Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[Kirkhill]

Further to....

Reflections Previous to the Establishment of a Militia. [By Adam Ferguson.], Adam FERGUSON (LL.D.).

Reflections Previous to the Establishment of a Militia. [By Adam Ferguson.] by Adam FERGUSON (LL.D.) - Books on Google Play

Reflections Previous to the Establishment of a Militia. [By Adam Ferguson.] - Ebook written by Adam FERGUSON (LL.D.). Read this book using Google Play Books app on your PC, android, iOS devices. Download for offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read Reflections Previous...

play.google.com

 

[Kilted]

Don’t forget about the $100 million for the armoury to house less than 100 effectives. Seriously, in some, maybe most, cases the most expensive part of equipping a reservist is not the gear in his hands, it’s the roof over his head. Infrastructure has to be factored in.

As long as we aren't renting Legion halls to do our training.

 

[KevinB]

Adam Ferguson supported an armed militia, not for military superiority, but to cultivate civic virtue in citizens. He argued that a militia fostered a sense of duty, courage, and public spirit essential for a healthy republic, contrasting it with the potential for corruption and decadence in a standing professional army. His arguments, particularly regarding the importance of civic virtue and the potential dangers of commercial societies becoming weak, put him in direct opposition to his contemporary, Adam Smith.

Ferguson's arguments for a militia

• Civic virtue:
  Ferguson believed that the regular exercise of military duties in a militia would help prevent the "languor" and corruption that commercial, polished societies were prone to.
  
  
• Public spirit:
  A citizen militia provided a vital opportunity for men to demonstrate public virtue and be engaged in the defense of their own society.
  
  
• Contrast with standing armies:
  He disagreed with Adam Smith, who argued that a modern, professional army was necessary due to the scientific and technical advancements in warfare, a view reinforced by the military's suppression of the Jacobite risings. Ferguson believed that a professional army could become a separate interest from the public, while a militia was more closely tied to the people it served.
  
  
• Historical context:
  The fear of a French invasion in the 1750s, which highlighted Britain's dependence on foreign troops, provided a real-world context for Ferguson's advocacy for a national militia, as explained in this Cambridge University Press article.

The disagreement with Adam Smith

• Smith's position:
  Smith argued for the necessity of a disciplined, professional standing army due to the increasing specialization and science of modern warfare, stating that a militia would be "much inferior".
  
  
• Ferguson's rebuttal:
  Ferguson, a prominent member of the Poker Club which advocated for a militia, publicly disagreed with Smith on this specific point, as detailed in this Adam Smith Works article.
  
  
• Philosophical difference:
  Their disagreement reflected a broader philosophical split, with Ferguson emphasizing the moral and civic benefits of a militia, while Smith focused on the practical military and economic realities of the time.
  
  
  

I'm still not getting what role you see for this Militia.

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of it, I am question the bottom line utility. The Canadians of the 21st Century are not going to accept (not even with those actually concerned with the threat of a POTUS47 Invasion) issuing weapons to the general public and home storage, which generally is what the main concept of the Militia is.

There is a PRes currently, and that is sadly lacking equipment (and missing a real role). IMHO Canada would be much better served with the PRes altered into a ARNG model that we use down here.
That requires a lot of Capital Equipment, Infrastructure Programs, and Legislation changes.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm still not getting what role you see for this Militia.

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of it, I am question the bottom line utility. The Canadians of the 21st Century are not going to accept (not even with those actually concerned with the threat of a POTUS47 Invasion) issuing weapons to the general public and home storage, which generally is what the main concept of the Militia is.

There is a PRes currently, and that is sadly lacking equipment (and missing a real role). IMHO Canada would be much better served with the PRes altered into a ARNG model that we use down here.
That requires a lot of Capital Equipment, Infrastructure Programs, and Legislation changes.

The purpose of the exercise is to get the citizenry invested in their country. Getting them to get to know each other and working together.

And believing that they are worth defending and that they can actively contribute to that defence.

Whether they have guns at home, or the QRFs are platoons or brigades, or how long the NTM is, are all secondary issues. Those are the state of readiness and are variable according to the threat.

What Ukraine should be teaching us is that sh*t happens and it happens in a hurry. And when that change happens you are out of time. You have no time to stock up on ammunition. You have no time to find weapons. You have no time to organise people, to train people how to use the weapons, no time to find auxiliary police, HUSAR teams, ambulance drivers, first aid teams, air defence teams. None of that.

On the other hand if you have a population that has a clue, that gives a smick and that has a modicum of skills, and an organizational basis clearly understood by all then, when the threat level rises realistic reaction is possible.

