SITREP ON MILITIA INFANTRY UNITS

[Fishbone Jones]

GO!!!

Let's cut to the chase once and for all. You hate the Reserves, you have no time for them. You find them a waste of skin and a burden on your precious resources. They are nothing more than an distraction for the real soldiers and their duties, infringing on the way and means that you and your reg force buds get posted, promoted, course loaded and deployed. If it wasn't for the Reserves, you'd be able to get your back to back, tax free deployments, all the new gear, the gucci courses and a couple of promotions. We're a distraction as to the reason(s) you exist.

Am I right? Has that put it in a nutshell? Can you stop intimating, obfuscating and pontificating your endless connotations and allegations? The back sided comments and the holier than thou attitude?

Your a person, a human, not a superhero, and certainly not the epitome of what everyone strives to be in the CF.

Back off and give us a break. If I need super cool Infantry model, I'll dig out my old Audie Murphy movies.

Your ranting has grown old and stale.

 

[pbi]

(Trying sheepishly to get back to the subject...)

Haggis, you're right: I have seen Res units go without. In fact, I watched a whole Res CBG "go without" for the three years I was COS. The biggest part of the problem was not that 2PPCLI  or 1 RCHA (the RegF manvr units in our Bde AO) would not help out. In fact, for most of the time they were pretty good. The relationship between our Gunner units and 1 RCHA was generally very good. To me the big problem was the scale of issue in the first place, but even more than that are the systemic problems that would face us in trying to equip units like the five Inf units we had in 38 CBG:

-where would units store all that gear? Many armouries are utterly inadequate now in terms of secure storage space, or useful storage space at all, being built at a time when Res units had litttle more than small arms and personal kit. Convert messes or classrooms, or add modular structures to armouries? Maybe.;

-who would service it? Not Res CSS: we've flogged that fight on other threads and we can all admit that placing first line maintenance in the hands of the Res CSS (that don't even exist in Cbt A units..,) would get us nowhere until the Army (and CFSTG) figure out how to train useful, productive and current techs in the Res. The RegF Maint Det? Too small, and usually not equipped for much beyond vehicle maintenance. The nearest base? In 38 CBG that would be quite a distance in some cases, and if it was a non-Army base you might not find the FCS techs, etc you need. Civvies? A possibility,(IIRC the USARNG does some of its maint this way at some MATES and at some unit locs) but who pays? (Personally, I think the latter is probably the answer...); and

-training. It is pretty difficult in a RegF battalion to keep everybody current and competent on what gear they need to be effective with. If we issue a full suite of field gear to a Res unit (let's say a sub-unit plus), is there enough time to train everybody to use it, or does a million bucks worth of gear sit in an armoury lock-up for nine months oif the year?

What to do? IMHO, the answer is NOT to fully equip each Res unit: that would be unsustainable and grossly wasteful. The better approach is to issue each Res CBG with the equipment (and facilities) to establish rotating kit packages, including maintenance program, taking into account the unique needs of each Res CBG's situation and geography.  Now the danger here of course is that good old Army aphorism: "Everybody's kit is nobody's kit" (and believe me I have seen this in full play in the RegF...), so there would have to be some pretty tight, "big stick" control over looking after the gear when it is in your care. But then, that's what we're supposed to be doing now, right?

As far as attitude by the RegF towards loaning gear: it is driven by personalities. I have seen COs, Bde Comds and Area Comds who were all for this practice, and others who could not have cared less. But, it isn't just an anti-Res thing: units hate lending their gear to anybody, believe me, because of the state it too often comes back in. I have seen some real tragedies with loaned gear, even inside the same RegF CMBG, never mind lending to another CMBG or LFA.

Cheers

 

[Haggis]

Holy crap, people!!!

Let's all just take a deeeep breath....  now...

GO!!! back in reply No. 66, you'd said you'd "had it with this thread".  You came back, though, which leads me to beleive that you have at least some interest in the topic at hand.  Good.

