# Canadian Army gets a new flag (2016)



## McG

A new flag for the Army!  Once again, it seems aesthetics is the more important place to invest our efforts over fielding actual operational capability.  








> New Canadian Army flag unveiled
> 
> Ottawa, Ontario  — The Canadian Army (CA) will advance into the future under a new flag that nods to its proud past.
> 
> The flag was unveiled July 14, 2016, during a ceremony on Parliament Hill in which CA members welcomed their new Commander, Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk.
> 
> The new design features the Canadian flag and a white, stylized maple leaf against a red background. Superimposed on the white maple leaf is the badge that members used during the Second World War and the Korean conflict, consisting of three maple leaves over a pair of crossed swords. Sitting atop the centre leaf is an image of St. Edward’s Crown, a symbol that has been used in coronation ceremonies for over 300 years.
> 
> The maple leaf was worn on the collars of Canadian soldiers who fought in the Battle of Vimy Ridge during the First World War, and was included on the new flag to honour the 100th anniversary of the battle, which will be marked in 2017. The same maple leaf flew on the Headquarters flags of the fighting Divisions during the Second World War and still flies across Canada at the CA’s various Division Headquarters.
> 
> The flag traces the evolution of the CA’s identity, reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea.
> 
> “These changes are collectively directed at promoting the military traditions that shape our Army,” said LGen Wynnyk. “Our symbols and history increase the pride that each soldier feels in their trade and duty within the Canadian Army. Maximizing corps and regimental identity is key to our soldiers’ personal and collective esprit de corps.”
> 
> The Canadian Army name was restored in 2011 following several decades in which all three military branches were known collectively as the Canadian Armed Forces. The CA’s Divisions and Corps began restoring their identities in 2013 and there have been several additional restorations of Army badges and rank designations since.
> 
> The new CA flag will be featured at the Canada Army Run this September.
> 
> _By Pat Bryden, Army History and Heritage and Caroline Fyfe, Army Public Affairs with files from Steven Fouchard, Army Public Affairs_


http://army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=new-canadian-army-flag-unveiled/ir7jr4fh

The promotional image also ignores that we just invested money and effort in a new flag two years ago.




I guess all those new flags can just be tossed to the garbage to make room for the newer?

Edit to fix broken hotlink,


----------



## Jarnhamar

Needs more maple leafs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Needs more maple leafs.



Kind of looks like the back window of your average SUV in Oromocto. Just need to add the 'yellow ribbon'.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oh my gawd father!

Given that the Canadian Army flag was the Red Ensign, ie the Canadian national flag up until 1968, then shouldn't the Canadian Army flag just be the current Canadian national flag?


----------



## dapaterson

Yay for "Friday before the long weekend" press releases.


----------



## Staff Weenie

I am so glad that there's a new flag! It'll take away the sting from the fact that I can't get my ambulances to work most of the time!


----------



## dapaterson

Ambulances don't belong to the Army.  They're part of the "Health Services Empire grab - 2003", which preceded the "MP Empire Grab" (I forget the year) and "Army Signals grab" of 2008.

Yay silos of excellence!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oh my gawd father!
> 
> Given that the Canadian Army flag was the Red Ensign, ie the Canadian national flag up until 1968, then shouldn't the Canadian Army flag just be the current Canadian national flag?



Yes.

This would look perfect, perched atop the smouldering ruins of the capital of an enemy nation.


----------



## Staff Weenie

dapaterson - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true. As I understand it, the Army technically owns almost every land vehicle fleet, and is responsible for life cycle fleet replacement. We were told that as crapped out as the LSVW Ambs were, we could not go out and buy a fleet to replace them. We must wait for the Army, which 'owns' the chassis, to replace the entire LSVW fleet. We will then need to beg at the table to have a number of the new vehicles dedicated for conversion to Amb.

Regardless, at the very top, there's still only one national pot of gold given to the CAF, and it keeps getting pissed away on foolishness.


----------



## dapaterson

The way it works (I think) is that the Army provides vehicles to Health Services, but they belong to Health Services, but it's the Army that has to replace them.

Almost as if it was designed to keep anyone from being accountable / responsible...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> A new flag for the Army!  Once again, it seems aesthetics is the more important place to invest our efforts over fielding actual operational capability.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=new-canadian-army-flag-unveiled/ir7jr4fh
> 
> The promotional image also ignores that we just invested money and effort in a new flag two years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess all those new flags can just be tossed to the garbage?



This flag looks like some staff officer put three different proposals together and some general said, "Put them all together".... 

In all seriousness... what a waste. Is there nothing better for Colonel-Lt Generals to do in Ottawa?


