Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[daftandbarmy]

Just thought I'd drop this here. It's a bit of confirmation bias in line with my thoughts on urban units/brigades which would allow members to serve their career in one area with any postings restricted to within the area. I was quite surprised at the expense of personnel moves within the US Army in comparison to other budget items. I presume the Canadian army has similar challenges not to mention the human turbulence costs.

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

 

[FJAG]

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

For a time there as a subbie I felt that we should all be better off if we were warrior monks. That could have worked but then they were shoving teachers and nurses at us in the officers' mess and well ...

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

I joined under a nine-year short service commission. Then Hellyer made it so that we all made captain automatically so long as we didn't piss in our Corn Flakes and even before that magic moment came we were all converted to indefinite engagements unless we absolutely insisted to stay SSCs. And - ta da - we were lifers.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

Yup. That's what happened. I was there to watch it happening all around me. We could all feel it happening. There were even a lot of folks who were in favour of it happening.

I actually think that it's not that hard to deliver on "normal" lives if there were two terms of service for people entering the RegF.

It starts with the 30/70 concept so that you can form hybrid brigades in places places like Toronto, London, Montreal, Quebec City, even Ottawa (amongst others).

Restricted terms of service would allow a recruit to select a geographic area of service for their career. It would provide the opportunity to rise as high as colonel or CWO 9possibly higher in some places) without ever leaving the region. Postings would be confined to within the brigade's area. They would be required to attend exercises or operational tours outside their regions, but members would have the option to decline career courses or promotion offers outside the specified geographic area. Think of the restricted terms of service like a long-term Class B contract where the individual can be moved around to other jobs in the region and where he has to go on exercises and on operations outside of the region when ordered to. Nonetheless it provides tremendous family advantages.

Unrestricted terms of service would be like we have now. It would have certain perks like enhanced career course and promotion opportunities.

During the course of their career, individuals could apply to change from one terms of service to the other, if positions are available and the service approves.

That's the outline sketch.

 

[OldSolduer]

Yup. That's what happened. I was there to watch it happening all around me. We could all feel it happening. There were even a lot of folks who were in favour of it happening.

I agree - the corporate CAF versus the CAF that had focus on its primary function. The language officers were using was a reflection of the distaste the civilian governments have for the military, except of course when it suits them for political gain.

We don't "kill" people - we "neutralize" them. We don't shoot down enemy aircraft - we "interdict". We don't "sink" ships" - in fact I am not sure what we do with ships.

General Hillier really ruffled feathers amongst some bureaucrats (military ones too) they wet their knickers at his saying terrorists were scumbags and needed to be killed. He was right.

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem, of course, is promising soldiers that they can have families and otherwise 'normal' lives.

We'd do far batter to hire people for 6 to 8 years, ride them like rented mules, then pay them off and place them onto a reserve list for reactivation as required.

Turning the CAF into a uniformed arm of the public service, if that is the idea, is a huge mistake.

Which, in my mind, inevitably leads to a Militia Army culturally distinct from the Ordnance. Sandhurst vs Woolwich if you like (Greenwich is an extension of Woolwich).

The Navy and the Air Force are engaged full time and the kit they go to war with is the same kit they are operating the day before.

The Army can put bodies on the shelf and withdraw them in time of need. But they have to put the training and maintenance effort in to ensure that those bodies on the shelf are sharp and not rusty.

The other key element is Ordnance needs to ensure that they have warehouses full of munitions for the Navy, Air Force and Army to employ "come the day".

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree - the corporate CAF versus the CAF that had focus on its primary function. The language officers were using was a reflection of the distaste the civilian governments have for the military, except of course when it suits them for political gain.

We don't "kill" people - we "neutralize" them. We don't shoot down enemy aircraft - we "interdict". We don't "sink" ships" - in fact I am not sure what we do with ships.

General Hillier really ruffled feathers amongst some bureaucrats (military ones too) they wet their knickers at his saying terrorists were scumbags and needed to be killed. He was right.

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

 

[PrairieFella]

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

That's bound to happen when you don't have an enemy for a decade. After Afghanistan and before the Ukraine War we had adversaries or rivals, not necessarily enemies. Since Putin unleashed his savagery on Europe, a lot of conversation and training scenarios now seem to be about popping Russkis. Comes and goes in waves I suppose.

 

[FJAG]

I read an article many years ago called "Where Have All the TIgers Gone?"

It dealt with this very subject - it was observed young officers were discussing retirement plans, stock portfolios and RRSPs instead of how to wage death and destruction upon enemies of the nation. Well, those enemies are still here, and still active.