And reactions to civil emergencies are easier and more effective....

And people are less likely to panic if they know there is a plan and they have a role to play. They have a number to call, a place to go and tools to work with.
....

It is not always all about delivering brigades or corps to foreign lands. That is one job and one job only.

 

[FJAG]

There is a PRes currently, and that is sadly lacking equipment (and missing a real role). IMHO Canada would be much better served with the PRes altered into a ARNG model that we use down here.

Yes

That requires a lot of Capital Equipment,

Yes

Infrastructure Programs,

Yes

and Legislation changes.

Not as much as one would think. The real work comes with some in regulations and a lot in policies, directives and the like. The point here is that it is minor work that involves the legislature and cabinet but a lot of CAF staff work.

 

[FJAG]

The purpose of the exercise is to get the citizenry invested in their country. Getting them to get to know each other and working together.

And believing that they are worth defending and that they can actively contribute to that defence.

I'm not as gung-ho on this concept as you but can see the utility of having a reasonably-sized "militia" that has a small level of training, is under competent leadership and whose infrastructure is tied in with the PRes.

Much of the enormous manpower that was generated for WW1 and WW2 came from a militia who drew much of its manpower by way of government sponsored cadet and national rifle associations.

The idea of a voluntary citizen-based structure of people prepared to help out in an emergency - and who can even be compelled to help out in an emergency - is worthwhile.

It's size, structure and obligations to serve are debateable.

 

[foresterab]

The purpose of the exercise is to get the citizenry invested in their country. Getting them to get to know each other and working together.

And believing that they are worth defending and that they can actively contribute to that defence.

Whether they have guns at home, or the QRFs are platoons or brigades, or how long the NTM is, are all secondary issues. Those are the state of readiness and are variable according to the threat.

What Ukraine should be teaching us is that sh*t happens and it happens in a hurry. And when that change happens you are out of time. You have no time to stock up on ammunition. You have no time to find weapons. You have no time to organise people, to train people how to use the weapons, no time to find auxiliary police, HUSAR teams, ambulance drivers, first aid teams, air defence teams. None of that.

On the other hand if you have a population that has a clue, that gives a smick and that has a modicum of skills, and an organizational basis clearly understood by all then, when the threat level rises realistic reaction is possible.

And reactions to civil emergencies are easier and more effective....

And people are less likely to panic if they know there is a plan and they have a role to play. They have a number to call, a place to go and tools to work with.
....

It is not always all about delivering brigades or corps to foreign lands. That is one job and one job only.

It was interesting this summer talking with some Australian volunteer organization resources on wildfires. Note that of the Rural Fire Service (RFS) staff most of those who deployed were full time employees.

But talking with the one individual...his district he's trying to organize training for 15,000 RFS volunteers....and had 2 at high enough qualifications/availability to deploy internationally. They work on the basis of state response agencies/full time staff/experienced local leadership providing the skeleton of the structure...and then stick on volunteers as situations dictate.

But like your comments above...."people are less likely to panic if they know there is a plan and they have a role to play. They have a number to call, a place to go and tools to work with.".

But imagine the support needed if each battalion/major city had that number of folks who the CAF Reserves is trying to coordinate training, enough physical space to actually effectively mobilize, and enough tools to work with. Without the facilities and tools it's almost impossible to deal with the volunteers especially on an ongoing basis and not just for a one off emergency.

 

[GR66]

I'm not as gung-ho on this concept as you but can see the utility of having a reasonably-sized "militia" that has a small level of training, is under competent leadership and whose infrastructure is tied in with the PRes.

Much of the enormous manpower that was generated for WW1 and WW2 came from a militia who drew much of its manpower by way of government sponsored cadet and national rifle associations.

The idea of a voluntary citizen-based structure of people prepared to help out in an emergency - and who can even be compelled to help out in an emergency - is worthwhile.

It's size, structure and obligations to serve are debateable.

Add a Canadian Ranger platoon to each CA Reserve unit?

 

[Kirkhill]

It was interesting this summer talking with some Australian volunteer organization resources on wildfires. Note that of the Rural Fire Service (RFS) staff most of those who deployed were full time employees.

But talking with the one individual...his district he's trying to organize training for 15,000 RFS volunteers....and had 2 at high enough qualifications/availability to deploy internationally. They work on the basis of state response agencies/full time staff/experienced local leadership providing the skeleton of the structure...and then stick on volunteers as situations dictate.

But like your comments above...."people are less likely to panic if they know there is a plan and they have a role to play. They have a number to call, a place to go and tools to work with.".

