Poll

The RCN has its old rank titles and executive curl back.  What should be the next step for the CF rank structure?

Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone.
120 (58.5%)
Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
40 (19.5%)
Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.
1 (0.5%)
Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
9 (4.4%)
Copy the UK rank system - it is the prototype anyway.
17 (8.3%)
Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.
2 (1%)
Create a whole new Canadian system.
8 (3.9%)
Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.
7 (3.4%)
Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn
1 (0.5%)

Total Members Voted: 204

Author Topic: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation  (Read 1918812 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

tmbluesbflat

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #25 on: February 17, 2004, 22:46:00 »
RSM WO1
responsible for dress and deportment all ranks etc
 I used to know all this stuff, sometimers I guess

Offline Spr.Earl

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 325
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Grizzled Old Veteran
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #26 on: February 18, 2004, 05:05:00 »
It was a political thing to make it look like we had a Force with qualifaction‘s.
If you go back in time the C.F. promotion‘s were based on a merit system.
Now it‘s time served plus if you have your course.

Which is wrong!
First of all it must be on merit along with your Qual.‘s as it was in the old day‘s!
If you have not earned it you don‘t get promoted!
But you still get your pay raise‘s in regard‘s to time and course‘s taken with in your rank.

I know of one dip stick many years ago who was promoted to M/Cpl before he retired just to be nice and to boost his pension he came back and joined the Militia and becaause he had his Snr Nco‘s course came in as a Sgt and was a right numpty.

Promotion‘s should be on merit,not if you have the course or time in.

Yes the old system had it‘s good point‘s and bad but after all this time why have we not learnt to combine both?

Yes merit counts!

Yes P.C. has done it again  :mad:
THE PRECEDING POST AND OTHERS MADE BY MYSELF ARE MY PERSONAL VIEWS, NOT FOR REPRODUCTION, NOT FOR CUT AND PASTE OF ANY PORTION THEREOF, NO QUOTES ARE PERMITTED ELSEWHERE,ANYWHERE OTHER THAN EXCLUSIVELY IN THIS WEB FORUM.




UBIQUE
Be Safe

Offline Aquilus

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2003, 03:35:00 »
According to the opposition white paper "the new north strong and free",

 
Quote
Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
1997, “... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporals”. “Ranks”, he said
“should be rolled back at all levels”.
Wondering if anyone had thoughts on our rank structure. changes, cuts, additions, and all that.  :cdn:

Ruthless4Life

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2003, 07:11:00 »
I‘m not sure about losing the past tradition just because of this guy that‘s not even in the military is whining about the infrastucture.

Ruthless

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -1,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,778
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2003, 09:40:00 »
Granatstein was actually an officer, or at the least, attended RMC.
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -1,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,778
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2003, 09:47:00 »
Nonetheless, the idea that there are six too many ranks is ridiculous.  Look at the different levels of command, and you can see the need for them.

Soldier
Section 2 i/c
Section commander
Platoon 2 i/c
Platoon Commander
Company Sergeant Major
Company 2 i/c
Company Commander
Regimental Sergeant Major
Battalion 2 i/c
Battalion commander

You thus get

Soldier - Corporal
Section 2 i/c  - Master Corporal
Section commander - Sergeant
Platoon 2 i/c  - Warrant Officer
Platoon Commander - Lieutenant
Company Sergeant Major - Master Warrant Officer
Company 2 i/c  - Captain
Company Commander - Major
Regimental Sergeant Major - Chief Warrant Officer
Battalion DCO - Major
Battalion commander - Lieutenant Colonel

With the rank of Private and 2nd Lieutenant for an officer or soldier in training.

One might argue the need for the rank of "colonel"; it has never been a combat rank anyway, though now they have colonel in charge of brigades.

The real problem is not the number of ranks but the number of men filling high positions and drawing high salaries.  I‘m thinking more of officers in research establishments, etc., but of course we all know the story about how we have more generals now than were on the establishment of First Canadian Army at the height of WW II.

I‘d love to know which ranks Doctor Granatstein thinks we need to cut out.  Is this an accurate quote?  I don‘t think he was talking about deleting ranks, I think he meant there were too many men holding too high a rank for their job.

It used to be a Corporal commanded a section, not a Sergeant.
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

rolandstrong

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2003, 11:39:00 »
You would know about htis than I Michael, but isn‘t this a return to the older system, with a corporal having more weight, etc.?

