• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Rank inflation/appointments/ranking above one's weight (split from CDS promos)

As far as my own, personal, experience is concerned: we were (and I believe you, serving members, still are) always mired in Camp 2. Only the country changed from the UK to the US.

The fact was that neither model served us well.
   
      The Brits had (maybe still have) a better ~ far better in my, personal, opinion ~ C2 model, but almost everything else, especially the socialization model, was unsuitable.
   
      The Americans have - my opinion, again - a poor C2 model. Their socialization model might be better now, but when I served (60s, 70s, 80s and 90s) it was, mostly, a failure.

I worked in the C2 system business for a (blessedly short) while back in the late 1970s. My lasting impression was that our, Canadian, view was the opinion of the senior officer present at any moment, and that opinion was "informed" by his (they were all men in those days) most recent visit to Brussels, London or Washington and was totally unencumbered by anything like research or thought.​

There are, in my view, a handful of principles that can and should guide C2. One of them is understanding the role and functions of command and staff. I'm not sure most of you, the CF, from Gen Lawson down to OS ____ in the recruit school, do understand that. At least that's my impression based on the actions and opinions of many (most?) of the people in the upper levels of the CF, in so far as I can see and hear them.

One principle I, personally, regard as important is clarity. I think the C2 system, especially the chain of command and the system of control must be absolutely clear and unambiguous ~ especially in a real crisis when people are tired, frightened and confused. Clarity often equates to simplicity and we should know that simple things are, usually, robust things and robust things (and systems) work best in war.

One way to ensure clarity is to make sure that everyone knows who gives the orders (commanders) and who does the management of resources (the staff). The simplest way to understand that is by rank. We all understand ranks. Higher rank = authority and responsibility. So, if the division commander, let's say, is a two star and his brigade commanders are colonels then I would argue that the divisional staff should always, without exception, ever, be outranked by the brigade commanders ~ so that there is no possibility, ever, of any confusion about who commands. That means that the principle staff officers in a Div HQ must be LCols (or even lower). (If you think the COS Ops and COS Adm&Log at Div HQ should be Cols (and I do) then I would (and do) argue that the brigade commanders ought to be BGens.) If the principle commandrrs of commands in the CF are VAdms/LGens then the principle staff officers in NDHQ ~ the guys and gals who plan and manage CF combat operations ~ ought to be RAdms/MGens. I think we have failed the clarity (simplicity) test - everywhere.


Edit to add: "most of" I'm sure, I know for a fact, that some people do understand that but I am equally certain that many, too many, do not.
 
Contributing nothing but bitchin'.....

Jim Seggie said:
Same here. Camp 3 uses common sense.......rather than inferiority complexes and penis envy to solve problems.
Sadly, I don't live in Camp 3; I used to think I could see it just down the lane, but I'm increasingly thinking that distant shimmering was just a mirage.

In my Camp, B-Vehicles are parked because of support 'issues,' boots & mukluks are problematic, it's better for Infantry soldiers to divide the day between hangar cleaning / classrooms of non-warfighting powerpoints than to waste that day on a PWT range, exercise planners must include the Base Fire Chief in Ex Development, Safety directives stating "soldiers with weapons cannot smoke because the gun-oil could ignite," ......but hey, we've got pips & crowns on order, Chinese-made 1812 pins, sign-painters are having a field day appending "Royal" and "Divisional" to everything.....so apparently things are good.

Mind you, the guys on the other side of Camp keep getting told things like "your fixed-wing SAR aircraft is enroute....along with the Sea King replacement," and "tie-up to the jetty,  but send x-number of sailors across to that other ship." 
Those tribes seems upset about things like that.  :dunno:


Edit: on proofreading, I see I mentioned nothing relating to the thread's title, so......there are some places within my Camp, that groups of 50-60 soldiers require a LCol, 3-4 Maj, a CWO and 2-3 MWOs for provide adequate leadership.  Those troops must be awesomely well-led.
 
In my unit(s) we have one LCol, two majors, three Captains, a few OCdts, one CWO, One MWO (on ED&T due to health issues.....the poor bugger has cancer) two WOs for about 230-250 troops, of whom just over 100 parade.

