# Old timers in the CF question for you!



## belkin81 (10 Jul 2004)

Compare to today how was the army of the pass?, say 15-20 years ago. I was speaking with a construction engineer and he didn't have much good things to say about the shape of the army of today. Me not being able to compare would like to hear from you about it.

So was the training tougher then it is now-a-days with sensativity training, no hitting recruits or swearing? Was the army better shape equipment wise ? More disiplined force? An actual in shape fighting force?

and Do you see it getting better then it is at present or do you see it getting worst yet with a new liberal gov't?


----------



## Lance Wiebe (10 Jul 2004)

The army of the early 70's sucked big time.  I remember going on exercise, setting up tents in the officer lines, setting up tents in the Snr NCO lines, and then our tents.  You know, their will be no mixing of ranks beyond what is absolutely neceesary!  We also had a bunch of broken down Centurions that we would spend weeks working on, only to have them break down within hours of crossing the start line.  There were no parts, no morale, very little esprit de Corps.  Such was life under Trudeau.

Things started to change during and after the '76 Olympics.  Their was a different political will, and the snr NCO's suddenly started being professional.  Our army was actually very good, and we did extremely well against other nations, especially once we received the Leo!

I can actually say that from the time I joined the Reserves in '70, the regs in '74, and up until about 92, life couldn't have been better.  After we left Germany, it seemed the life was sucked out of us.  Officers were not leaders, they were managers.  In CTC, we were told that we were not training officers, we were producing a product, and that CTC would be run like a factory, with managers and so on.  Honestly!  Now, most of the senior officers don't give a rat's a** about the lower ranks, they just need the ticket punched to move on up.

Well, in my own not very humble opinion, anyway!


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jul 2004)

And to think, the phrase political correctiveness wasnt even thought of, and SHARP was a word for being quick whitted, or defined the cutting edge of a knife. I had a good time back in the 1970's in the CF, and although ill equipped, thanks to the then PM PET, we made do.

Those early days for me were in some ways the best yrs of my life.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## bossi (10 Jul 2004)

I was young and naive back when I enlisted in the Reserves in 1975, however ...
We still had Korean War veterans serving in the Regiment.
My unit had several hundred soldiers more than it does now; we had our own medics, wpn and veh techs (and a reasonable number of vehicles, too ... even though some were deuces older than their drivers, and Tonka toy jeeps ...).
We knew if we butt-stroked somebody with our FNs, they were going to have a headache.
Recruits wore coveralls until the supply system delivered their uniforms, and we wore puttees for the annual Drill Competition.
Like I said, I was young and naive, but ... I still look back fondly.

One significant change I've perceived:  For years and years, I volunteered for exercises in Germany and tried to get on an overseas tour but there never seemed to be enough vacancies.
Today, however, it seems there aren't enough reservists to fill the vacancies ...

Having said all of the above, there's one constant, IMHO:  The dedication to duty.
$0.02


----------



## Armymedic (10 Jul 2004)

I have only been in since 1987, but I have seen two shifts in that time.

Like Lance mentioned, 92-94 seemed a downward shift morale in the military. Primarily, IMO due to the closing of CFE, FRP, the scandals, and the dumb peacekeeping missions kicking our butt. 

The second shift, I see, has been in the last couple yrs, and I believe in has a whole bunch to due with the major Aid to civil power ops in Southern Manitoba in 97, Ice Storm in 98. Citizens saw us at our best, dedicated and determined to to everything we could. Those same things people have seen everywhere else in the world for the twenty yrs prior. That awareness of all things Canadian military have increased our morale despite more deployments and less pers. 

I believe the military will be a good place to work in the next ten yrs despite the changes in policy and tactics which we must endure.


----------



## Coyote43D (10 Jul 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> In CTC, we were told that we were not training officers, we were producing a product, and that CTC would be run like a factory, with managers and so on.   Honestly!   Now, most of the senior officers don't give a rat's a** about the lower ranks, they just need the ticket punched to move on up.
> 
> Well, in my own not very humble opinion, anyway!



Ain't that the truth!!.


