South Alberta Light Horse Regiment to amalgamate with larger reserve force

[markppcli]

So why not nil strength every PRes Infantry regiment and re number them as companies. Or whatever method you choose to name them.

I’d still group them as Bns, but sure sounds good to me. That’s actually the origins of my old Alma mater - the Rocky Mountsin Rangers, a series of independent rifle companies across B.C.

 

[OldSolduer]

I’d still group them as Bns, but sure sounds good to me. That’s actually the origins of my old Alma mater - the Rocky Mountsin Rangers, a series of independent rifle companies across B.C.

Maybe name them after the communities they originate in. Ie The Winnipeg Infantry

 

[quadrapiper]

Maybe name them after the communities they originate in. Ie The Winnipeg Infantry

What? Not after an ethnic group that might not even have been the dominant one in the unit at formation, definitely isn't now, but comes with the fanciest uniforms available?

 

[shiska]

Maybe name them after the communities they originate in. Ie The Winnipeg Infantry

Gosh you could even have a nod to the fact that theyre amalgamated. Maybe call them a tactical group?

 

[Gorgo]

/sarcasm/

My proposal for the mess in Alberta: Tactically unite the SALH and the KOCR as the 41st Cavalry Group, with each squadron given local designations ("Calgary" Squadron, "Medicine Hat" Squadron and "Edmonton" Squadron). Allow the members of the first two squadrons to wear their old regiment's hat badges, then have the 19th Alberta Dragoons administratively brought back for "Edmonton" Squadron).

Of course, I strongly doubt the folks of the Sally Horse would like the latter suggestion.

/normal/

 

[WinnipegFella]

/sarcasm/

My proposal for the mess in Alberta: Tactically unite the SALH and the KOCR as the 41st Cavalry Group, with each squadron given local designations ("Calgary" Squadron, "Medicine Hat" Squadron and "Edmonton" Squadron). Allow the members of the first two squadrons to wear their old regiment's hat badges, then have the 19th Alberta Dragoons administratively brought back for "Edmonton" Squadron).

Of course, I strongly doubt the folks of the Sally Horse would like the latter suggestion.

/normal/

Sounds a little convoluted. Honestly, just pick a winner and loser. Sorry BCDs, you're now BCRs. Sorry SALH, you're no KOCR. Sorry Sask D, you're now FGH (although RRR would make more sense). If the CMBGs only have 1 armoured unit, the CBGs probably only need one too. I hate that we're at that point but equipment is so scarce for Armd ARes units I think we don't have a choice.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sounds a little convoluted. Honestly, just pick a winner and loser. Sorry BCDs, you're now BCRs. Sorry SALH, you're no KOCR. Sorry Sask D, you're now FGH (although RRR would make more sense). If the CMBGs only have 1 armoured unit, the CBGs probably only need one too. I hate that we're at that point but equipment is so scarce for Armd ARes units I think we don't have a choice.

I'd go one step further and form the 41st Combined Arms Group with the SALH and the KOCR each supplying a squadron and the Eddies and Cal His supplying a company each. The Squadrons and Companies are supplied with Reserve Captains. The Group is commanded by a Reg Lt Col and his Majors.

The Regiments can continue as local, non-tactical entities supplying community support in the same way they support Cadet Corps.

 

[WinnipegFella]

I'd go one step further and form the 41st Combined Arms Group with the SALH and the KOCR each supplying a squadron and the Eddies and Cal His supplying a company each. The Squadrons and Companies are supplied with Reserve Captains. The Group is commanded by a Reg Lt Col and his Majors.

The Regiments can continue as local, non-tactical entities supplying community support in the same way they support Cadet Corps.

