# Sailors to Wear CADPAT?



## IN HOC SIGNO

I heard a nasty rumour the other day that the Dress Committee at NDHQ is once again pressuring the Navy to go to CADPAT for all sailors at sea. This is to save them money so they can go to one "working dress" uniform. I know this was an issue about 5 years ago and the Navy managed to nip it in the bud.

Anyone hear about this?

With an Army CDS at the helm (so to speak) maybe he doesn't see a problem with this??

Anyone in the know?


----------



## FSTO

The Navy has purchased CADPAT for sailors who are working at places such as Heal's Range, Bentinck Island, Bedford and Aldershot. This is to replace the threadbare old style combat that we still own. As for CADPAT at sea, unless they are made of NOMEX we will still wear the same dress we always have.
There is a move afoot called NICE (Naval Improved Clothing Entitlement) that will hopefully address the crappy and horrible NCD's (coverall debate again) Weat Weather gear and other pieces of kit.


----------



## paracowboy

excuse me for walking into yuor House, gents.
I can understand the money angle, sort of, but the Navy and Air Force have entirely different needs from their clothing. One size, in this case, does NOT fit all.
Dumb.

(And I think I deserve credit for the restraint I have shown in not making a joke about the 'size' quote.  ;D  Oh, darn! I just did, didn't I?  ;D)


----------



## FSTO

paracowboy said:
			
		

> excuse me for walking into yuor House, gents.
> I can understand the money angle, sort of, but the Navy and Air Force have entirely different needs from their clothing. One size, in this case, does NOT fit all.
> Dumb.
> 
> (And I think I deserve credit for the restraint I have shown in not making a joke about the 'size' quote.  ;D  Oh, darn! I just did, didn't I?  ;D)



I don't know about the rest of the Navy, but I will continue to wear "Salt and Peppers" when I am working ashore.


----------



## paracowboy

FSTO said:
			
		

> I don't know about the rest of the Navy, but I will continue to wear "Salt and Peppers" when I am working ashore.


excuse my ignorance, please. What are "Salt and Peppers"?


----------



## Phrontis

"Salt & Peppers" is our summer dress consisting of black dress pants and a white short sleeved shirt. Officers wear rank boards and NCMs wear rank slip-ons on the shoulder. N3C?

I was surprised when the air force wound up in CADPATs, albeit with a blue t-shirt underneath.  Mind you, the air force also gave up their old traditional rank names quite readily after unification, when the Navy simply reverted to Naval rank names.

Have you noticed too that more and more people are opting to wear berets with salt & peppers, and everyone and his dog seems to wear back packs while in uniform?  I know the regulations allow it, but it just doesn't look professional to me.

Maybe I'm a dinosaur who can't move with the times; does anyone else think some of these trends aren't for the best?


----------



## paracowboy

Phrontis said:
			
		

> "Salt & Peppers" is our summer dress consisting of black dress pants and a white short sleeved shirt. Officers wear rank boards and NCMs wear rank slip-ons on the shoulder.


Seen. Thank you. I didn't know that dress had a name.



> Maybe I'm a dinosaur who can't move with the times; does anyone else think some of these trends aren't for the best?


I do.


----------



## FSTO

Phrontis said:
			
		

> "Salt & Peppers" is our summer dress consisting of black dress pants and a white short sleeved shirt. Officers wear rank boards and NCMs wear rank slip-ons on the shoulder. N3C?
> 
> I was surprised when the air force wound up in CADPATs, albeit with a blue t-shirt underneath.  Mind you, the air force also gave up their old traditional rank names quite readily after unification, when the Navy simply reverted to Naval rank names.
> 
> Have you noticed too that more and more people are opting to wear berets with salt & peppers, and everyone and his dog seems to wear back packs while in uniform?  I know the regulations allow it, but it just doesn't look professional to me.
> 
> Maybe I'm a dinosaur who can't move with the times; does anyone else think some of these trends aren't for the best?


Hello T-Rex this is Teredactyl speaking. I'm with you on the beret wearing Naval Officers. Doesn't look "ship-shape" to me. As for the airforce, why didn't they just go with the army colours and have the shithawk (I know its an Albatross (sp)) sewen on their name tags.


----------



## davidk

FSTO said:
			
		

> Hello T-Rex this is Teredactyl speaking. I'm with you on the beret wearing Naval Officers. Doesn't look "ship-shape" to me. As for the airforce, why didn't they just go with the army colours and have the shithawk (I know its an Albacore) sewen on their name tags.



Albacore? Didn't know the Air Force wore a tuna on their name tapes  ;D


----------



## FSTO

Pte D. Krystal said:
			
		

> Albacore? Didn't know the Air Force wore a tuna on their name tapes  ;D



oops! :-\


----------



## Furniture

Silly me, I was sure it was an eagle on my nametape and beanie.


----------



## Gino

Phrontis said:
			
		

> "Salt & Peppers" is our summer dress consisting of black dress pants and a white short sleeved shirt. Officers wear rank boards and NCMs wear rank slip-ons on the shoulder. N3C?
> 
> I was surprised when the air force wound up in CADPATs, albeit with a blue t-shirt underneath.  Mind you, the air force also gave up their old traditional rank names quite readily after unification, when the Navy simply reverted to Naval rank names.
> 
> Have you noticed too that more and more people are opting to wear berets with salt & peppers, and everyone and his dog seems to wear back packs while in uniform?  I know the regulations allow it, but it just doesn't look professional to me.
> 
> Maybe I'm a dinosaur who can't move with the times; does anyone else think some of these trends aren't for the best?


I guess I'm a stegosaurus then, or maybe a trilobite.  The C&POs can do what they like, but no self respecting naval officer wears a beret with No 3 orders of dress.

God save us from the Army run CF Dress Committee.  I guess they've got a problem with sailors looking like sailors.  I understand the USN has gone to a cam rig in a bluish pattern.  Looks God awful, but I guess now no one will see them coming.


----------



## HollywoodHitman

When sailors wear combat uniforms, they still look like sailors...... :dontpanic:


----------



## SeaDog

Have to admit that I am one of those non self-respecting naval officers who chooses to wear his beret with this salt and peppers if I'm just going about my daily work week (not on duty, et cetera).  Interestingly enough I noticed at work today that out of all of the guys I went to lunch with (about 8 of us) only one wore his peak-cap.  And he made a comment to the effect that he couldn't find his.  Pretty motley crew, as well: a newly minted Lt(N) CSE, several MARS types and an MSE with 20 + years in.  I find it a practical piece of head gear, more comfortable than the peak and MOST important...easy to find a spot to put it when at Timmies!


----------



## GO!!!

If the navy were to move to NOMEX cadpat coveralls, there could be a significant savings, as Helicopter and AFV crews could both benefit from such a uniform, as all three are predisposed towards terrible burns when their respective rides are damaged by EN fire...

Although it would be pretty funny to see several hundred sailors in CADPAT!!

<borg voice> YOU WILL ALL BE ASSIMILATED  ;D


----------



## paracowboy

split the difference? CADPAT Nomex? It would still look crappy for Sailors to be in CADPAT, but it would address their needs, and the beancounter's propensity for wasting money to save money.


----------



## Gino

SeaDog said:
			
		

> Have to admit that I am one of those non self-respecting naval officers who chooses to wear his beret with this salt and peppers if I'm just going about my daily work week (not on duty, et cetera).  Interestingly enough I noticed at work today that out of all of the guys I went to lunch with (about 8 of us) only one wore his peak-cap.  And he made a comment to the effect that he couldn't find his.  Pretty motley crew, as well: a newly minted Lt(N) CSE, several MARS types and an MSE with 20 + years in.  I find it a practical piece of head gear, more comfortable than the peak and MOST important...easy to find a spot to put it when at Timmies!


I admire your candor, but you obviously need to consort with a higher class of people and gain a bit of couth.  Engineers don't surprise me, they're barely house trained as it is, but you need to hang your head in shame, consider yourself appropriately chastised and go forth and sin no more.  At least you have the good manners to remove your headdress in a restaurant unlike 95% of the servicepeople I see.


----------



## FSTO

Gino said:
			
		

> I admire your candor, but you obviously need to hang around with a higher class of people and gain a bit of couth.  Engineers don't surprise me, they're barely house trained as it is, but you need to hang your head in shame, considerably yourself appropriately chastised and go forth and sin no more.  At least you have the good manners to remove your headdress in a restaurant unlike 95% of the servicepeople I see.



Ohh Gino you must be spoiling for a fight.
(Obviously he is an east coaster, no self respecting MARPAC MARS officer would even consider a timmies over Starbucks!)


----------



## Missile Man

Admiral Buck attended the inaugural meeting with the dress comittee when CADPAT was first proposed for sailors at sea.  He stayed for 5 minutes, flatly rejected the idea, and left.  Unfortunately with Lehre, Fourcier and Buck now retired, we have very little voice in the senior management to protect us from dressing in abhorent green relish on Naval warships.  Not surprisingly, the Air Force rolled over to take it nice and quietly when forced to wear CADPAT, but the Navy has (thus far) held steady course.

SeaDog - you like to wear a beret because it is easier at Timmies?  Pathetic, utterly pathetic old boy.  I don't know any "seadogs" that agree to wear a black felt hat with salt and peppers.  Naval Officers should have only 2 orders of dress - Ship's ball caps and peak caps.  Felt hats are for mud monkeys and Cadets.  Nothing, and I mean nothing looks more unprofessional than the air force version of cadpat - blue undershirt, blue embroidered name tag and rank, with a blue wedge?  I saw a reg force captain wearing this atrocity one day and thought he was in cadets, or a really, really mis-guided reservist.

Gino, FTSO, it is up to us to hold onto the final breath of true naval dress in the CF.  Hillier is pretty much one step away from repeating the travesty that was unification by getting sea-going sailors in cadpat.  We may as well change over to Army/Air Force ranks and wear rucksacks in the ops room.


----------



## SeaDog

Gino,
Seeing as though I am a MARS officer, a good chastising is like breathing air and walking...it happens so often and regular that indeed it becomes second nature.  I go forward, however, head bowed and chastised.  As for more couth and a higher class of comrades...well, one word, submarines.  I'll let your imagination paint its own sordid picture of the nature of my social circles.   :-\  (And well done FSTO- I am an east coaster..)

Missile man,
I must admit that the fact that you consider a "ball-cap" is more professional and naval than a beret leaves my eye-brows in a rather knit fashion.

A little more on topic, however, I must say that I find it a bit disheartening that the CF is in such a state that such basic things as a different uniform for different services is even a subject for debate due to fiscal constraints....echoes of Hellyer shouting out from the not so distant past.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

SeaDog said:
			
		

> Gino,
> Seeing as though I am a MARS officer, a good chastising is like breathing air and walking...it happens so often and regular that indeed it becomes second nature.  I go forward, however, head bowed and chastised.  As for more couth and a higher class of comrades...well, one word, submarines.  I'll let your imagination paint its own sordid picture of the nature of my social circles.   :-\  (And well done FSTO- I am an east coaster..)
> 
> Missile man,
> I must admit that the fact that you consider a "ball-cap" is more professional and naval than a beret leaves my eye-brows in a rather knit fashion.
> 
> A little more on topic, however, I must say that I find it a bit disheartening that the CF is in such a state that such basic things as a different uniform for different services is even a subject for debate due to fiscal constraints....echoes of Hellyer shouting out from the not so distant past.



Yep and Yep. I can't believe that we are even thinking about this but the problem is that Ottawa gets what Ottawa wants.
I was a MARS officer before studying to be a Padre (77-81) and cannot bring myself to wear a beret with my salt and peppers either. I must admit though it is a lot easier to pack for air travel lol
I have a USN exchange officer working for me and he has the new black wedge for their navy....worn with black shirt and pants....looks like Hitler Youth lol.

I hope that someone has the intergrity to stand up and be counted in Ottawa the next time the CF dress committee comes up with this idea. My understanding is that it's on the table....God help us all :rage:


----------



## Gino

SeaDog said:
			
		

> Gino,
> Seeing as though I am a MARS officer, a good chastising is like breathing air and walking...it happens so often and regular that indeed it becomes second nature.  I go forward, however, head bowed and chastised.  As for more couth and a higher class of comrades...well, one word, submarines.  I'll let your imagination paint its own sordid picture of the nature of my social circles.   :-\  (And well done FSTO- I am an east coaster..)
> 
> Missile man,
> I must admit that the fact that you consider a "ball-cap" is more professional and naval than a beret leaves my eye-brows in a rather knit fashion.
> 
> A little more on topic, however, I must say that I find it a bit disheartening that the CF is in such a state that such basic things as a different uniform for different services is even a subject for debate due to fiscal constraints....echoes of Hellyer shouting out from the not so distant past.


