# Upcoming Changes to the Dress Manual



## Halifax Tar (12 Apr 2018)

So I have seen it, a few times on social media; and on here.  I keep hearing this summer we are going to see some, what seems to be, drastic changes to the personal grooming standards laid out in the dess manual.  I hear things like a free for all on beards, long hair for men, goatees, earrings for men....ect, ect. 

I have heard sailors in my unit lines mumbling about it now.  Has anyone actually been briefed on this topic ?  Or this pure rumor mill stuff going on ?


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2018)

I understand it was briefed at the Army's command team course.


----------



## FSTO (12 Apr 2018)

I can't help but think of this when I think of the lads having a *hairy* free for all!


----------



## dimsum (12 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I can't help but think of this when I think of the lads having a *hairy* free for all!



Well, no one will have trouble finding these guys if they bail out.


----------



## Stoker (12 Apr 2018)

I heard it from 3 different sources. One from a briefing at a leadership course and the others at a town hall. From what I understand to attract more recruits some grooming regs maybe changing. Longer hair to be allowed, goatees, earrings for males. I don't know if this is something that will happen or any other details. It really doesn't surprise me as if somebody asked me a year ago if we would be allowed wifi on the ships, I wouldn't have believed it. Wholesale change is here and more change is coming.


----------



## brihard (12 Apr 2018)

Oh man. The social media poo-storm form the retired crowd on this is going to be phenomenally epic.


----------



## Stoker (12 Apr 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh man. The social media poo-storm form the retired crowd on this is going to be phenomenally epic.



Its already started on the RCN retired pages on facebook.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (12 Apr 2018)

> I heard it from 3 different sources. One from a briefing at a leadership course and the others at a town hall. From what I understand to attract more recruits some grooming regs maybe changing. Longer hair to be allowed, goatees, earrings for males. I don't know if this is something that will happen or any other details. It really doesn't surprise me as if somebody asked me a year ago if we would be allowed wifi on the ships, I wouldn't have believed it. Wholesale change is here and more change is coming.



That’s what I also heard from members in Ottawa when I was on my ILP last fall.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2018)

I'm glad. At least it's being talked about and discussed as opposed to a nil return we've seen until now.

I've worked with soldiers from different countries (think Dutch, etc) that have had these grooming standards since the begining of the '70s.

In my mind, it hasn't affected their professionalism one bit. They certainly seemed a much happier bunch than Canadian troops.

Gender obliteration is a federal government intiative. Men can have long hair and earrings, women can have beards and moustaches. Identify as a rock if you wish. 

The CAF works for the government, they carry out the MND's instructions, as passed from the PMO, and follow the governments lead on policy.

I might be wrong, but I don't see any amount of discussion making any difference to the current governments wishes.

Let it Grow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDf9UwHGF4


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let it Grow! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXDf9UwHGF4



You never seem to have a lighter to wave aloft when you want one for times like this.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2018)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Its already started on the RCN retired pages on facebook.



I would say those are retired CAF Maritime Command retirees.

Hate to break it to people, but the old RCN (i.e. pre-unification) was pretty well like the pics of the 60's and 70's US Navy posted above. The idea of short hair is actually something that came in from the army as a result of unification - not before. Similarly, the idea of some seamen wearing hear rings is actually definitely not something unusual for seamen from the old days - in fact it was quite acceptable then, regardless of the slightly  "pirate" look that resulted.

I've said it before, the short hair do thingy is NOT a naval tradition, it's a "modern army" one. The navies do not have problems in itself with people having long hair (the old naval collar's purpose was to protect the gun shirt from the tar/grease in the seamen's hair).


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2018)

C'mon now OGBD, we usually shower on a semi-weekly basis now.  Geeze


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2018)

There's enough fresh water for that ???


 ;D


----------



## Stoker (12 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would say those are retired CAF Maritime Command retirees.
> 
> Hate to break it to people, but the old RCN (i.e. pre-unification) was pretty well like the pics of the 60's and 70's US Navy posted above. The idea of short hair is actually something that came in from the army as a result of unification - not before. Similarly, the idea of some seamen wearing hear rings is actually definitely not something unusual for seamen from the old days - in fact it was quite acceptable then, regardless of the slightly  "pirate" look that resulted.
> 
> I've said it before, the short hair do thingy is NOT a naval tradition, it's a "modern army" one. The navies do not have problems in itself with people having long hair (the old naval collar's purpose was to protect the gun shirt from the tar/grease in the seamen's hair).



No lots of currently serving members on those pages don't like it either.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Apr 2018)

Not that l am interested in growing long hair, a goatee or wear earrings.  I don't take issue if others do.  Meh! I say.  There's little enough joy in Tinseltown as it is, if this brings up the morale of some?  Then it's ok by me.  Bout time the adults tried to get with the times some and stop being pains in the asses for a change.


----------



## Stoker (12 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.
> 
> Just saying.



To be honest I don't really care myself but I would imagine its not uncommon for some to not like some of these proposed changes. As for your examples I wouldn't compare it to hazing , drunk driving or drinking.


----------



## NavalMoose (12 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.
> 
> Just saying.




That's quite the broad brush you're using there. Just because a person thinks that males should have short hair and no earrings doesn't mean they condone those other activities you mention.  Apples and oranges.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Apr 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've worked with soldiers from different countries (think Dutch, etc) that have had these grooming standards since the begining of the '70s.



I think it was them or maybe the Sweds...anyways, I remember one who was at the DFAC who had a haircut that reminded me of the 2 guys from ABBA.  No one _stopped the press _because of it.

Anyone remember when squareback haircuts were first permitted?  I'm sure that caused a few heart attacks  ;D.   Earrings, hair on men longer than 3 inches along the neckline...blah blah blah.  I care more about _'why are there no flight suits in the system' _and stuff that actually negatively impacts ops and trg.  Commanders/applic authorities will have to ability to put in place rules/restrictions for 'about to be newly approved dress items' for operational/safety reasons.


----------



## OldTanker (12 Apr 2018)

Well, this old retiree doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure a goatee or earrings, on any gender, will affect operational efficiencies.  :2c:


----------



## mariomike (12 Apr 2018)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> I'm not sure a goatee or earrings, on any gender, will affect operational efficiencies.  :2c:



I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.

But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?

Reason I ask is, it is the public who encourage their political representatives to vote on strong pay and benefit packages.  

Studies I have read indicate that personal appearance of uniformed services - not just operational efficiency - is important to  taxpayers.


----------



## Remius (12 Apr 2018)

Hmn...this is going to make identifying Walts that much harder.... ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2018)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Well, this old retiree doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure a goatee or earrings, on any gender, will affect operational efficiencies.  :2c:



My first encounter was in Hohne. The Dutch went by our cents with their leopards. I saw a red headed viking crew commander well out of his hatch. His beard must have been a foot over his shoulder and his hair was streaming out from his beret like superman's cape.


----------



## Furniture (12 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.
> 
> But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?
> 
> ...



This strikes me as a valid concern. We need to balance free expression against public perception. In Canada and North America the public se the military as "clean cut" so wild neck beards and long unkempt locks are a bit extreme, but a clean beard and neat ponytail/bun seems reasonable. Piercings that don't have a safety impact are also an easy sell, it's time to move out of the 50s for dress regs.


----------



## McG (12 Apr 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Gender obliteration is a federal government intiative. Men can have long hair and earrings, women can have beards and moustaches.


So, gender neutral dress regs and DEU skirts are an option for all.


----------



## winnipegoo7 (12 Apr 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I understand operational efficiencies are important. Opinions on personal appearance may vary among current and former members.
> 
> But, what importance - if any - is the personal appearance of CAF members to the public?
> 
> ...



Many CAF members are visibly obese and look very un-soldierly in uniform. The CAF and the public seem to accept that.


----------



## Ostrozac (13 Apr 2018)

Military fashion is constantly evolving, as are our grooming standards. They weren't passed down from on high and in force since time immemorial. 

Note General Otter, a former CO 2RCR and CGS. His sideburns are tremendous and his moustache certainly extends past the corners of his mouth. So clearly at least our sideburns and moustache policies are rather recent inventions.







And check out MGen Smyth, the first Commander of the Canadian Militia, he certainly seemed to have no problem with facial hair.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Apr 2018)

I am of the opinion that relaxing of grooming standards is not the end of the world. We spend too much time and energy enforcing arbitrary hair rules on males that we do not also enforce on females (to pick one example).

I am ok with this.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am of the opinion that relaxing of grooming standards is not the end of the world. We spend too much time and energy enforcing arbitrary hair rules on males that we do not also enforce on females (to pick one example).
> 
> I am ok with this.



Me too.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Apr 2018)

I’m not too fussed about this but I’m retired so I really don’t have a say.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2018)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I’m not too fussed about this but I’m retired so I really don’t have a say.



Meanwhile, Canadians seem to have a say about the RCMP:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-man-bun-tattoo-survey-1.4612725


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Apr 2018)

I am going to have a crazy set of mutton chops, when all of this come to pass....


----------



## kratz (13 Apr 2018)

*** Oh won't someone think of the children barbers! *** 
These changes will put two thirds of them out of business. Though hairdressers might see a slight bump in business.   :rofl:  [/sarcasm]

The CAF appears to bend to local economic demands, when businesses protest potential changes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Apr 2018)

That is a good point.

