# "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation



## Veteran`s son

Should the rank of Lance Corporal be part of the CF rank structure again?

Instead of having three ranks for a Private there would then be Private Untrained, Private Trained and Lance Corporal.

Of course, the exceptions are Engineers, Armoured, and Artillery who have the ranks of Sapper, Trooper and Gunner for the rank of Private Trained.

What is everyone‘s opinion on this question?


----------



## Fader

The rank structure isn‘t broke, why fix it?


----------



## Korus

Wouldn‘t lance corporal just be a pretty name and a lot of paperwork to change?


----------



## Zoomie

Q: Re-introduce Lance Corporal?

A: No, not required.


If we re-introduced Lance Corporal, wouldn‘t we then have to get rid of Master Corporal?  In the days of Lance Corporals and the like, the Corporal rank was the first leadership rank.  That is why on ceremonial dress MCpl‘s wear two chevrons, indicating the rank of Corporal which is/was the same rank.  Confused yet?  Let‘s just leave the present rank structure the way it is.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Lance Corporal is not a rank, it is an appointment.

Lance Corporal does NOT equal a Master Corporal!

In the old system, you had 

Privates
Corporals
Sergeants

A private could be appointed Lance Corporal; he wore one chevron and was generally 2 i/c of a section.

A corporal wore two chevrons and was a section commander.

A corporal could be appointed Lance Sergeant, he would wear three chevrons and was generally a weapons crew commander or similar position.

They got rid of the Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant appointments, and instead created the appointment of Master Corporal.  A Master Corporal is considered a command rank like the old Corporal position; THEN you needed a junior NCO course to be a corporal.  NOW you need the junior NCO course to be a master corporal.

The Corporal of old was thus equal to the Master Corporal of today in terms of authority and command powers.

Lance Corporal was a weird in between kind of a thing, and while technically considered a full fledged NCO, I don‘t believe he was all that well respected in actual practice.  The Lance Corporal then and the Corporal now are in effect the same thing - a position with no real command power and little actual authority, though to a new private, today‘s corporal is a bit better at getting attention than the Lance Jack of old.


----------



## Jungle

> The rank structure isn‘t broke, why fix it?


Well, maybe it could use a little fixin‘... Mcpl is not a rank, it is an appointment within the rank of Cpl. Strange, considering the rank of Cpl is nothing more than a well-paid Pte, and Mcpl is the first Leadership appointment. The difference in pay is also a joke. We make fun of the number of Sgts in the US Army, but find another Army where a Rifleman (or it‘s equivalent) can be of 3 different ranks (Pte(B), Pte(T) and Cpl).
There was a study about 10 years ago to get rid of the Mcpl appointment. Not a bad idea, today‘s Cpl would be Pte(T) with the Cpl‘s pay, and Cpl would become the first Leadership rank, replacing the Mcpl. Of course it didn‘t come through, as half the Army complained about losing one chevron and being called a Pte again, some for the rest of their career...
Personally, I think we should have done it, and simplify the rank structure.


----------



## McG

Yes,
We should change the titles of all Cpls to LCpl, all MCpls to Cpl, and take thousands of $ from the Sea King replacement to make it possible.  Or . . .

we could stick to priorities.  

However, maybe there is room for changes to the rank structure.  Consider the Warrant Officer ranks of the US military.  These are intended for technical trades that require some level of authority to carry out their jobs.  Instead of a third tier in the CF rank structure, could a similar effect be created by establishing appointments, which may be given to members of specific MOCs, and various ranks?  (LCpl, MSgt, etc?)  Typically, these appointments would not be required once an individual is involved in management duties related to their MOC, so they would not exist at the rank of WO or up.



> Did master corporals not originally have section commander duties? When did the change to sergeant section commanders take place?


I thought the change took place when the ranks came into effect after unification.  But, there are a lot of MCpl who are Sect Comds now and Cpl who are Sect 2ic. Perhapse it is a symptom of the CFs ability to retain leaders.


----------



## Marauder

As McG pointed out, I have often seen cases where master jacks are sect cmdrs, and a long serving corporal gets informed on the Friday night that he is gonna be 2ic for the weekend. Our last ex, we had one of the longer serving Sgt as our PL OC, another long service Sgt as the PL WO, a Sgt who got promoted last May running one section, two MCpls running sections, and all three section 2ics were Cpls. Weps Det was also run by a Cpl.
Granted, our "usual" OC (it changes for ex to ex) was on a jump crse and we only have 1 WO left in the unit (who is on Roto). This highlights how well adapted we have become, with everyone being able to work one or two up as need be. 

While the rank structure may not be the same as it was "back when it was hard", I really don‘t see a need to jumble **** everything AGAIN when, as other pointed out, we have bigger targets to take down first. I think part of the problem is we spend so much time on continual reorg that never focuses on changing the things that NEED to be changed.


----------



## Pikache

I personally think rank of Corporal as currently used in CF is good, in terms of defining section chain of command.

If the section commander (sergeant) and the 2i/c (master corporal) get whacked, then the senior corporal takes charge.
Eliminates confusion to see who‘s senior among privates to see who‘s in charge, IMO.

However, I think rank of corporal should be earned, not just given away like it is right now.

I thought Brits had Colours Sergeant, not Staff Sergeant.

Also, Korean army has 3 grades of privates and corporal (or equivalent to). Usually you go up a rank every 6 month of your two year conscription.
And lots of bossing around. But that‘s army.


----------



## Spr.Earl

If I remember correctly,the rank of M/Cpl came in about mid 76, not on Unification 67,68.
 I remember all the Cpl.‘s putting up there new hook‘s when the change came in and the discussion‘s about the new rank.As I had just joined the Engineer‘s that April,76.


----------



## Jungle

> The JNCO course they took was actually called "Infantry Section Commander Course" then, which qualified them for Master Corporal


The ISCC was qualifying us 5B and 6A in one 16-week course. So yes, all Infantry Mcpls were qualified as section comds, and up to the rank of Sgt.
McG, I don‘t think they would need to take anything away from the Sea King replacement project (if in fact there is such a project) to make changes to the rank structure. They could take a few million $$$ a year from all those social experiments the govt imposes on the CF...


----------



## Veteran`s son

Speaking of the CF rank structure, it is interesting that not many regiments have another rank for Trained Private(Engineers, Armoured and Artillery are a few exceptions). Do I understand this correctly?

In everyone‘s opinion, should all regiments/units have another rank for Trained Private?


----------



## Pikache

A lot of infantry regiments do have a separate rank for trained privates, depending on regiment.

Like, fusilier, rifleman, etc.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Guardsman is another rank title for privates in Guards units.  

I‘ve seen Piper and Drummer used also, but only unofficially.


----------



## McInnes

According to the opposition white paper "the new north strong and free", 



> Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
> only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
> 1997, â€œ... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
> to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporalsâ€. â€œRanksâ€, he said
> â€œshould be rolled back at all levelsâ€.


Wondering if anyone had thoughts on our rank structure. changes, cuts, additions, and all that.


----------



## Ruthless4Life

I‘m not sure about losing the past tradition just because of this guy that‘s not even in the military is whining about the infrastucture.

Ruthless


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Granatstein was actually an officer, or at the least, attended RMC.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Nonetheless, the idea that there are six too many ranks is ridiculous.  Look at the different levels of command, and you can see the need for them.

Soldier
Section 2 i/c
Section commander
Platoon 2 i/c
Platoon Commander
Company Sergeant Major
Company 2 i/c
Company Commander
Regimental Sergeant Major
Battalion 2 i/c
Battalion commander

You thus get

Soldier - Corporal
Section 2 i/c  - Master Corporal
Section commander - Sergeant
Platoon 2 i/c  - Warrant Officer
Platoon Commander - Lieutenant
Company Sergeant Major - Master Warrant Officer
Company 2 i/c  - Captain
Company Commander - Major
Regimental Sergeant Major - Chief Warrant Officer
Battalion DCO - Major 
Battalion commander - Lieutenant Colonel

With the rank of Private and 2nd Lieutenant for an officer or soldier in training.

One might argue the need for the rank of "colonel"; it has never been a combat rank anyway, though now they have colonel in charge of brigades.

The real problem is not the number of ranks but the number of men filling high positions and drawing high salaries.  I‘m thinking more of officers in research establishments, etc., but of course we all know the story about how we have more generals now than were on the establishment of First Canadian Army at the height of WW II.

I‘d love to know which ranks Doctor Granatstein thinks we need to cut out.  Is this an accurate quote?  I don‘t think he was talking about deleting ranks, I think he meant there were too many men holding too high a rank for their job.

It used to be a Corporal commanded a section, not a Sergeant.


----------



## rolandstrong

You would know about htis than I Michael, but isn‘t this a return to the older system, with a corporal having more weight, etc.?


----------



## McG

A return to the old system was exactly what Granatstein was asking for in the book.


----------



## McInnes

Yes the quote i put up is a complete quote of the part of recommendation 28 that had concern of ranks. I‘ve also included recommendation 29.


> Recommendation 28: The Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) system of
> promotion must be simplified, evaluating candidates on merit, valour and
> operational effectiveness considerations alone.
> Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
> only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
> 1997, â€œ... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
> to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporalsâ€. â€œRanksâ€, he said
> â€œshould be rolled back at all levelsâ€.26
> Recommendation 29: The rank structure of the CF should be reviewed.
> Enlisted ranks above the rank of private/ordinary seaman should be
> designated as leadership positions, promotion to which would be based
> on merit, valour and leadership considerations alone.
> Experimentation with social engineering over the last decade has severely
> undermined morale and operational effectiveness. The Employment Equity Act
> of 1995, for instance has led to the establishment of recruiting quotas to increase
> representation for so-called â€œdesignated groupsâ€ in the armed forces. In the
> process, training standards have been lowered in order to achieve artificial
> objectives (see Appendix).
> Due to the inherently discriminatory nature of these various measures, the
> Canadian Alliance opposes them on principle. The Alliance policy declaration,
> updated and reaffirmed in April 2002, states: â€œEvery [federal government] job
> shall go to the most qualified applicant without the use of affirmative action or any
> other type of discriminatory quota systemâ€.
> One of the great strengths of the Canadian military has always been the high
> quality of its training and professionalism. As these are eroded, the value of the
> Canadian Forces also declines. It was for these reasons that Professor Jack
> Granatstein warned the Prime Minister in 1997: â€œ... training standards must not
> be lowered further (the [Canadian] army is already one of the mildest training
> armies in the West) to achieve quotas. Otherwise operational effectiveness will
> be severely weakenedâ€.27


----------



## combat_medic

OK, NO ONE had better do ANYTHING to the rank (appointment) of Master Corporal until I get my hands on it... I‘m too bloddy close now!


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Roland, I actually know less about this than some of the other "older" hands - I believe the link provided goes to a great discussion about this.

I still don‘t see how Granatstein can get rid of "six or eight" ranks.  Maybe I should post at his messageboard again!


----------



## Michael Dorosh

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/responsibilities.htm 

I‘ve added the above page to my site, I‘m wondering if I could have some input from those who know better than me what I‘ve gotten right or wrong - or missed altogether?

TIA


----------



## 1feral1

Here in Australia, we have the LCPL and LBDR ranks w/ one hook. Then CPL, SGT, (SSGT was removed about 8 yrs ago), then WO2 and WO1. Officer rank is in pips of the British system.

Its good to remain in tradition here, and I love it. It gives Army a distinction all in its own, as each Service has its own rank structure (RAAF and RAN).

I belive that installing the LCPL back in the Cdn system would cause the whole system to be overhauled, and hence $$$$$.

LCPL/LBDR here in Australia is = to CPL in the CF system. CPL/BDR here is = to the Cdn MCPL/MBDR. 
CPL/BDR‘s here take an intense course similar to the old CLC JLC ISCC types back in Canada which I do believe were still ongoing when I left the CF in 1995.


Here CPL/BDR‘s are section commanders, and LCPL/LBDR‘s are 2 I/C‘s. SGT‘s are PL SGT‘s, etc.

In Corps such as Engr‘s Sigs, and Arty, for a trg‘d PTE they use SPR, SIG,and GNR. 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## xFusilier

The problem that was caused by unification was that the Army used rank to recognize leadership responsibilities only, and used pay levels to recognize technical competency.  Thus it was possible to stay a private soldier for your entire career, having your competency as a tradesman recognized through pay levels.  Thus a Craftsman with 21 years service could have a higher technical qualification than the Cpl. he worked for.

Upon unification, the problem came about that the RCAF and the RCN had used thier rank structure to identify technical skill as well as leadership.  A Leading Seaman had a higher trade qualification than an AB, same in the RCAF.  The compromise was to create make the rank of Corporal as a journeyman rank in the CF.


----------



## tmbluesbflat

prior to unification, it was private recruit, private trained higher rate, private, Lcpl, Cpl,Lsgt, Sgt, Ssgt, Wo11, Wo1, Officer cadet etc
Wo1 or rqmsi, RSM is or was a designated appointment


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
> [qb] prior to unification, it was private recruit, private trained higher rate, private, Lcpl, Cpl,Lsgt, Sgt, Ssgt, Wo11, Wo1, Officer cadet etc
> Wo1 or rqmsi, RSM is or was a designated appointment [/qb]


Is Lance Sergeant also not an appointment held by a corporal, though?  Lance Corporal as well.

Have I not indicated all this on my table?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

In addition to my general question three posts ago, some specific questions:

What is a "Battle Captain"?  I presume this is an armoured regiment thing - I‘ve also seen reference to a "Battle Adjutant" (for infantry?)  Can anyone expand on these for me?

When did "QMSI" (Quartermaster Senior Instructor) enter the lexicon?  What about TQMS (Technical Quartermaster Sergeant)?

I do have some good info for artillery units‘ officer‘s positions, but if anyone can expand on what a "Tech Able" was and some of the NCO positions in a gun battery or troop, I would appreciate it.


----------



## Franko

A Battle Captain in an Armoured Squadron in the attack is in charge of the fire base during the attack phase of an objective. He along with the FOO direct arty, air and armour fire onto the objective whilst the manouevering forces slide in for the final blow.

During the advance he is in control of half of the squadron..the OC is in control of the other half.

The reason for this is a combat team takes up a frontage between 1.5 and 4 km depending on the ground. A frontage that big is just too large for the OC to control, so the Battle Captain is there as his eyes and ears on the other half of the battle.

The squadron 2 IC is in charge of the administration of the squadron. He along with the SSM ensure the beans and bullets get up to the troops in an effective manner.

Hope that helps.

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh

It certainly does, Franko, thanks.  So is the Battle Captain part of the standard establishment of the squadron?  Is this his only role, or is he a troop commander double-hatted?


----------



## Franko

No. The BC‘s job is primarily that. He is not a troop leader(job of a LT). It is standard that every squadron has one. His secondary role is to take command if the OC is nocked out in battle. The 2IC is usually in the rear with the gear so to speak.

Regards


----------



## Franko

The TQMS in the Armoured world is the RSM in waiting...at least in my Regiment

Regards


----------



## Michael Dorosh

> Originally posted by Franko:
> [qb] The TQMS in the Armoured world is the RSM in waiting...at least in my Regiment
> 
> Regards [/qb]


Is he a Master Warrant Officer, then?


----------



## tmbluesbflat

RSM WO1
responsible for dress and deportment all ranks etc
 I used to know all this stuff, sometimers I guess


----------



## Spr.Earl

It was a political thing to make it look like we had a Force with qualifaction‘s.
If you go back in time the C.F. promotion‘s were based on a merit system.
Now it‘s time served plus if you have your course.

Which is wrong!
First of all it must be on merit along with your Qual.‘s as it was in the old day‘s!
If you have not earned it you don‘t get promoted!
But you still get your pay raise‘s in regard‘s to time and course‘s taken with in your rank.

I know of one dip stick many years ago who was promoted to M/Cpl before he retired just to be nice and to boost his pension he came back and joined the Militia and becaause he had his Snr Nco‘s course came in as a Sgt and was a right numpty.

Promotion‘s should be on merit,not if you have the course or time in.

Yes the old system had it‘s good point‘s and bad but after all this time why have we not learnt to combine both?

Yes merit counts!

Yes P.C. has done it again


----------



## Pikache

Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?

Yay or nay?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

> I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?


I belive they lost it during unification



> Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?


Then why not bring it back for the Engineers and the Army as a whole.

Most arms of the CF lost the designation of royal upon unification.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it.


----------



## Jason Jarvis

> Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
> [qb] We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it. [/qb]


Changing the name -- not the underlying structure -- wouldn‘t necessarily cost very much, especially when phased in over several years.

The Australian services have retained their "Royal" designation, despite the fact they belong to the Australian Defence Forces (ADF).

Why would it need to be any different for the CF? I say bring ‘em back -- so long as we‘re not a republic, why shouldn‘t we celebrate this aspect of our military history?


----------



## onecat

Its history, not reason to go back.  I think The CN and CAF are fine.  And they say we‘re Canadian, but some branch of British Monarhy.


----------



## George Wallace

> Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
> [qb] Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?
> 
> Yay or nay? [/qb]


KISS


YAY

GW


----------



## RCD

I would say NO. That would be a step backwards.It would opened old wounds with Quebec


----------



## krugan

On the Recruiting site it mentions *"many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."*

I was wondering if current members see this implemented much and your thoughts as to whether this is a) fair or b) a good idea?    I am assuming the promotions are meant to be done after QL3 training and if there was any kind of resentment to people that have been promoted before others who have served longer?

It doesn't say on the site but I thought I read somewhere there was the same kind of incentives to recruit and retain Reservists also, or is that already standard pratice that Reservists are generally promoted faster then Regs for retention reasons?

What would you guys/gals like to see implemented to fill these trades that CF need?


----------



## Sundborg

People who get promoted before others deserve it; there is no resentment there.  The one's who get promoted right after basic training are already qualified oin that trade; therefore, they promote them.  I had two on my course get promoed to corporal on the grad parade.


----------



## willy

It's not really a big deal to have someone get promoted to Cpl once they're trades qualified, because in the CF Cpl is not a command rank.  Ideally, Cpls are a little "older and wiser" than the average Pte, but they're not intended to be in charge of anything, and in practice, there's often little difference between Cpls and Ptes except for how much they get paid.

Reservists get promoted faster than their reg force counterparts because the turnover rate of personnel within the reserves is extremely high. I think it's unfortunate that the reserves do promote so quickly, because the result as I see it is that we end up with a lot of underqualified senior personnel.  That said, I think that the average rate of career progression one finds in the regs is unneccessarily slow.  Our allied militaries all promote much more quickly than we do.


----------



## ZipperHead

Two points, based on my experience: 1) People who get promoted faster than their peers almost always experience some form of resentment, because that is human nature, and many people who do get promoted faster don't always deserve it, but in the cases that you quoted, that would be for people who come in already qualified in the trade (bandsmen, a guy who is a qualified mechanic and wants to go Vehicle Technician) and 2) Not all allied militaries promote faster than we do. I worked with British and Dutch in Bosnia, and I would say they were on par with us, if not a little slower. The Americans seem to have too many ranks, and it seems you can be a "buck" sergeant in no time, which would probably be the equivalent of a Cpl 

IMO, the most formative time of a soldiers career is the time he spends in the Cpl rank. It IS a rank, and should be seen as different from a private. We treat it as a pay raise to keep people in, and that invariably rewards complacency and incompetence. I completely disagree with the way they seem to apparently throw around the "promotions" in the Reserve world. Two years to make it to Cpl!?!?!  Come on!!! And the Reserves want to be taken seriously, as the Reg Force's equals. Not gonna happen until they stop doing that. I had a Trooper in my troop that had a tour to Kosovo and was in my troop for Bosnia. 2 tours, and all the training and experience that goes with it, and he was deemed less than an average Reserve Cpl who would be roughly 2 years out of BMQ, with probably 1/10th the experience of this Tpr. Tell me if that's right..... And don't even get me started on the differences between Reg Force and Reserve "equivalent" courses.  Hence, you can imagine how much respect I have for the average Reserve soldier. When the training and promotions become equal, and not based on "retention" and lack of time, I will start taking them (Reserves) more seriously.  I wish that day would come soon, as the Reserves are being relied on to "fill the gaps" that our current manning crises and operational tempo have created, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

I know this has been hashed out ad nauseum, and please spare me the "we're super duper dedicated and keen" spiels. I've heard them all before, and I believe it, but that doesn't make one experienced and qualified. If you want to be treated as equal, you have to BE equal. Not kinda sorta equal. Equal. Are Cadets equal to Reserves? They are keen and dedicated, and other than summer camp employment, don't get paid at all. I think the answer (from Reservists, anyway) is a resounding "NO!!!". So maybe you might see my point.....

Anyway, I'm sure that someone has a rebuttal, so let's hear it.....

Al


----------



## armyguy916

In reference to what Al said, I do and don't agree with you at all.  I am a reserve Corporal, and I spent the last year at the infantry school.  I worked with Regular Force soldiers and some of them were bags of shit, just like the reserves.  I am a C6 gunner, and I have been told on more than one occasion, by more than one Senior NCO, and high ranking officer that I have had better dress, drill, deportment and professionalisn than my reg force counterparts.  They stated they would rather have me manning their gun than some of the reg force there.  Basically the way I see things with the reserves, there are the ones there that just show for the pay check, and put no effort into things, and there are the one that show up, and take pride in what they do, because wether anyone likes it or not, we are still part of the Canadian Armed Forces.  This is just my own personal opinion, and if someone wants to trash my opinion, send me a msg, don't do the trashing here because it always starts bad forum's and then they get shut down, lets just leave it open and see where this can take us.  Regardless of anything, I love working aside reg force guys, I have learned a lot of things, and I can't wait to be in PPCLI


----------



## ZipperHead

The point here has little to do with one's professionalism, or lack thereof. I also know of Reservists that are more "professional" than Reg Force soldiers, and I don't neccesarily think that the School's are the best place to be comparing oneself to Reg Force soldiers, if you catch my drift..... Being able to work full time, whether it is with Reg Force, or even full time at a Reserve unit is good, and performance should be what gets your promoted and qualified. Time in (the military) should never be the sole factor in promotions. I think that a soldier could retire after 20 years as a Private, or be a Master Corporal in 5 years. Rewarding people by having them show up for 4 years (or 2 years)  doesn't do much to create good soldiers. It creates automatons who show up, do the bare minimum, and voila! they get promoted because a chart somewhere says they should be X rank afterY years of service. 

The separate but equal system that exists between the Reg's and Reserves is going to further drive a wedge between the two, and any amount of justification can't change that. Whether the Reserves should be a "farm team" (a la sports) to feed the Reg Force could be debated to the end of time, but as long as the soldier is "good to go" and fully qualified, not the half-baked qualifications that I have seen, come on board. Having to re-train a "trained" soldier is a joke, and happens too often. 

Anyway, we're drifting from the promotional incentives theme somewhat, and my opinion regarding that is there should be a difference between pay raises and promotions. Promotions in the military mean a raise in rank, and the inherent responsibilities and leadership roles that come with it. Some people are very good tradesman or soldiers, but aren't particularly good leaders. I know in the combat arms, I have heard the expression "He's a great worker!" used to justify sending someone on leadership training, and then said "uber worker" couldn't lead an ant to an ant hill. I think we could avoid some of these issues by going to a Specialist system like the Americans use, so that tradesmen could focus on being tradesmen, and the combat arms could get back to the hard-assed leadership training that we should have always been focussing on to create battlefield leaders. I have heard too many cringe-inducing stories about "leadership" courses that were allowed to pick their own subjects for their skill classes, or have "How to put icing on a cake" as a skill lesson, rather than weapons handling. Or the navigation/patrolling being conducted in a gymnasium (for night ops, turn off the lights!!!). Sad, but true. 

I have heard rumour-net stories floated around about how people would get more pay for having more qualifications. I could see how that would work: guys who can't go to the field would get loaded up with courses, while the deployed or field-bound soldiers would be sucking the hind teat. Who would get paid more? The rear-party commandos. Or only the fair-haired boys of the unit would take all the good courses, and then never use them, and make more money. 

Anyway, Unification of the Forces didn't do us any favours, and we will continue to pay for that decision until somebody decides that we need to go away from the "CF standard" for all things, which invariably ends up being watered down, and each element or trade makes/enforces it's own standards anyways. If you wear green (or CADPAT) you should be a rifleman first and foremost, and then whatever other trades training that you need for your trade. Sounds remarkably like..... the Marines. But what do they know about fighting wars, right?!?! 

The fact of the matter, in the Reg Force anyway, is that pay incentives are NOT supposed to be automatic, but based on good performance. A soldier's incentive can (and should) be withheld if they are not performing to an acceptable standard. Once they have shown a marked improvement, they receive their incentive. However, that is not the case, and hence, everyone receives their incentive on the anniversary of their promotion. Dog 'er and receive the incentive, or drive 'er and receive the same incentive. There is no difference. So, in reality, it isn't an incentive. An incentive would be a standardised test for each rank level and trade, and if you get 60%, you would only receive 60% of the pay. Get 100%, and you get 100% of your pay. Sounds harsh, but that's life. Too radical for our huggy kissy military, where complacency trumps competence. Why work hard, you might break a sweat???

Anyway, I feel a bit better after venting my spleen :mg:

Al


----------



## armyguy916

Al,
I see your point very cleary now, and I have to say I do agree with you!
 :fifty:


----------



## McG

krugan said:
			
		

> On the Recruiting site it mentions *"many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."*


Does this apply to specific MOCs or is it based on something else?


----------



## Armymedic

I agree with Al on this.
It is common for medical trades to be prometed to Cpl on completion of Basic, only because they d not require trades training because they have a civilian qualifications. On the Prev Medicine side, usually these are Med Tech Cpls who are promoted to MCpl upon completion of their first course.

But lack of experience as a Pte and a Cpl is a detriment to any leader because they don't have the examples (good or bad) to follow as the situations they face arise. This is precisely why every promotion after Cpl as a 2 yr wait to enter promotion zone in the Reg force.


----------



## Infanteer

Pertaining to the immediate promotion mentioned at the beginning of the thread, I think it refers to some offers of immediate promotion to Corporal in some of the CSS Trades for people who have significant civilian educations in the corresponding civilian industry.   No big deal to me, since they all seem to end up as Warrant Officers anyways.... ;D

As well, the Brits promote their soldiers a wee bit quicker than us.   Their career structure often attempts to put guys in the LCPL (MCPL equivalent) rank after 3 years, making them section 2ic's.   Considering the regs have roughly 4 to Cpl and 2 to Mcpl, we tend to be the ones who promote slower.   The arguments for and against faster or slower promotion are many, but I believe the Brits do it to fit it into their more rigid 22-year career pattern.

As for the Americans, promotion to buck Sergeant (E5) is probably equivalent to our MCpl.   At least in the Infantry, Sergeant is a most junior NCO rank; they are the commanders of the fire teams, two of which make up a squad that is commanded by a Staff Sergeant (E6).   I've heard from the way they do it that switched on guys will be at Sergeant within 3 years, so I guess their promotion rate to the most junior command level is about par with the Brits, and quicker than us.

As for Mr Luomala's rant, I can say that I totally agree.   What is worse with regards to the reserve promotion to Corporal issue is that it is a real gimme.   This resulted from unification, when Hellyer, in all his wisdom, decided that all arms of the military where merely trades and needed to separate among the apprentice and the journeyman level.   Heck, I remember reading one article that stated that Hellyer once advocated changing the name of the ranks to exactly that.   It works for the trades and maybe the Air Force and the Navy, but it doesn't really have a place in the Combat Arms.   I can think of two glaring instances:

1)   The promotion was doled out to six privates before leaving to work-up training so the CO could get them more pay.   Reg Force Cpl0 is a hell of alot more then Reg Force Pte2, I know because I was taking Pte2 pay overseas while guys who finished QL3 the same summer as me were taking Cpl0.

2)   The promotion was given to Pte's upon from the time they *swore in*.   I seen a guy who swore spent some time as an untrained private and received a promotion to Corporal with 4 months in as a trained private.

The all reserve company on ROTO 11 had roughly 10 Privates in a 130 man company.   Seems odd that a rifle company can have 6 officers, 115 NCO's (yes, the rank of Corporal is considered an NCO rank) and 10 private soldiers, doesn't it.   I often remarked on how expensive the reserve company must have been in comparion to the Patricia company down south with regards to payroll.     As well, there were Reserve Corporals in the battle group with 2 years and a comms course while an equivilent reg force private would have 3 years full time and a entire slew of qualifications.   There is a justifiable reason reservists take a cut in rank when they transfer to the Regs; as a firm believer in equalizing the Reg/Reserve divide in skills and qualifications, the reserves should be playing the game on the same level as the regs so we can avoid situations like this.

However, the rank of Corporal can often be very important to reserve units.   Upon returning from tour to my reserve regiment, I was keenly aware that most of the troops were quite new privates.   Many troops who filled out our single rifle company were untrained, having yet to complete their trade course.   Most of the guys wearing two hooks in the unit had a tour at some point, which also means that got access to good courses and training.   Being that we had a bit of a shortage in NCO's, Cpl's were filling in the role as section commander or section 2ic (every 2ic was a Corporal).   Obviously, the rank has some merit to the reserve system with its high rate of friction within the Junior Ranks.  

What I feel is the main problem underlying this issue is that the rank of Corporal is a "gimme" rank, Reg or Reserve.   You get it for just sticking around long enough.   I am sure we can both think of reserve and regular force Corporals we have seen that should never have been promoted (I know I have), they've simply managed to stick around to get the promotion.   What's worse, I've seen that Corporals often like to throw their "rank" around on Privates, when often their is little qualitative difference in both skills and qualifications.

I argue that every promotion should have some form of objective qualification to show for the increase in rank and responsibility.   Time in should provide a rough idea of _when_ to look at promoting a soldier, not _what_ to look for in promoting one.   I think the Army should go back to its pre-Unification system, which can still be found as an authorized system within the QR&Os (I'd have to look for the section).   Private soldiers are precisely that, private soldiers.   Lance Corporal and Corporal are JNCO ranks, providing leadership at the small unit level (section for the infantry).   Sergeant is a platoon/troop level NCO, while Staff Sergeants fill out Staff duties or CQMS.   Warrant Officers are Sergeants Major.   Seems alot more clear cut and simple to me, and ensures that rank is earned rather than given away.


----------



## McG

Do we need to go back to the old rank titles to bring about change?   Looking at the STANAG on rank, it seems countries can refer to ranks by all different names, but as long as we know what it means, is there a purpose in changing rank titles from what they are now?

*Comparison of selected NATO Army Ranks*
Based on STANAG 2116, 1992 (Edition 5)


*NATO**Canada**US**UK**France*OR-9CWOSergeant-MajorWarrant Officer Class IMajor
Adjudant-chefOR-8MWOMaster SergeantWarrant Officer Class IIAdjudantOR-7WOSergeant First ClassStaff Sergeant*OR-6SgtStaff SergeantSergeantSergent-chefOR-5Sgt/MCplSergeantSergeantSergentOR-4CplCorporalCorporalCaporal-chefOR-3Pte(T)Private 1st ClassLance CorporalCaporalOR-2Pte(B)Private E.2PrivateSoldat de 1ère classeOR-1Pte(R)Private E.1Private (Class 4)Soldat de 2ème classe
_* No Equivalent
(1) Each of the US Forces has a senior individual at the OR-9 level who cannot be considered for NATO position coding purposes. This individual is designated as follows in the US ARMY : Sergeant Major of the Army

(2) Canadian Sergeants with less than three years seniority are considered OR-5.

(3) It is emphasized that the UK will appoint Sergeants or Corporals to OR-5 posts, to meet the requirements set out in the job description concerned, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the STANAG._



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> I argue that every promotion should have some form of objective qualification to show for the increase in rank and responsibility.


I'll support that.   Here is a thought.   We are told that MCpl is an appointment (not a rank), and that does have some implications administratively but these are invisible to most service personnel.   A soldier has to work to get to MCpl (as we would expect in order to reach any rank).   But what if we switched things up?   What if we made MCpl a rank and turned Cpl into an appointment for a senior Pte?   Would there still be as much concern?

Lets take this a step farther.   Our new MCpl rank can be referred to simply as Cpl.   Our Sr Pte appointment could be known as Lance-Cpl (LCpl), PFC, or Master Pte (MPte).


----------



## portcullisguy

I don't think that's anything new .. I could swear I read somewhere on this site a while ago that our system used to be exactly that... Pte, then LCpl, then Cpl (as a leadership rank, not a pay progression rank).

Apparently you don't get your Cpl after 2 years' from the date you are sworn in, in the reserves.  At least, not in my unit.  My 2 years' was up on 5 April, and I am still a Pte.  Do I mind?  Not at all.  I have less than 1 full year qualified in my MOC and I do not believe for a moment that I have absorbed all I need to learn as a Pte.  A lot of what I learned last summer on BIQ has already seeped from my rather overflowing little head, and I flip through my notes from last summer every now and then as a refresher.  I could barely remember enough to explain to the Americans we were training with this month about how our section attacks work and how they are different from theirs, although I remembered a bit more than my section 2ic, a Cpl ... 

Yeah, the pay raise would be nice, but I only just made IPC 3 as a Pte, and that is $91 per full day now, which isn't too bad.  Besides, I have the personal luxury of not having to do this for the money.  My civvy job pays the equivalent of a senior Major, over $200 a day.  I do this to learn and to give something back.  The money just makes it possible without having to sacrifice my car/house/etc. if I go away longer than a weekend.

My main incentive is that I enjoy doing the job I do, both in the military, and outside of it.  And, in my third year as a reservist, I know I still have much to learn at my level before I would feel comfortable with a promotion.  I've already met people I was on course with and who have been promoted, but in whom I haven't seen an equal rise in their skill, ability, or motivation to do the job.


----------



## willy

The two years does indeed start from the day you swear in.  Promotions don't just happen though, there's a lot of paperwork that has to be completed before you get your hooks.  I suspect that your unit is probably on minimum manning for the summer, and that if you are in fact qualified to Cpl, you'll probably get your promotion come September.  It will likely be retroactive to the date you qualified for Cpl, and in that case it will come with back pay as well.


----------



## willy

I have a few other thoughts on this as well, mainly pertaining to what Infanteer posted:



> As well, the Brits promote their soldiers a wee bit quicker than us.  Their career structure often attempts to put guys in the LCPL (MCPL equivalent) rank after 3 years, making them section 2ic's.  Considering the regs have roughly 4 to Cpl and 2 to Mcpl, we tend to be the ones who promote slower.  The arguments for and against faster or slower promotion are many, but I believe the Brits do it to fit it into their more rigid 22-year career pattern.



We've discussed this before-- I don't know, maybe this would work out ok for the infantry, but based on my experience in my trade, I think that promotion should be a little slower than this.  Are the promotions that fast in the reg infantry?  In my trade, in the reg force, it's nearly unheard of to get your leaf without at least 10 years in.  I think that one of the things that puts us in good stead, man for man, against some of our allied militaries is the fact that we are often have a bit on them in the professionalism department, and I think that the biggest reason for that is that we promote more slowly than they do.  Now having said that, I don't think that it should really be neccessary to spend 10 years in the military before seeing a leaf.

I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.


----------



## Infanteer

McG, your comparison list is a bit off.   Most of my examples below will pertain to the infantry, but the general level of responsibility is there.   As you can see, I advocate the current British System because it is the most simple and clear cut and it has some traditional value to our Army, which used it until unification.

If we wanted to do a direct comparison of rank and responsibility, it would look like this

Canada                                                       Britain                                                                    United States
Private/Corporal                                 Private                                                              All ranks of Private, Specialist/Corporal
Master Corporal                                   Lance Corporal                                           Sergeant
Sergeant                                                   Corporal                                                          Staff Sergeant
Warrant Officer                                   Sergeant/Staff Sergeant                   Sergeant First Class
MWO                                                            Warrant Officer 2                                   Master Sergeant/First Sergeant
CWO                                                            Warrant Officer 1                                   Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major/
                                                                                                                                                      Command Sergeant Major of the Army

Here is a more detailed layout.   The Royal Marines are exactly the same as the British Army while the United States Marine Corps is very similar to the US Army, with a few name changes (Gunnery Sergeant).   Again, this pertains to the Infantry, but is mostly accurate for the other arms as well.

*Privates:*

Canada has three levels of Privates: Pte (R), Pte (U), Pte (T).   These all fall under the rank of Private.   Obviously, Pte(R) is in training, Pte(U) is fresh to a unit, and Pte(T) is awarded his hook (in some units) as a competant soldier.   All three are individual soldiers, with no additional responsibilities.  All three of these levels fall under the single rank of Private, the nomials at the end are designators.

Britain has three classes of Private: Class 3, Class 2, and Class 1.   These would be akin to our IPC codes, with some other qualifying characteristics (ie: in the Armour, a Trooper must have a certain amount of TI and get both his gunner and his driver course to be eligible.)   All these Classes fall under the rank of Private as well.

The US has three seperate ranks of Private: Private (Pv1), Private (Pv2), and Private First Class (PFC).   All three are separate ranks of private and are afforded separate paygrades; E1, E2, and E3 respectively.   PV1 is for soldiers in Basic Training.   I believe PV2 is given to graduates of Basic and PFC is akin to a Private Trained in Canada or Private Class Two in Britain, although I am not 100% sure.

*Corporals:*

Canada has the rank of Corporal, which is technically the first level of the NCO chain.   However, as previously highlighted, there is no leadership requirement and TI is the real factor in promotion to Corporal.   I understand it is done a bit differently in the Engineers, with Corporals actually needing a leadership course.   Corporals, for the most part, are individual soldiers with no real responsibility.   A glorified private in Canada

For the British, Lance Corporal is the first step into the NCO chain.   I am unsure of whether it is an actual rank or an appointment.   Either way, to become a Lance Corporal, one must pass leadership training and in the Infantry assumes duties as an Infantry section 2ic.

The British Corporal is the next step up in rank.   A Corporal in the British Army undergoes further leadership training and is the true commander of field forces.   In the Infantry, a Corporal is a section commander, commanding his soldiers within a Platoon with the help of his LCpl 2ic.

The Americans have a split at the paygrade of E4 between Corporal and Specialist.   The way I understand it, specialist is akin to our Corporal, a glorified private, while an American Army Corporal is a soldier with basic leadership training that can assume a leadership role if required.

*Master Corporal*

A uniquely Canadian position, the Master Corporal is an appointment, although it has become a de facto rank.   Master Corporals in the Infantry are section 2ic's and must attend leadership training.   The true bottom rung of the NCO.

*Sergeant*

In Canada the Sergeant is the first SNCO rank.   In the Infantry, Sergeants are section commanders, who command with the aid of a 2ic (Mcpl).

In Britain, further leadership training can lead to promotion to Sergeant, which is the first SNCO rank in the British Army as well.   A Sergeant acts as the top NCO in an Infantry Platoon/Tank Troop/Engineer Troop.   He provides advice and correls the junior Lieutenants put in command of these units.

In America, the "buck" Sergeant is the first level of command.   An American Sergeant (E5) usually commands an infantry fire team, which 2 or 3 usually make up a squad.

*Staff Sergeant*

Canada abandoned the rank of Staff Sergeant upon unification.   Warrant Officers will fill out the roles that were covered by this rank.

In Britain, a Staff Sergeant, or a Colour Sergeant in the Infantry, is a staff level NCO.   They often perform the roles as Platoon Sergeants, but can also serve as NCO's in unit staffs as well as taking on the key position of CQMS, running company stores and weapons.

In the United States, a Staff Sergeant (E6) is the Squad Leader, commanding a unit composed of fireteams, which he directs through his Sergeants.   A Staff Sergeant fulfills the duties of a Canadian Sergeant and a British Corporal.

From here on, the ranks take a big diversion among the three militaries, I'll try and sum it up as neatly as possible.

*Platoon NCO (Canada and US)*

The Canadian Warrant Officer (WO) fulfills the role of Platoon Warrant.   Fulfilled by a Sergeant in the British Army, a Warrant will act as top NCO in a platoon as well as filling out the duties accomplished by a British Staff Sergeant (Staff duties, CQMS)

The American Sergeant First Class (E7) is very similar to the Canadian Warrant Officer, filling out similar duties as Platoon Sergeant.

*Company NCO*

In Canada, the Master Warrant Officer acts as the Company Sergeant Major, head NCO in the company responsible for the skills, discipline, and dress and deportment of the other ranks in the company.

In Britain, the rank of Warrant Officer 2 (WO2) does the same thing as a MWO, acting as CSM.

In the US, the rank grade of E8 is split between Master Sergeant and First Sergeant.   Both are the same rank level, but have different responsibilities of command, of which I am unsure of how it works.   I do know that First Sergeants are the Company NCO's, often refered to as "Top Kicks" or "First Shirts", they do the same thing as a Canadian MWO in the CSM role.

*Higher Level NCO's*

In Canada, the Chief Warrant Officer is the highest rank for an NCM.   A CWO can be appointed as a Regimental Sergeant Major, the top NCO in a battalion level formation (called Regiment in the other arms).   As well, CWOs can act as Sergeants Major in larger formations (Brigade), bases, and the right hand man of the Chief of Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces CWO (top NCM in the CF).

Britain has the same roles performed by a Warrant Officer 1 (WO1).

In the US, the highest enlisted pay grade of E9 is divided into three ranks: Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and Command Sergeant Major of the Army.   I believe Sergeants Major act at battalion level (Canadian RSM), Command Sergeants Major act at Brigade and Division Levels (our formation and base CWO), while the Command Sergeant Major of the Army is the highest enlisted rank in the Army.


----------



## Infanteer

> I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.



The Corporal rank as it stands was designed exactly for that reason, to designate "journeyman" level soldiers.  However, I view rank as a symbol of command, not trade competence (which is only one factor) or time in.

I think these problems also exist in the officer corps.  Rank exams were removed and now 2nd Lt - Lt - Captain is a TI thing as well, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## willy

Well, for all ranks after Corporal, I agree with you 100%, but there must be a place for "skilled workers" in the infantry as well, isn't there?  I don't see anything wrong with having a non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers.


----------



## ags281

I also see Cpl as ideally having some command authority. For the "skilled worker" what's wrong with keeping people at single hooks while adding a few IPC's so that a full career as a Pte is financially viable?


----------



## willy

Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".  In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?  Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.  If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.  I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.  I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.  Who wants a career Pte?


----------



## ags281

willy said:
			
		

> Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".   In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?   Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.


MCpl would not be a redundant rank as you suggest. Cpl would indicate a leader in training (the 2Lt of NCO's if you will), and MCpls would be appointed to indicate that they are a fully qualified/proven/experienced Cpl.


			
				willy said:
			
		

> If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.   I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.   I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.   Who wants a career Pte?


I think you may be getting caught up too much in titles. Single hooks could be called lance corporal like it used to be. I'm talking about redefining the meaning of single hooks. Rather than indicating a trained Pte, they would indicate the skill set that Cpl currently does, thus creating the "non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers" that you desire (obviously making it such that the single hooks are not a gimme, so that there is that feeling of accomplishment and respect and not the current problem that exists with Cpl). It seems strange to me to give a "non-NCO" the rank of Cpl, as a Cpl is an NCO by definition of the word.


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Interesting topic of discussion.

I wonder why it is that Canada is the only country that has a Corporal, and a Captain rank, that is not a rank, but an indication of time served?  You'll not find this in any other army, and for good reason.  A rank is a position of responsibility, an indication to all that a leader, no matter how junior, is present.

"PFC" and "Senior Private" ranks abound in the world's armies.  Many do an entire career as PFC, just as we have Corporals today.  The difference is that Corporal, and Captain, are an indication of something earned, which in our army, is not the case.  It is automatic, hence it is not a rank at all.

The only true ranks are ones granted for performance, by my definition.  In our army, ranks start at the Master Corporal and the Major level.  I am among those that think that this is a ludicrous situation.  A Private is a Private, not a Corporal.  A Lieutenant is a Lieutenant, not a Captain.

Boy, it's a good thing I'm not in charge, isn't it?


----------



## willy

Well, ags, I'm not going to argue with you about it too much, because we seem to be talking about similar things, just using different words.   All I'll say is that Cpls already are the "2Lt of NCO's" to a large extent, and MCpls are already appointed on the basis of their proven qualification.   The thing is that as the "2Lt's of the NCOs", Cpls may be given leadership tasks, but not on a permanent basis (usually).   That's the job of the MCpls.   If you make both MCpls and Cpls true NCO's with full time leadership roles, then you have two supervisor ranks doing exactly the same job, which I don't think makes much sense.   I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.


----------



## willy

> "PFC" and "Senior Private" ranks abound in the world's armies.   Many do an entire career as PFC, just as we have Corporals today



Actually, the American "Specialist" ranks are the ones directly equivalent to our use of the Cpl rank.  Many in the US Army stay as Specialists for a long time, but I don't think they have many long serving PFC's.  They also have an up or out policy in effect, don't they?


----------



## Mr. Ted

A couple of comments regarding the last post.

Firstly, however, excellent discussion I have to say.

The rank of master-corporal is not particular to Canada.  Belgium, and I believe France also retain the rank as "Caporal-Chef".  Belgium for sure has it, not too sure about France.  But it's out there, which was a surprise to me as I always assumed it was a neat bit of Canadiana as well.  Not so.

It's odd that the American rank of E-6 Staff Sargent is a squad leader - he has no "staff" responsibilities unilke a more senior NCO - so why the "staff" designation to describe a squad leader/section commander?

Ted


----------



## ags281

willy said:
			
		

> I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.



Both the Cpl and L/Cpl would be skilled. The difference is that the L/Cpl would be given no leadership responsibility. The Cpl would be, as it is now, a leadership as needed job.

I agree though, we do seem to be getting caught up in details too much, so I'll just leave it at that. Whatever the details, we're in agreement that there needs to be some actual earning of rank here, and that leadership roles should not be given based simply on time in.


----------



## ZipperHead

I would love to see (as mentioned by the many wise men above) a system of: Private, Lance Corporal (a career private with no leadership potential or aspirations.... not everyone is cut out to be a leader, so why try to force it???), Corporal, Sergeant, WO, etc...... There is no real need to have the MCpl rank/appointment/whatever if we followed this scheme, and we would please the PC crowd who don't like calling people Master, as though we are slave owners or something.... tree huggers :crybaby:

We need to focus on leadership at the Corporal level, not at the MCpl and above level. As I said before, the time spent as a Cpl is the most important, as you are the direct link between the young soldiers and the powers that be. It's a tough line to straddle, as you are the troops "buddy" and also expected to crack the whip. There's no way that people should cruise through that rank level. When I first joined, it wasn't unusual to see one-hooks or no-hooks on their CLC, and then get promoted to MCpl right after their course. I'm sure there were some good guys that learned quick and did well, but I suspect a lot of the problems that we have now can be traced back to that era, where people didn't learn to be junior leaders. They got their leaf, forgot about looking after the soldiers, and rose to their level of incompetence. 

No rank should be automatic, except RSM (retired service member), and that should be like the Brit system: after 22 years (or 25.... close enough) you're done. On to becoming a WalMart "greeter" or a Commisionaire. No point in having 54 year old Corporals (or Sgt's, or WO's for that matter) manning the trenches. Or if the CSS trades don't like that (because they are all so "valuable" that they should be kept in indefinitely.... was my sarcasm very apparent there????) let all the old combat arms types (25 years in) OT over to these invaluable trades. Anyway, that's not gonna happen with this cat, as 25 years (if they give me the option.......) will be plenty for me. I'm starting to think that my BE1 (first 3 year hitch) should have been where I cut the rope, but that's long ago.

Hopefully the people at NDHQ read things like this, steal the great ideas, form a new department (DirNewRkStruc-Mil, or the Directorate of New Rank Structure - Military) so that, because it's a new department, it's like a posting (even though he/she keeps the same cubicle and staff), he/she can get a promotion, and we can waste more money doing studies and surveys to see if it's "synergy and paradigm fit the human resources parameters set out" (whatever that may have meant....), and then cancel it unceremoniously because somebody will say, "But what's the civilian equivalent? We can't do that....". (I gotta stop sniffing Liquid Paper at work....... :blotto

Al


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The Corporal rank as it stands was designed exactly for that reason, to designate "journeyman" level soldiers.  However, I view rank as a symbol of command, not trade competence (which is only one factor) or time in.


Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?


----------



## Infanteer

> No rank should be automatic, except RSM (retired service member), and that should be like the Brit system: after 22 years (or 25.... close enough) you're done. On to becoming a WalMart "greeter" or a Commisionaire. No point in having 54 year old Corporals (or Sgt's, or WO's for that matter) manning the trenches. Or if the CSS trades don't like that (because they are all so "valuable" that they should be kept in indefinitely.... was my sarcasm very apparent there?) let all the old combat arms types (25 years in) OT over to these invaluable trades. Anyway, that's not gonna happen with this cat, as 25 years (if they give me the option.......) will be plenty for me. I'm starting to think that my BE1 (first 3 year hitch) should have been where I cut the rope, but that's long ago.



We are not going to make very many friends with that idea, but I find myself agreeing with you.



> Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?



I would be satisfied if a private soldier was precisely that, a Private soldier.   I see no need to create two working ranks based on TI, a soldier can be judged on is abilities alone.   For career troopies, I see no problem with the British system of Classes within the Private rank.   A little different then our IPC codes, these usually come when certain qualifications are met (essential courses and TI) and the CO gives his recommendation.   The idea of promotion to a higher rank to me implies greater increase in command and responsibility.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

its unfortunate these days that it isn't necessarily your abilities that get you ahead rather then having the course and needing a postion filled.   My current Sgt who is acting CQ couldn't lead a one man rush to the whor.e house on pay day.


----------



## Infanteer

Same problem exists in the reserves.   Some NCO friends of mine are a bit disapointed with how leadership nomination is done.  When they were troops, they were recommended for leadership training and offered the course by the CoC.   Now, troops are badgered about going on their leadership course (I refused twice) and anyone who puts in their name can pretty much get a spot.   I had a guy on my basic course that spent one year as a trained private, did his JLC/JNCO the next summer, and was a Master Corporal in the fall; 1 year from private to MCpl blew me away.


----------



## ags281

Settle down Al, you're making too much sense.

The only argument I can think of people using for keeping MCpl is to have parallel rank structure to the Navy and Air Force. The thing is, I don't see any reason why MCpl shouldn't be dumped forces-wide. I see it looking something like this:

        Army:                         Air Force:                   Navy:

        Pte                              AC                                   OS
        LCpl                           LAC                                 AS
        -----------------------------------------------
        Cpl                             Cpl                                    LS
        Sgt                             Sgt                                   MS
        SSgt/CSgt             FSgt                                PO2
        WO                           WO                                   PO1
        CWO                        CWO                                CPO

        (line indicates non-NCO/NCO divide)


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?
> 
> 
> 
> I would be satisfied if a private soldier was precisely that, a Private soldier.   I see no need to create two working ranks based on TI, a soldier can be judged on is abilities alone.
Click to expand...

Effectivly, this would be the result of making Cpl an appointment.   The next step would be to rename the appointment to PFC, LCpl, MPte, or something of that nature.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> McG, your comparison list is a bit off.


I used an unofficial reproduction of STANAG 2116 (Edition 5) as my reference.   Going to a US source (dated 1999) I find a slightly different result:

*Canadian vs US ranks*


*NATO**Canada**US*OR-9CWOSergeant-Major of the Army & Command Sergeant-Major OR-8MWOFirst Sergeant & Sergeant-Major OR-7WOSergeant First Class & Master Sergeant OR-6*Staff SergeantOR-5SgtSergeantOR-4MCplCorporalOR-3CplPrivate 1st ClassOR-2Pte(T)Private E.2OR-1Pte(R) & Pte (B)Private E.1

* Canada is shown to have no equivalent to OR-6​
Just based on where this list shows our Sgt compared to one in the US, I tend to be more sceptical of it.


----------



## Infanteer

That STANAG list is wrong too.  I've looked in many US Manuals and I am confident of how the system works on paper.  I think we all have a grasp on how the CF works  ;D.

Well, I think we have all said our piece on this.  I simply can find no reason to make a dual level rank or appointment at the private soldier level.  I feel differences in time in or qualifications can be covered by our IPC system or the British Class rating.  Unless anyone can offer something new to the debate, I am going to pull a fighting withdrawl.


----------



## Long in the tooth

A bit late, but my two cents...

I can't believe that a serious discussion about Cpl/MCpl has gone on without mentioning Paul Hellyer.  Love 'im or hate 'im, he changed the Canadian military more than just about anyone else in the last fifty years.

In 'Damn the torpedoes' Hellyer writes how the MCpl appointment (gawd I hate that) came to pass.  The Navy and Airforce promoted their members to Cpl after they were technically - not leadership - qualified.  Soldiers were required to pass rigorous leadership training, and Cpls were section commanders and well on their way to becoming Sergeants.

As today, Cpl pay was significantly more than Ptes, and soldiers were tired of the navy and airforce members making more simply to do their jobs.  After all, the Army Pte could also fire several different weapons and operate sigs equipment and vehs as well.  So with unification his goal, Hellyer had to meet the Army's demands.  Thus the appointment Master Corporal, for good or bad.


----------



## Infanteer

Granatstein's book "Who killed the Canadian Military" gives a good overview on Hellyer and the single rank structure.  After reading that, I tend to blame him less for screwing up the CF (Although he gets a big thumbs down for throwing tradition on its head).  As suspected, our biggest problems seem to stem from MacDonalds decision under Trudeau to civilianize the senior command and create NDHQ.  I still hold that Trudeau presented the biggest single force in damaging the capabilites of the Canadian Military; what more could you expect from a duty-dodging lawyer.


----------



## CDNsig

In regard to the MCpl being a "defacto" rank, having been promoted about six months ago, I would have to say there is nothing defacto about it. I seem to have acquired a great deal more responsiblility than I ever had as a Cpl (in fact, some of my duties seem to be more commensurate with a Sgt)... This level of responsibility is the one that has to actually get things done, as opposed to merely "passing on". as such it receives the flak from unhappy subordinates, and from higher when the job isn't done right.
 I used to wonder why so many long serving Cpls I knew were uninterested in promotion. Now I think I understand; they felt that the renumeration (both in pay and in respect from higher) wasn't worth the added headaches. While I don't necessarily agree, I do understand... (especially pay wise)
 For example, (1) a Mcpl is immediately at the highest IPC for the rank; the reason being if he was not, he would be making less than the top IPC Cpl... (2) I make less than a spec pay Cpl... (3) You suddenly find yourself buried in paperwork... (4) You are micromanaged and left very little latitude for decision making, but YOU wear it if things go wrong...
 I enjoy my job, but I would like to see a little more from higher to show that I earned this rank and do my best each and every day. If this happened, people might try a little harder for promotion.


----------



## Infanteer

I think you are misunderstanding the term.

MCpl is by "de jure" an appointment.  The law (QR&O) designates it as such

It is, however, a "de facto" rank.  In reality, a MCpl has different roles and responsibilites than a Cpl, one is seen as higher on the food chain then the other, and it is given out as such on parade (Promotion to MCpl....).


----------



## portcullisguy

Infanteer has eloquently pointed out the definitions quite accurately.

"De lure" = "of/in law".  "De facto" = "of/in fact".

He is correct.  Master Corporal is "in law" an appointment, as the statutes describe it so.  It is also "in fact" a rank, because the organization and culture of the army treats it as such.

I'm quite sure a MCpl has their plate full on several levels, which is why they are paid more than a Cpl, and why they are treated as if it is a higher rank.

The legal aspect of being a MCpl is that your seniority is the date of your promotion to Cpl, regardless of when you were appointed to MCpl.  This means very little most of the time, but probably relates more to sorting out who is who in the zoo amongst MCpls.

For example, Cpl Bloggins is appointed MCpl today, but he was promoted to Cpl a year ago.  Cpl Jones was appointed to MCpl a month ago, and was promoted to Cpl 6 months ago.  MCpl Bloggins is senior, even though he has less time as a MCpl, because he was promoted to Cpl first.

It's mostly just semantics, I doubt any one would really care to distinguish the difference.  But then again, what do I know?  I'm only a Pte.

Back on track a little... I believe the reserves necessarily promote quicker than they should for retention reasons, and this has the side effect of promoting people ahead of when they are ready.  I even heard of a now-defunct scheme where a new recruit was able to take a leadership course right after their QL3, and enter their unit as a MCpl, skipping right over Cpl.  Apparently one of our senior NCO's began their service this way.  I can see why the program is no longer around, as I can almost hear the protests about it already.  It sounds like, again, retention of leadership qualified persons may have contributed to that program being implemented in the first place.

But no matter what the promotion times are, someone is bound to be passed over, or promoted too soon, and that means other people are going to be upset by the system.

I don't think this problem is unique to the military, either.  I see this all the time in my civvy job.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Just a point from real life.  Being a Sgt in the CF entitles you to Staff NCO barracks in the US (those assigned to E6+).  From working with US forces I have noticed that their Sgts (E5) are considered either as a Cpl or as a Sgt, depending on their job.  Sometimes they drive a truck, sometimes they are a section commander or filling a position in a HQ similar to Canadian Ops WO.  It's very difficult to pin down a comparision at any level between us and them, don't even mention WO's its a completely different system.  They are amazed to see 15 year Cpls performing leadership tasks such as packet commander.  These are things that would be assigned to 5 or 8 year Sgts or SSgts in their forces.  At the same time they are surprised by the work that is done by a CA Sgt, especially in support trades.  By the time they reach E6 they are truely a Staff NCO, doing a lot of planning and supervising.  Of course they've got the pers to do that.


----------



## Yard Ape

There was a time when you could look at a regular Cpl and know that individual had Basic Winter Warfare, Machine Gunner Crse, and drive wheel or driver track.  The Army did a brief experiment with including the driver wheel course in the SQ, but I hear it was dropped to reduce course length.  As a minimum, the old "unofficial" prerequisits should be brought back as official requirments.


----------



## portcullisguy

Wish I had done a driver course in my SQ, or even shortly after (but, I did get DP2A).

Looks like they're looking for augmentees for Roto 3 on Op Athena, and the preference will be for those with driver or linguist profiles.  I don't speak a word of Pushtun or Urdu, and I don't have my 404's.  I might be SOL.


----------



## pbi

A few comments:

a) G7 is Engineer/Infrastructure; G8 is Financial Management. I believe LFWAHQ has both of these;

b) We do not use the NATO system below HQ level. An Ops O is an Ops O, not an S3;

c) If Dr G. thinks we have too many NCO/WO ranks he should check out a few other armies first. The Germans and Poles both have quite complex structures, and the US is no slacker either (although their WO is a "hybrid" unlike the Commonwealth-style WO). IMHO we have a pretty trim structure. I don't see how we could cut out six ranks and still tie rank to function;

d) QMSI (Quartermaster Sgt Instructor) in PPCLI battalions is the most senior In MWO in the bn, and is the understudy to the RSM. He is the guy who does all the "routine" stuff while the RSM goes around with the CO and takes care of NCO/WO career management issues. The "Q" usually works very closely with the DCO in organizing a whole list of unit activities. He normally does not deploy but acts as the Rear Party SM. His position equates to "DSM" in the RCR, and is not really an "official" position. IIRC it was created by using the position allocated to the bn for an Ops MWO; and

d) all promotions are based on merit. There is a misconception that Cpl and Capt are automatic: they are not: the CO can stop them for reasonable cause. If anybody who doesn't deserve those ranks gets them it is because people in the unit are not doing their jobs to stop it.

Cheers


----------



## Michael Dorosh

We have QMSI in the reserves, at least our unit has had one in the past (come to think of it, though, I have no idea if we have one right now or not).  I've seen it referred to as Quarter Master Senior Instructor rather than Sergeant.   And he has always been the understudy to the RSM as you point out.


----------



## Arctic Acorn

combat_medic said:
			
		

> OK, NO ONE had better do ANYTHING to the rank (appointment) of Master Corporal until I get my hands on it... I'm too bloddy close now!



Amen to that, man.  :threat:

 :dontpanic:
T.A.


----------



## Arctic Acorn

Here's a question...if Corporal is supposed to be the 'Journeyman' rank for the CF, then why are there only 4 IPC's vice a Captain's 10 IPC's? 

Also, I don't really see a problem with the way the rank structure system is set up as is. However, it would be nice to make a few 'tweaks', such as: 

- More IPC's for the rank of Corporal, to recognise that most NCM's will stay at that rank for the majority of their careers. A massive amount of expertise is garnered during that time, and it should be adequately compensated for. 

- The adoption of a 'Corporals Course'. I've never held with the view that a corporal is nothing more than a glorified Private. Corporals need to be able to step in and fill leadership roles, and a course on how to develop leadership skills would better prepare them. It could even be folded into the current PLQ mod system without too much pain. For instance, make a "Mod 1: Intro to Basic Leadership" or something. A Private would need to complete this basic course to be eligable for promotion to Cpl, and that qualification would be a prerequisate for the PLQ. As far as I'm concerned, there should be a distinction between a 'leader' and a 'supervisor'. A leader can fill a section 2 i/c role with the right training. A supervisor would be the next step, and would have the training to be able to write PER's/UER's and the like. 

I realise that this has been flogged to death in another thread, but I think its pretty sound and bears on this thread as well. 

My .02

 :dontpanic:
T.A.


----------



## Recce41

I may have missed it. But here is the brake down for ranks.
 Cdn            Brit                   US
Pte      =     Pte            =    Pte/L Cpl
Cpl              LCpl                 Cpl
MCpl           Cpl                   Sgt E5
Sgt             Sgt                  Sgt E6
WO             Staff Sgt          Sgt E7
MWO          WO2                Sgt E7/E8
CWO           WO1               Sgt E8

I had this for the rank comparision chart from NATO, Remember these are common ranks. The Brits also have Colour Sgts=WO,MWO, Cpl of the Horse=SSM,CSM. CpL Maj= SSM,MWO,etc depending on Regt. The US have E5s as Tank drivers/gunners for a E6. I know on one SUE, the E5s from the marines were not allowed in the Sgt/Wos mess.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Recce41 said:
			
		

> I may have missed it. But here is the brake down for ranks.
> Cdn                  Brit                             US
> Pte         =        Pte                  =      Pte/L Cpl
> Cpl                     LCpl                          Cpl
> MCpl                 Cpl                             Sgt E5
> Sgt                    Sgt                           Sgt E6
> WO                    Staff Sgt               Sgt E7
> MWO               WO2                        Sgt E7/E8
> CWO                 WO1                       Sgt E8
> 
> I had this for the rank comparision chart from NATO, Remember these are common ranks. The Brits also have Colour Sgts=WO,MWO, Cpl of the Horse=SSM,CSM. CpL Maj= SSM,MWO,etc depending on Regt. The US have E5s as Tank drivers/gunners for a E6. I know on one SUE, the E5s from the marines were not allowed in the Sgt/Wos mess.



Yeah, but once again, rank comparisons are meaningless without knowing the responsibilities.  A British Corporal is a section commander, whereas we have made sergeant the rank for a section commander (in theory).  So a Master corporal  really doesn't equal a British Sergeant (who is 2 i/c of a platoon, which is what our Warrant Officers do).


----------



## ab136

I'm probably going to stir the s**t now. I am in the process of starting my CF career.....I have 15 years of civvy duty as an electrician, I am a journeyman.  I am told that, pending skills comparison,  I may have the opportunity to be promoted to Cpl after Basic. Unfortunately I have read in other threads that this seem like sort of a slap in the face to some CF members. In this instance the Cpl rank gives someone with skills recognition for these skills.  Conversely if a Elect. Dist. Tech. retires from the army he/she would be recognized in the civvy world with the pay level and respnsibility for his/her experience with in the army. There is life after the army and you should be ready for a civvy point of view. I would hope that the road taken here is not one-way.

I'm not posting this to ruffle feathers; I just want to know how members feel about these kind of appointments.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Corporal is the first rank after Private, so....

If the issue is that you don't have to wait four years for your promotion, tell the whiners to suck it.  Skilled tradesmen should be rewarded. Not to imply that infantry aren't skilled tradesemen, but you can't join up as an infantryman - unless you've trained in another Army, in which case, promote them to corporal too given the proper equivalencies.


----------



## ab136

Thanks Micheal!  I appreciate your reply.  I agree.  The an infantry soldier is a very skilled tradesman.  I can only imagine what an infantry soldier has to do to "earn his hooks".  The backbone of the army.  If I get in.....it would be a pleasure to try and support these guys.


----------



## 1feral1

The Aussie System as fol:

PTE/SPR/CFN/SIG/GNR/TPR - no Chev
LCPL/LBDR - 1 chev
CPL/BDR - 2 chevs
SGT - 3 chevs
SSGT - 3 chevs with crown 
WO Class 2 - Crown
WO1 Class 1 - Coat of Arms

The SSGT rank is being phased out, but there still is the odd SSGT in existance

The rank of LCPL is NOT an appointment, but is a rank.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> The Aussie System as fol:
> 
> PTE/SPR/CFN/SIG/GNR/TPR - no Chev
> LCPL/LBDR - 1 chev
> CPL/BDR - 2 chevs
> SGT - 3 chevs
> SSGT - 3 chevs with crown
> WO Class 2 - Crown
> WO1 Class 1 - Coat of Arms
> 
> The SSGT rank is being phased out, but there still is the odd SSGT in existance
> 
> The rank of LCPL is NOT an appointment, but is a rank.



Yeah, Wes, but what do they do?


----------



## Recce41

Mike
 The problem is that we are too small. My father was a Staff but retired a WO. MCpls when they first came around, were Sec Com. and Cpl were 2ics. Sgts were the Ptl Sgt?Tp Sgt, and the WO was the CQ/SQ. 
 I do understand responsability, but the Armour Corp still had Snr troopers CC vehs until about 93. When I was in England, I as a MCpl ate in the Snr NCOs mess. For to them I was entitled to. 
 I wish they would have gotten rid of that damn MCpl rank. It now means F^&* all.


----------



## Veterans son

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> The Aussie System as fol:
> 
> PTE/SPR/CFN/SIG/GNR/TPR - no Chev
> LCPL/LBDR - 1 chev
> CPL/BDR - 2 chevs
> SGT - 3 chevs
> SSGT - 3 chevs with crown
> WO Class 2 - Crown
> WO1 Class 1 - Coat of Arms
> 
> The SSGT rank is being phased out, but there still is the odd SSGT in existance
> 
> The rank of LCPL is NOT an appointment, but is a rank.



So this would be the rank structure used by the Canadian Forces(Army) prior to 1968?


----------



## Long in the tooth

I believe that changing the rank structures from Cpl/MCpl back to LCpl/Cpl is just rearranging the deck chairs.  Although I will concede that the b*stard appointment MCpl should have been legislated as a rank or gotten rid of long ago.  The big problem facing the combat arms (mainly the Infantry) is the ISCC (5B/6A) essentially qualifies the soldier for Sgt as well as MCpl, the SAIC being a relatively minor inconvenience afterwards.  Other trades have a more graduated system, with the Infantry more a 'make or break' method.

The demographic time bomb facing the CF was caused when we downsized from 80,000 to 54,000.  Some trades went 7 years without any new members.  Although the CF is trying to cover up the problem by offering IPS's to everyone, when people hit 20, 22 or 25 years service they will submit their release.  Instead of being able to depend on a MCpl/Cpl with 15 or 18 years corporate memory they will now have only 5 or 6.  "May you live in interesting times".


----------



## Jungle

Recce41 said:
			
		

> When I was in England, I as a MCpl ate in the Snr NCOs mess. For to them I was entitled to.


I went to the UK as a Mcpl in 1989, and used the JR quarters and Mess. Like here, only Sgts and above are entitled to the Snr NCOs Mess. They were probably confused about what a Mcpl was when you went, so they played safe and put you in the SNCOs Mess  
Actually, if you look at their rank structure, our Sgts would be in the JRs Mess in the UK. Their section commanders (or equivalent) are Cpls, and belong to the JRs.  ;D


----------



## Infanteer

Which is probably one reason why going back to an older system would not simply be "rearranging the deck chairs".....


----------



## pbi

> Instead of being able to depend on a MCpl/Cpl with 15 or 18 years corporate memory they will now have only 5 or 6.



Why is having a person at this rank level after 15 years a good thing? Cheers.


----------



## Long in the tooth

It is not a good thing, but is what we have come to depend on.  Wether Infantry, RMS, or air force maintenance.  We have to accept the demographics.  And retention rates...


----------



## Steel Badger

Perhaps we should be considering the fact that the devaluation of the rank of Corporal (and above) came about as an expedient measure to ensure higher rates of pay. I believe it was Hellyer (Boo Hiss  :threat who faound that he could not get the treasury board to approve across the board increases in the payscale,. As pay was tied to rank and the Goverment woulden't budge, Hellyer promoted people...or put in a different way, reduced the rank of Corporal to a species of senior private and Senior NCO's from PL 2iC's to section commander; thus ensuring higher pay by increasing the rank required for the position.



SB


----------



## RCA

Just from a gunner perspective.

In the Artillery, Gun Commanders (Det Comds) have traditionally been(and still are) Sgts (Gun Sgt). So Canadian Arty Sgts would be allowed in the British mess following Jungle's analogy. MBdrs are 2ics. Though more and more frequently, you see MBdr between the trails. However, all must be qual to fire (old 6A). Bdr have been 2ic for ages, but they can not (legally) fire. At one time Bdr were FOO Techs and actually called down fire as part of fire planning. But pre-requites were changed to MBdr because of the responsibilities (who can you hang for errors) involved in calling down fire.

Bdr in the Artillery donate (within the old system) someone who holds at least a trade qual - be it Tech, Dvr, Comm or FOO Tech. MBdr is the first level of leadership. ie Ammo NCO, Snr Tech in the Alt CP etc.

So within the Artillery Battery ranks and responsibilities (very simplified) are: (from a reserve perspective; the Reg F have more TI and qual for rank):

Gnrs - Det Mbrs/Ammo Numbers
Bdrs - Tech, Dvr, Comms and/or FOO Tech
MBdrs - Det 2ic, Snr Techs, Ammo NCO, FOO Techs etc
Sgts - Det Comds, Recce Sgt (Snr Tech on Recce), MT, Sigs NCO etc
WO - Recce TSM, Gun TSM, Tech WO (Snr CP Tech), BQMS, and BC Tech
MWO - BSM

Officers
Lts - CPO/GPO (Snr Lt in charge of the Gun Position)
Capts - BK (Battery Captain) 21c of the Bty and in charge of the Gun Area; FOOs
Maj - BC


----------



## 1feral1

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Yeah, Wes, but what do they do?



Sorry for not responding sooner. I feel its this way here.
PTE = CF PTE
LCPL= CF CPL
CPL = CF MCPL
SGT/SSGT = CF SGT/WO 
WO2 = CF MWO
WO1 = CF CWO

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Sorry for not responding sooner. I feel its this way here.
> 
> LCPL= CF CPL
> CPL = CF MCPL
> SGT/SSGT = SGT/WO
> WO2 = MWO
> WO1 = CWO
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



mmmm....you're still not telling me what they DO.   A Sergeant in the CF is ostensibly a section commander while a WO is a platoon 2 i/c.  You mean to say that Staff Sergeants are platoon second in command?   It used to be in all the CW armies that a Staff Sergeant was a CQMS, a Sergeant was a platoon 2 i/c and a corporal a section commander.


----------



## Gilligan

sorry for jumping in here, just a question about the rank structure you gave, Wes is it?  Anyway, I'm in signals in the CF, and currently we have an australian Sig attached to our unit.....but as you stated a Sig has no chevron, however he does.  Maybe you could clarify that for me, I'm a little confused.


----------



## 1feral1

How the generic section works here in all arms as fol:

PTE = Rifleman
LCPL Sect 2 IC
CPL= Sect Comd - CPL is the 1st course for leadership
SGT = PL SGT

1 hook in Australia is LCPL, no chev is trained PTE/SIG/GNR/SPR etc

RAA wise (normally anyways)

GNR - Gun Number ( one of seven for the 105mm Hamel Gun)
LCPL - No2
CPL - No1
SGT - BG, Arty CP & Comd roles
WO2 - BSM and SMIG
W01 - RSM

RAEME wise - TSP TSSU/TST (Technical Support Platoon,Technical Service & Support Unit, and Technical Support Troop))

CFN - Digger (Tradesman - Armourer, Veh Mech, Elec Fitter, etc)
LCPL -   Sect 2/1C
CPL - Sect Leader
SGT - Troop/Det SGT
WO2/WO1 - ASM (Artificer Sergeant Major)

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Gilligan

Thanks!  I'll have to ask him about that.


----------



## Long in the tooth

There's nothing wrong with having soldiers with 15 years experience as MCpl or Cpl except when you depend upon it as a steady state.l


----------



## pbi

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with having soldiers with 15 years experience as MCpl or Cpl except when you depend upon it as a steady state.l



Ok, seen. I agree with that. Otherwise IMHO there is either something wrong with the system or with the person. By 15 years "time in" the individual should be well into the WO rank. As a comparison the British Army limits non-commissioned careers to 20 years. Perhaps this points out something that has been raised here before: that we should decouple rank from technical skills (revert to the old Canadian Army Group system that our current trade badge system partially imitates), such that a person who just wants to be a very good and experienced veh tech Cpl can do that, while the soldier who shows strong leasdership potential can advance in rank more rapidly. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Could you expand on this PBI, I am not to familiar with the concept.

Thanks,
Infanteer


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I'd like to see Good Conduct Chevrons reintroduced; used to be an inverted chevron was worn on the left sleeve by privates and lance-corporals denoting long service; 1 chevron for 2 years, 2 chevrons for 5 years, etc. up to a maximum of 6 chevrons.  It was a bit of recognition for long service soldiers in non-leadership ranks.

Given the current rank system, I'd recommend them for privates and corporals (ie non-leadership ranks).  I have 17 years in (15 as a corporal), and noticed a couple of corporals in the mess at Christmas from our ugly sister regiment that had corporals with even more TI than myself.  

I wouldn't suggest actively encouraging long service corporals like that, but you are going to have them, and if they are anything more than slugs, will be holders in their own way of a lot of regimental lore and knowledge.

Besides, who doesn't want more "crap" to put on their uniform?  I would draw the line there, though, and leave off the St. John's Ambulance award and the Warrior badges...


----------



## Infanteer

I to would like to see "service stripes" for the lower sleeve - although apportioned in a much simpler manner.

Any soldier (officer, SNCO, or OR), can get awarded a service stripe for his Dress Uniform for each 5 year period of service.

'nuff said.


----------



## Steel Badger

An interesting pitn about L/CPL is that it could be awarded and withdrawn as required. It was the pervue of the CO as to the awarding and or removal of the stripe.

According to the Vets I have spoken with, LCPL was very useful for given soldiers a trial at being NCO's. If a soldier didnt work out as a leader, the stripe could be removed without the requirement for a summary trial etc.

IMHO this is a better situation that promoting a soldier to Corporal because of time etc.

A better system would be to:

1 As others have posted, decouple rank from pay <the Hellyer gift that saw Sgts replacing CPls as sect commanders simply to get the pay increase>.  If pay is indexed by time in, merit and  rank then you could see a long svc CPL with a high level of trade qual getting equivalent pay to a newly promoted Inf SGt  etc.

2. Reintroduce LCPL and make a JR NCO mandatory for promotion to CP

Of course, this means that the new modus operandi is that "not every on can or needs to be promoted"
Often soldiers are promoted  because of TI rather tha ability. Some troops are just not leaders. That is not to say they do not make exemplary soldiers or that they do not make great contributions to the unit, just that they may not be suitable for leadership ranks.
If the pay system was able to renumerate such soldiers for their service/experience and ability; the Army wouldn't be forced to promot them just to give them a pay raise.

i offer an example. A good friend of mine was once my 2ic in my rifle section. He was the best 2ic, hell, the best Corporal I have ever had to work with.
His is fit, professional and stands above his peers as an infamtry Corporal. He is just not intersted in going any further. As it stands, I could forcibly promote (DAPS) him but this not a solution which would benefit either the unit or the man. (Because of the peculiarities of reserve svc., this Corporal, being a a skilled tradesman on civvy street, cannot secure enought time off to take his PLQ in any event. A change in the paya syst would benefit such pers as well.)




If the pay systemwas


----------



## Infanteer

I like that prescription Badger....


----------



## McG

It would be nice if we offered up to 10 IPCs to our Cpls.


----------



## Veterans son

Thank you for the informative reply, Steel Badger!


----------



## Edward Campbell

I want to confirm Steel Badger's information.   Lance Corporal was an _appointment_, not a rank, _per se_.   Commanding officers could _appoint_ a percentage* of qualified privates (there was a certain length of service (18 months?) and trade (group 2, if I recall) requirements).   LCpl was a unit _appointment_ â â€œ the hook came down on posting (but not, if I remember, on course).

I cannot remember if this was a rule or a custom but in the units in which I served those who passed the junior NCO course were _appointed_ LCpl even when there were no Cpl vacancies in the unit and, as was more often the case, when an untrained (no junior NCO course) private was _appointed_ LCpl (the â Å“let's see what he's gotâ ? unit selection process) he was required, with only a very, very few and very, very limited exceptions, to attend and pass the next junior NCO course.

We generally saw the junior NCO course as the first and biggest hurdle in a soldier's career.   It was tough, physically tough and mentally tough â â€œ I don't think we blinked at 25%+ failure rates; it was, also, the primary _Methods of Instruction_ course â â€œ all junior NCOs, in all corps, were expected to be qualified unit instructors.   A soldier who failed his junior NCO course once was not seen as a bad soldier, simply as an inadequately prepared one â â€œ it was as much 'our' fault, in the unit, as his.

We did keep a fair number of fairly senior privates who had never tried or had repeatedly failed to pass the _â ?junior boneâ ?_ course â â€œ not every single man had to able to be an NCO and there was always room, especially in the HQ and Support companies for a handful of 'career privates.'   But, as a general rule, if at the end of five years a soldier had been unable or unwilling to pass a junior NCO course he was booted back out to civvie street as being unlikely to become a useful soldier.

One thing I do remember, quite vividly, is that when a very young, just 19 years old, private, with a fresh group 2 LI badge was _appointed_ LCpl his pay more than doubled â â€œ from something like $52.00 (cash, after all deductions) twice a month to $106.00!   The extra money was earned â â€œ especially when that 19 year old _lance jack_ was sent to help the 20 year old 2nd lieutenant orderly officer close the men's _â ?wetsâ ?_ at 2330 on a pay night.   That, too, was part of the testing process â â€œ for both junior NCOs and junior officers.

One of the ways we solved part of the dilemma Steel Badger describes was the trade pay system which was *not* tied to rank.   There were, in the infantry but especially in e.g. Artillery, Engineers and Signals, many group 3** (and within trade group 3 â â€œ higher levels (3 and 3A and then, later, 3X, 3Y and 3Z, I think) privates who earned more than many group 2 corporals.   If memory serves some corps, including the infantry, did have rank/trade ties â â€œ i.e. no senior NCO course until a person was group 3 (of 4+) qualified but, generally, a soldier could get to the highly paid group 3 level without being a leader.   The current system is, in my view, detrimental to developing good leaders and good tradesmen â â€œ we would like out top career soldiers to be both, of course, but, as we have read in these fora, that doesn't always happen.

Commanding officers are, I think m the best judges of who should be promoted up to and including sergeant and who should attend various trade and speciality courses.   I think we have created too many unnecessary bureaucracies in Ottawa in a misguided effort to achieve some sort of mythical 'balance' or 'fairness'. 

----------

* I cannot remember, it was one of one in eight, one in ten or one in twelve ... something like that.

** Trade groups were, roughly, 1 = apprentice, 2 = journeyman, 3 = master, 4 = articifer or, in some corps, was, I think, awarded after one had several group 3 specialities plus a 'master' course.   I think all corps required a person to be a senior NCO before being allowed to undertake long, expensive, often out-of-country (UK mostly) group 4 training, but one did, now and again, see a group 4 private â â€œ usually with the outlines of the recently lost three hooks on the sleeve.


----------



## Steel Badger

Rusty

Thanks for the informative post. Given that I was never in the old army, I am just repeating things that My father and his comrades( as well as my own regiments vet's) have passed on.

Sometimes just mentioning the fact that you prefer the waythe Old Army did it leads to cries of HERESY!!! from those who think the Army began in 1970.


----------



## Kevin_Stevens

Hello, I hope you will not mind me jumping into this thread as an outsider but I am a retired member of the British Army and perhaps I can clarify one or two points on our rank structure which are causing a certain amount of confusion.

Our lowest rank is Private (there are or were 4 grades though these only refer to pay grades), however depending on which regiment or corps you are in this can go under several other names ie;

Royal Green Jackets - Rifleman (I started as one of them)
Guards Battalions        - Guardsmen (Also known as woodentops)
Other regiments         - Private
Artillery                             - Gunner
Special Air Service      - Trooper (These also hold what is termed as shadow rank depending on what rank they were when they originally passed selection)

And so on

Lcpl is a promotion from Private and is a rank not an appointment, normally a section 2IC (a section being 8 men) the next step up from that is Cpl and   is again a promotion.   Section Commanders are normally Cpls although in extreme circumstances this appointment can be held by a Lcpl.   In my day in the Antitank world the Cpl was the Detachment Commander of a 4 man gun unit and the Lcpl number one on the gun.   That of course was the ideal manning however just to muddy the waters a little I was at that time a Rifleman Detachment Commander with a Rifleman number one and a Lcpl driver.   Confusing aint it?

Serjeant (correct spelling for my battalion) and Colour Serjeant were both promotions and Csjts were normally the CQMSs.   Above that is WO2 and WO1, WO2s were Company Serjeant Majors and WO1s Regimental Serjeant Majors, both appointments.   The Band Master was also a WO1

To conclude then, all ranks including Lcpl are promotions and positions such as Sec Comd, CSM, RSM etc are appointments.   This doesn't help your current discussion regarding the possible re-introduction of the rank of Lcpl but .................

Its probably not a good idea to mention   Lance Sergeants (really Cpls) and Cpls of the horse etc <bg>

Regards

Kevin Stevens
The Royal Green Jackets Association


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Kevin - in Canadian practice, Lance Corporal was an appointment, and this was also true of the British Army during WW II.  It may indeed have changed since then.

Serjeant was a spelling used throughout the Commonwealth until WW II, during which conflict the spelling became regarded as archaic.  If your Regiment retained this spelling, it may have been purely from tradition, but it used to be universal throughout the Army.  Not sure when Sergeant became to be used alongside, perhaps all along.

Rifle Regiments, interestingly enough, did not have Lance Corporals at all.  In British Rifle Regiments, they were called "Acting Corporals" and wore the 2-bar chevron of a Corporal.  It was this way in some Canadian rifle regiments also.  The Queen's Own Rifles even had a special buglehorn badge to distinguish an Acting Corporal from a full blown Corporal.  They did not have Lance Corporals even when the rest of the Army did.

There are always exceptions....


----------



## 1feral1

LCPL is a rank here in Australia.

Leadership for promotion courses are as fol down here:

1. Subjects for CPL - you take this as a LCPL, and this gives you the rank of CPL here 

2. Subjects for SGT - you take this as a CPL, and this gives you the rank of SGT

3. Subjects for WO - you take this as a SGT,a nd this gets you the rank of WO2, then there is a whole slew of courses to get the WO1 rank.

Subjects are 1,2,3,4, and more and are long and wicked courses. So 4 blocks or more to get promoted in some cases.

Cheers,

Wes

Here abbreviated rank is capitalised.


----------



## Veterans son

Speaking of ranks in the Canadian Forces, I have heard that there was a rank of Brigadier(an officer).
Was that a rank in both the Canadian and British armies?


----------



## Steel Badger

Brigadier was/is the same rank we call Brigadier-General today.

I believe the terminology was changed during the creation of the CF 1968-70.

The old rank for Brigadier used to be a Crown and three stars (pips). There is a great picture of John Rockingham, Brigadier 25th CDN INF BDE in Korea with just such on his epaulettes.


----------



## Veterans son

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Brigadier was/is the same rank we call Brigadier-General today.
> 
> I believe the terminology was changed during the creation of the CF 1968-70.
> 
> The old rank for Brigadier used to be a Crown and three stars (pips). There is a great picture of John Rockingham, Brigadier 25th CDN INF BDE in Korea with just such on his epaulettes.


Thank you for your reply, Steel Badger!
My father served with the RCE in Korea from 1951-1952 and was part of the 25th CDN Infantry Brigade.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brigadiers have a bit of a chequered history.   Up to and including World War I they were brigadier-generals in 'our' (British, Canadian, etc) armies.   At the end of World War I there were several parliamentary inquiries in the UK, some focused on the deep line/staff split which emerged, early and infected the imperial armies, top to bottom, not just the British Army; and some more focused on what was perceived to be an overabundance of bands and generals in the British army, both at the expense of combatant officers and soldiers.

The old War Office, in Whitehall, was always full of clever fellows â â€œ usually a slightly higher proportion of clever fellows than one found down the way at Westminster, in parliament.   The clever fellows in the War Office decided to defuse as many as possible of the bombs being tossed about by parliamentarians who had seen â â€œ and been embittered by â â€œ active service.   One of the easiest ones was the 'too many generals' complaint.   In the early 1920s, at a stroke, all the brigadier generals were re-badged or re-rolled or whatever as _Colonels Commandant_ and, a bit later (please don't hold my feet to the fire re: dates, I'm too lazy (and, at this instant, in the wrong place) to look them up) as _Brigadiers_.

This actually made good sense and put brigadiers on the same level as navy commodores.   Commodores were, traditionally, very senior captains who were given a larger (flotilla or squadron or whatever they call it) command for which (or when) the establishment of another admiral's position was not thought necessary.   They were given most of the perks of admiral/general rank, just as, in the 20th century, brigadiers kept most of theirs (although they wore colonel's (formerly GS) cap badges and gorget patches).

In the British Army it was fairly common, as late as the '60s, for officers to be promoted directly from lieutenant colonel to brigadier â â€œ in the 'normal' course of events one might give up command of one's regiment, do a tour on staff and/or, perhaps, the staff college and then be selected for brigade command.   Colonels were, in many (most?) cases officers who had reached the end of their careers â â€œ as *combat commanders*.   They might get 'command' of a garrison or school but, most often, they filled senior â â€œ very senior â â€œ staff appointments in London and in the field at e.g. division, corps and Rhine Army.   (Some colonels were, I think, promoted directly to major general as they moved up the staff chain but, unlike Lt Col => Brig, I did not know any personally.)   In some respects, therefore, brigadiers were seen as 'senior colonel' formation commanders.   It was not uncommon to find brigadiers and colonel interchanged at very senior headquarters.

As someone else pointed out we 'promoted' them back to 'general' with the same cap and collar badges in the late '60s.

Brigadier is, in my opinion, an _appointment_ which we â â€œ the Canadian Army â â€œ could introduce to differentiate colonels who command brigades â â€œ only brigades - from all the other colonels.   Once given it would be held until promotion or retirement, even after the officer concerned gave up his command and moved on to another task.   It would need a slightly different rank badge and, of course, a new _title_.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

What "other colonels"?  The only other colonels would be the honouraries of the militia units, and staffers at NDHQ, no?  

As in WW II, a full colonel is not a command rank, as you point out, and is a staff rank.  Used to be all colonels wore gorget patches which kind of indicated that status.

The Americans have regiments commanded by what they call "bird" colonels (indicating the insignia of their rank, an eagle), perhaps that is why we have brigade commanders who are colonels?  The real problem, of course, was that the reserve brigades were until recently called Militia Areas so there was no anomaly of having a colonel command it - a logical step since most area commanders came from the ranks of the battalion (or battalion-sized units of the branches other than infantry) commanders in the area, meaning a rank increase by one step (LCol to Col) rather than two (LCol to Brigadier General).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Re: Colonels -

Maybe I missed something but I though all brigades, including regular brigades, are now commanded by colonels.

Headquarters, most headquarters, are, or appear to be, full of 'em.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Re: Colonels -
> 
> Maybe I missed something but I though all brigades, including regular brigades, are now commanded by colonels.
> 
> Headquarters, most headquarters, are, or appear to be, full of 'em.



Exactly; you said you wanted to differentiate colonels in command positions from "other colonels" - my question was "what other colonels"?  Aren't all the other staff officers in brigades LCol or lower?


----------



## Edward Campbell

I meant *all* other army colonels.   I would suggest that only a few - 20+/- out of 100+/- (is that a reasonable _guesstimate_) - are brigade commanders at any one time.   There certainly is no shortage of army colonels at cocktail parties in Ottawa.


----------



## Recce41

Jungle
 The Brit knew what a MCpl was. But the House Hold Cav is a lil different. As other Cav Regt.   Just like the E 5s from the Marines could not go to the SgtWOs mess. In Ft Knox, only Cpls and above could the bar on base. And E 6s and up were not allowed in also. In Germany, we ate in the Jr Sgts mess. For they also go by what you do. Only Reg German Sgts and up ate and drank there. Conscipts ate and the other mess. 
 There is NATO/UN rank equals. I always thought it was funny seeing a E5 Sgt driving a Tank. But that is the base rank for the US in some trades. Just as our Cpl rank. 
 We did it to ourselves. As I stated. The old days LCpl were Jr Recce CCs, Cpls were Ptl Cs and Sgt were TP Sgts, and a Staff Sgt was the SQ. The LSgts were Snr Ptl Commanders. They wore the Sgt rank but were not qqualified The old old 6A you wore the Sgt rank, ate in that mess. Until you finished course. Some old Armour pics have parades, with the Staff where the SQ is and Sgt in the front and Cpls in the serfile. I had a old RCAC book and it gives each job, by rank. I had also seen a rank convertion book from the early 70s. It had the rank you would receive under unification.


----------



## ArmyRick

Why not eliminate the LT COL rank and make unit commanders Colonels and change Brigadier general back to brigadier and have them command brigades. Adjust the pay structure to reflect the jobs they are doing.
my two cents (with 3% interest compounded hourly that will be....)


----------



## Edward Campbell

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Why not eliminate the LT COL rank and make unit commanders Colonels and change Brigadier general back to brigadier and have them command brigades. Adjust the pay structure to reflect the jobs they are doing.
> my two cents (with 3% interest compounded hourly that will be....)



I would much, much rather *lower* officers' ranks and pay them more.

I would start by retaining Cdr/LCol as the major ship/unit/squadron command rank â â€œ if for no other reason that many, many (most?) armies in the western world use that rank for those jobs.   I would, as we have already done â â€œ I think, reduce many colonel level commands â â€œ like schools â â€œ to lieutenant colonel.   Next I would _degrade_ all staff appointments â â€œ starting with the CDs â â€œ by one rank.   The major effect would be that almost all *directors* (_Executives_ in the civil service) would be lieutenant colonels â â€œ a few would be majors.   Colonels and above would be _senior_ executives.

This would slow promotion and lower morale and drive _some_ good officers (and even more not so good ones) out of the army.

To help rectify that I would lengthen the time spent in the ranks of 2lt and lt.   I would have all officers remain as 2lts until nine months after they have completed their professional qualifications â â€œ i.e graduated from the Infantry School and joined a battalion.   (Yes, I know it means that some officers â â€œ pilots, for example, remains as 2lts far longer than others; too bad, life was not meant to be equal, just fair.)   I would, then, increase pay for lieutenants and captains and I would â â€œ by _degrading_ the ranks for many staff appointments â â€œ send more junior captains to more junior/operational staff appointments earlier in their careers, having given then junior staff training earlier in their careers, too.

I would like to see 35 year olds take command of battalions in which most company commanders are 30+, the captains are in their late 20s and even early 30s and *all* the rifle platoons are commanded by lieutenants â â€œ none over 25.

I would also like to win the lottery, if it's not too much trouble ...


----------



## SnowSurfer

Well, maybe it could use a little fixin'



I believe that instead of eliminating ranks, add more IPC levels too them.  The rank of CPL for that matter at least.  Simply because we all know that there are many "career cpl's" that are just happy where they fit in.  And I do believe that at one point in the cdn military this was apadapted ?


----------



## Steel Badger

I agree surfer


Pay troops by leadership level or qual level

Pte (r)
PTE (trained)
Pte (trained, higher rate)

LCPL same as pte trained-hr but wears one hook and is a trail postion, see if he has leadership abil...ist step on nco road

JR NCO CRSE

CPL
Cpls can take advanced ql4's or pursue the leadership side

etc etc


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Well and good Steel Badger, but what of those "career corporals" who job requires them to have a bit of authority?  If you go back to a trained private being both hookless and the last stop before a leadership rank, then I think it creates a problem.

Despite the fact that a CFL right now is not in a leadership position, he does need to be able to exert authority over the privates; I am thinking specifically of a company clerk, for example, but think it would apply to a lot of trades - storesman, certainly, but even in an infantry section the corporals are often mentors to the newer troops, especially if they've been around a few years.  You don't need a formal leadership course to do that, and I think the authority that the two hooks confer on the wearer do make a difference.

Going back to a situation in which long term junior ranks have nothing but a trades badge would do much to circumvent that.  In the old days, you at least had the trades badge and the good conduct stripes to announce that a senior private had been around - but that was the days of battledress where you wore your uniform as working dress, too.  Any similar affectation would be worn on DEUs and not visible 95% of the time; in reserve units even less - Rememberance Day and a couple of battle commemorations per year.

EDIT - unless I've read you wrong - are you saying a QL4 course(MG, dvr, Comms, etc.) would be your only requirement for CPL rank?


----------



## Steel Badger

I would argue that a soldier should complete a JR NCO Crse prior to promotion to CPL....


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I would argue that a soldier should complete a JR NCO Crse prior to promotion to CPL....



I would then disagree for the reasons stated above.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Just to keep the pot well stirred ...

I think that, *as a general rule*, the more senior trades courses were _reserved_ for NCOs - real NCOs who had passed a junior NCO course - even when there was no such formal requirement.   It was, generally, recognized that senior tradesmen had to be supervisors, too and supervisory duties, even amongst electronics technicians, for example, is _*leadership*_ - not perhaps quite the same as being a tank commander or No. 1 on a gun but leadership, all the same.

It seems to me that any system which _*completely*_ separates trade from rank requires something akin to the American's '60_ish_ "solutionâ ? (later abandoned - in the '70s and '80s) of the multi-level _specialist_.

In the '60s the Royal Air Force also developed a separate _stream_ for technical tradesmen - some vestiges of it still survive: the _ranks_ of technician (ââ€°Â¤ corporal) and chief technician (ââ€°Â¥ flight sergeant).   As late as the '80s RAF technical tradesmen went from Chief Technician to WO (our Chief Warrant Officer) - there being no MWO equivalent in between; ditto the Royal Navy.   In fact, *I think*, one of our problems is that we may have one too many ranks in the navy and air force and, perhaps, one too few in the army.

I think we may need *something like*:

"¢	Private, recruit;

"¢	Private, untrained;

"¢	Private, trained (basic rate/trade group 1);

"¢	Private, trained (higher rate, trade group 2)

"¢	_Technician (trade group 3)_;*

"¢	Lance Corporal - training/selection _appointment_ - rifle section 2i/c;

"¢	Corporal - rifle section commander/tank commander;

"¢	Sergeant - rifle platoon/tank troop 2i/c;

"¢	_Chief Technician - trade group 4_;*" 

"¢	Sergeant 1st Class - engineer troop/mortar or recce platoon 2i/c;

"¢	Quartermaster Sergeant - company/squadron/battery quartermaster sergeant, chief clerk,

"¢	Master Sergeant - company sergeant major;

"¢	Warrant Officer - RSM.

----------

* Combat leadership training/qualification *not* required

"  Members of the Sergeants' Mess - supervisory skills/knowledge are part of trade group 4


----------



## ArmyRick

Rusty Old Joint, well said and I think your idea is absoloutely brillant...
Steel Badger, I also happen to think the rank Corporal is too easily given out (its not really earned). 
A senior private can also have power..
Besides the schools (where candidates don't know any better) do you know how many times in a Battalion or Regiment I have seen CPL authority being totaly disregarded? 
On the flip side, because we have made CPL such a token time in rank, I have seen numerous times of young CPLs (not knowing any better) abusing or misusuing their authority..
A simple 6-8 week JR leadership course could give them the knowledge of what junior leadership entails..
Come to think of it, I am going to vote Rusty Old Jointasaurus Prime Minister and he can make the changes he suggested...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Rusty Old Joint, well said and I think your idea is absoloutely brillant...
> Steel Badger, I also happen to think the rank Corporal is too easily given out (its not really earned).
> A senior private can also have power..
> Besides the schools (where candidates don't know any better) do you know how many times in a Battalion or Regiment I have seen CPL authority being totaly disregarded?
> On the flip side, because we have made CPL such a token time in rank, I have seen numerous times of young CPLs (not knowing any better) abusing or misusuing their authority..
> A simple 6-8 week JR leadership course could give them the knowledge of what junior leadership entails..
> Come to think of it, I am going to vote Rusty Old Jointasaurus Prime Minister and he can make the changes he suggested...



Yours views on the rank of corporal fail to take into account the real problem; not the system, but those giving out the rank.  In our unit, serious consideration is given to promoting young privates, and from what I have gathered, it goes out partially on merit and not as a "gimme".  If other units aren't doing that, it is unfortunate, but blame the lazy ones in charge, not the system or the rank itself.


----------



## ArmyRick

Michael, I still stand by what I said. Its up to the OC and the Coy chain of command for promotion to corporal  (MCPL and SGTs are CO decision)...
However Alot of units and I mean alot, hand out the CPL rank rather easily. 
I still beleive that the rank CPL should be a leadership rank requiring a JR NCO course IMO.
I was a CPL at one time and I felt proud of getting my rank (in 2VP). True there are alot of good CPLs out there I can give a small party task to and it gets done very well.
However I have also seen many CPLs from from various trades that were promoted basically as a pay incentive and a reward for serving 2-3 years..


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Well and good Steel Badger, but what of those "career corporals" who job requires them to have a bit of authority?   If you go back to a trained private being both hookless and the last stop before a leadership rank, then I think it creates a problem.
> 
> Despite the fact that a CFL right now is not in a leadership position, he does need to be able to exert authority over the privates; I am thinking specifically of a company clerk, for example, but think it would apply to a lot of trades - storesman, certainly, but even in an infantry section the corporals are often mentors to the newer troops, especially if they've been around a few years.   You don't need a formal leadership course to do that, and I think the authority that the two hooks confer on the wearer do make a difference.



I'm going to disagree with this outlook.   Rank should represent real lines of de jure authority that is achieved on merit and qualification.   For what it's worth, sticking around long enough and getting signed off by the CO (who has better things to do) should not be indicative of these factors.   Creating additional levels of authority that are not based on any objective requirements of merit makes the system murky and confusing.

A clerk who is tasked as Company-Clerk or a rifleman who is tasked as storesman do not need rank because of the job they are assigned to do.   Just as the CSM acts as the right hand of the OC (despite being outranked by the Lts), the Coy Clerk and the Storesman act under the authority of the Coy 2ic and the CQ respectively.   They do not need authority to execute their duties - soldiers who are uncooperative (re - unprofessional) can deal with the real authority that these soldiers work under.   Anyways, in my experience both these positions have been filled by leadership qualified personnel - in my company overseas both were MCpls.

As for the use of a second "leaderless" rank for a designation of the senior rifleman of the section - again, the utility is diminished due to the fact that seniority alone is not an adequate enough "marker" to determine necessary capabilities for "unofficial" leadership.   I remember the most experienced Corporal in one section was basically ignored (and kept his mouth shut) because he was a complete numpty.   In a tight-knit group like a section, soldiers will have no trouble figuring out who to look to; professionalism, confidence and capability ooze from good soldier regardless of rank or appointment and soldiers are drawn to it like moths to a candle.   



> Going back to a situation in which long term junior ranks have nothing but a trades badge would do much to circumvent that.   In the old days, you at least had the trades badge and the good conduct stripes to announce that a senior private had been around - but that was the days of battledress where you wore your uniform as working dress, too.   Any similar affectation would be worn on DEUs and not visible 95% of the time; in reserve units even less - Remembrance Day and a couple of battle commemorations per year.



Perhaps you're on to something here.   Maybe we can use a simple indicator on top of the Private's rank to designate the difference between "untrained" (ie: stinking green FNG) and "trained" (ie: been around the block, leadership candidate).   The USMC has two ranks with one chevron, the use of crossed-rifles is used to differentiate between PFC's and LCpl's - perhaps we could follow in that example except using it as a signifier that does not denote any de facto or de jure increase in authority (see my proposal below)?



			
				Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Just to keep the pot well stirred ...
> 
> I think that, *as a general rule*, the more senior trades courses were _reserved_ for NCOs - real NCOs who had passed a junior NCO course - even when there was no such formal requirement.   It was, generally, recognized that senior tradesmen had to be supervisors, too and supervisory duties, even amongst electronics technicians, for example, is _*leadership*_ - not perhaps quite the same as being a tank commander or No. 1 on a gun but leadership, all the same.
> 
> It seems to me that any system which _*completely*_ separates trade from rank requires something akin to the American's '60_ish_ "solutionâ ? (later abandoned - in the '70s and '80s) of the multi-level _specialist_.
> 
> In the '60s the Royal Air Force also developed a separate _stream_ for technical tradesmen - some vestiges of it still survive: the _ranks_ of technician (ââ€°Â¤ corporal) and chief technician (ââ€°Â¥ flight sergeant).   As late as the '80s RAF technical tradesmen went from Chief Technician to WO (our Chief Warrant Officer) - there being no MWO equivalent in between; ditto the Royal Navy.   In fact, *I think*, one of our problems is that we may have one too many ranks in the navy and air force and, perhaps, one too few in the army.



I think that I will support the notion that senior tradesmen must be looked upon as Army leaders.   To me, completly separating the notion of trade from rank helps to foster the notion that we are tradesmen first, soldiers second.   I believe that the opposite should be applied - we are soldiers first, tradesmen second.

With this mantra in mind, rank progression should be as much related to combat leadership as to technical capabilities.   For example, a senior mechanic is not only expected to be proficient in his trade, but as a soldier first he is expected to guide his soldiers through battle if required.   One of the RM battalions that landed in Basra had a Clerk as its RSM, so obviously this approach is workable.

However, counter to this is the notion that not every soldier is cut out for leadership.   Thus, giving additional designations on top of the basic rank can denote that the soldier bearing the designation possesses extra technical capabilities as a tradesman but no extra leadership training as a combat soldier.   I would submit that this would be an exception rather then a rule, as most CS and CSS soldiers would be expected to advance simultaneously along trade and leadership ladders.   For Combat Arms (and some trades), leadership is the requirement for advance along trade ladder.



> I think we may need *something like*:



ROJ, I noticed you said _something like_, so I'm going to offer an alternative.   Your proposal seems counter intuitive in many spots.   

If we get to make our own rank systems - this is what I'll offer up for now.   To help with the notion of an independent pay system I've attached to each rank the traditional American designation of "E" (for Enlisted) - what we wish to use as a Canadian designator is up in the air. 

Recruits:
"¢   (E-0) Recruit - A soldier is referred to as "Recruit" until he successfully passes both his basic and trade training.   The rank of Private must be earned by showing that one is willing to undergo the transformation from civilian to soldier.   A recruit has no rank signifier - he has not earned one.

Privates: The private soldiers are the working ranks of the Army.   They have no _de jure_ authority to command.   Skills and capabilities will range widely due to factors of time in and qualifications received.

"¢   (E1) Private - A Private is trained as a basic soldier in his or her MOC specialty.   They work to develop individual soldier skills.   The rank of private is represented by 1 Chevron.

*Now, this is where the skill identifier system should come in:
- After two years (combined with about a year of training as a recruit, this should bring a soldier to the end of his 3 year BE) a soldier is awarded the Crossed Swords of the Army to his Chevron.   This is to represent "seniority" only.   These senior privates are usually skilled in a sub-discipline or two of their trade (eg: Infantry support weapons, both armoured gunner and driver, etc, etc) and can be employed in any role that their trade requires.   They are assigned to trade group 2 of their trade
- Certain trades may progress to Trade Group 3 without requiring a corresponding progression in combat leadership.   These Private soldiers are assigned to Trade Group 3 and replace the crossed swords with a "T", signifying Tradesman.
- Certain trades may progress to Trade Group 4 without requiring a corresponding progression in combat leadership.   These Private soldiers are assigned to Trade Group 4 and replace the "T" with an "A", signifying Artificer.

Corporals: The two ranks at the Corporal level are the Junior Non-Commissioned Officers of the Army and as such deal with tactical leadership at the smallest levels of command.

"¢   (E2) Lance Corporal:   The first level of promotion from Private, the rank of Lance Corporal is the gateway rank of the NCO Corps.   In the infantry and the engineers, they will be assigned as section 2ics and det commanders (I am unsure of how the Gunners and the Tankers use their JNCO's).   They must pass an all-arms Junior Leadership Course before being eligible for promotion.   The rank of Lance Corporal is represented by Two Chevrons.

"¢   (E3) Corporal: The working rank of the NCO Corps, Corporals are qualified as primary supervisors in their trade group (Section Commander, Crew Commander, etc, etc).   As well, Corporals are the primary trainers of the Army, instructing recruits and potential leaders.   As such, Combat Arms Corporals are assigned "Trade Group 3" status.   The rank of Corporal is represented by Two Chevrons with a Maple Leaf.

Sergeants: The two ranks at the Sergeant level are the Senior Non-Commissioned Officers of the Army and assume much broader responsibilities in both tactical and staff roles.

"¢   (E4) Sergeant: The Sergeant is the backbone of the Army (still, some things never change).   As the primary NCO at the Platoon/Troop level, the Sergeant works in developing the leadership abilities of his LCpls and Cpls and keeps an eye on his new Lieutenants.   As well, NCO's are senior instructors who are SME's in a certain area of their trade.   If required, Sgts will command a Platoon/Troop.   Completion of the trade-specific Senior Leadership Course is required for promotion from Corporal to Sergeant.   The rank of Sergeant is represented by Three Chevrons.

"¢   (E5) Staff Sergeant:   The Staff Sergeant represents the additional skill sets that are instilled on the tactical expertise of the Sergeant.   A Staff Sergeant is given training in additional administrative and staffing procedures that prepare him for a Warrant and accession to a Sergeants Major position.   Staff Sergeants fulfill the role of CQ and also take up Staff NCO positions within Unit and Formation Staffs.   The rank of Staff Sergeant is represented by Three Chevrons and a Crown.

Warrant Officers: Upon completion of an Advanced Leadership Course, a Warrant is granted to soldiers, changing them from Senior NCOs into Warrant Officers (a technicality we sorted out earlier   ).   As such, Warrant Officers are the embodiment of technical expertise and tactical and staff skill within the Army and a responsible to their commanders for the dress, deportment, and discipline of the NCO's and Private soldiers in the command.

"¢   (E6) Warrant Officer 2:   The Warrant Officer 2 has completed the necessary training to earn a Warrant and assume the role of Company/Squadron/Battery Sergeant Major.   We all know what these guys do.   As well, senior staff position may require a WO2.   Combat Arms WO2's will be assigned to Trade Group 4 status.   The rank of WO2 is a single large Crown.

"¢   (E7) Warrant Officer 1:   With the requisite training, promotion to WO1 is usually followed by the appointment as Regimental Sergeant Major, the chief non-commissioned position in a unit and the focal point of technical and tactical expertise.   The RSM will be the driving force behind individual training and development and the right hand to the CO.   A WO1 may also be appointed as Sergeants Major of Formations, Bases, and the Army.   The rank of WO1 is the Coat-of-Arms of Canada (perhaps with the additional insignia of the Formation/Base/and Army SM if necessary).
-----

Pretty cut and dry - each level of rank is responsible for its own level of command and oversight.   Every rank represents a real delegation of authority and responsibility that is earned through objective assessment of skill sets in required areas.

