Yes, we are all part of the same army, and we are all CANADIANS, but my buddies are also part of my battalion family, and we are the custodians of the REGIMENTAL HISTORY, which in my case goes back to 1891. When we are on parade, in the armouries across Canada, and the OLD COMRADES are also there, watching us on the floor, we stand that much taller, knowing we are their legacy. We owe it to them to be the best, to make their loses in battle worthwhile, even now. This idea also makes a mockery of the idea that our history is not important to the young guys who will come along in the future. If we follow your idea, we will become a vanilla flavoured bland hodge-podge with no descernable identity, at all.

Feather bonnets, kilts, and sporrans are not practical items of clothing for soldiers now, BUT, they were issued in the past, and worn with great pride by my regiment, and we will continue to do so. Reserve units are being threatened with extinction, and the best way to avoid that is to be as active as possible in the community. Too manytimes, the local units are unseen, and unheard of by the public, except on annual parades, and at the Cenotaph, on November 11. This has to change, and the best way to change is to be in the public's eye as much as possible.

It is interesting to hear the "protectionists" of this issue. They claim all kinds of emotional attachment. The Brits who gave us this system, have done more with amalgamations and experimentation than I suspect any in Canada would approve. It's funny, a last outpost of the British Regimental system here in Canada, the first Dominion, paochial to the death. I like the system. The "system" is wonderful! But will we destroy an operational capability the nation needs for a simple issue of a capbadge, tartan, or bonnet?

I have served for 18 years is one regiment, bland by the militia's standards, but proud of my regiment. MY other units were equally distinct and I was proud of their traditions as well. But I soldiered on when circumstances caused me to move.

Sometimes we move, sometimes it moves on us. This is an interesting conversation.

As for uniforms, two will do just fine thanks.

Mkbb-- I believe your arguement in support of amalgamation was directed ,primarily, to Reg F units. Have you seen Reg F Inf RHQ/ career manager positions lately? There are more people, occuping these posn( RHQ only/ there is NO career management, at all!) at a Res F unit of 200 pers than at a Reg F Inf branch of appox 8000! I believe your point is not well defined. RE:Your comment on the IDF "looking sloppy" take a look at CDN inf units before D-Day and 30 Days later! Hello!!!! They have figured out you do not have to look "pretty" to do a job! We have not!

Good point about Canadians in Normandy. I'll also point out that the biggest trouble makers when the Canadian Army was in England (I'm talking about your real shit-disturbers who were always on charge parade) were among the most useful troops out in the field once the units were in action. Any number of regimental histories will tell you that.

I think your post about "we are not Americans" and how regimental pride is essential all goes to support what I was saying in the discussion about Trudeau earlier. I don't think our Army has ever recovered from Unification, nor do I think we ever will. Getting rid of the regiments altogether is just another inevitable extension of those policies, instituted by people who don't know and don't care. We could agree with each other til we're blue in the face.

go to http://www.c4mp.org - maybe they can do something?

There are costs associated with any administrative structure you create. In the case of reserve force regiments, you may find that "There are more people, occuping these posn( RHQ only/ there is NO career management, at all!) at a Res F unit of 200 pers than at a Reg F Inf branch of appox 8000!' as JRMACDONALD (Hi, WO Mac) said. You may also find that this doesn't cost a great deal in comparison with some other items.

I heard a Commander of LFWA say to a group of troops a few years ago that his HQ estimated that the amount of money spent by that HQ to administer the militia in the west was about $20,000,000 a year. This compares to the 1980s when the militia in the west was run by two area HQs, each with 40 people including about 15 full-timers each. If the 1980s HQs cost a similar amount to the new HQ, DND would have been paying about a quarter million dollars for each HQ wallah. I run a business which is fairly similar to an HQ in terms of information processing. My payroll costs are about 50 percent of my total costs including rent for office space and equipment and such. In HQ terms, this would have meant that the average (full-time and part-time) annual pay for the old HQ staff would have had to have been $125,000 per year to be equivalent to the new structure. I don't think that this was the case. Has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for area HQ?

I'm not sure how much the brigade HQs in the west cost in the year I heard the area commander, but in Alberta we had over 40 people (mostly full-time) doing a job that used to require a total of 48 people (about 12 full time) in two district HQs. Certainly, this change increased cost at the district/brigade level. Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for district/brigade HQs?

In the year I heard the area commander, my unit budget for full-time staff was about 1/3 of the total unit pay budget. A decade before, this would have been about 1/6. Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for full-time staff at unit level?

At higher levels, in the 80s FMC HQ had 14 Captains and above working for the DCOS Mil running the reserve army at a national level. Does anyone seriously suspect that there are fewer than 14 LCols and above involved in this now? Again, has the militia improved enough in the past decade to justify the probable increased cost for national-level command and control?

When considering whether it is worthwhile to have 11 LCols and 11 RSMs on class A service to command what is essentially 11 rifle companies worth of infantry in LFWA, consider that the total class A budget (about $20,000,000) for LFWA (including LCols and CWOs) in the year I heard the area commander was about the same as the reserve-allocated cost of LFWA HQ alone.

The adminstrative burden on a garrison of infantry (be it a company or a "battalion" that is really a company) nowadays requires a huge number of staff (mostly full-time) at various levels. This problem won't be solved by renaming the Royal Regina Rifles as B Coy, 10th Battalion, The Canadian Infantry.

There are certainly benefits to be had from letting a CO command a unit that actually has two or three or even four companies. Perhaps this should be done by moving money that is currently in the system from HQ functions to the armoury floor of our existing units rather than amalgamating or renaming units.

Ducimus
Rick

Equally troubling is the removal of support trades from the combat arms units - how far has this progressed everywhere else? In Calgary, our infantry unit lost its medics and Fin O. Rumours are flying about other "support" troops such as veh techs, wpns techs, logistics officers, storesmen, etc. Our medical sergeant was as proud a Highlander as ever was; regimental pride doesn't stop or start with the rifleman/gunners/troopers.

A company needs a company command staff, but a company also needs a Regimental command staff, unfortunately in the Molitia pratically every company has it's OWN Regimental HQ. All of these "RHQs" require (following normal, logical progression) Brigade, and Area staff as well. Fantastic isn't it? Jobs jobs jobs! Staffed by who? Officers. Who makes the "Rules" Re: manning? Officers. It only makes sense, the CO of any given unit is simply looking to preserve his own current job as well as any future job he might someday get. Just imagine if we were to reduce each Molitia unit to a level it could reasonably man (ie company level) the number of officers that would be out of a job! And what officer is going to back that?

Perhaps the answer is slower promotion rate for reserve officers to that of their Reg force peers. I spent eight years as a Section commander/2ic, and there's likely to be a few more before I go any further. How many Platoon Commanders can say the same? Heres a number to illuminate my point, my unit has around 100-150 on strength, 31 of which are officers. Few of which spent any longer than two or three years as a Pl comd maybe there wouldn't be so many floating around if they had to wait five to seven years before moving on to new command positions and perhaps a spinoff would be better pl comanders, company commanders etc.

WO Mac, while I'm not at all surprised that you wish to comment, I'm a little surprised that you've become this comfortable with "the Great Satan" (a computer).