Why overhaul doctrine and create Russian-style BTGs when we should probably just take the path of least resistance and operate within our current framework. Sure we probably have a few too many COs but by just amalgamating the armoured units, you still eliminate 50% of the required command teams. At the end of the day, too many command teams is probably the 999th most important problem we have out of a 1000 in the MO. Chiefly, it's kit, ammunition and the problems that spiral off of that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why overhaul doctrine and create Russian-style BTGs when we should probably just take the path of least resistance and operate within our current framework. Sure we probably have a few too many COs but by just amalgamating the armoured units, you still eliminate 50% of the required command teams. At the end of the day, too many command teams is probably the 999th most important problem we have out of a 1000 in the MO. Chiefly, it's kit, ammunition and the problems that spiral off of that.

We can call it a Russian BTG or we can call it a US Combined Arms Battalion. It is the same construct employed differently. (Actually it isn't the same construct as somebody will be along to tell us shortly - the BTG includes Gunners, Engineers, Loggies and a bunch more bits and pieces while the Combined Arms Battalion is an Infantry - Armo(u)r organization). Our doctrine calls for mix-n-match forces with various types of command and control depending on the situation, so I don't see a problem with sub-units being raised and combined in "permanent" units. Those "permanent" units may only be notional, garrison, training units that are ripped apart for deployment but they would form a cohesive unit for immediate use.

As to the Reg Lt Col and Majors and Reserve Captains I admit to letting my historical biases influence this. Traditionally the field grade officers are Colonels, Lt Cols and Majors. You can tell them apart because they wear the Crown. Captains and lower only have Pips. The Field Grade officers are the Colonel, his Lieutenant and his senior sergeant, or sergeant Major. Just like the Captain-General, has his Lieutenant General and his senior sergeant Major General. 'Pologies, favourite digression of mine.

More to the point the Field Officers gained their authority directly from the Crown or State. The Captain, historically again, raised his company, be it a company of fusiliers or a ships company, from the local community, and then was required to regiment them under the direction of the people considered to be Field Officers.

To my way of thinking this still works for a Canadian reserve system. A Captain can recruit, raise and train a body of soldiers that can put their clothes on right, salute the right people, march, run, shoot, read a map, communicate, dig a hole and perform first aid. She could even be expected to get her sections acting in a coherent manner. But I have not been convinced that there are enough hours in the year available to the Reserves to make even companies and company officers proficient in combined arms operations.

Consequently I would look to the Regs to supply the Field Grade officers and their Warrant Officers to conduct higher level training and administration.

Having said that, the Regs would have to want to do the job and the Reserves would have to want them to do it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Having said that, the Regs would have to want to do the job and the Reserves would have to want them to do it.

I can guess that a confidential poll would find that the overwhelming majority of reservists - the ones not in or imminently lining up for a CO's or RSM's appointment - would like that. The fact that occasional ex-Reg thuds have wound up in high positions in Res F units isn't proof that nothing but thuds would ever be found to hold the reins, and I can also guess that the quality of leadership and management would be less hit-and-miss.

 

[WinnipegFella]

We can call it a Russian BTG or we can call it a US Combined Arms Battalion. It is the same construct employed differently. (Actually it isn't the same construct as somebody will be along to tell us shortly - the BTG includes Gunners, Engineers, Loggies and a bunch more bits and pieces while the Combined Arms Battalion is an Infantry - Armo(u)r organization). Our doctrine calls for mix-n-match forces with various types of command and control depending on the situation, so I don't see a problem with sub-units being raised and combined in "permanent" units. Those "permanent" units may only be notional, garrison, training units that are ripped apart for deployment but they would form a cohesive unit for immediate use.

As to the Reg Lt Col and Majors and Reserve Captains I admit to letting my historical biases influence this. Traditionally the field grade officers are Colonels, Lt Cols and Majors. You can tell them apart because they wear the Crown. Captains and lower only have Pips. The Field Grade officers are the Colonel, his Lieutenant and his senior sergeant, or sergeant Major. Just like the Captain-General, has his Lieutenant General and his senior sergeant Major General. 'Pologies, favourite digression of mine.