Good to see some penitence when shown the error of your ways.  We could use some more of that around here.  Submarines explains much.  A stalwart lot, but definitely rough around the edges.  In fact, back in the days of the jolly green business suit, submariners only brought their berets when they deployed because there was no room for peaked caps.  Or so it was claimed.  I imagine they still use the same line to this day.

As for ballcaps, they have a certain utilitarian function, but they look far too Yankee and non-naval for my tastes.  We need to leave 'em for seagoing use only where they belong.

Yes, someone should point out to the CF Dress Committee what huge cost savings could be achieved if we all went to common uniforms for all services.  In fact, the whole parallel rank structure is expensive and confusing.  Perhaps we should go to a common one.  Hmm.  It's all sounding vaguely familiar.  God save us from beancounters and pongos.  It brings to mind my favourite Milton quotation:

_When we cannot measure the things that are important, we ascribe importance to the things we can measure_


----------



## childs56

Missile Man said:
			
		

> Nothing, and I mean nothing looks more unprofessional than the air force version of cadpat - blue undershirt, blue embroidered name tag and rank, with a blue wedge?  I saw a reg force captain wearing this atrocity one day and thought he was in cadets, or a really, really mis-guided reservist.



Was it unprofessional looking because of the person wearing it or because of the way it looks? 
I have no problem with the blue shirt or blue tags, the wedge is going a bit far.


----------



## Furniture

I die a little inside when I see people wearing their wedge in CADPAT.


----------



## SeaDog

Gino -and here I was sitting thinking that the Milton quote that would warm you the most was that "the superior man acquaints himself with many sayings of antiquity and many deeds of the past, in order to strengthen his character thereby. "  However I digress.  

As for the wedge/beret issue, I must admit that although it makes me shudder to see a wedge and 'bats...at least you can't screw up a wedge...judging by some of the various and sundry shapes, sizes, proportions and all around manglings of berets I've been priveleged to observe on base...perhaps the wedge is not that bad an idea for one and all!


----------



## Phrontis

When I heard that they were considering putting us Navy types in CADPATs, I almost involuntarily turned my fox hole into a latrine.

Seriously, though, did we learn nothing about the negative effect a single uniform has on esprit de corps after unification?


----------



## SeaDog

The crux of this subject is that there should not even be a debate.  Individual branches and trades within the CF all have specific roles and responsibilities.  No one would expect an infanteer to deploy in an arid, desert environment in temperate uniforms...when that happened at the commencement of our involvement in Afghanistan even  the media was aghast.  Why then would you expect naval personnel to wear a non-fire retardent uniform in a hazardous, flammable environment? Why do pilots get issued flight suits? Because of the particular demand of their trade.  The examples, CF wide, could go on ad nauseum.  Even though tradition and esprit de corps play major roles here as well, the truth of the matter lies in the fact that different occupations demand different equipment...including uniforms.  As I have said before, the fact that a change for navy pers to combats is even being considered (for fiscal reasons) is evidence of a far deeper, longer running problem in the CF.


----------



## warrickdll

Regarding berets: A true traditionalist would insist on the tricorne? 

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/NAVYNEWS/EDITIONS/2001/03_19_01/STORY17.HTM

While the unibag was a bad idea, so was the elephant slipper. Uniforms were never meant to stay static in their appearance; fashion, technology, and practicality are among the reasons that uniforms should (and do) evolve. 


Is there any push in the Navy to move away from the workdress style NCD? 

Would the style of the Crew Suit or the CADPAT uniform be more utilitarian (ignoring the colour)?


----------



## SoF

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Maybe we could start with an NCD shirt of a quality high enough that is was not rendered thread bare after the first few washings?



Agreed gravyboat; those shirts become rags so fast. As of now I have one huge tear in my shirt on the sleeve and 2 buttons missing.


----------



## fctlmn

Sucks to be at Canada Command then., even though it's 'joint' we all have to wear Cadpat, actually it's 'jarmy' - Joint but mostly Army. The dress gods can't even decided to let us Navy folks wear a different colour t-shirt, if we have to wear the damn stuff at all. At least you can tell an AF type from afar by the t shirt. You have to be 1 pace away to make out the anchor on the name tape.


----------



## GO!!!

SeaDog said:
			
		

> The crux of this subject is that there should not even be a debate.  Individual branches and trades within the CF all have specific roles and responsibilities.  No one would expect an infanteer to deploy in an arid, desert environment in temperate uniforms...when that happened at the commencement of our involvement in Afghanistan even  the media was aghast.  Why then would you expect naval personnel to wear a non-fire retardent uniform in a hazardous, flammable environment? Why do pilots get issued flight suits? Because of the particular demand of their trade.  The examples, CF wide, could go on ad nauseum.  Even though tradition and esprit de corps play major roles here as well, the truth of the matter lies in the fact that different occupations demand different equipment...including uniforms.  As I have said before, the fact that a change for navy pers to combats is even being considered (for fiscal reasons) is evidence of a far deeper, longer running problem in the CF.



While you bring up a valid point with reference to fire retardant uniforms, I fail to see why Naval Nomex could not be in CADPAT, given the cost savings and obvious point that while sailors do not require camoflage, soldiers often do. 

Also, for the record, I went to Afghanistan in 2002 in green, regardless of the "popular demand" of the thousand or so troops that went. Our "popular demand" for suitable rucksacks, boots, radios and tents also went unheeded, so I am of the opinion that the Directorate of Land Requirements (and the other elemental equivalents) decide what is "best" for us, practicality or demand have little or no impact.

Beyond the stock "resistance to change" argument, is there any quantifiable, fiscally or logistically convincing reason that sailors could not wear CADPAT nomex coveralls on a ship?


----------



## hugh19

Well I have a better idea, since the navy is the senior service. Everyone should wear NCD's. Which of course are much better for wear in the field.

As regards to a quantifiable answer. We are in the NAVY not the F***ing army!!!! So please F*** off with the wearing army S*** for sailors.


----------



## Sub_Guy

It is a silly idea! Cost effective? No.... We need nomex coveralls, and thats it, coveralls are the answer, we wear them on boats (subs), although they are boarding party coveralls but they are a million times more comfortable than NCD's.   I know the USN has a camouflage uniform but can anyone on here confirm that they wear them on ship?  I thought it was a baseside dress only.  And if that's the case then there wouldn't be much of a cost savings would there?   The Air Force and Army operate in a similar environment (Land), where the Navy has its own environment (sea).  For us to end up with Green Cadpat on ships is stupid, but I could see us wearing it on base, but there is no costs saved in that scenario


----------



## GO!!!

gravyboat said:
			
		

> GO, why cadpat when Navy blue has worked since we've been navagating by sextant?



Commonality with Air Crew, and Crew of AFVs, who all require Nomex coveralls. If the CF were able to buy XX 000 sets of these, the cost would be lower than if each element continued the protection of dress on little more than principle.

At the end of the day, planes still fly and boats still sail, regardless of whatever the crew wears on their backs. The army are the only ones who the enemy actually sees in an environment where he is able to do him harm. In my mind, that would be a pretty good reason!


----------



## SeaDog

Go,
Valid point..._fiscally_ it would be cheaper to have us wear army combats onboard...no doubts there.  But are we THAT short on cash that we're trying to cut corners with distinctive uniforms?  If so we have more serious problems...As for the traditional side of things...what if NDHQ decided to eliminate cap badges and other things regimental - everyone wears the cornflake etc. - to cut down on costs? Army types would lose it spouting out "unit cohesion" "tradition" and "esprit de corps" until everyone had a headache.  And with good reason.  I personally would if I were in the army...just as I am now about this encroachment on naval traditions.  Some things are worth more than budgets.  This is one of them.


----------



## Sub_Guy

True, there is no reason why those who require nomex coveralls should all be wearing the same thing, this is cost effective, but for a sailor to be wearing the same CADPAT as his infanteer brother is a bad idea, as there is no firefighting benefits of the Army Cadpat Combats.  Personally I don't care what I wear, as long as it offers protection against my biggest threats and on ship that is a fire....  As for uniforms all looking the same, we all wear different N1's (for now, who knows what they have planned for that) and that is enough distinction for me, besides, if you took your average Naval fellow and placed him beside your average army fellow, I am willing to bet that the Sh*tlocker is going to give the navy gent away.......


----------



## SeaDog

(looking down at my own sh**locker)  It's not THAT bad...


----------



## Phrontis

SeaDog has hit the nail on the head.  There are other, and potentially more significant, considerations than mere fiscal savings.  Just becuse it might be cheaper to put everyone in one uniform, doesn't mean it's a sound move.

Surely good leadership means knowing how best to motivate your people, and for the Navy I think that includes recognizing our desire to be a distinct force with our separate naval identity.

We'll drive our ships through a s*** storm to get the army to the beach, but let us look like sailors as we do it.


----------



## ZipperHead

Am I the only one (army-type, that is) that sees the irony in the navy people here (on ARMY.CA) being so opposed to wearing CADPAT?!? Dont' worry, when you guys start Navy.ca, I'll pop in to see how the other half lives....  >

I understand that you guys want NOMEX (or acceptable fire retardant clothing). In fact, I want NOMEX CADPAT, as I am a crewman, and I am frequently surrounded by many flammable materials in my tracked-coffin (when on tracks) or my wheeled-coffin (when in Coyote or LAVIII). 

I would think that navy pers would WANT to have something that would serve as camouflage if/when their ship is sunk and they have to make it to shore, and then the CADPAT would help them blend in to the local surroundings. I guess that since it hasn't happened to Canadian sailors (in wartime) for about 60 years, little thought goes into that aspect. Maybe it should. Operational clothing should be more about PERFORMANCE and less about FASHION (or history). Remember when the army used to wear red jackets and hats with plumes? Yeah, that was over 100 years ago. We let that one go after we realized that warfare changed. You might want to do the same. Save the snazzy threads for shore leave.

Al


----------



## Gino

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Am I the only one (army-type, that is) that sees the irony in the navy people here (on ARMY.CA) being so opposed to wearing CADPAT?!? Dont' worry, when you guys start Navy.ca, I'll pop in to see how the other half lives....  >
> 
> I understand that you guys want NOMEX (or acceptable fire retardant clothing). In fact, I want NOMEX CADPAT, as I am a crewman, and I am frequently surrounded by many flammable materials in my tracked-coffin (when on tracks) or my wheeled-coffin (when in Coyote or LAVIII).
> 
> I would think that navy pers would WANT to have something that would serve as camouflage if/when their ship is sunk and they have to make it to shore, and then the CADPAT would help them blend in to the local surroundings. I guess that since it hasn't happened to Canadian sailors (in wartime) for about 60 years, little thought goes into that aspect. Maybe it should. Operational clothing should be more about PERFORMANCE and less about FASHION (or history). Remember when the army used to wear red jackets and hats with plumes? Yeah, that was over 100 years ago. We let that one go after we realized that warfare changed. You might want to do the same. Save the snazzy threads for shore leave.
> 
> Al


Since you ground pounders were gracious enough to give us a forum, why not use it?

I think though, you might have naive view of naval ops.  If your ship is sunk, hiding out on an island is probably the least of your worries.  I seriously wonder if a Canadian sailor who was sunk has ever been in a position where camouflage might have saved him.  Believe me, naval combats are anything but snazzy, but it's better than lookin' like a pongo.


----------



## cobbler

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I would think that navy pers would WANT to have something that would serve as camouflage if/when their ship is sunk and they have to make it to shore, and then the CADPAT would help them blend in to the local surroundings. I guess that since it hasn't happened to Canadian sailors (in wartime) for about 60 years, little thought goes into that aspect. Maybe it should. Operational clothing should be more about PERFORMANCE and less about FASHION (or history). Remember when the army used to wear red jackets and hats with plumes? Yeah, that was over 100 years ago. We let that one go after we realized that warfare changed. You might want to do the same. Save the snazzy threads for shore leave.
> 
> Al



That is a very unlikely scenario, a more likely one would be trying not to be seen by an enemy bird flying above you trying to kill off survivors.
But again, unlikely.

However, on to performance, just how would big smears of spilt grey paint look on CADPAT? 

The RAN uses storm grey coveralls to match its storm grey ships, so when paint is spilt, it doesnt matter at all. And they are actually designed for shipboard work, duties and equipment. 

Sailors aren't soldiers and that extends well past the symbol of what one should wear, and more into the needs of what one should wear.


----------



## GO!!!

Gino said:
			
		

> ..but it's better than lookin' like a pongo.



Ah yes, the same person who was miffed at the possibility that he _may_ be prohibited from wearing a 1500$ cape twice a year whist in uniform is knocking the army's dress? Will you also seek permission to wear a tricorn and plume?

In my mind, practicality and function trump form and tradition 10 times out of 10, it is how you fight that counts, and saving money on environmental dress is definitely something that helps us fight better.

