Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[FJAG]

So what you're saying then is that these units would only be fully up to strength for one weekend a month, and a couple of months in the summertime, when the Class A reservists would be available?

Both yes and no.

Technically they would not ever be up to strength unless mobilized.

What I see is enough RegF elements within the battalion Hq and the one or two RegF companies so that the RegF members could train and exercise fully throughout the year as they do now (albeit with the ResF companies participating only as a TEWT element involving the RegF leadership).

The reserve companies would conduct mandatory refresher training one weekend per month and a mandatory collective exercise in the summer and participate in voluntary courses in the summer all under their battalion's RegF supervision.

I generally do not see a full battalion exercise at any time because I do not see that there is a practical way that can be done and, as well, I'm not sure it is necessary so long that the ResF company's RegF leadership does. If the Class A ResF has limited training opportunities then isn't it best if those are focused on the platoon and company level?

All of this presupposes that the basic DP1 training of the ResF recruit and junior officer is conducted at a depot battalion before they join their line battalion and is the same as their RegF counterpart and completed .

I look at the post DP1 training as limited mandatory refresher and collective training and as voluntary 'career' and 'trade' progressive training on both winter and summer courses run by depot battalions and not line battalions.

The concept also allows for the sharing of equipment within the battalion during periods that equipment is limited. Essentially the RegF elements are fully equipped with controlled usage by the ResF elements during their summer exercise. The end state would be to equip all companies fully.

 

[quadrapiper]

Basically what I do not see are permanent Class B positions. Positions are either RegF or ResF and the ResF are Class As. The only time I would see a Class B is to temporarily fill a RegF position while vacant. IMHO, permanent Class B positions are an improper way of plumping up the number of "full-time" members in the CF in excess of authorized RegF PYs.

In that concept, other than as means to avoid opening the NDA, is there a point to retaining both the Class A-C and Reg/Res/Special pers structure?

Could see something like A-C+Supp for pers, and some sort of Active (or Ready, or whatever) and Reserve designation for units, but assigning both those labels to personnel seems redundant. Pers could be on the rolls but without obligation (Supp), on day-by-day (A), on a limited-duration contract (B), or hired indefinitely (C).

 

[GR66]

I've actually been mulling that over and what I would like to see is the MOOs and CFOOs for 4 AD, 1 AD, 18 AD and 6 Fd Regt/58 AD Bty from the 1990s. Someone must have given thought to the establishments and organizational structures of these Total Force units (Funny I never looked them up at the time)


Not sure about others but I see the following:

The National Defence Act currently provides that individuals are members of the RegF or ResF (I'm leaving aside the Special Force) based on whether they are on continuing, or other than continuing, full-time service. What the term "full-time service" means is obvious while "continuing" is undefined and not easily parsable. We used to use a rule of thumb that three years would probably do it but @dapaterson would be more up on that as its more policy matter than true legal definition.

Just like people, entities in the military also have a niche they occupy "the reserve force (or the regular force) shall include such units and other elements as are embodied therein". Effectively every military entity is assigned to the appropriate force.

In my mind I essentially see units which are 100% or 70% made up of RegF personnel as being embodied in the RegF while ones that are predominantly made up of reservists are embodied in the ResF units. That, however, is arbitrary.

Generally I see all units, both RegF and ResF as having predominantly RegF personnel in the unit headquarters and then having one or more RegF line companies and mixed CS and CSS companies. A 30/70 battalion would have one full RegF line company and a 70/30 battalion would have two.

ResF companies would be roughly 90% Class A ResF and 10% RegF for leadership/administration. I'm frankly not sure about how best to describe the status of the Class A members in a RegF unit but do note that NDA s 60(1)(c)(ix) contemplates ResF members "serving with any unit or other element of the regular force..." so its quite doable. We do this all the time with Class Bs. There is obviously a legal consequence to this. S 27 also provides for "attachment" or "secondment" of an individual to another component. It's not legally impossible but a matter of crafting appropriate policies to make it practical.

