South Alberta Light Horse Regiment to amalgamate with larger reserve force

[Halifax Tar]

Interestingly enough, Army Reserve Signals, Engineers and CSS units have all been amalgamated and restructured over the past 20 years.

It's only the snowflakes in the combat arms that are incapable of adjusting.

Very true. I mean we still have regiments that wear skirts and some with weird feathers in the hats. Tres bizzare.

 

[dapaterson]

Very true. I mean we still have regiments that wear skirts and some with weird feathers in the hats. Tres bizzare.

Wait 'til you hear about the traditions of the RCN

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think the Québécois may disagree there.

Besides the most important of the 3 Regular Infantry Regiments doesn’t have Royal in it

Yet

 

[dapaterson]

I think the Québécois may disagree there.

Besides the most important of the 3 Regular Infantry Regiments doesn’t have Royal in it

Don't tell Adrienne that she isn't Royalty.

 

[KevinB]

My thinking keeps coming back to the current existence of numerous platoon to coy/sqn/bty sized entities, their use of G-Wagons, and the number of capability gaps that could could be filled with with sub-unit and smaller entities in the Senator cargo version. SHORAD batteries, C-UAS platoons, NLOS AT/ LAM platoons.

Then I think further, and while a Senator isn't a LAV, a 3+7 configuration with a 7.62mm RWS would maintain crew/role/small unit training continuity with the mech units, and it would be better than nothing when the balloon goes up / to slot formed motorized platoons to round out for training.

Personally I’m of the opinion that it makes no sense to acquire “training” equipment, and that any equipment should be operational items.

Which I one reason I believe in cascading equipment. If you expect an item has a service life of X years, then it goes to a ‘Category A’ unit for 1/2X then to a ‘Category B’ unit for the remained of the service life.
*ideally it would go for 1/3rd then 1/3rd and then go to WarStock, as well as an overage of 25% equipment acquired for OpStock as well.

I think we can all agree that the LAV 6.0 isn’t the ideal IFV for European fighting.

So you would create a Program for a Heavy Infantry Combat Vehicle -Tracked
600 or so. 400 for a Heavy Bde tasked to Europe, and 200 for OpStock.
*~70/BN plus FOO, Engineer, AD/C-UAS etc vehicles.

LAV 6.0 ISC’s would then flow to the ‘Cat B units’

The same would go for Tanks, SPA etc.

The USARNG manages to have vehicles in central training locations, and I don’t see why Canada couldn’t do the same. A mix of Reg Force and Civilian Techs to maintain them.

 

[Harris]

...For whatever reasons that latter cadre doesn't seem to want to take the next step and become Regulars.

From my experience and others I've talked to I'd say that postings was the main reason.

 

[PrairieFella]

From my experience and others I've talked to I'd say that postings was the main reason.

Postings are probably number 1 and greener pastures are number 2. If I make $80,000 a year plus $17,000 a year as an ARes Sgt in Wpg (or Sask or Edmonton, et al.), I live every comfortably in a home I don't have to sell every 3 years and I don't have to leave all my family, friends and the family farm. There's thousands of stories like that in the ResF.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Wait 'til you hear about the traditions of the RCN

Rum, sodomy and the lash never hurt anyone

 

[dapaterson]

From my experience and others I've talked to I'd say that postings was the main reason.

The Class B mafia need some horses' heads in their beds.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Maybe they need to adapt something like NavRes that has a headquarters and a Cmdr in charge and regional staff.

Canadian Forces Naval Reserve - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that I want to promote more HQ Bloat, but perhaps advocacy for the organization would help, no ?

Please do not ever suggest Nav Res HQ as an example of an HQ to emulate…

 

[MacNav63]

Don't tell Adrienne that she isn't Royalty.

I may be wrong, but despite carrying the name of their patron, they only very briefly ever had a "Royal" colonel-in-chief. Princess Patrica gave up her Royal status shortly after her appointment when she married a commoner, and was Lady Patricia for the rest of her life. And while Countess Mountbatten was a close cousin, also not a Royal. So the current incumbent's appointment had a certain logic to it.

Sorry, pedantic rabbit hole.

 

[FJAG]

Well, I've already inflicted my preferred solution on you all for naming units but since we're off on a tear I'll throw in the following pet peeves I want to see sorted out.

1) I dislike the dual use of the term "regiment" - ERE is just one aspect of it. IMHO all "unit-sized (4-800 folks)" organizations should be called battalions. Infantry battalions, armoured battalions, combined arms battalions, artillery or air defence or engineer or signals battalions. I'm good leaving coy level organizations as coys, sqns, bties etc but draw the line at battalions. Reserve the name regiment for larger-than-battalion organizations such as the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery or the Royal Canadian Armoured Regiment or the Royal Regiment of Canadian Signals etc.