The pay scale should take up the call to separate seniority and rank.   As such, each soldier will be paid by matching the "Time Served" (in years) along a horizontal axis and "Rank Level" on a vertical axis.   Thus, every year will count as a modest increase in pay (moving right on the horizontal line from 0 years to 30 years) while every promotion in rank will count as a substantial increase in pay (moving down the vertical axis from E0 to E7).   The second incentive is the Trade Classes (1-4), which allow for additional increases in pay (I'm sure you guys can fathom a good way of applying these).   On top of this, additional incentives are added (danger pay, SOA pay, etc, etc).   I believe this is similar to the American system and does a decent job of separating rank from pay increase.   As well, this proposal allows for remuneration and recognition of further development in trade class in the absence of corresponding combat leadership training.

Combat leadership training is applicable to all solders who are in leadership positions, regardless of who, where, or what they are commanding.   These skills are (in order of importance):
1) Individual Combat Skills (Marksmanship being the core skill)
2) The Attack
3) Defensive Techniques
4) Patrolling

In a recent issue of _The Marine Corps Gazette_ (the article is not yet online) it was found that these skills were required to "survive first contact" with the enemy.   These are skills that all soldiers should be aware of and capable of performing and these should be skill that all leaders - whether a Clerk Lance Corporal, an Infantry Corporal, a Signals Sergeant, an Armoured Staff Sergeant, or a Mechanic WO2 should understand and be able to put into practice.

Anyways, here is my scrap for the heap.   To me, this method makes the most sense and trys to ensure that all bases are covered with regard to rank progression, authority, seniority, and trade and skill development.   Feel free to hack away at it.

Infanteer


----------



## Recce41

NO MORE AMERICAN CRAP! If you want to be American move. 
 Inf your off on you ranks.
E4 Cpl
E5 Sgt Basic
E6 Staff Sgt
E7 Sgt First Class
E8 First Sgt/ Master Sgt
E9 Sgt Maj
 Heres a link 
 http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html#E5
 We already have Cpls making the same as Sgts, they are called SPEC TRADES! We could go back and have 40 yr old Ptes and troopers. We do have trade badges, and all that other crap. There are Mcpls to WO that cannot lead. 
 A MCpl,Sgt, WO, MWO, CWO  promotion is not up to the CO, it is off the merret list.


----------



## Edward Campbell

We had, back in the '60s, a couple of problems with the rank structure *Infanteer* offers:

"¢	There was a _de facto_ distinction between *arms* and *services* junior NCOs - they were trained to different standards, even when they were trained together and some corps - infantry, for sure, and signals too, I think - had additional training requirements.   Thus, at a junior NCO course in, say, Petawawa, there was a _common to all corps_ phase (nine weeks, if memory serves) and then the infantry candidates stayed on, alone, for two (or three?) more weeks and I think the _Jimmies_ went to Kingston for another couple of weeks (which, I was told, was quite hellish as the sigs people tried to clean up the sloppy habits of e.g. the Guards and Royals!   : ).   During that first nine weeks it was recognized, and accepted, that the _hurdles_ were lower for service corps and pay corps fellows than they were for, say, armoured, infantry, etc; and

"¢	There was a _cluster_ of functions and duties at the sergeant and staff sergeant ranks which extended into the WOII ranks level.

CFHQ solved the wrong problem in 1966 (or whenever): they added a new corporal grade - because they knew that they were screwing up the junior NCO corps in order to solve a pay problem.   What was really needed was a new, better paid, *private* grade and a new senior NCO.   There was no room for a new senior NCO because the navy and air force said, correctly, I assume, that there were, already, too many senior NCO grades and we were _integrating_, so ...

Change of topic ...

I don't much care what we call the ranks, but I believe Canadian ranks should be easily translated to/from French and they should be *clear* in both languages.   I don't much like referring to American ranks and pay grades because they have grouped several ranks into one pay grade etc ... clarity matters.

Another change of topic ...

There is nothing wrong with a junior NCO technician earning more - because of trade's pay - than a senior NCO truck driver.   There are economic realities out there and some trades - especially some hard sea trades with very tough technical/electronics standards - need to be well paid.   'Well' means enough to keep them in, if that means that a leading seaman something-or-other tech 'needs' to earn more than an air force clerk WO; well, so be it.

*Combat leaders* (infantry, armoured, engineers) ought to be well up in the upper half of the trades pay levels - maybe we do have to pay _some_ technicians more but we also need to pay for *responsibility* which cannot be measured in months of training required or in millions of dollars of hardware, etc ... *real* responsibility means giving life and death orders.


----------



## Veterans son

Rusty Old Joint

My father took a Jr. NCO course in the mid-1950s while a member of the Royal Canadian Engineers.
I am wondering for how many weeks would he have taken this course?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Veterans son said:
			
		

> Rusty Old Joint
> 
> My father took a Jr. NCO course in the mid-1950s while a member of the Royal Canadian Engineers.
> I am wondering for how many weeks would he have taken this course?



I think it was, probably, about nine weeks but, please, don't hold me to that.   I didn't enlist until after the _mid-1950s_ and, at my age, I wouldn't want to bet real money on the accuracy of my memory of things which happened to me anytime before the late fall of 2004!   *I think* our training was revised in the '50s, after Korea, and remained, roughly, 'standard' until the mid/ate '60s - when everything blew up in our faces.

By the way, no matter how many weeks he spent on course, they would have been very intense, stress filled weeks â â€œ too much polishing of the soles of boots (I mean that!) and too many 05:30 runs and jaunts over the assault course and too little sleep â â€œ six days a week.   (By the way, 5  ½ day work weeks were normal in the Army until the late '50s.)   As I mentioned above (or in another thread) we used to see the _"junior bone"_ course as a huge _sieve_ which winnowed out _most_ privates: first, most soldiers were not even offered a chance before their first enlistment was up and they and the army decided that a parting of the ways was in everyone's best interests; second I think we accepted a 25% or so failure rate as the norm.   The premise was that only good fellows were selected and two, maybe even three tries were OK.

The arms/services split I mentioned meant that your dad was on 'our' side: on the arms course â â€œ a Sapper cap badge meant being trained and able to fight as infantry.

Hope that helps, despite my sieve-like memory.


----------



## Infanteer

Recce41 said:
			
		

> NO MORE AMERICAN CRAP! If you want to be American move.
> Inf your off on you ranks.



You obviously didn't read my post.   I didn't advocate an American rank system, I advocated a system of "pay grades" that enable us to separate factors of rank, seniority, and trade class.   I used the American designation of "E" for familiarity, although on reflection we could use "OR1", or "NCM1" or even the rank itself.   Figuring out the words can follow figuring out the principle.

Anyways, I'm using my wand that seems to satisfy the following demands of a ranks system:
- Merit and qualification for every rank.
- Signifier for transition from "Apprentice" to "Journeyman" status without upsetting above principle.
- A system that differentiates between trade-expertise and leadership/authority.   The ranks designate the leadership with its requisite levels or authority and responsibility, while the other features designate the level of ability.



			
				Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> We had, back in the '60s, a couple of problems with the rank structure *Infanteer* offers:
> 
> "¢   There was a _de facto_ distinction between *arms* and *services* junior NCOs - they were trained to different standards, even when they were trained together and some corps - infantry, for sure, and signals too, I think - had additional training requirements.   Thus, at a junior NCO course in, say, Petawawa, there was a _common to all corps_ phase (nine weeks, if memory serves) and then the infantry candidates stayed on, alone, for two (or three?) more weeks and I think the _Jimmies_ went to Kingston for another couple of weeks (which, I was told, was quite hellish as the sigs people tried to clean up the sloppy habits of e.g. the Guards and Royals!   : ).   During that first nine weeks it was recognized, and accepted, that the _hurdles_ were lower for service corps and pay corps fellows than they were for, say, armoured, infantry, etc; and



This was understandable - in order to ensure this doesn't happen we, the wizards of Army.ca, would have to take a look at every MOC and ensure that there was rough parity between corresponding levels or rank.   If a branch doesn't require a leadership qualification for certain promotions, perhaps a jump in trade class will fit the billing.



> "¢ There was a _cluster_ of functions and duties at the sergeant and staff sergeant ranks which extended into the WOII ranks level.



I don't really know much about this issue.   I'm sure if we approached it with the same vigor as we do other things here, a few solutions could be hammered out.



> CFHQ solved the wrong problem in 1966 (or whenever): they added a new corporal grade - because they knew that they were screwing up the junior NCO corps in order to solve a pay problem.   What was really needed was a new, better paid, *private* grade and a new senior NCO.   There was no room for a new senior NCO because the navy and air force said, correctly, I assume, that there were, already, too many senior NCO grades and we were _integrating_, so ...



I tried to address the issue of a new, better system of recognizing different levels at the Private grade, where no leadership or authority is demanded, by adding the "Trade Class" you referred to.   As for the new SNCO problem, I haven't seen it come to light here yet.



> I don't much care what we call the ranks,


I like the way I grouped the Ranks because it makes sense to the layman.   Corporals are the junior leaders, Sergeants are the senior leaders, and Warrant Officers are the Sergeants Major.



> but I believe Canadian ranks should be easily translated to/from French and they should be *clear* in both languages.



Roger.   How about this:

Soldat
---
Sous Caporal
Caporal
---
Sergent
Sergent Chef
---
Adjutant
Adjutant Chef

(Perhaps a more _Francais_ inclined member could see a better fix)



> I don't much like referring to American ranks and pay grades because they have grouped several ranks into one pay grade etc ... clarity matters.



Neither do I, it's is extremely convoluted and complex.   Again, I just used the "E" designation to point out different levels on the x axis of a pay scale.   For what it's worth, we could use each rank as the designator.



> There is nothing wrong with a junior NCO technician earning more - because of trade's pay - than a senior NCO truck driver.   There are economic realities out there and some trades - especially some hard sea trades with very tough technical/electronics standards - need to be well paid.   'Well' means enough to keep them in, if that means that a leading seaman something-or-other tech 'needs' to earn more than an air force clerk WO; well, so be it.
> 
> *Combat leaders* (infantry, armoured, engineers) ought to be well up in the upper half of the trades pay levels - maybe we do have to pay _some_ technicians more but we also need to pay for *responsibility* which cannot be measured in months of training required or in millions of dollars of hardware, etc ... *real* responsibility means giving life and death orders.



Agree 100%, especially with the last sentence.   Rank should mean an increase in responsibility and authority, not a pay raise.   This is what I hoped my solution presented.

I think a bigger issue that is looming over our discussion is the relevance of our Rank structure proposals are to a unified force.   Does the Navy and the Air Force want a similar structure?   I think that the fundamentally different nature of the tasks of those other two arms means the requirement for separate rank (and pay) structures for their NCM categories.   Is this possible with our current structure?   Perhaps we need a system that has Army ranks (switching from the much maligned "E" to "A" for Army) from A0 to A7.   The Navy would have it's own scale of "N" ratings, likewise with the Air Force and its "F" ranks.

Officers should be kept on the same scale for joint command reasons (and the fact that everything seems to fit better).

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## bob the piper

In reference to the American E-1 system, we could just use the NATO OR-1 or something like NC(non-commisioned)-1.

For the translation into French, the T and A for privates would also have to be bilingual or maybe we could use Roman numerals instead. As for the ranks, they'd probably be something like this:

Recru (Recruit)
Soldat (Soldier)
Sous-Caporal (Sub-Corporal)
Caporal (Corporal)
Sergent (Sergeant)
Sergeant-maître (Master Sergeant)
Adjudant 2 (Warrant Officer 2)
Adjudant 1 (Warrant Officer 1)

So the ranks work out ok, with just a little tweaking on LCpl and SSgt.


----------



## bob the piper

With the N-0 and F-0 ranks, they would have to be M-0 for Maritime/Mer (or Maritime, same word in French) and A-0 for Air/Aire (or Aérienne(means Aerial)). Then Army would have to change too. To what, i have no idea.

Ah, the wonders of bilingualism.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

bob the piper said:
			
		

> With the N-0 and F-0 ranks, they would have to be M-0 for Maritime/Mer (or Maritime, same word in French) and A-0 for Air/Air (or Aérienne(means Aerial)). Then Army would have to change too. To what, i have no idea.
> 
> Ah, the wonders of bilingualism.



We all know what Infanteer is really pushing for; his past posts have been quite clear.

H-0, L-0 and K-0 (for Heer, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine, respectively).


----------



## Recce41

Lets just make it simple. You start as a Pte/Tpr/Sig/Sapper/Gunner/etc, after 4 yrs your promoted to what ever we call a Cpl, if your on the ball you get promoted. If not you stay a Cpl, and shut-up and do what your told. No Spec pay, no extras. D*** MPs get Spec pay, to sit in a D*** car. Do we always have to follow? Most NATO countries have different pay, for many reasons. But ie France, Germany, Turkey, etc have conscipts. A volunteers gets payed better. :evil: :tank:


----------



## Veterans son

Rusty Old Joint

Thank you for your helpful and informative reply about the Jr. NCO course. 
I knew Dad had taken the course but I never knew much about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Lets just make it simple. You start as a Pte/Tpr/Sig/Sapper/Gunner/etc, after 4 yrs your promoted to what ever we call a Cpl, if your on the ball you get promoted. If not you stay a Cpl, and shut-up and do what your told. No Spec pay, no extras. D*** MPs get Spec pay, to sit in a D*** car. Do we always have to follow? Most NATO countries have different pay, for many reasons. But ie France, Germany, Turkey, etc have conscipts. A volunteers gets payed better. :evil: :tank:



Fair enough, but, in the interests of keeping the pot astir, let me apply that to *Infanteer's* model with a bit of rank renaming:


*Task --- Current Rank --- Rusty's Proposed Rank*
Recruit -------- Pte, etc --- Pte/_Soldat_. etc
Soldier* -------- Pte, etc --- Pte/_Soldat_. etc
Soldier* -------- Cpl, etc --- Pte 1st Class/_Pemier soldat_
Section 2i/c --- MCpl ------ Lance Corporal/_Sous corporal_
Sec Comd ------ Sgt ------- Corporal
Rifle Pl 2i/c ---- WO ------- Sgt
Mor Pl 2/ic ----- WO -------- ______ (_I think we need a new rank here_)**
CQHS ----------- WO -------- ______ (_I think we need a new rank here_)***
CSM ------------ MWO ------- Master Sergeant/_Sergeant maitre_
RSM ------------ CWO ------- WO/_Adjutant_

----------
* Rifleman in a section, etc
** Maybe Sergeant 1st Class
*** *Maybe, even another* new rank


----------



## ArmyRick

I like the british style rank structure better
I even tried to post what I think the new system should look like (file was too large). Basically the new rank structure would look like (If I was the grand wizard king emporer of Canada)
Private (Skilled) One shevron
LCpl (Sect 2IC) = one shevron + maple leaf (we keep our canadian touch with the leaf)
CPL (Sec Comd) = same as what MCPL wears now
SGT (PL 2IC) = look the same
WO (CQMS or current senior WO positions)
MWO and CWo same rank and same jobs


----------



## Infanteer

Mortar Platoon 2ic needs a special rank of its own?  Bizarre.
I don't think ranks should reflect the job, they should reflect a requisite level of responsibility and authority.

A 2i/c of a Platoon is responsible for drill, dress and deportment among the soldiers, the training of his Junior NCO's, and keeping an eye on his fresh-faced platoon commander.  This doesn't seem to be different whether it is a Rifle Platoon, a Mortar Platoon, a Recce Platoon, an Engineering Troop, a Tank Troop, or a Maintenance Platoon.....


----------



## Steel Badger

I would humbly suggest you still need 2 classes of WO

Class 2 (Crown and Cabbage) for Company Level

Class 1 (Coat of Arms) to be the right hand of the Creator......

Functionally RSM and CSM require a delination that would pose quite a difficulty if both were just plain WO's.


 Sgt   Pl 2ic

Staff-SGT (other Corps) Colour SGT (inf)    CQMS, Or IC a Platoon 

WO2    CSM / RQMS / DSM

WO1   The rght hand of Allah


----------



## Michael Dorosh

If the NATO standard for a section commander (squad leader, gruppenführer, etc.)  is sergeant (unteroffizier, etc.), why change back to corporal just for tradition's sake?


----------



## Steel Badger

Mike

We changed to Sgt section commanders over pay, not for nato standardization...

And most nato Sergeants are the equiv of our Master-Corporals......

Changing back to our own distinctive identity as Canadaian Soldiers (and i am looking back to the Army of 45=69) is a Good thing!!!!

Section commanders would once again be "of the body".....ie  in the Jr NCO's Mess.....



SB


----------



## Jungle

Interesting discussion... is our rank structure so deficient that we need to change the whole thing ??
As I stated earlier in this thread, my only problem with our current NCM rank structure is the Mcpl appointment. Scrap the Mcpl, make Cpl the first Leadership rank with the same quals needed for Mcpl. Make Cpls one-hook, they become your experienced "journeymen" like today's Cpls. Call one-hooks what you want: Lcpl, Pte-trained, Master-Pte...    Makes no difference, they will be better paid Ptes, which is what Cpls are now.
The fact that our Section Cmdrs are Sgts is fine by me. In general, our Section Cmdrs have more background, experience and time-in then their foreign counterparts, and Section Cmdr is the only position NCMs are in the formal C of C.
As far as I'm concerned, work needs to be done in the Officer structure: first, cut back the number of Officers we have; there are tons of Capts out there, do we need them all ?? And what is it with the hierarchy in the Capt rank ? *Some* Capts sound like they are unionized... I hear it frequently: "This guy can't be (insert posn) before me, I have more time in than him" or "he wasn't in RMC..."  : Then they turn around and ask the Troops to demonstrate maturity...


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> If the NATO standard for a section commander (squad leader, gruppenführer, etc.)   is sergeant (unteroffizier, etc.), why change back to corporal just for tradition's sake?



It's not.  Brits use the system you see us pushing on this thread while American squad-leaders are Staff Sergeants.  It's a mixed bag from there.

I'm just attached to the configuration I proposed because it makes the most sense.  Junior NCO's, Senior NCO's and Warrant Officers.  I like the fact that junior level leadership (up to section commander) is, as Steel Badger put it, _Section commanders would once again be "of the body".....ie  in the Jr NCO's Mess....._



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, work needs to be done in the Officer structure: first, cut back the number of Officers we have; there are tons of Capts out there, do we need them all ?? And what is it with the hierarchy in the Capt rank ? *Some* Capts sound like they are unionized... I hear it frequently: "This guy can't be (insert posn) before me, I have more time in than him" or "he wasn't in RMC..." : Then they turn around and ask the Troops to demonstrate maturity...



Agree with you here.  I bet we could open another thread and we could chop the Officer rank structure to bits as well....


----------



## Steel Badger

Infanteer...

LCPL could then be used as a trial position for leadership...
make a man/woman/creature up to LCPL to see if he/she/it has the stuff to lead , if so...Send them on the lengthy and expensive JR NCO Crse

Alternately make it a rank...... thus the rank structure might become

OCDT >
Pte (R)
pte(t)
LCPL
CPL
SGT
S-SGT
WO2
WO1

A section would be commanded by a Corporal assisted by a Lance Jack 2IC....
the Cpl would be fully qualified PLQ INF prior to promotion.......


----------



## George Wallace

wir wuenschen Euch ein frohes und gesegnetes Weihnachtsfest und ein gutes
Jahr 2005.


----------



## Steel Badger

Happy Hogmanay Georgie


Lang may yer lum reek!


----------



## muddywheels

Alright Lads, it sounds like you all have issues with your rank structure. Here in good old Blighty we really do keep it simple, and this is the normal rank structure:

*Pte, Cfn, Spr, Gnr or Trooper * (all means the same just depends on cap badge, and we do'nt do the Pte class 1 or 2 thing like the Yanks were spelling your name could make you a Pte class 7, "PISS TAKING LADS") 
*Lcpl * (would be a section 2 i/c and this actually is a rank in most cap badges, there are a few exceptions like the Royal Marines were it is an     appointment)
*Cpl* (section commander in the infantry, or equivalent in support arms and back bone of the British Army)
*Sgt* (Plt or Troop Sgt or equivalent) 
*SSgt or CSgt * (usually it's CSgt in the infantry and SSgt in support arms, would generally be a SQMS or TQMS)
*WO2, CSM, SSM or AQMS * (discipline is their thing, may one day be a daddy)   
*WO1, RSM or ASM * (the daddy)

We do have a few oddities, like Lance Sgt, and WO1 Conductors but not to many. What you do find, is that we generally hold our rank for a long time, this is due to having to spread them over 22yrs, if you can hack it.   
In my view, keep it simple stupid, us squaddies like it that way.

*"MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL"*


----------



## George Wallace

KISS is a good philosophy, but can you explain to me all those Guards Regt and Household Cav ranks, such as "Cpl of Horse"?

GW


----------



## Recce41

George
 Didn't you come to Britian with us? I will send a Mail to my cousin. I don't know who he's with now. But he was with the Dragoon Guards with us in Bosnia. He maybe albe to find out.
 Merry Christmas


----------



## George Wallace

If memory serves, a Cpl of Horse was equivalent to a Sgt.  It was more of an appointment, than a rank, but put the Cpl in the Sgt's Mess.

GW


----------



## Steel Badger

I heard another delightful story about the rank of CPL of HORSE....

(it may qualify for Mike O'Leary's Myth Page ;D)

The story (As I was told by a CPL of Horse)....was that our Dear Queen VIC was appalled that the Mounted Guards Regiments included Sergeants in their ranks. As the word Sergeant derived from Servant, it was unthinkable to have servants in charge of the Household Cavalry......Accordingly Queen Vic  then changed SGt to CPL of Horse to suit the Queen Empress........And Sgt Major to Cpl_Major......

(it its not true......it should be! ;D)


Ach weel, whit dae Aye noo; they wear troosers on ra parade dont they? Crazy I tell ye! ;D


----------



## muddywheels

Your right we do have the odd thing like cpl of the horse, lance sgt, and they do tend to be more with the guards and cavalry, some are appointments and some are actual ranks, but what i mentioned was the norm within the army here. It is always good for a laugh though to call a cpl of the horse just cpl, they can bite, and get wound up to hell. 

"HAVE A GOOD FESTIVE SEASON LADS"


----------



## Mountie

Just a thought:  I'll use the infantry as a example just to simplify the private/trooper/gunner/sapper thing.

Private (Recruit) - In basic recruit training
Private (Basic) - Finished recruit training & in battle school
Private (Trained) - Fully trained (1 chevron) (divided into different pay grades)
Corporal - Fire Team Leader or Section 2i/c (junior NCO command rank earned through promotion not appointment)
Master-Corporal - Section Commander
Sergeant - Platoon Sergeant 
Warrant Officer - either eliminate this rank or hold it for special appointments like the British Army S/Sgt or the USMC Gunnery Sgt
Master Warrant Officer - Company Sergeant-Major
Chief Warrant Officer - Regimental Sergeant-Major

This would bring the section commander back into the junior members mess and keep him more in touch with the section.  It would also balance things out making it so there are more privates than corporals again.  You can easily divide the Private (Trained) rank into different pay grades without becoming a corporal automatically after four years.  For example, within the RCMP we have 4 different pay grades within the constable rank (private equivalent).  You are a Cadet while in basic training.  You become a Constable (3rd Class) at graduation and maintain this pay grade for 6 months of field training at your unit.  Then a $10,000 raise to Constable (2nd Class) after completion of the 6 month field training.  A further $10,000 raise to Constable (1st Class) after 2 years service.  Then there is another 2% raise for those that pass the promotion exam (most write the exam but don't actually apply for or get a promotion).  This is called a senior constable and can be achieved after 7 years service.  However, other than on your pay cheque there is no distinction between constables.  All have the title of "Constable", have no rank chevrons and are treated equally.  Its simply a pay classification.  

Here is a little article taken from www.canadiansoldiers.com "Ranks, Appointments and Responsibilities"

_Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment

One can see that a corporal - once a position of great authority in the Canadian Army - had after Unification become merely a pay grade increase.  The appointment of Master Corporal was introduced in the post-Unification era, but in practical terms was equivalent only to the Lance Corporal of old, when one compares their actual level of responsibility.  

The following notes on Unification and its impact on the rank system are from David Willard:

The pre-unification system of rank (Private, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Warrant Officer II Class and Warrant Officer I Class) and appointment (Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant) were a development that evolved through the British system for centuries. It was tried, tested and true for the Army's system of organization and addressed the whole concept of command and control efficiently. It attached a degree of prestige and status to the various levels of supervision/leadership. For example not everyone was automatically promoted to a higher rank simply for being a good soldier or doing one's job well. The individual had to be outstanding amongst his peers, and prove that he was, through tough training and leadership courses which had to be passed to certain standard to qualify. Of course battlefield promotions were another matter where the outstanding qualities observed alone qualified the individual for obvious reasons. This older proven system was advantageous for another but less important reason. Internationally, our ranks and their levels of responsibility were understood by most other nations. A foreign soldier - perhaps a belligerent in a UN setting - knew when he was dealing with a Canadian Corporal that this NCO was a leader of men, schooled in the art of war and no one to fool around with. I can remember tours in Egypt and Cyprus where senior officers would negotiate with Canadian Jnr NCOs almost on an on-par basis, there was (that much) respect.  The post-unification system has destroyed the status and respect that several ranks had at one time. 

Paul Hellyer's basic concept - integration - was a good one.  It had meant an integration of logistics and support services - why have three different logistical organizations cutting contacts, keeping files, and awarding three different contracts for the same materiel?   The government, however, further likened the need for National Defence in Canada to a US Marine Corps model. This showed no understanding of what made the three arms (navy, army and air force) tick in Canada.  Tradition to the military is the food on which they are nourished and provide for a sense of organization, family and probably most important, ideals to be used as benchmarks for excellence and ability to prevail on the battlefield.

One might compare the situation to a case where a politician or non-elected human rights commissioner descended on the world renowned Ottawa Heart Institute reorganizing the administration and operation of the unit.   One need only imagine them telling the heart doctors how they were going to perform surgical operations, to the point of advising them on which instruments they could have, to realize how ridiculous it would be.  

At the time of Unification, servicemen were given a raise in pay to keep them enrolled.  Signing bonuses of $200.00 were given for each year to a maximum of five that they re-enlisted for.  $1000.00 in 1967 was a life changing amount, possibly worth about ten times as much in 1999 dollars.   Rank was given away next; anyone who had ever had a Junior NCO course was automatically promoted to Corporal. Everyone who had 4 years of service automatically went on a new Junior Leaders Course to get him promoted to Corporal. Corporal was now a giveaway, it meant nothing as far as status was concerned, it was a shoe-in for everyone. 

The problem was that at that time, Corporals were then section commanders. The actual commander now was leading a whole section of his rank peers. There was actual fighting in the ranks and discipline was poor.   So another level was instituted - Senior Corporal. But that was not enough, they then introduced the "B" Corporal (indicating he had qualified Part B of the Junior NCO Course). They changed the chevrons to have a little crown sewed on over the hooks. 
  
We took turns being B Corporals as there were now so many of us. There was no continuity and of course this was unworkable. Finally instead of putting it back to what everyone knew was workable, they developed a new appointment...Master Corporal. But who would become the Masters? It was decreed that those wearing the B Corporal crown at the time would become the appointee.   New leadership qualities had to established....this took years and years to even get to the point where the right people were  in charge.  In the process, the rank of Corporal was destroyed in the Canadian Army.  Almost the exact same thing happened to the rank of Captain.

The system has been very rapidly changed for the worse.  A better concept would have been "lateral trade progression" - it is possible to give a man status, prestige and more money without promoting him in rank.  Unfortunately, the Canadian Army never went this route._


----------



## squealiox

i have yet to hear an excuse for the unification tinkering of our military traditions that holds any water.
how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS. The same would apply to WO/MWO/WO going back to what they originally were: (correct me if i'm mistaken) SSgt, WO1 and WO2.
And don't tell me we don't have the budget to bring back the army salute (ie palm forward).  Or pips for officers, for that matter.
it's all trivial stuff, sure, but the cost of fixing it would also be trivial.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

squealiox said:
			
		

> i have yet to hear an excuse for the unification tinkering of our military traditions that holds any water.
> how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS. The same would apply to WO/MWO/WO going back to what they originally were: (correct me if i'm mistaken) SSgt, WO1 and WO2.
> And don't tell me we don't have the budget to bring back the army salute (ie palm forward).  Or pips for officers, for that matter.
> it's all trivial stuff, sure, but the cost of fixing it would also be trivial.



if it's not "broken" you can't fix it.  If all that changes are the names, why bother?  I've given sufficient reason in this thread to keep the corporal rank as is, ie a non-leadership rank in the technical sense.  No point saluting like the British either; we changed it 35 years ago, let's be done with it.  Bad enough every other wheel gets reinvented every year, let's not go back in time 35 years and do more of the same.


----------



## pbi

When I sat on the Army TASK board back in the 80's, one of the issues we debated was that of changing the NCO rank structure. Of course (the board was made up mostly of Inf RSMs...) we wanted to dump the "pay rank" of Cpl, put back LCpl, and have the Sgt given the same status he had in pre-Unification days: the Pl 2IC. WO would have become S/Sgt. We also advocated (as I mentioned earlier) putting some real meaning into the trade badge system by restoring the old Army "Group 1-4" system in which pay was linked to the Trade Group and signified by a cuff badge (below MWO). It all sounded great.

What we were told was that while we might have had some excellent ideas, one of the inviolable parameters was the unified nature of the CF personnel system. Unless all three commands wanted the trade badge system, it could not be brought in at all, particularly because it would be confusing for "purple" support people who would move between commands. As for changing the ranks, we were told that apparently the Navy had no use for WO (PO1) and wanted to dump it completely. We, on the other hand, just wanted to rename it.

We also touched on the idea of restoring the pre-unification rank insignia (ie: pips and crowns, etc). Again we were told that the rank system, especially for officers, had to be preserved as a symbol of a unified force. As well (and there is actualy some merit to this...) an entire generation of soldiers had joined and served most of their careers under the Unification system. Most of them woul have had no idea what pips and crowns were all about: as Mike pointed out it woul have just been "re-inventing the wheel". Now, many years after we held that board, that is even more true: unification was 37 years ago: ,more than the length of many careers.

I am a great believer that Unification was a terrible mistake: an almost fatal overdose of bean-counting administrative "efficiency" dressed up with other rationalizations.The supposed idea that it was modelled on the USMC,( if it were in fact ever true), has been so utterly diluted and distorted as to be ludicrous.  Its sins, in my opinion, greatly outweigh its imagined virtues. I look forward to the day that the CLS owns outright everything that he needs to carry out his Army-specific missions, including personnel policy and support soldiers, but I am not holding my breath. Jointness not Unification. Cheers.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I've given sufficient reason in this thread to keep the corporal rank as is, ie a non-leadership rank in the technical sense.



I think the "LCpl" crowd has also returned fire with a good enough reason to "fix" it (rank should signify authority and responsibility - Cpl is just a pay raise).


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think the "LCpl" crowd has also returned fire with a good enough reason to "fix" it (rank should signify authority and responsibility - Cpl is just a pay raise).



Depends on the individual corporal, and the support his chain of command gives him to exercise whatever authority he has.  Which will be true no matter how many stripes he wears or what his rank title is.....


----------



## Mountie

"how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS."

The problem with this is that a MCpl isn't equal to the old Cpl.   Today's Sgt is equal to the old Cpl, today's MCpl is equal to the old LCpl and today's Cpl is just a higher paid Pte.   I agree things should go back to the old way but there's more to it then a name change.   You have to re-rank everyone.   Sgt to Cpl, MCpl to LCpl and Cpl to Pte.


----------



## Michael OLeary

February 1, 1968 - The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act is passed. The Canadian Army, Navy, and Air Force cease to exist as separate legal entities with the unification of the three Services of the Canadian Forces. 



			
				Mountie said:
			
		

> The problem with this is that a MCpl isn't equal to the old Cpl.  Today's Sgt is equal to the old Cpl, today's MCpl is equal to the old LCpl and today's Cpl is just a higher paid Pte.  I agree things should go back to the old way but there's more to it then a name change.  You have to re-rank everyone.  Sgt to Cpl, MCpl to LCpl and Cpl to Pte.



"..... by the way Sergeant, tomorrow I expect to see to see you wearing only two chevrons ..."

And what explanation do you intend to provide to thousands of Sergeants, Master Corporals, Corporals and Privates as to why this will be happening? Unification occured before most of them were born. Turning back the clock to satisfy a few _old soldiers'_ feelings that Unification was wrong is a poor justification for instituting an equally disruptive change. If there is a perceived problem with the delegation and exercise of authority among NCOs, then that is what we should be seeking to fix, simply changing their ranks does not also automatically give back what we imagine to be the associated authories of that earlier era.


----------



## pbi

> If there is a perceived problem with the delegation and exercise of authority among NCOs, then that is what we should be seeking to fix, simply changing their ranks does not also automatically give back what we imagine to be the associated authories of that earlier era.



As much as I despise Unification, I have to be honest and ask myself if, during the 30 years I have served,  I could really prove that our current NCO/WO rank structure has materially prevented our WO/NCOs from being among the finest in the world, or doing a good job under difficult circumstances. I think I would have to say that while I know that our WOs/NCOs have faced difficulties from various quarters, I couldn't say it was because of their rank badges. So we have a Sgt leading a section, and the Brits don't. OK, so what? The real question is what quality of NCOs have we got. And, I believe, as little as we may deserve them and as much as we may frustrate them, we still have very good ones. Changing the badges is  moving the deck chairs. Cheers.


----------



## Radop

Changing a name does nothing.  Saying this name now carries more authority ultimately means nothing if all members don't respect that authority.  The biggest problem I have encountered as a Jr Leader is the lack of authority given to us in my current unit.  In Petawawa, I had 14 subordinates that worked directly for me.  As a MCpl, this is still unusual but 4 MCpls in our unit had this responsability.  In Kingston, I have 1 subordinate and no MCpl has more than 6 subordinates.  Furthermore, I tracked my pers in Pet but in Kingston, I must inform the Sgts before letting someone leave.  MCpls are a Jr Leader but without using the leadership skills that are suppose to be developed, how do they expect to get leaders.  I am aggressive as a leader.  I will do things that need to be done both to develop subordinates and get training that I think needs to be completed.  As far as I have seen, unit to unit changes what each rank is responsible to do.  What we need is a standard that is consistant throughout the forces for trg and advancement.  Simple things like PLQ requirements are even different through the C&E branch.  Some units demand that the Jr Leader requires Mod 6 (CLC) while others only require Mod 5 (JLC).  In Afghanistan, we got hit with a rocket attack.  I saw Leaders that broke down and cried, couldn't get dressed or function as a leader in a demanding circumstance.  The common factor that I found was that all these people had either Mod 5 or JLC leadership levels.  I won't say I never almost crapped my pants but I did get my people togeather and accounted for and reported this up the chain of command.  

So before we change rank structures and the excessive spending that it would cost (which would not be trivial an would run into the milions of dollars), lets get our national rank structures and standards at a "standard" level.


----------



## Veterans son

What about the rank of RSM?
Wasn't that one of the ranks prior to unification in 1968?


----------



## pbi

RSM isn't really a rank, _per se_. It's an appoinment, although in most Combat Arms units there is only one CWO, so we sometimes fall into the habit of calling CWO's "RSMs". A Sgt Maj (MWO) can be appointed RSM : I have even seen a WO do it in a Res unit. Cheers.


----------



## Veterans son

pbi said:
			
		

> RSM isn't really a rank, _per se_. It's an appoinment, although in most Combat Arms units there is only one CWO, so we sometimes fall into the habit of calling CWO's "RSMs". A Sgt Maj (MWO) can be appointed RSM : I have even seen a WO do it in a Res unit. Cheers.




Thank you for your reply! 
The Sgt Major rank was in place prior to 1968, correct?


----------



## pbi

Sgt Maj is not really a rank either: it is also an appointment, but again in the Army we can get into the habit of calling them all 'Sgts Maj" .(attached navy CPO2s don't like it much...) Prior to Unification the rank worn by a Sgt Maj was WO2 (we now call it MWO): the crown inside a wreath. Cheers.


----------



## SHARP WO

Just to reply to this point



> Just a thought:  I'll use the infantry as a example just to simplify the private/trooper/gunner/sapper thing.
> 
> Private (Recruit) - In basic recruit training
> Private (Basic) - Finished recruit training & in battle school
> Private (Trained) - Fully trained (1 chevron) (divided into different pay grades)
> Corporal - Fire Team Leader or Section 2i/c (junior NCO command rank earned through promotion not appointment)
> Master-Corporal - Section Commander
> Sergeant - Platoon Sergeant
> Warrant Officer - either eliminate this rank or hold it for special appointments like the British Army S/Sgt or the USMC Gunnery Sgt
> Master Warrant Officer - Company Sergeant-Major
> Chief Warrant Officer - Regimental Sergeant-Major



It seems quite interesting that the sergeant would be a Pl 2i/c and WO eliminated, but then you would have to start changing courses around. One of the reasons that WO are unique, for the combat arms, is that you require the SLC and the old QL6B to become a WO. Now if you Sgt's were take both of those courses then he could be a Pl Sgt, then you are left with the problem of little progression and a whole lot of MCpls waiting for courses.

Sharp WO


----------



## Michael Dorosh

SHARP WO said:
			
		

> Just to reply to this point
> 
> It seems quite interesting that the sergeant would be a Pl 2i/c and WO eliminated, but then you would have to start changing courses around. One of the reasons that WO are unique, for the combat arms, is that you require the SLC and the old QL6B to become a WO. Now if you Sgt's were take both of those courses then he could be a Pl Sgt, then you are left with the problem of little progression and a whole lot of MCpls waiting for courses.
> 
> Sharp WO



Eliminating warrant officer (ie the rank over sergeant) would also have the effect of eliminating the rank which went to the Company Quartermaster Sergeant (used to be staff sergeant, is now warrant officer).   What purpose would that serve? I always thought CQMS was a kind of middle ground between being involved in the section/platoon, and the CSM spot - a chance to demonstrate abilities with organization and administration?

One of my CSMs explained to me that Warrant Officer is the first rank at which you are no longer expected to be able to command and lead just infantry (or soldiers in your own trade) but soldiers of all trades.  Wouldn't the leap from sergeant in command of a section all the way to company sergeant major be a little long?


----------



## Edward Campbell

I agree with making the MCpl the rifle section commander and returning the Sergeant to the Pl 21/c role, but ...

That agreement is based upon a principle which may no longer exist.

Many, many years ago â â€œ in the post 1939 and pre-1966 period â â€œ it was held that the first level of leader â â€œ the lance corporals and corporals â â€œ should live with their men: sleep in the same barracks, eat in the same mess halls, and drink in the same canteens.   This was seen as being critical to developing good, solid NCOs.   It was thought that junior NCOs would learn to separate themselves, just enough, without becoming _officer like_ in their splendid isolation and would also learn what the old leadership principle of _firm, fair, friendly_ really meant.   Friendly was the toughest hurdle â â€œ it may have been Montgomery who said something like _â ?Familiarity may breed contempt but, in my experience, without a certain amount of familiarity one cannot breed anythingâ ?_, I cannot remember; what I can remember is that it was drilled into us ... 'know' the men, be their friend, not just an acquaintance or a boss, but do not, ever, make any of them your _favourites._   It was this lesson which we thought was best taught and reinforced â â€œ by day and night contact â â€œ at the lowest leadership level.   Once ingrained there, we believed, it would never be lost.

Sergeants had two roles as platoon 2i/c: supervisor/teacher of the corporals and mentor for the junior officers.   They â â€œ as much as the officers and the rank and file â â€œ *needed* a measure of privacy where they could talk, amongst themselves, about both subordinates and superiors.   The Sergeants' Mess was the _Human Resources_ centre of the battalion â â€œ many of BHQ's personnel decisions were made, over a pint or two, in the Sergeants' Mess and then ratified, a day or two later, by the adjutant and the colonel.

*If we still believe that first level leadership means sharing the duties and tasks of the rank and file* then, obviously, sergeant is the wrong rank for the first level leader: section commander.   If, on the other hand, in the modern â â€œ largely married, living out of barracks â â€œ army, that is not necessary then there is no problem.

I remain committed to the idea of one additional â â€œ very well paid â â€œ grade of private, two grades of corporal (section 2i/c and section commander) and four grades of senior NCO/WO: Pl 2i/c, CQMS or Mortar Platoon 2i/c, CSM and RSM.

There is a big problem here: if we really do *need* a uniform system across the Canadian Forces then my idea may not float, because the Navy wants one less senior NCO rank.

*As I understand it* this is the navy/army 'fit' from the Navy's point of view:

Ordinary Seaman (recruit)                                           ..... Private (recruit)
Ordinary Seaman (under training)                          .....   Private (under training)
Ordinary Seaman (trained/apprentice)                ..... Private (trained/apprentice)
Able Seaman (trained)                                                      .... Private (trained)
Leading Seaman (journeyman)                                 ..... Corporal (journeyman/junior leader)
Master Seam (team leader)                                        ..... Master Corporal (section commander)
Petty Officer (watch leader several teams)      ..... Sergeant (rifle platoon 2i/c)
__________                                                                          ..... Sergeant 1st Class (CQMS)
Master Petty Officer (department supervisor)   .. Master Sergeant (CSM)
Chief Petty Officer (coxs'n)                                      ..... Warrant Officer (RSM)

I am told that the Navy would not mind if the Army wanted to split the PO rank into two â â€œ they would simply have their people spend longer as POs and, likely, promote to Master PO a bit faster ( to keep the overwhelming majority of the members of ship's crews under the ago of 40).

_Edit: spelling eror corrected_


----------



## pbi

> â ?Familiarity may breed contempt but, in my experience, without a certain amount of familiarity one cannot breed anythingâ ?,



Excellent. Had not heard that before. Cheers.


----------



## Pikache

So, should there be some sort of JNCO course to be promoted to a corporal, as some points out that this is one of the weakness in CF?

I'm certainly in favour of it, esp. in reserves corporals tend to get thrown into the meat grinder to be in a leadership role.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It seems to me that the system we *had* in which a junior leader (corporal, of some sort) commanded a rifle section or a tank and was promoted to that rank *only* after having passed a quite rigorous junior NCO course worked well.

We *had* and _apprentice leader_ 'rank' (it was an _appointment_, really, but it had all the duties and powers of a real rank - it could, however, be revoked by the CO, at his pleasure or will or whim ...).   That, _inter alia_, allowed the army to 'screen' potential junior NCOs before it invested in their training.

If we transfer that to my preferred 21st century model we will have:

"¢	Corporal - journeyman soldier *and* apprentice junior leader (maybe *leading* corporals get something added to their hooks - may corporals who are not apprentice leaders get a different badge and are called something else (specialist?); and

"¢	Master Corporal - section/tank commander - _selected_ by the CO, promoted (by the CO, provided a vacancy exists) after passing a junior NCO course;

"¢	Sergeant - rifle platoon/tank troop 2i/c - _selected_ by regiment or corps/branch from a _national_ list, promoted (by the Army/Ottawa) after passing a senior NCO course.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ROJ for the navy think of it this way:
PO2nd Class (Sgt) Watch Supervisor
PO1 (WO) as the Section head


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> ROJ for the navy think of it this way:
> PO2nd Class (Sgt) Watch Supervisor
> PO1 (WO) as the Section head



That was, roughly, what I was trying to say: PO2 - "watch leader [of] several teams" and a senior POs (between PO2 and CPO1) who is the sectionm head (I said "department supervisor" because the department head is, I think, an officer).   The point - made to me by a sailor - is that they think there are one too many senior NCO ranks, now.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Regarding the Apprentice and Journeyman titles. 

Within the Naval Electronic Technicians trade groups (MOC 283,284,285) upon completion of your QL3 Academics and Equipment Phase you are then considered an Apprentice Technician. Those personnel could be at the AB or LS rank level.

Only after compelting your QL5 Academics and Equipment Phase, are you are then considered a Journeyman Technician.


----------



## Mountie

I agree with Rusty Old Joint's theory.  That's what I was gettting at.

For those that don't want to see the WO disappear, then use it as the old Staff Sergeant rank or the USMC Gunnery Sergeant.  It would be a step between platoon sergeant and CSM.  CQMS, platoon warrant in combat support platoons and maybe a few key spots in the Ops and Intel sections at BHQ.


----------



## Steel Badger

Mountie has the right of it.....

Keep WO as the CQMS, return SGT to PL 2IC/s and make CPL the section commander.

If one does nto wish to recreate LCPL, then have the MCPL lead the section with a CPL 2ic....


----------



## Steel Badger

And I like Rustys idea as well


----------



## George Wallace

And now we have gone full circle.....

GW


----------



## Veterans son

The infomation in this thread is excellent.  

I do think that for the Infantry there 
should be the following ranks(in my opinion):
Private(Recruit)
Private(Trained) Perhaps a new name for this
rank(eg. the Engineers have the Sapper rank)
Lance Corporal(One Chevron)


----------



## CH1

The Airborne & PPCLI have a name for private (trained), it used to be called trooper.


----------



## Infanteer

I don't ever recall any PPCLI Privates being called trooper when I was hanging around the lines....


----------



## ArmyRick

The airborne called their pte troopers (english) or para (francais 1 cdo)...
In the PPCLI we never used the term Troopers !
Please (CH1, read) get your facts straight before speaking or posting, troops..


----------



## 043

The Ranks structure is fine, the point I have is that while the pay we get is very very good, there has to be a better split.........for example, a Cpl who recieves Para allowance makes more than a Sgt. What this can cause is that the Cpl will not want to advance because he knows that if he gets promoted he may get moved out of his current positions where he may not be recieving jump pay so he would be losing money.

There has to be  more of split that is for sure!


----------



## Mountie

Many posts compared Canadian ranks to US ranks.  However, there is a difference between US Army and USMC ranks, or rather what the ranks do.  This is primarily at the fire team leader, squad leader and platoon 2i/c level.

Position                                           US Army                          USMC                           Canadian Army

Recruit                                            Private (E1)                      Private (E1)                    Private (Recruit)
Training                                           Private (E2)                      Private First Class (E2)    Private (Basic)
Trained                                           Private First Class (E3)       Lance Corporal (E3)        Private (Trained)
                                                      Corporal/Specialist (E4)*                                         Corporal                
Fire Team Leader**/Section 2i/c      Sergeant (E5)                    Corporal (E4)                  Master Corporal
Squad Leader/Section Commander   Staff Sergeant (E6)            Sergeant (E5)                 Sergeant
Platoon 2i/c                                   Sergeant First Class (E7)     Staff Sergeant (E6)         Warrant Officer
Specialty Positions***                                                               Gunnery Sergeant (E7)
Company NCO                                First Sergeant (E8)             First Sergeant (E8)          Master Warrant Officer
Battalion NCO                                Sergeant Major (E9)           Sergeant Major (E9)        Chief Warrant Officer


*Corporal (E4) has leadership course and is like a senior Canadian corporal, Specialist is like a junior Canadian corporal and basically just a pay grade increase.
**US infantry squads have fire team leaders and no squad 2i/c.  An Army squad has two 4-man fire teams each under a sergeant with a staff sergeant squad leader and a USMC squad has three 4-man fire teams each under a corporal with a sergeant squad leader.  Where as Canadian sections have the section commander leading one of the two 4-man fire teams and the 2i/c leading the other.
*** The rank of Gunnery Sergeant in the USMC is the same as a Staff Sergeant in the British Army and the old Canadian Army.  The Gunnery Sergeant has important operational staff positions.  It is also a platoon 2i/c in combat support platoons such as mortar platoon, anti-armour platoon, etc where the squads are commanded by staff sergeants instead of sergeants.  In Canadian platoons, such as the mortar platoon (before it was lost to the artillery) the platoon warrant was a MWO and the two mortar groups were lead by WO's.  This leaves the platoon warrant with the same rank as the CSM.

I found the career progression for the USMC ranks.  Private in recruit training, promoted PFC upon graduation of recruit training or during MOC training.  PFC or Lance Corporal by the time MOC training is completed and the Marine is transferred to his/her first unit, 30 months to 4 years as a LCpl before being promoted to Corporal (fireteam leader in infantry), 4-6 years as a Cpl before being promoted to Sergeant (squad leader), 4-6 years as a Sgt before being promoted to Staff Sergeant (rifle platoon 2i/c), 4-6 years as a SSgt before being promoted to Gunnery Sergeant (company ops sergeant, weapons platoon 2i/c, staff positions), etc.  The rank of GySgt is a highly respected rank and the first rank of the senior sergeants, on the way to company first sergeant and battalion sergeant major.


----------



## tomahawk6

I would like to clarify mountie's comment about the US E-4 rank. In the Marines an E-4 is a corporal with a leadership role. An E-3 L/Cpl has no leadership function. In the Army an E-4 is most often a Specialist with no leadership role - unless there is a vacancy for a Sgt. Then he might be appointed Corporal or Acting Sgt [stripes but not the pay of a Sgt]. Once the man left the unit he would revert back to Specialist rank - unless he passed his Sgt board and was promoted. Specialist's attend a primary leadership development course which used to be a requirement for promotion to Sgt. But with the war soldiers are promoted to Sgt but then after their combat tour they have to attend PLDC. Here is the outline of what a soldier is expected to learn at PLDC [30 day live in course].

are technically and tactically proficient
make sound decisions
plan correctly
practice professional Army ethics
communicate effectively
supervise subordinates
teach and counsel
apply soldier-team development


----------



## Michael Dorosh

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Then he might be appointed Corporal or Acting Sgt [stripes but not the pay of a Sgt].



We used to have Lance Sergeants which were the same thing - three stripes, but corporal's pay.


----------



## Mountie

Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was trying to get at.


----------



## TCBF

An RCR WO explained to me about 30 years ago that Paul Hellyer, MND, wanted to give the Privates a raise.   At the time, the Service ranks were not tied to the public service pay scales as they allegedly are now - our profession had not yet sold it's soul to the Devil.   Anyway, he had no support in Cabinet to increase service pay, so he did that which WAS within his power,   He promoted all Privates to Corporal.

You can imagine the balls-up this caused.   People had to be told "OK, you all may be Cpls, but the REAL Cpls are the ones who were your Section Commanders last week, followed by the three ex- LCpls who were your C2 Group (Regular)/ Bren Group (Militia) leaders."

Eventually "Command" Corporals - wearing a Major's crown superimposed on their Cpl Stripes on the Battledress uniform - came to be. This was retained in the Militia until they were issued CFs in 1973, or so.

 As the new CF Rifle Green Uniform was issued, we saw:

1. Normal Cpl Stripes, as today.
2. Cpl Stripes that had a maple leaf   superimposed on the top stripe (career Cpl?)
3. MCpl stripes, as today.
4. Pte stripe, as today.
5. Pte stripe with a maple leaf over the stripe.

I may have a few in my stuff.   I will look.

If we now feel the system is in fact broken, keep paying people the same, and stop wearing the Private and Cpl stripes.   More incentive to get promoted.   

Or, 

Give the Pte stripe for four years service, the Cpl strpes for passing CLC/JNCO/Whatever, and the MCpl for actual promotion IAW the merit list.

But if it works, don't screw with it.

Tom


----------



## mhervey

That may make sense from an army point of view since it would give new soldiers a sense of progress and accomplishment.  As a member of the navy, the rank makes no historical sense.  If they did want to change the word "seaman" in all the ranks, great!  That would eliminate unfortunate references to a similar word....


----------



## ibilola

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> How the generic section works here in all arms as fol:
> 
> PTE = Rifleman
> LCPL Sect 2 IC
> CPL= Sect Comd - CPL is the 1st course for leadership
> SGT = PL SGT
> 
> 1 hook in Australia is LCPL, no chev is trained PTE/SIG/GNR/SPR etc
> 
> RAA wise (normally anyways)
> 
> GNR - Gun Number ( one of seven for the 105mm Hamel Gun)
> LCPL - No2
> CPL - No1
> SGT - BG, Arty CP & Comd roles
> WO2 - BSM and SMIG
> W01 - RSM
> 
> RAEME wise - TSP TSSU/TST (Technical Support Platoon,Technical Service & Support Unit, and Technical Support Troop))
> 
> CFN - Digger (Tradesman - Armourer, Veh Mech, Elec Fitter, etc)
> LCPL -   Sect 2/1C
> CPL - Sect Leader
> SGT - Troop/Det SGT
> WO2/WO1 - ASM (Artificer Sergeant Major)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wes



Practically identical to the British system, although that still has the Staff Sergeant (Canadian WO equivalent) rank.

The Aussies have realigned their ranks so that a Navy CPO and an Airforce Flight Sergeant is now equvalent to an army WO2 (MWO equivalent) rather than a Staff Sergeant (which is still the case in the British Army).


----------



## Veterans son

With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?

When my father retired from the CF in 1971, he wore the Corporal stripes
with the leaf as part of the top stripe.

I wonder how many years someone had to serve to wear these Corporal
stripes(Dad served 31 years)? 

Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!


----------



## COBRA-6

Veterans son said:
			
		

> With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
> varieties/types of Cpl stripes?
> 
> When my father retired from the CF in 1971, he wore the Corporal stripes
> with the leaf as part of the top stripe.
> 
> I wonder how many years someone had to serve to wear these Corporal
> stripes(Dad served 31 years)?
> 
> Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!



They would be Master Corporal stripes


----------



## TCBF

"With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?"

The ones with the superimposed leaf were issued as Cpl Stripes, and came in combat chevrons as well.  They were confusing, and dropped along with the Pte hook with maple leaf.  Probably last issued in 1973 or so.


----------



## COBRA-6

I should have read that one more carefully before I posted...  :-[

I've seen the flashes TCBF mentioned, my dad has some of them kicking around (he's in militaria)...


----------



## 1feral1

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> A section would be commanded by a Corporal assisted by a Lance Jack 2IC




Thats exactly hwo it is here in Australia. CPLs are Seco's and LCPLs are 2 I/Cs. Thats how its been for over 60 yrs or more.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 1feral1

Veterans son said:
			
		

> With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
> varieties/types of Cpl stripes?
> 
> When my father retired from the CF in 1971, he wore the Corporal stripes
> with the leaf as part of the top stripe.
> 
> I wonder how many years someone had to serve to wear these Corporal
> stripes(Dad served 31 years)?
> 
> Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!



Yes it was part of the top Chev, and not like it is now, infact I think this rank was called  B CPL. maybe Mikie Dorresh can shed some light on this. I remember it well, and I have seen both types of rank like this being worn. That was by a B CPL (?) from  a FES out of Flin Flon in 1980.

Definatly two different ranks.


Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## 291er_sigdev

Marauder said:
			
		

> As McG pointed out, I have often seen cases where master jacks are sect cmdrs, and a long serving corporal gets informed on the Friday night that he is gonna be 2ic for the weekend. Our last ex, we had one of the longer serving Sgt as our PL OC, another long service Sgt as the PL WO, a Sgt who got promoted last May running one section, two MCpls running sections, and all three section 2ics were Cpls. Weps Det was also run by a Cpl.
> Granted, our "usual" OC (it changes for ex to ex) was on a jump crse and we only have 1 WO left in the unit (who is on Roto). This highlights how well adapted we have become, with everyone being able to work one or two up as need be.
> 
> While the rank structure may not be the same as it was "back when it was hard", I really don't see a need to jumble **** everything AGAIN when, as other pointed out, we have bigger targets to take down first. I think part of the problem is we spend so much time on continual reorg that never focuses on changing the things that NEED to be changed.



Thought it was silly when we went back to 3 uniforms..  Kinda hard to decide in my case.. I had my pick of whatever I wanted.. Prior Land Service, in a Navy Position on an Air Base. That was a waste of money... 

The only difference in pay for the CPL/MCPL was the command bonus..


----------



## Erborn

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Since your not in yet, you might not know.
> 
> Lance Corporal = Master Corporal


----------



## CH1

Hello Every body

This discussion opens old wounds.  L/Cpl & M/Cpl were not and never will be equal.  L/Cpl & L/Sgt were "Brevette" ranks. In order to hold these ranks, you had the skills required for the rank BUT did not have the required courses, & there was a vacancy to be filled.  You held this Brevette rank until you got your required courses.  Generally these were Unit/Regt appointments by the "Old Man."

M/Cpl came about with the ill thought out unification.  All of a sudden most grads of a Jr NCO course were given the rank of M/Cpl.  A lot of these instant sub Snr NCO's thought their sh##t didn't stink.  The rank was  a " real rank" to replace L/Sgt as a section ldr. This also added another pay incentive, which the Brevette ranks did not get.  The basic prevailing thoughts at unit level, were the M/Cpls would reach Sgt quicker & had almost the same powers.

My own thoughts then as now are still the same.  There was not a need for these "super corporals"  The functions of a Cpl & M/Cpl as section 2ic, were the same.

Any body that is or was a M/Cpl please do not take offense.  The first generations of M/Cpl created a lot of grief for me at the time, to the point where I lost my 3 hooks for a short time, when I took a round or 2 out of a couple of "demi gods" that irritated me to the Nth degree.


----------



## ArmyRick

No offence taken. My dad was in 2 RCHA during unification and he told me some of the heart aches that "brillant civilian minds" caused. However there has been an entire generation of troops who have served just after unification and now retired after long period of service. So we have painfully adjusted to the new rank system.

A new crime as i see it, is giving all these so called skilled civies instant rank of CPL in the CF (those who have police foundations or civilian mechanics) because of their so called expirience.

My expiriences with this is it is a STUPID idea. It took away the whole principle of earning your first rank and degrades the CPL rank further.

Most of these instant CPLs are JUNK. Yeah, I am calling any of you instant CPLs on. I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME ON THIS CLAIM. I have watched first hand the poor performances of most of these clowns when I instruct them on SQ.

These instant CPLs were basically bribed into the service. I think of reservist with 6-7 years reserve that join the infantry and at best get trained private. They are probably more deserving of the rank CPL.

The CF needs a attitude adjustment BIG TIME. We are not focused and we are transforming but too many rear echelon types do not understand the CDS end state in this regard. I think of this clown MCpl I spoke to from borden who thought three block war was peacekeeping and nothing else. 

 So in short, alot of our dead weight needs to be shaken off.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick

Well put!


----------



## Bert

The issue of insta-corporals has been debated before in a number of threads.   You can
argue the practice continues but then you have to address why it happens and what
you'd do to make it better.

Many members would agree the promotion/appointment of recruits to Corporal 
after BMQ, based on educational equivalent, provides an inexperienced member.
They are posted to their units without having service experience and everyone
expects them to know what they are doing.   It takes them a while to get
up to speed in general miiltary understanding and within their own MOC.
Definitely a problem in some cases.

However, during the recruitment crisis of 200 to 2003, the CF was directed to
increase the numbers in many MOCs.   It takes time, money, and expense
to take an unskilled recruit from BMQ, provide QL3 and OJT, and have them
MOC useful within a few years.   Taking semi-skilled civy street recruits with
direct MOC equivalencies reduces the training system load (as we all know
is jammed) and puts them into unit sooner.   

The CF keeps the pay rates wound directly to the rank structure.   To get an
influx of semi-skilled recruits, the CF has to play the numbers game and pay
the semi-skilled a civy street equivalent to get any interest from those recuits.
The result was to fill the critically staffed MOCs quickly in order to meet 
recruitment needs and operational levels.

Another issue is its hard to equate the techie trades of the air force and navy
with the combat arms MOCs.   The day to day work, course loads, and unit 
operations are different.   As an example, the ATIS recruit tech may spend 1.5
years getting QL3 qualified and then spend an additional 3 years on and off
radar maintenance courses in amoungst OJT, rotation, and ultimately
QL5 MOC qualifications.     

From my experience, a year or so after being posted to a unit, the direct entry
corporal and the others mesh in pretty good.     I've seen good and bad from both
sides of arguement, but the main issue resides in the drive, perseverence, and
teamwork of the member.


----------



## Infanteer

This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.  I have no problem with giving new soldiers who bring unique skill-sets to the Forces extra pay (and possible recognition) but we should not give out rank without the requisite proof of leadership capability.

Anyways, this is just a restatement of something discussed earlier in the thread.


----------



## ArmyRick

Infanteer, agreed.
IF I could re-assign the rank structure for combat arms i would have it work like this
CPL = Sect 2IC
MCPL = Sect Comd
SGT = PL 2IC
WO = CQMS
MWo and CWO no change
Naturally they would have to revamp what you need to be qualified for what job. I would drastically increase the pay of Pte (T) (IPC 3 and 4) then there would not be this huge rush for promotion to CPLs for $$$


----------



## George Wallace

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.   I have no problem with giving new soldiers who bring unique skill-sets to the Forces extra pay (and possible recognition) but we should not give out rank without the requisite proof of leadership capability.


We already have two different levels of "SPEC PAY" to recognize these unique qualifications, why must we further 'dilute' our 'Ranks' to satisfy some 'whim'?


----------



## McG

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.


What good is an outstanding leader that is not technically competent in his job?  An excellent leader that does not know the inside of a turret could not function as a AFV crew comd.  The engr recce sgt that was not qualified to to BMD would not be able to suppervise a range clearance.  A leader is responsible for developing subordinates.  How would a MCpl in a technical MOS do this if he received his rank while still an apprentice and not yet a journeyman?

Rank does need to be tied to technical qualifications (at least to some extent), but that does not mean that technical qualification alone should determine rank.


----------



## medicineman

I agree with MCG - I seem to remember (one of the times I was awake  ;D) from JLC that the first principle of leadership was achieve proffessional competence.  I have no doubts that we've all seen people who have been promoted 3 levels higher than their highest level of incompetence - problem is of course that they are in charge of young newbies, who in turn learn bad habits or worse, learn things incorrectly from these people and then need to be totally retrained.  Proffessional competence also includes military skills, not just trade skills - how can a brand new trades Cpl be expected to do what a Cpl is expected to do if they've only been in since lunch?  Cpl's are considered to be semi-or de feacto senior tradespersons, and therefore part of their responsibility is some semblance of supervision and development.  Hard to do when the Pte's you supervise have more TI than you wouldn't you say?

MM


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> Rank does need to be tied to technical qualifications (at least to some extent), but that does not mean that technical qualification alone should determine rank.



No, you are right McG, rank does and should include technical expertise - my post was more directed to the converse idea of giving new tradesmen to the army the proper financial incentives and vocational recognition without having to give them instant promotions in rank.


----------



## Bert

Both Medicineman and McG bring up good points.  Theres a few other observations
I had.

I think there may be a difference in which combat arms and support MOCs
roll out initial members.  After BMQ to the end of QL3, I speculate that
initial members of the combat arms live, learn, practice and train to achieve
the skills necessary.

Support MOCs have to gain an initial understanding of the equipment or
the systems in which they are charged to maintain.  Rather than perfecting 
section tactics and learning the ins and outs of various weapons, support
MOCs are their wrapping their heads around heating systems, communication 
equipment, or radar as examples.  Its time spent in classrooms and controlled field 
conditions. QL3 qualifications takes 2-3 years and some Privates may not finish
OJT by the time the Corporal promotion occurs.

The rank structure in both streams are there, but the training in which
the combat arms performs is much more structured and demanding.  My point
is the Private in a support trade may not necessarily have significant military
experience or leadership training before promotion to Corporal.  Its true the 
Private may have more time in than an insta-Corporal  but at this level is 
developmental.

New Corporals, whether standard or insta, are tyring to achieve their 5's
and the unit provides opportunities for leadership development.  Those
that have potential and the drive stand out and the chain of command isn't
oblivious.  It takes an amount of time for the COC to get to know
their Privates and Corporals.

There is unit and MOC characteristics too.  In my trade, Corporals,
standard or insta, are often tasked or deployed in singular or
in small teams supporting a larger formation.  Not in sections, companies, or 
large groups so the dynamics are different.  The MCpls report to the Sgt as 
section i/cs  but its the Corporals that are assigned the tasks and carry the  
responsibility for its timely completion.  It combines technical knowledge,
leadership in a more senior technician role, and the responsibility. After
six months of OJT, distinctions of standard and insta shift over
to personal characteristics.  

From my point of view, I support the notion of Private at spec pay for
new semi-skilled (education equivalency to QL3) members completing BMQ.


----------



## RangerRay

Hi there!

I'm fairly new here, so I don't know if this topic has been discussed at length.  If so, I apologise.

I would like to discuss bringing back the traditional rank structure of the Canadian Army.

http://www.uniforminsignia.net/show.php?stat=Canada&podkategorie=Army&num=4&id=2136

Also, rebranding the tree services.  Going from Land Force Command, Air Command and Maritime Command, back to Canadian Army, Royal Canadian Air Force, and Royal Canadian Navy and their respective traditional rank structures.

I was in the Army long after unification and am still relatively young, but I always felt it a shame that we had to jettison much of our history just to come up with a generic rank structure for services with bland names and no history.  Yes, there are distinct uniforms now, but it still has a generic quality to it, IMHO.


----------



## BITTER PPLCI CPL

I think it is time for change in our military, and going back would be the way to do so. It would allow us to identify more with our element and our recruiting drive could be element specific. When people talk about the sea queen...I mean sea king it's like the population associates us with the Navy.


----------



## GO!!!

The down side of the three distinct services, and the main reason that they were amalgamated in the first place is that each of them requires their own staff and logistics- read - hundreds more generals and colonels, and that the possibility of joint operations becomes even more remote given the layers of tape that must be penetrated in two chains of command as opposed to one.

Knowing that our defence budget is unlikely to change, I would rather we kept a less spiffy uniform, than hired 500 more staff officers to fill two MORE HQ in ottawa, sucking untold billions out of our trg budgets.

IMHO


----------



## aesop081

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The down side of the three distinct services, and the main reason that they were amalgamated in the first place is that each of them requires their own staff and logistics- read - hundreds more generals and colonels, and that the possibility of joint operations becomes even more remote given the layers of tape that must be penetrated in two chains of command as opposed to one.
> 
> Knowing that our defence budget is unlikely to change, I would rather we kept a less spiffy uniform, than hired 500 more staff officers to fill two MORE HQ in ottawa, sucking untold billions out of our trg budgets.
> 
> IMHO



And that, if i am not mistaken, was the original concept of ops of unification.  Too bad that the execution was not up to par and, IMHO, selection and maintenance of the aim was something the politicians didnt know about.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I too think we have more things to worry about then going back to the way we were before Unification.


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I too think we have more things to worry about then going back to the way we were before Unification.



Unification is here to stay folks.  Let's talk on how we can make it work as intended.


----------



## RangerRay

Actually, I'm not talking about ending unification.  Just renaming the services to their old ones and return to our traditional rank structures.

I'm sure we can do this without returning to three seperate HQs and bureaucracies.

I also think it would help with morale in each of the services in re-claiming their respective histories.


----------



## onecat

Why go back to something that isn't even Canadian.  The old rank set up is British, and I think as a nation we move past that.  I do think we need some of old traditions back in the Army, but in the last 40 of Unification have built their own traditions that worth keeping.  I know their are toons of monarhist here will disagree, but I see no reason to take two steps back and add Royal.


----------



## RangerRay

Well, Australia and New Zealand have something similar to the old rank structure and service names, yet I think it would be outrageous to accuse them of being "too British".

And your avatar is actually something that was resurrected a few years ago.  It was the badge of the RCEME (yes, the 'R' is for the eeevil "Royal") prior to unification, which then went to a generic badge until the 90's, IIRC.  However, EME branch decided to reclaim some of it's history.


----------



## GO!!!

This would also add several ranks in certain elements (Navy) and remove a couple (army). 

Why would we do something with so little practical application (making rank equivalencies more difficult) that will ultimately drive us further apart? Joint ops are the reality of warfare today, and making even more distinction between the elements will do little to simplify this process.

Additionnaly, given that many soldiers will re-muster over the course of their careers, these different ranks only add to the confusion associated with re-mustering, pay, promotions and seniority.

While the "reclaiming of history" is indeed a noble pursuit, it should be remembered that things were changed for a reason in the first place - to make our jobs easier. Giving everyone in the various elements new ranks/uniforms/insignia will not make anyone I know job's easier. 

If it aint broke - don't fix it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It is pointless to focus on titles or badges.  You need to consider what the army needs.

Consider the infantry, first.  It needs:

"¢	Riflemen - private soldiers, probably in two or three pay grades.  There are, also and of necessity some privates 'below' them: recruits and soldiers under training;

"¢	Team leaders - depending upon the organization model chosen (see e.g.: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23394.0.html and  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18270.0.html ) there might be as many as four: rifle team1, rifle team 2, LMG team, vehicle team.  This is the first level of leadership and there might be sub-levels, rather like _apprentice_ junior leader and _journeyman_ junior leader - let's call them JL1 and JL2 (for junior leader, 1st  and 2nd level);

"¢	A Section Commander - still, in my opinion, a junior leader and, for our purposes, called JL3;

"¢	A Platoon Commander - who is either an enlisted *senior* leader of the _entry_ level, called SL1 or a junior officer, also of the entry level called JO1 or JO2;

"¢	A company quartermaster sergeant who will be the same rank as some of the support platoon NCOs - SL2;

"¢	A company sergeant major - SL3;

"¢	A company 2I/C - JO3, who might also serve as a regimental or brigade (junior) staff officer;

"¢	A company commander - SO1, who might also serve as a brigade staff officer.

The other ranks' structure is:

SL4 = RSM
SL3 = CSM/SSM/BSM
SL2 = CQMS/SQMS/BQMS
SL1 = Rifle Pl 2I/C / Tank Tp 2I/C
-----
JL3 = Rifle Sec Comd - also tank commander in an armoured unit and No 1 on a gun
JL2 = Team leader
JL1 = Team leader 
-----
S4 = rifleman (S = soldier)
S3 = rifleman
S2 = junior rifleman (trained)
S1 = soldier under training
-----
R = recruit

The key requirement for change, in my opinion, is to strengthen the junior leadership level.  It is my opinion that the section commander should *NOT* be a senior NCO.  The Section commander should work and 'live' with the rank and file which means (s)he must be a junior NCO (or we take the sergeants out of the Sergeants' Mess).  The section (and tank) commander should not be able (or required) to isolate himself/herself from the soldiers in the section or tank crew.  The leaders of one to a dozen or so soldiers should be _working_ commanders - integral members of the section or tank crew .  This may not seem like a key issue but I believe, based on the rumours etc I hear (and what I read here, in army.ca) that this is the one big thing which got lost in the _sixties shuffle_.

I believe we can and should have younger junior leaders because I think some of the convulsions which wracked the combat arms career management system could have been prevented and can be prevented in the future by restoring the section (and tank) commander to his (or her) rightful place as the 'top' of the junior leaders' pyramid rather than being at the bottom of the senior leaders.


----------



## Steel Badger

I have to agree with Edward. He has put it a lot more clearly than i.

Far too often when ideas like this are proposed, people choose to focus on the changing of a badge or simple designation as the point for their resistance...or cry that to go back to the "old army" designators or functions is "un-Canadian"

I do not believe this to be the case.

Making a section commander the rank of Sergeant had nothing to do with experience or "improving" the ability of a soldier to do the job; it was done  to allow that position (and all personnel for that matter) to receive a higher pay level given the resistance to increasing the pay level by rank at that time.

I would add to Edward's argument and say that the section commander should be a Jr. NCO; for all the reasons Edward has outlined.

A Sergeant is far to usefull to be confined to section level, and there is a proverbial "hockey-sock full"of Jr. NCO's who can and do step up to the plate on a regular basis to lead from the front.


My 2 cents


SB


----------



## Neill McKay

GO!!! said:
			
		

> This would also add several ranks in certain elements (Navy) and remove a couple (army).



The navy would lose one rank (Master Seaman, insofar as it is a rank).


----------



## Infanteer

I concur with Edward's post, especially the part with the junior leadership (section) being JNCO's - after all, the Corporal is _of the body_.

I would be interested in seeing what the Navy and the Air Force needs using a simple JL/SL/JO/SO framework that Edward applied.


----------



## ArmyRick

I would like to back up some of what Edward said. I beleive we have way too many ranks in the CF and it slows things down too much.   I am a 32 year old infantry section commander. In most other NATO armies I would be rated as a freakin dinosaur.   In our army, its all too common.
I beleive we can keep our rank structure and re-vamp to something more usefull.
PTE = section troopies
CPL = Sect 2IC (Now require PLQ Mod 6 + 2IC Trg)
MCPL = Sect Comd (DP 3A)
SGT = PL 2IC
WO = CQMS
MWO = CSM
CWO = RSM


For my 031 example see below...
To implement this change of responsibilities I would implement it over a five year period.
(1) All pers would keep their ranks on a probationary status (for the five year period) and be required to attend conversion courses conducted at unit level. For example in Infantry, we would have the platoons deploy to the field for a 3 week period. In that time, all CPLs would get a trained and assessed as Sect 2IC/comd roles.

(2) Come out of the field for a while, then redploy for another 3 week period and have SGTs assessed as PL 2IC roles. These two conversions could make the responsibility shift happen quickly and with less $$$ because if we tried to quickly run everybody through the required career courses all at once, it would really drain time, money and resources. This way the troops get field trg and the conversion happens quickly.

(3) All other promotions at this time (For pers not qualified under my new system) would require those personnel to attend the formal trg at the appropriate schools.

(4) For MCPL to get written off 3A (old small arms inst) just conduct a conversion course at the units over a 4-6 week period with instructors coming from the SGTs and WOs.

(5) Gradually over the five year period, Strongly encourage retirement of deadbeats in certain ranks (some people are in way too long and using up vaulable line serials) and DON'T GIVE ME THIS HUMAN RIGHTS CRAP ! It can be worked around. 

(6) Slowly implement this sytem over the five period and I beleive it could happen.

It never will happen IMO. Why ? The CF is change resistant. Too many people would whine and cry about having to do another career course (you should be actively trying to advance your career anyways).


----------



## DG-41

On the Recce side, the *rank structure* works out pretty well.Troop WO is a WO. Charlie patrol commander is a Sgt. Echo patrol commander a junior Sgt or MCpl. Troop leader's JAFO the senior MCpl (he's next in line for a patrol commander's job) Crew commanders are senior Cpls or fresh MCpls. All other crew positions Troopers or Corporals.

Where we do seem to fall down is the training progression. We don't teach crew commanding until MCpl, but Cpls get crew commands all the time. That means they have to learn these skills on the job, and that's sub-optimal.

I'd like to see courses work like this:

Basic - no hook Pte
TQ3/QL3/whatever it is now - serve as recce crewman (driver and observer jobs, fire crew weapons) - Trooper
No promotion to Cpl without doing a formal crew commander's course (that doesn't exist as a stand-alone course yet)
JLC - review crew commanding, patrol commanding - MCpl
6A - review patrol commanding, perform troop warrant's tasks - Sgt
6B - review troop warrant's tasks, troop leading - WO

DG


----------



## Kat Stevens

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> A Sergeant is far to usefull to be confined to section level, and there is a proverbial "hockey-sock full"of Jr. NCO's who can and do step up to the plate on a regular basis to lead from the front.
> 
> 
> My 2 cents
> 
> 
> SB


I probably missed something here, as is becoming more often the case as the years pass.  Using a CER as the example here, this would make approx 50 sergeants in the regiment superfluous (todays big word).  Where do they all go?  Or are we suggesting that promotions become even harder to come by?  There are zillion fairly young sergeants in my beloved corps.  They concievably would clog the pipes for the next 20 years, leading to what we had in the 90's.  An army chockablock full of Cpls and Mcpls, again, unles  missed something...

CHIMO,  Kat


----------



## Edward Campbell

_Traditionally_, if forty or fifty years count as traditional, sergeants were _section_ commanders in artillery, engineer and signal units; perhaps it is better to say that troop staff sergeants were the norm and the level just below (gun, section, etc) was filled by a sergeant.

I think this had to do with the rather heavy skill-knowledge/training requirements in those corps.

The infantry and the armoured corps needed (still need, I think) rather younger leaders â â€œ especially within platoons and tank troops, whereas the supporting arms needed more skill-knowledge and experience.  Within the infantry battalion many of the specialist platoon NCOs were also SSgts (WOs today): Recce Pl, Mortar Pl, ATk and Signal platoons for sure â â€œ for the same reasons: necessary skill-knowledge and experience.  Within the Recce Pl we had (40+/- years ago) Patrol Dets (three commanded by Lts â â€œ usually the best in the battalion) and three commanded by Sgts (also up-and-comers) and Surveillance Dets (four) commanded by Cpls â â€œ these had IR and (1st generation) surveillance radar devices.  Cpls in the infantry in the late '50s and early '60s were as young as 19.  It was possible and reasonably 'normal' for bright youngsters to be _appointed_ Lance Corporal after a mere 18 months of service and sent on the Junior NCO course â â€œ usually regarded as the toughest course in the army.  Rifle section commanders were, mostly, I think, still in their 20s â â€œ although there were always a few old timers, in their '30s.  Most platoon sergeants were 30_ish_ and the RSM was, I think, in his not too late '40s.


----------



## TCBF

"Rifle section commanders were, mostly, I think, still in their 20s â â€œ although there were always a few old timers, in their '30s.  Most platoon sergeants were 30ish and the RSM was, I think, in his not too late '40s".

-Suddenly, I feel VERY old.

Tom


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

my  thoughts on ranks and promotions.

first off the best rank i think is cpl. you know enough about your trade to  do the job well. you have fun at work less headaches, less paperwork,  but you get to see the full piture so to speak.  You know that the Mcpl has the headaches and the paperwork to do. You can always play  stupid and pretend you did not know something and get away  with it sometimes.

.

I had Cpls who worked with me and for me ,  total time in trade 2 years with ql4, that  made them a Cpl. Could not fight their way  out of a battle with the photocopier but they got the second hook.   In the reserves sometimes the CPL promotion is a give me and nothing changes they  still do the job of a private and do it so so.

Other times in the reserves the CPL is in the rank for a life time because they cannot get the time off work for the course in the summer, weekend courses do not always work around the full time career, but the Cpl in that case has many years on the job, can do the job of the MCPL but cannot have the rank or the pay to go with it.

I had friends who were coming up on 12 years as a cpl with little or no chance for promotion to Mcpl because of the trade was top heavy, but they  knew the trade just as well as the Mcpl or Sgt in charge of the office staff. Remusters had more time in the Sgt but no chance at promotion.

I think sometimes Cpl is a misused rank in the reserves, they are doing things that  one or 2 higher ranks should be doing but no one there to do the job. Crew commander on a apc, section commander in platoon. Sometimes they do a great job.  Other times the lack of rank and training make it a tough job to do.

As for the reg force there are a lot of career cpls out there and some are very happy there doing the job and others see the light of a career halting, knowing they are not going any where.

There is no need to fix or change the rank structure , but more or less change the promotion time and trades training to suit the needs of the forces now and the needs in the future.


Who here remembers the One summer   wonder MCPL in the Res Inf units,  come in from the street, end of summer you were promoted to Mcpl if you passed. my  Inf Unit had 2 of them,  both reg force now, one is a Major in the RCR, a ring knocked RMC grad, the other is or was an MP.  The ring knocker he was very  good at what  he did and he did admit to making mistakes, the  other was a screw up and he did not admit to mistakes ever. 

As for regs joining the res, use to be the rule they got promoted on joining at least one rank, sometimes more . Mostly depended how bad the CO wanted them.  Some cases Sgt res enters Reg force was taken in as a cpl, one case he was bought in as a MCPL. Mostly it depends on your trades training and how bad they want you when you make the leap to the other side.

from what  I remember being told of the MCPL it was like the other person said away  to give the enlisted men a pay raise , created a new rank and that  give everyone up and down the ranks a raise.


----------



## GO!!!

Both FHG and TCBF have some good points, but they seem to center on the same problem, that of a very nearly geriatric NCO corps in the army today. 

While these individuals are undoutedly great sources of information and experience, the idea that a 50 year old can effectively LEAD - not just manage, a platoon of 17-24  year old needs to be addressed. While being a SME is a great thing, a sergeant or WO that can keep up to the Pl Comd is also required. 

This could be accomplished by adopting the suggestion (made elsewhere in this thread) to make MCpls into section commanders, Cpls as 2i/c's and a Sergeant as Pl Sgt. WO would be CQ's, and teaching positions, in order to preserve their "corporate knowledge" and also allow the old dogs to slow down a bit. 

Due to manning shortages, this is already the case in many units, and they are perfectly functional.

Yes, we all know of a few CSMs that can out-fight, out - drink and out - fu** ten of his subordinates - simultaneously or consecutively - but they are the exception rather than the rule, so "I knew a _____ back in ____ who could ____ " is not an effective counter argument.

In the USMC, even seeing a man (not an officer)older than 40 seems to be rare in the actual fighting units, and as they are a real fighting formation, perhaps we could use them as a model.


----------



## ArmyRick

GO!!! I was one of the advocates for bumping responsibility up a notch.

FormerHorseGuard, yes I am very aware of the rather youthfull CPLs and the older more expirienced CPLs in the reserves. However, the service comes first and if you can not commit the time for advancement courses, then thats the individuals tough luck. I have seen many a good reservist (especially the guys who become cops) who have had to make the big decision, army or civilian career. I salute any soldier who leaves when the time is appropriate, I can't stand reservist that cling to their units because of the social ties. I am also equally agaisnt REG F NCOs that cling to backwater postings and cease to be usefull but just milk the system.

I am a very big beleiver od advancing motivation troops that show potential early. Lets get rid of the CF 35 year old sect commander syndrome (I am only three years away but I hope to be a WO by then).


----------



## George Wallace

A useful site for finding the comparisons between different NATO Nations Rank Structures is NATO itself.  Here are some of their sites on Rank Structures for comparisons:

For Officers:

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

For Other/Enlisted ranks:

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

There are links at the bottom of these pages for Naval and Air Force comparisons, also.


----------



## paracowboy

the big drawback I see to GO!!'s plan is that we haven't had time to train the younger generation up to the standard they need to be. We need to start funnelling young Cpls and jacks through the various Adv Crses as much as humanly possible.
Then, we can take us geriatric types, and turn us into a huge soldier-making, mass-production machine. Start turning out recruits by the hundreds and get the CF back into the shape it needs to be, without the huge backlog, and without the watered-down Standards-enforced weakness.


----------



## TCBF

Right you are. 

We have an institutional deficit (career structure/policy/org) as well as an experience deficit (ops and trg).

Tom


----------



## GO!!!

paracowboy said:
			
		

> the big drawback I see to GO!!'s plan is that we haven't had time to train the younger generation up to the standard they need to be. We need to start funnelling young Cpls and jacks through the various Adv Crses as much as humanly possible.
> Then, we can take us geriatric types, and turn us into a huge soldier-making, mass-production machine. Start turning out recruits by the hundreds and get the CF back into the shape it needs to be, without the huge backlog, and without the watered-down Standards-enforced weakness.



The problem is that these 35 -45 year old NCOs are still sucking up all of the advance courses simply by putting themselves on them! The only advance course that is consistantly made available to the "working ranks" is AWW, while some Sr. NCOs are amassing a half dozen of them, then taking the position of a CQ and not disseminating the knowledge that they have been given.

An effective "fix" to this may be simply to restrict the number of advance courses one is permitted to have, in order to prevent some "golden boy" from going on all of them, then leaving the unit.

As for the problem of getting our junior ranks ready for the coming leadership crunch - there's no time like the present! If the actions are taken now, the problems can be solved sooner then later.

Just think, this could also extend to the pruning of our amply staffed officer corps as well... >


----------



## ArmyRick

What I think should happen for assessing senior privates and junior CPLs is to take a bunch of them and put them out into the field for a week.  Don't teach them anything just throw them into small tactical scenarios and look for the ones who think on their feet. I mean take all the CPLs or PTEs and have a go at them. A liitle bit of c*ck here and there while your at it is good to.

We used to have Pre-ISCC back in the day (about 3-4 weeks) and this was meant to be sort of an assessing or selection thing to see who had the potential for attending ISCC. The problem with it was it got treated more like a real course and some troopies who had potential, weren't even considered for attending it. I saw some real sh*t bags go on it because they were so and so drinking buddy


----------



## GO!!!

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> The problem with it was it got treated more like a real course and some troopies who had potential, weren't even considered for attending it. I saw some real **** bags go on it because they were so and so drinking buddy



Some things never change...


----------



## McG

Mountie said:
			
		

> Just a thought:   I'll use the infantry as a example just to simplify the private/trooper/gunner/sapper thing.





			
				Veterans son said:
			
		

> I do think that for the Infantry there should be the following ranks(in my opinion):





			
				Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> It is pointless to focus on titles or badges.   You need to consider what the army needs.
> 
> Consider the infantry, first.   It needs:





			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> For my 031 example see below...


I know its an old thread, but I was just reading through & couldn't help but notice that pretty near every proposed rank structure is built on an infantry model.   While it is perfectly obvious that any new rank structure needs to work for the infantry, it must also be compatable with other elements of the Army. 

Consider the Engr Recce Sgt.  This is the defacto "3ic" of the engr tp, he is separated from the other sgts in the tp by a significant amount of experience & a 4 month career course (Cbt Engr Recce Ops).  One could make an argument for a rank between Sgt and WO that would be appropriate for the recce sgt (and possibly the sqn ops sgt as well).  Odds are that such a rank would not be compatable with any occupation outside the Engrs.  However, it does illustrate that each branch is likely to have a differnet "ideal" rank structure and each of the proposed structures should reflect how they will fit other occupations.  It is not just for the Air Force & Navy there is that comprimise in rank structure.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> A 2i/c of a Platoon is responsible for drill, dress and deportment among the soldiers, the training of his Junior NCO's, and keeping an eye on his fresh-faced platoon commander.


Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> I know its an old thread, but I was just reading through & couldn't help but notice that pretty near every proposed rank structure is built on an infantry model.   While it is perfectly obvious that any new rank structure needs to work for the infantry, it must also be compatable with other elements of the Army.
> 
> Consider the Engr Recce Sgt....



You make a good point - the same could be pointed out in the existing Infantry structure with the Weapons Det commander in the Rifle Platoon.  Typically commanded by a Master Corporal, he tends to be the senior master jack and acts as what is essentially a commander of a section's worth of troops (only they are employed differently).  I understand this is to change under the LIB structure.

I guess the sensible notion is to draw up a "ladder" of things like accession, courses, and command levels for each branch and do the best to connect the dots.



> Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."



Ack - forgot about that one.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> Consider the Engr Recce Sgt.   This is the defacto "3ic" of the engr tp, he is separated from the other sgts in the tp by a significant amount of experience & a 4 month career course (Cbt Engr Recce Ops).   One could make an argument for a rank between Sgt and WO that would be appropriate for the recce sgt (and possibly the sqn ops sgt as well).   Odds are that such a rank would not be compatable with any occupation outside the Engrs.   However, it does illustrate that each branch is likely to have a differnet "ideal" rank structure and each of the proposed structures should reflect how they will fit other occupations.   It is not just for the Air Force & Navy there is that comprimise in rank structure.
> Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."


Other Trades and/or Units get around this "Rank" question by the use of 'Appointments'.   Ops WO is a senior WO in that organization and thus has more "Rank" than the rest of the WOs in that unit.   Much the same as the RSM is an Appointment giving him 'more say' than any other CWO in that unit, or as we go higher Bde RSM, Corps RSM, Comd RSM, etc. all have more say than their subordinate CWOs.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Other Trades and/or Units get around this "Rank" question by the use of 'Appointments'.


Very true, but if one were to "fix" the rank structure, why not align the number of ranks with the levels of seniority that we want?  Alternately, create an "appointment" at each rank level (complete with its unique rank badge) to designate senior appointment (much like the appointments of MCpl, Base CWO, Bde RSM, Area RSM, Land Forces RSM, and CF CWO all have a unique rank badge).


----------



## George Wallace

Not all Appointments fall into one fixed rank.  Same goes for Deligated positions.  One year we have one rank filling a position, the next year we may have a higher or lower rank filling that slot.  It would cause a lot of grief to create new ranks to fill some of these odd ball situations.  Have you experienced the Household Cavalry rank structure, with things like "Corpral of Horse" etc.?  Can become quite confusing, especially when you have a Corpral of Horse sitting in a Snr NCO Mess.   ;D


----------



## pbi

Many years ago, back in the early 90's, I sat as a member of an Army board that was convened to look at the idea of separating pay and rank as much as was fair and practical. The concept was called "TASK": "Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge". We also looked at getting rid of MCpl and reverting to Pte/Cpl/Sgt.

In the end, it foundered on the conditions arising out of Unification: the direction to protect a "common" CF rank structure (with Naval designators as required) as a visible symbol of Unification; the movement of "purple" support people in and out of the Army, and the fact that pay, benefits and promotions were controlled out of ADM HR (Mil) not LFC. As far as I know, the only lasting thing that came out of it was the skill badges we still have in the Army for DEU.

IIRC, the US Army tackled this years ago with the Specialist rank. While all Specs fall between PFC and Cpl in terms of rank, there are a large number of Spec grades, each with its own "broad chevron" insignia. I believe there are pay increases with each Spec level.This lets the US Army accomodate its very large, highly specialized support trade stucture without diluting rank. However, I did notice in Afghanistan, especially in the Div Sig Bn, what seemed like a very large number of quite young Sgts, so perhaps the US has had to resort to rank dilution in order to get retention. 

I have no problem with paying somebody more money (within reasonable limits such that money is not the sole motivation..), but I do not like seeing anybody, Officer or NCM, wearing rank just because of civilian qualifications. 

Cheers


----------



## ArmyRick

PBI, I agree 100% with your statement of getting rank because of civie qualifications. Right now there are alot of junk CPLs who had expirience in civie life and joined in the STEP program. VEH TECH and MP trades are the ones that come to mind right off the top.  I beleive we should seperate to some what an extent pay and rank. How about a gradual pay increase for each year of service and include monthly additions for rank, specialist skills (such as VEH TECH or FCS TECH as an example) and other things like TD, FOA, Overseas, Jump, etc ? ideas? Thoughts?

By the way, yeah the ENG RECCE SGT is senior in appointment that the sect comd but I disagree with making seperate ranks for every little unique appointment (WPNS DET COMD, LAV SGT, OPS SGT, SQMS or CQMS, Battle Captains, etc, etc). The appointment system works fine for these situations (i.e. CQ is same rank as PL 2IC but higher appointment and authority).


----------



## George Wallace

pbi

It seems that the "working rank" in the US Army is sometimes a SGT.  Sgts as Drivers.  Sgts as RadOps.  Platoons full of Sgts.  Kind of makes our Cpls look good when they can do everything and more that a Sgt can do in another Army.  Heck I had Tpr/Ptes more qualified and skilled than many of their Sgts.  Rank means nothing in cases like this.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I too agree with pbi.  The issue is hideously complex - there is layer upon layer of error, mostly honest well intentioned error.  Unravelling it _might_ be difficult.

Going all the way back to square 1 - the Hellyer corporal and the sergeant section commander - we find well intentioned errors.  I am certain that Mr. Hellyer had two goals in '63: better pay for soldiers and a 'better' educated army, e,g, more technical tradesmen.  The government of the day was unwilling (maybe politically unable) to raise military salaries - raising pay to a reasonable level would be seen as a combination of a bribe to get support for _unifications_ (misnamed) and as counter-productive when Hellyer's avowed aim was to cut costs.  The business of tying trades to ranks and elevating jobs was Hellyer's way of doing what he thought necessary - I think he thought it was the only way.

The next well intentioned error was tying military salaries to civil service pay scales.  By the '70s our pay had fallen farther and farther behind and the government was unwilling, again, to raise military pay.  We were really unpopular in the late '60s and '70s - Trudeau despised the military - and ignoring us was good politics.

Both combined have, in my view, done serious damage and I believe the leadership does need to reform ranks and pay - and it may be painful.

First principle: we do need _benchmarks_. including but not limited to:

"¢	The CDS gets paid about the middle of the Deputy Minister range;

"¢	No fully trained soldier earns less than the middle of the _low income cut off_ range;

"¢	Junior privates and 2Lts are _apprentices_ and need not be especially well paid;

"¢	Cdrs and LCols should be paid the same as the first level of Executive in the civil service - a ship's captain or a battalion commander has way, way more responsibility than any civil service executive can ever imagine in her worst nightmare;

"¢	Pte (trained) and Lt are _journeyman_ ranks - Lts are leaders and should be paid and employed as such;

"¢	Certain _high value_ skills need high trades pay - but not too many trades;

"¢	Certain people need allowances for being at sea (even more for being under it), flying (including be ready to fly), jumping out of airplanes, and being in army field units;

"¢	The top of the Sr NCO pay scale, including that very high specialist pay, needs to be below the bottom of the LCol range - but not too far below;

"¢	Etc, etc, etc - the list can go on and on. 

Second principle: everyone's base pay is the same rank by rank and seniority increment by increment - you get paid extra for knowing and doing extra and you accept deductions for e.g. rations and quarters.

Third principle - each promotion brings a pay raise - maybe not a big one but we need to get past the system (which did exist in the '80s) when 'junior' Cols made less than 'senior' LCols (if you got promoted to Col after, say, five years as a LCol, you made less than a LCol at the top _progression_ level (which was 8 years, I think)).

Fourth principle: no _freebies_ for senior officers (like $50,000 life insurance which is an _Executive_ perk) and no _performance bonus_ either - in other words _decouple_ senior officers' pay from the civil service.

I have no idea how much this might cost; I'm only guessing that we might even be able to get there.  I think it is important to try.


----------



## Infantree

We need to bring back the royal. It make sense seeing as were part of the British commonwealth. All were asking for is the old respected name. Was the RCN in 2 world wars or was Maritime command.  Would you rather join Aircommand or the royal Canadian airforce. See what im saying. Yes theres point to this, why change the name why couldn't they jut leave things the way they were.


----------



## paracowboy

why waste the money? More cash spent on paint, engraving, re-doing ALL of our paperwork, etc. More time taken away from practical training, with troops doing useless prettification crap.

Never should have been done away with, but we got more pressing matters to attend to now. Little things like fight a war, rebuild the entire military, care for our wounded...


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infantree said:
			
		

> Yes theres point to this, why change the name why couldn't they jut leave things the way they were.



Exactly. No need to change it then.


----------



## Infantree

I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top. It wouldn't take away from the training and stuff.  I say we start a poll on who thinks we should change our names back or keep them im new so i don't no how to do that but ive seen them on here so someone start a pole and lets see what everyone thinks on army.ca. is the Australian defence force structured like the CF?


----------



## aesop081

Infantree said:
			
		

> I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top. It wouldn't take away from the training and stuff.  I say we start a poll on who thinks we should change our names back or keep them im new so i don't no how to do that but ive seen them on here so someone start a pole and lets see what everyone thinks on army.ca. is the Australian defence force structured like the CF?



 :


----------



## Matty B.

Here is my two cents:

As a young officer cadet, I disagree with the "Royal" designator for the "RCAF" and "RCN". Some older members or past members of the CF might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> Here is my two cents:
> 
> As a young officer cadet, I disagree with the "Royal" designator for the "RCAF" and "RCN". Some older members or past members of the CF might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.



I think most kingdoms in the world are rather discrete - and one would be forgiven for not even knowing they were kingdoms.  Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?


----------



## TMM

Infantree said:
			
		

> I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top.



Only 2-3 months? I run a business and we had to change our name once. It took longer than 2-3 months and far more time and money than it was worth. We had to get new paaperwork, legal work, notify everyone we had a contract with. It's a lot of work.

What do you suggest be done with the reams and reams of papers already printed? What about the uniforms? The bank accounts and credit cards?

I'm not in the CF but as a civi I would prefer my tax dollars be spent in hands on support for the troops not name changes.

When I hear Royal I think British not Canadian; I think the CF branches and those serving know the history and are proud of it. Keep it as is.


----------



## Nemo888

I'd rather enjoy it. I still talk of joining as, "Taking the Queens shilling," and like to think of my kit as on loan from the Queen. I guess I am a bit romantic. Me mum was a Royalist and passed when I was 18, she never saw me in uniform.


----------



## aesop081

being sentimetal and nostalgic is one thing, but as mentioned before we have bigger fish to fry.  In cases you missed it, we have a war to fight. The title "Royal" isnt going to motivate me more....a new airplane would.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

> might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.



And you swore your oath to whom?



> Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?



Yes.

I agree we have more important things to tackle right now.  However, eliminating the original titles was, IMHO, one of the worst excesses of 1960s political correctness - done for entirely the wrong reasons.


----------



## Matty B.

Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...


----------



## Kirkhill

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I think most kingdoms in the world are rather discrete - and one would be forgiven for not even knowing they were kingdoms.  Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?



Yes as do the Dutch Navy and Air Force as well as their Marechaussee constabulary.

The Norwegians have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force.  The Swedes and the Danes still call their ships Their Majesties' Ships.

"Fighting Republicanism, Tooth and Nail"  ;D 

I see Teddy beat me to it.  And I agree with him.


----------



## GAP

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> And you swore your oath to whom?
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> I agree we have more important things to tackle right now.  However, eliminating the original titles was, IMHO, one of the worst excesses of 1960s political correctness - done for entirely the wrong reasons.



Shhhh...you'll get them all excited, the politicians will get all excited, then everybody will scurry around like they did in the sixties changing everything, they'll forget about buying equipment, 6 month tours will languish about Kandahar, etc., etc...... ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Yes as do the Dutch Navy and Air Force as well as their Marechaussee constabulary.
> 
> The Norwegians have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force.  The Swedes and the Danes still call their ships Their Majesties' Ships.
> 
> "Fighting Republicanism, Tooth and Nail"  ;D
> 
> I see Teddy beat me to it.  And I agree with him.



Next questions - does anybody but the Dutch or Norwegians use those terms when talking about them? ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...



Well another Cadet out to leave a mark on the pavement.   :

First off:  Many of us are serving, or have served, in a Royal designated Unit.  The Army is full of them.  The Reserves are full of them.  So you defence is very weak.

Second:  Don't try to make a play on words as to who or what you swore your allegiance to.  

Third:  What is your problem with "Quote"?  When someone quotes you, it is not a noun, but a verb.  What are you getting on about?  I am sure that we can go back and review all your past posts for syntax errors and find many.......So what?

This topic has been dead for over two years, until some twit resurrected it today, without reading it.  Now we have you contributing to the fun and games.  I am sure it would be best to let this dead horse lie.........Move along.......Nothing to see here.


----------



## Matty B.

I said that a "quote" is a verb, and I only referred to the Air Force and Navy about the "Royal" title... I don't see why I have to be called a "twit" about it.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

I'm mystified as to what he's on about too, George, as I think it was directed at me.  I mistyped in the [ quote] HTML at the beginning of my post - and later went back and fixed it.


----------



## Infanteer

:boring:

Is this going anywhere we haven't been before?

Signed, The Roundhead....


----------



## aesop081

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I'm mystified as to what he's on about too, George, as I think it was directed at me.  I mistyped in the [ quote] HTML at the beginning of my post - and later went back and fixed it.



Leave it to an OCdt to sort you out......   ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Signed, The Roundhead....



ROTFLMAO!!!!!


----------



## Neill McKay

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> Here is my two cents:
> 
> As a young officer cadet, I disagree with the "Royal" designator for the "RCAF" and "RCN". Some older members or past members of the CF might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.



As a young officer cadet you've sworn allegiance to the Queen of Canada.  Britain has nothing to do with any of this.  This argument would evaporate if people were better informed about how this country's government works.

I'm all for changing back to RCN and RCAF.  "Maritime Command" didn't win the Battle of the Atlantic or bust any trains in Korea.

The cost, as has been discussed previously, would be minimal, and certainly no more than that arising from the creation of the various regional Joint Task Forces -- nobody has yet come out against those on the grounds of the cost of printing letterhead.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The cost, as has been discussed previously, would be minimal, and certainly no more than that arising from the creation of the various regional Joint Task Forces -- nobody has yet come out against those on the grounds of the cost of printing letterhead.



The whole purpose of the JTF title is to highlight the fact that all the services are combining to work together....I think the idea is to emphasize we do have an integrated Canadian Forces rather than a simple collection of individual services.  The use of the Royal designator might, I think, be perceived as putting emphasis in the wrong places. We're supposed to be more than a sum total of our parts.


----------



## George Wallace

There are "Heraldic" factors that come into the equation.  It would be very time consuming and expensive in labour and money to go about it.  It would take some real dedication on the part of the Government to do so, and we all know that the will is not there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> :boring:
> 
> Is this going anywhere we haven't been before?
> 
> Signed, The Roundhead....



We've discussed your incomplete understanding of geometry before as well, haven't we?  ;D

By the way, where you bin?


----------



## Infanteer

Royal Joint Task Force Atlantic.

There you go.  Canadian democracy has again been saved by the House of Windsor.  Whew....


----------



## Cloud Cover

Seriously, despite all the current nostalgia, in the early 80's I served with a number of PO's who were in the RCN during the 40's, 50's 60's and I even had a couple of Chiefs* who served in Korea.  They mostly retired in the mid 90's. They will tell you the RCN in the 60's, while historically rich**, was also an organization attempting to propel itself on a theory of self appointed importance while it was becoming irrelevant due to obsolescence, cutbacks and which also embraced, (and arguably imposed) an out of date and harsh class system on the ranks. In the 1960's this had serious social consequences on the members and their immediate family members, especially in the lower ranks. In short there was a lot of resentment towards the RCN as a concept and many in the lower ranks embraced the concept of heaving the concept of the RCN over the side like a can of gash in favour of something more modern and "Canadian", if only to "stick it"  in the face of the officers. Not that the officers gave a shit, apparently they just carried on. Anyway, that's what I remember hearing at the time when a number of officers were attempting to resurrect the RCN title in the 1980's.   Those who experienced the RCN first hand were not so keen to see it come back. 

* one of whom retired in 86 and decided to run across Canada with a few other Chiefs. 
** Despite the claim of might and prowess of the RCN that persists to this very day, it was also the navy that was not -so - politely told by the British and the Americans to stay in home port and unfuck themselves on a number of occasions during the first few years of the war and once close to the end of the war. This was something that a number of Chiefs and PO's would take the time to remind everyone when people would start comparing the modern CF navy [as it were] to the WW2 RCN navy.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Seriously, despite all the current nostalgia, in the early 80's I served with a number of PO's who were in the RCN during the 40's, 50's 60's and I even had a couple of Chiefs* who served in Korea.  They mostly retired in the mid 90's. They will tell you the RCN in the 60's, while historically rich**, was also an organization attempting to propel itself on a theory of self appointed importance while it was becoming irrelevant due to obsolescence, cutbacks and which also embraced, (and arguably imposed) an out of date and harsh class system on the ranks. In the 1960's this had serious social consequences on the members and their immediate family members, especially in the lower ranks. In short there was a lot of resentment towards the RCN as a concept and many in the lower ranks embraced the concept of heaving the concept of the RCN over the side like a can of gash in favour of something more modern and "Canadian", if only to "stick it"  in the face of the officers. Not that the officers gave a shit, apparently they just carried on. Anyway, that's what I remember hearing at the time when a number of officers were attempting to resurrect the RCN title in the 1980's.   Those who experienced the RCN first hand were not so keen to see it come back.
> 
> * one of whom retired in 86 and decided to run across Canada with a few other Chiefs.
> ** Despite the claim of might and prowess of the RCN that persists to this very day, it was also the navy that was not -so - politely told by the British and the Americans to stay in home port and unfuck themselves on a number of occasions during the first few years of the war and once close to the end of the war. This was something that a number of Chiefs and PO's would take the time to remind everyone when people would start comparing the modern CF navy [as it were] to the WW2 RCN navy.



I vote this as a candidate for inclusion in the wiki. ;D  Nicely put.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well said Whiskey


----------



## Infantree

We need to be royal. We swear an oath to the queen. She is the commander and chief of the CF. She is royal. Concluding we are royal as well. Id still be happy even if we changed it to Canadian Navy, Canadian Airforce, and Canadian army,  because maritime command air command and land force command is just ridiculous.


----------



## George Wallace

I don't see anything ridiculous in it.  I do see some of the rants here to be ridiculous, in their naivete.


----------



## paracowboy

everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and *dying* in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.

Priorities. Look it up.


----------



## Neill McKay

paracowboy said:
			
		

> everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and *dying* in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.
> 
> Priorities. Look it up.



I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.



Agreed. We just reorganized the entire command structure, did we not? I disagree we need to change the names, but agree that if we wanted to, we could. CANSOFCOM, CEFCOM et al were major changes. We tend to go through them every 10 years or so. The reserve brigades was another major one in the 1990s, with the Militia Districts going the way of the dodo. That had to cost as much money as renaming the navy would. The Land Force Areas were created in 1991. The militia Districts were created in 1969 after the Suttie Commission's report. Before that were Militia Groups from 1954. Before that Military Districts.  We reinvent the wheel every few years anyway.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.



The pictures on the wall here in my office suggest that it's not really a choice that you have ...

RCAF and RCN have greater LCF, selon moi.   

_(Where's that Red Ensign debate from last year?) _  :threat:


----------



## paracowboy

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.


than you would be wrong. The money that would be pissed away on such a stupid project could be far better spent on beans and bullets. The time spent on such a stupid project could be far better spent on training soldiers, and planning to do same. The NCOs and Officers wasting time and effort on such a stupid project could be far employed in the war effort. we're already over-tasked, under-manned, and under-funded, and people are actually worrying about something this ridiculous? Shake your heads.


----------



## Kat Stevens

You're all overlooking one thing.  No matter who in Ottawa proclaims "thou art Royal, go forth and kicketh ass",  The QUEEN bestows this honour.  If it were I, the answer would go something (but only something) like this: 
       " We appreciate and understand the desire for a Royal designation.  This honour was already bestowed once, and you chose to discard it to appease a defeated people.  We are sorry, but we are unable to process your request at this time, please call back when another Monarch is crowned.  We appreciate your call."


----------



## Michael Dorosh

paracowboy said:
			
		

> than you would be wrong. The money that would be pissed away on such a stupid project could be far better spent on beans and bullets. The time spent on such a stupid project could be far better spent on training soldiers, and planning to do same. The NCOs and Officers wasting time and effort on such a stupid project could be far employed in the war effort. we're already over-tasked, under-manned, and under-funded, and people are actually worrying about something this ridiculous? Shake your heads.



You sound extremely expert in name changes. How many officers and NCOs do you project such a change would cost - and can you express that in man-days please? Preferably broken up by area of responsibility.  It would certainly focus the discussion more if you shared your obvious expertise in this area with us; your comments have been a bit vague so far.


----------



## paracowboy

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You sound extremely expert in name changes. How many officers and NCOs do you project such a change would cost - and can you express that in man-days please? Preferably broken up by area of responsibility.  It would certainly focus the discussion more if you shared your obvious expertise in this area with us; your comments have been a bit vague so far.


my "expertise" does not extend to something this inane and ridiculous, Michael. I leave that sort of nonsense to those who have nothing better to do with their time. I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things. Surely you've read about them?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

paracowboy said:
			
		

> my "expertise" does not extend to something this inane and ridiculous, Michael. I leave that sort of nonsense to those who have nothing better to do with their time. I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things. Surely you've read about them?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this your way of saying you're talking out of your ass, then? No disrespect intended, but you've parroted the same "we're fighting a war" stuff twice now.  I wasn't aware a MCpl in the infantry was involved with procurement for the entire CF - then again, neither is a reservist corporal who gives out socks.  I guess the difference being I'm always willing to admit  when I'm talking out of my ass.   I just use fewer words than you to do it. ;D

My point was that we change names of stuff like other armies change their underwear, so what difference would it make what the name is changed to. The point was made by Mr. McKay that the CF can probably walk and chew gum at the same time. Your counter "argument", if that is what it is, makes little sense in that perspective. If you have something substantive to add, I am sure it will carry the same weight most of your normally well thought out and constructed arguments do. In this case, they don't seem to hold much water.  Though invoking Canadian war dead was a nice touch.