I had not considered the impending jobless rate amongst base barbers...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2018)

:boring:

< yawn >

I joined an army, over a half century ago, that allowed quite long hair ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... it was the fashion and only cleanliness and comfort made us deviate from style, usually in the field.

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Some people liked "short back and sides" even then, others preferred to look a little more like the rest of society ... obviously, during recruit training and e.g. junior NCO course some people wanted to go to ridiculous extremes but my recollection says that most of us wanted to be neat, tidy and as stylish as good taste allowed.

I think we need to move with the times ... common sense will, usually, prevail, especially at sea and in the field.


----------



## Teager (13 Apr 2018)

So if beards and long hair are allowed I guess the cool/special look factor and perk of some will fade like pioneers.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Apr 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> *** Oh won't someone think of the children barbers! ***
> These changes will put two thirds of them out of business.


Perhaps it's the opposite situation.  The boatloads of undocumented barbers washing up on our shores (without even 5-6 years of university-level Scissor-ology!) is what's driving this change;  the market simply doesn't have enough qualified clippers to handle the CAF's bi-weekly stylin'  (monthly for RCAF)
              op:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> monthlyish for RCAF



No sense wasting TD money on stuff like haircuts, although there is one Turkish barber shop in Elgin that is well worth 20 quid for the hot towel shave and cut.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Apr 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The same people (or their ilk) who thought that the world would end as a result of a host of things, including: unification, women serving on ships and in the combat arms, homosexuals serving in the military at all etc, and also thought that drinking during the day, strippers in the mess at lunch, driving home drunk, hazing, and abusive leadership were all good things.
> 
> Just saying.




Buttons, bows, balding, beards, whatever.  If it helps the recruiting numbers, makes the jobs we offer more appealing to the current generation, and doesn't impact the professionalism or the operational outcomes, who cares?  


Remember the pictures of the troops with the mohawks getting on the C-47s to rain lawn darts of death across Normandy in 1944?  


We need troops in the doors, and the naysayers or 'autonegators' will always be there.  Wifi and goatees....*shrug*  maybe it'll work?


<sotto voce>


And what's this about strippers? 


</sotto voce>


----------



## TQMS (16 Apr 2018)

I doubt anything will come to light in regards to beards by the summer time frame. I say this based on the attached copy of the minutes of the CF Dress Committee meeting from 30 Nov 17 that I got earlier this month.

Points of interest :
Para 5 - Ceremonial Belts and Accoutrements
Para 6 – Tattoo Policy 
Para 7 – Turban Policy
Para 12 – Muslim Headdress 
Para 13 – Beard Policy
Para 18 – Sash
Para 19 – Wearing Commendation for Female Personal
Para 22 – Colour Carrying Belt
Para 24 – HCol Wearing Command Badge
Para 25 – Long Sleeve Shirts
Para 27 – Poppy Location in 3A (Long sleeve shirt and tie no over garment)
Para 28 – Poppy Location for women

Several other topics are include in the document.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2018)

Where did you find that? My DWAN bookmark for those minutes hasn't been updated since 2016's meetings.


----------



## TQMS (16 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where did you find that? My DWAN bookmark for those minutes hasn't been updated since 2016's meetings.



I know the link your talking about. 

But this came from an email chain that was stared 28 Feb 18 by G1 Dress and Ceremonial. I had it forwarded to me earlier this month.


----------



## FSTO (16 Apr 2018)

Once_a_TQ said:
			
		

> I know the link your talking about.
> 
> But this came from an email chain that was stared 28 Feb 18 by G1 Dress and Ceremonial. I had it forwarded to me earlier this month.



Another example of routine unclass correspondence not being released in a timely manner.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Apr 2018)

Once_a_TQ, you left one of the best point out: After all these years with people buying the single most useful piece of gear (the CANEX windbreaker jacket), the CAF is finally waking up to making it an issue item. Only took them 25 years - pretty speedy for the CAF.  ;D

There is another point, as far as I am concerned, that arises from those minutes, that I would like to address. Where our interests intersect, there is no reasons not to rely on RCMP research. In my view, however, dress, deportment, grooming standard, etc. are not areas where they do.

The  RCMP studies how the public interacts with them and how their appearance affects the public's perception. That's fine but there is a relation with the public that is different from the military ones and I for one don't believe that they intersect.

You see, the RCMP is the police: They are, for the public, the representation in their life of the power of the state over them as enforcers of the law. Military personnel, on the other hand is the representation of the power of the state in their favour, against external enemies - protecting the public from external harm. I suggest in the public's mind, that it is a more positive relationship to start with as result. I therefore suggest that, where appearance is concerned, we should carry out our own research and not rely on the RCMP. We could find some pretty surprising facts.  :nod:


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2018)

Again, 
Well said points OGBD. Feels like we're enjoying drinks on George St, in Saint John's.   :cheers:


----------



## Pusser (16 Apr 2018)

What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy.  Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole.  The Navy would never dream of telling the Army they can't wear red coats, so why should the Army be able to tell the Navy they can't wear white ones?

Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...


----------



## Halifax Tar (16 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy.  Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole.  The Navy would never dream of telling the Army they can't wear red coats, so why should the Army be able to tell the Navy they can't wear white ones?
> 
> Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...



You raise solid points Pusser.  I am 100% in agreement with you.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy.  Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole.  The Navy would never dream of telling the Army they can't wear red coats, so why should the Army be able to tell the Navy they can't wear white ones?
> 
> Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...



Honestly a good amount of the dress uniforms should just be phased out, in my opinion. I've got a closet full of stuff I "need to have" but rarely wear. Gabradines, DEU rain coats, DEU parade boots, DEU winter boots, Oxfords, parkas, mess dress. They ought to just standardize a single layout for "dress uniforms" (IE DEU 1A) and be done with it. Make the parka the only winter time jacket. Holding onto a giant coat in my closet for the last 18 years when I only have worn it probably 3 times is nonsense. Now that we have the parka it's twice the nonsense. The parka is fairly warm and I've worn it about 10 times as often in the last year than I have the gabradine in my entire career. Holding onto it for parades is kind of nonsense too, since the gabradine looks awful so usually they just do the parade in tunic. If it's absolutely too cold to do a parade in 1As without a coat, then just wear the parka or maybe question whether a parade is really neccesary. 
Same with mess dress. It's pretty pointless and the concept of buying a $1200 suit to wear once a year is borderline madness. I get some people like the mess dress or maybe even have a fetish for the gabradine, but compelling 50,000+ people to have these things for the few edge cases is a massive waste. Should just streamline the whole thing.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2018)

No reason for a second dress uniform at public expense. Optional item? Certainly.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy.  Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole.  The Navy would never dream of telling the Army they can't wear red coats, so why should the Army be able to tell the Navy they can't wear white ones?
> 
> Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...



Killed it?  I think it was just opposition to it being considered 1B instead of 1 C or D.  High collar whites still exist and are allowed, not unlike patrol dress blues.

What is the reason to move it to 1 B?  Sharp looking?  Historical precedent?  The UK doing it? Does the Navy not have a full dress uniform already?

Honest questions, not trying to stir the pot.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (16 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No reason for a second dress uniform at public expense. Optional item? Certainly.



Optional becomes "recommended" which eventually becomes "go talk to the RSM/Adjt and tell them why you think you shouldn't buy one" and eventually becomes accepted as mandatory.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Apr 2018)

Those last three comments are fully indicative of the lack of understanding of naval matters. I hate to say it that way, but the Army and Air Force (most of it) just don't get it!

Here I go again: The Navies of the world have diplomatic functions - all the time or just about - and wherever they go. This means we have to dress and play the part. And if we cannot dress to play the part - like all other nation's people we meet with - Canadian image abroad is weakened by that much. The functions we carry abroad can range, in civilian equivalent, from sales rep at a trade show to State dinner, passing through business dinner-conference. We have to be able to dress for such part, in all different climates.

Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise. 

Well, the Navy is "out to air shows" all the time we are abroad.


----------



## McG (16 Apr 2018)

Once_a_TQ said:
			
		

> ... G1 Dress and Ceremonial ...


This is a real position?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> No reason for a second dress uniform at public expense. Optional item? Certainly.


I agree, but did the Army not just get branch and regimental ceremonial uniforms approved for public funds?


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise.
> 
> Well, the Navy is "out to air shows" all the time we are abroad.



Yes.  RCAF wears DEUs.  As the RCN can.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I agree, but did the Army not just get branch and regimental ceremonial uniforms approved for public funds?



I have no time for the small segment of the CA that aspires to outfit the collection of rum platoons scattered across the nation, claiming to be regiments, each with different regimental quiffs.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here I go again: The Navies of the world have *diplomatic functions* - all the time or just about - and wherever they go. This means we have to *dress and play the part*..


Wasn't there a recent diplomatic fashion show in Bollywood?   
       :stirpot:   

I don't have a dog anywhere near this fight, but I actually think the RCN should have their high-collar whites.


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2018)

We recruit young, fit, impressive looking pers, who properly represent our nation, but won't dress them properly to attend class internationally.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Apr 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> We recruit young, fit, impressive looking pers, who properly represent our nation, but won't dress them properly to attend class internationally.



What, precisely, is wrong with the uniform?


