Army Reserve Restructuring

[KevinB]

Wartime establishment for an Infantry Battalion is in the vicinity of 1k personnel.


I no longer recall what the wartime establishments are for the other units.
@dapaterson @Infanteer @McG and @TangoTwoBravo will probably have these off the top of their heads.

But if you look at the 9 Regular Force Inf Bn’s they aren’t even at their peacetime establishment. I will assume that the other Regular Force units are in similar states based on comments on this site.

I’m honestly not sure even with all the PRes Infantry mobilized that the 9 would be at wartime establishments - and that is just bare manning - not even talking about equipment.

To me the only way forward for the CA is a seamless ‘Total Force’.

Certain PRes trades may need to be created and other eliminated depending on the needs of the force.

Armoured Crewmen for the PRes to me is one of those trades that some (not all) need to be made into ‘Infantry Crewman’ (or Cavalry Crewmen if that makes it more palatable) in the fact they crew LAV, for Infantry Dismounts, especially in areas that no Reg Armor exist.

Artillery units can form firing batteries to make up the dearth of firing batteries in the RCHA.

British Columbia to me, there needs to be a major revamp as the terrain isn’t really suited to AFV’s. Light Mountain units would be where I would want those unit to be remade into.


If folks are set on Regimental lineages, I’m sorry but in 10 years, you can be replaced by someone who will have loyalty to 11 PPCLI (or whatever).

The CA needs a ruthless relook to make it viable.

 

[McG]

I am tracking that all wartime establishment positions have been deleted. There is only the actual in-use establishment and the fantasy ORBAT used at the Army’s staff college.

 

[Kirkhill]

"Battle taxi driver" is still "armoured vehicle crew". Someone has to be behind the wheel, but there are a lot of other fighting vehicle skills that have to be maintained. It's a step up from a jeep, and it's a heckuva step up from doing pointless pepper-potting across a local patch of grass shouting "bang, bang", and it's not like facing down the dreaded "re-roled to a MLBU".

Why wouldn't a career progress from Staff and Transport Driver, to Battle Taxi Driver, to Battle Taxi VC, to IFV Driver, to IFV Gunner, to IFV VC, to MBTs, to Recce?

All within the same unit wearing the same capbadge?

 

[Kirkhill]

British Columbia to me, there needs to be a major revamp as the terrain isn’t really suited to AFV’s. Light Mountain units would be where I would want those unit to be remade into.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why wouldn't a career progress from Staff and Transport Driver, to Battle Taxi Driver, to Battle Taxi VC, to IFV Driver, to IFV Gunner, to IFV VC, to MBTs, to Recce?

Focusing on one specialization is all a reservist has time for. General admin ech transport. Specialist admin ech transport (eg. fuel trucks). ROWPU operator. Fighting vehicle crew for MG-armed platform. Fighting vehicle crew for "light" turret. Fighting vehicle crew for "heavy" turret. Etc. Spend a handful of years doing that before moving up to "management", then a few more and out. The breadth of training expected of regulars isn't achievable by reservists unless they are ex-regulars, but it ends up the standards, which must be a substantial reason why almost nothing ever gets past platoon level.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Light Mountain units would be where I would want those unit to be remade into.

Not necessarily mountain, just light. I don't know what the modern definition of "mountain" is, but it used to include some pretty particular skills. Now it would be enough to endure bearing substantial loads and operating very light transport in any kind of difficult terrain in order to bring to bear a suite of weapons designed as much as possible to minimize their contribution to "substantial load".

 

[Kirkhill]

Focusing on one specialization is all a reservist has time for. General admin ech transport. Specialist admin ech transport (eg. fuel trucks). ROWPU operator. Fighting vehicle crew for MG-armed platform. Fighting vehicle crew for "light" turret. Fighting vehicle crew for "heavy" turret. Etc. Spend a handful of years doing that before moving up to "management", then a few more and out. The breadth of training expected of regulars isn't achievable by reservists unless they are ex-regulars, but it ends up the standards, which must be a substantial reason why almost nothing ever gets past platoon level.

Fair enough.

So set the path and let both reservists and regs walk it. If the reservist has the time and the inclination to walk it all the way to the end then great. If not, and the reservist halts at any given point along the route, the army gets a known quantity with a known set of skills. And one stop along that route could be "battle taxi driver" - potentially even mucking around in snow drifts in a BvS10 up back of Pemberton.

