# Dress and Deportment



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

" Yes, it looks like crap, but it's the best winter jacket we've got and a darn sight less socially insulting that wearing a greatcoat with a kilt.  You look like a bloody flasher!"

Only if you take your shoes off.  ;D

But, from 7 Jan 1971 until we got issued "CF Greens" in the Fall of 1973, I wore Battledress and a kilt, with a greatcoat made in 1950.  Worked fine.  I sure wish I'd kept the greatcoat.   Nothing wrong with the new one, I like it better than the Swinex Parka I bought in Pet, back in 1977, for $39.95.

As for OG 107 Goretex vs CADPAT.  I was posted ERE (IR) last summer, and shortly after the Regt got the CADPAT Jackets and stuff.  I still wear green heavy clothing with my CADPAT.  Half of Wainwright is in the same boat.  

Tom


----------



## Haggis (30 Mar 2005)

In the now-locked "Prohibited Boots" thread, Meridian asked:

"I wondered about that Haggis because I remember reading an NCR joining instructions type sheet that clearly outlined that DEU's were the Dress of the day every day for WOs & O's.

But I still see Officers in CADPATall the time... (although it is moreso junior NCMs)... does the instruction not apply to Reserve officers on posting or something of that nature (im talking daytime here, not Evenings while people are on their way to the armoury)"

*Meridian:*

The answer is that this order only applies to NCR units under command of CFSU (Ottawa).  It does not apply to units of 33 CBG, the Communication Reserve or Naval Reserve.  They are under command of thier respective Enviornmental Commanders (LFA/LFCA for 33 CBG for example).  If an officer or WO is on an attach posting (either Reg F or Reserve) to an NCR unit, s/he should be wearing DEU on a daily basis.  Exceptions are made, but they are rare.

*TCBF:*

Until we get everyone into CADPAT and ICE  and all the other CTS goodies, we're going to look like a 3rd world horde in field kit.

NDHQ, like any multi service HQ, looks like a walking garage sale with its plethora of uniforms and orders of dress.  Ever been to the Pentagon?  Same thing... except fitter  ;D


----------



## TCBF (30 Mar 2005)

Sounds like Kandahar. All of the "Rakasans"in the 101st (including the Canadians) dressed alike, mostly, but all of the 'operators' were models in a gigantic military fashion show.  There were guys whose probably only  purpose in life was to burn cut down 45 gal drums half filled with JP8 and excrement, and they dressed like they worked for the CIA.

Tom


----------



## Meridian (31 Mar 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Ever been to the Pentagon?   Same thing... except* fitte*r   ;D




Oh God yes. I haven't been to the Pentagon, but I have been to NDHQ, and see the officers all over the place. (If you've ever been to ottawa on a weekday, its hard to avoid). I do not understand why a posting to the "Puzzle Palace" equates to "I have a guaranteed med chit precluding me from ever working out"

To be honest, the worst case of this was CIC; when I was at CFSJ in St-Jean, we had officers doing the MTAP (I think thats the acronym) language courses from all over NATO and eastern europe.  We'd have CIC training weekends where the CIC's would come and do seminars and the like (I dont really know what), and the foreign officers would just look appalled at all these canadian uniformed people who were overweight and looking like bags of -----.   

We had to explain to these officers that indeed the CIC were not Regular or even Reserve force personnel, and basically, CIC got explained as being babysitters of kids in uniforms (whether this was a correct description or not, when you are pissed off about being lumped in with a bunch of fattys, you say anything).


This all led to the question of why CIC doesnt have its own DISTINCTIVE uniforms.


----------



## Jason Bourne (31 Mar 2005)

Strange that CIC's would come up....I was told not to salute them around the base when I did see one...

Jason


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Mar 2005)

Meridian said:
			
		

> We had to explain to these officers that indeed the CIC were not Regular or even Reserve force personnel, and basically, CIC got explained as being babysitters of kids in uniforms (whether this was a correct description or not, when you are pissed off about being lumped in with a bunch of fattys, you say anything).
> 
> This all led to the question of why CIC doesnt have its own DISTINCTIVE uniforms.



Almost as if a variation on Godwin's Law, it seems as though nearly every thread on Army.ca sooner or later devolves into someone complaining about the CIC. 

To address two points you've raised:

CIC officers are reserve force personnel.   Everyone in the CF is either in the regular force or the reserve force (there being no special force in place at the moment).

Why no distinctive uniforms?   I would suggest simply that there's no compelling reason to have them, and if there were, it would have to be balanced against the enormous cost of designing, producing, stocking, and distributing them.   How would we justify such an expenditure?


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Mar 2005)

Jason Bourne said:
			
		

> Strange that CIC's would come up....I was told not to salute them around the base when I did see one...
> 
> Jason



Bad advice, I'm afraid -- you salute all commissioned officers of higher rank than yourself, regardless of branch or element.


----------



## Haggis (31 Mar 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Bad advice, I'm afraid -- you salute all commissioned officers of higher rank than yourself, regardless of branch or element.



Quite true.

An officer is an officer and, as holders of the Queen's Commission, they are all entitled to a salute, whether we like it or not.  If it makes you feel better, just remember that you are paying compliments to the Commission, not the holder. ;D


----------



## Haggis (31 Mar 2005)

Intelligere said:
			
		

> Ah, actually you are paying compliments to the trust and confidence shown in the officer by the Monarch.



....who grants a Commission to said officer as a mark of that trust and confidence.  Semantics aside, you are not saluting the holder.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

I salute the holder.  I just actually begin to enjoy it when they truly deserve it, as - in all fairness - most do.

Tom


----------



## Haggis (1 Apr 2005)

Tom:

Agreed.  Some don't.... most do.  In those cases it makes me feel a bit better to know, deep down, that I'm paying my compliment to the Monarch.  Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing particularly when no one knows you've chosen.


----------



## Meridian (1 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Almost as if a variation on Godwin's Law, it seems as though nearly every thread on Army.ca sooner or later devolves into someone complaining about the CIC.
> 
> To address two points you've raised:
> 
> ...



Lt: I knew someone would bring up the "we are part of the reserves" argument. But in a practical discussion with foreign service "fighting" personnel, trying to explain why a certain group of Canadian Military personnel were significantly overweight, you generally try and segement the groups. CIC AFAIK does not have the same physical fitness standards as the forces (and lets not get even started on the average standards amongst the forces as a whole).

The worse point was that obviously all these pers were officers... which is even more interesting to explain to a WO from Estonia, or a SGT from Russia.

They brought up the idea of seperate uniforms, noting that a cap badge is minimal identification wise, and few CIC actually wear "CIC" rank flaps.  The argument here was that CIC officers are, in fact, quite different in their roles and responsabilities as compared to Regular and Reserve "nonCIC" pers...  

I agree that there is validity to the financial implication argument, as well the argument that they are representing their individual branches of service. 

Personally I guess my preference would be to see CIC having its own branch.


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Apr 2005)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Personally I guess my preference would be to see CIC having its own branch.



Then this is your lucky day: the CIC is in fact a branch.  That's why you usually see "CIC" on the army types' slip-ons (but not on naval or air force pers. because neither element wears its branch in that way -- all branches wear the generic "Canada" slip-ons).


----------



## Meridian (1 Apr 2005)

Ok... Its own component then.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2005)

I guess what I don't understand is why the CIC officers don't wear the same uniforms as the cadets.  That way they would be more like all other officers in all other parts of the CF.  Except for rank badges and odd bits of braid there's not too much difference between the uniforms worn by, say, Gen Hillier and a trooper in the RCD or between Adm Buck and the petty officer clerk who works in the outer office.  Why do CIC officers wear uniforms which differ, quite markedly, from those worn by cadets?


----------



## Jungle (2 Apr 2005)

I agree with Mr Campbell. A change of uniform, and of status, should be envisaged. There are no advantages in having the CIC as part of the CF.
Now regarding the fatties, it is not only a problem in the CIC; it is a problem throughout the CF. Some people invariably go see the doctor to get issued a chit at the first sign of the CF EXPRES. A lot of people in the CofC simply ignore the person and do not bother to follow up. People avoiding the CF EXPRES should be booked on a new test ASAP after the excuse period expires. If they are excused again, then they should be put on a temp med category. Should this carry on, they should be put on a permanent med cat and released.
If we were more serious about our standards, we would have less problems.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2005)

Of course, if no uniforms were made or issues with large waist bands, then a lot of the fitness problems would also be identified  ;D


----------



## Jungle (2 Apr 2005)

... then issue ALL  fatties with maternity uniforms.  >


----------



## pbi (2 Apr 2005)

> If we were more serious about our standards, we would have less problems.



This is the problem, right here. We're not always willing to do the work to make these people play the game. If they try to get out of BFT or Expres by getting a chit, then make sure you a) examine the chit to see that they really have one; and b) what other types of physical exercise they can still do. Then, wait out the duration of their chit and test them again. If another chit appears, get them assessed for their medical fitness to stay in the forces. If they fail the test, start the remedial program. If they fail the remedial program, its either a medical problem (see above) or its a performance problem in which case you start the RW/C&P route as fitness is a valid requirement of the service. The problems with this are a) it takes time and energy; b) the slackers will start squeaking about harassment and grievances, which tends to scare us away (it shouldn't, if we're right...); or c) they can point to any other number of slobs (usually senior to them in rank) and ask "what are you going to do about _him_?"

We are our own worst enemies. To me, greater self pride and less welfare mentality amongst some people in the military would also reduce the numbers of unfit and grossly overweight people we have.

Cheers.


----------



## Meridian (2 Apr 2005)

Not to keep harping on CIC, but are they exempt from EXPRES and BFT?


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> I live in Ottawa, and, well, seems like some people are getting a little to comfortable with their officer jobs. A fit military is a confident military. I don't understand the lack of motivation to do PT with some people, being fit feels good.



I work in Ottawa.  In many cases, finding the time to do PT has little to do with motivation and more to do with workload and the NDHQ lifestyle.

Shortly after arriving at NDHQ, I started taking time to do PT (and I still do).  Every afternoon, I would go for a run along the canal, followed by some body-weight strength training (my building didn't have a gym).  Almost immediately my civilian co-workers remarked that I was "leaving early".  I explained why I was "leaving early" and it was a hard sell to those who don't have a "Physical Fitness Test" box to tick off on their PER.

Secondly, the civilians who work at NDHQ (both real and "uniformed") don't really care much if the meeting they've just scheduled bumps PT off your calendar.  Very few civilian managers will factor in PT when doing thier time estimate for the task they've just assigned you.  And if that task or project is due tomorrow, taking time off for PT just doesn't fit the bill.

Addtionally, most who work at NDHQ have their work day extended by a commute.  If you carpool, as many do, your schedule is tied to that of four or five other folks who couldn't care less if you're fit as long as they don't miss "Everybody Loves Raymond".

In short, the NDHQ lifestyle can quickly turn even the most hardened field soldier into a uniformed public servant. (Ever see the standard of dress of the Canadian Coast Guard?)

All that being said, a major shift in attitude is required in the NCR.  Like it or not, fitness IS a big part of dress and deportment.  Simply ordering all the Warrant Officers and Officers into DEU to make the NCR "look more professional" is not going to fix the problem if the said Warrant Officer can't button his DEU tunic.

Dress and deportment is a combination of kit maintenance, fitness and personal pride.  A uniformed public servant doesn't have those any more than a professional soldier has dreadlocks in uniform.


----------



## beach_bum (2 Apr 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Shortly after arriving at NDHQ, I started taking time to do PT (and I still do).   Every afternoon, I would go for a run along the canal, followed by some body-weight strength training (my building didn't have a gym).   Almost immediately my civilian co-workers remarked that I was "leaving early".   I explained why I was "leaving early" and it was a hard sell to those who don't have a "Physical Fitness Test" box to tick off on their PER.
> 
> Secondly, the civilians who work at NDHQ (both real and "uniformed") don't really care much if the meeting they've just scheduled bumps PT off your calendar.   Very few civilian managers will factor in PT when doing thietheire estimate for the task they've just assigned you.   And if that task or project is due tomorrow, taking time off for PT just doesn't fit the bill.



It's not just a problem at NDHQ, it's really a forces wide problem.  I have had civilian DND employees complain bitterly about us taking PT, despite the fact that they are not assessed on it.  When I brought up the point to them that if they wanted PT so much, perhaps they should join, I got a "talking to".    Also, I can't count the number of times I had heard "PT is cancelled until further notice" due to heavy work loads and dead lines.  Well, lets be honest...we always have heavy work loads and dead lines.  There have been many instances where I have been on my way out to do PT (at the scheduled time) when I have been hauled aside and given the speech on how much work there is, and can I really afford to go on PT.  Or, the "it must be nice" in that snarky tone, trying to make you feel guilty!    :  It almost seems that a lot of people think that PT is a luxury that should be handed out as a treat.  It should be mandatory every day.  If someone has a legitimate chit for an injury, there are probably some things that person can still do until they are fit again.


----------



## Gunner (2 Apr 2005)

The express test is a joke and the BFT is usually poorly monitored to enforce acceptible standards.  Has anyone ever seen an extremely large man or women carry someone of similar weight 100 meters?  Probably not, as they always pick up the 100 lb soaking wet clerk to do it.

I've always been a proponent of mandatory PT for the entire army as, unfortunately, it seems the first thing thrown out when the training schedule gets compressed is PT.  What's stopping the army from instituting a mandatory 0730 - 0830 hrs PT period for all members?  Showers between 0830 and 0900 hrs, and start work at 0900 hrs?  Although the BMI program was poorly introduce and caused no end of heartache for the army, at least it motivated some of us to get into the gyms, etc and deflate the psi on your DEU buttons.    

There would be alot less excuses if it was mandatory....


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2005)

A bit of a tie in from other threads, but perhaps "fitness" would be an easier sell if it was done in the form of martial arts training. 

There are various benifits in terms of focus and mental ability, as well as strength, flexibility and coordination improvements (this is true regardless of the art being used for training). People will even think of themselves as "warriors", despite the fact that most martial arts are best suited for the dojo (before you start flaming, put on your FFO, body armour and tac vest; THEN try to do your art).

Plenty of service members are qualified as high ranking menbers of varous martial art forms, so a pool of in house instructors is already available.


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2005)

As I said, a fundamental *PART* of dress and deportment is fitness.  It is not a cure all.  A super-fit soldier who doesn't press his DEU or get a haircut is still a shytebag and a poor example to his subordinates and the public.

You wanna look like a pro in uniform?  Take pride in yourself.  Maintain your kit.  Maintain yourself so you fit in your kit.


----------



## Neill McKay (2 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Why do CIC officers wear uniforms which differ, quite markedly, from those worn by cadets?



Because CIC officers are CF members, and cadets are not.


----------



## Big Foot (3 Apr 2005)

I would tend to agree with you that standards need to be better enforced, Piper. However, these standards would need to be enforced on every member of the CF, be it a CIC officer, Res NCM or the CDS. We all wear the same uniform (whether the CIC should or not is the topic for another discussion), therefore as LGen Carron said today, we are all part of the same team. As such, we must all do our part and present the public with the image of a well dressed, professional soldier. For those who think lax standards on their part make them look bad, it reflects badly on the rest of the military. However, I ask you, how do you ensure the dress and deportment standard for everyone in uniform? The answer is, you can't. Basic training tries to instill personal pride in people but unless they really buy into it, its hard to enforce, especially with Reserves and CICs. I agree something needs to be done, however I think even more emphasis should be placed on personal appearance in all basic courses, be it IAP, BMQ or whatever it is that CIC officers do. We are all a team and we all represent each other. If one person looks like a bag of shyte, we all do.


----------



## Highland Lad (3 Apr 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> ...I ask you, how do you ensure the dress and deportment standard for everyone in uniform? The answer is, you can't.



Sorry, but we can. As was pointed out above, that is why the CF has an escalating system of warnings, C&P, remedial training, etc, etc, ad nauseam. The problem is that all takes is for one supervisor to decide that 'something that minor isn't worth the trouble...' for it all to go to shyte (and all it takes is for one supervisor to find out from his/her superiors that they won't back disciplinary action for something 'so minor' to become disillusioned with the system all over again).

Remember, they are called *'standards'*, not 'options'.


----------



## Big Foot (3 Apr 2005)

My point is, there are people who don't have RSMs, who can't really be watched by senior NCOs, and those people just so happen to be CIC officers. I know the regs and res can be watched and corrected, but how do we deal with the CIC?


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Apr 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> My point is, there are people who don't have RSMs, who can't really be watched by senior NCOs, and those people just so happen to be CIC officers. I know the regs and res can be watched and corrected, but how do we deal with the CIC?



Everyone has a boss.  Whether the boss is a senior NCM or an officer is really immaterial -- all the bosses should do their jobs and maintain high standards among their subordinates.


----------



## Neill McKay (3 Apr 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> There are reg/reserve CWO's and MWO's who work at cadet camps in the summer, maybye something to be applied on a more permanent basis, each RCSU has a small complement of sergeants major to tour/inspect cadet corps throughout the year to ensure such things (this would be different from the CIC who work cadet standards units).



There are already regional staffers who visit the corps and squadrons at least a couple of times a year.  These are typically Lt(N)/Capt, SLt/Lt, or PO1/WO.  Presumably D&D are among the things they look at.


----------



## Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

Highland Lad said:
			
		

> Sorry, but we can. As was pointed out above, that is why the CF has an escalating system of warnings, C&P, remedial training, etc, etc, ad nauseam.



The consequences of some of those administrative actions are more far reaching than some consider. Frankly, I'd rather be charged than have a warning or go on C&P.

Acorn


----------



## Highland Lad (4 Apr 2005)

Yep - I know what you mean... but my point is that we have a whole system of methods for dealing with shyte-bags, that just doesn't get used effectively at times - and some people need a few 'object lessons' to understand that some things that are overlooked on a regular basis in today's CF, shouldn't be.

If standards of Dress & Deportment were better enforced & maintained, then there wouldn't be an issue. As was pointed out earlier, however, just about every bag of shyte can point to an example (usually in their own CoC) of someone who is worse.

Remove those bad examples, and all of a sudden people will realize that no-one is exempt from fulfilling the requirements of the job, not even clierks, dental assistants, or mechanics who will never have to hump an 80 lb ruck over half of Afghanistan.


----------



## JAFMA (4 Apr 2005)

Does anyone know how you can access the CF Dress Reg's via the internet without going through the DIN?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

"There are already regional staffers who visit the corps and squadrons at least a couple of times a year.  These are typically Lt(N)/Capt, SLt/Lt, or PO1/WO.  Presumably D&D are among the things they look at."

Thats great, but it's easy to dress up and look pretty "at least a couple of times a year". 

I'm sure most CIC officers can understand where the rest of the CF is coming from here. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them, but frankly I think they suffer from an identity crisis. Yes, you are reserve personnel, but there are _fundamental_ differences in the way reserve soldiers and the CIC do business. The only thing that really gets me (and I've only seen this in a few cases, this is not a all-inclusive to the CIC) is when I have seen CIC officers argue that they are Reserve personnel and therefore should be treated exactly the same as everyone else (especially when it comes to authority over reserve troops), but the second fitness tests or disciplinary issues arise, all of a sudden they don't count anymore. Fish or foul, folks...pick one. 

As for the uniform issue, I think it's a great idea for CIC personnel to wear the same uniform as the cadets. It was mentioned by a CIC that there is no RSS CSM/RSM/Cox'n position in cadet units. So, as officers, they SHOULD be setting the standard for dress and deportment, and what better way for them to do that than to wear the same uniform. One argument given to this was that as reservists, they are entitled to the same uniform as other reservists. As a response to that, look at the Canadian Rangers. They're reservists as well, and they have a distinct uniform, same as the cadets have a distinct uniform. Even better, everyone who is a ranger or even posted to a position within a ranger unit wears the same uniform. Are you saying that you refuse even to wear the same uniform as the kids you're in charge of? I was recently on course in Camp Aldershot, and looking at some of the new jackets and such the cadets were wearing (those who actually were wearing them), they looked perfectly suitable to me. As a question to any CIC reading, what is so wrong with cadet uniforms that you'll tell a 12-year old kid to wear them, but you won't? 

Cheers, 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

JavaMan said:
			
		

> "There are already regional staffers who visit the corps and squadrons at least a couple of times a year.   These are typically Lt(N)/Capt, SLt/Lt, or PO1/WO.   Presumably D&D are among the things they look at."
> 
> Thats great, but it's easy to dress up and look pretty "at least a couple of times a year".



The rest of the time, the chain of comamnd is still there to do its job.  But that aside, I would suggest to you that a slob will continue to be a slob when the regional staffer comes around.  If they don't know better the rest of the time, they probably won't know better then.



			
				JavaMan said:
			
		

> I'm sure most CIC officers can understand where the rest of the CF is coming from here. Personally, I see nothing wrong with them, but frankly I think they suffer from an identity crisis. Yes, you are reserve personnel, but there are _fundamental_ differences in the way reserve soldiers and the CIC do business. The only thing that really gets me (and I've only seen this in a few cases, this is not a all-inclusive to the CIC) is when I have seen CIC officers argue that they are Reserve personnel and therefore should be treated exactly the same as everyone else (especially when it comes to authority over reserve troops), but the second fitness tests or disciplinary issues arise, all of a sudden they don't count anymore. Fish or foul, folks...pick one.


 
That would bother me as well.  Fortunately such people have been a trivial minority in my experience.



			
				JavaMan said:
			
		

> It was mentioned by a CIC that there is no RSS CSM/RSM/Cox'n position in cadet units.



That must have been a misunderstanding.  There definitely is such a position in a cadet unit, held by a senior cadet.


----------



## Big Foot (4 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> That must have been a misunderstanding.  There definitely is such a position in a cadet unit, held by a senior cadet.


I think he was refering to an actual Reg or Res NCM, not a cadet.