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Those last three comments are fully indicative of the lack of understanding of naval matters. I hate to say it that way, but the Army and Air Force (most of it) just don't get it!
> 
> Here I go again: The Navies of the world have diplomatic functions - all the time or just about - and wherever they go. This means we have to dress and play the part. And if we cannot dress to play the part - like all other nation's people we meet with - Canadian image abroad is weakened by that much. The functions we carry abroad can range, in civilian equivalent, from sales rep at a trade show to State dinner, passing through business dinner-conference. We have to be able to dress for such part, in all different climates.



Well given that I was one of those last three comments and I explicitly stated I was asking questions that felt were legitimate because I certainly don't have a full grasp of the Navy which is why I was asking in the first place.

I also think that some people have a lack of understanding about the orders of dress.  All of those functions you listed are all appropriate for 1 C or 1 D (which is what high collared whites are).  The proposal to the committee was designated the high collared whites into 1 B.   it is likely that the 1 Navy guy at the board didn't have sufficient justification for the change. 

No one is removing the High Collared Whites.  they are 1 C and 1 D just like the army has 1 C and D patrols for similar functions.  The army does not wear ceremonial full dress to diplomatic functions at home or abroad unless part of a ceremony of some sort, on parade and filling a ceremonial function.  by making HCW into 1 B it would be inappropriate to wear that order of dress for the very functions you are listing above because full dress is not appropriate for those types of functions. 

I'm actually all for ceremonial dress and tradition.  I also think the WHC uniforms are the best looking ones the Navy has.  But I'm asking what the justification is.  is their a ceremonial dress capability gap that the current uniform isn't serving?  ie 1s?  With the exception of a few units that have regimental full dress and can kit out enough troops, the whole of the CAF uses 1s for all sorts of parades and ceremonial functions. 

The uniform looks sharp.  Sure.  But so do patrols and mess kit but neither are 1 B nor should they be.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Apr 2018)

Nothing wrong with those uniforms, DP.

But that's taken in Canada, indoor and likely in winter.

You want to attend three hours long lunch function on an opened terrace in Bahrain in summer in those black, wool uniforms? BE MY GUEST, but I ain't going under any circumstances unless I am wearing white cotton or breathable material!

Also consider that we would then look (in black DEU's) totally goofy standing besides every single other nation's sailors wearing their high-end whites.

I am going to go one better: We can probably use a naval khaki for summer undress.

I know the army has hives every time you propose a new uniform. In the Navy we believe in dressing properly for all occasions. It means options.

I understand where the Army comes from: You have to carry your stuff on your backs. We don't - we have lockers (albeit small - but still). 

Anyway - we are never going to resolve these issues here. The only thing to be said is that the choices and numbers of different dress of a given element should be left to that element, not the whims of the other ones.

And, Remius: State dinner, official dinners, evening cocktail/reception with foreign member of government level or high military command level guests are 1A or 1C functions. In tropical climes, that's the high collar white, with medals. All the Navy is asking is making it an issued piece of gear, and change designation from 1D to 1B for the version with ribbons. You could keep the numbering (1C and 1D respectively), and as long as issued - would have no problems.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with those uniforms, DP.
> 
> But that's taken in Canada, indoor and likely in winter.
> 
> ...



Again, I don't know why they want the designation to 1B.  It seems like they want the public purse to pay for 1C&D which is already being worn by the Navy for all the functions you listed so why make it 1B when those functions do not require 1B.  So the rule is that you can wear it for those occasions, you just have to pay for it because we already pay for a suitable acceptable alternative.  Like the three hour lunch function you mentioned, 1B is inappropriate, 1 c or 1D depending is or you wear what you are issued.  I suspect army would be in dark green DEU jacket or high collared wool patrols.  Unfortunately we did away with TAN DEUs a while ago. I would have preferred keeping that instead.

No one has removed any of the current choices the Navy has.  They basically told them that your 1 C&D are not appropriate for 1B.  The same thing would have happened if you asked for 3B to be 1B or your mess kit to be the new 1B. 

I just get the feeling that it's more about the LCF than any real practical or justified reason to make it 1B.

I like your summer khaki for summer undress idea.     

Except for a few units with actual ceremonial mission tasks, every unit has to pay for their 1C/D, mess kit and regimental full dress using non public funds or at member's expense.  if the Navy has good reason to have Navy White HC paid for at public expense then I have no issues but so far I haven't seen it provided.  If it's because it is too hot in summer then that is a CAF issue as I'm sure the air force and army have the same issues.  Maybe use a thinner more lightweight material?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...



Pretty certain they used their own money to buy those uniforms, for people who are no longer CA/RCAF/RCN but had to wear that DEU anyway. If the RCN wants to make whites an issued item, pony up the cash and make it happen. I'm also fairly certain that the RCN isn't hemorrhaging people (as indicated on multiple occasions on this forum) because your MS/PO2 have to buy high collar whites.  :facepalm:


----------



## Loachman (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise.



The difference between Full Ceremonial Flying Suit and its "exercise" equivalent is merely the elapsed time from laundry to wear - at most.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where did you find that? My DWAN bookmark for those minutes hasn't been updated since 2016's meetings.



I think there is a link to what you're looking for on the RCAF CWO DWAN page....NDCDC?  (or whatever the abbrev works out to...)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2018)

Pre-flight said:
			
		

> Optional becomes "recommended" which eventually becomes "go talk to the RSM/Adjt and tell them why you think you shouldn't buy one" and eventually becomes accepted as mandatory.



I think you're still talking about mess kits...if so; Pg 2-1-8 of CFP 265, Para 55

WEAR OF MESS DRESS

55.Acquisition

a. All Regular Force officers are required to be in possession of mess dress No. 2, *which shall be procured at individual expense. Newly-commissioned officers are required to obtain this order of dress not later than six months after commissioning.

b. Mess dress No. 2 is optional for Regular Force non-commissioned members and all members of the Reserve Force. Acquisition is the responsibility of the individual.

*not saying I agree with the policy personally; just pointing out what it is IAW 265.  I've wondered a few times what would happen if someone didn't who fell under 55(a) and their CofC tried to charge them under the CSD.

Leads me to a question;  do Band personnel pay for their 'mess kit-like' uniforms?   Ref:  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/news-template-standard.page?doc=rcaf-band-twin-talents/j56y6b79


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise.





Like this?   For the record, that's a Swordfish patch.     My guess is the pic is from RIAT 2017.

Honestly, the only CAF folks I've seen in fancy stuff at airshows are the Snowbirds and Skyhawks.  Even bigger ones like the RIAT, I don't think the crews stand the statics in DEU.  Dress of the day AFAIK (I've never done RIAT).  Not a lot of room on the plane for 20 sets of DEUs actually.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think there is a link to what you're looking for on the RCAF CWO DWAN page....NDCDC?  (or whatever the abbrev works out to...)



I'll take a look tomorrow. I had the link for the committee bookmarked but they haven't been updating it, it was hidden on the DHH DWAN website. It wouldn't surprised me that they moved the archive and just made it impossible for the crappy DWAN search to find it.


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think you're still talking about mess kits...if so; Pg 2-1-8 of CFP 265, Para 55
> 
> WEAR OF MESS DRESS
> 
> ...



Concert dress is considered occupational dress.  So no?  At least not in the regular force I believe.  It is on par with what chaplains and MPs wear.  As per ch. 7 of the dress regs.  So my inclination is to say no.  It isn’t actually mess kit despite the resemblance.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Apr 2018)

In the pics, the dress looks like cross between the 'new' RCAF mess kit look/color and the cut of the older one.  The ranks don't have the 'braided' look to them either, they look more like the DEU rank.

I have the new one;  thank god I didn't need the gold stripes and such.  $$$


----------



## Remius (16 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In the pics, the dress looks like cross between the 'new' RCAF mess kit look/color and the cut of the older one.  The ranks don't have the 'braided' look to them either, they look more like the DEU rank.
> 
> I have the new one;  thank god I didn't need the gold stripes and such.  $$$



Yeah, and i believe that miniatures are not worn on concert dress.  Just medals. The army concert dress is red with a similar cut.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Apr 2018)

[quote author=Oldgateboatdriver]

The  RCMP studies how the public interacts with them and how their appearance affects the public's perception. That's fine but there is a relation with the public that is different from the military ones and I for one don't believe that they intersect.

You see, the RCMP is the police: They are, for the public, the representation in their life of the power of the state over them as enforcers of the law. Military personnel, on the other hand is the representation of the power of the state in their favour, against external enemies - protecting the public from external harm. 
[/quote]

when it comes to _the power of the state over them as enforcers of the law_  I think this very much applies to the military and our subordinate/superior relationship. I think the RCMP study makes sense in that context.


----------



## TQMS (17 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> This is a real position?



Right from the signature block.

*G1 Dress and Ceremonial, CA HQ
Canadian Armed Forces*


----------



## dimsum (17 Apr 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The difference between Full Ceremonial Flying Suit and its "exercise" equivalent is merely the elapsed time from laundry to wear - at most.



And whether the patches are actually yours or the ones you switched with foreign military crews, usually because they're cooler and in full colour.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Apr 2018)

White uniforms and HCW Tunics have a long standing Naval tradition in all Navies that can draw lineage from the RN.  The tunic should be publicly funded through Logisticorp or they just get ride of the whites all together. 

Also I find it very hard to believe that SOF Members paid out of pocket for DEUs.  And even if they did I would imagine they were reimbursed. 