It's not that easy to describe the relationship as between a RegF unit and ResF sub unit and vice versa, but it strikes me that appropriate MOOs/CFOOs can be crafted for that considering its not just "units" that make up the RegF and ResF but also "other elements" which is a very broad category encompassing any organizational entity. As it stands currently most ResF units are under ResF brigades which are under RegF divisions. I see nothing which would in principle prohibit a RegF battalion having a ResF company or vice versa.

Basically what I do not see are permanent Class B positions. Positions are either RegF or ResF and the ResF are Class As. The only time I would see a Class B is to temporarily fill a RegF position while vacant. IMHO, permanent Class B positions are an improper way of plumping up the number of "full-time" members in the CF in excess of authorized RegF PYs.

Are you seeing these hybrid 70/30 and 30/70 units keeping their Ref Force HQ & Companies at the existing Bases and the Reserve elements coming from those Militia units that are geographically close to those bases? Or do you envision shifting some Reg Force elements out to new locations to be closer to the Reserve recruiting base? If so, what existing CF facilities could support or could reasonably be expanded/improved to support such a move?

What model would you proposed for Reserve units that are not near a parent Reg Force facility?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Are you seeing these hybrid 70/30 and 30/70 units keeping their Ref Force HQ & Companies at the existing Bases and the Reserve elements coming from those Militia units that are geographically close to those bases? Or do you envision shifting some Reg Force elements out to new locations to be closer to the Reserve recruiting base? If so, what existing CF facilities could support or could reasonably be expanded/improved to support such a move?

What model would you proposed for Reserve units that are not near a parent Reg Force facility?

IMHO.... the only thing that will work is for the Reserves to be augmented by additional Reg F resources where they parade regularly: the local armoury.

Any attempt to move the reservists out of their usual weekly 'patterns', usually centred around the armoury, their messes, and local training areas, has usually failed in the past.

 

[McG]

Basically what I do not see are permanent Class B positions. Positions are either RegF or ResF and the ResF are Class As. The only time I would see a Class B is to temporarily fill a RegF position while vacant. IMHO, permanent Class B positions are an improper way of plumping up the number of "full-time" members in the CF in excess of authorized RegF PYs.

In that concept, other than as means to avoid opening the NDA, is there a point to retaining both the Class A-C and Reg/Res/Special pers structure?

Could see something like A-C+Supp for pers, and some sort of Active (or Ready, or whatever) and Reserve designation for units, but assigning both those labels to personnel seems redundant. Pers could be on the rolls but without obligation (Supp), on day-by-day (A), on a limited-duration contract (B), or hired indefinitely (C).

There is no requirement to amend the NDA to eliminate Class B/A (ie. the "permanent Class B"). There would be a requirement to streamline the transition process between components. This would conveniently also achieve a goal of The Journey.

 

[Kirkhill]

IMHO.... the only thing that will work is for the Reserves to be augmented by additional Reg F resources where they parade regularly: the local armoury.

Any attempt to move the reservists out of their usual weekly 'patterns', usually centred around the armoury, their messes, and local training areas, has usually failed in the past.

Integrate what used to be the RSS right into the command structure of the Reserve Units perhaps? Rather than just being a Captain and a Warrant acting as advisors bring add a Sergeant and some Corporal-Instructors to run the training platoon?

 

[Underway]

Define RSS for us so we understand the definition of the positions.

 

[McG]

Integrate what used to be the RSS right into the command structure of the Reserve Units perhaps? Rather than just being a Captain and a Warrant acting as advisors bring add a Sergeant and some Corporal-Instructors to run the training platoon?

It should already be the case that the Captain and WO hold real positions within the unit. That does not take away the CO's discursion to employ them differently.

 

[KevinB]

Integrate what used to be the RSS right into the command structure of the Reserve Units perhaps? Rather than just being a Captain and a Warrant acting as advisors bring add a Sergeant and some Corporal-Instructors to run the training platoon?

Pretty much 10/90 was supposed to do.

Define RSS for us so we understand the definition of the positions.

Regular Support Staff - Regular Force personnel who assist PRes units.

 

[Kirkhill]

Define RSS for us so we understand the definition of the positions.