Just sayin'. 



> I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things.


So why post in this thread at least three times, then? I'm not sure what it is you feel you've added to the discussion. You've expressed your opinion - twice - but not responded to any of the follow up it generated. Seems like a poor use of that time.*shrug*


----------



## paracowboy

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware a MCpl in the infantry was involved with procurement for the entire CF - then again, neither is a reservist corporal who gives out socks.


well, since being brought into the CQMS world a couple years back, then being brought up to BHQ to act as Operations WO, I've become somewhat familiar with the process. And I have come to realize just how much money is pissed away on stupid shit at the expense of warfighters. You odn't details on what I do, or how I do it. When the content and value of our posts are compared, I'm secure that those who count know which to pay attention to. 



> I guess the difference being I'm always willing to admit  when I'm talking out of my ass.   I just use fewer words than you to do it. ;D


not quite. The difference is that you make it a habit. We can go back through my posts and find any number of times when I've been corrected, and have owned up to it. 



> My point was that we change names of stuff like other armies change their underwear, so what difference would it make what the name is changed to.


 and my point is that one second, or one penny wasted on this pathetic, surface-over-substance, appearance-over-functionality silliness is one second and one penny better spent elsewhere. Gara-trooper mentality has no place in our military today. We have to re-build a cash-strapped, under-manned, poorly-equipped force, currently at war. It is the height of stupidity to bother with inconsequentials like this under those circumstances.



> Your "argument", if that is what it is, makes little sense in that perspective. If you have something substantive to add, I am sure it will carry the same weight most of your normally well thought out and constructed arguments do. In this case, they don't seem to hold much water.


to you, perhaps. But, to those with time at the pointy-end, I'm confident that it's ringing loudly. And, since our highest leadership has significant time there, I highly doubt that this issue will surface until well after the threat we face has been dealt with and the Chairborne are once more in positions of authority. Then we can disband the CSOR and spend money on make-work projects like the LSVW, Garrison Dress, and changing names again. Until then, the testosterone-challenged will simply have to bide their time. Soon enough, the warriors will work themselves out of a job again.


----------



## Good2Golf

Matthew Ash said:
			
		

> Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...



Also, also...._English_ is an adjective, the _English language_ is a modified noun.

I wish _that_ people on this site _would_ use proper grammar.  It seems that while many people _could_ use proper grammar, they choose not to do so.

Duey


----------



## HItorMiss

The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.

I for one would much rather do my job then bother with seeing how much money could be flushed down the toilet in a vague attempt to put something back that has already been removed without much consequence. We still have Royal in many places such as Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, Her Majesties Canadian Ship etc etc, why bother with the rest. I mean hey could spend 2 milion dollars on that or we could buy me more bullets and better equipment.

I know the concept of bullets and equipment mean little to you but as Para has pointed out to us that do the job it extremely important.

Can "we walk and chew gun" at the same time, sure we could. But why bother when we can focus on something infinitely more important and with much deeper consequences.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

paracowboy said:
			
		

> well, since being brought into the CQMS world a couple years back, then being brought up to BHQ to act as Operations WO, I've become somewhat familiar with the process. And I have come to realize just how much money is pissed away on stupid shit at the expense of warfighters.



Since you insist on sermonizing, I guess I'll reply in kind.

Some of of that is subjective.  I have indeed, though, seen the "Western Challenge Pencils" the Army bought a few years back (they were a scream!) so no one is doubting that priorities aren't always adhered to, nor is anyone arguing that combat capability shouldn't come first. I think the argument here, dead soldiers aside, is that some of that "stupid shit" is unappreciated by soldiers in the field - those pointy-end dudes you presume to speak for - and is in fact necessary in ways that intangible. Just as intangible as, say, the difference between Walmart socks and Gore-tex socks. Can anyone define a "need" for say a better bivvy bag? We won "the big one" without them, after all. It's all a matter of perspective. Anyway, we agree on these points at any rate.



> You odn't details on what I do, or how I do it. When the content and value of our posts are compared, I'm secure that those who count know which to pay attention to.



I'm not sure I understand the first sentence, but think I get the gist of the second one.  If your feeling of self-worth is so tied to a message board and the opinions of strangers coupled with a need to cut others down in the process, you have problems. You seem well adjusted so I'll write this off as you simply not having anything else to contribute to the discussion, and thus figure a little ad hominem will do nicely. Given the sheer volume of our posts I'm equally confident we've both contributed to this board in a myriad of positive ways and probably ruffled a lot of feathers in the process, given our similar posting style. I'm not keeping track, though. If you really want to compare, go back 5 years - but check the History forum cause that's where my best work is done. 



> not quite. The difference is that you make it a habit. We can go back through my posts and find any number of times when I've been corrected, and have owned up to it.



I don't doubt it; I apologize for suggesting otherwise.



> and my point is that one second, or one penny wasted on this pathetic, surface-over-substance, appearance-over-functionality silliness is one second and one penny better spent elsewhere. Gara-trooper mentality has no place in our military today. We have to re-build a cash-strapped, under-manned, poorly-equipped force, currently at war. It is the height of stupidity to bother with inconsequentials like this under those circumstances.



I disagree; I think Neil said it best when he said we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  You still haven't presented anything other than a visceral reaction to that suggestion.



> to you, perhaps. But, to those with time at the pointy-end, I'm confident that it's ringing loudly. And, since our highest leadership has significant time there, I highly doubt that this issue will surface until well after the threat we face has been dealt with and the Chairborne are once more in positions of authority. Then we can disband the CSOR and spend money on make-work projects like the LSVW, Garrison Dress, and changing names again. Until then, the testosterone-challenged will simply have to bide their time. Soon enough, the warriors will work themselves out of a job again.



if this was a thread about how to kill someone with a toothpick, your response here might bear some intellectual fruit. The constant assertion that those not serving in the combat arms are somehow "testosterone challenged" are firstly, insulting, second, unbecoming of you personally, thirdly, untrue, and fourthly, off-topic.

You mention the CSOR in the same thread as bemoaning name changes and administrative bumph infringing on combat capability, yet they represent a major reorganization in and of themselves.

Anyway, the suggestion has been made that if we did want to change a name or two, it would not harm our combat capability and your suggestion that it would is unproven. I don't think that warrants attacks on either my trade or anyone personally. 

So why not use some of that intelligence you regularly display and either respond with something a bit more substantial, or stop trying to overpower the thread based solely on the trades badge you wear?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.



I'm aware of the point, Mr. Miss, and think I effectively covered your points in my last reply to Paracowboy. If I've missed something out, please accept my apologies in advance, and I'll try and address it in detail for you.


----------



## HItorMiss

I disagree I think it's you who is missing the point.

Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase? why bother with wasting that money and it is well and truly a waste, when we have higher more important priorities.

I agree 100% with Para, there is little to no room for the Garrison mentality that has so permeated the CF for the last decade or so, as to make us almost Combat ineffective. Thankfully due in no small part to the the back bone of the combat arms trade and our sheer ability to carry on despite the garrison attitude being shoved at us, that we did maintain some form of combat capability.

As to your argument for CSOR not only is it a capability we lacked it is also dollars spent on just what we need more pointy end troops doing the nasty work that others would not do.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I disagree I think it's you who is missing the point.
> 
> Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase? why bother with wasting that money and it is well and truly a waste, when we have higher more important priorities.
> 
> I agree 100% with Para, there is little to no room for the Garrison mentality that has so permeated the CF for the last decade or so, as to make us almost Combat ineffective. Thankfully due in no small part to the the back bone of the combat arms trade and our sheer ability to carry on despite the garrison attitude being shoved at us, that we did maintain some form of combat capability.
> 
> As to your argument for CSOR not only is it a capability we lacked it is also dollars spent on just what we need more pointy end troops doing the nasty work that others would not do.



First of all, I appreciate your point of view and agree that combat capability is the most important priority. 

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the name change to "Royal" is unecessary - I don't think we need the change either. I'm saying we could do it if we wanted to.

Given your outlook, why have cap badges? All that brass could be better used in shell casings, couldn't it?

Why have PT equipment? Properly motivated troops should keep themselves fit.

The fact is - and I don't blame you for not realizing this - is the money comes out of different pots. Different budgets are used for different things. You can't spend your PT grant on bayonets. Right?

All that is being said is that the argument that a name change hampers operational readiness is weak. There are soldiers (testosteronally challenged, I think, is the term) that are paid to worry about such matters. 

No one doubts the CSOR was necessary. How much did those tan berets cost? If you're going to make the argument, go all the way with it. You can argue the tan beret is a necessary "intangible" contributing to combat capability. I'd even be inclined to believe you. One might argue the same about name changes.


----------



## Neill McKay

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.



Not to sound like too much of a jerk, but which are you doing when you post in this thread?  If you have time to discuss this, surely those in the Forces whose jobs include issues like identity and unit naming (and who are not at the pointy end) could manage the required time.  In fact, we have a whole directorate to look after issues of history and heritage.



> I mean hey could spend 2 milion dollars on that or we could buy me more bullets and better equipment.



It isn't an either/or situation, no matter how many times anyone says it is.  Budgeting for any government department is much more complicated than that.  DHH doesn't buy the bullets.  I can virtually guarantee that no soldier is going to run out of ammunition because someone changed the names of two commands.  (Didn't happen last time, did it?)



> Can "we walk and chew gun" at the same time, sure we could. But why bother when we can focus on something infinitely more important and with much deeper consequences.



DND is an enormous organization, one of the biggest departments in the Canadian government.  If NDHQ consisted of only one soldier whose job was to buy bullets, and we said to him "please lay off buying bullets for a few weeks and order some stationery and signs instead", I'd be with you all the way.  But that's just not the way it works.



> Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase?



Until you can answer those questions you're not arguing from a very strong position.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> The fact is - and I don't blame you for not realizing this - is the money comes out of different pots. Different budgets are used for different things. You can't spend your PT grant on bayonets. Right?



This infers that there is a dedicated "pot" of money waiting for a name change (or other such administration) to occur, which, if it does not occur, cannot be reassigned. This would be a false assumption.  

The question, if a price is to be paid for a name change out of DND funding, is: Which previously allocated pot of money (and manhours) does it come from?  What allocated resources, funded IAW the current business plan, are to be redirected for this effort, however minor a piece of staff work it may appear to be on the surface, to be executed?

Even the cost of something as "simple" as repainting base, unit and installation signage has a real value. We can be confident that most Comds/CPOs/etc. would not wait until their sign is due for regular replacement before making the change.  Where does the money come from for such an "intangible" change; one which only seems to have a few internet denizens banging drums in favour of anyway?

It's a real piece of work (the name change), and real resources, no matter how thinly spread across the administrative staff, would have to be expended.

We seem to have a habit in these forums of alternately bashing the system for wastage, and then bashing the system for not pandering to our individually favourite little projects.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This infers that there is a dedicated "pot" of money waiting for a name change (or other such administration) to occur, which, if it does not occur, cannot be reassigned. This would be a false assumption.
> 
> The question, if a price is to be paid for a name change out of DND funding, is: Which previously allocated pot of money (and manhours) does it come from?  What allocated resources, funded IAW the current business plan, are to be redirected for this effort, however minor a piece of staff work it may appear to be on the surface, to be executed?.


Where to get the money from?  

*DHH could stop publishing full blown books on 'blacks in the Canadian Forces' or "women in the Canadian Forces' and distributing them for free in published form. Not that I don't appreciate the books, but surely they could be sold for profit rather than just scattered willy nilly through armouries and bases.

*Stop making cap badges no one wears. The Highlanders wear a bronze cap badge, always have, yet the DND issue is gold. We let recruits wear them. But even worse, the DND issued oak leaf shoulder title is not worn by anyone, yet recruits still get the "official" pattern from the ASC and then get told in the unit not to wear them. Don't the Seaforths also purchase badges out of regimental funds because the DND issue is incorrect?

Just two suggestions...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Thank you for your succint proof of this point.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> We seem to have a habit in these forums of alternately bashing the system for wastage, and then bashing the system for not pandering to our individually favourite little projects.


----------



## HItorMiss

Seem's MO has answered for me and with more style then I could have mustered.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Not to sound like too much of a jerk, but which are you doing when you post in this thread?



I'm on predeployment leave actually, but thanks for insinuating I don't do my job.
  


			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> If you have time to discuss this, surely those in the Forces whose jobs include issues like identity and unit naming (and who are not at the pointy end) could manage the required time.  In fact, we have a whole directorate to look after issues of history and heritage.



A whole directorate that is a waste of DND time and resources, should be part of Heritage Canada and play in their coffers.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It isn't an either/or situation, no matter how many times anyone says it is.  Budgeting for any government department is much more complicated than that.  DHH doesn't buy the bullets.  I can virtually guarantee that no soldier is going to run out of ammunition because someone changed the names of two commands.  (Didn't happen last time, did it?)



On the contrary happens all the time, you see when we split up our money into separate pots as we do that means less money actually does go from bullets and training. Which means that I have indeed run out of bullets on more then one occasion, In a combat zone no but then again we also didn't have the rounds to keep our skills up in said combat zone.



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Until you can answer those questions you're not arguing from a very strong position.



Alright well since we don't know how much this would cost I'll go with my made up figure of 2 Mil.  9 cents or so a round (I could be off on cost of rounds BTW) gives me 2.22 milion rounds. 100k a pop for M777 ( the GPS guided ones) rounds gives me 20 rounds. Oh and 2 CH47D airframes well 1. something or other to be exact.

My case any stronger yet? And I to be honest I'm arguing form experience how about you?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you for your succint proof of this point.



Now, now, Michael - you have to believe we have been expecting a possible changeover from the Queen's Crown to a King's Crown (which may or may not happen on the ascension of the next Monarch) since 1954 or so - where would that money come from?

Where did the money come from for reserve brigade badges and the change in names that happened there?  It got budgeted for. What got cut? I don't know, you can tell us, I suppose. You don't even have to give your opinion of what it was that got cut.

I'm just saying - there are always ways to find efficiencies. We did away with pipe bands once - ruined the trade, but saved a lot of bucks. Was the pointy end happy with that? How was recruiting effected? Was the cost savings worth it?  Who knows.


----------



## Infanteer

What do we need a "Royal" for; we don't even need a "Navy" in the traditional sense.  Further movement towards Joint Warfighting capability will hopefully see the complete removal of units from service based commands and put into functional/geographic ones as we are starting to see with the Regional JTFs.  A "Royal Canadian Navy" would be (rightly so) nothing but a fashion office in NDHQ.


----------



## George Wallace

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> A whole directorate that is a waste of DND time and resources, should be part of Heritage Canada and play in their coffers.




Neil McKay, HitorMiss, Michael Dorosh, and many of you others..

Hate to burst your little bubble of knowledge, but that directorate, known as Directorate of History and Heritage, is like every other DND and Government Department in Canada.  They have people holding down one job title, but filling the tasks and responsibilities of ten.  Tell me how you can cut any more money there.  Tell me how you can task them with yet another task.  Tell me how you can plan on making this system more efficient and then tell me where all this money to do so is going to come from.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Now, now, Michael - you have to believe we have been expecting a possible changeover from the Queen's Crown to a King's Crown (which may or may not happen on the ascension of the next Monarch) since 1954 or so - where would that money come from?
> 
> Where did the money come from for reserve brigade badges and the change in names that happened there?  It got budgeted for. What got cut? I don't know, you can tell us, I suppose. You don't even have to give your opinion of what it was that got cut.
> 
> I'm just saying - there are always ways to find efficiencies. We did away with pipe bands once - ruined the trade, but saved a lot of bucks. Was the pointy end happy with that? How was recruiting effected? Was the cost savings worth it?  Who knows.



Changes of crowns are a red herring playing on those who haven't researched the issue.

There is no such need for a change of crowns, the designations of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are common-use labels which in no way are definitive and binding expressions of the gender of the sovereign.  Properly, as you know, they are the Tudor Crown and the Imperial (or alternatively in use, the St Edward's) Crown.

The point is, as I am sure you realize, that changes such as the Brigade names came with organizational changes meant to improve the command environment - which I would hope it did to some degee across the country (regardless of what some think of any higher headquarters than the office they work in).  I haven't heard anyone suggesting we roll the clock back to the Militia Area period.

What principal organizational change would entail altering every related document, every sign, every website, etc., etc., etc., just to add the "Royal" moniker again?  It would take that type of establishment change requirement to make the change comparable to the situations in which we 'relabeled' the Reserve Brigades, or CEFCOM/CANCOM/CANSOFCOM, etc.


----------



## HItorMiss

Well at the very least it's one less job for the man tasked with 10.

And of course kill a whole Directorate and the money does have to go somewhere else doesn't it?


----------



## GAP

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> And of course kill a whole Directorate and the money does have to go somewhere else doesn't it?



Actually, most government departments operate on the principle "if you don't use it, you lose it"


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Changes of crowns are a red herring playing on those who haven't researched the issue.
> 
> There is no such need for a change of crowns, the designations of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are common-use labels which in no way are definitive and binding expressions of the gender of the sovereign.  Properly, as you know, they are the Tudor Crown and the Imperial (or alternatively in use, the St Edward's) Crown.



That's exacly what I implied...



> The point is, as I am sure you realize, that changes such as the Brigade names came with organizational changes meant to improve the command environment - which I would hope it did to some degee across the country (regardless of what some think of any higher headquarters than the office they work in).  I haven't heard anyone suggesting we roll the clock back to the Militia Area period.



So why did all the badges change in 1953 then? You don't know that it wouldn't happen again, do you? I suspect your research into that is as extensive as mine - ie no one knows for sure. We changed again in 1968-70 due to operational and command changes.  If someone thought that additional changes were necessary, we'd find the money to do it again - which is my point. The precise name is the red herring.



> What principal organizational change would entail altering every related document, every sign, every website, etc., etc., etc., just to add the "Royal" moniker again?  It would take that type of establishment change requirement to make the change comparable to the situations in which we 'relabeled' the Reserve Brigades, or CEFCOM/CANCOM/CANSOFCOM, etc.



Red herring. My point was, and is, if we thought it desirable, we could do it without impacting operational effectiveness. Unless you can point out inefficiencies which derived directly from changing our badges in 1953, changing our command structure in 1964 (the date CFHQ was created?) or 1968?

I'll put it another way - if the only reason NOT to do it is because we'll have less bullets and beans, that hasn't been demonstrated to have been the case in the past.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Where to get the money from?
> 
> *DHH could stop publishing full blown books on 'blacks in the Canadian Forces' or "women in the Canadian Forces' and distributing them for free in published form. Not that I don't appreciate the books, but surely they could be sold for profit rather than just scattered willy nilly through armouries and bases.
> 
> *Stop making cap badges no one wears. The Highlanders wear a bronze cap badge, always have, yet the DND issue is gold. We let recruits wear them. But even worse, the DND issued oak leaf shoulder title is not worn by anyone, yet recruits still get the "official" pattern from the ASC and then get told in the unit not to wear them. Don't the Seaforths also purchase badges out of regimental funds because the DND issue is incorrect?
> 
> Just two suggestions...



So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not?  These people are trying their best to increase the knowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me.   

The Supply System is expected to to have every Hat Badge in inventory to issue to CF members.  If those members prefer to buy a better quality badge or accoutrement, it is their freedom to do so at their own expense.

So what is your point?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> My point was, and is, if we thought it desirable, we could do it without impacting operational effectiveness.



Can we be sure about that, we are certainly participating in an operational environment that wasn't there during any of the noted changes to badges, names, etc.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Leave me out of it...I've seen first hand how civilians run things at military museums...



Yes,  I understand you were one. 

Besides the point I was making was your ideas of where the money should come from for your pet projects.........at the sacrifice of others already in process.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not.  These people are trying their best to increase the knowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me.
> 
> The Supply System is expected to to have every Hat Badge in inventory to issue to CF members.  If those members prefer to buy a better quality badge or accoutrement, it is their freedom to do so at their own expense.
> 
> So what is your point?



a)It's been a mixed bag.  I think the private sector has done a great job of documenting our history - I'd take a Donald Graves book over most recent DND ones any day. I don't mean to belittle their contributions, but it seems like lately they write for special interest groups rather than the CF as a whole. It may be a mis-formed impression and I don't claim to be privy to a lot of what they've done, though I do visit their site often. The online CMHQ reports are awesome, for example. Look at, say, the boondoggle that was the First World War official history. Stacey had things working much more smoothly and the Second World War histories were great. So was the Korean War one. Lately - I don't know, some pubs seem to be form and not substance. What is your opinion? We agree that the history needs to be documented, but I can't say with certainty who should be doing it.  The best people for the job, naturally, but who is that?

b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway. In our case, the DND oakleaf is way too small and not at all like the established pattern worn since 1938. So we pay for the "correct" pattern and the ASC stocks the "small" ones anyway.

I hope that's clearer?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can we be sure about that, we are certainly participating in an operational environment that wasn't there during any of the noted changes to badges, names, etc.



NOOOOO we're NOT sure, Michael - that is why we are discussing it!!  ;D And hoping to do so without visceral gut reactions, mine, yours, and everyone's! I suspect we have failed miserably.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway.
> 
> I hope that's clearer?



Sorry.  A Regiment can 'highly suggest' that a member buy a certain item, but it is 'Unlawful' for them to 'dictate' that a member buy non-issue accoutrements.  It is 'not illegal' to wear the CF issued item.  If you do get in sh** from a senior member of the Regiment for doing so, you can of course Redress it and win.  If the CF issues it, it is authorized.  That being said, not too many people do this, as they usually have more pride in themselves, their uniform and their Regiment and do go and purchase, out of their own pockets, the better Regimental accoutrement's and support their Regimental Kit Shops and Regimental Funds.

Does that clear it up for you?


----------



## paracowboy

your attempts to invalidate my points would be amusing if they weren't so sad. I particularly like you constant use of the word "visceral" as though you are gazing down placidly from some intellectual height. Nice try. Unfortunately, one of the definitions for visceral is "profound". It's one of those words like "cleave" that has two meanings, both of which are seemingly the antithesis of each other.

No matter how finely you choose to cut it, the CF receives "x" amount of dollars every year. That then gets divided up. Much of it goes to stupid, pointless crap (ie non-operational. If it ain't related to training, actual fighting, and to supporting the above in some way, it's wasted). That could, and should, be shunted into the coffers related to practical purposes.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  A Regiment can 'highly suggest' that a member buy a certain item, but it is 'Unlawful' for them to 'dictate' that a member buy non-issue accoutrements.  It is 'not illegal' to wear the CF issued item.  If you do get in sh** from a senior member of the Regiment for doing so, you can of course Redress it and win.  If the CF issues it, it is authorized.  That being said, not too many people do this, as they usually have more pride in themselves, their uniform and their Regiment and do go and purchase, out of their own pockets, the better Regimental accoutrement's and support their Regimental Kit Shops and Regimental Funds.
> 
> Does that clear it up for you?



You're still confused, George. The members pay for nothing. The regiment pays for the correct badges out of NPF and then issues them out on loan cards. The badges break often, however, and so the wastage is high.

Anyway, you brought up the point about how well DHH does its job and the subject of quality of their pubs. I asked your opinion, was wondering if you'd share it? Like I said, I'm on the fence on it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

paracowboy said:
			
		

> your attempts to invalidate my points would be amusing if they weren't so sad. I particularly like you constant use of the word "visceral" as though you are gazing down placidly from some intellectual height.Nice try.



You're hardly in a position to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, given that you invoked your "friends dying" about 3 pages back. And I'm still at a loss to understand your penchant for insults and ad hominem. If you can't discuss the matter on its own merits, what makes you think this approach will bear any fruit? Has it been successful for you in the past?



> No matter how finely you choose to cut it, the CF receives "x" amount of dollars every year. That then gets divided up. Much of it goes to stupid, pointless crap (ie non-operational. If it ain't related to training, actual fighting, and to supporting the above in some way, it's wasted). That could, and should, be shunted into the coffers related to practical purposes.



But doesn't and never will. So why tilt at windmills and continue to insult people about it in the process?  I'll add petulant to visceral. You can post til the cows come home that we don't need clerks or office supplies or cap badges or whatever it is you keep saying we don't need (you never really say, though, do you) and none of it will make it come true.


----------



## Infanteer

All this talk about the colour of our underwear and the latest paper at the DHH is very nice, but it seems kind of removed from the realities; realities that seem to point to the lack of any need for a "Royal Canadian Navy".  Hats off to Michael Dorosh; he was keen enough to push the point forward about 4 pages ago and nobody picked up on it.

The CF has recently went through with two monumental changes in organization.  The traditional geographic service formations are now being double-hatted as true functional/geographic joint organizations.  These are the new Regional JTFs.  Along with this, the traditional commands of the CF which arose out of the "Strong Service" revival of the counter-unification period in the CF are now matched by four Operational Commands, CEFCOM, CANADACOM, CANSOFCOM and CANOSCOM, which will take primacy due to the inherent nature of their design.  How it will pan out remains to be seen, but "alea jacta est"....

In other words, the pendulum is thankfully swinging away from the strong-service idea and hopefully institutional design can be made strong enough to resist the inevitable push back.

What this should say for the discussion is "what utility would a RCN have?"  Others have expressed their displeasure, but I find much to value in the unique path the modern CF has taken (Whiskey made an excellent post regarding this a bit earlier) and I am willing to settle with the good we can pull from a unified defence force and put the past behind us.  To me, the idea of an RCN is pointless; as the CF moves further down the "Joint" road (bah, I hate buzzwords) reinstating an "RCN" would only be an invitation for service-based empire building that we do not need (much akin to the Airforce's empire building of the 80's with Air Command and 1CAD).  As well, with our current organization, I wonder where a "RCN" would fit in?  Ignoring the fact that a RCN would seem odd within the legal framework of the Canadian Force, what utility would a "RCN" serve in today's environment where Maritime Command will find itself losing more and more importance to the Regional JTF's and the Operational Commands.  If the argument is for a RCN to better fight it out with the Army and the Navy, then forget it.

Other then that, the only real argument being slung around for the "RCN" is one of political nostalgia.  Whee.  No point getting into this one as it is full of opinions (and we all know what those smell like) and really is an argument relevent to Canadian politics and not military organization.

The Navy is an important institution for Canada; the Navy, as an organization within the CF, will continue to play an important role in the maintenance of custom, environment-specific skills, and specific doctrine relating to the unique nature of seapower.  However, it should, like its sister services in the Army and the Air Force, do so as merely one part of the Canadian Forces, a team greater then the sum of its parts that brings together warfighting capabilities to best defend Canada's national interests.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> All this talk about the colour of our underwear and the latest paper at the DHH is very nice, but it seems kind of removed from the realities; realities that seem to point to the lack of any need for a "Royal Canadian Navy".  Hats off to Michael Dorosh; he was keen enough to push the point forward about 4 pages ago and nobody picked up on it.
> 
> The CF has recently went through with two monumental changes in organization.  The traditional geographic service formations are now being double-hatted as true functional/geographic joint organizations.  These are the new Regional JTFs.  Along with this, the traditional commands of the CF which arose out of the "Strong Service" revival of the counter-unification period in the CF are now matched by four Operational Commands, CEFCOM, CANADACOM, CANSOFCOM and CANOSCOM, which will take primacy due to the inherent nature of their design.  How it will pan out remains to be seen, but "alea jacta est"....
> 
> In other words, the pendulum is thankfully swinging away from the strong-service idea and hopefully institutional design can be made strong enough to resist the inevitable push back.



Thank you for elaborating on this.  I guess if I wanted to drag it off topic I'd point out we did it while engaged operationally too. 

But yes, the trend is towards more integration of the services, not less.  It's a shame Unification left such a bad taste in so many mouths - I wonder if we might not have done this sooner - correctly - otherwise.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You're still confused, George. The members pay for nothing. The regiment pays for the correct badges out of NPF and then issues them out on loan cards. The badges break often, however, and so the wastage is high.
> 
> Anyway, you brought up the point about how well DHH does its job and the subject of quality of their pubs. I asked your opinion, was wondering if you'd share it? Like I said, I'm on the fence on it.



Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.

This is the first you have asked of my opinion on the quality of DHH pubs, and it has nothing to do with the question at hand.  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack though.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> a)It's been a mixed bag.  I think the private sector has done a great job of documenting our history - I'd take a Donald Graves book over most recent DND ones any day. I don't mean to belittle their contributions, but it seems like lately they write for special interest groups rather than the CF as a whole. It may be a mis-formed impression and I don't claim to be privy to a lot of what they've done, though I do visit their site often. The online CMHQ reports are awesome, for example. Look at, say, the boondoggle that was the First World War official history. Stacey had things working much more smoothly and the Second World War histories were great. So was the Korean War one. Lately - I don't know, some pubs seem to be form and not substance. *What is your opinion? *We agree that the history needs to be documented, but I can't say with certainty who should be doing it.  The best people for the job, naturally, but who is that?
> 
> b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway. In our case, the DND oakleaf is way too small and not at all like the established pattern worn since 1938. So we pay for the "correct" pattern and the ASC stocks the "small" ones anyway.
> 
> I hope that's clearer?



Quoted for George


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.



NPF = "NON PUBLIC FUNDS".  

Yes, you are correct - the Regiment "wastes its money" because DND won't produce badges up to regimental standard. In other words, we "waste our money" on having the soldier wear high quality insignia. Why have uniforms at all if you can't be proud of them.



> This is the first you have asked of my opinion on the quality of DHH pubs, and it has nothing to do with the question at hand.  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack though.



YOU BROUGHT IT UP! See the last page.

You said specifically



> So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not?  These people are trying their best to increase the nowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me.



Why did you ask, if you didn't want an answer?


----------



## George Wallace

Sorry....I lost your little request in all the Drivel.  So now you agree that it is a waste by the Regiment, Not the CF, nor DND or the Government.  

DHH...I suppose you have looked up what their mandate is.  Then you would know that to promulgate Canada's Military History and Heritage, is one of their mandates; or do you need the direct quote from the DND site to please your little hearts concerns.   ;D  Is that opinion enough for your question as to who should be doing so?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> NPF = "NON PUBLIC FUNDS".



And NPP = "NON PUBLIC PROPERTY"

Which is what all these items are.

Are you a happy camper yet?

 :


----------



## George Wallace

Is anyone really taking this serious, or are we just having fun with the 'Royal' titles over a few ales?   ;D

Opps!  Almost forgot to post this....... ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry....I lost your little request in all the Drivel.  So now you agree that it is a waste by the Regiment, Not the CF, nor DND or the Government.



If its drivel, why post here?  I never said it was a waste, you did. Why are you being like this?

Do you think it unreasonable for a regiment to retain the same pattern of insignia that was approved by General Order in 1938, or not? Because DND substituted a non-standard, inferior pattern.

What would you suggest we do about it?  If they are not going to improve the standard, my point was, stop making the insignia altogether, as it is a waste of money.


> DHH...I suppose you have looked up what their mandate is.  Then you would know that to promulgate Canada's Military History and Heritage, is one of their mandates; or do you need the direct quote from the DND site to please your little hearts concerns.   ;D  Is that opinion enough for your question as to who should be doing so?



You haven't answered the question. Do you think the standard of their publications is equal to that reached by historians in the private sector like Donald Graves? You brought all this up George, split it off if you want, but don't ask the question and then just call the resultant conversation drivel. Do you have an opinion or not?


----------



## navymich

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is anyone really taking this serious, or are we just having fun with the 'Royal' titles over a few ales?   ;D



You mean getting "royally" blitzed George?   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

OK

A Dorosh trick:

Just for you Michael Dorosh



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.



At no time have I said that the Regiment is spending Public Funds on these Items.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I apologize, George, I misread you....but my questions still stand. What is your opinion on DHH and their pubs? And what is the regiment to do about non-standard items being supplied by DND? I don't think it's in our purview to change their dies. 

Anyway, I think maybe you've weighed in and only caught the tail end of the conversation in any event. The general thrust of the conversation was about the administrative cost of changing titles. The other discussions are tangential and were brought up as examples of possible cost savings. If you want to split them, fine, but now that you've brought it up, are you serious about wanting to discuss this, or not? If so, then please stop the insults, assassinating my character "ie A Dorosh trick" and try and keep it civil as I've been trying to.


----------



## Infanteer

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Thank you for elaborating on this.  I guess if I wanted to drag it off topic I'd point out we did it while engaged operationally too.
> 
> But yes, the trend is towards more integration of the services, not less.  It's a shame Unification left such a bad taste in so many mouths - I wonder if we might not have done this sooner - correctly - otherwise.



It's not really off-topic; the question is on the utility of a "Royal" Canadian Navy and I argued no for organizational reasons.   The argument both for and against based on money seems quite trivial when we consider how much cash the DND shovels down the toilet in a fiscal year.  Sorry to see that a more serious and relevent topic is unwanted in the face of carrying out a sparring patch on Non-Public Funds. 

Shall we return to designing boatcloaks and manning the _HMS Victory_ then?


----------



## navymich

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Shall we return to designing boatcloaks and manning the _HMS Victory_ then?



Sounds good Infanteer, but then we must also bring back keelhauling and reinstill the tot.


----------



## George Wallace

Sorry?  You already quoted my opinion:



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...........  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack
Click to expand...


As I have already said, it is part of their mandate to promulgate our History.  They of course do not always have the best talent to do so, but sometimes they do.  Your favourite Dr Berchison, Sean Maloney, John Marteinson and Michael McNorgan are some of those.  There are lessors.  Then they have been going all out lately to produce posters of all the Branch Hatbadges, Ships Crests, Squadron Crests, Armour Camp Flags, Orders and Decorations, etc.  I am sure you even have one or two up in your shop.  Some of these may seem trivial to you, but may not be so to someone else.  Also remember that DHH is partitioned into different smaller Departments responsible for different aspects of History and Heritage.  They are also responsible for all our Regs on Flags and Colours, Dress and Deportment, Drill and Ceremonial, etc.  They also are responsible for the design and processing of Awards and Decorations.  Several different Departments with in one, all doing different things.  

So yes I do feel that they fill a valuable role.  One that would be deeply involved with any plans to bring back the "Royal", as it would all have to be staffed through them.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It's not really off-topic; the question is on the utility of a "Royal" Canadian Navy and I argued no for organizational reasons.   The argument both for and against based on money seems quite trivial when we consider how much cash the DND shovels down the toilet in a fiscal year.  Sorry to see that a more serious and relevent topic is unwanted in the face of carrying out a sparring patch on Non-Public Funds.



I'm sorry too.  I agree with you, obviously - DND does shovel money down various holes every year - but you know, the Army needs latrines in addition to beans and bullets. Isn't that the whole argument? 

Anyway, the salient point you repeated - that our focus is on joint forces - is apt. Probably a good point to let it lie.


----------



## Trooper Hale

All this argument over something Wes and I take for granted. I'm in the Royal Australian Armoured Corp and intensely proud of it. I actually typed up a post before the gloves came out (its got vicious here lately, mostly at M. Dorosh) but then decided that the whole Royal issue was best left to Canadians to decide. I must say i agree with Mr. Dorosh though, what he says makes sense and we should keep in mind that he has stated he see a change as unnecessary. Its just that he's got the conviction to argue what he See's as right and how he see's its achievable. And that's something i respect.
Like someone said earlier, Canada gave up "Royal" titles back in the 60's and there is little chance of every getting them back, all your arguing about is whether it is possible _to_ bring them back. This is the Defence Force remember? Anything is possible, whether its climbing that hill and wading through a pile of bodies 4 foot deep (Oh look, there goes Para) or changing the emblem on a stack of papers, in the military anything can be done, and it isn't simply up to the combat arms to achieve this, just because they don't drive a tank, jump out of plane or fire the big guns doesn't mean they don't matter. Who pays you? Pay Corp. Who feeds you? Cookies. Etc. It seems that so far anything that isnt combat has been put down, i thought most of us here were civil and didnt need cheap tricks or insults to get our opinions across?
That any change would be done at the sacrifice of "beans and bullets" is an attempt at a cheap point that simply is not near the truth, what sort of a military would budget titles over weapons? I'm pretty sure that most of the blokes at the pointy end wouldn't go on strike if they heard that their name was changing.

I can see the attraction of using these titles get more in touch with the (very) proud history the Canadian Navy, Army and Airforce but i think it can only be that, an attraction. That link was lost back in the 60's and it must be said that while not as catchy title wise the CF has done a lot since that name change to earn respect and admiration with its new title.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, but you should feel free to talk about how it could be fixed if it was needed.
Just wish i was as eloquent as all you...my 5 cents (We got to round up in Australia and we aint got 2 cent bits)
+1 M.Dorosh


----------



## Michael Dorosh

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry?  You already quoted my opinion:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have already said, it is part of their mandate to promulgate our History.  They of course do not always have the best talent to do so, but sometimes they do.  Your favourite Dr Berchison, Sean Maloney, John Marteinson and Michael McNorgan are some of those.  There are lessors.  Then they have been going all out lately to produce posters of all the Branch Hatbadges, Ships Crests, Squadron Crests, Armour Camp Flags, Orders and Decorations, etc.  I am sure you even have one or two up in your shop.  Some of these may seem trivial to you, but may not be so to someone else.  Also remember that DHH is partitioned into different smaller Departments responsible for different aspects of History and Heritage.  They are also responsible for all our Regs on Flags and Colours, Dress and Deportment, Drill and Ceremonial, etc.  They also are responsible for the design and processing of Awards and Decorations.  Several different Departments with in one, all doing different things.
> 
> So yes I do feel that they fill a valuable role.



I'm aware of most of this George, but it was useful to hear it from you, thanks.  But my concern was more over some of the publications they have been putting out - I think there is a very real interest lately in the role of women, ethnic minorities, etc., but wonder about the wisdom of using DHH money to not only study it (and it is worthy of study I think), but in producing museum quality books and then distributing them free of charge to those that have not specifically requested them. I found two such volumes just floating through unit lines, along with the other tons of stuff we get gratis ie the Maple Leaf, etc.  

I'm not talking about jettisoning DHH, but wondering if some of those funds couldn't be spent more wisely - the online publications are a great idea, for example. Perhaps they have already even gone that direction, you seem to be more up to speed than me. Are my concerns unfounded?


----------



## George Wallace

You concerns are not unfounded.  Especially if we want to argue now that we bring back the "Royal" in the RCAF and RCN and start to look at the Staffing that will have to take place.  It would tie up countless man hours in the Air and Naval Commands, and then have to take up more man hours in Ottawa as a whole section of DHH is tied up or perhaps complete created from thin air to Staff its' progress through to London and Royal approval.  Needless to say, the Cdn Government and GG would probably have to be involved also; my oversight......Man hours, wages, office expenses, TD,.........God only knows how expensive it would become.......maybe another 'Gun Registry'.


----------



## George Wallace

Trooper Hale  

The fact is that many of us would like to still see RCAF and RCN as the proper titles.  Unfortunately, it is easy for our government to take the "Royal" out of the title, but not so easy to replace it.  "Royal" in the title is given to that Unit/Branch by the Sovereign, not the Government in power.  Either the Government will have to draw up a convincing enough 'argument' to get the "Royal" back in those titles and present it to the Queen, or the Queen, herself, must find it in herself, as sovereigns have in the past, and award that 'Honour' to those Units/Branches.  The "Royal" after all is an "Honour" bestowed on a Unit or Branch by the Monarch.

Think of it this way:  Could the 1/11 Cav in the USA ask the Congress of the US of A for the right to attach "Royal" to the front of their Unit Title?  Same thing goes for the Canadian Government to do the same.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Perhaps we could replace the Canadian flag by the British flag with a little maple leaf in the middle ... but wait ... are we British or Canadians? I taught we were Canadians. Canadians. That's it? Canadians from Canada? Correct me if I'm wrong. :-\

(I think) we should get rid of those "royal" adjectives, those crowns on top of our each and every symbol just like if we were controlled by this fake British monarchy, those "queen of Canada" (no, let's keep that one, it's too funny :-X) and especially those "HMCS" that drives me crazy every time I read/hear it. (I think) it's time for Canada to stop playing the gentle ex-colony and really assume ourselves as what we are, Canadians. We oye nothing to the British. We should advance forward, we just can't stick to this nonexistent empire for ever. But there would be some exceptions (like PPCLI). 

And I'm not being anti-British here, I would think the exact the exact same thing if I was a young British guy (i-e: get rid of this royalty and fake monarchy).

Of course this post would be incomplete without


----------



## George Wallace

I suppose you would like us all to become a Republic, too; and make 'Merican our Official Language?   ;D

That would effectively end any arguments for "Royal".


----------



## Trooper Hale

I understand all that and thats what i said when i wrote that the chance to have it was gone. I didnt want to use the word honour or privilage because i thought it would be taken the wrong way, but seeing as you have i completely agree. It _is_ an honour or privilage and due to your government in the 60's its something that has been lost to you, more then likely forever. All that was brought up earlier.
Thats a terrible thing to have lost and i completely understand that many would love to see it come back. I'd feel exactly the same way i think. The history surrounding it etc is not something that i'd like to see lost back home.

I dont see the connection with the US though, Canada is still part of the commonwealth, Her Majesty is still your head of State (as i understand it). An American unit asking for Royal in their title? Could have sworn they fought a war a few years ago to get rid of that? Canada at least still has a connection to it.
I'm a proud Queen lover too Clément Barbeau Vermet, and i know a great many young British guys who disagree with what you say. Its your opinion though and i'm guessing through your name you've got a right to it.


----------



## George Wallace

Trooper Hale said:
			
		

> I dont see the connection with the US though, Canada is still part of the commonwealth, Her Majesty is still your head of State (as i understand it). An American unit asking for Royal in their title? Could have sworn they fought a war a few years ago to get rid of that? Canada at least still has a connection to it.



What I'm saying is; the Canadian Government 'Granting' the "Royal" preffix to the title is comparable, at this stage of history, to the American Government 'Granting' the "Royal" preffix to one of its Units.  It just isn't right.


----------



## Trooper Hale

But why? I mean, your a Commonwealth country. It should be possible shouldnt it? Canada and the UK are still close.
I'm genuinely puzzled, especially about the US/Canada comparison. I mean, all you did was do away with the name (as i understand it), you didnt start a war to do it.
Keep teaching George, its grand.
And for Clément Barbeau Vermet, i can launch into a bit of God Save The Queen if you like, we are all part of the _very existant _ Commonwealth brotherhood.


----------



## George Wallace

Use any country other than the US of A and a Commonwealth Nation if you want.  The thing is, it is not the Government of the Day that makes that decision, but the Crown.  It is the Crown who awards the "Royal" for some significant reason, not the Government of the Day on a whim.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I tried earlier but apparently failed.  The sovereign granted the Royal honorific, the Canadian government discarded it.  The Governor General, on behalf of the Canadian Forces, could petition Her Majesty to bestow it again.  I'd say the odds are pretty slim....


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose you would like us all to become a Republic


Absolutely!



> and make 'Merican our Official Language?


No, keep French. 

I just don't understand what is all about this rich person which ONLY difference is that it comes from a very rich family and that the family in question has something that supposedly makes it "royal". Not only that, but it costs tones of money and causes tones of trouble. I can understand that people love some persons that worked hard to become a PM or whatever and does/did many good things for his/her contry, but I don't understand why people would love a "king" or a "queen" that does absolutely nothing else than being a "king"/"queen". Like if that "royalty" was over everything, not having to do anything but yet be considered almost like superhumans. Heck, they are just people like you and me, but were lucky (or unlucky, depends how you view this) enough to born in the so-called "royalty".


----------



## Kirkhill

Clement - 

Meme si la Reine n'avait absolument rien des pouvoirs, rien de richesse et elle etait completement sans scruples, elle seraient de plus en plus ma Reine.  C'est la meme chose pour ses Fils et Filles.  Pour moi-meme elle est une symbole de ma nation.  Ca veut dire un nation dans la sens que les Quebecois comprends une nation.  J'etais ne en Ecosse et je suis assez fiere d'etre Ecossais, comme je suis fiere d'etre un Anglais comme ma pere, comme je suis fiere d'etre un citoyen du Canada. La Reine et son sang c'est le meme sang, pour moi, comme toutes les autre Brits.  L'histoire de sa famille c'est l'histoire de tous nos autres.   Pour moi elle a de la value.

Ayant dit cela, je comprends que beaucoup personne par ici, surtout des Quebecois, ne la voit dans la meme esprit.  Pour ils, elle est non seulement une Reine (avec pensees de Marie Antoinette et les trois Louis peut-etre) mais elle est une reine etrange, une reine d'un nation etrange.  Elle n'est pas une partie de vous autre et votre nation Quebecois meme si elle a beaucoup de sang Francais.

Il est malheureuse pour moi que tous les Canadiens ne peuvent pas apprecie la monarchie dans la meme sens que je la vois - probablement c'est une perspective unique a moi-meme - je ne sais pas.  Je crois que c'est un vue pas completement extraordinaire entre quelques "Brits" est des citoyens d'autres monarchies.  La monarche est famille.

Pour moi, est moi seulement, c'est la connection la plus forte avec la Reine.

Ca, auparavant, n'est pas un raison pour retenir la monarchie au Canada.  C'est seulement mon essaie a explique a toi-meme comment des personne peuvent avoir des sentiments forts a la Reine.

Si la Reine, est sa famille aura une role dans l'avenir du Canada - cela est pour tu et toutes les autres Canadiens, moi meme inclu j'espere, a determine.


Laissant le discussion des choses de l'esprit - notre gouvernement est basee sur le concept d'ayant un person qui n'est pas partie des parties politiques dans un position d'arbitration, representing La Nation en tous (meme Quebecois est non-Anglos).  Si on n'avait pas un monarche, on aura besoin d'un autre personne - peut etre comme le Gouverneur-General, ou peut etre comme le President des Etats Unis ou de la France.  Peut tu dire que tu pense que President Bush ou President Chirac fait leurs travails meilleur que la Reine?


----------



## Neill McKay

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Perhaps we could replace the Canadian flag by the British flag with a little maple leaf in the middle ... but wait ... are we British or Canadians?



Canadians.  And Canada is a monarchy with no constitutional ties to the UK.

You're pulling out all of the usual tired old republican arguments, and if you do a bit of research you'll find that they've been thoroughly debunked.


----------



## Neill McKay

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Use any country other than the US of A and a Commonwealth Nation if you want.  The thing is, it is not the Government of the Day that makes that decision, but the Crown.  It is the Crown who awards the "Royal" for some significant reason, not the Government of the Day on a whim.



That's correct, but the Crown acts on the recommendation of the government.


----------



## George Wallace

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> That's correct, but the Crown acts on the recommendation of the government.



Not always.  Most of the current Regiments in the Army did not get their designations from the Government, nor the recommendation of the Government, but, as been pointed out already, by honourific from the Sovereign.

But in today's situation, it would probably have to be on the Government's recommendation, after being Staffed through several levels of DND, and as I already said.....The Government probably doesn't have the will to do so.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-407013.html#msg407013  Then in the end the Crown will decide.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ah yes, the requirement to actually staff the proposal, rather than pontificate over it.  I knew we'd been there before.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670/post-348808.html#msg348808


----------



## Infanteer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the requirement to actually staff the proposal, rather than pontificate over it.  I knew we'd been there before.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670/post-348808.html#msg348808



Ah, yet another attempt to ground the discussion within reality!!!


----------



## Neill McKay

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not always.  Most of the current Regiments in the Army did not get their designations from the Government, nor the recommendation of the Government, but, as been pointed out already, by honourific from the Sovereign.



Quite right, hence my use of the present tense. 



> But in today's situation, it would probably have to be on the Government's recommendation, after being Staffed through several levels of DND, and as I already said.....The Government probably doesn't have the will to do so.



Also entirely correct.


----------



## George Wallace

But......You left out the last sentence.......In the end the Crown decides/Approves.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Pour moi-meme elle est une symbole de ma nation. La Reine et son sang c'est le meme sang, pour moi, comme toutes les autre Brits.  L'histoire de sa famille c'est l'histoire de tous nos autres. [...] La monarche est famille


So if I understand correctly the queen and her family have represented the average British throughout history and still does today? I don't expect a "yes" here.



> notre gouvernement est basee sur le concept d'ayant un person qui n'est pas partie des parties politiques dans un position d'arbitration, representing La Nation en tous. Si on n'avait pas un monarche, on aura besoin d'un autre personne - peut etre comme le Gouverneur-General, ou peut etre comme le President des Etats Unis ou de la France. Peut tu dire que tu pense que President Bush ou President Chirac fait leurs travails meilleur que la Reine?


I don't understand here. First, you compare the queen to a president/PM. Second, what is the purpose of having a neutral representer of a country if this representer has no power at all? Isn't the President/PM supposed to represent the country as well as govern it? It seems like most of the countries on this planet manage to survive without a queen, a governor general et compagnie. Lets say we absolutely need a neutral representant for Canada, does it absolutely needs to be the queen? What about a Canadian neutral representant of Canada?



			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Canada is a monarchy with no constitutional ties to the UK.


Yes I know, that is the hole issue! It does not make sense for a sovereign, fully independent and democratic country to by a "monarchy", but not just a monarchy, a monarchy that comes from an other country on another continent! Heck, we are in the 21st century and we still call our ships "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" Those ships were made in Canada by Canadians with Canadian funds to protect Canada and are served by Canadians! What the heck "the majesty" has to do with all this! ??? It's senseless! To me - I don't want to insult anyone here - doing that is just anti-Canadian.


----------



## Kirkhill

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> So if I understand correctly the queen and her family have represented the average British throughout history and still does today? I don't expect a "yes" here.



I'll try again as I have so obviously butchered the attempt. I am going to give you a qualified "yes".  We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I have also had difficulties with my sister over the years.  My sister is still my sister.  The Queen is still my queen.  That is just me speaking, as someone that was born in Britain and is also a citizen of Canada.  And happy to be both.

What I was trying to get at, at least as I see it, is that the Queen is more than just an authority figure.  Even if she had no authority she would still have relevance for me.  

As I was also trying to explain - I don't expect others to see things this way, I know that a lot of Brits don't think this way and can easily understand that Canadians don't feel this way, much less Quebecois. 

I hope that helps clear that bit up. That's the personal bit.  Now on to the role of the Monarch.



> I don't understand here. First, you compare the queen to a president/PM. Second, what is the purpose of having a neutral representer of a country if this representer has no power at all? Isn't the President/PM supposed to represent the country as well as govern it? It seems like most of the countries on this planet manage to survive without a queen, a governor general et compagnie. Lets say we absolutely need a neutral representant for Canada, does it absolutely needs to be the queen? What about a Canadian neutral representant of Canada?



I said that IF the Queen had no powers then she would still be relevant to me at a personal level.  However, in our Government the Queen and her representative the Governor-General DO have power and they have the legal authority to use it.  

As head of state, not head of government - that is the Prime Minister's job - she and her representative generally can't act on their own.  They can only veto actions of the Prime Minister and the Government or approve them.  The Queen would have an easier job doing that in Britain than the Governor-General would have in Canada but neither of them can do it easily because it would likely cause a major political storm.  But -that power is there and it is separate from the power of the Prime Minister and therefore is a check on the Prime Minister.

In the US and in France the President is both King and Prime Minister (yes I know France has a separate Prime Minister but he generally seems to be a creature of the President).  In both countries the President can decide to act and act on his own.  The elected representatives get a voice later and that is often a weak voice if they are from the same party as the President.   The Queen belongs to nobody's party.  If we were to replace her we would have to find somebody both trustworthy, trusted by everyone, you and me both, and completely apolitical, without politics.

There was a Greek whose name escapes me, I am sure Arthur or Infanteer can assist, who spent a lifetime looking for an honest man - don't think he ever found him.  We would need to conduct a similar search for a replacement for the Queen and then repeat the procedure every few years or so.



> Yes I know, that is the hole issue! It does not make sense for a sovereign, fully independent and democratic country to by a "monarchy", but not just a monarchy, a monarchy that comes from an other country on another continent! Heck, we are in the 21st century and we still call our ships "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" Those ships were made in Canada by Canadians with Canadian funds to protect Canada and are served by Canadians! What the heck "the majesty" has to do with all this! ??? It's senseless! To me - I don't want to insult anyone here - doing that is just anti-Canadian.



That is the whole issue. I don't find it senseless.  I also consider myself a Canadian.  I don't take your position as insulting but I don't find the monarchy Anti-Canadian.  It is very much part of Canada.  Because of the Constitutional Monarchy that Brits fought and died for in Britain, fighting each other, not to mention fighting various other Absolute Monarchs from the Continent as well as the home-grown variety, we (Brits in Britain and Canadians, not to mention Aussies, Kiwis and Indians - who have a President) ended up with a system of government that allowed Canada to develop relatively peacefully. 

Even the Yanks owe something to the various wars fought with the Crown in Britain by Brits.    Curiously not all of the Battles were fought just by Brits.  Were you aware that at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland, when our last British Absolute Monarch, James Stewart, was defeated that a major part of both Armies were French?   The winning side was made up of some English, some Dutch and Danes and a lot of French Huguenots as well as some Irish.  The losing side was made up of Irish, English, Scots and French, all nominally Catholics. Curiously the Pope of the day supported the winning side.  The Protestant side. The Anti-Absolutist side if you like. 

If it hadn't been for those French Huguenots, supporting the fight against Absolute Monarchy and helping to establish Constitutional limits on Kings and Governments in general then Canada wouldn't have evolved the way it did.

The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.



...was...  

Okay, maybe is, but how many people realize it? I don't suppose that is the litmus test, eh?


----------



## Kirkhill

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> ...was...
> 
> Okay, maybe is, but how many people realize it?



And that is the shame of it - and the result of a generation of indifferent education.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am going to give you a qualified "yes".


   



> We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I have also had difficulties with my sister over the years.  My sister is still my sister.  The Queen is still my queen.


I don't think this comparison is good, I would rather say: We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I (me, a slave) have also had difficulties with my master (the :king: ) over the years. I rebelled myself and my master totally lost control over me. My master is still my master [ :brickwall: ]. The queen is still the queen [ :brickwall: ]. 



> the Queen is more than just an authority figure.


Yup, it's a symbol. Just like the beaver. But the beaver is Canadian, the queen is British. And the beaver is cool two 



> Even if she had no authority she would still have relevance for me.


Just like the beaver has no autorithy, but as I said, the beaver is Canadian.



> However, in our Government the Queen and her representative the Governor-General DO have power and they have the legal authority to use it. They can only veto actions of the Prime Minister and the Government or approve them. [...] that power [...] is separate from the power of the Prime Minister and therefore is a check on the Prime Minister.


I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848. Anyways, the monarchy didn't stop the massacre's at Batoche and in the case of St.-Charles, St.-Eustache, St.-Benoît, Lacolle, Odeltown, etc. the massacre's were rather caused by the monarchy. 



> In the US and in France the President is both King and Prime Minister.  In both countries the President can decide to act and act on his own.  The elected representatives get a voice later and that is often a weak voice if they are from the same party as the President.   The Queen belongs to nobody's party.  If we were to replace her we would have to find somebody both trustworthy, trusted by everyone, you and me both, and completely apolitical, without politics.


The monarchy didn't save the Arrow, the monarchy didn't stop Québec from almost separating in 1995, the monarchy didn't help win both WW, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, and does nothing in the war on terror, the monarchy didn't...



> I don't find the monarchy Anti-Canadian.


It's not _really_ the fact that it's a monarchy, it's the fact that the monarchy comes from another country on another continent which did nothing good than oppress us for a few centuries. And also the fact that it's a waste of money.



> It is very much part of Canada.


I totally disagree.



> Because of the Constitutional Monarchy that Brits fought and died for in Britain, fighting each other, we ended up with a system of government that allowed Canada to develop *relatively* peacefully.


I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there. 



> The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.


I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And that is the shame of it - and the result of a generation of indifferent education.


I agree, well... not exactly. Our education is too indifferent, but makaing it pro-royalty and pro-British won't make the next generation of canadians better canadians.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848.





			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.




So, which is it?


----------



## Kat Stevens

"I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there."

  Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.  At one point Oliver Cromwell was offered the crown.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there."
> 
> Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.  At one point Oliver Cromwell was offered the crown.



Agreed; and compare and contrast to the alternative, ie the US Presidential system and look at the current incumbent's personal popularity among the people. A bad situation, I think.


----------



## JBP

For me, I say NAY!

I am in the CANADIAN Forces... And damn proud of it. 

I like that it's all about Canada now, not just the monarchy. Sure we swear allegience to the Queen and all too, good and dandy, but we're still Canada, and still our own nation and this is OUR military.

That's just my take. I was born, raised, educated and have lived in Canada all my life.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Well, thank God THAT'S been decided.  Can we put it to bed now (again)?


----------



## Michael Dorosh

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, thank God THAT'S been decided.  Can we put it to bed now (again)?



May as well. Til the argument about the Red Ensign resurfaces.  I suspect  I'm with Joe on that one, I think, too. I was born under the maple leaf flag and am also proud to be a Canadian.

I think we all agree, even if we don't agree on the best way of expressing our Canadian-ness.


----------



## Neill McKay

R031 Pte Joe said:
			
		

> I am in the CANADIAN Forces... And damn proud of it.
> 
> I like that it's all about Canada now, not just the monarchy. Sure we swear allegience to the Queen and all too, good and dandy, but we're still Canada, and still our own nation and this is OUR military.



And our Queen.

This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.


----------



## George Wallace

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> And our Queen.
> 
> This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.



Yessss!  I have to agree with you 100+%.  She is Queen of Canada.  It seems that point is not covered very often in our School System's teachings of the various levels of our Government.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am curious though how members of the military would feel if the Queen (although not likely) would come out opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan) would you put in your VR because HRH was opposed? Has the supporters of the Queen and the monarchy ever considered this> If so where do your loyalties lie then?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin

Constitutionally, she can't (the constitution includes more than the written 1982 document, by the way). 

Government policy is in the hands of the government, period.  The Queen (and by extension the GG) is limited to (and I might have the phraseology wrong here) "the right to be consulted, to encourage, to advise, and to warn"...all in private and has no executive authority to comment on policy decisions of the government of the day.  The Crown's role is to ensure we always _have_ a government, not to direct its day to day policies.

Another "what if" argument that isn't going to happen.


----------



## Infanteer

Meh, I thought I'd throw some pictures of royalty up since this thread is a beaten horse, along with the ubiquitous bunny with a pancake on its head....

Have a good one,
Infanteer


----------



## JBP

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> And our Queen.
> 
> This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.



On the contrary, in highschool history they did very well to educate us on the fact of the monarchy and how our government is organized. I know how it works, I'm just saying I don't much care for us being called "Royal"...

So... It's mainly a failure of the individual to want to be a part of the monarchy or agree with it. That's a generalization because if I chose not to be apart of the monarchy or any of that I certainly wouldn't have joined up! 

I'm just stating I love Canada, nothing else and I find I love working for the Canadian Forces better than the Royal Canadian Forces, or whatever they'd name it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks TR I did not know that, but what I was going for is how the supporters of the Queen would feel if she came out pubkically against an operation.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thanks TR I did not know that, but what I was going for is how the supporters of the Queen would feel if she came out pubkically against an operation.



Being as how it would be her opinion, not the will of the government, I, as a Loyalist Royalist, would go and do my duty.


----------



## gaspasser

pradacowboy said:
			
		

> everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and *dying* in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.
> 
> Priorities. Look it up.




If you ever run for parliament, I would vote for you!  Well said   Let's put the priorities on our soldiers, sailors and airmen.  The equipment they need and thier families.  
All that aside, has anyone noticed that over time, The Canadian Armed Forces has been reduced to something less aggressively sounding?  I was once a liberal voting citizen/soldier.  I applaud our new government for thier quick and decisive actions with our military. Yes, I also swore an oath to the Queen (btw, I was born and raised in the UK) but to go back to anything "royal" would take time, money and effort that should be directed towards our troops.

my $0.02 worth


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, which is it?


Hein?



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.


Ah, OK. And the king provided stability in Canada during the great depression. And the king also provided stability in the 1770's, that's why the USA didn't become independent. Excuse me, I just don't get it.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> compare to the alternative, ie the US Presidential system and look at the current incumbent's personal popularity among the people. A bad situation.


And the monarchy helps to make the situation in Canada better? The monarchy didn't stop the CAR from being disbanded, the monarchy didn't stop the liberals from stealing our money, the monarchy didn't stop the liberals from ...



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Government policy is in the hands of the government, period. The Crown's role is to ensure we always have a government, not to direct its day to day policies.


Wow, now I understand. The queen's role it to ensure we have a government! But wait... the only time the crown had to put it's role into action is in 1838-1840, but it's because the crown itself disbanded the government we had so it could govern instead of it. Well... we never know what might happend, our entire government might disappear tomorrow morning and if it does, the queen will govern Canada. I feel more secure now that I know that.


----------



## Gunner

The King!


----------



## George Wallace

OK Clément Barbeau Vermet, now you are getting "Right out to Lunch".  Either get into the books and study our Parliamentary System, or pay more attention to detail; because right now you are not contributing anything to this.  You have no idea at all what you are talking about.


----------



## Kat Stevens

While we're on the topic, Mr. Vermet, please explain something to me.  The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?


----------



## Neill McKay

The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.


----------



## hiv

Interesting choice...



			
				Gunner said:
			
		

> The King!


----------



## Infanteer

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.



This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?


----------



## paracowboy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?


no. She'll just call me up again. Wanna come along this time?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Michael O'Leary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> Hein?
Click to expand...


You stated:



			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848.



Which inferred that you thought that the Crown has had no controlling influence over the Government since 1848.

Then in the same post you stated:



			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.



In which you claimed that the Mornarchy had prevented Canada from becoming a democracy until, I assume you mean, the patriation of the Coonstitution in 1982?

So, I ask again, which is it, were we being controlled by the Monarchy or not?  You can't have it both ways as you twist your argument to suit your answer of the moment.


----------



## Yrys

Quote from Kat Stevens




> The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?




The website of the prime minister of Québec says that the white cross on the blue is from the french marine,
that has arrive here at the beginning of the colony. As for the flowers, they are to remember a flag that may
 have been with Montclam when he won against the British army in 1758...

http://www.premier.gouv.qc.ca/secteur/bienvenue_quebec/symboles_emblemes.htm

Drapeau du Québec

Le 21 janvier 1948, à 15 heures, le fleurdelisé remplaçait l'Union Jack sur la tour de l'Hôtel du Parlement, à Québec, et devenait ainsi le drapeau officiel du Québec.


----------



## GO!!!

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.



I assume you are speaking to the power of the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) to dismiss parliament at will.

There is some precedence for this, the GG of Australia, Sir John Kerr dismissed that parliament (the Whitlam government) in 1975, although, the circumstances were indeed extraordinary.

It should also be noted that Kerr himself was replaced by the Monarch soon after as he may have "overstepped his generally accepted bounds", although he was within his authority.

Is that what you meant?


----------



## Kat Stevens

"That the French kings long used the fleur-de-lis as an emblem of their sovereignty is indisputable. On his seal of 1060, before heraldry became formalized, Philip I sits on his throne holding a short staff that terminates in a fleur-de-lis. A similar staff appears in the Great Seal of Louis VII (1120–1180), whose signet ring was charged with a single fleur-de-lis. Louis VII is believed to have been the first to use azure semé of fleurs-de-lis or (the blazon, or heraldic description, now abbreviated azure semé-de-lis or and designated France Ancient) on his shield, but its use on a banner, and especially on the French royal standard, the Oriflamme, may have been earlier. The reduction to three fleurs-de-lis, today designated as France Modern, was commanded by Charles V in 1376, reportedly in honour of the Holy Trinity."

found here:  http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034562


----------



## Neill McKay

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?



As an example, if a Prime Minister were to refuse to call an election at the end of his mandate the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen, could dismiss the government and order an election herself.  Another: if the government were to deviate from the correct process for passing legislation, and Crown could withhold Royal Assent and prevent the last step in the bill becoming a law.

None of the various scenarios is especially palatable, but neither is a fire in my kitchen.


----------



## Infanteer

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> As an example, if a Prime Minister were to refuse to call an election at the end of his mandate the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen, could dismiss the government and order an election herself.  Another: if the government were to deviate from the correct process for passing legislation, and Crown could withhold Royal Assent and prevent the last step in the bill becoming a law.



Pretty weak examples.  The fire extinguishers in these cases would be the courts and the police as both are unconstitutional; I can't see the Queen or a GG who has been defanged since 1929 becoming political.

Besides, using the "fire extinguisher" argument does nothing to uphold the notion of a monarch as essential to Canadian politics; if we wanted someone with a reserve of special executive powers there is nothing to say that we can't elect a Canadian to occupy such position based upon merit rather than genelogy (as in the monarch) or political palatability (as in our current stock of appointed GG's).


----------



## Kat Stevens

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Pretty weak examples.  The fire extinguishers in these cases would be the courts and the police as both are unconstitutional; I can't see the Queen or a GG who has been defanged since 1929 becoming political.
> 
> Besides, using the "fire extinguisher" argument does nothing to uphold the notion of a monarch as essential to Canadian politics; if we wanted someone with a reserve of special executive powers there is nothing to say that we can't elect a Canadian to occupy such position based upon merit rather than genelogy (as in the monarch) or political palatability (as in our current stock of GG's).



But ELECTED officials ALWAYS have a political agenda of their own to promote.  A sovereign is above and beyond party affiliation.


----------



## Infanteer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But ELECTED officials ALWAYS have a political agenda of their own to promote.



Only if you give them power and authority to handle day-to-day affairs.  Whether a person is elected or appointed makes no difference in how they choose to execute their office; are you trying to tell me that the Senate is less of a politically motivated body than the House of Commons because they are not elected?  Politicized stems from the way an office is designed to interact with others within the political landscape.



> A sovereign is above and beyond party affiliation.



There is nothing to say that a monarch is above politics too (or the Representative in Canada; we all know of the current GG's past politics, no?).  They are, after all, human as well.  As said above, it is the design of the office and the nature of the powers accorded to it that will affect how personal biases come into play.

If we are going to have a "fire extinguisher" on the wall, I want it to be one that, if the time comes, will be fully justified in the eyes of the average Canadian in executing those powers.


----------



## paracowboy

how 'bout this? She's the damn Queen, we're a Constitutional Monarchy and always have been. It ain't broke. It ain't costing that much, and it gives us an eccentric charm.

And all the discussion on here as to keeping her, or throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical monarch ain't goin' do anything except burn up bandwidth? 

As for me, I say she takes the reins back, starts lopping off heads and staking them on the Tower again! Some good ol' fashioned beheadings and conquest! That's the ticket. Letters of marque, forced colonization, bowing and scraping, serfdom! Damn country's gone to the dogs in the past 200 years....


----------



## George Wallace

Is that "pradacowboy" or "pravdacowboy"?   ;D

Time for a Stalinist Purge?


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

George Wallace said:
			
		

> get into the books and study our Parliamentary System.


I did that already. Learned nothing about the royalty (apart the fact that it serves as a symbol, but that wasn't in the book). I made my own conclusions as why we keep it, it turned out that the conclusions I came too myself is the exact same thing that I was later taught at school (and it is not the symbol).

BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government". :blotto:

And the fire extinguisher thing is not too convincing.



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise.  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?


Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> you claimed that the Mornarchy had prevented Canada from becoming a democracy until, I assume you mean, the patriation of the Coonstitution in 1982?


No, I mean until 1848, which is late if you compare with the countries you guys make comparisons (France and USA).



> You can't have it both ways as you twist your argument to suit your answer of the moment.


You simply misunderstood.


----------



## aesop081

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I did that already. Learned nothing about the royalty (apart the fact that it serves as a symbol, but that wasn't in the book). I made my own conclusions as why we keep it, it turned out that the conclusions I came too myself is the exact same thing that I was later taught at school (and it is not the symbol).
> 
> BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government". :blotto:



Having been educated in Quebec myself, let me tell you that i am not surprised by your statement.  You can write a small encyclopedia with whats missing about Canadian history in Quebec textbooks so dont kid yourself.  You are being taught from a severly biased viewpoint.


----------



## Kirkhill

Clement - Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada -1919-1944".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.  Trudeau's classmates were your teachers. They learned well how to tell a story.

Cheers and I hope you find the book enlightening.


----------



## George Wallace

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government".


Are you ever confused.  The Constitution was repatriated in 1982.  Prior to that the Constitution rested in England.  That put our heads of Government in the Sovereign and the British Government up until that time.  So your book did not update that the King died and Queen Elizabeth II came to be the sovereign in 1952, a mistake, one of many, in your Education System.  Since 1982, the Sovereign has been the Queen of Canada, and her elected Government has been the Government of Canada.


			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?





			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.


Funny how you can so simply gloss over this tradition and accept it, but you can not accept the traditional Head of State for Canada for what she is.


			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> :blotto:


Does this mean that you are blotto?


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

aesop081 said:
			
		

> You can write a small encyclopedia with whats missing about Canadian history in Quebec textbooks so dont kid yourself.  You are being taught from a severly biased viewpoint.


Maybe. This is was I was taught (and it is also, like I said, what I concluded myself, please don't jump on me):

The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all. 

But their are some few exceptions:
1- The beer _i am canadian_ 
2- Shanaya Twain
3- We are (supposedly) gentle peacekeepers and not mean policemakers, but that is not true anymore because we have dropped on the dark Yankee side.
4- We live in an extremely cold and rugged country, but that is not true anymore because of of the global warming.
5- We have a PM, not a President.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.


OK.


----------



## aesop081

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Maybe. This is was I was taught (and it is also, like I said, what I concluded myself, please don't jump on me):
> 
> The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.



You obviously dont know enough to tell the difference.  Give yourself another 15 years and move travel abroad.



> 1- The beer _i am canadian_



The beer is "Canadian", not "i am canadian"...get you facts straight


> 2- Shanaya Twain


What the heck does that have to do with anything.  Thats how i know your argument is running thin...when you start pulling irrelevant shit out of your ass.


> 3- We are (supposedly) gentle peacekeepers and not mean policemakers, but that is not true anymore because we have dropped on the dark Yankee side.


The "dark Yankee side".....WTF are you on......


> 4- We live in an extremely cold and rugged country, but that is not true anymore because of of the global warming.


Again...what does this have to do with the subject at hand.........


> 5- We have a PM, not a President.


We also have vastly different political systems. I can go into it in excruciating details if you wish, after all this is what my high-priced education is in.....but i dont want to confuse you, I know what you are taught in school.

You are vastly running out of material and knowledge so dont make an ass of yourself.


----------



## George Wallace

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.


Funny you should say this.  It was the British Sovereign who allowed the French Canadians to keep:
1) The French Language;
2) The Catholic Religion;
3) Their Land; and
4) Their Legal System.

That's gratitude for you.   ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

5) and their symbols, from the French Monarchist regime


----------



## Kirkhill

> Quote from: Kirkhill on Today at 16:30:31
> Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.
> OK.



All mucking around aside I think you will find the book an interesting read.  Good on you for keeping an open mind.

Cheers.

PS 

Interesting aside - perhaps you can confirm - Quebec appears to have adopted the Code Civil in 1865, based on the Napoleonic Code of 1804 -  last I recall Napoleon and the British Monarchy were not on the best of terms having agreed to settle differences in Belgium in 1815, some 52 years after "The Conquest".    And yet that same British Monarchy doesn't appear to have had a problem with Quebec adopting a Code of Laws based on Napoleon's advice 50 years after Waterloo and 100 years after "The Conquest".  Peculiar behaviour for a Tyranny I might have thought.

Another anachronism that similarly confuses me is the use of the Tricouleur and Star by the Acadians.  The Acadians were no longer attached to France (having been signed over in 1713 with the transaction reconfirmed in 1763) when France rejected the Royal Standards with the Fleur de Lys and adopted the Revolutionary Tricouleur in 1789.

But perhaps you are right and symbols are over-rated.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you ever confused.


Négatif.



> The Constitution was repatriated in 1982.  Prior to that the Constitution rested in England.  That put our heads of Government in the Sovereign and the British Government up until that time.


Yeah I know that.



> So your book did not update that the King died and Queen Elizabeth II came to be the sovereign in 1952.


My book says nothing at all than: "King - British government" (from 1763 to 1867) and "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982" (from 1867 too the present). My book says nothing about when Mr. became king and Mrs. died and etc. It's not that it didn't update, it's that it doesn't talk about it.



> Funny how you can so simply gloss over this tradition and accept it, but you can not accept the traditional Head of State for Canada for what she is.


You can be sure that if it would be only to me the flag of Québec would not be what it is. But over the time the fleur de lis became to represent Québec and not the French monarchy. 

Actually, the Maple leaf DID figure on the flag of Québec from 1924 to 1948 and WAS a French-Canadian symbol from 1834 to 1964.  



> Does this mean that you are blotto?


What is 'blotto'?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> While we're on the topic, Mr. Vermet, please explain something to me.  The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?





			
				Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.



If "_no one [in Quebec] considers it as a monarchic symbol_" (at least as far as you know), does that not indicate a general (or specific to you) ignorance of your own history and symbology?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis

*Fleur-de-lis*



> *The fleur-de-lis* (also spelled fleur-de-lys; plural fleurs-de-lis or -lys; an archaic spelling is fleur-de-luce) *is used in heraldry, where it is particularly associated with the French* (see King of France) and Spanish monarchy. *The fleur-de-lis remains an unofficial symbol of France..*.





> The *French monarchy first adopted the fleur-de-lis* as a baptismal symbol of purity on the conversion of the Frankish King Clovis I to the Christian religion in 493.





> By the 13th and 14th centuries, the three petals of the lily of France were being described by writers as symbols of faith, wisdom and chivalry. As in Ireland, they also came to be seen as symbols of the Holy Trinity. *By the 14th century, the fleur-de-lis had become so closely associated with the rule of France that the English king Edward III quartered his coat of arms with France Ancient in order to emphasise his claim on the French crown.* This quartering was changed to France Modern in the early 1400s. The fleur-de-lis was not removed until 1801, when George III gave up his formal claim to the French throne.




Perhaps you're simply ignoring the fact that this particular symbol ties the English and French regimes together ... for it was a symbol that the french were owned by Edward III and his successors.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Give yourself another 15 years and move travel abroad.


OK, I will do that.



> The beer is "Canadian", not "i am canadian"


OK, every commercial I ever saw was "i am canadian", but it seem like it is "Canadian". Big deal.



> The "dark Yankee side".....WTF are you on......


I taught you would realise *I wasn't serious.* I was laghing at this primary anti-Americanism.



> what does this have to do with the subject at hand.........We also have vastly different political systems.


Yep, political system, pretty much what we are discussing.

Here I didn't wanted too prove that Canadians have no culture, just explain what Qébéquois are taught and explain why it make sense to us. That's all. I Didn't want to insult anyone. And I quote myself:



> please don't jump on me


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> does that not indicate a general ignorance of your own history and symbology?


Yes, it does.



> Perhaps you're simply ignoring the fact that this particular symbol ties the English and French regimes together ... for it was a symbol that the french were owned by Edward III and his successors.


I know that, the British started to use French symbols long ago.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> I know that, the British started to use French symbols long ago.



What a delightfully soft way to say "conquered".


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It was the British Sovereign who allowed the French Canadians to keep:
> 1) The French Language;
> 2) The Catholic Religion;
> 3) Their Land; and
> 4) Their Legal System.


Yup, and because of that, there is a thing called _Province of Quebec_ (later Bas-Canada) that did not ally with the US "rebels" and become an independent state / part of USA centuries ago. And lets just says it was impossible for the 1% British to impose their language, religion, etc. to the 99% French.



> That's gratitude for you.


Humm... I wonder what Canada would look like if the British had not bought the French in 1774 so they don't ally themselves with the Americans and I also wonder if those French would of stopped those same Americans at Châteaugay in 1813 if they had not been bought. Would Canada even exist? Probably not.

That's gratitude for you.

Edited for correcting a year (1974 to 1774)


----------



## Kirkhill

Michael do you suppose our friend Clement is familiar with the concept of "1066 and all that...."?  

Or does that not get taught in Quebec schools either Clement?


----------



## Michael OLeary

I would say that the point which _notre ami_ is choosing to miss, either though stubbornness or educational ignorance, is that we all live in a glass house.  One cannot challenge the purpose and existence of symbols and heritage that have come from British-Canadian precedents without equally challenging those which come from our French-Canadian precedents. Would stripping away all of this make is more Canadian ... I doubt it ..... or less Canadian .... I doubt that as well.  We are what a unique blend of values, history, heritage and cultural evolution - based on too many factors to list - has made us.  We are not Americans (evil or otherwise, as each may choose to believe), nor are we British, nor are we French.  No group of Canadians can disappear seamlessly into Washington, London or Paris without being identified as foreigners.  We are Canadians (and that's not just a beer label), we stand apart, and if there is any doubt of a Canadian culture or image, it is one of individual doubt.  Personally, I am happy to belong to a nation so diverse in natural wonders and variety of people that it cannot be encapsulated, packaged, and sold to tourist in a single phrase or image.  From Jelly Bean Row to Clayoquot Sound, Canada is what we choose, each of us and all of us, to make it.  Some see it as a grand sum, greater than its parts, others choose to pick away at the parts they don't understand, and undermine their own sense of being Canadian.


----------



## GO!!!

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Humm... I wonder what Canada would look like if the British had not *bought the French in 1974 * so they don't ally themselves with the Americans ...



Maybe I'm not as up on my Canadian history as I think I am, but what are you talking about?

I was under the impression that the conflict that mattered ended on the Plains of Abraham...


----------



## George Wallace

You are not the only one, GO!!

I have no idea of the relevance of several of the dates (s)he has given.  As they seem so out of whack with anything in history, I have just ignored them.  Clément Barbeau Vermet has definitely studied/been taught a different history than the rest of us.  That, or is from a parallel dimension.   ;D  I wonder if Clément Barbeau Vermet has made a trip to France, to really get an 'eye-opener'?


----------



## Kirkhill

> I would say that the point which notre ami is choosing to miss, either though stubbornness or educational ignorance, is that we all live in a glass house.



And that's a fact......History is long enough that everybody has done it to everybody else three times over and had it done to them in equal measure.


----------



## aesop081

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Here I didn't wanted too prove that Canadians have no culture, *just explain what Qébéquois are taught and explain why it make sense to us*. That's all. I Didn't want to insult anyone. And I quote myself:



...and i told you before that i was educated in Quebec myself so i know what you are taught and unlike you i have the benefit of having know the world ouside "la belle province" and i know what gets left out of you classrooms.  It makes sense to you because you dont get the full story as it usualy conflicts with the "we are a nation " ideal that must , for some reason, be promoted in Quebec.  Dont think for a second that you can pull the wool over my eyes.


----------



## Good2Golf

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> ...That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.



...could it be that the only difference between les Québecois(es) and les Français(es) is...?  

Québec  








v.  France






Images courtesy of http://www.worldofstock.com


Back on topic, I personally do not link anything more than the knowledge of history of the RCAF with the use of the adjective "Royal".  As well, if someone thought the idea had merit, should there not be the re-establishment of the "Royal Canadian Army" -- and what would the Guns do for their acronymized name?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Neill McKay

Duey said:
			
		

> As well, if someone thought the idea had merit, should there not be the re-establishment of the "Royal Canadian Army" -- and what would the Guns do for their acronymized name?



The army, as a whole, was never Royal.  Individual regments and such were (and many still are).


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> the concept of "1066 and all that...."?
> 
> Or does that not get taught in Quebec schools either Clement?


The concept of "1066 and all that", nope, not taught in schools.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm not as up on my Canadian history as I think I am, but what are you talking about?


Typing mystake. I meant 1774 not 1974. L'Acte de Québec.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Americans (evil or otherwise, as each may choose to believe)


I repeat: I was not serious. 



> others choose to pick away at the parts they don't understand, and undermine their own sense of being Canadian.


So not being a queen lover undermines my own sense of being Canadian? Wow, my teacher was faaaaar away! (sic!)



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> (s)he


Clément is a male name. ;D  



> I wonder if Clément Barbeau Vermet has made a trip to France, to really get an 'eye-opener'?


Clément will start to visit his own country before going to France, and he might not go to France at all because France does not interests him.



			
				Duey said:
			
		

> Québec
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France


Yes, 'stop' is a French noun (according to my French teacher that comes from France). I guess than this is what happens when we do everything in English for too long and then we switch back to French, we lose a few things in the process.



			
				aesop081 said:
			
		

> Dont think for a second that you can pull the wool over my eyes.


_Pull the wool_... seems like my English courses were also faulty, but at least I do get some second language courses, unlike many provinces of this country.

Now I will put my country modernisation dreams away.


----------



## GO!!!

Clément Barbeau Vermet said:
			
		

> Now I will put my country modernisation dreams away.



They can go in the same box as my "equality for all" dreams, which were crushed after witnessing a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect as a matter of law.

What would Canada look like if every province had an _Assemblee Nationale_ focussed on misplaced nationalism? We would be a disparate mess of narrow minded interest groups, each clamoring for special treatment, with none caring or protecting the interests of the collective nation.

Modern indeed, how many times do you need to hear _NON_?


----------



## Kirkhill

Just in case you weren't aware 1066 was the year that a large number of Frenchmen showed up in England and kicked the incumbent off the throne and then declared it to be theirs.  They then spent the next 400 years variously putting down insurrections in England, conquering Wales, doing their best to do the same in Scotland and Ireland and filling in their spare time fighting with their relatives back in France over who owned the French throne.  That issue was just about completely resolved with the end of the Hundred Years war in 1453.  

The Brits were taxed and conscripted by Frenchmen to fight Frenchmen.  Coupled with the insurrectionist tendencies at home we just kind of got in the habit of fighting the French.  It took until 1905 to completely break the habit.  ;D  

The matter was prolonged because of the French King's continuing tendency to involve himself in British politics and support various nasty people, most of them Stewarts, in an ongoing attempts to make England just like France.  That little Corsican Corporal didn't help matters any either.

Desolee mais ils n'avaient pas reussi.  >


----------



## Yrys

Excuse me GO!!, but you are referring to what in that part of you're thread?

I'm puzzled on 2 facts:

1) what are you talking about (as of situations, etc). 
2) I presume that you are speaking of something in Québec. Well, there is no dialect here,
just a lot of languages (french for 81%, english for 13%, and something else for 6% of the people) 
with  accents depending of the area of the globe someone come from.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> They can go... after witnessing a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect as a matter of law.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet

GO!!! said:
			
		

> a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect.


Oh yeah I know, unbelievable this Québec apartheid! That sounds like a lady I know... "It's segregation!" ;D ;D ;D



> We would be a disparate mess of narrow minded interest groups, each clamoring for special treatment, with none caring or protecting the interests of the collective nation.


That sounds like the separatist party of Alberta, doesn't it? 



> Modern indeed, how many times do you need to hear _NON_?


Because their were many referendums that took place in the past to decide if Canada should become a republic? Heck, my history course fooled me once again!



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 1066 was the year that a large number of Frenchmen showed up in England [...] 400 years [...] the end of the Hundred Years war in 1453.


Yes I know about that (even if it is not taught in schools, why would it be?). Simply I didn't remember the exact years. But what's the point?


----------



## redsquadone

Why? Do you want to Kabosh the Maple Leaf flag too, and go back to the Union Jack?


----------



## Kat Stevens

No, the Red Ensign will do just fine.


----------



## bison33

Ya know............if you want to go back to the "Royal" designation, may as well bring back the rank structures that we had in the RCAF days...then of course dump the Cadpat for another blue uniform....will this ever end? We are what we are, no need to bring back the old days, except for the odd honarary Colonel and odd officer, no one was even around for the "Royal" years....why do this? Right...we have money to waste.............


----------



## FSTO

link: http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/04/petition-to-parliament-to-reinstate.html

We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN? The army has their RCR, R22R, RCD, etc.

Discuss pros and cons.


----------



## hoist-monkey

I am all for tradition, we call our ships HMCS (Her Majesty's Canadian Ship).
Officers hold a commission from Queen Elizabeth.
The Army has the RCD, RCR, 22eR, plus all the reserve units with "Royal" in their names.

I don't think I would like to sail on a ship called CSS Halifax or whatever, just doesn't sound right.

I don't see it happening though, just the cost of changing the infrastructure, letterhead and everything else that goes with it.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Poll added


----------



## FredDaHead

FSTO said:
			
		

> link: http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/04/petition-to-parliament-to-reinstate.html
> 
> We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN? The army has their RCR, R22R, RCD, etc.
> 
> Discuss pros and cons.



Those are two different things. The Army isn't the Royal Canadian Army, either. Why would we need to be the Royal Canadian Navy?

Our ships are all, as was pointed out, _Her Majesty's_ Canadian Ships, which is basically the same as being "Royal." As for the Air Force, I don't recall hearing their units being called anything but 88th Squadron or the like.

Sure, it'd be nice to be the Royal Canadian Navy, but it really doesn't change all that much. We got unified forty years ago and we're still going strong; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## SweetNavyJustice

For me, I enjoy the mix of the two.  

By calling ourselves the Canadian Navy, Army, Airforce we show our distinctness as Canadians whereas having our ships called HMCS, and batallions like the RCR reminds us of our roots.  

I wouldn't like to see the names change back.


----------



## Loachman

There is no "th" at the end of our Squadron designations. Historically, the correct designation would be "No. 400 Squadron", but we've long dropped the "No."

Unit designations and ships' names have nothing to do with the service title anyway.

The Army was always just the "Canadian Army", just as the British Army is the British Army. Neither ever had the Royal designation, unlike their respective navies and air forces.

An Act of Parliament would be required to change this, as there is only one service under the NDA, and I don't see that occurring.

I'd vote "yes" ONLY if Tac Hel were split off from the RCAF and put back into the Army from whence it came and where it naturally and rightfully belongs.


----------



## hugh19

I like the idea personally. Maritime Command just does not have the same feel as RCN.  I do think you would have to change the NDA as the army was originally called Mobile command after unification, and I have not seen that term used in years.


----------



## Thorvald

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Those are two different things. The Army isn't the Royal Canadian Army, either. Why would we need to be the Royal Canadian Navy?



Well at least we still have the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps


----------



## Michael OLeary

FSTO said:
			
		

> ... their RCR....





			
				hoist-monkey said:
			
		

> The Army has the RCD, RCR, 22eR, ....





			
				SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> ... like the RCR ....



Since the subject of the thread is organization titles, I would be remiss not to point out that the correct short title for The Royal Canadian Regiment is "*The RCR*".

http://thercr.ca/customs_traditions/the_definitive_article.htm


----------



## FSTO

sledge said:
			
		

> I like the idea personally. Maritime Command just does not have the same feel as RCN.  I do think you would have to change the NDA as the army was originally called Mobile command after unification, and I have not seen that term used in years.



If I was in charge of the Navy I would just start calling my command the Royal Canadian Navy and dare the politico's (if they even noticed) to force me to change. Obviously the Army did the same thing once the higher ups decided that Mobile Command sounded incredibly stupid. 
FYI, I was recently on a course in San Diego and my certificate stated that I was from the RCN, evidently the Americans (and many others) still regard us as the Royal Canadian Navy.


----------



## warspite

Although still a civilian, I say Royal Canadian Navy for the following reasons:
1. Sounds professional
2. Sounds better than maritime command
3. Respects our country's heritage
Although in a practical sense it would make no difference. And it would cost money to redo letterheadds etc, ( but how much money does the government spend on nothing anyway's?). Personally I would rather like to say I serve in the Royal Canadian Navy, but asll in all its a matter of preference when you get down to it.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I voted "no". The RCN is "dead" to the younger sailors in the fleet, who happen to also be the future of the fleet. I would not for one minute accept that reverting back to that tri-service force structure would somehow be good for morale in the Navy. Only more money, better sea-shore ratio's and modern equipment will do that. 

There was much discontent in the RCN prior to unification that was partly based on the attitude from the senior ranks and officers which developed from the aura of the RCN. In the 1980's, many of the most backwards and dim witted dinosaurs in the Navy were PO's and CPO's who were LS and AB's when the RCN existed. Don't get me wrong, the RCN had its good features as well, but IMO it would not be worth reverting back to.


----------



## RangerRay

Dang straights we should!


----------



## Chubbard

If the Canadian navy were to start using that term as its legal name, replacing MARCOM, then the Royal designation would return with it.

From Wikipedia:


> Since the Royal designation of the Canadian Navy was executed by a Royal Proclamation which has never been revoked, the Canadian Government and the Canadian Forces will be required to resume usage of the expression “Royal Canadian Navy”, if the expression “Canadian Navy” is used in any official capacity,



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


----------



## FSTO

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I voted "no". The RCN is "dead" to the younger sailors in the fleet, who happen to also be the future of the fleet. I would not for one minute accept that reverting back to that tri-service force structure would somehow be good for morale in the Navy. Only more money, better sea-shore ratio's and modern equipment will do that.
> 
> There was much discontent in the RCN prior to unification that was partly based on the attitude from the senior ranks and officers which developed from the aura of the RCN. In the 1980's, many of the most backwards and dim witted dinosaurs in the Navy were PO's and CPO's who were LS and AB's when the RCN existed. Don't get me wrong, the RCN had its good features as well, but IMO it would not be worth reverting back to.


Woa there buddy. The petition is not to return to the tri-service, it is only to change the name. Nothing structural would change.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I voted "yes".  In particular, it always seem inconsistant to me to have "Her Magesty's Canadian Ship _____" not be part of the Royal Canadian Navy.  

Besides, much like the regimental system, I think the tradition is important....


Matthew.


----------



## onecat

I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay inthe past that Royal term is one of them.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Im voting no because we are canadian and many of us wonder what the queen has anything to do with us anyways...just some kind of figure head, and to be honest, how many people nowadays identify themselves with anything british or royal (i mean in canada besides the RCMP).

Lets face facts the main reason the Navy is the one bucking for this is because historically the Navy is british, and still is in large capacity english in nature.

Also i have to point out that if were going to go back to being called the RCN and RCAF and what not, then why not scrap our maple leaf and bring back that ugly Red Ensign we fought so hard to get rid of and get something that represents us.

That is the issue, respecting history and tradition, but also moving forward and standing up and embracing our "canadian-ness" and our national identity, in that i find we should be more like the americans they are incredibly proud to be yanks...and i find we lack that as a ppl, certain groups in canada i find are prouder then others, but not proud of their Canadian image but more so...oh ya im Native-canadian, and im a Quebecois (not a quebeker...) and you know what thats fine, but i would really love my country and its ppl to be proud of itself more, and to be more canadian without wondering who we will offend next.

and you know what this whole debate brings up another issue...why arent we the Canadian Armed Forces??

as for ships i would rather they be named  C.F.S Halifax or something of that sort (Canadian Forces Ship) not just because im French, therefore i dont identify with british, im also part native, so the whole french and brit thing is the base of this...but rather that i find we should have our own image.

i consider myself patriotic, and you know we fought this hard to get our flag and our 2 official languages (which i know doesnt mean much to a lot of ppl) and many other purely CANADIAN things, but i find we have stalled in our forward movement in that area.  I respect the fact that we are tied to the brits and royalty but i dont think we should let that define us.

But i dont think we should alter the regimental names of the RCR, RCD, and etc

By the way its R22eR...since everyone corrected you on the other names but not this one...the 'e' is there because its a french pronunciation...and is always written that way no matter what


----------



## vonGarvin

radiohead said:
			
		

> I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay in the past *that Royal term is one of them*.


Royal Canadian Mint
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Royal Canadian Legion
Royal Canadian Golf Association
Royal Canadian Geographical Society
Royal Military College
Royal Canadian College of Organists
Royal Canadian Sea Cadets
Royal Canadian Air Cadets
Royal Canadian Army Cadets
Royal Winnipeg Ballet
Royal Montreal Golf Club

anyway, the list goes on.  These are all institutions in Canada that exist TODAY and NOT in the past as you suggest.  By the way, in case you missed it, at the Vimy ceremony in France earlier this month, HM Elizabeth the Second was announced as "The Queen of Canada".
As for Biggoals2bdone, remember, in english, you are indeed a Quebecker.  After all, when we refer to people from Munich, we don't call them Bayrisch, we call them Bavarians, or Germans, not Deutsch.  And we ARE the Canadian Armed Forces.

(See the National Defence Act, Part II, article 14, which states: "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces")


Cheers!


----------



## observor 69

I think the term "Canadian Air Force" is a title looking for a home. Sounds generic unlike a proper title or it is just an extention of Canadian Armed Forces.

So now the air force is getting around it by bringing forward more emphasis on the Squadron title, Cold Lake 1AMS for maintenance and then the various squadrons.

Something unfinished here. ???


----------



## volition

Our Navy does not have any Aircrafts, our army does not have any aircraft...If your a pilot, your in the airforce. It should be like the good old days, or like the rest of the world. Vote Yes on renaming!!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I am proud of my naval service and Its the great people you work with everyday that makes it a great organization having or not having the Royal designation does not make one iota of difference in that pride.


----------



## Mike Baker

warspite said:
			
		

> Although still a civilian, I say Royal Canadian Navy for the following reasons:
> 1. Sounds professional
> 2. Sounds better than maritime command
> 3. Respects our country's heritage
> Although in a practical sense it would make no difference. And it would cost money to redo letterheadds etc, ( but how much money does the government spend on nothing anyway's?). Personally I would rather like to say I serve in the Royal Canadian Navy, but asll in all its a matter of preference when you get down to it.


+1, even though I want to be Army


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Captain Sensible many if not all of the establishments you said were setup back when the british ruled what was to become our nation...the canadian forces or Canadian Armed Forces, or Canadian Defence forces, which ever you chose to use, were dominated by brits for years...but in the last 50 or so years we as in CANADIANS have tried to assume our own identity on many things, in my opinion going back to to naming the Canadian Navy the RCN and the Canadian Air Force the RCAF...is like saying well lets get rid of our flag, and and the prime minister and just get called England II or West England and have the monarchy run our country.

I have nothing against the monarchy per se, and like i said i respect our past and history but we must also forge on ahead as CANADIANS, and govern ourselves, and have our own identity, which isnt to say we cant be friendly with the british.

On a side note i find that with our military the way it is (aka not enough funds...BIG TIME, and undermanned) i would say we need to get back up to 80 000 minimum for  combined services, and we need to do this As Quickly As Possible, but i dont foresee it happening soon enough the man-power or the huge increase in budget that we need...that we're almost better off forming a partnership of some sorts with the americans or the brits or aussies or something and form a kind of coalition, where we would all be united under 1 banner or something of the sort, not necessarily being amalgamated with the other force to the degree of losing our own identity but lets say for example: we would call it the Commonwealth Defence Forces, which could include the aussies, new zealanders and possibly the brits themselves, as well as us.

we would keep the Army, Navy, Air Force and throw in the Marines from the brits, where we would have a standardized training for the whole entire force throughout all the nations, and service to any country or any force would be offered.  As in a canadian could be part of the Commonwealth Marine Corps just like a brit or an aussie etc..., and bases would be distributed fairly so that you could serve in any branch on any of the nations.  Obviously we would keep members on their respective nations unless they requested to serve elsewhere.

so under the Umbrella of Commonwealth Defence Forces we would have: 
The Commonwealth army 
The Commonwealth Navy
The Commonwealth Air Force
The Commonwealth Marine Corps

Obviously any special forces like CANSOFCOM, JTF2, SAS, and etc, would be modified somewhat or we would need a totally new branch added Commonwealth Special Forces Branch, where all of these units would be under.

where we would most like keep regimental names for the army and etc.

Like i said its an idea, one which i find would probably be difficult to put into action but could be very useful, because as individuals for armed forces Canada, UK, New Zealand and Aussie for example are not huge, Canada has 65 000 reg force member (59th worldwide), UK has 195 000 (ranked 28th worldwide), Aussie has 51 000 (ranked 68th world wide), New Zealand 9 000 (ranked 129th worldwide).  Put that together with combined spending and training and what not and you would have a kick ass force that could really throw some weight around and do a lot of good in this world.  I picked these other countries, because a) we're all in the Commonwealth b) we all have a unified service design for our militaries and c) we all bring something special to the table, in terms of perspective, tradition, settings/environment for training, specialties, etc.

Obviously we could also phase into the US military being that their borders touch ours, but they are all individual services, and i doubt they would likely want to accomodate our traditions and what not, rather we would be thrown in the mix and expected to de-canadian-nize ourselves and become more american...and besides they have a huge military organisation as it is

Like i said its a thought


----------



## fbr2o75

radiohead said:
			
		

> I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay inthe past that Royal term is one of them.



Would you say the same if it was the horse on your cap badge they were talking about? when i first joined we wore the horse, and I for one was very proud when issued the horse again.


----------



## vonGarvin

Biggoals2bdone:
In one sentence you state that we want to identify as Canadians, and in so doing, we dropped "Royal" from the Navy and the Air Force.  If that were true, why is the RCMP not the "Canadian Mounted Police"?  Why not simply the "Winnipeg Ballet"?  In spite of your histrionics as to why the monikers of "Royal" were dropped (alone with the monikers "Navy" and "Air Force" for that matter), having things "Royal" here in Canada (or, perhaps more accurately, "Royal Canadian") is as Canadian as Tim Hortons, Poutine, Butter Tarts and Maple Syrup.

Then, after our collective identity as Canadians is established, you ignore the fact that Canada has NEVER fought a war overseas on its own: it has ALWAYS been part of a coalition.  Boer War.  World Wars One and Two.  Korea.  Kosovo.  Etc and so forth.  You also wish to ignore our "new found" Canadian identity and form with other nations a "Commonwealth" of nations.

Whether or not HM Elizabeth II is our monarch has nothing to do with our relations with the UK.  As I've stated, she has several titles, one of which is "Queen of Canada".  Also note that HRH The Prince Phillip wore the uniform of The Royal Canadian Regiment at the Vimy commemoration.  It was not, as one member of the media suggested, to show solidarity with the members of The RCR who were killed in action in Afghanistan a few days previous.  Rather, as it was an official function, he wore it as was his duty as the Colonel in Chief of Canada's Senior Infantry Regiment.  Were he Colonel in Chief of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, he would have worn that uniform, given their seniority over the infantry.

We have Canadian traditions, which INCLUDES the Royal Family.  To eliminate that link in the name of progress is, well, un-Canadian in my opinion.


----------



## FSTO

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I think the term "Canadian Air Force" is a title looking for a home. Sounds generic unlike a proper title or it is just an extention of Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> So now the air force is getting around it by bringing forward more emphasis on the Squadron title, Cold Lake 1AMS for maintenance and then the various squadrons.
> 
> Something unfinished here. ???



I always wondered where the Air Force attained the authority to rename their bases Wings? Another case of the Chief of Air Staff just going ahead and doing it?


----------



## Blackadder1916

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> Would you say the same if it was the horse on your cap badge they were talking about? when i first joined we wore the horse, and I for one was very proud when issued the horse again.



Excuse me but, horse? What horse?


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Capt Sensible well a) i dunno why you chose that name... but on to the meat and potatoes

I said we should embrace our image and what not because we should, my suggestion about the commonwealth coalition force like i said was an EXAMPLE....let me say that again an EXAMPLE...of what Canada might or could do to have a "greater presence" in terms of men, materials, equipment and what not, since 1) our country doesnt spend nearly enough on the military and its needs 2) our military is under-manned.

I strongly disagree that Royal is in effect canadian...they are remnants of things that the british have established here in canada, and no longer are the people who take care of it.  example: the RCMP, a british para-military constabulary force conceived in the late 1800's when britain did not let us rule ourselves, as we do now, so as you can see, saying that Royal or Royal Canadian is therefore the most Canadian is false really.

But also my point is that just like during the Flag debate in 65' you have people who identify with the old and some people who dont identify with that and wish to move on respectuflly.  Like i said this was the case with our flag, the people who fough in WW1 and WW2 identified with the Red Ensign, they had served for country and king (well some...some were just forced) but the generation or 2 after them were purely canadian, in that they were born here, and grew up here and so had their fathers and mothers, and they saw no personal link to the Queen, does it make us less respectful to have changed our flag to something which i find defines us much better then the Red Ensign, not in my eyes.  you also think for some weird reason that i suggest abolishing the use of royal in any title for anything canadian which is not the case.

Im guessing that natives or first generation canadians (through immigration) or what not do not identify with royal, or british.
Like i said you seem to think that what i am saying is blasphemy and the most insulting thing ever, im being very respectful in my point of view and how i broach.
On the other hand i dont think we will ever see eye to eye about this considering im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english...which is an opinion many people feel, i just hope it never comes to pass.

Like i said the Commonwealth force thing was an IDEA/EXAMPLE of what we might have to do to be more effective, have access to more resources/equipment and resulting in a greater presence/importancy in the grander scheme.

and i must say that your point about the wars is very moot...WW1 and Boer War Canada wasnt truly even a country yet, Britain said get your butts over here now and we followed, WW2 canada was standing on its own 2 feet, and was becoming more but we were still greatly under british influence/rule, they said jump we said how high, and Korea and Kosovo well that was a joint effort aka common goals and morals to defend/reach, for Kosovo we honestly couldnt have done it by ourselves...


----------



## FSTO

"But i dont think we should alter the regimental names of the RCR, RCD, and etc"
Quote from Biggoals2bdone

It always makes me laugh when people say there is no way we should put back the "R" in the Canadian Navy but then in the same breath say "But don't you dare touch the R in our regimental names"


----------



## midget-boyd91

> im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english



Biggoals2bdone... Why not stop the personal attacks right there? This thread isn't about whether or not someone is a native/black/yellow/white, jew/hindu/pastafanariist etc etc... It's clear you've got a lot of passion when it comes to this, but personal attacks isn't a very productive way to go about a useful thread.

As for my opinion, I think Ex-Dragoon said it the best. It isn't whether or not there is a "Royal" designated into the names, it is the people who serve. The ones actually doing the job. If it ain't broke.. don't fix it.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

Midget : saying you are white or english is not a personal attack...im merely stating in a very level headed fashion that i think his point of view is more along those lines (possibly biased) because of these circumstances...

I in no way attacked him personally i said he might be the type to wonder why there are 2 languages in canada i didnt tell him that was his opinion...read what i write...not what you think i write


----------



## McG

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Midget : saying you are white or english is not a personal attack...


but it is racist and it can stop now.

Cheers, 
The staff



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN?


Seeing as Army, Navy, and Air Force do not exist as seperate services, should it not be Royal Canadian Armed Forces?



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Obviously the Army did the same thing once the higher ups decided that Mobile Command sounded incredibly stupid.


While momentum for the name change likely was built in FMC, it is still not the "Canadian Army;"  it is "Land Force Command."


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Cheers,
> The staff
> Seeing as Army, Navy, and Air Force do not exist as seperate services, should it not be Royal Canadian Armed Forces?
> While momentum for the name change likely was built in FMC, it is still not the "Canadian Army;"  it is "Land Force Command."



Well I hate to be a poo poo but................. (I know...officially its LFC  ;D)
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_home/home_e.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/index_e.asp

So why don't we go all the way, and make it offical?

I know that in our advertising that we use Army, Navy and Air Force because joe target doesn't know what Land Force Command or Maritime Command are. They may know what Air Command is but they sure as heck know what an Army and a Navy are.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

I think the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force would be an easy thing for us to switch too without a lot of expense but it would add a certain distinctiveness to our individual services just like the Regiments have.


----------



## RangerRay

I believe it was Mark Steyn who said "Canada is the only country in the world to celebrate its heritage by destroying it".


----------



## warspite

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I believe it was Mark Steyn who said "Canada is the only country in the world to celebrate its heritage by destroying it".


Sadly it's true...


----------



## Mike Baker

warspite said:
			
		

> Sadly it's true...


Yeah it is, sadly enough.


----------



## Blackadder1916

If they bring back the RCN and RCAF, then they should also bring back the "Royal" corps of the Army that were dropped, i.e RCAMC, RCDC.


----------



## vangemeren

I was looking at photos of CF-18s and I noticed RCAF was painted on the bottoms of the wings in some:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18break-away.jpg
http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/towedtgt.jpg

but not this one:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/ckc96-6002-5.jpg

What's the reason behind this?


----------



## observor 69

Boy I want to hear the answer to this one. I am amazed to see RCAF on a CF-18.


----------



## Mike Baker

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Boy I want to hear the answer to this one. I am amazed to see RCAF on a CF-18.


+1, don't tell me that the Air Force made a boo boo


----------



## aesop081

van Gemeren said:
			
		

> I was looking at photos of CF-18s and I noticed RCAF was painted on the bottoms of the wings in some:
> 
> http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18break-away.jpg
> http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/towedtgt.jpg
> 
> but not this one:
> 
> http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/ckc96-6002-5.jpg
> 
> What's the reason behind this?



Your first picture is the only one with RCAF on the wing.  I suspect it was an anniversary bird, just like Comox has RCAF painted on the ramp ( comemorating the 75th). Second picture only has CAF under the wings, which , IIRCwas the comon marking for some time.


----------



## Mike Baker

Makes sense now, thanks.


----------



## vonGarvin

"On the other hand i dont think we will ever see eye to eye about this considering im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english...which is an opinion many people feel, i just hope it never comes to pass."


Well, first, I am not "english", although I do speak that language (and a few others).  I am "white" (I prefer Caucasian, thank you).  I am indeed male.  As for "descent", I am of Irish Catholic heritage, a group not normally associated with being loyal to the Crown.  But I am NOT Irish Catholic, I am a Roman Catholic Canadian.  
As for asking whether or not to bother with 2 official languages, well, again, you're wrong.  Having two languages is one of many things that identify us as Canadian.  As does the Queen of Canada.  Lobster traps in the Northumberland Strait.  Maple Bush in Ontario.  Tar Sands in Alberta.  Three Down football.

So, whether or not we use the term "Royal" in reference to the Navy or the Air Force is not for you or me to judge or decide.  As for throwing away the Queen as the head of state, what else should we throw away?  The mounties because they are a throwback to our oppression under England?  Forget for a moment that many loyal subjects fought against the Americans in their war of independance, and then came to the colonies that did not rebel when the Americans were successful.  I say toss all that into the bin of histrionics, forget our past, our raison d'etre, and just, well, fade into a bland future with no reference to our past, our heritage and our future.  Forget it all and go to Krispy Kreme and get ourselves another slice of another nation's culture, and don't forget to add a down to our Football!


----------



## Neill McKay

FSTO said:
			
		

> I always wondered where the Air Force attained the authority to rename their bases Wings? Another case of the Chief of Air Staff just going ahead and doing it?



I'm not clear on the distinction myself, but my understanding is that Wing and Base are not quite synonymous, e.g. there is still a CFB Greenwood, in addition to the Wing located there.  I believe the Wing is a formation consisting of most of the units on the base.  I hope an air force type comes along to explain the difference.


----------



## Neill McKay

Most of the usual arguments have been made already, but my two cents' worth is:

1. It's a fallacy to equate Royal and British.  Canada has been an independent constitutional monarchy for many years and has done very well as one, with no hint of oppression or even undue influence from the UK.

2. History and heritage are important elements in a military force.  The Royal Canadian Navy fought the Battle of the Atlantic and the Korean War, got itself ready to fight World War III when it looked as if the Cuban Missile Crisis might go pear-shaped, and was a bang-up little (sometimes big) fleet of ships for decades.  The name Maritime Command does nothing to evoke any of this heritage.