Remember OGB and Pusser we are a Joint = JArmy run organisation.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> White uniforms and HCW Tunics have a long standing Naval tradition in all Navies that can draw lineage from the RN.  The tunic should be publicly funded through Logisticorp or they just get ride of the whites all together.
> 
> Also I find it very hard to believe that SOF Members paid out of pocket for DEUs.  And even if they did I would imagine they were reimbursed.
> 
> Remember OGB and Pusser we are a Joint = JArmy run organisation.



Why get rid of it?  I still haven’t seen why it should be 1B.  The RN doesn’t have whites as 1B. If we want to follow their tradition which is indeed what we base ours on, then only those above the rank of Commander wear the High Collared Whites with some exceptions as directed.   Should we fund it for those individuals? Maybe.  I don’t know the frequency they would need it for but I bet that a good chunk already have a set they bought themselves.  

Why is this an army vs Navy thing?  The only ones doing this seem to be you Navy Types.  The army is not being funded for patrols or equivalent dress to the HCW.  So why does the Navy feel they should be?  Also note that SOF didn’t get another uniform.  They have a new one that replaces the DEU they used to have.  I didn’t see the full minutes but how do you know the army shut this down?  Maybe they supported but there is a board of advisers like DHH etc that likely explained far better than I have why whites as 1B would be wrong and the reasons not to publicly fund a second uniform when one currently exists. 

If the Navy wants a new uniform, cool.  But do it right.  Not make some other order of dress into something it shouldn’t be nor was it designed to be.  

The Navy has an optional order of dress that most in the CAF don’t have.  Cool.  But it is situational and sporadic like patrol dress for some reserve units.  Neither should be funded publicly except for maybe a few people, like embassy attaches, command pers. Etc. 

If the navy feels they need new DEUs and a ceremonial uniform then make the appropriate proposal


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Apr 2018)

The RN does have their whites for summer dress occasions equal to our DEU.  

We don't go as far as we're missing a tunic to go with our white trousers and shoes.  That's all that is missing so it's not as expensive as it could be.

I'm personally ambivalent on the matter and are not bothered one way or the other.


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Why get rid of it?  I still haven’t seen why it should be 1B.  The RN doesn’t have whites as 1B. If we want to follow their tradition which is indeed what we base ours on, then only those above the rank of Commander wear the High Collared Whites with some exceptions as directed.   Should we fund it for those individuals? Maybe.  I don’t know the frequency they would need it for but I bet that a good chunk already have a set they bought themselves.
> 
> Why is this an army vs Navy thing?  The only ones doing this seem to be you Navy Types.  The army is not being funded for patrols or equivalent dress to the HCW.  So why does the Navy feel they should be?  Also note that SOF didn’t get another uniform.  They have a new one that replaces the DEU they used to have.  I didn’t see the full minutes but how do you know the army shut this down?  Maybe they supported but there is a board of advisers like DHH etc that likely explained far better than I have why whites as 1B would be wrong and the reasons not to publicly fund a second uniform when one currently exists.
> 
> ...



The idea of making HCW 1B is strictly so it can be publicly funded.  The trouble is with our numbering system, however.  It simply does not account for two different, yet equivalent orders of dress.  Notwithstanding the cut of the collar, HCW is not equivalent to patrol dress for the Army.  Patrol dress has a specific ceremonial function different from that of the regular green service dress.  HCW, however, is simply a summer version of the Navy's blue service dress.  In other words, it should be numbered 1 and 1A, but that would be confusing in the current chart because those numbers are already taken.  Incidentally, RCN 1.0 addressed this issue by numbering winter/temperate uniforms 1-5 and summer/tropical uniforms 11-15, thus regular dress with medals and accoutrements was No 1 and HCW with medals and accoutrements was No 11.

At one point, everybody was issued two sets of service dress.  The Army had the green and the tan ones and the Air Force had two weights of the same colour uniform.  The Navy was initially supposed to have one white and one blue, but some idiots in NDHQ decided that we needed two blue jackets instead, thus we lost public funding for a white tunic.  Over time, the Air Force decided that there was no point in issuing both winter and summer weight versions of their uniform, largely because no one ever wore the winter weight one, and the Army decided it had too many uniforms, so they dropped the tan one.  Unfortunately, the Navy, despite actually having a need for a summer uniform, is now caught up in a culture that says only one dress uniform is required.  Thus we will continue to parade in a winter weight wool uniform that sucks up the sunlight when standing beside our allies who are all dressed in a sensible lightweight uniform that reflects it.

I am not against the unified force concept.  It has many benefits.  But this idea that just because we are unified means we also have to be "equal" in all things, gets really annoying sometimes.  It often seems that naval custom and culture is forced to take a back seat to whatever the green machine wants.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It often seems that naval custom and culture is forced to take a back seat to whatever the green machine wants.


Wow, maybe change your screen name to Adm. Rosa Parks.  

Just as Herbert Marcuse once said "not every problem you're having with your girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production," perhaps.... just maybe .... not _every_  RCN problem is due to a green-suited boogeyman actively plotting 'how can I f*ck over those sailors.' ,

       :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2018)

I'll make a last post commenting on some points raised in Remius' last post above, then leave it at that no matter what, as I think I have beaten this horse to death.

First of all, Remius, the RN doesn't have 1B's because the RN doesn't have ANY letter system on their uniform system where levels are concerned: the letters only indicate if with arms/medals.

The uniforms of the RN are first "coloured" then, numbered - and that's it. So they have Blues number one's to Blues number fours, and Whites number one's to Whites number three's. Then, as an extra specifier, they indicate "with" or "without" medals, arms, etc with letters. And ALL these orders of dress are made available at the Crown's expense in some form to ALL Ratings, Pettys, Chiefs, Warrants and Officers.

So, in RN parlance equivalents would be:

RCN 1   --> RN Blues number One's A
RCN 1A --> RN Blues number One's B
RCN 1C --> RN Whites number One's WB
RCN 1D --> RN Whites number One's WC

Now, to  address the constant return to trying to make the current RCN's 1C and 1D equivalent to Army "patrols". The comparison is incorrect. The idea behind the "patrols" is to give various regiment/organizations the capability to have their own, historical, regimental ceremonial dress to be worn instead of the DEU's number One's. They are an alternate order of ceremonial dress.

The RCN's 1C and 1D are not "alternate" or worn "instead" of number 1 or 1A: They are the tropical/summer version of the 1 and 1A. Like the old winter / summer dress, they are worn AS number one's during the designated summer period or in designated tropical waters.

Here is the second description from the RN on when to wear the Whites number one's, for instance: They are worn : "*when required to conform with accepted international standards of dress on state or major ceremonial occasions*". Note the "diplomatic" aspect of wearing it.

P.S.: I note you mention that in the RN it is the officers above Commanders who wear the high collar white jacket. That's fine with me, I'd much rather that Commanders and below, down to the most junior ratings, be provided with the RN's bush jacket White's number One's.  :nod:


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow, maybe change your screen name to Adm. Rosa Parks.
> 
> Just as Herbert Marcuse once said "not every problem you're having with your girlfriend is necessarily due to the capitalist mode of production," perhaps.... just maybe .... not _every_  RCN problem is due to a green-suited boogeyman actively plotting 'how can I **** over those sailors.' ,
> 
> :



So prove that I'm wrong on this.  I can give you an example.  It's taken us years to get folks to concede that naval officer sword belts are properly worn underneath the jacket.  So, we've seen more than one case recently of naval officers (admittedly, usually junior and still afraid of senior NCOs) wearing a naval sword belt underneath the jacket AND a white belt over top!   WTF?  Upon investigation, this was usually at the insistence of an Army NCO, so that the naval officer would look like everyone else (notwithstanding the different colour of uniform).  What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser and OGBD

I'm not sure where you guys are getting any of that info. 

The dress regs disagree with both of you.  if the navy has its own internal language that's fine but it doesn't seem legal or approved.

Take a look in Chapter 6.   http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/dhh_dress_instr_adh265000_ag001-19Sep16-eng.pdf

There is also a complete run down about who pays for what in there. 

Undress is not the same as full dress.

 15. Authorized Wear
a. Undress is authorized for wear only by:
A-DH-265-000/AG-001
6-3
(1) RMCC officer cadets as an undress uniform in accordance with college dress instructions;
(2) Navy members as a summer white uniform (optional Orders 1C and 1D – high-collared whites); and
(3) members of the Army Reserve as optional Orders 1C and 1D, e.g., patrol dress.
b. Undress may also be worn without orders, decorations and medals (undress ribbons may be worn in lieu)
on less formal occasions when the wearing of orders, decorations and medals would be considered
inappropriate.
c. Accoutrements may also be worn with No. 1D order of dress.

So they are, according to the rules, the same order of dress.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser: 





> What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.



Not quite. There has been several instances where Rifle Regt pers where ordered to remove black web belts, (rifle slings at one time), frogs, and gloves and wear white on National parades in a Guard of Honour.


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Not quite. There has been several instances where Rifle Regt pers where ordered to remove black web belts, (rifle slings at one time), frogs, and gloves and wear white on National parades in a Guard of Honour.



I would say that is wrong as well.  They should wear the equivalent items of dress, not necessarily the same ones.  If highlanders wear their kilts, then riflemen should wear their black accoutrements.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> So prove that I'm wrong on this.  I can give you an example.  It's taken us years to get folks to concede that naval officer sword belts are properly worn underneath the jacket.  So, we've seen more than one case recently of naval officers (admittedly, usually junior and still afraid of senior NCOs) wearing a naval sword belt underneath the jacket AND a white belt over top!   WTF?  Upon investigation, this was usually at the insistence of an Army NCO, so that the naval officer would look like everyone else (notwithstanding the different colour of uniform).  What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.