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

I think the moderators should set up a CIC bashing section, as this seems to be some sort of sport on these forums, it's not a debate in any way, it's simply a way for a bunch of teen aged or uninformed individuals to take shots and hide behind a computer screen.
Yes there are examples of individuals who don't meet the standards of physical fitness, dress and deportment in the CIC we all have seen these examples.  But there are also the same individuals in the Reserves and in the Regular forces.  How do I know?  I've been in each and until such time as each of you can say the same, perhaps you can stop using your short sighted and limited experience to continue in your rants.  As for those who share the depth and breadth of experience I welcome your comments and value them, I also take notice that they are more constuctive and balanced.
If ANY of you have problems with the CIC, then I suggest you stop your rants and get involved, we'd love to have you help us raise the standards and bring your personal wealth of experience to the movement.  How about becoming part of the solution vs. the Problem?
If you'd like to post suggestions, please do, but lets be constructive folks.  And if your going to voice your opinions which you are free to do, please don't go off on tangents.
Just remember the old Irish proverb that when you're point your finger there are three more point back at yourself......
End of my Rant.


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

Riobeard said:
			
		

> If ANY of you have problems with the CIC, then I suggest you stop your rants and get involved, we'd love to have you help us raise the standards and bring your personal wealth of experience to the movement.   How about becoming part of the solution vs. the Problem?



Perhaps the best post on this topic that I've read so far.

I would underline the invitation for people with experience in the regular force or primary reserve to put some serious thought into transferring into the CIC once you're done in your current trade.  Those who join the CIC from elsewhere in the Forces have a great deal to offer.


----------



## Meridian (4 Apr 2005)

I dont see how there is bashing going on. What I do find is that everytime a comment is negative (whether constructive or not), CIC members immediately claim they are being bashed.

JavaMan's comments were very fair.. he presented logical arguments and asked specific questions. Instead of responding to those questions, you instead claim you are being bashed.

This is the same sort of round-a-bout speak you get from politicians. Instead of answering a directed question, you avoid it and claim you are being hounded/berated.

Dress and deportment is an issue amongst ALL branches. Clearly so, based on the posts in this thread... But I specifically enumerated an instance where a LARGE group of CIC officers were together, in one area, and FOREIGN officers immediately noticed a difference between them and all the other officers who frequently visited CFSJ.     The uniforms were the same, so why the difference in viewpoint?

Im not saying ALL CIC officers are overweight and cant meet dress standards....   In fact Im sure some of you are exemplary leaders....   but some are not, so how are you addressing this?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2005)

Riobeard said:
			
		

> ...
> ...   As for those who share the depth and breadth of experience I welcome your comments and value them, I also take notice that they are more constuctive and balanced.
> 
> If ANY of you have problems with the CIC, then I suggest you stop your rants and get involved, we'd love to have you help us raise the standards and bring your personal wealth of experience to the movement.   How about becoming part of the solution vs. the Problem?
> ...



OK, agreed.  How about I _involve_ myself by writing to Ron Buck?

Here's my first DRAFT:

----------
Dear Admiral;

I have noted a few Cadet Instructor Cadre officers here in Ottawa.  I'm sure I failed to notice many others because they, the ones I didn't notice, were not slovenly.

I was somewhat surprised to learn that CIC officers are officers in the Reserve component of the Canadian Forces; it had, previously, thought that cadet leaders were civilian volunteers.

Since the '60s, in both the Regular and Reserve forces, officers and other ranks wear very similar uniforms.  Save for rank badges and, sometimes, a bit of braid on caps, there is not much difference in the uniforms of, say, a ship's captain and an able seaman or an infantry company commander and a private in a rifle platoon.  Why then, I wonder, do CIC officers dress in a manner which is markedly different from the cadets whom they lead?

I recommend that you revisit the issue of standards, including standards of fitness and dress and deportment, for the CIC and, specifically, I recommend that the CIC â â€œ like the Canadian Rangers â â€œ have a 'special' uniform, based on the one worn by cadets.

Regards

etc
----------

Comments?  Suggestions?


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

Meridian let me refresh your memory about your post:
To be honest, the worst case of this was CIC; when I was at CFSJ in St-Jean, we had officers doing the MTAP (I think thats the acronym) language courses from all over NATO and eastern Europe.   We'd have CIC training weekends where the CIC's would come and do seminars and the like (I dint really know what), and the foreign officers would just look appalled at all these Canadian uniformed people who were overweight and looking like bags of -----.    
Excuse me if this isn't Bashing, it would seem I don't properly understand the term.... 

Your use of the term "all these Canadian Uniformed people who were overweight and looked like bags of -----." infers that they / we all have such an appearance.   It's a generalization and a "bash" in my opinion.   You also state you don't really understand what they were doing.   If you were an informed individual you'd perhaps had been able to explain to your foreign comrads who they were and what they were doing, but I suspect you didn't as you couldn't.
Did you take the time to talk to anyone about this when it happened?   Never pass a fault my friend, if you failed to bring this to the   attention of someone from the CIC school or to the individuals in a constructive manner, then you're part of the problem.
I take it upon myself as an officer to have a word with ANYONE that I see who is failing in their dress or deportment in a constructive manner.   It's my job as an officer and member of the Canadian Forces.   Is it not your job too?


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

Edward,
  Sure if that's how you feel, by all means.  But to continue with lack of generarities, how be you find the local cadet corp and volunteer to offer them the benefit of your 35+ years of service and help them raise the standard from within.  I saw a problem, I got involved, I've made a difference.  How about you?  You see a problem and write a letter.....hmmmm....
  Actions not words make a difference.


----------



## Meridian (4 Apr 2005)

Riobeard - As an Officer Cadet, I did not find myself in the appropriate position to be approaching senior officers and making comments as to their dress or deportment. Several of us did, however, make comments to our staff and, IIRC, the answer back was "its the CIC, what do you expect". 

As for my specific comments earlier, you are correct, that was a generalization and the terminology (specifically the word "all") should have better reflected the situation, however my intent was to underline that the foreign officers recognized this group as a group, and to communicate just how this group was identifiable and the fact that we as young officers-to-be were incredibly embarrassed at trying to show the differences between we and them.

Indeed we did explain the role of the CIC in fostering interest in the forces and providing leadership to select members of canadian youth, but in any event it was still difficult to explain why someone wearing the same uniform as me did not have to meet the same physical fitness or deportment standards. (Note that many of the OCdts I was with were ex-cadets, and as such were very familiar with the purpose of the Cadet movement).

As far as bashing, JavaMan asked directed questions, as I previously stated, and I do not see why those continue to be ignored in favour of pointing out how I generalized.   Again, I apologize for my generalization as I have met some extremely dedicated CIC officers...


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, agreed.   How about I _involve_ myself by writing to Ron Buck?
> 
> Here's my first DRAFT:
> Comments?   Suggestions?



Cadets (sea cadets, anyway) wore the same uniform as service members up until unification.  How's that grab you?

At any rate, I think there's considerable advantage to be had in ensuring a very clear line between officers and cadets.  The current social thinking has tended to blur that line in the Forces, hence the similar uniforms across ranks, but with cadets it remains a very solid and rather important line.


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

Meridian said:
			
		

> Several of us did, however, make comments to our staff and, IIRC, the answer back was "its the CIC, what do you expect".



That was a very poor response on their part.



			
				Meridian said:
			
		

> Indeed we did explain the role of the CIC in fostering interest in the forces and providing leadership to select members of canadian youth, but in any event it was still difficult to explain why someone wearing the same uniform as me did not have to meet the same physical fitness or deportment standards.



There are no differing deportment standards, and you should (once you get a stripe or two) never let anyone by with poor deportment just because of his branch or trade.

If you have to explain the differing physical fitness standards to someone, I would suggest mentioning that CIC officers work principally in offices and classrooms, and are not called upon to fill combat roles, so the resources are not put into maintaining as high a level of fitness as is done with combat pers.  Let your colleagues draw their own conclusions as to why some personnel, in the CIC and out, don't maintain what one might consider to be an appropriate fitness level.


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

Meridian thank you for your comments and clarification of your instance of angst in CFSJ.
As to your comment about Javamans posting here is what I believe:
- yes the CIC needs to improve their standards if for no other reason than to be able to walk the walk that is preached to cadets about dress, deportment and physical fitness.   I personally take all of these to heart and lead by example.
- yes the CIC needs to have higher standards of training, they do well with what is given but there is always room for improvement and each CIC officer should, as part of their terms of service, be required to make the effort to spend time indulging themselves in improving their own knowledge, and physical condition.
- yes the CIC needs to be more "selective" for want of a better word in those who they hire, and retain.
I don't believe any of the CIC officers who have posted here or anywhere else on the forum will dispute any of these.   We all feel that there is room for improvement.   But again I repeat that if you see a problem you need to act and I thank you for at the very least brining what you saw to the attention of your staf.   Their lack of action speaks volumes as to their regard and makes them part of the problem.   They should have acted and at the very least passed along your concerns and circumstances.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> At any rate, I think there's considerable advantage to be had in ensuring a very clear line between officers and cadets.   The current social thinking has tended to blur that line in the Forces, hence the similar uniforms across ranks, but with cadets it remains a very solid and rather important line.



Well, thank you for the (indirect) reply...but I don't really buy that argument, though. Why is a separate uniform a "solid and rather important line?" Can you please clarify why? Isn't a set of officers bars enough of a distinction? I see this as a question of representation. IMO, A CIC officer has more in common with a cadet than any other type of CF member (regular, reserve, whatever), and their role in the CF, the training they're given, and the types of employment they are qualified to take. It seems odd to me that the CIC does not have a uniform that reflects that association and these skillsets; if anything it distances them from the cadets they're trying to lead. It's also a question of representation from without. As it was mentioned in this thread, even foreign militaries have noticed this difference. 

Riobeard: As for the "Bashing" comment...I have to disagree there. In my opinion, this site is so great because CF members can discuss these types of issues in an environment of equality where they can speak freely and honestly, without fear of reprisal. Sure it's abused by some people, but by and large it's the only place where a corporal can tell a captain (in a respectful manner, obviously) EXACTLY what he or she thinks about an issue. The question then is whether or not the captain thinks what the corporal is asking is a fair and honest critical question, and willing to hear a new point of view, or simply dismiss it as "bashing". Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. 

Also, your other comments WRT not passing a fault and being a part of the solution and not part of the problem. The way I see it, members on this site have identified an issue, and by discussing it here we have helped bring it to the attention of people such as yourself who can address the issue.   Would you agree that thats a fair observation?


Cheers, 

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

Javaman,  I do indeed agree with your last two points about open and honest discussion, bringing things up etc.
I do have a problem with the way in which some members of this forum choose to do so with generalities.
Merely pointing out problems based on limited experience, single instances or occurrences, vs. voicing a well laid out, and well researched position based on fact, to me, is the difference between bashing and debating a subject.  And I prefer that people offer rational solutions based on researched knowledge vs. throwing out off hand comments.

Oh and BTW, Mr. Campell, respectfully sir, if you wish to voice your comments you might want to send them off to Major General H.M.Petras the current Chief or Reserves and Cadets, instead of Vice Admiral Buck.


----------



## Arctic Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

Riobeard said:
			
		

> I do have a problem with the way in which some members of this forum choose to do so with generalities.



Couldn't agree more. Its fortunate that the moderators here are so good at not passing faults...  

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2005)

Riobeard said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Oh and BTW, Mr. Campell, respectfully sir, if you wish to voice your comments you might want to send them off to Major General H.M.Petras the current Chief or Reserves and Cadets, instead of Vice Admiral Buck.



I'm sure that's good and well intentioned advice but I don't know MGen Petras from Adam whereas Ron Buck and I go back a ways.  Any letter from me to MGen Petras would be dealt with by a clerk - maybe a two and half or three stripe clerk, but a clerk all the same.  A personal note to VAdm Buck, on the other hand, will be read and, maybe, even considered, by him, busy as he is.  At the very least he'll smile, shake his head and say, â Å“Some of these old retired guys have too much time on their hands.â ?


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

JavaMan said:
			
		

> Well, thank you for the (indirect) reply...but I don't really buy that argument, though. Why is a separate uniform a "solid and rather important line?" Can you please clarify why? Isn't a set of officers bars enough of a distinction?



No.   How does Joe Public, tell the officers from the senior cadets?   Bars, crowns, and chevrons mean bugger all to anyone not familiar with the Service.   Age won't cut it; there are officer cadets as young as 18, and cadets as old.



			
				JavaMan said:
			
		

> I see this as a question of representation. IMO, A CIC officer has more in common with a cadet than any other type of CF member (regular, reserve, whatever), and their role in the CF, the training they're given, and the types of employment they are qualified to take.



Evidently you've never been a CIC officer.



			
				JavaMan said:
			
		

> It seems odd to me that the CIC does not have a uniform that reflects that association and these skillsets; if anything it distances them from the cadets they're trying to lead.



Yes, and rightly so.   When you supervise youth a professional distance is necessary; you can't be, or appear to be, "one of the guys".


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

2332Piper said:
			
		

> But they don't wear the same uniform anymore. And its easy to mistake a CIC officer for someone else, the cap badge can be mistaken from a distance and most of the CIC folks I see don't wear 'CIC' slipons, they wear 'Canada' ones....I wonder why that is.



Because of people who might think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> You claim that you accept you position/role in the CF as a CIC officer, so why not accept that since you operate in such a different role, you should have a distinct uniform (like the Rangers) so that you can be identified as such.



First of all, I don't feel any desperate need to be identified as a CIC officer.   I'm a Canadian Forces officer, and that's all anyone I meet in the street needs to know.   Rangers don't have a distinct uniform to avoid being mistaken for infantrymen; they have a coloured sweatshirt to wear with their own clothing to identify them as Rangers vice civilians.   And I doubt that most of them wear that when they're watching over the North.



			
				2332Piper said:
			
		

> Navy officers war the same uniform as their sailors, army officers wear the same uniform as their troops, air force officers wear the same uniform as their troops, so why should the CIC not wear the same uniform as THEIR troops? Whats so special about the CIC? Soldiers can differentiate between themlseves and their officers and they wear the same uniform, if they can do it, I'm sure cadets can. An officer's bar is an officer's bar.



Naval officers and sailors belong to the same organisation.   CIC officers also belong to that organisation; cadets do not.   Cadets are not CF members.   They are civilian youth, clients of a programme offered by DND.


----------



## Riobeard (4 Apr 2005)

Edward Campbell, respectfully again sir, if you do have time on your hands as you indicated, I'm sure a Cadet Corp in your area could sure benefit from your experience.  
I'm sure Vice Admiral Buck would concur, as when he was posted to Pacific Command he was a very generous and outstanding contributor to and supporter of our Cadet program in Pacific region.   I had the personal honour of meeting him and speaking with him on a few occasions.


----------



## Haggis (4 Apr 2005)

Clearly this is going nowhere fast.... :


----------



## Arctic Acorn (4 Apr 2005)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> No.   How does Joe Public, tell the officers from the senior cadets?   Bars, crowns, and chevrons mean bugger all to anyone not familiar with the Service.   Age won't cut it; there are officer cadets as young as 18, and cadets as old.
> 
> Evidently you've never been a CIC officer.
> 
> Yes, and rightly so.   When you supervise youth a professional distance is necessary; you can't be, or appear to be, "one of the guys".



- What does civvie street have to do with this?  It would follow then  that it must really be hard for civilians to tell the difference between an NCM and an officer in the CF, as they have the same uniforms. But then, does it really matter whether or not civilians can tell the difference? On another note, we have reservists as young as 16, and officers as young as 18. Hell, my section IC is a 2Lt who is the youngest soldier in the section at 21. Who cares? He holds a commission, and he's the guy in charge, despite the age difference. Full stop. Do you think a civilian would confuse the authority of a 21-year old reg force Lt standing next to a crusty old reg WO?   Would it be a problem for Junior CIC officers to correct anyone who mistakes them for another cadet? 

- You're right, I have no CIC experience. How does this address my comment? I still believe that CIC's have more in common with cadets than the rest of the reserve. CIC's do not have the same training, share the same experiences, are not deployable, and have few of the skillsets that other reserve soldiers have. You do have training to supervise and manage a youth program. Is my information wrong? I'm asking these questions because I _have_ little to no experience in this area. 

- You're absolutely right about maintaining a distance. But isn't that why you're an officer? You can still wear the same uniform and maintain a professional distance.

- I'm not saying that the CIC shouldn't be in the CF, or hold a commission. I'm saying that they should wear a uniform that reflects those who they lead, and reflects their own training. It seems that your issue here is one of trying to gain the respect of other CF members through wearing the same uniform. In your responses to me, you claim that you require a separate uniform so that civilians can identify you, yet in some of your other comments you argue that even with a CF uniform "people...think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons." you're referring to other CF members, I take it? 

Cheers,   :dontpanic:


----------



## Neill McKay (4 Apr 2005)

JavaMan said:
			
		

> - What does civvie street have to do with this?  It would follow then   that it must really be hard for civilians to tell the difference between an NCM and an officer in the CF, as they have the same uniforms. But then, does it really matter whether or not civilians can tell the difference?



Yes it does, when we're in public, or when a parent comes to the unit looking for someone in authority.



> - You're right, I have no CIC experience. How does this address my comment? I still believe that CIC's have more in common with cadets than the rest of the reserve. CIC's do not have the same training, share the same experiences, are not deployable, and have few of the skillsets that other reserve soldiers have. You do have training to supervise and manage a youth program. Is my information wrong? I'm asking these questions because I _have_ little to no experience in this area.



I've been both a naval reservist and a naval CIC officer.  In principle, there isn't a huge difference between running a naval reserve unit and a sea cadet corps.  In both cases, you're essentially running a school that teaches classes one evening a week and some weekends.  We are trained to organise training, to employ instructional techniques, to evaluate and develop instructors (cadets and officers both), to administer staff, to control supplies, to perform public relations tasks, and countless other little details that have to be looked after.

The cadets in a corps aren't a single hohomogeneous group; they have almost the same rank structure as the navy, and cadets of higher rank are increasingly responsible for the boots-on-the-deck running of the unit.  The biggest difference is that the "troops" are our clients rather than our employees -- a small distinction with teenagers, but significant none the less.  They're not accountable the way NCMs are (you can't charge a cadet for service offences, e.g.)  Nor do most of them have the level of maturity that most NCMs have, so leadership is a different challenge for the officers.

Another significant difference is the level of support received from outside of the unit, and the equipment held by the unit.  The cadet unit CO deals with a sponsoring body (usually the appropriate cadet League) to supply things DND does not (musical instruments, for example).  The sponsor usually isn't made up of military or ex-military people (but sometimes includes some), so a very different approach is necessary when interacting with them.

The last big difference is that most P. Res units control their building, while most cadet units are lodgers in someone else's building, sometimes a DND building and sometimes not.

And of course there are other, smaller, differences, but looking at the framework of it, the job isn't dramatically different.

It's quite wrong to say that CIC officers are more alike cadets than other service members; I'd argue that the difference between CIC officers and cadets is much more pronounced than that between a NAVRES officer and his NCMs.  The client/employee issue and the degree to which work can be delegated to the cadet or NCM are the two most defining differences.



> - You're absolutely right about maintaining a distance. But isn't that why you're an officer? You can still wear the same uniform and maintain a professional distance.



Ah, but look at it though twelve-year-old recruit eyes, at the 18-year-old DPO and the 20-year-old Divisional Officer wearing the same uniform.  The distinction blurs quickly.



> yet in some of your other comments you argue that even with a CF uniform "people...think less of them because of their branch; because of unprofessional attitude cases who will replace proper military courtesy with rude remarks; because the local supply outfit doesn't bother to stock the correct ones; or any combination of the above and other reasons." you're referring to other CF members, I take it?



Yes, and I've seen enough of that to know.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Apr 2005)

Ladies and Gents,

We're sending this to the corner for a time out. We'll revisit the situation in a few days. In the meantime, please DO NOT start anymore threads in this genre.

Thanks,
The Staff


----------



## RCDtpr (1 May 2019)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Looking at this from a different perspective, and what I'm hoping is probably the case...
> 
> Perhaps this was a mere oversight.  Let's not be too busy to go on a witch-hunt & burn one of our own because the initial optics look bad.
> 
> ...



My issue with your stance on this is Jr Ranks get absolutely hammered by higher ups when they do something in which the “initial optics look bad.”  Because of that, Sr Officers should get the same if not harsher treatment when they do something with terrible optics as well. (Pipedream I know)


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 May 2019)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> @Jarhamar, @MilEmE09 I can't believe I have to cut and paste this here in regards to helmets.



C'mon, you can totally believe it  

We wanted to show soldiers in FFO - we didn't.
We wanted to show off our excellent equipment - we didn't.

It's halftical.


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's halftical.



LOL... that's a term I haven't heard in quite a while.

From reading this thread and the comments on social media, I'm sure this will be page six news by Friday except in the halls of 4 Div HQ and the MND's office.  It's going to stick around there until posting season for sure.


----------



## ballz (1 May 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> *Yes, "gaggling."  It looks undisciplined and you can't even argue that they were in a "patrol" formation.  A patrol formation is still a disciplined formation and all of these soldiers are too close together to be an effective patrol - one grenade and they're done.



This is what I love about being "semi-tactical" or, as I like it put, half-pregnant. It causes ridiculous circular arguments like the effective or non-effective dispersion of personnel to protect them from grenades...while on parade in downtown Toronto. "But they are on parade, so they should be marching in step." "But they are tactical, so they should be dispersed in a patrol formation." "But they are on parades, so they should spit shine their boots." "But they are tactical, so their boots are brown suede." "But they are on parade, so they need to yell loud and clear drill orders." "But they are tactical, so they should use hand signals."

I LOVE IT. Let's just stop it all with the fact that they are parading, and should therefore follow parade norms / standards / etc.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> By the time you get to be a LCol in the reserve Army and, worse yet, a BGen in the regular Arny (Comd 4 Cdn Div) you are supposed to be fully aware of (not just interested in) the nature of the "India-Sikh nonsense" and its implications for Canadian foreign policy ... anyone who is not aware of that should not be even a lieutenant in the Canadian Army, much less a lieutenant colonel.