3. The cost of changing the name of a military formation, or even creating a new one, is obviously achievable; it's been done several times in the last few years without terrible consequences.

4. Every adult and school kid knows what a navy is.  How many can explain what Maritime Command is?  (Something to do with three small provinces on the east coast, perhaps...?)


----------



## aesop081

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> I'm not clear on the distinction myself, but my understanding is that Wing and Base are not quite synonymous, e.g. there is still a CFB Greenwood, in addition to the Wing located there.  I believe the Wing is a formation consisting of most of the units on the base.  I hope an air force type comes along to explain the difference.



Wing and base are not seperate entities, they are basicaly the same thing......The Wing commander is the "base" comander and the Wing CWO is the "base" CWO. Base operations is called Wing operations as with all other base functions ( Wing supply, wing transport, wing OR.......)


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wing and base are not separate entities, they are basically the same thing......The Wing commander is the "base" commander and the Wing CWO is the "base" CWO. Base operations is called Wing operations as with all other base functions ( Wing supply, wing transport, wing OR.......)


So the sky did not fall when this name change came. The question I have is that is this an order that the Chief of the Air Staff made without going to Parliament? Because we could probably just start calling ourselves the RCN and I would bet dollars to donuts that NOBODY in Parliament would notice. And if they did, there response would be "Were they not always called that?"


----------



## McG

However, an act of Parliament abolished the RCN, RCAF, and Canadian Army.  It was not an act of Parliament that labelled all bases as “CFB.”  Additionally, calling airbases “wings” does not attach the label “Royal.”  Using “Royal” requires royal permission.


----------



## The Monarchist

Royal permission was already granted for the RCN and RCAF by Royal Proclamations that were never revoked. In fact, the Canadian Government and Canadian Forces are bound to use the Royal designation if the "Canadian Navy" and "Canadian Air Force" are ever used in an official capacity.


----------



## The Monarchist

There has been the inevitable service creep back into the lexicon of the CF. This is a key whereas on the draft petition:

AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the fact that the National Defence Act states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces;

...

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be facilitated without replacing Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command, which would continue to be directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively;

If there is a will in the Government, this could easily get done without ruffling too many feathers. I've sent the draft petition to MP Laurie Hawn for his consideration. If you go to his website, he has Royal Canadian Air Force right on there. He's already using the RCAF and he's a member on the Government side!


----------



## FSTO

The Monarchist said:
			
		

> There has been the inevitable service creep back into the lexicon of the CF. This is a key whereas on the draft petition:
> 
> AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the fact that the National Defence Act states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces;
> 
> ...
> 
> AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be facilitated without replacing Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command, which would continue to be directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively;
> 
> If there is a will in the Government, this could easily get done without ruffling too many feathers. I've sent the draft petition to MP Laurie Hawn  for his consideration. If you go to his website, he has Royal Canadian Air Force right on there. He's already using the RCAF and he's a member on the Government side!



On a completely unrelated topic (maybe) now that it seems that Mr O'Connor is on his way out (if you believe the press  : could we see Mr Hawn as the new defence minister? Or has the military had its kick at the can?


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> However, an act of Parliament abolished the RCN, RCAF, and Canadian Army.  It was not an act of Parliament that labelled all bases as “CFB.”  Additionally, calling airbases “wings” does not attach the label “Royal.”  Using “Royal” requires royal permission.



It's important to remember that what's beeing discussed here is not a legal change to the structure of the Forces, but a change in name for Maritime Command and Air Command.


----------



## McG

The Monarchist said:
			
		

> Royal permission was already granted for the RCN and RCAF by Royal Proclamations that were never revoked.





			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> It's important to remember that what's beeing discussed here is not a legal change to the structure of the Forces, but a change in name for Maritime Command and Air Command.


So here is the sticking point, royal permission was given for the two services (the Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Navy) to use the title "Royal."  Those services no longer exist.  An act of Parliament would be required to recreate those services.

There are two commands which perpetuate the functions of the former RCAF and RCN.  However, royal consent has not been given for these commands (not services) to use the title "Royal."

As I see it, the government must restructure the forces or the monarch must grant permission to the new entities.  Either way, Maritime Command and Air Command cannot suddenly start calling themselves "Royal" (as some here have suggested).


----------



## The Monarchist

You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.


----------



## McG

The old services do not exist; there is only the Canadian Armed Forces.  What are you planning to call RCAF and RCN if not Air Command and Maritime Command?


----------



## aesop081

The Monarchist said:
			
		

> You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.



Just what we need...another layer of command


----------



## FSTO

Maybe the mods should lock this one. 
There is a group who think that this idea is tantamount to splitting the CF into separate services and an opposite group who think that this is just a name change that reflects the reality of the situation (see my post of how LFC, MC and AC identify themselves to the public).

The two groups are like the two groups debating our involvement in A-stan, they are entrenched and will never change their opinion.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Maybe the mods should lock this one.


There is no need to lock threads every time there are different opinions.

I'm confused on the position of those that want to bring back RCN and RCAF.  It seems to me that half want to rename Air Command and Maritime Command (this would require royal permission as no previous permission has been given for these commands to use the title "Royal") and another half wants to rename some other intangible.  For this second pro-renaming group, what is it you are re-naming?


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Maybe the mods should lock this one.



i disagree



> There is a group who think that this idea is tantamount to splitting the CF into separate services




Thats not going to happen.  Some people want to return to the old names, thats fine but i still havent heard what it would accomplish.



> and an opposite group who think that this is just a name change that reflects the reality of the situation (see my post of how LFC, MC and AC identify themselves to the public).



Yes, that is how each element portays itself.



> The two groups are like the two groups debating our involvement in A-stan, they are entrenched and will never change their opinion.



So , as a mod, i should shut down that one too ?

The post in this that realy got me is this one :


			
				The Monarchist said:
			
		

> You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.



So, in addition to the expense and trouble of bringing back old titles...that add nothing to operational effectiveness.....This guy wants to add another layer to command the already existing structure ? Please explain to me why that's helpful ?


----------



## time expired

My two cents (euro cents in my case) worth,Unification was an unmitigated disaster! forced upon 
the military by politicians bent on saving more money supported by some very ambitious senior
officers and every step away from it is a step in the right direction.
                                            Regards


----------



## McG

time expired said:
			
		

> Unification was an unmitigated disaster! forced upon the military by politicians bent on saving more money supported by some very ambitious senior officers and every step away from it is a step in the right direction.


I understand it was actually an attempt to make the Canadian military into a more agile & expeditionary fighting force; very much the same thing that the CDS is still moving us toward today.  Institutional inertia cause unification to be a disaster.  While not popular when it happend, reversing unification would not be good for the military today.


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> I understand it was actually an attempt to make the Canadian military into a more agile & expeditionary fighting force;


No, it wasn't. It was merely another Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) scheme to destroy a proud national and military history amd identity and replace it with something bland and meaningless. Destruction of regimental identities was to be part of this - we were supposed to adopt numbered battalions instead.

I think that the Canadian people had a much better understanding of who they were and where they stood in the world before then. I've seen a lot of handwringing and moaning about lack of national identity in the press since then, and such claims as Canadians defining themselves by what they are not (such as Americans) rather than by what they are, because so many no longer know what they are or never new in the first place.

I would place Biggoals2bdone (who I wish would write in proper proper English rather than annoying chatroom abbreviations) in the latter category, as he/she seems to be rather ignorant and dismissive of things that had and have deep and significant meaning and importance to Canadians who, I am quite certain, have spent much more time in this country and contributed much more to it than him/her. He/she seems to be another victim of the cancerous revisionist history that plagues us. Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) would be proud.


----------



## time expired

MCG
    I was fortunate enough to serve in both the pre intergrated and the post intergrated army, and if
what you claim is true then it was an even bigger disaster than I first claimed.In the Combat Arms the 
units lost their Regt. depots training and esprit de corps suffered greatly.Regt. were disbanded and
jammed into the remaining Regiments damaging the integrity of these units.In Combat support
units the Corps were effectively destroyed,ask anyone from RC Sigs or RCEME,and a one fits all
training system installed which degraded training to a very low level.Morale dipped to level I had not
experienced before and retention levels dropped to new lows. I have not even mentioned the hugely 
negative effect the new rank structure had on morale.Only a politician or a senior officer banking on his
next promotion could in anyway sell this as increasing our effectiveness, but it did save a little money,at
least until the new intergrated formation HQs bloated till they were bigger than the separate HQs
they were supposed to replace. 
  In retrospect ,I suppose it could have worked if the people at the top had really had some ideas how
to establish something new and uniquely Canadian, but the ideas were not there as the motivation was
as I mentioned above, and a great chance was lost.
  Sorry about the rant , but you asked.
                                            Regards


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> No, it wasn't. It was merely another Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) scheme to destroy a proud national and military history amd identity


This is most certainly untrue as the Canadian Forces Reorganization Bill was passed in Apr '67 under Pearson (and Defence Minister Hellyer).  Truedeau did not rise to the top of the Liberal party until a full year later.


----------



## The Monarchist

Just to clear up any confusion, we the petitioners are not asking for yet another layer of command, far from it. The fact of the matter is the three services having being making a comeback as of late, all without interrupting the current structures that are in place. Let me remind you that separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure, integrated nature or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces. 

For all who think we are trying to replace MARCOM and AIRCOM or introduce yet another command structure, let me ask the question: Who are the current nominal commanders of the army, air force and navy today? The Commanders of LANDCOM, AIRCOM and MARCOM, that's who. That would not change. If the only way to formalize the navy and air force as RCN and RCAF was through reincorporation of the services, then we would certainly insist that said services would remain subsidiary branches of a tri-service Canadian Forces, and their nominal (or honourary) commanders remain who they are now. So not necessarily reincorporation, but reincorporation if necessary. The bottom line is that the army, navy and air force already de facto exist.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I have a novel idea............lets take all the energy, time and money that has been, and will be, wasted on friggin' names, initials and acronyms and use it to make the Forces we have RIGHT NOW [names and all] the [one]most effective fighting force we can.

I'll take training and bullets, please.......


----------



## RangerRay

My observations:

I've been to Australia and New Zealand.  Both countries have their respective "royal" navies (RAN, RNZN) and air forces (RAAF, RNZAF), as well as retaining the old "British" rank structures and uniforms (with unique national identifiers).  One thing that I've noticed is that in both countries, there is no hand-wringing and whinging about "national identity" or what is and isn't Australian or Kiwi "culture".  Peoples in both countries have a self-assured national awareness.  At most, Kiwis get upset for being confused with Aussies, but they sure don't whinge about "what it means to be Kiwi" or "what makes us different from the Aussies" like we do.

I'm not sure if they are integrated as much as the CF is, but their armed forces are integrated into "defence forces" (ADF, NZDF).  Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can enlighten me as to whether their command and logistical structures are as integrated as ours.

Although Australia came close to adopting their own head-of-state, I think only those on the very fringe-left advocate removing the term "Royal" from the RAAF and RAN, or changing their blue ensign.

Both the Aussies and the Kiwis are very proud of the contributions of their armed services in the past and the present, and are very proud of the royal patronage of their navies and air forces.  ANZAC Day, commemorating the landings in Galipoli, is a larger holiday in both countries than Australia Day and Waitangi Day.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Aussies and Kiwis flock to Turkey every year to pay tribute to those who have fallen.

As well, despite what many may think, populations of both countries are far from being homogenously of "British" decent.  Aside from their respective native communities, both countries have large Eastern European, Pacific Islander and Asian communities.

I suppose the point of this rambling post is just to say that in my opinion, dumping the the "royal" symbols and heritage from our military to be more "Canadian" is a croc.  They were Canadian before, and should the names be re-instated, they will remain Canadian and not be "subserviant" to Britain as some suggest.


----------



## McG

The Monarchist said:
			
		

> LANDCOM, AIRCOM and MARCOM


More background study is required.




			
				The Monarchist said:
			
		

> The bottom line is that the army, navy and air force already de facto exist.


But in reality the old services do not exist.  It is the newer environmental commands using popular language to describe themselves.  Recreating the old services (including the Army) would be neither productive nor helpful (in fact, it would likely problematic and degrade the capabilities of the military).  

It seems you have created a petition to bring back a name, but you cannot even clearly define what will carry that name.  Is it the new environmental command or the old service?


----------



## stealthylizard

We also have to be sensitive to the french part of the country as well.  I don't know about the ones serving in the military, but the civilian sector of French Quebec want nothing to do with Royal part of our history, even going as far as saying that the Queen is not welcome for the 400th anniversary of the found of Quebec.


----------



## FredDaHead

stealthylizard said:
			
		

> We also have to be sensitive to the french part of the country as well.  I don't know about the ones serving in the military, but the civilian sector of French Quebec want nothing to do with Royal part of our history, even going as far as saying that the Queen is not welcome for the 400th anniversary of the found of Quebec.



That's pure unadultered BS. Just because a minority of whiny Frenchies on welfare are saying that doesn't mean the majority of Quebecois believe it. Most just don't care either way; she can come if she wants, doesn't mean they'll be terribly excited about it. If she decides not to come, eh, that's fine, too. Thing is, if HM the Queen didn't come, those same whiny Frenchies who say she's not welcome, would start whining and saying "oh we're not good enough for the queen, uh?" Catch-22.

More to the point: most Quebecois don't really feel that strongly about the military, either way. Sure, a majority don't like wars, but not all of them are ultra-pacifists bent on defanging democracies so tyrannies can take over. Even some of the more anti-war are still proud of what our forces (and mostly, the little Quebecois boys that went overseas) have done in the past, particularly in the World Wars and in Korea. And those protests some groups organize? Most Quebecois care more about the fact that traffic is disturbed than what the protest is about.


----------



## McG

Frederik G,
Be more selective in your choice of words.  From the site guidelines:


			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> You will not post any information that is offensive . . .


----------



## pidd

[size=10pt]As I ponder the debate in this forum, I am reminded of Admiral Andrew Cunningham’s famous remark near Crete, 1941, when he said:  ‘It takes 3 days to build a ship; 300 years to build a tradition’.

It is not surprising to me that there remains a yearning, even after forty years, for a restoration of our country’s service ‘traditions’.  It’s only natural.  Some of what I have to say has been alluded to elsewhere, but I lived through the change and taught Canadian history so this is a bit of an amalgam of thought.

The identity, tradition, history and honours of the RCN, the Canadian Army or RCAF were of absolutely no concern to Paul Hellyer, the Defence Minister, and the minority Liberal government of the time, who set in motion the events that would prove to be near disastrous for our armed forces in the succeeding decades.  Although the recent funding and support afforded the CF is a welcome relief to those of us who care and/or are serving, it would be a mistake to view the whole identity and tradition of the forces that this petition, in part, represents, through the temporary euphoria of new Leopards and public attention, &c.

To put this issue in context, it should be remembered that the initiative by the Liberal government for ‘unification’ was in tandem with the deeply divisive movement in 1964 to adopt a Canadian flag to replace the Canadian Red Ensign.  This was rapidly followed by a number of substantial changes to Canada’s ‘federal’ face revealing the underlying purpose of gradually euthanizing most of Canada’s British associations and historical identity.  The Liberals called it ‘New Canada’ a notion that has its roots in the lingering, simmering, anti-British, anti-monarchy and certainly anti-military sentiment within that party, including the early Reformers like William Lyon MacKenzie; and that had existed in a variety forms before and since confederation.  Whilst the pretense for ‘unification’ was, as others have noted, to permit a more ‘efficient’ and ‘mobile’ force (much as we still hear advocated by NDHQ today) it was really just a part (albeit a huge one) of the larger plan.

Mr. Hellyer, a corporal in the Army during the war, with unfulfilled aspirations to a commission, didn’t like the Royal Canadian Navy at all; especially Admirals whose bearing and manner bore a strong resemblance to those of the Royal Navy from which the RCN was a direct descendant. With the sometimes annoying competition for money and appropriations between the services, Navy, Army and Air Force, the Liberal government of the time saw this as an example of the ‘inefficiency’ and ‘obstruction’ by the military that would be a thorn in the implementation of their ‘defence policy’.

In one fell swoop it was all gone; the admirals and the air marshals became ‘generals’ and they, all the sailors, soldiers and airmen, were put in an ‘off-the-rack’ rifle green uniform with an American pattern.  When the Trudeau government took over, the ‘nail-in-the-coffin occurred when the newly created Canadian Armed Forces was merged in 1974 with the Department of National Defence; thus creating NDHQ (defying the principle of the separation of the command of the armed forces from their political masters) and essentially ‘civilianising’ them.  

The generals thereafter became bureaucrats in the Canadian government creating a top-heavy bloat of ‘paper generals’ and other officers working in a civilian environment. Because the Liberal philosophy was to transform Canada’s military from a ‘fighting force’(whose history in the wars was naturally attached to mother Britain), into a ‘peacekeeping’ force consistent with its ‘defence’ policy, i.e., leftist preferences, the withering of the forces themselves in equipment, personnel and in practically every aspect of military necessity was ignored, neglected and starved.  

The Royal Highland Regiment of Canada (The Black Watch), a unit of seniority, was removed from the regular battalion list.  It took a lot of nerve, considering the profound presence of Highland Scots and their battalions in Canada since the 18th c, but that’s the point: Shovel them into an armoury in Montreal and essentially out of sight of the New image.  This should have been and, indeed ought to be corrected at this time of transformation but they’re not ‘Van Doos’.  You may recall the Chretien government flying in the Van Doos in their scarlets and bearskins for a G-8 conference in Vancouver replacing the planned guard and band of the Seaforth Highlanders (the regiment of Smokey Smith, VC) because, ‘they were not ‘Canadian’ enough.  Read between the lines and you will see the answer, not only to the petition, but to the culture in Ottawa that oversees the CF.
.
In spite of this, it should be noted that the reserve regiments of the former Canadian Army and their strong, loyal veteran’s associations, kept many of their traditions alive and their identities largely intact.  This mattered little to the government because the reserves themselves were so small and ‘insignificant’ that their visibility in terms of the New Canada identity was practically ‘nil’.  Ships, short of sailors, sat in drydock and the CF-18s, bought mainly for NATO ‘show’, deteriorated; even to the extent that in Gulf War I, because their equipment was inadequate, the planes were not able to fully engage the enemy for fear of being too easy a target.

While we lost some of the finest of officers and men because of the devastation, it goes without saying that many of those who subsequently served, particularly in the junior and lower ranks, through these years showed their individual competence and endurance in the field and in the few missions they were permitted to undertake and ought to be credited for contributing to the survival of at least some of the legacy of their forebears in the RCN, the Army and the RCAF.  Certainly, under the command of Generals like Lewis MacKenzie (who was in the Canadian Army) and the current CDS, Rick Hillier, there has been a remarkable, if not, ‘in-your-face’ assertiveness and pride, that resembles that of the armed forces of Canada that they once were.

What emerged, however, was a civilianised, politically-disturbed military organisation and culture. This was reflected not only in lack of recruitment, manpower and equipment but in drill, deportment and discipline; particularly within the ‘chain of command’ bearing no resemblance to the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF.

The sad stories of the ‘Airborne’ as well as of ‘Somalia’ made the headlines, but there was evidence of this on every ship, on every base, in every armoury and in every squadron.  The transformation of the armed services from the crackerjack standards and identity that showed after two world wars, into this new entity, the CF, seems estranged from its past and it shows even in the little things.  Having had their ‘traditions’ stripped from them, the sailors, soldiers and air personnel of the CF appear to have improvised their own; not to be found in the RCN, Army or RCAF but, unfortunately and sadly, in American popular culture.

A simple example of this are the types of ‘salutes’ made by all ranks in the CF that seem fashioned after the model shown in the last American war movie they’ve seen; some are up, some are down, some are flat, some are stiff, some are soft, some have fingers curled and some look like those done by America’s school marching bands but none of them are Navy, Army or Air Force.  While the official Hellyer-ordered unified salute is practically and physiologically impossible to easily execute, the result has degenerated into a ‘make up your own’ style.  Those of the RCN (palms down), the Army and the RCAF (palms up) are simple, dignified and demonstrably uniform throughout the Commonwealth.  Each service asserted itself with its particular salutes and manners, among other things, and, if you didn’t do it properly, you paid for it.  The RCN naturally inherited its salute from the RN that, according to tradition, was established after Queen Victoria, upon reviewing a ship’s crew, thought the sight of the blackened palm facing out quite unsightly so she gently turned the sailor’s hand down. (See Admiral Cunningham, above).  Salutes are expressions, not of personal ‘feelings’, but a part of the discipline and identity of the service; symbols. 

Similarly, I have cringed when having heard young Canadian soldiers yell out the American ‘Hoooah’ just like in the movies like ‘Black Hawk Down’. Like the habit of placing helmets on rifles for the fallen, in imitation of our American friends, it seems that the men and women of our forces, by all accounts, and including the poll here at Army.ca, are thirsty for a tradition with which to identify.  Yet, whilst it is clearly permissible for CF personnel to adopt customs that are not of our tradition, even in popular culture from the USA, it seems ridiculous that it is not allowed to restore the naval, military and air traditions of our own country.  

I returned to my regiment as a chaplain some twenty years ago, having previously served in the battle dress and puttees of the infantry in the pre-unified era.  One day, as I approached the office of the adjutant, to my utter amazement, I saw an unnamed corporal standing inside the parade square, cap off and smoking a cigarette; each of which, to my memory, was an infraction and subject to being put on charge.  When I enquired about this chap, I was told that he was a regular force liaison.  ‘Why isn’t he being disciplined?’ I asked.  ‘Things are different now Padre, he replied. ‘It’s not like it used to be.  We’re more relaxed about that sort of thing’.   I therefore wasn’t surprised some time later when the same fellow, having enjoyed himself too much at an event, was simply ignored after assaulting an officer whilst raving on that the Lieutenant was merely a ‘reserve officer’ and that he, as a Corporal, outranked the officer because he was in the ‘Regs’.  He was not disciplined. That would have gone over big with General Currie. 

This phony division between ‘regulars’ and ‘reserves’ that is, or at least was until very recently, a part of CF culture, was something new to me as well.  Certainly I don’t recall it when I was a private in the Canadian Army reserve.  Perhaps it’s because the memory of the war was still fresh and the Canadian Army that fought the battle consisted mostly of citizen soldiers who kept a strong association with their battalions.  Besides, in this country, the ‘Militia’ has long been particularly regarded as the ‘norm’, from the time that we were colony and as the chief support to the small ‘Regular Army’.  

When the DEU was instituted in the Mulroney era, in response to the same desire that this thread is discussing, it was difficult to watch as someone, somewhere at NDHQ, played a kind of amateurish ‘shell game’.  Instead of restoring updated uniforms of the RCN, the Army and the RCAF, the geniuses at NDHQ came up with stand pat Hellyers and Hellyers in a ‘kind of Air Force blue’ and Navy blue.  In addition, the Land Forces were issued with an unattractive ‘summer’ beige, patterned it seems after that of the U.S. Navy.  Since then, with the odd change here or there, it has remained the same.
Of course, in an attempt to save embarrassment among those serving in Maritime Command, Naval ranks were re-introduced but officers denied, even though some pleaded, the honour of traditional ‘Eliot’s curl’; a feature of the RCN and navies of the Commonwealth.  It was an obvious slur to Air Command that their ranks were not restored to the Canadian and Commonwealth tradition but then they are still largely ignored.  They were tossed the bone of a ‘wedge cap’; not in addition to, but replacing the officers’ cap.  It all brought new meaning to the old phrase paraphrased: 
‘There’s something about a man in DEU!’  Good grief.

There have been other ad hoc changes that have virtually restored something of an identity for a Navy, Army and Air Force but they do not rely upon the Canadian tradition and heraldic principles from whence they were supposedly derived. The ‘naval ensign’ and ‘new crest’ appear to be more like that of a Canadian Yacht Club than the fighting naval force of what once was the third largest navy in the world, the RCN.  My brother, a former pilot on HMCS Bonaventure, our last aircraft carrier, continues to shake his head in disbelief.   Well, at least they got the white part right.  I note that the new CF Army crest, clearly not quite as dignified as the Canadian Army crest with three maple leaves surmounted by the Crown, has one huge leaf and the Crown is gone. (although the sticker I received from Army.ca when I subscribed shows the Crown, you won’t find it on a CF site).  

To those who suggest that this is all piffle, I would ask:
Why then bother making any changes, such as those above, if it is so unimportant?
For those who don’t want the restoration of the names, what harm could it possibly do for sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to be able to instantly identify with their forebears whose achievements in war in each service afford them their true legacy…not to mention that of their country?

To underscore the point somewhat, yesterday the Sea Cadets were out fundraising in our area and they looked very smart in their uniforms with their chevrons and the like.  They were all quite enthusiastic about being Cadets and said that they had learned a lot.  I asked them if they knew their official march, the march of the ‘Navy’, i.e., Maritime C.
They just stared.  Thought they knew it but couldn’t remember.  When I mentioned to their relief that it is ‘Heart of Oak’, they responded, ‘Oh, yeah, I think we’ve heard of that’.  Then I asked them if they knew why their uniforms were different from those of the Army and Air Cadets.  Their eyes went blank.  Didn’t know.  At that point, a young lady told me, ‘Sir, we just do things we don’t need to know why we do them’.

In a way, that sums up the culture that underlies the issue: the estrangement and gradual indifference towards the intentional erasure or historical revision of Canadian service symbols and tradition and replaced by the minds of politically-motivated bureaucrats.

I cannot think of any other country that would abide the outright, public denial of a commission oath by an officer in its armed services.  Yet, in Canada, the country that Mark Steyn once noted is ‘the only country in the world that celebrates its heritage by abolishing it,’ an officer who teaches at the Royal Military College is permitted to defy the Sovereign authority from whom his commission is given.  Why this man has not been cashiered is very telling and speaks directly to the lack of seriousness with which Canada takes its actual (as opposed to invented) heritage and symbols of authority.

If DND and the brass were to proudly restore the names, ranks and discipline of the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF, it would be something close to a miracle; although I don't doubt at all that there are senior officers and perhaps others who have enormous respect for those traditions and would delight in the gesture.  There was a time when I thought it was realistically possible and that the horrors of the political culture of the CF could be put behind us.  It is, however, very powerful and deeply entrenched within the Federal bureaucracy.

Such a restoration would not affect, in any way whatsoever, the unified command structure of the CF which would remain the same; just as getting the sailors out of Hellyer green didn’t re-write QR&O.  Certainly, it would be a logical step to much of what has been done already and there is absolutely no practical reason or principle not to do it.  

Perhaps, if the government introduced legislation to revoke the disastrous 1974 amalgamation of the Ministry of Defence with the Armed Forces and eliminate the political and civilianised culture that prevails, the breath of fresh air that would result might afford all ranks the benefit of re-discovering their service identities and act as a catalyst both for morale and the increasing needs of recruitment.

How ironic it is for a country that perpetuates the mythology of ‘the birth of a nation’ from the instance of one battle could in the same breath turn so readily away from the tradition that event so dramatically produced in establishing an independent Royal Canadian Navy, a Canadian Army with its own regiments and corps, and the Royal Canadian Air Force that acquitted itself so magnificently in the second world war.  How much easier it is, now that the generations that brilliantly showed the world their services and traditions are passing, to dismiss their heritage.  Surely, the distinction that each of these traditions established deserves its place in the CF.

With apologies for the length:  3 days, and 300 years, indeed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Good post, however,
you say "forefathers", well to me at least two generations [career years] have served under the present system.......................are they not the "forefathers" to someone joining today?

Or is "forefather" only appropriate when discussing the British roots?


----------



## pidd

Bruce:

The term I used was 'forebears' and your reply underscores the issue of identity that this debate addresses which is to restore something of the continuity of the contemporary forces with those of their foundation.
Of course those who served in the '70's and onwards are forebearers of the generation serving today but the implication of the cultural revolution was to cut off those who went before them.  That's not only intellectually dishonest, it is a disservice to those who continue to serve whose legacy, so devastatingly stripped from them by some of their more immediate forebears they have a right to celebrate and inherit.

The 'present system' to which you refer has already undergone a number of changes since unification; most of which point to the distinction of services and euphamistically called 'elements'.  The restoration of some titles and ranks have already established a pattern that points to a logical conclusion.

As for the 'British' side of things, well, that ought to be something to be proud of given that a large part of what we are today is because of what we were as a Dominion, culturally and militarily.  I would suggest that General Georges P. Vanier is a forebear who demonstrates the authenticity of that.  To embrace one's heritage, legacy, tradition and foundation oughtn't to imply a denial of the virtues of those who follow.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pidd said:
			
		

> Of course those who served in the '70's and onwards are forebearers of the generation serving today but the implication of the cultural revolution was to cut off those who went before them.  That's not only intellectually dishonest, it is a disservice to those who continue to serve whose legacy, so devastatingly stripped from them by some of their more immediate forebears they have a right to celebrate and inherit.



Well, to use your template, since I only served under unification, to make it something else could be concieved as 
 " devastatingly stripped" from myself and those in my place.

You don't like that it happened to you, but to make it happen to me somehow seems OK to you?


----------



## time expired

PIDD 
       Great post ,in a nutshell.Bruce your missing the point,its not British roots they are CANADIAN
roots, maybe soon of the symbols derived from the Imperial Army but everyone who served under
stood what made us distinctive from the Brits., the Brits.certainly did. When I enlisted in 1958 we
were introduced to traditions that connected us directly to those CANADIAN soldiers who covered themselves
in glory on Vimy Ridge.After Unification my Corp was destroyed to be replaced by a "branch" I was given
a hatbadge that meant nothing and was uniformed in the grand tradition of the Texaco gas jockey.
Only the fact that I was being posted back to Germany kept me from chucking the whole thing,plenty 
of my friends did,.One had to have experience these traumatic events to realize what was lost.
                             Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

time expired said:
			
		

> After Unification my Corp was destroyed to be replaced by a "branch" I was given
> a hatbadge that meant nothing and was uniformed in the grand tradition of the Texaco gas jockey.
> Only the fact that I was being posted back to Germany kept me from chucking the whole thing,plenty
> of my friends did,.One had to have experience these traumatic events to realize what was lost.



...and now that at least two cycles have served and gone under the hat badge "that meant nothing" to you but maybe everything to them, again I must ask, it seems OK to you to do the same thing too them that disgusted you so much before?


----------



## pidd

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Well, to use your template, since I only served under unification, to make it something else could be concieved as
> " devastatingly stripped" from myself and those in my place.
> 
> You don't like that it happened to you, but to make it happen to me somehow seems OK to you?



I'm sorry that you seem to be taking my analysis personally; no offence intended.
I don't understand you're complaint.  I'll try to clarify my point.
That the services were devastatingly stripped from top to bottom, in support, equipment, identity, the whole nine yards, for all ranks, in every 'element' and in every place, is a blaring historical fact attested to by many of those who have served, like you, in the four decades since unification.
You seem to infer that because one didn't know or experience the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF, somehow they are irrelevant to those now serving in the CF when, obviously, all the interest, searching, and recently 'restored' titles, ranks, and uniforms demonstrate the opposite.
Of course there are some who believe that the CF as it was constituted, or is constituted, or as it is in process, should not restore the traditions or titles of the services that preceded them but then, that's the issue and has been the issue for many who've worn the Hellyer Green.
Of course one takes pride in the service one has had attached to the symbols, badges, etc. that were worn.
Restoring some of what was lost doesn't take away from what was added.  It needn't be exclusive.  
I once had a conversation with a 'General' in Ottawa back in the 80's who remarked:  'We don't have to undo the good things we've accomplished but I wish we could have our bloody identities back and I'm not a General!'  Another officer piped in: 'They won't allow it'.
I have wondered who 'they' were....and why they were 'they'.


----------



## RangerRay

+10 Pidd.  Excellent post.

As one who has known and served only in the post-unification order, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  When I was in, I felt that there was a disconnect between ourselves in the present, and our past.


----------



## McG

pidd said:
			
		

> I note that the new CF Army crest, clearly not quite as dignified as the Canadian Army crest with three maple leaves surmounted by the Crown, has one huge leaf and the Crown is gone.


That is not the LFC crest.  What you have seen is a “logo.” It is used by people that want the Canadian public to some how identify with the image.  While I suspect you and I both disagree with the use of this unofficial logo, you are in fact a support of the people who choose to use this image.  It is the people that use the logo that also use the term “Army” on official websites in order to make those sites more identifiable to average Canadians.  The catalyst that has brought “Navy” back into popular usage is the same that is pushing away references to “Royal.”  Here is the real LFC crest:









			
				pidd said:
			
		

> what harm could it possibly do for sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to be able to instantly identify with their forebears whose achievements in war in each service afford them their true legacy…not to mention that of their country?


Sailors, soldiers and airmen/women are able to instantly identify with their forebears.  An organization does not need to perpetually maintain the same name for this.  Consider the NWMP to the RCMP of today.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> it would be a mistake to view the whole identity and tradition of the forces that this petition, in part, represents, through the temporary euphoria of new Leopards and public attention, &c.


This is a bit of a red herring as I’ve seen no post suggesting that new leopards are a factor in devining the identity of the Canadian military.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> The identity, tradition, history and honours of the RCN, the Canadian Army or RCAF were of absolutely no concern to Paul Hellyer, the Defence Minister, and the minority Liberal government of the time, who set in motion the events that would prove to be near disastrous for our armed forces in the succeeding decades.


Your article goes on to mix integration, unification and civilianization into one homogeneous disaster.  Civilianization was bad for the forces and it still is not doing us any good.  However, the unification (as it has evolved today) is good for our military.  In fact one lost element of unification that we should consider brining back is the establishment of helicopter units within Maritime Command and Land Force Command (Mobile Command back then) – let Air Command keep the schools and management of the occupations though.  There is no reason to go back to the old services.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> Such a restoration would not affect, in any way whatsoever, the unified command structure of the CF which would remain the same


So, going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Not taking it personally at all. I just find it rather sad that you cry about what was "lost" and yet seem to have no problem doing it to others. What about the Navy guy right now whom likes being called "General"?   Maybe that's not important though.......


Since I've became a Correctional Officer the name of whom we work for has changed several times,[ actually just opened another window to get our present 'handle'] and I feel no "disconnect" with past CO's. 
Spend the money on training and bullets........


----------



## FSTO

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Not taking it personally at all. I just find it rather sad that you cry about what was "lost" and yet seem to have no problem doing it to others. What about the Navy guy right now whom likes being called *"General"?   *  Maybe that's not important though.......
> 
> 
> Since I've became a Correctional Officer the name of whom we work for has changed several times,[ actually just opened another window to get our present 'handle'] and I feel no "disconnect" with past CO's.
> Spend the money on training and bullets........



The Unification rank names had a very short shelf life for the Navy. It wasn't long after Hellyer left the Ministry that the Naval rank names returned.


----------



## time expired

MCG
      Unification,integration and civilianization are tied to each other and all happened as a direct result
of the P. Hellyer unification plan.Incidentally the army had its AOP and Recce Flts.with fixed wing A/C
and latter helicopters before unification and only lost them after unification took effect. 
                                        Regards


----------



## McG

time expired said:
			
		

> Unification, integration and civilianization are tied to each other and all happened as a direct result of the P. Hellyer unification plan.


Civilianization (1972) was Trudeau’s work.  Unification (1967) and Integration (1964) were Hellyer & Pearson.  These are not the same thing.

However, you are correct that it was integration (not unification) that brought air assets into Mobile Command.  It was the creation of Air Command (1975) that took that away.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/57811/post-531802.html#msg531802


----------



## time expired

MCG
      I humbly suggest to you that all these "ations" were interconnected and that one would 
have not happened without the other,given the mind set of the Liberal gov. of the time.This
mind set was eloquently laid out in PIDD`s post.I arrived in Germany in 1963 and I am sure 
that the L19s of the AOP and the Bell Nomad helicopters of Recce Sqn.,flown incidentally by Army
pilots,were not a figure of my imagination.This was well before integration.
     Bruce M. this hatbadge that meant nothing to me meant nothing to anyone else either,as 
immediately after it was introduced a battle started to" bring back the horse" RCEME,this was finally
accomplished in the late 70s.The fight to retrieve the Corps from the branch was less successfully
however and,at least until I left in 1983 not much of the RCEME tradition had been retained.Also I 
would like to bring your attention to the results of the poll,either the majority of the pollists are all
dinosaurs like me or some of the younger members feel there is something to be said for the
traditional formations.
                            Regards


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

..and whereas I would say,[ and of course, just my opinion] that the "younger members" have more important things to worry about than wasting more of their too precious time with resewing, repainting, or rewhatevering some old initials that they haven't served under anyways. 
..and a very quick beruse of this thread seems to bear that out, it would appear most of the presentally serving members are of that opinion also.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I am proud of my naval service and Its the great people you work with everyday that makes it a great organization having or not having the Royal designation does not make one iota of difference in that pride.


----------



## pidd

MCG said:
			
		

> _That is not the LFC crest.  What you have seen is a “logo.” It is used by people that want the Canadian public to some how identify with the image.  While I suspect you and I both disagree with the use of this unofficial logo, you are in fact a support of the people who choose to use this image.  It is the people that use the logo that also use the term “Army” on official websites in order to make those sites more identifiable to average Canadians.  The catalyst that has brought “Navy” back into popular usage is the same that is pushing away references to “Royal.”  Here is the real LFC crest:_
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.  It's unfortunate that a portion of the crest is used as a 'logo' and so contributes to the confusion.
> 
> _Sailors, soldiers and airmen/women are able to instantly identify with their forebears.  An organization does not need to perpetually maintain the same name for this.  Consider the NWMP to the RCMP of today.
> This is a bit of a red herring as I’ve seen no post suggesting that new leopards are a factor in devining the identity of the Canadian military._
> 
> I have to disagree.  For a long time now, there are many who 'feel' that the Forces are reduced to 'choosing' between 'bullets & bolts' and tradition.  Now that the Forces are finally beginning to be shown some respect by the government in terms of equipment and recruitment, it is very easy for one to then disregard the stuff in the military that has been equally dismissed or ignored.  As for the NWMP, then RoyalNWMP, then RoyalCMP...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.
> 
> _Your article goes on to mix integration, unification and civilianization into one homogeneous disaster.  Civilianization was bad for the forces and it still is not doing us any good.  However, the unification (as it has evolved today) is good for our military.  In fact one lost element of unification that we should consider brining back is the establishment of helicopter units within Maritime Command and Land Force Command (Mobile Command back then) – let Air Command keep the schools and management of the occupations though.  There is no reason to go back to the old services._
> 
> Yes, there is a direct connection between the stages of the dismantling and isolation of the Canadian Armed Forces from unification through to civilianisation that occurred under Defence Minister Donald MacDonald in 1974.  The notion of a 'unified command' structure with interchangable units is not unique to Canada.  This was being explored and reviewed with some intensity by the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF in the fifties.  It was largely a product of the 'wisdom' learned from the strategies employed during the second world war since the disastrous raid on Dieppe sent everyone back to the drawing board.  Unification of command and control is a 'no-brainer' and is largely embraced by the militaries of most of our allies.  The abolishing of the services themselves, however, is a corollary decision whose motives had absolutely nothing to do with unification per se.  It was politically driven.  Even Hellyer, a few years ago, acknowledged that it was a mistake to change the identities of the Navy, Army and Air Force and that if he had to do it over again he would not have 'changed the uniforms'.  He acknowledged that the results were disastrous for morale.
> The civilianisation, i.e., politicisation of the Canadian military, continues to plague the ability of the Armed Forces to govern themselves through the confusion of roles that the brass are required to play.
> *I have not suggested anywhere that we 'go back' to the old service structure*.  Rather, I do support the restoration of the identities of the RCN, Canadian Army and the RCAF within the unified forces that, as I have indicated, even Hellyer admits was a blunder.  Indeed, for the most part over the past few years, this has been done in all but name.
> 
> _So, going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?_
> 
> The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
> There is pride in a name as you well know and, just as that pride is ever-present with the name of the RCR and other units of the 'Army', so it should be for our sailors and air crews.  It would not alter the mobility or command of the CF one iota but it might, I suggest, enhance morale and provide an impetus in recruiting.


----------



## pidd

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ..and whereas I would say,[ and of course, just my opinion] that the "younger members" have more important things to worry about than wasting more of their too precious time with resewing, repainting, or rewhatevering some old initials that they haven't served under anyways.
> ..and a very quick beruse of this thread seems to bear that out, it would appear most of the presentally serving members are of that opinion also.



Are these the same 'younger members' who complain about the waste of time in sewing on their patches and chevrons that they've earned?  In addition, why bother with fiddling with all those ribbons and medals for useless parades when there are so many more important things to do.  And what do those guys lying in the ground have to do with me?  They weren't CF.  We should just move on. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the 'Horse' in the RCHA...the CF doesn't use horses.  It should be just GunsCanada.  All that old stuff just distracts us from doing our jobs.


----------



## pidd

There appears to be a disconnect with some in understanding the importance of symbols, titles, and the like in the military that are built over time and made hallow by those whose service created them; commonly called 'Tradition'.

By way of illustration, I thought of a contemporary ficticious scenario that might assist in appreciating why there is such depth of loyalty, feeling and even resentment among many for what has occurred with our armed forces.
It has been suggested that those who serve with the CF identify only with those symbols, etc. that are in current use.  Imagine the following:

_The new government announced today that the identity and role of the CF as it has been is not in keeping with the philosophy and defence policy that it wants to project to the world.  Committed to disarmement, re-construction of the Third World, and World Peace, it has decided that the CF should reflect the values it embraces.

Henceforth, all regiments and corps of the Land Forces will be amalgamated into one to be called, 'SoldiersCanada'.  There will be no more distinctions between branches or functions.  All will be one.
All the Colours, Queen's and Regimental, will be replaced with one flag to be carried by SoldiersCanada on parade.  This flag, made of green, bio-degradable hemp, reflects the identity and principles of Canada's peacekeepers.  Emblazoned in the centre is the symbol of peace in the colours of the rainbow to reflect Canada's commitment to diversity, tolerance, affirmative action and gender indifference.
The new motto for SoldiersCanada is, 'Forget. Forgive. Social Justice'.






  The New Colour






 A traditional Regimental Colour with battle honours.

All soldiers will wear the new cap badge with the symbol of peace and maple leaf.

Betty LeMay, the newly-appointed Minister of National Peace, stated that there will no longer be 'Defence' forces but 'Peace Forces'.  'It is time to turn our backs on the war-mongering years in which the Canadian Forces were used as imperial oppressors against humanity.

It has been reported that upon this announcement, General Kitchener Byng, the Chief of the Defence Staff, a veteran of many campaigns, has submitted his resignation along with most of the members of his staff.  Other senior officers, including those currently engaged in combat, have also indicated that they will resign.
Sources have learned that upon being told of the changes, General Byng went into a rage and blasted the government for 'betraying everything that the CF has stood for and paid with their blood!'

It has also been revealed that, in addition to the changes within the soon-to-be former army, the navy will be identified as 'SeaCanada' and the air force as 'FlightCanada' whose crests will also be changed from their ensigns to the new Peace Forces flag.

'Because military uniforms are intimidating and carry with them the baggage of imperialism and war, all Peace Force personnel will be issued new DCD, i.e., Designated Civilian Dress, with trousers and shirts in rainbow colours and consisting primarily of natural fibres.

There are indications that other changes will come as the story develops.
_

As preposterous as this scenario might seem, the abolishing of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, with their uniforms, traditions and esprit de corps was as devastating to most of those serving at the time as I suggest the above would be to those who serve now...if one can possible appreciate the signficance of 'just a name'.


----------



## McG

pidd said:
			
		

> As for the NWMP, then RoyalNWMP, then RoyalCMP...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.


You’ve fully ignored my point.  If different name prevents one from identifying with one’s past, then the RCMP cannot possibly identify with the RNWMP.  I think you know this is simply not true, and I think just about every Canadian is aware of this link.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> … there is a direct connection between the stages of the dismantling and isolation of the Canadian Armed Forces from unification through to civilianisation that occurred under Defence Minister Donald MacDonald in 1974.


It was different governments implementing different things.  You are not asking to undo civilianization so lamenting its horrors is really a red herring in your argument.  You are just asking to throw a couple of old names back into the still civilianized CF.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> I have not suggested anywhere that we 'go back' to the old service structure


Iknow, but . . . 





			
				pidd said:
			
		

> .. going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
Click to expand...

Could you just answer the question Mr Politician?  You don’t want to bring back the old service and call it RCN.  You don’t want to rename Maritime Command to RCN.  You want the name.  What entity will have that name?

You keep referring to the RCR.  Well, even the RCR have a regimental headquarters.




			
				pidd said:
			
		

> It would not alter the mobility or command of the CF one iota but it might, I suggest, enhance morale and provide an impetus in recruiting.


It will do nothing for recruiting.  The CF is already using the logo-name “Navy” for Maritime Command, and it is hiding the crown in other graphic logos.  Anyone that would be drawn by the name change is already being drawn by the “logo-name.”


----------



## The Monarchist

Thank you, Pidd, for making the case, and for making it brilliantly! Your work is done here, sir. If you can't convince the minority now, convince the minority you will not. But a splendid effort indeed in attempting the impossible.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Iknow, but . . . The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.Could you just answer the question Mr Politician?  *You don’t want to bring back the old service and call it RCN.  You don’t want to rename Maritime Command to RCN. *   You want the name.  What entity will have that name?
> 
> You keep referring to the RCR.  Well, even the RCR have a regimental headquarters.
> 
> It will do nothing for recruiting.  The CF is already using the logo-name “Navy” for Maritime Command, and it is hiding the crown in other graphic logos.  Anyone that would be drawn by the name change is already being drawn by the “logo-name.”



I want to rename Maritime Command with Royal Canadian Navy. And while we are at it I'll take the Cyclones and their personnel as well. I'll paint Navy on the Stbd side and Marine on the port.

In addition, the Ensign of the Indian Navy which hasn't lost its national character with the retention of its historical roots.


----------



## Neill McKay

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I have a novel idea............lets take all the energy, time and money that has been, and will be, wasted on friggin' names, initials and acronyms and use it to make the Forces we have RIGHT NOW [names and all] the [one]most effective fighting force we can.
> 
> I'll take training and bullets, please.......



The thing is, we're not talking about very much energy, time, or money.  For the trade-off you mightn't get any more than an extra five minutes of classroom time and half a magazine of C-7 ammunition.

But, besides that, it interests me that people who complain about the time involved in these discussions still manage to find the time to be involved in these discussions...


----------



## Blackadder1916

> I was recently on a course in San Diego and my certificate stated that I was from the RCN, evidently the Americans (and many others) still regard us as the Royal Canadian Navy.



I would take what a foreign military calls us with a grain of salt.  I was once introduced at a conference by a USAF BGen as being a member of (despite what it clearly stated in my bio) Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Forces Medical Corps.


----------



## FSTO

blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I would take what a foreign military calls us with a grain of salt.  I was once introduced at a conference by a USAF BGen as being a member of (despite what it clearly stated in my bio) Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Forces Medical Corps.



Oh I know that what they say carries little weight. It's just interesting to note that we have been called the CF internally for over 40 years and our allies still call us by our old names.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pidd said:
			
		

> . And while we're at it, let's get rid of the 'Horse' in the RCHA...the CF doesn't use horses.  It should be just GunsCanada.  All that old stuff just distracts us from doing our jobs.



Did that [got rid of the Horse] when I went to 'W' Bty for my last two years..........big hairy deal.  Call us WTF you want, just keep us trained enough to excel and, God willing, survive the next encounter.........everything else is ego stroking or some strange thinking that if we call everything "Royal" we may yet see Britannica rule the world again. :


----------



## pidd

_Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare._


----------



## FredDaHead

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> we may yet see Britannica rule the world again.



Will we go back to being an Empire, too? If so, why don't we get the Imperial Navy instead of the RCN? The former would sound so much scarier than the latter!


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> And while we are at it I'll take the Cyclones and their personnel as well. I'll paint Navy on the Stbd side and Marine on the port.



Oh yeah...one of my favorite all-time ideas...let people who do have a clue how to employ aviation asset ( read canadian navy) control either the Cyclones or the Aurora  :


----------



## Michael OLeary

pidd said:
			
		

> _Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare._



So, does this mean we should, or shouldn't, repeat the "mistake" of a name change to please a few?


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh I know that what they say carries little weight. It's just interesting to note that we have been called the CF internally for over 40 years and our allies still call us by our old names.



And even though i have a Canadian Flag clearly afixed to my uniform, i still get asked what country i am from when i'm in the US.  I dont see how your observation is relevant.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> _Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare._



Ooooooh.....latin.......thats it, i'm convinced  :


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oh yeah...one of my favorite all-time ideas...let people who do  have a clue how to employ aviation asset ( read canadian navy) control either the Cyclones or the Aurora  :



I take from the tone that you ment to say do not have a clue?

Also I never said the Aurora, only the rotor heads since it appears that the folks at CAS couldn't care less about the Sea King squardrons.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> I take from the tone that you ment to say do not have a clue?



Good catch...guess the Brain-finger interface was out of sync......again !!



> Also I never said the Aurora, only the rotor heads since it appears that the folks at CAS couldn't care less about the Sea King squardrons.



How so ?


----------



## warrickdll

I know I’m being selective in my quotes, but.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> ...
> What emerged, however, was a civilianised, politically-disturbed military organisation and culture. This was reflected not only in lack of recruitment, manpower and equipment but in drill, deportment and discipline; particularly within the ‘chain of command’ bearing no resemblance to the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF.
> ...
> Having had their ‘traditions’ stripped from them, the sailors, soldiers and air personnel of the CF appear to have improvised their own; not to be found in the RCN, Army or RCAF but, unfortunately and sadly, in American popular culture.
> ...
> Like the habit of placing helmets on rifles for the fallen, in imitation of our American friends, it seems that the men and women of our forces, by all accounts, and including the poll here at Army.ca, are thirsty for a tradition with which to identify.  Yet, whilst it is clearly permissible for CF personnel to adopt customs that are not of our tradition, even in popular culture from the USA, it seems ridiculous that it is not allowed to restore the naval, military and air traditions of our own country.
> ...
> I returned to my regiment as a chaplain some twenty years ago, having previously served in the battle dress and puttees of the infantry in the pre-unified era.  One day, as I approached the office of the adjutant, to my utter amazement, I saw an unnamed corporal standing inside the parade square, cap off and smoking a cigarette; each of which, to my memory, was an infraction and subject to being put on charge.  When I enquired about this chap, I was told that he was a regular force liaison.  ‘Why isn’t he being disciplined?’ I asked.  ‘Things are different now Padre, he replied. ‘It’s not like it used to be.  We’re more relaxed about that sort of thing’.   I therefore wasn’t surprised some time later when the same fellow, having enjoyed himself too much at an event, was simply ignored after assaulting an officer whilst raving on that the Lieutenant was merely a ‘reserve officer’ and that he, as a Corporal, outranked the officer because he was in the ‘Regs’.  He was not disciplined. That would have gone over big with General Currie.
> ...
> If DND and the brass were to proudly restore the names, ranks and discipline of the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF, it would be something close to a miracle; although I don't doubt at all that there are senior officers and perhaps others who have enormous respect for those traditions and would delight in the gesture.  There was a time when I thought it was realistically possible and that the horrors of the political culture of the CF could be put behind us.  It is, however, very powerful and deeply entrenched within the Federal bureaucracy.






			
				pidd said:
			
		

> ...
> ...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.
> ...
> The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
> ...





And now, to quote myself from a similar thread (that went somewhat off-topic).

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670/post-347006.html#msg347006


			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> The problem is the history isn't long enough to see how things are allowed to change - and you take the traditions and customs that make sense. The RN has a long history, so it is apparent that they didn't stick with bare-feet, straw hats, tarred pigtails, men-only dancing, sails, the list is extensive on what the RN does not do that at one time it did. Our navy only sees 100 years, and all of it in the 20th or 21st centuries, so it has a hard time conceiving of the fact that things do change. Time and circumstances have made the RCN an anachronism - not a tradition.
> 
> If you feel there is something wrong with the navy it won’t be something wearing wide-legged pants is going to solve.
> ...



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39670.75.html


			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...
> The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.
> ...





The Navy was "Royal" for only about 60% of its existence, and the Air Force - about 50%. The depth of this particular tradition is a little shallow compared to the extent of our common history.

The names of organizations and ranks, the colours and styles of uniforms and flags, have all changed over time because of fashion, fad, and fickleness. Today's popular military trends should not be dismissed just because they are different from the earlier popular trends of the "Victorian Dandy" or "Boy's Own" type.

As for the "Royal" part of regimental/branch/element names - those that are "Royal" are no more prestigious than those that are not.

The point being that "Royal" will not solve any of the problems that are being suggested.








			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> ...
> In addition, the Ensign of the Indian Navy which hasn't lost its national character with the retention of its historical roots.
> ...




Just a small point but, whatever the non-Royal Indian Navy does or doesn't do will probably sway no one (and combining an English flag with a Canadian flag to represent the Navy is just an ugly idea).





			
				Neill McKay said:
			
		

> The thing is, we're not talking about very much energy, time, or money.  For the trade-off you mightn't get any more than an extra five minutes of classroom time and half a magazine of C-7 ammunition.
> ...



I agree - there is nothing prohibitive about the cost. I just think that the concept of one service was a brilliant idea (if poorly enacted), and that the current situation of the less-than-substantive Army, Navy, and Air Force, is the correct nod to the past services.

What I would prefer to see would be more continuation of lineages for ships, squadrons, and regiments beyond the inception dates of the Army, RCN, and RCAF, and of the Canadian personnel who served directly in the British services.


_Edit: Fixed Links_


----------



## Neill McKay

Iterator said:
			
		

> The Navy was "Royal" for only about 60% of its existence, and the Air Force - about 50%. The depth of this particular tradition is a little shallow compared to the extent of our common history.



Fair comment -- but, in the case of the navy, it was the 60 per cent in which it made its name.  Nothing since 1968 compares to the Battle of the Atlantic, e.g.

But to really understand naval tradition, you can't start the clock in 1910.  You have to look back much farther, because the heritage of the Royal Navy is also the heritage of the Canadian navy.  For a very small example, if I drink to "absent friends" on Sunday that's not a 90-year-old tradition; it's something much older.  The real poke in the eye when the navy ceased to be Royal was as much about a mean-spirited throwing away of heritage simply for the sake of throwing away heritage (coupled with a large dose of Anglophobia).  Just as a teenager tries to reject as much of what his parents stand for as he can, Canada played the part of the petulant teenager.  We're still doing it now, with things like the abandonment of the centuries-old system of Commonwealth battle honours and a change to many of the similarly venerable toasts of the day.



> Just a small point but, whatever the non-Royal Indian Navy does or doesn't do will probably sway no one (and combining an English flag with a Canadian flag to represent the Navy is just an ugly idea).



What they've done (and other countries have done the same thing) is to take the naval ensign under which their ships sailed and replace the Union Jack therein with their own country's flag.  It's not a matter of combining an English symbol with one of their own, but of taking the flag they'd been using for decades and making it more of their own while keeping a tie to the past.  I think it's a decent compromise that respects their heritage while preventing their being mistaken for the British.


----------



## warrickdll

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> ...
> What they've done (and other countries have done the same thing) is to take the naval ensign under which their ships sailed and replace the Union Jack therein with their own country's flag.  It's not a matter of combining an English symbol with one of their own, but of taking the flag they'd been using for decades and making it more of their own while keeping a tie to the past.  I think it's a decent compromise that respects their heritage while preventing their being mistaken for the British.



While I can agree (and clearly the Indian Navy does) that the "English" portion can be viewed strictly a "Royal fill-in-the-blank Navy" standard, I actually think the red Canadian flag would look ugly in the canton.


----------



## FredDaHead

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Just as a teenager tries to reject as much of what his parents stand for as he can, Canada played the part of the petulant teenager.  We're still doing it now, with things like the abandonment of the centuries-old system of Commonwealth battle honours and a change to many of the similarly venerable toasts of the day.



I think the change in toasts of the day isn't so much that we want to throw away all that is British, but rather goes with the flow of overly politically correct speech pervasive in the government today, much like the change from fireman to fireperson, for example.


----------



## Infanteer

I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?



How about giving us back our Royal title  ;D


----------



## RangerRay

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?



Sounds like a hell of a deal!  :cheers:


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?



I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course you should be in scarlets for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....


----------



## The Monarchist

SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!

Go to the Petition Blog and follow the link to the online petition. Spread the word; tell all your friends and family.

http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com

Is there a way to put this message at the top?


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course you should be in scarlets for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....



+1!


----------



## Michael OLeary

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course *you should be in scarlets* for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....



I don't suppose you'd throw in public money for those scarlets, would you?


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

The Monarchist said:
			
		

> SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!
> 
> Go to the Petition Blog and follow the link to the online petition. Spread the word; tell all your friends and family.
> 
> http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com
> 
> Is there a way to put this message at the top?



Done and sent to some buddies to sign too.... 

for Michael...absolutely should be at public expense for the dress scarlets for initial issue....then same as the other uniforms replaced through point system when in need.


----------



## Center_Right_newfie

As many of you allready know there is a petition to rename Air Command and Maritime Command the RCAF and RCN.For those who aren't aware of it, the petition is at gopetition.com. Just type in RCAF or RCN. You can also go to http://www.rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com , and work your way from there. Remember to tell others of this too.

The main reason I've posted this is to get more members in my "reinstate the RCN and RCAF" group on facebook. I've made this facebook group in support of the petition. If you have facebook , please join, and/or if you can, tell others of the facebook group..


----------



## Center_Right_newfie

Damn straight it should be changed back. It's all good that the forces were unified, as they should work together, but everything else they did was wrong, including dropping "royal" from the names. Re-adding "royal" would give back the reminder of tradition and pride to the navy and airforce. It was pointless in the first place to take royal out, and it was, quite frankly, a pointless and stupid endevaur


----------



## ModlrMike

It looks fairly simple to me.

Current NDA:

14.  The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.

New NDA:

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force.

Done! From my perspective, a dirt simple amendment to the NDA. We don't have to reinstate these services, just reintroduce the traditional names. No changes to the CF structure, operations, management, etc needs to change. In essence, we set the clock back to where it should have been in 1968 when Mr Hellyer should have stopped. IMHO, from reading the history of the time, was that the main dis-satisfaction with unification was not the unification itself, but rather the lack of distinct identities of the three services.

I find this quote from the blogspot instructive:

"I am an active member of the federal Conservative Party. At our 2005 policy conference my defence policy resolution made it to the floor. It included the return of the RCN/RCAF titles of the element commands. It was defeated with the help of the current MND. Good luck though!"

There aren't many low cost, essentially free methods to instill esprit-de-corps, and this is one we should embrace.


----------



## Ontario

If the names were to come back would the commands be reconized as the RCN/RCAF, like they used to because i only hear the military being refeared to as the canadian forces. Would they say like  the royal canadian navy is being sent to the gulf on operations, or would it be like the CAnadian forces are sending there ships to the gulf for operations.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ontario said:
			
		

> If the names were to come back would the commands be reconized as the RCN/RCAF, like they used to because i only hear the military being refeared to as the canadian forces. Would they say like  the royal canadian navy is being sent to the gulf on operations, or would it be like the CAnadian forces are sending there ships to the gulf for operations.



You'd have to ask the media that question.  Lately, almost every reference to a member of the service is of a "soldier" and the "Army" is often referred to in the broader context when a mix of elements are involved.  Changing the names would not equal immediate public awareness and fully appropriate usage, even by those news outlets who might report on the name change (if there was no higher priority story involving Black, Hilton, murder or cute animals).


----------



## Ontario

Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Ontario said:
			
		

> Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.



It can be anything you want it to be, this is all about a hypothetical situation.


----------



## ModlrMike

Ontario said:
			
		

> Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.



Are we not already there with the DEUs?



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Lately, almost every reference to a member of the service is of a "soldier" and the "Army" is often referred to in the broader context when a mix of elements are involved.  Changing the names would not equal immediate public awareness and fully appropriate usage, even by those news outlets who might report on the name change (if there was no higher priority story involving Black, Hilton, murder or cute animals).



True, and perhaps that is one of the subconscious reasons to bring back the Royal designations. The current unified force perspective makes it seem that only "soldiers" are engaged in ops, when we all know that not to be true. Educating the press and the public is a much bigger proposition, but with time, they would learn the difference.


----------



## McG

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> From my perspective, a dirt simple amendment to the NDA. We don't have to reinstate these services, just reintroduce the traditional names.


However, your suggested change to the NDA would reinstate the old services.  And, while just reintroducing old names, what entity gets the name?  Do the enviromental commands get the old names?  So, a ship would be part of the RCN until it sails on Ops as a part of CEFCOM?


----------



## pidd

MCG said:
			
		

> However, your suggested change to the NDA would reinstate the old services.  And, while just reintroducing old names, what entity gets the name?  Do the enviromental commands get the old names?  So, a ship would be part of the RCN until it sails on Ops as a part of CEFCOM?



I'm not sure that I understand the difficulty.  The CF already distinguishes between 'Navy', 'Army' & 'Air Force' and the support service branches that are assigned to each are accomodated with the uniform and identity of the particular 'Command' in which they serve, e.g., the Chaplains Branch remains just that but the Chaplain can move from Navy to Air Force with a mere change of uniform and still belonging to 'Chaplains Branch'.  The same pattern is applied to 'Engineers', formerly Royal Canadian Engineers in the Army, and 'Communications' formerly Royal Canadian Signal Corps in the Army.

It only makes sense that a 'ship' be identified with 'Navy' and a tank be identified with 'Army' in whatever operation the CF undertakes.  The restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is really a symbol for the identity that is already in place and partially restored and not a return to 'separate, self-administering' services.

Prior to unification and the subsquent institutional change, the RCN, Army, and RCAF participated in the assault on Juno Beach, Normandy, under a 'unified Command' that didn't require the removal of any of the service identities names, traditions, ranks or discipline.  Of course, there was a war on and petty jealousies between services had to be put on hold.  Affixing the honour 'Royal' to the identities of the Navy and the Air Force within the existing command structure would not affect the 'unified' policy already in place.  It would, as it already seems apparent by some of the comments from currently serving 'sailors' and 'air personnel' contribute to esprits de corps; a factor that we all know is vital to the lifeblood of the military.  One feels particularly for the Air Force whose abolished ranks and neglect in materiel await the same kind of unified support and restoration as was given the 'Navy' some years ago and where the officers still quietly long for their beloved 'Eliot's curl'.


----------



## McG

pidd said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that I understand the difficulty.


Well then, please define the entity upon which you want the title "Royal" bestowed.  Do you want to rename the enviromental commands?  There is nothing else out there that embodies the lineage of the old services unless your intent is to give the title "Royal" to an emotion.


----------



## pidd

MCG said:
			
		

> Well then, please define the entity upon which you want the title "Royal" bestowed.  Do you want to rename the enviromental commands?  There is nothing else out there that embodies the lineage of the old services unless your intent is to give the title "Royal" to an emotion.



There's no need to impugn or belittle my personal intent.  The petition as written conveys the substance of the purpose for the restoration within the context of the existing structure of the forces.

The 'environmental commands' have already been renamed...and some time ago.  
They are called 'Navy, Army and Air Force' but, unlike in the olden days, they are within the unified structure of the Canadian Forces.  The petition simply appeals for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' to 'Navy' and 'Air Force' to underscore the very lineage to which you refer and in which those so-called 'environments' already perpetuate their ships, squadrons, et al.  

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_images/common/navylogo.jpg

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/common/images/lffl.gif


----------



## McG

pidd said:
			
		

> The 'environmental commands' have already been renamed...and some time ago.


Not officially.  However, thank you for finally making clear that you feel the environmental commands are the entities which should be renamed.  I will now reiterate my previous observation that it was the old services that were granted the title "Royal" and therefore the monarchy would have to be petitioned to bestow this title upon our modern commands.


----------



## ModlrMike

MCG said:
			
		

> Not officially.  However, thank you for finally making clear that you feel the environmental commands are the entities which should be renamed.  I will now reiterate my previous observation that it was the old services that were granted the title "Royal" and therefore the monarchy would have to be petitioned to bestow this title upon our modern commands.



I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services. The NDA merely states that the three are combined. I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them. Constitutionally, the government is not supposed to interfere with issues of Royal prerogative. Not that it hasn't stopped them in the past... just that they're not supposed to.


----------



## pidd

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services. The NDA merely states that the three are combined. I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them. Constitutionally, the government is not supposed to interfere with issues of Royal prerogative. Not that it hasn't stopped them in the past... just that they're not supposed to.



You may well be right.  Whatever the case, there is no doubt that should it be necessary to make a request of the Queen, it would be granted.  The relationship between the Royal Family and the military is especially deep.
The petition itself is written with a view to the restoration of the prefix without prejudice to the machinations,legal, bureaucratic, or otherwise euphemistic, that may be required to fulfil the task. 
The changes, administrative and 'popular', that have been made at DND, including the matters related to ensigns, symbols and identity, have tended to be made 'on the fly' without deference to severe 'official' constitutional or parliamentary authority.


----------



## Greymatters

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> New NDA:
> 14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force.



Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...


----------



## Kat Stevens

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...



There never was a Royal Canadian Army.  Each Regiment or Corps had it's own Royal Cypher, or not.


----------



## McG

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services.


The old services do not exist.  You are lying to yourself if you think that the legislation left room for the previous services to still be in existance when it unified all the three services & clearly states that only one service exists.  Maybe you could argue that the Canadian Forces should have inherited the title "Royal" from its predecesors.  However, the current commands are not the old independant services.  Keep in mind the differences.  The old services were both force generators & force employers.  This is not the case with current enviromental commands.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them.


Then the distinctions exist for services which do not exist today.  As you have pointed out, the both government & military do not have perogative over the royal designation.  Therefore, neither can create an organization and give it the royal designation simply by claiming that it is the same as something that used to exist.


----------



## ModlrMike

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...



There was no Royal Canadian Army per se. Units and corps themselves had the Royal accolade ie: RCR, R22eR, RCAMC, RCEME etc, so there is no precedent to have the Army as a whole, Royal. If you look at the British Forces, their army is just the "Army", with "Royal" units and corps within.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I thought I just said that.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There never was a Royal Canadian Army.  Each Regiment or Corps had it's own Royal Cypher, or not.


 You did!



			
				GreyMatter said:
			
		

> Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...



But didn't these Regiments/Corps _retain_ their titles ?


----------



## Pencil Tech

I'm not really adding much to the discussion but I'm grateful for the chance to say that I support this petition 100%. I see it as a simple name change which doesn't even affect CF command: Land Force Command which oversees the Canadian Army, Maritime Command which overseas the RCN, and Air Command which oversees the RCAF (instead of 1 CAD). Maybe the best way for this to happen is for the navy and air force to just start using those names, as the Navy did with naval ranks after unification (and don't forget they still don't exist in QR & O's), and they way Lord Strathcona's Horse did with black berets after unification. Or for that matter the way the Mulroney government did with DEU.


----------



## Blackadder1916

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> But didn't these Regiments/Corps _retain_ their titles ?



Which of these Corps retained their titles?

Royal Canadian Engineers
Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
Royal Canadian Dental Corps
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps 
Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Pencil Tech.... the Naval Rank Structure exists in the National Defence Act which is referred to in the QR&Os as Schedule 2 of the NDA


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Blackadder,

I thinking more along lines of the _Royal _Canadian Regiment, _Royal _22e Regiment, various Militia regiments, etc. ...


----------



## Greymatters

In other words, youre suggesting just to rename things back the way they were.  

What would be the point? - I havent seen this clearly demonstrated.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There was no Royal Canadian Army per se. Units and corps themselves had the Royal accolade ie: RCR, R22eR, RCAMC, RCEME etc, so there is no precedent to have the Army as a whole, Royal. If you look at the British Forces, their army is just the "Army", with "Royal" units and corps within.



One could argue that it had to do with the fact that the Coldstream Guards had originally fought against the King (Charles I).


----------



## Pencil Tech

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pencil Tech.... the Naval Rank Structure exists in the National Defence Act which is referred to in the QR&Os as Schedule 2 of the NDA



I stand corrected, but it only happened because the naval officers of the time refused to use army ranks on their ships.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

From the way I understand it naval ranks were grandfathered through Unification.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> From the way I understand it naval ranks were grandfathered through Unification.



No, there was a time at the beginning of unification when you had Corporals and Majors on H.M. Canadian ships. It's well documented, you could look it up. In any case, I'm old enough to remember it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Blackadder,
> 
> I thinking more along lines of the _Royal _Canadian Regiment, _Royal _22e Regiment, various Militia regiments, etc. ...



Please, the proper regimental title is *The Royal Canadian Regiment*.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.


----------



## Neill McKay

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please, the proper regimental title is *The Royal Canadian Regiment*.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.



Easy mistake to make, especially when it's at odds with the usual practice in English, isn't it?


----------



## Neill McKay

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Which of these Corps retained their titles?
> 
> Royal Canadian Engineers
> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
> Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
> Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
> Royal Canadian Dental Corps
> Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps
> Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
> Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps



That's a good point that I haven't seen brought up in these discussions before.  Some of those corps/branches simply don't exist anymore, but the Engineers do exist in substantially the same form as they did then, with a name change that I can't see any reason for other than a love of bureaucratic-sounding names rather than colourful and historic ones.  It appears that the regiments were the only ones to make it through the 'sixties with their Royals intact.


----------



## McG

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Which of these Corps retained their titles?


All of these corps were merged with thier counterparts from the other two services.  Why should the Army tradition automatically have taken precedence over the other services?



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Engineers


The RCE were merged with the Engr of the RCAF & the RCN. 



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals


Again, merged with the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
> Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps


These were merged with eachother & the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.  The Logistics Branch is not "Army", it is unified.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
> Royal Canadian Dental Corps


The Dental & Medical Branches are merged into one.  Medical is not just "Army" it is unified.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers


Again, merged with the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.  You will note the sky blue patch on the EME flag which is specific reference to the Air Force maintainers that were part of the branch.



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps


Does not exist (See Logistic Branch).


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please, the proper regimental title is *The Royal Canadian Regiment*.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.



Sorry 'bout that ... I suppose I wouldn't want to be known as a _pilot Officer_  :-[


----------



## Ontario

Translation???


----------



## Kat Stevens

I didn't think I typed that in Esperanto, but okay.  There are many, many, MANY people on here who share the opinion that all of our British heritage should be done away with, in deference to our non-Anglo citizens.  Your remark will undoubtedly draw their attention, to your detriment.  Snide is self explanatory: In reply to my good natured warning, I got your flippant little jab about your rights.  As for "pratt", it's a British thing, ask your mother. "Hoisted on your own petard"  means that you would meet your doom from a device of your own design.


----------



## Pencil Tech

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Sorry 'bout that ... I suppose I wouldn't want to be known as a _pilot Officer_  :-[



Now Air Commodore, Group Captain, Squadron Leader - those were nice sounding RCAF ranks!


----------



## Ontario

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I didn't think I typed that in Esperanto, but okay.  There are many, many, MANY people on here who share the opinion that all of our British heritage should be done away with, in deference to our non-Anglo citizens.  Your remark will undoubtedly draw their attention, to your detriment.  Snide is self explanatory: In reply to my good natured warning, I got your flippant little jab about your rights.  As for "pratt", it's a British thing, ask your mother. "Hoisted on your own petard"  means that you would meet your doom from a device of your own design.


I have British backround. Im pissed on modern Canadian traditions, and how its destroyed a hundred years of heritage to happy immigrants. Its BS every country should have a national identity, if you dont like it dont move to Canada. Also it wasnt a jab i new you were warning me but i was just mentioning it so that the mods cant threaten me.


----------



## Franko

Ontario, we don't threaten....we action.

This thread is now open for business. Back on topic troops.




*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## TN2IC

Thank you Recce By Death,
                                         I missed this topic for some reason. I know I am late in the game here. 


Now if RCN and RCAF, and let's say the old Army to be built up again. This project would be less cost effective, I believe.

I remember reading about the creation RCOC, RCASC and pay corps. Now I am studying about them, their size, cost, admin nightmares, and the funcation of it during WW1, WW2 and post war. And now if Canada wanted to swing that way. There would be a lot of unhappy voter around, wonder why money is being thrown around. My trade now use to be cover by RCOC and the RCASC. Now we are just one big bunch of happy cost effective family in the Log Branch. Still do the same work. Just for a new era. We still deliever the beans, bullets and bodies to the front. Now do you really want to destroy my family?  ;D


As for traditions, they are always carried on. Doesn't matter how many times a unit has been reformed. From depots to Field Parks, Service Battalions, General Service Battalions, to TEME... whatever it may be it. The traditions are still the same.


Thank you for your time,
Regards,
TN2IC





Link to a tad history of RCOC and RCASC. Also reading "To Thunder his Arms", available at the Log Kitshop in CFSAL Borden is a great read.

History of Supply http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/logbranch/handbook/Volume7/chap2_e.htm

Lay out of RCOC http://canorbat.freehosting.net/rcocorbat.htm

RCACS http://www.rcasc.org/rcasc_hist_breif.html



"Honi soit qui mal y pense"

No 6 Ordnance Depot rules! hehe..









       
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







Foot note: RCOC means Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and RCASC means Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.


----------



## Yrys

Ontario said:
			
		

> i was just mentioning it so that the mods cant threaten me.



Sheez, you're talking about mods, not thugs ! Maybe you need to work on definition of moderators ?!?

ADD: and sorry for the comment (as I may be feeding someone here), couldn't resist it


----------



## 1feral1

Ontario said:
			
		

> I have British backround.



Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.

If you love England so much, go back.

Wes


----------



## pidd

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.
> 
> If you love England so much, go back.
> 
> Wes



Wes:  As much as 'Ontario's' reference to having a 'British' background is irrelevant to the issue, throwing insults at the English doesn't really add much to the conversation.  Besides, Canada's experience as part of the British Empire, whilst it shares much in common with our Aussie cousins, differs in the degree of affinity with the 'Motherland' perhaps mostly because of the enormous migration here from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales pre and post world war one.  In fact, a half to two-thirds of the Canadian Corps that volunteered to fought in the trenches were 'Poms' whose Mums and Dads and kin were just across the channel (and who resented the 'high command' as much as those at Galipoli)...and it was their sons and daughters who volunteered in the majority (the highest percentage of any of the allies) for world war two.  

That being said, the petition for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' has absolutely nothing to do particularly with one's ethnic origin or politics.  It's a matter of military tradition in a country that remains a constitutional monarchy and has been so for centuries.  Whilst there may well be a disconnect between this younger current generation and the institution of the monarchy, my experience is that the Queen and especially certain members of the Royal Family who serve as Colonel-in-Chief et al are very well regarded by the rank and file. 

Upon the return of a group of Canadian students to Vimy in April for the re-dedication of the memorial, I was told by their teachers that the greatest ovation and cheer they and the crowd gave was for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh...and not the politicians.

The Canadian Navy and Air Force were 'Royal' during the period of their most outstanding achievements in which they established their tradition.  The desgnation was removed from them unnecessarily whilst myriad other military units retained it.  It's conferral, and therefore it's restoration, is unrelated to one's 'family' heritage (of which there are many in the Canadian Forces) but it is an integral part, since 1867, of Canada's heritage...as well as that of Australia...New Zealand..and other of the diaspora of Westminster and the UK.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Pidd, I would have been proud to serve under you.


----------



## 1feral1

pidd said:
			
		

> Wes:  As much as 'Ontario's' reference to having a 'British' background is irrelevant to the issue, throwing insults at the English doesn't really add much to the conversation.




Oops, how Australian of me....   

I just hate attitudes, and I don't think I am alone on here. So, Mr 24 posts, before you 'bark' at me, read the context of this member's previous posts.

After over 31 years in two armies of the Commonwealth, I know all about our roots, and Gallipoli is spelled with two l's.

Like I said, I hate attitudes.


Wes


----------



## Greymatters

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> I just hate attitudes,...



Sorry mate, but that is the pot calling the kettle black...   ;D


----------



## pidd

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Like I said, I hate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> attitudes.
> 
> 
> Wes




I apologise for the typo.


----------



## pidd

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Pidd, I would have been proud to serve under you.



When I was a Private, I expect that I would have happily served under you!
When I became a Padre I would have happily served with you!

Thanks.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable

If they did delineate the military back into the original Army, Navy and Air Force, I'd be a little concerned about how they'd divide the air assets. Would all the Griffons belong to the Army? Would the Sea Kings belong to the Navy? From the Air Force perspective, I kind of like the way things are now in that our responsibility is to operate and maintain the aircraft without too much interference from the other elements that utilise our services.

Food for thought.


----------



## Neill McKay

pidd said:
			
		

> That being said, the petition for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' has absolutely nothing to do particularly with one's ethnic origin or politics.  It's a matter of military tradition in a country that remains a constitutional monarchy and has been so for centuries.  Whilst there may well be a disconnect between this younger current generation and the institution of the monarchy, my experience is that the Queen and especially certain members of the Royal Family who serve as Colonel-in-Chief et al are very well regarded by the rank and file.
> 
> Upon the return of a group of Canadian students to Vimy in April for the re-dedication of the memorial, I was told by their teachers that the greatest ovation and cheer they and the crowd gave was for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh...and not the politicians.
> 
> The Canadian Navy and Air Force were 'Royal' during the period of their most outstanding achievements in which they established their tradition.  The desgnation was removed from them unnecessarily whilst myriad other military units retained it.  It's conferral, and therefore it's restoration, is unrelated to one's 'family' heritage (of which there are many in the Canadian Forces) but it is an integral part, since 1867, of Canada's heritage...as well as that of Australia...New Zealand..and other of the diaspora of Westminster and the UK.



Best post ever on this topic.


----------



## Privateer

It seems like many people believe that reintroducing RCN/RCAF would necessitate a return to a past organisational structure.  But my understanding is that what is being proposed is essentially a name change, MARCOM to RCN, AIRCOM to RCAF.  You could make this a letterhead change without changing the organisation, and without changing the fact that we all belong to one "service" (Candian Armed Forces).  So you may or may not like the name change, but I think that fears of structural change need not be a concern.  

For what it's worth, I favour a return to the RCN name.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Yes this is my understanding too. We are not asking for separate services just a return to the name for what is now a Command(s). It would be like restoring the Royal to the EME branch for instance....and make it RCEME again....boy that would make some old maintainers pretty happy. It would not involve dividing up assets or restructuring the navy.....just getting back our proud name.


----------



## Roy Harding

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> ... and Gallipoli is spelled with two l's.
> 
> ...



Three, actually.  Sorry, Wes - couldn't resist.


----------



## 1feral1

Should have preesnted the LL I guess, ha!

Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## TN2IC

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Yes this is my understanding too. We are not asking for separate services just a return to the name for what is now a Command(s). It would be like restoring the Royal to the EME branch for instance....and make it RCEME again....boy that would make some old maintainers pretty happy. It would not involve dividing up assets or restructuring the navy.....just getting back our proud name.




Ah... now old formations here. What about TEME? What about me? The T in TEME is TRANSPORT.  :cdnsalute:


----------



## blasty_bough

Great topic with lots of good points-of-view. Pidd: especially impressed with your post but I gotta say Wes' s posts are pretty awesome...love watchin the Brits and Aussies  having a go at each other. Keep the posts coming you two.


----------



## q_1966

I really do hope they re-instate RCAF and RCN, so much history, 
I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log


----------



## Edward Campbell

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> I really do hope they re-instate RCAF and RCN, so much history,
> I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log



That would be the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps - which was, after 1942, responsible for cooking the troops' food as well as delivering (transporting) it, unless you would like to go all the way back to the semi-military Army Commissariat which was *reformed* into a military corps in the late 19th century.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log



Is it wrong that I read that as food service cabbage.

For what it is worth, put me down in the" nice idea but not worth a whole of effort" camp.


----------



## Ontario

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.
> 
> If you love England so much, go back.
> 
> Wes


Wes you dont have a clue do you. Im not even english, im scottish. I cant go back to a place im not from either, i said i have british backround. Also mods i love how others get away with disrespecting peoples ethnicity, but i dont.

P.S my last post on this topic so if you want me to respond PM me.


----------



## Franko

Back on topic.

*The Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Taking a shot st Wes and the Mods will not help with you staying here Ontario....East Coast. You have not learned anything have you?

Milnet.Ca Staff

Sorry Recce


----------



## Pencil Tech

Actually, I find this a very interesting discussion and I certainly hope it won't get locked down by the actions of one poster.


----------



## TN2IC

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log



Now Brazil,
                 take this as my two cents. I'm not trying to bash you. But your statement seems to be a tad.... whatever. It says on your profile you have one year in the Log branch. Your feet are not even wet yet. Having an opinion about the Log branch without "understanding it" doesn't add up to me. I share the same cap badge as you, brother. Some folks mistake me as a Clerk or a Supply Tech..big woop.. that is okay. It's when that detail I've done for them, they are thankful for. Which in return makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Want a hug?

SERVITIUM NULLI SECUNDUS!

On other note... I was thinking of a cap badge for us trucker.... Going to be a Big Yellow Tonka truck with the crown on top.... What do you folks think? Or something like the Hot Wheel symbol?  ;D


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## q_1966

this was the capbadge, If its even a capbadge?   I was talking about (the first picture) 
and i was way out of my lane with the Log comment and im deeply sorry. I am dissing fellow logisticians

and even if the badge is a no go, the postal clerks have there own special eppilate titles, as well as dentists...


----------



## KevinB

:

You know I'd favour bringing back the Canadian Guards, and other stuff -- but really bringing back bloated bureacracy, and changes to uniforms etc that it would create -- really - I think a little better use of the limited military budget could be better spent rather than some aging vision of King and Country.


----------



## q_1966

It may display an image of king, or in this case queen and country, but its tradition.


----------



## KevinB

Still the point remains (and keep in mind I dont care about morale etc. for non combat arms people) you will add TONS of new uniform accutrements etc.
  WHO is paying?

I'm a small m monarchist - but I'm a realist first and foremost - and I see this as a HUGE waste of assets.


----------



## q_1966

rather to waste it on this then some other (probably more useless thing) because traditions are all you have, or we could do away with Ceremonial Drill, Colour Party, and take all the crowns off the capbadges


----------



## KevinB

Of course bullets and training -- useless  :

  Lets all take a look back to the old (unification) green -- then we got summer tans - and winter greens -- then just the winter greens for all wear...
  Now maybe the Navy and AirForce are not quite as bad with unform crap as the Army - but I doubt it...  Why add more crap to a system that already has problems?

  Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Of course bullets and training -- useless  :
> 
> Lets all take a look back to the old (unification) green -- then we got summer tans - and winter greens -- then just the winter greens for all wear...
> Now maybe the Navy and AirForce are not quite as bad with unform crap as the Army - but I doubt it...  Why add more crap to a system that already has problems?
> 
> Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.



So let's just go to baggy cargo pants and t-shirts eh? what does it matter how we dress and what we call ourselves? Of course uniforms, "buttons and bows" add to morale. they are not the "be all end all" but they are an ingredient in the mix. Better equipment, public support and missions that have purpose and add to national objectives are another part of the mix.....fortunately we're getting more of that now. If we can pee away millions on government bureaucracy and stupid crap that never benefits anyone, why can't we spend a few bucks on our Forces and their proud traditions?


----------



## Neill McKay

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.



Cap badges are all about morale.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Cap badges are all about morale.



Perhaps, but morale isn't only about cap badges.


----------



## KevinB

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> So let's just go to baggy cargo pants and t-shirts eh? what does it matter how we dress and what we call ourselves? Of course uniforms, "buttons and bows" add to morale. they are not the "be all end all" but they are an ingredient in the mix. Better equipment, public support and missions that have purpose and add to national objectives are another part of the mix.....fortunately we're getting more of that now. If we can pee away millions on government bureaucracy and stupid crap that never benefits anyone, why can't we spend a few bucks on our Forces and their proud traditions?



Actually I tend to like 5.11 pants - and T's  

 I agree that image is important, but I would focus on preserving what we have currently that try to reach back thru the Trudeau fog.  Times change, I mean I don't think anyone wants to go back to RedCoats, muskets and the leather/wood neck braces they used to make people march in.  As for morale inspired by a Cap Bagde, uhm okay whatever.  Morale for me is inspired by skills and my teammates skills, going into harms way with a shiny badge just does not do it for me.  Okay I am also the guy who wants to bin the bayonet.  Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed getting badged, drinking rum with the BSL RSM and entering the regimental family, but realistically I've learned a hell of a lot since then. 


Lastly I think it is important for Canada, and Canadians, that we not necessarily be hidebound to the Empire for traditions.


----------



## McG

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> It may display an image of king, or in this case queen and country, but its tradition.


What is?  A cooks capbadge?
There never was such a thing worn on a beret in Canada.


----------



## TN2IC

Brazil_66 said:
			
		

> and even if the badge is a no go, the postal clerks have there own special eppilate titles, as well as dentists...



The postal clerks didn't follow the integration to form the Logistics Branch, in 01 February 1968. 


Now dentists? They are no way related to this field. Same if you say medics, too.


Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## Old Sweat

Interesting comment about postal clerks and dentists. As I recall, by some sort of odd coincidence, the army provided postal and dental support to all three services.


----------



## pidd

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Lastly I think it is important for Canada, and Canadians, that we not necessarily be hidebound to the Empire for traditions.



I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Tradition is something that cannot be invented or appropriated on a whim.  It grows within the collective experience of a people or institution. It is not a tradition if it is not rooted in a de facto, if not de jure, foundation.  Certainly for the military of Canada, that foundation was British before and since 1867 and it flourished within that historical context and through the gradual development of the country even to today.  
It is simply false to separate 'Canada' and 'Canadians' from the glorious history that sewed their identity as 'Canada' as 'Canadians'.  

The Maple Leaf is a traditional symbol of Canada since pre-Confederation but it's presence on the flag is not meant to be a symbol of revolution (which it was and is not); even as some might interpret it that way.  It, along with the Beaver, found their place within the military symbols of this country as they adorn many a badge and crest and all within the on-going tradition that followed the British style and precedent but were uniquely Canadian nonetheless.

The petition for the restoration of 'Royal' to the Navy and Air Force is not a request for them to become British
services.  Indeed, that is the oft misunderstood point:  the Canadian military is no longer a part of the British military but it remains 'Royal' because the country, once British, has remained 'Royal' where the significant part of it's identity and tradition developed from that family and from which we have retained alliances within the Commonwealth.

We've grown up and are no longer living in 'Mummy's house' but that doesn't mean that we no longer belong to Mummy's family.  Even though we might do some things differently from our past doesn't mean that we turn our backs on or disown our own heritage.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ever since this topic has started I have asked some air det types and other sailors if they want to become the RCN and RCAF again and with the exception of a few "I don't give a f*cks" and a couple of Yes most are more then happy with the status quo. Food for thought.


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ever since this topic has started I have asked some air det types and other sailors if they want to become the RCN and RCAF again and with the exception of a few "I don't give a f*cks" and a couple of Yes most are more then happy with the status quo. Food for thought.



Exactly.....

You want to do something for my morale ?

How about a new aircraft.....or at least new wings for the one i have now

Being "Royal" doesnt help one bit


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Sure it does,.....it helps those who no longer have anything to do with it feel better about themselves.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Just as Cdn Aviator says when new ships are being delivered my morale will improve substanially. Going through briefs regarding changes by adding Royal, changes in doctrine, changes in uniform is just a pain.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

So why can't we do both? Be Royal and get good kit.


----------



## aesop081

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> So why can't we do both? Be Royal and get good kit.



Why cant we have our priorities straight ?

We can deal with the "royal" stuff when we have decent kit , sorted out or manpower shortages and the war is over


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Why cant we have our priorities straight ?
> 
> We can deal with the "royal" stuff when we have decent kit , sorted out or manpower shortages and the war is over



Well I don't think it's even on the radar as a priority so no worries. Just because a petition has started doesn't mean the Department is taking notice.


----------



## aesop081

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> doesn't mean the Department is taking notice.



rightfully so.......


----------



## pidd

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Just as Cdn Aviator says when new ships are being delivered my morale will improve substanially. Going through briefs regarding changes by adding Royal, changes in doctrine, changes in uniform is just a pain.



If that is true, then everyone has been suffering a lot of pain these past few decades where the tampering with long-established military discipline, esprit de corps, and identity has been the single-most cause of low morale in the Canadian Forces.  One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences' for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes.  

Yes, it is true, of course, that equipment for serving personnel is adding much to the overall morale of the forces along with a more robust and traditional policy that would permit them to 'show their stuff' and make a difference.  Yet, it is not the 'ship' nor the 'rifle' that brings honour to the Corps or Regiment or Squadron, but the legacy, not only of those who have gone before, but whose good purpose is to pass on, for the sake of
the country, it's sovereign and virtues in this generation.

The measure of reverence shown to a regiment's colours or a corps' guidon demonstrates a quality within the serving soldier that runs much deeper than the satisfaction of having equipment.  Indeed, during our leanest years, I recall a visiting US Marine praising the enormous spirit and improvisational skills of our army whose accomplishments were achieved without the benefit of that which the Americans possessed.

In this country, as it is, and as it has been since it's foundation, there is no greater honour than that which is bestowed by the Sovereign herself without deference to politics and that is the case with respect to our military forces and the designation of 'Royal' applied to them.  It is given, not only for the morale of this generation but for the country itself; bestowed to our posterity.  This is something that those who view the military as mere 'mercenaries 'r us' cannot possibly understand.  The contract between a serving sailor, soldier or airman and the Sovereign is easily dismissed by some but history has demonstrably shown that it's symbolism is underscored at a depth that is treasured in succeeding generations long after that 'ship' has been mothballed.

This petition, as I understand it, is not to regard the prefix 'Royal' as some kind of option in a cafeteria of military choices, but as an appeal for the restoration of a dignity granted that, having been cast aside for the sake of other, less honourable interests, is in fact a right that belongs to those institutions that have now been somewhat re-awakened.


----------



## ejames

Bring back the RCN!

I also want my Executive curl and rum rations!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I think if one does not have pride being in the current organization then they are in the wrong line. I also get tired of the implication by others that us current members in the CF do not have a sense of pride or loyalty whay have you because we are not jumping all over the Royal bandwagon. Frankly its insulting to imply we don't have it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ejames said:
			
		

> Bring back the RCN!
> 
> I also want my Executive curl and rum rations!



:

While we are at it lets reintroduce the old RN custom of flogging.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pidd said:
			
		

> One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences' for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes.



*tap tap*  Hmmm....., is this thing on??...................am I on Candid Camera or something?? ???


----------



## GAP

Question....why is this thread still going? Pretty much everybody and their brother has said yay/nay and their reasoning why...but everybody knows it isn't going to change....


----------



## aesop081

Pidd.....

Are familiar with the hiarchy or needs ?


When i fell like i have the proper kit, the proper training and properly employed, then i will have time to worry about how "royal" i'm feeling

I dont show up to work every day because of the honours emblazoned on the Sqn colours or what my cap badge says.....i show up because of the people i fly with, because there is a job to be done and someone has to do it.

When all my legit needs are met, i will have time for the frivolous stuff ( stuff that doesnt keep me alive and combat effective)


----------



## ejames

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> :
> 
> While we are at it lets reintroduce the old RN custom of flogging.



No that would be illegal. There is nothing illegal about honouring recognition from the Queen and sharing a drink with your fellow mates.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

But its a time honoured tradition one of many that gets stuffed down our throats...as for a rum issue the last time I saw one of those was back in the late 90s.


----------



## Franko

We still have Rum rations....albeit you have to jump through the paperwork hoops to get it.

This coming from an Armour guy....         

Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

B@st@rd!!!


----------



## Franko

Meh....you should have stayed in the Regiment.       ;D

Regards


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

lol Some days I wonder


----------



## Franko

At least you could say that there is still Royal in your unit's title.       

Meh...can't see what the big deal is about it. 

It's cost prohibitive (think renaming every ship, all letter heads, correspondence, insignias, uniforms, plaques, etc)

It's manpower intensive (think implementing it, pers would have to be delegated in completing this task...wasted manpower IMHO)

I still have my old uniforms: 

- DEU Tans
- Workdress (sweater, blue lagoon shirt, bus driver jacket)
- Garrison Dress

What a pain in the butt that crap was. It was past uniforms, why not bring them back while we're at it?

How about the Warrior program? I still have my gold leafs w/ crossed swords. We just have to bring back the program of shooting and the webbing run. Uniform salad as far as I'm concerned.

See what I'm getting at?

We've left alot of things behind to improve the effectiveness of the CF. 

Why shunt monies and manpower to something that will not add to the effectiveness of the Navy or Air Force? It makes no sense at all.

I'd rather see the monies and manpower be put towards ships and aircraft and the maintenance of those things.

Besides, this petition is going to fall on the deaf ears of bureaucrats in Ottawa who don't give a sweet shyte about such trivial things.

We're fighting a war...and they should be concentrating their efforts on that and nothing else.

Regards


----------



## mudrecceman

Recce By Death said:
			
		

> How about the Warrior program? I still have my gold leafs w/ crossed swords. We just have to bring back the program of shooting and the webbing run. Uniform salad as far as I'm concerned.



You painted over the bronze??  



(sorry...had to when I seen that one!)


----------



## Franko

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> You painted over the bronze??
> 
> 
> 
> (sorry...had to when I seen that one!)



There were lots of pissed off NCOs, that couldn't shoot worth a damn, when they saw me with that piece of junk on. Not the fastest guy, but I guess I can shoot.         ;D

Regards


----------



## pidd

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Pidd.....
> 
> Are familiar with the hiarchy or needs ?
> 
> 
> When i fell like i have the proper kit, the proper training and properly employed, then i will have time to worry about how "royal" i'm feeling
> 
> I dont show up to work every day because of the honours emblazoned on the Sqn colours or what my cap badge says.....i show up because of the people i fly with, because there is a job to be done and someone has to do it.
> 
> When all my legit needs are met, i will have time for the frivolous stuff ( stuff that doesnt keep me alive and combat effective)



Having proper kit, training and showing up for work is every man's duty in the forces and has absolutely nothing to do with the symbols of the institution for which one works.  There is nothing in the petition
that refers to any sailor or airman 'needing' their particular force to be re-identified with the title 'Royal'.
It was not conferred by the King because any of the serving men 'needed' it to do their job.
Indeed, no one 'needs' a cap badge, particular uniform, or the like in order to fulfill the requirements of flying an aircraft or making a ship float.  

There is, however, a difference between mercenaries, e.g., the French Foreign Legion, and a 'soldier of the Queen'.  The mercenary, contracted by a country to fight, and given whatever he 'needs' to fight, has no particular loyalty to his contractual 'boss'.  He just does his job.   A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers.  

There seems to be a tendency in thought that the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is somehow a threat to the well-being and effectiveness of the daily life of a sailor or airman as if it would compete with the policy of the government to re-supply the Canadian Forces.  Restoring the 'name' to the 'Navy' and 'Air Force' requires little more than changes to letterhead and other papers; changes that have been made in other ways several times in the past thirty years or so.  

It is sad if one considers national or military symbols to be frivolous.  There is a reason why the military, and the country generally, preserves and cherishes and salutes them. Symbols have a power that transcends one's kit.  They represent the collective spirit of institutions and people, as well as deeds, that have brought honour to a unit or the country as a whole. 

When that kid urinated on the National War Memorial in Ottawa, people were disgusted, not because somehow the concrete was being stained and would require cleaning...it was because that Memorial is a symbol that stands in place for the war dead.  Similarly, I am certain that most servicemen and women who witnessed the defacation of their country's flag, their unit's colours, et al, would respond with more than just a little indignation.  It's one thing to 'spit' on one's boots in the course of doing one's job, and another to 'spit' on a symbol that represents why those boots are being worn.

The removal of the title 'Royal' was a political decision that, surprise, surprise, coincidentally occurred with the explicit de-funding and isolation of the Canadian Forces; a pattern that has only recently been reversed.  It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Wow. Amen. +1.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Pidd...you do realize that the FFL is a unit of the French Army so cannot be considered mercenaries....


----------



## aesop081

pidd said:
			
		

> Having proper kit, training and showing up for work is every man's duty in the forces and has absolutely nothing to do with the symbols of the institution for which one works.



Thanks for clearing that one up  :



> There is nothing in the petition
> that refers to any sailor or airman 'needing' their particular force to be re-identified with the title 'Royal'.



Re=read the 15 pages of this thread, please. Alot of the posters seem to beleive that their moral is low and that somehow, titles and accoutrements will solve that.



> Indeed, no one 'needs' a cap badge, particular uniform, or the like in order to fulfill the requirements of flying an aircraft or making a ship float.



Quite right. Those things enhance pride in the service.  My question is, why can we not be proud in what we have now rather than constantly wishing for something that is no longer ?



> There is, however, a difference between mercenaries, e.g., the French Foreign Legion, and a 'soldier of the Queen'.  The mercenary, contracted by a country to fight, and given whatever he 'needs' to fight, has no particular loyalty to his contractual 'boss'.  He just does his job.   A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers.



You keep geting back to this point. I dont beleive i required a civics lesson or are you insinuating that i am some kind of mercenary ?



> There seems to be a tendency in thought that the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is somehow a threat to the well-being and effectiveness of the daily life of a sailor or airman as if it would compete with the policy of the government to re-supply the Canadian Forces.



My god man, are you mad ?  Anything the government does always ends up beyond simply changing letterhead.  But you never answered my question.  Do we not have more important things to worry about ? 



> It is sad if one considers national or military symbols to be frivolous.



Frivolous was the wrong word for what i was trying to say, i will admit that. My point remains that we should be devoting our attention to things that allow us to do what Canadians ask us to do.  The title of "Royal" or a new cap badge does not make me feel better about flying a 27 year old aircraft thats showing its age.  It doesnt change the fact that my flying hours have been cut, thus reducing my proficiency. It does not change the fact that i have to do the work of 3 people because we are extremly low on numbers..........Titles, accoutrements and uniforms are nice, but lets keep our eye on the ball here.



> When that kid urinated on the National War Memorial in Ottawa, people were disgusted, not because somehow the concrete was being stained and would require cleaning...it was because that Memorial is a symbol that stands in place for the war dead.  Similarly, I am certain that most servicemen and women who witnessed the defacation of their country's flag, their unit's colours, et al, would respond with more than just a little indignation.  It's one thing to 'spit' on one's boots in the course of doing one's job, and another to 'spit' on a symbol that represents why those boots are being worn.



Cant argue with your logic there.  But let me ask you one thing.  Would we have been even more disgusted if the name of the memorial was "The Royal national War Memorial" ?



> de-funding and isolation of the Canadian Forces; a pattern that has only recently been reversed.



Don't count your chickens just yet




> It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.



Right ?  Where is it written that we have this "right" ?  I'm almost certain that at some point in my career i was told that we follow the direction of the Canadian Government.



One final word from me on this , as i feel this is going in circles.

If the Canadian Forces were well equiped, sufficiently manned and supported......and not fighting a war, i would be all for tackling this type of issue. Bu the fact is that we are not in that situation and , IMHO, our efforts should be kept where it matters at this time.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

+1 Aviator


----------



## pidd

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Pidd...you do realize that the FFL is a unit of the French Army so cannot be considered mercenaries....



Yes, of course, you are right.  I suppose they came to mind because most of the enlistees have
no particular loyalty either to France or the place from which they come, but to the Legion itself, and, indeed, can have false identities even while fighting for the FFL.  In this sense, they are 'mercenaries' of a kind...but
I'm happy acknowledging the differences between them and other types of mercenaries.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

This is an interesting argument about "we have better things to do right now and spend our money on." I've heard it for the entire time I've been in and it's a poor excuse. In the late seventies and early eighties in Esquimalt we needed a new Officers Mess (the Fleet Club had just been newly built in 1976) and the excuse then was that we needed money for other things rather than an Officer's Mess. Same argument in Halifax for years. With Fleets rusting out and sailors "poorly paid" they told us there were higher priorities. It was 1999 till we finally got a decent Mess in Esquimalt and 2005 in Halifax and only came about because some very determined Admirals and Base Commanders made loud and sustained noises. 

My point is that you can always make the excuse that there are higher priorities than stuff that serves human needs. Tradition and pride in our service does serve a human need....the need for recognition and the need to feel part of something special and pride in the outfit that one belongs to. Of course,new equipment and relevant missions are important and will always be the core of our morale, but uniforms, rank designations, ribbons, medals and what we call ourselves will always play a large part in how we see ourselves and the value of our service....would the Royal Canadian Dragoons be upset if they had their Royal Designation taken away? Would their association be fighting to have it restored? You bet they would....it is part of who they are. when they don their scarlets and bronze helmets and march on Lillifontein day and remember the glory of the regiment in winning three VCs in one action they hold their heads up higher.

I agree with all those who have said that morale and pride comes from who we work with and how well we do our job when the shyte hits the fan but it also comes from when we gather in our finery and hear the anthems played and we march past to the Regimental/Navy/Air Force march past. I'm probably a sentimental fool but the first time I stood to attention with my comrades on the Parade Square and saluted the National Flag being raised in the morning while O Canada played, goose bumps ran up and down my spine and a feeling of pride and honour ran through me from stem to stern. Everytime we do that I get the same feeling. Every Remembrance Day I feel the same pride and sorrow in the sacrifices that were made and for those who went before me. The carrying on of tradition is a sacred trust and one which we must take more seriously than  just saying "Oh well....they don't' pay me to make decisions about buttons and bows..." or "...this is just a job...whatever."

With regard to the "we are at war and have better things to do" argument, I do agree that we have our plate full, however, i recall that most of our traditions of value were born in the crucible of war....perhaps while we have the attention of a fickle public the time is ripe for a relatively inexpensive  restoration of tradition....It doesn't seem like a lot to ask when we proudly retain the Royal in our national police force, many of our proud army regiments and many of our national institutions (Mint, etc)....It's not a turning back of the clock but the restoration of that which should never have been taken away.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

GAP said:
			
		

> Question....why is this thread still going? Pretty much everybody and their brother has said yay/nay and their reasoning why...but everybody knows it isn't going to change....



I think because the purpose of the forum is to discuss things of interest to us. there are obviously people who are interested, so it lives. It hasn't become silly or disrespectful so it will live or die based on interest in the topic. my two farthings worth.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I voted no and then promised myself to stay out of this, but ...

With specific respect to the “_Royal_ this an' _Royal_ that an' _Royal_ go away” debate I think Canada was pretty much settled on a non-Royal course before Mr. Hellyer's little organizational experiments.  It wasn't just French Canadians who chafed – and still chafe – at the rather _retarded_ nature of our Constitution.  Many, many Canadians, in the '50s and '60s were already self-identifying as _”unhyphenated Canadians”_ – they didn't need to be too closely tied to Britain or the Royal family.

I have a mostly British heritage – of which I'm quite fond.  I regard Britain and the British as one of the most successful _civilizations_ in world history and I regard it as quite distinct from the continental European _civilization_ or, perhaps, _culture_.  I regard Canada as being one of the inheritors of and improvers on that _culture_ – we bring our own unique _flavour_ to the common _Anglo_ socio-political and/or socio-economic _culture_ we share with Australia, Britain, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore and the USA and, to a lesser degree with e.g. Fiji, India, Malaysia and South Africa, too.  That _culture_, in its political and economic aspects, is quite different from French or even Scandinavian _cultures_.  It is remarkably *liberal* – far more so than any of the _Romanesque_ or even the _Scandi-Germanic_ cultures which exist so close by.  That being said, and all the implications being acknowledged, we are not and we do not want to be British.

For many Canadians, not just French Canadians, our pre-1960s adherence to British norms and forms was a problem – Navy ships mutinied and the Mainguy Commission concluded that _Anglophilic_ officers and too much _Britishness_ was part of the problem because the rank and file, the ships' companies, were resoundingly, proudly Canadian.

We, Canadians, are now pretty much accustomed to the Canadian Forces – the non-_Royal_ Canadian Navy and the non-_Royal_ Canadian Air Force and the Logistics Branch performs yeoman services without being the _Royal Canadian Logistics Corps_.  Going backwards would create divisions where none exist now.  It would be an act of quite monumental political stupidity.

----------

On the matter of _buttons and bows_:

Canadians (and British) soldiers dressed in their 'battle dress' uniforms, day-in and day-out for centuries.  It wasn't until about 1890 that someone decided that we should wear utilitarian _khaki_ uniforms in battle and in the office and barracks and, over and above that, keep obsolete uniforms for ceremonial purposes.  If we ignore the past century or so we should be happy to Troop the Colour in CADPAT battledress uniforms.

I suspect that most sailors, soldiers and aviators want three things from their uniform*s*:

1.  utility – the uniform ought to do the job intended without too much wear and tear and, especially, care;

2.  comfort; and

3.  a measure of pride.

We can and have done a pretty good job at 1 and 2, I think.  We *could* work on 3.  I, personally, would favour a ceremonial uniform which – for the army – reflected our _*Canadian*_ heritage.  For a start and only as an example:

1.  Rifle green rather than scarlet is the 'right' colour for Canadians – we, North American _loyalists_ started the _rangers_ and _rifles_ and _light infantry_ with their trade-mark green jackets and subdued badges;

2.  1885 to 1915 is the right 'period' for ceremonial uniform design.

Maybe we could strive for something akin to a dark green high collared jacket with black leather bandoleers and cross belts and the like and, for many, the late Victorian helmet (think Zulu!).

We could 'dress up' the army, without reverting to distinctly British tradition – *at some considerable cost*.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on what we called back in '85 _”Coates of many colours”_ (after Defence Minister Robert Coates who reintroduced the current Distinctive Environmental Uniforms).  Providing the 75,000 regulars and however many thousand reservists with new, high quality ceremonial uniforms will cost much more, probably the equivalent of several, even several dozens of LAV IIIs.  Is it worth it?  Is _Elliot's eye_ really that important?  I think not.


----------



## 1feral1

pidd said:
			
		

> A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers.




Sorry, but what a load of crap!  All that sovereign crap goes out the window on a two-way rifle range, its about being there for one another.

Any professional army uses its country's kit and weapons provided by their government, and utilises a chain of command, and has discipline.

We are not 'colonials', and you posts tend to make us that way, appearing as puppets of the long dead empire - no thanks. You sound like the poster child of Victorian propaganda for the movie 'The Man who Would Be King'. 'Royal' was lost almost 40 yrs ago courtesty of P.E.T. with his unification. RCN/RCAF etc are long gone, they are not coming back, time to get over it and move on. Each element has its own distinct uniforms, and they still carry traditon deep to the bone, you don't need Royal for that.

Money can be spent elsewhere on procuring better eqpt, afterall there is a war. I remember the tans, the garrison dress with fantasy indoor camouflage, and those fantasy paratrooper boots, and belt. What a waste of how many millions of dollars that was, all because of some staff weenie at NDHQ wanted to look cool behind his desk, and in the Mess???

As much as we should never forget our roots, its time to grow up and be independant, afterall the apronstrings have long been since cut with Mother England. As a military force, we grew up on the 9th of April 1917. We don't need our hand held to cross the street no longer.

Give it a rest.


My 2 bob,

Wes


----------



## aesop081

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> My point is that you can always make the excuse that there are higher priorities than stuff that serves human needs. Tradition and pride in our service does serve a human need....the need for recognition and the need to feel part of something special and pride in the outfit that one belongs to.