From your arguments for the complete dissoultion of the Reserve Infantry, I'd gather that you were once a Reservist who probably was part of a low-speed unit and decided to "turn pro".  Or you have had nothing but negative exposure to a very limited number of Reservists on mundane, backbreaking and menial taskings.  In any case your overt hatred for anything "Reserve" percolates through even the most well-intentioned and reasoned arguments you present to fix the problem.  This is a pity, since you have shown yourself to be well spoken and intelligent in many other threads.

pbi:  Seen and I agree that the problem of loaner kit is not confined to between Reg and Res units.  My point was that a certain unit had to send two soliders on a 1200 km round trip - twice - to borrow and return 10 sets of NVG.  Why could this Training Support Request not have been tasked to a Reg F unit closer by or why could these 10 NVG not have been shipped by CMTT to the Reserve unit and returned that same way?

-training. It is pretty difficult in a RegF battalion to keep everybody current and competent on what gear they need to be effective with. If we issue a full suite of field gear to a Res unit (let's say a sub-unit plus), is there enough time to train everybody to use it, or does a million bucks worth of gear sit in an armoury lock-up for nine months oif the year?

Hey, I agree!  I was RQMS for a Reserve Infantry unit and I've seen how much kit is in the Armoury and how it is stored.  Granted we have a bigger than average Armoury but still...

I've suffered through ATIs and have turned stuff in to the ASU for repair not to see it again for 9-12 months.  When each unit in your CBG goes through thier ATIs consecutively, you can't rob Peter to pay Paul.

What to do? IMHO, the answer is NOT to fully equip each Res unit: that would be unsustainable and grossly wasteful. The better approach is to issue each Res CBG with the equipment (and facilities) to establish rotating kit packages, including maintenance program, taking into account the unique needs of each Res CBG's situation and geography.  Now the danger here of course is that good old Army aphorism: "Everybody's kit is nobody's kit" (and believe me I have seen this in full play in the RegF...), so there would have to be some pretty tight, "big stick" control over looking after the gear when it is in your care. But then, that's what we're supposed to be doing now, right?

It is.  This was tried in LFCA with the establishment of a "commander's pool" at ATC Meaford.  However, as I stated above, ATC Meaford is some 10-12 road hours away from LFCA units in Eastern Ontario, particulalry during the winter.  Again, there's got to be a better way... 38 CBG is damned big.  How'd you overcome this there? (he asks, trying desperately to drag this out of the ditch...)

 

[pbi]

It is.  This was tried in LFCA with the establishment of a "commander's pool" at ATC Meaford.  However, as I stated above, ATC Meaford is some 10-12 road hours away from LFCA units in Eastern Ontario, particulalry during the winter.  Again, there's got to be a better way... 38 CBG is damned big.  How'd you overcome this there? (he asks, trying desperately to drag this out of the ditch...)

I don't think we ever really did "overcome" it. That's why I made my original observation about "going without". We "mitigated" it (ie: made it not quite so bad) by pooling Inf training as often as we could, and getting resources for that pooled training: C6s, NVGs, assault boats, gren launchers, etc.  We also created small pools of some items at our three multi-unit "garrisons": Regina, Winnipeg and Thunder Bay. This system had mixed results.

Our distance problems were considerable. The LSSR, in Thunder Bay ON at the eastern edge of the Bde, are a solid seven hours by road from Winnipeg (and that's by car not SMP), and another two and a bit to Shilo for useful weapons ranges. The NSaskR and the RRR over in SK on the western edge of the Bde are closer to the LFWA MTC than to anything in MB. The Camerons and the Rifles in Winnipeg are closer to Shilo, but miles from LFWATC.  (33 CBG faces a similar problem with its huge spread from Cornwall to Sault Ste Marie). These distances tended to make sharing and pooling a bit of a logistics challenge. For this reason our Bde was always very skeptical and resistant to the idea of establishing a single big fat Res pool in LFWATC: this wouldn't have done much good for most of our units. Unfortunately, we had few internal resources to sustain our own "MTC"-type pool.

