Informing the Army’s Future Structure - CAMO Discussion

[Kirkhill]

Duplicate post deleted

 

[PrairieFella]

FTFY

Are our leaders so weak they cant say no to retired dudes with little clout with the public?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Are our leaders so weak they cant say no to retired dudes with little clout with the public?

Little clout with the public, maybe, but huge clout inside the CAF, certainly.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When we had to move HMCS Donnacona from its old downtown Montreal location in the early 90's because the almost 100 years old building couldn't be brought to the modern standards required to house all the new training equipment and simulators required to train reservists for the MCDV and modern RCN requirements, CRCN decided to fund it because CFB Montreal didn't have the funds for it. The Base Engineering and base command people came to the unit and asked this question (which they had faced before in the militia): "If we study and develop plans to build you a new unit and get all the way to the point of putting shovel to the ground, is your Regie going to come out and stop us after all this effort has been put in, because your current building is the home of the unit?"

They were agreeably surprised to hear us tell them: "No! We are in the Navy. We use our ships while they are effective and in commission. When they get too old, we scrap them and replace them with new ones. To us, a ship is the ship's company, the name and the attached honours - not the hull and physical things."

 

[PuckChaser]

At least its relevant to the topic lol

I had to move it here

 

[ytz]

In 1970 my highly-paid troop (by those days' standards) stood guard on vital infrastructure in Montreal for several weeks. Believe me, it's not a job for a professionally trained rifleman, but it's a perfectly proper job for a man with a rifle and some training in ita use and a proper command and control structure. The whole thing is a question of risk assessment and preparation time to build a suitable force.

If we're building a large force to mostly do home guard and civil defence functions? Sure.

But we aren't designing a force like that. Nor do we train people like that. Even now this new mobilization strategy is built around how fast can we train tens of thousands and turn them into standard pattern soldiers. That's not the type of troop needed to guard infrastructure at home, as you note.

We could easily anchor this 300k mobilization plan and the militia largely around civil defence and home guard functions. But that probably compromises the depth of the CA in deploying (in the universe of a 300k reserve and 50k regular CA). And then we'll get even more complaints about how the reserves are being shafted (instead of just a different purpose).

 

[Czech_pivo]

And still didn't make money. That's how incompetent he is. Can't even insider trade properly.

Imagine knowing what he did and buying defence stocks instead of just loading up on oil calls.

The guy uses Morgan Stanley as his broker - enough said.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If we're building a large force to mostly do home guard and civil defence functions? Sure.

But we aren't designing a force like that. Nor do we train people like that. Even now this new mobilization strategy is built around how fast can we train tens of thousands and turn them into standard pattern soldiers. That's not the type of troop needed to guard infrastructure at home, as you note.

We could easily anchor this 300k mobilization plan and the militia largely around civil defence and home guard functions. But that probably compromises the depth of the CA in deploying (in the universe of a 300k reserve and 50k regular CA). And then we'll get even more complaints about how the reserves are being shafted (instead of just a different purpose).

We are very in sync on your arguments here, in this whole exchange.

Now is it smart minds think alike or fools seldom differ ?

Lol

 

[Furniture]

We are very in sync on your arguments here.

Now is it smart minds think alike or fools seldom differ ?

Lol

Imagine if the CA created a division entirely dedicated to domestic defence, and assigned that very real task to the A Res. I bet they'd be overjoyed to have an active role in defending Canada.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Imagine if the CA created a division entirely dedicated to domestic defence, and assigned that very real task to the A Res. I bet they'd be overjoyed to have an active role in defending Canada.

Victimhood can be addicting crutch.

 

[PrairieFella]

Imagine if the CA created a division entirely dedicated to domestic defence, and assigned that very real task to the A Res. I bet they'd be overjoyed to have an active role in defending Canada.

As long as the Regs are ok deploying every 6 months when there is no more reserve force to draw upon since we sunsetted 60% of the trades in the ARes/NavRes/whatever. Very little need for Arty, Armour, Bosns, etc in the defence of Canada, whatever that means. Probably lots of sandbag battalions for floods though. Thats the buggest gripe I have so far, what do they actually mean by defence of Canada? Do they mean a national guard capable of LSCO able to defend kinetically? In that case we need the same equipment and manning as the Regs. Do they mean a token force that shoots once a year and does the domops the Regs have no interest in like sandbagging or basic firefighting? That changes whats needed personnel and equipment wise. CA HQ needs to tell us what we can expect.