 
Is that for both units sharing the Armouries?  I know of one armoury that is shared by two units and has a parallel HQ for both units, including RSS staff.
 
Both units are tactically grouped under one CO and one RSM.
Infanteer said:
Is that for both units sharing the Armouries?  I know of one armoury that is shared by two units and has a parallel HQ for both units, including RSS staff.
 
Jim Seggie said:
In my unit(s) we have one LCol, two majors, three Captains, a few OCdts, one CWO, One MWO (on ED&T due to health issues.....the poor bugger has cancer) two WOs for about 230-250 troops, of whom just over 100 parade.

A bit harsh putting an MWO on Extra Drill & Training, isn't it?
 
Kat Stevens said:
A bit harsh putting an MWO on Extra Drill & Training, isn't it?
ED&T = Exempt Drill and Training

Figured I would peek around and drop that in with the hopes that your post wasn't sarcastic.  50/50 shot  ;D
 
Canadian.Trucker said:
ED&T = Exempt Drill and Training

Figured I would peek around and drop that in with the hopes that your post wasn't sarcastic.  50/50 shot  ;D

Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it could happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts

(...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im  :nod:  )
 
Journeyman said:
Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it could happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts

(...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im  :nod:  )
That's why I threw the caveat in there.
 
Journeyman said:
Kat Stevens...making a sarcastic post.....I'm sure it could happen -- I mean it's stretch, but I'm sure he's sarcastic in no more than 6/10 posts

(...the other 4/10 are merely rude. Gotta love 'im  :nod:  )

I refuse to answer under advice of council, as to do so might tend to incriminate me.
 
Jim Seggie said:
Both units are tactically grouped under one CO and one RSM.
Does that mean the other CO and RSM do not exist?  I have heard of tactically grouped reserve units where both RHQ still exist and take turns (alternating years) as the controlling HQ.  I would like to think that is not the case.
 
MCG said:
Does that mean the other CO and RSM do not exist?  I have heard of tactically grouped reserve units where both RHQ still exist and take turns (alternating years) as the controlling HQ.  I would like to think that is not the case.

The  CO is a Cameron Highlander and the RSM is a Rifle. The next CO in all likelihood will be a Cameron and the next RSM will probably be a Rifle.

There are no Rifle LCols or Cameron CWOs. Our issue in the west is recruiting and retaining the good ones.
 
Jim Seggie said:
The  CO is a Cameron Highlander and the RSM is a Rifle. The next CO in all likelihood will be a Cameron and the next RSM will probably be a Rifle.

There are no Rifle LCols or Cameron CWOs. Our issue in the west is recruiting and retaining the good ones.

The "R" in RSM stands for "Recycled".  I know several CWOs who are on their second and third RSM tours with different units.  It has become increasingly difficult to force generate Infantry CWOs (and MWOs).  There are a lot of capable and competent WOs and MWOs but due to the scarcity of DP3B, DP4 and SLP vacancies in the Army Reserve, we cannot get them the qualification courses required to advance. 
 
Haggis said:
The "R" in RSM stands for "Recycled".  I know several CWOs who are on their second and third RSM tours with different units.  It has become increasingly difficult to force generate Infantry CWOs (and MWOs).  There are a lot of capable and competent WOs and MWOs but due to the scarcity of DP3B, DP4 and SLP vacancies in the Army Reserve, we cannot get them the qualification courses required to advance.

Agreed. I am on my first tour as RSM. In addition, many of our top performers have very good civilian careers and their civvie employers are sometimes.....reluctant to give our troops the requisite time off to complete their courses.
 
Legally, the Cameron Highlanders are a unit of the Canadian Forces, embodied in the Reserve Force, and allocated to 38 CBG.  The Royal Winnipeg Rifles are a unit of the Canadian Forces, embodied in the Reserve Force, and allocated to 38 CBG.

Right now, the same individuals are appointed to fill the position of CO and RSM in both units.  While I suspect HRMS can't handle one person / two positions, that's the reality on the ground.

So there are establishment positiosn for two command teams; only one set is currently filled.
 
