for the Arty, Armd (are they just Recce now?), and Eng.

As for us in the HS, we've got a LCol, Maj, CWO, MWO, among others, for a unit that has 83 names on the nominal roll (not regular paraders).  Our sister Fd Amb in Victoria has about the same.  Efficient, no?

DF

 

[Haggis]

Funny that you got that reaction. I served in the RRegtC 1974-1982, leaving as a WO. Many were the times my fellow Sgts and I stood around the bar in the WOs &Sgts holding forth on how there should just be one decent sized Res Inf Bn in Toronto instead of five understrength "company equivalents". It made sense to us then, and I bet that it makes sense to a lot of Res today, who are not as bound by old thinking, and do not see a RegF devil behind every tree.

Cheers

For this to be even rationally discussed, certain ground rules must be in place:

1. No cap badges wil disappear;
2. Command will be based on merit and qualifications ONLY;  If you're not good, you're not next.  We can, and will, look outside.
3. If you want to progress as leaders you must keep up with the times.  WW2 and the Cold War are over.  Get with that.
4. Tactical and technical proficiency will be rewarded more readily than efficiency, although both will be realisitically weighted in determining the future of any one unit/sub-unit.

I put no. 1 there on purpose.  But, ,in reality, it matters little because in helmets we all look the same anyways.  That is what we should look for.

 

[Infanteer]

1. No cap badges wil disappear;

Pourquoi?  As Rick said earlier, the British seemed to do be able to do so with Regiments that just got a battle honour last year, let alone 60 years ago.

But as you say, the "tactical" organization (helmets) is more important than the "tribal" organization (funny hats) - but are these two mutually exclusive?  I can't help think that they are, and "tribal" organization would interfere with things like accession, share of tasks, etc, etc.  But I also suspect that even if we went to a common capbadge people would simply find other ways to differentiate themselves (those Island guys, or those Interior clowns, etc, etc)