----------



## Old Sweat

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This flag looks like some staff officer put three different proposals together and some general said, "Put them all together"....
> 
> In all seriousness... what a waste. Is there nothing better for Colonel-Lt Generals to do in Ottawa?



 :goodpost:


----------



## devil39

Yup....we're idiots


----------



## RedcapCrusader

:facepalm:


----------



## PMedMoe

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> :facepalm:



 :ditto:


----------



## cavalryman

devil39 said:
			
		

> Yup....we're idiots



 :nod:


----------



## dangerboy

I actually prefer the look of the previous flag, I don't think the maple leaf looks very professional. Also maybe I am just a simple soldier but can someone explain to me how this flag does this "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".


----------



## The Bread Guy

devil39 said:
			
		

> Yup....we're idiots





			
				LunchMeat said:
			
		

> :facepalm:


 :nod:


			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> ... can someone explain to me how this flag does this "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".


VERY good question - likely response:  :crickets:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Tony:

You have to give more credit than that to our great staff workers in Otawa.

I have no doubt that the answer exists.

At some point in the flurry of high level staff activity that preceded such a momentous decision, a briefing note covering the supporting documentation was carefully arranged by a junior staff officer (read a Lcol) to be passed up the chain for approval. That note contained the words "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".  This sentence was, like the rest of the briefing note, subjected to critical reading by this officers superior, who exerted himself with great acumen as he took on this serious task in order to justify further his very existence in the system. So he underlined that sentence and scribbled in the margin: "Explain?" and sent it back down for review. The whole resulting in the drafting and addition to the supporting material of a 12 page paper of historical-philosophical-anthopological mumbo-jumbo in support of the contention.

Now, they will just dig it up.  

/SARC OFF


----------



## Rifleman62

Back to Liberal Red.

Never did like the concept of a "white" flag for the Army.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

For this reason?  [

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=no_ZfoMhfeQ


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> By Pat Bryden, Army History and Heritage......


         :not-again:


----------



## Loachman

An ugly and stupid waste of money. The bill should be presented to those that pushed for it, and they should be publicly shamed, their livestock slaughtered, and their fields laid waste and salted.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> An ugly and stupid waste of money. The bill should be presented to those that pushed for it, and they should be publicly shamed, their livestock slaughtered, and their fields laid waste and salted.



Well, we can't do that any more, so instead, as punishment, we post them to NDHQ.


----------



## Loachman

Where they can do more harm. Brilliant.


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :not-again:


So who is that guy?  I heard his name attached to the return of British ranks and to the last new flag of two years ago.  Is he an EX-something with a staff and no responsibility but to reinvent the aesthetic?


----------



## Journeyman

Former militia CO, obviously employed in DHH; the ultimate in 'form over function' when it comes to things military.


----------



## Rifleman62

Army G1 Heritage as a Public Servant.
CO or ex CO now, don't know.


----------



## rotrhed

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Needs more maple leafs.



Indeed. Looks like someone went full auto with MS Paint and couldn't stop themselves.

Horrible.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Tony:
> 
> You have to give more credit than that to our great staff workers in Otawa.
> 
> I have no doubt that the answer exists.
> 
> At some point in the flurry of high level staff activity that preceded such a momentous decision, a briefing note covering the supporting documentation was carefully arranged by a junior staff officer (read a Lcol) to be passed up the chain for approval. That note contained the words "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".  This sentence was, like the rest of the briefing note, subjected to critical reading by this officers superior, who exerted himself with great acumen as he took on this serious task in order to justify further his very existence in the system. So he underlined that sentence and scribbled in the margin: "Explain?" and sent it back down for review. The whole resulting in the drafting and addition to the supporting material of a 12 page paper of historical-philosophical-anthopological mumbo-jumbo in support of the contention.
> 
> Now, they will just dig it up.
> 
> /SARC OFF



In other words, it's a 'camel' flag: designed by a committee?


----------



## Old Sweat

Some of this stuff happens automatically. In 1942, just after the Canadian Army had stated there was no intention of creating an airborne capability, the PM announced the exact opposite. One of the first staff actions was to start the process to design the parachutist badge.


----------



## Jarnhamar

> “These changes are collectively directed at promoting the military traditions that shape our Army,” said LGen Wynnyk. “Our *symbols and history increase the pride that each soldier feels in their trade and duty within the Canadian Army.* Maximizing corps and regimental identity is key to our soldiers’ personal and collective esprit de corps.”


----------



## Loachman

Yup.