2) Lets throw out cap badges for a common and tasteful army cap badge (not a snowflake-like thing.) Do like the Yanks and have a small lacquered pin that reflects the specific battalion they are in at the time - maybe another for the brigade or command if applicable - on posting you take off your old unit pin and put on the new one. Other than the pins, no battalion quiffs allowed - none.

3) yup. get rid of kilts, hackles, funny hats etc.

4) get back to blousing trousers with high boots (not puttees - I draw the line there). stop looking like bus drivers - look like soldiers.

5) pants for everyone regardless of sex or preferred sex - sure, make sure the cut fits the body but everyone wears the same boots, pants, tunic and headdress. Uniform stands for "the same in all cases". Not "George gets to wear the red beret today and Eloise the wedgie"

6) put belts on uniforms - not those wimpy cloth things being proposed but a sturdy leather belt with a common army belt buckle - I'm not adverse to Sam Brownes.

I'm sure that there are a few other things that have pissed me off over the years but that will do for the time being.

 

[markppcli]

How do they not follow the established structure? They are formed as a Regiment. In reality they are Companies at best.
If they follow along and can provide a Company sized element then they get allocated that amount of equipment. If they need more we will get them more. If they fall below their numbers their equipment gets parked on the fence and cycled through the units that need the equipment.

That’s exactly what I mean. They are established as regiments and any or may not have more Thant one Sqn, which may or may not actually parade more than a troop. Sometimes they have a training Sqn down times not. Ect ect

When I started at 5th BC Field Regiment were were the 5th BC Field Bty. Due to mystery funding and reallocation we stood up as a Regiment again. Yet we had no where near a Regiment of People, hardly had a Troop worth of equipment. But we had Two Gun Troops plus of Gunners and continued to grow. 56 Bty (now 156 Bty) Grew to over hundred Gunners. Drilling well over 60 a night. Hard to continue training using one gun and no radios, no rifles.

What does 100 gunners parading 60 mean? To me that means you have 60 effective. But yes this is my general point.

It would be simple fix for the multiple Regiments. Call them XYX Brigade Artillery Regiment compromising of each Bty . Stand them down to Bty size. Have them Fill a Bty Each compliment, If they cant do that then have them fill a Troop each.

All administrative action that can be done.

In this we concur

I wonder how well the Full time Infantry Regiments have for staffing levels now?

Holy Christ man the English in that sentence. I assume that means you’re asking the manning of Bns right now. It’s around 94% of allowed numbers. So Bns are 550 ish. Of course at any give times there’s 60-80 on course but that’s life.

That structure is already there on paper. The staffing levels are the concerns as are the actual budgets and equipment.
SIMPLE SOLUTION amalgamate the Current Regiments into Companies, Btys, Troops etc. Keeping their traditional Names.

You can have 5th BC Fd Bty and 15th Fd Bty with a H&Q Svc Bty. They live fire together anyways. (twice in my time in they did not because they had to many Gunners and not enough equipment). Good make it happen. Same as 10th and 26th Fd

Agreed

So hire mechanics/techs. Contract the work out lots of companies who can provide the services. (some have higher security clearance requirements then our guys)

Sure if there’s enough to be hired, the get them hired and trained and increase the budget to pay them

Admin hurdles can be eliminated and or fixed with the right people.

Store it at the Training centers then. Or secure property with the proper security protocols. As if CFB Edmonton or Shilo is that secure. An alarm system with a MP or two showing up.

Well they’re nominally secured full time. The real security is the vaults for the weapons and comms.

A few manufactures made their own equipment and stored it in their secure yards for years. Had hundred pieces of equipment sitting idle. Did a one for one as required. Flowed extra equipment to the field as required and then rebuilt the old stuff.

Secure for an f250 and secure for a lav are two different things

I did not say sell off equipment, store it. Long term/ short term. Right now we could use a few dozen more Tanks/ Howitzers/ Jets etc. We dont have any along the healing fence to put back into use.

Vehicles that don’t move end up falling apart, that’s just the nature of engines. Falling apart is obviously just a turn of phrase here.

They amalgamate keep their name in tradition as a Bty, Troop, Company or they get stood down. Either way it works and can work well. As much as I do not like how the Americans stand down units and redesignate them. I think if we cant find a solution to the Unit name administrative issues then we need start doing this.