I can give you plenty of examples.

I was at a ceremony (outcan) that had a mixed bag of elements.  I insisted that the ranking Naval Officer on parade not wear a white belt and not wear an infantry sword. He really didn't have a clue about the belt and luckily he had a naval sword.  I'm army and I made it my business to respect what was another elements order of dress.  

In France for a Vimy ceremony a grenadier guard was ordered to remove his Forage cap and put on a beret by an army type. It took a phone call back to Canada to get that remedied.  So yes, the army has done it to itself many times.  Infantry Sash over the belt or under the belt? That argument comes up a lot. 

Just to note.  the Army et al is not against you or the Navy.  You might have just met a few individuals that are ill informed.  that does not mean there is a concerted effort to undermine the Navy. 

On another note, how many times have the Navy pulled the "We do Navy Drill" when on parade on land?  Just sayin'...


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Pusser and OGBD
> 
> I'm not sure where you guys are getting any of that info.
> 
> ...



We're not disputing what the regulations currently say.  We just don't agree that they properly address naval custom and culture.  Just because they are currently classed as "undress," does not mean that this is historically correct.  As an aside, the RMCC undress orders are issued at public expense, so why not the Navy's?

I wonder what would happen if a RCEME officer was posted on exchange to a REME regiment and was expected to wear patrol dress. It's in our dress regulations as optional, but he could be in a situation where it would it be mandatory.  Could he be reimbursed for the expense?


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I can give you plenty of examples.
> 
> I was at a ceremony (outcan) that had a mixed bag of elements.  I insisted that the ranking Naval Officer on parade not wear a white belt and not wear an infantry sword. He really didn't have a clue about the belt and luckily he had a naval sword.  I'm army and I made it my business to respect what was another elements order of dress.
> 
> ...



Fair points, but in each of your examples, things were corrected before they were seen in public.  I don't honestly think the Army is against me or the Navy, but the Green Machine (by which I mean the "joint" CAF culture - not necessarily the Army alone) can be pretty obtuse on things like this.  The Army is not unique in doing it to themselves.  There are a number of senior naval folks who are full members of the Green Machine.  As for the "navy drill" issue, I agree with you (apparently) that it should not be done on land.  It has a practical purpose, but it's not especially sharp and, frankly, I think demanding the "right" to do it anywhere other than a ship, is simply lazy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Pusser and OGBD
> 
> I'm not sure where you guys are getting any of that info.
> 
> ...



Sorry Remius, I'll break my own vow of no more posting for just a moment.

You are correct as far as the current regs go. But it is the requested change to those regs which is being discussed here.

And here is where regs and practice collide. Regardless of regs, in practice, the RCN treats the HCW not as "undress" but as full dress. it is used and ordered to be worn as summer full dress and as full dress while in the tropics. It is NEVER ordered to be worn in winter - which patrols can be. 

And that is why the Navy want the regs to reflect the way it wishes to use and actually does use the 1C and 1D, as a result of which the Navy wants it issued at the Crown's expense. That's all.

Another example of such collision that has survived the Unification: Drill manual. The drill manual states that parades are carried out band leading. In Naval tradition, the band is closing the March. Regardless of the regs, you will not find a naval base or a naval parade anywhere where we actually let the band lead. I was in Esquimalt when the Parade Chief (a PPCLI CWO) "collided' with the Band Petty Officer over that on in 1978. It went up to the Base Commander - and the navy won - sorry!  ;D


----------



## captloadie (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy.  Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole . . . .



All the discussion going on brought me back to this comment. If you look at the minutes, there are only 5 voting members on the committee, one of which is the RCN Chief. So it wasn't everyone else in the room ganging up on the RCNI would expect that this committee, like any other joint organization, is just as political as any other. A valuable lesson I have learned is you never put a proposal forward where you really want a specific outcome, unless you have previously socialized it and are fairly certain you have the votes. Has anyone considered that maybe the Naval representative put this forward for a vote, knowing it would be defeated? He can now go back and say we tried, we lost, on to the next good fairy idea?


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> We're not disputing what the regulations currently say.  We just don't agree that they properly address naval custom and culture.  Just because they are currently classed as "undress," does not mean that this is historically correct.  As an aside, the RMCC undress orders are issued at public expense, so why not the Navy's?
> 
> I wonder what would happen if a RCEME officer was posted on exchange to a REME regiment and was expected to wear patrol dress. It's in our dress regulations as optional, but he could be in a situation where it would it be mandatory.  Could he be reimbursed for the expense?



Except that you both did:

OGBD: "  Now, to  address the constant return to trying to make the current RCN's 1C and 1D equivalent to Army "patrols". The comparison is incorrect. The idea behind the "patrols" is to give various regiment/organizations the capability to have their own, historical, regimental ceremonial dress to be worn instead of the DEU's number One's. They are an alternate order of ceremonial dress."

Pusser: "Notwithstanding the cut of the collar, HCW is not equivalent to patrol dress for the Army.  Patrol dress has a specific ceremonial function different from that of the regular green service dress.  HCW, however, is simply a summer version of the Navy's blue service dress."

If HCW are not historically accurate as 1 C or D then I would be curious to see that.  As you can see I take an interest in that stuff.  Do you happen to have something to back it up?  I'll look it up if I can find some time. 

If making it into 1B (which is not DEU equivalent btw) which is the request that was denied then why should it be publicly funded?  1 B is not generally funded for anyone.

I can't speak to RMC and why it is funded.  Ceremonial Guard and some units are due to ceremonial mission tasks.  Not sure about RMC if it is the same though.

To your last question; I know a few units that force their officers to get patrol dress or mess kit.  I do not think they get reimbursed.  I'm not sure that they can legally enforce that either but I'm not sure about that either.


----------



## captloadie (17 Apr 2018)

The main reason RMC's are funded is likely that they are issued and then returned. They are not owned by the member. In fact, most get turned in at the end of the school year to be tailored for the upcoming year.


----------



## Remius (17 Apr 2018)

captloadie said:
			
		

> The main reason RMC's are funded is likely that they are issued and then returned. They are not owned by the member. In fact, most get turned in at the end of the school year to be tailored for the upcoming year.



That does not sound like an accurate reason as to why it is funded.  I could be wrong though but its sounds a little off.


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2018)

Wasn't it SCONDVA that concluded that service members found the plethora of uniforms to be a hardship of sort?  I thought that is what put all the summer dress DEUs to death.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> So prove that I'm wrong on this.  I can give you an example.  It's taken us years to get folks to concede that naval officer sword belts are properly worn underneath the jacket.  So, we've seen more than one case recently of naval officers (admittedly, usually junior and still afraid of senior NCOs and Warrant Officers) wearing a naval sword belt underneath the jacket AND a white belt over top!   WTF?  Upon investigation, this was usually at the insistence of an Army NCO or Warrant Officer, so that the naval officer would look like everyone else (notwithstanding the different colour of uniform).  What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.



I'll go on a limb;  I'm betting you consider everyone from Sgt to CWO a 'NCO'.  WO, MWO and CWOs are not NCOs.   :nod:  That's what its a WOs and Sgts Mess, not a Snr NCO mess.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 "Defintions"

"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding *the rank of sergeant or corporal*

Can't be a Snr NCO if you're not an NCO in the first place.   

* WOs (who know the difference...some don't) like being thought of as NCOs as much as Majors and LCols like being called Jnr Officers.   8)


----------



## Journeyman (17 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I don't honestly think the Army is against me or the Navy, but the Green Machine (by which I mean the "joint" CAF culture....
> 
> There are a number of senior naval folks who are full members of the Green Machine.


While it's good to know you're blissfully unaware that the Army _is_  actively behind all of this (although you previously acknowledged an "Army NCO" as one of the linchpins; we'll have to work on that breach), how did your growing paranoia miss the DND Public Servants?  Are you simply not aware of their vendetta against you personally?!   

    op:


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll go on a limb;  I'm betting you consider everyone from Sgt to CWO a 'NCO'.  WO, MWO and CWOs are not NCOs.   :nod:  That's what its a WOs and Sgts Mess, not a Snr NCO mess.
> 
> QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 "Defintions"
> 
> ...



I'm fully aware of the difference between NCOs and warrant officers.  A "senior NCO" is simply a sergeant or a PO2 and I was aware of that when I wrote it.  I simply chose to use "senior NCO" instead of "sergeant" (or "PO2" for that matter, because PO2s have been known to make such mistakes).  Since I was citing an example as opposed to a summary of all possibilities, I did not feel it necessary to go into that particular detail.  As an aside, I've also been known to correct people who think that "NCM" replaced "NCO" or that "lieutenant navy" is a rank (it is not).

On another note, in RCN 1.0, C&POs actually were NCOs...


----------



## Infanteer (17 Apr 2018)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

This thread is awesome on so many levels....


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> This thread is awesome on so many levels....



... or 'decks'


----------



## Currie14 (17 Apr 2018)

Soooooo the question then remains is this actually happening or it just a bunch of this could happen or this might happen


----------



## Pusser (17 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Except that you both did:
> 
> OGBD: "  Now, to  address the constant return to trying to make the current RCN's 1C and 1D equivalent to Army "patrols". The comparison is incorrect. The idea behind the "patrols" is to give various regiment/organizations the capability to have their own, historical, regimental ceremonial dress to be worn instead of the DEU's number One's. They are an alternate order of ceremonial dress."
> 
> ...



