# Next year is our birthday so....



## Donaill (25 Feb 2009)

The question is why can we not have a traditional Naval uniform for special occasions ?


----------



## a78jumper (25 Feb 2009)

Please define "a traditional naval uniform" , and who is going to pay for it? 

Dressing grown men (and women) in sailor suits looks ridiculous IMHO. I am sure the Navy had a great deal of input into naval DEUs about the time of the RCN's 75th.


----------



## Donaill (25 Feb 2009)

http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_567.asp


  How about something like that?  How would it be any different than regimental uniforms ?
Perhaps it wouldnt be given to all sailors, but to those that would be taking part in a majority of the celebrations.


----------



## Snakedoc (25 Feb 2009)

ah the traditional 'square rig' I think it's called?  You'll often see the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets in a similar uniform during their ceremonial events, which I don't doubt they'll be part of for the Navy's centennial.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Feb 2009)

Donaill said:
			
		

> The question is why can we not have a traditional Naval uniform for special occasions ?



because it costs money and the Government spent millions when we went our own DEUs. What we have now is more then adequate and very sharp to boot.


----------



## Donaill (25 Feb 2009)

So far, I love the navy. It would be nice to have a few of the old traditions brought back. Maybe not all the corporal punishment that went on, but the gun run would be great. I know that it is a matter of cost though. Alot of training time and the loss of men and women that we can't go without. Sad.  I have heard that a few guys have gotten in trouble for calling a killick a killick. Any truth to that or is it one of "those" rumours?


----------



## Donaill (25 Feb 2009)

Maybe we can wear our whites all summer?   >  lol  I like them but maybe not for the whole summer.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Feb 2009)

> I have heard that a few guys have gotten in trouble for calling a killick a killick. Any truth to that or is it one of "those" rumours?


There are lots of those stories around but unless you witness it for yourself or you get in crap about it, then don't sweat it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (25 Feb 2009)

Donaill said:
			
		

> I have heard that a few guys have gotten in trouble for calling a killick a killick.



Maybe they got in trouble for calling a Corporal a Killick.  It's like knowing who's a Bombadier and who's a Corporal around an Artillery unit.


----------



## Donaill (25 Feb 2009)

You mean there is a difference between a bombadier and a corporal?  >


----------



## Navy_Blue (26 Feb 2009)

Really the cost is not the issue.  Our riggers are the same as our officer counterparts minus some stripes on the sleaves and the peak cap.  So just a recycling issue there.  The only cost would be aquiring the square rig, which in a pinch could come from the RN suppliers.  The way the Navy spends money there is a Budget somewhere they could tap that wouldn't even tuch operational issues.


----------



## gwp (26 Feb 2009)

Donaill said:
			
		

> http://www.cmhg-phmc.gc.ca/cmh/en/image_567.asp  How about something like that?


That is an obsolete uniform and is considered as a costume.
See QR and O 17.06
17.06 – WEARING OF UNIFORM – RESTRICTION
(1) Except that an officer or non-commissioned member may wear a military uniform of obsolete pattern that is not likely to be confused with current dress, no member shall wear any part of military uniform at a fancy dress ball.



			
				Snakedoc said:
			
		

> ah the traditional 'square rig' I think it's called?  You'll often see the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets in a similar uniform during their ceremonial events, which I don't doubt they'll be part of for the Navy's centennial.


Sea Cadets are not members of the Canadian Forces.  The Canadian Naval Centennial is a Canadian Forces anniversary.  Sea Cadets Corps may support Naval Anniversary activities initiated by their sponsoring Navy League Committee and reference the heritage of the Canadian Navy on appropriate occasions but may not take the lead with regard to the Canadian Navy Centennial. Direction regarding what is appropriate has been distributed to Corps. 



			
				Donaill said:
			
		

> So far, I love the navy. It would be nice to have a few of the old traditions brought back. the gun run would be great.