 

[KevinB]

I think that the amount of vehicles like that the CA would acquire (if it goes anywhere), that there are areas where they can better be employed.

 

[KevinB]

Not necessarily mountain, just light. I don't know what the modern definition of "mountain" is, but it used to include some pretty particular skills. Now it would be enough to endure bearing substantial loads and operating very light transport in any kind of difficult terrain in order to bring to bear a suite of weapons designed as much as possible to minimize their contribution to "substantial load".

With the understanding that this would be a 30/70 unit, I don't think that making a Mountain unit would be a hard task -- sure I doubt you will see PRes MOI's, but Basic Mountain Ops, and RM's there is no reason they can't.

 

[FJAG]

Wartime establishment for an Infantry Battalion is in the vicinity of 1k personnel.


I no longer recall what the wartime establishments are for the other units.
@dapaterson @Infanteer @McG and @TangoTwoBravo will probably have these off the top of their heads.

But if you look at the 9 Regular Force Inf Bn’s they aren’t even at their peacetime establishment. I will assume that the other Regular Force units are in similar states based on comments on this site.

Yes. My somewhat dated establishments put the strength of a LAV bn at around 590 and a light bn at around 560. The nearest analogue in the US is a Stryker battalion which comes in at 696 including the FSC but that also included 9 MGS at 27 folks so its now 669. Just for a giggle I went to the German Army website (the one in German has more info than the English one). It gives some figures on battalion size and they vary greatly from brigade to brigade. Tracked battalions hover around 730 to 850 while the Boxer ones generally are around 950 to 1000.

Interestingly while I was going through this I found that Panzergrenadierbataillon 908 of Panzergrenadierbrigade 41 of the 1st Panzer division - and which is smaller at 460 all ranks - is a 100% reserve battalion equipped with Marders. The other two - regular force - Panzergrenadierbattaillons number 401 and 411 number 730 and 850 respectively. The latter battalion has an extra company and all three battalions still use Marders.

I’m honestly not sure even with all the PRes Infantry mobilized that the 9 would be at wartime establishments - and that is just bare manning - not even talking about equipment.

I think in a worst case scenario the 50 some odd battalions should be able to mobilize a trained platoon each for a total of 1,750. That's roughly 200 per RegF battalion. You're right. That leaves some uncertainty as to how well that will bulk up the existing RegF battalions. I think it will bring it to full strength as per their current establishments. I'm as uncertain as you as to what a wartime establishment is and whether we hold the kit to create them.

To me the only way forward for the CA is a seamless ‘Total Force’.

Certain PRes trades may need to be created and other eliminated depending on the needs of the force.

I'm not sure about eliminated. There will clearly be some new ones needed especially in the logistics field.

Armoured Crewmen for the PRes to me is one of those trades that some (not all) need to be made into ‘Infantry Crewman’ (or Cavalry Crewmen if that makes it more palatable) in the fact they crew LAV, for Infantry Dismounts, especially in areas that no Reg Armor exist.

That to me is an interesting field. In my napkin force I've converted recce regiments to cavalry ones showing both a recce and anti armour sign. I'm quite interested in some of the discussions going on in the cavalry field at this time. For me, in each of the armoured brigades there is a recce squadron in the armoured regiment and recce platoons in the infantry battalions for "recce". The cavalry regiments are a different animal with a mandate to fight and a mixed bag of resources which should include both infantry dismounts, anti-armour teams and some sort of indirect fire systems (both linking back to brigade or div resources as well as integral ones.

Artillery units can form firing batteries to make up the dearth of firing batteries in the RCHA.

Frankly, screw the RCHA. Retain 1 RCHA for Latvia as a prepositioned 18 gun regiment with one fully manned battery and the rest for flyover. Make the rest 30/70 regiments based on existing ResF units across the board each with one full-time battery and two part-time batteries. Until the arty modernization project kicks into gear put 18 M777s in Latvia and distribute the rest at roughly 2-4 guns to the 30/70 regiments along with the 105s. Train on both and hold several flyover exercises annually.

British Columbia to me, there needs to be a major revamp as the terrain isn’t really suited to AFV’s. Light Mountain units would be where I would want those unit to be remade into.

I think that the coasts should each be light regiments (the III kind) consisting of an overstrength infantry battalion, a cavalry regiment, a Ranger Patrol Group and an overstrength CSS company and tasked with coastal activities. BC should be mountain trained. The Maritimes maybe amphibious.