The appropriate reference is The RCN Dress Manual (BRCN 108), Art. 2.01 (Dresses and Occasions).  This lists orders of Dress as follows:

Blue Dress:

Day       1  Blue Ceremonial Dress (Jacket and tie with medals)
             2  Not Allocated
             3  Blue Service Dress (jacket and tie with ribbons)
             4  Not allocated
             5  Battle Dress

Evening  6  Not allocated
             7  Mess Dress
             8  Mess Undress
             9  Not allocated

White Dress

Day       11  White Ceremonial Dress (White tunic with medals)
             12  Not Allocated
             13  White Service Dress (White tunic with ribbons)
             14  Not allocated
             15  Not Allocated

Evening  16  Not allocated
             17  White Mess Dress
             18  White Mess Undress
             19  Tropical Mess Undress

Khaki Dress:

Day       21  Not Allocated
             22  Not Allocated
             23  Khaki Service Dress (khaki jacket and tie with ribbons)
             24  Khaki Service Dress (negative jacket)
             25  Khaki Tropical Dress (shorts and open neck shirt)

Included in this article is a table that in addition to describing all of these orders of dress (in greater detail than I've given here), it also shows on what occasions they are to be worn.  Each number within the groups correspond with the equivalent number in the other groups (i.e. No 11 is worn for the same sorts of occasions as No 1 - parades, funerals, etc).  The only differing factor is the climate.  For example, one would wear No1 for Remembrance Day in Canada, but No 13 for Remembrance Day ceremonies in the tropics.  Officers would wear No 3 on a daily basis in Canada in the winter, and No 23 in the summer.

In summary, in RCN 1.0 (and as I think it should be now), the white tunic was equivalent to the blue jacket and only the climate would determine which one was worn.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Apr 2018)

"Quote from: Once_a_TQ on Yesterday at 08:35:41
... G1 Dress and Ceremonial ...
This is a real position?"

I was thinking the same thing. Does the position come with all the accompanying staff?


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is awesome on so many levels....


You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means


----------



## TQMS (18 Apr 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> "Quote from: Once_a_TQ on Yesterday at 08:35:41
> ... G1 Dress and Ceremonial ...
> This is a real position?"
> 
> I was thinking the same thing. Does the position come with all the accompanying staff?



Right from the signature block.....


*
G1 Dress and Ceremonial, CA HQ
*


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> The appropriate reference is The RCN Dress Manual (BRCN 108), Art. 2.01 (Dresses and Occasions).  This lists orders of Dress as follows:
> 
> Blue Dress:
> 
> ...



Thanks for that.  So what that is seems to be taken from a summary someone made like a wiki.  I was unable to find the source document that likely has more details if the drill and ceremonial chapter (which I did find) is any indication.

It also seems that this dress reg was only in place from 1951-1960, 9 years.  And even at that, I'm not sure it was widely implemented.  Not sure what came after and not too sure a case could be made based on that to kit everyone out based on history.  Plus it seems that prior to 1951 only CPOs wore them for enlisted types.

You would likely have a better chance and making bell bottom or gaiters and the neck scarf the ceremonial dress since historically that would make more sense if you are looking for  1B dress.  But again, 1B is not normally paid for using public funds.  


on another note: If you scroll through the pics here you'll see the Stadacona band in full whites on parade.  Likely paid for by grant and not at members' expense.  

http://www.fpimages.com/canada-day-royal-nova-scotia-international-tattoo-parade/2827/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.  So what that is seems to be taken from a summary someone made like a wiki.  I was unable to find the source document that likely has more details if the drill and ceremonial chapter (which I did find) is any indication.
> 
> It also seems that this dress reg was only in place from 1951-1960, 9 years.  And even at that, I'm not sure it was widely implemented.  Not sure what came after and not too sure a case could be made based on that to kit everyone out based on history.  Plus it seems that prior to 1951 only CPOs wore them for enlisted types.
> 
> ...



Good morning Remius.

Just a few historical points to complete the picture:

Before 1951, the "dress manual" of the RCN was simply the RN dress manual. We didn't have our own, nor our own system of uniforms. 

The change was made in 1951 and an actual RCN pub adopted because of the introduction to the RCN of the "parallel" rank structure of the Army. You may (or may not  ) recall that prior to 1951, the ratings system in the RCN followed the RN, and therefore, we had only five rates: OD, AB, LS, PO and CPO. All but the CPO wore the square rig, which is why they were the only one getting the white jacket. The other ratings, however still had a ceremonial Blues square rig - with jumper - and a tropical white square rig also with white jumper.

After 1951 - and until unification (don't know where you get that the BRCN 108 ceased to be in effect in 1960 - It may not have been "updated" because the Navy knew unification was coming - but it remained in full force as the dress manual until the new CF Dress Manual for the green machine came in force and everyone's uniform was replaced with CF ones) the actual first - and only ever - independent RCN dress manual came into force.

The rank structure of the RCN, as I mentioned, was modified in 1951 to mimic that of the Army - which led to the introduction of three new "rates": the appointment to Master Seaman was added and the PO and CPO rates were "doubled" to have a first and second class each - thus bringing the whole "warrants" spread into the Navy. At that point, the PO2 retained the square rig, while the PO1 and above (equivalent to the Army warrants) switched to the Fore-and-aft dress. At that point, all PO1 and above got the white jacket, while the PO2 and below continued to have a white square rig.

One of the nice innovations by the RCN with its 1951 Dress Manual (and which made many, many RN types very jealous of Canadians) was the introduction of the Khaki Service and tropical dress, for ordinary day wear in those summer, warm but not necessarily tropical situations. It was an idea imported from the US and was a great morale booster. At the same time, and of the same reason, the denim dungarees were introduced as the shipboard working dress for the ratings wearing the square rigs.

End of the supplementary history lesson.  :nod:

P.S.: Since some in these pages take umbrage whenever we poor seamen confuse the extent of Junior NCO's, NCO's and Warrants designation (not that you guys ever mix the Navy ranks - no), then be aware that, in the Navy, we didn't have "enlisted" men - we had "Ratings". 

Second P.S.: Yes, the Naval bands (not just the Stadaconna one) all have the full dress HCW issued at taxpayer's expense under the Band grants. Nice, but I don't think it is relevant to any RCN wide use's discussion.


----------



## Pusser (18 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> It also seems that this dress reg was only in place from 1951-1960, 9 years.  And even at that, I'm not sure it was widely implemented.  Not sure what came after and not too sure a case could be made based on that to kit everyone out based on history.  Plus it seems that prior to 1951 only CPOs wore them for enlisted types.



I really think you misunderstand my argument.  You seem to think that we want a "ceremonial" uniform in the same context as an Army regiment's scarlet uniform.  Not so.  For one thing, the Navy's equivalent to that was a frock coat and bicorne hat, which was discontinued at the beginning of WWII and never reintroduced.  Even in the RN, it is restricted to Royalty and Flag Officers today (although the bicorne seems to have disappeared forever).  The use of the word "ceremonial" in the BRCN I quoted is in reference to uniforms that would be equivalent to today's 1 and 1A.  I'm not sure why the proposers chose to try and make HCW 1B, but the man thrust of the proposal was to get the HCW provided at public expense and you have to call it something.  Perhaps "Summer 1 and 1A" would be better?  

The real point here is that there is a need for a summer weight uniform equivalent to 1 and 1A and by naval custom (both in the RCN and virtually every other navy in the world) it should be white.

OGBD  nicely sums up the evolution of uniforms in RCN 1.0.  I would, however, point out that the MCpl/MS appointment came much later (i.e. with actual unification).  It was not part of the initial rationalization of ranks across the RCN, Army and RCAF that saw the creation of two classes each of PO and CPO.  It was a surprise to everyone!


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2018)

Well this is my point.  What you are asking isn't what was proposed to the dress committee. They asked for it to be 1B and funded.  

So now you can see why it was turned down.  The request wasn't for what you just stated above. No army conspiracy, no prejudice against the Navy.  Likely a bad presentation that wasn't communicated properly or properly justified. 

Maybe they should look at how SOF made their request or how some unit will be reverting or converting to various coloured berets.


----------



## McG (18 Apr 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Maybe they should look at how ... some unit will be reverting or converting to various coloured berets.


You mean by misrepresenting facts in such a way that the blue Army general service beret that was used for about 9 years (50's to 60's) was present to have been a distinctive branch headdress with a long history?  I think that might be exactly the example the RCN looked at.  Maybe we can all stop living in the past.


----------



## Remius (18 Apr 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean by misrepresenting facts in such a way that the blue Army general service beret that was used for about 9 years (50's to 60's) was present to have been a distinctive branch headdress with a long history?  I think that might be exactly the example the RCN looked at.  Maybe we can all stop living in the past.



Maybe yes.  I'm not aware of what justification they used.  I don't know.  

The fact still remains that what the Navy asked for is not what Pusser or OBGD are proposing.  It wasn't supported for whatever reason.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP (18 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think you're still talking about mess kits...if so; Pg 2-1-8 of CFP 265, Para 55
> 
> WEAR OF MESS DRESS
> 
> ...