Good planning, and building (and keeping...)  good working relationships with the nearest RegF units, CMBG and Area HQ will all help. In the end though, borrowing gear from the RegF CMBG can be a bit of a crapshoot because op requirements can take priority at little notice, leaving you empty handed.

To follow up  my earlier comment, I should say that I am not completely against some limited improvement to unit holdings, for stuff that is used regularly. I just don't believe that a massive "kit dump" into each armoury is the answer right now.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

pbi and Haggis:

Is there any chance that this Tory promise of Reg/Reserve "Garrisons" in places like Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto could be used to mitigate some of these problems?

 

[Haggis]

Is there any chance that this Tory promise of Reg/Reserve "Garrisons" in places like Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto could be used to mitigate some of these problems?

Reserve Garrisons already exist in Edmonton, Regina, Calgary, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg and, to a lesser extent, in Toronto and London.  They are, however, mostly administrative entities.

I think you're reading a bit into the Tory "promise".  The Tories never did spell out exactly how they were going to put troops in major Canadian cities, nor did they state whether these troops would be Reg F, Res F or a mix or if they would be Cbt A or CSS units  (maybe they would be Air Res helicopter sqns???  A troop is a troop is a troop to the Canadian public, as long as it wears a uniform.)

Nor did thay state what "major Canadian cites" would benefit from this initiative (How do you define "major city" in Canada?  Population? Strategic location? Economic importance? Or that it is in a Tory held riding?) 

Most older armouries are already maxed out of storage, office and classroom space already.  Without adding addtiional infrastructure first, putting more troops into these facilites will only compound existing problems.

33 CBG faces a similar problem with its huge spread from Cornwall to Sault Ste Marie

Good planning, and building (and keeping...)  good working relationships with the nearest RegF units, CMBG and Area HQ will all help. In the end though, borrowing gear from the RegF CMBG can be a bit of a crapshoot because op requirements can take priority at little notice, leaving you empty handed.

33 CBG has on occasion found it expedient to borrow from Ft Drum, NY (i.e 300 sets of MILES gear).

To follow up  my earlier comment, I should say that I am not completely against some limited improvement to unit holdings, for stuff that is used regularly. I just don't believe that a massive "kit dump" into each armoury is the answer right now.

Without again robbing Peter to pay Paul, there is no kit to dump.  I do, however, hope that this "promised" infusion of cash will result in Reserve scales being taken into consideration when new major and minor requirements are funded (i.e PAQ-4, NVG, body armour etc, etc.)

 

[HItorMiss]

I have been watching this thread with intrest and I think I'm finally going to weigh in on it....

I hate to say it but in many ways I agree with GO.....Please don't hurt me Tess LOL

I'm currently doing TMST with Res Augmentation, In fact my #2 on the C6 is a Res guy, I got lucky he is a great troop, I would say one of the best of the Res that showed up for this tour. But here lies the rub we have a Coy full of Reg guys just itching for tour but they can't go because slot's were mandated from higher to the Res, in my oppinion that is job stealing. Is it fair to the Reg guy that just put in 2 yrs without a tour to be told sorry your going to the 10% pool because the slot we wanted you to have just got mandated to a Reserve force soldier?, even you Tess have to agree it isn't.

I ran TOET's at my unit and I was kind of aghast at how bad the avg Reserve soldiers handling drills were. I want it clear that not all were bad and I had Reg guys that were bad too, but on avg the skill level was below that of some of the new guy Pte's and these guys were all Res Cpl's. My point here is it takes more time on avg to train up the mid skill level Res soldier then the lower end Regular Soldier, that is the fault of "Higher" not the soldiers themselves.