Interesting to see how all this tac grouping is playing out in 38 CBG. I was COS when we put forward the original submissions to LGen Mike Jeffries' Army Reserve restructure process (can't remember the acronym anymore...)

The Gunners (including their Hons) were quite happy to go well beyond tac gp and simply amalgamate into "38 Fd Regt RCA". We put this amalgamation idea forward and not only was it shot back at us like a hot potato by the Army staff with the warning never to speak or write the "A" word again: our Bde Comd of the day also received a rather menacing phone call from a fairly senior person in the lobby group Reserve 2000, dropping all sorts of innuendo (not to say "threats"...) about what would happen if we pursued this heresy. We also wanted to amalgamate our three feeble and struggling Service Battalions: this had general consensus but never happened when I was there.

At the time, there was absolutely no appetite on the part of any of the Infantry either for tac gp or for amalgamation, nor did we ever think there would be: it's interesting to see how the arrangement between the Rifles and the Camerons has developed.

The manning and retention problems you are describing now were already a big struggle for us then, particularly in Thunder Bay where there were too many CF Res organizations of various types for a static/declining population base. SK, except for the SaskD, was not much better.
 
Pusser said:
This is very true, but is not limited to generals.  The CF has a tendency to expect more of its officers at lower ranks (e.g. We employ captains to do what other armies would use a major for).  This has led to problems on international missions where very bright, experience and capable Canadian captains are virtually ignored because they're "only" captains.  Mind you in most of allies' armies, promotion to major is automatic.

Agree and disagree. Most of the world's Armies (and the USMC) use a Capt as the commander of a coy/bty/sqn or equivalent. It tends to be only us Commonwealth types who use Majs. I've had US officers tell me that our system is a trainwreck of over-ranking that must produce a huge pile of Majs looking for jobs after they've had sub-unit command. In some former Eastern-bloc armies, rank is not tied that closely to level of command: companies are usually commanded by Capts, and battalions can be commanded by Majs.

That said, having been a company commander on operations, I think that we actually have the better arrangement in terms of the experience and maturity you have in your Coy HQ: a Maj, a fairly experienced Capt  as 2IC, maybe another as OpsO (maybe), a Sgt Maj and an experienced WO as CQMS. I'll grant that's ideal manning but that's the template. On the kinds of semi-autonomous operations which sub-units often find themselves engaged in these days, it's good to have that team, both for ops and to set up and run good sub-unit training.

I do agree that Canadians tend to stack up quite well against other militaries. I'm getting a bit out of date, but I think that we are almost unequalled at the Sgt/WO/Sgt Maj level, and again at the staff-trained Capt. Give me one good staff-trained Canadian Capt and I'll trade you a sack full of Majs and LCols from most of the armies I've come into contact with. (Most--not all). Our Majs and LCols are better than their equivalents in pretty well anybody else's army, and as good as their immediate superiors in a lot of armies.

Its at Col and above that we start to fall apart when compared to our closest allies. With a few very honourable exceptions, most US and UK GOs I've seen are quite superior to Canadians. Perhaps it comes from having "real" command jobs.
 
It was "Land Force Reserve Restructure" or LFRR.

Since then, the Res Svc Bn amalgamations were done nation wide, giving one per Res Bde now.  Of course, Inf, Armd and Arty are sacred, so we can't do the same there.

Reserves 2000 is a band of mathematically challenged blowhards, who don't understand that an Army Reserve of 20K, all ranks, can never support 51 infantry Bns and 18 Armd and 17 Arty and 10 Engr and 10 CSS and 10 Sigs and 5 Int and 10 Bde HQs, and still have any meaningful number of troops below each HQ.
 
dapaterson said:
......5 6 Int Coys.....
Having an Int Coy in Toronto and an Int Pl in Ottawa only allowed for 1 Major line-serial.....so now they're both Int Coys.

......and don't forget the IA cultists  ;)
 
Journeyman said:
Having an Int Coy in Toronto and an Int Pl in Ottawa only allowed for 1 Major line-serial.....so now they're both Int Coys.

......and don't forget the IA cultists  ;)

Not sure where #6 came from - one per LFA + the pl now a Coy = 6.

But it wouldn't surprise me to see another pop up - sort of like whack a mole.
 
Back
Top