Agreed. When I commissioned over I bought my mess dress. As an NCO it started becoming less and less "optional" as my career progressed, which I resisted since I had a element change in mind at the time.


----------



## dimsum (18 Apr 2018)

> a. All Regular Force officers are required to be in possession of mess dress No. 2, *which shall be procured at individual expense. Newly-commissioned officers are required to obtain this order of dress not later than six months after commissioning.



I've never understood the reasoning behind that rule.  Six months after commissioning, there's a good chance that most people aren't finished their selection trade course yet and if they don't pass, they could potentially be transferred to another element.  Why drop $ on Mess Kit if you're not sure you'll even be qualified in your trade?  

I can understand if it was after MOS qualification, etc.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (18 Apr 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've never understood the reasoning behind that rule.  Six months after commissioning, there's a good chance that most people aren't finished their selection trade course yet and if they don't pass, they could potentially be transferred to another element.  Why drop $ on Mess Kit if you're not sure you'll even be qualified in your trade?
> 
> I can understand if it was after MOS qualification, etc.



Like a lot of things the focus of this directive does not take into account all possible routes to commissioning.  However, for the stereotypical subaltern (ROTP and OCTP) of years past, it probably fit in well with their initial employment.  Most ROTP'ers had completed a lot of their occupational training between academic years and the time frame from graduation (when they were commissioned) to MOC qualification was usually less than 6 months.  In the days of yore, OCTP'ers (like me) did not get commissioned until we had completed Phase 4.  For the army types the requirement to get mess dress (and sword for those MOCs that required same) was usually after arriving at your first posting following phase training.


----------



## Ostrozac (18 Apr 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've never understood the reasoning behind that rule.  Six months after commissioning, there's a good chance that most people aren't finished their selection trade course yet and if they don't pass, they could potentially be transferred to another element.  Why drop $ on Mess Kit if you're not sure you'll even be qualified in your trade?
> 
> I can understand if it was after MOS qualification, etc.



It's a rule that certainly doesn't make much sense for Reg Force DEO officers, who indeed may be a long way from occupational qualification six months after commissioning, and what Mess Dress is a BMOQ qualified Infantry or Armour DEO 2Lt required to purchase? He doesn't even know his Regiment yet.

Arguably, the rule is there so that DEO Junior Officers can disobey it and get used to the fact that some rules simply don't apply to them and can safely be ignored. This is to catch them up to ROTP Junior Officers, who, based on recent publicity, already have years of experience in this.

Of course, there is a strong argument that rules like the 6-month rule for Mess Dress that are routinely ignored when they don't make sense cheapen the impact of all orders. Why put something into writing that isn't and can't be enforced? As for myself, I personally routinely violated CFAO 26-4 when I was on course in the UK -- it is mandatory that dog tags be worn 24/7 by Reg Force personnel when they are outside North America, and I didn't do that. Was I correct? Or was I on a slippery slope to anarchy?

Personally, I think our entire set of orders and directives could do with a healthy scrubbing -- we've been tinkering too long, maybe it's time for a full rewrite.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Apr 2018)

I question the whole concept of being able to order someone to buy something, required for the service, with their own funds personally.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I question the whole concept of being able to order someone to buy something, required for the service, with their own funds personally.



That's the military factor in your pay. Much like being ordered to attend and pay for a mess dinner. I'm sure officers get enough money, they can cover the mess kit cost. I did it as a MCpl with 2 kids and a car payment, its not that expensive.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Apr 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's the military factor in your pay. Much like being ordered to attend and pay for a mess dinner. I'm sure officers get enough money, they can cover the mess kit cost. I did it as a MCpl with 2 kids and a car payment, its not that expensive.



I don't think so.  Military factor is to account for the hardship related to a military life, not having to buy a mess kit or mess diner.


----------



## 63 Delta (18 Apr 2018)

The Military Factor is defined as:

It is important to note that the TC analyses, as applied to the CAF, also provide latitude to determine the dollar value of the unique aspects of CAF service. The most obvious example is the Military Factor, which values the major characteristics of military service. Although the unique aspects of military service such as Code of Service Discipline, separation from family and posting turbulence are not easily quantified, the Military Factor was originally valued at 4% of salary for all non-commissioned members and general service officers. As of April 1, 2016, the Military Factor stands at 8.7% for non-commissioned members and for general service officers. These recent increases were in recognition of a higher operational tempo and resulting increases in the incidence of separation, and a new component (Personal Limitations and Liabilities), which further recognizes the implications inherent in the military system of unlimited liability. Another less obvious example is the fact that CAF members are not eligible for overtime. To adjust for this in the TC analyses, values of 6% of salary for non-commissioned members and 4% of salary for general service officers are used.

Comparability, therefore, is not a case of making one rate of pay equal to another. Instead, a comparability shortfall is the amount of increase to CAF pay that is needed to equalize the bottom line (dollars per hour worked) between the CAF and the PS values, but only after considering all salary and applicable benefits including unique CAF conditions of service.

Link is here:http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-pay/pay-overview.page


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I question the whole concept of being able to order someone to buy something, required for the service, with their own funds personally.



I agree.  

I don’t see how someone can be ordered to buy required kit.  Perhaps back when we were getting $17 a month in clothing upkeep, but not now. 

I keep hearing about young kids in their poor financial decisions, but yet we are ordering these same young kids (officers) to purchase mess kit.  How often does the Navy hold a mess dinner?  My 12 years in the fleet, I attended 1 (PLQ).  Now that I’m in the RCAF I attend at least 1 a year.  Mess kit can be expensive and ordering someone to pay for it is wrong, especially since we rarely wear it.

It’s the equivalent of ordering someone to pay for ammo.  

I’d love to see this order changed and soon, like within the next 8 months.

As for being ordered to pay and attend, yes it’s a parade, however I have heard of folks attending and NOT eating to avoid the cost.


----------



## mariomike (19 Apr 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> As for being ordered to pay and attend, yes it’s a parade, however I have heard of folks attending and NOT eating to avoid the cost.



For reference to the discussion,

The "Paying For a Mess Dinner" Merged Thread
https://army.ca/forums/threads/41585.0
11 pages.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2018)

I knew a guy who refused to buy a mess kit.  He was a Lt in 3 RCR, I think he was ordered multiple times to buy one and wouldn't do it.  

He was a former stock broker who joined the military when he was older, drove a nicer car than the CO and had more money than anyone I've ever met in the CAF.  He certainly knew how to poke buttons and while he pissed off all the Field Officers, his shenanigans kept all the Subalterns secretly entertained.

He ended up getting out and going to do his MA at Harvard once he realized the CAF wasn't doing it for his excitement level.  He was a fun guy to drink with and never took himself too seriously.  

Smart guy but the CAF was def not for him or his personality.  Some of you may even know him  ;D


----------



## Lumber (19 Apr 2018)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Arguably, the rule is there so that DEO Junior Officers can disobey it and get used to the fact that some rules simply don't apply to them and can safely be ignored. This is to catch them up to ROTP Junior Officers, who, based on recent publicity, already have years of experience in this.



 :rofl:


----------



## Journeyman (19 Apr 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ...Lt in 3 RCR.... Smart guy...  Some of you may even know him  ;D


Smart, Lt, RCR?  Nope.    op:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Smart, Lt, RCR?  Nope.    op:



 :rofl:

Well in a couple of weeks I won't be wearing the 8 pointed star anymore so I won't even try a retort!


----------



## brihard (19 Apr 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Smart, Lt, RCR?  Nope.    op:



I know him. He's out. He's smart.


----------



## Pusser (19 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I question the whole concept of being able to order someone to buy something, required for the service, with their own funds personally.



Prior to unification, officers had to buy all of their uniforms, not just mess dress.  One story goes (I'm not sure of its veracity) that the only reason officers began to be issued uniforms was because either they weren't buying their green ones fast enough or that there was an assumption that they simply wouldn't.

The Australians issue all uniforms, including mess dress.  The Brits only recently just started issuing uniforms to officers and several of the officers I've talked to about it aren't that thrilled (they don't like the cut or quality).

Not that is makes a huge difference in our discussion, but years ago, a friend of mine was commissioned into the Royal Corps of Transport and bought the appropriate mess dress.  Shortly thereafter, the RCT was amalgamated with several other corps to become the Royal Logistic Corps, with a newly designed mess dress that he was again required to buy.  There was no grandfather clause, so every officer in the new corps was out about £1000 to replace a perfectly good set of clothes.  In Canada at least, we tend to grandfather things like this.  I knew one AdminO who continued to wear old RCAF pattern mess dress well into the 1990s.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Apr 2018)

Crap! I worked with [removed] at Meaford. This is a shocker. Unacceptable that he would do this.


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Apr 2018)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> Well in a couple of weeks I won't be wearing the 8 pointed star anymore so I won't even try a retort!



Star? I thought it was a Shuriken


----------



## dimsum (19 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In Canada at least, we tend to grandfather things like this.  I knew one AdminO who continued to wear old RCAF pattern mess dress well into the 1990s.



I was a little miffed when I was told that I could have kept on wearing my RCN Mess Kit when I OT'd, after having bought the RCAF Mess Kit not a month before.


----------



## max021 (21 Apr 2018)

Hey guys i read alot of reddit post and heard lots of rumour at work about change in grooming policy (hair and beard mostly).