That's bound to happen when you don't have an enemy for a decade. After Afghanistan and before the Ukraine War we had adversaries or rivals, not necessarily enemies. Since Putin unleashed his savagery on Europe, a lot of conversation and training scenarios now seem to be about popping Russkis. Comes and goes in waves I suppose.

Actually, the paper was written by Col DA Nicholson around the time of unification/integration. There used to be a copy and a rebuttal in the Regimental Rogue, but I'm having trouble with that web site at the moment. It seems down. Not sure if there is another way to access it.

@OldSolduer is quite right. It wasn't anything like the mere decade of no operations like post Afghanistan. It was written at what was still a very hot Cold War and really discussed the change in the profession of arms in Canada's army that started turning much of the officer corps into a green civil service and civilianizing the military. Officers became inward looking, nurturing their own careers instead of outward looking and nurturing their troops.

Not everybody saw it Col Nicholson's way.

We have a thread that discussed some of this Canadian Army Officer Training in War which starts with a quote from Gen Kip Kirby (my bde commander in Pet in the mid seventies) that reinforces that war time systems aren't all they are cracked up to be either.

Personally I think that there have always been tigers and sheep in the officer corps. What has changed perhaps over the years is the ratio of one to the other and how the system values each of them.

 

[Fabius]

Interestingly enough the Army has now formed a new Army Modernization Team comprised of a dedicated Col, some LCols and others who will be pulled in episodically for various SME items.
The remit is to figure out what the Army of 2040 needs to look like.

One aspect of CCAs D&G is that no units will be disbanded, although there is talk about how reroling or amalgamation can be considered. The Divisional structure in the Army is also up for discussion.
In theory there is supposed to be a decision made on the structure of 2040 next year in September of 2025.

 

[PrairieFella]

Interestingly enough the Army has now formed a new Army Modernization Team comprised of a dedicated Col, some LCols and others who will be pulled in episodically for various SME items.
The remit is to figure out what the Army of 2040 needs to look like.

One aspect of CCAs D&G is that no units will be disbanded, although there is talk about how reroling or amalgamation can be considered. The Divisional structure in the Army is also up for discussion.
In theory there is supposed to be a decision made on the structure of 2040 next year in September of 2025.

Pleasant surprise to see them spooking ahead in a timeframe things can actually be done. Let's hope some meaningful change is identified and they can inform procurement and policy.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Interestingly enough the Army has now formed a new Army Modernization Team comprised of a dedicated Col, some LCols and others who will be pulled in episodically for various SME items.
The remit is to figure out what the Army of 2040 needs to look like.

One aspect of CCAs D&G is that no units will be disbanded, although there is talk about how reroling or amalgamation can be considered. The Divisional structure in the Army is also up for discussion.
In theory there is supposed to be a decision made on the structure of 2040 next year in September of 2025.

If anything, expansion is required.

The continual talk about disbanding, amalgamating and 'realigning' organizations appeals to financial managers stuck in the present.

Expansion? The national defence realists planning for the future...

 

[Fabius]

Maybe. I would tend to think the reserve could use a heavy dose of disbanding/formal amalgamation (not our current Tactical groups). That is in addition to a lot of rerolling and none of that precludes concurrent expansion.
Expanding a broken structure would not help.

 

[KevinB]

If anything, expansion is required.

The continual talk about disbanding, amalgamating and 'realigning' organizations appeals to financial managers stuck in the present.

Expansion? The national defence realists planning for the future...

Surely you jest?

Right now you have equipment for basically 1 Bde, 2 if it’s low intensity.

You need equipment for 6 maneuver Bde’s, 2 Arty Bde’s, at least 1 Divisional asset pool (more Arty, Engineers, etc)

Then you need reformed units. For example

1CDN Light DIV
1 CLB
1-3 PPCLI

2 CLB
1-3 RCR

3 CMB
1-3 22eR

12 RBC

2 CDN Armoured Division.

4 CMB
1-3 Black Watch (RC)

RCD

5 CAB
1-2 Cdn Guard

LDSH (RC)

6 CAB
3-4 Cdn Guard
VIII CH (PL)

Back fill as needed.

 

[WestIsle]

Surely you jest?

Right now you have equipment for basically 1 Bde, 2 if it’s low intensity.

You need equipment for 6 maneuver Bde’s, 2 Arty Bde’s, at least 1 Divisional asset pool (more Arty, Engineers, etc)

Then you need reformed units. For example

1CDN Light DIV
1 CLB
1-3 PPCLI

2 CLB
1-3 RCR

3 CMB
1-3 22eR

12 RBC

2 CDN Armoured Division.

4 CMB
1-3 Black Watch (RC)

RCD

5 CAB
1-2 Cdn Guard

LDSH (RC)

6 CAB
3-4 Cdn Guard
VIII CH (PL)

Back fill as needed.