Certainly better than decent boots and trucks would.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Certainly better than decent boots and trucks would.



and GBAD, AT, Attack Helicopters, a decent material management system (DRMIS is junk), a decent SA system (battleview is junk), Blue force tracker for logistics vehicles (if we had vehicles).... I'm sure I'm missing things.

Aside from that... yes, the General is 100% correct.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> and GBAD, AT, Attack Helicopters, a decent material management system (DRMIS is junk), a decent SA system (battleview is junk), Blue force tracker for logistics vehicles (if we had vehicles).... I'm sure I'm missing things.
> 
> Aside from that... yes, the General is 100% correct.



G11, I11, you forgot 'a radio', over


----------



## OldSolduer

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Army G1 Heritage as a Public Servant.
> CO or ex CO now, don't know.



He's also behind the project to have Regimental kit ie kilts, etc issued through Logistik.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> G11, I11, you forgot 'a radio', over



 :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

From the whistling past the graveyard department, one can only hope that at least as much effort has gone into providing input into the government's review of defence policy and structure.

                                                :soapbox:


----------



## Kirkhill

Old Sweat.

I filled in the Government's questionnaire.   I also filled in the opposition's questionnaire. Then I wished the opposition luck on being able to effect any kind of change or being allowed to supply any meaningful input.

We have no policy beyond expediency.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Old Sweat.
> 
> I filled in the Government's questionnaire.   I also filled in the opposition's questionnaire. Then I wished the opposition luck on being able to effect any kind of change or being allowed to supply any meaningful input.
> 
> We have no policy beyond expediency.



The easiest and quickest path into the esteem of traditional military authorities is by the appeal to the eye, rather than to the mind. The `polish and pipeclay' school is not yet extinct, and it is easier for the mediocre intelligence to become an authority on buttons, than on tactics.

   - Captain Sir Basil Liddel Hart, in Thoughts on War, 1944


----------



## Journeyman

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> “These changes are collectively directed at promoting the military traditions that shape our Army,” said LGen Wynnyk. “Our *symbols and history increase the pride that each soldier feels in their trade and duty within the Canadian Army.* Maximizing corps and regimental identity is key to our soldiers’ personal and collective esprit de corps.”


This had to have been started before LGen Wynnyk was handed the keys to the Titanic  Command of the Army.  I can't give up on him yet -- especially since the words sound identical to drivel rationale of the prior Command Team  (ie - let's lose the Army Sergeant-Major next!  ....and bring in someone who understands that soldiers aren't quitting because they can't wear badges on their CADPAT  :  )


----------



## Happy Guy

The change in ranks was politically driven by the last government and I was hoping that the new government would stop this nonsense but I was wrong.

I don't think that it is the work of one man, but a cabal of like-minded individuals who want us to look like the British Army because for them they think that this will improve the Army's morale.  This brings me to another logical deduction, how can our very senior Officers and NCMs in charge believe that the majority of us wants this?  It makes me shudder at what could possibly be next.  Thankfully I shall be retiring in a few more years.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The change in ranks was politically driven by the last government and I was hoping that the new government would stop this nonsense but I was wrong.
> 
> I don't think that it is the work of one man, but a cabal of like-minded individuals who want us to look like the British Army because for them they think that this will improve the Army's morale.



Except for General's ranks... those are too important to change due to the possibility that allies (read- Americans) may mistake a general for someone else.


----------



## dimsum

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Except for General's ranks... those are too important to change due to the possibility that allies (read- Americans) may mistake a general for someone else.



Uh...like another Commonwealth GOFO?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Uh...like another Commonwealth GOFO?



It's an easy mistake to make with distinctive combat and DEU's the clearly identify us as Canadians.


----------



## dimsum

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It's an easy mistake to make with distinctive combat and DEU's the clearly identify us as Canadians.



Pfft.  "Reading".  "Flags".


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> By Pat Bryden, Army History and Heritage......         :not-again:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> So who is that guy?  I heard his name attached to the return of British ranks and to the last new flag of two years ago.  Is he an EX-something with a staff and no responsibility but to reinvent the aesthetic?





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Army G1 Heritage as a Public Servant.


So, I would guess that makes him an EX-01 or EX-02 with a staff of some size?  How much does that consume in the way of SWE, PYs and the attention of senior committees and generals?  Where we annually return large sums of Vote 5 Capital, this fashion and bling organization represents an actual operational requirement not staffed, not procured, and not implemented.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Back to Liberal Red.


I suspect the change has more to do with either an individual's (or individuals') fetish for our colonial roots and a move back toward the Red Ensign, or (and more likely) an attempt to connect with Red Fridays (and potentially usurp that to an Army thing as opposed to a support for all CAF members).  Red seemed to start taking more prominence in Army identity while the Conservatives were still in office, including the colour taking a position of prominence in recent past Army Run participant shirts.