I did some research last week and I found the,integral minutes from the dress and ceremonial committee , the SM of the army has been task to establish new grooming policy including  beard for male the goal is to make the wear of the beard more accessible to military member.those minute were from november 2017 with the committee meeting twice a year and their second meeting seem to be around may and June, if looking back at past year we should see  update in the dress manual relatively soon


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Apr 2018)

Do you have a link to the minutes?


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Apr 2018)

Its about 50 posts back, immediately before the Army hating, RCN uniform tangent. Posted as a pdf.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Apr 2018)

Thanks


----------



## ballz (22 Apr 2018)

Based on how it was written in the minutes, and judging by the positions involved on that committee... I remain extremely skeptical that beards are going to be allowed for your average straight white Christian male. Hopefully that's just my experience in the army that's taught me not to get excited about anything / expect anything, and there is no actual reason to be skeptical...


----------



## dimsum (22 Apr 2018)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Would rock the goatee if that's allowed though; suits my ugly mug and will probably have the fringe benefit of really annoying the same people that don't like officers wearing berets.



What's the justification in their minds for Officers not to wear berets?  That makes no sense.


----------



## Navy_Pete (22 Apr 2018)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's the justification in their minds for Officers not to wear berets?  That makes no sense.



It's a weird navy thing, where some senior offices expect the officers to wear the peak caps. So wearing the beret with salt and peppers drives some people nuts.  Sort of like a navy headgear version of the parade boots vs oxfords. I have no idea where it comes from, but think it's kind of dumb, so wear the beret once in a while (like while traveling).  It's not too common, but some people hold really strong feelings about it for some reason.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Apr 2018)

So they think the beret is for us oar-pullers only...and like, it has a sweat band in it and why would an Officer (want or need to) sweat?

 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Apr 2018)

I see naval officers all the time who are wearing berets.


----------



## Pusser (23 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I see naval officers all the time who are wearing berets.



It is nevertheless, an abomination.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is nevertheless, an abomination.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...



The peak cap, is in my opinion a medieval torture device, no doubt designed by Tomás de Torquemada.  How someone could enjoy wearing a hat that was apparently designed to fit on a telephone pole, being circular and not shaped to the human head is beyond me.  Bloody thing gives me a fucking headache within a very short time.


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The peak cap, is in my opinion a medieval torture device, no doubt designed by Tomás de Torquemada.  How someone could enjoy wearing a hat that was apparently designed to fit on a telephone pole, being circular and not shaped to the human head is beyond me.  Bloody thing gives me a fucking headache within a very short time.



It is the Capt Stubing Effect - you either Love (Boat) it or don't!


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Apr 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> It is the Capt Stubing Effect - you either Love (Boat) it or don't!



Beret all the way.


----------



## FSTO (23 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The peak cap, is in my opinion a medieval torture device, no doubt designed by Tomás de Torquemada.  How someone could enjoy wearing a hat that was apparently designed to fit on a telephone pole, being circular and not shaped to the human head is beyond me.  Bloody thing gives me a ******* headache within a very short time.



Take the plastic tube out, it fits much better and it gives your hat a bit of a more salty flair.
I've done this since my first day wearing it in Chilliwack and never have had a problem.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Apr 2018)

I ended up buying a hat form that was able to conform the bastard to that of the human anatomy and not a SNL Cone Head character.  But thank you for the advise.


----------



## Navy_Pete (23 Apr 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Take the plastic tube out, it fits much better and it gives your hat a bit of a more salty flair.
> I've done this since my first day wearing it in Chilliwack and never have had a problem.



I got a replacement peak cap with a note in the box that said 'REMOVE THE PLASTIC SHIPPING RING BEFORE WEARING'.  Did that a decade ago and it's been great since, as it's actually pretty comfortable with that ring out.  I keep it for reinforcing it if I throw it in my suitcase, but if I do have to wear it, floppy is the way to go. Not sure why people insist you are supposed to keep it in; literally just there to keep the peak cap from getting crushed while shipping.

In any case, the peak cap/beret thing with officers is a strange upstairs/downstairs thing I can't quite get behind, but a bit off topic.  Other than sporting a beret/goatee/parade boot in NDHQ combo might result in some promotions from a 'sickly season' when people stroke out about something that doesn't really matter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2018)

Ta da! 

It is, pretty clearly, time to bring back the (1939) Field Service Cap ...

   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





We've been too focused on getting things back to 1965 ... we need to go a bit father in reverse ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I read, somewhere, that it was unpopular with the troops which seems to me to mean that it will fit right into our post-Afghanistan, American model army.

Of course we should then make sure that the RCAF is not allowed to wear its version of it ...
.
.
.
You're welcome ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Apr 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ta da!
> 
> It is, pretty clearly, time to bring back the (1939) Field Service Cap ...
> 
> ...



Back into the display case you go Mr. Campbell... ;D :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is nevertheless, an abomination.  Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...



I'm sure all the army officers who aren't 'superior' enough for the bus driver hat appreciate that thought.   8)


----------



## FSTO (23 Apr 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm sure all the army officers who aren't 'superior' enough for the bus driver hat appreciate that thought.   8)



Since the army uniform does not include shoulder boards then by all means carry on with the girl guide cap!  ;D


----------



## mariomike (23 Apr 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is, pretty clearly, time to bring back the (1939) Field Service Cap ...



aka
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_cap#Synonyms_and_slang_terms


----------



## Pusser (24 Apr 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The peak cap, is in my opinion a medieval torture device, no doubt designed by Tomás de Torquemada.  How someone could enjoy wearing a hat that was apparently designed to fit on a telephone pole, being circular and not shaped to the human head is beyond me.  Bloody thing gives me a ******* headache within a very short time.



There is no doubt that the current issue peak cap is poorly designed.  Whomever thought a plastic hat was a good idea should be stuffed in a plastic bag and left to stew.  However, a new one is on the way with a cloth cover and shaped for human heads.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is no doubt that the current issue peak cap is poorly designed.  Whomever thought a plastic hat was a good idea should be stuffed in a plastic bag and left to stew.  However, a new one is on the way with a cloth cover and shaped for human heads.



I thought this was scrapped and we were staying with the current issue ?  I could be wrong...


----------



## Pusser (24 Apr 2018)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I thought this was scrapped and we were staying with the current issue ?  I could be wrong...



In speaking with the project manager (who's on my floor), it's still a go with hope that production will start within the coming months.  Apparently, the think that's slowing it down is sourcing the manufacture of the oak leaves - they're having trouble finding someone who can make them crappily enough.


----------



## ekpiper (24 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In speaking with the project manager (who's on my floor), it's still a go with hope that production will start within the coming months.  Apparently, the think that's slowing it down is sourcing the manufacture of the oak leaves - they're having trouble finding someone who can make them crappily enough.



We do have standards to uphold.


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In speaking with the project manager (who's on my floor), it's still a go with hope that production will start within the coming months.  Apparently, the think that's slowing it down is sourcing the manufacture of the oak leaves - they're having trouble finding someone who can make them crappily enough.



Did you hear any plan about the issuing?  I'm assuming it'll be phased in as you get a replacement, but the last one I ordered took about 7 months to show up, and figured it'd be good to have a spare.

The good thing about them being plastic is they are great in the rain; never remember an umbrella so they are handy for that.  Paired with the new gore tex 'rain coat' (that comes with 'black rain pants' in snow pants weight) mostly set for walking around in the crappy freezing sleet.


----------



## Halifax Tar (25 Apr 2018)

Pusser said:
			
		

> In speaking with the project manager (who's on my floor), it's still a go with hope that production will start within the coming months.  Apparently, the think that's slowing it down is sourcing the manufacture of the oak leaves - they're having trouble finding someone who can make them crappily enough.



Thank for the info!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Apr 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ta da!
> 
> It is, pretty clearly, time to bring back the (1939) Field Service Cap ...
> 
> ...



Our very own "Hillier Youth" still wear them  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Apr 2018)

You guys need to get on the "funny hats" bandwagon ... someone is going to get a stratospheric "_*leading change*_" score on his PER for suggesting this.

And think of the good you will do ...

     Processing this will keep hundreds of senior staff officers occupied and, therefore, out of the way of 327 officers who are busy doing real staff work
     in all of our several and sundry bloated HQs; and

     This will keep dozens, maybe scores of Army CWOs out of trouble while they ponder the colour schemes and order of seniority and, and, and.

It's brilliant, I tell ya ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Apr 2018)

You are an evil genius...


----------



## Journeyman (25 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are an evil genius...


You JUST beat me.   ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Apr 2018)

E.R. is that an Eaton's Catalogue of Wedges?!

RMC Cadets have two types of wedges for different uniforms as well as the pillbox and an Astrakhan for Winter Wear.

The Astrakhan seems to have fallen out of favour with the present generation of Cadets for some reason?  I have no idea why, it made a great pillow for those times you were in class and didn't feel being there.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Apr 2018)

I have no idea how you came up with 327 officers doing real work, but that number is wildly unfair.






It's over by a couple orders of magnitude, at least.


----------



## Journeyman (25 Apr 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I have no idea how you came up with 327 officers doing real work, but that number is wildly unfair.
> 
> It's over by a couple orders of magnitude, at least.


Perhaps you're thinking that _your_  HQ is the only one being considered?  

Most HQs apparently think that way....if 1/3 - 2/3 means anything in terms of staff time appreciations.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Apr 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are an evil genius...


As a retired CWO I fully agree. Evil genius indeed keeping some redundant CWOs employed!!


----------