The army dropped the black and tans many years ago for the simple reason that they cost too much and had little purpose. Work dress went along with them, in favour of Combats. Now we have two states of dress. Field/garrison, and dress, for the operational units. (I'm told some HQs demand the wear of sweaters, button down t-shirts, low shoes etc) I'm sure this has saved millions over the years, and all because the pointy moustache crowd blustering over tradition was ignored.

I also feel compelled to point out, in response to an earlier post, that the CF has never, once in my entire career shelled out for ANYTHING with my regimental capbadge, crest or cipher. We have to buy our own capbadges, DEU accoutrements, PT strip etc. So the idea that the army would jealously protect it's own traditional dress is false - it stopped a looong time ago, and shifted that responsibility (and cost)onto the shoulders of the soldiers.


----------



## paracowboy

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I also feel compelled to point out, in response to an earlier post, that the CF has never, once in my entire career shelled out for ANYTHING with my regimental capbadge, crest or cipher. We have to buy our own capbadges, DEU accoutrements, PT strip etc. So the idea that the army would jealously protect it's own traditional dress is false - it stopped a looong time ago, and shifted that responsibility (and cost)onto the shoulders of the soldiers.


not the Army, the Patricia's. In The RCR, I received all of that when I graduated Battle School. It may have come out of Regimental dues, but I don't believe so.


----------



## navymich

When you're getting dressed to fight a fire onboard, you pull off your NCD jacket prior to putting on your bunker gear and chemox.  Under your jacket, you still have on your NCD shirt, sleeves down, to offer a layer of protection.  What do you do in combats?  A pain in the butt I would think to get the jacket off, and besides, that would only leave you with a tshirt for next-to-skin protection.  Not to mention pulling your socks out from underneathed your bloused pants to be tucked in.

As for the whole dress regs discussion too, I have yet to wear my beret with my salt and peppers.  Yes, it would be much more convenient then my boler (god that "cowboy" hat is a pain to pack), but it takes away completely from the dress.  As well, the whole girls hairstyle thing drives me batty too.  In my NCDs only, will you ever see me in a braid.  Any other dress, it is pulled up.  I am sure you gents would agree wholeheartedly how awful it looks out on parade to see the girls looking like Pippi Longstockings.


----------



## SeaDog

Good point on the Bunker gear, Navymich.  For clarification for army types, Bunker gear is a bulky set of coveralls, jacket and rubber boots similar to what civilian fire-fighters wear.  When a ship goes to action stations you have mere minutes to report to your station, kick your boots off, rip your jacket off don your Bunker gear, strap on and activate your breathing apparatus and make ready to fight the fire.  Definitely not real practical with army combats and yet another reason why navies around the world have designed and evolved their ship-board naval dress after years of experience and lessons learned.  I'm not real sure why our brothers and sisters in the army are so eager to get us into army combats, but as I have already stated, different jobs require different kit. I would not suggest to the army that they adopt equipment or uniforms that are ill-suited to the tasks they must accomplish.  Why then would you army types demand that of us?  As professionals in the brotherhood of arms I would expect that you would, if anything, support competent decisions which heighten the effectiveness of every branch of our military...sometimes in the face of what the accountants in Ottawa would like.


----------



## old medic

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I also feel compelled to point out, in response to an earlier post, that the CF has never, once in my entire career shelled out for ANYTHING with my regimental capbadge, crest or cipher. We have to buy our own capbadges, DEU accoutrements, PT strip etc. So the idea that the army would jealously protect it's own traditional dress is false - it stopped a looong time ago, and shifted that responsibility (and cost)onto the shoulders of the soldiers.



Odd, I've never had to do that.  

The more I read that GO!!!, The more it sounds like PPCLI wanted to protect it's traditions by having you buy all that,
so why attack any other service or branch for doing the same? Why not just save money by retiring all the infantry
units and have everyone wear a cornflake and some sort of pale green outfit?

Does everybody miss 1969 that much?  Cadpat on a boat, (or anywhere in the Navy) is the most 
absurd idea I've seen on this forum this year.

It was the past conservative government that corrected a major error and brought back the environmental 
uniforms and an inkling of pride in one's service.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I also feel compelled to point out, in response to an earlier post, that the CF has never, once in my entire career shelled out for ANYTHING with my regimental capbadge, crest or cipher. We have to buy our own capbadges, DEU accoutrements, PT strip etc. So the idea that the army would jealously protect it's own traditional dress is false - it stopped a looong time ago, and shifted that responsibility (and cost)onto the shoulders of the soldiers.



It's always been my experience that initial issue of those DEU items and capbadge was from the Crown. Subsequent issue can be done on an exchange basis with QM. Extra issue can be purchased through Clothing Stores or through your Regt'l kit shop. Maybe Vern can clarify. The kit shop items are normally of a better quality anyway. 
PT strip on the other hand is no more than a Regt'l quiff and a way to bolster funds through the kit shop by mandating that dress.


----------



## Gino

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the same person who was miffed at the possibility that he _may_ be prohibited from wearing a 1500$ cape twice a year whist in uniform is knocking the army's dress? Will you also seek permission to wear a tricorn and plume?
> 
> In my mind, practicality and function trump form and tradition 10 times out of 10, it is how you fight that counts, and saving money on environmental dress is definitely something that helps us fight better.
> 
> The army dropped the black and tans many years ago for the simple reason that they cost too much and had little purpose. Work dress went along with them, in favour of Combats. Now we have two states of dress. Field/garrison, and dress, for the operational units. (I'm told some HQs demand the wear of sweaters, button down t-shirts, low shoes etc) I'm sure this has saved millions over the years, and all because the pointy moustache crowd blustering over tradition was ignored.
> 
> I also feel compelled to point out, in response to an earlier post, that the CF has never, once in my entire career shelled out for ANYTHING with my regimental capbadge, crest or cipher. We have to buy our own capbadges, DEU accoutrements, PT strip etc. So the idea that the army would jealously protect it's own traditional dress is false - it stopped a looong time ago, and shifted that responsibility (and cost)onto the shoulders of the soldiers.


Hey, let's not get too testy.  It wasn't the "pongo" bit was it?  I forgot to use a smilie.

At any rate, when we're talking ceremonial dress, I don't think functionality is a huge issue.  If the certain regiments can continue to wear scarlets and bearskins, I don't you can't really fault those who would like to wear a bloat cloak with mess dress, at their own expense I might add.  I think we underestimate the value of tradition to military and naval forces at our peril.

IMHO, the bottom line is that CADPATs would be of minimal operational value to the Navy, and exactly how much money would be saved anyway?  I think that most sailors would rather look like that instead of like soldiers.  I'm sure you guys would be the first ones screaming if we tried to put you into naval uniforms, so you can perhaps understand our resistance to further assimilation.


----------



## Good2Golf

Methinks the Senior Service doth protest too much!  I think the Navy for all its tough talk about berets not being pusser and all (BTW, it's a _Forage_ Cap, not peak cap  ) it should hang its head in shame until it puts the ratings back in square rig!  To think that some believe NCD and 70's-style polyester Salt & Peppers are considered pusser by you guys is a sad comment!  Oh, the shame of it!  What would Lord Admiral Nelson say from his grave?   

I will happily wear CADPAT (then again there's an argument as to whether tac aviators are actually worthy of the oh so lofty Air Force moniker)...in fact, the more CADPAT the better!  Aside from that fancy little line up along the edge of the boat and wave your hat thingy you guys do (which I agree, needs some dapper looking threads, N1's are good for this), isn't function more important than fashion, thus FR-clothing should be the order of the day, whether it be grungy-blue and black or relish pattern?  ;D

As GO!!! and Paracowboy said, we're all getting assimilated...welcome to the Jarmy, my brethren in Her Majesty's Senior Service!  ;D

Hmmm...let's see...

Army in CADPAT.  Check.

Air Force (some of us, anyway) getting in to CADPAT.  Check.

Navy...only a matter of time...fight if you will but assimilation into the Jarmy will give centuries of fine tradition a good run for its money!  >

Cheers,
Duey

(Pics below of upcoming AF NOMEX CADPAT flying gear...we can get a velcro flap to attach as camo-square rig if you'd like...  ;D )


----------



## paracowboy

Duey said:
			
		

> As GO!!! and Paracowboy said, we're all getting assimilated...


yeah, but I'm agin' it!


----------



## NavComm

hmmm let's see... I wore cadpat at bmq, my deu's for grad, my ncd's at my unit and 2 days in Halifax, olive drab for 3 weeks at the present job until we all switched to cadpat....if I counted the days I've been in the navy and how many of them I wore cadpat vs. ncd's or deu's, I'd guess about 80% of the time I've been in cadpat. My roommate loves wearing cadpat, I prefer my ncd's. We're just lowly ordinary seaman though, so the GAF factor about what we like or don't like is pretty much non-existant :-\


----------



## old medic

Just to address the few who have asked about cost,  Nomex costs 75 to 100% more than
standard materials, as it is a patented and trademark protected material. 
Outfitting the navy with Cadpat Nomex would mean a coresponding increase in the clothing budget.


----------



## paracowboy

old medic said:
			
		

> Just to address the few who have asked about cost,  Nomex costs 75 to 100% more than standard materials, as it is a patented and trademark protected material. so outfitting the whole Navy would mean a coresponding increase in the clothing budget.


so, I'm assuming that putting the CADPAT pattern onto it would cause the prices to go higher?

Since these pers require Nomex, and don't require CADPAT, in their daily duties aboard ship why add the extra expense? And as for not giving them Nomex, that is, to me, unacceptable. The extra cost is worth it in terms of our Sailors' welfare. But, if we can keep expenditure down by not making them wear CADPAT, and can keep it in the colours now, let's do it.


----------



## old medic

Well said Paracowboy.

I can only guess that putting a trademarked pattern (CADPAT) onto a trademarked 
cloth (Nomex :  http://www2.dupont.com/Personal_Protection/en_US/products/nomexind/nomex_industrial_faq.html#1QD )
would drive the cost per uniform through the roof.


----------



## NavComm

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Are you one of the eliteninjasnipers or a commisionaire in training?



ha ha neither, just a lowly GD


----------



## SeaDog

Well, paracowboy and old medic, I must say it is refreshing to hear a little common sense on this subject...especially from professionals in other branches. 
As for assimilation into the "jarmy", Duey...we fought hard the last time and it seems we fared better than most .  Haven't seen many Wing Commanders and Group Captains walking around lately, but last I checked I still work for a Lieutenant Commander.  I mean, geez, in the end we even got you guys saluting the proper, palm down, way! ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaDog said:
			
		

> Well, paracowboy and old medic, I must say it is refreshing to hear a little common sense on this subject...especially from professionals in other branches.
> As for assimilation into the "jarmy", Duey...we fought hard the last time and it seems we fared better than most .  Haven't seen many Wing Commanders and Group Captains walking around lately, but last I checked I still work for a Lieutenant Commander.  I mean, geez, in the end we even got you guys saluting the proper, palm down, way! ;D



SeaDog, that reminds me of "The Glove", a.k.a. Lt(N) Bill GLover...who used to regail us Roadents with the finest of flourishing, high-elbowed, palm-down Naval salutes I'd ever seen...  ...of course accompanied with a jaunty, nautical..."Morning!"  (at any time of the day  )

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Duey said:
			
		

> SeaDog, that reminds me of "The Glove", a.k.a. Lt(N) Bill Glover...who used to regail us Roadents with the finest of flourishing, high-elbowed, palm-down Naval salutes I'd ever seen...  ...of course accompanied with a jaunty, nautical..."Morning!"  (at any time of the day  )
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



Wow Bill Glover there's a blast from the past! He was Course Lieut on my MARS MQC course. We nicknamed him "the Prairie Kipper" because he spoke with an English accent but was from somewhere in Saskatchewan...used to be a favorite pastime of old RCN types who aped the Brits...ha ha. He was a good instructor though.

This whole CADPAT conversation is also going on in the upper echelons I'm told and as some have pointed out the whole move toward being "the Jarmy" is driving a lot of it. They want us to all look the same.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and they'll realize that there is no requirement for "you can't see me" suits on board a ship at sea and every requirement for practical comfortable stuff.
I like the American stuff....Ratings in denim (I take it has a fire retardant quality to it) and Officers and chiefs are in tans...what they call "Utilities." You really need something comfortable but easily used in an emergency sit as well.

By the way I've noticed a fair number of folks on here referring to our warships as "boats." Unless it's a submarine or a Ferry it is referred to as a ship. The boat is the little thing you hoist on board your ship!


----------



## navymich

Good old William Glover.  He was one of my CO's at my home reserve unit.  I was working out of trade as a clerk in ship's office and couldn't do anything right for trying.  Unfortunately, I had 3 things against me: female, reserve and a jr. rank.  That was back in the late 90's and then we cheered up with his departure to Ottawa.