If folks are set on Regimental lineages, I’m sorry but in 10 years, you can be replaced by someone who will have loyalty to 11 PPCLI (or whatever).

This is one of those things which is important to people but not to the reorganization. In fact rather than 11 PPCLI, I see RegF folks in urban centres become 48th Highlanders or Queen's Own Rifles and spend their entire career in Toronto. Quite frankly I consider the three infantry regimental power blocks the single most resistant element to change, right up there with the Reserves 2000 folks. You need to push a middle course that kicks both of them in the nuts.

The CA needs a ruthless relook to make it viable.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think that the amount of vehicles like that the CA would acquire (if it goes anywhere), that there are areas where they can better be employed.

I agree entirely. And that is my overlying point. That vehicle, and its unarmoured cousin the Beowulf, has general utility. It can be useful in Canada which results in motivation for effective training as well as a good investment of the taxpayer's dollar. And, it can be useful in virtually every deployment scenario one can envisage any where in the world in the full spectrum of operations.

More ACSVs or BvS10s/Beowulfs?

I'd opt for hundreds of the Swedish beasts every time.

 

[KevinB]

That to me is an interesting field. In my napkin force I've converted recce regiments to cavalry ones showing both a recce and anti armour sign. I'm quite interested in some of the discussions going on in the cavalry field at this time. For me, in each of the armoured brigades there is a recce squadron in the armoured regiment and recce platoons in the infantry battalions for "recce". The cavalry regiments are a different animal with a mandate to fight and a mixed bag of resources which should include both infantry dismounts, anti-armour teams and some sort of indirect fire systems (both linking back to brigade or div resources as well as integral ones.

To me CAV is one of those both Arm+Inf entities - I like the version we have down here for an ORBAT - but I would ditch the 19D GIB's to 11B

Frankly, screw the RCHA. Retain 1 RCHA for Latvia as a prepositioned 18 gun regiment with one fully manned battery and the rest for flyover. Make the rest 30/70 regiments based on existing ResF units across the board each with one full-time battery and two part-time batteries. Until the arty modernization project kicks into gear put 18 M777s in Latvia and distribute the rest at roughly 2-4 guns to the 30/70 regiments along with the 105s. Train on both and hold several flyover exercises annually.

I am utterly agnostic for Regimental stuff - I just figured 1-5 worked for the current (okay 5 RALC whatever).
I would like 18 gun regiments back - as well as a Div Arty MLRS (either M270 or HIMARS) 24 platform Regiment.

I think that the coasts should each be light regiments (the III kind) consisting of an overstrength infantry battalion, a cavalry regiment, a Ranger Patrol Group and an overstrength CSS company and tasked with coastal activities. BC should be mountain trained. The Maritimes maybe amphibious.

Amphibious to me is a bridge too far for Canada at this junction. I put it on the would be nice - but would require a large investment in the RCN and RCAF to get there.

This is one of those things which is important to people but not to the reorganization. In fact rather than 11 PPCLI, I see RegF folks in urban centres become 48th Highlanders or Queen's Own Rifles and spend their entire career in Toronto. Quite frankly I consider the three infantry regimental power blocks the single most resistant element to change, right up there with the Reserves 2000 folks. You need to push a middle course that kicks both of them in the nuts.

Again I was being more facetious with 11 PPCLI, I think Canadian Infantry Corps Bn 1-9 is easier with no different cap badges, accoutrements etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. My somewhat dated establishments put the strength of a LAV bn at around 590 and a light bn at around 560. The nearest analogue in the US is a Stryker battalion which comes in at 696 including the FSC but that also included 9 MGS at 27 folks so its now 669. Just for a giggle I went to the German Army website (the one in German has more info than the English one). It gives some figures on battalion size and they vary greatly from brigade to brigade. Tracked battalions hover around 730 to 850 while the Boxer ones generally are around 950 to 1000.

Interestingly while I was going through this I found that Panzergrenadierbataillon 908 of Panzergrenadierbrigade 41 of the 1st Panzer division - and which is smaller at 460 all ranks - is a 100% reserve battalion equipped with Marders. The other two - regular force - Panzergrenadierbattaillons number 401 and 411 number 730 and 850 respectively. The latter battalion has an extra company and all three battalions still use Marders.