This would be an interesting tangent for a thread... that seems like a lofty expectation for all Lts. I'll bet most LCols are not half-aware, let alone fully aware, of India-Sikh stuff.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course it's "a bad judgement call," bad enough that the CO should be relieved, tomorrow, and BGen Paul (who cannot be fired for political/PR/ethnocultural reasons ~ he's indigenous, likely the most senior serving indigenous member) should be packing his bags for a long, Long, LONG tour in Brussels or Mons, à la then Col, later BGen Serge Labbé after the Somalia affair.



My guess is the CO doesn't even get put on IC, and definitely nothing happens to the Bde Comd. I suspect the 4 Div Comd, or his staff, had no clue this was happening although I don't know how much that would have changed anything.

I think the other good tangent here is the appropriateness of CAF participating in various parades, particularly as the CAF clearly wants to be more diverse / inclusive and so can cross into political issues much easier. You seem mostly miffed about this from a foreign policy perspective, which I think most people were not even aware of. Most people, I think, are caught off guard by the appropriateness of conducting a parade while being half-preggo. What do you think your reaction would be if they were just in DEUs and didn't come across as a bag of hammers, given your larger concern of the foreign policy repercussions.


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> My guess is the CO doesn't even get put on IC, and definitely nothing happens to the Bde Comd. I suspect the 4 Div Comd, or his staff, had no clue this was happening although I don't know how much that would have changed anything.



I suspect that this may be simply a case of a young officer taking the "CO's intent" and misguidedly running with it.

I also know, having been a unit Ops O for three years prior to retiring, that Bde HQ pays little attention to a lot of stuff due to a tremendous number of competing priorities.  Usually something "odd" would come to the G3's attention through the G4 net when units asked for weird stuff on their TSRs.  Our Bde G3 was understaffed to a ridiculous point whereby they were almost totally reactive and outside the OODA loop.  I'm surprised more crap didn't happen and I credit the units Ops Staffs for ensure the young "good idea fairies" were kept in a cage. [/quote]


----------



## ballz (1 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I suspect that this may be simply a case of a young officer taking the "CO's intent" and misguidedly running with it.



I doubt it... the Global and CBC stuff I've read have said it was the Commanding Officer. Plus they are PRes so it would be a Commanding Officer decision to pay these guys, etc... and the request, in one way or another, would have went through the CO / Ops staff. An Lt or Capt doesn't have the authority/autonomy to wipe their own arse in the CAF, let alone take their guys downtown in FFO to participate in a huge event all on their own initiative and with their own internal resources. I'm guessing the CO had full awareness of what was happening, but lacked the critical thinking ability to decipher that this may be a bad idea given he probably had "inclusivity, diversity, etc" on the mind and thought that was in line with the CAF's intent.



			
				Haggis said:
			
		

> I also know, having been a unit Ops O for three years prior to retiring, that Bde HQ pays little attention to a lot of stuff due to a tremendous number of competing priorities.  Usually something "odd" would come to the G3's attention through the G4 net when units asked for weird stuff on their TSRs.  Our Bde G3 was understaffed to a ridiculous point whereby they were almost totally reactive and outside the OODA loop.  I'm surprised more crap didn't happen and I credit the units Ops Staffs for ensure the young "good idea fairies" were kept in a cage.



That's right and sounds similar with my experience. This parade occurring was probably a bullet point on the Unit's quad-slide during a CUB at the CBG level at most, with very little attention paid to it. And like I said, I doubt it even made the slides at Div.


----------



## garb811 (1 May 2019)

But what's a poor PRes CO to think about all that Dress Manual and Drill and Ceremonial stuff when you see a guard mounted for the CDS in flight suits, CADPAT and NCD with accoutrements?


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> I doubt it... the Global and CBC stuff I've read have said it was the Commanding Officer. Plus they are PRes so it would be a Commanding Officer decision to pay these guys, etc... and the request, in one way or another, would have went through the CO / Ops staff.


I think you missed my point.  No doubt the CO was aware and authorized participation, tasking it down through his C of C.  How that participation was executed may have been when the wheels fell off the wagon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 May 2019)

Perhaps they felt the justification was to increase recruiting?


----------



## Haggis (1 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Perhaps they felt the justification was to increase recruiting?



The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" doesn't apply here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 May 2019)

I suspect more like; "Lets look cool, mean, tough and proud" Which is the sort stuff that gets people to join.


----------



## ballz (1 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I think you missed my point.  No doubt the CO was aware and authorized participation, tasking it down through his C of C.  How that participation was executed may have been when the wheels fell off the wagon.



In that case yes, I did miss your point.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 May 2019)

I did a change of command parade in FFO with helmets and weapons, trying desperately to do proper drills movements as directed. Some COs and RSMs are special people I tell ya...


----------



## dapaterson (1 May 2019)

If the CO signed off on the order that directed the dress and deportment, it's on him - even if he just did a "sign here, sir".

Heck, I've heard of a CO who sent back a FORCE test asking "are the timings for these two elements reversed, because they seem odd".  If a CO signs without reading, it's their own fault.


----------



## Haggis (2 May 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If the CO signed off on the order that directed the dress and deportment, it's on him - even if he just did a "sign here, sir".



*Thursday night*:  
OPI:  "Here's the parade order for the weekend, sir.  Dress for the marching contingent will be CADPAT and fighting order with weapons.  They will wear regimental turbans, sir, no helmets."

CO;  "Right, thanks." (scans document, looks good, signs it.. "Here you go, Carl.  Let me know how it goes on Tuesday."

*Parade Day morning*:

OPI:  "Right, troops, it's gonna be a long one, so carry at the low ready and keep your fingers off the trigger, just like a ruck march, okay?"

Senior NCM: "Sir??"

OPI:  "It's all good.  It's a parade honouring warriors.  9er signed off on it.  We're good to go at the low ready - trust me."


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 May 2019)

[quote author=Haggis] 

OPI:  "Right, troops, it's gonna be a long one, so carry at the low ready and keep your fingers off the trigger, just like a ruck march, okay?"

[/quote]

I would have said carry at the high ready with the butt in the shoulder, eyes just above the sight. Sweeping the rifle right to left and using the sight to check roof tops not and then.

Gotta put on a show.


----------



## RocketRichard (2 May 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> *Thursday night*:
> OPI:  "Here's the parade order for the weekend, sir.  Dress for the marching contingent will be CADPAT and fighting order with weapons.  They will wear regimental turbans, sir, no helmets."
> 
> CO;  "Right, thanks." (scans document, looks good, signs it.. "Here you go, Carl.  Let me know how it goes on Tuesday."
> ...


This was an interesting topic of discussion yesterday at our Ops meeting...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO (2 May 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> But what's a poor PRes CO to think about all that Dress Manual and Drill and Ceremonial stuff when you see a guard mounted for the CDS in flight suits, CADPAT and NCD with accoutrements?



I wish he would quit doing this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 May 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I wish he would quit doing this.



It's so.... so... American  :


----------



## Blackadder1916 (2 May 2019)

Though it is without a doubt that someone crapped the bed with regard to CAF participation in the 2019 Toronto Nagar Kirtan, it should be noted that this is not the first occasion when Canadian troops paraded at the event.  It was just lower key in the past.

Toronto 2018  (disregard the title, it is the 2018 event, the video was uploaded a year ago)
https://youtu.be/Uc3oXcW_O6Y?t=857
Toronto 2017
https://youtu.be/JWOZKQdOxEo?t=754

I wonder what possessed whoever made the decision to arm the troops and crank it up a notch or two.

Toronto is not the only location where the CF provided a presence.  This years Nagar Kirtan in Calgary is still about a week and a half away so I wonder if this incident will affect the decision making process out here, but there didn't appear to be any problems last year.

Calgary 2018
https://youtu.be/Pj0fkmdkau4?t=121 (Cadets)
https://youtu.be/Pj0fkmdkau4?t=176 (Navy)
https://youtu.be/Pj0fkmdkau4?t=194 (Army)

Though back in 2015 it seemed to be a less martial military presence.
Calgary 2015
https://youtu.be/_iQPFsEwC6A?t=755  This contingent did not appear to have much of a Sikh connection, but maybe there was a reason the FD Amb made an appearance.  https://youtu.be/_iQPFsEwC6A?t=1482  and https://youtu.be/_iQPFsEwC6A?t=1949

While it has been several years since I attended as a spectator, it is always a good event and one should never go away hungry.  Carrying weapons would (IMO) interfere with one of the joys of being there.
https://youtu.be/iH4rXKkbDF0?t=202

Maybe the British Army had the right idea in their participation at this one.
http://www.nationalsikhmuseum.com/news-and-events/derby-vaisakhi-nagar-kirtan-2015-along-with-british-army-148-fd-coy-104-bn-reme-derby


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 May 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Though it is without a doubt that someone crapped the bed with regard to CAF participation in the 2019 Toronto Nagar Kirtan, it should be noted that this is not the first occasion when Canadian troops paraded at the event.  It was just lower key in the past.
> 
> Toronto 2018  (disregard the title, it is the 2018 event, the video was uploaded a year ago)
> https://youtu.be/Uc3oXcW_O6Y?t=857
> ...



So, sitting in the G3 shop in Calgary reading this to my G3. We look at each other and go "Hmmm" as there is nothing on our radar for participation in the parade. For the record, no message has been sent out in regards to how to participate... Watch and shoot? 

Fd Amb presence is because of the Sikh in that unit I suspect. 

I can't access those Youtube links on the DWAN so there's that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 May 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I wish he would quit doing this.



I think you Navy guys have your own issues though  ;D

https://www.facebook.com/MaritimeForcesAtlantic/videos/353814801933699/

Who is that on the memorial taking the salute with a ball hat on...in DEUs?   ???


----------



## Pusser (8 May 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect more like; "Lets look cool, mean, tough and proud" Which is the sort stuff that gets people to join.



Full dress uniforms with all their accoutrements and bling also look "cool, mean, tough and proud."


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think you Navy guys have your own issues though  ;D
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/MaritimeForcesAtlantic/videos/353814801933699/
> 
> Who is that on the memorial taking the salute with a ball hat on...in DEUs?   ???



See what happens when the Chief is on leave?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 May 2019)

This stuff is getting beyond ridiculous!!    :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It's so.... so... American  :




But, of course, this whole business of playing 'Mister Dressup' is decidedly British ...







... and that applies to the admiral in Eye In The Sky's post, too.

This disregard for uniform standards by senior officers seems deeply entrenched in our military culture. It manifests itself in everything from certain generals (most from a certain regiment) wearing their cap badge over the ear, à la the French army, rather than over the eye as prescribed in the regulations, to wearing a ball cap with No 1 order of dress. The message seems to be "I'm an admiral/general and the rules don't apply to me."


----------



## Monsoon (9 May 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think you Navy guys have your own issues though  ;D
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/MaritimeForcesAtlantic/videos/353814801933699/
> 
> Who is that on the memorial taking the salute with a ball hat on...in DEUs?   ???


I was there - he was wearing his peak cap during the parade itself. If you look carefully that’s not a black RCN ball cap; it’s a blue veteran association cap that was given to him at the end of the parade (the clip is of him thanking the participating group for it).

Now why they had SIX general salutes at the end of the parade...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (9 May 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I was there - he was wearing his peak cap during the parade itself. If you look carefully that’s not a black RCN ball cap; it’s a blue veteran association cap that was given to him at the end of the parade (the clip is of him thanking the participating group for it).
> 
> Now why they had SIX general salutes at the end of the parade...



Amazing what a little context can give. Folks should be a little less quick to judge what they see on their screens.


----------



## NavyShooter (9 May 2019)

In follow-up, to replace the response I lost that I'd typed up last night.

The cap is an HMCS Kootenay hat - this year is the 50th anniversary of the engine room fire that killed several.  The survivors have been highly recognized in the past few months - two of them recently received wound stripes.  I've seen the scars on LS (Dinger) Bell's arms from where he climbed out of the engine room to escape the fire.  He was almost knocked off the ladder by the man ahead of him, who fell back into the ER and died.  Dinger was the last man out that morning, and that's another scar he carries.

Is it wrong that the Admiral is 'out of dress' on this parade?  I don't think so.  Not in this circumstance, especially since it was after the formal ceremony as described.


----------



## NavyShooter (9 May 2019)

These men are the last overseas burials that the CAF ever did.  Every member after them who died overseas was brought home to Canada.

They rest in Brookwood, just south-west of London.  I visited them last summer and sent these photos on to the Kootenay survivor group.


----------



## kratz (9 May 2019)

NavyShooter,

A thoughtful commemoration.

Thank you for taking the time and making the effort.


----------



## Private_John_Winger (16 Jul 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/nato-secretary-general-visits-canada-for-trudeau-meeting-base-tour?video_autoplay=true

I saw this photo of the Prime Minister and Secretary General of NATO at Petawawa and was appalled by the state of these troops. Hippie beards in various states of growth, different coloured boots and berets, overweight officers. Compare these soldiers to any company of US Marines or British troops chosen at random and our people look like a small town bowling league out for beer and wings.

If you put these guys into Confederate and Union Army uniforms you'd think they were a bunch of LARPs.

I've been out a couple of decades, so forgive my ignorance, but when did the Canadian Army stop looking like soldiers?


----------



## dangerboy (16 Jul 2019)

My thoughts are that for an guard for the Prime Minister and the Secretary General of NATO they should not be in combats but should be in Number 1 order of dress, that is why we have this order of dress.


----------



## Furniture (16 Jul 2019)

They look like soldiers, as well as one airman to me. 

Some troops wear Army Blue berets, some black, and others green. Unless the guard is made up of all the same trade, from the same unit different colour berets is going to happen. 

Beards aren't just for hippies anymore... and that officer likely soldiered in Afghanistan, so I'd say he's likely more than "soldierly" enough.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2019)

Maybe when they had to stop 'looking' like soldiers and start fighting like soldiers.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

They look like crap.  Slovenly in fact.  The Officer's dress and deportment is atrocious.  

Regarding beards, since BEARDFORGEN came out, a lot of people are growing beards.  One thing I've noticed is almost nobody does a good job with their beard grooming.  The beard line is supposed to be two fingers above the adam's apple and the cheeks should be clean.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2019)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that for an guard for the Prime Minister and the Secretary General of NATO they should not be in combats but should be in Number 1 order of dress, that is why we have this order of dress.



Well it's not like this is as important as sombodies ego-massaging change of command parade.  :

Funny, I'm one of the dinosaurs on this site and all I care about there is that if something went boom, I could count on them to know what to do.....not that they look 'purty.


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Jul 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well it's not like this is as important as sombodies ego-massaging change of command parade.  :
> 
> Funny, I'm one of the dinosaurs on this site and all I care about there is that if something went boom, I could count on them to know what to do.....not that they look 'purty.



There needs to be a balance or understanding though.  Ones ability to look presentable on a parade square does not detract from ones ability to be a lethal fighting man.  Why cant be professional in both areas ?  

I concur this picture paints a terrible picture.  Why were No1s not made the dress for this ?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2019)

Sorry, I did mean to put that with my post.  No way they should be in combats for this....it's a setup to fail from whomever made the call.
But no one's fault on that square.


----------



## Monsoon (16 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I concur this picture paints a terrible picture.  Why were No1s not made the dress for this ?


I guess the dress chosen was a concession to the reality that those folks had jobs they were doing before the VIPs arrived, and jobs to return to after they left. It's good to see that the days of spending a week (or more) doing nothing but preparing for low-impact turn-out parades like this are in the past at Pet, at least.


----------



## Private_John_Winger (16 Jul 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well it's not like this is as important as sombodies ego-massaging change of command parade.  :
> 
> Funny, I'm one of the dinosaurs on this site and all I care about there is that if something went boom, I could count on them to know what to do.....not that they look 'purty.



Then why have uniforms at all? If it doesn't matter what they look like then why not let the troops dress like a bunch of Congolese mercenaries? Military and police are the armed representatives of the state. That's an incredibly important role in a free society and how they present themselves to the public matters because first impressions matter. When a member of the public sees lumpy, slovenly looking soldiers on parade, or tattooed, lumberjack-beard wearing cops directing traffic it weakens public confidence in those institutions. And those institutions derive their legitimacy from that very same public.

I don't care if the one of those soldiers is a Victoria Cross winner. You wouldn't know it to look at any of them and that's all the public sees. Serious institutions like the UK/US Marines, British Guard Regiments, etc. understand that. We used to understand that in Canada but seem to have forgotten it.


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I guess the dress chosen was a concession to the reality that those folks had jobs they were doing before the VIPs arrived, and jobs to return to after they left. It's good to see that the days of spending a week (or more) doing nothing but preparing for low-impact turn-out parades like this are in the past at Pet, at least.



Horseswallop. A couple hours practice the day before. Shine your boots the night before, have a uniform ready or do your own ironing, and get a haircut and trim the beard the night before. 

Its not that fricken difficult folks. :facepalm:

Also this seems to be the current CDS MO. There was a guard at Esquimalt and everyone was in combats at his insistence. Bloody embarrassing.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2019)

Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> I've been out a couple of decades, so forgive my ignorance, but when did the Canadian Army stop looking like soldiers?



Clearly, it was a couple of decades ago when you left.


----------



## Monsoon (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Horseswallop. A couple hours practice the day before. Shine your boots the night before, have a uniform ready or do your own ironing, and get a haircut and trim the beard the night before.


None of the four beards in that photo are either outside the current regulations or unacceptable by any public norm - not sure why they're attracting so much negative comment. I would guess that folks who don't like change the new beard policy won't be satisfied with any objective standard that permits a beard.


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> None of the four beards in that photo are either outside the current regulations or unacceptable by any public norm - not sure why they're attracting so much negative comment. I would guess that folks who don't like change the new beard policy won't be satisfied with any objective standard that permits a beard.



I have no qualms about a beard. Had one over the winter. Just make sure its neat and tidy, just like the rest of your appearance.


----------



## Furniture (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Horseswallop. A couple hours practice the day before. Shine your boots the night before, have a uniform ready or do your own ironing, and get a haircut and trim the beard the night before.
> 
> Its not that fricken difficult folks. :facepalm:
> 
> Also this seems to be the current CDS MO. There was a guard at Esquimalt and everyone was in combats at his insistence. Bloody embarrassing.



Who doesn't get a claim finalized, which vehicle doesn't get fixed for training, what aircraft doesn't fly, so that we can have "a couple hours" of parade practice? 

The CAF as a whole is short people, and we are in the middle of a posting season. What are we willing to sacrifice to get "a couple of hours" of parade practice for every visit that guard is required for?  What you're seeing on the parade is likely the result of a few hours of practice, if we want ceremonial guard level drill then we need ceremonial guard units for that purpose.


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Who doesn't get a claim finalized, which vehicle doesn't get fixed for training, what aircraft doesn't fly, so that we can have "a couple hours" of parade practice?
> 
> The CAF as a whole is short people, and we are in the middle of a posting season. What are we willing to sacrifice to get "a couple of hours" of parade practice for every visit that guard is required for?  What you're seeing on the parade is likely the result of a few hours of practice, if we want ceremonial guard level drill then we need ceremonial guard units for that purpose.



Oh for FFS we've been hearing "Don't got the bodies, Sir" BS since Noah's Ark. Its a too easy excuse not to do event correctly.


----------



## garb811 (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...
> The beard line is supposed to be two fingers above the adam's apple and the cheeks should be clean.


There is no specification on where the beard line is supposed to be on the neck or cheeks, it is just, "A beard shall be worn with a mustache; it shall be neatly trimmed, especially on the lower neck and cheekbones; and it shall not exceed 2 cm in bulk."

Maybe at some point, some enterprising soul will take the Ceremonial CADPAT order of dress to the logical extension and order medals as well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Horseswallop. A couple hours practice the day before. Shine your boots the night before, have a uniform ready or do your own ironing, and get a haircut and trim the beard the night before.
> 
> Its not that fricken difficult folks. :facepalm:
> 
> Also this seems to be the current CDS MO. There was a guard at Esquimalt and everyone was in combats at his insistence. Bloody embarrassing.



I looked at the beards again, they are fine as far as dress standards are concerned.  It's really the combats that I have an issue with.

Firstly, the PM and the Secretary General are in Business Formal Attire.  Protocol should dictate you don't wear pyjamas when someone is wearing a business suit.  Secondly, it's called an "Honour Guard" for a reason.  You don't Honour the Prime Minister and his guest the NATO Secretary General by wearing pyjamas.  Your soldiers should be well turned out in their dress uniform, medals on display with effort put in to their appearance.  

This is a great example of "going through the motions" something I've heard people on this site harp about with respect to this organization in countless threads.  I'm of the mindset, if you aren't going to do something right, why do it at all?  Quarter Guards and Guards of Honour are Ceremonies, there is a reason we call it "Ceremonial Dress".



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> There is no specification on where the beard line is supposed to be on the neck or cheeks, it is just, "A beard shall be worn with a mustache; it shall be neatly trimmed, especially on the lower neck and cheekbones; and it shall not exceed 2 cm in bulk."
> 
> Maybe at some point, some enterprising soul will take the Ceremonial CADPAT order of dress to the logical extension and order medals as well.



Maybe I am being totally asinine but a lot of dress guidelines are inferred.  Ask any barber where they would trim your beard on your neck, "2 fingers above the adam's apple" would be the answer.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Jul 2019)

Monsoon said:
			
		

> I guess the dress chosen was a concession to the reality that those folks had jobs they were doing before the VIPs arrived, and jobs to return to after they left. It's good to see that the days of spending a week (or more) doing nothing but preparing for low-impact turn-out parades like this are in the past at Pet, at least.



I can understand that, however when I first saw this on TV news my first thought was "why was he carrying a sword".  Perhaps the impression that they were trying to make was that even with outdated weapons the CF is ready to defend the world.  I've formed guards in both service dress and combats, but my understanding was that the weapons (and accoutrements) would be consistent with the order of dress.