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> By the way I've noticed a fair number of folks on here referring to our warships as "boats." Unless it's a submarine or a Ferry it is referred to as a ship. The boat is the little thing you hoist on board your ship!


We affectionately call the MCDV's "boats" too, because of the size of them.  Yes, I know, incorrect as we do have boats onboard them....


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

It would seem that under the Jarmy concept...the Navy and the Air Force are primarily taxi drivers for the army anyway....so I suppose it makes sense in the minds of the NDHQ braintrust to put us all in CADPAT.

Who was dissing tricorn hats a while ago? I used to know a ship's CO who had an old hat like Nelson's for when he was coming alongside. He called it his docking cap...and it was for good luck. I remember him stomping on it once when he pouched his approach and hit the jetty...ha ha....he was as crazy as a loon!!

In the days of the old green suit we used to really confuse our allies when they saw us all in green. Maybe that's the strategy...keep em guessing. >


----------



## CallOfDuty

Call me crazy...but as a brand new OS, I thought the Cadpat in BMQ was really comfortable and now that I'm in NCD's I'm constantly worried about wrinkles,finding dust, dirt and crap all over my black pants and jacket and stuff like that.   To me the NCD's are nice and comfortable, but I think I'd enjoy wearing a Navy version of cadpat, with a nice black T-shirt underneath and black beret and anchor capbadge.
    I'm sure I just pissed the sailors off!
  Cheers guys
Steve


----------



## Good2Golf

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ...
> By the way I've noticed a fair number of folks on here referring to our warships as "boats." Unless it's a submarine or a Ferry it is referred to as a ship. The boat is the little thing you hoist on board your ship!



So saying the anchors spew forth from the pointy end of the boat is out?  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Duey said:
			
		

> So saying the anchors spew forth from the pointy end of the boat is out?  ;D
> 
> Cheers,
> Duey



After the last two posts I am absolutely apoplectic!! :crybaby:

what is this world coming to??


----------



## Good2Golf

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> After the last two posts I am absolutely apoplectic!! :crybaby:
> 
> *what is this world coming to??*



...ummmm, the boxy end of the boat?   >


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Duey said:
			
		

> ...ummmm, the boxy end of the boat?   >



Is nothing sacred to you zoomies? ha ha.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have a couple of comments on the uniform issue.  In my time with the CF I have worn all three elemental uniforms but at present time I am proud to say I am a Sailor.

With regard to the DEU I am forced to wear.  I bloody hate it with a passion.  Officers are welcome to it, they look ok with it as it as more traditional.  I am a Lower Decker (NCM to you Army types), I want to look like a proper Hairybag not some officer wannabe, give me the square rig any day.  And I really hate a Forage Cap at any time, but especially with Salt and Peppers.  I and most of my kin here would prefer the Beret as head dress for that order of dress.

As for the NCDs, they have one thing going for them in that they are Nomex.  Otherwise they are not worth jackshit.  Too many damn buttons to fiddle with in the middle of the night while you are scrambling to clear the mess along with 20+ others to get to your stations.  The Submariners/HTFF/FF have it better with the coveralls, zip and go.  No farting around either when you don Bunker Gear too, jump right in.  The shirt never stays in the pants worth a damn with the result you look like crap most of the time.  

A friend ashore in Supply informs me that we will be going over to coveralls and zippered boots in the next couple of years.  Common sense must have struck someone in Ottawa.  About bloody time.  There are also new winter undergarmets coming too in the same vein as what the Army now enjoys.  BUT for the love of God, they have selected white again as the colour.  They must be out of their minds again, that colour is not ship life friendly and quickly looks like a drity rag.  Navy Blue would have been a sane choice.

The Army guy who suggested we could use CADPAT if we were ever sunk.  That really made me laugh, but in a good way.  Buddy, if I have the experience of going down at sea, I would be frigging thrilled to wear a bannana leaf as a thong if I made it to any shore.  You have no idea just how big the ocean is, or how luck you are to get a chance to have another second chance if the shit hits the fan.


----------



## navymich

Jollyjacktar, by your post I take it that you have finished banging your head against a wall and actually decided to come up with a comment.  (for those that didn't see it before it was deleted, the member had earlier today posted only the head-banging emoticon)



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have a couple of comments on the uniform issue.  In my time with the CF I have worn all three elemental uniforms but at present time I am proud to say I am a Sailor.


I too am proud to be a Sailor, but I back my statement up with a profile that is filled in.  I suggest you do the same so that your statement is taken for what it should therefore be worth.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> With regard to the DEU I am forced to wear.  I bloody hate it with a passion.  Officers are welcome to it, they look ok with it as it as more traditional.  I am a Lower Decker (NCM to you Army types), I want to look like a proper Hairybag not some officer wannabe, give me the square rig any day.  And I really hate a Forage Cap at any time, but especially with Salt and Peppers.  I and most of my kin here would prefer the Beret as head dress for that order of dress.
> 
> As for the NCDs, they have one thing going for them in that they are Nomex.  Otherwise they are not worth jackshit.  Too many damn buttons to fiddle with in the middle of the night while you are scrambling to clear the mess along with 20+ others to get to your stations.  The Submariners/HTFF/FF have it better with the coveralls, zip and go.  No farting around either when you don Bunker Gear too, jump right in.  The shirt never stays in the pants worth a damn with the result you look like crap most of the time.
> 
> A friend ashore in Supply informs me that we will be going over to coveralls and zippered boots in the next couple of years.  Common sense must have struck someone in Ottawa.  About bloody time.  There are also new winter undergarmets coming too in the same vein as what the Army now enjoys.  BUT for the love of God, they have selected white again as the colour.  They must be out of their minds again, that colour is not ship life friendly and quickly looks like a drity rag.  Navy Blue would have been a sane choice.
> 
> The Army guy who suggested we could use CADPAT if we were ever sunk.  That really made me laugh, but in a good way.  Buddy, if I have the experience of going down at sea, I would be frigging thrilled to wear a bannana leaf as a thong if I made it to any shore.  You have no idea just how big the ocean is, or how luck you are to get a chance to have another second chance if the crap hits the fan.


As for the rest of your comment, I would like to say well written, and good use of summarizing all that has been said.  And notice I say "I would *like* to say".  Because all it does look like is that you picked key points of the previous posts in this thread and put them into one and called it your own.  And until you back up your statement with some history and experience, I will err on the side of caution and not assume that these words are your own.  But, as much as I prefer to be right, I have been proven wrong before.  So feel free to add some background behind your post and I will then accept it at face value.


----------



## Sub_Guy

WOW, navymich seems to be dropping the hammer on a lot of posts, this is the second time I have seen her critical of another individual's comments.  

I agree with jollyjackstar, give me the square rig I want to look like a sailor, but the beret, I have always hated the beret and always will.  I prefer the ball cap (worn with NCDs of course).  If it was decided that we were going to wear cadpat baseside, I would accept that as they are more comfortable than wearing our NCDS's.  At sea the answer is coveralls, I can back that up as I have been to sea wearing NCDs (surface) and coveralls (subsurface).  The coveralls were much more comfortable and practical.  The wearing of CADPAT at sea is silly, and I am willing to wager that there isn't much weight in this rumour.  

That's my 0.02 worth...


----------



## Good2Golf

See...I wasn't joking about guys wanting square rig!  Good on the killicks (sp?) and the lads!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## FSTO

All I can add to Jollyjacktar's post is this; think of an overweight sailor in NCD's and wearing the warbag.  :-X


----------



## Cloud Cover

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> I agree with jollyjackstar, give me the square rig I want to look like a sailor, but the beret, I have always hated the beret and always will.  I prefer the ball cap (worn with NCDs of course).  If it was decided that we were going to wear cadpat baseside, I would accept that as they are more comfortable than wearing our NCDS's.  At sea the answer is coveralls, I can back that up as I have been to sea wearing NCDs (surface) and coveralls (subsurface).  The coveralls were much more comfortable and practical.  The wearing of CADPAT at sea is silly, and I am willing to wager that there isn't much weight in this rumour.
> 
> That's my 0.02 worth...



Square rig, NCD's and CADPATS? Come on ... the square rig is a pain in the arse, especially the lid.


----------



## jollyjacktar

There you go navymilch.  I assure you I have plenty of TI, more than some here in fact, so I have earned some right to bitch.  I have time in both the combat arms and combat service support too, this is my second Reg MOC.  And as I may from time to time put my oar in the water I will keep some distance from full disclosure as I see by your profile you have.  And yes I was banging my head against the wall, sadly I am not fully computer friendly so I lost my original post twice before what was posted. 

I did not cut and paste if that is what you are suggesting, or insuating.  My comments were my view point on our DEU's, Forage Caps, and an agreement on Square Rig desires, the rest was in addition to what has been commented on by others.  Take it for what you will, or how you will...


----------



## navymich

jollyjacktar, welcome to army.ca and welcome to the Navy boards as well.  Your past experience and knowledge will, I'm sure, add to future posts here, as well as throughout the site.

It is often difficult to tell on here who is real and who is playing around.  And a first post such as yours, as well as a blank profile, unfortunately puts up the red flags, for me anyway.

Maybe I am wrong to put so much in my profile, as anyone who wanted to, would have no trouble tracking me down.  But I am open and honest, and as you have seen, speak my mind.


----------



## Enzo

Jolly, I enjoyed your post. I laughed a bit and anything that makes me laugh today is endearing.

Ok, coveralls (dark blue) w/ black tee and ball cap. What's the problem?

Why is this such an issue? As for white anything... only someone in an office in Ottawa would see that as well thought out.

Then again, I'm a grunt (side-lined at that). I don't know any better.

Cheers...


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am glad Enzo you got a laugh out of it.  I expect it was the comments on being left in the water without a taxi so to speak.  As you are a combat arms type I can understand and expect you may not fully grasp the other side of the coin out on the big blue ocean. 

I have been witness to the fury of the sea and as such have gained a very healthy respect for her powers.  There was a ship called the "Leader L" who was a bulk cargo hauler, she breached her hull and went down in around 5 minutes.  We as a task group went to full speed in an attempt to rescue those who made it out alive.  Sadly there was as I remember around a 60% loss of life.  It was so rough we were walking on the bulkheads (walls to you landlubbers) on occasion which was pretty astounding as I was on the Tanker at the time.  She really does not move much unless it is really hairy out there.  The next day following the storm we had all sorts of unbelieveable damage.  Seeing as some of the things we go out on are getting too long in the tooth to be fully reliable on the whole, it is kinda like a pilot who will tell you that any landing they can walk away from is a good one.  Well any trip that ends with my stepping onto dry land without wearing a palm leaf for underwear is a good one. :warstory:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There you go navymilch.  I assure you I have plenty of TI, more than some here in fact, so I have earned some right to *****.  I have time in both the combat arms and combat service support too, this is my second Reg MOC.  And as I may from time to time put my oar in the water I will keep some distance from full disclosure as I see by your profile you have.  And yes I was banging my head against the wall, sadly I am not fully computer friendly so I lost my original post twice before what was posted.
> 
> I did not cut and paste if that is what you are suggesting, or insuating.  My comments were my view point on our DEU's, Forage Caps, and an agreement on Square Rig desires, the rest was in addition to what has been commented on by others.  Take it for what you will, or how you will...



It would be interesting to go back to square rig but of course with modern textiles and not the old uncomfortable woolen stuff. ( From what the old timers say the ladies really used to like that rig!)

The DEU is meant to be worn daily by people who work in an office and therefore are in contact with the public...Stad, NDHQ and of course as our full dress uniform for parades and special occasions. I think we should all be proud to wear it...it represents tradition and pride in our heritage.

When I first joined (Adam was a killick) you were not allowed to walk off base in "work-dress" the fore runner of the NCDs or Combats in the Army. You either went ashore, or off base in sports gear or changed into DEU.
Many people's work dress was paint spattered or greasy from working in the day and the CF thought it looked undisciplined and unprofessional to have people in public in a uniform that was less than "tiddily."

Perhaps uniforms should evolve like everything else. I like the tradition of wearing a peaked cap (it was never called a forage cap in the Navy ) but find it a royal pain to pack for an air voyage or in cramped shipboard conditions. I don't know what would take it's place. (I understand a lot of RCMP constables hate wearing Red Serge and Stetsons but I doubt you'll ever see it phased out. My neice is a Mountie and she has a lot of trouble travelling with that bad boy.)

The beret is an Army invention really....taken from the  Belgians and the French during the Second World War I believe...it is easy to stow in a pocket (never under the lapel)...I always think it looks so un-Navy to see people wearing them (not judging those who do it's just my impression). The ball cap is an American invention...useful at sea but not very professional looking ashore IMHO.

Fire retardent coveralls for workdress sounds good to me....but let's not let them convince us to wear them in a CADPAT format so they can save a few bucks on buttons and bows. white sounds like a bad idea.