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,315
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2003, 11:58:00 »
A return to the old system was exactly what Granatstein was asking for in the book.

Offline Aquilus

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 371
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2003, 17:22:00 »
Yes the quote i put up is a complete quote of the part of recommendation 28 that had concern of ranks. I‘ve also included recommendation 29.
 
Quote
Recommendation 28: The Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) system of
promotion must be simplified, evaluating candidates on merit, valour and
operational effectiveness considerations alone.
Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
1997, “... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporals”. “Ranks”, he said
“should be rolled back at all levels”.26
Recommendation 29: The rank structure of the CF should be reviewed.
Enlisted ranks above the rank of private/ordinary seaman should be
designated as leadership positions, promotion to which would be based
on merit, valour and leadership considerations alone.
Experimentation with social engineering over the last decade has severely
undermined morale and operational effectiveness. The Employment Equity Act
of 1995, for instance has led to the establishment of recruiting quotas to increase
representation for so-called “designated groups” in the armed forces. In the
process, training standards have been lowered in order to achieve artificial
objectives (see Appendix).
Due to the inherently discriminatory nature of these various measures, the
Canadian Alliance opposes them on principle. The Alliance policy declaration,
updated and reaffirmed in April 2002, states: “Every [federal government] job
shall go to the most qualified applicant without the use of affirmative action or any
other type of discriminatory quota system”.
One of the great strengths of the Canadian military has always been the high
quality of its training and professionalism. As these are eroded, the value of the
Canadian Forces also declines. It was for these reasons that Professor Jack
Granatstein warned the Prime Minister in 1997: “... training standards must not
be lowered further (the [Canadian] army is already one of the mildest training
armies in the West) to achieve quotas. Otherwise operational effectiveness will
be severely weakened”.27

Offline combat_medic

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 2,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,537
  • Mod of burninating
    • Seaforth Highlanders of Canada
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2003, 18:44:00 »
OK, NO ONE had better do ANYTHING to the rank (appointment) of Master Corporal until I get my hands on it... I‘m too bloddy close now!
"If you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck." - Paracowboy

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • -1,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,778
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2003, 19:29:00 »
Roland, I actually know less about this than some of the other "older" hands - I believe the link provided goes to a great discussion about this.

I still don‘t see how Granatstein can get rid of "six or eight" ranks.  Maybe I should post at his messageboard again!
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline PikaChe

  • I'm not a communist. I just work for them
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,563
  • Pika la Revolución!
Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?

Yay or nay?

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 57,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,202
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2004, 13:54:00 »
I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline NFLD Sapper

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 263,941
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,881
  • CFSME Instr
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2004, 14:34:00 »
Quote
I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?
I belive they lost it during unification

   
Quote
Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?
Then why not bring it back for the Engineers and the Army as a whole.

Most arms of the CF lost the designation of royal upon unification.
CHIMO!
First in, Last out
Sappers Lead the Way

Just tell your wife she owes your life to some Muddy Old Engineer,
Some dusty, crusty, croaking, joking Muddy Old Engineer

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,467
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,002
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2004, 15:29:00 »
We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Jason Jarvis

  • Guest
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2004, 16:09:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
[qb] We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it. [/qb]
Changing the name -- not the underlying structure -- wouldn‘t necessarily cost very much, especially when phased in over several years.

The Australian services have retained their "Royal" designation, despite the fact they belong to the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).

Why would it need to be any different for the CF? I say bring ‘em back -- so long as we‘re not a republic, why shouldn‘t we celebrate this aspect of our military history?

Offline radiohead

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 70
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 440
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2004, 17:50:00 »
Its history, not reason to go back.  I think The CN and CAF are fine.  And they say we‘re Canadian, but some branch of British Monarhy.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30,997
  • Crewman
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2004, 20:25:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
[qb] Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?

Yay or nay? [/qb]
KISS


YAY

GW
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline RECON-MAN

  • Member
  • ****
  • 760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 167
  • Zipperhead
Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
« Reply #43 on: February 29, 2004, 14:14:00 »
I would say NO. That would be a step backwards.It would opened old wounds with Quebec
Nobody respect's a country with a poor army, but everbody respect's a country with a good army.I raise my toast to the Finnish army.
                                                          Stalin 1948

Offline krugan

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 33
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #44 on: June 29, 2004, 09:34:23 »
On the Recruiting site it mentions "many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."