> 1. The following items are authorized for wear with ceremonial and service dress uniforms:
> a.  aiguillettes;
> b.  Royal cyphers and personal badges;
> c.  ceremonial belts, and related equipment;
> ...



In the days of yore, if a guard was mounted in combats, the appropriate arms for the guard commander was a pistol.

As much as it seems to be the trend to dismiss all this as meaningless and an interference with the normal business of soldiering, the CF is one of the few publicly visible governmental organizations that demonstrate "protocol".  I tried to find what any applicable Canadian protocol publication had to say about what would be the appropriate honours that would be rendered the NATO Secretary General (I assumed that the protocol for the PM was readily available).  However, I was not able to find any Canadian references online (though I found plenty from other countries and for NATO for that matter).

I'm not really sure about the purpose of the Sec Gen and the PM visiting Petawawa.  There may have been more than the brief statement that Sec Gen Stoltenberg made (I really didn't pay that much attention to the news report, it didn't seem important) but the impression that the show put on was important - that's the purpose of "protocol" - to make a good impression.  If there is anything worse than not providing protocol is providing protocol poorly.  This was providing protocol poorly.


----------



## BDTyre (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They look like crap.  Slovenly in fact.  The Officer's dress and deportment is atrocious.



What part is atrocious? His boots are black and appear to be polished to the standards one would expect for combat boots. His pants appear to fit and are evenly bloused. His tunic fits and the arm length seems to be fine. Neither part are excessively worn or faded. His name tag and patches are on evenly and not scrunched up, worn or faded. His beret, while maybe a little high on his head fits and seems formed acceptably.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2019)

*edited, just seen similar comment


----------



## Private_John_Winger (16 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Who doesn't get a claim finalized, which vehicle doesn't get fixed for training, what aircraft doesn't fly, so that we can have "a couple hours" of parade practice?
> 
> The CAF as a whole is short people, and we are in the middle of a posting season. What are we willing to sacrifice to get "a couple of hours" of parade practice for every visit that guard is required for?  What you're seeing on the parade is likely the result of a few hours of practice, if we want ceremonial guard level drill then we need ceremonial guard units for that purpose.



Oh stop it. You make it sound like the army's on an imminent war footing and every spare minute needs to be spent on the range. That's not the case. Ceremonial duties are part of soldiering, just as much as "finalizing claims"(some would say more so!). I served in 2 Commando and one of the things that brought us down was the fact we managed to convince ourselves that we were above "all that leg battalion ashphalt soldier crap." We weren't, and the eventual results demonstrated the fallacy of that kind of hubristic attitude.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jul 2019)

[quote author=Blackadder1916] 

I'm not really sure about the purpose of the Sec Gen and the PM visiting Petawawa.  
[/quote]

Just some NATO related meeting. Not sure why they picked Petawawa. I believe most units summer leave blocks are until the 21st of July. Wouldn't be surprised if some people were called in off leave to do this parade. I hate ceremonial dress with a passion but agree ceremonial drill should be done in dress uniforms and not combat uniforms.

Honour guards are supposed to be the biggest baddest toughest members of a unit. Being picked for an honour guard should be an honour (PWOR did that one year, I was impressed).  These days honour guards are whoever is available.


----------



## garb811 (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...
> Maybe I am being totally asinine but a lot of dress guidelines are inferred.  Ask any barber where they would trim your beard on your neck, "2 fingers above the adam's apple" would be the answer.


I don't disagree with you on that point, but inferred guidelines are notoriously difficult to enforce. Given the way this is written, someone could basically show up with a quasi chin-strap and argue that they are still within the rules. The picture provided as an example is of no help as there are no landmarks or measurements provided, unlike the sideburns which are supposed to bisect the ear, the back of the hair which is supposed to be 2.5cm above the collar and the moustache which is supposed to extend to the corners of the mouth...


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2019)

Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> I don't care if the one of those soldiers is a Victoria Cross winner. You wouldn't know it to look at any of them and that's all the public sees. Serious institutions like the UK/US Marines, British Guard Regiments, etc. understand that. We used to understand that in Canada but seem to have forgotten it.



This is likely a parade on base (?) and not in the public eye.  Hell, UK armed forces actually do full on parades in public in combats.  Where's the gnashing of teeth there?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325464/Thousands-line-streets-Royal-Marines-home-town-mark-heroes-return-final-tour-Afghanistan.html


----------



## bick (16 Jul 2019)

I think the point that Winger is trying to make is that we have dress uniforms for functions like this and combat uniforms for everyday wear. Also, why not have a unit of uniform soldiers provide the guard?  Why does everything in Cdn society need to reflect everyone?  Army guys, airborne army guys, AF guys. Task a unit and do the job. Also, I think wearing their theatre uniforms to a welcome home parade is a little different then this scenario.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This is likely a parade on base (?) and not in the public eye.



This is the age of social media, hell, this was an event to which the "the media" was invited in the hope that they would publicize it.  I don't know how they could be less in the public eye.

As to the RM parade in combats, they are not much different that a similar mix in a Canadian arms unit except that everyone in that parade (with the exception of the captain in the brown beret and the USMC officer) has received the green beret, including the sailor (likely the MO).


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2019)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> … why not have a unit of uniform soldiers provide the guard?  Why does everything in Cdn society need to reflect everyone?  Army guys, airborne army guys, AF guys. Task a unit and do the job ...


You have any evidence that the mix of the guard was to "reflect everyone"?  I stand to be corrected, but it's not impossible that this was who was available in the timeframe.  Also, are there any units @ Petawawa that might have a mix of such folks?

I get the need for fancy-shmancy uniforms from time to time, but as an old fart myself, I have no problem with presentable dress of the day even for the PM & NATO's SecGen #WorkingBaseWorkingClothing


----------



## Old EO Tech (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> They look like crap.  Slovenly in fact.  The Officer's dress and deportment is atrocious.
> 
> Regarding beards, since BEARDFORGEN came out, a lot of people are growing beards.  One thing I've noticed is almost nobody does a good job with their beard grooming.  The beard line is supposed to be two fingers above the adam's apple and the cheeks should be clean.



Exactly were are you quoting this 2 fingers from?  That is not what the CFG says, all it says is the beard must be trimmed at the neck, last time I checked the neck ends at the adams apple and anything above the adams apple is chin not neck....


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Horseswallop. A couple hours practice the day before. Shine your boots the night before, have a uniform ready or do your own ironing, and get a haircut and trim the beard the night before.
> 
> Its not that fricken difficult folks. :facepalm:
> 
> Also this seems to be the current CDS MO. There was a guard at Esquimalt and everyone was in combats at his insistence. Bloody embarrassing.



This might come as a surprise to you but there are quite a few of us who aren't ashamed of parading in the public in combat dress. It tends to remind people that we aren't merely civil servants in a slightly different colour of shirt and tie business suit.

The different colour berets don't bother me. That's an issue dealing with identity and tradition. The boots on the other hand are ridiculous and a result of a seriously failed procurement policy and in my mind are a badge of shame which we really should fix. 

Beards. Personally I don't like them but then again I'm still wearing the same mustache that was au courant amongst all the regimental officers in the 1970s. So what do I know. 

 ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech (16 Jul 2019)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> I think the point that Winger is trying to make is that we have dress uniforms for functions like this and combat uniforms for everyday wear. Also, why not have a unit of uniform soldiers provide the guard?  Why does everything in Cdn society need to reflect everyone?  Army guys, airborne army guys, AF guys. Task a unit and do the job. Also, I think wearing their theatre uniforms to a welcome home parade is a little different then this scenario.



I do agree this should have been done in DEU 1A, it's not that hard to get dressed in that.  And weapons/swords should not even be seen in CADPAT except for parade practices, no were in the CAF Dress Regs does an order of dress exist for work dress(which is what CADPAT or NCD with Berets is) with white belts/wpns/swords...


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This might come as a surprise to you but there are quite a few of us who aren't ashamed of parading in the public in combat dress. It tends to remind people that we aren't merely civil servants in a a slightly different colour of shirt and tie business suits.
> 
> The different colour berets don't bother me. That's an issue dealing with identity and tradition. The boots on the other hand are ridiculous and a result of a seriously failed procurement policy and in my mind are a badge of shame which we really should fix.
> 
> ...


Well since you are an army type I can understand your fondness to the combats  ;D. The NCD's on the other hand are just fine for when you are working in the ship but look horrible on parade. I agree with a comment earlier that if you are parading in combat dress then ditch the swords and white gloves.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jul 2019)

I am a fan of BOOTFORGEN - for operational dress, footwear should be that which best supports each individual; MK III cripplers or whatever else is bought in bulk for lowest cost compliant reasons is a good way to injure soldiers.

That said, for a ceremonial occasion personnel should be in ceremonial uniforms.


The array of beret colours may arise from a support unit - it's not unusual for a service battalion to have aviators, killicks and folks in green all workign together - all wearing different colours on their heads, and even the odd (some very odd) RCEME type in their royal blue as well.


----------



## Lumber (16 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Humphrey Bogart said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yea, HB. Was that sarcasm? I agree CT. Nothing seems outright slovenly about the Major.


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well since you are an army type I can understand your fondness to the combats  ;D. The NCD's on the other hand are just fine for when you are working in the ship but look horrible on parade. I agree with a comment earlier that if you are parading in combat dress then ditch the swords and white gloves.



Agreed. All parades that I ever did in combat's or CADPAT had officers wearing pistols and not swords. That might be harder to accomplish these days considering the completely different load bearing gear being worn.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am a fan of BOOTFORGEN - for operational dress, footwear should be that which best supports each individual; MK III cripplers or whatever else is bought in bulk for lowest cost compliant reasons is a good way to injure soldiers.
> ...



 That actually brings up an interesting point. The NZ Army is introducing a new "garrison shoe" for wear with their combat dress while in garrison reserving boots for exercises and operations. The primary reason is that studies into ankle injuries have shown:



> “The results showed that consistently wearing boots for a long time caused the ankle joint
> to rely on the boot for stability and therefore become ‘lazy’. This significantly increases the chances of injury when playing sport and/ or running without a boot. A further interesting result indicated that the thick sole of the boot was reducing the sensory feedback the bottom of the foot was receiving from the ground surface. This decreases the ability of foot and ankle to prevent the joint form “rolling over” and being injured because the sensory input which informs the joint how it is positioned is weakened.”



See article here at p 4 http://army.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/army-news/armynews503.pdf

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (16 Jul 2019)

My  :2c:

I'm not completely against doing parades in combats, but I prefer doing them in dress uniform. Doesn't even have to be 1As. It's bloody hot in the summer, do them in 3Bs.

However, to the people saying there's no time to get ready for parade, I say hogwash. I have to wear 3Bs to work. I iron and polish them the night before work. For parade practice, if there's no actual marching involved, how long does it take to size people and practice a few general salutes. 1 hr? 2 hrs?

Also, agreed with the sword. I love swords! I hate that I don't get to wear *my* sword more often! But a sword does NOT belong with work dress.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2019)

Maybe the CDS is a forum member...he'll read this thread and say "you know what...they're right.  All parades in DEUs...and let's rescind those BOOT and BEARDFORGENs..."

Then everyone will be happy because everyone will look the same.  Who cares if boots are functional and the individual can get ones that fit their feet...uniformity is where it's at.  Let's get those stocks of black combat boots, general purpose boots etc back out at clothing stores so people can be happy on parade practice again.   ;D


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> My  :2c:
> 
> I'm not completely against doing parades in combats, but I prefer doing them in dress uniform. Doesn't even have to be 1As. It's bloody hot in the summer, do them in 3Bs.
> 
> ...


So you're gonna start wearing 1A to the office so you can wear your sword to work?  I like it!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jul 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> and the moustache which is supposed to extend to the corners of the mouth...



Damn.  I missed that one.


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Doesn't even have to be 1As. It's bloody hot in the summer, do them in 3Bs.



I like the trend of the RCAF change of command parades in the summer being in 3Bs.  Fewer people hitting the tarmac is a good thing.



> I hate that I don't get to wear *my* sword more often! But a sword does NOT belong with work dress.



Wait, people actually *buy* their own swords   ???


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What part is atrocious? His boots are black and appear to be polished to the standards one would expect for combat boots. His pants appear to fit and are evenly bloused. His tunic fits and the arm length seems to be fine. Neither part are excessively worn or faded. His name tag and patches are on evenly and not scrunched up, worn or faded. His beret, while maybe a little high on his head fits and seems formed acceptably.
> 
> 
> Yea, HB. Was that sarcasm? I agree CT. Nothing seems outright slovenly about the Major.



Not sarcasm, I just think it's very poor form that they are mounting an honour guard for the Prime Minister of Canada in combats vice ceremonial dress, on an RCR base no less

As for the Officer's dress, yes it looks bad.  His boot blousing looks sloppy and he has a very poorly formed beret that is too small for his head.  He is also wearing his sword scabbard under his tunic.

I don't know what's changed in Petawawa since 2014 but you would have never caught any RCR or 2CMBG unit mounting an honour guard for the Prime Minister and the NATO Secretary General in combats.

I remember Quarter Guards being mounted for visitors and they were always done in DEUs.  

I will admit that the opinion here seems to be deeply divided and I'm willing to hoist home some valid points.


----------



## garb811 (16 Jul 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Damn.  I missed that one.


You're a Patricia, treating Dress Instructions as mere suggestions is Regimental policy, is it not?


----------



## garb811 (16 Jul 2019)

Sorry, just noticed that this was locked, probably because the old thread the latest comments was merged with was locked for some reason. So if anyone has been trying to post but couldn't, have at it.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Haggis (16 Jul 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> You're a Patricia, treating Dress Instructions as mere suggestions is Regimental policy, is it not?


  Similar to speed limits in Québec...


----------



## OldSolduer (16 Jul 2019)

garb811 said:
			
		

> You're a Patricia, treating Dress Instructions as mere suggestions is Regimental policy, is it not?



When it comes to moustaches- yes. 👍


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wait, people actually *buy* their own swords   ???



Yes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yes.



That has to be expensive;  I thought buying a good flashlight and survival knife for work made me *dedicated*.

Is there a tradition behind this...specific to the RCN, perhaps?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That has to be expensive;  I thought buying a good flashlight and survival life for work made me *dedicated*.
> 
> Is there a tradition behind this...specific to the RCN, perhaps?



We were "encouraged" to buy swords in the RCR as well.  $1000 bucks on the CANEX plan from the Regimental Kit Shop.  I still have mine.


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> We were "encouraged" to buy swords in the RCR as well.  $1000 bucks on the CANEX plan from the Regimental Kit Shop.  I still have mine.



Out of curiosity, has there been any change in the willingness of junior officers to do so since dueling was removed from the Criminal Code?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, has there been any change in the willingness of junior officers to do so since dueling was removed from the Criminal Code?



Some people didn't want to buy a sword.  I didn't feel like buying one either but just did anyways because the Adjutant told me to.  

His words:  "the ones in stores are in poor condition and you are all going to be on parade so unless you want to spend a couple of weeks refurbishing one of the used ones so it looks decent for parade, I recommend you buy one"

I know, weird Regiment.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

I just asked a friend who worked in Brussels about this.  He said it isn't uncommon for certain European countries to do parades like this in combats with the caveat being "their uniforms actually look good".

So I'm partially leaning towards "this could be ok if our uniforms weren't so atrocious".


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, has there been any change in the willingness of junior officers to do so since dueling was removed from the Criminal Code?



It seems like a pretty small group, due to the expense (also, who really wants a sword?).  Aside from a few people I know that picked up one during the centennial, don't know anyone that actually has their own. Or if they do, they don't talk about it.  

Buying a mess kit is about as far as most people are willing to go (and know of a few without one).

Might be fun to make, but unless I have a castle or something where a sword hanging on a wall would be in style seems like a waste of money.

But you know, if you are part of the pearl clutching dinosaur gaits and garters squad, maybe it's gauche and disgraceful not to be able to do some kind of Horatio Hornblower roleplaying on your free time.  :dunno:

Hate these kind of threads in general. No one in the photo was involved in any of the decisions made, but their photo will be endlessly nitpicked and criticized. I'm sure all of them would have rather been doing something other than being a dog and pony show for the PM and NATO SecGen and would have happily gone about doing their jobs instead.


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Hate these kind of threads in general. No one in the photo was involved in any of the decisions made, but their photo will be endlessly nitpicked and criticized. I'm sure all of them would have rather been doing something other than being a dog and pony show for the PM and NATO SecGen and would have happily gone about doing their jobs instead.



Agreed.  I'm sure there's an actual reason for the dress - I'm sure it was signed off by an RSM, and they don't seem like the most flexible on these sorts of things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2019)

I'd say, looking back over the past few years, the CDS has set the standard for parades/ceremonies and the DEU/operational dress question.  There was a picture of him in Europe, meeting with peers;  they were in DEU, he was in CADPAT.  There was the parade in Esqmailt he reviewed...in operational dress.  He recently visited 14 Wing to present something to 404; the Guard and CDS...in operational dress.

Why, now, would anyone be surprised to see the picture from Pet?  

Personally, I think these events should be done in No. 1 but I'm just an oar-puller at the end of the day....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Hate these kind of threads in general. No one in the photo was involved in any of the decisions made, but their photo will be endlessly nitpicked and criticized. I'm sure all of them would have rather been doing something other than being a dog and pony show for the PM and NATO SecGen and would have happily gone about doing their jobs instead.



I read this and realized that you're right.  Some of my comments were overly harsh and on reflection, inappropriate.  

I still think they shouldn't be parading in Combats but that wasn't their call.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I just asked a friend who worked in Brussels about this.  He said it isn't uncommon for certain European countries to do parades like this in combats with the caveat being "their uniforms actually look good".
> 
> So I'm partially leaning towards "this could be ok if our uniforms weren't so atrocious".



I like Mary Barra's policy: 

"As chief executive at General Motors, Barra practices what she preaches. Her management philosophy is epitomized by GM’s workplace dress code—which is equally brief, and also an antidote to the restrictive, wallet-draining policies at many large corporations. It reads, in full: “Dress appropriately.”
https://qz.com/work/1242801/gms-dress-code-is-only-two-words/

What is appropriate dress for a formal parade for a Head of State, our own no less? 

I'm going with 'the highest possible standard' which, in this case, we failed to do IMHO.


----------



## BDTyre (16 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What is appropriate dress for a formal parade for a Head of State, our own no less?
> 
> I'm going with 'the highest possible standard' which, in this case, we failed to do IMHO.



Except the PM is not our Head of State nor is he our Head of State's representative.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I like the trend of the RCAF change of command parades in the summer being in 3Bs.  Fewer people hitting the tarmac is a good thing.



Agreed 100%.  I was a spectator for the Wg Cmd CofC 2 years ago, just sitting the seats in No1 was pretty brutal.  I was envying those on parade for the breeze that was reaching them...

Sqn CofC last summer was 3B and I think everyone was the better for it.  Practice was in dress of the day (2 practices about 2 hours each) and the parade was fairly well done (by RCAF standards).  Good balance between keeping "things in the air" that week and getting parades done to an acceptable standard.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Except the PM is not our Head of State nor is he our Head of State's representative.



But he is the Head of our Government and his guest was the NATO Secretary General.

I just look at what others are doing and what we have done in the past:




















































These visits are often carefully choreographed forms of Statecraft, and it's part of doing business.  Those Portuguese Soldiers are in combats btw but they still look well turned out.


----------



## BDTyre (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> But he is the Head of our Government and his guest was the NATO Secretary General.
> 
> I just look at what others are doing and what we have done in the past:
> 
> These visits are often carefully choreographed forms of Statecraft, and it's part of doing business.  Those Portuguese Soldiers are in combats btw but they still look well turned out.



Fair point, and I do agree that DEUs would have been more appropriate.
What's with the white boot laces on the Portuguese?


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> But he is the Head of our Government and his guest was the NATO Secretary General.
> 
> I just look at what others are doing and what we have done in the past:
> 
> These visits are often carefully choreographed forms of Statecraft, and it's part of doing business.  Those Portuguese Soldiers are in combats btw but they still look well turned out.



Then there are their Spanish Legion cousins:






 ;D


----------



## BDTyre (16 Jul 2019)

Needs more chest hair and more substantial gold chains...


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Fair point, and I do agree that DEUs would have been more appropriate.
> What's with the white boot laces on the Portuguese?



They may have been in combats, but those are their No 1A combats!


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It seems like a pretty small group, due to the expense (also, who really wants a sword?).  Aside from a few people I know that picked up one during the centennial, don't know anyone that actually has their own. Or if they do, they don't talk about it.
> 
> Buying a mess kit is about as far as most people are willing to go (and know of a few without one).
> 
> ...



The reason why the poor sods get roasted is because the ones who make these decisions are rarely identified as the authors of some of these shyte shows. Sometimes pointing out the errors are the only way errors get corrected.

I've watched a couple of BoA parades in Ottawa and was appalled at the turnout of the colour party, namely of the colour officer. I actually went to the CFSU Ottawa staff in charge of parades with references about proper dress for parades. The RCR and Vandoo Sgt listen to me politely but pointed out that unless the Navy comes out with a reference signed by CRCN for Naval Parades there is nothing they could do. They also told me that they have attempted to assist some officers and were basically told to bugger off.

I've been told that there will soon be a complete rewrite of the RCN Manual of Ceremony and will include parades, sword drill, etc. I await to see the results. Most of the issues that us "Gate and Gaiter" Asshole Dinosaurs point out are simple things that can be fixed by senior pers reading the refs and making sure they are followed correctly. The kids who trim their hair and beards, iron their clothes and shine their boots are NOT TO BLAME! The fault lays completely with their leaders who take the easy way out.

I'll finish with this, the folks in the Army and RCAF can parade in leopard print thongs, bras, and flip flops   for all I care, but when the RCN is on parade I like to see them in a proper rig that suits the occasion. ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Except the PM is not our Head of State nor is he our Head of State's representative.