----------



## Enzo

Jolly, I know that there's a lot of sarcasm moving around, but I think you understood that I really did enjoy what you wrote. I wanted to be clear about that - I have a habit of being sarcastic myself, it's how I hide my pain.  ;D

And yeah, it was the bananna thong comment, I'm still laughing over that.

Cheers...


----------



## Good2Golf

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to go back to square rig but of course with modern textiles and not the old uncomfortable woolen stuff. ( From what the old timers say the ladies really used to like that rig!)
> 
> The DEU is meant to be worn daily by people who work in an office and therefore are in contact with the public...Stad, NDHQ and of course as our full dress uniform for parades and special occasions. I think we should all be proud to wear it...it represents tradition and pride in our heritage.
> 
> When I first joined (Adam was a killick) you were not allowed to walk off base in "work-dress" the fore runner of the NCDs or Combats in the Army. You either went ashore, or off base in sports gear or changed into DEU.
> Many people's work dress was paint spattered or greasy from working in the day and the CF thought it looked undisciplined and unprofessional to have people in public in a uniform that was less than "*tiddily*."
> 
> Perhaps uniforms should evolve like everything else. I like the tradition of wearing a peaked cap (it was never called a forage cap in the Navy ) but find it a royal pain to pack for an air voyage or in cramped shipboard conditions. I don't know what would take it's place. (I understand a lot of RCMP constables hate wearing Red Serge and Stetsons but I doubt you'll ever see it phased out. My neice is a Mountie and she has a lot of trouble travelling with that bad boy.)
> 
> The beret is an Army invention really....taken from the  Belgians and the French during the Second World War I believe...it is easy to stow in a pocket (never under the lapel)...I always think it looks so un-Navy to see people wearing them (not judging those who do it's just my impression). The ball cap is an American invention...useful at sea but not very professional looking ashore IMHO.
> 
> Fire retardent coveralls for workdress sounds good to me....but let's not let them convince us to wear them in a CADPAT format so they can save a few bucks on buttons and bows. white sounds like a bad idea.



In Hoc, I'm pretty sure I'm squared away with what "pusser" means, but not at all hoisting aboard "tiddily"...  ???

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## M Feetham

OK, here's my two cents worth.
Peak cap, hate it, I would much rather wear a beret, even in no 1's. It is just more comfortable. The exception to that would be when wearing whites in NY city during fleet week.(Chick magnet)
NCD's, I don't mind them as a shipboard dress, but I really don't like the fact that people wear it as a walking in dress. I don't think it looks very professional and it almost always looks sloppy and dirty.
Cadpat on board ships would be downright dangerous I think cause it is too loose fitting. The engineers in the engine room would really be at risk of getting caught in moving parts.
The coveralls, which have been fought over off and on for years would be nice, easy in easy out and not much chance of snagging on something. Zippered boots too, especially for rescue divers. 
I agree that we are losing a lot of our traditions in the navy. I think we should splice the main brace at least once a week wether we need it or not.
UP Spirits.
Marc


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

M Feetham said:
			
		

> OK, here's my two cents worth.
> Peak cap, hate it, I would much rather wear a beret, even in no 1's. It is just more comfortable. The exception to that would be when wearing whites in NY city during fleet week.(Chick magnet)
> NCD's, I don't mind them as a shipboard dress, but I really don't like the fact that people wear it as a walking in dress. I don't think it looks very professional and it almost always looks sloppy and dirty.
> Cadpat on board ships would be downright dangerous I think cause it is too loose fitting. The engineers in the engine room would really be at risk of getting caught in moving parts.
> The coveralls, which have been fought over off and on for years would be nice, easy in easy out and not much chance of snagging on something. Zippered boots too, especially for rescue divers.
> I agree that we are losing a lot of our traditions in the navy. I think we should splice the main brace at least once a week wether we need it or not.
> UP Spirits.
> Marc



Now you're talking mate! we rolled over for them taking away our tots in 72 and it's been downhill ever since.
Of course we used to make lots of excuses to splice the mainbrace at least 4 or 5 times a year when I first joined but I think it's getting a lot scarcer now.

It is a shame that these things aren't being taught but I wonder if it's just not being caught? That is, they may be teaching it but unless it is practised it's like French...you'll forget it quickly.

I think a lack of person power and so much on the agenda nowadays....gotta get your French...gotta get your OPMEs....this course that course...has taken away the time we had to do tiddily ropework, practice seamanship skills...we had a regatta in Esquimalt every spring and summer to practice boatwork, sailing, war canoe...and generally have a great banyan afterwards...oh yeah tug o war...where I ruined my back for the rest of my career...ha ha  :crybaby:

How do we interest our young folks in this when they seem more prone to play Nintendo or watch an action (American) in the cave? (that's the Jr Ranks Mess, Duey)

aye is simply old English for yes......Ready? Yes Ready!...AYE AYE...Double yes...sort of like "Sir, Yes Sir!"

I got another 8 years before I swallow the anchor (retire...duey) so maybe I'll see a turn around....did any one see the article on the new JSS contract today? Oh yeah that's another thread....


----------



## Good2Golf

In Hoc, actually the big paycheck for AF guys pulling the pin applies to "seized-rotor" types...I might be able to get a job slinging elephant dung in Nigeria (or other equally nice job in the shark-infested commercial rotary market...)...hmmm, note to self, stay in CF and have fun at what you're doing.  ;D

Ready Aye  ( <- note the near-automatic deference now to Her Majesty's senior service?  )
Duey


----------



## Kirkhill

Duey:

Ex Sea Cadet seems to recall that "pusser" "tiddly" "shipshape" and "Bristol Fashion" were all used interchangeably.  Why they couldn't just say "neat" or "tidy" is beyond me... ???


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Duey:
> 
> Ex Sea Cadet seems to recall that "pusser" "tiddly" "shipshape" and "Bristol Fashion" were all used interchangeably.  Why they couldn't just say "neat" or "tidy" is beyond me... ???



Because we're sailors...it's called Esprit de Corps! we have traditions that set us apart from others.


----------



## Springroll

It's a damn good thing that I have ready aye ready in my favorites....
trying to translate some of this stuff is tough!


----------



## Gino

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Duey:
> 
> Ex Sea Cadet seems to recall that "pusser" "tiddly" "shipshape" and "Bristol Fashion" were all used interchangeably.  Why they couldn't just say "neat" or "tidy" is beyond me... ???


But pusser and tiddly are different.  Pusser refers to something that is very proper and regulation, while tiddly refers to something that is very fancy.  Matelots in square rig often had their tiddly going ashore blues with various non-pusser modifications.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for clearing that up Gino.  So pusser, shipshape and Bristol Fashion all equal Regimental or dead Reg.  Tiddly is the odd man out.   

Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Agreed with all points raised by M Feetham.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have be assured by one of our Supply Techs on-board we will indeed be getting "Naval CADPATs" in the next couple of years as our walking out dress.  Think of them in hues of blue/navy blue vice the greens presently used by the Army/AF.  

Personally I am puking at the thought of having to appear in public dressed in that fashion.  My wife would pee her pants laughing if she saw me dressed in that.  Aliens must have control of the Dress Committee's minds to have come to this decision.   :-X


----------



## Sub_Guy

Funny isn't it?  How is it that this supply tech has this information?  Is this like the pay clerks talking about raises?  I really do find that funny though.  

Its all rumours until we are dressed like clowns walking in and out, do you think that this (if it happens) will coincide with the 2010 100th bday of the navy?  Why again are we walking in and out in one rig, changing onboard into another rig?    All I know is that I have my COTP in and hopefully I won't have to worry about the blue cadpat.............


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

In 2010 we will be wearing full riggers everyday to work......


----------



## Navy_Blue

You know Ex that would not suprise me in the least.  

I apologize in advance for this 

I really didn't take this thread seriously I just thought "No way!  We'll never where CADPAT."  How much gas do you have to huff before the idea that sailors in CADPAT is a great cost saving measure???  Honestly how can plain old grey or blue material cost more than CADPAT a meterial not only designed to disrupt your silhouette but also to reduce IR signature.  Its just not possible!  Some guy at the factory must have calculated how much more material it would take to cover the entire CF and then told his buddy in NDHQ, AKA Fort Fumble.  "Hey I got crazy Canadian price for you!!!"  Just like the guys in Turkey trying to sell me a CK leather jacket made from goats. 

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  To much talk of CADPAT makes Navy Blue go a little bonkers  :blotto:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> You know Ex that would not suprise me in the least.
> 
> I apologize in advance for this
> 
> I really didn't take this thread seriously I just thought "No way!  We'll never where CADPAT."  How much gas do you have to huff before the idea that sailors in CADPAT is a great cost saving measure???  Honestly how can plain old grey or blue material cost more than CADPAT a meterial not only designed to disrupt your silhouette but also to reduce IR signature.  Its just not possible!  Some guy at the factory must have calculated how much more material it would take to cover the entire CF and then told his buddy in NDHQ, AKA Fort Fumble.  "Hey I got crazy Canadian price for you!!!"  Just like the guys in Turkey trying to sell me a CK leather jacket made from goats.
> 
> AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  To much talk of CADPAT makes Navy Blue go a little bonkers  :blotto:



Well as the guy that started this thread I must say that I didn't make it up. I heard it from a guy who sits on that committee. Admiral Buck saved us from it the first time it went around but you have to remember that the Army is in charge right now....read the Armour Corps is in charge. They think CADPAT is the cat's pajamas and can't really get their minds around why the rest of us think it's a bad idea...look what they did to the Air Force! And yes they are thinking bottom line and not really thinking about how ridiculous we will look coming alongside in a Foriegn Port.
I watched Athabaskan come alongside after a 6 month NATO this morning and thought....wouldn't this look funny if they were all in CADPAT! :
Like others have said...if they do this the CO will likely have them coming into port in DEU....the officers and POs were all in whites today anyway.....lots of fun eh?? :


----------



## George Wallace

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> .......but you have to remember that the Army is in charge right now....read the Armour Corps is in charge. They think CADPAT is the cat's pajamas  and can't really get their minds around why the rest of us think it's a bad idea...look what they did to the Air Force! And yes they are thinking bottom line and not really thinking about how ridiculous we will look coming alongside in a Foriegn Port.....



Wow!  Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist at it's best.


----------



## Red 6

Don't worry. Ya'll will be in good company since the US Navy for all intents & purposes is doing the same thing with a blu/grey/black digital uniform. You'll get used to it. Fortunately, when they switch uniforms, a pay raise almost always goes with it


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wow!  Paranoid Conspiracy Theorist at it's best.



Not at all. I'm not one who believes in conspiracies. I'm observing what's going on. Check out the number of senior Navy officers pulling the pin up in Ottawa right now. There are a lot of disgruntled folks...why do you think that is? It's not over CADPAT. The current administration believes that the Navy and the Air Force are the means to transport the Army into theatre to do the real work. The CADPAT issue is a symptom of the overall plan...one big happy JARMY.


----------



## navymich

What colour is going to outline the rank and name badges on the Navy CADPAT?  I guess we can use the blue of the AF, since our CADPAT will be a different colour anyway.  Should save some money there what with not having to make new epaulets.  :  Oh, and we'd better change the colour of the ship's ballcaps again, just to make sure that they really match....


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.hyperstealth.com/ka2/Navy/index.htm

The Jordanians appear to be ahead of the game


----------



## George Wallace

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ...... I'm observing what's going on. Check out the number of senior Navy officers pulling the pin up in Ottawa right now. There are a lot of disgruntled folks...why do you think that is? It's not over CADPAT. The current administration believes that the Navy and the Air Force are the means to transport the Army into theatre to do the real work. The CADPAT issue is a symptom of the overall plan...one big happy JARMY.


Lots of disgruntled Army personnel are pulling the plug also.  No points for you there.

I suppose you have another means in mind to transport the Army into Theatre, something other than the Air Force or Navy?  I guess you are still lost in some other happy place, that never existed at any time.  Wasn't it the Navy and Merchant Marine who moved the Army to Europe in both World Wars?  I don't think we had a Navy capable of moving the Little Army to the Boer War, so they had to do the 'Rental' thing.....but that was then, this is now.  Time to open up to the fact that you are in the CF.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Sure we may just be nothing but transports, but you can't transport anyone without a good escort, so there will always be a need for a CPF/Air support.....   Personally I would love to give my army brothers a lift to an operational area, just don't look for me to give up my 3 hot meals a day, showers, clean sheets, duff, beer, movies, internet, steak night, runny scrambled eggs, banyans, fat chicks who think they are hot because they are the only ones around.   Call me a taxi driver, I don't care.


Ok maybe that was a bit much.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> Admiral Buck saved us from it the first time it went around but you have to remember that the Army is in charge right now....read the Armour Corps is in charge. They think CADPAT is the cat's pajamas and can't really get their minds around why the rest of us think it's a bad idea...look what they did to the Air Force!