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> I actually prefer the look of the previous flag, I don't think the maple leaf looks very professional. Also maybe I am just a simple soldier but can someone explain to me how this flag does this "reinforcing the link between the brave veterans of Afghanistan and the Cold War period with the heroes of First and Second World Wars and Korea".


Maybe it is not about the soldiers.  Maybe it is about a public perception, or simply the whims of someone in Ottawa.  I don't know.  But just as the info graphic ignores that we have had a new flag for two years (because we would look silly replacing the flag again so soon), it also ignores the flag that we had during the Second World War (because the look of that flag does not really support this newest change at all).  An argument could be made that the new flag we are replacing has more connection to the Second World War than the newer flag we are getting.











1939 to 19442014 to 2016

But the info graphic is brought to us by the same organization that produced a PowerPoint lecture explaining how British rank improved interoperability with the US Army because both systems used a single "superior national symbol" to show the rank of major (while conveniently neglecting to mention that there was actually nothing common between UK and US systems). The truth will be presented only to the extent as will justify the conclusion.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Given that the Canadian Army flag was the Red Ensign, ie the Canadian national flag up until 1968, then shouldn't the Canadian Army flag just be the current Canadian national flag?


So, something more RMC like with an Army badge on a field of white between two fields of red?  Maybe that will be next ... and to be more like the national flag, shouldn't we go back to a single leaf?
 :stirpot:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Unless I am missing some detail that I cannot observe right now, isn't the "new" Army flag just unveiled the very same as the one you put as being  the "new" flag from 2014 to 2016, MCG?

Then isn't the "announcement' of the unveiling perhaps just a delayed "official" unveiling of the flag that came into being in 2014?

It certainly looks like it to me.

Damn: Yet one more thing to blame of the Conservatives.   :facepalm:


----------



## McG

Nope.  Somebody just changed the file on the other end of my link.  I will have to fix that.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> ... fetish for our colonial roots ...



Oiyup with yer fetishes, Colonial!.  No need for whips and chains hereabouts.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Army needs a revision of the continental staff system to include provisions for a 10 Cell.  This cell would advise commanders on all forms of fashion, art and music as our entire Army is seriously lacking in all three departments.  Nothing worse than walking in to an Officers Mess and seeing Majors and Lieutenant Colonels wearing the same collared shirt they bought at Value Village back when they were subalterns along with their Merrell hiking shoes.  Meanwhile, jeans are still banned from the mess, even if they're designer quality and fit nicely with a blazer.  

In other words, we need a fashion police, who could also provide valuable feedback on colour coordination and be a filter for crap art work and swag that comes out of the various PR depts within the institution!


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, jeans are still banned from the mess, even if they're designer quality and fit nicely with a blazer.



Not in RCAF Messes, at least the ones I've been to.  :nod: 

*insert joke about how the Air Force doesn't have "traditions", only "habits"*


----------



## Lightguns

That means another effin' bin of flags at the war surplus store to maneuver around.


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> So, I would guess that makes him an EX-01 or EX-02 with a staff of some size?  How much does that consume in the way of SWE, PYs and the attention of senior committees and generals?  Where we annually return large sums of Vote 5 Capital, this fashion and bling organization represents an actual operational requirement not staffed, not procured, and not implemented.


I followed up and found he is an AS-06 (one step down from EX-01).  In ADM(Mat) his SWE would buy a PM for a major crown project.


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> I followed up and found he is an AS-06 (one step down from EX-01).  In ADM(Mat) his SWE would buy a PM for a major crown project.



While he may be down one on the org chart, generally it would be AS-06, AS-07, then EX-01.

Pay scales: https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/rates-taux-eng.asp and https://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/psm-fpfm/pay-remuneration/rates-taux/rapaceexunemtb-eng.asp


----------



## sandyson

No, no, no!  You guys have got it all wrong.  I think all formation commanders should design, sew and embroider from a rocking chair by candle light, his/her own flag on assuming command.


----------



## dapaterson

Given that the Army HQ dictates units/sub-units/sub-sub-units for the Managed Readiness Plan, at least that would give formation commanders something to do.

Mission Command in the Canadian Army is a theory, not something practised day by day.


----------



## Nikola Canada

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Needs more maple leafs.



Then you might like this version someone posted on Reddit:


----------



## ThunderT

Nikola Canada said:
			
		

> Then you might like this version someone posted on Reddit:



We need a weaponized flag like this that can induce epileptic seizures in the enemy. The future is now.


----------