The gun run is expensive - manpower intensive, TD expensive, and most of all some injuries sustained have had career implications.  Furthermore it does not represent the modern Canadian Navy just as bell bottom trousers and singlets do not represent the modern navy.

The Theme of the Canadian Navy Centennial is "Bring the Navy to Canadians"  That is the modern navy and demonstrate that the Canadian Navy will continue to fulfill its commitment to Canada's interests in the next century.


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Feb 2009)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Please define "a traditional naval uniform" , and who is going to pay for it?
> 
> Dressing grown men (and women) in sailor suits looks ridiculous IMHO. I am sure the Navy had a great deal of input into naval DEUs about the time of the RCN's 75th.



There are certainly all sorts of cost and other arguments to be made against the idea, but when there are numerous navies in the world whose members still wear square rig, it's a stretch to call it ridiculous.


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Feb 2009)

gwp said:
			
		

> The gun run is expensive - manpower intensive, TD expensive, and most of all some injuries sustained have had career implications.



In all of the items you mention above, however, it beats the Snowbirds hands-down AND provides an opportunity for closer interaction with the public.  It's an excellent PR tool; I'm surprised to see it criticized by someone in your line of work.



> Furthermore it does not represent the modern Canadian Navy



Neither does Battle of the Atlantic Sunday, does it?


----------



## MARS (26 Feb 2009)

Modern Navy?

Someone want to explain this to me then?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=3763

Don't get me wrong - the sailors LOVE doing this ( at least, I think they do) - it beats the hell out of standing the mids in the North Atlantic; the public loves it; they get to wear custom uniforms that cost (at public expense I believe) way more than my mess kit and chokers combined; and it WILL be a major part of 2010 celebrations.  But it doesn't have anything to do with the "modern navy" I don't think.  Granted it is not as injury-prone as the gun run, but I would gather it is only marginally less expensive TD-wise, probably because the gun run went all across the country with their kit.  I believe the CFM mainly performs inside Quebec - I don't know, I am normally at sea doing my thing when they do their thing.

I remember being a OS bosn about 20 years ago and my wingers and I wanted nothing more than to be part of the gun run team.  Gun run team members walked with a well earned swagger and I think every bosn I served with wanted to be part of it.  I don't hear many of my junior sailors chomping at the bit to join CFM in the same way - I could be wrong though, but it doesn't seem to have the same je ne sais quoi as the gun run.  As part of my Unit's historical display that we bring along to recruiting events, we have a poster with a picture of the gun run in action.  With the exception of  the "earn up to $8000 in tuition" poster, the gun run poster gets the most interest - by far.  "What do I need to join as to do THAT?" is a common refrain.  We explain that it is part of our heritage only.

I think the CFM uniform looks far more ridiculous than square rig, which N. Mckay correctly pointed out is still in use by many navies today.  In fact, I would consider this CFM "uniform" to be more akin to a costume than square rig, but that is just my opinion only.

But hey, we have bigger birthday issues to sort out, like whether the parrot  ??? or the porpoise :-[ will become our giant anthropomorphic mascot for 2010.  Yeah...because parrots and porpoises have a long and rich history as traditional navy mascots.   :  I kid you not - this is for real.  There is a cat and a dog in the running as well, but none of it looks very dignified in my opinion.

Sorry for the rant...


----------



## FSTO (26 Feb 2009)

They showed us the potential mascots during a NAVRES briefing last month. The ranks ranged from PO2 to Capt(N) and the reaction was common from all of us. Outright laughter. These were the stupidest things ever presented, they looked like characters out of child's colouring book.

Which leads me to another subject, visual identifiers. Why the hell does the Navy hierarchy have such a hard-on against making it easier to identify what you are? The Airforce have wings to ID if you are a pilot, navigator, tech, etc. The Army have more than you can shake a stick at. Yet you have no idea when you see a Naval officer if he is MARS or MARENG or CSE. The idea was brought up about having a Surface warfare type badge (not unlike submariner dolphins) and it was shot down out of hand. I also hate the look of Navy types with different hat badges. Let all the officers who wear the Navy uniform have the operations badge on their cap and either have the a MOC badge on their chest or different colour (like the medical types) band between their rank stripes. Then there is the NBP badge, whomever approved that abortion and then put all sorts of restrictions on it just goes to prove that the Navy (or CF) dress committee is made up of folks who have no clue about looking professional.