I agree


I think there’s a misconception in what I’m saying. I don’t dislike the regimental system in the reserves because I think 17 guys in Kamloops calling themselves a regiment is absurd (it is though). I dislike it because as a guy who joined said 17 man regiment in Kamloops I had two options: RMS Clerk (hra now I think?) or Infanteer. If I was in Red Deer it would have solely been Artillery. Were I in North Dakota the NG would offer me the full spectrum of employment and simply tell me to drill at base X Y or Z on the weekend. That’s a much better long term system.

 

[Ostrozac]

I actually think that reading 6 of the regular Battalions to become regular Battalions of militia regiments would do a lot for cohesion between the two, similar to how The Black Watch and Queen's Own Rifles formally had regular Battalions.

I served with some veterans of those pre-1970 battalions. According to them, they weren’t very cohesive between Regular and Reserve — the regular Black Watch thought of itself as the regular regiment of the Maritimes, the militia Black Watch was strongly Anglophone Montreal. In some ways, the regular Black Watch battalions seemed to more closely identify with the British Army’s Black Watch than the reserve battalion (they commemorated the Battle of the Alma, not the Fenian Raids). The QOR was similarly two very different tribes, which was to be expected — the reserve battalion was very much a creature of Toronto and I’m pretty sure there was never a regular QOR battalion stationed anywhere east of Calgary (besides Germany). In many ways the regimental badges were a flag of convenience, not a common bond.

I saw the same dynamic play itself out between the 4 battalions of The RCR. It takes more than a capbadge to build cohesion.

 

[dapaterson]

I saw the same dynamic play itself out between the 4 battalions of The RCR. It takes more than a capbadge to build cohesion.

The Royal Canadian Navy (East vs West) sails into the discussion.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I actually think that reading 6 of the regular Battalions to become regular Battalions of militia regiments would do a lot for cohesion between the two, similar to how The Black Watch and Queen's Own Rifles formally had regular Battalions.

I served with some veterans of those pre-1970 battalions. According to them, they weren’t very cohesive between Regular and Reserve — the regular Black Watch thought of itself as the regular regiment of the Maritimes, the militia Black Watch was strongly Anglophone Montreal. In some ways, the regular Black Watch battalions seemed to more closely identify with the British Army’s Black Watch than the reserve battalion (they commemorated the Battle of the Alma, not the Fenian Raids). The QOR was similarly two very different tribes, which was to be expected — the reserve battalion was very much a creature of Toronto and I’m pretty sure there was never a regular QOR battalion stationed anywhere east of Calgary (besides Germany). In many ways the regimental badges were a flag of convenience, not a common bond.

I saw the same dynamic play itself out between the 4 battalions of The RCR. It takes more than a capbadge to build cohesion.

Regular battalions of The Black Watch and Queen's Own Rifles were raised because, in the early 1950s, the Militia was then (just as they are now) unable to provide formed sub-units of soldiers on a continuing basis for one of the two major operations that the Canadian Army was involved in; the establishment of 27 Canadian Infantry Brigade in Germany (the other operation was Korea). Militia units were tasked to provide the manpower for the (PANDA) 1st Canadian Infantry Battalion, 1st Canadian Highland Battalion and 1st Canadian Rifle Battalion (and 2nd Bns that were to function as training and replacement depots) according to their cap badges. The other arms and services units of the Militia were similarly tasked for their share of the brigade manpower bill. When that plan could not be sustained beyond the initial deployment (and barely then), regular battalions of Black Watch and Queen's Own Rifles were raised to take the "Militia" element of uncertainty from the equation; they also formed the Canadian Guards (in the words of one MP - a WW1 veteran, "never fought and never defeated").

 

[FJAG]

The situation in the early 1950s (or later 1940s) was a complex one. At the time the Canadian army had demobilized from WW2 and left behind a Militia organized into 6 divisions and several separate brigades originally authorized at 180,000 but which had a total manning of only 46,000 by the time Korea rolled around. Similarly, the Active Force was authorized at 27,000 which only included a single three battalion brigade (plus some armour and artillery). This brigade was an airborne mobile striking brigade. It too was undermanned. Neither the Militia nor the Active force were envisioned as an expeditionary force at the time.

With the commitment made to send troops to Korea - first the PPCLI and then a brigade, the government took the decision to form and recruit a special force made up primarily of militiamen, active force personnel and WW2 veterans. For various reasons, including the new Militia Act that had just come into being the force morphed into the Active Force but with some restrictions on service.

In short, Canada, at the time, was faced with a novel situation and, while neither the Active Force nor the Militia was structured or designed for the brigades which would be formed by the mid fifties, it muddled through and created a force that hadn't existed before 1950, An entity that would eventually become the RegF designed for expeditionary operations with the UN and NATO. The RCAF and RCN had similar experiences.