Touché!!

I dunno ... schlepping around in ‘3rd World Junta’ parade dress, in front of a Prime Minister who is the least military friendly in a long while, can’t be a good thing.


----------



## Navy_Pete (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I've been told that there will soon be a complete rewrite of the RCN Manual of Ceremony and will include parades, sword drill, etc. I await to see the results. Most of the issues that us "Gate and Gaiter" ******* Dinosaurs point out are simple things that can be fixed by senior pers reading the refs and making sure they are followed correctly.



Actually had one of the RCN non-official facebook groups in mind.  Recent complaints have included people being out and about doing groceries after work in NCDs and ballcap (aka dress of the day and authorized walking out dress), not wearing the medals in the right place (the weird RN placement that is almost up their shoulder), kids having no pride etc.  Expect this was not on there only because there was no RCN pers in the photo, but there is a lot of throwbacks bemoaning the poor quality of everything we do today, and how they would have done it better and cheaper (while drunker and more philandering).

I'm all for following the refs and not being a bag of hammers/soup sandwhich.  I hate being on parades because I turn into an anal retentive wreck and spend far more time then necessary making everything perfect with my kit, and am an anxious wreck worried about dropping the ball throughout, and is a generally unpleasant go from flash to bang. Normally go find a friendly drill wizard and practice before hand as well. Haven't ever actually done anything but an adequate to good job, but find it more stressful than actual emergencies, so don't go looking for them.  If I do get voluntold and look a mess, definitely not from a lack of preparation.

No real excuse for not wearing the uniform properly, but in this specific case, the folks pictured here are doing as told, and I'm sure the Maj and RSM probably messed around with the belt and sword for a while and figured wearing the belt underneath combats was the lesser of all weevils (for a gratuitous Master & Commander ref).


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'll finish with this, the folks in the Army and RCAF can parade in leopard print thongs, bras, and flip flops   for all I care




...

Go on...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Go on...



hey!  A mans fantasies are not for public consumption....


----------



## dapaterson (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The fault lays completely with their leaders who take the easy way out.



Multifunction quote of the day / week / month / year.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> . .  the folks in the Army and RCAF can parade in leopard print thongs, bras, and flip flops  . . .



A warning, while this may be a ludicrous image, if you google it (as I did to add to the joke) one picture that may come up is of a former disgraced Trenton Base Commander.  I'll just leave it here.


----------



## FSTO (16 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Actually had one of the RCN non-official facebook groups in mind.



So you missed my reference to said group in my post you quoted. 

Call me a dinosaur all you want, I’m of an age where I wear that insult with pride.


----------



## brihard (16 Jul 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> hey!  A mans fantasies are not for public consumption....



Don’t tell me how to live my life.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Don’t tell me how to live my life.



Or another way to word it:

You’re not the boss of me!!!


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> .... since dueling was removed from the Criminal Code?


Wait. What?  Inigo Montoya is back!  8)


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> What's with the white boot laces on the Portuguese?


And some French troops?


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And some French troops?



Looks like the Legion. Not many Frenchmen in there....


----------



## Furniture (17 Jul 2019)

Private_John_Winger said:
			
		

> Oh stop it. You make it sound like the army's on an imminent war footing and every spare minute needs to be spent on the range. That's not the case. Ceremonial duties are part of soldiering, just as much as "finalizing claims"(some would say more so!). I served in 2 Commando and one of the things that brought us down was the fact we managed to convince ourselves that we were above "all that leg battalion ashphalt soldier crap." We weren't, and the eventual results demonstrated the fallacy of that kind of hubristic attitude.



We have a still photo showing a group of CAF members standing on parade correctly turned out for the order of dress that they are wearing. 

We have not seen their drill movements to know how well executed they are, but because they have different coloured hats, and are wearing beards the assumption is made that they are doing things poorly. 

We don't know how long they practiced, and likely won't know because the people in the photo won't come here to get dog piled even if they are forum members. 

I'll finish my discussion of time doing drill vs. doing your primary duties by saying that from my experience most people aren't nearly as good at drill as they think they are. A couple of hours every couple of weeks is not sufficient to be good at drill. Passable maybe, but not good. So if we want sharp, well turned out honour guards at each wing/base we need a dedicated group of people for the task. Otherwise every couple of months we will have another thread on here bashing the "slovenly" appearance of the troops and calls for more marching up and down the square. 

As a side, how many talented and motivated people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of better drill? We are struggling to recruit, and retain people as things stand. Marching up and down the square isn't what the kind of smart technical people we need are interested in doing, and if we push for more and more of it, it will likely contribute to driving the troops that can succeed elsewhere to seek work outside the CAF.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> As a side, how many talented and motivated people are we willing to sacrifice on the altar of better drill?



Great leadership is needed so that they (we) will sacrifice their (our) lives in some cases, as well as inspiring them (us) to do some drill... and other military stuff that we signed on for.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Actually had one of the RCN non-official facebook groups in mind.



I am member of that group as well.  It can be a very toxic environment.  One must take most the comments with a grain of salt, pun intended.  

A large part of the membership of that group is either CICs or long long long since retired folks with little time in the RCN who just want a place to be senile about how things used to be.


----------



## Furniture (17 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Great leadership is needed so that they (we) will sacrifice their (our) lives in some cases, as well as inspiring them (us) to do some drill... and other military stuff that we signed on for.



As I clearly laid out in another thread, I am all for the drill and ceremony. (I signed up at 15 years old for 6 weeks of Drill and Ceremonial at Camp Argonaut when I was a Cadet) I'm also realistic about how much time and effort should be spent on it unless it's a primary duty( I think there should be units for the purpose of ceremonies).

I've been or guards, flag parties, etc., and we spent hours practicing, but if I was the one standing one the sidelines I would have been able to pick the drill apart. Not because we didn't practice, and take pride in the drill, but because being "ceremonial guard" good at drill means spending "ceremonial guard" time practicing drill.  That's what people seem to be forgetting when they pick apart pictures and video of clerks, mechanics, cooks, etc. doing drill as best they can given the time and pers restraints we are all working with.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... who just want a place to be senile ....


Can you confirm which site you're referring to....


----------



## FSTO (17 Jul 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Can you confirm which site you're referring to....



Every chat board on the internet?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (17 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I've been or guards, flag parties, etc., and we spent hours practicing, but if I was the one standing one the sidelines I would have been able to pick the drill apart. Not because we didn't practice, and take pride in the drill, but because being "ceremonial guard" good at drill means spending "ceremonial guard" time practicing drill.  That's what people seem to be forgetting when they pick apart pictures and video of clerks, mechanics, cooks, etc. doing drill as best they can given the time and pers restraints we are all working with.



Based on my time at CG back in the day, I would suggest that it is not the soldiers practicing drill that makes them proficient.  It is the SNCOs who can spot and rectify faults, can sense the whole within the individual parts, and who can identify cohesion when it starts to occur.  We don't create those NCOs anymore.  It may be a chicken / egg type of thing, but it all starts with well trained NCOs, as always.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> As I clearly laid out in another thread, I am all for the drill and ceremony. (I signed up at 15 years old for 6 weeks of Drill and Ceremonial at Camp Argonaut when I was a Cadet) I'm also realistic about how much time and effort should be spent on it unless it's a primary duty( I think there should be units for the purpose of ceremonies).
> 
> I've been or guards, flag parties, etc., and we spent hours practicing, but if I was the one standing one the sidelines I would have been able to pick the drill apart. Not because we didn't practice, and take pride in the drill, but because being "ceremonial guard" good at drill means spending "ceremonial guard" time practicing drill.  That's what people seem to be forgetting when they pick apart pictures and video of clerks, mechanics, cooks, etc. doing drill as best they can given the time and pers restraints we are all working with.



I think we've already established that nobody needs to be practicing drill like the ceremonial guard for weeks on end.  

I also think that it was wrong of us to dog pile on the members in the photos as it wasn't their choice to do the parade.

However, they should have been in their dress uniforms for this parade.  It's an Honour Guard and they are dressed inappropriately for the NATO Secretary General and our Head of Government.  It is not time consuming to prepare a dress uniform.  In fact, some places in the CAF still wear them everyday.


----------



## Pusser (17 Jul 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am member of that group as well.  It can be a very toxic environment.  One must take most the comments with a grain of salt, pun intended.
> 
> A large part of the membership of that group is either CICs or long long long since retired folks with little time in the RCN who just want a place to be senile about how things used to be.



That's not an accurate assessment of the membership.  Yes, there are a lot of retired folks on there, but relatively few of them are CIC.  There is also centuries worth of experience, including a number of former Base and Formation CPOs.


----------



## Pusser (17 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It seems like a pretty small group, due to the expense (also, who really wants a sword?).  Aside from a few people I know that picked up one during the centennial, don't know anyone that actually has their own. Or if they do, they don't talk about it.
> 
> Buying a mess kit is about as far as most people are willing to go (and know of a few without one).
> 
> ...



I love my sword.  It's an officer's badge of office and I would love to wear it more often.  If all officers had them, perhaps we would.  When I was first commissioned, my father offered me either a sword or mess dress as a present.  In retrospect, I foolishly chose the mess dress as a more practical gift at the time.  I really should have chosen the sword.  I would have been forced to bite the bullet and buy the mess kit anyway and so would have had both.  As a young single guy, I could have afforded it.  As it was, I made other foolish decisions and had to put off buying the sword until I got married.  I figured if my bride could spend $1000 on a dress, then I could spend $1000 on my outfit!  We used that sword to cut the wedding cake and it must have been a good omen because 26 years later, we're still married.  Unfortunately, I could only afford a cheaper sword at the time and not the Wilkinson I really wanted (the price of gold was through the roof and Wilkinson didn't offer a brass option).  Mine was not gold-plated and the grip was of a cheaper material.  Years later, I still have that sword, but I've been able to have it refurbished so that all the gold bits are actual gold and the grip is proper fish skin.  The mess dress has long since been replaced.


----------



## BDTyre (17 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I'm the first to admit that I am not good at drill. Period. I was most proficient at our centennial/colour presentation and that was the result of nearly 3 months of no weekends (I was on driver wheeled as well) and many Wednesday nights doing nothing but drill.
> 
> In fact, I haven't done rifle drill in four, maybe five years so the next time I am in a position to do it, I know I will need the practice.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jul 2019)

_"I'd like...two armies: one for display, with lovely guns, tanks, little soldiers, fanfares, staffs, distinguished and doddering generals, and dear little regimental officers...an army that would be shown for a modest fee on every fairground in the country.

The other would be the real one, composed entirely of young enthusiasts in camouflage battledress, who would not be out on display but from whom...all sorts of tricks would be taught.  That's the army in which I should like to fight."

Jean Larteguy, The Centurions_


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jul 2019)

So, you're saying he'd like The RCR and the PPCLI?


----------



## Haggis (17 Jul 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Based on my time at CG back in the day, I would suggest that it is not the soldiers practicing drill that makes them proficient.  It is the SNCOs who can spot and rectify faults, can sense the whole within the individual parts, and who can identify cohesion when it starts to occur.  We don't create those NCOs anymore.  It may be a chicken / egg type of thing, but it all starts with well trained NCOs, as always.



My time at CG as a very young NCO set me up for success later in my career.  "Never pass a fault" is not just an RCR thing.  I carry that mindset into my current LE job.

And, I believe that our NCM PD system has lost sight of the fundamental tenet of leadership - the art of influencing people to complete a task in the manner desired by the leader - to focus on managing "human resources" effectively.


----------



## RocketRichard (17 Jul 2019)

Best drill instruction I ever received was as a member of Sunset Platoon at Basic in Cornwallis.  Now an officer I don’t know that drill instruction is given to new officers anymore. Sigh...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2019)

CFLRS is doing a bang-on job!  Just today, I was walking behind a RAdm on base and witnessed a young person in civilians salute him.  I stopped the mbr and we had a short conversation where I learned he'd just arrived in from St-Jean.

BZ CFLRS!   ;D


----------



## RocketRichard (17 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CFLRS is doing a bang-on job!  Just today, I was walking behind a RAdm on base and witnessed a young person in civilians salute him.  I stopped the mbr and we had a short conversation where I learned he'd just arrived in from St-Jean.
> 
> BZ CFLRS!   ;D


I did BOTC in St Jean in the late 90’s and we were given a modicum of drill commands as officers and a wee bit of sword drill. This is not part of initial training for reserve officers at least. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> CFLRS is doing a bang-on job!  Just today, I was walking behind a RAdm on base and witnessed a young person in civilians salute him.  I stopped the mbr and we had a short conversation where I learned he'd just arrived in from St-Jean.
> 
> BZ CFLRS!   ;D



Gold, Jerry!  :rofl:

I assume that 'sheer terror' had a role to play.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Gold, Jerry!  :rofl:
> 
> I assume that 'sheer terror' had a role to play.



Yup.  He said "I realized he was an Admiral and just reacted".  

The best part...it was actually a crisp, smart salute and while he was going up a narrow, wooden set of stairs while the RAdm was going down them.  I had premium seating as the top of the sets of stairs.

 ;D


----------



## stoker dave (18 Jul 2019)

RomeoJuliet said:
			
		

> I don’t know that drill instruction is given to new officers anymore. Sigh...


Unless things have changed, officers coming out of the military college system should be pretty proficient at drill. 

For those not coming through the milcol system, I have no idea what drill training they get (or its quality).


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Based on my time at CG back in the day, I would suggest that it is not the soldiers practicing drill that makes them proficient.  It is the SNCOs who can spot and rectify faults, can sense the whole within the individual parts, and who can identify cohesion when it starts to occur.  We don't create those NCOs anymore.  It may be a chicken / egg type of thing, but it all starts with well trained NCOs, as always.




I did my junior NCO course, back almost 60 years ago, when CG meant The Regiment of Canadian Guards, not the Ceremonial Guard, and I agree 100% with PPCLI Guy, if we can get junior leadership right, that being at the corporal and 2Lt level, then everything else will fall into place. If we fail at producing good junior leaders then I cannot imagine how we might imagine that senior leaders will produce themselves out of thin air.

It's not a PPCLI vs RCR thing, nor was it a Cdn Gds vs QOR thing back, more than half a century ago, when they were at the top of the reputational totem pole, it's an Army thing and if we can't get that one, simple thing ~ making the best junior leaders in the world ~ right then we will get our asses handed to us by some half-wits in flip-flops. It's happened before.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jul 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I did my junior NCO course, back almost 60 years ago, when CG meant The Regiment of Canadian Guards, not the Ceremonial Guard, and I agree 100% with PPCLI Guy, if we can get junior leadership right, that being at the corporal and 2Lt level, then everything else will fall into place. If we fail at producing good junior leaders then I cannot imagine how we might imagine that senior leaders will produce themselves out of thin air.
> 
> It's not a PPCLI vs RCR thing, nor was it a Cdn Gds vs QOR thing back, more than half a century ago, when they were at the top of the reputational totem pole, it's an Army thing and if we can't get that one, simple thing ~ making the best junior leaders in the world ~ right then we will get our asses handed to us by some half-wits in flip-flops. It's happened before.



Thank you for the post, ERC.

Ref the part I've highlighted in yellow text;  does the CAF *actually* expect Cpl's and 2Lts to be leaders in the year 20XX?  I have a sense that, over the past decade or 2, that less is expected of Jnr NCOs and Officers (below the Capt / Lt(N) rank) as "leaders".  Junior NCO tasks and skills are expected of MCpl/MS only and even then, not as much as 10-20 years ago.  We've become comfortable with a large number of Acting/Lacking personnel at the MCpl/MS rank and, as an institution, I fear we've 'watered down' the Jnr NCO rank duties and expectations.

I was on SLC in 2002 in Gagetown.  We had 2, maybe 3 A/L WOs.  There were 2 PLQs running at the same time;  I believe 95% or more of the candidates were A/L MCpl/MS.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (18 Jul 2019)

Maybe I’m reading this out of context, but I disagree with some of the comments made above. IMO and in my experience, I’ve noticed that Jnr NCMs in general tends to do more, but also know more than ever before. They are very capable, smart and resourceful people I’ve ever worked with. They are as much mission driven than previous generations. When I was a Cpl, many of my NCOs were a “product” of the late 80s and 90s, and frankly were the most shittiest NCOs I’ve ever worked for. So as an organization have we traded some skill sets for others? Yes we did! We may not be as good and shiny with drills, however I noticed leaders across the board are more concerned for the well-being of their subordinates than I’ve seen before, and IMO this is for the better.


----------



## Pusser (19 Jul 2019)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Maybe I’m reading this out of context, but I disagree with some of the comments made above. IMO and in my experience, I’ve noticed that Jnr NCMs in general tends to do more, but also know more than ever before. They are very capable, smart and resourceful people I’ve ever worked with. They are as much mission driven than previous generations. When I was a Cpl, many of my NCOs were a “product” of the late 80s and 90s, and frankly were the most shittiest NCOs I’ve ever worked for. So as an organization have we traded some skill sets for others? Yes we did! We may not be as good and shiny with drills, however I noticed leaders across the board are more concerned for the well-being of their subordinates than I’ve seen before, and IMO this is for the better.



I will not dispute this for a moment.  Obviously the mission and business of what we do must come first.  However, I've never understood why there seems to be a split between operational capability and dress and deportment and why some folks seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why can't we do it all!  If we can't get the simple stuff (dress and deportment) right, are we really doing the best we can on the more serious and complicated stuff?


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I will not dispute this for a moment.  Obviously the mission and business of what we do must come first.  However, I've never understood why there seems to be a split between operational capability and dress and deportment and why some folks seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why can't we do it all!  If we can't get the simple stuff (dress and deportment) right, are we really doing the best we can on the more serious and complicated stuff?



We can. It's when we skew everything too far one way that things go wrong. And the soldiers are smart enough to figure that out too, believe me.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I will not dispute this for a moment.  Obviously the mission and business of what we do must come first.  However, I've never understood why there seems to be a split between operational capability and dress and deportment and why some folks seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why can't we do it all!  If we can't get the simple stuff (dress and deportment) right, are we really doing the best we can on the more serious and complicated stuff?



They are also not mutually inclusive; you can be operational superstars and not have the best dress and deportment. Bad dress and deportment does not equal bad operational capabilities. I know of a few people who are amazing at their job, that still look like a soup sandwich in even the best turned out uniform, and who probably should never be on a ceremonial guard.  Fortunately they prefer to be in and around the machinery spaces of the ship in any case. Similarly know a few people that are so pusser they could be photos used for standards, but wouldn't trust them to do much more than convert oxygen to carbon dioxide and output some heat.

That 'we can't get the simple things right' red herring is a personal pet peeve of mine, as it typically gets trotted out when you are drowning in work and just triaging the critical things, so sometimes you let the simple things intentionally slip because you are doing a bunch of critical and complex things properly, and the simple things won't have an actual operational impact. Nothing builds morale quite like working around the clock for a few days to get a safety critical thing fixed and have someone give you a hassle for your boots being scuffed or having grease on your uniform (at sea).


----------



## gcclarke (19 Jul 2019)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I will not dispute this for a moment.  Obviously the mission and business of what we do must come first.  However, I've never understood why there seems to be a split between operational capability and dress and deportment and why some folks seem to think they are mutually exclusive. Why can't we do it all!  If we can't get the simple stuff (dress and deportment) right, are we really doing the best we can on the more serious and complicated stuff?



Personally, and I think for a lot of other people, it's less a matter "if we can't get the simple stuff right", and more so "why bother putting effort into things that don't matter"? 

What's the operational impact of having shoddy drill? Zero. How much time in the week would be suitable to spend on fixing shoddy drill? 1 hour? 2? 8? 0? What's the operational impact of allocating that time towards this task? What things are we leaving undone as a result? 

No one will ever convince me that should actually give a flying fark about how good someone's drill is. The serious and more complicated stuff  (like "how to fight a war")  is the stuff that we need to be focusing on; it shouldn't be some sort of afterthought that we only bother dealing with once we get the *purely ceremonial aspects of the job* squared away. 

How shiny someone's shoes are or whether or not people can keep in line when executing a right wheel will never be a matter which affects how well we defend Canada from the enemy. So who cares? Not me.


----------



## TCM621 (19 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> They are also not mutually inclusive; you can be operational superstars and not have the best dress and deportment. Bad dress and deportment does not equal bad operational capabilities. I know of a few people who are amazing at their job, that still look like a soup sandwich in even the best turned out uniform, and who probably should never be on a ceremonial guard.  Fortunately they prefer to be in and around the machinery spaces of the ship in any case. Similarly know a few people that are so pusser they could be photos used for standards, but wouldn't trust them to do much more than convert oxygen to carbon dioxide and output some heat.
> 
> That 'we can't get the simple things right' red herring is a personal pet peeve of mine, as it typically gets trotted out when you are drowning in work and just triaging the critical things, so sometimes you let the simple things intentionally slip because you are doing a bunch of critical and complex things properly, and the simple things won't have an actual operational impact. Nothing builds morale quite like working around the clock for a few days to get a safety critical thing fixed and have someone give you a hassle for your boots being scuffed or having grease on your uniform (at sea).



If i tell you that you need to keep your hair cut and boots shone and you don't do it because you think it is stupid, what else aren't you doing because you think it is stupid? It _can _get stupid, I remember putting creases in my combats, but I think we have gone too far the other way. I literally spend less than 5 minutes a week on my boots, 20 minutes a week on my beard and 30 minutes every 2 to 3 weeks getting a hair cut, if that is too much to ask I am concerned with that person's dedication.


----------



## Remius (19 Jul 2019)

I think that when people point to things they dislike or they think is useless they use whatever excuse like "that doesn't help defend Canada" or "That doesn't kill bad guys" or "We have better things to do"

How about "if you do it, do it right". 

Who cares what it is.  Drill, polishing, shooting bad guys.  Just do it right.  Then complain all you want about it after.  We don't have to excuse shoddy work at any level.