I was wondering if current members see this implemented much and your thoughts as to whether this is a) fair or b) a good idea?    I am assuming the promotions are meant to be done after QL3 training and if there was any kind of resentment to people that have been promoted before others who have served longer?

It doesn't say on the site but I thought I read somewhere there was the same kind of incentives to recruit and retain Reservists also, or is that already standard pratice that Reservists are generally promoted faster then Regs for retention reasons?

What would you guys/gals like to see implemented to fill these trades that CF need?

Offline Sundborg

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 451
  • AB
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #45 on: June 29, 2004, 10:42:50 »
People who get promoted before others deserve it; there is no resentment there.  The one's who get promoted right after basic training are already qualified oin that trade; therefore, they promote them.  I had two on my course get promoed to corporal on the grad parade.
Don't look back; stay out of the mud.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #46 on: June 29, 2004, 11:08:00 »
It's not really a big deal to have someone get promoted to Cpl once they're trades qualified, because in the CF Cpl is not a command rank.  Ideally, Cpls are a little "older and wiser" than the average Pte, but they're not intended to be in charge of anything, and in practice, there's often little difference between Cpls and Ptes except for how much they get paid.

Reservists get promoted faster than their reg force counterparts because the turnover rate of personnel within the reserves is extremely high. I think it's unfortunate that the reserves do promote so quickly, because the result as I see it is that we end up with a lot of underqualified senior personnel.  That said, I think that the average rate of career progression one finds in the regs is unneccessarily slow.  Our allied militaries all promote much more quickly than we do.

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #47 on: June 29, 2004, 19:46:43 »
Two points, based on my experience: 1) People who get promoted faster than their peers almost always experience some form of resentment, because that is human nature, and many people who do get promoted faster don't always deserve it, but in the cases that you quoted, that would be for people who come in already qualified in the trade (bandsmen, a guy who is a qualified mechanic and wants to go Vehicle Technician) and 2) Not all allied militaries promote faster than we do. I worked with British and Dutch in Bosnia, and I would say they were on par with us, if not a little slower. The Americans seem to have too many ranks, and it seems you can be a "buck" sergeant in no time, which would probably be the equivalent of a Cpl

IMO, the most formative time of a soldiers career is the time he spends in the Cpl rank. It IS a rank, and should be seen as different from a private. We treat it as a pay raise to keep people in, and that invariably rewards complacency and incompetence. I completely disagree with the way they seem to apparently throw around the "promotions" in the Reserve world. Two years to make it to Cpl!?!?!  Come on!!! And the Reserves want to be taken seriously, as the Reg Force's equals. Not gonna happen until they stop doing that. I had a Trooper in my troop that had a tour to Kosovo and was in my troop for Bosnia. 2 tours, and all the training and experience that goes with it, and he was deemed less than an average Reserve Cpl who would be roughly 2 years out of BMQ, with probably 1/10th the experience of this Tpr. Tell me if that's right..... And don't even get me started on the differences between Reg Force and Reserve "equivalent" courses.  Hence, you can imagine how much respect I have for the average Reserve soldier. When the training and promotions become equal, and not based on "retention" and lack of time, I will start taking them (Reserves) more seriously.  I wish that day would come soon, as the Reserves are being relied on to "fill the gaps" that our current manning crises and operational tempo have created, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I know this has been hashed out ad nauseum, and please spare me the "we're super duper dedicated and keen" spiels. I've heard them all before, and I believe it, but that doesn't make one experienced and qualified. If you want to be treated as equal, you have to BE equal. Not kinda sorta equal. Equal. Are Cadets equal to Reserves? They are keen and dedicated, and other than summer camp employment, don't get paid at all. I think the answer (from Reservists, anyway) is a resounding "NO!!!". So maybe you might see my point.....

Anyway, I'm sure that someone has a rebuttal, so let's hear it.....

