• 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
Finally, a discussion I can sink my teeth into!!

From my understanding, there are going to be some big changes with regards to militia units in terms of roles and responsibilities for intel, psy-ops, etc. I have heard that units will development their own specialists in the field.

Also, it seems that Intel Offs aren‘t the only ones that do intel work. For example, units may do their own picc (??) work -- psy-ops, intel gathering, and civil/miliatry co-operation. I am positive that NCMs do as much intel gathering as Offs. If I am not mistaken, much of the intel-ops work for the US is done by NCMs -- analysis is done by Offs.

I guess it really depends on the type of intel you are seeking -- that is, beyond sigint or humint. Are you looking at strategic or tactical intel and for what genre (i.e. counter-intel/espionage, counter terrorism, security).

Now, I‘m not an expert at this, my area is in civ intel research/analysis.
Bossi.... Your comment on the Artillery taking the mortar‘s from the infantry, I am sure was NOT an Artillery decission. It is not at all what we do, however it is an easy task to take over.
I am really tired of this argument. NEVER gets solved. Oh well. Like someone else has already said...I have spent time with the regs and have seen reg guys that need a manual to tie their boots, so numpties (reg or res) are everywhere. I was in the butts during a PWT 1 qualification for Kosovo (Roto 1), and I witnessed Reg troops failing their shoot...not even hitting the target...they still went over seas...gee...I want them in my trench.

Hey Recce41, I think your right...its time to punch your card and head off into the sunset...ya crusty old ba$tard.
:blotto: :D
Digger, most Regs just don‘t give a Ratsass anymore. Yes there are loosers in the Regs too. But most of them don‘t make it past Cpl or Mcpl.
Most of the SNR loosers are at the Armour School, that is why I regreting going. About 70% have never been on a tour. But they think the **** they teach is right.
I heard not too long ago that some Reserve regiments might become speacialist in certain areas of combat.These are the specialties that ive been told we might get(one per regiment obviously):psycological operations,civil affairs and Long range recce.With a possibility of one more ,Urban Search and Rescue.Has anyone else heard about these speacialties and when they might be tasked?
I think that‘s all part of Land Force Reserve Restructing plan, which is still undergoing and constantly changing.

My unit was tasked to be a NBCD unit, now apparently is a LAVIII coy.
It‘s been a while since I last looked through the LFRR literature, but are there any plans to assign reserve regiments to urban combat roles? I only ask this because I recently stumbled across an unofficial Swedish Army site that described the reserve battalions based in Stockholm and elsewhere that specialized in urban combat.

The concept of having soldiers fight on their own turf makes sense to me, although I suppose in our case, urban combat specialists would be more likely used to augment regular force units.
Ours is Recce, its being implimented right now, not much a diff. from Light infantry except ya don‘t carry around as much $h!t. lol :skull:
Ours was suposed to be recce too. I wouldnt put much weight into that. I‘ve heard that stuff for years. "Were a machinegun regiment, were recce tasked, were tasked with fibua combat" I figure it‘s just something to throw on paper. I mean not everyone in the regiment is going to have their gunners course or recce course right? We don‘t have enough training time/dedicated troops to really stand out in a role.
I'm looking for the history of how some regiments have come to exist in both the regular and reserve force.

I know 4 RCR traces its roots back to a distinct reserve regiment (I believe it was the Oxford Fusiliers).  When & why did it become 4 RCR (was it a Total Force - 10/90 Bn thing?)?

I have the same question of 4 R22eR and 6 R22eR.  How did they come to be, and were they formerly different regiments?

Both these regiments were designated as permanent force at the end of WW II (as they had been before the war), so I don't follow how they came to exist in the reserves.

In an attempt to raise moral & increase the regimental tradition, several reserve force regiments were added to the active force order of battle.  These units continued to exist in both Reg and Reserve until the regular force regiments were later stood down (FGH, Black Watch, QOR).  Was 8 CH on of the regular force regiments created this way?

12 RBC was created in the Reg Force some years after WW II in order to establish a french armoured regiment.  Did it exist in the reserve force prior to that, or was the reserve 12 RBC created later?

Is anything gained or lost from a regiment's identity by it existing in both components at the same time?
One of the best sites I've found for tracing regimental lineages is Regiments.org: http://regiments.org/?229,21

As a start point for Canadian regiments (current and historical), try these pages as a start point:

Alphabetic list of names -  http://regiments.org/milhist/na-canada/lists/cargxref.htm

Numeric list of names - http://regiments.org/milhist/na-canada/lists/cargxrefn.htm


From "The Regiments and Corps of the Canadian Army" (1964):

4 RCR antecedents were The Oxford Rifles and the Canadian Fusiliers (City of London Regiment). These two units were amalgamated on 1 October 1954 and designated at that time "The London and Oxford Fusiliers (3rd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment). It was subsequently redesignated on 25 April 1958 as "3rd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment (London and Oxford Fusiliers)"  (At the time there were only two Regular battalions, hence the 3rd Battalion designation)

4 R 22e R began as the "Voltigeurs de Beauharnois" in 1869 and the 76th Regiment "Voltigeurs de Chateauguay" from 1872. These regiments eventually became "Le Regiment de Chateauguay" (1921) and on 1 Sep 1954 was amalgamated with the R 22e R to become "Le Regiment de Chateauguay (4th Battalion, Royal 22e Regiment". Subsequently, on 27 April 1958, they became the "4e Battaillon, Royal 22e Regiment (Chateauguay)"

6 R 22e R originated in 1871 as the "St. Hyacinthe Provisional Battalion of Infantry" which was amalgamated with the R 22e R on 2 Feb, 1963, being designated the 6th Battalion.