I put forward to you sir that devoting time, effort and money into replacing the airplane i currently fly so that i dont have to worry about becoming a giant ball of burning "Royal pride" 1500 miles from the shores of this great country......serves a pretty damned important human need. I think my comment can apply to any trade / ellement in the CF as well

Think about that


----------



## pidd

Sigh. :


----------



## aesop081

pidd said:
			
		

> Sigh. :



Its obviously not you a** on the line i guess

I'm done with this


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am all for units with Royal in their title retaining them, but I think what the pro types can't get is those that most that are in the CF now have accepted the fact that the Royal from our names is gone, unlikely to come back. We can have pride and esprit de corps in our units without the Royal. Are the units without a Royal regarded as less because they have never been awared the title? I think not.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We spent tens of millions of dollars on what we called back in '85 _”Coates of many colours”_ (after Defence Minister Robert Coates who reintroduced the current Distinctive Environmental Uniforms).  Providing the 75,000 regulars and however many thousand reservists with new, high quality ceremonial uniforms will cost much more, probably the equivalent of several, even several dozens of LAV IIIs.  Is it worth it?  Is _Elliot's eye_ really that important?  I think not.



Well we just spent 45 million out here in MARPAC for a flood that never happened so whats the big deal? We spend that amount every year on salaries for people like me to do all of the f*****ing paperwork to get rid of people who shouldn't be in the military in the first place. We have spent billions over the years to implement all sorts of crappy and stupid policies to please the human rights crowd that continue to wag their finger at us but would gladly fall in front of a biodiesel bus before joining us.
So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it! Compared to the money spent on policies and procurements that make no sense at all it is a small price to pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell

pidd said:
			
		

> Sigh. :



Don't feel so bad, pidd.

Many Canadians, including a lot in uniform, have, simply, 'moved on.'  Some, even me, would not object if someone waved a magic wand and said, "OK - the RCN and RCAF exist again.  If you wear a dark blue suit you can say, 'I'm in the RCN' and if you wear a light ..." well you get the idea.

But, pidd, and it's a big *BUT*, some would object.  "Why," they would ask, "do we have to do this?  Why do we have to slink back into _colonial_ status?"  They, a minority, probably, but a large one, are the reason it's not going to happen and they are one of the reasons it should not happen.

We should be moving to strengthen the pride which *all* Canadians ought to be able to take in the accomplishments of *their* armed forces.  We have traditions - going from North West Canada through the Nile Expedition and the Boer War all the way to Afghanistan, today.  Our soldiers are, quickly and bravery, adding lustre to our military traditions - some as members of _Royal_ regiments, other as members of 'new,' more distinctively _modern Canadian_ organizations.  All are, equally, Canada's soldiers.  Some regard themselves as the Queen's soldiers, others prefer to consider themselves as just Canadian soldiers - one is not better or braver than the other.

Maybe we can, maybe we should revitalize our traditions but let's do so to strengthen the Canadian nature of the Canadian Forces.

I, personally, am comfortable with my British roots and with the very, very British military I joined going on a half century ago.  But it wasn't then and isn't now everyone's cup of tea.  What we can all agree on is that the men and women serving today are making us proud to be Canadians.


Edit: punctuation


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

A Big Bolded *+1* for Edward


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well we just spent 45 million out here in MARPAC for a flood that never happened so whats the big deal? We spend that amount every year on salaries for people like me to do all of the f*****ing paperwork to get rid of people who shouldn't be in the military in the first place. We have spent billions over the years to implement all sorts of crappy and stupid policies to please the human rights crowd that continue to wag their finger at us but would gladly fall in front of a biodiesel bus before joining us.
> So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it! Compared to the money spent on policies and procurements that make no sense at all it is a small price to pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



But see this Ruxted article.  In the Grey Lecture St. Laurent put _national unity_ at the top of his *foreign policy* considerations.  Whatever policy we adopted, he taught, must not jeopardize national unity.  That has been pretty consistent Canadian policy since we hung Louis Riel and it remains so today.  The RCN/RCAF issue is *divisive* and is, therefire, a nonstarter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

How about we take baby steps? I'd be satisfied if we just started calling it the 'Canadian *Armed * Forces' again.


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> How about we take baby steps? I'd be satisfied if we just started calling it the 'Canadian *Armed * Forces' again.


NDA, Part II, article 14   states:  "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the *Canadian Armed Forces*."


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Captain Sensible said:
			
		

> NDA, Part II, article 14   states:  "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the *Canadian Armed Forces*."



Semantics. Especially when no one uses the term anymore. Hence CF vice CAF


----------



## George Wallace

I thought we had to remove the word "Armed" from the title, because it was too 'offensive' or 'aggressive' for our Public.   ;D

We just can't have that now, could we?   ;D


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Probably the same ones that take offense to Royal.


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall at the time, CAF was not used as it could be read as "Canadian Air Force."


----------



## McG

I recall much excitement several years back about the costs related to the GG modifying her emblem by putting the lions tongue back in its mouth & removing the claws.  I don't know what that cost was, but renaming Maritime Command would certainly cost more.



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> Tradition is something that cannot be invented or appropriated on a whim.  It grows within the collective experience of a people or institution.


So, in the half century that Maritime Command has existed, you are saying there has been no collective experience on which modern more relevant traditions may have been established?  Or should we forsake modern tradition for something that current serving members never knew?



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> *One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences'* for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have *tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes.*


So, why would we tinker with the Navy that has evolved since unification just to suite you preference to bring back the military of most serving personnel's grandfathers?



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> The removal of the title 'Royal' was a political decision that, . . .


What?  I thought you just blamed tinkering generals?



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.


Debate with you is like talking to a wall.  You want to give the title 'Royal' to Maritime Command and to Air Command.  Neither of these commands has a 'right' to any title.  Only the old services (which do not exist) had a 'right' to use the title.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it!


Well, this is irrelevant.  Are you arguing for a curl on your rank, or are you arguing to rename Maritime Command?  These two issues are separable.

I feel there is a certain amount of dishonesty in the arguments that we must fervently hold on to all traditions in their fullness because anything less is like completely destroying tradition.  This is a logical fallacy.  Pidd, please be so kind as to stop insulting the Canadian Armed Forces as being devoid of tradition.  We are full of tradition, and even without the title 'Royal' the Navy has managed to hold on to many of its own traditions.  So you can stop your poo-poo of the collective experience of the CF over the last several years as in adequate for the development of tradition.  Even traditions can evolve & transform.


----------



## FSTO

MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms? I wasn't there at the time, but many of my CTO's were and they were damn glad to be rid of them, and they joined when the Navy was green.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms? I wasn't there at the time, but many of my CTO's were and they were damn glad to be rid of them, and they joined when the Navy was green.



I don't think much of anyone, anyone beyond the Hellyer/Lee inner circle, anyway, thought the _jolly green jumper_ was a good idea.

The _rationale_ was that the USMC is a fully _integrated_ armed service in a single uniform with considerable pride, internal cohesion, etc.  But we were not attempting to build a Marine Corps, so a single uniform was a waste of money and an unnecessary aggravation added to an already difficult and poorly managed/led process.

Most of the people I knew, even those who 'joined green' were pleased to see the tri-service DEUs; many of us were dismayed at the costs - especially given the quality of kit issued.  Some of my colleagues, and I, rather wished that the Navy, for example, might have gone a bit farther with rank badges - style and quality - and that the Army might have adopted something more akin to 'real' army ranks (not necessarily pips and crowns).

_Buttons and bows_ remains a contentious issue.  It is one which I think is best approached slowly and by each service and part of service (regiment/branch).  

Slightly off topic, but: Part of the problem might be that, _traditionally_, and for good *operational* reasons, the Navy and Air Force have stressed _service_ loyalty above ship/unit cohesion while the Army has valued the unit over the service.  Thus, I have no problems with rather major _distinctions_ in dress regulations/buttons and bows between, say, The RCR and the Army's 'share' of the Logistics Branch, while some of my Air Force friends find the mix of cap badges amongst _light blue_ people to be a problem.  They (mostly people who 'joined green') would like one common Air Force _identity_ with minimal attention being paid to branch/trade.  My Navy friends are a little less dogmatic - in fact, unless I'm mistaken, the MARS people want '_Elliot's eye_' reserved for them (and MARE?) - keeping clear the _distinction_ between 'real sailors' and supporters.

One size does not fit all and it need not fit all.  But that's buttons and bows, not _Royal_ and we need to keep the two issues quite separate.

I repeat: I am not opposed to changing uniforms to better reflect all of our traditions - including those which are were developed after 1967.  I am opposed to the RCN/RCAF idea because I think it is divisive.

And that's it for me on this topic.  I've said far more than enough.

Edit: typo: "... attempting to build a Marine Corps, so a single uniform was a waste of money and an unnecessary aggravation added to an already difficult ..."


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms?


Now you are making one of those dishonest arguments that I've pointed out.  The black uniform & the Royal designation are not inseparable.  We can have some old traditions without needing all of them, and the appropriateness (right or wrong) of distinct uniforms does not prove the appropriateness (right or wrong) of old names.

Can you make an argument for the designation "Royal" without calling on a desire to wear a black uniform or have a curl on your rank?


----------



## FSTO

Well we can go back and forth on this forever. You made an argument that returning to RCN/RCAF would be divisive, cost too much and serve a questionable need. I feel that it would help esprit de corp, not cost too much and right a past wrong. Without knowing you at all I would assume that you would be okay with the erasure of all things Royal (RCMP, RBC of Canada, Royal Mint etc.). I think that we can be Canadian with RCN as much as the Aussies and Kiwi's are unique even with the RAN and RNZN.

But in the end I would be shocked to the core if this ever happened. We had the opportunity in 1985 to go farther than we did. But the real killer is that the Navy didn't get the job done in 1965.

The end.


----------



## ejames

If we change the name back to the Royal Canadian Navy then the uniforms would have to be changed. The Executive curl is a symbol of the royal designation and once we acknowledge it being present (which today with the Canadian Forces - not so much Armed anymore) we don't.

So this argument about the Executive curl and the RCN not being linked together is false...they are linked strongly together.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And who does it benefit the most by becoming the RCN and RCAF....surely not the ncms and ncos. Sounds like the only reason some want the Royal back is for the Curl alone.


----------



## ejames

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> And who does it benefit the most by becoming the RCN and RCAF....surely not the ncms and ncos. Sounds like the only reason some want the Royal back is for the Curl alone.



I wouldn't say that is the case at all. The Navy is full of traditions and we take pride in our own rich history. It is a minor part of NETP-O but learning about our role in the Battle of the Atlantic and our growth in numbers and expertise during both World Wars amazed me and made me proud. My grandfather was a member of the RCN...he fought under the Royal title in a Navy that was formed from a mold of the RN. 

I think that a lot of us can not help but feel that by being Maritime Command under the Canadian Forces simply strips us of our rich history. 

Does it effect the performance of the Forces as a whole? Probably not. Would changing everything back cost a few dollars? For sure. But that still does not mean that I can not be done. And even more so it does not mean that it should not be done.

Sorry for the lack of Air Force information on the matter...I am a sailor through and through.


----------



## kratz

I have bit my tongue long enough, reading this discussion. Modern day lower decker's are 'enjoying' the privileges of tradition.  While an army SME is respected because they have proven their knowledge, a lower decker is ignored based on rank alone. If we retreat to the old RCN method, then the officer is always right, the NCO and NCM would hardly have a voice, let alone an objection. While there is pride in the past and in some traditions, there is a purpose in moving forward with modern times.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So you feel we don't honour our past? You haven't been to a Battle of Atlantic service here in Halifax then if you believe that.


----------



## kratz

In all respect, I attend and in the past have been part of the Base Chief's work party for the BOA in Halifax. Some traditions are inviolate.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Kratz the comment was directed at ejames more so...not at you at all


----------



## Neill McKay

ejames said:
			
		

> The Executive curl is a symbol of the royal designation



I've never heard anything like that before.  Where did you hear it?

A quick flip through the rank insignia pages of Jane's Fighting Ships shows that something like a third of the navies in the world use the executive curl, and that certainly includes many non-Commonwealth navies, and navies from countries without a monarchy.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Good point Neill


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well we can go back and forth on this forever. You made an argument that returning to RCN/RCAF would be divisive,


I have not suggested it would be divisive. Others may have, but you have gotten confused.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> We Without knowing you at all I would assume that you would be okay with the erasure of all things Royal (RCMP, RBC of Canada, Royal Mint etc.).


Canadian institutions have evolved to where they are today & I see no need to add "Royal" for the sake of adding "Royal" and I do not see a need to remove "Royal" for the sake of removing it.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> I think that we can be Canadian with RCN as much as the Aussies and Kiwi's are unique even with the RAN and RNZN.


I have not suggested that we could not be Canadian with the distinction "Royal"

FSTO,
I don't think you are reading my posts.  Your entire reply is irrelevant to the points I have raised.  Thanks for not trying though.



			
				ejames said:
			
		

> So this argument about the Executive curl and the RCN not being linked together is false...they are linked strongly together.


I don't see this link:  http://www.readyayeready.com/tradition/customs-of-the-navy/3-uniforms.htm
But if there were a link, are you suggesting we should re-name Maritime Command just for you to add a curl to your rank?


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> I have not suggested it would be divisive. Others may have, but you have gotten confused.
> Canadian institutions have evolved to where they are today & I see no need to add "Royal" for the sake of adding "Royal" and I do not see a need to remove "Royal" for the sake of removing it.
> I have not suggested that we could not be Canadian with the distinction "Royal"
> 
> FSTO,
> I don't think you are reading my posts.  Your entire reply is irrelevant to the points I have raised.  Thanks for not trying though.



Well that was quite a slam! 

I guess I have erred somewhat towards the authors of the anti crowd. In the end, if you read my post, I said that I would be shocked if this happened now because we had the opportunity to retain more of our outdated, irrelevant and silly traditions in 1985 and didn't do it then.


----------



## KevinB

'85 is a bit more of a paper date FWIW -- I joined in 1987 and the tan's did not come for me (and winter greens) until fall 1988.
 I recall service flights could be taken in either uniform...

I don't see the Royal's or Patricia's bitching at the hatchet jobs done to their uniforms (the red and white from the PPCLI - and IIRC the Royals had the Blue and Gold blurb too)  : 
  Maybe we just accepted that the uniform does not make the man...


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I think the Royal designation is lost on many. I doubt it will come back for units/branches that lost, I doubt the units that have it will lose it, they were the ones who fought to keep it in the first place (i.e. The Royal Regiment of Candian Artillery, The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery School (as it is still called eventhough a part of CTC) But low and behold we look to our cap badges, they hold the crown of the Queen, our reigning Monarch. Adding the royal back in to the Navy and Airforce would make what changes again (executive curl aside) The shoulder tabs all say Canada, in different colours mind you, the ships are already named Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> . . . . and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.



No they won't, that's been discussed before.  The concepts of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are collectors' colloquialisms used to distinguish pre and post 1953 badges.  The crowns themselves are not gender specific.


----------



## Greymatters

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I don't see the Royal's or Patricia's bitching at the hatchet jobs done to their uniforms (the red and white from the PPCLI - and IIRC the Royals had the Blue and Gold blurb too)  :
> Maybe we just accepted that the uniform does not make the man...



Maybe not but I was pretty peeved when we got rid of the tans in 1997... especially since I had just finished buying a brand new tunic...


----------



## ModlrMike

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> ... and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.



I'm sure this is posted elsewhere, but here's a link to an explanation of the various crowns:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-crown.html#tudor


----------



## volition

Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??

http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html


----------



## Spencer100

volition said:
			
		

> Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??
> 
> http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html



Just signed it


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

volition said:
			
		

> Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??
> 
> http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html



Because maybe many are happy with the status quo...


----------



## Neill McKay

volition said:
			
		

> Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??



Petitions are frowned upon (and, in many cases, illegal to sign) in the Forces.


----------



## Roy Harding

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Petitions are frowned upon (and, in many cases, illegal to sign) in the Forces.



They are?

Got a regulation stating that?  QR&O, CFAO, DAOD, CANFORGEN, whatever?

Sure you're not thinking of the bad old days when we weren't allowed, BY LAW, to participate in political campaigns (along with the Public Service)?  I don't recall off hand when that particular law was changed - I think late 80's, but I stand ready for correction.

Roy


----------



## PO2FinClk

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Got a regulation stating that?  QR&O, CFAO, DAOD, CANFORGEN, whatever?


QR&0 19.10


> No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
> (a) combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
> (b) sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
> (c) obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.


----------



## Roy Harding

Well done, PO2FinClk!

Thank you - I stand corrected, but will attempt to save some dignity by noting that the regulations apply only to petitions, etcetera, related to the CF - not petitions in general.  A weak attempt at face saving, I agree.

This begs the question, though - how vigorously is this QR&O enforced?  It would seem that Neil MacKay is, indeed, correct - and folks shouldn't be soliciting signatures for petitions aimed at changing the uniform of the CF.  Is this thread in contravention of that QR&O (not that the forum itself is subject to QR&O, but some members here ARE)?

Thanks again, PO2FinClk - when I'm wrong, I like to be corrected.


Roy

Edit:  to correct typo in first sentence (original had the word "only" twice)


----------



## PO2FinClk

No worries Roy, that is how knowledge is passed - through sharing.

I would not say this thread is in contravention of the QR&O as techinically it is an anonymous Poll, where you must denote your true identity for the purposes of a Petition. I agree that any general peition completly removed from the CF would qualify under this article.

How vigourously is that article enforced - can't say I have ever seen it but summise that if one was raised high enough in public awareness that it would then likely be applied.


----------



## Mountie

Jungle said:
			
		

> Well, maybe it could use a little fixin‘... Mcpl is not a rank, it is an appointment within the rank of Cpl. Strange, considering the rank of Cpl is nothing more than a well-paid Pte, and Mcpl is the first Leadership appointment. The difference in pay is also a joke. We make fun of the number of Sgts in the US Army, but find another Army where a Rifleman (or it‘s equivalent) can be of 3 different ranks (Pte(B), Pte(T) and Cpl).
> There was a study about 10 years ago to get rid of the Mcpl appointment. Not a bad idea, today‘s Cpl would be Pte(T) with the Cpl‘s pay, and Cpl would become the first Leadership rank, replacing the Mcpl. Of course it didn‘t come through, as half the Army complained about losing one chevron and being called a Pte again, some for the rest of their career...
> Personally, I think we should have done it, and simplify the rank structure.



Without getting into the financial and administrative burden of changing the rank system, I agree with the above statement.  Eliminate the MCpl appointment/rank and make the Corporal the first leadership rank.  You could also introduce the lance corporal and lance sergeant appointments.  But that's what they should be, not a common rank like the MCpl became.  Rather they would be temporary acting ranks.  

Pte(T) - One chevron
Senior Pte/Former Cpl - One chevron & maple leaf
Lance Corporal (Acting Corporal appointment only) - Two chevrons
Corporal - Two chevrons & maple leaf (first NCO/leadership rank) 
Lance Sergeant (Acting Sergeant appointment only) - Three chevrons
Sergeant - Three chevrons & maple leaf
WO
MWO
CWO

In the infantry this would be a very effective system if we adopted the US system of fire teams.  Currently the rifle section has a 3-member LAV-III crew and 7 dismounts.  The section 2i/c is the crew commander and the senior corporal is the 3i/c or dismounted 2i/c.  One group within the dismounted section is short a member.  The section could be organized on the fire team basis.  The new corporal would be somewhere in the middle of the former Cpl & MCpl.  There would be three new corporals in the section, each in command of only two privates.  Surely this is within the scope of a more highly trained corporal.  Any private filling the role of a team leader/crew commander or corporal filling the role of section commander would temporarily be appointed lance corporal/lance sergeant and where the appropriate rank insignia to be distinguished as such.
Section Commander - Sergeant
2 x Fire Team Leader - Corporal
2 x C9A2 Gunner - Private
2 x Rifleman - Private
LAV-III Crew Commander - Corporal
LAV-III Gunner - Private
LAV-III Driver - Private

In a fully manned infantry battalion with combat support platoons (maybe a dream, but this is just a fun discussion) there could be more use of lance sergeant like in the WW2 infantry battalions.  A reformed mortar platoon could be organized with three 2-tube sections like today's British platoons.  Each detachment could be led by a lance sergeant with a sergeant as section commander or one detachment led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.  Similarly, a 6-vehicle anti-armour platoon with three 2-vehicle sections could have one vehicle commanded by a sergeant and one by a lance sergeant.  This is how the WW2 mortar and anti-tank platoons were organized (www.canadiansoldier.com).  Same thing in the recce platoon.  

In armoured reconnaissance troops the same thing is possible.  Within a two-vehicle patrol one vehicle could be led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.

If the Army was to expand to bring its units up to full strength there wouldn't need to be a huge number of corporals reduced to private.  For example, within the newly organized infantry section the old MCpl maintains his rank and position (just gets renamed to corporal, but keeps his rank insignia) and the two most senior corporals become the team leaders if they pass the required courses.    Other qualified corporals will be used to re-create the combat support platoons, be used as instructors within the training system, etc.  So in the end only unqualified/incapable corporals would be reduced to senior privates.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Wow, 3 years dead and it came back to life!!

Mountie, you *do * realie the post you quoted is..almost 5 years old?


----------



## Mountie

Yes I realize that.  Just looking at old posts and came across this one.  Thought I'd add a comment.  Sick and stuck in bed with nothing better to do.  lol   It just sparked a thought that was similar to a discussion about the fire team organization and rank that is going on in a different forum.


----------



## TCBF

Mountie said:
			
		

> Yes I realize that.  Just looking at old posts and came across this one.  Thought I'd add a comment.  Sick and stuck in bed with nothing better to do.  lol   It just sparked a thought that was similar to a discussion about the fire team organization and rank that is going on in a different forum.



- Truly, an idle mind is the devil's workshop!

 >

1. Grandfather all Corporals/MCpls.
2. After 1 Apr 09, pers joining will be under the new structure.
3. Keep the pay increments the same (but...).
4. Lance Cpl: Is a Pte who has passed JNCO Mod 6 and meets trade specs/crses.  Gets a hook.
5. Cpl: Is a Pte who has passed JNCO Mod 6, all trade specs/crses and who has four years of service. Gets two hooks.
6. MCpl: Is a Cpl qual Sgt in all aspects/courses and is awaiting a vacancy to be promoted into.

Base pay of what is now a Cpl will still extend to those who have four years in, they just won't get any hooks.  No
 ldsp crses - no hooks.



Note: this assumes agreement that stripes represent leadership and trade badges represent specialist quals.  We won't give stripes just to give techs the pay they deserve. That's what spec pay is for.

Spec/trades pay: should refect tech quals - rank pay refects leadership quals.

Note that with this new system, one could conceivably retire at twenty five years with NO stripes, but a very impressive trade badge!


----------



## Infanteer

Ugg...so complicated.  How about Private, with a hook coming later, followed by Corporal, the first level of leadership?  Sounds pretty simple.


----------



## TCBF

- With the Public Service system flattening our pay arcs, we have to encourage people to go for leadership positions even though the pay scale is not that different.  This way, ya want a stripe, take the course and the responsibility.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I cannot resist.

Don't worry about the "hooks" etc. Just get the levels right: fighters, junior leaders and senior leaders. See my comments from Aug 05. Get it right for the Armoured Corps and the Infantry first – then it will be fairly easy to “fix” the other arms and services and the Navy and Air Force, too.

I remain convinced that the keys are: levels and pay scales that reward leadership and technical skills and provide a real, measurable pay raise with each promotion and trade course.


----------



## TCBF

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I cannot resist.
> 
> Don't worry about the "hooks" etc. Just get the levels right: fighters, junior leaders and senior leaders. See my comments from Aug 05. Get it right for the Armoured Corps and the Infantry first – then it will be fairly easy to “fix” the other arms and services and the Navy and Air Force, too.
> 
> I remain convinced that the keys are: levels and pay scales that reward leadership and technical skills and provide a real, measurable pay raise with each promotion and trade course.



- Having re-read your Aug 05 comments, I agree.

- Now, as to those hooks...


----------



## X-mo-1979

Another point I have to ask about in reference to the appointment of Mcpl.
I HEARD (note I do not know this as fact, I am asking about it) that Mcpl's have their own rest area's/canteen at the LDSH(RC).
If this is true,Is this the only regiment that does this?And why make the separation for the one appointment?

Seem's as if the line is blurred as to whom the Mcpl's belong to.They do not fit the junior NCM,however they can't be in the company of Senior NCO's.

And if they are really just an appointment (I know it is written as just that) why would they need to be separated from other Cpl's?


I don't want to get into my feelings on the matter,but just to add this to the discussion.As it does present some valid points to both sides of the discussion.

And finally is this indeed true?Any other units do this?


----------



## Mountie

Good discussion, since I was critized for restarting an old thread.  I like the idea of spec pay and trade badges rather than automatic promotions to corporal.  That was sort of my point.  Thanks for explaining it better.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oh I wasn't criticizing...I should have used a  ;D 

 ;D


----------



## TCBF

- Canadian regiments rotated through the Ledra Palace Hotel in Cyprus - each six month tour came complete with a MCpl's club.

- Whatever Armoured Regt was occupying the North Marg at Lahr had an MCpl's Rest Area just outside the gate.

- It often happens.


----------



## X-mo-1979

TCBF.Thanks for the info.
In Canada now are trhe LDSh(RC) the last regiment to do this here at home?

I heard it was a Hussar tradition?Any truth to that?


----------



## geo

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Another point I have to ask about in reference to the appointment of Mcpl.
> I HEARD (note I do not know this as fact, I am asking about it) that Mcpl's have their own rest area's/canteen at the LDSH(RC).
> If this is true,Is this the only regiment that does this?And why make the separation for the one appointment?


There is a separate mess in Valcatraz for the MCpls... applied to the whole of 5 CMBG


----------



## George Wallace

Just going back to Mountie's resurrection of this topic.  I may point out, and I think many haven't noticed, that the Maple Leaf in the worn rank signifies the first levels of supervisory/leadership positions in the CF. 

The ideas put forward by Mountie, with the Maple Leaf on again, off again, as you progress through the ranks would throw that concept out the window.

As for MCpl's having their own Mess; that dates back into the early 1980's, in both Germany and Valcartier, with the RCD('s) having it well before the Hussars did.



[Edit:  The RCD in Germany had a MCpl Rest Area/Mess.  The Independent RCD Tank Sqn in Gagetown (C Sqn RCD) MCpl's voted down the idea.]


----------



## Mountie

Interesting point.  I didn't realize the maple leaf significant supervisor position.  I was thinking of it more in the context of a maple leaf signified a fully trained member.  If there was no maple leaf its just an acting rank.  I just saw that in a local police service hear and liked the idea.  A sergeant had three chevrons and a crown and when a constable was acting sergeant for either one shift or a long period of time they wore three chevrons without a crown.  This the public and other members new he was an NCO but the other members also new it was just an acting rank.


----------



## X-mo-1979

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for MCpl's having their own Mess; that dates back into the early 1980's, in both Germany and Valcartier, with the RCD('s) having it well before the Hussars did.
> [Edit:  The RCD in Germany had a MCpl Rest Area/Mess.  The Independent RCD Tank Sqn in Gagetown (C Sqn RCD) MCpl's voted down the idea.]



Interesting.
So prior to unification did Cpl's have their own mess?
Also with the stratcona Mcpl canteen,can the Mcpl's enter the Jnr NCO's canteen as that is what they are as well?


----------



## George Wallace

My father was in the RCAF, and a member of the Cpl's Club in 1 (F) Wing.  Was it the same for the Army, and the Navy, I don't know.  Nor am I sure that it was the same on all Bases.


----------



## Old Sweat

In my experience in the pre-integration army, junior NCOs had their own separate mess in the junior ranks club, but ate in the same dining hall as the privates. I am not sure if this was the case in smaller units or camps, as my experience was strictly in the artillery world of Shilo, Petawawa, Gagetown and Deilinghofen. 

Logic suggrests that if one was posted to a place like the ordnance depot in Cobourg, Ont, then numbers would dictate a combined mess, but I don't know. I do recall a small number of gunners and bombardiers on one occasion drinking together in the Petawawa headquarters units' wet canteen, but as we were in civvies I am not sure if we were legal or not.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I know Base Accommodations in Gagetown likes to keep the Pte/Cpl's separate from the MCpl's.


----------



## Kat Stevens

There was a M/Cpl mess in Chilliwack in the 80s.  It had the unique distinction of getting it's funding from the JRC (the only self sustaining mess on the base), without having to give up any of their mess dues for the JRC operations.  It was a titanic waste of money.  Any M/Cpl that showed his face in the JRC, other than on duty, was directed back across the street to his own mess, often vigorously.


----------



## X-mo-1979

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I know Base Accommodations in Gagetown likes to keep the Pte/Cpl's separate from the MCpl's.



Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
> Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D



Really?  So you still swamp pots and pans, peel spuds, and pull 0200-0400 fire picquet?  Good on ya, ever think of remustering to engineer?


----------



## X-mo-1979

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Really?  So you still swamp pots and pans, peel spuds, and pull 0200-0400 fire picquet?  Good on ya, ever think of remustering to engineer?


LOL
Chain trains deploy advance party with the troopers,extra duties,like being course senior lol.
It is seriously the most confusing rank ever.All the B/S of the trooper's,and none of the benefits of leadership. ;D

However I do get yelled at for working too much,when I thought it was a working rank...

I see why people told me it was the hardest rank,as you have to adjust to each person's idea of what a Mcpl does...depending on who's around. ;D


----------



## NCRCrow

Master Seaman (MS) is the hardest rank in the Navy as you to be a hardass on watch then eat and sleep in the same mess.

No place to decompress.

I found it hard especially as a MS in the PO2 position of EWS (Electronic Warfare Supervisor).


----------



## Edward Campbell

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> Master Seaman (MS) is the hardest rank in the Navy as you to be a hardass on watch then eat and sleep in the same mess.
> 
> No place to decompress.
> 
> I found it hard especially as a MS in the PO2 position of EWS (Electronic Warfare Supervisor).



That *was* the arm system pre-1966. The infantry section commander and tank commander were corporals. They lived, worked and suffered right with he _"squaddies"_ and were expected to command, lead, maintain good order and discipline, etc, etc, etc.

When the system changed there was much angst and many, very many good, combat seasoned leaders were firmly against it.

It doesn't make much difference in the field, obviously, and now that we have (essentially) a married army it makes less difference in barracks, I guess.


----------



## 1feral1

Mountie said:
			
		

> Without getting into the financial and administrative burden of changing the rank system, I agree with the above statement.  Eliminate the MCpl appointment/rank and make the Corporal the first leadership rank.  You could also introduce the lance corporal and lance sergeant appointments.  But that's what they should be, not a common rank like the MCpl became.  Rather they would be temporary acting ranks.
> 
> Pte(T) - One chevron
> Senior Pte/Former Cpl - One chevron & maple leaf
> Lance Corporal (Acting Corporal appointment only) - Two chevrons
> Corporal - Two chevrons & maple leaf (first NCO/leadership rank)
> Lance Sergeant (Acting Sergeant appointment only) - Three chevrons
> Sergeant - Three chevrons & maple leaf
> WO
> MWO
> CWO
> 
> In the infantry this would be a very effective system if we adopted the US system of fire teams.  Currently the rifle section has a 3-member LAV-III crew and 7 dismounts.  The section 2i/c is the crew commander and the senior corporal is the 3i/c or dismounted 2i/c.  One group within the dismounted section is short a member.  The section could be organized on the fire team basis.  The new corporal would be somewhere in the middle of the former Cpl & MCpl.  There would be three new corporals in the section, each in command of only two privates.  Surely this is within the scope of a more highly trained corporal.  Any private filling the role of a team leader/crew commander or corporal filling the role of section commander would temporarily be appointed lance corporal/lance sergeant and where the appropriate rank insignia to be distinguished as such.
> Section Commander - Sergeant
> 2 x Fire Team Leader - Corporal
> 2 x C9A2 Gunner - Private
> 2 x Rifleman - Private
> LAV-III Crew Commander - Corporal
> LAV-III Gunner - Private
> LAV-III Driver - Private
> 
> In a fully manned infantry battalion with combat support platoons (maybe a dream, but this is just a fun discussion) there could be more use of lance sergeant like in the WW2 infantry battalions.  A reformed mortar platoon could be organized with three 2-tube sections like today's British platoons.  Each detachment could be led by a lance sergeant with a sergeant as section commander or one detachment led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.  Similarly, a 6-vehicle anti-armour platoon with three 2-vehicle sections could have one vehicle commanded by a sergeant and one by a lance sergeant.  This is how the WW2 mortar and anti-tank platoons were organized (www.canadiansoldier.com).  Same thing in the recce platoon.
> 
> In armoured reconnaissance troops the same thing is possible.  Within a two-vehicle patrol one vehicle could be led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.
> 
> If the Army was to expand to bring its units up to full strength there wouldn't need to be a huge number of corporals reduced to private.  For example, within the newly organized infantry section the old MCpl maintains his rank and position (just gets renamed to corporal, but keeps his rank insignia) and the two most senior corporals become the team leaders if they pass the required courses.    Other qualified corporals will be used to re-create the combat support platoons, be used as instructors within the training system, etc.  So in the end only unqualified/incapable corporals would be reduced to senior privates.



To avoid confusion why not go back to the pre-1968 rank, it still works in most commonwealth countries, including Australia.

PTE/GNR/SPR/SIG/RFN/TPR
LCPL/LBDR
CPL/BDR
SGT
SSGT (still exists mainly in RAAOC trades)
WO2
WO1


----------



## Eye In The Sky

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
> Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D



Do you mean between WOs, Snr NCOs and Jnr Ranks?  'Cause a Snr NCO is a NCM...


----------



## X-mo-1979

Why are we tring to change the rank system anyway...I'm not following.

Changing rank's just means more freaking courses,more DEU alterations and having to procure new DEU rank slip-on's.

Can we atleast agree to wait until I reach WO so I can Grandfather into not having to do some 3 month away from family course in between tours.

Or at least until I get demoted to Cpl,seem's like a steady rank in everyones arguments. ;D



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Do you mean between WOs, Snr NCOs and Jnr Ranks?  'Cause a Snr NCO is a NCM...



Wordology.You knew.


----------



## Eye In The Sky




----------



## Mountie

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> To avoid confusion why not go back to the pre-1968 rank, it still works in most commonwealth countries, including Australia.
> 
> PTE/GNR/SPR/SIG/RFN/TPR
> LCPL/LBDR
> CPL/BDR
> SGT
> SSGT (still exists mainly in RAAOC trades)
> WO2
> WO1



Sounds good.  Just thought we could Canadianize it a little without straying to far from the old Commonwealth System.   Its just that the old Commonwealth system had permanent lance corporal positions.  I was trying to use the lance corporal/lance sergeant as acting or temporary assignments rather than a LCpl as a section 2i/c.  But I'd go for your idea.


----------



## ArmyRick

My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)

Pte
Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
WO Crown (Example CQMS)
MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
CWO same-same

I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)
> 
> Pte
> Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
> LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
> CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
> SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
> WO Crown (Example CQMS)
> MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
> CWO same-same
> 
> I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).



 ;D  I was just looking at a Shevrolet this weekend.

Chevrons.   ;D


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just going back to Mountie's resurrection of this topic.  I may point out, and I think many haven't noticed, that the Maple Leaf in the worn rank signifies the first levels of supervisory/leadership positions in the CF.


Are you certain this was intentional?  I seem to recall a Cpl for life badge, which existed only briefly, that had a maple leaf lowered & recessed into the chevrons.  This would not seem to fit with the leadership indicator concept.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Why are we tring to change the rank system anyway...I'm not following.


Yes, it is always good to confirm there is a problem before attempting to fix it.


----------



## George Wallace

If I remember correctly, that was the original Cpl rank, or MCpl rank, and it was changed for the reasons stated earlier; to make the "supervisory" ranks all the same, and remove any room for error.  

That particular rank insignia was around for only one year, before it was removed/changed.  I have no recollection of it being called "Cpl for Life".  It does bring up the question again of the "Queen's/King's Cpl" which we had a long discussion about in another thread.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, that was the original Cpl rank, or MCpl rank, and it was changed for the reasons stated earlier; to make the "supervisory" ranks all the same, and remove any room for error.
> 
> That particular rank insignia was around for only one year, before it was removed/changed.  I have no recollection of it being called "Cpl for Life".  It does bring up the question again of the "Queen's/King's Cpl" which we had a long discussion about in another thread.


That rank was the "Trade  Corporal".  Very confusing time.
The only problem with our rank structure is that very odd "appointment": Master Corporal.
A brief history (as I understand it).
The MND wanted a broad based pay raise in the late 60's/early 70's.  Treasury board said "no".  So, the MND changed the prerequisites for promotion from Pte to Cpl.  Next thing you know, at four years, you automatically became a corporal.  Now, the knock off effect is that there already were a bunk of NCO Corporals (yes, Corporals are still Jr NCOs: I mean NCO-trained).  So, Cpl Bloggins, who completed NCO training, wore the same rank as a four year wonder corporal.  How to differentiate?  I believe that that Trade Corporal was a first attempt, if not an attempt cocncurrent to the introduction of the Master Corporal appointment.
This brings me to the point about The RCR and the lanyard we used to wear (OD Combats).  There were rumours that it was a battle honour, etc, but truth be told, it was the Regiment's attempt (initially) to identify NCO-trained Cpls from four year Cpls.  Of course, Sgts, WOs and Offrs all wore the lanyard as well (until 2001 or so when we all got CADPAT).


----------



## ArmyRick

Seems like a logical explanation once you understand how things work in the CF.

I don't agree with how our CPL rank is treated. 

On one end, you get a PTE who is really switched on and worked very hard to get it, he definately deserves it.

On the other hand, you got the minimal standard dirt bag that got it because "his time was due".

I don't beleive any rank should be a "give me".


----------



## geo

The Maple leaf on the MCpl & Sgt rank badges is the symbol of leadership... 

The rank of Cpl used to mean something.... many moons ago, I had to take my Jr NCO course prior to being promoted to Cpl.... then again, A Sgt was the Platoon Sgt / 2IC and the WO was the CQMS.  (the Lance Cpl rank was just dissapearing when I came in... Lance Sgt had dissapeared)

Is there a need for both the MCPL and CPL ranks?


----------



## vonGarvin

geo said:
			
		

> *Is there a need for both the MCPL and CPL ranks? *


Since Master Corporal isn't a rank, you'll have to rephrase the question thus: Is there a need for the MCpl appointment?
Interesting.  We could cloud the matter more, and invent a "Specialist" rank, equal in pay/benefits to Corporal, but Corporal would be a leadership rank, whilst Specialist would be what it implies: a highly trained soldier who specialises in "something".
Or we could keep MCpl.


----------



## geo

Specialists could be identified by the old traditional method.... bigger & better trade badges.

WRT the MCPL being an appointment..... if we dump the Cpl freebie the MCPL becomes redundant and Corporals would be Leaders again..... which sorta goes against the US Rank structure - which is prolly one of the reasons we did what we did.


----------



## vonGarvin

geo said:
			
		

> Specialists could be identified by the old traditional method.... bigger & better trade badges.
> 
> WRT the MCPL being an appointment..... if we dump the Cpl freebie the MCPL becomes redundant and Corporals would be Leaders again..... which sorta goes against the US Rank structure - which is prolly one of the reasons we did what we did.


Actually, our rank structure (at least the insignia) was re-designed (for officers, anyway) to make it more easily recognised by our US allies.
Dump MCpl, make all quals now required for MCpl to Cpl.  Fine.  Then what of the Cpls out there now?  Reduction in rank?  
I say "Leave well enough alone".  No need for trade badges.  Where would we put them on our uniforms?  I mean combats and the like, not DEU.


----------



## Michael OLeary

geo said:
			
		

> .... if we dump the Cpl freebie



I agree, if there are any Hellyer Corporals still serving they should be immediately reverted to the rank of Private.  Then can we move on and solve today's problems, instead of 1968's?


----------



## RangerRay

Ugh...should never have changed it in the first place!


----------



## blacktriangle

Great, I really am going to be a private forever.


----------



## eugenetswong

I tried to read this entire thread, but I just don't have the time or heart for it. I read from page 1 to 11, then 22 to about 19.

I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.

I suggest the following, up to the 1st hook Private. I don't care about the rest, as long as the pay reflects trade skill, and rank reflects leadership. My suggestions are also more applicable to the reserves, where people can attend BMQ, but not SQ for quite an extended period of time.


*Rank Name**Responsibility* {or lack thereof }Recruitjust show up for training; only authorized to practise drills and learn; not allowed to wear uniforms outside of training, not allowed to wear cap badge; no slip-on to wearSoldier/Sailor/Airmenqualified to do general duties; qualified to be canon fodder; can wear uniform in public; wear triservice cap badge; considered purple trade; wears slip-on with no hookPrivate/Trooper/Sapper/etc.performs trade duties; considered an apprentice; wears appropriate cap badge; wears a 1-hook slip-on

When the recruit finishes BMQ, he'll get a cap badge, as his reward, and be promoted to Soldier or whatever. When he finishes SQ or the equivalent, he then gets promoted to the Private, etc., and then get a new cap badge.

What do you all think?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Personally, I think there is not enough broken with the way things currently are to warrant fixing it.

Cpls are Cpls.  Jnr NCOs.  Same as they would be if we got ride of the MCpl appointment.  They still perform Jnr leadership roles.  

My 2 cents.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

eugenetswong said:
			
		

> I tried to read this entire thread, but I just don't have the time or heart for it. I read from page 1 to 11, then 22 to about 19.
> 
> I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.
> 
> I suggest the following, up to the 1st hook Private. I don't care about the rest, as long as the pay reflects trade skill, and rank reflects leadership. My suggestions are also more applicable to the reserves, where people can attend BMQ, but not SQ for quite an extended period of time.
> 
> 
> *Rank Name**Responsibility* {or lack thereof }Recruitjust show up for training; only authorized to practise drills and learn; not allowed to wear uniforms outside of training, not allowed to wear cap badge; no slip-on to wearSoldier/Sailor/Airmenqualified to do general duties; qualified to be canon fodder; can wear uniform in public; wear triservice cap badge; considered purple trade; wears slip-on with no hookPrivate/Trooper/Sapper/etc.performs trade duties; considered an apprentice; wears appropriate cap badge; wears a 1-hook slip-on
> 
> When the recruit finishes BMQ, he'll get a cap badge, as his reward, and be promoted to Soldier or whatever. When he finishes SQ or the equivalent, he then gets promoted to the Private, etc., and then get a new cap badge.
> 
> What do you all think?



Not to be rude but it sounds alitle bit like Beavers, to Cubs, to Boy Scouts to me...remember, you DID ask what people think.  Thats what I think.


----------



## eugenetswong

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not to be rude but it sounds alitle bit like Beavers, to Cubs, to Boy Scouts to me...remember, you DID ask what people think.  Thats what I think.


I don't think that you sound rude. Why do think that it sounds a bit like those organizations?


----------



## CalgarySailor

The RCN and RCAF should be reinstated in advance of the 100th anniversary of the RCN (May, 2010).  And for those too young to appreciate the abomination which Cpl. Hellyer (Pearsons Defence Minister) established in 1968 and don't know any better, the RCN and RCAF more than did their part to shape our national identity in most 20th Century conflicts.  The abdication of these traditions was nothing more than the appeasement of a political elite who neither paid the price nor earned the right to do so!  Confused?  Consicentious objectors ring a bell?  Oh yes it is broke and does need fixin'!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

:boring:


----------



## Gasplug

Why would we do such a thing? ???

Unification in 1967 (when Bil C-243 was passed) was a bad idea because the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson refused to change the Canadian commitments to NATO and NORAD.  With stovepiped commitments for all three Services, they were bound to remain the "three" solitudes.  The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Warsaw Pact, 9/11 and the most recent transformation of the CF have generated a new reality for the CF.  The three Services are not warfighters anymore but force generators much more akin to the Title 10 responsibilities of the US Armed Forces. When the CF deploys nowadays, it is an integrated force, not stovepipes. 

If the Services are not individually going to be called to fight WW3, we do not need to bring back entities that were employed that way in the past.  All we will be creating is the old stovepipes all over again. The RCN and the RCAF were indeed instrumental in making the CF what it is now, but that does mean we need them for the future.

My two cents...

Gasplug


----------



## 1feral1

Gasplug said:
			
		

> Mike Pearson



I thought it was Lester B Pearson.

Where did Mike come from?

I think Gasplug is set to 'grenade'  ;D

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Gasplug

> I thought it was Lester B Pearson.
> 
> Where did Mike come from?



OD from OZ!

Mike was actually LBP's nickname. I don't remember why or where he got it? But I can look it up in his bio at home when I get there later today.

4.5 seconds later    :skull:

Gasplug


----------



## tabernac

If the RCN and RCAF were to be brought back (and I strongly believe they should), it would be in name only. And thats all it needs to be, the renaming of Maritime Cmd to RCN and Air Cmd to RCAF.

Simple change to perpetuate the memories of those that went before us.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> Simple change to perpetuate the memories of those that went before us.



...so, using your anology we just ignore those whom have gone since then?


----------



## CalgarySailor

Your reply is absurd!  Of course NO; much has been sacrificed by CF members.  As we well know but the fact remains the Army has borne the brunt but they have also done so under their regimental names and in most cases tthat is/has been with a  Royal designation............  Those that forget their history are destined to repeat its mistakes.  The discontinuance of the RCN and RCAF was a huge mistake and its an even larger one that it remains uncorrected.


----------



## tabernac

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...so, using your anology we just ignore those whom have gone since then?



Thats not what I said. And I don't understand how you got that from my post. We all know that those people will never be forgotten, however that name change will not only continue that, it will remind Canadians that we do infact have a Navy and Air Force.

When I told people from my highschool that I was joining the Navy as an officer, I was always met by 2 questions. "Why?" and "We have a navy?" 

If you don't like the idea, just state it, don't dance around...  :


----------



## CalgarySailor

It was about political expediency then as it is today.  Ask yourself why the Conservatives won't even touch the issue.  I have requested this through the PM and the former Defense Minister O'Connor and none would entertain it.  Why?  Why did the Liberals dispose of it?  Look at your history and figure it our teacher.


----------



## CountDC

WOW!!  

Can't believe such a simple thing as a slight name change would stir up so much argument.  People going on about "huge" cost, change of command structure, etc.  

It is a simple addition of one word - Royal.

Huge cost?  I look at my shoulder ranks - guess what - says CANADA.  No cost there.  Ships are already named HMCS - no cost again.  Letterhead?  Most is printed as needed so no huge cost there either. A few signs changed - not a huge cost there either.  Just can't find these huge costs anywhere I look.

Change to command structure - where does that come from??  Already have seperate commands that fall under the CDS so no change there.

Just can't find the main issues that most have argued about.  There is no huge cost and there is no change to command structure simply by a slight name change.

Myself - couldn't care less whether they change it or not other than typing it will take a split second longer. Whoopee. Not like anyone other than the media uses it very often.  Don't see me saying "I am in the Royal Canadian Navy" - will stick to what I say now if asked - I'm in the navy. Pretty sure that most give the same answer.

Oops - how silly of me - almost forgot the traditions argument- changing the name will not automatically bring back the old traditions (good or bad) same as it did not automatically kill them. Traditions are carried on and killed off by people not names.


----------



## alfie

While we are at it bring back the Royal to all the units and forget Trudeau ever happened .


----------



## bartbandyrfc

Gasplug said:
			
		

> Why would we do such a thing? ???
> 
> Unification in 1967 (when Bil C-243 was passed) was a bad idea because the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson refused to change the Canadian commitments to NATO and NORAD.  With stovepiped commitments for all three Services, they were bound to remain the "three" solitudes.  The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Warsaw Pact, 9/11 and the most recent transformation of the CF have generated a new reality for the CF.  The three Services are not warfighters anymore but force generators much more akin to the Title 10 responsibilities of the US Armed Forces. When the CF deploys nowadays, it is an integrated force, not stovepipes.
> 
> If the Services are not individually going to be called to fight WW3, we do not need to bring back entities that were employed that way in the past.  All we will be creating is the old stovepipes all over again. The RCN and the RCAF were indeed instrumental in making the CF what it is now, but that does mean we need them for the future.
> 
> My two cents...
> 
> Gasplug



Gasplug,

You are confusing two different issues.  The issues that you confuse are the concepts of Unification versus Integration.

In your argument, you are saying that the petition advocates the abolition of "Integration". This is not true, and if you read the petition it is very clear on this point.  Integration is concept of a joint and unified command structure, and seeking common logistics arrangements and other efficiencies wherever and whenever it is possible. In point of fact, the concept of integration was an extremely successful initiative and no one is advocating a reversal of this concept. The latest transformation initiatives actually takes the integration concept one step further, making the unified command concept and joint outlook that was envisaged in 1966 very much a reality. All three "services" were actually nearly 100% behind this when the first step was taken with the establishment of CFHQ during, I believe, 1964.  CF Materiel Command was also established around that time, with the mandate to rationalize and make more efficient the CF procurement efforts and logistics services.  These are very good things, and we all agree that this should continue.

The petition actually seeks to reverse the concept of unification, which neutered the historical traditions of two of the three elements with no concern for the very real contributiion that this has on esprit de corps.  Imagine if the MND had numbered all of the Canadian Regiiments along the lines of US Army and Marine units.  No RCD, no RCR, no RWR, no RNR, no 8CH no PPCLI, no R22eR.... The army would have had its proud lineage eliminated.  Just imagine the army with a 1 CF Regiment, 2 CF Regiment, etc.  

This is what we proponents seek to reverse for the air force and the navy. It actually recognizes the reality of what is happening in the Air Force.  We celebrate the establishment of the RCAF every year, we parade on Battle of Britain Sunday, we stand on tables during mess dinners when the RCAF Marchpast is played by the band.  Let us recognize who we are.

BB


----------



## Michael OLeary

bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> The petition actually seeks to reverse the concept of unification, which neutered the historical traditions of two of the three elements with no concern for the very real contributiion that this has on esprit de corps.  Imagine if the MND had numbered all of the Canadian Regiiments along the lines of US Army and Marine units.  No RCD, no RCR, no RWR, no RNR, no 8CH no PPCLI, no R22eR.... *The army would have had its proud lineage eliminated.*  Just imagine the army with a 1 CF Regiment, 2 CF Regiment, etc.



BB,

and you are confusing the concepts of unit/regimental naming and lineage.  Renaming units does not strike out all connections which go before, unless it is accompanying by the disbanding of all units and the creation of completely new ones.  To make such a comparison valid, it would have to be argued that the current Navy and Air Force were only created in 1970 and have no entitlement to claim any history, heritage or lineage that occurred before that time - which we all know is untrue.

The only major break with previous heritage (as far as official lineage is concerned) that occurred in the army was Confederation, when newly authorized units were created under the new national authority.  Changes of naming since then, whether through amalgamations of units or not, has happened repeatedly in the army over the course of its history.  At no time did such renaming of existing units "eliminate proud heritage."  To infer that happened in 1970 is an exaggeration that undermines the argument to revert to the "Royal" service names.  

Mike


----------



## Gasplug

> In your argument, you are saying that the petition advocates the abolition of "Integration".  This is not true, and if you read the petition it is very clear on this point.  Integration is concept of a joint and unified command structure, and seeking common logistics arrangements and other efficiencies wherever and whenever it is possible.  In point of fact, the concept of integration was an extremely successful initiative and no one is advocating a reversal of this concept. The latest transformation initiatives actually takes the integration concept one step further, making the unified command concept and joint outlook that was envisaged in 1966 very much a reality. All three "services" were actually nearly 100% behind this when the first step was taken with the establishment of CFHQ during, I believe, 1964.  CF Materiel Command was also established around that time, with the mandate to rationalize and make more efficient the CF procurement efforts and logistics services.  These are very good things, and we all agree that this should continue.



BB

If my argument comes out as being against integration, that is far from my intent.  Believe me that I know the difference between the two of them since that is the topic of master's dissertation with the RMC War Studies program.  What I want is to keep the good parts of both Integration and Unification (Yes there were good bits within Unification, although the green uniform wasn't it! The CF high command would have been hard to manage if the three services had kept their Chiefs of Staff, for example) while we rectify the bad parts.  If bringing back the monikers "Royal" to the Navy and Air Force while maintaining the current force generation role of Maritime Command and Air Command, that would be acceptable to me.  I would hate to see us go back to the 70s and 80s and lose the "jointness" we have gained in the 90s and 00s. I guess this is a case of "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".

BTW, there was also some talk about getting rid of all the regimental names for the Army also.  That one did fly very high since there was still way too many WW2 Army vets, with a lot of votes! 

Gasplug


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

CalgarySailor said:
			
		

> It was about political expediency then as it is today.  Ask yourself why the Conservatives won't even touch the issue.  I have requested this through the PM and the former Defense Minister O'Connor and none would entertain it.  Why?



I would hope because they had issues that actually mattered to deal with......

For Pete's sake, calling the Artillery  1 Big Gun Regt, 2 Big Gun Regt and 5iem Regt. de Gros Fusil wouldn't change anything that I care about, like the traditions, the people, my service, nada......I guess I just think worrying, and doing something about, a better future honours our past fallen more than someones favourite pet names.


----------



## Snakedoc

FinClk said:
			
		

> QR&0 19.10
> 
> No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
> (a) combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
> (b) sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
> (c) obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.



Despite this, change can still occur by writing letters individually as Canadian Citizens to MP's expressing your opinions.  This is something that is much more effective than signing a petition, especially after an election as that is when government's have the most political will to make policy changes.


----------



## aesop081

Will changing to "Royal" get me a replacement for my 28 year old airplane ?

Will changing to "Royal" give me people to put in those vacant positions we have at the unit ?

Will changing to "Royal" provide us with more money for training ?

If you answer is "no", then explain to me why this is more important the the other issues i have to deal with every day.

If your answer is "yes" then i would realy, realy like for you to prove it.

We have much more important things to worry about don't we ?


----------



## Rodahn

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Will changing to "Royal" get me a replacement for my 28 year old airplane ?
> 
> Will changing to "Royal" give me people to put in those vacant positions we have at the unit ?
> 
> Will changing to "Royal" provide us with more money for training ?
> 
> If you answer is "no", then explain to me why this is more important the the other issues i have to deal with every day.
> 
> If your answer is "yes" then i would realy, realy like for you to prove it.
> 
> We have much more important things to worry about don't we ?



Add to the above, that I rather doubt that there is possibly ten or less *serving* members who were in prior to integration. I would even guess that the number might be 0.


----------



## George Wallace

CountDC said:
			
		

> It is a simple addition of one word - Royal.



WRONG!  It is not a "Simple addition of one word".  It is a very intricate set of rules and customs that will bring about the Sovereign's presenting the title "Royal" to both the Navy and the Air Force.  This all requires the motion to be made in the government and the motion to be passed, etc.  It requires the design of the new crest and hatbadges, following the standards set out in heraldry, and then the sending of the requests through the bureaucracy to eventually get the approving signature of the Monarch.  

Or so I have the impression.


----------



## dapaterson

George:  Good reminder of key points - you can't just call something "Royal" - that requires the action of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

There would be significant staff effort required to make all the necessary changes (to regulations, publications, signage, badges, accouterments etc) after the receipt of Royal Assent - all to what end?


Besides, were we to re-name the dedicated, intelligent. hard-working, motivated and responsible sailors to "The Royal Canadian Navy", what would we call MARPAC?  >


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.


----------



## Kat Stevens

There is also the very real possibility that HRM may just say "We (the Royal "We") bestowed the honorific on both services once, it was returned to us in 1968.  Why would We bestow them again?  Now piss off and reap what ye have sown."  Or something like that.


----------



## Yrys

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> HRM may just say "We (the Royal "We") bestowed the honorific on both services once, it was returned to us in 1968.
> Why would We bestow them again?  Now piss off and reap what ye have sown."  Or something like that.



I'm more then highly doubtful that Her Majesty has ever express herself like that even in private, even maybe to herself   ...
It would probably be stopped by some of her staff long before  reaching her ears ... I'm sure they don't like playing yoyo
(is that a French expression only?) !

I'm not aware of Elizabeth II ever refusing a request, but I'm not following what she's doing in England .


----------



## Occam

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.



Like making sure our e-mail signature blocks all have the same appearance?  

The uselessness of the action has never been an impediment to implementation in this outfit.


----------



## dapaterson

Maybe this request isn't useless enough to implement?


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Maybe this request isn't useless enough to implement?



By Jove, I think you're onto something!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well our first designation was the Naval Service of Canada, should we not go back to that if we are getting nostalgic? Do not our first sailors deserve to be recognized then because without them we would not have had our Navy. Why does it have to be RCN, lets bring back the NSC if we truly want to honour our roots.


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> Like making sure our e-mail signature blocks all have the same appearance?



A decision that was not made by DND btw.........

Was it necessary ? No it wasnt. It didnt add anything to operational effectiveness.

Is going "Royal" necessary ?

Will it add to operational effectiveness ?


----------



## bartbandyrfc

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.



Agreed.  As for "pressing needs", I say that there is zero staff effort being put into responding to this petition. That said, 2/3 of this group think that it's a good idea and there are 300 plus posts on the subject.  Doesn't that make it worth discussing?

We are just expressing opinions, aren't we????  I get so confused by this forum sometimes.  We have a good thread going, with good opinions for or against.  Isn't this a place to discuss issues and opinions?  Frankly, CDN Aviator's assessment that I or anyone shouldn't care about this because we have "more improtant issues" to deal with is first class egg suckage.  Duhhh. It's almost like some people think this forum is a venue for setting CF priorities. Perhaps we need to lock the thread, for fear that we might actually set this as a CF priority, with an associated project management staff.

Jeez, I'll not visit here again.


----------



## Occam

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A decision that was not made by DND btw.........



Nor would a decision to add "Royal" back into the mix...



> Was it necessary ? No it wasnt. It didnt add anything to operational effectiveness.
> 
> Is going "Royal" necessary ?
> 
> Will it add to operational effectiveness ?



No, it'll actually neither hinder nor improve operational effectiveness.  It will, however, right a wrong that was committed 40 years ago.  The Navy, if nothing else, is huge on tradition.


----------



## aesop081

Occam said:
			
		

> It will, however, right a wrong that was committed 40 years ago.



I dont see it that way. I dont see a wrong.




> The Navy, if nothing else, is huge on tradition.



Yet the Navy managed to give up sails as a means of propulsion for its warships........odd.



			
				bartbandyrfc said:
			
		

> Doesn't that make it worth discussing?



I thought that it was exactly what we were doing.........



> We are just expressing opinions, aren't we????



That is exactly what i have done.



> Jeez, I'll not visit here again.



So because my opinion is different than what 2/3s of the posters here think, it is "egg suckage" ?

Why should i be concerned about a Royal designation ? What will it change in my professional life ? No one has bothered to answer that one for me ?


----------



## The Bread Guy

I'm all for tradition, but as a taxpayer, I cringe to think how much staff work, time, energy and money would be spent to do this, compared to where ELSE said resources could be spent to better effect.



			
				Occam said:
			
		

> The Navy, if nothing else, is huge on tradition.



Ah yes, the classic from the Pogues.....  kidding, kidding


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Am I the only one here who wonders how this leads inexorably to the defeat of an implacable foe during a war?  Cus if it doesn't. it doesn't matter.

Let's get a bit of perspective here.


----------



## Fusaki

> Am I the only one here who wonders how this leads inexorably to the defeat of an implacable foe during a war?  Cus if it doesn't. it doesn't matter.
> 
> Let's get a bit of perspective here.



Pro Pat to that! ;D

De-unification of the CF sounds like a job for the "Col.-in-charge-of-Pencils"... that guy who gets paid a lot but doesn't have anything better to do.


----------



## 1feral1

Gasplug said:
			
		

> OD from OZ!
> 
> Mike was actually LBP's nickname. I don't remember why or where he got it? But I can look it up in his bio at home when I get there later today.
> 
> 4.5 seconds later    :skull:
> 
> Gasplug



I was not quite 9 yrs old when PET took over the reins.

Being Saskakatchewan born and rasied, and until now, I have never heard Pearson referrred to as Mike. Your info is correct on his nickname. So my gasplug is on incorrect, ha!

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Occam said:
			
		

> Nor would a decision to add "Royal" back into the mix...
> 
> No, it'll actually neither hinder nor improve operational effectiveness.  It will, however, right a wrong that was committed 40 years ago.  The Navy, if nothing else, is huge on tradition.


However, the Navy did not spontaeous combust when we were no longer the RCN now did it? We have been getting by quite well since Unification. in the 14 years I have been a sailor most are happy on how things are and could care less if we stay how we are now or go back to the RCN. That in itself should be telling to those who want to change things.


----------



## McG

I am intrigued by those using the argument that the Navy & Air Force lost their identities while the Army did not because many/most regiments were not renamed.  The Canadian Army ceased to exist to the same degree as the RCAF and RCN.  The names were gone and the organizations permanently changed.  Sure, most regiments kept their names but, at the same time, so did the ships of the Navy and Squadrons of the Air Force.  Just as there was no 1-1 Canadian Infantry, there was no HMCS Number 1.  The Air Squadrons can trace their numbering system back to the squadrons of the Second World War.

So, names changed at the top level for all services and all services lost their status as unique services.  As was already mentioned, this change did not break the lineage of the environmental commands that exist today.  The history is still there.  What real benefit would be gained by another name change today?


----------



## Neill McKay

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> There is also the very real possibility that HRM may just say "We (the Royal "We") bestowed the honorific on both services once, it was returned to us in 1968.  Why would We bestow them again?  Now piss off and reap what ye have sown."  Or something like that.



No, I don't think I would describe that as a real possibility at all.  First because the Queen is not a petulant eight-year-old, and second because she follows the advice of her ministers unless the wheels have fallen off the government in a big way.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.



This argument is always brought out when this issue comes up for discussion (several times in this latest go-round) but it's about the weakest one there is on the "no" side.  It's not an either/or situation: the entire machinery of government would not have to grind to a halt to bring about a change in the names of two commands in the CF.  The bullets and beans would still be procured at the same rate as otherwise, we'd all keep getting paid twice a month, and there'd be as much fuel in the gas tanks of the army and air force and the bunkers of the navy as there is today.  So it doesn't matter that there are more pressing needs -- the meeting of those needs would not be hindered in any way.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well our first designation was the Naval Service of Canada, should we not go back to that if we are getting nostalgic? Do not our first sailors deserve to be recognized then because without them we would not have had our Navy. Why does it have to be RCN, lets bring back the NSC if we truly want to honour our roots.



The Naval Service of Canada didn't win the Battle of the Atlantic or bust trains in Korea.  In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find that it did very much of anything.

For the largest part of its existence in years, and the vast majority of its existence in person-years and ship-years, the Canadian navy was called the RCN.  The change away from that name was done specifically to eliminate the identity of the navy, and -- to play on the argument above -- to no operational advantage whatsoever.  The proposed change back to RCN is about righting a historical wrong or, to be a bit more colourful, cleaning up an act of political vandalism by a guy who was upset that he couldn't be in the air force at the end of the war.



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Am I the only one here who wonders how this leads inexorably to the defeat of an implacable foe during a war?  Cus if it doesn't. it doesn't matter.



In effect, you are arguing against any sort of acknowledgement of history and heritage.  Would you accept getting rid of DEUs and having a new garrison/parade uniform consisting of plain grey coveralls with no insignia except your name, the words Canadian Forces, and a number corresponding to your "rank", i.e. 1 for Soldier 1 (= private), 2 for Soldier 2 (= corporal) etc?  No flags or Colours?  No buildings named after those who came before us?  The PPCLI re-named Infantry Regiment #3?

I'll grant you that's a bit of a straw man, but unless you WOULD accept the above, and more, to the point of erasing every vestige of custom and tradition and becoming a branch of the civil service -- or, dare one say, "just a job" -- then you have to admit the value of heritage in the Forces.  The move to get our old names back is an attempt to reclaim a piece of heritage that was got rid of for no sensible or useful purpose.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Sounds like a waste of time.  I would rather keep the royal out of it, but then again I would rather see prime ministers on my coinage too.

Why don't we tackle something more pressing, why doesn't the Air Force change their DEU's to a darker blue, lets ditch this baby blue stuff...  :

The money spent going backwards could easily be spent on new kit.


----------



## McG

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I'll grant you that's a bit of a straw man, but unless ...


It is very much a straw man.  It is also gross exaggeration and a false analogy.  Unless you feel you are talking to a bunch of fools, then you know you cannot hold out such logical fallacies demand we accept them as irrefutable demonstrations of your position.  I also find it amusing that, in the post immediately following my observation that the navy was never forced into a system of "ship number 1," you are again diving headfirst into the "Canadian Regiment Number 1" foolery.   

... but this is not important as nobody is arguing that there is no value to heritage and tradition.  The position you are contesting with your plea to emotion is simply that there is not value in bringing back names that have been gone for ~30 years.  Names have changed, organizations have transformed, and traditions have evolved.  There is no value in turning back the clock.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> This argument [that the CF has more urgent problems/concerns] is always brought out when this issue comes up for discussion (several times in this latest go-round) but it's about the weakest one there is on the "no" side.  It's not an either/or situation: the entire machinery of government would not have to grind to a halt to bring about a change in the names of two commands in the CF.  The bullets and beans would still be procured at the same rate as otherwise, we'd all keep getting paid twice a month, and there'd be as much fuel in the gas tanks of the army and air force and the bunkers of the navy as there is today.  So it doesn't matter that there are more pressing needs -- the meeting of those needs would not be hindered in any way.


We are in the middle of a shooting war and you believe that resistance to reassigning human and financial resources to a feelgood project for retirees is a weak argument?  I can assure you that there are war requirements which are not being met fast enough due to limitations of human and financial resources (and the shortage is not limited to within DND & the CF but in other government departments as well).


----------



## Kat Stevens

N. McKay said:
			
		

> No, I don't think I would describe that as a real possibility at all.  First because the Queen is not a petulant eight-year-old, and second because she follows the advice of her ministers unless the wheels have fallen off the government in a big way.



No, she's not, but I think you'll find an honour granted once, and discarded, would not readily be offered again by anyone.  Do you give the same gift twice?  Are you a petulant 8 year old?  You're a real smart guy, much smarter than a dumb ol' lifer Corporal like me.  I'm surprised you didn't pick up on the attempt to inject a little humour.  We all pick our battles, I guess, and I gave this one up long ago.  Fresh out of windmills to tilt at, I'm afraid.


edited to remove possibly inflammatory sentence


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> This argument is always brought out when this issue comes up for discussion (several times in this latest go-round) but it's about the weakest one there is on the "no" side.



I say BS to that...I am more worried with finding guys to sail on our next trip then if our designation is changing. I am worried if my equipment is going to work correctly, because who knows maybe that supposed easy NATO we are deploying on might involve us in a shooting war.I am also worried because if this petition gains a sympathetic ear someplace it will drag competent people off of ships where they are needed to a discussion table on whther or not "Royal" should be brough back in



> The Naval Service of Canada didn't win the Battle of the Atlantic or bust trains in Korea.  In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find that it did very much of anything.


Really? Without those first men and boys joining up and laying the ground work you would not have had your precious RCN and I would not be in my job today. So horse puckie,(yeah I just watched M*A*S*H recently 0 those people are owed our respect as much as the early RCN vets. :


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> I can assure you that there are war requirements which are not being met fast enough due to limitations of human and financial resources (and the shortage is not limited to within DND & the CF but in other government departments as well).



I don't dispute that, but as long as there is a Directorate of History and Heritage I think it's safe to say that resources are already in place to address things like the names of Commands.  It's not as if this proposal would be carried out by re-tasked infanteers, supply techs, and medical officers.  We're talking about signage and letterhead here, not a re-drawing of the org chart.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Why?.....so that in a few years those that have proudly served since unification start a petition lamenting on how their tradition has been stolen from them?

Lets make this like drill commands,......
"ATTENTION" ...
 "HEADS AND TAILS TO THE RIGHT" ... 
.."wait for iiiiit"....
"CHASE"


----------



## aesop081

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't dispute that, but as long as there is a Directorate of History and Heritage I think it's safe to say that resources are already in place to address things like the names of Commands.  It's not as if this proposal would be carried out by re-tasked infanteers, supply techs, and medical officers.  We're talking about signage and letterhead here, not a re-drawing of the org chart.



What is to be gained by doing this re-naming ?

Not a single "pro" person here has managed to explain that to me yet...including yourself. Will going "Royal" fix any of the problems we face ? Will we all of a sudden be more willing to put in extra hours or sacrifice one more thing for the CF ? Will recruiting suddenly surge ?

What is wrong with what we have now ?

You keep saying " righting a wrong" but really, how was i wronged ? I have never know the RCN or RCAF..........


----------



## Yrys

On a side note,



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Will recruiting suddenly surge ?



I hope I won't get hacked for saying that, but
I think in Québec, the recruiting could go down a bit,
because of the perception of some francophones about
Royal, the Queen and "those British that took our country from us"...

I'm a francophone, and I'm certainly not saying that all french Qcers 
would rethink theirs entries in the army. But for some of them, the 
army is about *Canada*, and reminding them officially that we are 
a constitutional monarchy won't sit well with theirs stomach ...


----------



## Old Sweat

I am one of the few members on this site who was serving prior to the unification of the three services. The personnel and organizational turmoil that pre-dated the amendment to the NDA coming into effect and then ensued over the next several years was an experience I would not wish on any of you. And I was in a combat arms unit and was out of Canada for part of it, and therefore was not as badly effected as most. If, as seems possible, all that is envisioned is a re-naming of two of the three former services, then someone may not have done their homework or may be terribly naive. To reinstate separate services would require an amendment to the National Defence Act, which would include some major changes including establishing powers of the heads of the three services, altering those of the CDS and perhaps those of officers commanding commands. And then many, many people begin amending QR&O into three separate volumes and then doing the same with CFAOs or whatever they are called now and all the other hordes of regulations.

Is the result worth the cost of unleashing a major bureaucratic paper chase in wartime? 

If you want to rename the organizations headed by the three service chiefs in NDHQ without making them heads of separate services, that may be another matter. It still will require a major bureaucratic effort just to make some people feel good. CFB Halifax is unlikely to be renamed HMCS Halifax or whatever its pre-integration name was, and RCAF Moose Jaw is unlikely to reappear and the troops in Petawawa will not be in a Camp as opposed to a CFB. We have more than enough that needs to be fixed in the CF to try something that may, in the long run, not be acceptable to our (your) civilian masters.

If in doubt, improve the CF's fighting ability before attempting anything else.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Excellent point Yrys.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Hey, can we bring back the rank of Flight Sergeant while we're at it?   ;D

Nothing to be gained, other more critical needs to spend time/energy/money on.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

N. McKay said:
			
		

> In effect, you are arguing against any sort of acknowledgement of history and heritage.  Would you accept getting rid of DEUs and having a new garrison/parade uniform consisting of plain grey coveralls with no insignia except your name, the words Canadian Forces, and a number corresponding to your "rank", i.e. 1 for Soldier 1 (= private), 2 for Soldier 2 (= corporal) etc?  No flags or Colours?  No buildings named after those who came before us?  The PPCLI re-named Infantry Regiment #3?
> 
> I'll grant you that's a bit of a straw man, but unless you WOULD accept the above, and more, to the point of erasing every vestige of custom and tradition and becoming a branch of the civil service -- or, dare one say, "just a job" -- then you have to admit the value of heritage in the Forces.  The move to get our old names back is an attempt to reclaim a piece of heritage that was got rid of for no sensible or useful purpose.



Bollocks.  My pride in service comes from service, not the name of my Service.  My pride is derived from the efforts of the CF in fighting a good cause.  My pride comes from the sacrifices of all too many friends.

Things have changed - wars have a nasty habit of doing that.


----------



## GAP

> The PPCLI re-named Infantry Regiment #3?



What's wrong with it? I served in in 1st Amtrac Btn, 3rd Marine Div.....the numbers simple told everybody where you fitted in....(it doesn't make me any less proud)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

GAP have for the most part have Army and Marine units kept their designation since formation? Would you not be concerned if 1st Amtrac Bn, 3rd Marine Division was renamed to something to the affect A Squadron, Marine Amphbious Hussars (as an example)?


----------



## dapaterson

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I don't dispute that, but as long as there is a Directorate of History and Heritage I think it's safe to say that resources are already in place to address things like the names of Commands.  It's not as if this proposal would be carried out by re-tasked infanteers, supply techs, and medical officers.  We're talking about signage and letterhead here, not a re-drawing of the org chart.



Keep in mind that they're the same folks who have yet to complete official histories from the Korean war - so if we launch them on this project now they may be done in time for Canada's bicentennial...


----------



## Bass ackwards

As of this writing, the poll at the start of this thread shows 65.1% "fer" and 34.9% "agin'" reinstating the "Royal" prefix. 
It would be interesting to see the demographics of those voters (ie: how many are or were in the post-unification Navy or Air Force). 

Personally, as Joe the Canadian taxpayer (distant cousin to Joe the plumber), I'm for it. Always have been -with the caveat that it not turn into a bureaucratic and financial cluster you-know-what. 
But it's been a real eye-opener for me to hear so many Navy and Air Force people arguing against it. I would have thought everybody in those two services would have loved the idea -proving once again that this site is nothing if not a place to come and learn.

A question for Ex-Dragoon and any other Navy personnel who are against the idea:
Would you similarly be against the idea of going back to flying the White Ensign on your ships? I notice that Canadian warships display the "barber pole" on their funnels -which suggests to me that there is still some yearning (for lack of a better term) for some of the traditions of the past. 

*Please note: I am in no way advocating a return to the "Royal" designation as a priority over getting CDN Aviator into a new aircraft or seeing the Navy with newer and fully manned ships or getting more and better equipment for the Army. 
I'm certainly not advocating splitting the three services back into separate entities. 
Paul Hellyer (IMHO) had a pretty good idea, but he went way too far (again in IMHO) and was very arrogant and condescending about it. The part of this site that deals with uniforms has the byline "buttons and bows" -a nod to Hellyer's attitude towards traditions.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Personally I would not want to have the British Flag (or part of it) on a Canadian ship. With respect to my British friends, those days are now past. If , the Canadian flag was put in place of the UK flag I would not have an issue. I am content with the present Ensign and Jacks we now have.

As for your comment on yearning did you ever consider its something that is done when a ship is commissioned as well? IIRC the CPFs did not get them until after each ship was accepted into the Navy.

For me I have a great deal of respect for the RCN and the Naval Service of Canada. They are however, not the Navy I joined. The Navy I joined has morphed into what it is today and is better for it, because its forerunners were the RCN and the NSC. But those entities are not the Navy I belong to. Should not the pride myself and many other count for anything in the Navy we now know? I was part of the Navy that went out to help with Swissair. I was part of the Navy that went to Op Sharp Guard off of Yugo. I did two back to back tours of the Persian Gulf before and after 9/11. I have been on several deployments in the fight on the GWOP. That is my Navy. Should I not be proud of those accomplishments as is the RCN's iof train busting and U-Boat hunting? Well guess what I am...the RCN and the NSC did not do those things. It was the Navy I am part of.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Hear, hear,..........very nice post.

One of those present members whom others would sell out for some sense of whoopee, look what we did.


----------



## mdh

Excellent post, ex-Dragoon


----------



## Bass ackwards

Ex: Thanks for the insight. Again, this is somewhat eye-opening for me (and hopefully for others). 

WRT the barber poles on HMC ships, my point was that here's something that adorned just one of several escort groups in the WWII RCN that seems to have carried over to the modern Navy. An old tradition (and a really cool song). 
_When_ they were painted onto the ships matters less than the fact that they _are_ on the ships.  

As far as the accomplishments of "your" Navy: of course you should be proud of them. If I somehow gave you the impression that I believe otherwise, I apologize. (Sharp Guard off Yugoslavia, BTW, is a new one on me -something for me to look up -thank you).


----------



## aesop081

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> (Sharp Guard off Yugoslavia, BTW, is a new one on me -something for me to look up -thank you).



As a point of note, the Canada also sent maritime patrol aircraft to SG.


----------



## FSTO

The barber pole is only painted on ships of MARLANT. IAW the manual of ceremony:

http://navy.dwan.dnd.ca/english/refs/pubs/Repository/MANUAL_OF_CEREMONIAL_HMC_SHIPS_17Nov04.pdf

The ‘Barber Pole’
11. The Barber Pole Brigade was officially Escort Group C-5 of the Mid-Ocean Escort Force, which escorted convoys from St. John’s, NF to Londonderry, Northern Ireland during World War II. Its name came from the red and white striped band that decorated the funnels of the group's destroyers and corvettes. Today the Barber Pole is used to denote the surface units of the Atlantic Fleet.

12. On HMC Ships of the IROQUOIS,
HALIFAX, and PROTECTEUR classes, the
Barber Pole shall be a white band 56cm high
with 20.4cm red stripes on a 33-degree angle
to the right of vertical. There shall be 20.4cm
of white between the red stripes. On HMC
Ships of the KINGSTON class, the Barber
Pole shall be a white band 42cm high with
15cm red stripes on a 33-degree angle to the
right of vertical. There shall be 15cm of
white between the red stripes.
13. The Barber Pole insignia shall be
positioned:
a. in the IROQUOIS class, on the
LW08 radar pedestals;
b. in the HALIFAX class, on the casing
of the Forward Auxiliary Machinery
Room /Electronic Counter Measures
Compartment;
c. in the PROTECTEUR class, on the
twin funnels above the Maple Leaf; and
d. in the KINGSTON class, on the mast immediately above the S-band radar platform.

So it was a holdover from our RCN days.


----------



## Neill McKay

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What is to be gained by doing this re-naming ?
> 
> Not a single "pro" person here has managed to explain that to me yet...including yourself. Will going "Royal" fix any of the problems we face ? Will we all of a sudden be more willing to put in extra hours or sacrifice one more thing for the CF ? Will recruiting suddenly surge ?
> 
> What is wrong with what we have now ?
> 
> You keep saying " righting a wrong" but really, how was i wronged ? I have never know the RCN or RCAF..........



As to righting a wrong, the hypothetical guy who beat up my grandfather in 1970 should still be held accountable if found today, even though my hypothetical grandfather's injuries may have healed.  A national institution took a slap in the face for no good reason, and if amends can be made through a paper (and paint) exercise, then we might as well.

To address a couple of more tangible points, ref recruiting and what's wrong with what we have now, we live in a time when more of the public than we would like do not know that this country has a navy.  For a generation, we've had this thing called the Canadian Armed Forces (which abbreviates so nicely to "army", and for a time they all dressed in green too).  The operational end of the navy is something called Maritime Command, a name that hardly resonates with a layman who has no knowledge of naval affairs.  (Actually, it sounds like a geographical command.  "Maritime Command?  Yeah, that's in Halifax.  I think they're in charge of the army in the Maritimes.")  An entity called the Royal Canadian Navy would do a lot to clear away the institutional invisibility from which the navy has suffered since unification.  Every schoolboy knows that "the navy" is, but who, outside of our circles, has ever heard of a "Maritime command"?

Recruiting?  You bet.  When I, fresh-faced and full of anticipation, first walked into a recruiting centre in the 'nineties and expressed my interest in joining the navy I got an odd response along the lines that "we don't talk about the 'navy', but rather the 'Canadian Forces'", and not another word to explain the difference.  (Turns out they were keen on putting people in the army that day.)  I knew enough to understand the legal reality that the CF legally is one service, but it's certain that not every applicant would have been.

When just about every other country in the world calls its navy "the Navy" (including the country next door whose popular culture is all over the place in Canada) the civilian population is justifiably confused that we don't do the same thing here -- and the navy is that much farther from their consciousness.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well myself, my peers ,my subordinates, and my superiors when we talk work we say we are Navy. These days when someone goes to Recruiting I really doubt they get an odd look or a reaction that you did . When I went through LOTP back in 1994, the BPSO never tried to correct me. So N. McKayit may have been your experience, but it has not been everyones. 

Just a clarification, last I checked Maritime Command was not just in Halifax, we do have ships and a submarine in BC as well.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

N. McKay said:
			
		

> As to righting a wrong, the hypothetical guy who beat up my grandfather in 1970 should still be held accountable if found today, even though my hypothetical grandfather's injuries may have healed.  A national institution took a slap in the face for no good reason, and if amends can be made through a paper (and paint) exercise, then we might as well.



Should we hold his kids accountable also?....you know the ones who didn't even know, or care, that Grandpa got beat up long ago.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> When just about every other country in the world calls its navy "the Navy" (including the country next door whose popular culture is all over the place in Canada) the civilian population is justifiably confused that we don't do the same thing here -- and the navy is that much farther from their consciousness.



So you are now saying we don't need the prefix "Royal"?  Canadian Navy would do?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Personally, I have no dog in this fight, but I don't think the change back would be as simple as being suggested, nor do I see any benefit in it.  I believe the 3 environments have their distinctions now, Environmental Chief's of Staff, DEUs, etc.  DHH may be the responsible/spearhead agency for an endeavour such as this, but undoubtedly CF pesonnel would be required to dedicate time and resources into it.

The only comment I have on unification, as it affects the CF to this day, is I wish the Air Force would have retained the RCAF rank structure.  Why?  For the same reasons the Navy kept theirs and the same reason the Army didn't change to the Air Force or Navy rank structure.  IMO, that would have been a nice piece of tradition to hold onto.  The correction to dress uniforms was made, giving each element its DEU back, which was the right thing to do IMO.

So, aside from the Air Force loosing/giving up its traditional rank structure, I think things are fine the way they are. My father joined the RCAF back in the 50's, and retired from the CAF in '81 as a Warrant Officer (Flight Engineer) in what is now the Army DEU.  I never once heard him talk about how 'bad' unification was.  He did talk about the decisions made that he DID care about, which were things like base closures, things that affected the operational readiness of the Sqn's he flew in, etc.

Give the Air Force back its pre-unification rank structure and I'd be happy.  I know I am Air Force everytime I open my closet and see all those blue uniforms, and personally don't give a hoot either way if the Air Force is "Royal" or not, likely something learned from my father.  I've seen money wasted on things before that amounted to NO benefit to the CF or Canada (Garrison Dress comes to mind immediately) and don't wish to see that again.  *If its not broke, don't fix it*.

My $0.02.


----------



## Old Sweat

Excuse me for jumping in once again, but some people may have an exaggerated view of what life was like in the three services. The senior ranks, commissioned and non-commissioned both, were populated almost exclusively with anglophiles who had fond memories of fighting and serving alongside or under the command of the British forces in the last war and Korea. The forces were patterned on their British counterparts and tended in lock step to amend drill pamphlets, procedures and uniforms to conform to the old country. 

Even back then the two countries were socially quite different. We were peopled by immigrants from around the world, although mostly of European stock, and had a fairly classless society. Despite that, the services mirrored British practice which was built upon a rigid class system with little movement upwards possible for those at the bottom of the heap. A number of us have been mourning the recent death of an excellent female senior officer, who was married to a retired senior warrant officer. This would never have been allowed in the old services and she likely would have been forced out of the forces.

My generation was much less anglophilic and, while raised in the traditions of Queen, Country and Commonwealth, were not inclined to feel that the British were the paragons of military excellence our seniors professed them to be. At the same time, we had no desire to adopt American models for the sake of conformity. Jack Granatstein wrote to the effect that there were three periods when the Canadian army was at the peak of its efficiency: the CEF in 1917-1918; First Canadian Army in 1945; and the regular army in the late sixties. I submit that the other services were at the same peak in the last period at least. We did it because we were proud of ourselves and proud to be Canadians; not because we wore copies of British uniforms and aped British traditions and in some cases affected pseudo-British accents in the officers' messes and wardrooms. We in fact were moving away from that sort of thing.

The world has changed and the CF has evolved into something we rightfully can view with pride, especially as it is a reflection of our way of life.


----------



## FSTO

After reading some of the more recent posts here there is developed a very large gulf between the two opinions. One side laments what was lost and the other has moved on but is still clearly influenced by the forces that caused the change in the first place.

I was in kindergarten when unification took place so I have no memory of that time. By the time I became aware of the military, I was very surprised that it looked nothing like any of the other militaries I saw on the news and I wonder who these guys were. As I got older and was considering a career in the Navy I was very pleased at the news of the DEU's and I thought that wow we are going to look like a Navy again. But I would be lying if I didn't say that it was sad to see that there would be no executive curl, and that everyone from OS to Admiral would look pretty much the same.

So my questions is for those of you who were in the service when the Mulroney government authorized the DEU are these:

Why no executive curl? Was it too Anglo? Cripes even the Indian Navy has the George Cross on their ensign and they far from being a christian country 
Why no separated uniform style for the NCM's vice the officers? Because of an idea of a Canadian classless society or because it was cheaper? If it is the former, why do we have separate messes for the MS and below, C&PO's and Wardroom? 
Why did we have our qualification badges move from the sleeve to the breast? Why move our ribbons from our shoulder to above the breast pocket? Was there a big hugh an cry from the fleet to change or did some minion at NDHQ just order it?

Now before some of you get all annoyed with me, all of these questions are of secondary importance to the operational renaissance that has taken place since I joined. I am very proud of being in the Canadian forces and what we have done over the years. I do not want to go back to the days of the fake accents and forced class separation that seems to have so scarred some of the folks here. But I do question some of the decisions that took place that have resulted in the hard and unyielding opinions expressed on this thread


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall it, the 1984 change to DEU was politically driven and the CF was ordered to do it. A number of senior, check that, very senior officers opposed it, but were overruled. They were not happy and there have been claims that the famous LAHR strip club fiasco and subsequent trip to the back bench that befell the MND was in some ways connected.

I have no knowledge of why naval rank badges were not reintroduced. 

I believe the common cut and fashion of uniform grew out a political dislike of the differences in uniforms between the officers and NCMs. (I believe I read something of this nature written by Hellyer about an incident he observed when he was MND.) This was especially true in the RCAF where the officers' service uniform was of a much better quality and looked to be more comfortable than that of the NCMs. In the army, while officers could wear service dress and sam browne belts on occasion, all ranks wore the same battle dress. Officers did have different boots, shirts and ties and, of course, hats. The navy had three styles - ratings, POs and officers. We officers had to buy all our kit, and did not receive the clothing upkeep allowance granted to the troops. It seems to me that the philosophy was to go for a common style and quality of as simple a design as possible. I cannot say whether this was a military or civil decision, or if it was driven by cost or something else.


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:
			
		

> Why did we have our qualification badges move from the sleeve to the breast? Why move our ribbons from our shoulder to above the breast pocket? Was there a big hugh an cry from the fleet to change or did some minion at NDHQ just order it?



From my recollection after the DEUs were introduced, there was much muttering from naval types that having their ribbons and  badges higher on the shoulder (the few that anyone had in that era) looked stupid and preferred to have them situated above and in line with the pocket in the same manner as the army and air force.  However, one of the reasons put forth (anecdotally) for the initial postioning of ribbons on navy DEUs (besides tradition) was that the pocket was not completely parallel to the ground and putting the ribbons in line with the pocket made them seem askew.  It was later, probably when a better cut of uniform was in the system, that the ribbons moved down.  

(note;  When the new DEUs were first issued, ribbons on naval uniforms were above the pocket in uniformity with all three environment, then they moved higher up, later they moved back down)


----------



## FSTO

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall it, the 1984 change to DEU was politically driven and the CF was ordered to do it. A number of senior, check that, *very senior officers opposed it, but were overruled*. They were not happy and there have been claims that the famous LAHR strip club fiasco and subsequent trip to the back bench that befell the MND was in some ways connected.



According to my CTO at Venture in 1990, when they received their Navy Blue uniforms a bunch of them on the east coast had a big party where they tossed their green unis on a big funeral pyre. He said it was like a great cleansing came over them as the greenies melted into a blubbering mass of goo.


----------



## Old Sweat

I don't recall much resistance to the return of the three service uniforms by the vast majority of the CF members. The only grumbling was semi-good natured by us army guys who would have preferred that the change had gone all the way and garbed us in brown. The seniors saw it as an abdication of a deliberate move towards one service and a waste of money that could have been spent on other things.

Edit to add: Much of this opposition was from a mind set that knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well myself, my peers ,my subordinates, and my superiors when we talk work we say we are Navy. These days when someone goes to Recruiting I really doubt they get an odd look or a reaction that you did . When I went through LOTP back in 1994, the BPSO never tried to correct me. So N. McKayit may have been your experience, but it has not been everyones.



We are definitely moving in the right direction, and have been for several years.  I have an old Seaman's manual published very shortly after unification, and it very awkwardly omits the word "navy" in favour of "sea element".  I say awkwardly because it contains gems like, paraphrasing slightly, "There are several different kinds of boat used in the sea element's ships..."  In more recent years we have seen "navy" come into more and more official use.  I think you and I differ here only in that you feel that we have come as far as we need to, but I feel that we should carry on a bit further.



> Just a clarification, last I checked Maritime Command was not just in Halifax, we do have ships and a submarine in BC as well.



Let me clarify my intent: to a civilian who knows nothing about the organization of the Forces, the term "Maritime Command" doesn't give much indication of having anything to do with the navy.  A person would be apt to interpret it as an outfit having command of the Maritimes, or forces in the Maritimes (cf. Northern Command or Canada Command).  Actually, I think there are a lot of people who don't even know what "maritime" means apart being part of the geographical name "Maritime Provinces".



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Why no separated uniform style for the NCM's vice the officers? Because of an idea of a Canadian classless society or because it was cheaper? If it is the former, why do we have separate messes for the MS and below, C&PO's and Wardroom?



Separate messes are not so much about respecting class distinctions.  The idea is to give each rank group a place to relax away from their superiors.



> Why did we have our qualification badges move from the sleeve to the breast?



That's where CPOs wore them on the R*N uniforms.  (CPOs also had six buttons as on the present DEU jacket, while officers had 8.  In effect, the current DEU makes everyone look like a Chief!)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Let me clarify my intent: to a civilian who knows nothing about the organization of the Forces, the term "Maritime Command" doesn't give much indication of having anything to do with the navy.  A person would be apt to interpret it as an outfit having command of the Maritimes, or forces in the Maritimes (cf. Northern Command or Canada Command).  Actually, I think there are a lot of people who don't even know what "maritime" means apart being part of the geographical name "Maritime Provinces".



Joint Task Force Atlantic (JTFA) is all essence has command of the Maritimes does it not these days?


----------



## dapaterson

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Joint Task Force Atlantic (JTFA) is all essence has command of the Maritimes does it not these days?



No.  It does not.  Air elements in JTFA remain under CAS.  Land elements in JTFA remain under CLS.  Only in the event of some sort of Dom Op does the HQ take possession of other assets.  (Technically speaking, JTFA doesn't own the naval assets either - they're under CMS - but since Comd JTFA is also Comd MARLANT things get a bit blurred)

This, of course, begs the question as to why we stood up the JTF HQs anyways...


----------



## Engineer

I think we need to move toward an attitude more like the US Marines where ships, aircraft , vehicles are purchased for the good of the single service - the Marines.  In canada we spend way too much time and effort working against each other trying to compete for scarce resources at the detriment of the other services.  

We were on the right track until we brought back the three uniforms.  This catapulted us right back to 1967.  Now, the services spend as much effort working against one another as they do trying to sort out differences so they can be an effective unified force.  

It takes an entire generation of folks to change a mindset and culture.  We were well on our way until the mid eighties until the distinctive uniforms resurfaced - a HUGE mistake.  

If we start using these terms (RCN and RCAF) it's only going to make things worse and polarize the force even more.

Though I wear the airforce DEU, I say ditch both the light blue and dark blue uniforms and give us all one common uniform - why not make it the army one, and let's together for teh greater good, not just what's good for one's own element.

Chimo!


----------



## FSTO

Engineer said:
			
		

> I think we need to move toward an attitude more like the US Marines where ships, aircraft , vehicles are purchased for the good of the single service - the Marines.  In canada we spend way too much time and effort working against each other trying to compete for scarce resources at the detriment of the other services.
> 
> We were on the right track until we brought back the three uniforms.  This catapulted us right back to 1967.  Now, the services spend as much effort working against one another as they do trying to sort out differences so they can be an effective unified force.
> 
> It takes an entire generation of folks to change a mindset and culture.  We were well on our way until the mid eighties until the distinctive uniforms resurfaced - a HUGE mistake.
> 
> If we start using these terms (RCN and RCAF) it's only going to make things worse and polarize the force even more.
> 
> Though I wear the airforce DEU, I say ditch both the light blue and dark blue uniforms and give us all one common uniform - why not make it the army one, and let's together for teh greater good, not just what's good for one's own element.
> 
> Chimo!



Um, the Marines depend on the Navy to get them to a majority of their battles. No, let me correct myself, the USN and USMC work hand in glove to project US power and influence from the sea. I would gladly support the idea of a model based on the US with a Navy and Marines.


----------



## Engineer

Another fine example of the culture / attitude that needs to change if we are to be a truly effective and unified force. 

We have made great strides on the support world, where we have one organization, one force (CANOSCOM) supporting every operation or deployment.  Now the "operators" need to understand the potential synergy of everyone pulling on the same end of the rope.  Blindly supporting your own element is at teh detrmine tof the others...

As a micro experiment with a test set of 1, I would guess that you either have 35 plus years in the CF, or have experience in only one element.  I do not say that to be demenaing in any way, but that attitude of "Navy first" is generally supported by those two demographics. 

Chimo!


----------



## FSTO

Well you are half right. 

We are a maritime nation and history has proven time and time again the nations that control the seas have the abiltiy to control their own destiny. With a professional and well equipped navy and marines who can work in both blue and brown water nvironments, a nation has the capability and flexibilty to conduct missions that army centric nations have no ability to carry out.

As for the Canadian Navy not being able to work with other environments I hope you have heard of the Sea Kings that have been on our smaller ships since the 60's? There is also the SCF which is an initiative to bring a true amphibious capability to the CF.
http://marcom-comar.mil.ca/rept-eper/default-eng.asp

You say that we should all become Army. Why not Navy/Marines? A very valid argument could be made for us to go in that direction.


----------



## dapaterson

Properly speaking, the Sea Kings should belong to the Fleet Air Wing- part of the Navy. (Just like how the Griffons and future Chinooks should be Army Aviation.

The SCF is much like a parrot in a Monty Python sketch - some claim it's colourful and lively, but it's really dead.  Bereft of life.  It's snuffed it.  The Big Honkin' Ship is a prerequisite for the SCF, and that's dead in the water.

Jointness is key; different environments give differing amounts of lip-service to jointness depending on the mood of the commander that day.  Ideally, we'd see Army and AIr officers posted to staff positions in MARLANT and MARPAC (at the Capt/Maj rank levels); and MARS and MARE officers posted into Brigade and Area HQs - then posted back to sea.  That's how to inculcate and improve jointness.  Going on a course as a Capt(N)/Colonel or FO/GO does nothing for jointness.

But maybe I'm just ornery...


----------



## FSTO

SCF isn't quite dead yet. It's more like the "Bring out your dead!" serf in Holy Grail. I think you may see more movement after we get back from Afghanistan in 2011.

Maybe I am being optimistic, but never say never when it comes to Canada and its armed forces.


----------



## dapaterson

I would say that we're probably two decades away from any such capability.  Little movement before 2011 - I agree.  More definition work taking us to 2015 or so.  Going through Canadian industry means no contract let to build a BHS or two until 2018; hulls in the water 2023; outfitted 2025; training for elements independently starting 2023 or so; combined training 2027 working off the platform, initial operating capability 2028.

Of course, that assumes that such a project is affordable within the current capital plan, and that the new equipment the Army will need before then is affordable within the capital plan, and that the Cyclones come on line by 2028.  I'd guess that the thrid assumption is the most likely - and the way things are going, even it isn't 100% yet...


----------



## Engineer

FTSO

Maybe I was too brief, maybe you read what you wanted to read.  Anyway, I don't support everyone being "Army".  I support everyone being in the same unifiorm.  I don't care which one.  Sure, let's all wear a double-breasted tunic.  Don't care - so long as we are all the same.  

Again, it's the mindset / attitude that needs to change before we can truly make strides as a unified force.  It's the separate service mindset and culture which pits the 3 elements against each other.  The view should be that the CF gets a new jetty in Halifax, the CF gets the JSS, the CF gets the MAU, the SCF, the C-17s, the Leopards, FMF CB renovations, etc, etc   Right now there is too much resentment and fear of one another.  Until the elements can sacrifice there own priorities for teh greater good of the CF, the infighting will continue.

As a member of a "purple" branch, my original point was that the distinctive uniforms divide us, whereas they should do just the opposite.

Chimo!


----------



## FSTO

Even within the same environments there are civil wars that are more vicious then the wars between Army/AF/Navy. In the early 60's there was a huge battle between Naval Air, Surface Officers and Submariners over resources and new ship programs. The infighting more then likely directly caused the demise of Bonnie, General Purpose Frigate and weakend the Navy's position in regards to unification. Within the Air Force, I constantly hear a refrain from the Shipborne Air Detachments that the Fast Air guys run the show and don't care about rotary wing. It goes on and on.

Over the years since 1945 there has been tentative steps towards jointness, (Maggie ferry troops and supplies to the Suez is a case in point) but there has always been something get in the way of us taking the next step. Another problem is the lack of direction from the government of the day. Hellyer's attempt was more a move to rise his stock in the Liberal party vice making the CF a joint operation. He did it in such a hamfisted and brutal way that he sowed the seeds of this particular issue for the foreseeable future. If our government could come together (amongst the Libs and Cons and maybe even the NDP) and come up with a policy with hard policy targets that won't be changed every time a government changes then maybe the 3 elements could get together and do some realistic long-term planning to improve our joint capabilities.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I think we need to move toward an attitude more like the US Marines where ships, aircraft , vehicles are purchased for the good of the single service - the Marines.  In canada we spend way too much time and effort working against each other trying to compete for scarce resources at the detriment of the other services.


And don't forget who sails and maintains those ships for the MArines....its not the USMC, its the USN. USMC F18 Squadrons do not fly off Wasp class amphibs, they fly off Nimitz class carriers. They fly CAP to protect USN ships in addition to supporting USMC assets. The USN and USMC have no problems working together wearing different uniforms, why should we? Come aboard a Canadian navy ship sometime and you will see all 3 elements working for the good of the CF.


----------



## Neill McKay

Engineer said:
			
		

> I support everyone being in the same unifiorm.  I don't care which one.  Sure, let's all wear a double-breasted tunic.  Don't care - so long as we are all the same.



We tried that already once, and it didn't work out.  Trying it again won't do any good.

Have you noticed that no other country of any consequence has done it?  The most powerful military forces in the world recognize that different environments call for different operating cultures, and that heritage and tradition are important elements of military service.


----------



## George Wallace

N. McKay said:
			
		

> We tried that already once, and it didn't work out.  Trying it again won't do any good.



Everyone in Double-Brested tunics?  When did we all do that?  That may be .........Kool.......Forward thinking........Trend setting.......Futuristic..........Fashionable..........Kool.........Black tunics........Grey pants.........Grey tunics........Black pants.......bring back bell-bottoms........RETRO!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

As long as I am not the one in the red shirt then all is good.


----------



## McG

Engineer said:
			
		

> We have made great strides on the support world, where we have one organization, one force (CANOSCOM) supporting every operation or deployment.  Now the "operators" need to understand the potential synergy of everyone pulling on the same end of the rope.


You should note that the same thing has been done on the operational side with every domestic operation falling under CANADACOM and every international operation falling under CEFCOM.  The only exception to this is some CANSOFCOM operations.  Operations are joint.  The ECSs are not the lead for any operation.


----------



## Recce41

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)
> 
> Pte
> Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
> LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
> CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
> SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
> WO Crown (Example CQMS)
> MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
> CWO same-same
> 
> 
> As for the leafs, thats how is was to be but was changed before it came to be.
> I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).


----------



## geo

> I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).



Ummm.... what does the rank badges have to do with the age of our section commanders ??


----------



## George Wallace

Recce41 said:
			
		

> As for the leafs, thats how is was to be but was changed before it came to be.
> I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).



Let's see?

*NATO          CURRENT              OLD              BRITISH                                    USA*

 OR1               Pte (R)                                                                PVT (NO HOOK)
 OR2               Pte (B)                                                                PVT  (1 HOOK)
 OR3               Pte (T)                                 L/Cpl                        PVT 1st Class
 OR4                 Cpl          -   L/Cpl                                              Specialist   -   Cpl                
 OR5               MCpl         -     Cpl                  Cpl                         Sergeant        
 OR6                Sgt         -     Sgt                  Sgt                         Staff Sergeant
 OR7                WO   -     Staff Sergeant  Staff Sergeant                 Sgt 1st Class
 OR8               MWO        -     WO 2              WO2                         Master Sgt     -     First Sgt
 OR9               CWO         -     WO 1              WO1                        Sergeant Major   -   Command Sgt Major   -   Sgt Major of the Army



Does it really make much difference now?


----------



## geo

After all these years, I feel this rank thing is a "non issue"

It's been done & 98% of all those in the service have grown up with the current rank structure.
the 2% & I have adapted & have gotten used to it.


----------



## Mountie

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's see?
> 
> *NATO          CURRENT              OLD              BRITISH                                    USA*
> 
> OR1               Pte (R)                                                                PVT (NO HOOK)
> OR2               Pte (B)                                                                PVT  (1 HOOK)
> OR3               Pte (T)                                 L/Cpl                        PVT 1st Class
> OR4                 Cpl          -   L/Cpl                                              Specialist   -   Cpl
> OR5               MCpl         -     Cpl                  Cpl                         Sergeant
> OR6                Sgt         -     Sgt                  Sgt                         Staff Sergeant
> OR7                WO   -     Staff Sergeant  Staff Sergeant                 Sgt 1st Class
> OR8               MWO        -     WO 2              WO2                         Master Sgt     -     First Sgt
> OR9               CWO         -     WO 1              WO1                        Sergeant Major   -   Command Sgt Major   -   Sgt Major of the Army
> 
> 
> 
> Does it really make much difference now?


Agreed, it doesn't really make a difference, but get it right.  The common misunderstanding is that a Corporal today is equivalent to a Lance Corporal of old.  Its not.  A Master Corporal is equivalent to a Lance Corporal.  Sergeants are now section commanders not platoon 2i/c.  Warrant Officer is equivalent to both the old Sergeant and Staff Sergeant.


----------



## McG

It seems we've been doing these rank comparisons, using official or observational references, for quite a few pages now ...


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> *Comparison of selected NATO Army Ranks*
> Based on STANAG 2116, 1992 (Edition 5)
> 
> 
> *NATO**Canada**US**UK**France*OR-9CWOSergeant-MajorWarrant Officer Class IMajor
> Adjudant-chefOR-8MWOMaster SergeantWarrant Officer Class IIAdjudantOR-7WOSergeant First ClassStaff Sergeant*OR-6SgtStaff SergeantSergeantSergent-chefOR-5Sgt/MCplSergeantSergeantSergentOR-4CplCorporalCorporalCaporal-chefOR-3Pte(T)Private 1st ClassLance CorporalCaporalOR-2Pte(B)Private E.2PrivateSoldat de 1ère classeOR-1Pte(R)Private E.1Private (Class 4)Soldat de 2ème classe
> 
> 
> _* No Equivalent
> (1) Each of the US Forces has a senior individual at the OR-9 level who cannot be considered for NATO position coding purposes. This individual is designated as follows in the US ARMY : Sergeant Major of the Army
> 
> (2) Canadian Sergeants with less than three years seniority are considered OR-5.
> 
> (3) It is emphasized that the UK will appoint Sergeants or Corporals to OR-5 posts, to meet the requirements set out in the job description concerned, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the STANAG._



But in the end, is it really important how our rank structure compares to other militaries (or other times within our own military) or is it important that the structure makes sense and works?


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> But in the end, is it really important how our rank structure compares to other militaries (or other times within our own military) or is it important that the structure makes sense and works?



Yup.  That's why my only beef is with the who Pte/Cpl/MCpl thing - it's too ambiguous and too prone to abuse (at least from my first hand experience).  My other beef lies with CF Commissioning Plans and the whole OCdt/2Lt/Lt/Captain smoozle.

Both these could use some "finesseing" - other than that, our system works relatively well.


----------



## geo

easy question with an easy answer.....

If it works, don't mess with it.... any more than it has been messed around with already - there is no turning back

The CF rank structure is a Canadian & it works - let's leave well enough alone IMHO


----------



## Sub_Guy

eugenetswong said:
			
		

> I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.
> 
> What do you all think?



Am I missing something here?  You are an SQ qualified private, but hate looking like a new recruit?  Are you saying that new recruits are treated differently than SQ qualified privates?  Are you being treated wrongly?  

Stop worrying about small petty items, if you are out there at your unit broadcasting your experience to try to set yourself apart from the newer guys then you will just end up making a bad name for yourself.

They way you handle yourself when you speak with others in your unit should be plenty to distinguish you from the new recruits. 

I really can't see how anyone out there would be losing sleep over our rank structure!


----------



## geo

Dolphin.... did you notice the date of the post you are commenting on ???


----------



## Infanteer

Yeah, he's probably a BIQ-qualified private by now - sheesh.... ^-^


----------



## George Wallace

Mountie said:
			
		

> .............  The common misunderstanding is that a Corporal today is equivalent to a Lance Corporal of old.  Its not.  A Master Corporal is equivalent to a Lance Corporal.  Sergeants are now section commanders not platoon 2i/c.  Warrant Officer is equivalent to both the old Sergeant and Staff Sergeant.



Now, I really disagree with your comparison, and it really doesn't matter what posn a person fills in relation to rank.

In the Armour Corps, L/Cpls were Junior commanders and on the first rungs of "Leadership".  Today, Cpls are often Junior vehicle commanders on the first rungs of "Leadership".   If a Lance Jack was God, then a Cpl was a greater Omnipotent being.

MCpls of today are more like the Cpls and Sgts of yesteryear, doing most of the Instruction.  "Discipline" was removed from the MCpl rank back in the late Eighties, and from the Sgt rank, for the most part, in the late Nineties.  Now, "Discipline" is dealt with by WO and above.  A problem that should be rectified.

Times have changed drastically from days of old, when a Lance Jack was God.  The "Power to Discipline" has been removed gradually from the lower management, passing to those at senior levels.  Does this mean that a WO of today is the same as the L/Cpl of old.  That would be assine.  That is why I disagree with your argument.  Times have changed, and ranks have changed, but the correlation as to what rank of today is equal to what rank in the past has to factor more into it than what you seem to have.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

The Canadian NCN rank structure is just fine the way it is. If its not broken don't fix it.



> I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).



Well if take a look at the size of our military and compare it to the size of both the US and Brits. We don't have to many 20 year old Sgt's and 25 year old WO's, for the simple fact that that our military is about a 10Th the size of the US military and about 1/3 the size of the British army, which leaves much less room for advancement. But the up side to this age gap is our Snr Nco's maturity factor, who tend to be in their early thirties and on up to forty or so. Like yourself.


----------



## Infanteer

That perception about "older NCO's" is not really true anymore either - I see plenty of Reg Force Sergeants with about 8 years in.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Thanks Infanteer, I stand corrected. Things certainly have changed.


----------



## Drag

I met a 29 year old reg force infantry warrant a few years back.


----------



## Trooper Hale

eugenetswong said:
			
		

> I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.