Edit: Yes Bosns arent involved. Generalizations about operator trades obvs wasnt clear haha.

 

[ytz]

Imagine if the CA created a division entirely dedicated to domestic defence, and assigned that very real task to the A Res.

I assume you're referring the current reorg?

I bet they'd be overjoyed to have an active role in defending Canada.

I would hope. I don't always get that sense though. There's probably a divide between those that really want to be part time warrior and those that just want to serve (in a more generic sense) part time. I have often wondered if we should just make a different standard for home guard and train reservists to it. Or maybe even a civil defence trade. And reclassify a lot of reserves to that. Heck, a properly trained civil defence operator who is still fit and current on a rifle and first aid and various leadership, organizational and computer skills could be trained to be a proper infanteer or say armoured crew in a few (3-4) months.

 

[PrairieFella]

I assume you're referring the current reorg?



I would hope. I don't always get that sense though. There's probably a divide between those that really want to be part time warrior and those that just want to serve (in a more generic sense) part time. I have often wondered if we should just make a different standard for home guard and train reservists to it. Or maybe even a civil defence trade. And reclassify a lot of reserves to that. Heck, a properly trained civil defence operator who is still fit and current on a rifle and first aid and various leadership, organizational and computer skills could be trained to be a proper infanteer or say armoured crew in a few (3-4) months.

Just like you dont have 3-4 months in modern aerial warfare, we dont have that luxury today in modern LSCOs. Frankly if the rates of attrition are anything like the Ukraine war, we'll need those dudes in weeks, not months. We still need a reserve that is in reserve.

 

[ytz]

Just like you dont have 3-4 months in modern aerial warfare, we dont have that luxury today in modern LSCOs. Frankly if the rates of attrition are anything like the Ukraine war, we'll need those dudes in weeks, not months. We still need a reserve that is in reserve.

I don't disagree with you. But that's largely why I think building a real reserve is basically impossible today. Heck, even the Reg F takes how long on pre-deployment?

Modern warfare is not something you can train in weeks. And if you don't want to accept casualties like the Russians, the readiness requirement drives that training requirement higher.

If you take a basic infanteer, as an example. To the end of DP1 is what? 25 weeks between Basic Trng and Battle School? That's not combat ready. That's trade qualified. It's nearly impossible to train that exclusively part time to any real effectiveness. Our only real hope is to get some college or university student trained in two summers and hope they keep their part time career for a long time after. And then they'll still need 6 months of pre-deployment training if they get mobilized.

The Americans solve this problem with the GI Bill. Do 5 years and you have 4 years of post-secondary of your choice paid for (among many other benefits). That creates a massive pool of highly trained (and actually experienced) personnel who often continue as reservists or national guard after. That is largely what makes their reserves so reliable. Are we willing to spend like that? I haven't seen evidence that we are.

So given the constraint of how much we can train a part timer, what tasks can we give them, that's the question.

 

[OldSolduer]

Are our leaders so weak they cant say no to retired dudes with little clout with the public?

The old retired dudes' clout is with the politicians. HCols and HLCols are appointed by the government - and politics is part of that.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't disagree with you. But that's largely why I think building a real reserve is basically impossible today. Heck, even the Reg F takes how long on pre-deployment?

Modern warfare is not something you can train in weeks. And if you don't want to accept casualties like the Russians, the readiness requirement drives that training requirement higher.

If you take a basic infanteer, as an example. To the end of DP1 is what? 25 weeks between Basic Trng and Battle School? That's not combat ready. That's trade qualified. It's nearly impossible to train that exclusively part time to any real effectiveness. Our only real hope is to get some college or university student trained in two summers and hope they keep their part time career for a long time after. And then they'll still need 6 months of pre-deployment training if they get mobilized.

The Americans solve this problem with the GI Bill. Do 5 years and you have 4 years of post-secondary of your choice paid for (among many other benefits). That creates a massive pool of highly trained (and actually experienced) personnel who often continue as reservists or national guard after. That is largely what makes their reserves so reliable. Are we willing to spend like that? I haven't seen evidence that we are.

So given the constraint of how much we can train a part timer, what tasks can we give them, that's the question.

How is training for "ancient warfare" in 1944 any different than training for "modern warfare" now?

25 weeks of basic training is a peacetime luxury. We've produced Ukrainian infantry recruits in 5 weeks.