Anciently the RSS was Regular Support Staff. They were regular force personnel, in our unit's case a Capt and a Warrant from the PPCLI, that were assigned to the unit and provided guidance to the Militia and a communications link to the Regular Force to assist in organizing training, courses and resources.

Our unit was organized into the BOR, A Company and B Company. A and B Companies were both single platoon companies. A Company was trained soldiers. B Company was recruits in training. Instruction was by other Militia soldiers.

The suggestion is that the Cadre (RSS) should be a larger group of qualified regular force instructors capable of training, organizing and fighting their own sections and platoons raised from the troops on the armoury floor.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pretty much 10/90 was supposed to do.


Regular Support Staff - Regular Force personnel who assist PRes units.

What he said.

 

[Underway]

I see the issue now.

Naval Reserve RSS are not the same (not even called that really). The Admin O (LtN), Chief Clerk (CPO2 or PO1 rank level), IT Nav Com (MS) and Facilities Manager (PO2) are Reg F. They do not have anything to do with training unless it was related to their particular skill set. The TrgO is a Class B position and NAVRES runs all the courses and manages careers like the Reg F with national merit boards, career manager positions etc...

 

[Kirkhill]

I see the issue now.

Naval Reserve RSS are not the same (not even called that really). The Admin O (LtN), Chief Clerk (CPO2 or PO1 rank level), IT Nav Com (MS) and Facilities Manager (PO2) are Reg F. They do not have anything to do with training unless it was related to their particular skill set. The TrgO is a Class B position and NAVRES runs all the courses and manages careers like the Reg F with national merit boards, career manager positions etc...

But who manages your kilts and sporrans?

 

[FJAG]

In that concept, other than as means to avoid opening the NDA, is there a point to retaining both the Class A-C and Reg/Res/Special pers structure?

Could see something like A-C+Supp for pers, and some sort of Active (or Ready, or whatever) and Reserve designation for units, but assigning both those labels to personnel seems redundant. Pers could be on the rolls but without obligation (Supp), on day-by-day (A), on a limited-duration contract (B), or hired indefinitely (C).

I hate throwing out babies with the bath water. I actually see nothing wrong with the Class A and B and C concept except the way we have made the Class Bs an adjunct of the RegF institution. Class B still works well for courses and exercises and even short term backfill for temporarily vacant RegF positions. During the early 00s I provided legal advice for the Reserve Force Employment Project which was trying to redesign that and came up with the ill-fated "limited liability" and "unlimited liability" reserve force service model which I considered pure bull. It's not the service classification model that's the problem; its the way we use it and how the ResF is organized.

Are you seeing these hybrid 70/30 and 30/70 units keeping their Ref Force HQ & Companies at the existing Bases and the Reserve elements coming from those Militia units that are geographically close to those bases? Or do you envision shifting some Reg Force elements out to new locations to be closer to the Reserve recruiting base? If so, what existing CF facilities could support or could reasonably be expanded/improved to support such a move?

What model would you proposed for Reserve units that are not near a parent Reg Force facility?

I see a combination of the two. We're actually not as challenged by geography as we think. Many US Army National Guard units are spread over numerous towns and sometimes several states. They benefit by parading in a more limited fashion. It's one thing to drive seventy or a hundred miles to your armoury for one weekend a month than every Tuesday and Thursday night plus a weekend.

I basically see 70/30 units come from existing RegF battalions which would remain at their current bases. Their ResF companies would come from nearby. Ottawa, Quebec and Edmonton/Calgary/Winnipeg and the Maritimes could do that.

30/70 units are a bit more difficult because of the largest number of units are in expensive urban areas. We would need to address the housing issues (and to a lesser extent, training facilities) for them. I do not see that as impossible - we used to have battalions in Victoria and Winnipeg and Calgary and currently have them in Edmonton. They did and do quite well. If we could guarantee people more stability on such urban postings so that they could get in on the housing market and spouses could get second jobs we'd be ahead of the game. I sometimes wonder how well we would do in Toronto if we made a contract with a Torontonian recruit that his first ten years would be guaranteed to be with a Toronto based Reg F bn hq, rifle company or support company.