----------



## ZipperHead (10 Jul 2004)

I joined in '88, and there seemed to be more people joining for the experience and "fun" to be had, rather than for the money, as it seems to be now. IMO, there are too many people in now that stay in because the money is very good compared to what it used to be like (pay wise). In other words, people stayed in in spite of the bad pay because they enjoyed it, or were stupid   ;D

There seemed to be a lot more esprit de corps in the "good old days" and yes, the fitness level was much better all across the board (from what I remember). The super high standards that we have now pretty much allow anybody to join and/or stay in (was my sarcasm very evident????). The prevailing attitude for pretty much everything is to achieve the minimum standard, and leave it at that. People are completely satisified in passing the 13km rucksack march in 2hrs 26min 20secs thinking that that makes them good to go for war fighting. Ummmmm, I don't think so. I can't wait until the AFS (Army Fitness Standard) comes into full swing if/when they ever sort out the "trench digging" and ammo can lift. Lot's of deadwood will be told to buck up. More than likely there will be a barrage of calls to the Ombudsman with many tears shedded. The alternative of getting in shape and sweating and making an effort seems to elude a good deal of people..... Path of least resistance...... Gets planes in the air, but makes the Army spiral further into shite.

I think some things have improved over the years (support for injured troops, quality of life, etc), but it has also made a lot of people soft, thinking that if they don't like what they are told, they can keep whining and moaning until they get their way. The example of postings springs to mind......

Another example of something I don't like about the current direction the CF is taking is the awarding of awards, medals, commendations for nearly anything. I think that some people (in Ottawa) won't be happy until every single member of the CF has a chestful of medals, pins, clasps, etc. I call this the Americanization of the CF. The latest example is the Campaign Stars, which are being issued for the "air war" in Kosovo (Op Allied Force)and ISAF. We had a cook in Bosnia in 2000-2001 who got a commendation (Land Forces Commander's I think) for working 2 weeks straight. WOW!! Another guy in Edmonton actually earned his commendation for rescuing people from a burning apartment building, but I guess the cook doesn't see the irony of his. Pop quiz: What's the hardest course in the CF? Times up!! The answer: Cook..... nobody's ever passed!!!!! 

Anyway, I think the pendulum is actually starting to swing back to the old ways, with people getting pissed off at the shit-state that the Forces are in, and people want to make a change. I think it may be too little, too late, because there are going to be a huge number of people pulling pole over the next few years, and there will be a manpower/leadership crisis. I know of a lot of guys from my era who are getting out at 20 rather than beating their heads against the wall until 55 (years of age), or even 25 years in . I'm thinking of staying in (until 25.... make the pension a nice even 50%),but there are days that 20 years looks like plenty. 

Hopefully there will be members of the younger generation that can see the folly of some of the initiatives that were taken during their formative years, push that crap aside, and get back to the business of soldiering, and not "managing" soldiers and that other civilian-speak nausea we have been living with. I know that I have run afoul of some of these huggy-kissy policies (the whole SHARP issue, diversity trg, etc) and they have made me question the wisdom of ever joining, but for every person that plays the system to their benefit (crying harrasment, racism, gender equality), there are at least 5 more that just want to do their job and make a difference, be it in their community, province, country or overseas. That's the only thing that gives me hope the CF of the future.

BTW, there really isn't any requirement to hit soldiers, but there are times that I wish that the system allowed people to "sort out" problems like the good old days. Too many people were bullies and rose to power through intimidation and violence, rather than leadership, but now people can get away with pretty much anything without the worry that they may be picking up their teeth with broken fingers.....   The swearing thing is kind of a non-issue in most units, as long as you don't use F*&* as every other word. Even in the "bad old" days, most guys knew enough not to swear like a sailor when dealing with the media or the public. As far as training goes, it seems that most trades/elements/schools are trying to improve the training, but get hamstrung when the beancounters get involved. You can only trim so much fat from courses before you start getting rid of the meat....... 

Anyway, I feel moderately better after that rant   :threat:. Hopefully things improve, but the results from the last election probably dictate otherwise..... A lot of promises towards the CF, but I think that cheque is definitely in the mail.....