I think in a worst case scenario the 50 some odd battalions should be able to mobilize a trained platoon each for a total of 1,750. That's roughly 200 per RegF battalion. You're right. That leaves some uncertainty as to how well that will bulk up the existing RegF battalions. I think it will bring it to full strength as per their current establishments. I'm as uncertain as you as to what a wartime establishment is and whether we hold the kit to create them.



I'm not sure about eliminated. There will clearly be some new ones needed especially in the logistics field.

That to me is an interesting field. In my napkin force I've converted recce regiments to cavalry ones showing both a recce and anti armour sign. I'm quite interested in some of the discussions going on in the cavalry field at this time. For me, in each of the armoured brigades there is a recce squadron in the armoured regiment and recce platoons in the infantry battalions for "recce". The cavalry regiments are a different animal with a mandate to fight and a mixed bag of resources which should include both infantry dismounts, anti-armour teams and some sort of indirect fire systems (both linking back to brigade or div resources as well as integral ones.

Frankly, screw the RCHA. Retain 1 RCHA for Latvia as a prepositioned 18 gun regiment with one fully manned battery and the rest for flyover. Make the rest 30/70 regiments based on existing ResF units across the board each with one full-time battery and two part-time batteries. Until the arty modernization project kicks into gear put 18 M777s in Latvia and distribute the rest at roughly 2-4 guns to the 30/70 regiments along with the 105s. Train on both and hold several flyover exercises annually.


I think that the coasts should each be light regiments (the III kind) consisting of an overstrength infantry battalion, a cavalry regiment, a Ranger Patrol Group and an overstrength CSS company and tasked with coastal activities. BC should be mountain trained. The Maritimes maybe amphibious.

This is one of those things which is important to people but not to the reorganization. In fact rather than 11 PPCLI, I see RegF folks in urban centres become 48th Highlanders or Queen's Own Rifles and spend their entire career in Toronto. Quite frankly I consider the three infantry regimental power blocks the single most resistant element to change, right up there with the Reserves 2000 folks. You need to push a middle course that kicks both of them in the nuts.

Bugger it all.

By decree. All infantry will now wear the RCR cap badge. All cavalry will now wear the RCD cap badge. Units and Sub-units are free to wear whatever morale patches they wish.

Carry on.

 

[KevinB]

Bugger it all.

By decree. All infantry will now wear the RCR cap badge. All cavalry will now wear the RCD cap badge. Units and Sub-units are free to wear whatever morale patches they wish.

Carry on.

It sort of makes sense - but then if back in the day The RCR had been all of the Canadian Infantry that would have solved the issue too.

If CAV are wearing the RCD, what do the Armour wear

 

[quadrapiper]

I consider the three infantry regimental power blocks the single most resistant element to change.

Keep #1 Battalion of each, and individually rebadge the other six? Canadian Guards for someone close to Ottawa, and suitable others.

 

[GR66]

Amphibious to me is a bridge too far for Canada at this junction. I put it on the would be nice - but would require a large investment in the RCN and RCAF to get there.

I guess it depends if you consider "amphibious" this:

Or something more like this:

or this:

 

[KevinB]

I guess it depends if you consider "amphibious" this:

Or something more like this:

or this:

Id say even the second two still need aviation support - so Helicopters and somewhere for Helicopters to be flying from.

Unlike European or some of the Pacific nations, Canada needs expeditionary forces.

 

[dapaterson]

If CAV are wearing the RCD, what do the Armour wear

Gravy stains.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am tracking that all wartime establishment positions have been deleted. There is only the actual in-use establishment and the fantasy ORBAT used at the Army’s staff college.

In the late 1960s an up to strength Mech Bn in 4CMBG had an establishment of 960. My memory says we never fell too far below that.

There were fly-overs (augmentees) on the books - one smallish group (25 pers?), as I recall, to evacuate families after the bn deployed and another larger group (50+?), (almost) all rank-and-file infantry, to be B Ech casualty replacements until proper reinforcement holding units were established.

 

[Kirkhill]

It sort of makes sense - but then if back in the day The RCR had been all of the Canadian Infantry that would have solved the issue too.

If CAV are wearing the RCD, what do the Armour wear

Foine... They all came out of the same school originally, and Dragoons are nuffink but mounted infantry ... They are all RCR.

And those self propelled field gun Leopard thingammyjigs can go to the RRCA along with the rest of the support guns and rockets.