----------



## Furniture (19 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If i tell you that you need to keep your hair cut and boots shone and you don't do it because you think it is stupid, what else aren't you doing because you think it is stupid? It _can _get stupid, I remember putting creases in my combats, but I think we have gone too far the other way. I literally spend less than 5 minutes a week on my boots, 20 minutes a week on my beard and 30 minutes every 2 to 3 weeks getting a hair cut, if that is too much to ask I am concerned with that person's dedication.



Nobody has argued that we don't need/shouldn't enforce dress standards. All places of work have a dress code whether official or not. 

The issue is some people think we need more time spent on uniforms and drill, while others think we spend enough time on that stuff already. I'm ok with passable drill, and the occasional bad honour guard when we are pulling the guard together from troops doing their primary jobs. If we want snappy dressers with fancy drill then we should put together units whose primary jobs are drill, and looking good.


----------



## Throwaway987 (19 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I am concerned with that person's dedication.



I think the retention crisis is an amusing reflection of where our dedication truly lies. Self before service and reduced tolerance for institutional silliness?


----------



## TCM621 (19 Jul 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> I think the retention crisis is an amusing reflection of where our dedication truly lies. Self before service and reduced tolerance for institutional silliness?



Things like drill, dress and deportment are so far down the list of why people are leaving, it hardly bears mentioning. Things like a steady erosion of benefits, lack of trust in leadership (civilian and military), lack of proper training and equipment, and pay that isn't adequate to live in many places are much bigger problems.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> If i tell you that you need to keep your hair cut and boots shone and you don't do it because you think it is stupid, what else aren't you doing because you think it is stupid? It _can _get stupid, I remember putting creases in my combats, but I think we have gone too far the other way. I literally spend less than 5 minutes a week on my boots, 20 minutes a week on my beard and 30 minutes every 2 to 3 weeks getting a hair cut, if that is too much to ask I am concerned with that person's dedication.



If you want picture perfect, that requires time and a lot of practice. That's not what people generally get before the various parades, but is what they get judged against by the peanut gallery.

It's easy to meet the standard, but we don't typically give people the time to prepare to meet the picture perfect standard before snapping their photos. Especially in the social media era; there are photos snapped all the time where you never would have bothered before (to the point where I personnally find it distracting and a bit distasteful).

Things are constantly documented where they never used to be; IMHO it's less that standards are slipping and more that things are being constantly broadcast. There is practice for some big events, but normally you fall in 20 minutes early, do a quick walkthrough and off you go.  Even if you get some practice, an hour here or there isn't going to knock much rust off, so if you want CG quality, you need it to be a full time job.


----------



## Throwaway987 (19 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Things like drill, dress and deportment are so far down the list of why people are leaving, it hardly bears mentioning. Things like a steady erosion of benefits, lack of trust in leadership (civilian and military), lack of proper training and equipment, and pay that isn't adequate to live in many places are much bigger problems.



I think we’re saying the same thing from slightly different sides. The whole ship is sinking and _this_ is the issue we’re fixated on? 

We’re undermanned and trying our best to do get our work done. We get forced to do a parade that none of us wanted to do and now there’s a whole thread mocking us. I think of that other thread on work hours and we also have Sgt who’s telling us that he owns our asses 24/7. This paragraph is totally fictitious but is it that far from the truth?

Edit: Don’t get me wrong though. I’m pro-internal motivation and doing things right. My concern is that in a pseudo-Maslow’s hierarchy of needs point of view, dress and deportment comes after meeting more basic needs (such as performing our primary duty with pride).  The internal pride in one’s dress and deportment is a sign that one’s more basic needs have been met and there is leftover time and energy to focus on this higher order need.

I can see why some posters are so irrationally fixated on dress and deportment but it mistakes cause and effect. Dress and deportment is a symptom of healthy troops but the blind pursuit of dress and deportment does not lead to health.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jul 2019)

When states want to impress foreign dignitaries with an honour guard there is usually a specific unit that has the role of ceremonial duties. The Brit's Guards, the German Wachbataillon, the French Republican Guard, the US Army Old Guard, the Chinese PLA Honour Guard Battalion, the Russian's Kremlin Regiment, etc etc.

Canada doesn't generally have that although at this time of year the Ceremonial Guard could easily have done the job.

It strikes me that the formation at the Petawawa visit was more in the nature of a quarter guard (although a wee bit large for that) which generally is a little less formal and not so much a ceremonial guard formation and in this case was designed to show the troops in a bit more of the working uniform rather than a full bib and tucker thing.

I think that there are things we can do to make teaching, learning and doing drill and ceremony simpler (when's the last time a left or right form on the march has really been used except when trooping the colour). Very few dignitaries really care whether we march past in column of companies or battalion in mass or column of route. 

We do need to look and move on parade like professionals both to look good to others and feel good about ourselves. That takes a bit of practice and supervision of the basics and shouldn't take a Herculean effort. If we do want ramrod precision and creases that we can shave with to impress the locals and foreigners then let's form a ceremonial guard for that purpose. Personally I'd rather buy and staff an air defence battalion.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (19 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> We do need to look and move on parade like professionals both to look good to others and feel good about ourselves. That takes a bit of practice and supervision of the basics and shouldn't take a Herculean effort. If we do want ramrod precision and creases that we can shave with to impress the locals and foreigners then let's form a ceremonial guard for that purpose.



Well said.


----------



## TCM621 (19 Jul 2019)

Throwaway987 said:
			
		

> I think we’re saying the same thing from slightly different sides. The whole ship is sinking and _this_ is the issue we’re fixated on?
> 
> We’re undermanned and trying our best to do get our work done. We get forced to do a parade that none of us wanted to do and now there’s a whole thread mocking us. I think of that other thread on work hours and we also have Sgt who’s telling us that he owns our asses 24/7. This paragraph is totally fictitious but is it that far from the truth?
> 
> ...



The reason we care so much is that its embarrassing to see and projects an unprofessional appearance. When I joined the army, i had to have creases in my combats and my combat boots had to be highly shone. That was stupid, especially as I headed off to the field. Now I walk around base and I see unkempt beards, boots that haven't ever been blackened or cleaned, pants that are poorly bloused, sleeves half assed rolled to the elbow, berets of indiscernible colour and its often on people who can not contain their bellies within their shirts. We are the military equivalent of showing up to work in sweat pants and a stained wife beater.  We have enough issues with poor quality uniforms and critical shortages that are completely out if our hands, we can take 2 hours a month to spend attempting to look professional. 

FJAG,
On my base we have a guard whose do honour guards as a secondary duty. Granted its Air force, so they don't do regular practices but I think it is a good idea. Lets send out the group who are getting PER points for looking good and then the rest wouldn't have to worry about it as often. They could practice, get extra points allocated for new DEUs. It's probably a better system than grab 25 guys and throw together a quarter guard.


----------



## dimsum (19 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Lets send out the group who are getting PER points for looking good and then the rest wouldn't have to worry about it as often. They could practice, get extra points allocated for new DEUs. It's probably a better system than grab 25 guys and throw together a quarter guard.



That works until either a) those folks are deployed/posted or b) they get pissed off that they're doing all the parades and stop caring about their DEUs to get out of them.


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The reason we care so much is that its embarrassing to see and projects an unprofessional appearance. When I joined the army, i had to have creases in my combats and my combat boots had to be highly shone. That was stupid, especially as I headed off to the field. Now I walk around base and I see unkempt beards, boots that haven't ever been blackened or cleaned, pants that are poorly bloused, sleeves half assed rolled to the elbow, berets of indiscernible colour and its often on people who can not contain their bellies within their shirts. We are the military equivalent of showing up to work in sweat pants and a stained wife beater.  We have enough issues with poor quality uniforms and critical shortages that are completely out if our hands, we can take 2 hours a month to spend attempting to look professional.



I'll be frank here. Your embarrassment sounds like a personal problem. Because this is definitely the type of stuff that only people in the CAF ever seem to get worked up about. The public doesn't have a massive preference for seeing people in their DEUs rather than combats. They're just fine seeing us in the orders of dress in which we actually work. What's the point of blackening work boots? Hell, half of them are brown now-a-days anyways. Those "unkempt" beards you're going on about? Likely well within regulations. 2 cm of bulk is a fair amount of beard, and no where in the regulations does it state stuff like keeping your neck shaved which I also often see as a complaint. 

Frankly, I'd kindly suggest that it'd be a lot better for your mental health if you try to focus upon being embarrassed only for yourself and your own actions, and quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Because, once again, none of this actually affects operational performance. So therefore a lot of people who got into this job to actually defend Canada, _and didn't join for the dog-and-pony shows_ simply won't give a hoot, and will put in the bare minimum required to adhere to the minimum standards set out in the regulations.


----------



## Throwaway987 (20 Jul 2019)

A root cause of this interesting discussion is that we’re all talking about different types of people in the CAF. I recall a model of motivation and capability where members are divided into four groups with high versus low motivation and high versus low capability. 

Highly motivated members require minimal supervision WRT dress and deportment. They self-regulate and correct themselves before anyone needs to talk to them. e.g. members who desire to be a part of a hypothetical ceremonial unit. These members aren’t really the topic of discussion since they’ve already self-corrected their dress.

A lot of the concerns from previous posters relate to the lower motivation members (e.g. why do they not care about their boots?!). 

Some of these members don’t care and aren’t that competent at their jobs either. These members have no future and we need the power to terminate their employment to truly control and motivate them. Don’t want to follow our standards? No contract renewal and TYFYS. 
Some of these members are good at their jobs but have motivation issues. It is this low motivation and high capability group that we need to invest our resources in.

There’s a Chinese proverb that motivation is based on either fame/pride, wealth, or love. If we want long lasting dress and deportment, we need to find what drives these low motivation high capability people and help them _want_ to have higher personal standards. 

TL;DR? I’m arguing that dress and deportment is a systemic problem related to human motivation. The CAF doesn’t have any true power or leverage over highly capable members (who can just release) or low capability members (who are protected by bureaucracy). Applying the wrong solution (e.g. individual solution or wrong systemic solution) will only accelerate driving the highly capable and high/low motivation members out of the CAF. What better way is there to destroy a village than to kill all their children?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Those "unkempt" beards you're going on about? Likely well within regulations. 2 cm of bulk is a fair amount of beard, and no where in the regulations does it state stuff like keeping your neck shaved which I also often see as a complaint.



Actually, it does.

CANFORGEN 158/18 CMP 078/18

SUBJ: AMENDMENT TO BEARD POLICY

4.WHERE THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED:

A. IT SHALL BE WORN WITH A MOUSTACHE,

B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND CHEEKBONES,

C. IT SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO CENTIMETERS IN BULK. A MEMBER WILL, ON THEIR OWN ACCORD OR UPON DIRECTION FROM THEIR COMMANDING OFFICER OR THEIR CO S DESIGNATE, SHAVE OFF UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO GROW A BEARD.

5.THE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE TRIMMING OF A BEARD AT PARA 4 ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO CAF MEMBERS WHO ARE EXEMPT, FOR MEDICAL REASONS, FROM SHAVING THE LOWER NECK OR CHEECKBONES


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND CHEEKBONES,



You're not supposed to just quote regulations. You should actually read them first too. 

"It shall be neatly trimmed, especially on the lower neck and cheekbones" are different words than "the lower neck and cheekbones shall be clean shaven". 

Words have meaning you know? If they wanted to mandate that the lower neck and cheekbones be kept clean shaven at all times, they could have easily said that. They didn't. Instead they just mandated that it be _more_ neatly trimmed than the rest of the beard is. Therefore you 're expected to keep those parts of the face trimmed at least a bit shorter than the rest of the face. 

It's impossible to construe the word "neatly trimmed" to mean "must be clean shaven", given that direction of neatly trimming applies to the entire beard. Especially neatly trimmed does not mean the same thing as clean shaven.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2019)

Word have meaning.  Really?  If you've got a headache, try taking some Midol.  I've heard it works.

As for the "trimming vs shaving" part...that's not the way 9 out of 10 people on my Wing are seeing it, that's right up to and including the Wing Comd and WCWO when they had beards on the go.  But it's not the hill I'd chose to die on, there's more important things.  I trim my entire beard with a #1 guard every week and shave my neck and cheekbones 3 times a week.

I've seen enough poorly worded policy/direction/etc in the CAF in my time;  I'd be more likely to agree with you if the para said clearly "shaving of the neck and cheekbones in not required, however they shall be neatly trimmed".

What does neatly trimmed mean to you then?  What does it mean to the Base RSM/CPO/CWO...or Unit COs?


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Word have meaning.  Really?  If you've got a headache, try taking some Midol.  I've heard it works.
> 
> As for the "trimming vs shaving" part...that's not the way 9 out of 10 people on my Wing are seeing it, that's right up to and including the Wing Comd and WCWO when they had beards on the go.  But it's not the hill I'd chose to die on, there's more important things.  I trim my entire beard with a #1 guard every week and shave my neck and cheekbones 3 times a week.
> 
> ...



Well hell, petty tyrants just making crap up to suit their own personal opinion of what the regulation should be rather than what the regulation actually is is hardly a new thing in the CAF.

Also, petty tyrants making crap up is one of the primary things which is driving our ongoing retention crisis. I'm not a big fan. 

I interpret that part of the regulation to be "neatly trimmed, and shorter than the rest of the beard". Anything anyone does to go above and beyond that, such as actually shaving it three times a week is all well and good, but under no reasonable interpretation of what the regulation actually says would I consider it a requirement. Personally, I just shave the neck whenever I trim the rest of the beard.

As for what neatly trimmed itself means, I'd say the requirement there is a beard which is relatively uniform in length, or at least locally (I wouldn't consider it a problem to, for example, trim the moustache shorter than the rest of the beard), without any spots that protrude excessively. And of course keeping within the requirements for a maximum bulk. 

Personally, I find I usually need to trim approx every 3 weeks in order to keep within the 2 cm bulk rule.


----------



## Gunplumber (20 Jul 2019)

When my boss tells me to get my hair trimmed he means that I have to shave the back of my neck where the wispy hair is. This is the same meaning of trimming your beard. They dont want hair all the way down your neck. Seems pretty clear.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2019)

I just spent a little over a month on a RCN-run course.  I don't recall seeing any sailors without the neck clean shaven (ish).  It seems to be the standard in the AF as well.  Is this people just doing it, command direction, or is it just the majority of folks interpretation of the CANFORGEN wording?

https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10156200820656237/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/RCAF.ARC/photos/a.10150142814416237/10156095120561237/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2567060270187826/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2562005460693307/?type=3&theater

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524/2519297461630774/?type=3&theater


----------



## Gunplumber (20 Jul 2019)

"I interpret that part of the regulation to be "neatly trimmed, and shorter than the rest of the beard". Anything anyone does to go above and beyond that, such as actually shaving it three times a week is all well and good, but under no reasonable interpretation of what the regulation actually says would I consider it a requirement"

B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND CHEEKBONES,

5.THE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE TRIMMING OF A BEARD AT PARA 4 ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO CAF MEMBERS WHO ARE EXEMPT, FOR MEDICAL REASONS, *FROM SHAVING THE LOWER NECK OR CHEECKBONES*


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2019)

This argument, and the fact that people can’t follow what should be simple directions is why the Army Commander has threatened to rescind the beard policy.  People think they can do what they want and look like crap.  I’ll be interested to see what people have to say once we lose the privilege. 

These “petty” tyrants are actually trying to do their jobs so we don’t lose the priviledge.

Good grief.


----------



## dimsum (20 Jul 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> This argument, and the fact that people can’t follow what should be simple directions is why the Army Commander has threatened to rescind the beard policy.  People think they can do what they want and look like crap.  I’ll be interested to see what people have to say once we lose the privilege.
> 
> These “petty” tyrants are actually trying to do their jobs so we don’t lose the priviledge.
> 
> Good grief.



Thank you for saying what I wanted to say.

Also, I think we lost an opportunity for the FORGENs when we didn't call them CANBEARDGEN, CANBOOTGEN and CANBLUNTGEN   :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Jul 2019)

It's easy to maintain a high standard of dress and deportment. Mbrs are told what to wear, how to wear it, when to wear it. We also have a system in place where leaders inspect their team members. Pretty straight forward. It doesn't take a lot of effort to keep care of your equipment and yourself.

The problem is there is this ridiculous notion that being checked in a field environment means you look like a bag of shit in garrison. The old garrison vs field soldier mentality.  
If someone can't take care of themselves or their kit in garrison I personally don't trust them in the field. But this garrison vs field soldier mentality persists and is worn as a badge of honour the same way guys and girls will wear the shit out of a beret until it's practically white with age to show off they have TI. 


CAF members are expected to parade so they should maintain some semblance of being able to do drill. CAF members in general don't need to practice marine core rifle drill where they're flinging M14s at each other but they should be able to march out on a parade for something and not look clueless. Or with a couple hours refresher drill, should be able to pull off a standard parade.


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jul 2019)

Gunplumber said:
			
		

> "I interpret that part of the regulation to be "neatly trimmed, and shorter than the rest of the beard". Anything anyone does to go above and beyond that, such as actually shaving it three times a week is all well and good, but under no reasonable interpretation of what the regulation actually says would I consider it a requirement"
> 
> B. IT SHALL BE NEATLY TRIMMED, ESPECIALLY ON THE LOWER NECK AND CHEEKBONES,
> 
> 5.THE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE TRIMMING OF A BEARD AT PARA 4 ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO CAF MEMBERS WHO ARE EXEMPT, FOR MEDICAL REASONS, *FROM SHAVING THE LOWER NECK OR CHEECKBONES*



If you're exempt from Y, you don't have to do Z doesn't mean that Z suddenly means Y. Clarifying that someone who is medically exempt from engaging in directed PT, also doesn't need to do participate in a unit sports day doesn't mean that all directed PT has to be done in the form of a sports day. If you're exempt from shaving, you don't need to keep the chin trimmed; this is just acknowledging that the typical manner in which people would keep that section of the face "especially" neatly trimmed is by shaving that part occasionally, say whenever they trim the rest of the beard. Section 5 there isn't redefining anything in section 4; they're clarifying requirements in light of some external factor which would affect how people would keep the beard especially trimmed if they have a medical condition.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> This argument, and the fact that people can’t follow what should be simple directions is why the Army Commander has threatened to rescind the beard policy.  People think they can do what they want and look like crap.  I’ll be interested to see what people have to say once we lose the privilege.
> 
> These “petty” tyrants are actually trying to do their jobs so we don’t lose the priviledge.
> 
> Good grief.



Look, if they want us to bloody well shave our necks, that's fine. *They should just amend the policy so that's what it actually bloody well says.* That's all you need to do! You don't need to threaten to cancel the entire thing. All you need to do is to use simple, clear wording. 

But I generally trust the CDS to not be a complete moron. Maybe I'm wrong in this. But I think if he wanted us to all shave our necks, then he would have ensured that the regulation_ actually said so_.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> This argument, and the fact that people can’t follow what should be simple directions is why the Army Commander has threatened to rescind the beard policy.  People think they can do what they want and look like crap.  I’ll be interested to see what people have to say once we lose the privilege.
> 
> These “petty” tyrants are actually trying to do their jobs so we don’t lose the priviledge.
> 
> Good grief.



Hopefully, the Comd CA issues direction to subordinate commanders to police their people and ensure policy is being followed.  Leaders are supposed to be fulfilling that aspect of the leadership duties as well.  I'm not a fan of punishing everyone for the transgressions of a certain percentage of mbrs.  We have tools to deal with people for conduct and/or performance deficiencies...use those instead of wide-brush techniques.

The CANFORGEN content doesn't actually seem to give the Comd CA the authority to rescind the policy.  It seems like it would be Comd CA to CMP for review, amendment.  Not sure the Army will be able to forego while everyone else can still have beards.  :dunno:

CANFORGEN 158/18 CMP 078/18

3.EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, THE WEARING OF A BEARD IS AUTHORIZED FOR ALL CAF MEMBERS UPON ATTAINMENT OF THEIR OPERATIONALLY FUNCTIONAL POINT (OFP) OR HAVING COMPLETED DEVELOPMENTAL PERIOD ONE, WHICHEVER COMES LAST. HOWEVER, COMMANDERS OF COMMANDS, TASK FORCE COMMANDERS AND COMMANDING OFFICERS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO ORDER RESTRICTIONS ON THE WEARING OF A BEARD TO MEET SAFETY AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS.  THIS INCLUDES RESTRICTIONS PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS AND TRAINING WHERE, IN A CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL RADIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR (CBRN) ENVIRONMENT OR CBRN TRAINING ENVIRONMENT, A BEARD CAN BE ORDERED TO BE REMOVED TO ENSURE FORCE PROTECTION ON OPERATIONS OR TRAINING.   SUCH RESTRICTIONS WILL BE AS TEMPORARY AS FEASIBLE (E.G. AS LONG AS THE ENTIRE DURATION OF AN OPERATIONAL TOUR IN A CBRN ENVIRONMENT OR AS SHORT AS A SINGLE TRAINING DAY FOR CBRN OPERATIONS). 

If NCOs, Warrant/Petty Officers and Officers do their jobs...there should not be any issues.  They, of course, should be leading by example.  These concepts are pretty clearly laid out both in QR & O, Vol 1 Ch's 4 & 5 (General Responsibilities of Officer/NCMs) and CFP 265, Ch 1 (Command/Control).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Look, if they want us to bloody well shave our necks, that's fine. *They should just amend the policy so that's what it actually bloody well says.* That's all you need to do! You don't need to threaten to cancel the entire thing. All you need to do is to use simple, clear wording.
> 
> But I generally trust the CDS to not be a complete moron. Maybe I'm wrong in this. But I think if he wanted us to all shave our necks, then he would have ensured that the regulation_ actually said so_.



A-hem.  You mean...like this policy is clearly worded and COs, etc still fuck it up?