More to the point the Field Officers gained their authority directly from the Crown or State. The Captain, historically again, raised his company, be it a company of fusiliers or a ships company, from the local community, and then was required to regiment them under the direction of the people considered to be Field Officers.

To my way of thinking this still works for a Canadian reserve system. A Captain can recruit, raise and train a body of soldiers that can put their clothes on right, salute the right people, march, run, shoot, read a map, communicate, dig a hole and perform first aid. She could even be expected to get her sections acting in a coherent manner. But I have not been convinced that there are enough hours in the year available to the Reserves to make even companies and company officers proficient in combined arms operations.

Consequently I would look to the Regs to supply the Field Grade officers and their Warrant Officers to conduct higher level training and administration.

Having said that, the Regs would have to want to do the job and the Reserves would have to want them to do it.

Honestly seems like a recipe for disaster. I can't see the associated Reg Regts willingly handing out competent senior officers to a reserve unit for 3 years, especially with the critical manning shortages in the RegF. So you'll get the indifferent and incompetent that need a posting at best, you'll get the abusive and malicious at worst. Granted there will be an all-star or two mixed in the fray. Seems like a great way to kill what remaining Reserve units that are still functional. Maybe that's just my cynicism talking.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly seems like a recipe for disaster. I can't see the associated Ref Regts willingly handing out competent senior officers to a reserve unit for 3 years, especially with the critical manning shortages in the RegF. So you'll get the indifferent and incompetent that need a posting at best, you'll get the abusive and malicious at worst. Granted there will be an all-star or two mixed in the fray. Seems like a great way to kill what remaining Reserve units that are still functional. Maybe that's just my cynicism talking.

Any plan can be made to fail. It only works if it is in the interest of people to make it work. If you are one of 7 majors in a 2 company battalion and you are given the opportunity to bring a company of your own into the field you might feel a greater sense of engagement. Particularly if your promotion depends on it.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Consequently I would look to the Regs to supply the Field Grade officers and their Warrant Officers to conduct higher level training and administration.

Having said that, the Regs would have to want to do the job and the Reserves would have to want them to do it.

Remembering when that happened during 10/90 and the abuse that was dealt out to the ARes by some of their RegF 'mentors' remains the stuff of (bad) legend

 

[Kirkhill]

Remembering when that happened during 10/90 and the abuse that was dealt out to the ARes by some of their RegF 'mentors' remains the stuff of (bad) legend

As I said ... any plan can be made to fail.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As I said ... any plan can be made to fail.

Oh, so you must be talking about when we 'augmented' the Reg F Airborne with an ARes Platoon?

Probably the worst experience of my 40+ year career... until 10/90 came along of course

Al that whining to say that the ARes-RegF interface needs a good rethink, IMHO...

 

[WinnipegFella]

Remembering when that happened during 10/90 and the abuse that was dealt out to the ARes by some of their RegF 'mentors' remains the stuff of (bad) legend

Do tell, I always thought 10/90 on paper seemed interesting.

 

[WinnipegFella]

As I said ... any plan can be made to fail.

I mean that cuts both ways. It's unrealistic to ramrod a plan a few times and expect different results. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh, so you must be talking about when we 'augmented' the Reg F Airborne with an ARes Platoon?

Probably the worst experience of my 40+ year career... until 10/90 came along of course

Al that whining to say that the ARes-RegF interface needs a good rethink, IMHO...

It could probably start by thinking about what the ARes can actually supply given the realities of the dollars, bodies and hours available and then not asking too much of them.

The keeners can go the Class B/C route and fall in with the Regs for the duration.

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean that cuts both ways. It's unrealistic to ramrod a plan a few times and expect different results. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

Well, if every plan fails every time then you might as well pack it in and save everybody the aggravation.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS ...

I once heard tell of a unit that was formed as an elite that ended up being disbanded in unsalubrious circumstances. Rumour has it that some folks that were posted there were not favoured in their parent units.

Any plan can be made to fail.