There is no requirement to amend the NDA to eliminate Class B/A (ie. the "permanent Class B"). There would be a requirement to streamline the transition process between components. This would conveniently also achieve a goal of The Journey.

Reserve Classes of service are not an NDA matter. They are created in QR&O Vol 1 Ch 9 by way of a Governor in Council order. It would need a new GoC order to change them. As I said above, I don't think its necessary. Some minor amendments to give teeth to the "Order to Train" provision in NDA s 33(2)(a) and at QR&O 9.04(2) are necessary

Anciently the RSS was Regular Support Staff. They were regular force personnel, in our unit's case a Capt and a Warrant from the PPCLI, that were assigned to the unit and provided guidance to the Militia and a communications link to the Regular Force to assist in organizing training, courses and resources.

Our unit was organized into the BOR, A Company and B Company. A and B Companies were both single platoon companies. A Company was trained soldiers. B Company was recruits in training. Instruction was by other Militia soldiers.

The suggestion is that the Cadre (RSS) should be a larger group of qualified regular force instructors capable of training, organizing and fighting their own sections and platoons raised from the troops on the armoury floor.

I was RSS in 76-78. At the time that was a RegF unit in its own right (RSS Prairie) but with individuals assigned all over the various provinces. I had a staff of four (an arty WO and sergeant, an adm clk sergeant and an arty Bdr storeman). While my title was Adjt and TrgO of the reserve regiment, I was not in its chain of command.

I'm not sure if that has changed or not but my guess it may have. When I look at the establishment charts that are available to me now, I note that every reserve unit has two line items one for RegF pers and one for ResF pers but both accounted against the same UIC.

@dapaterson can probably shed light on the current CoC structure.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pretty much 10/90 was supposed to do.


Regular Support Staff - Regular Force personnel who assist PRes units.

Just casting my mind back to one of our RSS Warrants. A genyouwine peach. He didn't teach me much but what he taught me stuck with me. I was asked as a DEO Lt to solve a problem for my OC. I can't remember the details now. They don't matter. In any event, I was direct to the RSS WO to get his advice.

He responded with the immortal phrase inscribed in my memory:

DILLIGAS, Sir!

When I asked for clarification he informed me:

Do I Look Like I Give A Shit, Sir!

Regular Force Support at its finest.


Although, to be fair, we had some good RSS types as well that went out of their way to help. Captain Fredricksen was one.

 

[Kirkhill]

I hate throwing out babies with the bath water. I actually see nothing wrong with the Class A and B and C concept except the way we have made the Class Bs an adjunct of the RegF institution. Class B still works well for courses and exercises and even short term backfill for temporarily vacant RegF positions. During the early 00s I provided legal advice for the Reserve Force Employment Project which was trying to redesign that and came up with the ill-fated "limited liability" and "unlimited liability" reserve force service model which I considered pure bull. It's not the service classification model that's the problem; its the way we use it and how the ResF is organized.


I see a combination of the two. We're actually not as challenged by geography as we think. Many US Army National Guard units are spread over numerous towns and sometimes several states. They benefit by parading in a more limited fashion. It's one thing to drive seventy or a hundred miles to your armoury for one weekend a month than every Tuesday and Thursday night plus a weekend.

I basically see 70/30 units come from existing RegF battalions which would remain at their current bases. Their ResF companies would come from nearby. Ottawa, Quebec and Edmonton/Calgary/Winnipeg and the Maritimes could do that.

30/70 units are a bit more difficult because of the largest number of units are in expensive urban areas. We would need to address the housing issues (and to a lesser extent, training facilities) for them. I do not see that as impossible - we used to have battalions in Victoria and Winnipeg and Calgary and currently have them in Edmonton. They did and do quite well. If we could guarantee people more stability on such urban postings so that they could get in on the housing market and spouses could get second jobs we'd be ahead of the game. I sometimes wonder how well we would do in Toronto if we made a contract with a Torontonian recruit that his first ten years would be guaranteed to be with a Toronto based Reg F bn hq, rifle company or support company.