> A CF 100 is not required for a member proceeding exclusively on weekends and/or designated or other holidays, except when:
> - when travelling to a foreign country, or to a country other than the one where the member is employed;
> - when travel benefits are requested (eg. LTA); or
> - when required for ration accounting purposes for members authorized to draw rations on a continuous basis.



Clearly worded, vaguely worded...there will still be people 'lower in rank than the issuing authority' who feel they can put their own spin on things.   :nod:


----------



## garb811 (20 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> ...
> Look, if they want us to bloody well shave our necks, that's fine. *They should just amend the policy so that's what it actually bloody well says.* That's all you need to do! You don't need to threaten to cancel the entire thing. All you need to do is to use simple, clear wording.
> 
> But I generally trust the CDS to not be a complete moron. Maybe I'm wrong in this. But I think if he wanted us to all shave our necks, then he would have ensured that the regulation_ actually said so_.


You seem to think that you can just cherry pick the part of the Instruction that fits your desire but you can't, you need to read it in totality. In this case, although the BEARDFORGEN was the means to make the announcement, the final authority is what is in the dress instructions. Fortunately, when they put them together they had the foresight to understand that a picture is worth a thousand words, and from the diagram they inserted, it is VERY clear they want you to shave your neck, as well as your cheekbones, as well as there to be a clearly defined edge to the beard. If you think they wanted you to be able to taper it, like you seem to think, they would have inserted a diagram illustrating that, just like they did with haircuts. 

Ref the prohibition on pers with a medical chit from shaving their necks and cheekbones, that does not support your argument. It simply states that a no-shave chit or PCAT is exactly that, no shave. At all. That was to throw a wrench into the pers who were trying to do end runs around the old prohibition on beards by getting a no-shave chit and then promptly showing up with a beard groomed to the latest style


----------



## gcclarke (20 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A-hem.  You mean...like this policy is clearly worded and COs, etc still frig it up?
> 
> Clearly worded, vaguely worded...there will still be people 'lower in rank than the issuing authority' who feel they can put their own spin on things.   :nod:



Yup, another fine example of the whole "petty tyrant" thing cropping up. 



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> You seem to think that you can just cherry pick the part of the Instruction that fits your desire but you can't, you need to read it in totality. In this case, although the BEARDFORGEN was the means to make the announcement, the final authority is what is in the dress instructions. Fortunately, when they put them together they had the foresight to understand that a picture is worth a thousand words, and from the diagram they inserted, it is VERY clear they want you to shave your neck, as well as your cheekbones, as well as there to be a clearly defined edge to the beard. If you think they wanted you to be able to taper it, like you seem to think, they would have inserted a diagram illustrating that, just like they did with haircuts.



Now this is just asinine. There's two different hair styles outlined in the dress instructions. Does that mean that every person in the CAF has to have a hair style that matches that hair style exactly, and no deviation at all is allowed? No. The fellow in the picture does not, after all, have a hairstyle with 2 inches of bulk and up to 6 inches of length, nor is he shaved bald. He's somewhere in between the two allowable extremes. Much like beards, there's a myriad of variations allowed, and they're not about to go printing out every single possible hair style and every single possible beard grooming and every single possible acceptable moustache. You actually need to read the regulation for the interpretation. 

If they expected a clearly defined edge to the beard, then they should bloody well say that in the regulation. This is not difficult. If they expected the cheeks and the neck shaved, all they need to do is say it. 

If they issue regulations that are flexible enough to allow for variation within them, then people should't get all worked up when not everyone's beard looks exactly the same.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Jul 2019)

Define "neatly trimmed".  That's one of the problems with requiring a standard without providing explicit instructions what that standard entails.  But what does "trim" mean.   In the famous opinion of Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that".  That seems to be the situation that the powers that be were aiming for, or at least I would hope that there was an actual point that they were aiming for.

I thought that previous versions of dress instructions included words such as "the unshaven portion of the face" or similar, but in looking at some versions from a few years ago it was written much as it is today.  So defining a beard has probably been much the same since we likely copied the Royal Navy's instructions that explained how a beard should look.  But even that organization recently had to amend their beard regulations from a simple couple of lines to the following:

https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/documents/reference-library/br-3-vol-1/chapter-38.pdf


> d. Beards and Moustaches. The Commanding Officer may permit all Naval
> Service (except RM) male personnel to request to wear full set beards. RM male
> personnel may wear moustaches at their discretion. Beards and moustaches shall be
> kept neatly trimmed especially, in the case of beards, at the lower neck and
> ...



On reading that, I have now lived to see "hipster" used as a definition in official military regulations.  How times have changed.  The previous version of that regulation included only that portion of para d. up to and including "Beards and moustaches shall be kept neatly trimmed especially, in the case of beards, at the lower neck and cheekbones".  Everything following that and including the part I highlighted about command subjective judgement was added for the latest version.


----------



## TCM621 (20 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I'll be frank here. Your embarrassment sounds like a personal problem. Because this is definitely the type of stuff that only people in the CAF ever seem to get worked up about. The public doesn't have a massive preference for seeing people in their DEUs rather than combats. They're just fine seeing us in the orders of dress in which we actually work. What's the point of blackening work boots? Hell, half of them are brown now-a-days anyways. Those "unkempt" beards you're going on about? Likely well within regulations. 2 cm of bulk is a fair amount of beard, and no where in the regulations does it state stuff like keeping your neck shaved which I also often see as a complaint.
> 
> Frankly, I'd kindly suggest that it'd be a lot better for your mental health if you try to focus upon being embarrassed only for yourself and your own actions, and quit worrying about what everyone else is doing. Because, once again, none of this actually affects operational performance. So therefore a lot of people who got into this job to actually defend Canada, _and didn't join for the dog-and-pony shows_ simply won't give a hoot, and will put in the bare minimum required to adhere to the minimum standards set out in the regulations.



Maybe if more people felt embarrassed about the state of our military, we would be in a better place than we are now.  And if you think the CAF are the only people who care about a professional appearance, you're just wrong. Any organization where people where a uniform is a place where they care about appearance. At 16, I had a job at Footlocker and we had dress standards there. McDonald's expects a certain standard of dress for their management. The military takes it farther than almost anywhere else but did anyone join with some other idea of how the military was when it came to appearance?

I care about the CAF. It bothers me that we are know as the poorest, fattest, most unprofessional looking military in a first world country.  There are a lot of things we can't fix. If your flight suit is threadbare and it's the best one you could get, there is nothing you can do about it. If we are begging other militaries for equipment because we don't have them. There is nothing we can do about it. On the other hand, it takes less than 2 hours worth of work a month to ensure you project the best image you can. 

I don't care if your beard is 1.75 cm or 2.5 cms, just groom it in a neat manner and you're good to go.  Boots are beaten up, supply does not have your size and you are in the air force so you can't benefit from BOOTFORGEN?  Throw some of the black cream on once or twice a week so it stays black. Cut your hair every two weeks. Go in with a buddy and buy some clippers if you are concerned about 30-40 dollars a month.  It's so easy and most people spend more time complaining about "petty dictators" than just doing it.  A professional appearance have positive effect on both public perception and one's self confidence leading to increased performance.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Any organization where people where a uniform is a place where they care about appearance. At 16, I had a job at Footlocker and we had dress standards there. McDonald's expects a certain standard of dress for their management.



If you are paid to help the public, dress and deportment - what some may call manners, attitude, behavior, courtesy or etiquette - are critical. Especially when going into a home.

In the Service Corps, we watched our driving. It communicated our regard for public safety. The trucks were a four-sided billboard. 



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> How times have changed.



Everything seemed so simple. Sh!t, shower, shave, shine.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Jul 2019)

When you sign the dotted line, you agreed to obey all lawful orders. Those include fitness, dress, deportment and maybe on the odd occasion doing foot drill. You may not like it but you’re commited to obey those lawful orders.


----------



## mariomike (20 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> When you sign the dotted line, you agreed to obey all lawful orders. Those include fitness, dress, deportment and maybe on the odd occasion doing foot drill. You may not like it but you’re commited to obey those lawful orders.



I don't think many would refuse a lawful order.

But, personal and professional pride is something inside you. Some have it. Some don't.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jul 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't think many would refuse a lawful order.
> 
> But, personal and professional pride is something inside you. Some have it. Some don't.



I agree. Drill, like it or not, is needed. A pilots checklist is a drill as is diving a submarine a drill as is attacking a defer position a drill. 

Foot drill sets you up for success.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree. Drill, like it or not, is needed. A pilots checklist is a drill as is diving a submarine a drill as is attacking a defer position a drill.
> 
> Foot drill sets you up for success.



Nope, it does not.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2019)

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/the-importance-of-drill.html


So are we a capable and effective military right now? When were we? 

If we are not it certainly shows in our drill. When we were did it also show in our drill?

The end.


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jul 2019)

C'mon people, it's not the 17th century anymore. You don't conduct warfare by lining people up on the battlefield and moving towards the enemy in unison. Drill had it's time and its place as an actual useful skill, but that was then, this is now. It serves nothing more than a purely ceremonial function. Pomp and circumstance doesn't win wars. 



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I agree. Drill, like it or not, is needed. A pilots checklist is a drill as is diving a submarine a drill as is attacking a defer position a drill.
> 
> Foot drill sets you up for success.



That's not "drill". Or at least, it's not drill in the manner the term is commonly used in the military.  That's just "doing your job" or "training". If you're going to go around calling literally everything we do drill, then we could easily just toss out the "walking around in unison" part of drill and focus upon practicing solely the "drill" that actually helps us to do our jobs of defeating the enemy. Marching up and down the parade square doesn't do diddly squat to help you dive a sub or anything of the sort; instead it just takes up time that could otherwise devoted to actually practicing those skills.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

It's not the 17th century anymore, correct.  Foot and rifle drill still have a purpose aside from the ceremonial aspect.

Basic training.  Not sure how many people here have taken civilians and trained them from scratch but drill is a very effective and cheap way to train people to (1) pay attention and react to words of command instantly and correctly (2) focus on detail (3) work as an individual that is also part of a team (4) improve physical fitness and (5) esprit de corps. 

The same goes for kit and quarters.  If you are too fuckin' lazy or stupid to be able to manage a bed layout, what are the chances you'll be able to manage working on vehicles, or fixing complex RADARs, or whatever?  So, like drill has an actual purpose in it being taught...kit and quarters does as well.  Don't agree?  You've probably never trained recruits before and only have your own Basic experience to relate to.  Kit and quarters is the easiest teamwork exercise in the military if done right.

Part of the overall goal of these "petty" things in the military is to take people from the "imposed discipline" stage to the "self discipline" stage (doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, even if no one is watching);  I'm not pulling that out of my ass, that was a lecture from SLC back in 2002 (Imposed, Group, Habits and Rituals, Self Discipline)  They are effective, cheap ways for instructors to transform you from a greasy civie to a trained Recruit/OCdt/NCdt.  Drill isn't the only tool, but it is one and its worked for decades.  And yup, we're in the military.  Part of what we do is parades.  CofC Parades, Remembrance Day Parades, we even partake in Pride parades in this day and age.  

Ceremonies are part of the job a military does.  People complaining about doing parades once or twice a year should seriously consider if the military is what they want to do.  Ordered to a mess dinner once a year and it makes you want to punch holes in walls?  You should be thinking about a career change as well.  Those things are part of military life.  

We are becoming too weak, complacent and whiny about simple, simple things that are and always have been part of being in the Service.


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jul 2019)

Sure, it might be useful in basic training, in order to give them... something that you can yell at them about. But there's a lot of things we do on basic training that we don't ever touch again once they graduate basic training, or perhaps never touch again once they're done their basic occupational training. 

Why not make drill one of them?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Sure, it might be useful in basic training, in order to give them... something that you can yell at them about. But there's a lot of things we do on basic training that we don't ever touch again once they graduate basic training, or perhaps never touch again once they're done their basic occupational training.
> 
> Why not make drill one of them?



Because drill is part of being in the military.  The best place to teach it is basic, because it teaches more than just to "move on the 1, pause on the 2-3s".  It is a cheap effective way to start to teach things like discipline, attention to details, etc to NCM and Officer recruits.

Have you ever, even for a day or a week, taught recruits right off the street??


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jul 2019)

🤦‍♂️ The best way for a group to move from point A to point B is en masse. Doing drill. Not looking unorganized and like amateurs. I wanted to avoid saying this but if you don’t want to do drill or object to it vehemently then find another line of work.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> C'mon people, it's not the 17th century anymore. You don't conduct warfare by lining people up on the battlefield and moving towards the enemy in unison. Drill had it's time and its place as an actual useful skill, but that was then, this is now. It serves nothing more than a purely ceremonial function. Pomp and circumstance doesn't win wars.



No, well trained folks who react instinctively  to what they've been taught to do in situations when the pressure is on win wars.
I was a completely uncordinated,  totally insecure,  lump when I hit Cornwallis.  Couldn't/ wouldnt  play sports, or speak up for the life of me.  Drill took me from a bear-walking "WTF is that?" person, to being a confident ,coordinated man, who pretty much never self doubted himself again. I spent most of my career working in various Arty CP's and enjoyed a lifetime of physical activities from what I learned about myself because of drill and/or repetition.
Keeping those lessons learned front and centre can only be a good thing....


----------



## mariomike (21 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> (5) esprit de corps.



Yes. That is what it meant for me.

Drill gave me a sense of pride in myself, and the organization. I am still thankful for what our NCOs taught me. Not just drill, but a lot of things.


----------



## ballz (21 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> C'mon people, it's not the 17th century anymore. You don't conduct warfare by lining people up on the battlefield and moving towards the enemy in unison. Drill had it's time and its place as an actual useful skill, but that was then, this is now. It serves nothing more than a purely ceremonial function. Pomp and circumstance doesn't win wars.



I find this thread nauseating, but just thought I would point out here in that yes, there is still utility in this. Just two years ago, I was practicing literally drill manouevres, left turns, wheels, and rolls, with a company's worth of LAVs. I used to apply the same thing as a Pl Comd to manouevre dismounted sections and LAVs. Common movement patterns that were deliberately given a distinct name so that in a pinch, you could spit out two words and everyone knew exactly what it meant, what they had to do, etc... instead of trying to explain it over the radio in sentences while there were a million other things going.

I suspect fighter jets must have something similar as they do fly in formations... and if we had any ships I can't imagine they would just be sailing through the ocean without any regard for where everyone else around them was.


----------



## dimsum (21 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> I care about the CAF. It bothers me that we are know as the poorest, fattest, most unprofessional looking military in a first world country.



Ok, hold on.  Who is saying this?  Have a bunch of foreign military folks outright said it, or is it just perception (warranted or not) of them doing that?  I've worked with a bunch of "first-world" militaries and I've learned that a) we all have our issues and b) we are our own worst critics of our issues.  

We as Canadians have this self-deprecating thing down too well.  In most circumstances it makes us sound humble and modest, which is a good thing, but when we have this mentality of shouting how crap we are from the rooftops, it makes us sound whiny (this also coming from a foreign officer I worked with).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jul 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> ... and if we had any ships I can't imagine they would just be sailing through the ocean without any regard for where everyone else around them was.



We do have that, Ballz. We, in fact, have a whole set of pubs that teach us the various movements and duties expected of us when sailing in formed groups. It's called fleet manoeuvering, and we practice the most common ones (formations 1 through 12, reversing from the rear, turns and wheels, angled formations and search turns) all the time in what we call "Officer-of-the-watch manoeuvers" so they become second nature.

And yes, it is like drill movements but with ships and you can tell from the vocabulary used that its fundamentals came from marching drill somehow.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> We do have that, Ballz. We, in fact, have a whole set of pubs that teach us the various movements and duties expected of us when sailing in formed groups. It's called fleet manoeuvering, and we practice the most common ones (formations 1 through 12, reversing from the rear, turns and wheels, angled formations and search turns) all the time in what we call "Officer-of-the-watch manoeuvers" so they become second nature.
> 
> And yes, it is like drill movements but with ships and you can tell from the vocabulary used that its fundamentals came from marching drill somehow.



I can't speak for the Fighter community, but the LRP community also has many "drill-like" procedures so we can do specific things at specific times in a specific order in the event we are under EMCON, as an example, and have to communicate with an aircraft that is replacing us.  These are extremely important from a tactical AND safety-of-flight perspective.  We have drills (procedures, checklists, CMIs)  on the aircraft for what to do if say, there is smoke in the cabin or flight deck or certain indicators are presenting on the RADAR system...stuff like that.

I don't want to be teaching someone the basics of the importance of why they need to 'react to the word of command' during a cabin fire on flight training.  I want them to have the discipline before they put a flight suit on.  

That trg has to start somewhere (Basic) and should be done using a very simple, cost effective and easy to monitor/assess method, and performed primarily by NCOs.  Kit and quarters and drill have been used for this, extremely successfully, for decades upon decades.  Why fix something that isn't broke?


----------



## Jarnhamar (21 Jul 2019)

[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver]We, in fact, have a whole set of pubs that teach us the various movements and duties expected of us when sailing in formed groups. It's called fleet manoeuvering, and we practice the most common ones (formations 1 through 12, reversing from the rear, turns and wheels, angled formations and search turns) all the time in what we call "Officer-of-the-watch manoeuvers" so they become second nature.
[/quote]

That sounds pretty awesome but why do we do that? Is is like an infantry section or platoon adopting different formations on the move where the ships are adopting to different formations against threats or protecting different ships?


----------



## dimsum (21 Jul 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That sounds pretty awesome but why do we do that? Is is like an infantry section or platoon adopting different formations on the move where the ships are adopting to different formations against threats or protecting different ships?



Yes-ish; there's a tactical element to that (as you said) but also a training element.  There is lots of math involved in those manoeuvres, and some of the "movements" orders (ie. speed changes) do have to be second-nature.  Fun fact:  Any picture you see of ships that are in close-ish proximity (so all photo ops, replenishment at sea, whatever) they're actually doing manoeuvres.

It's been a long time since I've done any of that, but part of the training element is recognizing when something isn't looking right and then correcting.  So say you're supposed to be moving from here to there and another ship is supposed to be ending up 45 degrees from you, so you're supposed to see certain aspects of her during the manoeuvre.  If that isn't what you're seeing, what is going on and what do you do to correct it?


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> 🤦‍♂️ The best way for a group to move from point A to point B is en masse. Doing drill. Not looking unorganized and like amateurs. I wanted to avoid saying this but if you don’t want to do drill or object to it vehemently then find another line of work.



Oh here we go, the "if you disagree with me then quit" comments. Real classy. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't speak for the Fighter community, but the LRP community also has many "drill-like" procedures so we can do specific things at specific times in a specific order in the event we are under EMCON, as an example, and have to communicate with an aircraft that is replacing us.  These are extremely important from a tactical AND safety-of-flight perspective.  We have drills (procedures, checklists, CMIs)  on the aircraft for what to do if say, there is smoke in the cabin or flight deck or certain indicators are presenting on the RADAR system...stuff like that.
> 
> I don't want to be teaching someone the basics of the importance of why they need to 'react to the word of command' during a cabin fire on flight training.  I want them to have the discipline before they put a flight suit on.



Skip the "walking around in unison" part and start by teaching them to react to words of command when you start training them to react to in-flight emergencies, and you'll attain the same effect without wasting any time marching up and down the parade square. 

We don't need to do this whole coordinated walking thing to pre-train people for the training we're going to give them. They'll pick it up just fine if we just give them the training. And if we spend more time on that actual occupational training and less time on the ceremonial stuff, it'll be more effective. 

Although there's another candidate for activities which fill the requirements that everyone's stating they think we need drill for (reacting to commands, performing things in sequence when required, etc). Weapons training. More time with the C7, less time on the parade square and we'll be better off, and weapons handling unlike walking around in sequence is actually relevant to warfare in the 21st century. 

Then when people graduate basic, they can move on to their occupational training, and work on other stuff: turning a bunch of LAVs in formation, coordinating ship's movements, whatever else it is. It's not like the skills are transferable; learning a right wheel on the march doesn't actually prepare someone to do any of those things, beyond the fundamental "do something when you're told to", which can be taught in better more useful ways without walking around.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

And I'll ask you again.  Have you ever, even for a day or a week, actually conducted recruit training?  Yes/No.  I'm seriously asking;  I would say "no" at this point, but I'd like you to confirm.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jul 2019)

Real classy yes. You ignored the first part. Good job. 

It seems you’ve made your mind up. 

I beg to differ. Drill is a required skill in any armed force. Disagree if you must. 

Good day sir.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jul 2019)

Speaking only for myself as a wet behind the ears recruit, I believe drill aided in discipline by instilling habits of precision and response to the NCO’s orders.


----------



## gcclarke (21 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And I'll ask you again.  Have you ever, even for a day or a week, actually conducted recruit training?  Yes/No.  I'm seriously asking;  I would say "no" at this point, but I'd like you to confirm.



Recruit training, no. Latter stages of training, yes. And having done some of those latter stages, I think that a large chunk of the stuffthat was done in recruit training was largely useless in prepping people for further training.


----------



## NavyShooter (21 Jul 2019)

Drill has been a part of day-to-day life in the military for literally millennia.   

From the Roman Centurion forming ranks with shields up and out, to today's drill decks with marching, saluting and so forth.

Why is it done?

There's been a number of mentions in this thread of the why, however, from my perspective, the instilling of discipline will lead to self discipline.  Doing it right when no-one else is watching is where we want our troops to be.

Lackadaisical drill on a parade deck does not necessarily confer lackadaisical drills in operations or operational tasks, but I will note that the young LS who I sent to be a member of the Cenotaph guard several years ago did a damn fine job up there, and did a damn fine job on the ship following the exacting procedures required to load and maintain the CIWS properly.  

The MS who couldn't follow a clearly laid out procedure for torpedo loading, and then couldn't even safely hoist one, and who walked away from his role as safety supervisor of a CANTASS launch - well...his personal drill was pretty much junk as observed on a parade or two, and his failures to follow procedures ended up with him receiving an IC.