So you want a stripe just because you've shown up for a little while? 
This was one of the most mystifying things about your Army for me, the fact that a bloke got a stripe for being qual'd and then a second one for being in a few years. 
I'm a four year Trooper, luckily I've learnt to deal with the shame of still having the same visible rank as a new recruit, i let my soldier skills and the way i carry myself show people who i am and how long I've been in.
Over here, like in the Brit's, you earn your rank by doing courses. In the Armoured Corp, its your gunner's course, followed a year or two later by your Junior Leaders Course and THEN your crew commanders course. In the Infantry its similar but with a patrol commanders course (or something like that). You become a junior NCO, who is 2ic (although shortages often mean you'll be leading) of a section or crewing the junior callsign in a troop... and get ribbed by all your mates for being a bastard lance jack.
A L/Cpl equivalent rank is (From what i could see) in between Corporal and M/Cpl as your Cpl rank is done by a senior Private or Trooper.
From the outside (and from someone who went around calling your One stripe Troopers "Corporal" and your Warrant Officers "Sir") you've a bizarre system, but looking at it from the inside (even if it was a couple of years ago now) it works for you and your Army _definitely_ isn't falling apart because of it.
Even if it seems like a stupid, pointless thing to have changed in your unification, it gives you a chaps a little extra character and identity. Coupled with one of the most professional Forces in the world, there doesn't seem a very big reason to change anything.


----------



## ArmyRick

Part of my point i made earlier is that being a 35-40 year old infantry section commander is tough. You do not bounce back from injuries as well as say when your 26-27. I can hear the barrage of boos on this one BUT I am an infantry sergeant.

I like the old british rank style because it was logical and it made sense. A problem I have right now with our rank structure is CPL rank. It has been turned into a glorifeid pay grade for some MOCs. I remember teaching brand new CPLs out of St Jean because of civilian experience (Veh tech, FCS tech, etc, etc). I do not agree with giving these people the rank, it degrades the man who has served 3-4 years good service and has shown an ability to lead certain task.

The british rank structure (our old one) had its purpose. From the first shevron (LCPL) and up, you were a leader, not a pay grade.

However, we have had our rank structure for 40 years and fixing it now would be a big broo ha.

Maybe another option is to fix the current system in place. I like the idea of making Corporal a leadership rank and maybe having unit run courses conducted so people earn the rank.

Take some of the mods of the PLQ course and have troops do it in house. I would have it that every corporal could know leadership principles, teach a drill lesson and a small arms lesson, be capable of conducting platopon drill and lead a small party task. 

It would take about 4-5 weeks to acheive this and again I want to stress that it would be an in house run course. If you start farming people off to the training centers and all that crap, then it will get complicated. 

However, I guess I can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills first.


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I like the old british rank style because it was logical and it made sense. A problem I have right now with our rank structure is CPL rank. It has been turned into a glorifeid pay grade for some MOCs. I remember teaching brand new CPLs out of St Jean because of civilian experience (Veh tech, FCS tech, etc, etc). I do not agree with giving these people the rank, it degrades the man who has served 3-4 years good service and has shown an ability to lead certain task.
> 
> The british rank structure (our old one) had its purpose. From the first shevron (LCPL) and up, you were a leader, not a pay grade.



I agree with your sentiments, but I also realize that with the changing times and attitudes, if we had stayed the way we were, you would still find that those Trades would be doing the same thing, but promoting their people to L/Cpl instead of the current policy of Cpl.

I hear that the MPs have realized their folly and are no longer promoting their pers to Cpl on completion of their crses in Borden.  To me that was a mistake in the first place, and an inexperienced Cpl MP was worse for their PR than an inexperienced Pte MP.  The awarding of Rank, in these cases, does not give a person knowledge, experience, nor respect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

They (MPs, Direct Entry types) were getting their Cpl's right off Basic.  It was their spec pay they were getting after the Academy IIRC.


The reasoning behind the accelerated rank was wage competitiveness vice a legitiamte "CF requirement for Patrolmen to be Cpls".


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ...
> I hear that the MPs have realized their folly and are no longer promoting their pers to Cpl on completion of their crses in Borden.  To me that was a mistake in the first place, and an inexperienced Cpl MP was worse for their PR than an inexperienced Pte MP.  The awarding of Rank, in these cases, does not give a person knowledge, experience, nor respect.




But they are just using the 'old system.' You may recall that _waaaaay_ back in the '50s and '60s that was the model for the CProC (Canadian Provost Corps): soldiers were trained in infantry regimental depots and, at least for a while, were sent to battalions to qualify as Group I LI, Then they went to Borden for a long, tough course at the provost Corps School and, *presto!* they were all paid LCpls and remained so until the 'normal' system saw them on a Junior NCO course and then they waited for a Cpl's vacancy to appear on the establishment. Members of the CProC who committed a service offence that merited forfiture of the hook(s) were, *if memory serves*, removed from their units and sent back to Borden for some retraining.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> They (MPs, Direct Entry types) were getting their Cpl's right off Basic.  It was their spec pay there were getting after the Academy IIRC.
> 
> 
> The reasoning behind the accelerated rank was wage competitiveness vice a legitiamte "CF requirement for Patrolmen to be Cpls".



Spec pay was the reasoning, not accelerated rank.

If I remember correctly, at the time the decision was made to give them Spec Pay, was also the time that someone in their infinite wisdom decided to put out a document stating that MPs were not being given the proper respect they deserved as MP Ptes, so they should all be promoted Cpl on completion of their Trades training.  The reasoning was that soldiers would pay more respect to a MP Cpl than to a Pte.  In most cases it lowered the respect the other Trades paid to the older MP Cpls, as now they looked at the MP more likely being right out of the School than an experienced MP Cpl.  Not that the other Trades paid the MP much respect anyway..... ;D  

( E.R. Campbell once told a joke about the "Aptitude Test" of the 1950's and who scored in the same level as Pipers.    ;D )


----------



## OldSolduer

The problem is simple human relations WRT to the Military Police. An example:

A one hook MP private wandered into my office and started to question my MCpl (I'm a Sergeant at this time), then said to said MCpl , "you are coming with me". I put a stop to it. The MCpl stayed put, while I counselled the young MP on protocol..ie going through the Chain of Comd. 
Never had a problem with any MPs after that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I was pretty impressed with the Royal Marines' system. 

They have the longest training program of any infantry in the UK at 30 weeks. 5 weeks of that is the Commando Course, but they also throw in all the leadership courses that are required up to and including promotion to the rank of LCpl whereas army battalions (like mine) had to run courses internally to upgrade Ptes to LCpl. As described in some of the above posts, LCpl in the UK is roughly equivalent to a MCpl.

Those who passed out of Lympstone go to their units as Marines (Ptes) and, based on their performance are promoted to LCpl with no further training required. All that is required is an OC's recommendation and an approval by the CO and presto, a new Section 2IC appears. This was done 'en bloc' every 6 months or so. The pay is only fractionally more than Marine, if memory serves, so the appointment is in effect an apprenticeship to become a Cpl section commander. After 6 to 8 years most of those who were willing and able achieved the rank of Cpl (Sgt in our army). 19 to 23 year old LCpls and 24 to 27 year old Cpls were quite common and, with few exceptions, did an outstanding job whether we were in Belfast or Arctic Norway. 

Having 'young' junior leaders paid big dividends. I couldn't imagine having to ski through an arctic mountain range for 3 weeks at 30 below carrying up to 100lbs of kit, or running the intense 24/7 patrol programs we managed in NI , with a company full of 30-40 year old section commanders, or any other rank/appointment for that matter.


----------



## ArmyRick

daftbandarmy, 

Excellent post. We are so convinved that our system works perfect that some of us won't even entertain looking at ideas from other nations. The Royal Marines have an excellent, BATTLE proven record. Do we have to adopt their system exactly? no. But we can we at least look at their system and evaluate our own? I think yes, we can.

If we look at a typical infantryman, he has done a 12 week BMQ + 14 week DP1 Infantry course, that is 26 weeks total. Why not add an additional 3-4 weeks and have troops learn the BASIC essential leadership skills for infantry such as understanding battle procedure, leading a recce patrol and commanding a section attack. 

However in this army, we have LFDATS and they make those big decisions.  :

Too bad, flexibility is an important asset in warfare and we are not as flexible as we could be IMO.

Cheers,


----------



## Sub_Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> decided to put out a document stating that MPs were not being given the proper respect they deserved as MP Ptes, so they should all be promoted Cpl on completion of their Trades training.  The reasoning was that soldiers would pay more respect to a MP Cpl than to a Pte.



MP's?  Respect?  They had some?    >


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> daftbandarmy,
> 
> Excellent post. We are so convinved that our system works perfect that some of us won't even entertain looking at ideas from other nations. The Royal Marines have an excellent, BATTLE proven record. Do we have to adopt their system exactly? no. But we can we at least look at their system and evaluate our own? I think yes, we can.



Well, you could argue that our system is battle trsted too. Nevertheless, the RM option looked pretty simple and effective. Nothing like watching a 22 year old LCpl lead an effective cordon and search operation because he was the guy who saw the problem and we just piled on the support based on his plan.


----------



## Infanteer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> We are so convinved that our system works perfect that some of us won't even entertain looking at ideas from other nations. The Royal Marines have an excellent, BATTLE proven record.



Not to knock your idea of constantly reviewing the way we do things, as I agree with it, but wouldn't you say we have an excellent, BATTLE proven record as well?

As well, I'm not too hasty to knock our system.  I've seen no-hook Privates lead group live fire attacks and MCpl's call in artillery fire and lead live fire attacks with enablers that used to be reserved for a Company Commander.

We're pretty good (but yes, we can always be better)....


----------



## aesop081

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> We are so convinved that our system works perfect that some of us won't even entertain looking at ideas from other nations.



Just to play devil's advocate here but, some are so convinced that other nation's systems are so perfect that they wont even entertain the idea that our system works.

You argument can work both ways.


----------



## CountDC

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Maybe another option is to fix the current system in place. I like the idea of making Corporal a leadership rank and maybe having unit run courses conducted so people earn the rank.
> 
> Take some of the mods of the PLQ course and have troops do it in house. I would have it that every corporal could know leadership principles, teach a drill lesson and a small arms lesson, be capable of conducting platopon drill and lead a small party task.
> 
> It would take about 4-5 weeks to acheive this and again I want to stress that it would be an in house run course. If you start farming people off to the training centers and all that crap, then it will get complicated.
> 
> However, I guess I can crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one fills first.



I like this idea - it would also provide better screening for masters instead of the current system of acting masters with no leadership training in at least some trades.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The Soviets used to pick guys off their recruit course and send them on a course to make them Sergeants.  They have a proven combat record.  Should we go that way?   >

In all seriousness de-linking the section commanding bit from PLQ and giving it during DP1 Inf would certainly give sections and platoons much more depth.  It would be a steep learning curve, but I guess we do that already with OCdts.  I seem to recall when I joined the Reserves circa 1989 that a pilot program had been run for Reserve infantrymen to take them from Recruit to Master Corporal in one summer (they would cover essentially the same material as a RESO 1 and 2 guy).  I also seem to recall that the success rate was not very good and it was not repeated.  The expectations may well have been too high.  I would suggest that we expect more from a MCpl than we do from a Phase II graduate, and perhaps that played a part.  (I think that we accept some risk with young officers because we know that they will be backstopped by NCOs).  I offer that the standard would need to be different than that expected on PLQ.  Perhaps them simply demonstrate potential or understanding instead of demonstrate ability?  I don't think that the same could be done for my branch (getting into crew commanding on DP1 might just be a bridge too far.)

For the guys serving in battalions, if the added four or five weeks to DP 1 would you rather that the soldiers come with section commanding or a LAV qualification?


----------



## geo

T2B  WRT the Recruit Sergeants.... "proven" combat record or not, I don't think a new kid on the block without experience is the way to go.  A lot of textbook knowledge without the experience to go along with it can be a dangerous thing.... also, Soviet doctrine left pert much all of the decision making to the officer corp


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

geo said:
			
		

> T2B  WRT the Recruit Sergeants.... "proven" combat record or not, I don't think a new kid on the block without experience is the way to go.  A lot of textbook knowledge without the experience to go along with it can be a dangerous thing.... also, Soviet doctrine left pert much all of the decision making to the officer corp



Geo,

I led with the Soviet conscript Sergeant example merely to demonstrate that what works for one nation's army may not always be suitable for another (hence my Devil smiley).


----------



## ArmyRick

CDN aviator, please provide specific examples.

I am going to discuss infantry specifically because that is what I am and I know so well. Yes it is true that there are switched on privates that can lead and most corporals can lead but I am talking about 3 extra weeks on a DP1 course.
First extra week; Intro to leadership, battle procedure, orders format.
Next week; (FTX) Have each candidate lead 2 x point recce patrols with a 4 man patrol (3 if numbers are scarce)
next week; (FTX) Have each candidate lead 2 x section quick attacks and 1 x occupation + 1 x withdrawal.

For each of these battle tasks there would proper demo of tasks. I beleive giving each infantry soldier an intro to COMBAT leadership would be a good idea. Infantry tend to suffer high casualty rate. This would not be meant to develop instant section commanders, just a basic working understanding of what needs to happen when the Sgt and MCpl go down in battle.

For other trades, have them lead a small party task in the field instead of leading a section attack and patrols. Or put some minor leadership task thats related to the MOC.
These are my thoughts and my opinions. I have been heavily involved in trg system for a while and I beleive it has gone backwards for infantry MOC.

Yes we have a battle proven record. A very recent one IMO. Afghanistan is the only real fighting mission we have done in recent history. Bosnia, Kosovo were not combat missions. The Royal Marines in recent history have been battle proven in Gulf war, Afghanistan, Ireland, Iraq and Sierra Leone.

Go ahead, let the barrage fly.
Yes, I agree, our system is good. BUT I said lets entertain ideas from other countries, because there is room for improvement.


----------



## CountDC

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I seem to recall when I joined the Reserves circa 1989 that a pilot program had been run for Reserve infantrymen to take them from Recruit to Master Corporal in one summer (they would cover essentially the same material as a RESO 1 and 2 guy).  I also seem to recall that the success rate was not very good and it was not repeated.  The expectations may well have been too high.



if memory serves right what you are talking about was referred to by most of us as the super soldier program and was for all trades not just infantry. It was a failure because you suddenly had a bunch of MCpls with a few months training and no real world practical skills trying to tell experienced people how to do their jobs. Imagine you have 3 years experience in your trade, QL5 qual, LQ qual and waiting for the RSM to sign your promotion recommendation.  A super soldier MCpl that has completed basic training and the super soldier LQ, no trade qual yet as they are currently attending their QL3 course is trying to tell you how to do your job.  Nope, didn't go over well at all.


----------



## CountDC

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I beleive giving each infantry soldier an intro to COMBAT leadership would be a good idea. Infantry tend to suffer high casualty rate. This would not be meant to develop instant section commanders, just a basic working understanding of what needs to happen when the Sgt and MCpl go down in battle.



It has been a long while since working with infantry so I have to ask - do they not train for this still - ie when the sgt and MCpl go down??  Just asking as I remember the Reserve unit I worked with in the late 80's training the sect members right down to 2 man teams and taking comd as the sit required. One Exercise they ran the sect through was a sniper attack. As the patrol proceeded along a wood line they ran into a sniper - first shot the MCpl went down (didn't have a sgt then). Following shots I picked who was taken out and their MCpl observed how the sect re-acted. Was quite interesting as it did provide them all with valuable training, provided the MCpl insight into how his section was doing and pointed out potential leaders (the person he had tagged as his 2I/C didn't step up and take command, instead the man he thought was at the bottom for leadership had to take charge - until I tagged him as dead)


----------



## geo

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Geo,
> I led with the Soviet conscript Sergeant example merely to demonstrate that what works for one nation's army may not always be suitable for another (hence my Devil smiley).


Might not have picked up on the smiley thing BUT, am not convinced that it DID work with the Soviets.  I think that they just threw a whole lot of personnel at the problem and by sheer force of numbers - it worked (with a horrendous cost in personnel)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Please note that I am NOT advocating adopting the Red Army NCO system...Still, whatever we may think about their methods they did seem to work for them in World War II.  It might not have been pretty at the company level, but it certainly seemed to work at the operational level.  

I only introduced this to show the possible pitfalls when we look at foreign armies for ideas.  We should certainly look outside, but we need to understand the context of our external observations and analyze if they are truly applicable to our situation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm (only mildly) hesitant to go back three years, but I think this is still valid:




			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is pointless to focus on titles or badges.  You need to consider what the army needs.
> 
> Consider the infantry, first.  It needs:
> 
> +	Riflemen - private soldiers, probably in two or three pay grades.  There are, also and of necessity some privates 'below' them: recruits and soldiers under training;
> 
> +	Team leaders - depending upon the organization model chosen (see e.g.: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23394.0.html and  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/18270.0.html ) there might be as many as four: rifle team1, rifle team 2, LMG team, vehicle team.  This is the first level of leadership and there might be sub-levels, rather like _apprentice_ junior leader and _journeyman_ junior leader - let's call them JL1 and JL2 (for junior leader, 1st  and 2nd level);
> 
> +	A Section Commander - still, in my opinion, a junior leader and, for our purposes, called JL3;
> 
> +	A Platoon Commander - who is either an enlisted *senior* leader of the _entry_ level, called SL1 or a junior officer, also of the entry level called JO1 or JO2;
> 
> +	A company quartermaster sergeant who will be the same rank as some of the support platoon NCOs - SL2;
> 
> +	A company sergeant major - SL3;
> 
> +	A company 2I/C - JO3, who might also serve as a regimental or brigade (junior) staff officer;
> 
> +	A company commander - SO1, who might also serve as a brigade staff officer.
> 
> The other ranks' structure is:
> 
> SL4 = RSM
> SL3 = CSM/SSM/BSM
> SL2 = CQMS/SQMS/BQMS
> SL1 = Rifle Pl 2I/C / Tank Tp 2I/C
> -----
> JL3 = Rifle Sec Comd - also tank commander in an armoured unit and No 1 on a gun
> JL2 = Team leader
> JL1 = Team leader
> -----
> S4 = rifleman (S = soldier)
> S3 = rifleman
> S2 = junior rifleman (trained)
> S1 = soldier under training
> -----
> R = recruit
> 
> The key requirement for change, in my opinion, is to strengthen the junior leadership level.  It is my opinion that the section commander should *NOT* be a senior NCO.  The Section commander should work and 'live' with the rank and file which means (s)he must be a junior NCO (or we take the sergeants out of the Sergeants' Mess).  The section (and tank) commander should not be able (or required) to isolate himself/herself from the soldiers in the section or tank crew.  The leaders of one to a dozen or so soldiers should be _working_ commanders - integral members of the section or tank crew .  This may not seem like a key issue but I believe, based on the rumours etc I hear (and what I read here, in army.ca) that this is the one big thing which got lost in the _sixties shuffle_.
> 
> I believe we can and should have younger junior leaders because I think some of the convulsions which wracked the combat arms career management system could have been prevented and can be prevented in the future by restoring the section (and tank) commander to his (or her) rightful place as the 'top' of the junior leaders' pyramid rather than being at the bottom of the senior leaders.




Additionally, I think this and this also apply and make changes complex.


----------



## daftandbarmy

That just about nails it ER. Let's march on Ottawa with this on our banner.

I strongly agree with the 'section commander in the same mess' concept. In the UK, the Guards Division has a different rank structure from the rest of the army (what a surprise, eh?) thanks to Queen Victoria, which sees all the Sect Comds and Pl Sgts in the same mess. Based on what little I've seen of them, this can result in some problems in the junior ranks related to the lack of good leader roles models. Not that it happens all the time, but you can get a bunch of 20 year olds who run amok in the absence of the steadying influence of a group of 25-30 year olds who also happen to be their bosses. This situation does not tend to arise that often in the WO & Sgts' or Officers' messes where junior members 'enjoy' the overwatch of senior members (P.S. Thank God for that, in my case!).


----------



## Infanteer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am going to discuss infantry specifically because that is what I am and I know so well. Yes it is true that there are switched on privates that can lead and most corporals can lead but I am talking about 3 extra weeks on a DP1 course.
> First extra week; Intro to leadership, battle procedure, orders format.
> Next week; (FTX) Have each candidate lead 2 x point recce patrols with a 4 man patrol (3 if numbers are scarce)
> next week; (FTX) Have each candidate lead 2 x section quick attacks and 1 x occupation + 1 x withdrawal.



Someone mentioned JLC/ISCC training during the Commando Course, but I don't see much emphasis on it.  Infact, it looks like they do things backwords from us:

http://www.royalmarines.mod.uk/server/show/nav.6895

_The Junior Command Course (JCC) aims to teach and develop the leadership qualities of selected candidates, normally Lance Corporals, who wish to be considered for promotion to Corporal. The 11 week JCC provides the grounding for many of the skills required of a junior leader. It includes all elements of Military skills, including fieldcraft, navigation, weapon handling, tactics, fitness and first aid.
Even at this level of command, a high standard of instructional technique is expected of students on this course. This is wholly appropriate, since many will become specialists within the RMC and they will be expected to pass on such skills.
Crucial to any commander is the ability to receive and give orders. Considerable importance is given to the teaching of the NATO orders sequence, which when received, must be interpreted, the relevant information extracted and a new set of orders prepared and delivered to the appropriate task group. This is a skill that demands much practice. Candidates are critically assessed on their ability to make a combat estimate of a given situation form which they are expected to formulate a plan, give the relevant orders and take command throughout the execution of the plan._

This is what we teach in PLQ Infantry Mod 1-6, BEFORE soldiers are appointed MCPL and employed as Section 2ICs.  The RM waits until a member is preparing to become a Section Commander before giving him the JCC.  IIRC, the USMC does this as well, and they're not satisfied with it.

I know, I know - we don't usually have Sgts and MCpls kicking around and Cpls or Ptes end up getting leadership positions by default.  This is the reality I see every morning.  I'm not opposed to "soft assessments" on BIQ for soldiers as leaders.  It lets Staff push the best privates a little further but, as a soft assessment, doesn't punish them for failing something we shouldn't demand of them right out of the gate.

As for other trades, they have different requirements, and probably wouldn't find this necessary.




			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I strongly agree with the 'section commander in the same mess' concept.



I don't.  For one, Mess life is, for the most part, dead.  It's basically a bar to go hang out.  None of the NCO's or NCM's I work with make any real effort to go to the Mess unless it is for a special occasion (mug outs, etc, etc).  Basing rank structure around mess life isn't really taking into consideration how the Army works in the 21st century.

Secondly, there is a new NCO paradigm.  Section commander is a huge responsiblity.  Aside from the troops and the gear, sections can be given independent tasks and the actions of one section can have strategic effects - we all know about the Strategic Corporal and the Strategic Private, well, someone has got to manage those guys, and a SNCO (with the sash and the rank to go with it) seems about right for the job.  As well, as we demand more out of the NCO Corps, we want a more senior guy to do some of the other tasks and duties such as staffing or advisory (LAV Sgt comes to mind) - again, duties that are befitting of the rank of Sergeant.  This quote sums it up best:

_The most brilliant plan devised by the most capable general depends for its tactical execution on the section-leaders.  Poor section-leaders may ruin the best-laid plans; first rate section leaders will often save badly devised plans.  This for one simple reason: the section-leader is the sole level of command that maintains constant and direct contact with the men who bear the brunt of the actual fighting.  It follows, then, that the section-leader is to be trained as a tactical commander and as an educator of his men.  [In the Israeli Army]...section-leaders are trained to command independently in the field in every instance in which they are required to operate alone with their units.  In "regular combat", moreover, when the section-leader acts within the framework of his platoon and under orders from his superior officer, he still requires a high standard of knowledge and an ability to sum up the situation.  Modern fire-power and the development of tactical atomic weapons may compel armies to operate in small, dispersed formations both in attack and defence...All levels of command must therefore be trained to think and act independently whenever circumstances demand that they should, and section-leaders are no exception to this rule.  Besides, modern weapons which provide small groups of men with greater firepower and more flexibility of movement, call for a high standard of command at all levels.  The section-leader is therefore to be trained technically as an officer, not as a corporal.

General Yigael Allon of the IDF _

My 2 cents,
Infanteer


----------



## McG

I think that I'm seeing parallel themes from another thread ...


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I'd argue that section commander is a very demanding job which does demand an intelligent, competent and experienced leader.  Particularly in a COIN environment against an intelligent enemy while surrounded with a pervasive global media.  Section Commanders will win or loose tactical fights.  At the same time, the power is in the hands of Section Commanders to make decisions which can loose the war.  We cannot afford to trivialize the importance of this position.


I think an important thing to understand about the section command is that the job has become significantly more complicated than it once was.  This was not something that suddenly came on in Afghanistan and if one cares to look there are signs of the increasing complexity from Canadian operations in Bosnia.  I suspect that one could have seen some of these signs during British operations in North Ireland or US operations in Vietnam.  In most cases, the challenges are simply those which exist when one prepairs to fight more than just a "peer" threat on a conventional linear battlefield.  In a few cases, the challenges are tied to modern technology and societal expectations.

The enemy makes things more complicated today.  He may not carry arms openly or wear a uniform.  He will probably try to hide in the population.  The threat is not a simple as just friend, neutral or enemy either.  A theatre of ops may be full of actors (groups or individuals) who's disposition toward our forces may range from from distrustful to vocally hostile and passively supporting the enemy.  Section commanders will have the challenge of assessing and responding to this threat spectrum which is more full than just the traditional three tones.

The equipment makes things more complicated today.  Consider LAV turrets and software defined radios allowing manpack to manpack or manpack to satcom options.  The sect comd must be able to understand and harness the increased potential of this more complicated equipment.  The technical side is not the only new demand brought by equipment.  Our sections have significantly greater capability and destructive power than previous conflicts (25 mm cannon, M203, guided missiles, etc).  With greater power to destroy comes the greater responsibility to manage that.

The battlefield environment makes things more complicated today.  There will now rarely be a clearly defined FEBA, FLET, rear, deep, etc.  The sect comd will be called on to consider where he is and what this means for threats, posture and actions.  The battlefield now also has a pervasive media presence and the military leadership must manage the reality that actions in theatre have the potential loose the war at home much faster than they can bring victory in country.  In stability operations, PSOs and COIN, the local population now has sway in deciding the victor.  This was not a concern in the thinking of past conventional conflicts, and it adds challenges that the sect comb must deal with.

ROE are more complicated as they hybrid PSO and warfighting forms.

Negotiating, cultural awareness, engaging populations, etc add new essential skill sets to worry about.

Increasingly smaller independently operating elements with increasingly greater distances in between combine to increase the demand and responsibility on more junior levels of leadership (company, platoon and section).

... and after all of this, consider that Sect Comd always was a very important job with very important responsibilities.  Even when fighting Nazis or Soviets.


----------



## XMP

With the recent return by the Navy to the pre unification pattern of officer's rank insignia, there has been a push among some senior army officers to revert to the old pattern of rank stars and crowns.
A friend at DSSPM advises that the proposal has been approved in concept and is making it's way up the ladder and has been signed off at several higher (yet unnamed) levels. A major point made in the proposal was that the total cost of conversion would be relatively small.  
Some of the points for consideration:
1. The effected ranks would be 2nd Lieutenant to Colonel. No change in General Officer's insignia. 
No indication of the insignia for Officer Cadet. The old pattern was a star worn on a white tape.

2. No alteration to existing DEU jackets apart from the removal of the cuff rank would be required.

3. The pattern of metal stars and crowns would be identical to those worn by the RCMP.  IE: an existing source of manufacture and supply.

4. Embroidered slip-ons for the DEU and combat shirts. (I'm sure our friends at CP Gear would have them on their website within 24 hours of  approval). ;D

_If_ this does go ahead, wait for the Air Force to push for a return to the blue and black rank bars.....


----------



## Loachman

So a Major's rank insignia would be?

And a Warrant Officer's rank insignia would be...?


----------



## my72jeep

Nice Loachman see the flaw in it all ready.


----------



## 211RadOp

Loachman said:
			
		

> So a Major's rank insignia would be?
> 
> And a Warrant Officer's rank insignia would be...?



I get enough people calling me sir, if they do this, then I might get saluted.  Damn!


----------



## Michael OLeary

I never knew our system of rank insignia was so "broken" that such efforts have to go into "fixing" it.  Now if only all those senior officers of the three services could contribute their collective energies to fix a modern tragedy, like the effectiveness of the DIN.


----------



## blacktriangle

What a rootin, tootin waste of time.


----------



## DexOlesa

I JUST learned all the ranks. Come one don't change it on me now :crybaby:  ............. ;D


----------



## exgunnertdo

Hmm

I had a brief exchange with our DG (a BGen) on Wednesday on this very subject.

He said it was brought up among the senior brass and they were promptly shot down, not happening any time in the forseeable future.


----------



## Michael OLeary

It's probably only at the "wishful thinking" stage of planning, by some small group who feel that this is actually "effecting change."


----------



## exgunnertdo

XMP said:
			
		

> A friend at DSSPM advises that ...



I just noticed this. The BGen I was speaking with is DSSPM's boss. 

I'm going with still in the wishful thinking phase.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Loachman said:
			
		

> So a Major's rank insignia would be?
> 
> And a Warrant Officer's rank insignia would be...?



Had that problem with the British Exchange Officer here at CFSME a number of years ago..... accidentally called him Warrant, nothing came of it as I guess they figured out that I didn't know the difference.... ;D


----------



## chrisf

And why would anything come of it? Were you briefed on the British rank structure? The many various foreign officers wandering around in Kingston were given a white ID tag of sorts with their Canadian rank equivilency printed on it...

I have a crazy thought...

Rather then allowing staff officers to justify their existence by coming up with silly ideas, why not, when somone at a senior rank level does any of the following...

- Suggests reverting our rank system
- Suggests changing an acronym for the sake of changing an acronym
- Makes a operationally ineffective decree about clothing
- Etc

...that we don't applaud them for their initiative, we instead fire them for being dead weight. Would be a great way to rapidly trim the staff bloat...


----------



## McG

This frivolous idea does not warrant squandering a single resource toward - not a single minuit of staff time and not a single dollar.
It would provide no value (except maybe as a feel-good thing for a few near-retirment individuals).
We don't need it and, I suspect, the vast majority don't even want it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> ...that we don't applaud them for their initiative, we instead fire them for being dead weight. Would be a great way to rapidly trim the staff bloat...



Alternatively, there are probably any number of useful ideas generated by the Lessons Learned process that can be assigned for further study to those who feel they have free time on their hands.

_"Changes to Army rank badges? ..... That's a very nice idea, but here's a suggestion that the bayonet may not be as necessary as previously thought ..... come back when you have something credible to present on the idea, ensure you examine all sides of the argument and all possible uses."_


----------



## PMedMoe

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I never knew our system of rank insignia was so "broken" that such efforts have to go into "fixing" it.  Now if only all those senior officers of the three services could contribute their collective energies to fix a modern tragedy, like the effectiveness of the DIN.



I agree!  It's pretty bad when you get a message (or document) with a link in it that doesn't work because they keep changing things!!


----------



## Michael OLeary

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree!  It's pretty bad when you get a message (or document) with a link in it that doesn't work because they keep changing things!!



At the risk of extending this tangent : The DIN is the creation of digital dinosaurs whose concept of "security" is based on limiting user capability; enabled by senior staff who have little to no understanding of the technology and its evolution in the real world.


----------



## XMP

I'm not advocating one way or the other.  As a museum tech and a student of dress and insignia I find it interesting how one group gets their bling, other groups feel hard done by and want their "entitlement". 
The Navy made it's case, arguing that it was their 100th anniversary and the addition of the curl didn't greatly change the current CF rank patterns.  
After Unification, the Army retained the stars and crowns on the old patterns of Full Dress, and are  now are looking at reverting to the British pattern for all orders of dress.  Yes most, if not all of the Commonwealth still uses the British influenced system with minor detail changes in some cases, and that is "tradition".  Traditions actually come and go, and they don't appear overnight. Uniform and insignia traditions evolve slowly, but they evolve.  We have had the CF rank insignia/structure for almost 50 years. Certainly that is long enough to develop our own tradition?
Between the late 1940s and Unification the Canadian military departed from slavishly following the British in uniforms, insignia, equipment and weapons. There still is a British influence, but what we have is distinctly Canadian.

Loachman, if they do go to the old system, the epaulette slip-ons will likely be the same as in early post-unification. Major's crowns will be small size and Warrants will retain the larger size crowns.


----------



## 57Chevy

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> any of the following...
> - Etc



 :rofl:


----------



## ArmyRick

Since the CF rank has been in place since the late sixties, who is left that is still serving that actually was under that rank structure?

Also does this mean next MCPL become LCPL and SGT drop down to CPL (Back in the hey day a section commander and 2IC was CPL and LCPL)?


----------



## Michael OLeary

XMP said:
			
		

> Traditions actually come and go, and they don't appear overnight. Uniform and insignia traditions evolve slowly, but they evolve.  We have had the CF rank insignia/structure for almost 50 years. Certainly that is long enough to develop our own tradition?
> Between the late 1940s and Unification the Canadian military departed from slavishly following the British in uniforms, insignia, equipment and weapons. There still is a British influence, but what we have is distinctly Canadian.



I agree, after 50 years, how many serving members remain that wore the preceding rank system? What would we gain in operational effectiveness for the costs of this change?  Would we see a counter-proposal in 20 years to return to the "Canadian" rank badges by those who feel no service or emotional connection to the pre-Unification period?

Is there really a need to try and "undo" everything that happens under the Unification banner?



			
				XMP said:
			
		

> Loachman, if they do go to the old system, the epaulette slip-ons will likely be the same as in early post-unification. Major's crowns will be small size and Warrants will retain the larger size crowns.



For info:







Teaching people to differentiate between Majors and Warrant Officers may require one additional MTP.


----------



## Kat Stevens

To be fair, if everything the army did was with an eye to "operational effectiveness",  there would be a metric butt load of former senior officers asking me if I needed a cart when I enter Wal Mart, and a lot fewer UCRs for completely useless gear going in.


----------



## Armymedic

The very idea is one of those from whom the Good-Idea Fairy touched, albiet it does make for a great discussion topic here.

If we were to actually be looking to change our rank system, I would propose 2 small changes:

1. Change the name of our appointment for PLQ qualified troops to Sgt with 3 stripes no leaf, and rename Sgt to Staff Sergeant to align ourselves closer to our US counterparts at the E-5, E-6 levels, and,

2. Change our WO/PO1 rank to a single gold maple leaf instead of a crown, MWO/CPO2 would then change to a Leaf with a wreath.

That would alleviate the confusion between WO and Maj under a British like system if it were being looked at.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> To be fair, if everything the army did was with an eye to "operational effectiveness",  there would be a metric butt load of former senior officers asking me if I needed a cart when I enter Wal Mart, and a lot fewer UCRs for completely useless gear going in.



Perhaps any PER comment on "effectively led/managed change" at senior levels should be supported by its operational level of requirement/utility to help maintain an appropriate level of focus.


----------



## DexOlesa

> 2. Change our WO/PO1 rank to a single gold maple leaf instead of a crown, MWO/CPO2 would then change to a Leaf with a wreath.



I do kind of like that idea. Unique.


----------



## Loachman

XMP said:
			
		

> Loachman, if they do go to the old system, the epaulette slip-ons will likely be the same as in early post-unification. Major's crowns will be small size and Warrants will retain the larger size crowns.



That is not particularly helpful. There would still be too much confusion.

Reversion, or partial reversion, to the old NCM rank structure, would be better. Replace Warrant Officer with Staff Sergeant and Master and Chief Warrant Officer with the original two classes. This wouls also better align with our equivalent Naval ranks

Or we could just leave well enough alone.


----------



## George Wallace

SFB said:
			
		

> 2. Change our WO/PO1 rank to a single gold maple leaf instead of a crown, MWO/CPO2 would then change to a Leaf with a wreath.
> 
> That would alleviate the confusion between WO and Maj under a British like system if it were being looked at.



Just Great!  

Now we'll mistake WO's as BGens and BGens as WO's.


----------



## George Wallace

By the way, expecially for a Museum Tech, they are not "Stars", but "PIPS".


----------



## Armymedic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just Great!
> 
> Now we'll mistake WO's as BGens and BGens as WO's.


Damn, never though of that  :nod: ... but, no, BGen's is more than just a leaf. Actually, they would not even be close. 
(Edit to add: The BGens has the St. Edward's crown, crossed sabre and baton, one maple leaf.)

But wouldnt you be able to tell that the guy wearing the leaf is a WO because he/she is lacking a coat tail hanging entourage?  >


----------



## Michael OLeary

George Wallace said:
			
		

> By the way, expecially for a Museum Tech, they are not "Stars", but "PIPS".



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



> Badges for field officers were first introduced in 1810, and for captains and subaltern officers in 1855. These badges consisted of (and still consist of) crowns and *stars*, the latter being more likely to be called 'pips' today (although this term is technically incorrect). Colonel: a crown and a star; Lieutenant Colonel: a Crown; Major: a star. These rank insignia were worn on shoulder epaulets.


----------



## Old Sweat

George Wallace said:
			
		

> By the way, expecially for a Museum Tech, they are not "Stars", but "PIPS".



Actually, the correct term was "stars," but everyone referred to them as "pips." (And I did wear them up to mid-1970, when I got my CF uniform.)

Sorry, Michael, I did not see your posting. However two consecutive postings that agree on this thread is enough of an oddity to bear comment.


----------



## Rifleman62

And which way the acorns are aligned on the Stars is always good for a free drink from the newly commissioned.

I did wear the one strip of a L/Cpl at one time, long ago (Sect 2i/c, Bren Gun Gp!)


----------



## XMP

The stars (pips) are based on the star of the Order Of The Bath.   The devices in the center are crowns although they do look more like acorns... In common with their British counterparts, the Governor General's Foot Guards and the Canadian Grenadier Guards wear stars based on the Order of The Garter. This (bad word again) tradition was adopted around 1920.  During their short existance the Canadian Guards wore wire embroidered (full dress) or bronze (service dress) stars with three maple leafs substituting for the crowns.


----------



## aesop081

XMP said:
			
		

> (bad word again)



It is not a bad word. It is funny however, that those who wave the "tradition" flag, consistently ignore what we have had for the last 50+ years.


----------



## Old Sweat

I don't have a horse in this race, but I do note that tradition is great if one agrees with a point of view, and not so great if one is on the opposite side of the issue. The current badges of rank date back to 1968 or 1969, when the CF uniform was introduced. Even then, old single service uniforms survived for another two or three years and the old army ranks on combat hung in for a while more. And, as I kept my old mess dress until I retired, a few of us were still using pips and crowns into the 1990's.

Is it a big, earth-shattering issue? No, of course not, just like one could make the case that the executive curl was not all that important. I remember the whining that went on when the distinctive uniforms were adopted in about 1985. It was called a retrograde waste of money, a violation of the spirit of unification and a morale killer in the unified trades. People adapted pretty well, all the administrative glitches proved to be more a matter of imagination than reality, and I think the vast majority of members are happy with the current DEU mix. 

I will not state an opinion pro or con, as it would be blimpish in the extreme for me to join the debate.


----------



## Journeyman

Well, if one _really_ feels a need to wear pips, stars, crowns, kilts, feather boas.......

I got to see every possible combination of mess kits during an RSS posting to Toronto, including one regiment wearing green and purple mess kit  

If fashion is an overarching concern, there are regimental options available


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, if one _really_ feels a need to wear pips, stars, crowns, kilts, feather boas.......
> 
> I got to see every possible combination of mess kits during an RSS posting to Toronto, including one regiment wearing green and purple mess kit
> If fashion is an overarching concern, there are regimental options available



Actually, emerald and amethyst I believe  That's the Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment).

They have since changed the amethyst facings on the mess kit to black.


----------



## armyvern

VETO.

As a Sup Tech who already has to deal with 10 million different slip-ons, Unit flashs, qual and trade badges, rank badges, brigade patchs, cap badges, and accoutrments for three enviornments taking up so much room in the tailor shop that there is no room for sewing machines or staff ...

I hereby invoke my VETO!!

 ;D

And, you guys all know that tailor shops have to actually sew up and "make slip-ony" the slip ons right?? They come flat and unsewn (probably because it saves the Crown .001 cent each slip on for us to have to sew them all up ourselfs at clothing) and if you think you wait too long now to get your stuff back ... Yikes!! It'll take 5 years just to sew enough of them up to issue out.


----------



## medicineman

SFB said:
			
		

> 1. Change the name of our appointment for PLQ qualified troops to Sgt with 3 stripes no leaf, and rename Sgt to Staff Sergeant to align ourselves closer to our US counterparts at the E-5, E-6 levels, and,



Oddly enough, the Army did have the rank/appointment of Staff Sgt - 3 chevrons with a crown.  I was actually accused of being a Staff Sgt in the Legion one chilly Rememberance Day...

MM


----------



## ArmyRick

The idea of a WO being just a crown, NO WAY! Beat it. I earned my crown. 

I agree with some other people that the CF rank structure is fine as it is. It is not perfect but there never is a perfect COA for your mission.

Also, keeping everybody with same rank insignia sorts it out in purple units who is who. I see this as a collosal waste of time.


----------



## 1feral1

I enjoy the customs and traditions of the Army here, and the rank structure, and rank insignia has changed little since WWI.

Although the idea to me is valid (my choice and my opinion) for this change in Canada to return to its pre 1968 Army/Navy Air Force rank structure, it is cost prohibitive, and these funds can be put to use in other avenues.

Maybe one day  ;D

OWDU


----------



## 57Chevy

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> and these funds can be put to better use in other avenues.



Note..... "better" added  ;D 
and I second that. :cdnsalute:


----------



## TN2IC

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Had that problem with the British Exchange Officer here at CFSME a number of years ago..... accidentally called him Warrant, nothing came of it as I guess they figured out that I didn't know the difference.... ;D



Ha.. I just did that last week! Silly Bloke..


----------



## Pusser

If we were to do this, and I don't think it's a horrible idea, I would recommend using maple leaves instead of stars as the pips.

However, most importantly, you have to take the opinions of the people who will actually wear it into account.  If they don't want it, then don't force it.  

The executive curl was re-introduced into the Navy because a lot of people wanted it.  Those wholly against it are in the minority and those who are not wholly in favour of it are largely ambivalent.  As a guage to see how popular it is, just talk to the private tailors who are doing a booming business right now for those who don't want to wait for the Supply System to catch up.

As for the feeling in the Army right now, I'm not sure, but I do know that years ago there was a vocal group in the Regular Army who were bitter that the Militia (as we called it then) were allowed pips and crowns on their mess kit, but the Regulars were not.

To the detractors that say this is a waste of money because it does not contribute to operational effectiveness, I have to disagree.  Just because a uniform feature doesn't deliver rounds down range, doesn't mean it does not contribute to operational effectiveness.  Morale is just as important in warfare as bombs and bullets and just as legitimate an expense on the public treasury (paraphrased from a US Secretary of War whose name escapes me at the moment).  If this improves morale, then it is a good thing, but not if anyone is going to get into a bitter debate over it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

medicineman said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, the Army did have the rank/appointment of Staff Sgt - 3 chevrons with a crown.  I was actually accused of being a Staff Sgt in the Legion one chilly Rememberance Day...


Like the Air Force had a Flight Sergeant with the same 3 chevrons + crown.



			
				Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> It is cost prohibitive, and these funds can be put to use in other avenues.


Agreed


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> To the detractors that say this is a waste of money because it does not contribute to operational effectiveness, I have to disagree.  Just because a uniform feature doesn't deliver rounds down range, doesn't mean it does not contribute to operational effectiveness.  Morale is just as important ...


No.  Changing the rank insignia would be a waste of resources (regardless of how few) and would provide no benefit in return.  There would be no morale benefit ast eh vast majority do not care, and the few detractors would out-number fans of the idea.


----------



## Michael OLeary

I agree.  I am less concerned about the expenditure of money, which would be relatively small compared to many other projects, than I am concerned that projects such as this consume staff time and effort, commanders' time and attention, and system resources (CFSS, etc.) that could be put to better uses against other problems. When rank badges rises to the top of the pile because all more important issues have been solved, then bash on and have at it, and we can wear peacock feathers and stuffed mice to designate rank for all I care, a Colonel is sill a Colonel no matter the insignia. It's a question of priorities more than anything else, and flip-flopping things because someone has such a hard-on for Unification that they feel the need to wipe out any perceived trace of it is not a priority. Most of the people this will effect weren't serving in that era and know little more about it than the sense of hatred passed along to them with the title.


----------



## Pusser

I think you're missing my point.  I am not saying that this idea will improve morale.  Frankly, I don't know whether it will or not as I am in no position to determine that.  What I am saying is tht IF it improves morale, then it is not a waste, because spending on morale issues is just as important as spending on bullets and rations.  Commanders neglect morale at their peril.  It was Napolean who said something to the effect that yes, the medals he bestowed on his soldiers were mere baubles, but with those baubles, one leads men.


----------



## Michael OLeary

It may improve someone's morale, but I cannot recall a single officer ever mentioning that they would personally feel better if they had pips instead of stripes, and that they felt it was an important morale issue for them.

If someone can substantiate that it would improve the Army's morale, then bring it on.  If it's to please a limited few, find another use of the resources it will consume.


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> but with those baubles, one leads men.



There is a limit to that. You stop leading when you cant figure out where that is.

You can go ahead and turn me into a FSgt all you want.........i still fly a 32 year old airplane. My morale would be considerably higher if i flew something new.


----------



## Pusser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It may improve someone's morale, but I cannot recall a single officer ever mentioning that they would personally feel better if they had pips instead of stripes, and that they felt it was an important morale issue for them.
> 
> If someone can substantiate that it would improve the Army's morale, then bring it on.  If it's to please a limited few, find another use of the resources it will consume.



I agree entirely :nod:


----------



## dapaterson

If we want to improve my morale, we'd fire the originators of this idea, and re-invest their pay into basic kit items that are currently out of stock - like winter boots or, dare I hope, underwear.


----------



## medicineman

They'd just promote one of his minions to fill the SSO Silly Ideas slot at DCOS Make Work Projects he just vacated and the circle would start again.

Or am I just sounding bitter and twisted?

MM


----------



## Infanteer

In the interest of compromise

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/British_officer_rank_ww1.png/220px-British_officer_rank_ww1.png


----------



## 1feral1

Too bad there was not heaps of extra $$ to go around.

Summing up, I have always thought that Army got the shyte end of the stick on 'de-unification'. First they kept the CF greens while the others elements got their own colours back, then Army got shafted with rank too, as officer's still wear the old RCN/RCAF style bands, and the pip system was history.

I remember the Tans which gave us our own idenity, but they were gone after I discharged. Sure they wrinkled, but they were unique.

It would be nice one day to pi$$ off the greens, to a unique colour and allow the pip system back. 

These are just thoughts, as we know this is not going to happen.

OWDU


----------



## aesop081

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> while the others elements got their own colours back,



Air did not get its old colour back.





> as officer's still wear the old RCN/RCAF style bands,



Current air force ranks are quite different from the old and the names are still gone.


----------



## SeanNewman

Personally I am very against the idea of going back to pips.  

I like what we have now, it makes sense, and even though we didn't make up the bar system, it's more "us" now than pips, and if we were to go back to pips it would be like giving up some nationalism (IMO) in favour of the UK.

The crown argument is a non-starter though since the size of the crowns are significantly different.

What does need to be changed though is the very stupid location of the rank itself, and the fact that you can't see it until you're 2 metres from the person.  If anything needs to go back to the way it was, it's ranks being back on the shoulders and easier to distinguish.  

I don't care if the ranks are neon pink; I'd rather be able to see them than not.  The whole concept I believe is that they're hard to see by the enemy, which makes no sense since you can easily take them off in a Recce role anyway, and by the time you deploy odds are you know who everyone is anyway.


----------



## Neill McKay

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The crown argument is a non-starter though since the size of the crowns are significantly different.



I disagree.  In the context of older uniform styles, when officers and NCMs dressed differently and wore their rank insignia in different places, the crowns could have been distinguished.

Now, with everyone dressing alike and rank shown on slip-ons, the size of the crown would make no difference.  Witness the stories of warrant officers being saluted by captains and below from other countries.



> What does need to be changed though is the very stupid location of the rank itself, and the fact that you can't see it until you're 2 metres from the person.  If anything needs to go back to the way it was, it's ranks being back on the shoulders and easier to distinguish.



Agreed, *in garrison* -- even using a more conspicuous colour would help.


----------



## SeanNewman

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Agreed, *in garrison* -- even using a more conspicuous colour would help.



That's what I meant, because even for the Infantry the majority of your time is spent in a building without cam paint on your face.


----------



## Steel Badger

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In the interest of compromise
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/British_officer_rank_ww1.png/220px-British_officer_rank_ww1.png



I rather like this idea. Conforms to tradition ( albeit Great War etc),retains the "ringy" look of post
unification officer rank, and would still serve to distinguish us from the Commonwealth them. 
I am guessing that displayed patterns would be for DEU's, but minus the rings for the rank slip ons?

If the resources used to effect such a change would not adversely impact the CF, I wouldn't disagree with adopting this pattern.


----------



## vonGarvin

I say we go with this rank structure:






(May as well, no?)  >


----------



## SeanNewman

The thing about the multiplier ranks (the pip that indicates the next highest level) has to be significantly different IMO.

On that German list, you can see that the wreath is giant and looks very different than a pip.  There are two things on the O-Lt and two things on the Major rank, but you'd never confuse them.

With the Brit ranks, the LCol rank is two things being a crown and pip, but from 3m away you couldn't tell it apart from an Lt because they are same-sized dots.  Of course the age would probably give it away but it shouldn't have to.


----------



## Steel Badger

Wheew

I was sure that the TV would have selected the other OTHER German rank structure.....


----------



## SeanNewman

The SS ones?  You have to hand it to those Germans: with skulls on their collars it's not even like they thought they were the good guys.


----------



## Old Sweat

Petamocto said:
			
		

> With the Brit ranks, the LCol rank is two things being a crown and pip, but from 3m away you couldn't tell it apart from an Lt because they are same-sized dots.  Of course the age would probably give it away but it shouldn't have to.



Speaking from experience when we used the same rank badges on combat, one could easily tell the difference between a pip and a crown from a fair distance away. Even with the drab colour pattern we wore on slip ons for the early combat clothing, the shapes appeared quite different.


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> The SS ones?  You have to hand it to those Germans: with skulls on their collars it's not even like they thought they were the good guys.


The skull was used by more than the Germans; however, the SS rank structure was more convoluted than worth it:


----------



## vonGarvin

And then, there's the other _other_ German Army from 1956 - 1990,  the NVA:


----------



## SeanNewman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And then, there's the other _other_ German Army from 1956 - 1990,



Germany had an Army after 1945?  I thought the Russians and our grandparents killed them all (?).


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Germany had an Army after 1945?  I thought the Russians and our grandparents killed them all (?).


The Wehrmacht was dissolved in late 1946.  By then it consisted of about three dudes.  Tom Hanks killed the rest of them.


----------



## 1feral1

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> 1. Air did not get its old colour back.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.Current air force ranks are quite different from the old and the names are still gone.



1. I am meaning colours of their DEU, its pretty close to the same colour as in WW2

2. For example, if you look carefully the current rank of CAPT (Army and AF) is very similar to that of WW2 RCN (LT-N) and RCAF, as in two thick bars.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_ranks_and_insignia

It only took me a short time to become accustomed to the pip system. All three branches of rank have changed very little, although the S/SGT in Army is still around, there has been no promotions to it in many years. Most S/SGTs are RAAOCs.

Regards,

CC

EDITed for rank mistake


----------



## aesop081

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> 1. I am meaning colours of their DEU, its pretty close to the same colour as in WW2



I knew you were talking about DEUs and no its not even close.



> 2. For example, if you look carefully the current rank of CAPT (Army and AF) is very similar to that of WW2 RCN (S/LT) and RCAF, as in two thick bars.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_ranks_and_insignia



This is what RCAF ranks looked like :

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


----------



## Neill McKay

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I knew you were talking about DEUs and no its not even close.



I think the idea is that it's quite a lot closer than the green that was worn post-unification.  One can now, with a straight face, say that the Canadian air force wears a colour that approximates "air force blue".


----------



## ArmyRick

Here is some change from my opinion (now more than 2 cents contribution). 

1. The DEU dark green is what I have worn in my 19 years and 8 months of service. I like it as is and think it should be left alone for us ground pounders. I hated the tans. You looked fat in them, they wrinkled and you always had boot polish scuffs on your pants.

2. The rank is fine as is, leave it alone.

3. Personally I find the eplalette rank insignia OK. Not perfect but OK. I think our CAPAT uniform would look really stupid putting a bright and easy to see rank on them. I have had no trouble identifying an officer from at least 20-30m away. Plenty of time to load and and fire off a salute.

4. WWI rank insignia? No. No way. Don't agree. Move forward at least.

We are talking about cosmetic changes here, leave it. My father served in the old army (1960-1965) with the old rank system. When I joined the army, we had been using the current system for 20-22 years. We are now more than 40 years past unification. Lets move on folks, this is how we are and I don't see need to change it.

IF there was to be something to change, it would be rank appoinments and qualifications that go with. Here is my example of how the new infantry positions would go
Pte (Trained) Completed DP1
Pte (Shevron) completed DP2A
CPL, Section 2IC, completed PLQ (Infantry) Make CPL a leadership rank again
MCPL, Section Commander, completed DP3A
SGT, PL 2IC, Complete DP3B
WO, CQMS, Complete ILQ
MWO and CWO same same as CSM and RSM respectively.

Thats my opinion and I stand by it. Throw your rotten tomatoes at me!


----------



## Teflon

Who would want to use something from the past? Such a fasion no no! clean simple lines and contrasting colors are all the rage in rank structures these days on the militant run ways this year!

I say we go with something along these lines from Star Wars:






 :


----------



## PanaEng

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we want to improve my morale, we'd fire the originators of this idea, and re-invest their pay into basic kit items that are currently out of stock - like winter boots or, dare I hope, underwear.



+++ 10000

old rank scheme and symbols belong to a museum...
 Move on, nothing to see here...


----------



## 1feral1

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I knew you were talking about DEUs and no its not even close.
> 
> This is what RCAF ranks looked like :
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force



RCAF rank is the same as RAF and RAAF, the latter two have not changed in over 70 years.

At least you have blue, the navy black and whites, not hand-me down CF greens. Thats the point I was trying to make.

Cheers,

CC


----------



## Michael OLeary

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> At least you have blue, the navy black and whites, not hand-me down CF greens. Thats the point I was trying to make.



"CF Greens" were replaced in the late 1980s with the Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEU).


----------



## PMedMoe

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> "CF Greens" were replaced in the late 1980s with the Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEU).



Late 1986 to be (relatively) precise.  I was in the second platoon at Cornwallis to receive the new DEUs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

I'd be in favour of reintroducing the rank braid and pips on the lower sleeve, as adopted during WW1. I understand that the pips migrated to the sleeve so that Officers were less likely to be identified by their shoulder braid (and get sniped).


----------



## dapaterson

I've noticed that the Taliban do not appear to be wearing proper rank insignia.

I strongly recommend we take all the staff obsessed with this sort of trivia and task them out as the D'OHMLT - Dress Observers and Historians Mentor Liaison Team, whose job is to work directly with the Taliban and get them into proper rank insignia.


----------



## Teeps74

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've noticed that the Taliban do not appear to be wearing proper rank insignia.
> 
> I strongly recommend we take all the staff obsessed with this sort of trivia and task them out as the D'OHMLT - Dress Observers and Historians Mentor Liaison Team, whose job is to work directly with the Taliban and get them into proper rank insignia.




Ahh dear god!!! A thread about rank and dress and stuff... Even in this thread I have to worry about blowing liquid out my nose. Pepsi tastes better the usual way by the way...

ETA:  Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## SeanNewman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've noticed that the Taliban do not appear to be wearing proper rank insignia.



I know you wrote this tongue-in-cheeck, but I'd be willing to bet that you're wrong.

No, their rank may not be based on bars or pips, but something tells me that they know who is who as a quick glance (colour of their turban / Kandahari hat, how they wear them etc).

Romans wore their goofy plumed helmets thousands of years ago according to rank, so I give our modern enemy the benefit of the doubt because sometimes they're a lot more organized than we give them credit for (to our detriment).


----------



## RangerRay

I like it.

I always thought it odd seeing army officers wearing what is universally recognised as naval rank insignia.  Most Commonwealth armies have a rank system similar to our old one.

However, there are probably more important issues to deal with first.

IMHO.


----------



## 1feral1

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> "CF Greens" were replaced in the late 1980s with the Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEU).



I am aware of that Michael, I was a CF member from January 1976 until January 1995. Aside from a slight material change in wieve, and epaulettes added, they are the same, even the generic 'lion' buttons which have been around in the tri-service days are still around.

Of course within at the time of my discharge, corps buttons and corps brass embellishments were worn for more espirit du corps and indenity, as these are on the one's pictured below. Gotta love the old Mobile Command badge.

As Chevs are GM, Army DEU's are Greens.

My greens have not been worn since the Men's Christmas Dinner at the Regina RUSI/ROM in December of 1994.

Just took this pic now, and no they would not fit, ha!

Regards,

CC


----------



## Michael OLeary

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> Army DEU's are Greens.



Only in the eyes of those who refuse to move forward.


----------



## Blackadder1916

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd be in favour of reintroducing the rank braid and pips on the lower sleeve, as adopted during WW1. I understand that the pips migrated to the sleeve so that Officers were less likely to be identified by their shoulder braid (and get sniped).



The common story is the other way round - rank insignia (particularly for regimental officers) started out on the cuff pre-war and migrated to the shoulder because of visibilty.   

http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/weapons-equipment-uniform/340-rank-insignia.html


> When service dress was introduced in 1902, a complex system of markings with bars and loops in thin drab braid above the cuff - known irreverently as the asparagus bed - was used at first, but this was replaced in the same year by a combination of narrow rings of worsted braid around the cuff, with the full-dress style shoulder badges on a three-pointed cuff flap. To correspond with the equivalent naval ranks, colonels had four rings of braid, lieutenant-colonels and majors three, captains two and subalterns one. In the case of Scottish regiments, the rings were around the top of the gauntlet-style cuff and the badges on the cuff itself. General officers still wore their badges on the shoulder strap.
> 
> During the Great War, some officers took to wearing similar jackets to the men, with the rank badges on the shoulder, as the cuff badges made them too conspicuous to snipers. This practice was frowned on outside the trenches but was given official sanction in 1917 as an optional alternative, being made permanent in 1920, when the cuff badges were abolished.



However, there are alternate opinions that the pips moved to the shoulder because it was easier for own troops to identify their officers in the trenches.  Plus it was simplier for officers to change insignia upon promotion.  In one booklet from 1915 - Rank at a Glance in the Army and Navy - it is noted that staff officers wore rank insignia on the shoulder (along with their red tabs).


----------



## 1feral1

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Only in the eyes of those who refuse to move forward.



Sir, as a Moderator, can you please inform me what I have done to deserve such a rude comment. Kindly quote me a reference if you're implying I refuse to move forward with the times.

Although you have succeeded in mildly irratating me by your insult, its Friday evening here, and I am going out for a beer and a steak.

Your response leaves me almost speechless, but fear not, I won't be baited by you. I know better, as I know where I stand with you.

'Greens' is just a nick name.

EDITed for spelling, and yes some clarity.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I've noticed that the Taliban do not appear to be wearing proper rank insignia.



And this failure to concentrate on the all important, and to heed to the advice of the Dinosaurocracy and even the Taliban Honouraries is EXACTLY why they are going to lose the war.   :


----------



## Michael OLeary

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> Sir, as a Moderator, can you please inform me what I have done to deserve such a rude comment. Kindly quote me a reference if you're implying I refuse to move forward with the times.
> 
> Although you have succeeded in mildly irrating me by your insult, its Friday evening here, and I am going out for a beer and a steak.
> 
> Your response leaves me almost speechless, but fear not, I won't be baited by you.
> 
> Fro crying out loud, 'greens' is just a nick name.
> 
> EDITed for spelling.




I'm sorry if my opinion doesn't sit well with you.  Perhaps your leaving the CF almost 15 years ago has left you unaware of the opinions some of today's Canadian soldiers might have about their own uniforms, including the distinction between "CF greens" and "DEUs".  I think we've buried enough soldiers in the latter to have it respected as our Army's uniform. Be happy with the one you adopted country has given you and I will be proud of the uniform Canadian soldiers wear today.


----------



## 1feral1

Loachman said:
			
		

> So a Major's rank insignia would be?
> 
> And a Warrant Officer's rank insignia would be...?



What they did here to slip-on rank (introduced not that long ago here) is have the crown not only enlarged (twice the size as a Major's), but embroidered a square border around it. Both border and crown are in black, either on DPCU or DPDU material.

With rank slides being introduced to all Army ORs, SNCOs and WOs (WO2 and WO1), there was initally some confusion at first, so hence the modification.

A Major's slip-on rank slide has the pip exactly the same size as the metal ones, which is the same as the older style slides. 

Hope this answers your question  ;D

Regards,

CC


----------



## 1feral1

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I think we've buried enough soldiers in the latter to have it respected as our Army's uniform.



Sir,

I am very aware of opinions from various ranks including higher than yours. I am still in contact with many friends, yes some even come here to actually visit me, and yes some who've deployed, and some not, some Militia, some Regular, both sides of the fence.

I have plenty of RESPECT for a uniform I proudly (and I mean proudly) wore for 19  excellent years, which includes the 3 years before you even signed up? (EDITed last sentance due to misunderstanding in your response)

Oh, by the way its almost 16 years ago I left Canada, not 15 as you specified.

Kind regards,

CC


----------



## McG

Carcharodon Carcharias said:
			
		

> I am very aware of opinions from various ranks including higher than yours.
> 
> ....its almost 16 years ago I left Canada, not 15 as you specified.


This is the point the Michael O'Leary is making.  The vast majority of the Army won't want a new rank change.
Those who do want this will be the very senior & nearing retirement.  There will be an even larger population opposed to having this "alien" system imposed on them.
Let's not strip the current generation of its identity.


----------



## WLSC

I do find the old rank system more ''army'' but I never new nothing else then the current one.  I dont see what wrong with it and find it distinctivly canadian.  The old system has more in commun with immense glorious past.  This has change since A-stan.  We have a glorious present time, distinctivly canadian.  I really thing that to reinstall it would bring back the same felling of 1968 for the current generation of soldier.


----------



## Michael OLeary

FusMR said:
			
		

> The old system has more in commun with immense glorious past.



If thinking the Army's "glorious past" is centred on what uniforms were worn in the World Wars, then so do woolen battle dress and puttees, but no-one says we should have those back to restore some ambiguous sense of honour that Unification supposedly stripped away.

_Why are we supposed to think that turning back the clock to the 1960s (on anything) will suddenly make today's Army better than it is? 

Why can't we be the Army we have become?_

(Those are rhetorical questions, by the way, but if someone really wants to explore them they can start a new thread for the purpose.)


----------



## WLSC

> If thinking the Army's "glorious past" is centred on what uniforms were worn in the World Wars, then so do woolen battle dress and puttees, but no-one says we should have those back to restore some ambiguous sense of honour that Unification supposedly stripped away



My point exacly !  Honour and identity his shown by the work of the people in the service.  Not by rank insignia.  It's in fact the opposite.  What the people do, reflect his the identity.

So, IM, very confortable with the identity we have right now.


----------



## SeanNewman

FusMR said:
			
		

> ...very confortable with the identity we have right now.



Back full circle here, but I'm exactly the same.  I like the bar system we have now, we've had it for decades, it is easy and makes sense (more bars = higher), and it's ours.  

Pretty much everyone in the active CF right now minus some old timers with a CD5 have only ever known this system and it works.


----------



## vonGarvin

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Back full circle here, but I'm exactly the same.  I like the bar system we have now, we've had it for decades, it is easy and makes sense (more bars = higher), and it's ours.
> 
> Pretty much everyone in the active CF right now minus some old timers with a *CD5 * have only ever known this system and it works.


[insert pedantic mode] there is no such thing as a "CD5" or a "CD1" for that matter.  The post-nominal is simply "CD".  In conversation, one can mention clasps.

[/insert pedantic mode]

So....I take it we're not adopting a new old Army Officer insignia system then?  Good.

My *only* beef is the whole notion of "private-trained".  EG: the one hook private vs: the private with none.  Being in the training system, I understand what "qualified" means.  DP1 Infantrymen graduates, for example, are trained.  They are fully employable in accordance with the Job Based Occupational Standards which lists the tasks required and to what competency (I'll explain that whole thing some night when drunk, only if YOU, collective readers, buy my booze).  Suffice it to say that DP 1 graduates are trained.
_Full Stop._
Edited for formatting.


----------



## 30 for 30

Somewhat similar bars were worn by the Canadian Army in WW1 at the cuff (along with pips etc.), so one _could_ argue that there is indeed considerable heritage with respect to the current bars we wear.


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And this failure to concentrate on the all important, and to heed to the advice of the Dinosaurocracy and even the Taliban Honouraries is EXACTLY why they are going to lose the war.   :



With a clear statement like that, it's obvious you have a misnomer - you should be "The RCR Guy", not "PPCLI Guy" if you feel uniformity is that important...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> The common story is the other way round - rank insignia (particularly for regimental officers) started out on the cuff pre-war and migrated to the shoulder because of visibilty.
> 
> http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/great-war-on-land/weapons-equipment-uniform/340-rank-insignia.html
> However, there are alternate opinions that the pips moved to the shoulder because it was easier for own troops to identify their officers in the trenches.  Plus it was simplier for officers to change insignia upon promotion.  In one booklet from 1915 - Rank at a Glance in the Army and Navy - it is noted that staff officers wore rank insignia on the shoulder (along with their red tabs).



Awesome info. I am an unworthy historian!  (Bowing down now in homage)


----------



## Pusser

Without coming down on either side of this debate, I have to argue against the concept that the current rank structure is "distinctly Canadian."  It is anything but.  The current Canadian officer rank insignia are clearly rooted in the Royal Navy of the mid 19th Century.  The RCN inherited it from the RN.  The RAF adopted it from the RN (remember the RAF was the amalgamation of the Royal Naval Air Service and the Army's Royal Flying Corps) and the RCAF inherited theirs from the RAF.  The CF adopted it from the RCN and RCAF, but the common ancestor is the Royal Navy.  We're also not the only country whose army uses a similar system.

Now, using maple leaves instead of Bath stars for pips - that would be distinctly Canadian!  Sorry, I promised not to come down on either side of the debate - returning to lane... ;D


----------



## AmmoTech90

> My *only* beef is the whole notion of "private-trained".  EG: the one hook private vs: the private with none.  Being in the training system, I understand what "qualified" means.  DP1 Infantrymen graduates, for example, are trained.  They are fully employable in accordance with the Job Based Occupational Standards which lists the tasks required and to what competency (I'll explain that whole thing some night when drunk, only if YOU, collective readers, buy my booze).  Suffice it to say that DP 1 graduates are trained.
> _Full Stop._



[off topic]
For the Infantry this may be true.  For other trades there may be an OJT period after formal courses and before moving onto the next DP/QL stage.  For example ATs will graduate from the QL3 part 1 course (6 months) and then get posted to a unit.  They then go through a QL3 part 2 OJT/OJE phase lasting 12 to 24 months where a log book is maintained of that records when specific tasks are performed to an acceptable level.  When this log books is completed, they can be "promoted" and put up their leaf and attend a QL5 course.  A point to note is that until the Pte has completed part 2 of the QL3 they cannot be deployed, this could be up to 24 months after finishing in the training system and being employed at a unit.
[/off topic]


----------



## quadrapiper

Pusser said:
			
		

> Now, using maple leaves instead of Bath stars for pips - that would be distinctly Canadian!  Sorry, I promised not to come down on either side of the debate - returning to lane... ;D


What about some sort of Order of Canada-based pip?

Also, what about re-authorizing the pips/crowns system for all Army/Land mess dress (and full dress, if that isn't already the case)? If we're talking aesthetics here, the striped epaulettes look rather out of place with the rest of the rig.

And... as a sidebar... if there was suddenly a complete lack of other, better things to consider, what about a (any-colour-but-the-current) different shirt for the Army? Tan/khaki, perhaps?


----------



## Pusser

I too thought that using the Order of Canada insignia for a pip would be good.  It's certainly in line with the traditional use of the Bath star, but I'm not sure how the Army folks would like having snowflakes for rank badges.  How about this:


----------



## dapaterson

Thanks, but no.  I don't want to ditch my history for this new proposal, and not for some archaic British-inspired one either.

The cost of giving the Navy their curl is absurd in a time when the department faces significant pressures; re-doing all the Army officer ranks would make no fiscal sense either.

(One could also comment on the lack of uniformity in Navy uniforms today, since there are not sufficient supplies for everyone).


----------



## Pusser

There's always a transition period.  Remember it took a few years to get everyone into DEU.


----------



## armyvern

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> [_even more_ off topic]
> For the Infantry this may be true.  For other trades there may be an OJT period after formal courses and before moving onto the next DP/QL stage.  For example ATs will graduate from the QL3 part 1 course (6 months) and then get posted to a unit.  They then go through a QL3 part 2 OJT/OJE phase lasting 12 to 24 months where a log book is maintained of that records when specific tasks are performed to an acceptable level.  When this log books is completed, they can be "promoted" and put up their leaf chevron  and attend a QL5 course.  A point to note is that until the Pte has completed part 2 of the QL3 they cannot be deployed, this could be up to 24 months after finishing in the training system and being employed at a unit.
> [/_even more_ off topic]



Excellent post. And, too true.


----------



## Old Sweat

I am finding this very interesting, and am not surprised by the way it is developing. There has been a refreshing change in attitudes in the army since I was a young officer. At that time, the generation that served in the UK during the Blitz and then fought under British command in Sicily, Italy and North West Europe ran the Canadian army as a trans-Atlantic appendage of the British army. During the war it used to be said that in 21st Army Group, for example, there were not two separate artilleries, but one that was completely interchangeable. Even in the 1960s, if something was proposed, the first question was apt to be, "what are the British doing?" and we were more nationalistic than the other old Commonwealth countries. I could never really grasp why, when we ordered the M109 in the mid-sixties, we sent our first cadre for training to Larkhill, and not to Fort Sill.

The adoption of the CF uniform and the move south led to a trial separation, and the ties to the US military grew over the years. This was especially true from the 1980s onward, when the US went to an all volunteer force and developed into a long service force. That is not to say that we have discarded all out ties to the UK military tradition in the Canadian army, but it seems from the little bit I have seen, we have a real Canadian army, and not a pale copy of the British army.

Good for you for wanting to retain the badges of rank you have fought in. It may not have been my first instinct, but it is a choice I support wholeheartedly.


----------



## 1feral1

Pusser said:
			
		

> I too thought that using the Order of Canada insignia for a pip would be good.  It's certainly in line with the traditional use of the Bath star, but I'm not sure how the Army folks would like having snowflakes for rank badges.  How about this:




That looks good, thanks for posting.


----------



## vonGarvin

(slightly OT)
WRT the trades that do QL3, etc, OJT.  As they say, you learn something new everyday!  Thanks!


----------



## ArmyRick

Nice art work on the proposed rank structure but I stand by what I said, no. Not now. Likely not ever for my mind.

Am I stubborn? Yes.


----------



## Michael OLeary

There's a certain irony that there are some who infer that the change of rank insignia under Unification was such a demoralizing and drastic measure (and still requiring restoration after 40+ years), yet they would inflict the same type of change on an entirely new generation of army officers that have never worn, and have no emotional investment in, the pre-1968 insignia.


----------



## Neill McKay

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> There's a certain irony that there are some who infer that the change of rank insignia under Unification was such a demoralizing and drastic measure (and still requiring restoration after 40+ years), yet they would inflict the same type of change on an entirely new generation of army officers that have never worn, and have no emotional investment in, the pre-1968 insignia.



You make a valid point.  But there's more at play than individual experiences.  There's also a strong institutional memory - and in an organization where tradition and heritage are as important as they are in the Forces, that institutional memory will be that much stronger.

I can name a good number of naval officers, including myself, who are chuffed at getting the executive curl back on our uniforms even though we've never worn it (apart from on mess dress) before.  In fact, there are many officers who weren't even alive in 1968 who think it's a great idea.


----------



## McG

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I can name a good number of naval officers, including myself, who are chuffed at getting the executive curl back on our uniforms even though we've never worn it (apart from on mess dress) before.  In fact, there are many officers who weren't even alive in 1968 who think it's a great idea.


The officers of the Navy may be thrilled to have that little accessory returned to thier otherwise unchanged rank; however if you look at the demographic saying "no" in this thread, it would anecdotaly suggest that the NCMs and officers of the Army don't want this.


----------



## Journeyman

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I can name a good number of naval officers, including myself, who are chuffed at getting the executive curl back on our uniforms....


Yes, but this thread is discussing Army ranks.

You already have a thread to discuss the Naval curl.......oh wait, that thread's now about whether OPSEC was breached by telling people of this change to dress regs
 :stirpot:

 ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

N. McKay said:
			
		

> You make a valid point.  But there's more at play than individual experiences.  There's also a strong institutional memory - and in an organization where tradition and heritage are as important as they are in the Forces, that institutional memory will be that much stronger.
> 
> I can name a good number of naval officers, including myself, who are chuffed at getting the executive curl back on our uniforms even though we've never worn it (apart from on mess dress) before.  In fact, there are many officers who weren't even alive in 1968 who think it's a great idea.



All the more reason not to repeat history by creating a new ground swell of emotion over taking something away to replace it with something unfamiliar.  Those riding this particular "institutional memory" pony will be long dead by the time those who don't agree with this change (or only realize it's happening when they have to change their uniforms) reach the point of trying to exercise their own "institutional memory" to regain what they would lose if this was effected.


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> The officers of the Navy may be thrilled to have that little accessory returned to thier otherwise unchanged rank; however if you look at the demographic saying "no" in this thread, it would anecdotaly suggest that the NCMs and officers of the Army don't want this.



And this is a very important point.  Forcing a change that the majority doesn't want is counter productive.  

Although there are few, if any, former RCN officers left serving, I would have to say that the return of the executive curl has been quite a popular move.  One need only look at the number of tunics now sitting in the hands of private tailors having the curls put on (i.e. for those who don't want to wait for the CFSS to catch up) to see this.  One of the chief reasons for this is that the curl has never died in the Navy.  It lived on in our mess kits , virtually since unification.  Although there was a suggestion about 15 years ago (at fairly senior levels) that the curl be removed from the mess kit, that proposal died a horrible death, as did a suggestion around the same time that the gold stripes be removed from the trousers.  Until now, however, there was an anomaly in that our mess kit rank insignia did not match our regular rank insignia.  That has now changed.

Whether the Army now changes to pips and crowns is their decision, but to the naysayers who argue that it's a waste of money, I would reiterate that if it's good for morale, then it is not a waste.  However, if it is decided to maintain the current insignia, I would suggest that consistency would be a good thing.  All uniforms should use the same system.  In other words, remove pips and crowns from some of the mess kits and ceremonial uniforms as well.  :stirpot:  If these uniforms are part of a modern suite of uniforms, and not merely costumes, then you should be using the current rank insignia.  Why do we see master corporals in the  Governor General's Foot Guards sporting a maple leaf above their two chevrons, but sergeants do not?


----------



## dapaterson

Because they are the Guards, and mere "orders" from NDHQ won't make them change...


----------



## ArmyRick

Consistency eh? Maybe the Navy should do drill like everybody else in the CF and not the ship board drill? Navy has there traditions and the army has theres, leave it alone.

Maybe we should be really be consistent and all wear one uniform? Oh wait, we tried that. We change that idea 25 years ago.

Regimental and corps traditions were maintained to some extent since unification. I know in the case of most/all infantry regiments the Regimental dress is paid for by the associations and not the tax payer, hence each regiment and corps maintains those customs and traditions.

I think the overwhelming majority on this board feel that army rank is fine as it is. Adding the executive curls for the navy is a very minor difference (The rank for the most part looks the same).

Changing from the bars to the pips, crowns and batons will be a whole lot different. But I fall back on the main point most people harp on, we don't need it and most don't want the rank change.


----------



## Michael OLeary

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Regimental and corps traditions were maintained to some extent since unification. I know in the case of most/all infantry regiments *the Regimental dress is paid for by the associations* and not the tax payer, hence each regiment and corps maintains those customs and traditions.



Not in all regiments. Some have non-public funds separate from the Association accounts that pay for such things as ceremonial dress.


----------



## Pusser

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Consistency eh? Maybe the Navy should do drill like everybody else in the CF and not the ship board drill? Navy has there traditions and the army has theres, leave it alone.



Shipboard drill is not a tradition.  It is a practical adaptation of CF drill for use on board ships.  The commands and basic movements are the same.  The only difference is that sailors do not lift their legs way up when doing it on board.  There are two reasons for this:  1)  lifting the leg up to your chin when the ship rolls leads to everyone falling over (which is bad) and 2)  slamming your foot down on a steel deck is bad for your health (and that of the personnel below when the sound goes ringing through).  When sailors are ashore, they do normal CF drill.


----------



## vonGarvin

Though I know that you know we don't lift knees to our chins when doing CF drill, I get  your illustrative point.
But this?



> When sailors are ashore, *they do normal CF drill*.



:rofl:


;D


----------



## Pusser

OK...   They're *supposed* to.   :


----------



## vonGarvin

Pusser said:
			
		

> OK...   They're *supposed* to.   :


;D


(Just bugging you, naturally.  All in jest)


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Good God, no!  I mean, if DLR hears of this, they will bugger it up and give us this:


Pfft!  For something this exciting, you know DHH will demand to take over the table.  

In any case, given all the excitement over frivolous rank changes to "look more Army" or impose one generation's traditions over another's, I have decided to propose a whole sale revisit of the structure .... as much as possible, I tried not to let functionality dictate anything (though I did accidentally let some rational though in ).

First of all, to recognize the period of our heritage most heavily influence by unification, the rank of Sergeant will be imposed across all three services (because Sergeants are cool).

I am also going to leave rank indicators (chevrons, crowns, stripes, etc) largely untouched.  The exception will be that all generals of the Army & Air persuasion will also wear the executive curl (after all, we cannot risk DGMEPM wandering around with more bling that any of the CLS, CAS, VCDS or CDS).

For the Air Force, we will go to a system that recognizes the RAF (and therefore RCAF) roots in both Army and Navy.  It will also recognize the pre-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Navy Ranks) and the post-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Army ranks).  To do this, we will simply substitute a few Army names for Navy names.

Acting Sub Lieutenant is to wordy and confusing (what do you call an A/SLt who is acting in rank as an SLt?!).  We cannot just re-name this Midshipman, because that was historically a second grade of pre-commissioned officer rank.  Fortunately, the RNZN has established a Commonwealth precedent with the use of Ensign as a commissioned rank equivalent to the Army 2Lt.

The Army get a new dress uniform to wear this on, and insta-corporals will be eliminated through the introduction of the appointment of "Specialist" at the Pte rank level.

 :clown:


----------



## ArmyRick

Who knows, maybe the NDP will some day form the government, then we know what the rank structure would be

Public Servant, 3rd Class
Public Servant, 2nd Class
Public Servant, 1st Class
Master Public Servant
Left Wing Policy Enforcer
Master Left Wing Policy Enforcer
Chief Left Wing Policy Enforcer

No need for officers as they will be appointed by the NDP to over see us doing PR jobs, shovelling public roads, traffic control, garbage pick up, handing out welfare checks, etc, etc.


----------



## gcclarke

I wonder what the union dues would be like.


----------



## Old Naval Guard

Hello I am new to this Forum, Just a few post under my belt. Ive seen this topic has been  :evil: :argument: I support the notion of returning our Military  back to RCN,RCAF and Cdn army. There have been many good arguments back and forth. However most people call the military by army navy and  airforce. Few people call it Martime command or Air command or Mobile Command. We can still be intergrated while having three sepearte services as we did before unification. With respect Old Naval Guard


----------



## BIGOS

With many of our veterans now gone, why not respect their sacrifice and their courage by reverting to the names that we once used. It changes nothing structurally, just the name on paper. Not only does it sound better but it also pays homage to the men and women who have given our freedom.


----------



## vonGarvin

JELEŃ said:
			
		

> With many of our veterans now gone, why not respect their sacrifice and their courage by reverting to the names that we once used. It changes nothing structurally, just the name on paper. Not only does it sound better but it also pays homage to the men and women who have given our freedom.


I am a veteran, and I have never served in the Royal Canadian Air Force, nor the Royal Canadian Navy.  Neither have any of my peers who are in the navy or the air force.  


Don't forget, we have veterans who are in their teens, let alone in their twenties, thirties or (like me) in their forties.


----------



## BIGOS

:-[

That's quite a foot in my mouth. I apologize profusely.

I did not mean to offend you, your family or any other Veteran who is serving or has served. 

When I said that many of our veterans are now gone, I had mainly in mind those who had served in the World Wars. As they had been the ones prior to unification to serve in the RCN or RCAF. As many more of them are now passing into the afterlife, I thought it would be a fitting tribute to the men and women whose sacrifice we hold so dearly and the men and women who helped to shape Canada as a nation. From those in the First War, which helped to bring Canada of Age, to the Second, which changed our nation forever. Not to say that those who served after the Second World War have not had a great contribution to our society.

I hope you nor anyone else takes this as an offense to my statement. I did not mean to undermine your service or anyone else who has served during the second half of the 20th Century or in the 21st. I feel truly embarrassed and I'm very sorry. I hope this post can serve to remind everyone to read their posts over before posting and to think through what they're saying.


----------



## dapaterson

Of course, in WWI there was no "Air Force" and hence no RCAF, and the original title of Canada's Navy was "the Naval Service of Canada".  The original title of the Air Force was "the Canadian Air Force" (1924).  

Therefore, by some logic, using the names RCN and RCAF are a disservice to the memory of our oldest veterans, who served in the Naval Service of Canada and the Canadian Air Force, not the RCN or RCAF.


Perhaps we could rename the fleet air arm to "the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service" to commemorate their original title - Sea Kings and Auroras.


----------



## Pusser

Although I would love to see it, I will be very surprised to see it happen.  Many folks have commented that it is "just a name change" and that there is nothing else involved.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  It is actually quite complicated, not least of all because it would likely require an amendment to the National Defence Act and some significant organizational changes.  We don't have three separate services, which can simply be re-named.  We have one service that is divided into several Commands, only three of which fall into traditional three service lines.  Yes, you could change the name of Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy, but what about all the sailors in the CF who are not part of Maritime Command?  Where would they be?  How would they feel?  What about those of us who still have a few years to go, have spent many years at sea, but will likely never be posted to a MARCOM unit again?  Would we part of the RCN or would we be sailors without a navy?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, in WWI there was no "Air Force" and hence no RCAF, and the original title of Canada's Navy was "the Naval Service of Canada".  The original title of the Air Force was "the Canadian Air Force" (1924).
> 
> Therefore, by some logic, using the names RCN and RCAF are a disservice to the memory of our oldest veterans, who served in the Naval Service of Canada and the Canadian Air Force, not the RCN or RCAF.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we could rename the fleet air arm to "the Royal Canadian Naval Air Service" to commemorate their original title - Sea Kings and Auroras.


 The Naval Service Bill received royal assent on 4 May 1910 following which a request to change the name to the Royal Canadian Navy was made to King George V on 30 January 1911 and approved on 29 August 1911.  Given that the youngest recruit would now be 117 - I doubt very much that there are any veterans alive that served in the brief period that the Canadian Navy was known as the Naval Service of Canada.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Pusser said:
			
		

> Although I would love to see it, I will be very surprised to see it happen.  Many folks have commented that it is "just a name change" and that there is nothing else involved.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  It is actually quite complicated, not least of all because it would likely require an amendment to the National Defence Act and some significant organizational changes.  We don't have three separate services, which can simply be re-named.  We have one service that is divided into several Commands, only three of which fall into traditional three service lines.


I think that is overcomplicating the matter.  A simple renaming of Maritime Command to RCN would suffice.  I’m not convinced that the NDA needs to be changed for a nomenclature issue.  Perhaps somebody can correct this but was the NDA amended when Air Command was created in 1975?  In any event, amending the NDA simply to change the name would pass through Parliament fairly easily if the Executive Curl resolution is any indicator.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, you could change the name of Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy, but what about all the sailors in the CF who are not part of Maritime Command?  Where would they be?  How would they feel?  What about those of us who still have a few years to go, have spent many years at sea, but will likely never be posted to a MARCOM unit again?  Would we part of the RCN or would we be sailors without a navy?


This would be akin to our army brethren.  I’m pretty sure that an RCR soldier considers themselves to be a member of the RCR regardless of their current posting.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I would be happy with Canadian Navy. 

As I said before I don't need "Royal" in our title to be proud of what the Navy has done since I have been a member of it.


----------



## McG

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would be happy with Canadian Navy.


What about "Canadian Navy Command"?


----------



## Pusser

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> This would be akin to our army brethren.  I’m pretty sure that an RCR soldier considers themselves to be a member of the RCR regardless of their current posting.



Except that soldiers have a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" (it's listed on their MPRRs).  Sailors do not have a similar mechanism.  As it stands right now, I can say I am a sailor, a Canadian sailor or a member of the CF.  I also tell people that I am in the Navy (not quite true because no such entity actually exists although it is legitimate to say I am a Naval Officer, so I must be part of a Navy n'est pas?).  However,I cannot say that I am a member of Maritime Command; therefore, if they simply change the name of Maritime Command to Royal Canadian Navy, I could not say that I was a member of the RCN.  I'm not sure I like that idea as it leaves out a significant number of sailors.

Canadian Navy Command?  Yuck!   Although, if nothing else changes, I would like to see the CMS changed to the CNS - Chief of Naval Staff.  Why do the Maritimes get special representation?  What about the West and Arctic Coasts? ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Pusser said:
			
		

> Although, if nothing else changes, I would like to see the CMS changed to the CNS - Chief of Naval Staff.  Why do the Maritimes get special representation?  What about the West and Arctic Coasts? ;D



We all know that MARLANT is the only real part of the Navy.  >


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Pusser said:
			
		

> Except that soldiers have a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" (it's listed on their MPRRs).  Sailors do not have a similar mechanism.  As it stands right now, I can say I am a sailor, a Canadian sailor or a member of the CF.  I also tell people that I am in the Navy (not quite true because no such entity actually exists although it is legitimate to say I am a Naval Officer, so I must be part of a Navy n'est pas?).  However,I cannot say that I am a member of Maritime Command; therefore, if they simply change the name of Maritime Command to Royal Canadian Navy, I could not say that I was a member of the RCN.  I'm not sure I like that idea as it leaves out a significant number of sailors.
> 
> Canadian Navy Command?  Yuck!   Although, if nothing else changes, I would like to see the CMS changed to the CNS - Chief of Naval Staff.  Why do the Maritimes get special representation?  What about the West and Arctic Coasts? ;D


The MPRR of sailors could be tweaked to have an equivalent to a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" but I don't see a minor software tweak to Peoplesoft as being a big challenge.  The fact that it currently indicates "naval DEU" is probably enough for most to identify as being sailors.  IMO, MS stopped being a "maritime' staff in '75 when the MAG was removed and changing our name to "navy" in whatever fashion is cleanest and easiest is long overdue.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## Snakedoc

I don't think this was posted anywhere else but I was doing some browsing on the topic and came across this update from the MND on the petition website.  Judging from the letter, it looks like the MND is not up for the idea of officially changing our name to Royal Canadian Navy or Canadian Navy:

http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com/ 

Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Minister of Defence tells me reinstatement of Royal Canadian Navy would be inappropriate

Dear Lead Petitioner:

Thank you for your e-mail concerning the restoration of the "Royal"
designation to the Canadian navy. I appreciate the opportunity to
address your concerns, and please accept my apology for this delay in
responding.

The Executive Curl was addressed as a result of private member's motion
M-459 by Member of Parliament Guy Lauzon (Stormont-Dundas-South
Glengarry). Following a review of the motion and in light of the naval
centennial celebrations taking place this year, it was determined that
reinstating the curl would be an excellent way to highlight the navy's
100 years of service to Canada.

Regarding the potential restoration of the "Royal" title, this matter
has been reviewed on many occasions with the interest and morale of
serving members of the Canadian Forces (CF) constantly in mind. Although
the CF has returned to environmentally distinctive uniforms to foster a
greater sense of identity among its members, the Government intends to
preserve the very real benefits of unification by retaining the current
organization. The re-introduction of the titles of the former single
services amalgamated to form the CF would be inappropriate, as it would
not reflect the true character of the CF. For example, those who now
wear the naval uniform only approximate the membership of the Royal
Canadian Navy. Today's navy includes many personnel wearing air force
blue and even army green, and large numbers of sailors serve in land and
air force units. Similarly, today's air force is not a mirror of the
former Royal Canadian Air Force, nor is today's army identical to the
former Canadian Army. All work for common goals.

The use of the word "Royal" as a title has never been taken away from
the CF. When the three former services were amalgamated in 1968, the
traditions and customary practices of the services were combined in the
new Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act
permitted continued use of the title "Royal" by units that had earned
the honour as well as other titles of a similar nature granted by
customary right, such as Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, The Royal Canadian
Regiment, and The Royal Military College of Canada.

I trust this information is helpful, and thank you for your ongoing
interest in the Canadian Forces. I would also like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your service in defence of Canada.


Sincerely,


Peter MacKay
Minister of National Defence


----------



## Halifax Tar

I can live with "Canadian Navy" but I would like to see is an end to purple trades, that would be the biggest step forward we could take for our people in my opinion. 

We can keep a common training system but your uniform would dictate postings and duties. Having the common training system would also allow us to continue in the current fashion of "augmenting" other elements when they become tired, worn out or short on people. Having just gone through the "augmentee training" in Pet for R9 I feel I can safely say that the skills needed were not in our primary duties (I.E. my self supply) but in the soldiering skills and that was all accomplished in the time given. 

This would also instate 3 different merit boards for the 3 elements, such as I would suspect the 3 regular infantry regiments have. This I think would be necessary to keep apples being compared to oranges. 

Just my :2c: disregard is you don't agree


----------



## Neill McKay

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I can live with "Canadian Navy"



I've never been a fan of pandering to separatists and republicans so I think the "Royal" is not something that should be easily let go.



> but I would like to see is an end to purple trades, that would be the biggest step forward we could take for our people in my opinion.



I find your opinion on this interesting, as the greater diversity of career opportunities for purple trades has usually been cited as one of the benefits of unification (even among those who otherwise oppose it).  Do you think that there is a large body of purple tradesmen who would share your opinion?


----------



## Pusser

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I've never been a fan of pandering to separatists and republicans so I think the "Royal" is not something that should be easily let go.
> 
> I find your opinion on this interesting, as the greater diversity of career opportunities for purple trades has usually been cited as one of the benefits of unification (even among those who otherwise oppose it).  Do you think that there is a large body of purple tradesmen who would share your opinion?



I certainly share that opinion.  Although there is much commanality across the elements in the "purple" occupations, there are also some distinct differences.  Storing a ship is different from loading up trucks for the batallion.  There are different considerations, the mastery of which comes from experience.  Common schools are a good idea, but I think folks should be allowed to concentrate their careers in one element.

I give the example of a petty officer who once worked for me.  He had spent his entire career at sea and liked it.  Then he was told that he was going to a service batallion, for no other reason that branch policy wanted everyone to have experience in at least two elements.  Why?  All this would really accomplish was to uproot his family and place him at a distinct disadvantage, working in an element where he was expected to lead soldiers, not just in matters of supply, but also in combat operations (soldier first remember).  This is unfair to all concerned and dangerous.  It also left me with the prospect of getting a replacement who had always been a soldier, yet expected to lead a damage control party without the experience that the previous petty officer had.

Leaders are leaders because they have experience, not just training.  Pride of service is also important.  How many folks, when asked, say, "I'm a member of the (insert applicable purple branch name here) branch of the Canadian Forces?"  More than likely, they all respond with, "I'm in the Navy, Army or Air Force."  Purple folks should be allowed to identify with the service with which they serve.  If they would like to change, fine, but change uniforms too.  It always drives me nuts to see my hodge podge of different colours standing next to the single colour departments at divisions.  Isn't the purpose of a uniform to be uniform?

On a final note, in the Logistics Branch, you will never see an officer in a naval uniform in a service batallion or an army-uniformed Log officer in a ship.  Why then do we insist that the NCMs do this?


----------



## Halifax Tar

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I've never been a fan of pandering to separatists and republicans so I think the "Royal" is not something that should be easily let go.
> 
> I find your opinion on this interesting, as the greater diversity of career opportunities for purple trades has usually been cited as one of the benefits of unification (even among those who otherwise oppose it).  Do you think that there is a large body of purple tradesmen who would share your opinion?



You know I wasn't sure I was in the majority on this feeling until I came to Petawawa for work up training. The vast, VAST majority of Army folks there, in supply anyways, felt that they were in the Army and had no interest in sailing or going to sea, especially the senior NCMs (Sgt-CWO). In fact some were as militant about being Army and staying in an Army setting as I am about being Navy. 



> I give the example of a petty officer who once worked for me.  He had spent his entire career at sea and liked it.  Then he was told that he was going to a service battalion, for no other reason that branch policy wanted everyone to have experience in at least two elements.  Why?  All this would really accomplish was to uproot his family and place him at a distinct disadvantage, working in an element where he was expected to lead soldiers, not just in matters of supply, but also in combat operations (soldier first remember).  This is unfair to all concerned and dangerous.  It also left me with the prospect of getting a replacement who had always been a soldier, yet expected to lead a damage control party without the experience that the previous petty officer had.



I have brought up the same example many times, unfortunately it is the current policy. I did hear it came close to ending not to long ago though. I am an example. Sense 2001 the CMS has poured lots of money and training in me to become an effective member of ships company. Now because of some Branch's policy this summer I will be posted away and all that money and time will be flushed down the toilet and lost only to have to be relearned if I ever come back. It just doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps that's my issue I'm trying to make sense of it.



> On a final note, in the Logistics Branch, you will never see an officer in a naval uniform in a service battalion or an army-uniformed Log officer in a ship.  Why then do we insist that the NCMs do this?



I would like to know why this is as well. 

See I don't see the un-unification (Can I say un-unification ?) of the forces as having much of an impact on Hard Army, Air and Naval people as it will on support trades, or at least the Log Branch. Really sense the creation of the CF (1968) the only people truly effected in everyday life are the support personnel. 

On a final note, myself, I have never, not once, said I was a member of the CF Log Branch. I consider myself a sailor and tell people that I am in the Navy. This can lead to some weird looks, from foreign soldiers, when your standing in Panjiway wearing arid cadpat. I will go and do what I'm told but, as incorrect and wrong as it may be,  my first allegiance after the country and my family is the Navy, not directly the CF and certainly not the branch.


----------



## ModlrMike

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I can live with "Canadian Navy" but I would like to see is an end to purple trades, that would be the biggest step forward we could take for our people in my opinion.
> 
> We can keep a common training system but your uniform would dictate postings and duties. Having the common training system would also allow us to continue in the current fashion of "augmenting" other elements when they become tired, worn out or short on people. Having just gone through the "augmentee training" in Pet for R9 I feel I can safely say that the skills needed were not in our primary duties (I.E. my self supply) but in the soldiering skills and that was all accomplished in the time given.
> 
> This would also instate 3 different merit boards for the 3 elements, such as I would suspect the 3 regular infantry regiments have. This I think would be necessary to keep apples being compared to oranges.
> 
> Just my :2c: disregard is you don't agree



I have to disagree with your second point. I think that the end result would be too few tradesmen in one element. However, the example you cite is something that the service has done to itself. There was a time that we were moved every 4 years or so. With the advent of longer postings, and fewer cost moves available to the CM, people stayed in one area for much longer than intended. The result was that the breadth of experience across elements, particularly in the SNCO corps, was reduced. I'm not suggesting that we move people more often, but I think that the various branches need to have a well structured and public strategy for career development of their NCO corps. Troops need to understand the career expectations, and that they are as much responsible for their development as the CM.

For example in the Medical branch, if you want to be a Sgt, then you should have to go to the field as a Pte/Cpl/MCpl. If you want to be an MWO, then you should have to go the field as a Sgt/WO. In addition if you've been in the field since you were a Pte, and are now looking at promotion to Sgt, you should expect a posting to another element. Minimum posting milestones should be MCpl to Sgt: posted, Sgt to WO: posted, WO to MWO: posted. These milestones won't solve the problem of the MCpl who's spent 16yrs in one place, but at that rank there's usually enough peers at a unit to help one learn the ropes. It's pretty hard as a 1 of 1 WO to learn by example.

Too many times I've seen folks posted in who have spent 10 or more years on a Base as a 9-5er and who have no concept of what real military life is. They're also bitter that they've been posted away from their cushy day job, and have only taken the posting because it comes with a promotion. They are then expected to lead subordinates in a "hard" environment, when they have no common experience, and no desire to be at the unit in the first place.

I've also seen guys who spend 15 yrs in a field unit get promoted to WO, get posted out, and can't adjust to the culture or leadership demands of their new element. Often they don't last long, which then results in a poor return on investment for the CF.

It should be the perspective of all members and CM that everyone has the potential, whether true or not, to develop into a CWO, and their career experience should contribute to that goal so that they can truly lead the institution, rather than be specialists in one part of it (in so far as we're talking purple trades).



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> On a final note, in the Logistics Branch, you will never see an officer in a naval uniform in a service batallion or an army-uniformed Log officer in a ship.  Why then do we insist that the NCMs do this?



Officers are considered specialists (even GSOs), and NCMs are considered generalists (even when they collect Spec pay).



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You know I wasn't sure I was in the majority on this feeling until I came to Petawawa for work up training. The vast, VAST majority of Army folks there, in supply anyways, felt that they were in the Army and had no interest in sailing or going to sea, especially the senior NCMs (Sgt-CWO). In fact some were as militant about being Army and staying in an Army setting as I am about being Navy.



Exactly my point. What happens to the Branch when these element myopic CWO become CM or Branch Adviser? How will the troops in the other elements be treated?


----------



## dapaterson

Here's the challenege, though.  If we want senior leaders to ahve a better insitutional understanding, it makes sense to give them exposure to other elements earlier, not later, i ntheir careers.  A PO2/Sgt  Sup Tech or RMS clerk going from Trenton to Petawawa or from Victoria to Cold Lake gives them a broader understanding - and makes them more valuable in what you could call "hard purple" jobs - positions where a wider understanding is an asset - though those jobs are mostly HQ type positions, so for some folks that's another reason not to be cross posted - "Bad enough I had to go to Petawawa, but then I'm slated for Ottawa!"

Personally, I'd love to see CF support units with a mixture of uniforms - a service battalion would benefit from an Air Log officer with a greater understanding of the way the Air Force works; an AOR (or JSS) with an Army Log O or two would give both sides an understanding of the other...

"Jointness" is more than just a group of senior officers making a high level plan; it's sailors, soldiers and airpeople having a greater understanding of each other as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's the challenege, though.  If we want senior leaders to ahve a better insitutional understanding, it makes sense to give them exposure to other elements earlier, not later, i ntheir careers.  A PO2/Sgt  Sup Tech or RMS clerk going from Trenton to Petawawa or from Victoria to Cold Lake gives them a broader understanding - and makes them more valuable in what you could call "hard purple" jobs - positions where a wider understanding is an asset - though those jobs are mostly HQ type positions, so for some folks that's another reason not to be cross posted - "Bad enough I had to go to Petawawa, but then I'm slated for Ottawa!"
> 
> Personally, I'd love to see CF support units with a mixture of uniforms - a service battalion would benefit from an Air Log officer with a greater understanding of the way the Air Force works; an AOR (or JSS) with an Army Log O or two would give both sides an understanding of the other...
> 
> "Jointness" is more than just a group of senior officers making a high level plan; it's sailors, soldiers and airpeople having a greater understanding of each other as well.



I can only speak of the supply trade and perhaps in a minor way of the Log Branch. If I had my way and we separated our support pers then when it comes CMs we (in supply) would have 3 pers in the careers shop (1 WO-PO1, 1 MWO-CPO2 and 1 CWO-CPO1) 1 being Air, 1 being Army and 1 being Naval. This would ensure all 3 environment specialties are present and could co-ord with each other.

That all being said if the elements did separate by uniform you could argue to cut the CMs out right and have the careers of the personnel driven buy an in element CPO1-CWO as a rep for that trade, i.e. naval supply would have a CPO1 on the CMS staff who advises, governs and guides all Naval Sup Techs throughout their careers. 

I fail to see how a Svc Btn will benefit by getting a sailor/airmen in a leadership position, with no army experience, and having to train him or her from the ground up, when it would have been easily alleviated but simply making sure the position is filled by and Army pers. I am not saying the sailor/airman cant do the job I am just asking is the juice worth the squeeze. You are placing that person out of element in a obvious disadvantage. They are already behind the ball when the show up. 

There are reasons that, for instance, the Cox'n for Flog in Halifax should always be a sailor or that the RSM of 2 Svc Btn should be Army. 

As for "institutional understanding" I again fail to see how its important for a PO2 RMS Clerk, posted to HMCS Anyship, to understand what the Sgt RMS Clerk is doing at 1 RCR. If the schools stayed joint as well as the systems we use then the common knowledge is already there and you have achieved the "institutional understanding". No ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with your second point. I think that the end result would be too few tradesmen in one element. However, the example you cite is something that the service has done to itself. There was a time that we were moved every 4 years or so. With the advent of longer postings, and fewer cost moves available to the CM, people stayed in one area for much longer than intended. The result was that the breadth of experience across elements, particularly in the SNCO corps, was reduced. I'm not suggesting that we move people more often, but I think that the various branches need to have a well structured and public strategy for career development of their NCO corps. Troops need to understand the career expectations, and that they are as much responsible for their development as the CM.
> 
> For example in the Medical branch, if you want to be a Sgt, then you should have to go to the field as a Pte/Cpl/MCpl. If you want to be an MWO, then you should have to go the field as a Sgt/WO. In addition if you've been in the field since you were a Pte, and are now looking at promotion to Sgt, you should expect a posting to another element. Minimum posting milestones should be MCpl to Sgt: posted, Sgt to WO: posted, WO to MWO: posted. These milestones won't solve the problem of the MCpl who's spent 16yrs in one place, but at that rank there's usually enough peers at a unit to help one learn the ropes. It's pretty hard as a 1 of 1 WO to learn by example.
> 
> Too many times I've seen folks posted in who have spent 10 or more years on a Base as a 9-5er and who have no concept of what real military life is. They're also bitter that they've been posted away from their cushy day job, and have only taken the posting because it comes with a promotion. They are then expected to lead subordinates in a "hard" environment, when they have no common experience, and no desire to be at the unit in the first place.
> 
> I've also seen guys who spend 15 yrs in a field unit get promoted to WO, get posted out, and can't adjust to the culture or leadership demands of their new element. Often they don't last long, which then results in a poor return on investment for the CF.
> 
> It should be the perspective of all members and CM that everyone has the potential, whether true or not, to develop into a CWO, and their career experience should contribute to that goal so that they can truly lead the institution, rather than be specialists in one part of it (in so far as we're talking purple trades).
> 
> Officers are considered specialists (even GSOs), and NCMs are considered generalists (even when they collect Spec pay).
> 
> Exactly my point. What happens to the Branch when these element myopic CWO become CM or Branch Adviser? How will the troops in the other elements be treated?



I don't think it would be as much of an issue as you think to be honest. I may be naive but I doubt the, figure head position, of Branch CWO has a great effect on the everyday duties of the persons in that branch. If we can have an Army CDS that can lead all 3 elements complete and the supporting arms then I fail to see how it would be difficult for an Army CWO to be an effective branch CWO comprised of Army, Navy and Airforce.

I don't think you would have one element that would suddenly be short of a specific tradesmen. We manage to work it now and the billets for those positions come by environmental manning lists not dictated by the branches. All you would have to do is over a 5 year period, move people to their elements and give those who wish to stay in that element the chance to change uniforms if possible. I really think you would see it all come out in the wash, so to speak. As well to fill the deficiencies, when the young lad or lassy comes to the CFRC and wants to be an RMS Clerk you advise them on what elements are open and looking for RMS Clerks, then its their choice.


----------



## Snakedoc

Looks like despite the letter previously posted from the MND, the idea is not totally dead.  What I found particularily interesting is that the large majority of comments after the article are quite strong in their support for the name change(s).  Not sure how much sway a Senate motion has but at least its a step in the right direction.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/senate-debates-whether-canada-belongs-in-the-navy/article1799317/


"*Senate debates whether Canada belongs in the Navy *  

Steven Chase
Globe and Mail Update 
Posted on Monday, November 15, 2010 11:31AM EST

Is it time to bring back the Navy? 

Senators are studying a motion to change the working name of Canada's marine military force from the functional-sounding “Maritime Command” to the “Canadian Navy” – a title that's been defunct for four decades. 

This is a compromise position however; some Conservative senators hope to go even further and add the word “Royal” to make it once again the “Royal Canadian Navy.” 

The Senate's national security and defence committee deliberates the matter Monday, hearing from retired naval commanders, officers and a historian. 

Few Canadians outside the military realize that Canada, officially, has no army, navy or air force today. Instead, Canada is defended by the awkwardly-named Land Force Command, Maritime Command and the Air Command. 

These units are a legacy of the Pearson and Trudeau government's late 1960s shakeup of the military that merged the three separate services into one. On February 1, 1968 the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force were unified into one service: the Canadian Armed Forces. 

This controversial unification and renaming never sat well with serving or retired soldiers, who argued it was a blow to the esprit de corps of the separate branches of the military. 

It's fallen to a Liberal senator to serve as the driving force behind a push to undo what former Liberal prime ministers did. Bill Rompkey, the sponsor of the Senate motion to rename Maritime Command, says it's about restoring a piece of Canada's identity. 

“Maritime Command is a bland nonentity that ... has no discernible character with which the Canadian public can identify,” Mr. Rompkey said earlier this year in defence of his proposal. 

“Everyone knows the navy. The time has come to institutionalize the name 'Canadian Navy/La Marine Canadienne',” he said. “Let us throw Maritime Command overboard and signal that the Canadian Navy will be called officially the Canadian Navy/La Marine Canadienne.” 

Conservative Senator Fabian Manning, as well as Liberal Senator Joseph Day, would like to amend the Rompkey motion and instead have “Royal Canadian Navy” restored as the force's title. 

Mr. Manning has argued it would be more consistent to revert to Royal Canadian Navy. 

“Cadets in Canada graduate from the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet program. Our veterans are part of the Royal Canadian Legion. We have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ,” the Conservative Senator told an October meeting of the Senate defence committee. 

“Believe me, I am not promoting going back to the British Isles things. My ancestors on all sides of the family are from Ireland. I just want to make sure I get that out. “ 

“In my own personal view, creating a brand name is very important, and getting back to that is important, certainly in the hundred-year anniversary of the navy. ‘Royal Canadian Navy,’ to me, sounds consistent with much of what we have in our country.”"


----------



## Bin-Rat

Well since I was Army, I don't spend much time in this section but I did see this the other day, and didn't see it posted else where, if So, please Amend appropriately
thank you.

Post Reference 

Name change for the Navy?

By BRYN WEESE, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: November 15, 2010 8:08pm

OTTAWA — What's in a name?

Apparently quite a lot when you're in Maritime Command — the official name of the Canadian Navy.

Likewise, the official names of Canada's Army and Air Force are Land Force Command and Air Command respectively.

Who knew?

But a Senate committee that studied the less-than-descriptive name Monday might get the ball rolling to change all that, at least for the Navy.

According to several retired naval heavyweights and senators who studied the idea Monday, it's time for a change.

"To the Canadian public, the term Maritime Command is absolutely meaningless because it is not clearly descriptive of what it is," said Vice-Admiral (retired) Ron Buck with the Navy League of Canada.