Al

armyguy916

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #48 on: June 29, 2004, 20:12:36 »
In reference to what Al said, I do and don't agree with you at all.  I am a reserve Corporal, and I spent the last year at the infantry school.  I worked with Regular Force soldiers and some of them were bags of crap, just like the reserves.  I am a C6 gunner, and I have been told on more than one occasion, by more than one Senior NCO, and high ranking officer that I have had better dress, drill, deportment and professionalisn than my reg force counterparts.  They stated they would rather have me manning their gun than some of the reg force there.  Basically the way I see things with the reserves, there are the ones there that just show for the pay check, and put no effort into things, and there are the one that show up, and take pride in what they do, because wether anyone likes it or not, we are still part of the Canadian Armed Forces.  This is just my own personal opinion, and if someone wants to trash my opinion, send me a msg, don't do the trashing here because it always starts bad forum's and then they get shut down, lets just leave it open and see where this can take us.  Regardless of anything, I love working aside reg force guys, I have learned a lot of things, and I can't wait to be in PPCLI

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2004, 21:16:46 »
The point here has little to do with one's professionalism, or lack thereof. I also know of Reservists that are more "professional" than Reg Force soldiers, and I don't neccesarily think that the School's are the best place to be comparing oneself to Reg Force soldiers, if you catch my drift..... Being able to work full time, whether it is with Reg Force, or even full time at a Reserve unit is good, and performance should be what gets your promoted and qualified. Time in (the military) should never be the sole factor in promotions. I think that a soldier could retire after 20 years as a Private, or be a Master Corporal in 5 years. Rewarding people by having them show up for 4 years (or 2 years)  doesn't do much to create good soldiers. It creates automatons who show up, do the bare minimum, and voila! they get promoted because a chart somewhere says they should be X rank afterY years of service.

The separate but equal system that exists between the Reg's and Reserves is going to further drive a wedge between the two, and any amount of justification can't change that. Whether the Reserves should be a "farm team" (a la sports) to feed the Reg Force could be debated to the end of time, but as long as the soldier is "good to go" and fully qualified, not the half-baked qualifications that I have seen, come on board. Having to re-train a "trained" soldier is a joke, and happens too often.

Anyway, we're drifting from the promotional incentives theme somewhat, and my opinion regarding that is there should be a difference between pay raises and promotions. Promotions in the military mean a raise in rank, and the inherent responsibilities and leadership roles that come with it. Some people are very good tradesman or soldiers, but aren't particularly good leaders. I know in the combat arms, I have heard the expression "He's a great worker!" used to justify sending someone on leadership training, and then said "uber worker" couldn't lead an ant to an ant hill. I think we could avoid some of these issues by going to a Specialist system like the Americans use, so that tradesmen could focus on being tradesmen, and the combat arms could get back to the hard-assed leadership training that we should have always been focussing on to create battlefield leaders. I have heard too many cringe-inducing stories about "leadership" courses that were allowed to pick their own subjects for their skill classes, or have "How to put icing on a cake" as a skill lesson, rather than weapons handling. Or the navigation/patrolling being conducted in a gymnasium (for night ops, turn off the lights!!!). Sad, but true.

I have heard rumour-net stories floated around about how people would get more pay for having more qualifications. I could see how that would work: guys who can't go to the field would get loaded up with courses, while the deployed or field-bound soldiers would be sucking the hind teat. Who would get paid more? The rear-party commandos. Or only the fair-haired boys of the unit would take all the good courses, and then never use them, and make more money.

Anyway, Unification of the Forces didn't do us any favours, and we will continue to pay for that decision until somebody decides that we need to go away from the "CF standard" for all things, which invariably ends up being watered down, and each element or trade makes/enforces it's own standards anyways. If you wear green (or CADPAT) you should be a rifleman first and foremost, and then whatever other trades training that you need for your trade. Sounds remarkably like..... the Marines. But what do they know about fighting wars, right?!?!

The fact of the matter, in the Reg Force anyway, is that pay incentives are NOT supposed to be automatic, but based on good performance. A soldier's incentive can (and should) be withheld if they are not performing to an acceptable standard. Once they have shown a marked improvement, they receive their incentive. However, that is not the case, and hence, everyone receives their incentive on the anniversary of their promotion. Dog 'er and receive the incentive, or drive 'er and receive the same incentive. There is no difference. So, in reality, it isn't an incentive. An incentive would be a standardised test for each rank level and trade, and if you get 60%, you would only receive 60% of the pay. Get 100%, and you get 100% of your pay. Sounds harsh, but that's life. Too radical for our huggy kissy military, where complacency trumps competence. Why work hard, you might break a sweat???

Anyway, I feel a bit better after venting my spleen :mg:

Al