Total BS - CF dress is decided by the CF Dress Committee, which includes representatives from all services.  The Air Force decided on CADPAT when we had an AIR FORCE CDS.  Artificial interservice rivalry does no one any good - especially with the operational tempo the way it is right now.  The fact of the matter is that if the Navy decides to wear CADPAT, it is almost entirely a NAVY decision.  Check the minutes of the CF Dress Committee if you don't believe me.



> Not at all. I'm not one who believes in conspiracies. I'm observing what's going on. Check out the number of senior Navy officers pulling the pin up in Ottawa right now. There are a lot of disgruntled folks...why do you think that is? It's not over CADPAT. The current administration believes that the Navy and the Air Force are the means to transport the Army into theatre to do the real work. The CADPAT issue is a symptom of the overall plan...one big happy JARMY.



Like who?  Like officers within their retirement zone?  Give your head a shake.  The Army happens to be carrying the bulk of the _current_ operational tempo.  Moreover, we're dealing with a completely different operational paradigm than in previous decades - I suggest you learn to live with it.  The Navy can hardly complain with JSS and BHS projects underway and with new shipboard helicopters about to be delivered.

I loathe interservice crap like this.  It does none of us any good and we have much bigger fish to fry; guys are getting killed on operations right now FFS.

/rant

TR


----------



## Gunner

+1 Teddy, Well said.


----------



## Navy_Blue

I'm not against any other service I just really really see no point in me wearing CADPAT to go down in a machinery space and cover it in oil/paint/dirt/feces.  There is no reason at all for us to do this.  Coveralls For MSE/CSE to sail in and give the OPS a revamped NCD that can keep some buttons on long enough to get it out of the bag.  Or forget NCD's all together and go coveralls and Salt and peppers.

To much talk of CADPAT make Navy_Blue something something  

:dontpanic:


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> I'm not against any other service I just really really see no point in me wearing CADPAT to go down in a machinery space and cover it in oil/paint/dirt/feces.  There is no reason at all for us to do this.  Coveralls For MSE/CSE to sail in and give the OPS a revamped NCD that can keep some buttons on long enough to get it out of the bag.  Or forget NCD's all together and go coveralls and Salt and peppers.
> 
> To much talk of CADPAT make Navy_Blue something something  :dontpanic:



You don't think other trades don't do the same.  Coverals are an 'order' of Dress in most workplaces in the CF.  

The Armour Corps wore coverals almost exclusively in the Field.  

Oh!  But CADPAT does hide those oil stains quite well.   ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Nomex Coveralls makes too much sense guys, the Navy would never go for those.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Lots of disgruntled Army personnel are pulling the plug also.  No points for you there.
> 
> I suppose you have another means in mind to transport the Army into Theatre, something other than the Air Force or Navy?  I guess you are still lost in some other happy place, that never existed at any time.  Wasn't it the Navy and Merchant Marine who moved the Army to Europe in both World Wars?  I don't think we had a Navy capable of moving the Little Army to the Boer War, so they had to do the 'Rental' thing.....but that was then, this is now.  Time to open up to the fact that you are in the CF.



Thanks for your lecture friend. I'm not looking for points but a good discussion. I have served for almost 30 years myself...first with the Navy as a Line officer (MARS) and then as a Chaplain where I served with all three elements ...my whole time has been as CF so don't need to be lectured by you about the reality. I also served with the RCD when the present CDS as the CO and General Nytynchuk (sp) was the Admin Sqn OC (90-92).
I am quite aware of the present situation...I have no problem with the idea of the Navy transporting the Army around but there are other uses for a Navy which don't involve being bus drivers.
As you are well aware as a Dragoon there are things which service people take great pride in and build esprit de corps. One of them is the uniforms we wear, the language we talk and the things that make our individual regiments and services distinct. I suspect that if someone suggested that all you guys drive tanks and go in the field in Naval Combats you'd all be a little upset too.

PS That Jordanian uniform is absolutely ugly...IMHO


----------



## Navy_Blue

Why are you army guys in this thread defending this??  No one is asking you guys to wear something that will look completely ridiculous.  I know..I know Green CADPAT in Astan.  But at least you guys still looked like GI-JOE.  We're Sailors here!!!  

:threat:


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

No one's "defending" anything.  IN HOC SIGNO posted accusations that were completely unfounded and inflamatory - completely unrelated to a (comparatively) trivial issue such as uniforms.  As I said in my first post, it is almost entirely up to the NAVY as to what the Navy wears - full stop.  If you end up in CADPAT, to blame the CDS (and the Armour Corps) is to launch your torpedoes at the wrong target.


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Why are you army guys in this thread defending this??  No one is asking you guys to wear something that will look completely ridiculous.  I know..I know Green CADPAT in Astan.  But at least you guys still looked like GI-JOE.  We're Sailors here!!!
> 
> :threat:



It was by INVITATION:



			
				IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> ..... but you have to remember that the Army is in charge right now....read the Armour Corps is in charge. They think CADPAT is the cat's pajamas and can't really get their minds around why the rest of us think it's a bad idea...look what they did to the Air Force!



 ;D

Someone accusing Black Hats of screwing over Black Hats (N).

Good enough?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Not at all. I'm not one who believes in conspiracies. I'm observing what's going on. Check out the number of senior Navy officers pulling the pin up in Ottawa right now. There are a lot of disgruntled folks...why do you think that is? It's not over CADPAT. The current administration believes that the Navy and the Air Force are the means to transport the Army into theatre to do the real work. The CADPAT issue is a symptom of the overall plan...one big happy JARMY.



Man you really gotta pull your head out of your ass. That is so simplistic and naive it doesn't even bear discussion.


----------



## George Wallace

Now this Black Hat can identify with you Black Hat (N) types, espeically if this is what you are thinking of as CANPAT (Cdn Naval Pattern):


----------



## Neill McKay

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.hyperstealth.com/ka2/Navy/index.htm
> 
> The Jordanians appear to be ahead of the game



Must be fun finding someone who's gone over the side dressed in that...


----------



## Sub_Guy

Can anyone on here confirm that the yanks wear their naval pattern at sea?  I was always under the impression that it was a base side dress only?  As for seagoing uniforms, we should adapt what the Kiwi's, Aussie's wear.


I seriously doubt that they are considering a naval pattern as a sea going dress.  Also our current NCD's are blue and black, even if you fell over the side with our current rig it would still be almost impossible to see you.

If they decide that our base side dress is NAVPAT, then so be it.  I don't like wearing my NCD's alongside working at NRS anyway.  At the end of the day my paycheck still gets deposited in the bank, if I change uniforms I am not going to be any less dedicated.


----------



## Rhibwolf

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt that they are considering a naval pattern as a sea going dress.  Also our current NCD's are blue and black, even if you fell over the side with our current rig it would still be almost impossible to see you.
> 
> If they decide that our base side dress is NAVPAT, then so be it.  I don't like wearing my NCD's alongside working at NRS anyway.  At the end of the day my paycheck still gets deposited in the bank, if I change uniforms I am not going to be any less dedicated.



I agree fully.  Despite the fact that to the old guard (pre unification) we all look like Sr NCO in our DEU tunics,  the Navy survived a uniform change.  Pay still comes at mid and end month, and life goes on.  As for walking out in NCDs? An earlier comment on walking in with one rig and dressing to work in another is probably prudent, as many sailors look terrible in their working NCDs with their paint spatters, grease stains and ripped a$$ cheeks where their monster key chain has torn the belt loop or worn a hole right thru.  Complicate the matter with the fact that Nomex is not the most eye-pleasing material, and you get a pretty ugly uniform.   
As for being hard to find in a MOB, everything is hard to find. The average floater has about 8 inches of freeboard (top of head to chin) and most of the uniform is covered in water, so even if the floater was in neon pink or electric green, it wont matter much.  Besides, most material looks a lot darker when wet.

The army went thru similar angst in the late 80s early 90s with Garrison Dress. While OD combats didnt make much sense in general, camo rig on base was even more mystifying.  YET, they survived, and the problem eventually went away with time.  
Will we see NAVPAT or CANPAT (pick your nick)? Im not sure, but none of my sup techs have told me about yet.  More importantly, I have not heard it from the official source of correct gossip, the ubiquitous and omniscient Naval Cook.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I believe I mentioned it earlier in this thread.  We will be going to Nomex Coveralls with zippered boots, (some personnel with Orthodox are already wearing what we will see here already) as shipboard dress in the next year or so.  Apparently the CADPAT shit is true and will be walking out dress,(baseside) also within the next year or so.  Also new long johns of similar quality as the clothe the soldier issue, in white, (friggin stupid colour for a greasy shipboard life) and Helly Hansen(? sp) quality rain gear to replace the useless Canary suits.

The above was briefed to the Supply guys on this coast earlier this year.  Also the CADPATs were briefed to the PLQ's earlier this year as well.  As the USMC new pattern is very close to our own in style, I would expect the Jordanian sets displayed there will be close to what we can expect ours to look like.  (One of the 911's does claim to have actually seen a set and he thinks they look great, and will be happy to wear them.  Silly bastard...)

From some of the Bos'n who are employed at the Bedford Range on the Green CADPAT.  They were wearing them until fairly recently but were told to return them to stores and return to the old combats.  The reason being that when they were adopted by the CF the Army and the AF chipped into the pot, but the Navy (God Bless em) said they would not go for it.  So, the Range guys were told "You didn't want to pay for them so take them off".  SO maybe there is some truth to Adm Buck saving our collective honour by putting his foot down.  

And from what I have seen with the Yanks, they keep the Cammo BDU's for along side as I have never seen them displayed on sailors during RAS's.  Although I would expect their Marine personnel will have their BDU's as dress, but as they would not be involved in RAS's I can't say I've seen them at sea.


----------



## Kirkhill

And just who, exactly, are all you sailor types hiding from while on base?  >


----------



## navymich

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And just who, exactly, are all you sailor types hiding from while on base?  >



The Base Chief and his dress patrol of course.  ;D


And sailor "types"?  As opposed to real sailors?  LOL


----------



## Sub_Guy

The CPO1 From the PLQ school is a man to hide from, his daily trips to Nelles for lunch are something else!   Army fellas, just don't call him sir


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ah come on.... I love calling RSM's, Chief!  It's fun to watch the old guys turn all purpley red......  Why spoil the fun for the Army guys. >


----------



## GO!!!

In my experience, nothing guarantees a good show like;

"Hey Sea Warrant, where's the mess?" 

I've never seen an NCO turn that color before!  ;D


----------



## cobbler

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> As for seagoing uniforms, we should adapt what the Kiwi's, Aussie's wear.



I honestly cannot understand why all Navies havn't gone down that route.


----------



## childs56

I have called the Coxswain and the RPO at Nelles block sir a few times. No real response from them other then they replied Pte or Cpl, and I corrected them to Gunner or Bombardier.
I even parked in the RPO's spot during non reserved hours only to be threatend that he would have the DND vehicle I drove towed and me charged.  
I was literally dragged out of the shower by the MP's. 

Only to throw on my Cbt pants t shirt and flip flops to walk out and show them that I still 1/2 hr left before the reserved time came into effect. The RPO was fuming now as I was out of unifrom, parked in his 1/2 hour till reserved spot and I was correct. 

I think the Navy going to Cbts as shore dress is appropriate. The more hostile our enviroment becomes the more we need to be able to draw on the availiable manpower with in a moments notice. 
When the ships are tied up along side some foreign port and the scneario goes some thing to the way side and we need a fast response team, the Navy could possibly deploy a limited amount of Sailors to secure ground and or them selves. To have them outfitted in a Cbt style uniform may be telling us something of what the future may lay ahead for them. 

JSS, amphibous ships........


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I think the Navy going to Cbts as shore dress is appropriate. The more hostile our enviroment becomes the more we need to be able to draw on the availiable manpower with in a moments notice.
> When the ships are tied up along side some foreign port and the scneario goes some thing to the way side and we need a fast response team, the Navy could possibly deploy a limited amount of Sailors to secure ground and or them selves. To have them outfitted in a Cbt style uniform may be telling us something of what the future may lay ahead for them.
> 
> JSS, amphibous ships........



Thats why we have the Naval Landing and Boarding Party to do that, you just don't arbitrarily take a person out of the engine room, galley etc and tell them to secure ground. All Force Protection does it enables a duty watch to defend a ship, it is not to double as an infantry section. As for your last statment, don't read too much into it, we as getting JSS mainly as an AOR with limited sea lift capability, the amphib that may be coming is so we can facilitate deploying our troops and giving us a capability that will be needed more and more in the 21st century.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CTD said:
			
		

> I have called the Coxswain and the RPO at Nelles block sir a few times. No real response from them other then they replied Pte or Cpl, and I corrected them to Gunner or Bombardier.