"Canadian Navy, on the other hand, is very descriptive. The Navy is the navy.

"The average (non-serving) Canadian, or about 90% of Canadians, knows virtually nothing about its navy, not even its name."

Senator and retired Lt.-Gen. Romeo Dallaire, vice-chair of the Senate's national security and defence committee, said discussing the names of the three branches of the forces is "healthy" because it has an impact on morale.

"If the name change happened, in my opinion, there is a strong potential to make the sailors strut a little more and feel more at home by using the term Canadian Navy officially, and not in subterfuge."

He said it would be unlikely the defence minister and chief of defence staff would consider a name change for the navy, but not the other two branches to Canadian Army and Canadian Air Force.

The decision to change the name of the Canadian Forces commands rests solely with the defence minister, unless the minister wanted to revert to the former pre-1968 Royal designations of Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, which would require the Queen's approval.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT the style - as a died in the wool traditionalist I am all in favour of the RCN and the RCAF joining the RCMP, the RCR, the RCDs and even the RCSCCs.  Not to mention R22R.l

WRT the substance - the problem of sailors understanding army problems and aircrew understanding sailor problems would go away if we had vessels from which both soldiers and aircrew operated.   Learning would commence in the galley.


----------



## Journeyman

Bin-Rat said:
			
		

> ...strut a little more and feel more at home by using the term Canadian Navy officially, and *not in subterfuge*


Ah yes, the shameful whispering in the back alley.   : 

At a time of growing defence budget cuts, do they believe that changing the letterhead will distract sailors from the reality that they're not actually sailing? I've never heard a sailor say he's in anything but "the Navy" anyway.

It's nice to see Dallaire and the Senate National Security and Defence Committee are actively engaged in the RMS Titanic's deck-chair placement.



Mind you, if they want to weigh in on a _critical_ issue, sort out the airforce -- this "soldier sailor, airman/airwoman/airperson" thing is a pain; maybe legislate calling all the zoomies "aviators" or something.


----------



## Neill McKay

Journeyman said:
			
		

> At a time of growing defence budget cuts, do they believe that changing the letterhead will distract sailors from the reality that they're not actually sailing? I've never heard a sailor say he's in anything but "the Navy" anyway.



It would probably do some good in terms of public affairs and the recruiting pool.  I still recall being corrected ca. 1994 when I walked into a recruiting office and professed my interest in joining "the navy".


----------



## Journeyman

N. McKay said:
			
		

> It would probably do some good in terms of public affairs and the recruiting pool.  I still recall being corrected ca. 1994 when I walked into a recruiting office and professed my interest in joining "the navy".


You seriously believe that having the title changed _officially_ to "the Navy" -- from what everyone and his dog already calls "the Navy" (albeit unofficially) -- will have the slightest impact upon recruiting? The posters already say Navy (et Marine aussi).

You believe there are kids walking into a CFRC, and upon being told that the correct title is "Maritime Command" and not "the Navy," are going "Whoa dude, I'm not joining that!" If so, perhaps they're better off just walking out the door and sticking to glue-sniffing.

As far as Public Affairs value goes, as noted, everyone already calls it the Navy. Other than the odd Halifax paper reporting on a change of command parade, when has any media actually spelled out Maritime Command, in lieu of the readily-comprehensible "Navy"?



In the end, it's not my fight -- as noted, I'm Army. I really don't care what NDHQ calls us. Should the debate come up about changing our name, my response would be "no thanks; whatever the proposed change would cost, I'd rather have added to my ammo budget."


----------



## Scott

I recall there being a poster here who wanted JTF2 referred to as FRED. I think it was because it removes all the coolness and silly little sandbox reasons. Remove the mystique and it's just a name, right? The folks over at ARRSE like to refer to the SAS as THEM for the same reasons.

I think we should call the Navy something similar...

No wait, going _that_ route would be silly.

Sorry fellas, a lot of the bunfights I have seen here over the years have been very closely related to the Navy whatever you like to call a  gaggle of sailors and boats. Not all, but a lot.

I'd think you'd have bigger fish to fry. Like getting that potential sailor through the door without having to resort to what you call yourselves.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If it looks, acts, talks, smells, b*tches like the Navy then its the Navy. I don't need any senators or other bureaucrats to remind me of that fact.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Scott said:
			
		

> ...
> I'd think you'd have bigger fish to fry. Like getting that potential sailor through the door without having to resort to what you call yourselves.




What?!?    They're going to call themselves _Press Gang_, again?


----------



## Scott

SECOND batch of Milpoints coming your way today ER!

And Press Gang would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?

Who cares what other problems it causes in turn?

Edit: I can't give the points because you've already had your fill today!


----------



## Pusser

Intersting to note that the press gang has never been outlawed.


----------



## mariomike

Pusser said:
			
		

> Intersting to note that the press gang has never been outlawed.



My understanding is that the practice of impressment ended at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A century later, conscription was used for military service.

Edit to add.
"THE PRESS GANGS AND NAVAL RECRUITMENT" ( sorry for the caps ):
http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheet_impressment.htm

"However, in the twentieth century, during the two world wars, another type of impressment has been used in the form of compulsory national service or conscription and this type of service continued until the early 1960s."
http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/index.htm


----------



## xena

Scott said:
			
		

> The folks over at ARRSE like to refer to the SAS as THEM for the same reasons.



Whoa, whoa, whoa!  You can't refer to THEM (as in THOSE who may not be named!) on the internet without THEM finding out about it!  THEY're very uppitty about THEIR security!

<knock, knock, knock>

My, I wonder who could be at my door?

<creak>

Hello, how can I help you?  Nice moustache, by the way...

<pffft, pffft...>

Uggh!

<thud!>


----------



## Pusser

mariomike said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the practice of impressment ended at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A century later, conscription was used for military service.



Yes, they stopped doing it, opting for voluntary enlistment and career development instead, but that doesn't mean they ever outlawed it.


----------



## Journeyman

mariomike said:
			
		

> What?!?    They're going to call themselves _Press Gang_, again?
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that the practice of impressment ended at the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Click to expand...

Google how many links you can post here for "sense of humour"   :


----------



## mariomike

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Google how many links you can post here for "sense of humour"   :



Thanks for misquoting me.

This was the original:



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Intersting to note that the press gang has never been outlawed.






 :


----------



## xena

Oooh!  Handbags at dawn!


----------



## Scott

xena said:
			
		

> Whoa, whoa, whoa!  You can't refer to THEM (as in THOSE who may not be named!) on the internet without THEM finding out about it!  THEY're very uppitty about THEIR security!



Meh, I was 182 1/3 through the door at 'The Embassy' and I *DO* know what effing colour the boathouse is in Hereford.

I suppose I'm frigged the next time I hit Heathrow as thousands will want to have my autograph on my (under pen name written) novels.

FRED 926


----------



## xena

Scott said:
			
		

> Meh, I was 182 1/3 through the door at 'The Embassy' and I *DO* know what effing colour the boathouse is in Hereford.



Really?  I was the 384th man on the balcony.  Bloody crowded, that was...  And I always hated having to repaint that boathouse...

Nevertheless, it's all about having the 'stache, isn't it?


----------



## Scott

Put those shades and 'stache on your profile pic and I think we have a winner.

Thankfully I carry a handy 'black out the eyes' tab with me everywhere I go. I'm even arguing to have it allowed on my license pic.


----------



## xena

Done!   :camo:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Yes, they stopped doing it, opting for voluntary enlistment and career development instead, but that doesn't mean they ever outlawed it.



We have career development???


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We have career development???



Of course: They have "developed" many new careers since those days - to entice unsuspecting victims to enlist voluntarily    .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/11/22/16267616.html
Don't rock boat on name change: Navy
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau

Last Updated: November 22, 2010 8:48pm

OTTAWA — Canada’s navy has told former sailors to shut up about changing the naval forces’ name back to Royal Canadian Navy, a senior officer testified Monday.

“The navy has said to the naval officers associations, don’t push it. We have bigger fish to fry and we don’t want to get everybody upset about something we can live without,” retired Cmdr. Chris Thain, president of the Winnipeg branch of the Naval Officers Association of Canada, told a Senate committee.
Canada’s navy is officially called Maritime Commmand.

Liberal Sen. William Rompkey wants to change the name to Canadian Navy but some senators believe the naval forces should be called the Royal Canadian Navy, their official name prior to 1968.
“It is one (name) many of our sailors fought and died under, a name that instils, in my opinion, pride and respect,” Conservative Sen. Don Plett said.

Many vets take great pride in their R.C.N. distinctions, Thain added, but the message from above has been “fairly pervasive.”
“We don’t want to do anything that might upset people so let’s just go (with) Canadian navy,” he suggested.
Liberal Sen. Joseph Day believes the navy only has one chance to return to its royal distinction.
“If it doesn’t happen now, it will never happen,” he said. He is urging serving personnel to e-mail him at dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca and tell him what they think.

Opponents say the Royal Canadian Navy brings back ideas of colonialism and is insensitive to francophones, aboriginals and new Canadians who cannot identify with the term.
“I’m ok with Maritime Command changing to Canadian Navy, but adding the term Royal I think is really exaggerated,” said Bloc Quebecois defence critic Claude Bachand.
Royal Canadian Navy just doesn’t recognize the reality of Canada in 2010, said Rompkey.

“We are an independent and unique country,” he said.

althia.raj@sunmedia.ca


----------



## old medic

-mail lands junior naval officer in hot water
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau 
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/12/09/16492746.html



> OTTAWA — The head of Canada’s navy warned all naval personnel to keep their personal opinions to themselves after a junior officer was caught e-mailing a senator about Maritime Command’s proposed name change.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden sent sailors and naval officers a stern memo Wednesday after the chain of command was informed that the junior naval officer was also using his department of national defence e-mail account to encourage colleagues with similar opinions to e-mail the senator.
> 
> “It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion," McFadden wrote. "As a private individual, you can have any opinion you wish; as members of the service you neither advocate for a personal view nor encourage your compatriots to do so."
> 
> Liberal Sen. Joseph Day has been encouraging serving naval personnel to e-mail him their preference for changing the naval force's name from Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy, as he prefers, or, as another Liberal senator suggests, to Canadian Navy.
> 
> "I have received hundreds of e-mails from junior officers and non-commissioned officers, virtually all the messages I received were in support of R.C.N.," he told QMI Agency Thursday.
> 
> Day believes Maritime Command is trying to "surreptitiously" change its name to Canadian Navy "without it being the law" and the latest move by the navy could shut up dissenting opinions.
> 
> The Senate committee on national security and defence is deliberating a motion to encourage Defence Minister Peter MacKay to change the name Maritime Command to Canadian Navy.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Well as much as I have been a proponent, on here and in real life, for the reintroduction of the Royal title I do see and concede that perhaps that ship has sailed, no pun intended, and perhaps Canadian Navy is a much better, unifying name than Royal. 

Anything other than Maritime Command as I believe this will lead the average double double Canadian to think the only Navy we have is in the Maritimes (ie East Coast). Which is wholly untrue.

Now if only we could dismantle the Log branch and return to cross trained while employed environmentally support then I could die a happy man!  >


----------



## NavyShooter

My Chain of Command requested input from the sailors, anyone who had strong for/against opinions were requested to reply direct to the Cox'n, who would pass it up the chain from there.

That was the response that sailors should have used....that someone would go outside their COC means they stepped on someone's toes.

NS


----------



## Greymatters

“It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion," McFadden wrote. "As a private individual, you can have any opinion you wish; as members of the service you neither advocate for a personal view nor encourage your compatriots to do so."


I think this should be clarified:

Every member is entitled to an opinion and may respond to a solicitation for opinion - as long as you make it clear you are not speaking while 'in uniform' or as a representative of the military, or when higher command has given their approval already.   

In this case: “It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion,"
... when the person is question is engaged in political activity conerning the military.  
... without approval from his/her higher command beforehand. 
... when they are making negative or critical remarks regarding their employer.


----------



## GAP

E-mail lands junior naval officer in hot water
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
Article Link 

OTTAWA — The head of Canada’s navy warned all naval personnel to keep their personal opinions to themselves after a junior officer was caught e-mailing a senator about Maritime Command’s proposed name change.

Vice-Admiral Dean McFadden sent sailors and naval officers a stern memo Wednesday after the chain of command was informed that the junior naval officer was also using his department of national defence e-mail account to encourage colleagues with similar opinions to e-mail the senator.

“It is neither appropriate nor helpful for any individual member of the command to respond to solicitation for your opinion," McFadden wrote. "As a private individual, you can have any opinion you wish; as members of the service you neither advocate for a personal view nor encourage your compatriots to do so."

Liberal Sen. Joseph Day has been encouraging serving naval personnel to e-mail him their preference for changing the naval force's name from Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy, as he prefers, or, as another Liberal senator suggests, to Canadian Navy.

"I have received hundreds of e-mails from junior officers and non-commissioned officers, virtually all the messages I received were in support of R.C.N.," he told QMI Agency Thursday.
More on link


----------



## FSTO

The elephant in the room regarding the question to go or not to go RCN is Quebec. The Navy and the feds are scared senseless of the reaction from that province, (most of whom like the rest of the nation barely know that we have a Navy anyway). Although they don't seem to have an issue with Royal 22e Régiment, Gendarmerie royale du Canada or several other proudly held Canadian institutions.


----------



## MMSS

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. We have a Queen. Thus I fail to see why the "Royal" designation which was granted should not be used as it is with many other organizations (RCMP for example.)

If the people of Canada chose to abolish the monarchy and declare as a republic then I would be in favour of dropping it. Until and unless that ever happened, I don't see the point.


----------



## krustyrl

FSTO said:
			
		

> The elephant in the room regarding the question to go or not to go RCN is Quebec. The Navy and the feds are scared senseless of the reaction from that province, (most of whom like the rest of the nation barely know that we have a Navy anyway). Although they don't seem to have an issue with Royal 22e Régiment, Gendarmerie royale du Canada or several other proudly heald Canadian institutions.



This crap is getting REAL OLD - REAL FAST.  Each province is a part of the motherland in which we belong, why waste resouces and time battling the same GD point each time.!  Either you're IN or you're OUT. 

(rant over)         :2c:


----------



## Gorgo

krustyrl said:
			
		

> This crap is getting REAL OLD - REAL FAST.  Each province is a part of the motherland in which we belong, why waste resouces and time battling the same GD point each time.!  Either you're IN or you're OUT.
> 
> (rant over)         :2c:



Agreed.  And BTW, I would like to see the name revert back to "Royal Canadian Navy" as using "Canadian Navy" (initials "CN") might confuse people with Canadian National.


----------



## George Wallace

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And BTW, I would like to see the name revert back to "Royal Canadian Navy" as using "Canadian Navy" (initials "CN") might confuse people with Canadian National.



Or China.   Two letter country code for China is CN.   >


----------



## Cdnleaf

FSTO said:
			
		

> The elephant in the room regarding the question to go or not to go RCN is Quebec. The Navy and the feds are scared senseless of the reaction from that province, (most of whom like the rest of the nation barely know that we have a Navy anyway). Although they don't seem to have an issue with Royal 22e Régiment, Gendarmerie royale du Canada or several other proudly held Canadian institutions.



I'm not tracking why this is an issue in English or French, as all ships are named HMCS/NCSM and acknowledge Her Majesty.  :cdnsalute:


----------



## George Wallace

Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ship is not the whole Navy.  All of Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ships are still not the complete Navy.


----------



## old medic

Naval force likely to get new name
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: December 13, 2010 6:20pm



> OTTAWA - Canada's naval force may soon get a new name.
> 
> Senators on the national security and defence committee recommended Monday evening that the Senate adopt a motion encouraging the national defence minister to change the name of Maritime Command to a new name that includes the word "Navy".
> 
> The motion, by Liberal Senator Bill Rompkey, originally called on the minister to change the name to "Canadian Navy," a term already used by Maritime Command in much of its communication, including on its website.
> 
> The compromise position allowed senators who favour a return the navy's original name of "Royal Canadian Navy" to support Rompkey's motion.
> 
> The Senate is expected to pass the motion Tuesday, opening the door for National Defence Minister Peter MacKay to rename the naval force R.C.N. before the end of the navy's centennial year.


----------



## NavyShooter

Nice....wonder how much it'll cost to change all the templates, documents, web-pages....


----------



## OldSolduer

I sure hope it happens.


----------



## old medic

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Nice....wonder how much it'll cost to change all the templates, documents, web-pages....



Nothing if you just wait to re-order or update those things. 

...and that said, I still have stuff marked "Mobile Command". The markings don't seem to affect it.


----------



## ekpiper

MODS: I suggest this thread be renamed to remove 'Royal' from the Subject, as it could cause separatist feelings amongst some board members! (Just kidding, but the article reads as though it will be just 'Canadian Navy', not 'Royal Canadian Navy', sadly, so the title is misleading)


----------



## Occam

ekpiper said:
			
		

> (Just kidding, but the article reads as though it will be just 'Canadian Navy', not 'Royal Canadian Navy', sadly, so the title is misleading)





> The Senate is expected to pass the motion Tuesday, opening the door for National Defence Minister Peter MacKay to rename the naval force *R.C.N.* before the end of the navy's centennial year.


----------



## The Bread Guy

If this happens, can RCAF be far behind?  Or which has the bigger, stronger mafia lobby?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm sure it will be a shot in the arm for our seafaring brethren and good on them, but other than that, who cares.


----------



## MMSS

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If this happens, can RCAF be far behind?  Or which has the bigger, stronger mafia lobby?



You would hope that, were it to happen, that the powers that be would be equally benevolent with their renaming.

Slightly offtopic but curious - why did the Army never receive "Royal" status?


----------



## Cdnleaf

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ship is not the whole Navy.  All of Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ships are still not the complete Navy.



Ack / thanks.


----------



## Nauticus

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure it will be a shot in the arm for our seafaring brethren and good on them, but other than that, who cares.



Most people in the CF should care when the name of an element changes.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Most people in the CF should care when the name of an element changes.



I would rather see the senators work hard in getting us new hulls in the water before the others rust out. These yahoos have no sense of priorities as all.... :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Most people in the CF should care when the name of an element changes.



Why?



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would rather see the senators work hard in getting us new hulls in the water before the others rust out. These yahoos have no sense of priorities as all.... :



What he said.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And BTW, I would like to see the name revert back to "Royal Canadian Navy" as using "Canadian Navy" (initials "CN") might confuse people with Canadian National.



Not really as we_ don't_ use MC (Martitime Command) to refer to ourselves now in official correspondences why would we start using CN?


----------



## ekpiper

That's what I get for skimming the first and last paragraphs.

I wonder if this will restore us to the pre-unification method of referring to officers as Capt. Bloggins, RCN, instead of Capt(N) Bloggins.  I don't particularly like that the distinction ((N)) is necessary but, as it stands, especially with purple trades, it is.

In general, I wonder if the Executive Curl and RCN changes are a matter of "Whoa, look at that!  We forgot all about you.  Jeez, it seems like you guys got the shaft...let's fix it.",  or if it's simply trying to placate us, and make it seem to the public as if we're golden right now, and the only things we have to worry about are names and insignia.


----------



## Snakedoc

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Most people in the CF should care when the name of an element changes.



If we want to get technical, the proposal is for the name change of a CF command, not element  ;D

I agree the article is a bit misleading as the likelyhood of a name change actually occurring is not necessarily as 'likely' as the article makes it seem.  Doubly uncertain is that if a change were to occur, whether the name 'Royal Canadian Navy' would even be adopted.  

The Senate motion simply _*encourages*_ the MND to consider changing the name of Maritime Command to a name with the word 'Navy' in it.  The decision ultimately rests with the MND.  I previously posted a letter from the MND in response to the petition to change Maritime Command's name to RCN in a different thread.  It seemed pretty clear in the letter that this had been explored and that he was not interested in changing the name to Canadian Navy or RCN as it would be 'inappropriate' (reasons stated in the letter).  Link to my post with the letter below.

http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/60347/post-981921.html#msg981921

However, I would love to see a name change occur and maybe the Senate motion will add a bit more pressure.  Royal Canadian Navy would be my preference but I can live with Canadian Navy.  Just my  :2c:


----------



## CEEBEE501

MMSS said:
			
		

> Slightly offtopic but curious - why did the Army never receive "Royal" status?



I herd that one possibility is the uprising of the army under Cromwell 
but this one seems more plausible  is this one


> The British Army as we know it today was not commissioned as a "royal" unit all at once by the king or queen, as opposed to the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and Royal Marines. Rather, it is an organisation of previously disparate regiments and corps that do have the "Royal" prefix. These include the Royal Horse Artillery, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Corps fof Royal Engineers and the Royal Corps of Signals, to name a few of the most storied corps. A full list can be found here:


----------



## MMSS

CEEBEE501 said:
			
		

> but this one seems more plausible  is this one



I suppose that makes sense. So instead of "Royal Canadian Army" we have the Army which is composed of Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22e Regiment etc. OK then.


----------



## Neill McKay

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Nice....wonder how much it'll cost to change all the templates, documents, web-pages....



Not much... certainly not more than when the .coms were stood up.


----------



## old medic

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> I previously posted a letter from the MND in response to the petition to change Maritime Command's name to RCN in a different thread.  It seemed pretty clear in the letter that this had been explored and that he was not interested in changing the name to Canadian Navy or RCN as it would be 'inappropriate' (reasons stated in the letter).  Link to my post with the letter below.
> 
> http://forums.navy.ca/forums/threads/60347/post-981921.html#msg981921



I took a read of that letter when you first posted it.  Very painful to read.  
The minister couldn't even correctly identify maritime command and kept 
calling it "the navy".   It was muddled and generally read like a cocktail 
napkin. 

It completely proved one of the arguments presented in the Senate 


> " Day believes Maritime Command is trying to "surreptitiously" change its name to Canadian Navy"


when the minister couldn't even come up with the correct name.

Despite any Paul Hellyer cheerleaders, the words army, navy air force aren't going to
disappear from the dictionary, and this will keep coming back again and again because
those words are correct nouns that will remain in common usage. 

Nobody googles up maritime command when they want to join the navy.


----------



## George Wallace

MMSS said:
			
		

> I suppose that makes sense. So instead of "Royal Canadian Army" we have the Army which is composed of Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22e Regiment etc. OK then.



Follow this logic:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ship is not the whole Navy.  All of Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ships are still not the complete Navy.



Some more logic:



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not really as we_ don't_ use MC (Martitime Command) to refer to ourselves now in official correspondences why would we start using CN?






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or China.   Two letter country code for China is CN.   >


----------



## George Wallace

MMSS said:
			
		

> You would hope that, were it to happen, that the powers that be would be equally benevolent with their renaming.
> 
> Slightly offtopic but curious - why did the Army never receive "Royal" status?



For one thing, we already have the Royal Canadian Artillery.........Now that would be pretty confusing don't you think?    :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy

old medic said:
			
		

> I took a read of that letter when you first posted it.  Very painful to read.  The minister civilian (?) staff who wrote the letter for the Minister couldn't even correctly identify maritime command and kept calling it "the navy".   It was muddled and generally read like a cocktail napkin.
> 
> It completely proved one of the arguments presented in the Senate when the minister civilian (?) staff who wrote the letter for the Minister couldn't even come up with the correct name.


Fixed that for you.  I'm guessing civilian staff because I'd like to think in my heart of hearts that military staff wouldn't make that kind of mistake.


----------



## vonGarvin

MMSS said:
			
		

> I suppose that makes sense. So instead of "Royal Canadian Army" we have the Army which is composed of *The*  Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22e Regiment etc. OK then.


There, fixed that for you.  The definite article ("The") is part of the title of that particular regiment ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ship is not the whole Navy.  All of Her/His Majesty's Canadian Ships are still not the complete Navy.



Actually, George, they used to be the whole Navy - before unification that is. The Royal Canadian Navy (like its older sibling R.N.) "commissioned" every stone frigate. CFB Halifax (the Navy part anyway) was HMCS Stadaconna, CFB Esquimalt was HMCS Naden, all reserve units even today are still referred to as HMCS', even the two dockyards were (and still are marked as such) HMC Dockyards Halifax and Esquimalt. Headquarter in Ottawa was HMCS - I just can't recall which one. If you add the ships, there was no portion of the Navy not housed in an HMC something.


----------



## vonGarvin

And let us not forget that "HMCS" can also mean "Her Majesty's Canadian Submarine" ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... Headquarter in Ottawa was HMCS - I just can't recall which one. If you add the ships, there was no portion of the Navy not housed in an HMC something.




*Bytown*, I think; at least that's the name on the old board in the Wardroom entrance hallway. See here.


Edit to add:


----------



## Occam

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And let us not forget that "HMCS" can also mean "Her Majesty's Canadian Submarine" ;D



No, in that case it still actually means "Ship".

Occasionally (and unofficially), you'll see HMCS/M CORNER BROOK or the like.


----------



## Pusser

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I would rather see the senators work hard in getting us new hulls in the water before the others rust out. These yahoos have no sense of priorities as all.... :



Putting new hulls in the water is capital procurement (i.e. a money bill) and as such, the Senate is constitutionally prohibited from introducing it.  They can study such a bill, make recommendations for change and will eventually have to pass it, but they cannot introduce it.

Sorry for going off on a tangent...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Pusser said:
			
		

> Putting new hulls in the water is capital procurement (i.e. a money bill) and as such, the Senate is constitutionally prohibited from introducing it.  They can study such a bill, make recommendations for change and will eventually have to pass it, but they cannot introduce it.
> 
> Sorry for going off on a tangent...



No prob, that is interesting to know. Thanks.


----------



## Pusser

I'm still curious as to where this will leave all those sailors who are not part of what is now called Maritime Command?  Will they be considered part of the "Canadian Navy" (Royal or otherwise)?  It will be kind of odd to try to explain to someone that yes, I'm "navy," but not *in* the Navy.  There is an organizational issue here that goes beyond a simple name change.


----------



## George Wallace

As I alluded to earlier, they would be in the same place/posn as they were when we had a RCN.  Sailors posted to whereever.

Sailors who were at NDMC, were at NDMC, not HMCS NDMC.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> It will be kind of odd to try to explain to someone that yes, I'm "navy," but not *in* the Navy.


No different from when I was posted to NDHQ. I was in the Army, but it was painfully obvious that Toto and I were no longer in Kansas I wasn't  *in* the Army.

I don't think it's a major issue.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No different from when I was posted to NDHQ. I was in the Army, but it was painfully obvious that Toto and I were no longer in Kansas I wasn't  *in* the Army.
> 
> I don't think it's a major issue.



Dumb question JM but how was it painfully obvious because for me I see a sailor he is still a sailor, a soldier is still a soldier and an airman is still home by 920 am.


----------



## Journeyman

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Dumb question JM but how was it painfully obvious .....


In that, I _think_ Pusser is saying "how can you explain being 'a sailor' if you're not on 'a ship' -- even a stone frigate"?

While I've never claimed to be much of a parade-square, dress & deportment sort of guy....NDHQ's "culture focus" was on being a civil servant. I know several RSMs who would have exploded upon seeing what passed as military deportment. I'm sure there are equivalent Naval attributes.

But my point was I don't think _Pusser_'s concern is really that hand-wringing; there'd be no dramatic change for sailors not currently posted into hard sea, or Halifax/Esquimalt/Quebec City (at the bottom of the hill), billets -- they're still sailors. So I think _we're_ in agreement.


And at the end of the day, while I think the renaming is a good thing, I still have no dog (or dolphin) in this fight.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Journeyman said:
			
		

> In that, I _think_ Pusser is saying "how can you explain being 'a sailor' if you're not on 'a ship' -- even a stone frigate"?
> 
> While I've never claimed to be much of a parade-square, dress & deportment sort of guy....NDHQ's "culture focus" was on being a civil servant. I know several RSMs who would have exploded upon seeing what passed as military deportment. I'm sure there are equivalent Naval attributes.
> 
> But my point was I don't think _Pusser_'s concern is really that hand-wringing; there'd be no dramatic change for sailors not currently posted into hard sea, or Halifax/Esquimalt/Quebec City (at the bottom of the hill), billets -- they're still sailors. So I think _we're_ in agreement.
> 
> 
> And at the end of the day, while I think the renaming is a good thing, I still have no dog (or dolphin) in this fight.



Gotcha...thank you.Its all clear to me now


----------



## Neill McKay

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I alluded to earlier, they would be in the same place/posn as they were when we had a RCN.  Sailors posted to whereever.



When we had three services every last man and woman in uniform belonged to exactly one of the RCN, the Canadian Army, or the RCAF.  But today, not everyone belongs to Maritime Command, Land Force Command, or Air Command.  There are thousands of CF members who, based on their DEU, can describe themselves as being "in the navy" (e.g.) but are not in MARCOM, and so on for the other two elements.  If MARCOM becomes the Canadian Navy, Royal or not, those other pers will be in an odd situation in terms of their identity.


----------



## Snakedoc

old medic said:
			
		

> I took a read of that letter when you first posted it.  Very painful to read.
> The minister couldn't even correctly identify maritime command and kept
> calling it "the navy".   It was muddled and generally read like a cocktail
> napkin.
> 
> It completely proved one of the arguments presented in the Senate when the minister couldn't even come up with the correct name.
> 
> Despite any Paul Hellyer cheerleaders, the words army, navy air force aren't going to
> disappear from the dictionary, and this will keep coming back again and again because
> those words are correct nouns that will remain in common usage.
> 
> Nobody googles up maritime command when they want to join the navy.



Completely agree, and see if any ordinary Canadian can come up with the correct name either.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> those other pers will be in an odd situation in terms of their identity.



Officially or not, doesn't a similar situation already occur with Army cooks serving onboard ship, Air Force Met Tech's on ship etc. etc.?


----------



## Pusser

N. McKay said:
			
		

> When we had three services every last man and woman in uniform belonged to exactly one of the RCN, the Canadian Army, or the RCAF.  But today, not everyone belongs to Maritime Command, Land Force Command, or Air Command.  There are thousands of CF members who, based on their DEU, can describe themselves as being "in the navy" (e.g.) but are not in MARCOM, and so on for the other two elements.  If MARCOM becomes the Canadian Navy, Royal or not, those other pers will be in an odd situation in terms of their identity.



This is what I'm getting at.  Simply changing the name of Maritime Command to the (Royal) Canadian Navy will leave thousands of sailors outside of the Navy.  For example, the sailor on board HMCS WHOPPITYSPLASH and the sailor at MILPERSCOM will both be members of the CF, but only one will be part of the "Navy."  That will be a pretty bitter pill to swallow for those of us who have spent the bulk of our lives in operational naval units, but now find ourselves in NDHQ and are likely to stay here for the remainders of our careers.  As much as I would love to see the RCN rise again, I have difficulty supporting this if all sailors cannot legitimately claim to be a part of it.


----------



## Neill McKay

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Officially or not, doesn't a similar situation already occur with Army cooks serving onboard ship, Air Force Met Tech's on ship etc. etc.?



I'd suggest not.  An out-of-element posting doesn't, in my mind, take away from the element a member belongs to.  I would expect that the cook and met tech would self-identify as being in the army and the air force respectively, and view their ship-board service as a temporary situation.

Even in the "gool ol' days" I don't doubt that there was the occasional exchange between Services, and LCdr Bloggins would still write "RCN" after his name if he were working in an office on an air force station.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> That will be a pretty bitter pill to swallow for those of us who have spent the bulk of our lives in operational naval units, but now find ourselves in NDHQ and are likely to stay here for the remainders of our careers.  As much as I would love to see the RCN rise again, I have difficulty supporting this if all sailors cannot legitimately claim to be a part of it.


I suspect that would be difficult regardless of name.  >


I still don't see this as a critical stumbling block (but I've been known to be pretty thick on other occasions). However, I'll leave this thread to the "black/white DEU-wearing personnel"...whatever you end up being called.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Do not worry, Pusser, and trust me ... should "(Royal [my own preference]) Canadian Navy" be re-introduced to designate "Maritime Command", its use will INSTANTANEOUSLY cover ALL people in a nice black DEU no matter where they may be. Look, even with things the way they are now when we serve out of command, the "other" elements say we don't understand because we are "Navy" when we refuse to swoop down to their lower standards and levels. They actually think we take it as an insult ???

Good lord, next thing you know, we'll be allowed to fly an actual ensign as coulours and soon will be back to being a real Element - not just a command. 

Ready Aye Ready ! And happy centennial to all, and Christmas, Hannukah, and New-Year too !


----------



## Snakedoc

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I still don't see this as a critical stumbling block (but I've been known to be pretty thick on other occasions). However, I'll leave this thread to the "_blue_/white DEU-wearing personnel"...whatever you end up being called.



Fixed that for you lol  >

I agree that it wouldn't be a 'critical stumbling block' however.  Members currently already self-identify as being members of the Navy (when there is technically no such thing) when they are posted to other 'non-traditionally' Navy units in the CF.  IMO, this just gives them something official to refer to.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> I would expect that the cook and met tech would self-identify as being in the army and the air force respectively, and view their ship-board service as a temporary situation.



Though this is often not much of a temporary situation for many purple pers, especially those with more sea time than certain hard sea trades lol.


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> That will be a pretty bitter pill to swallow



So what ?

There will always be CF institutions that will not belong to the "navy/army/air force" and will required staff from all 3. Should we now start creating speperate institutions just so you can feel better about yourself ?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Wrong fix, Snakedoc. Our DEU is black, just like the americans and the Russians actually. (It even says so on the inside label of my unibag).


----------



## Scott

Sorry fellers, I still don't get all of the hullaballoo over a frigging name.

All of the discussion about the executive curl went right over my head as well.

And I still think there are far more important things to handle first.


----------



## Snakedoc

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wrong fix, Snakedoc. Our DEU is black, just like the americans and the Russians actually. (It even says so on the inside label of my unibag).



Really just semantics in the end...however...correct me if I'm wrong (and I bow to your experience in these matters) but I believe the cfp 265 refers to 'navy blue' within the publication and also: 

"traditional service colours, used for other applications, are “navy blue” which is a tone of black, army scarlet, and air force light blue"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Scott, those are some of those little intangible things that make the whole difference between a bunch of people working at the same place and a team working together on a project. They may seem insignificant and incongruous, but when faced with life threatening trial by fire, can make all the difference in the world.  Its the same reason officers that are seen only as "managing" never get the respect that those who lead get - and ultimately achieve much less with a given team.

And Snakedoc, the reason black was selected for the naval DEU actually came from experience in the old RCN. I challenge you to go to clothing stores (civilian -not the base  ) and try and compare different Navy blue garments and then compare them with other Navy blue garments you may have at home that have been washed a few times. You will see that none of them match. Its just the nature of the beast: It is extremely difficult to come up with exactly the same match of Navy blue from one batch of clothes to another. In the RCN, you could see thirty different shades of Navy blue in a single 25 men division  . That is why black was selected: It is extremely close to what a real Navy blue should be but is consistent from one batch to the other and retains its colour after washing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Well try to imagine the elation, if during the beginnings of unification the people at the helm had decided to remove all regimental and corps traditions instead replacing them with something like the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions of the Central Canadian Infantry Corp (RCR) or RCDs with The 1st Canadian Armored Regiment, the removal of all regimental regalia and such then suddenly learning that the senate is encouraging the MND to return those units to the RCRs and the RCDs, as well as recently returning to your original cap badges and other assorted bling. 

This is exactly what happened to the Navy. The  Naval service's traditions and identity were wiped away with a stroke of a pen with no regard to its sacrifices and accomplishments in the Navy's great history. 

This is why I don't understand when pers from the Army don't support our (Navy) efforts in reclaiming our identity. If the MND came down and dissolved the RCRs or PPCLI these regiments would be watched for open insurrection and rebellion in the aftermath. I guess because the unification really only changed the Navy, Air Force and Support Trades the "Army" just doesn't see what damage was really done by the Right Honorable Paul Hellyer and his grudges held by his WW2 experience. 



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Sorry fellers, I still don't get all of the hullaballoo over a frigging name.
> 
> All of the discussion about the executive curl went right over my head as well.
> 
> And I still think there are far more important things to handle first.


----------



## Neill McKay

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Members currently already self-identify as being members of the Navy (when there is technically no such thing) when they are posted to other 'non-traditionally' Navy units in the CF.  IMO, this just gives them something official to refer to.



But there are, among them, people wearing the navy DEU with no institutional connection whatsoever to Maritime Command -- about two-thirds of the flag officers, for a start.  It's not just a matter of being posted out of element: some sailors and naval officers simply don't belong to the CMS.



> Though this is often not much of a temporary situation for many purple pers, especially those with more sea time than certain hard sea trades lol.



Fair comment, and maritime helicopter crews aren't far from my mind in this!  By the same token, there are people in the navy who will never go to sea in their entire careers, and whose time in naval shore establishments will be pretty limited.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

N. McKay said:
			
		

> But there are, among them, people wearing the navy DEU with no institutional connection whatsoever to Maritime Command -- about two-thirds of the flag officers, for a start.



Then kick them out and put them in a uniform that corresponds to what they do. Just my 2c worth (and I can say that without fear, I already have received my honourable discharge papers !!!)


----------



## Scott

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Scott, those are some of those little intangible things that make the whole difference between a bunch of people working at the same place and a team working together on a project. They may seem insignificant and incongruous, but when faced with life threatening trial by fire, can make all the difference in the world.  Its the same reason officers that are seen only as "managing" never get the respect that those who lead get - and ultimately achieve much less with a given team.



OGBD,

I work offshore. I know about emergency procedures and teamwork. I also know about seeing different colored coveralls all working for the same "team" - that is the team involved in that particular well. We might have a directional driller from Baker Hughes, mud engineer from Schlumberger, wireline operators from Atlas - and they are all competitors who have pride in their own individual employers. But when working _this_ job they all work for the team aboard the rig, and the client.

I know, pretty much for a fact, that when Deepwater Horizon sank, that lives were not lost because of what colors people wore or what the name on those coveralls were.

Might seem like apples and bowling balls to some but I think the points are valid.


----------



## Neill McKay

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Then kick them out and put them in a uniform that corresponds to what they do.



That's not a feasible solution.  There are quite a few positions in NDHQ that don't fit into any particular element and that don't report any any of the elemental chiefs of staff.  An easy example is the VCDS, who at the moment is a vice-admiral.  He doesn't belong to MARCOM or report in any way to the CMS but if you ask him if he's in the navy I imagine he'll say yes.

Another less obvious example is the 7000 or so CIC officers.  CIC (Sea) officers on the coasts (i.e. Atlantic provinces and BC) do belong to their respective coastal admirals but those inland belong to region commanders of other elements with no relationship to MARCOM.  (The same is true of CIC officers of other elements, just to confuse things further.)


----------



## McG

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The MPRR of sailors could be tweaked to have an equivalent to a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" but I don't see a minor software tweak to Peoplesoft as being a big challenge.  The fact that it currently indicates "naval DEU" is probably enough for most to identify as being sailors.


There would be no need for such a change in the MPRR.  Just enter "Navy" in the regimental affiliation box.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That's not a feasible solution.  There are quite a few positions in NDHQ that don't fit into any particular element and that don't report any any of the elemental chiefs of staff.  An easy example is the VCDS, who at the moment is a vice-admiral.  He doesn't belong to MARCOM or report in any way to the CMS but if you ask him if he's in the navy I imagine he'll say yes.
> 
> Another less obvious example is the 7000 or so CIC officers.  CIC (Sea) officers on the coasts (i.e. Atlantic provinces and BC) do belong to their respective coastal admirals but those inland belong to region commanders of other elements with no relationship to MARCOM.  (The same is true of CIC officers of other elements, just to confuse things further.)



I think you are confusing your own point of lack of "institutional connection  whatsoever to Maritime Command" 

Fisrt of all, I have no doubt whatsoever that an Admiral attaining the position of VCDS, DCDS or CDS still thinks of herself as Navy, and is in the right uniform on the basis of my "put them in a uniform that corresponds to what they do"  comment.

Similarily, I think you are confusing Area Commanders issues with service Element ones. The Area Commanders have administrative responsibilities, not operational ones. While they support cadets organisation within their territory, they do not command them from an operational point of view. Obviously, Sea Cadet's CIC officers wear the naval DEU wherever they may be AND think of themselves as Navy regardless of where they are in Canada thus also meeting my "put them in a uniform that corresponds to what they do" criteria. It is the Navy that provides the Sea Cadets organization with technical and training support (usually through naval reserve units) and arranges for positions to be available for them on ships -  regardless of where they come from in Canada.

If you had told me that  a senior B.C.E.O. officer  had elected to wear a Naval Uniform when he selected his DEU just  because he liked the colour, then I might have agreed with your point, or that someone in operational research at NDHQ wears a naval DEU, I might have agreed with you. Your examples so far do not convince me, however.


----------



## Neill McKay

You're overestimating the involvement of Maritime Command in the sea cadet programme.  All cadet units, regardless of element, belong to a formation of one of the environmental commands (two each or MARCOM and Land Force Command, and one Air Command) based only on geography.  MARCOM and the other two environmental commands don't support the cadet programme except at a local level, e.g. a ship will usually provide some level of informal support for the sea cadet corps that shares its name.  Technical and training support comes mainly from the Directorate of Cadets (in the VCDS group), which is as purple as they come.

However this is turning into a tangent, which wasn't my intention.  All I was really trying to say is that there are a lot of naval DEU CF members who do not belong to Maritime Command.  Taking things a step further than has been proposed (yet), we could conceivably have a situation in which the three environmental commands are known formally as the (R)CN, Canadian Army, and (R)CAF, yet there would be literally thousands of CF members who would not belong to any of these entities.  We would be the only country in the world in which service members would belong to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, or None of the Above.


----------



## FSTO

N. McKay said:
			
		

> You're overestimating the involvement of Maritime Command in the sea cadet programme.  All cadet units, regardless of element, belong to a formation of one of the environmental commands (two each or MARCOM and Land Force Command, and one Air Command) based only on geography.  MARCOM and the other two environmental commands don't support the cadet programme except at a local level, e.g. a ship will usually provide some level of informal support for the sea cadet corps that shares its name.  Technical and training support comes mainly from the Directorate of Cadets (in the VCDS group), which is as purple as they come.
> 
> However this is turning into a tangent, which wasn't my intention.  All I was really trying to say is that there are a lot of naval DEU CF members who do not belong to Maritime Command.  Taking things a step further than has been proposed (yet), we could conceivably have a situation in which the three environmental commands are known formally as the (R)CN, Canadian Army, and (R)CAF, yet there would be literally thousands of CF members who would not belong to any of these entities.  We would be the only country in the world in which service members would belong to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, or None of the Above.



Honestly, how many purple tradespeople who wear the Navy uniform have not been posted to a Navy base or have not been to sea. Also we could just tell folks who are joining as a PPE (purple people eater) that if you decide on the naval DEU you will be working at a Navy establishment (base or ship) for a majority of your career.  ;D


----------



## Pusser

FSTO said:
			
		

> Honestly, how many purple tradespeople who wear the Navy uniform have not been posted to a Navy base or have not been to sea. Also we could just tell folks who are joining as a PPE (purple people eater) that if you decide on the naval DEU you will be working at a Navy establishment (base or ship) for a majority of your career.  ;D



Actually, quite a few.  Some eventually get to "their" environment at some point, but only it seems if they ask for it.  I had a petty officer report for duty on board my ship with about 15 years in, all of it in field units or on army bases.  This was his first ship.  He may have dressed like a sailor, but he was obviously a fish out of water.  I would love to see it made official policy that you spend the bulk of your career based on your uniform, but it's certainly not now the case.


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, quite a few.  Some eventually get to "their" environment at some point, but only it seems if they ask for it.  I had a petty officer report for duty on board my ship with about 15 years in, all of it in field units or on army bases.  This was his first ship.  He may have dressed like a sailor, but he was obviously a fish out of water.  I would love to see it made official policy that you spend the bulk of your career based on your uniform, but it's certainly not now the case.



Not my guy then; 17 yos & due for his P1s ... not a day with the Navy anywhere in his past.

You are correct in that there are quite a few ... I know a great many of them who would be fish out of water, but from all three of the enviornments.


----------



## Snakedoc

N. McKay said:
			
		

> We would be the only country in the world in which service members would belong to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, or None of the Above.



As opposed to being the only country in the world in which service members currently belong to 'None of the Above'? lol  >  
I think the fact that there is a 'None of the Above' or a integrated command category is the _reality_ of any country with an integrated military like Canada does in the end (however, unravelling _unification_ is a different story and one that is still being written).

Frankly I think there is a distinction to be made between the '(Royal) Canadian Navy' identity and the '(Royal) Canadian Navy' command.  Whereas the command aspect has more to do with the operational aspect of being at sea and supporting operations at sea, members outside of the command still identify with the '(Royal) Canadian Navy' identity through culture, uniform etc. (ie when members already colloquially say 'I am in the navy' despite being posted to NDHQ outside of MARCOM)

Changing the name of 'Maritime Command' to '(Royal) Canadian Navy' helps to give people something official to point to and is a way to reinforce that identity (and give it a specific name).  It is also as much of a benefit to the general public that does not identify with 'Maritime Command' but rather the '(Royal) Canadian Navy' (or some variation thereof with Navy in it).  IMO, the name change of the command is really as close to restoring/reinforcing that identity without reintroducing the former elements within an _integrated_ CF.


----------



## Journeyman

I deleted my comment because it was rude.



Yes I was still on my first coffee, and the posts _were_ achingly stupid, but there's still no need to be impolite; that's just not my way.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> Honestly, how many purple tradespeople who wear the Navy uniform have not been posted to a Navy base or have not been to sea. Also we could just tell folks who are joining as a PPE (purple people eater) that if you decide on the naval DEU you will be working at a Navy establishment (base or ship) for a majority of your career.  ;D



Lots.

And, did you know that the Naval DEU wearing purple folks are not career managed by the Navy either? Same for Air and Army DEU purple pers. We are currently career managed by "None of the Above".  

Oh, and did you know that a lot of purple folks don't get to "choose" their uniform colour or enviornmental affiliation? They ask our preference, but service needs win out --- don't presume that they "decided" to be Navy, Army or Air Force ... but *they did choose to be a purple trade*. Don't presume that we fall in to the same categories as hard naval, air or army folks wrt to uniforms, trades, career management or and colour choices/decisions because we simply do NOT (surprise for you all: that is why they call us purple!).


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lots.
> 
> And, did you know that the Naval DEU wearing purple folks are not career managed by the Navy either? Same for Air and Army DEU purple pers. We are currently career managed by "None of the Above".
> 
> Oh, and did you know that a lot of purple folks don't get to "choose" their uniform colour or enviornmental affiliation? They ask our preference, but service needs win out --- don't presume that they "decided" to be Navy, Army or Air Force ... but *they did choose to be a purple trade*. Don't presume that we fall in to the same categories as hard naval, air or army folks wrt to uniforms, trades, career management or and colour choices/decisions because we simply do NOT (surprise for you all: that is why they call us purple!).



Well if you want to get technical none of us are career managed by our Environments, we are managed by DGMC and it is reminded to us every year during the CM visits that they (the CM's) do not work for CMS or CAS or CLS. The needs of the service is the needs of the service.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well if you want to get technical none of us are career managed by our Environments, we are managed by DGMC and it is reminded to us every year during the CM visits that they (the CM's) do not work for CMS or CAS or CLS. The needs of the service is the needs of the service.



Absolutely agreed, but it is to a different level and extent with us purple folk. You compete only with your own hard sea trade who are all wearing the same uniform colour. You KNOW that your next bosun getting promoted to C2 etc WILL be wearing a Naval uniform. We do not.

We are all merit listed by trade (NOT by uniform), so when your ship needs a new Sgt/P2 ... it gets the next guy on the list and not necessarily wearing 'your' DEU. Hard Army, Sea and Naval trades do not have that particular little situation to deal with.

Ergo, the "needs" of the service are greatly affected --- if the next guy merit listed for promotion is Army or Air and the available posn is a Naval slot ... you get the Army or the Air person because that is exactly what the needs of the service dictate and that is exactly why the "tell them that they'll be spending the majority of their career in the enviornment they (didn't necessarily) choose" just won't work --- stating such simply will not allow the purple side of the house to meet the needs of "the service". "The service" being the entire of the the CF, not just the Navy.


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Absolutely agreed, but it is to a different level and extent with us purple folk. You compete only with your own hard sea trade who are all wearing the same uniform colour. You KNOW that your next bosun getting promoted to C2 etc WILL be wearing a Naval uniform. We do not.
> 
> We are all merit listed by trade (NOT by uniform), so when your ship needs a new Sgt/P2 ... it gets the next guy on the list and not necessarily wearing 'your' DEU. Hard Army, Sea and Naval trades do not have that particular little situation to deal with.
> 
> Ergo, the "needs" of the service are greatly affected --- if the next guy merit listed for promotion is Army or Air and the available posn is a Naval slot ... you get the Army or the Air person because that is exactly what the needs of the service dictate and that is exactly why the "tell them that they'll be spending the majority of their career in the enviornment they (didn't necessarily) choose" just won't work --- stating such simply will not allow the purple side of the house to meet the needs of "the service". "The service" being the entire of the the CF, not just the Navy.


Can't argue with that. But in the big scheme of things, the only place that true unification took place was in the logistics, medical, and legal branches. The others were doomed to return to 3 fiefdoms that they are today.


----------



## Snakedoc

Comments from the MND and PMO after the Senate motion:

A few select parts from the article.  More at link http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/12/14/16551966.html 


Call Canada's navy, a navy: Senate
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau

The Liberal Leader in the Senate, James Cowan, also prefers the term Canadian Navy and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested Tuesday, he is also leaning that way.

“I am listening to various opinions on this but what I am hearing predominantly from the Canadian Forces, and from the Canadian Navy in particular, is they like the name Canadian Navy,” he told reporters.

The PMO quickly issued an info-alert telling Conservative supporters the government was following the debate in the Senate with interest but had “no plans to rename Maritime Command at this time.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

For the record, here's the motion from the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence passed in the Senate yesterday:


> The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence
> 
> has the honour to present its
> 
> FIFTH REPORT
> 
> Your committee, which was authorized by the Senate on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 to examine and report on, Motion No. 41 by the Honourable Senator Rompkey, P.C, seconded by the Honourable Senator Fraser,
> 
> “That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence, in view of the long service, sacrifice and courage of Canadian Naval forces and personnel, to change the official structural name of the Canadian Navy from ‘Maritime Command’ to ‘Canadian Navy’ effective from this year, as part of the celebration of the Canadian Navy Centennial, with that title being used in all official and operational materials, in both official languages, as soon as possible”, now reports as follows:
> 
> Your committee recommends that the Senate adopt an amended version of the motion reading as follows:
> 
> “That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defence to change the official structural name of ‘Maritime Command’ to a new name that includes the word ‘Navy’.”
> 
> Respectfully submitted,
> 
> PAMELA WALLIN
> Chair



Also, for the tea leaf readers out there....


			
				Snakedoc said:
			
		

> .... The PMO quickly issued an info-alert telling Conservative supporters the government was following the debate in the Senate *with interest* but had “no plans to rename Maritime Command at this time.” ....


The last time the PM used the phrase "with interest", there was a change of heart on a long-held policy.  No guarantee or crystal ball, here, just sayin'....

_- edited to add "with interest" caveat -_


----------



## Halifax Tar

I hear what your saying here Vern but I don't think people coming out of  the CFRCs as PPEs are all that aware of what they are getting into! I know when I was going through the CFRC no where was I told that as a Navy Supply Tech that I could/would serve with the Zoomies or the Pongos. In fact during the interview with the Arty Capt at the time I was told to understand that as a *Naval trade* I will be going to sea and was given a little more information on what that could mean. At no time did he say to me you could go to Sea, the Field or a Hilton...

Just my personal experience as I was lead to believe I was Navy, all stop...I think perhaps some education for the CFRC folks that uniforms don't mean much in support trades would go a very long way to ensuring people don't enter the CF with aspirations of being a solider then ending up on a ship for 5 years! You have to remember that the civy on the street has no idea that we unified and that some trades move between the elements. To them Army = Digging holes, Navy = Sailing and Air Force = Flying.

Every time a civilian finds out about my tours to Afghanistan and then finds out I'm a sailor I always have to go though the process of explaining that I'm purple and I can go to any element, blah blah blah... It gets annoying after doing it more than once! And they don't get it in the end anyways...



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lots.
> 
> And, did you know that the Naval DEU wearing purple folks are not career managed by the Navy either? Same for Air and Army DEU purple pers. We are currently career managed by "None of the Above".
> 
> Oh, and did you know that a lot of purple folks don't get to "choose" their uniform colour or enviornmental affiliation? They ask our preference, but service needs win out --- don't presume that they "decided" to be Navy, Army or Air Force ... but *they did choose to be a purple trade*. Don't presume that we fall in to the same categories as hard naval, air or army folks wrt to uniforms, trades, career management or and colour choices/decisions because we simply do NOT (surprise for you all: that is why they call us purple!).


----------



## old medic

A little late, but here is how the QMI agency reported the motion.

Call Canada's navy, a navy: Senate
By ALTHIA RAJ, Parliamentary Bureau
Last Updated: December 14, 2010 6:07pm
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2010/12/14/16552031.html


> OTTAWA — Canada’s navy should be called a navy, senators said Tuesday.
> 
> To thunderous applause and cries of “we made history,” the Senate passed a motion urging the federal government to change the name of Canada’s naval force from Maritime Command to something with the word “navy.”
> 
> The naval force already refers to itself as “Canadian Navy” but some senators and MPs want a return to its pre-1968 name of “Royal Canadian Navy.”
> 
> “I myself would quite prefer to have it called Royal Navy,” said NPD MP Peter Stoffer. “We have the Royal RCMP, Royal Canadian Legion, why not Royal Canadian Navy?”
> 
> Stoffer said the NDP hadn’t discussed the issue in caucus and many Quebec MPs across party lines are less than supportive of the term “royal.”
> 
> NDP’s defence critic Jack Harris said he supports the term Canadian Navy.
> 
> “We don’t necessarily need to engage in divisive debates about these things, we can accommodate a change to the navy without having a divisive debate about it,” he said.
> 
> The Liberal Leader in the Senate, James Cowan, also prefers the term Canadian Navy and National Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggested Tuesday, he is also leaning that way.
> 
> “I am listening to various opinions on this but what I am hearing predominantly from the Canadian Forces, and from the Canadian Navy in particular, is they like the name Canadian Navy,” he told reporters.
> 
> The PMO quickly issued an info-alert telling Conservative supporters the government was following the debate in the Senate with interest but had “no plans to rename Maritime Command at this time.”





I certainly prefer RCN myself.  
I don't count out a wimpy decision however.

p.s. Where did this Navy command Air Force command thing come from?  That's nowhere in the official documents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Won't matter to me. I've always called it the Navy and if the discussion tended towards more than one navy (i.e. - US Navy) I called it the Canadian Navy. I've also used the term 'Navy guys' more than I care to count. 

So I won't have to change ;D


----------



## garb811

FSTO said:
			
		

> Can't argue with that. But in the big scheme of things, the only place that true unification took place was in the logistics, medical, and legal branches. The others were doomed to return to 3 fiefdoms that they are today.


Not true.  Off the top of my head the MP, Chaplain and Band Branches are also fully unified.  Out of these, Band probably has it the worst as they change DEU depending upon the band they are actually posted to.  

As with Vern, my experience is the majority of "Naval" MP have never served on a navy base and never will and most are wearing the naval uniform simply because the choice they were given on enrollment was to be a MP wearing a naval uniform or decline the offer.  Uniform has absolutely no impact upon where you serve, in fact, I believe the last four MWOs at CFB Halifax were all Army and 1 MP Unit in Edmonton had a CPO1 as the Unit RSM for two years.

Notwithstanding the attempts to meet an artificial (yes, I said "artificial" because MP did not exist in the RCN so forcing MP into naval uniforms has no basis in history or tradition because there is no naval MP heritage to perpetuate) quota  of...I believe 10 percent...of MP wearing the naval uniform, the Branch has less than half that. .  During this year's CM briefing, she put the offer out of an immediate, no questions asked, uniform conversion to navy in an attempt to address this but I'm willing to put good money on nobody taking her up on it.


----------



## PuckChaser

garb811 said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the attempts to meet an artificial (yes, I said "artificial" because MP did not exist in the RCN so forcing MP into naval uniforms has no basis in history or tradition because there is no naval MP heritage to perpetuate) quota  of...I believe 10 percent...of MP wearing the naval uniform, the Branch has less than half that. .  During this year's CM briefing, she put the offer out of an immediate, no questions asked, uniform conversion to navy in an attempt to address this but I'm willing to put good money on nobody taking her up on it.



Garb just confirmed it, MPs have quotas!!!  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar

garb811 said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the attempts to meet an artificial (yes, I said "artificial" because MP did not exist in the RCN so forcing MP into naval uniforms has no basis in history or tradition because there is no naval MP heritage to perpetuate) quota  of...I believe 10 percent...of MP wearing the naval uniform, the Branch has less than half that. .  During this year's CM briefing, she put the offer out of an immediate, no questions asked, uniform conversion to navy in an attempt to address this but I'm willing to put good money on nobody taking her up on it.



You are correct that the RCN did not have MPs but it did have Naval Shore Patrol which filled many of the same roles as MPs of the day. 



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> As with Vern, my experience is the majority of "Naval" MP have never served on a navy base and never will and most are wearing the naval uniform simply because the choice they were given on enrollment was to be a MP wearing a naval uniform or decline the offer.  Uniform has absolutely no impact upon where you serve, in fact, I believe the last four MWOs at CFB Halifax were all Army and 1 MP Unit in Edmonton had a CPO1 as the Unit RSM for two years.



As for this statement, this is an example of a non-seagoing trade, I don't see how this equates, in relation, to say a Cook, RMS Clerk or Sup Tech who can truly be be employed in all elements anywhere in the echelon. I would be all for the MPs being of a single element or perhaps only having Air Force and Army MPs much like the MSEOPs and Traffic Techs. If your trade doesn't have billets in a first line role in an element than I don't think the trade should be represented in that uniform. Hence why would we have Navy MSEOPs or Traffic Techs. Just my  :2c:

The band is a different story, completely ceremonial and a null discussion.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... If your trade doesn't have billets in a first line role in an element than I don't think the trade should be represented in that uniform. Hence why would we have Navy MSEOPs or Traffic Techs. Just my  :2c:
> 
> The band is a different story, completely ceremonial and a null discussion.



Which uniform would you then suggest that MPs wear?? A purple one??


----------



## dapaterson

MPs already have a "purple" uniform.  You know, the "patrol" uniform they begged for, so they'd look more like civvy cops, and less military.

What's the "M" in MP for again?  But that's a tangent well-discussed in many other threads.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Well, there's the end of another good thread :


----------



## armyvern

recceguy said:
			
		

> Well, there's the end of another good thread :



I'd think that the renaming of an enviornment which has negative implications  upon it's purple people  (by further suggesting that they be told that they'd serve in their "chosen" enviornment) would be relevant to the discussion. Apparently, you may be neither Navy nor purple.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Which uniform would you then suggest that MPs wear?? A purple one??



As stated: 



> I would be all for the MPs being of a single element or perhaps only having Air Force and Army MPs much like the MSEOPs and Traffic Techs.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd think that the renaming of an enviornment which has negative implications  upon it's purple people  (by further suggesting that they be told that they'd serve in their "chosen" enviornment) would be relevant to the discussion. Apparently, you may be neither Navy nor purple.



I think the simple solution to all this, perhaps not the most likely, is the re-separation of the elements and all supporting arms within.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'd think that the renaming of an enviornment which has negative implications  upon it's purple people  (by further suggesting that they be told that they'd serve in their "chosen" enviornment) would be relevant to the discussion. Apparently, you may be neither Navy nor purple.



And how would a rename of an organization have a negative implication on it's purple people?  I was in an AF uniform when I was purple, my first posting was to a field unit.  It did not change how or what I did for a living one iota, except that I was dressed in garrison a little different than some of my co-workers.  I still went into the field and did my job.  And furthermore this posting was followed by a posting to Shearwater and later to Halifax.  Still continued to do the job, even went to sea as well..... The support folks here in the "Navy" still come to work and do their job just as they always have, and always will regarless of what the "Navy" is called.  Get serious.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the simple solution to all this, perhaps not the most likely, is the re-separation of the elements and all supporting arms within.



 ???

Are you suggesting that we take the three Elements and create five or more?  Create 'hard' Army, 'hard' Sea, 'hard' Air, 'hard' Comms, 'hard' Admin. 'hard' EME (REME, LORE, RCEME, or whatever they call themselves today), 'hard' Logistics, 'hard' Medical, etc. Elements?


----------



## FSTO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Are you suggesting that we take the three Elements and create five or more?  Create 'hard' Army, 'hard' Sea, 'hard' Air, 'hard' Comms, 'hard' Admin. 'hard' EME (REME, LORE, RCEME, or whatever they call themselves today), 'hard' Logistics, 'hard' Medical, etc. Elements?



Nope, but what Hellyer should have done way back in the 60's was look at the Royal Navy or the USN/USMC and followed those models. It would have pissed off the Army and RCAF but it would have been the most logical way of unifying the armed forces. Instead, he decided to blow everything up and create this fubard outfit called the CF that ticked off everyone, never delivered on any of the promises, (save one higher pay......eventually) and created this underground swell of dissatisfaction (lead mostly by Naval types) that keeps us yearning for unique identifications that reflect the jobs we do and the environment we work in.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Nope, but what Hellyer should have done way back in the 60's was look at the Royal Navy or the USN/USMC and followed those models. It would have pissed off the Army and RCAF but it would have been the most logical way of unifying the armed forces.



Now I'm confused again. What do you mean by that?


----------



## FSTO

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Now I'm confused again. What do you mean by that?



Look at the Royal Navy; 

Fleet Air Arm - Air Force
Royal Marines - Army
Royal Navy - Navy

or the United States - department of the Navy

USN  - Navy and Air Force Combined
USMC - Army and Air Force Combined

Or the French Navy, Royal Neatherlands Navy, Royal Norwegian Navy etc, etc,

All of these Maritime forces have their own Air and Marine Components, some at the lower end (the Dutch) right up to the USN/USMC with full independent operations from the sea.

All of these organizations have years, in some cases of centuries of projecting power with Navy/Marine teams and they have culture of working together. As I have said numerous times before, if Hellyer had looked at the Navy/Marine model from around the world that was staring him in the face we may not be in the adversarial situation that the CF finds itself post unification. Oh I am sure that we wouldn't be sitting around the campfire at NDHQ singing cumbya but it would have been more logical to go that route instead of the cluster that the 60's produced.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

In your examples those air and ground elements under the Navy are only a small portion of those nation's air and ground forces. Putting the Army or Airforce complete under the command of the Navy makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. There is much more to land and air operations that that which is projected from the sea. What does a naval staff know about land operations? What do they know about generating army units? 

Please note that I fine with the Navy owning the aircraft that conduct naval operations.


----------



## FSTO

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> In your examples those air and ground elements under the Navy are only a small portion of those nation's air and ground forces. Putting the Army or Airforce complete under the command of the Navy makes as much sense as a soup sandwich. There is much more to land and air operations that that which is projected from the sea. What does a naval staff know about land operations? What do they know about generating army units?
> 
> Please note that I fine with the Navy owning the aircraft that conduct naval operations.



Did you not notice that I used the Marines - they would be the ones directing land operations. The Navy gets you there, gets you ashore and makes sure your lines of supply and communications are secure. Once the Marines are ashore it is there show. Also this scenario is also in play if the Marines are landing at a nice port and are trucked or airlifted to the area of operations.


----------



## armyvern

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And how would a rename of an organization have a negative implication on it's purple people?  I was in an AF uniform when I was purple, my first posting was to a field unit.  It did not change how or what I did for a living one iota, except that I was dressed in garrison a little different than some of my co-workers.  I still went into the field and did my job.  And furthermore this posting was followed by a posting to Shearwater and later to Halifax.  Still continued to do the job, even went to sea as well..... The support folks here in the "Navy" still come to work and do their job just as they always have, and always will regarless of what the "Navy" is called.  Get serious.



Did you bother to read my whole comment?

I'm purple. I was wearing an Air Force uniform to my first posting ... Halifax ... and was an Army girl at heart. Do you think your above is "news" to me?? I've served in all 3 environments. I didn't get where I am by being a numpty. :

If you bothered to read the whole of my comment you'd have noticed the suggestion "that they serve within their _chosen_ enviornment for the majority of their career" bit. And, we've already discussed how purple people do NOT always get to "choose" that environmental uniform colour that they end up wearing. 

Now, I don't know about you, but for me and being purple and given a choice of "wear Navy uniform" or "decline the offer" and then, years down the road having someone decide that I "chose" to join the Navy (I "chose" to join the CF by the way ... and "chose" to join as a Supply Tech - they "gave" me an AF uniform: getting 2 out of 3 of my "choices" isn't bad ... until someone suggests that I serve my career with the enviornment that I supposedly "chose".) and therefore would serve with the Navy for my career does NOT affect me negatively or other purple people in the same situation ... then I suggest that it is you, indeed, who needs to get serious.


----------



## aesop081

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> What does a naval staff know about land operations? What do they know about generating army units?



No more than they know about air operations and generating air forces. At least, in Canada's case. Our navy is completely largely clueless.



> Please note that I fine with the Navy owning the aircraft that conduct naval operations.



I'm not. Theres been too many times where i have been thankfull we were owned by someone else because it prevented something stupid from happenning.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did you not notice that I used the Marines - they would be the ones directing land operations.



I noticed - thanks. Also note that the Marines are only portion of the USA's land strength. They are able to take advantage of work done by the US Army. They are also intended to be a supporting effort in the big picture- not the main event.

The Navy has only one portion of the fight. Putting them in charge of the whole of national defence makes no sense. They would need two naval staffs - one for the Navy and one that would try to run the national HQ. Joint HQ at the top is just fine.

During the Cold War, how would a Navy NDHQ have run CFE and added any value to the process? Flash forward to Afghanistan and ask the same question.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

You guys are missing the point he's trying to make, he's not saying the navy should run the whole show, he's saying if when unification happened, the CF would have been molded on the MARINES/USN model that it would have likely turned out better.

you guys are arguing semantics, about oh well the Marines are only a portion of the ground troops and blah blah...but you're missing the point that the USN/USMC model fosters interoperability, and capabilities, without having bun fights all the time, although they have friendly ribbing, they have more pressing issues then what colour t-shirts to wear to represent them or whatever.

The other point is that although the USMC is only small portion of the US's land force...the USMC alone is bigger then the whole CF, they likely have more Air units as well.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No more than they know about air operations and generating air forces. At least, in Canada's case. Our navy is completely largely clueless.
> 
> I'm not. Theres been too many times where i have been thankfull we were owned by someone else because it prevented something stupid from happenning.



You sir have proved my point that Unification as proposed and implemented by Hellyer has been a complete cluster. Instead of a competent organization that has all parts working together and respecting each other we have a group of disparate parts that get things done in-spite of the organization not because of the organization. The Navy and Army hardly communicate, the Air Force is a little better with MPA's and Sea Kings operating with Ships and Griffons and Chinooks working with Army units but overall we still fight like cats and dogs over procurement, personnel, funding and public visibility.
As you noted in your above comments, our Navy is completely clueless in conducting air operations. Why would that be? Would it be because Naval Air was ripped away from the Navy because of unification. Instead of naval air being an integral part of the Navy community and culture they are tossed aboard as an add-on and live and operate in this no-mans land (ignored by the Air Force and misunderstood by the Navy). Back in the day, naval aviators would do their flying and then as they progressed through their career would proceed to the Operations Room Officer billet, then XO, then Commanding Officer of a HMC Ship. All officers/Senior Hands in the Navy would have a better appreciation of the roles and limitations that Naval Air gives a ship or task group. 
I have talked and worked with many within the Sea King community, and more than a few have made it known that they would rather be a full up member of the Navy and be part of that community because they feel (rightly or wrongly) that the fast air folks don't really care for them. The Navy is grateful for having Air Assets and if you feel that we are a bunch of knobs then maybe you should write a SOCD with some options on how we could mend our ways.


----------



## FSTO

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I noticed - thanks. Also note that the Marines are only portion of the USA's land strength. They are able to take advantage of work done by the US Army. They are also intended to be a supporting effort in the big picture- not the main event.
> 
> The Navy has only one portion of the fight. Putting them in charge of the whole of national defence makes no sense. They would need two naval staffs - one for the Navy and one that would try to run the national HQ. Joint HQ at the top is just fine.
> 
> During the Cold War, how would a Navy NDHQ have run CFE and added any value to the process? Flash forward to Afghanistan and ask the same question.



When you say USA do you mean United States Army or United States of America? Also you realize that the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy. 

When you talk of the cold war do you remember CAST? Do you also remember that the Liberals under Trudeau wanted us completly out of Europe. Well in this scenario our focus would have been to get the Canadian Marine Brigade to Northern Norway.  

Also when you get to brass tacks who has the longest coastline in the world? We do, what do you need to defend this coast line? Some would argue coastal patrol ships and patrol aircraft . But if you wanted more international power projection the Navy/Marine team would be the one you needed. 

Finally who has been our quick reaction force since WW II? Its been the Navy; Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis, getting troops and equipment to the Suez, gulf war 1, 911 it has been the Navy that has been able to get off the mark first. That is not a slight against the Army and Air Force its just the way it is. Just image the team that the Navy/Marine team would have been.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> we have a group of disparate parts that get things done in-spite of the organization not because of the organization.



Returning to seperate services, as someone previously suggested, is not going to fix that.



> The Navy and Army hardly communicate,



Hardly surprising since there is little in the way of meaningful tasks/capabilities that require much interaction between the 2.



> we still fight like cats and dogs over procurement, personnel, funding and public visibility.



A situation that even the USMC and the department of the Navy are not immune to.




> Why would that be?



Lack of training and petty politics.



> Would it be because Naval Air was ripped away from the Navy because of unification.



Unification make a convenient target but, no. Canada is not the only country in the world where Naval aviation is provide by the air force. Its more than high time we moved on and get off the "blame unification" bandwagon. 



> maybe you should write a SOCD with some options on how we could mend our ways.



Maybe i should but i'm also realistic about the changes of having any sort of effect. The again, maybe i'm just out to lunch too.


----------



## armyvern

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> You guys are missing the point he's trying to make, he's not saying the navy should run the whole show, he's saying if when unification happened, the CF would have been molded on the MARINES/USN model that it would have likely turned out better.
> 
> you guys are arguing semantics, about oh well the Marines are only a portion of the ground troops and blah blah...but you're missing the point that the USN/USMC model fosters interoperability, and capabilities, without having bun fights all the time, although they have friendly ribbing, they have more pressing issues then what colour t-shirts to wear to represent them or whatever.
> 
> The other point is that although the USMC is only small portion of the US's land force...the USMC alone is bigger then the whole CF, they likely have more Air units as well.





Of course they are larger ... they are the US. +1 for stating the obvious.

Of course, we are also NOT the US ... and our CF seems to be making out just fine to me given that we have an _n_th of the population (tax payer support for purchases etc) to secure a much larger landmass with a greatly sparser population density throughout all of our regions.

So, can we stop comparing "us" to them?? We are vastly different and so what works for "them" simply isn't automaticly transferable to "us".


----------



## George Wallace

FSTO said:
			
		

> Finally who has been our quick reaction force since WW II? Its been the Navy; Korea, Cuban Missile Crisis, getting troops and equipment to the Suez, gulf war 1, 911 it has been the Navy that has been able to get off the mark first. That is not a slight against the Army and Air Force its just the way it is. Just image the team that the Navy/Marine team would have been.



That is a matter of perspective.  I know that I was deployed on 911 in Eastern Ontario; I was buying a lg DD at the Tim Hortons in Casselman as it was happening.  I know that we had Aircraft patrolling in the air.  I know we had members filling posts in NORAD tracking aircraft.  When did the Navy put ships to sea?


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> 911 it has been the Navy that has been able to get off the mark first.



No it was not.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

FSTO said:
			
		

> When you say USA do you mean United States Army or United States of America? Also you realize that the Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy.



I've done an exchange with the USMC and could read the letterhead on my paperwork, but thanks for the lecture. I've also done career courses with the US Army and I never refer to the US Army as USA. Was there a point to your question?

CAST was one component - how many times was it exercised? The main effort was on the mainland, yours and Trudeau's desires aside. 

I understand that you are pround of the Navy, but putting the Navy in charge of the entire military because the peacekeeping troops that went to the Suez went by ship is like putting the New England Patriots under Greyhound Bus Lines because they took a bus to the stadium. I like the Navy (whatever you guys decide to be called in the end is the only semantics here). I think that we should have a Navy, and we should have Joint staffs.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is a matter of perspective.  I know that I was deployed on 911 in Eastern Ontario; I was buying a lg DD at the Tim Hortons in Casselman as it was happening.  I know that we had Aircraft patrolling in the air.  I know we had members filling posts in NORAD tracking aircraft.  When did the Navy put ships to sea?



Too true George

And SAL Det from the AF side of the house was activated in a heartbeat. I was on disemabarkation leave in Trenton when the 1st building tumbled down ... and was recalled from disembarkation leave and at work responding before 11am that morning in response.

No enviornment has any claims to being Canada's "primary" rapid responders ... that's just a perspective with a built-in elemental bias. Pet got to Rwanda pretty damned quickly. Fd Hosp got to Gulf War pretty quickly. Kingston & 5 ASG got to Haiti pretty damned quickly (with Air Force sp to fly in I might add) ...


----------



## FSTO

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I've done an exchange with the USMC and could read the letterhead on my paperwork, but thanks for the lecture. I've also done career courses with the US Army and I never refer to the US Army as USA. *Was there a point to your question?*
> CAST was one component - how many times was it exercised? The main effort was on the mainland, yours and Trudeau's desires aside.
> 
> I understand that you are pround of the Navy, but putting the Navy in charge of the entire military because the peacekeeping troops that went to the Suez went by ship is like putting the New England Patriots under Greyhound Bus Lines because they took a bus to the stadium. I like the Navy (whatever you guys decide to be called in the end is the only semantics here). I think that we should have a Navy, and we should have Joint staffs.



My point was that maybe you were confused that the USMC was part of the Army.  My mistake.

the whole aspect of my posts that, in my view the unification should never of happened. Intergration yes, but the next step was not neccessary. But since Hellyer decided to take the next step, the model of a unified armed force was already there. And for a military our nation was/is prepared to pay for and utilize dictated that Navy/Marine team would be the way to go. You all have compelling arguments for your point of view and I know that I will never change them. But I think that debate and discussion are good for all involved and we get that in spades on this site.

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ...
> Unification make a convenient target ...
> ...




Quite correct. Further, we *never* did manage to _unify_ the CF because, except for a very, very brief period _circa_ 1965, we never tried.

A _unified_ force would not have Air Commands and Navy Commands, it would have several geographically based _*joint*_ commands where one officer - Navy, Army or Air Force, served by a *joint* staff, would exercise full command and control over pretty much all Canadian Forces elements (formations, bases, stations, units, detachments, colleges, _whatevers_) in his area of responsibility. There _might_ be a few _specified_ commands - think, for example, the CF Supplementary Radio System or, perhaps, an Air Training Group, or an SOF Command, but, mostly both force generation and force employment would be in the hands of _unified_ commands.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> And for a military our nation was/is prepared to pay for and utilize dictated that Navy/Marine team would be the way to go.



If only those were the only roles the CF require to fill, that would be fine. Unfortunately, they are not.


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:
			
		

> Look at the Royal Navy;
> 
> Fleet Air Arm - Air Force
> Royal Marines - Army
> Royal Navy - Navy
> 
> or the United States - department of the Navy
> 
> USN  - Navy and Air Force Combined
> USMC - Army and Air Force Combined
> ...



Your analysis ignores the fact that neither the RN, nor the USN and USMC provide all the "army" and "air force" capabilities required of the U.K. and the U.S., thus why both nations still maintain standing Armies and Air Forces working (from time to time) jointly with Naval Aviation and Marines.  Taking the examples of these two nations, there must be something that justifies the continued maintenance of army and air forces exclusive of the 'senior service'.

Your case for consolidation of army and air forces under Canadian naval forces is far from convincing.  In fact, dare I say, it seems like a case of 'reverse maritime blindness' to coin the flip-side to VAdm McFadden's assertions that all other elements are ignorantly blind to the Navy's plight.  What it also does is to smack of institutionalized, unresolved bitterness towards a politician's agenda half a century ago.  This appears to embody well the characteristics of the senior service's unofficial motto of 'Centuries of tradition, unimpeded by progress'.  

My advice?  Let the anger and bitterness go, and appreciate that the current structure amongst the four environments is not that bad, after all.  Not without some issues, but not so badly broken that we need some white knight riding to our rescue to slay incompetence and indifference.  Work to resolve the minor issues we have and work together.  I find it more than ironic that it is in fact the Navy which seems to never fail in reminding everyone else that it has more in common with the USN than the "rest of the CF".


Regards
G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar

> Quote from: George Wallace on Today at 11:52:35
> 
> That is a matter of perspective.  I know that I was deployed on 911 in Eastern Ontario; I was buying a lg DD at the Tim Hortons in Casselman as it was happening.  I know that we had Aircraft patrolling in the air.  I know we had members filling posts in NORAD tracking aircraft.  When did the Navy put ships to sea?
> 
> 
> Too true George
> 
> And SAL Det from the AF side of the house was activated in a heartbeat. I was on disemabarkation leave in Trenton when the 1st building tumbled down ... and was recalled from disembarkation leave and at work responding before 11am that morning in response.
> 
> No enviornment has any claims to being Canada's "primary" rapid responders ... that's just a perspective with a built-in elemental bias. Pet got to Rwanda pretty damned quickly. Fd Hosp got to Gulf War pretty quickly. Kingston & 5 ASG got to Haiti pretty damned quickly (with Air Force sp to fly in I might add) ...
> « Last Edit: Today at 12:04:11 by ArmyVern »



I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, the Navy was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911. I believe the PPCLI Battle Group didn't deploy until Oct/Nov...Well the HMCS Iroquois, Preserver, Toronto and Halifax all left 10 days after the fall of the towers. I could be wrong FSTO but is that was your getting at ?


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Look at the Royal Navy;
> 
> Fleet Air Arm - Air Force
> Royal Marines - Army
> Royal Navy - Navy



Limited line of thinking. The Royal navy, even with the FAA, is not structured, equiped and trained to carry out national air defence, strategic transport, etc...Calling the FAA "air force" is off the mark.




> USN  - Navy and Air Force Combined



Incorrect for the same reasons as above for the FAA.



> USMC - Army and Air Force Combined



Incorrect again. USMC air assets are geared to support USMC operations on the ground and do not fill all the roles assigned to aerospace forces.

Following your logic, i could say "Canadian army - Army and air force combined"  just because the scan eagle UAV is being used.




			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, the Navy was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911. I believe the PPCLI Battle Group didn't deploy until Oct/Nov...Well the HMCS Iroquois, Preserver, Toronto and Halifax all left 10 days after the fall of the towers.



Canadian military personel assigned to NORAD were the first CF members to respond *during* the attacks. CF-18s responded *during* the attacks.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Your analysis ignores the fact that neither the RN, nor the USN and USMC provide all the "army" and "air force" capabilities required of the U.K. and the U.S., thus why both nations still maintain standing Armies and Air Forces working (from time to time) jointly with Naval Aviation and Marines.  Taking the examples of these two nations, there must be something that justifies the continued maintenance of army and air forces exclusive of the 'senior service'.
> 
> Your case for consolidation of army and air forces under Canadian naval forces is far from convincing.  In fact, dare I say, it seems like a case of 'reverse maritime blindness' to coin the flip-side to VAdm McFadden's assertions that all other elements are ignorantly blind to the Navy's plight.  What it also does is to smack of institutionalized, unresolved bitterness towards a politician's agenda half a century ago.  This appears to embody well the characteristics of the senior service's unofficial motto of 'Centuries of tradition, unimpeded by progress'.
> 
> My advice?  Let the anger and bitterness go, and appreciate that the current structure amongst the four environments is not that bad, after all.  Not without some issues, but not so badly broken that we need some white knight riding to our rescue to slay incompetence and indifference.  Work to resolve the minor issues we have and work together.  I find it more than ironic that it is in fact the Navy which seems to never fail in reminding everyone else that it has more in common with the USN than the "rest of the CF".
> 
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Again here I think what FSTO is trying to explain is that if we would have followed a model of an organization like the USN/USMC or RN/Royal Marines we would have come off allot better in the end. I think it makes sense but I Don't think its much different than what we have now except we don't all dress and talk alike like the USMC. I also think hes also saying that we should have built the CF around a moderate to small sized land force that could be projected with haste by the Navy and supported by the Air. Don't forget you can move much more, faster, by sea than you can by air.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, *the Navy* was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911.
> ...



First to deploy and get on station after 9/11?   

If you mean 'first in to stay for a while', I think you will find that publicly released information confirms it was the fourth 'environment' that first 'deployed and stayed on station', not the Navy.  Just saying.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## Halifax Tar

> Canadian military personel assigned to NORAD were the first CF members to respond *during* the attacks. CF-18s responded *during* the attacks.



I don't contend that but fact the remains the first ones to leave home and begin the ball rolling by taking the fight to them (as limited as that fight may have been I give you) was the Navy. NORAD was there in defense of North America, the Navy deployed in an offensive posture. Very different in my eyes but if you disagree then I agree to disagree, cool ?


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> cool ?



Of course. that being said, if you look at G2G's response above (#523), the navy still was not first to respond, in any capacity, offensive or otherwise.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> First to deploy and get on station after 9/11?
> 
> If you mean 'first in to stay for a while', I think you will find that publicly released information confirms it was the fourth 'environment' that first 'deployed and stayed on station', not the Navy.  Just saying.
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I fail to see what your saying please educate me. I am sure SOF guys went in riki-tic but that is not a representation of a service in the traditional means, I.E. Land, Air, Sea.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ........ I also think hes also saying that we should have built the CF around a moderate to small sized land force that could be projected with haste by the Navy and supported by the Air. Don't forget you can move much more, faster, by sea than you can by air.



Why yes, the Navy could move men and materials much quicker if we had a much smaller sized land force.  However, that small sized land force would be completely useless, even as Peacekeepers.

I am completely taken aback that you would think that the CF would exist as any compentent force with a tiny land force.  What do you think the actual size of the Land Cbt Arms should be?


----------



## Old Sweat

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Again here I think what FSTO is trying to explain is that if we would have followed a model of an organization like the USN/USMC or RN/Royal Marines we would have come off allot better in the end. I think it makes sense but I Don't think its much different than what we have now except we don't all dress and talk alike like the USMC. I also think hes also saying that we should have built the CF around a moderate to small sized land force that could be projected with haste by the Navy and supported by the Air. Don't forget you can move much more, faster, by sea than you can by air.


With all due respect, and as one who lived through the whole exercise in participatory goat breeding, there was more to the Canadian defence matrix then that. The defence of North American airspace was and is a very real role, as was the NATO committment of air and land forces in Europe (along with a major naval role in the Canadian area of responsibility). The original post-integration command structure included a moderate to small sized land (and air) power projection force in the form of Mobile Command*, along with Maritime Command, Air Defence Command, Air Transport Command, Training Command, Materiel Command and 4 CIBG and 1 Air Division in Europe. There also were separate regional commanders and another set of organizations to look after the reserves and cadets. 

* There was a persistent rumour/legend that Mobile Command was modelled on the Fleet Marine Force model, except that the logistics organization was an early victim of the recurring series of budget cuts that characterized the mid to late sixties.


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why yes, the Navy could move men and materials much quicker if we had a much smaller sized land force.  However, that small sized land force would be completely useless, even as Peacekeepers.
> 
> I am completely taken aback that you would think that the CF would exist as any competent force with a tiny land force.  What do you think the actual size of the Land Cbt Arms should be?



Well for the whole CF I would like to see us at 100'000 people all arms. I think our land force is too small now as it is George. I hope you don't think I was calling for a draw down of the Army. No, in no way was that meant. What I would like to see is the Navy get the tools and equipment to be able to be the Army's taxi service. Unfortunately the current state exists that the all services are small, so small I think we can all still get seats in the Sky Dome! 

Again to reinforce my point, I would like to the ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY be used as the means to project our land forces where the government deems it necessary for them to go.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> With all due respect, and as one who lived through the whole exercise in participatory goat breeding, there was more to the Canadian defence matrix then that. The defence of North American airspace was and is a very real role, as was the NATO committment of air and land forces in Europe (along with a major naval role in the Canadian area of responsibility). The original post-integration command structure included a moderate to small sized land (and air) power projection force in the form of Mobile Command*, along with Maritime Command, Air Defence Command, Air Transport Command, Training Command, Materiel Command and 4 CIBG and 1 Air Division in Europe. There also were separate regional commanders and another set of organizations to look after the reserves and cadets.
> 
> * There was a persistent rumour/legend that Mobile Command was modelled on the Fleet Marine Force model, except that the logistics organization was an early victim of the recurring series of budget cuts that characterized the mid to late sixties.



I hear you, I do. But I still think this could all have been accomplished inside the USN/USMC ect ect model FSTO stated.


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Again to reinforce my point, I would like to the ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY be used as the *a* means to project our land forces where the government deems it necessary for them to go.



There, i fixed that for you.


----------



## Halifax Tar

^ Thank you


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:
			
		

> . . . Instead of a competent organization that has all parts working together and respecting each other we have a group of disparate parts that get things done in-spite of the organization not because of the organization. *The Navy and Army (and Air Force) hardly communicate*, the Air Force is a little better with MPA's and Sea Kings operating with Ships and Griffons and Chinooks working with Army units but *overall we still fight like cats and dogs over procurement, personnel, funding and public visibility*.
> . . .



When I first read this post I thought that you were describing the Canadian Forces prior to unification (and yes, the term "Canadian Forces" was an officially and legally valid term used to describe the separate services in combination before unification, before WW2, in fact before WW1), but on closely parsing the text it is clear that you were describing conditions that show improved cooperation among the three elements following unification.

As for your contention that Canada should have adopted a "USN/USMC model" are you suggesting that we should have a single service in which all operational land, sea and air forces are fully (and legally) embodied under a single chain of command with centralized administrative, logistical and medical support intergral to the organization?  I thought we did that already.  Or is your problem that you didn't like the name and uniform? Or that a sailor wasn't in charge?


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, the Navy was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911. I believe the PPCLI Battle Group didn't deploy until Oct/Nov...Well the HMCS Iroquois, Preserver, Toronto and Halifax all left 10 days after the fall of the towers. I could be wrong FSTO but is that was your getting at ?



The PPCLI battle group deployed in Jan/Feb 2002. The SAL Det (Air Force) deployed long before that.

The Air Force bases were providing overflight security of our airspace and landing areas for civilian flights* immediately*. Some Fire fighters (in AF uniforms) were on station (in NY) before the first ship sailed (was redirected) IIRC. 

As for the GWI assertation of the navy as the 1st responders, I can only proffer this up:



> I was the DST in Halifax and the Air Force in Shearwater had to fly to Florida to pick up a system for one of the ships before it could deploy; so who really responded first?? You certainly didn't do it without their help ... or that of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic who provided you with the Gatling Gun to sail over with (also while I was DST) ... perhaps it is that museum who should get credit for rapidly reacting. Not to mention the 3rd line echelon - 25 CFSD and the Depot in Moncton - who fullfilled the requirements for your IORs and had drivers (in Air & Land uniforms) delivering the stuff to me at Gladstone to further be delivered to the deploying ships. Not to mention the Air Force's reaction in trafficing all those departing American aircraft through Goose Bay before our ships left the port of Halifax (or were redirected) - or the Army's rapid reaction in recalling 119 Air Defence Artillery - then based out of CFB Chatam, but working in Goose Bay providing security for the base during low-level flight protests - and placing them _*on*_ your deploying ships ... yet the navy reacted first!!??" Just wow.



Notice how all THREE enviornments plus the 3rd line purple people are involved in the above?? Notice how they ALL had to rapidly react?? Notice how they ALL had to work jointly to make this happen?? Notice how that ALL happened POST Hellyer??

Enviornmental biasness will do nothing except lead to failure; credit should be given where credit is due.

Duey: +100.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that.....





			
				Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> You guys are missing the point he's trying to make....





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Again here I think what FSTO is trying to explain is that ....



Perhaps if posts were thought out logically and supported by facts, interpreters wouldn't be required and _FSTO_ could actually speak for himself. Sadly, the only factual points stated clearly are the 'no shit, Sherlock' points -- eg, "you do know that the Marines are a Department of the Navy." 
Yes, we know that  :

However implying things, such as there being no budget/equipment/policy fights between USN and USMC in your fantasy role-model world, shows only that you're out of your depth here.


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps if posts were thought out logically and supported by facts, interpreters wouldn't be required and _FSTO_ could actually speak for himself.



When the C17 or Herc takes off with its load of equipment to go to some troublespot they still need permissions and overflight clearances from foreign countries to get to where they are going. If landing rights and refueling points are not set up before hand then they are not going to leave Trenton and as Camp Mirage displayed it doesn't take much for a host country to throw you for a loop . If the army is deployed once again there are host country issues, staging areas etc. The Navy can sail first and plan while on the way which it did for the Haitian Earthquake. Once the ship or ships arrive they don't need staging areas and they can be quickly redeployed or recalled with little or no footprint.  Only one example I know and our Naval assets were quite limited due to sending a destroyer and frigate to do the job that an AOR would be more suited to do.  



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> However implying things, such as there being no budget/equipment/policy fights between USN and USMC in your fantasy role-model world, shows only that you're out of your depth here.


[/quote author=FSTO link=topic=60347/post-1000526#msg1000526 date=1292513024]
 Oh I am sure that we wouldn't be sitting around the campfire at NDHQ singing cumbya [/quote]

BS, I know that there are still budget fights between services. In fact the RCN had greater fights between Surface Officers and Naval Air then they had with the RCAF and Army.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Please Everybody cool down !

First of all, I hope everyone recalls that the Fourth Element is Fire - not purple - and the Fifth was cute as a button (Go Mila!).

My point is (so no one else explains it for me) the CF has and has always had only three elements, or environments as it may: Land, Sea and Air. Best proof: we wear a D.E.U., the "E" is for Environment, and if one excepts the new fangled MP's ambiguously environmental uniform, there are only THREE sets. 

This said, regardless of how the Military forces of Canada have been organized at various times, they have always worked together to achieve Canada's objectives and re-introducing the name of Royal Canadian Navy (and if someone sees fit - RCAF), should not vary in and of itself the way we are currently organized nor require that one element be set over the others in any way. 

As a matter of fact, the greatest naval battle involving Canada was ultimately won as much by the Navy as by the Air Force. During WWII, the RCN did not have a Naval Air Arm. All Maritime Patrol was carried out by the RCAF but co-ordinated with the Navy. Similarly, the hunter-killer missions over the bay of Biscay and the bombing of U-boats in their harbour facilities in France and Germany was carried out by the RAF, USAAF and RCAF. In the end, the Air Forces accounted for more U-boat kills than the ships.

It is only after 1946, when we acquired HMCS WARRIOR that the RCN began, slowly at first (the first batches of pilots were RN Fleet Air Arm) to operate aircrafts. Even then, the RCN relied on the RCAF for good portion of its air patrol requirements. There was only a very short period of time, during the HMCS BONAVENTURE era where the Canadian Navy operated all of the aircrafts dedicated to the naval defence of Canada. And then we went right back to "Air Command" operating them all.

I have never had any problems working with our Air Force brethren, and CDN Aviator, whom I salute here, knows exactly how much comfort I (and most Captains I know) derive from the knowledge that we have Auroras watching over us (or that we had CF-18's during Gulf War I). As for our Army brothers, I have not had much chance to work with them but have great respect for what they do and would have no problems (given the ships to do it with) with sailing them into hell and back, should they so wish.

As for my Purple friends, to me they will always fall into one of the three environments, wether this is borne by the uniform they wear (JollyJacktar) or is merely in their heart of heart (ArmyVern).

So please, in the spirit of the season, remember that good nature ribbing between the Navy, Amy and Air Force [and all three against the purples] is always appropriate, but this thread was quickly descending into depths better left unfathomed.


----------



## armyvern

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Please Everybody cool down !
> 
> First of all, I hope everyone recalls that the Fourth Element is Fire - not purple - and the Fifth was cute as a button (Go Mila!).
> ...



They were referring to the 4th as SOF, not purple. Just want to clarify that bit.  

5th: Mila who??   ???


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Navy can sail first and plan while on the way which it did for the Haitian Earthquake. Once the ship or ships arrive they don't need staging areas and they can be quickly redeployed or recalled with little or no footprint.



Works great when the country you are going to has a coast. When it does not, your argument is irrelevant. Just like a C-17 cannot go certain places until overflights and landing right are arranged, a ship cannot offload anywhere until such rights are arranged. So, instead of a C-17 sitting in Trenton, you have a ship sitting 3000+ miles from canada and cannot be ready for any other mission for quite some time, unlike a C-17.

You argument works both ways.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They were referring to the 4th as SOF, not purple. Just want to clarify that bit.
> 
> 5th: Mila who??   ???



Thanks for clarifying. I never considered SOF as an "environment/element", to me they are just  people from the Army/Navy/Air Force working together within an "ad-hoc" organization.

It's Mila Jovanovitch, from the movie "The Fifth Element", with Bruce Willis.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> As for your contention that Canada should have adopted a "USN/USMC model" are you suggesting that we should have a single service in which all operational land, sea and air forces are fully (and legally) embodied under a single chain of command with centralized administrative, logistical and medical support intergral to the organization?  I thought we did that already.  Or is your problem that you didn't like the name and uniform? Or that a sailor wasn't in charge?



What your saying here didn't actually happen. What actually happened was the AF and Navy gave it all up, enforce, and the Army was little changed. I think if we had done away with regimental names and accouterments and the Army was forced change as much as the other two elements things would be vastly different. Again just my :2c: take it or leave it


----------



## aesop081

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have never had any problems working with our Air Force brethren, and CDN Aviator, whom I salute here, knows exactly how much comfort I (and most Captains I know) derive from the knowledge that we have Auroras watching over us (or that we had CF-18's during Gulf War I).





The problem as i see it is that the default answer from many is that the MH and LRP roles ust be controlled by the Navy. This is advocated by people who fail to realize that operational needs and technology have advanced and that these platforms have taken on new roles that serve to support all the "services". I now spend a fair ammount of my time working ISO land operations, so why should i belong to the Navy ?

If the Navy is unsatisfied with the support is is getting, let us have more seats on the MWBC and the MWSC. Open these courses to a broader audience, not just Capt/Maj TACCO/TACNAC/crew commander level. Following that, expand training for naval officers WRT to using aerospace power.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What your saying here didn't actually happen. What actually happened was the AF and Navy gave it all up, enforce, and the Army was little changed. I think we had done away with regimental names and accouterments and the Army was forced change as much as the other two elements things would be vastly different. Again just my :2c: take it or leave it



Stop.

Giving it all up and all things being considered equal, then you are suggesting that individual Army UNITS (1st line) should have had to give up their names; you claim that only the AF and the navy gave it "all" up, but that the Army did not.

In order for that arguement to fly ... all of your 1st line "Units" (ie ships) would have had to be renamed and give up their "accoutrements" too; that did not happen in the Navy either - despite protestations otherwise.


----------



## Halifax Tar

> Quote from: Halifax Tar on Today at 12:45:04
> 
> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, the Navy was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911. I believe the PPCLI Battle Group didn't deploy until Oct/Nov...Well the HMCS Iroquois, Preserver, Toronto and Halifax all left 10 days after the fall of the towers. I could be wrong FSTO but is that was your getting at ?
> 
> 
> The PPCLI battle group deployed in Jan/Feb 2002. The SAL Det (Air Force) deployed long before that.
> 
> The Air Force bases were providing overflight security of our airspace and landing areas for civilian flights immediately. Some Fire fighters (in AF uniforms) were on station (in NY) before the first ship sailed (was redirected) IIRC.
> 
> As for the GWI assertation of the navy as the 1st responders, I can only proffer this up:
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was the DST in Halifax and the Air Force in Shearwater had to fly to Florida to pick up a system for one of the ships before it could deploy; so who really responded first?? You certainly didn't do it without their help ... or that of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic who provided you with the Gatling Gun to sail over with (also while I was DST) ... perhaps it is that museum who should get credit for rapidly reacting. Not to mention the 3rd line echelon - 25 CFSD and the Depot in Moncton - who fullfilled the requirements for your IORs and had drivers (in Air & Land uniforms) delivering the stuff to me at Gladstone to further be delivered to the deploying ships. Not to mention the Air Force's reaction in trafficing all those departing American aircraft through Goose Bay before our ships left the port of Halifax (or were redirected) - or the Army's rapid reaction in recalling 119 Air Defence Artillery - then based out of CFB Chatam, but working in Goose Bay providing security for the base during low-level flight protests - and placing them on your deploying ships ... yet the navy reacted first!!??" Just wow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how all THREE enviornments plus the 3rd line purple people are involved in the above?? Notice how they ALL had to rapidly react?? Notice how they ALL had to work jointly to make this happen?? Notice how that ALL happened POST Hellyer??
> 
> Enviornmental biasness will do nothing except lead to failure; credit should be given where credit is due.
> 
> Duey: +100.
Click to expand...


I'm not talking about who had to get up early and make sure parts moved to get people out the door... I'm talking about the units who actually went out the door. Both have there roles to play in the grand scheme of things, none more important than the other. The fact remains though that the first units over seas as far as I know (excluding SOF possibly) were the ships. If you can provide references that show my erroneous belief then I am a big enough person to admit I'm wrong.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Stop.
> 
> Giving it all up and all things being considered equal, then you are suggesting that individual Army UNITS (1st line) should have had to give up their names; you claim that only the AF and the navy gave it "all" up, but that the Army did not.
> 
> In order for that arguement to fly ... all of your 1st line "Units" (ie ships) would have had to be renamed and give up their "accoutrements" too; that did not happen in the Navy either - despite protestations otherwise.



To avoid the situations were into now yes I think this should have been done. Can you honestly argue that the Army came out all that different on February 2, 1968 (the day after it all happened) ?

Anyone can see we did unification half heartily and left too man holes to be exploited. Hence the mess were left with now. You either are or your not something know what I mean ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Please Everybody cool down !
> 
> First of all, I hope everyone recalls that the Fourth Element is Fire - not purple - and the Fifth was cute as a button (Go Mila!).
> 
> My point is (so no one else explains it for me) the CF has and has always had only three elements, or environments as it may: Land, Sea and Air. Best proof: we wear a D.E.U., the "E" is for Environment, and if one excepts the new fangled MP's ambiguously environmental uniform, there are only THREE sets.
> 
> This said, regardless of how the Military forces of Canada have been organized at various times, they have always worked together to achieve Canada's objectives and re-introducing the name of Royal Canadian Navy (and if someone sees fit - RCAF), should not vary in and of itself the way we are currently organized nor require that one element be set over the others in any way.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the greatest naval battle involving Canada was ultimately won as much by the Navy as by the Air Force. During WWII, the RCN did not have a Naval Air Arm. All Maritime Patrol was carried out by the RCAF but co-ordinated with the Navy. Similarly, the hunter-killer missions over the bay of Biscay and the bombing of U-boats in their harbour facilities in France and Germany was carried out by the RAF, USAAF and RCAF. In the end, the Air Forces accounted for more U-boat kills than the ships.
> 
> It is only after 1946, when we acquired HMCS WARRIOR that the RCN began, slowly at first (the first batches of pilots were RN Fleet Air Arm) to operate aircrafts. Even then, the RCN relied on the RCAF for good portion of its air patrol requirements. There was only a very short period of time, during the HMCS BONAVENTURE era where the Canadian Navy operated all of the aircrafts dedicated to the naval defence of Canada. And then we went right back to "Air Command" operating them all.
> 
> I have never had any problems working with our Air Force brethren, and CDN Aviator, whom I salute here, knows exactly how much comfort I (and most Captains I know) derive from the knowledge that we have Auroras watching over us (or that we had CF-18's during Gulf War I). As for our Army brothers, I have not had much chance to work with them but have great respect for what they do and would have no problems (given the ships to do it with) with sailing them into hell and back, should they so wish.
> 
> As for my Purple friends, to me they will always fall into one of the three environments, wether this is borne by the uniform they wear (JollyJacktar) or is merely in their heart of heart (ArmyVern).
> 
> So please, in the spirit of the season, remember that good nature ribbing between the Navy, Amy and Air Force [and all three against the purples] is always appropriate, but this thread was quickly descending into depths better left unfathomed.



OGBD, I have no issues with Air or Army personnel. In fact I encourage them to be proud of the uniform they wear and the accomplishments them and there fore bearers achieved. I think a Cpl (Army) Cook should be proud to be Army and should want to serve in the Army. Other wise whats the point of being an Army Cpl ?


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> *I'm not talking about who had to get up early and make sure parts moved to get people out the door*... I'm talking about the units who actually went out the door. Both have there roles to play in the grand scheme of things, none more important than the other. The fact remains though that the first units over seas as far as I know (excluding SOF possibly) were the ships. If you can provide references that show my erroneous belief then I am a big enough person to admit I'm wrong.



The bolded bit tells me a lot about you.

That clearly was not what my post was about.



> 7 October
> Ottawa
> Operation APOLLO begins Canada’s participation in Op ENDURING FREEDOM.
> 
> •Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announces that Canada will contribute air, land and sea forces to the international campaign against terrorism.
> •CDS Gen Ray Henault issues warning orders.





> 16 November
> 8 Wing Trenton
> The Strategic Airlift Detachment (SAL Det) deploys to Rhein-Main, Germany with one CC-150 Polaris and 43 personnel, including three flight crews and an air-cargo handling team.
> 
> 20 November
> North Arabian Sea
> HMC ships Iroquois, Charlottetown and Preserver enter the NAVCENT area of responsibility.
> 
> 26 November
> North Arabian Sea
> Cdre Robertson formally brings HMC ships Iroquois, Preserver and Charlottetown into the coalition fleet cruising just outside the 12-mile limit of Pakistan’s territorial waters.



Now, just where do you think those SAL gents were flying *to* from Germany?

http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/jtfafg-foiafg/tl01-eng.asp


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The bolded bit tells me a lot about you.
> 
> *That clearly was not what my post was about.*
> 
> 
> Now, just where do you think those SAL gents were flying *to* from Germany?
> 
> http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/jtfafg-foiafg/tl01-eng.asp



Seriously Vern, tells you allot about me ? You don't even know my name. Don't take this personally. Were allowed to disagree. 
And if you dont think I got this gist of your post then please by all means constructively show me how I missed the mark. As you will see below I will agree that I'm not always right. 

And there you have it: 


> 16 November
> 8 Wing Trenton
> The Strategic Airlift Detachment (SAL Det) deploys to Rhein-Main, Germany with one CC-150 Polaris and 43 personnel, including three flight crews and an air-cargo handling team.



I was wrong. Thank you for the correction!


----------



## Journeyman

According to your profile, YOU WEREN'T EVEN BORN for unification. 

You're claiming the same revisionist methodology that continues to screw up the Middle East and several other global wonderlands -- "you, personally, have been oppressed for thousands of years."  :crybaby:

You have a distinctive naval uniform; you are addressed as Master Seaman; the government is seriously considering changing your service's name to Canadian Navy (although there's apparently an intractable show-stopper in the form of Naval Cadet Instructors and some P1s and P2s _not_ posted to Halifax, Esquimalt, or lower Quebec City  :  ).

Let it go.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Seriously Vern, tells you allot about me ? You don't even know my name. Don't take this personally. Were allowed to disagree.
> And if you dont think I got this gist of your post then please by all means constructively show me how I missed the mark. As you will see below I will agree that I'm not always right.
> 
> And there you have it:
> I was wrong. Thank you for the correction!



I don`t take anything personally; I respect all 3 enviornments and give credit where it is due. I have no elemental bias ... I am purple and can, and have, worked with all three.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Works great when the country you are going to has a coast. When it does not, your argument is irrelevant. Just like a C-17 cannot go certain places until overflights and landing right are arranged, a ship cannot offload anywhere until such rights are arranged. So, instead of a C-17 sitting in Trenton, you have a ship sitting 3000+ miles from canada and cannot be ready for any other mission for quite some time, unlike a C-17.
> 
> You argument works both ways.



You are right about that and if it is a landlocked country then of course a ship will not be sent. 

Sigh......My original statement of using the already existing model of a armed force that provides air - land - sea services still stands. 
But it is my opinion and that and 1.45 will get you a crappy coffee at Tim Hortons.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> But it is my opinion and that and 1.45 will get you a crappy coffee at Tim Hortons.



1.80 here in Montreal dammit.


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The bolded bit tells me a lot about you.
> 
> That clearly was not what my post was about.
> 
> 
> Now, just where do you think those SAL gents were flying *to* from Germany?
> 
> http://www.cefcom.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/jtfafg-foiafg/tl01-eng.asp



correct me if I am wrong but I think that HMCS VANCOUVER was already there with a carrier battlegroup.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> According to your profile, YOU WEREN'T EVEN BORN for unification.
> 
> You're claiming the same revisionist methodology that continues to screw up the Middle East and several other global wonderlands -- "you, personally, have been oppressed for thousands of years."  :crybaby:
> 
> You have a distinctive naval uniform; you are addressed as Master Seaman; the government is seriously considering changing your service's name to Canadian Navy (although there's apparently an intractable show-stopper in the form of Naval Cadet Instructors and some P1s and P2s _not_ posted to Halifax, Esquimalt, or lower Quebec City  :  ).
> 
> Let it go.



Yes and according to your profile you've been infantry for X number of years so whats your dog in this fight ? Why do you still hold on to the traditions that you were never around to help earn in your regiment ? I ask you, what if they came down to your regiment and said its gone and its new name is 1st Regiment Of Canadian Infantry with a new cap badge and the whole shebang short of the battle honors, which if the regiment actually ceased to exist would have to laid up as well no ? Again I could be wrong here.


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> correct me if I am wrong but I think that HMCS VANCOUVER was already there with a carrier battlegroup.





> 29 October
> _ San Diego, California_ HMCS Vancouver (Cdr Jim Heath), the fifth ship of the initial roto of Op APOLLO, deploys to the North Arabian Sea with the USS John C. Stennis Carrier Battle Group. When she reaches the area of operations, Vancouver will be part of Task Group 307.1 for the purposes of the Canadian chain of command while operating with the Stennis group.



She was with the carrier group in San Diego and deployed to the Gulf from there on 29 Oct according to DND`s site.


----------



## George Wallace

FSTO said:
			
		

> correct me if I am wrong but I think that HMCS VANCOUVER was already there with a carrier battlegroup.



Unknown to all the other Elements, Canadian Naval officers in the Halifax Wardroom have hidden away a crystal ball.  While in NDHQ the CDI is asking his secretary what the 'Magic 8 Ball' is saying.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Sigh......My original statement of using the already existing model of a armed force that provides air - land - sea services still stands.



There are no such models.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> .....so whats your dog in this fight ?


Well, some sailor(s) suggested that all of the CF's problems stem from Hellyer and that if we'd only adopt the flawless USN/USMC model, all would be well. I felt a need to point out some of the fallacy involved.



> ...what if they came down to your regiment and said its gone....


Actually, I've had a Regiment disbanded around me; my world still turns and I seldom wear sackcloth anymore.