The problem is that the CA has remits and downsizing wont be a good look. Last push from NATO was 4 brigades(1 armored, 3 mech), division+ assets, and light infantry QRF. You are probably looking at 5 brigades there plus the division stuff. How we get there and what it looks like will be interesting as Ukraine seems to really show the limitations of overfocusing on the brigade as the main maneuverer element.

 

[Fabius]

Disbanding units does not equal losing PYs.

If you disband 2 reserve formation HQs and amalgamate the units of three reserve formations into a single formation with full strength actual units aligned with a mobilization task and purpose inside an overall Army structure, and all the PYs are still there; just at more correct ranks and positions; is it downsizing or something else?

 

[markppcli]

Interestingly enough the Army has now formed a new Army Modernization Team comprised of a dedicated Col, some LCols and others who will be pulled in episodically for various SME items.
The remit is to figure out what the Army of 2040 needs to look like.

One aspect of CCAs D&G is that no units will be disbanded, although there is talk about how reroling or amalgamation can be considered. The Divisional structure in the Army is also up for discussion.
In theory there is supposed to be a decision made on the structure of 2040 next year in September of 2025.

Blanket non approval of disbandment means no one wants to make a hard choice.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could just defund certain units and put them into "Caretaker Status" without actually disbanding them.

 

[KevinB]

Blanket non approval of disbandment means no one wants to make a hard choice.

Or is trying to lull people into a false sense of security…

 

[FJAG]

A small point.

Since the mid-1960s, the practice of disbanding units, either RegF or ResF, was changed to placing them on the "Supplementary Order of Battle." As an example, none of 3 RCHA nor 4 RCHA, nor 29 Fd Regt nor 42 Med Regt were disbanded, they were placed on the SoB.

3 RCHA and 4 RCHA, two RegF arty regts, were reduced to nil strength, placed on the SoB. Some of 4 RCHA's pers became redundant and the arty's PYs reduced and the pers either remustered or took voluntary release. 3 RCHA's became part of 1 RCHA as gunners were redistributed across the army when 4 CMBG stood down.

29 Fd and 42 Med, two ResF arty regts, were placed on the SoB, and had their personnel amalgamated into a new unit called 7 Toronto Regt RCA.

Units placed on the SoB can be returned to service as either RegF or ResF units. There are currently 3 armoured, 9 infantry (incl 1 RegF) and 23 artillery regiments (incl 2 RegF) on the SoB. Note that some RegF battalions/regts when reduced to nil strength - e.g. the Black Watch, Queen's Own Rifles, Fort Gary Horse - were not placed on the SoB but instead had their identity continued in their ResF counterparts.

Units can also come back from the SoB in various ways. The Halifax Rifles were re-established as a RegF unit. The Irish Fusiliers of Canada and the 19th Alberta Dragoons were brought back from the SoB and were merged into the BCR and the SALH respectively.

Whenever we speak about amalgamations, a number of thoughts run through my head, all having to do with mobilization.

Merging units or placing the redundant ones on the SoB, such as happened in the 60s, is easy and even allows for them to be revived when needed for mobilization. However, during the interval the identity and history and culture of units placed on the SoB is lost and needs to be reinvented.

My preference is in keeping unit identities clearly alive during merger. For example in a 30/70 or 25/75 hybrid unit, with one RegF and 2 or 3 ResF units each company could have its own identity and culture but still be combined in such a way that it is unified into one command under one CO thereby facilitating training and deployment. For me this is especially important if one of the objectives is rapidly expanding the force through recruiting and mobilization whereby one hybrid battalion (of some 3 or 4 identities) has the core to lead and train 3 or 4 new battalions worth of new recruits each with its own identity, history and culture perpetuated. I'm a believer in never wasting good. IMHO, the regimental system is good.

Incidentally I find a fair bit of hypocrisy within the RegF as to merger and placing units on the SoB. They'll readily want to merge ResF units because of manpower shortages but raise the issue of placing a 2nd or 3rd battalion or RegF regt on the SoB and the wailing starts. When the QOR, RHR, Cdn Gds, FGH, 8 CH and 4 RCHA all left the RegF order of battle you would have thought the world had ended.

$0.02

 

[daftandbarmy]

Blanket non approval of disbandment means no one wants to make a hard choice.

 

[FJAG]

Just a small add on to the above on the SoB. To the best of my knowledge, the Canadian Airborne Regiment was not placed on the SoB. It was disbanded.