Reserve Classes of service are not an NDA matter. They are created in QR&O Vol 1 Ch 9 by way of a Governor in Council order. It would need a new GoC order to change them. As I said above, I don't think its necessary. Some minor amendments to give teeth to the "Order to Train" provision in NDA s 33(2)(a) and at QR&O 9.04(2) are necessary


I was RSS in 76-78. At the time that was a RegF unit in its own right (RSS Prairie) but with individuals assigned all over the various provinces. I had a staff of four (an arty WO and sergeant, an adm clk sergeant and an arty Bdr storeman). While my title was Adjt and TrgO of the reserve regiment, I was not in its chain of command.

I'm not sure if that has changed or not but my guess it may have. When I look at the establishment charts that are available to me now, I note that every reserve unit has two line items one for RegF pers and one for ResF pers but both accounted against the same UIC.

@dapaterson can probably shed light on the current CoC structure.

I was in from 80 to 84. Most of my time was with the Calg Highrs but I spent a year with the Johns in Regina.

Our RSS were outside the CoC. Or Trg O, Adj and OC B Coy were all Class A Militiamen, as was our CO. I think we had a couple of Class B clerks in the BOR.

Which brings up the next point. These days what is the difference in terms of service between a Class C Reservist and a Regular Force soldier doing the same job?

 

[WLSC]

Integrate what used to be the RSS right into the command structure of the Reserve Units perhaps? Rather than just being a Captain and a Warrant acting as advisors bring add a Sergeant and some Corporal-Instructors to run the training platoon?

Well, they are posted to the unit and have pre-determined position i.e.: Adjt, Ops WO, Transport sgt, Chief Clk. They are under the unit CO (which have condition on their employment by CoC. We still call them RSS but they are not anymore.

 

[markppcli]

I’ll add that in the Reserve Support Platoons there is a higher percentage of reg force support. For example the LER and NSaskR each took a Sgt, couple MCpls, and a few troops. Would have been nice if those were new PYs but I digress.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’ll add that in the Reserve Support Platoons there is a higher percentage of reg force support. For example the LER and NSaskR each took a Sgt, couple MCpls, and a few troops. Would have been nice if those were new PYs but I digress.

Roughly, that's the British TA model.

As I recall a Reg F training team (posted in from the Reg F regiment allied to that TA regiment) supports each TA unit, and includes a Reg F CO, a Training Major, and about 10 NCMs who deliver training and other key admin services.

 

[FJAG]

I'm not sure that the British Reserve system is the way we want to go.

If I understand things right, basic reserve training in the UK is very brief. Basic Training comes in two parts - Part 1A is four weekends and Part 1B is a two week module. That is followed by Initial Trade Training which, for the infantry for example, is a two week Combat Infantry Course.

Officer training is equally brief coming in four modules of two weeks each for basic training to reach 2nd Lt status. and several more for special to arms training. I wasn't able to determine what the Classification training requirements are but I'm thinking a few two week modules as well. All in all it reminds me very much of the old MITCP program to reserve career progression.

Ongoing commitments are from 19 to 26 days per year.

All-in-all it sounds highly basic and far short of our own training requirements.

Fundamentally I think Canada has two key problems with reserve service which makes our reservists less than optimum.

The first is the 'come-when-you-feel-like-it' model of service. Courses appear adequate but unit training is virtually impossible under this model. Training cannot and does not progress beyond the platoon level. This allows for adequate individual augmentation of RegF units but is totally inadequate as a tool for expanding force capabilities beyond that of RegF establishments.

The second is leadership. ResF leaders are taught the fundamentals of their craft but rarely have the opportunity to put it into practice. Administration requirements are too onerous, take leaders away from actually leading, and above all, the 'come-when-you-feel-like-it' structure of the force is frustrating for leaders, especially RegF RSS staff. Only the most dedicated leaders in ResF units accomplish anything. That isn't good enough. A proper leadership model should make it possible for even average leaders to be successful in their roles.

We can always add more RegF leaders to ResF units (and should do so) but more full-time leaders will not solve the problem until such time that a habit of attendance is created. Very good leaders can accomplish that, but there are too few of them so the sine qua non need is to create a system, reinforced by regulations, that guarantees regular and predictable attendance so that even average leaders can move the goal posts on their units' capabilities.