As for the square rig for the hands, most navies in the world have some sort of square rig that ID's the lower ranks. I don't advocate that we go back to the bell bottoms and jumper but something that readily id's the difference between the MS and below from the Chiefs and PO's and them from the officers. When you see them on parade it looks very impressive, (not like we go on parade very much anymore).


----------



## Snakedoc (26 Feb 2009)

gwp said:
			
		

> Sea Cadets are not members of the Canadian Forces.  The Canadian Naval Centennial is a Canadian Forces anniversary.  Sea Cadets Corps may support Naval Anniversary activities initiated by their sponsoring Navy League Committee and reference the heritage of the Canadian Navy on appropriate occasions but may not take the lead with regard to the Canadian Navy Centennial. Direction regarding what is appropriate has been distributed to Corps.



I have no doubt the sea cadets are not members of the CF (though CF CIC officers are).  I also have no doubt they will partake in the celebration of our Canadian Naval Centennial whether in collaboration with official Canadian Navy activities (as they have done in the past in events like remembrance day), or through their annual ceremonial activities celebrating modern Canadian Navy traditions such as the Ceremony of the Flags and the Sunset Ceremony as illustrated in the 201.  In fact, the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets arguably do a much better job than the Canadian Navy in supporting Canadian Navy traditions through these annual events across the country every year, and they pull off an impressive show to boot!  I don't seem to recall the CFM being mentioned in any CF ceremonial publication though...odd how we spent so much money on it though as MARS has pointed out.



			
				gwp said:
			
		

> The gun run is expensive - manpower intensive, TD expensive, and most of all some injuries sustained have had career implications.  Furthermore it does not represent the modern Canadian Navy just as bell bottom trousers and singlets do not represent the modern navy.



Speaking of the Ceremony of the Flags and Sunset Ceremony, I'm assuming the gun run is the same as the 'Gun Drill' illustrated in the 201 which is integral to these Canadian Navy ceremonies?  If it's safe enough for 12-18 year old cadets to do....is it not safe enough for the Canadian Navy?

gwp, I am also surprised at your criticism given your role in the cadet system!

FSTO, I agree with your opinion on the need for MOC badge identifiers.  Not only does it look professional but (as shallow as it may sound) it gives people in training something symbolic to work towards and a sense of accomplishment and pride at sucessfully finishing their training...something people would buy into.


----------



## gwp (26 Feb 2009)

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I also have no doubt they will partake in the celebration of our Canadian Naval Centennial whether in collaboration with official Canadian Navy activities (as they have done in the past in events like remembrance day), or through their annual ceremonial activities celebrating modern Canadian Navy traditions such as the Ceremony of the Flags and the Sunset Ceremony as illustrated in the 201.


During CNC those ceremonies will without a doubt be dedicated to the Centennial of the Canadian Navy.   But, the are not Navy Ceremonies. 



> In fact, the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets arguably do a much better job than the Canadian Navy in supporting Canadian Navy traditions through these annual events across the country every year, and they pull off an impressive show to boot!


Of course they do




> Speaking of the Ceremony of the Flags and Sunset Ceremony, I'm assuming the gun run is the same as the 'Gun Drill' illustrated in the 201 which is integral to these Canadian Navy ceremonies?  If it's safe enough for 12-18 year old cadets to do....is it not safe enough for the Canadian Navy?