You're talking Arty, but your 514 MOC in your profile says 'bluejob'. A bit confused?


----------



## Sub_Guy

I was reading the dress minutes today, and there is mention of the CPO1 _____ <--- Forgot name talking with CLS on CADPAT for the Navy.    Question, if he is talking to CLS, does this indicate that the navy will be in green and not blue, not that I care, as I hopefully will be wearing blue, air force blue.


----------



## childs56

Put me in charge of the sailors charging ashore, sounds fun and interesting. 

The bottom line is times are changing and so is our mission and and equipment. 
We have lots and lots of Navy personnalle already wearing CBT clothing ashore. So what, get it issued and wear it. The reasons for the Navy wearing Cbts by the higher ups may be for any number of reasons. But the reasons against seem to be pretty futile with out that info from the higher ups. 

It is obvious that due to the ever changing mission of the CF as a whole and the focus towards a one collective force may be actually taking place. At the end of the day, and the same for the Airforce take it in stride, all this means is the military is moving into a new level of operations as a whole. The planning is for all together instead of each individual force as in the past. 

I mean who new that Navy Clearance divers would be in Afganistan de arming ieds and other ordanance?
Who ever thought the Airforce would have people deployed in country. UAV's and Aircraft controllers.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Aboard ship,all cotten unifrom re;FIRE'S ABAORD SHIP!!!!
Cotton is the best protective material we have to save one from burn's,what are your flash hood's made of?
Cadpad melts just like the old combat's and stick's to you and cause's more damage to ones body!
 The Cad Pad Uniform is not made of 100% cotton,I forget the make up but it is mainly synthetic with x % of cotton in it. Even on civie st. where I work as 3rd Eng my coverall's or boiler suit is all cotton,and a heavy weave of cotton and that is a regulation by the Coast Guard and Workmans Compansation Board.


----------



## George Wallace

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> I was reading the dress minutes today, and there is mention of the CPO1 _____ <--- Forgot name talking with CLS on CADPAT for the Navy.    Question, if he is talking to CLS, does this indicate that the navy will be in green and not blue, not that I care, as I hopefully will be wearing blue, air force blue.



This for some reason just brought back memories of the warehouses full of old combats that the Navy had......remember those?  The Blue ones, that were chemically treated and unfit to safely issue.  Will this just turn out to be another case of that.....just rotating the stock in those warehouses......old combats out, CADPAT in.


----------



## childs56

I think the point here is that the Navy will be wearing Cbts while on shore dutys. Then they will wear their NCD/Coveralls on ship. 
Their dress uniforms with or with out shorts and sandels which have been worn at sea are in my opinion not the most fire retardent uniform I have seen. The argument is null and void towards the fact that Cbts are not fully fire retardent. Not to mention that they can be made with the same pattern but different material.  
The same rules can apply for that situation, you must have long pants/long sleeves (aka coveralls with in reach) incase of emergency. 

As for being called Gunner etc Was one job before now I am another job. 

Again the bottom line is you will get them and you will wear them. As did the Airforce. I am willing to bet on a gentle mens bet that once they are in wide scale issue that some if not most will wear them while sea going. 
The Airforce use to complain about not being in blue and although they have the choice to wear coveralls every day at work, most choose not to. They wear green cause it is convient and comfortable. With little to no maintence required besides wash and wear. 
I still hear guys day to day say how they wish we were in Blue still. I ask them why, they say it identifies us. I ask the question who are we identifying with here, we are on an Airforce base with Airforce people. Then I mention we have blue shirts, blue berets and also blue tags. That all identifys us. 

Cheers all.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Been in the navy since 94 and the only time at sea I have ever worn my CFs was hmmmmm.....never.thats the same as with shorts and sandals, alongside is a different story.


----------



## bison33

They gonna find Cadpats big enough for some of those "large" chiefs? ;D ;D


----------



## Rhibwolf

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Been in the navy since 94 and the only time at sea I have ever worn my CFs was hmmmmm.....never.thats the same as with shorts and sandals, alongside is a different story.



Although becoming increasingly rare, it is not unheard of to see officers in "red sea rig" which is essentially DEU pants, white ss shirt, shoulderboards, no pins/medals, and a cummerbund.


----------



## artygirl

hey guys... Army oppinion heading your way... no worries I totally agree with you guys!  I think it is for one; a great tradition to be recognised by your uniform in all elements.  I personally would have a **** fit if they told me I was going to wear a wedge hat or a pair of nicely ironed black slacks.  To me im proud to be wearing the greens and when other elements start wearing it it kind of loses its reputation as the combat uniform.  And I imagine losing your traditional dress is almost an insult.  well who knows just my oppinion anyway.
take care and I have to back up the Patricia when he said it was hard to hold back from some sort of a joke.  hmmmmm no I cant hahah


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Rhibwolf said:
			
		

> Although becoming increasingly rare, it is not unheard of to see officers in "red sea rig" which is essentially DEU pants, white ss shirt, shoulderboards, no pins/medals, and a cummerbund.



Seen it for rounds on rare occassions but as you said its becoming increasingly rare. There are always circumstances where the general norm does not apply....


----------



## Good2Golf

artygirl said:
			
		

> hey guys... Army opinion heading your way... no worries I totally agree with you guys!  I think it is for one; a great tradition to be recognised by your uniform in all elements.  I personally would have a **** fit if they told me I was going to wear a wedge hat or a pair of nicely ironed black slacks.  To me im proud to be wearing the greens and when other elements start wearing it it kind of loses its reputation as the combat uniform.  And I imagine losing your traditional dress is almost an insult.  well who knows just my opinion anyway.
> take care and I have to back up the Patricia when he said it was hard to hold back from some sort of a joke.  hmmmmm no I cant hahah



+1

Good points, Master Bomber!  There is operational functionality that needs to be provided, in some cases CADPAT is it, other times it's FR NCD on board, or FR flying gear for Hel Det aircrew, etc...  Then there are things that do not substantively cost the department a significant amount more, that still support operational capability while retaining an element of tradition.

Question for folks who take the bean-counting hardline to reduce to a single "jack-of-all-trades" uniform...people have no problem thinking in the realm of 100's of millions or even billions of dollars to provide operation combat capability from a weapon system point of view.  Why is it then that some get so hard-nosed about something that supports operations through the contribution to establishing and maintaining esprit de corps.  In the big picture, any perceived or real costs of having a "family" or environmental clothing systems pales in comparison to what we spend on systems, yet the "system" seems oblivious to the value of identifying with a particular service.

I'm for one more order of dress...resurrect the green garbage bags of the 70's and 80's and force those members of the CF (staffers and those in the command chain-alike) who want to squish everybody into the same mold/uniform/etc... and make them wear the crap that only too much reminds many of us of the dark era where sadly, many practiced "leading by management" vice "managing with leadership"!  "Egaaad!  Look, there's a CF-wearing, administratively-focused pencil-neck geek...run away!"  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sub_Guy

If the CADPAT was of a naval pattern and blue for shore jobs that works with me, but are we going to wearing those at sea I doubt it, we will see sailors in coveralls at sea before we see sailors in cadpat on a Frigate.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Boys I have already said it, we are going to coveralls and zipper boots for sea dress.  I already wear coveralls.


----------



## childs56

Just to reply back to Artygirls response. 
Well all people whom wear the COMBAT uniform in the extra plus sizes, the people in positions whom will never see Combat, the pregnant people whom have fitted Cbt uniform so as to fit in, All these wearing Cbts lack the words of what you are reffering to in the context of a Combat uniform. 

For the most part the whole entire military can and may be tasked to deploy in a situation that may warrent the use of the Combat uniform. Navy and Airforce purple trades such as clerks, supply techs construction engineers and such may be deployed on a moments notice to such hot spots around the world. What a pain in the butt to out fit these people at the last minute to fill in a last minute requirement that usually results in more then one or two personalle being deployed.   
The Airforce as it is ever changing at this time may at any point send a Fighter Unit to deploy into Afganistan. Their pending results in doing such a delployment may result in them doing such things as perimeter security, maybe even crash scene secrutiy if a jet falls out of the sky for any number of reasons. The list goes on for why they may or may not need Cbt uniforms along with the proper modern day gear that goes along with being in a CBT zone .  Trying to outfit a Squadron of Airpersonalle with the proper PPE even with a years notice is next to impossible let alone at the last minute as our military usually does. COMBAT means just that. I personally would not want to wear the BLUE Airforce uniform on any deployment. 

Back to the Navy side of the coin, we are changing the role of the NAVY, they are getting new ships for more support of the guys on the ground. Who actually knows what they can or will be doing in the next few years. They may have Naval personalle driving landing craft to the shore to drop troops off, they may say you have to have full CBT gear at your way side in case your boat sinks while dropping off the soldiers. Who knows but we are changing and we need to look to the future. 
We need to keep our customs and traditions, but we also need to look at the future of what it may hold on an operational context. 

Just on a side note to all this. The QR&O's use to contain a specific section towards the employment of NAVAL personalle in the Army gorund role. It had stated that for a max of 3 continous months if need be Naval personalle could be employed as Infantry soldiers. (not sure of the exact wording or time limits)  There was a need to publish words to that effect on QR&O's. 

Hey Rossiter hows good old Manitoba treating you.


----------



## Rhibwolf

Duey said:
			
		

> Question for folks who take the bean-counting hardline to reduce to a single "jack-of-all-trades" uniform...people have no problem thinking in the realm of 100's of millions or even billions of dollars to provide operation combat capability from a weapon system point of view.  Why is it then that some get so hard-nosed about something that supports operations through the contribution to establishing and maintaining esprit de corps.  In the big picture, any perceived or real costs of having a "family" or environmental clothing systems pales in comparison to what we spend on systems, yet the "system" seems oblivious to the value of identifying with a particular service.
> 
> I'm for one more order of dress...resurrect the green garbage bags of the 70's and 80's and force those members of the CF (staffers and those in the command chain-alike) who want to squish everybody into the same mold/uniform/etc... and make them wear the crap that only too much reminds many of us of the dark era where sadly, many practiced "leading by management" vice "managing with leadership"!  "Egaaad!  Look, there's a CF-wearing, administratively-focused pencil-neck geek...run away!"  ;D



Duey, spot on!  I for one shudder, pitch, roll and yaw at the idea of wearing that again, and am equally worrisome about the current trend of putting eveyone in CADPAT (or whatever PAT).  How long will it be until we all get the call to come to BLog and sign for our new peak caps - you know, the ones with the plastic WHITEPAT tops, BLACKPAT peaks, and the CLOTHPAT hat band to hold our generic (BRASSPAT) cap badges.  We went thru this in the 70s and 80s, and we all hated it then, even those of us who were green.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

CTD said:
			
		

> Just to reply back to Artygirls response.
> Well all people whom wear the COMBAT uniform in the extra plus sizes, the people in positions whom will never see Combat, the pregnant people whom have fitted Cbt uniform so as to fit in, All these wearing Cbts lack the words of what you are reffering to in the context of a Combat uniform.
> 
> For the most part the whole entire military can and may be tasked to deploy in a situation that may warrent the use of the Combat uniform. Navy and Airforce purple trades such as clerks, supply techs construction engineers and such may be deployed on a moments notice to such hot spots around the world. What a pain in the butt to out fit these people at the last minute to fill in a last minute requirement that usually results in more then one or two personalle being deployed.
> The Airforce as it is ever changing at this time may at any point send a Fighter Unit to deploy into Afganistan. Their pending results in doing such a delployment may result in them doing such things as perimeter security, maybe even crash scene secrutiy if a jet falls out of the sky for any number of reasons. The list goes on for why they may or may not need Cbt uniforms along with the proper modern day gear that goes along with being in a CBT zone .  Trying to outfit a Squadron of Airpersonalle with the proper PPE even with a years notice is next to impossible let alone at the last minute as our military usually does. COMBAT means just that. I personally would not want to wear the BLUE Airforce uniform on any deployment.
> 
> Back to the Navy side of the coin, we are changing the role of the NAVY, they are getting new ships for more support of the guys on the ground. Who actually knows what they can or will be doing in the next few years. They may have Naval personalle driving landing craft to the shore to drop troops off, they may say you have to have full CBT gear at your way side in case your boat sinks while dropping off the soldiers. Who knows but we are changing and we need to look to the future.
> We need to keep our customs and traditions, but we also need to look at the future of what it may hold on an operational context.
> 
> Just on a side note to all this. The QR&O's use to contain a specific section towards the employment of NAVAL personalle in the Army gorund role. It had stated that for a max of 3 continous months if need be Naval personalle could be employed as Infantry soldiers. (not sure of the exact wording or time limits)  There was a need to publish words to that effect on QR&O's.
> 
> Hey Rossiter hows good old Manitoba treating you.



And what would be the reference for that in QR & Os? I don't seem to remember that one and I've been around for nigh on 30 years.