I do have a suggestion though that brings Res Augmentation with us on Operations and perserves the Reg force Jobs on tour. On Roto 0 Reserves filled the CIMIC roles and on this current tour we have a D&S Pl of all Reserve soldiers. Why not leave it at that, I know that yes it is less positions overall then with forced Augmentation into the rifles coys, but it is slots no?


*digs his trench and waits for the incoming fire*

 

[Michael OLeary]

Is it fair to the Reg guy that just put in 2 yrs without a tour to be told sorry your going to the 10% pool because the slot we wanted you to have just got mandated to a Reserve force soldier?, even you Tess have to agree it isn't.

Please define fairness in this context.  Please use references from the contractual obligation signed on enrolment that guaranteed each soldier all the tours "they" want.

 

[rifleman]

I believe a solution to the problem of reserves going on tour has been overlooked. Perhaps the real solution is to cut the number of regular force infantry, cause it seems there are too many. I mean if they aren't going on operations and are just sitting around doing mundane tasks. Do we need them? Perhaps their positions can be used to reduce the load on 'red' trades.

Just a thought.

 

[HItorMiss]

Sir you and I both know there is no fair in the Forces...And so as it goes the young soldiers says yes sir and sits in the 10% pool and fumes at what he perceives as some "Militia toon taking his spot on tour" and this cycle of resentment begins anew with the younger generation of Regular force troops.

Fair sir is word I used to show a mind set and an obligation I believe that young troops C of C should look after. It is that young soldiers C of C job to ensure that troop does his job no? His job is to follow orders yes, but his C of C should also take into account when that young Soldiers BE comes up and is asked why he isn't resigning and his answer is I spent 3 yrs getting ready for the big game and then just as I was going to enter the stadium you guys pulled me off the roster for some "half trained wanna be".

I want it know that I used the words Toon and Wanna be in quoteations as words that are said by guys, rightly or wrongly and not to inflame said Reserve Soldiers on these boards, do not engage me directly on them as they are not my personal feelings.

 

[HItorMiss]

I believe a solution to the problem of reserves going on tour has been overlooked. Perhaps the real solution is to cut the number of regular force infantry, cause it seems there are too many. I mean if they aren't going on operations and are just sitting around doing mundane tasks. Do we need them? Perhaps their positions can be used to reduce the load on 'red' trades.

Just a thought.

We are not over staffed in the Infantry what we have is a forced sitting around of troops because slots get handed to the Resverves from higher that make the Reg force Infantry guy not go on tour and as you so eloquently put it sit around.... They however do not sit and around and continue to train as a 10% pool.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Keep in mind that that "cycle of resentment" is a leadership issue that starts at your level.  If you propagate attitudes like that about reservists, how will young soldiers with no experience in or with the Reserves ever avoid being sucked into that cycle?

 

[rifleman]

We are not over staffed in the Infantry what we have is a forced sitting around of troops because slots get handed to the Resverves from higher that make the Reg force Infantry guy not go on tour and as you so eloquently put it sit around.... They however do not sit and around and continue to train as a 10% pool.

Well, then it seems their job hadn't been taken after all.

 

[darmil]

This thread should be lock, enough with the militia bashing. If you don't like it "GET OUT" .


MOD EDIT: THIS WAS BACK ON TRACK UNTILL YOUR UNCALLED FOR POST.
CONSIDER THIS YOUR FREEBEE!

 

[GO!!!]

M O'Leary,

So your solution is for the reg f troops to be "happy" and "maintain a positive attitude" when they get cut?

Also,

I find it rather interesting that when I post my opinions on the militia infantry, I am instantly hammered under a deluge of professional and personal attacks but when a certain other poster here with an obvious hate on for the regs posts something like this;

I believe a solution to the problem of reserves going on tour has been overlooked. Perhaps the real solution is to cut the number of regular force infantry, cause it seems there are too many. I mean if they aren't going on operations and are just sitting around doing mundane tasks. Do we need them? Perhaps their positions can be used to reduce the load on 'red' trades.