Ceremony of Flags and Gun Run are quite different.  The gun salute in CofF is a very controled and safe.  The Gun Run involves dismantling the gun, moving it across a barrier on pullies and the returning it to the starting point reassembling and perhaps fireing it once in a timed race against another team.  The competative aspect brings some real hazards.  The Royal Navy discontinued the Gun Run in 1999 for financial and health reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun_competition



> gwp, I am also surprised at your criticism given your role in the cadet system!


What criticism?  There are ocassions when it is not helpful to the cadet organization to have it placed too close to the Canadian Forces ... as per the well considered direction ...

"There is a small constituency of Canadians that mistakenly believes that the Canadian Cadet Organizations are a stepping-stone for the Canadian Forces.  Every effort must be made to deprive this false perception of its base.

The CNC will doubtlessly provide some exciting opportunities to meet that part of the aim of the cadet program that is focused on “instilling … an interest in the sea activities of the CF”.   On the other hand the participation of RCSCCs in what is primarily a Canadian Forces celebration must in no way compromise the fact that the cadet program is a voluntary youth program and is not an incubator for future Navy, Army or Air force personnel. 

Where applicable, Canadian Forces Cadet Instructors are encouraged to join the NRD local communities alongside their Navy League sponsors. In communities where an NRD is not present, CF CIC personnel should participate with their local League Branch to plan activities.  Sea Cadets may participate in CNC celebrations in accordance with established practices in support of their sponsoring Navy League Branch."


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Feb 2009)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Which leads me to another subject, visual identifiers. Why the hell does the Navy hierarchy have such a hard-on against making it easier to identify what you are? The Airforce have wings to ID if you are a pilot, navigator, tech, etc. The Army have more than you can shake a stick at. Yet you have no idea when you see a Naval officer if he is MARS or MARENG or CSE. The idea was brought up about having a Surface warfare type badge (not unlike submariner dolphins) and it was shot down out of hand. I also hate the look of Navy types with different hat badges. Let all the officers who wear the Navy uniform have the operations badge on their cap and either have the a MOC badge on their chest or different colour (like the medical types) band between their rank stripes.



My feelings on the subject are that the naval uniform has, for the last hundred or so years, been somewhat minimalist and dignified as a result.  There isn't a large number of extra bits, and we don't wear our pers files on our arms as is done in some services.

I'd be fine with going back to distinguishing cloth between the stripes, and I'm with you in not loving the number of different cap badges we have, but in all honesty I don't think the answer lies in pinning a new badge on the tunic.

You raise an interesting issue, though: what do we identify with?  I read a paper on this awhile back and it confirmed what I'd believed for a while: army members tend to identify with their regiment or branch, air force members with their trade, and navy members with the navy as a whole.  I think that's reflected in our uniforms -- more so if you look at pre-unification uniforms, in which the army proudly proclaimed its regiment on its cap and shoulders, but the navy was just... the navy.  I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that we think of the whole Service rather than any division within it.  Wearing branch badges on our caps is a post-unification import from the army, and not quite a prefect fit for the navy.  But I have to disagree with you when I say that I'd prefer it to a branch badge worn elsewhere.


----------



## Neill McKay (26 Feb 2009)

gwp said:
			
		

> What criticism?  There are ocassions when it is not helpful to the cadet organization to have it placed too close to the Canadian Forces ... as per the well considered direction ...



After just about ten years at the coal face of the cadet programme I believe the cadets are better served by proximity to the navy.  As you say, there is a small constituency that is misled about the cadet programme.  But they are small, and they will never go away completely regardless of what we do.

The sea cadet programme is a pretty important instrument in the preservation of naval heritage, and -- notwithstanding the legal status of cadets themselves -- a part of the greater naval family.  I hope my colleagues are able to see past the rhetoric and engage fully in celebrating the naval centennial, especially in those communities where there is no other naval presence.  No doubt we will have the support of the Navy League in doing this -- after all, they played a big part in establishing the navy in the first place.


----------



## gwp (26 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> After just about ten years at the coal face of the cadet programme I believe the cadets are better served by proximity to the navy.