As for what is gained or lost, that is up to the Regiments themselves. Is it better to be amalgamated than disbanded? Perhaps even amalgamated with a 'despised' local competitor? Keep in mind that many battle honours held by our regiments were gained through perpetuation of CEF units, or later amalgamations. Done with respect, and prperly explained to regimental members, units gain through ensuring a more complete sense of our history is retained and represented by our active regiments, Reserve and Regular.
My personal belief is that we loose through amalgamating reserve & regular regiments.  The history & tradition of the regular regiment will eventually overtake the reserve regiment's (which will be lost).  The LER have been able to maintain their heritage despite a PPCLI affiliation.  However, three regiments have been forever lost (The London and Oxford Fusiliers, Le Regiment de Chateauguay, St. Hyacinthe Provisional Battalion of Infantry).  I know of a long standing tradition of amalgamating reserve with reserve, and I think that the new regiment can grow from the traditions of its parents.  However, rebadging reserves into a regular force regiment will see the traditions of a regiment die.

That heritage is forever gone.
I tend to agree with one a point Michael made. it might be better to amalgamate thren watch a regiment be disbanded and die.
let's be honest how many Militia Bn's and Regiments do we have that are Coy and Sqn strength. Realistically wouldn't we be better served by say some 18-20 Militia Infantry Regiments of roughly ar at least close to Bn strength (400-600 pers) and a similar reduction in Armoured, Arty and other units.

If such as thing is to happen, and I think it's a realistic possibility, then better it happen on "our" terms rather that some whim of a politician .

Methinks I've opened the proverbial can of worms here, but then again maybe it's worthy of a debate.
I too worry about losing regimental history - my unit may not be able to trace its lineage back as far as some, (only about 1885) but we still have served in both World Wars, and adopted a postwar Scottish title, because of some cultural origins in the Thunder Bay area.  Being the only combat arms unit in the region,and not being fairly large, would we be forced to amalgamate with a larger regiment from say, Winnipeg, becoming another coy in the Cam Highlanders or Winnipeg Rifles?  What would happen to the traditions of our unit then, would they be overridden?

Or would we remain distinct, because we are the only such regiment in Thunder Bay?
Kirkpatrick said:
would we be forced to amalgamate with a larger regiment from say, Winnipeg, becoming another coy in the Cam Highlanders or Winnipeg Rifles?   What would happen to the traditions of our unit then, would they be overridden?

Or would we remain distinct, because we are the only such regiment in Thunder Bay?

The Brockville Rifles, while maintaining their distinct cap badge and battle honours, are administratively a company of the PWOR in Kingston.   Amalgamation of this nature preserves regimental history without too much of a problem.
Clasper that's probably the sort of workable amalgamation that I was getting at. Example in the Brit TA the London Regt is and Infantry Bn and each of it's 4 Rifle Coys is/was a seperate Regiment ( London Scottish, London Irish etc)
I saw an argument once (that I jumped in to support) which questioned the need of sustaining every reserve regiment as a battalion.  Instead, a regiment would exist as a company (or 2, 3 , or 4 if big enough).  Battalion head quarters would be "regiment neutral" much like our current brigade HQs.  This approach could be applied to armoured and infantry regiments, and it would ensure no regiment became "lost."

The Brockville Rifles & PWOR sharing a Bn is a modern example.  An historic example would be 27 CIB, Canada's first brigade group in Germany.  It consisted of 1 Canadian Rifle Battalion, 1 Canadian Highland Battalion, and 1 Canadian Infantry Battalion.  Each company in each battalion was of a different regiment.

This becomes especially intelligent when multiple Coy sized regiments exist in the same city (eg: GGFG & Camerons of Ottawa, RHLI & A&SH, Winnipeg Rifles & Camerons, etc).

I would like to see something like this across Canada, and maybe we could even see companies of the London and Oxford Fusiliers, Le Regiment de Chateauguay, and St. Hyacinthe Infanty.
Some Regiments are better off dead.  Look at "The Highlanders" in the UK.  Blech.

The Winnipeg Light Infantry were absorbed in 1955 by the lLittle Black Devils - they were one of only three regiments to wear the oak leaf shoulder title.  None of their distinctions or honours were carried on.

I had an Italian Campaign veteran relate to me with disgust this sad story - he was in the Edmonton Regiment in Italy.  He said they carried the Patricia's through battle after battle (they were in the same brigade) and then he comes to a reunion dinner many years later, and what does he see?  "4 PPCLI" added to the end of his regiment's title!

I thought that 4 RCR and 4 PPCLI stuff was absolutely stupid, and that is just one reason why.
Some years ago there was talk of amalgamating two of Toronto's Regiments the Honarary Colonel of one of the Regiments said the before that happened he would petition to have his Regiment removed from the Roll of Battle. He would rather see his Regiment die in honour than acceed to amalgamation. I back him 100 percent.