Just a thought.

He is ignored or encouraged.

 

[Michael OLeary]

How about understanding that being part of the rear party and the 10% pool is also part of that units operational task?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

GO!!!,
His post was no where near the caustic tone that you have taken in the past and, ya know what, it might be a fair question, if there is that many hanging around wanting tours maybe there are too many.
I seem to hear the CSS trades are burnt out from tours,....an imbalance of personal maybe?

 

[HItorMiss]

Keep in mind that that "cycle of resentment" is a leadership issue that starts at your level.  If you propagate attitudes like that about reservists, how will young soldiers with no experience in or with the Reserves ever avoid being sucked into that cycle?

Yes Sir I agree and I discourage any Soldiers from my peers to my subordinates from using terms such as toon and wanna be etc etc, however I cannot very well tell a soldier that his spot on tour wasn't taken over by a PRes soldier when he and I both know it was. I wont lie or sugar coat that fact sir not when I do honestly believe that his slot was taken because we were ordered to take Reserves augmentees with us wether we needed them or not.

And what that troop thinks in his mind after I tell him to stow his bad mouthing is nothing I can very well change is it?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think you're reading a bit into the Tory "promise".  The Tories never did spell out exactly how they were going to put troops in major Canadian cities, nor did they state whether these troops would be Reg F, Res F or a mix or if they would be Cbt A or CSS units  (maybe they would be Air Res helicopter sqns???  A troop is a troop is a troop to the Canadian public, as long as it wears a uniform.)

Haggis: Perhaps not so much "reading too much" as trying to see if a political promise can be turned to military advantage.  As was discussed on another thread (which I can't relocate just now) would it be necessary/advantageous to build new armouries in these centres (wherever they may be ultimately designated) perhaps along the lines of the new Windsor armoury?   Could the 500 troop "Garrison/Battalion" be effectively organized from a beefed up RSS and increased Class A days and authorized local Class B service?

As you and pbi, and others have pointed out, one of the real weaknesses of the militia has always been the lack of solid support.  37.5 authorized days per year just doesn't supply useful administrators, trainers, mechanics or clerks.  The people in the militia can often do those jobs / learn those jobs if more hours were available to them.

Riflemen, patrolmen, signallers, cooks, truck drivers, recovery truck drivers:  a lot of these troops can be usefully organized on 37.5 if there is a solid core around which to build.  They all want to be there and wish to contribute in some way, shape or form.

I know this is about political will and money - but just supposing that that promise were honestly meant ....

Just some thoughts from an uninformed outsider.

Cheers.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Yes Sir I agree and I discourage any Soldiers from my peers to my subordinates from using terms such as toon and wanna be etc etc, however I cannot very well tell a soldier that his spot on tour wasn't taken over by a PRes soldier when he and I both know it was. I wont lie or sugar coat that fact sir not when I do honestly believe that his slot was taken because we were ordered to take Reserves augmentees with us wether we needed them or not.

And what that troop thinks in his mind after I tell him to stow his bad mouthing is nothing I can very well change is it?

So, what is your recommendation for best employing all parts of the system?

I may be wrong, but it seems the "solution" you allude to is to deploy every fit Reg F soldier, maintain the 10% reserve of only reservists (who then likely never deploy, or gain such experiences to train their own soldiers in the unit), and when the shit does hit the fan, these soldiers that you have created as "second class" and "not quite good enough" become your only source of reinforcements?

In my mind that is increasing the divide and increasing the potential risks - all to mollify the troops that "want to go" rather than understanding that remaining behind is also a duty that they have sworn to perform.

How rampant is this trend you speak of, or is it a vocal minority rather than a balanced view representing all soldiers?

See this post by Sapper6, where he talks about meeting both soldiers who can't "get enough tours" as well as those who are "happy for a break" - http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40079/post-342242.html#msg342242