Most of the time


> As you say, there is a small constituency that is misled about the cadet programme.  But they are small, and they will never go away completely regardless of what we do.


It makes no sense to encourage them



> The sea cadet programme is a pretty important instrument in the preservation of naval heritage, and -- notwithstanding the legal status of cadets themselves -- a part of the greater naval family.  I hope my colleagues are able to see past the rhetoric and engage fully in celebrating the naval centennial, especially in those communities where there is no other naval presence.  No doubt we will have the support of the Navy League in doing this -- after all, they played a big part in establishing the navy in the first place.


Indeed to recognize the rhetoric and then properly let the Navy League do what it is supposed to do with the support and engagement of one of its major endeavors. 
[/quote]


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Mar 2009)

As I've said before, I bloody hate looking similar to an Officer in my DEU.  I wish we did have the square rig for the lower deckers.  Like it or not it was traditional and we did lose out when the dress was taken away.  However, I do not see it coming back.

What should come back is the Gun Run.  It is a great way for the Navy to interact with ordinary Canadians across the land.  Guys like myself who come from the Prairies would not have the chance otherwise as a rule to see a Sailor and talk with them.  And it is good for the boys too to get to see the country and meet fellow citizens.  Not to mention the low cost for bang for the buck.  But it is manpower hungry and the fleet is having challenges at present.  For the 100th something positive should be done.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (30 Mar 2009)

Given the choice to chose between square rig and DEU....i'd take DEU's any day.

im glad we are not in that segragated mind set, as was then, that system of dress originated from the fact that the officers were wealthy, upper class members of society, as opposed to the deck hands being low class.

So im glad we are not trying to differentiate and be little ppl.
Also its a cost and luggage issue.  Look at the US army, they are trying to cut back on the number of uniforms they have because its a pain in the butt to lug them all about.  so if we had different uniforms for the MS & below, Chiefs and PO's and officers....we would be incurring more costs, which if they (the leaders of the CF and the gov) want to use up more money, they should start by changing the Navy operational dress, NCD's are horrible, uncomfortable, unsuited for work/ops.

Last note, i do agree with the 1 cap badge for all naval officers, 1 cap badge for all Chiefs and PO's and 1 cap badge for MS and below, since we already have them in the hard sea trades (most Navy looking cap badge obviously) and just have qualification, branch, etc identifiers.  I think we should get service stripes too (a la USN/USMC) 

I have to say that is one thing i like the US for, they know how to deck out there pers so that when you look at them you know their quals, and who they belong to, and etc.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Mar 2009)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Last note, i do agree with the 1 cap badge for all naval officers, 1 cap badge for all Chiefs and PO's and 1 cap badge for MS and below, since we already have them in the hard sea trades (most Navy looking cap badge obviously) and just have qualification, branch, etc identifiers.  I think we should get service stripes too (a la USN/USMC)
> 
> I have to say that is one thing i like the US for, they know how to deck out there pers so that when you look at them you know their quals, and who they belong to, and etc.



Ummm?  It seems you are contradicting yourself here.  You say that the US are good at "Decking out their pers so that when you look at them you know their quals and who they belong to, etc" all after saying you agree with one Cap Badge for all.  I think a 'Jimmy', or a 'Log', or a 'MP' hat badge goes a long way in pointing out a person's quals, no matter what element their DEU is from.  So do "Trade Badges", or perhaps you have forgotten all about them as well.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2009)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> im glad we are not in that segragated mind set, as was then, that system of dress originated from the fact that the officers were wealthy, upper class members of society, as opposed to the deck hands being low class.


 :threat:

There is still segration between the three levels to some extent, don't kid yourself.  The Chiefs and POs and the Wardroom folks are in different strata to the Lower Decks. RHIP is still in effect.

Still all in all it is a matter of personal opinion and preference on DEU, dollars and cents aside.  I would prefer to look like a Seaman vs Chief/PO or Officer as in other Navies.  However it's is not the way it is and thats that.


----------