But imagine the support needed if each battalion/major city had that number of folks who the CAF Reserves is trying to coordinate training, enough physical space to actually effectively mobilize, and enough tools to work with. Without the facilities and tools it's almost impossible to deal with the volunteers especially on an ongoing basis and not just for a one off emergency.

And yet my pals the Danes manage it with existing infrastructure.

Admittedly that infrastructure includes a community hall in every community. A modern YMCA type place built around the ubiquitous handball/indoor soccer/badminton/basketball court.
A place used every day by the community. One of the things Danish taxes pay for.

 

[Kirkhill]

Google Search

 

[foresterab]

Add a Canadian Ranger platoon to each CA Reserve unit?

That might be the poor mans version to assist. A Ranger detachment per unit that is not a "deployable" force for CAF peer engagement.

But a force that is organized, has a visual presence in the context of local action, knows the local area, and maybe has some training on things like ICS structure to fit into domestic response. The meat so to speak to add onto a skeleton set up by whatever organization is lead...could be CAF for training missions/domestic security operations like G7 summits or local government calls for assistance.

My biggest challenge is diverting too much attention from the core force needed for the primary CAF mission and the reserve force that - in concept - is set up to directly augment. (Note I say in concept due to the lack of support kit available for Reserves). And at some point if I need a Team Rubicon type organization am I better to fund them direct instead of further blurring the lines of the CAF mission.

 

[FJAG]

Add a Canadian Ranger platoon to each CA Reserve unit?

I was thinking a group to a brigade with defence of Canada role. That obviously needs a further breakdown but in my rough guestimate I would make a group as large as a brigade with some 5,000 + Rangers per each of 4 brigades. That may not be enough for the infrastructure security that I would give them as their ultimate role.

 

[Kirkhill]

Add a Canadian Ranger platoon to each CA Reserve unit?

Call it a company and you can attach as many volunteers as you want to it.

And dictionaries define someone who freely offers their unpaid service as a volunteer.

Someone who freely offers their service for remuneration is a professional.

...

Wrt the arms of auxiliary/homeguard/volunteers I would be happy to see the standard be the fire team equipped with 4 pistols, 4 carbines, a DMR and a single shot grenade launcher, together with 4 smartphones and a 5 year old pickup truck.

Beyond that we can debate number and variety of support weapons indefinitely as we can debate vehicles and comms.

The one thing we should start with is procuring the weapons, ammunition, consumables, vehicles and platforms before we start manning our standing army.

The standing army is our QRF. The size of that army should vary according to the threat. It should be able to draw its needs from inventory. The inventory should be in surplus and constantly refreshed.

And it is not necessary that all the people that know how to operate all that gear are in the standing army. Some could be down at the sportshalle. Some could be sitting on their couches.

 

[Kirkhill]

I was thinking a group to a brigade with defence of Canada role. That obviously needs a further breakdown but in my rough guestimate I would make a group as large as a brigade with some 5,000 + Rangers per each of 4 brigades. That may not be enough for the infrastructure security that I would give them as their ultimate role.

I like that better.

Consider Canada with 40,000,000 people. We are all itemized in any event. We all have SINs. We all show up on censuses. We all show up on voters' rolls.

Take those 40,000,000 and divide them into 200 communities, each with its own community sportshalle open to all. A place where people congregate a get to rub along together.

40,000,000 / 200 = 200,000 people

Now the Danes produce 85 volunteers per 10,000. These are just names. Not active participants, just names.

1700 volunteers

22 per 10,000 are considered active and reliable

440 active volunteers

Of those two thirds are suitable to assist in security tasks and civil emergencies.

Call it 300 in a security reserve
These turn out in emergencies.

The other third is sufficiently engaged as to be able to provide a local QRF adequately versed in platoon tactics to actively secure local facilities and defend against an armed force.

150 in a QRF Company
These have their heads in the game 24/7.

In addition 20% of those are in a mobile patrols element.

30 in a local vehicular patrol troop.

And finally 3 or 4 are keen enough to work with the SOF community.
These take on international assignments.

This force is equipped with cast off small arms from the professional forces.

By and large they train themselves under supervision.

....

And all this is in addition to the 40 per 10,000 in the professional forces

800 professionals recruited from each community and serving full time

And in addition to 20 to 25 police per 10,000

400 to 500 police in each community.

.....

 

[Kirkhill]

Can we raise 1700 nominals from a community of 200,000?

CRPG 1 recruits from a community of about 120,000.

It has a strength of 2000 Rangers in 61 patrols and 1400 Junior Rangers in 44 patrols.