Wood's "Strange Battleground" covers this period fairly well.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Please do not ever suggest Nav Res HQ as an example of an HQ to emulate…

lol Whoa I am not suggesting it be replicated. Merely suggesting that perhaps a common headquarters for the ARes would allow them some advocacy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well, I've already inflicted my preferred solution on you all for naming units but since we're off on a tear I'll throw in the following pet peeves I want to see sorted out.

1) I dislike the dual use of the term "regiment" - ERE is just one aspect of it. IMHO all "unit-sized (4-800 folks)" organizations should be called battalions. Infantry battalions, armoured battalions, combined arms battalions, artillery or air defence or engineer or signals battalions. I'm good leaving coy level organizations as coys, sqns, bties etc but draw the line at battalions. Reserve the name regiment for larger-than-battalion organizations such as the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery or the Royal Canadian Armoured Regiment or the Royal Regiment of Canadian Signals etc.

2) Lets throw out cap badges for a common and tasteful army cap badge (not a snowflake-like thing.) Do like the Yanks and have a small lacquered pin that reflects the specific battalion they are in at the time - maybe another for the brigade or command if applicable - on posting you take off your old unit pin and put on the new one. Other than the pins, no battalion quiffs allowed - none.

3) yup. get rid of kilts, hackles, funny hats etc.

4) get back to blousing trousers with high boots (not puttees - I draw the line there). stop looking like bus drivers - look like soldiers.

5) pants for everyone regardless of sex or preferred sex - sure, make sure the cut fits the body but everyone wears the same boots, pants, tunic and headdress. Uniform stands for "the same in all cases". Not "George gets to wear the red beret today and Eloise the wedgie"

6) put belts on uniforms - not those wimpy cloth things being proposed but a sturdy leather belt with a common army belt buckle - I'm not adverse to Sam Brownes.

I'm sure that there are a few other things that have pissed me off over the years but that will do for the time being.

and leather vests for day to day field work. Of course Coveralls with webbing could be the standard training uniform and that would be part of our heritage

 

[KevinB]

Well, I've already inflicted my preferred solution on you all for naming units but since we're off on a tear I'll throw in the following pet peeves I want to see sorted out.

1) I dislike the dual use of the term "regiment" - ERE is just one aspect of it. IMHO all "unit-sized (4-800 folks)" organizations should be called battalions. Infantry battalions, armoured battalions, combined arms battalions, artillery or air defence or engineer or signals battalions. I'm good leaving coy level organizations as coys, sqns, bties etc but draw the line at battalions. Reserve the name regiment for larger-than-battalion organizations such as the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery or the Royal Canadian Armoured Regiment or the Royal Regiment of Canadian Signals etc.

Agreed

2) Lets throw out cap badges for a common and tasteful army cap badge (not a snowflake-like thing.) Do like the Yanks and have a small lacquered pin that reflects the specific battalion they are in at the time - maybe another for the brigade or command if applicable - on posting you take off your old unit pin and put on the new one. Other than the pins, no battalion quiffs allowed - none.

Actually different units have different background flashes on the beret. There is a ‘general service’ one, which those units rarely wear berets unless in dress. The units that proudly wear a beret have unique background flashes - Airborne/Airmobile from XVIII Airborne Corps, then USASOC units.

3) yup. get rid of kilts, hackles, funny hats etc.

Define funny hat

4) get back to blousing trousers with high boots (not puttees - I draw the line there). stop looking like bus drivers - look like soldiers.

Yuck. Blousing is neat for jumpers in dress uniform, but impractical for field/garrison work. Not sure what the new uniform has up there, but the current one down here has velcro on the legs so you can loosen or tighten the cuff as needed.

5) pants for everyone regardless of sex or preferred sex - sure, make sure the cut fits the body but everyone wears the same boots, pants, tunic and headdress. Uniform stands for "the same in all cases". Not "George gets to wear the red beret today and Eloise the wedgie"

You’ll take the Maroon berets out of some cold dead hands, and now that CANSOF is tan hat, that’s never going to happen to get everyone in the Army to green alone.
*yeah I guess the Armoured would want to keep black too.

I don’t see any issue with the different berets - the 1VP ADP folks who went to the Strats for a bit out on Black Berets and the world didn’t end.

Besides who needs a hat, it ruins the hair

6) put belts on uniforms - not those wimpy cloth things being proposed but a sturdy leather belt with a common army belt buckle - I'm not adverse to Sam Brownes.

Dress uniform only.

I'm sure that there are a few other things that have pissed me off over the years but that will do for the time being.