Does good drill on a parade deck directly correlate to correctly following procedures in operational tasks?  Not necessarily, but in those two circumstances, yes.

How did those two sailors do in terms of following the 265 for dress?  Pretty good in both cases.  

In my professional opinion, the difference was personal motivation - the LS had it in spades, and the MS lost his a long time ago.

That LS is now a PO2...and the MS is still a MS.  


My point?  I think I got lost on the way here, but unless you were on the ground at that parade, you don't know the exact reasons why the troops were on parade in CADPAT - should they have been in 1A's?  Arguably, yes.  Why were they in CADPAT?  You'd have to ask the ADJ/RSM of the unit that drove that parade.  Someone made that decision - and it was done long before the photo was taken and posted online.  


Is there value in drill?  Yes.  A 74 step torpedo loading procedure must be followed precisely or you will end up shearing the bridge crane locking pin on the Friday before weapons certs.  Folding a flag over a casket properly takes almost as many steps, and is a damned important thing to get correct as well.  How do you learn to do both of those properly?  It starts with a leader giving an order to be followed...from a drill manual...and ends with the soldier/sailor/zoomie becoming an expert at their role, understanding the whole task, and then eventually becoming that leader giving an order themselves.
NS


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

gcclarke said:
			
		

> Recruit training, no. Latter stages of training, yes. And having done some of those latter stages, I think that a large chunk of the stuffthat was done in recruit training was largely useless in prepping people for further training.



Recruit training and trades training are 2 different beasts.  You really see the difference when you work on BMQ and BMOQ more so than simply going thru that grinder as a candidate.

The need for basic teaching and assessment tools such as kit, quarters and drill are valid.  They lead to things like weapons handling, training and later, firing *in a controlled environment*.  Inspections are part of the toolkit and process...do you want someone to take live ammo and a weapon to a range, if they can't sort out a bed layout or if you say "lefttttttttttt.....turn!" and they constantly go to the right?  If they can't follow those directions...on a parade square...what makes me confident they will react properly if I say "unload!" on the range?  

Point - Basic is building blocks, that a large majority of people can get thru and learn the points;  discipline, teamwork and "don't quit".  That is the foundation that is being built.  If I tell you "I need to do 3 hours of drill with the course to get them up to speed"....do I need a fin code for that?  Nope.  But...I can make it (the extra drill) fit my main point with my recruits.  You have to perform strong as individuals to perform strong as a team.  

I'm with you on the "we shouldn't invest much time in drill/parades at operational units" etc, but having taught many Basic courses, and seeing the tools being used by staff such as drill and inspections to turn a group of 30 individuals into a team that starts to feed off their own success...well that is invaluable and pays off in dividends down the road during operations...where it REALLY counts.

But...the CAF really needs that foundation;  Basic does it and drill is more about the stuff I'm talking about, than it is the actual "stompy-stomp drill" part.  My  :2c:..

FWIW...the absolute longest parade practice I've ever seen was the Officer's graduation parade at CTC Gagetown.  They'd be on the parade square in front of the Battle Mall in August for a solid week, mounted and dismounted.  And that grad parade was usually extremely impressive.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Recruit training and trades training are 2 different beasts.  You really see the difference when you work on BMQ and BMOQ more so than simply going thru that grinder as a candidate.
> 
> The need for basic teaching and assessment tools such as kit, quarters and drill are valid.  They lead to things like weapons handling, training and later, firing *in a controlled environment*.  Inspections are part of the toolkit and process...do you want someone to take live ammo and a weapon to a range, if they can't sort out a bed layout or if you say "lefttttttttttt.....turn!" and they constantly go to the right?  If they can't follow those directions...on a parade square...what makes me confident they will react properly if I say "unload!" on the range?
> 
> ...



Aye,

And the psychological benefits of drill are well documented, scientifically.  Parade square drill is the basis that everything else is built off of.


----------



## TCM621 (21 Jul 2019)

There are two related, but separate, arguments here. The first is the value of drill, dress and deportment and the characteristics of people with poor drill, dress and deportment.

On the first argument, the argument against it seems to come down to "it's 2019" and its a waste of valuable training time. The value of this stuff in 2019 has been explained by EITS and others very well. As for the wasted time, I have now been a student or staff at schools run by all elements ranging from Basic to journeyman and specialty courses, and units from Esquimalt to Gagetown and in between. On thing I have found to be true is just how much down time there is. Even on basic you will spend at least an hour a day waiting around for something to happen. Outside of the initial drill at basic and learning to teach it on PlQ, we spend so little time on this stuff that it doesn't really take up much time in the long run.

The second argument is more clear cut in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not you think it is useful, everyone knows they need to do it. If some does it poorly it tells me one of two things. Either the person is incapable of doing so (for a variety of reasons) or they don't have the self discipline to do so. I am more concerned with the second group. None of the possible reasons for not doing what you know has to be done result in a better soldier/sailor/airmen or demonstrate strong character. Personally, I don't care if you only do the minimum. Too many people in the CAF don't even do the minimum required for their jobs whether it is IBTS training, FORCE tests, sending a memo up the chain in a timely manner, providing an in depth PDR, etc.

One of the biggest challenges we face is instilling a culture of personal responsibility. It is easier to do that with boots and hair cuts both because it's cheap and the risks are virtually non existent. When people say things like "No one is going to die if I don't get a hair cut", they are 100% correct but they don't see the other side of the equation which is by the time people will die if you don't do something it's too late. We need you to take personal responsibility for yourself, then your teammates and ultimately your subordinates. The further up the chain you go, you become responsible for more and more. It doesn't get easier and if you can't master the level of self-discipline needed to get a haircut or put in some effort on the drill square, why should we trust you with people or equipment?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Jul 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> if you can't master the level of self-discipline needed to get a haircut or put in some effort on the drill square, why should we trust you with people or equipment?



Probably the best summary of the thread.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Probably the best summary of the thread.



Probably not the last.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Jul 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Probably the best summary of the thread.



Well said


----------



## Navy_Pete (21 Jul 2019)

Wow, this devolved into a pretty divided arguement.  What's wrong with the majority meeting the required standard and reserving the extra practice/level of effort for the few occasions where a much higher ceremonial guard standard is required? It's not really an all/nothing event horizon.

It's pretty easy and ingrained to do the basics, and doesn't take much effort to maintain your personal standard and put in the basic effort into your own drill movements, but group movements and parades are definitely something that takes time and practice. 

Sometimes you specifically get told not to make a big deal of it and get this messed up dogs breakfast of ceremonial drill, but the orders come down from the stratosphere thinking they are doing people a favour.  In my experience those are always a nightmare, as you spend more time figuring out some half assed thing rather then just doing it by the book (which is easier because you've already spent a bunch of training time practicing it for these kind of occasions).

Personally think there is definitely value in learning drill, and it's a great tool on basic to get people used to working with their wingers, rotating people into taking charge of a small group and other really useful skills that are generally useful in any walk of life, but can be critical in military taskings.  Like anything else, builds muscle memory, so grateful that 15 years out of basic, I can still manage to bash out the fundamental movements with no real prep and doesn't take much to do it properly. It would be ugly if I got thrown into a parade position tomorrow morning and had to call out drill movements as that needs practice to maintain, but basic was also good at learning how to cover for you winger and do the movement on the right foot or whatever if they made a mistake.

Think we've generally got a pretty good balance in requiring people to maintain their own dress and deportment to the standard and find it pretty straightforward.  All professional workplaces have a standard and ours isn't particularly onerous. We give people the uniforms, and all they need to do is some basic groooming. There are some who make the arguement that "just meeting the standard" means you are a bag of hammers, which most would agree doesn't make sense. I generally don't trust anyone who consistently is unable to meet a basic dress standard, but also wonder am suspect of anyone that can remain a textbook example at all times during an extended grind where everyone is pitching in to get it done (like that one person who is suspiciously clean and comfortable after the push to get things done so you can secure the ship after coming alongside when you were landing garbage, doing repairs, cleaning stations etc).

As an aside, the argument about neatly trimmed vs daily shaving with a beard makes no sense to me. If you have a moustache, you still shave everyday, so logically follows that if you have a beard, you should still do your cheeks and neck on the daily. Not going to lose sleep over it, but a lot of Philadelphia lawyering on the go there as a result of the imprecise wording and lack of clarity, so they should probably fix that so that all units are following one standard. Enjoy the shaving routine and hate throat stubble anyway, so not a big deal for me, but seems to raise some pretty strong feelings on both sides of the divide.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> As an aside, the argument about neatly trimmed vs daily shaving with a beard makes no sense to me.



Nothing new about the Subject of this discussion. At least as far back as when I joined the PRes in 1970. No doubt, long before that.

This is new ( to me at least ),
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/129147.200


----------



## FSTO (22 Jul 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I hate the BMI; grew up being told I was dangerously underweight and unhealthy (despite doing track, rugby, heavy physical labour etc), which really helps when you are an already shy teen that lacks self confidence. It's an overly simplistic system based on weak science that is misused all the time. It only applies for a specific body type, doesn't work for anyone that is naturally wiry, heavily muscled, or other similar variations.
> 
> I assume the uniform is tailored to fit no one well; usually have to go up a few sizes of pants for it to fit on the legs, so looks wonky even after some tailoring, and the shirts aren't any better. Not sure how they manage to be hugely loose around the waist, big around the arms, but tight on the shoulders and riding up the armpits.  Their virtual models must have some really weird proportions not found in nature. The only thing consistent about them is that they never fit well.  Really weird when I can normally buy off the rack stuff no problem and not need any tailoring (with the exception of non-tapered shirts). How people look in uniform should taken with a grain of salt as they make everyone look terrible.



I picked up a sewing machine and taught myself to use it. I tailor my own shirts now but I still take my pants to a tailor to make sure they fit right around the shoes. Last year I found some Haggar Black pants at Costco and used them as my day to day pants at the office during the winter (I wear TWL exclusively during the summer months). These pants had a permanent front seam, expandable waist, wash and wear capability, and silicon seam around the waist to keep your shirt tucked in. At CANSEC last year I was at the Logistik booth and inquired as to why they haven't updated the DEU pants. Imagine my surprise when the rep said they had the same type of clothing but the CAF had never asked them to change over.
So I drafted and submitted a change to the Navy Clothing and Dress committee for said pants and I see by the latest minutes that the RCN will investigate the possibility of going to these types of pants.


----------



## dimsum (22 Jul 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> So I drafted and submitted a change to the Navy Clothing and Dress committee for said pants and I see by the latest minutes that the RCN will investigate the possibility of going to these types of pants.



Are the elemental (and national) clothing and dress committees just for DEU or operational dress as well?  My leading question being if I thought something could be improved with operational clothing, should I submit an UCR or a change to the dress committee?


----------



## FSTO (22 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are the elemental (and national) clothing and dress committees just for DEU or operational dress as well?  My leading question being if I thought something could be improved with operational clothing, should I submit an UCR or a change to the dress committee?



Do both is my recommendation. Whats the worst they can do to you? Mock you?


----------



## TCM621 (22 Jul 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Your experience of international operations is vastly different from mine. Any time I have worked with NATO/Allied forces we are looked at as consummate professionals, though we are generally the oldest and least fit. I think the lest fit part is in large part because of the oldest part. We are very old as far as militaries go, but that's a topic for a different thread.
> 
> As to uniforms, I couldn't order new ones from our system because they were all out of stock.( I ordered new 3s weeks in advance, and still had to wait two weeks to get them after I arrived in Ottawa) I had to go to a Canex three hours away to get a new beret.  I shouldn't have to spend my own money for a silly hat that is supposed to be issued, but to have to go to a different base just to get one is embarrassing. So when the troops have a faded "nondescript" beret maybe they are trying, and our system is failing them. Perhaps after years of the system letting them down with uniforms many people have given up...
> 
> ...




I have had the flair scene in my head this entire time. All the buttons and bows initiatives (especially the army) remind me of someone wanting more pieces of flair. I am talking about people who don't wear flair  or when they do it is a piece of old shoe they found on the ground. 

We have serious issues with our supply process that is completely out of our hands so we have to do what we can with what we have.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Jul 2019)

I used to have to deal with some high end consulting firms, they clearly had a dress code and an expectation. I suspect much was unwritten but if you didn't play along you would very quickly get sidelined. I suspect more than a few members would be a bit shocked at the expectations that can await outside the military, particularly if you want to do something other than manual labour.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect more than a few members would be a bit shocked at the expectations that can await outside the military, particularly if you want to do something other than manual labour.



Particularly when your job involves going into homes. Likeability is 90% of the battle. Smile and a shoeshine.


----------



## dimsum (22 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect more than a few members would be a bit shocked at the expectations that can await outside the military, particularly if you want to do something other than manual labour.



When I read articles about how veterans didn't get whatever job after the interview, how much of that was them not dressing up to standard for it in the first place.  Seeing the units I've been in do Civie Fridays is...interesting.  I guess some peoples' fashion sense really don't progress once they join the CAF.


----------



## mariomike (22 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> When I read articles about how veterans didn't get whatever job after the interview, how much of that was them not dressing up to standard for it in the first place.



And, try to find out if it is the same, or different, format as your CAF interview. 

Mine was an oral board ( that's a panel interview ). 

It was also a "stress" type interview. They really caught me off guard.  A very unpleasant experience compared to my CAF interview.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Jul 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> When I read articles about how veterans didn't get whatever job after the interview, how much of that was them not dressing up to standard for it in the first place.  Seeing the units I've been in do Civie Fridays is...interesting.  I guess some peoples' fashion sense really don't progress once they join the CAF.



I'm of the opinion "Civilian Fridays" should be banned outright. You're in the CAF, dress like you're in the CAF. 

As for supporting the United Way the CAF should encourage those who want to contribute to go ahead, but not at the idea of paying to wear your civvies to work.


----------



## AKa (23 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion "Civilian Fridays" should be banned outright. You're in the CAF, dress like you're in the CAF.
> 
> As for supporting the United Way the CAF should encourage those who want to contribute to go ahead, but not at the idea of paying to wear your civvies to work.



I don't have a strong opinion either way, but while it's permissible, I'll take advantage of it to motivate myself to develop a professional civilian wardrobe.  And I like to think I set a good example for my more junior personnel.

But I do prefer the optics of wearing civilian dress on those sadly rare occasions where Friday lunch at the mess extends until later in the afternoon...


----------



## stoker dave (23 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I used to have to deal with some high end consulting firms, they clearly had a dress code and an expectation. I suspect much was unwritten but if you didn't play along you would very quickly get sidelined. I suspect more than a few members would be a bit shocked at the expectations that can await outside the military, particularly if you want to do something other than manual labour.



I work for a large engineering and construction company.  There is very much an unwritten dress code.  It kinda goes like this:

* Presidents and such:  suit or coat and tie at all times.
* Vice presidents, managers and senior technical people:  nice trousers and open neck shirt.  Even at construction sites.  
* Technical staff, middle engineers, technicians:  jeans and a nice shirt.  

The exception is any time you are meeting clients /customers (other than at a construction site) you generally move up one level.  At construction sites, jeans are ok for most but not the senior people.  

I will further add that compliance with construction/worker safety gear is INFLEXIBLE.  There is zero tolerance for anyone that does not wear AT ALL TIMES the correct PPE (boots, safety vest, hard hat, gloves, eye protection, hearing protection, etc. as specified) for whatever they are doing.  In general, my experience is that the 'safety culture' is much stronger in industry than at DND (but that is whole other topic).


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Jul 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm of the opinion "Civilian Fridays" should be banned outright. You're in the CAF, dress like you're in the CAF.



This.

IMHO.... If you are at 'Army' work, you need to be dressed to do 'Army' things up to and including 'closing with and destroying the enemy'. When superior Officers/ NCMs try to give orders to their subordinates while wearing LuLu Lemon slacks and loafers, I observe a mental flex to the movie 'Office Space', with the commensurate level of seriousness and respect. 

Social occasions? Totally different IMHO...


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2019)

Of the three organisations I was on long term class b with 2 did not allow Civy Fridays.  One did.  One was a very public job so no go and the other required operational dress at all times ie a lot of manual work.   the other that allowed it was a office type stuff.


----------



## RocketRichard (25 Jul 2019)

Speaking of dress and deportment. Does anyone in Calgary know of a local tailor that can change mess kit? Change shoulder straps, add ranks, adjust cuffs etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BDTyre (26 Jul 2019)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Longest I saw was a month long practice for the Queen's visit to Halifax in the mid 80's that was a changing of colours parade.  They practiced every day from early (8 or 9) until 2200h.



That's a lot of practice! For our colour presentation we practiced almost every Wednesday evening and most (3/4) weekends from September until November. I missed portions of it as I was on course at the time (in fact I had course the following day!).

There was also practice in April and May of the preceding training year, but I was deployed at that time.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Jul 2019)

RomeoJuliet said:
			
		

> Speaking of dress and deportment. Does anyone in Calgary know of a local tailor that can change mess kit? Change shoulder straps, add ranks, adjust cuffs etc
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Andy the tailor? Andy's tailor?

Something like that I hear in the office.


----------



## RocketRichard (29 Jul 2019)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Andy the tailor? Andy's tailor?
> 
> Something like that I hear in the office.


That’s it. Thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2019)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> That's a lot of practice! For our colour presentation we practiced almost every Wednesday evening and most (3/4) weekends from September until November. I missed portions of it as I was on course at the time (in fact I had course the following day!).
> 
> There was also practice in April and May of the preceding training year, but I was deployed at that time.


Trooping The Colours of The Second Battalion Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry on 27 March 1976. We practiced daily for 4-5 hours per day.  Our Reviewing Officer was Lady Patricia Brabourne, The Colonel in Chief accompanied by her father, Lord Louis Mountbatten.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jul 2019)

Why do we have threads, that are shorter than 11 pages, about lack of equipment, real problems of procurement or the CAF budget.

Perhaps the reason we're carrying on so, is that the agenda of the CDS, his buttons, his bows and his PR damage control escapades covering for his bosses, has conditioned us to where we're more concerned with beards than bullets and boots.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 Jul 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Why do we have threads, that are shorter than 11 pages, about lack of equipment, real problems of procurement or the CAF budget.
> 
> Perhaps the reason we're carrying on so, is that the agenda of the CDS, his buttons, his bows and his PR damage control escapades covering for his bosses, has conditioned us to where we're more concerned with beards than bullets and boots.



Proper dress, drill and deportment are the foundations of self-respect, and self-confidence, which breeds other - equally important - things in soldiers under stress in times of war... e.g.,

At Apeldoorn, Major Frank Lindley found himself in a room with about twenty other wounded Officer POWs. He says "We were all dirty and unshaven and in various stages of dress and undress. The door opened and in came RSM John Lord, also a POW. He was dressed in immaculate battledress, trousers creased, and he had an arm supported in a snow white sling. Without a word he turned his head slowly to look at each individual in turn and then said in his brisk voice "Gentlemen, I think you should all shave!" He then turned about, stamped his foot and marched out of the room. The effect was electric. The motley group of officers Infantry, Gunners, Engineers etc. stirred themselves and started to clean themselves up. It was an unforgettable experience". - quoted in To Revel in God's Sunshine; The story of the Army career of the late [Sandhurst] Academy Sergeant Major J.C. Lord, MVO, MBE, compiled by Richard Alford

http://regimentalrogue.com/quotes/quotes_ncos2.htm


----------



## TCM621 (29 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Proper dress, drill and deportment are the foundations of self-respect, and self-confidence, which breeds other - equally important - things in soldiers under stress in times of war... e.g.,
> 
> At Apeldoorn, Major Frank Lindley found himself in a room with about twenty other wounded Officer POWs. He says "We were all dirty and unshaven and in various stages of dress and undress. The door opened and in came RSM John Lord, also a POW. He was dressed in immaculate battledress, trousers creased, and he had an arm supported in a snow white sling. Without a word he turned his head slowly to look at each individual in turn and then said in his brisk voice "Gentlemen, I think you should all shave!" He then turned about, stamped his foot and marched out of the room. The effect was electric. The motley group of officers Infantry, Gunners, Engineers etc. stirred themselves and started to clean themselves up. It was an unforgettable experience". - quoted in To Revel in God's Sunshine; The story of the Army career of the late [Sandhurst] Academy Sergeant Major J.C. Lord, MVO, MBE, compiled by Richard Alford
> 
> http://regimentalrogue.com/quotes/quotes_ncos2.htm



I have read similar things about POWs as well.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jul 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> At Apeldoorn, Major Frank Lindley found himself in a room with about twenty other wounded Officer POWs. He says "We were all dirty and unshaven and in various stages of dress and undress. The door opened and in came RSM John Lord, also a POW. He was dressed in immaculate battledress, trousers creased, and he had an arm supported in a snow white sling. Without a word he turned his head slowly to look at each individual in turn and then said in his brisk voice "Gentlemen, I think you should all shave!"



Reminds me of the first scene of a movie I saw. An American soldier in a Japanese POW camp near the end of the war.

Getting his customary shave, manicure and shoeshine. He is wearing a long-sleeved uniform shirt. Only insignia is his unit patch and corporal chevrons. He looks sharp. His uniform is cleaned and pressed. He has 7 or 8 more. A high class wrist watch and cigarette lighter, along with an unlimited supply of cigarettes. Even has a Top Sergeant as a valet. 

He looks like something out of a recruiting poster.

As you might guess, there is more to the story.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Jul 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the first scene of a movie I saw. An American soldier in a Japanese POW camp near the end of the war.
> 
> Getting his customary shave, manicure and shoeshine. He is wearing a long-sleeved uniform shirt. Only insignia is his unit patch and corporal chevrons. He looks sharp. His uniform is cleaned and pressed. He has 7 or 8 more. A high class wrist watch and cigarette lighter, along with an unlimited supply of cigarettes. Even has a Top Sergeant as a valet.
> 
> ...



King Rat, based on the James Clavell novel.  Read the book, never saw the movie version, but your quick description immediately told me who that was...


----------