Al


----------



## pbi (12 Aug 2004)

20 years ago would put us in 1984. By that time I had ten years in, eight in the Res and two Reg. The Army was most definitely a different place, both in the Regular Army and in the Res. All things considered, I woulld say that we are a better Army, if only because we have had so much, much more operational experience in the years since 1984. In those days, except for the few who had been in Cyprus in 74/75, very few if any Canadians had been in "hot" situations or fired shots in anger. That has changed, and for the better in my opinion. Here is my short list of what's better and what's not, since 1984:

NOT:
Discipline-this has degenerated noticeably. I believe that some of our well-intentioned personnel policies may have actually scared leaders away from enforcing discipline, and have encouraged some soldiers to demonstrate the "blame/entitlement" mentality that we see on civvy street. In my opinion there is no place in the Army for those people-they are not professionals and we should not be encouraging them. However, the recent changes to the DAOD on Harrassment have put some common sense and balance back into things;

Collective field training: we don't do nearly enough of this: In those days we would deply to the field for a month or more, start at a basic level and work up. (To be fair we are starting to get back to that, but the lack has hurt us...);

Winter training: In the Regular Army, this has degenerated to a farce. The skill levels in most Reg battalions now are much too low, and many of the younger RegF officers and NCOs have no winter training worth mentioning. I am willing to bet that the basic winter warfare skills of the Reserve Inf soldiers in our Res CBG are probably on average higher than in most Reg Inf battalions today, because at least we still do the training every year. A sad situation and very embarassing for the army of a northern country like Canada;

Mess Life: this has declined almost to non-existence. One could argue that 20 years ago we were TOO mess-oriented,   but in my opinion we have now gone to the other end of the scale.

BETTER:

Professsionalism: This is a professional Army, far moreso than it was 20 years ago. For example, officer professional development is taken much more seriously now than it was when I commissioned in 1983, both in the Reg and the Res. In almost all the ways that one measures true professionalism, we are doing well;

Sense of Identity: In 1984, you could not use the word "Army" in official correspondence: everything was totally "CF green". We all wore the same stupid green busdriver suit, and we were only just beginning to get back our Regimental and Corps identities after Unification butchered them in the '70s. That situation is 100% better today: We are clearly"ARMY" and proud of it, the other two services have their own unique identities, as they should. A much healthier and more realistic arrangement;

Training Standards: We take the control of training standards very seriously now, which I can assure you we did not in 1984. In those days, far too often the "standard" was at the personal whim of the senior instructor present. This was bad enough in the RegF but hideously bad in the Reserve. Today, we take training standards far more seriously. For example, we have learned to run field training exercises in a way that actually teaches something, discusses what went wrong and then fixes mistakes, as opposed to just running around making lots of noise and burning up diesel;

Operational Experience: 'Nuff said. No comparison to the old days;

Equipment: Again, very little comparison. Although we still have a few old pieces of gear (Leo II, M109, old 105mm howitzer) these are all either on their way out   of service or will be. We have some excellent new   gear, and we are getting more new stuff all the time. Not all of our new stuff works exactly as advertised, but we are still way, way ahead in the kit dept as compared to 1984.

Care and Maintenance of the Soldier: We're not 100% there yet (alot of people still don't accept that PTSD is a medical condition and not a scam, for example...) but there is no doubt in my mind that we take far better care of our people (and, just as important, of their families...) than we did 20 years ago. The Army had to learn this the hard way, but I believe we have learned well.

Public Opinion: Light years away from where it was then (even where it was in 1994, ten years later). We do quite well in the public eye, and even the CBC gives us a fair shake alot more often. (time was they were out to get us, in my experience...) Almost all of my interactions with Canadians have been very good-I have even had total strangers walk up to me when I'm in uniform in public, shake my hand and thank me for what Canadian soldiers are doing. This was unheard of in 1984, or even 1994.

Overall, all things considered we're doing not too badly. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (12 Aug 2004)

Can't put it any better than pbi did; his perception matches my own, though I only have 17 years in, all in the reserves.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Aug 2004)

I just wanted to comment on one thing PBI said, and that was the sence of identity. Great post by the way. In my time in Pet. from right after basic training untill 8 years later when I was posted, I always wore the SSF patch and/or the SSF smock. Well, talk about a sad day when I had to take them off/turn it in.
The "highers" back then must of had no clue what "identity" meant to a soldier. It was one of the main reasons we "did what we do."
Bruce


----------



## vr (13 Aug 2004)

Back when I started out our first questions were always "when are we going?" or"how do we get there?" now it's "who's funding this?".  As a pte/cpl we went to the range 2 or 3 times a year now as a ### I'm lucky to get 35 rds every other year and some units' Offrs/Snr NCOs have deferred firing altogether so that the troops could have enough ammo.  As a young Snr NCO we did all our admin during routine training nights and still participated in training now it takes 3 times the paperwork to do half the amount of training.  