This is kind of a funny argument about people needing to have CADPAT in case their ship sinks. the thing we have to do is keep our ship from sinking by fighting fires and plugging leaks....the CADPAT doesn't help us do that. We need to be in coveralls with nomex material to help us not get burned. We also need flash gear that keeps us from getting burned if we take rounds or enter a fire area.
CADPAT is designed for people who are in field units...Army combat gear. The disruptive pattern is there to help you pongos hide in the bush and for the first little while you wear it it's supposed to have some IR signature resistance. (our ship is one big IR signature) 

The Naval Combats were designed for people on ships. God knows it took us long enough to get it. In the first round of Armyfication we had to wear the old polyester work dress (looked like a Texaco Service Station attendant) and we were told that was good for us too....we had to wear the old ankle boots at sea also. When we got DEUs we were finally able to get a nomex uniform that was comfortable to wear and relatively easy to clean....then came steel toed sea boots that were actually waterproof and warm.

The thing is we don't need disruptive pattern uniforms at sea or when we come ashore....If we're driving a landing craft ashore...there's nowhere to hide! If the craft goes down and we come ashore they'll be waiting on the beach for the next one to come and take us back to the ship...sailors don't do land that well....not what they're trained for.

The JSS ships are actually going to be employed most of the time to resupply our own ships at sea...like way out at sea. They are replacements for the AORs. We will have some capacity to carry troops where they want to go and their vehicles  but I'm willing to bet it will be employed 90% or the time as an AOR.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Just on a side note to all this. The QR&O's use to contain a specific section towards the employment of NAVAL personalle in the Army gorund role. It had stated that for a max of 3 continous months if need be Naval personalle could be employed as Infantry soldiers. (not sure of the exact wording or time limits)  There was a need to publish words to that effect on QR&O's.



I would also like to see that reference as well.



> The JSS ships are actually going to be employed most of the time to resupply our own ships at sea...like way out at sea. They are replacements for the AORs. We will have some capacity to carry troops where they want to go and their vehicles  but I'm willing to bet it will be employed 90% or the time as an AOR.



IHS that argument is falling on deaf years I have been saying that for awhile, just most choose not to listen.


----------



## Sub_Guy

99% of the time, they can't carry that much army crap anyway.  I know some people have this vision of our Navy conducting amphibious operations, which brings this CADPAT argument, think about it.... they navy will not be wearing cadpat on ships.....read the posts..

Again the JSS are AOR replacements, there is no need for those sporting cadpat to start taking gravol...........or to stock up on sea sickness patches........



I know we live in a changing world, but I seriously doubt the Canadian military is going to be launching a full scale assault from the seas any time soon.. I am familiar with the SCTF, I am aware that Rick wants the BHS.......And those who wear green think the senior service is now a taxi for them.......   Would I like to see more ships? Yes I would, I would like to see equipment procured more quickly than it is now.  Here is something to think about the HMCS Halifax is almost 20 years old..............  Our navy is one of the most respected in the world (maybe not the world, but by the Americans)


----------



## childs56

CFAO 10-3. It was a while ago that I found it and. Kinda interesting that they had to write a order up for employment of other services during the Unification time in reguard to the Pre unification troops. 

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

> .......And those who wear green think the senior service is now a taxi for them.......



Well, I guess there is always plan C - If the bus doesn't run by your door and you can't get a taxi then I guess you have to spring for your own car.


----------



## navymich

Check out  this article from the U.S. from earlier this year.







I like this line especially:


> The bottom line for me in making these decisions,said the CNO, is culture. Uniforms reflect our culture -- who we are -- what we stand for. I've said all along that no matter which way we go, I want Sailors to look like Sailors.


----------



## GAP

> near maintenance-free permanent press 50/50 nylon and cotton blend. Worn with a blue cotton t-shirt,



Was there not a earlier thread regarding the danger of some materials in fire situations, therefore they banned the use of synthetic materials normally used by unauthorized suppliers?


----------



## navymich

GAP said:
			
		

> Was there not a earlier thread regarding the danger of some materials in fire situations, therefore they banned the use of synthetic materials normally used by unauthorized suppliers?


I don't know GAP, I've lost track of the earlier threads...LOL.  I looked through them to confirm that link hadn't been posted yet, and I do recall something about fire retardancy.  Will look again.


----------



## GAP

I will see if I can find it too. The name of the thread had something to do with banning something something

here it is: Synthetic materials clothing now banned outside the wire in A'Stan 
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42140.0.html

The quote that stuck in my head was this:

Synthetic Clothes Off Limits to Marines Outside Bases in Iraq
By Lance Cpl. Stephen Holt, USMC
Special to American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2006/20060412_4800.html 

CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq, April 12, 2006 – Marines conducting operations outside forward operating bases and camps in Iraq can no longer wear synthetic athletic clothing containing polyester and nylon, Marine Corps commanders have ordered 

The ban on popular clothing from companies like Under Armour, CoolMax and Nike comes in the wake of concerns that a substantial burn risk is associated with wearing clothing made with these synthetic materials, officials said. 

When exposed to extreme heat and flames, clothing containing some synthetic materials like polyester will melt and can fuse to the skin. This essentially creates a second skin and can lead to horrific, disfiguring burns, said Navy Capt. Lynn E. Welling, the 1st Marine Logistics Group head surgeon. 

Whether on foot patrol or conducting a supply convoy while riding in an armored truck, everyone is at risk to such injuries while outside the wire


----------



## GO!!!

> The announcement of the new uniforms, Carroll said, is the culmination of a three-year project that began with the charter of Task Force Uniform to deliver a proposal to reflect the requirements of a 21st century Navy. An analysis of a fleet-wide survey conducted during the summer of 2003 led to the creation of concepts for working and service uniforms for a wear test and another fleet-wide survey last summer.
> 
> “I just can’t say enough about how meticulous and thorough TFU Director Master Chief Rob Carroll and his team approached their work,” stressed Mullen. “The process they established and maintained was rock solid -- measured and analytical. They looked at hundreds of options, studied countless pattern and color designs, and fretted over every minor detail, from button style to stitching. I am enormously proud of their effort, and every Sailor can be, too.”



Interesting that they use a SNCO to run these programs, wheras we use Senior officers - perhaps this has something to do with the difference in timelines and end results - any thoughts? (not trying to start a fight here, but why the difference?)

The article also clearly states that the opinions of the end-users had a major effect on the final choice - maybe our acquisitions process could learn from this!


----------



## Haggis

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Interesting that they use a SNCO to run these programs, wheras we use Senior officers - perhaps this has something to do with the difference in timelines and end results - any thoughts? (not trying to start a fight here, but why the difference?)



We are starting to do the same thing here.  Capt/Maj positions in higher HQs are being staffed by C/MWOs.  The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.

Since NDHQ is a mix of civvies and miltary, we should try this:

Clothe The Soldier:

1 x CWO Supply Tech project manager
10 x Cbt A WOs and Sgts (6 Reg F, 4 Res F one must be a jumper, one a mech soldier, one must be a crewman and one a loggie.  All should have recent field experience)
2 X RMS Clerks.
1 X civvy Irish grandmother to ramrod the whole thing and keep everyone honest and on budget.
1 X CFR'd Cbt A Major to sign it all and keep it legal.


----------



## GO!!!

Haggis said:
			
		

> We are starting to do the same thing here.  Capt/Maj positions in higher HQs are being staffed by C/MWOs.  The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.
> 
> Since NDHQ is a mix of civvies and miltary, we should try this:
> 
> Clothe The Soldier:
> 
> 1 x CWO Supply Tech project manager
> 10 x Cbt A WOs and Sgts (6 Reg F, 4 Res F one must be a jumper, one a mech soldier, one must be a crewman and one a loggie.  All should have recent field experience)
> 2 X RMS Clerks.
> 1 X civvy Irish grandmother to ramrod the whole thing and keep everyone honest and on budget.
> 1 X CFR'd Cbt A Major to sign it all and keep it legal.



....and the final project is to be hard assessed by a committee of 23 Cbt arms Cpls. Failure results in all of the above being posted to the Centre of Excellence and having to wear a white lanyard of shame for a period of not less than five years.


----------



## Haggis

GO!!! said:
			
		

> ....and the final project is to be hard assessed by a committee of 23 Cbt arms Cpls. Failure results in all of the above being posted to the Centre of Excellence and having to wear a white lanyard of shame for a period of not less than five years.



Except for the grandmother.

Not even the "GO!!! show" scares an Irish granny.


----------



## Gunner

> The thinking is that what C/MWOs lack in formal edumacation and staff training is overshadowed by years of "common dog" and street smarts.



If you dig abit deeper it has more to do with a large shortage of Capts/Majs/LCols vice "common dog" and "street smarts" that are apparently, in your opinion, inherent in C/MWO's.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CTD said:
			
		

> CFAO 10-3. It was a while ago that I found it and. Kinda interesting that they had to write a order up for employment of other services during the Unification time in reguard to the Pre unification troops.
> 
> Cheers



  
       
  


CFAO 10-3 - LIABILITY TO SERVE - CONSENT



PURPOSE
1.     This order prescribes the procedures and the conditions under which
members of the Canadian Forces (CF) may consent to serve pursuant to 
QR&O 10.015.

GENERAL
2.     Pursuant to  QR&O 10.015, no member of the CF who on or before 31
Jan 68 was a member of:

     a.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian Army shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew,
          except that, if at any time prior to that date he was employed in
          the operation of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian
          Army, respectively, or was under training to be so employed, his
          consent to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew is not
          required;

     b.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force shall,
          without his consent, be required to serve in an element of a land
          force the role of which in wartime is combat on the ground; and

     c.   the Canadian Army or Royal Canadian Air Force shall, without his
          consent, be required to serve as a member of a ship's company.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> CFAO 10-3 - LIABILITY TO SERVE - CONSENT
> 
> 
> 
> PURPOSE
> 1.     This order prescribes the procedures and the conditions under which
> members of the Canadian Forces (CF) may consent to serve pursuant to
> QR&O 10.015.
> 
> GENERAL
> 2.     Pursuant to  QR&O 10.015, no member of the CF who on or before 31
> Jan 68 was a member of:
> 
> a.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian Army shall, without his
> consent, be required to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew,
> except that, if at any time prior to that date he was employed in
> the operation of aircraft of the Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian
> Army, respectively, or was under training to be so employed, his
> consent to serve as a member of an aircraft's crew is not
> required;
> 
> b.   the Royal Canadian Navy or Royal Canadian Air Force shall,
> without his consent, be required to serve in an element of a land
> force the role of which in wartime is combat on the ground; and
> 
> c.   the Canadian Army or Royal Canadian Air Force shall, without his
> consent, be required to serve as a member of a ship's company.



Well this was not an order to make Bosuns serve as infanteers. There was never any regulation that said people trained in hard sea trades had to be able to serve as Infantry. This was an order to protect those who were in purple trades prior to unification from serving in other elements. i.e. they couldn't make a RCN cook serve in an Army field unit.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks IHS I figured they would not be forming the 1st Royal Canadian Stoker Battalion anytime soon as was hinted at by others.


----------



## GO!!!

Gunner said:
			
		

> If you dig abit deeper it has more to do with a large shortage of Capts/Majs/LCols vice "common dog" and "street smarts" that are apparently, in your opinion, inherent in C/MWO's.



Are you disputing that our SNCOs have common sense, or that the practice of heading projects with them is a step in the right direction, or both?


----------



## Rhibwolf

Gunner, I dont think that anyone is stating that our SNCOs (or any rank grouping for that matter) have or lack common sense.  Common Dog is present or absent in the same proportions across all ranks.  There is a large shortage of officers at the Sr-Jr and Jr-Sr officer ranks in most MOS.  So, given the choice to give these projects to a subbie, a Flag Officer, or a SNCO, it becomes easy to make that decision based on experience, wisdom, skillset etc of the incumbent.  In my last job there were six of us doing the exact same thing for various aspects of a project. 3 WO and 3 Capt/Lt(N).  We all peformed equally well.

btw, from an ex Bdr, are you mud or bird gunner?  You and I have about the same number of yrs in, and Im wondering if we served together in Lahr (86-92) or Shilo (85-86, 92-93)

Rhibwolf


----------



## Gunner

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Are you disputing that our SNCOs have common sense, or that the practice of heading projects with them is a step in the right direction, or both?



I don't think there is a rank that automatically imbides its wearer with "common sense" and/or "street smarts".  I can give you an example of someone hit upside the head with a stupid stick at every rank level in the CF regardless of their environment.  Use of C/M/WOs as staff is simply a result of a lack of officers to fill all of the positions that are reqr to be manned.  Simple reality really.

To be brutally honest, I find the officer/WO/NCM debate rather droll and its perpetuation serves no use other than to allow small men to indulge their small minds.


----------