As a Reservist I can say that for the first 5-10 years it didn't seem that there was much direction when it came to training plans.  It all seemed made up as we went along and as long as no one died and we showed up at Milcon with a bunch of bodies all was well.  The imposition of training standards and requirements a la BTS/MCSP/ELOC/MLOC is a great improvement and gives direction and focus.  The only down side is that at least in my branch it comes with a dishearteningly stifling amount of beaurocracy and micromanagement.

All the improvements that have been mentioned in the previous posts are great but have come at a price.  A financial price for sure as every pay raise or shiny new toy means less training time for the Reservist.  There is no longer any sense of pride or accomplishment in completing Reserve basic training.  We all say "it was longer and harder when I joined" because it was.  Nowadays failing a BMQ is an achievement.  In my day people failed for not meeting the standard:  now instead of raising the troop we lower the standard.People show up on BMQ on crutches and pass, people are barely literate and pass, people with attitude problems pass because the officers won't let you fail them, and people who can barely walk 10 feet with a rucksack on pass because somehow it's the instructors' fault that they are so out of shape.  As you may have guessed this is a personal peeve of mine.

I think the most galling change has been that when I joined in 19** Reseve Med As were actually trusted enough to treat Reserve soldiers. :dontpanic:


----------



## rifleman (14 Aug 2004)

Is there still an army in Canada? I believe it has become a department in the Civil Service. Leaders have become executives, Sr NCOs->Managers and Soldiers -> Civil servants. 

Its more about what can I get out of the service job, than what I can put in.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Aug 2004)

Nope. Army.ca is the only thing close to an army we have, ahhh, don't tell the al-quaida..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Aug 2004)

Rifleman, 
It would be nice if maybe you could tell us about all your vast experience and maybe we could see how you came to this conclusion. Its called a profile.


----------



## rifleman (14 Aug 2004)

Sorry, just signed on. One proof of my statement is the one where who you are is more important than what you say


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2004)

Which is why comments from most newbies, lurkers and jtfnintendonijasnipers are taken with a grain of salt, if at all. Solid posts, not innuendo, backed by experience and provable fact, if needed, is what we like to see if we are to enter into intellegent discourse with the other members here. Opinions vary and are welcome, so long as we know they are based on real time experience and not something that was read or heard. Welcome.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Aug 2004)

A 14 year old rhyming off why the army sucks isn't going to be taken very seriously don't you agree?
Nor would a private who talks about how hard it is to be a warrant officer or company comander. He's may have heard stuff but *HE* doesn't know.

Not being in the army (or stating your experience) doesn't mean your opinion is garbage but in the same breath guys are gonna take your opinion about the army with a grain of salt if they have no idea where your comming from dude.

Who you are is important when it comes to what your saying.
I know i wouldn't really listen to someone who's rich complain about how hard it is being poor.

(oops posted the same time as recceguy)


----------



## pbi (14 Aug 2004)

Rifleman: I agree with your complaint: everybody has an equal right to speak here as long as they follow the rules. There is no right of speech given to "old guys" with "TI" and denied the "newbies".  But,the point remains that its nice to know a bit about folks' backgrounds since it helps us understand where they're coming from. As well, if you can expand on your answer a bit, it would make for a good argument, I'll bet.

For example, most of the Senior NCOs/WOs I know are trying pretty hard-the last thing they want to be is "managers". I never cease to be amazed at the quality of our NCOs, especially compared to those of other Armies. Do you think the troops who went up on The Whale in Op APOLLO were "civil servants"?  Maybe what you are saying is that there are some people in our Army (actually--more like in the CF but outside the Army) who have tried to instill these wimpish tendencies? That these people have forgotten what soldiers are for?

 Cheers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Aug 2004)

Topic split - see alternate thread at:

Should the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Code apply to the CF? 
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18233.0.html


----------