----------



## George Wallace

Going back to 1968; The Royal Canadian Regiment still existed in the Land forces, the HMCS Bonaventure still existed in the Sea Element and the Airforce still had numbered Squadrons.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think the point FSTO is trying to make is that As a "service", if you will, the Navy was the first to deploy and get on station after the attacks of 911. I believe the PPCLI Battle Group didn't deploy until Oct/Nov...Well the HMCS Iroquois, Preserver, Toronto and Halifax all left 10 days after the fall of the towers. I could be wrong FSTO but is that was your getting at ?



Toronto ummm I think you mean Charlottetown. Halifax was already deployed with SNMG1 and met the rest of the Canadian Task Group in theatre.

I see Vern corrected HTs with reply 547. Thanks Vern.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Going back to 1968; The Royal Canadian Regiment still existed in the Land forces, the HMCS Bonaventure still existed in the Sea Element and the Airforce still had numbered Squadrons.



I think that Halifax Tar is failing to recognize the difference between a "1st line unit" and the whole of the entity known as the "Army" ... in that he is insitant that the Army would only have been treated "the same" during unification if their 1st line Units had been disbanded ... meanwhile that didn't even occur within the Navy's 1st line units (their ships); funny that.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, some sailor(s) suggested that all of the CF's problems stem from Hellyer and that if we'd only adopt the flawless USN/USMC model, all would be well. I felt a need to point out some of the fallacy involved.
> 
> Actually, I've had a Regiment disbanded around me; my world still turns and I seldom wear sackcloth anymore.



I didn't say disband the regiment I said renaming it and taking away all of the bling and things that make a regiment have an identity. I am sure the RCRs, PPCLI and the rest would be peeved to put it lightly and I think you would see the same efforts put for by those groups of people to reclaim what they lost or was lost before them. \\

Again if you cant see the damage that Hellyer and his ideas did to the Canadian military then perhaps you need to look around a little harder. Or take it as truth when the Navy says we want some things back. Or perhaps this just illustrates my point of how the Army was less effected by unification than the other two services.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Toronto ummm I think you mean Charlottetown. Halifax was already deployed with SNMG1 and met the rest of the Canadian Task Group in theatre.
> 
> I see Vern corrected HTs with reply 547. Thanks Vern.



I wasn't sure on this one thanks again!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar: I was serving in the mid 1960s when all this stuff that is now (usually misrepresented) mythology happened. We all got punched in the _buttons and bows_ gut, honoured traditions were cast aside left, right and centre: Navy, Army and Air Force.

I would argue that we, in the Canadian Army, may have suffered more than the Navy and Air Force combined. We lost a good, solid, workable unit/personnel administration and management system - that had been proven to work in peace and war - and had it replaced with a load of crap that was, _circa_ 1965, still under development in the Navy and, to a greater extent, the Air Force. It was a _fixed station_ type of system that was difficult - often impossible - to move, seamlessly, when Army field units deployed. It was a system that, for many of us at the _paperwork_ "sharp end" (I was Acting Adjutant of my unit for several months in 1966/67), confirmed our somewhat jaded views that the Navy and Air Force cared much about their equipment but not too much about their people - that's when I first learned that adage that "the Navy and Air Force man the equipment, the Army equips the man." Of course it's not (totally) true, but it tells you a lot about what we went through.

I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing about the evils of _integration/unification_ from people who know way too little about it.

We, Canadians and DND, were in fiscally difficult times in the 1960s and the costs of national defence were rising at rates that _waaaaay_ exceeded anything like a manageable level - defence related inflation is, normally, several points higher than the _national_ rates. We were not terribly well organized, either. Our American and British friends had already _unified_ - *joint* staffs and commands, etc. They, and others, had also taken some innovative cost cutting measures - albeit not as bad as the Brits are taking right now. We needed to do something similar. Mr. Hellyer got the job - I believe he asked for in order to earn a feather for a leadership cap by doing something spectacular. Mr. Hellyer's team ignored much, maybe even most, of the good work and analysis that had been done in the US, especially, and launched us on a half-baked _integration_ (not _unification_) process. (Those words actually have meanings in some military lexicons.) We have, gradually, corrected some of the cosmetic errors but we have failed, miserably in my opinion, to deal with the real organizational problems - and changing the Navy's name is irrelevant to them.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I think that Halifax Tar is failing to recognize the difference between a "1st line unit" and the whole of the entity known as the "Army" ... in that he is insitant that the Army would only have been treated "the same" during unification if their 1st line Units had been disbanded ... meanwhile that didn't even occur within the Navy's 1st line units (their ships); funny that.



I never said disbanded I said renamed. So tell me what did the Army loose with unification ? Other than officer rank insignia.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Halifax Tar: I was serving in the mid 1960s when all this stuff that is now (usually misrepresented) mythology happened. We all got punched in the _buttons and bows_ gut, honoured traditions were cast aside left, right and centre: Navy, Army and Air Force.
> 
> I would argue that we, in the Canadian Army, may have suffered more than the Navy and Air Force combined. We lost a good, solid, workable unit/personnel administration and management system - that had been proven to work in peace and war - and had it replaced with a load of crap that was, _circa_ 1965, still under development in the Navy and, to a greater extent, the Air Force. It was a _fixed station_ type of system that was difficult - often impossible - to move, seamlessly, when Army field units deployed. It was a system that, for many of us at the _paperwork_ "sharp end" (I was Acting Adjutant of my unit for several months in 1966/67), confirmed our somewhat jaded views that the Navy and Air Force cared much about their equipment but not too much about their people - that's when I first learned that adage that "the Navy and Air Force man the equipment, the Army equips the man." Of course it's not (totally) true, but it tells you a lot about what we went through.
> 
> I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing about the evils of _integration/unification_ from people who know way too little about it.
> 
> We, Canadians and DND, were in fiscally difficult times in the 1960s and the costs of national defence were rising at rates that _waaaaay_ exceeded anything like a manageable level - defence related inflation is, normally, several points higher than the _national_ rates. We were not terribly well organized, either. Our American and British friends had already _unified_ - *joint* staffs and commands, etc. They, and others, had also taken some innovative cost cutting measures - albeit not as bad as the Brits are taking right now. We needed to do something similar. Mr. Hellyer got the job - I believe he asked for in order to earn a feather for a leadership cap by doing something spectacular. Mr. Hellyer's team ignored much, maybe even most, of the good work and analysis that had been done in the US, especially, and launched us on a half-baked _integration_ (not _unification_) process. (Those words actually have meanings in some military lexicons.) We have, gradually, corrected some of the cosmetic errors but we have failed, miserably in my opinion, to deal with the real organizational problems - and changing the Navy's name is irrelevant to them.



Thank you for your insight E.R. Campbell! That was a great post!


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I never said disbanded I said renamed. So tell me what did the Army loose with unification ? Other than officer rank insignia.



I think you are over-dramatizing what the Navy lost as part of unification.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I didn't say disband the regiment I said renaming it and taking away all of the bling and things that make a regiment have an identity. I am sure The RCR, PPCLI and the rest would be peeved to put it lightly and I think you would see the same efforts put for by those groups of people to reclaim what they lost or was lost before them. \\
> 
> Again if you cant see the damage that Hellyer and his ideas did to the Canadian military then perhaps you need to look around a little harder. Or take it as truth when the Navy says we want some things back. Or perhaps this just illustrates my point of how the Army was less effected by unification than the other two services.



OK.  FULL STOP!

You are showing us that you know absolutely nothing about Canadian military history.  Canadian Army units were disbanded, Reduced to Nil strength and renamed/re-badged.  The Canadian Guards were reduced to Nil Strength.  The Black Watch Bn in Gagetown were re-badged to 2 Bn of The RCR, the remainder disbanded and perpetuated only in a Montreal Reserve unit.  The Fort Garry Horse were stricken from the rolls, as were the Queen's Own Rifles, being perpetuated by their Reserve Units.  It was less than twenty years ago that the 8th Canadian Hussars (PL) were stricken from the Order of Battle, and exist only today as the 8th Canadian Hussars (M).  

How many ships has the Navy seen decommissioned and others commissioned or recommissioned?  We can bring the Airforce into this as well with whole Squadrons being Stood Down and others being Reactivated.   I have yet to see any Regular Force Army units brought back into the Order of Battle.  Reactivation of the Halifax Rifles does not fill that bill.

If you are going to spew on about the history of Canadian military units, at least know something about Canadian military history.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK.  FULL STOP!
> 
> You are showing us that you know absolutely nothing about Canadian military history.  Canadian Army units were disbanded, Reduced to Nil strength and renamed/re-badged.  The Canadian Guards were reduced to Nil Strength.  The Black Watch Bn in Gagetown were re-badged to 2 Bn of The RCR, the remainder disbanded and perpetuated only in a Montreal Reserve unit.  The Fort Garry Horse were stricken from the rolls, as were the Queen's Own Rifles, being perpetuated by their Reserve Units.  It was less than twenty years ago that the 8th Canadian Hussars (PL) were stricken from the Order of Battle, and exist only today as the 8th Canadian Hussars (M).
> 
> How many ships has the Navy seen decommissioned and others commissioned or recommissioned?  We can bring the Airforce into this as well with whole Squadrons being Stood Down and others being Reactivated.   I have yet to see any Regular Force Army units brought back into the Order of Battle.  Reactivation of the Halifax Rifles does not fill that bill.
> 
> If you are going to spew on about the history of Canadian military units, at least know something about Canadian military history.




That all occurred at the end of the '60s as part of Trudeau's _disarmament_/get out of Europe plan, that only became clear in the 1970 foreign policy White Paper. Hellyer and _integration/unification_ were not to blame.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> There are no such models.



In your opinion.

In my opinion there is.

Once again opinions are like rear ends everyone has one.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yes there is.



name it. It is not found anywhere in the US thats for sure.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> name it. It is not found anywhere in the US thats for sure.



Royal Navy
FAA
Royal Marines


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> Royal Navy
> FAA
> Royal Marines



Far from it. Even more so now. The RN ( including the FAA and RM) cannot fill its role without significant resources from the RAF and the army ( who supply the engineers and artillery for the RM).

You can continue to put this and the USN/USCM up on a pedestal as models we should follow but it does not adress the fact that these models do not incorporate all the functions we currently employ. Your contention is flawed because of it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I really like the name Royal Canadian Navy. It has a certain ring to it. As to the Air element, I can live with the old RCAF moniker also.


Oooopps. Sorry. Am I in the wrong thread??

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> I really like the name Royal Canadian Navy. It has a certain ring to it. As to the Air element, I can live with the old RCAF moniker also.
> 
> 
> Oooopps. Sorry. Am I in the wrong thread??
> 
> :




Nope, but the topic is metastasizing spreading - even into the Navy threads.


----------



## dapaterson

What we really need is the RCE.  Everything else is secondary.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What we really need is the RCE.  Everything else is secondary.




No, no, no ... it's been well established that only the act of putting mortars back into the infantry battalion will cause the {___ insert your name for the _anointed one_ here ___} to come down to/up from the {delete which not applicable} earth and redeem us all.


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Far from it. Even more so now. The RN ( including the FAA and RM) cannot fill its role without significant resources from the RAF and the army ( who supply the engineers and artillery for the RM).
> 
> You can continue to put this and the USN/USCM up on a pedestal as models we should follow but it does not adress the fact that these models do not incorporate all the functions we currently employ. Your contention is flawed because of it.



...... : 
Does the Royal Navy sail ships - yes
Does the FAA fly aircraft - yes
Does the Royal Marines go ashore and fight on land - yes

Did I ever say that the CF attain only the capability that the RN has - No

Did I say that we should or could have used the RN or even the USN/USMC as a basic model to use to constitute our armed forces - yes.


----------



## aesop081

FSTO said:
			
		

> ...... :
> Does the Royal Navy sail ships - yes
> Does the FAA fly aircraft - yes
> Does the Royal Marines go ashore and fight on land - yes



Roll your eyes all you wish, it does not change that you are oversimplifying. You truly exemplify "100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress". Once the name is changed but our Navy stays the same, what will you blame for the navy's woes ?


----------



## garb811

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> OGBD, I have no issues with Air or Army personnel. In fact I encourage them to be proud of the uniform they wear and the accomplishments them and there fore bearers achieved. I think a Cpl (Army) Cook should be proud to be Army and should want to serve in the Army. Other wise whats the point of being an Army Cpl ?



This is the point where the purple trades have the issue with your argument.  We do not get to choose what DEU we wear.  We are forced into DEU based on an artificial allocation of the number of uniforms the Branch is required to wear of each environment due to the demands of the ECS that each environment be represented in the purple trades.  Renaming Maritime Command to Royal Canadian Navy is not going to instill any additional pride in someone wearing the naval DEU if the only reason they are wearing it is because that was the environment they were allocated when DEU was rolled out (for us dinosaurs) or the choice they were given at the recruiting center was to accept the naval DEU or turn down the entire offer.

Maybe the simplest solution to the purple trades objections is to allow us to choose which element we identify with.  Allow us to actually choose the DEU we wish to wear, even if we do end up serving at a base which is not the element we wish to "identify" with through our choice of DEU, that simple step will bring a good number in the purple trades enormous satisfaction and greatly increase their pride in their uniform.  Of course there are a large number in the purple trades who could care less about what DEU they are wearing as they have not formed any kind of "bond" to any of the environmental commands and to them, it's just another uniform they put on when so ordered and nothing is probably going to change that.

Ref the same tired cracks about OPD; again, the MP Branch is singled out for something that is not unique to the Branch.  Funny how I've yet to hear any complaints about the cooks wearing white while working in the kitchen or the Medical Branch wearing scrubs in the OR or the Dental Branch wearing scrubs while working in the dental clinic or mechanics/vehicle crews wearing overalls when turning wrenches, or the Chaplain Branch wearing vestments while conducting services  etc...  OPD serves a specific purpose and it is worn only while wearing duties which require MP to wear it, the same as every other trade with an occupational dress.  Give it up.


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I fail to see what your saying please educate me. I am sure SOF guys went in riki-tic but that is not a representation of a service in the traditional means, I.E. Land, Air, Sea.



Riki-tic, indeed -- and in fact collaboratively helped there on the wings of the Air Force!  

SOF within the CF had grown to be an identifiable formation and force generator in its own right -- current CF org charts show four principle force generators, CMS, CLS, CAS and Comd CANSOFCOM.  As with other nations who take their national security, influence and projection of State power seriously (at times through Naval Power, when appropriate) so too have those nations raised and maintained SOF within their armed forces.  

This doesn't mean that the Navy didn't contribute meaningfully to OP APOLLO in the Gulf, but it was neither the first to deploy, nor to project National Power (even if not everyone knew such power was being projected).




			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> ...I know that there are still budget fights between services. In fact *the RCN had greater fights between Surface Officers and Naval Air then they had with the RCAF and Army*.



 ???   ...and you were trying to make the case for the Navy taking the lead in a bold new integrated CF?




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thanks for clarifying. I never considered SOF as an "environment/element", to me they are just  people from the Army/Navy/Air Force working together within *an "ad-hoc" organization*.



Ad-hoc?   ???

Either this is good-natured nautical ribbing, or a serious lack of awareness of a fundamental capability within the CF.  I certainly hope it's the former, not the latter.  




			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ...The fact remains though that the first units over seas as far as I know (excluding SOF possibly) were the ships. If you can provide references that show my erroneous belief then I am a big enough person to admit I'm wrong.



Negative.  

Days after 9/11, an 8 Wing Trenton CC130 dropped a detachment of JTF 2 in Kandahar to commence SR (strategic reconnaissance) missions, shaping the way for commencement of direct action (DA) missions against Al Qaida targets in AFG.  That mission (since modified, but never stood down) remains the longest standing Canadian mission in AFG.

Reference:  The Navy's own VAdm (Ret'd) Maddison (DCDS on 9/11 and first Honourary Commandant of CANSOFCOM) on 8 Dec 2010, in his closing remarks to the CANSOFCOM !st Annual Symposium held at Royal Military College of Canada.


To those who preach the benefit of the Navy's "Sail now, plan later" doctrine, it looks good on the Jetty while the band plays and love ones wave goodbye as the ships set sail, but it does nothing for those in distress for a full week (12th [earthquake] until 19 Jan 2010 [ATH and HAL arrive]).

Interestingly, when it comes to Haiti, do you know who the first CF pers were who actually left Canadian soil (hint: not ATH or HAL   )?  If you said DART Recce Tm within 24 hours of the quake, including ground SAR rescue/recovery teams, and the 3 R22eR Advance Party on the 14th (doing their thing for five days before the Navy showed up with the main body of the 3 R22eR).
[ref: OP HETIA facts and figures]


The comments above are not to belittle the Navy's contribution to CF operations around the world; however, the "we do it better, we should lead the charge" rhetoric can get mighty thick when Her Majesty's Senior Service of Canada get involved.  It's great that most if not all members of the Navy are fiercely proud of the service's contributions to Canada's place in the world.  It gets a bit tiring though, when the "maritime blindness" by others as preached by the CMS and his acolytes in the recent past are in fact the other way around, where it appears the lack of awareness of other elements and formations contributions to CF ops seems almost endemic within the Navy.

In summary, Navy, Army, Air Force, SOF and specialist formations all contribute to CF ops, no matter what any of them are called.  I know of none in the Air Force so vehemently in support of the re-establishment (re-naming) of Air Command/1 CAD Wings and units within a "new RCAF" as demonstrated by those in the Navy for a re-named RCN.

Yours aye,
G2G


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I know of none in the Air Force so vehemently in support of the re-establishment (re-naming) of Air Command/1 CAD Wings and units within a "new RCAF" as demonstrated by those in the Navy for a re-named RCN.



Most of are smart enough to realize that such a change would be nothing more than window dressing just like blue T-shirts and blue rank insignias didn't change anything.

If the navy wants to truly inspire its members, the junior ones in particular, it probably would have better effect to stop treating them like crap.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Most of are smart enough to realize that such a change would be nothing more than window dressing just like blue T-shirts and blue rank insignias didn't change anything.
> 
> If the navy wants to truly inspire its members, the junior ones in particular, it probably would have better effect to stop treating them like crap.



What?   

Belay the rum, buggery and lash? What would become of the modern navy? ;D


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Most of are smart enough to realize that such a change would be nothing more than window dressing just like blue T-shirts and blue rank insignias didn't change anything.
> 
> If the navy wants to truly inspire its members, the junior ones in particular, it probably would have better effect to stop treating them like crap.



Sorry we can't quite fit 5 star state rooms into a frigate, or is it that the hands have to clean heads, swab decks and keep the ship clean? I guess we don't have the ability to keep cleaning staff locked on the ship.

Or maybe its because of the constant pier head jumping, lack of promotions and picking up the slack for folks who are landed because they are unfit sea. But what have you heard that is the reason that the Navy is so fubard, besides the generic comment that the sailors are treated like crap.


----------



## aesop081

recceguy said:
			
		

> What?



I know, heressy right ?



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Sorry we can't quite fit 5 star state rooms into a frigate, or is it that the hands have to clean heads, swab decks and keep the ship clean? I guess we don't have the ability to keep cleaning staff locked on the ship.



You dont have to convince me about accomodations on ships or having to do cleaning stations. That stuff is just the way it is and someone has to clean the ship. i'm argumentative but i'm not stupid. That being said, even the wardroom can clean its own heads.

Royal or not, i doubt any lower-decker is going to care as long as they are forced to live in places like Atlantic block. That place should be condemned but who cares, the Wardroom and C&POs are pretty well take care of. Take a walk into the Timmies in Stad and watch the looks of disdain you get when you are an MS and below.....i have never seen anything like it.

"You can park  here ( close to work) if you have this much rank/TI".............One of the dumb rules. Let your troops park close to work and let the seniors walk. Its not a question of "i did my time, i earned my perks".........look after you troops first.

The Royal canadian Navy will still have the same old ships, same old attitudes and the same rentention problems. Its ok, my trade feeds of the junior sailors who say "enough".


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO-

You know that is not what Cdn Aviator meant.

I am in the Air Force, but have served in more than a few of HMC Ships.  I have served on happy ships.  I have served on unhappy ships.  Neither kind had "5 star staterooms".  Both kind featured MS and below doing cleaning stations, twice per day.  Both kind had their fair share of "pier head jumpers".

So what, then, do suppose was the one, major difference between a happy ship and an unhappy ship?

Leadership.

Well lead soldiers, sailors and airmen will put up with all sorts of discomfort and inconvenience, for an awefully long time.  Poorly lead people will rebel in a five star hotel.

The Leadership in the Navy varies in quality, just like it varies throughout the Army and Air Force.  No one service has a monopoly on leadership.

Now, what was  the point of this thread again?


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...
> Now, what was  the point of this thread again?




Pioneer platoons (divisions?) for the Navy?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oh- I thought it was grenade launchers vs mortars.

Silly me.


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Oh- I thought it was grenade launchers vs mortars.
> 
> Silly me.




Hush! You'll wake up the dreaded TechnoViking with that sort of talk.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I know, heressy right ?
> 
> You dont have to convince me about accomodations on ships or having to do cleaning stations. That stuff is just the way it is and someone has to clean the ship. i'm argumentative but i'm not stupid. That being said, even the wardroom can clean its own heads.
> 
> Royal or not, i doubt any lower-decker is going to care as long as they are forced to live in places like Atlantic block. That place should be condemned but who cares, the Wardroom and C&POs are pretty well take care of. Take a walk into the Timmies in Stad and watch the looks of disdain you get when you are an MS and below.....i have never seen anything like it.
> 
> "You can park  here ( close to work) if you have this much rank/TI".............One of the dumb rules. Let your troops park close to work and let the seniors walk. Its not a question of "i did my time, i earned my perks".........look after you troops first.
> 
> The Royal canadian Navy will still have the same old ships, same old attitudes and the same rentention problems. Its ok, my trade feeds of the junior sailors who say "enough".



+1000 well said Pat.


----------



## Scott

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Royal canadian Navy will still have the same old ships, same old attitudes and the same rentention problems. Its ok, my trade feeds of the junior sailors who say "enough".



The Royal Canadian Navy, er, Maritime Command, er, the guys with boats....

...100 years of tradition, uninhibted by change.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> To avoid the situations were into now yes I think this should have been done. Can you honestly argue that the Army came out all that different on February 2, 1968 (the day after it all happened) ?





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I didn't say disband the regiment I said renaming it and taking away all of the bling and things that make a regiment have an identity. I am sure the RCRs, PPCLI and the rest would be peeved to put it lightly and I think you would see the same efforts put for by those groups of people to reclaim what they lost or was lost before them.


Stop fighting about why you have more pee in your corn flakes.  Just like the Royal Canadian Navy ceased to exist, so to did the Canadian Army cease to exist.  Just as the regiments continued to exist, the named HMCS ships continued to sail with their respective identities.

While the regiments of the infantry and armoured continued to exist, most of the Army's other arms/services/corps were mashed together with their nearest counterparts of the two other former services.

Today, it really does not matter.  The CF has evolved and grown to the point that reverting to that old three service structure would be a disastrous flop from which we would gain nothing and take decades again to recover.  Maybe we can drop that foolish urinal-side light-sabre contest now?

If re-naming Maritime Command will make you feel warn and happy inside, then fill your boots.  Refighting unification is a waste of bandwidth and every the time of everyone who reads this thread.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ad-hoc?   ???
> 
> Either this is good-natured nautical ribbing, or a serious lack of awareness of a fundamental capability within the CF.  I certainly hope it's the former, not the latter.



Neither. For the enlightenment of those who have not had the chance (or like me were forced) to study latin in college, "Ad-Hoc" literally translates as "for this" and is now used in current language to mean: "for the specific purpose of".  And that is exactly what the special forces are: The SBS has a specific task, which is different than the one carried out by the SAS; the Delta Force has a specific purpose that is different than the SEAL's . JTF2 has a specific training aimed at specific tasks. None of these are "general purpose" forces covering within their organization all functions related to their element, like the Army, Navy or Air Forces do. My original comment was only meant to describe MHO that they are not a fourth "element/environment". It diminishes neither their accomplishments nor their capability. The fact that the CF considers them as a fourth "force generator" is irrelevant to their description as an "environment".

On the other hand, I have to side with CDN Aviator and SeaKingTacco: There are happy ships and unhappy ships - the difference is leadership - and this leadership has a lot (everything?) to do with treating even the lowliest seaman with respect and making sure that everyone gets shafted and is seen to get shafted equally when circumstances warrant.


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Hush! You'll wake up the dreaded TechnoViking with that sort of talk.



My ears were burning!  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My ears were burning!  ;D




As well they should. Despite the name of this forum the *real issue*, defined above by SKT, is that some sort of tarted up grenade will replace the mortar ... that's right isn't it?  >


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As well they should. Despite the name of this forum the *real issue*, defined above by SKT, is that some sort of tarted up grenade will replace the mortar ... that's right isn't it?  >



And then the Gunners will steal them!


----------



## FSTO

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I know, heressy right ?
> 
> You dont have to convince me about accomodations on ships or having to do cleaning stations. That stuff is just the way it is and someone has to clean the ship. i'm argumentative but i'm not stupid. That being said, even the wardroom can clean its own heads.
> 
> Royal or not, i doubt any lower-decker is going to care as long as they are forced to live in places like Atlantic block. That place should be condemned but who cares, the Wardroom and C&POs are pretty well take care of. Take a walk into the Timmies in Stad and watch the looks of disdain you get when you are an MS and below.....i have never seen anything like it.
> 
> "You can park  here ( close to work) if you have this much rank/TI".............One of the dumb rules. Let your troops park close to work and let the seniors walk. Its not a question of "i did my time, i earned my perks".........look after you troops first.
> 
> The Royal canadian Navy will still have the same old ships, same old attitudes and the same rentention problems. Its ok, my trade feeds of the junior sailors who say "enough".



There are plans in the works to replace Atlantic Block and Nelles Block on the west coast, but I dare say that Wardroom West and Wardroom & Chiefs and PO's East were in worse shape and needed to be replaced as well. Improvements (within a limited budget) have been made but the ultimate goal is to replace those two accomodation blocks. But you all must know that DND faces a huge infrastructure defecit and some things will take the priority over others.

Despite what seems to be the prevalent attitude here, there is no great conspiracy within the Wardroom and 3 mess to keep the MS & Below under our thumb, sometimes feelings will get hurt to get the job done. But good leaders will do what it takes to complete the mission and keep sailors intrests in the forefront as much as possible.

As for your trade feeding off of disgruntled sailors, good for you. Some would like a change of scenery, some may not like going to sea, and some would be pissed off no matter what would be done for them. The Navy is sorry to see them go but in the end it is a personal choice.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Neither. For the enlightenment of those who have not had the chance (or like me were forced) to study latin in college, "Ad-Hoc" literally translates as "for this" and is now used in current language to mean: "for the specific purpose of".  And that is exactly what the special forces are: The SBS has a specific task, which is different than the one carried out by the SAS; the Delta Force has a specific purpose that is different than the SEAL's . JTF2 has a specific training aimed at specific tasks. None of these are "general purpose" forces covering within their organization all functions related to their element, like the Army, Navy or Air Forces do. My original comment was only meant to describe MHO that they are not a fourth "element/environment". It diminishes neither their accomplishments nor their capability. The fact that the CF considers them as a fourth "force generator" is irrelevant to their description as an "environment"...



Okay, I'll play your semantical game OGBD, re: "_Ad hoc_".  You say it is "_used in current language to mean: "for the specific purpose of"..._"  You (should) know full well that in today's CF lexicon, it in fact means 'cobbled together' or 'piece-mealed together' for a mission or task where no capability was previously organized or prepared to act.  An _ad hoc _force in no way embodies the 'TASK FORCE' concept that you are implying.  To go by your definition, then the Navy is merely a _potestas ad hoc mare_.  Based on that, I don't think any such ad hoc organization, hundreds of years of tradition notwithstanding, should be considered to lead the overall CF.

Furthermore, the fact that CANSOFCOM has four standing TASK FORCES clearly invalidates your argument that SOF is an _ad hoc_ organization.  Others recognize it for what it is, an organization within the CF that force generates and, whether under command of Comd Canada COM, Comd CEFCOM or directly under the CDS, force employs a range of specialized capabilities within a standing multiple Task Force structure.  The Command and its subordinate units have a SOF-specific ethos underneath the greater CF ethos umbrella, they indentify as a group and have outward identification that indicates such, while relatively recent themselves, they have a strong history and perpetuation of previous Canadian special forces units.  Sounds pretty 'environmental' to me, but then again, perhaps I am biased from having actually worked with them for close to two decades, vice sitting back from a distance, loftily expounding on what they 'actually are'.

You can argue whether or not Canadian special operations forces represent an environment unto themselves until you're blue in the face, but remember, you should be consistent in your argumentation.  If sailors will argue that the Navy is an environment beyond a mere "Maritime Command" because there is a rich history, traditions, unique characteristics and a sailors' spirit of camaraderie within a large family of seafarers,  then it would certainly seem that although young, Canadian SOF mirrors an equivalent set of beliefs, unique capabilities and history.  To make you happy, I shant call it an "Environment" since the Navy already scooped black uniforms, and only a portion of CANSOF personnel wear such "environmentally distinctive" garb.  

I yield to the wisdom of a salty old member of the _potestas ad hoc mare_.  


Yours aye,
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

It's good to see another "Deckchairs, this is Titanic.  Reorg now!" type discussion.

Perhaps a more interesting question would be why an organization of 9000 Reg F pers (per Wikipedia) can't man its 21 major vessels.  By my math, 100% manning of all 21 would take less than half that number:

DDH x3 = 280 x 3 = 840
FFHx12 = 225 x 12 = 2700
SSKx4 = 47 x 4 = 178
AORx2 = 365 x 2 = 730

Total  = 4448, all ranks

(And note that all those numbers include air dets which come from Air Command).

So, with all ships fully manned, Maritime Command still has over 4500 sailors to operate bases at Halifax, Esquimalt, Quebec City and a HQ in Ottawa, run schools, have a couple of bands... yet, somehow, the ships of the line lack crews.

Seems to me the problem isn't the name - it's the overall organization and leadership that somehow can't fill ships.


(And similar arguments could be made for the Army as well, I acknowledge - 20K+ Reg F and an inability to sustain the current level of deployment without significant Reserve augmentation suggests some widespread dysfunction there as well)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

G2G: Robin Hood: "What is this hatred, Will Scarlet. Did I slight you in another life?"

If you feel slighted because I used English instead of DNDese, then I offer my sincerest apology. I have an unbelievable respect for SOF and what they do - I could never do that myself - and my point has never been about traditions, history, camaraderie and so forth, which SOF possess like every other military unit.

And Dataperson, you left out the Air Force, I noted, even though it has the smallest ratio of "flying personnel" to other personnel supporting them of the three (main  ) elements and also claim they are short on people to do what it is they do. Let me give you another math problem to put things in perspective (its naval - my bias, sorry -but I think it would work in all elements): The Royal Navy has 35,000 regulars for 39 major vessels requiring 10,800 seaman and claim to be shothanded: calculate the ratio; they must be way more disorganized and poorly led than we are. Truth is, and I know you know this, just comparing such figures is not the way to look at organization.

Also, this discussion (originally anyway) is not about reorganization. Nobody has asked for a reorganization and the Senate Committee does not call for such a thing.

I remember when we went back to black (from the old green) uniform: no reorganization then, but still, every one in hard sea trades walked a little taller, a little prouder - we were fighting one another to be first to get it. I look at the fight to be first with the executive curl last summer: same thing. And again, greater pride without reorganization. We all know that in a military setting, these little intangibles make a big difference in esprit de corps, pride of service and generally in a feeling of belonging and recognition that leads to performing the extraordinary. So no one is asking for anything to be reorganized, but if evacuating the last vestiges of Maritime Command from our vocabulary and use (Royal) Canadian Navy instead brings a little more pride and esprit de corps, then why not go for it? (and yes, if they so wish, let anybody in a naval uniform but working outside that command use it too at their discretion).


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I remember when we went back to black (from the old green) uniform: no reorganization then, but still, every one in hard sea trades walked a little taller, a little prouder - we were fighting one another to be first to get it. I look at the fight to be first with the executive curl last summer: same thing. And again, greater pride without reorganization.


? Emotional self-reinforcement through application of the peacock theory?


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> G2G: Robin Hood: "What is this hatred, Will Scarlet. Did I slight you in another life?"


Not that I want to play this apparent sailor game of translating for one-another, when speaking clearly in the first place would have sufficed.....


But the point, to which I also objected (although G2G's response was more eloquent) was


> For the enlightenment of those who have not had the chance (or like me were forced) to study latin in college, "Ad-Hoc" literally translates as "for this" *and is now used in current language to mean...*


...demonstrates that you haven't the vaguest idea how language is _currently_ used. I suspect your response would have appeased a law school professor or same random Benedictine monk, but if you're going to base a response on contemporary linguistics, you may want to spend some time in the real world; failing that, feel free to resort to _~shudder~_ wikipedia.

G2G's response.....  [dare I say it?]  "+1"


----------



## quadrapiper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> (and yes, if they so wish, let anybody in a naval uniform but working outside that command use it too at their discretion).


Seems like this might have the biggest morale-boosting impact for people outside of the naval world; MS Bloggins working in CFB Comox Accom, say. "I'm a (branch/trade) in the RCN/CN posted to (something not naval)" seems like it has a bit more punch than "I'm a (branch/trade) who wears Navy DEU, posted to (something not naval)."

Adds another concrete entity to identify with, especially if the branch or trade doesn't have a strong presence or identity.

Speaking to my own lane, if this conceptual RCN were to extend to all Naval DEU-wearers, there'd probably be an identity/morale boost for Sea CIC pers: an association with the parent service (would that still be a dirty word?). Anything that gets SLt Bloggins at a corps in Middle Of Nowhere, Northern Alberta mentally connected with the Navy, and thus the CF, is a good thing.

Plus, Lt Bloggins, RCN, sounds so much better than Lt(N) Bloggins.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Journeyman said:
			
		

> but if you're going to base a response on contemporary linguistics, you may want to spend some time in the real world; failing that, feel free to resort to _~shudder~_ wikipedia.



J: Taken from Wikipedia (feel free to check it out): "Ad hoc is a Latin phrase which, literally, means "For this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and which cannot be adapted to other purposes.

Common examples are organizations, committees, and commissions created at the national or international level for a specific task. In other fields the term may refer, for example, to a military unit created under special circumstances, tailor-made suit, a handcrafted network protocol, or a purpose-specific equation. Ad hoc can also have connotations of a makeshift solution, inadequate planning, or improvised events."

Again: Please people, do not confuse improper use of English within the Military for the proper meaning in the rest of the population. These forums are open to everyone. Besides, I suspect that the use to which G2G refers is not in any official DND lexicon - but I may be wrong here as I do not have access to them (I am a civilian now!) - I simply do not recall seeing the word "ad-hoc" defined in any military document I have seen in my carreer.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Alright. If it weren't so far off track already, this thread has now gone totally beyond stupid.

The original intent is now meaningless, thanks to all the extraneous bullshit discussions, including the one directly above.

So get your cheap shots of ridiculousness in now, because this is heading for a lock.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Thank you Recceguy: I concur.


----------



## dowadiddy

I feel I must join this forum and comment on the subject at hand.  Retired now, after 38 years of service, I can’t be accused of being a staff officer with nothing better to do. Yes, of course there are more important things to worry about with our country at war and soldiers’ welfare does come first, however, CF members all wear uniforms adorned with various symbols.  Somebody has to decide what those symbols should be.  I don’t think it is at all frivolous that persons of any rank have ideas for different uniform symbols (badges, medals, etc).  If we don’t pay any attention to this sort of thing, then we deserve what we get.  Quite frankly, based on I have seen happen with our uniforms and accoutrements over the past four decades, I wish more people had taken more time to really consider the ramifications of decisions made perhaps too quickly.   I think this forum is the perfect place for all and sundry to have their say.   Having said that, I am now prepared to be criticized, mocked and  otherwise be made the subject of derision for what I am about offer. 

	Firstly, I don’t like the idea of going back to stars/pips and crowns.  While the British left us with some great traditions (mess dinners, regimental system, drill format), I don’t think we need to revert to an old set of rank badges when what we have now is perfectly fine. The “current stripe system” should remain. It’s uniquely Canadian, it’s sensible, it’s simple and simple to understand by anyone not familiar with Canadian rank structure and I don’t think it could ever go out of fashion.  The only change I might make is to simply move the stripes to the DEU epaulettes, make them actual gold coloured metal or wire braided bars, about the size of the CADPAT slip-on stripes. I’d have to see a prototype of this myself to see if it looked more impressive that the current manner.   	

	If a decision is made to return to pips/stars and crowns, PLEEAASSE, for the love of God, do not replace the pips with maple leaves.  The Canadian Maple Leaf is the best and should be viewed as the most sacred national symbol in the world.  Yet, the CF overuses it to the point where it becomes a source of humour to civilians and foreign military members.  I’ve experienced that a couple of times.  What other country splatters its unique national symbol around on its uniforms so frivolously as we do?  Think about it.   The Maple Leaf should be reserved for those few badges that require a national level identifier; and on our most prestigious medals/decorations like the OMM or our highest award for gallantry – The Victoria Cross.  Oh, right!  The “uniquely Canadian” VC doesn’t include our sacred national symbol.  Interesting.  

	While I suggest no change to officer badges of rank, I do have a proposal for new NCM rank badges.  Why?  Firstly, the MCpl and Sgt maple leaves should be removed for the same reason I have cited in the above paragraph.  Secondly, we show our loyalty to our head of state by displaying the Queen’s crown on our cap badges and many other badges. We don’t need it on the WO’s and MWO’s rank badges.  The Canadian Coat of Arms for a CWO is just too busy and detailed a badge.  It just doesn’t look military to me.  If I’m not mistaken, postal employees or perhaps other federal uniformed employees wear the coat of arms on their uniform.  I have nothing against these folks but wouldn’t want RSMs to mistaken for one of them.  

	The proposed NCM rank badges all include a universally recognized symbol of NCM rank – the chevron.  MCpl to CWO have the army crossed swords above the chevrons.  The leaves are the same type as on the current MWO’s rank badge.  These badges are easy to understand as they are progressive and with the inclusion of the crossed swords, the wearer is identified as being in the army.  Equivalent navy and airforce badges would replace the swords with an anchor and eagle respectively.


----------



## Journeyman

dowadiddy said:
			
		

> I feel I must join this forum and comment on the subject at hand.


Often it's best to just lie down until some feelings pass.


----------



## cphansen

As someone who has worn both types of rank insigna, I believe the current system works.
For the past 50 years or so, generations of Canadians have invested the current rank with a certain gravitas and dignity and made it worthy of respect, after all its the members who earn their rank and its not the insignia that's important, its the person wearing it.

Although I do believe the insignia would be more visible on the shoulders.


----------



## Infanteer

dowadiddy said:
			
		

> I can’t be accused of being a staff officer with nothing better to do.



Now we'll just accuse you of being a retired guy with nothing better to do.   

Welcome aboard.

BTW, your proposal is an interesting one for its simplicity.  Let the Navy and the Air Force put the anchor and buzzard in place of the crossed swords.


----------



## ModlrMike

Infanteer said:
			
		

> BTW, your proposal is an interesting one for its simplicity.  Let the Navy and the Air Force put the anchor and buzzard in place of the crossed swords.



I can't agree. I have enough grief with army guys calling me by the wrong rank... and that's when I'm in Service Dress. I don't mind when in combats, but really do we have to make it harder for folks to use the right rank?


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> BTW, your proposal is an interesting one for its simplicity.  Let the Navy and the Air Force put the anchor and *buzzard* in place of the crossed swords.


:rofl:


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Now I know that I’ll be accused of living in the wrong century, and that’s ok.
With that being said, I would wholly support returning to the Pre-Unification rank system, since I feel that it evokes a sense of pride in our forefathers who many times stepped up to stand against tyranny, fascism and communist aggression.

Now I don’t wish to tarnish the actions of our servicemen in the post Unification era, as many Canadian servicemen have served with honor and courage but I truly do feel that we should remove the last vestiges of Paul Hellyer’s failed reforms and return to a time when each service was a distinct entity, rather than being a command of a unified service.

Besides, how many soldiers are truly going to complain if they were to be informed that though the rank of Master Corporal has been abolished and is being replaced by Lance Corporal m but their pay was to remain unchanged.


----------



## Michael OLeary

If so many people are having problems, let's just do away with all those cryptic symbols.  Ditch them all and in the place of rank badges, we'll just embroider the abbreviated rank itself.  Problem solved, feel free to forward my suggestion award to my home address.

 8)


----------



## cphansen

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> Besides, how many soldiers are truly going to complain if they were to be informed that though the rank of Master Corporal has been abolished and is being replaced by Lance Corporal m but their pay was to remain unchanged.



Lance corporal was a lesser rank than corporal. It went Private/trooper/bombadier/sapper, Lance Corporal, Corporal, Sargent, Staff Sargeant, Warrant, Chief Warrant.

Lance Corporal was the first step on the promotion ladder.  I was extremely disappointed because the day my promotion to Lance was published in orders was also the parade I became a provisonal second Lieutenant.


----------



## vonGarvin

We could have flowers, stripes, pinwheels or whatever; however, the only real problem with the NCM rank structure (as far as I am concerned) is the whole "master corporal" appointment.  Given that according to the QR and Os that corporals are Non Commissioned Officers, but they don't necessarily have leadership training, I would abolish the MCpl appointment.  Period.

Chapter 1, Volume 1, Article 1.02 defines a non-commissioned officer as "a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal"

Chapter 3, Volume 1, Article 3.08 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders specifies the details of the MCpl Appointment:



> 1.  The Chief of the Defence Staff or such offcer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
> 2.  The rank of a master corporal remains that of corporal.
> 3.  Master corporals have seniority among themselves in their order of seniority as corporals.
> 4.  Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals.


Number 4, to me, is illogical.  Given that Master Corporals are still corporals (ref number 2.), then Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all other corporals, including other master corporals, because they are corporals too.  (Note the use of the word "all").  To be logical, I would amend that number 4 as such:
"Master corporals have authority and powers of command over all corporals who have not been appointed as master corporal."



Or do away with the appointment.



Solution?  Simple.  Change the requirements for promotion to corporal such that they require whatever leadership training that element or trade requires.  For example, an infantryman would currently require PLQ (Infantry) for promotion to Corporal.

Then use the rank insignia as Mr. Michael O'Leary pointed out previous, complete with suggestion award going to his home address ;D


----------



## Infanteer

...and every year we get to slap our IPC on the end of the written rank insignia to show off our seniority!


----------



## vonGarvin

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and every year we get to slap our IPC on the end of the written rank insignia to show off our seniority!


Now THAT is epic.  But, of course, Mr. O'Leary is going to be upset with you, now that he has to share the bonus with you ;D


----------



## aesop081

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> since I feel that it evokes a sense of pride in our forefathers who many times stepped up to stand against tyranny, fascism and communist aggression.



So my sqn colours, pictures everywhere, the battle honours......they dont invoke anything ?

I need new ranks so i can be proud of what i do ?

Peopel seriously have their priorities in the wrong place........  :


----------



## Michael OLeary

Just think of how much more worthy your generation's service would have been if only the officers had been wearing pips and crowns.



On a more serious note: If anyone wants to set forth a rational argument for a return to pips and crown, by all means do so, just don't use reasoning that actually invites sarcasm.


----------



## brihard

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I would wholly support returning to the Pre-Unification rank system, since I feel that it evokes a sense of pride in our forefathers who many times stepped up to stand against tyranny, fascism and communist aggression.



No it doesn't. I'll tell you what would happen if this changed:

Most of the practically minded in the forces, and anyone ranked Cpl/LS or below would think "This is f***ing stupid" and blurt it out loudly.

A numbe rof the MCpls/MSs and Sgts/PO2s would also loudly proclaim "This is f***ing stupid"

The remainder of the Sgts/PO2s and probably most WOs would simply shake their heads, not surprised by something so f***ing stupid, because at this point in their careers it's jaded.

About one soldier out of every 80 would sport a huge grin, because after his two history courses in university he's at heart a closet Monarchical Imperialist.

Most junior officers would stare blankly at the nearest wall, largely unconcerned, and trying to instead puzzle out something that they believe actually matters.

Most practically minded field-grade officers would think "This is f***ing stupid"

Some of the senior officers would think it fantastic that we're returning to our 'historical roots'. Few could properly articulate what exactly those roots are with any considerable degree of accuracy.

And one genius, somewhere, will max out 'leading change' and get promoted to a job where his next f***ing stupid idea would have broader impact.

I will be sitting quietly in the wings, devising a trap by which means I can capture and kill the bright idea fairy.





I'll be blunt. Most of the troops don't give much of a damn about their 'forefathers', outside of their immediate family some generations prior and the odd kid going through the recruiting process whose dreams of glory die in the first week of BMQ; their closest connection with the Nazi-killing generation is from playing Call of Duty 4, and watching Inglorious Basterds and Saving Private Ryan. Canadian soldiers have enough to be proud of in living memory that artificially invoking insignificant trappings of generations long passed will have any significance to our conceptions of honour, duty, and what it is exactly that we do for our country.

It ain't broke. Don't feel the need to fix it.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think the British OC of 2 Sqn at CFSCE sorts out at least one student a day because they walk by him thinking he's a British WO because they don't know better. Our ranks are fine. Let the Navy have their curl or whatever they wanted changed, we don't need to change things for the sake of changing things. I agree with Brihard here, 99.9% of troops won't give a damn, because in the end its still Sir/Ma'am regardless of whats on their shoulder.


----------



## Infanteer

Brihard said:
			
		

> No it doesn't. I'll tell you what would happen if this changed:
> 
> Most of the practically minded in the forces, and anyone ranked Cpl/LS or below would think "This is f***ing stupid" and blurt it out loudly.
> 
> A numbe rof the MCpls/MSs and Sgts/PO2s would also loudly proclaim "This is f***ing stupid"
> 
> The remainder of the Sgts/PO2s and probably most WOs would simply shake their heads, not surprised by something so f***ing stupid, because at this point in their careers it's jaded.
> 
> About one soldier out of every 80 would sport a huge grin, because after his two history courses in university he's at heart a closet Monarchical Imperialist.
> 
> Most junior officers would stare blankly at the nearest wall, largely unconcerned, and trying to instead puzzle out something that they believe actually matters.
> 
> Most practically minded field-grade officers would think "This is f***ing stupid"
> 
> Some of the senior officers would think it fantastic that we're returning to our 'historical roots'. Few could properly articulate what exactly those roots are with any considerable degree of accuracy.
> 
> And one genius, somewhere, will max out 'leading change' and get promoted to a job where his next f***ing stupid idea would have broader impact.
> 
> I will be sitting quietly in the wings, devising a trap by which means I can capture and kill the bright idea fairy.



...now that was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time.


----------



## medicineman

I don't mind leading change for things that make sense and even the odd thing that doesn't but might actually fix something, but I hate having to lead other people's change in the face of pure fucktardedness.  The rank system we have makes sense, leave it be.  Let's spend money on important stuff like letting me actually shoot live rounds at a target this year as a for instance.

MM


----------



## Pusser

I will stand up as one of those traditionalists with at least two history courses in university. In fact I have a degree in the subject and so there were more than two.  I'm also a monarchist, but I'm in no closet on that subject.  I will also say I like pips and crowns and would love to see them returned.  I don't have to have a rational reason for this, but fashion in clothing is rarely rational.  If it was, we'd all be wearing Mao jackets.  I just happen to like pips and crowns.  However, I'm a sailor and so it doesn't directly affect me.  If the Army wishes to perpetuate a system borrowed from the Navy, who am I to argue? ;D   I will say this though, the Army is still using pips in crowns on certain ceremonial uniforms and mess kits and the use of dual rank systems should stop.  A rank system is a rank system.  Pick any one you like, but pick one.  If the Army no longer wants pips and crowns then fine, remove them from *all* uniforms and figure out how to put stripes/bars/rings on the vast array of ceremonial uniforms out there.  And while we're at it, the NCM rank badges used on ceremonial and service dress uniforms should also be the same and not the hodge podge we see now (e.g. GGFG master corporals wear a maple leaf on ceremonial dress, but sergeants do not).

On a side note, as much as I love the reintroduction of the executive curl on naval service dress, I'm starting to see the law of unintended consequences kick in big time.  Although it was no secret that the cost of the new braid would be significantly higher than the cheap plastic crap we've been issuing for years, I've discovered recently in conversation with an old experienced naval tailor that the actual attachment of the braid is also more expensive and this does not include making the actual curl (the braid is manufactured with the curl already in it).  With the cheap stuff, all the tailor had to do was open up the sleeve a little bit, sew the braid on by spinning the sleeve around the arm of the sewing machine and then seal the sleeve up again.  With the new, high-quality metal braid, the tailor has to open up the sleeve entirely, lay it flat, put in a backing and then there is some hand-sewing required to close the sleeve up again.  Otherwise, the old tailor says, the braid will pucker after it's first cleaning.  I don't know if the old tailor is entirely right, but we'll see soon enough.  Having said this, I'm so ecstatic about the curl that I'm quite willing to pay the additional costs myself, should it ever come down to that.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> I will say this though, the Army is still using pips in crowns on certain ceremonial uniforms and mess kits and the use of dual rank systems should stop.  A rank system is a rank system.  Pick any one you like, but pick one.  If the Army no longer wants pips and crowns then fine, remove them from *all* uniforms and figure out how to put stripes/bars/rings on the vast array of ceremonial uniforms out there.  And while we're at it, the NCM rank badges used on ceremonial and service dress uniforms should also be the same and not the hodge podge we see now (e.g. GGFG master corporals wear a maple leaf on ceremonial dress, but sergeants do not).



That's a bit of a red herring. As soon as the Crown picks up all costs for ceremonial dress, they can dictate the details. As long as it is done at regimental expense, the regiments get to choose what traditional dress will be worn and the details of badging.


----------



## McG

Ottawa does pick-up the cost for the Ceremonial Guard dress, so the argument may not entirely be a red herring?

Are there reserve regiments wearing a mess kit that is something other than a variation of the standard Army mess dress?  Certainly an argument could be made that all of these standard patter mess uniforms (or variations of) should, by now, display the current rank insignia.


----------



## Pusser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a red herring. As soon as the Crown picks up all costs for ceremonial dress, they can dictate the details. As long as it is done at regimental expense, the regiments get to choose what traditional dress will be worn and the details of badging.



Even if not provided by the public, a uniform still has to comply with the dress regulations (the dress manual does cover ceremonial and mess dress, neither of which are provided at Crown expense).  So yes, the CF can dictate all manner of uniform and badges.  Otherwise, by your reasoning, I should be able to put sequin lapels on my mess jacket and bedazzle the back with a rampant elephant.  You raise an interesting point though in that by defending the use of pips and crowns on ceremonial dress, you give tacit approval to their use. :stirpot:


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> Are there reserve regiments wearing a mess kit that is something other than a variation of the standard Army mess dress?  Certainly an argument could be made that all of these standard patter mess uniforms (or variations of) should, by now, display the current rank insignia.



There are many Reserve regiments that use pips and crowns on both their mess kits and ceremonial dress.  The Garrison Ball in Toronto every year (around 40 units?) is *very* colourful with many regiments represented that do not wear red coats.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Our officers wear pips and crowns on their patrols. For mess kit, modern officer rank if CF mess dress, pips and crowns if the high collars that fasten around the neck and corresponding high-gorge waistcoats are worn.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> Otherwise, by your reasoning, I should be able to put sequin lapels on my mess jacket and bedazzle the back with a rampant elephant.



Go right ahead, you've paid for it, I will endeavour to be present when you explain your departure from regimental/service custom in the adornment of your mess kit.  It will no doubt be highly amusing to all present except a few.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> You raise an interesting point though in that by defending the use of pips and crowns on ceremonial dress, you give tacit approval to their use. :stirpot:



I've never said they shouldn't be used, I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable argument for them beyond _"killing the ghost of Hellyer"_ (often given by someone who wasn't alive that the time), _"it honours our forefathers"_ (and equally implies dishonouring those who have served since the change), or _"I just think it's better"_ (a great option for anyone with three or four maple leafs on their shoulder, otherwise a poor argument for convincing the masses).


----------



## ArmyRick

Pusser, 

Lets do discuss what you said. You have a problem with the army wearing of traditional rank system on ceremonial dress? You think its a dual standard? You think it should be one rank structure and not two?

OK, we can do that, Here are my points about what you said
1. First, lets go back to EVERYBODY in the CF wearing green DEU, we can't have two standards right?
2. Next, no executive curl for the Navy. I had no problem with it but since you want one standard, good bye executive curl, right?
3. No more Seaman and Petty Officer ranks or naval officer ranks, everybody goes by the one rank system. One standard right?
4. Maybe Navy guys can forget safety on the deck and start lifting their feet up properly when performing drill on the deck of a ship? One standard right?

Or maybe we can let the army be and let the Navy do its thing, etc, etc. BTW, one of my former regiment, The Lorne Scots, the ceremonial dress IS privately paid for by the association, so let them wear as they see fit. The Ceremonial Guard may be pubicly funded but most regimental dress is privately paid for.

Personally, I have no idea why you had to launch on about army ceremonial dress. ITS NOT a big concern for us in the army.


----------



## Pusser

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Pusser,
> 
> Lets do discuss what you said. You have a problem with the army wearing of traditional rank system on ceremonial dress? You think its a dual standard? You think it should be one rank structure and not two?
> 
> OK, we can do that, Here are my points about what you said
> 1. First, lets go back to EVERYBODY in the CF wearing green DEU, we can't have two standards right?
> 2. Next, no executive curl for the Navy. I had no problem with it but since you want one standard, good bye executive curl, right?
> 3. No more Seaman and Petty Officer ranks or naval officer ranks, everybody goes by the one rank system. One standard right?
> 4. Maybe Navy guys can forget safety on the deck and start lifting their feet up properly when performing drill on the deck of a ship? One standard right?
> 
> Or maybe we can let the army be and let the Navy do its thing, etc, etc. BTW, one of my former regiment, The Lorne Scots, the ceremonial dress IS privately paid for by the association, so let them wear as they see fit. The Ceremonial Guard may be pubicly funded but most regimental dress is privately paid for.
> 
> Personally, I have no idea why you had to launch on about army ceremonial dress. ITS NOT a big concern for us in the army.



Wow!  You really misunderstand what I'm saying.  At no point have I ever advocated one system for the entire CF.  All I've ever said is that the Army should pick one system and use it for all uniforms.  An oft repeated theme in this thread is that soldiers are wholly uninterested in bringing back pips and crowns.  If this is indeed the case, why do they live on in mess and ceremonial dress?  Are these uniforms or costumes?  The fact that these are not provided at public expense is irrelevant.  They still present an image of the CF and have to be approved for wear.  The dress manual is pretty clear about that.  By the way, I have also always advocated a single rank system for the Navy, but was willing to hold out until we made the right choice.  ;D  Now, to address your points specifically:

1.  We tried that.  It was a dismal failure.  It was wholly unpopular and although I would argue that it did not effect our operational effectiveness, it was spoken about often and we all wished things were different.  There were many happy dances being performed when new uniforms were announced. I should also point out that with the addition of shoulder straps to the Army uniform, it was widely speculated that pips and crowns were on the way.  There was also discussion of executive curls at that point and it turns out, we were right!  It only took 26 years for it to happen.  Not bad for a government project. ;D  When the CF green uniform was introduced in 1968, it was slow-going to get everybody into it and in the end, some folks had to be ordered to start wearing it.  I've been led to believe that one of the reasons officers began to receive free issue of uniforms in the CF is because very few were willing to buy the green one.  Contrast all of this to 1984 when folks couldn't get into the DEU fast enough.

2.  How does the executive curl change anything?  We're still using the same rank structure.

3.  Again, we tried that and again, it was a dismal failure.  The Navy refused en masse to use the "CF" rank structure and eventually the regulations and the NDA had to be amended.  In the long run, you cannot impose a huge cultural change without the support of those whom it affects.  On that note, I am not in any way advocating pips and crowns for the Army if they are truly not wanted.  However, there are a few things within the Army (e.g. ceremonial and mess dress) that are in contradiction to many of the arguments against pips and crowns.  We've solved a similar contradiction that existed in the Navy and now all our uniforms are the same.  Although I enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate, all I have ever really  said is that I like the idea and would support it.  However, the final choice really does rest with the wearer.

4.  Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> 4.  Now you're just being silly.



The whole thread is silly and getting real close to belonging in Radio Chatter :

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## PuckChaser

Pusser said:
			
		

> When the CF green uniform was introduced in 1968, it was slow-going to get everybody into it and in the end, some folks had to be ordered to start wearing it.



Is that why Navy members had to start being ordered to wear NCDs everywhere?


----------



## PMedMoe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is that why Navy members had to start being ordered to wear NCDs everywhere?



I'm sure most of them would have preferred staying in CADPAT.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The Huffington Post is reporting that the Canadian Government is planning on renaming Maritime Command and Air Command Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. 



> *Canadian Navy, Air Force 'Royal' Again With Official Name Change*
> 
> The Huffington Post Canada   Althia Raj   First Posted: 8/15/11 12:45 PM ET Updated: 8/15/11 12:59 PM ET
> 
> Canada’s navy and air force will get a royal name change Tuesday, The Huffington Post Canada has learned.
> 
> The Conservative government plans to announce that Maritime Command and Air Command, the official names of the two Canadian Forces' units, will be returned to Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, monikers last used in 1968. Simultaneous announcements on the name change are planned for Tuesday in Halifax, Kingston, Valcartier, Que., Cold Lake, Alta., and Esquimalt, B.C.



Full article  here .


----------



## The Bread Guy

"A significant announcement regarding the Canadian Forces" and "Canada's military history" is scheduled for 
Cold Lake (Laurie Hawn speaking),
Valcartier (Steven Blaney speaking),
Halifax (Peter MacKay speaking), and
Kingston (Chris Alexander speaking)
 tomorrow, 1000 local.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The Huffington Post is reporting that the Canadian Government is planning on renaming Maritime Command and Air Command Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> Full article  here .



There ARE a swack of announcements set for tomorrow - "a significant announcement regarding the Canadian Forces" and "Canada's military history" is scheduled for 
Cold Lake (Laurie Hawn speaking),
Valcartier (Steven Blaney speaking),
Halifax (Peter MacKay speaking), and
Kingston (Chris Alexander speaking)
 tomorrow, 1000 local.


----------



## Redeye

The HuffPo reports that at the RCAF, RCN, and Canadian Army names will be officially restored.  Interesting.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Halifax paper:


> The Canadian military is returning to its roots.
> 
> On Tuesday, National Defence Minister Peter Mackay is expected to announce the restoration of the Royal designation of the navy and air force branches of the Canadian Forces at CFB Halifax.
> 
> Sources say the branches are expected to be renamed the Royal Canadian Navy, replacing Maritime Command, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The army, which has many royal titles in its regiments, will be known as the Canadian Army.
> 
> Various veterans organizations, particularly those affiliated with the navy, have lobbied Ottawa to make the change, which was supported by a Senate committee late last year.
> 
> In a letter earlier this year, MacKay responded to veterans who had written on the matter to say the Royal title had never officially been stripped from use, but was dropped in 1968 when the branches were amalgamated into the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> “The reintroduction of the titles of the former single services amalgamated to form the Canadian Forces is a matter we are considering, and I expect that we will make a decision on this issue in the near future,” the minister said in a letter posted in May on the website Restore the Honour, which collected more than 6,200 signatures in support of the change.
> 
> The Department of National Defence would not comment Monday, except to confirm they are setting up for an announcement on the jetty at the base ....


Source:  _Halifax Chronicle-Herald_, 15 Aug 11


----------



## brihard

Since we're on the subject of restoration of historical identities, does anyone know offhand whether the red 1 Can Div patch will be returning to wear by most land force personnel? I assume that would be contingent upon the eventual successful rolling of the CMBGs and CBGs back into the Div?


----------



## Grunt_031

CANFORGEN 147/11 VCDS 021/11 151502Z AUG 11
RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY, THE CANADIAN ARMY AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE.
UNCLASSIFIED



THE CDS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY (RCN), THE CANADIAN ARMY (CA), AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) 


THE INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC NAMES OF CANADA’S THREE FORMER SERVICES IS AIMED AT RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA S MILITARY HERITAGE. THESE WERE THE SERVICES THAT FOUGHT AND EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND KOREA AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENCE OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLD WAR. THESE WERE ALSO THE SERVICES THAT PAVED THE WAY IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS 


THE CHANGE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BY RENAMING THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS. MARITIME COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY LAND FORCE COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE CANADIAN ARMY AND AIR COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. IN THIS WAY WE WILL REGAIN AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COLLECTIVE HERITAGE WITHIN A UNIFIED EFFECTIVE CANADIAN FORCES COMMAND STRUCTURE 


MORE DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE PROMULGATED BY YOUR RESPECTIVE CHAINS OF COMMAND AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE 


FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, ALL CURRENT RESPECTIVE COMMAND ORDERS, RULES, DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND


----------



## SoldierInAYear

Royal Canadian navy sounds pretty sexy to me.  ;D


----------



## Pusser

So where does this leave those of us who are in CMP, ADM(Mat), CEFCOM, etc?  Can everyone who wears a naval uniform say they are members of the RCN, or just those posted to what until now we called Maritime Command units?

I wonder if we can use the post-nominals like they did before?


----------



## Neill McKay

Pusser said:
			
		

> So where does this leave those of us who are in CMP, ADM(Mat), CEFCOM, etc?  Can everyone who wears a naval uniform say they are members of the RCN, or just those posted to what until now we called Maritime Command units?



That is the $64,000 question in all of this.  It'll be interesting to see how thorough the staffwork was leading up to this decision.  (However, I'll take it as a positive change in any case!)



> I wonder if we can use the post-nominals like they did before?



Would be nice, but if anyone starts a pool I'll have to put my money on "no".


----------



## The Bread Guy

For reference, here's the previous 8 pages o' discussion:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16520.0.html


----------



## dapaterson

Given it's the ECSes being renamed, those posted outside the ECSes are not part of those organizations.

So a sailor posted to a ship under MARPAC would be a member of the RCN; a sailor posted to a desk job in DGMEPM would not.


Of course, the real confusion is when dealing with members of the Maritime Staff, Land Staff or Air Staff in Ottawa - those organizations are not part of the environmental commands but rather part of NDHQ, and thus, properly, are not in the RCN, CA or RCAF.


----------



## Journeyman

Brihard said:
			
		

> Since we're on the subject of restoration of historical identities, does anyone know offhand whether the red 1 Can Div patch will be returning to wear by most land force personnel? I assume that would be contingent upon the eventual successful rolling of the CMBGs and CBGs back into the Div?


Justifiably beaten to death in this thread. The bottom line is, they haven't created a Division, merely recreated a Div HQ. 


Of course, I never would have believed the "Royal" nomenclature coming back...so who knows if we'll all end up with the fire-blanket patch and yet another HQ to provide staff annoyance visits.


----------



## Michael OLeary

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> For reference, here's the previous 8 pages o' discussion:
> http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16520.0.html



And 6 more pages here: To be or not to be Royal...that is the question.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

As some of you are aware, I felt the government had more pressing priorities then worry about a name change but they felt otherwise. So here I stand a member of the newly reformed RCN; May it continue to do its duty honourably as Maritime Command and unofficially the Canadian Navy before it.


----------



## dapaterson

But what of the RCE?  If mere sailors and airpeople can be deemed Royal, why not Her Majesty's Engineers - Her Majesty's Royal Engineers - with the rank and pay of a Sapper?

(It's Kipling)


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, the real confusion is when dealing with members of the Maritime Staff, Land Staff or Air Staff in Ottawa - those organizations are not part of the environmental commands but rather part of NDHQ, and thus, properly, are not in the RCN, CA or RCAF.



According to the PeopleSoft, CLS falls under Land Force Command (The Canadian Army) in the organizational structure.  The ECSs are resident in NDHQ but roll up, organizationally, to the MND. Same goes for the other commands.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I can see this setting a dangerous precedent. 

This new announcement makes me wonder if we're going to see an outcry from former autonomous Corps merged during amalgamation wanting to revert back to their former glory ("It worked for the RCN and RCAF, why not the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps?")

Even in the past 3 years a lot of our Branch talk has been about the "Army Corps of Signals," which specifically addresses Army signals  trades. The C and E branch has been very secular and apart from our one Purple trade (Comms Research) and The Joint Silliness Regiment, most of the branch is separated very clearly on Army, Navy, Air Force.

Perhaps this announcement is the match to a larger powder keg for the Combined Branches? Thoughts?


I can only see


----------



## cudmore

It's working journalist Cudmore, here.  I'm getting a distinct kind of "meh?" feeling from the folks I've talked to about this.  Is anyone actually excited?  no names no pack drill.
J


----------



## Pusser

cudmore said:
			
		

> It's working journalist Cudmore, here.  I'm getting a distinct kind of "meh?" feeling from the folks I've talked to about this.  Is anyone actually excited?  no names no pack drill.
> J



Yes, I'm excited, but will be a tad miffed if I'm not part of it.  According to the source who gave this information to me about a month ago, "RCN" will in fact apply to everyone in naval uniform.  However, I'd like to see this in writing.

I think we could resolve the problem simply by puting "RCN" under "Uniform" (vice "Navy") on the MPRR.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> According to the PeopleSoft, CLS falls under Land Force Command (The Canadian Army) in the organizational structure.  The ECSs are resident in NDHQ but roll up, organizationally, to the MND. Same goes for the other commands.



Looking at HRMS, the CLS is under the Land Staff which is under the CDS.

A unit, such as the Algonquin Regiment, is under a Bde, which is under an Area, which is under Land Force Command, which is under the CDS.

The Land Staff and Land Force Command are two distinct reporting entities.  We're renaming Land Force Command to the Canadian Army.  The Land Staff is not under Land Force Command / the Canadian Army.

Same commander for both, but double-hatted.


----------



## FSTO

cudmore said:
			
		

> It's working journalist Cudmore, here.  I'm getting a distinct kind of "meh?" feeling from the folks I've talked to about this.  Is anyone actually excited?  no names no pack drill.
> J



My personal opinion on the "meh" is that as one of the advocates I felt that in my heart of hearts that this day would never come and I will now sit back with quiet satisfaction that a huge wrong has been corrected. Other folks on this site (and they know who they are  ) will gnash their teeth at the folly of it all. The rest of our military who are reflective of a majority of our population may say "we were once Royal Canadian Navy?!?" and carry on doing their duty.


----------



## vonGarvin

Re: "Land Staff" and "Chief of the Land Staff" and all that.   Flyshit from pepper.  I'm certain they will sort it all out rather nicely.   ;D

For example, "Land Staff" will most likely evolve to "Army Staff" and so forth.

As the CANFORGEN says, details to follow.


op:


----------



## Neill McKay

Along similar lines I took a gander through the titles of all of the flag officers in the CF a while ago and found that, if I recall correctly, only about a quarter to a third of them belonged to Maritime Command.  So, depending on how this shakes out, we would have a minority of admirals and commodores in the RCN and the majority in the purple gaps between the RCN, Canadian Army, and RCAF.


----------



## cudmore

Dear FSTO,
Thanks for the response.  I think you've summed up the various reactions rather nicely.
Best,
james


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> My personal opinion on the "meh" is that as one of the advocates I felt that in my heart of hearts  ...


Shouldn't that be Heart of Oak?  ;D

I'm on the _~meh~_ side of things; putting lipstick on a pig, as it were. The letterheads and powerpoints may change, but I doubt it will diminish my daily quota of bureaucracy.


Now if we changed Canada Post back to Royal Mail, _that_ would be something!


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that be Heart of Oak?  ;D



Damn, I am pretty disappointed in myself for letting a crazy person who jumps out of perfectly functioning airplanes   to show up my lack of Naval heritage  :facepalm:.


----------



## FSTO

cudmore said:
			
		

> Dear FSTO,
> Thanks for the response.  I think you've summed up the various reactions rather nicely.
> Best,
> james



Always willing to help the fourth estate!


----------



## Michael OLeary

cudmore said:
			
		

> It's working journalist Cudmore, here.  I'm getting a distinct kind of "meh?" feeling from the folks I've talked to about this.



At the root of it, it's just anther change of name. If I recall correctly, the main reason why some people disliked the proposal was the way it was being sold by some supporters. The reason offered was based on suggesting that this would somehow "restore the honour of Canada's Navy of the Second World War". This argument left the inference that the achievements of the Navy since Unification were somehow less deserving of being remembered or were "without honour." Often, it's not what is being sought that creates friction, it's the manner in which it is being done.


----------



## dapaterson

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Re: "Land Staff" and "Chief of the Land Staff" and all that.   Flyshit from pepper.  I'm certain they will sort it all out rather nicely.   ;D
> 
> For example, "Land Staff" will most likely evolve to "Army Staff" and so forth.



So, understanding the legal chain of command is "flyshit from pepper"?  The fact that the Land Staff or Army Staff are not legally part of Land Force Command / the Canadian Army is irrelevant?  There is a legal framework, dictated by the NDA, of the CF - "The Canadian Forces shall consist of such units and other elements as are from time to time organized by or under the authority of the Minister."  Powers and authorities flow through that framework.  Certainly, a name change is a relatively minor event - but where in the hierarchy units and elements fit is far from flyshit.


At the end of the day, at least the Sign Painters Union is happy.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It smacks, a wee bit, of smoke and mirrors to me ...

I'm concerned about the amount of 13th floor 'energy' this consumed - energy which could have been and, arguably should have been devoted to some (more?) pressing matters like more money for ships, aircraft and people.

Don't get me wrong: this will be good for morale and the 'little Corsican' was right - _"Even in war moral power is to physical as three parts out of four."_ It is not wasted energy, just, perhaps, misused energy.

And what, indeed, about the corps of the old, old Army? How much 'history' are we going to rewrite?

So: good for the RCN, the CA and the RCAF - they are organizations that fought hard and bravely in wars great and small and when there wasn't too much fighting to do they kept the peace as well. But good on the CF, also - it kept a lot of peace and then fought bloody hard and bloody well, too. Let us all revel in some of the 'trappings' that were 'lost' 45 years ago and have been restored to us, but let's not forget that our CF has earned new honours for itself in a variety of names.


----------



## Pusser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> At the root of it, it's just anther change of name. If I recall correctly, the main reason why some people disliked the proposal was the way it was being sold by some supporters. The reason offered was based on suggesting that this would somehow "restore the honour of Canada's Navy of the Second World War". This argument left the inference that the achievements of the Navy since Unification were somehow less deserving of being remembered or were "without honour." Often, it's not what is being sought that creates friction, it's the manner in which it is being done.



This is very true, but one can counter-argue that the demise of the RCN in 1968 neglected the achievements and honour of those who had served up to that date.  We need to remember and value the accomplishments of the naval service of Canada right from Day 1 through to the present without a break.

I prefer to look at this as righting an historic wrong.  The name should never have been changed in the first place.


----------



## Pusser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm concerned about the amount of 13th floor 'energy' this consumed - energy which could have been and, arguably should have been devoted to some (more?) pressing matters like more money for ships, aircraft and people.



I think most of the staff effort was political.  I don't think the 13th floor put much effort into this at all.  I don't know for sure though.


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, understanding the legal chain of command is "flyshit from pepper"?  The fact that the Land Staff or Army Staff are not legally part of Land Force Command / the Canadian Army is irrelevant?  There is a legal framework, dictated by the NDA, of the CF - "The Canadian Forces shall consist of such units and other elements as are from time to time organized by or under the authority of the Minister."  Powers and authorities flow through that framework.  Certainly, a name change is a relatively minor event - but where in the hierarchy units and elements fit is far from flyshit.



:


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Along similar lines I took a gander through the titles of all of the flag officers in the CF a while ago and found that, if I recall correctly, only about a quarter to a third of them belonged to Maritime Command.  So, depending on how this shakes out, we would have a minority of admirals and commodores in the RCN and the majority in the purple gaps between the RCN, Canadian Army, and RCAF.


We're a unified armed forces - this would seem to be a correct ratio to me.  Having separate recruiting systems etc for the three services is a luxury and not a requirement.

PS: Watching the "battles" between fire departments and ambulance services as they attempt to avoid unification (e.g. Toronto) only serves to demonstrate that unification is the correct option for small forces.  



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Re: "Land Staff" and "Chief of the Land Staff" and all that.   Flyshit from pepper.  I'm certain they will sort it all out rather nicely.   ;D
> 
> For example, "Land Staff" will most likely evolve to "Army Staff" and so forth.
> 
> As the CANFORGEN says, details to follow.
> 
> op:


Concur.  The Land Staff may not be in the Army (I’m not certain that is a fact – sources required from the people making that assertion) but they certainly work for the Army Commander.  Ergo they’re in the Army.  QED.



			
				cudmore said:
			
		

> It's working journalist Cudmore, here.  I'm getting a distinct kind of "meh?" feeling from the folks I've talked to about this.  Is anyone actually excited?  no names no pack drill.
> J


I’m happy about the change.  Always hated bureaucratic names and prefer to call an army an Army vice a Land Force.

 :2c: FWIW, (full disclosure - I'm in the RCN) I don't see where the complaining about being excluded is coming from.  If you belonged to MARCOM before today, then you're in the RCN now.  If not, then you weren't working _in the navy_ anyways.  It doesn't change whether _you're a sailor_ just what organization you belong to.  Much like a Vandoo posted to CFLRS remains a Vandoo, a sailor posted to ADM(Mat) is still a sailor.  Unravelling unification so that every Naval DEU type can claim to be in the RCN doesn't make sense.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Re: "Land Staff" and "Chief of the Land Staff" and all that.   Flyshit from pepper.  I'm certain they will sort it all out rather nicely.   ;D
> 
> For example, "Land Staff" will most likely evolve to "Army Staff" and so forth.
> 
> As the CANFORGEN says, details to follow.
> 
> 
> op:




Surely if we are evolving to the past (backwards?) (devolving?) the "Land Staff" will become the "General Staff" again ... with an Adjutant General's Staff and a Quartermaster General's Staff, too?


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Surely if we are evolving to the past (backwards?) (devolving?) the "Land Staff" will become the "General Staff" again ... with an Adjutant General's Staff and a Quartermaster General's Staff, too?


No, no, not _devolving _ to the "General Staff", but _evolving_, to the Army staff


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, no, not _devolving _ to the "General Staff", but _evolving_, to the Army staff




But "Army Staff sounds so _generic_, even bureaucratic, while "General Staff" has a _military_ ring to it and, if you have a G Staff then you need A & Q staffs, too, and all the new (really old) abbreviations that come with them all.

Get rid of this Franco-American G3 and J4 sh!t and lets get back to the GSO1 (Ops) and the DAQMG (Sup).  >


----------



## vonGarvin

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Get rid of this Franco-American G3 and J4 sh!t and lets get back to the GSO1 (Ops) and the DAQMG (Sup).  >


Huzzah!


----------



## NavalMoose

I just read online that the navy and air force are getting their "Royal" designation back. Personally, I think this is great news.


----------



## FSTO

Just a question; upon Unification were we not the Canadian Armed Forces? And if so when did we change to the Canadian Forces?


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Get rid of this Franco-American G3 and J4 sh!t and lets get back to the GSO1 (Ops) and the DAQMG (Sup).  >



Back when the change to the "Continental" staff system was being discussed in the early seventies, then LCol Dan Loomis wrote a paper noting that the Ops Primacy system (the Commonwealth one we were using) had won all its recent little wars which could not be said of the Franco-American one. Ops Primacy also tended to have smaller staffs of lower rank, which probably doomed it in the eyes of the CF.


----------



## RangerRay

Great news!


----------



## mariomike

FSTO said:
			
		

> Just a question; upon Unification were we not the Canadian Armed Forces? And if so when did we change to the Canadian Forces?



Topic: "When Did The Name Change of the CAF to CF Happen?":
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85767.0.html


----------



## FSTO

mariomike said:
			
		

> Topic: "When Did The Name Change of the CAF to CF Happen?":
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/85767.0.html



Got it thanks.


----------



## PuckChaser

Now we have a precedent, bring back RCCS!!!


----------



## Patriote

So will this mean that Chief of the Land Staff will change its name, and all other "chief" positions?


----------



## Danjanou

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Now we have a precedent, bring back RCCS!!!



The Richmond Chinese Community Society is gone?

http://www.rccs.ca/eng/


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But what of the RCE?  If mere sailors and airpeople can be deemed Royal, why not Her Majesty's Engineers - Her Majesty's Royal Engineers - with the rank and pay of a Sapper?
> 
> (It's Kipling)



CHIMO! to that........

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Concur.  The Land Staff may not be in the Army (I’m not certain that is a fact – sources required from the people making that assertion) but they certainly work for the Army Commander.  Ergo they’re in the Army.  QED.



If you're on the DWAN, go to the "ouput products" page for DHRIM; select the chain of command report, and run it for "3372 - CLS", then compare the result to what you get for "5000 - Alg Regt".  You will see that CLS organization reports through the formation the "Land Staff" to the CDS; whereas the Algonquin Regiment reports ultimately through the formation "Land Force Command" to the CDS.

Two different organizations.  Two different reporting chains.  One person who is double-hatted: both Commander, Land Force Command and Chief of the Land Staff.  But the Land Staff is seperate and distinct from Land Force Command.  Therefore, unless CLS there is further reorganization, the personnel serving on the Land Staff are not part of the Army.


Note that this is a common point of confusion; freqently, documents are issued with a CLS signature block that should in fact be issued under his authority as Commander, Land Force Command.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...
> Note that this is a common point of confusion; freqently, documents are issued with a CLS signature block that should in fact be issued under his authority as Commander, Land Force Command.




A problem that will just vanish - _poof_ - when he's CGS.


----------



## vonGarvin

Patriote said:
			
		

> So will this mean that Chief of the Land Staff will change its name, and all other "chief" positions?


No, not yet.  I think he'll still be LGen Devlin  >


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Two different organizations.  Two different reporting chains.  One person who is double-hatted: both Commander, Land Force Command and Chief of the Land Staff.  But the Land Staff is seperate and distinct from Land Force Command.  Therefore, unless CLS there is further reorganization, the personnel serving on the Land Staff are not part of the Army.


Sense:  this makes none.

(the system as is, not your post)


----------



## Halifax Tar

Wonderful news and something I have hoped to see. Cheers to both the RCN and the RCAF!  :cheers:

Is it too early to ask for pre-unification rank insignia as well ?

op:


----------



## Dissident

With the RCE, RCASC and ACS being bandied earlier in this thread, will we see a renaming of the MP branch to the Royal Canadian Military Police? (I kid, I kid.)

But if we are going for the "what was old is new again": Canadian Provost Corps? Royal Canadian Provost Corps? 

I don't see a need for a change for us, but hey, it is fun to play along...


----------



## bison33

Now the RCAF should bring back the old rank structure...runs away from incoming slag from army brethren


----------



## PuckChaser

Danjanou said:
			
		

> The Richmond Chinese Community Society is gone?
> 
> http://www.rccs.ca/eng/



I sure hope not!

Though, Royal Canadian Corps of Signals is the third Google link, so I can see the confusion.  >


----------



## Pusser

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> :2c: FWIW, (full disclosure - I'm in the RCN) I don't see where the complaining about being excluded is coming from.  If you belonged to MARCOM before today, then you're in the RCN now.  If not, then you weren't working _in the navy_ anyways.  It doesn't change whether _you're a sailor_ just what organization you belong to.  Much like a Vandoo posted to CFLRS remains a Vandoo, a sailor posted to ADM(Mat) is still a sailor.  Unravelling unification so that every Naval DEU type can claim to be in the RCN doesn't make sense.



There is a flaw in your logic.  A Van Doo is always a Van Doo (part of the regimental family) regardless of where posted.  He/she has a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" which is listed on his/her MPRR.  In other words, there is organizational protection of his/her identity as a Van Doo.  Everywhere he/she goes he/she is both a soldier and a Van Doo.  My fear is that only those posted to the Command formerly known as MARCOM will be considered RCN and the rest of us sailors (SSIs and all) will be left out of the family.  Frankly, if we're going to have a navy in this country, then all the sailors of Her Majesty should be considered members.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is a flaw in your logic.  A Van Doo is always a Van Doo (part of the regimental family) regardless of where posted.  He/she has a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" which is listed on his/her MPRR.  In other words, there is organizational protection of his/her identity as a Van Doo.  Everywhere he/she goes he/she is both a soldier and a Van Doo.  My fear is that only those posted to the Command formerly known as MARCOM will be considered RCN and the rest of us sailors (SSIs and all) will be left out of the family.  Frankly, if we're going to have a navy in this country, then all the sailors of Her Majesty should be considered members.



I see your point Pusser and I am in your boat (No pun intended) as well (Now being employed at CFJSR). Either way all my PERs call me sailor, I wear the Naval DEU and I have been found fit to be a Master Seaman. To me I always have and always will be a sailor, regardless of where I'm posted. 

Having said that I would like to see the Log Branch wrapped in TNT and detonated sending all Loggies back to their uniform service once and for all, but until that day I will consider myself a member of the RCN.


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, this is just a rumour - heard within the last month or so in an officers' mess: The Navy (and the Air Force?) want to promote a single service identity. To that end it is proposed that members should be in the RCN first and in a branch or MOC or whatever second. To make that work all RCN personnel of all trades should wear one, common RCN cap badge (well, two actually - one for CPO1s and officers and one for CPO2s and below). Other identities are recognized by trade badges and, for officers, coloured markings between stripes.

Now, that's just a rumour - heard over beers from some retired naval types (with an average rank of Capt(N) I think). "What," I was asked, "would e.g. the C&E Branch think if some Comm Rsch types showed up for work with crowns and anchors on their caps vice the Jimmies they wear now?" My response was that "showing up" was, still, the primary concern but I thought there would be broad acceptance IF the RCAF went the same route - leaving Army Signals free to find their own 'old' identity IF _they_ wished. I'm afraid I _pooh-poohed_ the idea, as I did with the executive curl and with other rumours hopes for restoring the RCN. Since I was wrong on the latter two my 'single service identity' rumour might have legs too.


----------



## Infanteer

...and the 50 year guerrilla war against Bill C-243 continues!

As an Army guy with a Regimental Affiliation, I'm in the "meh" side, not so much that I'm not pleased for the Navy and Air Force types who are happy to have their roots restored and that as Army, I was the least effected, but more that this is merely the de jure law catching up with what has been a de facto reality for the last decade or so.

To be honest, the legal names of the Commands weren't well known or understood outside of those with an understanding of the NDA.  In common vernacular, we are in the Army.  I introduce myself as a member of the Army.  The official website says "Canadian Army".  It's the same for the Navy guys.  This is an exercise of acknowledging what already is, so I'm not about to pee my pants in excitement.

As for the Land, Maritime and Air staffs being part of NDHQ, this seems like a curious de jure situation left over from the creation of NDHQ; this was a time when we didn't really have Environmental Commands as we understand them now - we had Functional Commands such as Mobile Command and Air Transport Command so the service entities needed to be embedded somewhere.  Now it is different, with functional commands split less on task and more on Force Gen/Force Employment and everything belonging to the ECS.

Do other L1s like CEFCOM or CANSOFCOM have their HQs embedded in NDHQ with their Comd's double-hatted?  I doubt it, but I could be wrong.  I'm sure this can be fixed with a quick sig by the Minister to have the CFOO amended so that those three staffs appropriate belong to their respective commands, supporting their Commanders who report to the CDS.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Trunk Monkey said:
			
		

> Now the RCAF should bring back the old rank structure...runs away from incoming slag from army brethren


Flight Sergeant - "From Distinction to Extinction" (to Reinstitution?)


----------



## aesop081

Trunk Monkey said:
			
		

> Now the RCAF should bring back the old rank structure...



No thank you. I am a Warrant Officer and like it that way.


----------



## Strike

Does this mean I'm going to have to get a bunch of new business cards made?    >


----------



## Infanteer

Strike said:
			
		

> Does this mean I'm going to have to get a bunch of new business cards made?    >



No, but you should do the proper thing and get rid of that blue rank slip on....  ^-^


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> There is a flaw in your logic.  A Van Doo is always a Van Doo (part of the regimental family) regardless of where posted.  He/she has a "Permanent Regimental Affiliation" which is listed on his/her MPRR.  In other words, there is organizational protection of his/her identity as a Van Doo.  Everywhere he/she goes he/she is both a soldier and a Van Doo.  My fear is that only those posted to the Command formerly known as MARCOM will be considered RCN and the rest of us sailors (SSIs and all) will be left out of the family.  Frankly, if we're going to have a navy in this country, then all the sailors of Her Majesty should be considered members.



There is the difference that every Van Doo started their service in a battalion of the Royal 22e Regiment. That establishes their "parent family." For the navy, what will be the initiating point at which someone declares themselves a member of the RCN, the receipt of DEU? Some members have naval DEU but will never go to sea because their trade choice or postings never lead to that type of employment. Part of the challenge also becomes the internal PR requirements to sell that sense of belonging and a firm rationale for the basis on which it forms.


----------



## REDinstaller

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Now we have a precedent, bring back RCCS!!!



And ditch the other 2 elements who want to be on their own anyway. Let the MES stop now so we can enter this new period within the CF in style.


----------



## Gorgo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No thank you. I am a Warrant Officer and like it that way.



And why not stay as a warrant officer?  You've earned the rank indeed.

In my opinion, while the officers might have a bit of a problem dealing with switching back to the old RCAF rank structure, the other ranks wouldn't really have to worry too much about.  If people are willing to agree to allow the "aircraftman"/"aircraftwoman" (which could be short-formed as AC) to take the place of the private ranks, there's really be no problems at all; the RCAF had corporals, sergeants and warrant officers, so what's the concern?


----------



## aesop081

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> the RCAF had corporals, sergeants and warrant officers, so what's the concern?



But I, as a WO now, would be a Flight Sgt under the old RCAF rank structure. I have no desire for that.


----------



## Jammer

Why is it sooooo hard for anyone to just accept a name change. More puff than substance, but still very much appreciated,


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

"THE CDS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY (RCN), THE CANADIAN ARMY (CA), AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) "


So does HRH know that her prerogatives are being usurped ?

-- I guess the question is if the royal honour is lost through lack of use/lack of respect etc. etc. ?


----------



## Gorgo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But I, as a WO now, would be a Flight Sgt under the old RCAF rank structure. I have no desire for that.



Agreed, there's no need for that!

In my eyes, it should work this way for the RCAF (from OR-1 to OR-9):

Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman (Recruit)
Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman (Basic)
Aircraftman/Aircraftwoman (Trained)
Corporal
Master Corporal
Sergeant
Warrant Officer
Master Warrant Officer
Chief Warrant Officer

There we go!  When the Navy was forced to accept the new other rank structure post-1968, they adopted by declaring those NAVOPS personnel appointed to the equivalent of Master Corporal as "Master Seaman."

Renaming RCAF privates as aircraftman would follow in the tradition of naming RCA privates as "gunners," RCAC privates as "troopers." GGFG & CGG privates as "guardsmen," rifle regiment privates as "riflemen," fusilier regiment privates as "fusiliers," CME privates as "sappers," C&E privates as "signallers," EME privates as "craftsmen," and RCN private-equivalents as "ordinary seamen" and "able seamen."

It acknowledges both the past and the present.


----------



## OldSolduer

My contact in the RCAF (WE CAN SAY THAT NOW) phoned me and informed me of this....  

We've come full circle...almost....


----------



## Monsoon

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> In my opinion, while the officers might have a bit of a problem dealing with switching back to the old RCAF rank structure, the other ranks wouldn't really have to worry too much about.  If people are willing to agree to allow the "aircraftman"/"aircraftwoman" (which could be short-formed as AC) to take the place of the private ranks, there's really be no problems at all; the RCAF had corporals, sergeants and warrant officers, so what's the concern?



Unfortunately for the officers, though, today's wings would be commanded by Group Captains, squadrons commanded by Wing Commanders and Squadron Leaders would be flying individual aircraft. It would be difficult to hide the organizational rank creep/general befuddlement.


----------



## mariomike

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But I, as a WO now, would be a Flight Sgt under the old RCAF rank structure. I have no desire for that.



Not to contradict, but are you sure?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force#Ranks


----------



## Gorgo

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for the officers, though, today's wings would be commanded by Group Captains, squadrons commanded by Wing Commanders and Squadron Leaders would be flying individual aircraft. It would be difficult to hide the organizational rank creep/general befuddlement.



Believe or not, the RAF is in the same boat.  RAF wings are commanded by Group Captains and squadrons are commanded by Wing Commanders.  There's been no "creep-down" of command responsibility since the Second World War; it's been actually creeping up.


----------



## aesop081

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not to contradict, but are you sure?:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force#Ranks



Yes, i am sure.

Today's WO is the old RCAF Flight Sgt
Today's MWO is the old RCAF WO2
Today's CWO is the old RCAF WO1


----------



## vonGarvin

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not to contradict, but are you sure?:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Force#Ranks


yep, he's sure.  WO2=MWO, and WO1= CWO, etc...
Whoops, beat me to the punch


----------



## Gorgo

Here's a little quote from the News Feed @ DND.ca:

    Associate Minister Of National Defence Fantino Makes Significant Announcement Regarding Canada’s Military History
    [ Media Advisory - 15 August 2011 ]
    Laurie Hawn Makes Announcement Regarding Canada’s Military History
    [ Media Advisory - 15 August 2011 ]
    Minister Blaney Makes Announcement Regarding Canada’s Military History
    [ Media Advisory - 15 August 2011 ]
    Parliamentary Secretary Chris Alexander Makes Announcement Regarding Canada’s Military History
    [ Media Advisory - 15 August 2011 ]
    Minister MacKay Makes Significant Announcement Regarding Canada’s Military History
    [ Media Advisory - 15 August 2011 ]

Looks like the newsies are getting revved up.  ;D


----------



## dapaterson

So:  Back to the RCAF.  But the Fleet Air Wing and Army Air Corps were never a part of the RCAF.

Does this mean the Navy and the Army are getting back their own integral air assets?


Or are initiatives like this merely sign-painting exercises, with the history ignored?


----------



## mariomike

Technoviking said:
			
		

> yep, he's sure.  WO2=MWO, and WO1= CWO, etc...
> Whoops, beat me to the punch



Thank-you for the clarification, Aviator and T-V.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So:  Back to the RCAF.  But the Fleet Air Wing and Army Air Corps were never a part of the RCAF.
> 
> Does this mean the Navy and the Army are getting back their own integral air assets?
> 
> 
> Or are initiatives like this merely sign-painting exercises, with the history ignored?



I would hazard a guess its really just sign painting as you so adequately put it. Never the less I support it.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So:  Back to the RCAF.  But the Fleet Air Wing and Army Air Corps were never a part of the RCAF.
> 
> Does this mean the Navy and the Army are getting back their own integral air assets?
> 
> 
> Or are initiatives like this merely sign-painting exercises, with the history ignored?



You just read my mind


----------



## aesop081

How many parades is this going to cause ?

*double facepalm*


----------



## yoman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> How many parades is this going to cause ?
> 
> *double facepalm*



Oh god...  

Nevertheless I support this!  :nod:


----------



## aesop081

I'm sure theres going to be a commemorative medal in there somewhere too........


----------



## Pusser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> There is the difference that every Van Doo started their service in a battalion of the Royal 22e Regiment. That establishes their "parent family." For the navy, what will be the initiating point at which someone declares themselves a member of the RCN, the receipt of DEU? Some members have naval DEU but will never go to sea because their trade choice or postings never lead to that type of employment. Part of the challenge also becomes the internal PR requirements to sell that sense of belonging and a firm rationale for the basis on which it forms.



I didn't say it was a perfect argument  ;D.  I also have to admit to a degree of selfishness here.  My particular circumstances are that I joined the CF via MARCOM and have spent at least 20 of 28 years in MARCOM units.  It is now unlikely that I will ever return to an RCN unit prior to retirement.  Thus I would have spent an entire naval career, with a fair bit of sea time without ever having been in something actually and officially called a navy.  Bit of a shame if you ask me.

In much the same way as the Minister declared anyone who had been honourably discharged from the CF a "veteran" (as opposed to what the Veteran's Act actually said), I think the same sort of thing could be done here.  Simply put on the MPRR a box for "Permanent Service (or Command, Organization, etc) Affiliation" (could probably do it by tweaking the Permanent Regimental Affiliation line)  and enter "RCN, RCAF," etc


----------



## dapaterson

I smell "Leading Change" on a PER!


----------



## McG

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> At the root of it, it's just anther change of name.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It smacks, a wee bit, of smoke and mirrors to me ...


There is an old saying about deck-chairs and the Titanic ... but, in this case we are repainting the name on the hull instead of moving the chairs about.


----------



## vonGarvin

Lots of negative talk on this thread, questions about this, questions about that.  I, for one, am glad that I can finally say that I am in the Canadian Army, and not just in the Canadian army.  (I never tell people I'm in the Land Force Command).

Sure, it's only a word here or there, hull painting or whatever, but this ship isn't sinking, it may only be lipstick on a pig, but as stated, these names apparently mean something to some.  And even if it's just a small token, or a tip of the hat to the past, well, I'll take it.  Gladly.


I can't speak for Naval Air Arms, or Army Aviation (doctrinally across NATO, Aviation is part of the army, and we have an Air Force...er..Royal Canadian Air Force senior officer on the Land Staff, or Army Staff, or whatever, but then again, our infantry don't have mortars either, unlike most of our NATO allies, but I digress), but if there are organisational changes, and if they are for the better, great.  But if it's just cosmetics, that's fine too.


----------



## aesop081

Technoviking said:
			
		

> (doctrinally across NATO, Aviation is part of the army,



It might be doctrine across NATO but the reality is somewhat different...across NATO.


----------



## vonGarvin

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It might be doctrine across NATO but the reality is somewhat different...across NATO.



Whatever.  I'm just thinking of the big players (USA, UK, Germany, etc)


Besides, I love lamp.


----------



## aesop081

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Whatever.  I'm just thinking of the big players (USA, UK, Germany, etc)



Well, look at one of your big players......the UK.

I like soup ......


----------



## vonGarvin

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Well, look at one of your big players......the *UK*.
> 
> I like soup ......



These  guys you mean?

I'm not saying that all rotary wing assets are army or whatever, but we have it such that all things that fly (less UAVs, I suppose) are Air Force....er...Royal Canadian Air Force....



> The Army Air Corps is the smallest of the three combat arms in the Army, but its fleet of helicopters makes it one of the most potent. Providing firepower from the skies, it has a unique role to play on the modern battlefield by delivering hard-hitting support to ground forces during the key stages of a battle.



(I also note how the UK Army doesn't refer to the Guns, engineers or "others" as Combat Arms: only Armour, Infantry and Army Air Corps.  But I digress)


----------



## a_majoor

Weird side question, but doesn't HRH have to grant the tile of "Royal" to an organization or unit for it to actually be styled "Royal"?


----------



## aesop081

Technoviking said:
			
		

> These  guys you mean?



And These .....you know, the guys who fly all the UK Chinooks !


----------



## Neill McKay

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Weird side question, but doesn't HRH have to grant the tile of "Royal" to an organization or unit for it to actually be styled "Royal"?



That would be HM, and you may well be right.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor General can now do this.  Good question.


----------



## vonGarvin

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And These .....you know, the guys who fly all the UK Chinooks !


And therefore not Combat Arms.  


Anyway, hello tangent.


Goodbye thread


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> How many parades is this going to cause ?
> 
> *double facepalm*



And I'm asking for you to be a Platoon WO on every one!! Or is that Flight Sgt? Whatever......


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And I'm asking for you to be a Platoon WO on every one!! Or is that Flight Sgt? Whatever......



Yes Chief..........


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes Chief..........



LOL good one! Well played Flt Sgt...WO.....or whatever...


----------



## PuckChaser

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Weird side question, but doesn't HRH have to grant the tile of "Royal" to an organization or unit for it to actually be styled "Royal"?



HRH probably did not remove her permission when we changed to the non-Royal names, so it would still be valid. That's the only reason I can think of that we can just start using it again.


----------



## aesop081

I probably missed it but when is this all effective ?


----------



## PuckChaser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I probably missed it but when is this all effective ?



CANFORGEN said TBD, press conference might shed more light tomorrow.


----------



## Zoomie

No change here - the USAF never knew we weren't RCAF.  I won't bother telling them that we now are back to using RCAF - waaaay too confusing.

Enjoy the parades - now I get to work on my little pet project, should ride the coat-tails of this announcement quite nicely.


----------



## aesop081

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Enjoy the parades - now I get to work on my little pet project, should ride the coat-tails of this announcement quite nicely.



It certainly would and i am crossing my fingers it works out.


----------



## PuckChaser

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Enjoy the parades - now I get to work on my little pet project, should ride the coat-tails of this announcement quite nicely.



Getting on the "Leading Change" PER point train?  >


----------



## OldSolduer

Zoomie said:
			
		

> No change here - the USAF never knew we weren't RCAF.  I won't bother telling them that we now are back to using RCAF - waaaay too confusing.
> 
> Enjoy the parades - now I get to work on my little pet project, should ride the coat-tails of this announcement quite nicely.


Haha....don't think you are getting away.....you will be the Flt Comd hahahahaha!!!


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Haha....don't think you are getting away.....you will be the Flt Comd hahahahaha!!!



Please....not my flight........not my flight !!!


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Please....not my flight........not my flight !!!



Pat, you will get a fine young Captain......Infanteer....you there?


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> "A significant announcement regarding the Canadian Forces" and "Canada's military history" is scheduled for
> Cold Lake (Laurie Hawn speaking),
> Valcartier (Steven Blaney speaking),
> Halifax (Peter MacKay speaking), and
> Kingston (Chris Alexander speaking)
> tomorrow, 1000 local.


And one more in Esquimalt at 1300 local (Julian Fantino speaking)


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Please....not my flight........not my flight !!!


Hey!   

Anyways - it would be an expensive parade - flying the E-3 back to Canada is never a cheap option.  I'll raise a toast to the RCAF while sitting in front of a computer studying aircraft systems.


----------



## Loachman

I am not amused one little bit.


----------



## Gorgo

N. McKay said:
			
		

> That would be HM, and you may well be right.  I wouldn't be surprised if the Governor General can now do this.  Good question.



Most likely they'll run with the statement that since King George V granted the "Royal" title to the Canadian Navy (1911) and to the Canadian Air Force (1924) and since the _National Defence Act_ said nothing about those titles being taken away as said Act was an organisational change to better streamline the armed services and save money, there's no need to run to the Queen and/or the Governor General to get renewed royal approval.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Most likely they'll run with the statement that since King George V granted the "Royal" title to the Canadian Navy (1911) and to the Canadian Air Force (1924) and since the _National Defence Act_ said nothing about those titles being taken away as said Act was an organisational change to better streamline the armed services and save money, there's no need to run to the Queen and/or the Governor General to get renewed royal approval.



Except that the RCN and RCAF officially ceased to exist with passing of the National Defence Act  Canadian Forces Reorganization Act .  The Royal Titles were not passed on to the replacement organizations.


----------



## dimsum

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Unfortunately for the officers, though, today's wings would be commanded by Group Captains, squadrons commanded by Wing Commanders and Squadron Leaders would be flying individual aircraft. It would be difficult to hide the organizational rank creep/general befuddlement.



A bit off-topic, but I wonder how well-received any "return to former RCAF ranks" for officers will go when non-flying types become Flying Officers and Pilot Officers instead of 2LT and LTs...


----------



## Neill McKay

Dimsum said:
			
		

> A bit off-topic, but I wonder how well-received any "return to former RCAF ranks" for officers will go when non-flying types become Flying Officers and Pilot Officers instead of 2LT and LTs...



There must have been such types "back in the day", so it's nothing that hasn't happened before.  For comparison, the navy has, in French, corvette captains, frigate captains, and ship captains who do not command corvettes, frigates, or ships respectively.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Just read this this morning on the MSG traffic:



> AT THE SAME TIME, THE NAME ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY IS MUCH MORE THAN A COMMAND.  IT IS ALSO THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH EVERYONE WHO WEARS A NAVAL UNIFORM BELONGS, NO MATTER IN WHICH COMMAND THEY SERVE.



Pusser this is from the CMS. It may answer your previous concerns.


----------



## wannabe SF member

All this begs the question: will the airforce and navy components of milnet.ca also follow suit and be renamed royalcanadianairforce.ca and royalcanadiannavy.ca ?

 ;D


----------



## NavalMoose

" HRH probably did not remove her permission when we changed to the non-Royal names, so it would still be valid. That's the only reason I can think of that we can just start using it again."

I think that is the case but it's HM not HRH ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Inky said:
			
		

> Al this begs the question: will the airforce and navy components of milnet.ca also folow suit and be renamed royalcanadianairforce.ca and royalcanadiananavy.ca ?
> 
> ;D


trollface.jpg


As an aside, as anticipated, the sun still rose in the east this morning, and cats and dogs continue to maintain a touchy détente.  In other words, things haven't really changed.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Weird side question, but doesn't HRH have to grant the tile of "Royal" to an organization or unit for it to actually be styled "Royal"?



Minister MacKay stated in a letter received by the Restore The Honour campaign that it is the government's position that the royal designation was never taken away. Anyway, I'm sure HM won't mind!


----------



## Old Sweat

And from our expected response department, the following excerpt from the Toronto Star is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. The complete story may be found on the Star's website.

_Hellyer, reached by the Star Monday night, said his decision to unite the army, air force and navy under a single command was “absolutely essential” at the time to save money by avoiding duplication and to ensure cooperation between branches of the military.

He was not pleased by the news that the old names were returning.

“This has got to be the dumbest thing that the (Conservative) majority government has done in its race to the past,” Hellyer said. “They're supposed to be saving money. Even the cosmetics of this change would cost millions.”_


----------



## Pencil Tech

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> _
> He was not pleased by the news that the old names were returning.
> 
> “This has got to be the dumbest thing that the (Conservative) majority government has done in its race to the past,” Hellyer said. “They're supposed to be saving money. Even the cosmetics of this change would cost millions.”_



Stupid old man sour grapes. The cosmetics will not cost millions.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And from our expected response department, the following excerpt from the Toronto Star is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. The complete story may be found on the Star's website.
> 
> _Hellyer, reached by the Star Monday night, said his decision to unite the army, air force and navy under a single command was “absolutely essential” at the time to save money by avoiding duplication and to ensure cooperation between branches of the military.
> 
> He was not pleased by the news that the old names were returning.
> 
> “This has got to be the dumbest thing that the (Conservative) majority government has done in its race to the past,” Hellyer said. “They're supposed to be saving money. Even the cosmetics of this change would cost millions.”_





I would have some sympathy for Mr. Hellyer's position had he _unified_ the armed forces in the 1960s - a fairly cheap process that would have done away with the many level 2 organizations in the RCN, CA and RCAF and replaced them with fewer _unified_ commands. (But there was no need in a _unification_ process to do away with the RCN, CA and RCAF. Our US and British allies have _unified_ forces but the USN, RN, US Army, British Army, RAF and USAF all exist.) There would have been no need to buy new uniforms, etc. He could have and should have gotten rid of several three stars, especially, including replacing the CNS, CGS and CAS with two stars. That was what our US friends advised him to do – _unify_ ≈ _joint_. Instead Hellyer _integrated_ the armed forces – something no one had tried then (and which, based on our experience, no one who matters has tried since) and which our US friends had, explicitly, warned against.* _Integration_ ≈ _”purple”_ or, in our case, the “jolly green jumper.”

So, "Pot this is Kettle, Black, Over."

__________
* I do not have the reference at hand for the advice Hellyer received from the US DoD, but I have read it and it is from a credible source.


----------



## OldSolduer

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And from our expected response department, the following excerpt from the Toronto Star is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
> “This has got to be the dumbest thing that the (Conservative) majority government has done in its race to the past,” Hellyer said. “They're supposed to be saving money. Even the cosmetics of this change would cost millions.”[/i]



And with that quote Mr. Hellyer has made himself irrelevant, as the majority of Canadians won't know who he is, and for that matter, won't care. He is a man from a different era.


----------



## Neill McKay

I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but you're using "unify" and "integrate" in the opposite sense from what I've normally seen others do.  Most authors I've read on the subject use integration to refer to combining functions to avoid duplication between the services, and unification to mean the elimination of the former services and creation of a new identity (complete with spiffing green uniforms).

Hellyer had an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail in ca. 2007 in which he stated his continuing belief in the concept of unification, only he had decided in the interim that service uniforms should have been blue and ceremonial uniforms white.  I don't recall what colour he thought working uniforms should be.  Someone wrote a letter to the editor shortly after along the lines that he didn't know anything about the armed forces when he was the minister and had just proven that he hadn't learned anything in the intervening 30 years.


----------



## dapaterson

The last MARGEN issued by the Commander of Maritime Command:

SUBJ: RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAME OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY

1. TOMORROW THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESTORATION OF THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE. EFFECTIVE 16 AUGUST 2011, THE NAME QUOTE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY UNQUOTE (RCN) REPLACES QUOTE MARITIME COMMAND UNQUOTE AS A COMMAND OF THE CANADIAN FORCES

2. IT IS NOT BY CHANCE THAT 16 AUGUST WAS SELECTED FOR THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. IT WAS ON THIS DAY 100 YEARS AGO THAT HIS MAJESTY KING GEORGE V BESTOWED ON CANADA’S THEN FLEDGLING NAVAL SERVICE THE HONOUR OF A NEW DESIGNATION. OUR NAVY STOOD WATCH AND FOUGHT FOR CANADA UNDER THE BANNER QUOTE RCN UNQUOTE FROM THAT MOMENT UNTIL 1968 - THROUGH TWO WORLD WARS, THE KOREAN WAR AND A LARGE PART OF THE COLD WAR

3. YOU WILL REMEMBER THE OUTPOURING OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OUR NAVY LAST YEAR AS WE CELEBRATED THE NAVAL CENTENNIAL. THE REINTRODUCTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE CURL WAS A TANGIBLE HONOUR THAT LINKED OUR PRESENT SERVICE TO OUR DISTINGUISHED PAST. THE GOVERNMENT, ON BEHALF OF ALL CANADIANS, HONOURS THE NAVY AGAIN TODAY WITH THE TITLE RCN, RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA’S NAVAL HERITAGE. YESTERDAY’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, FORGED IN THE
SELFLESSNESS AND SACRIFICE OF PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF SAILORS, SETS THE STANDARDS FOR TODAY’S GENERATION AND INFORMS OUR HIGHEST EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE AND ACHIEVEMENT. WE HONOUR THOSE WHO PRECEDED US NOT ONLY IN OBSERVING NAVAL CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS, BUT ALSO IN THE SYMBOLS THAT ARE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF OUR CULTURE. THIS CAN ONLY HELP TO STRENGTHEN OUR IDENTITY AS A TREASURED NATIONAL INSTITUTION AND INSPIRE US TO CONTINUE TO EXCEL IN SERVICE TO CANADA

4. TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT NAME CHANGE.
FOREMOST WE ALL ARE MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES. INSIDE THE CANADIAN FORCES, THE COMMAND CALLED QUOTE MARITIME COMMAND UNQUOTE WILL BE RENAMED QUOTE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY UNQUOTE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE NAME ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY IS MUCH MORE THAN A COMMAND. IT IS ALSO THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH EVERYONE WHO WEARS A NAVAL UNIFORM BELONGS, NO MATTER IN WHICH COMMAND THEY SERVE. RESTORING THE TITLE RCN WILL CREATE NEW OPPORTUNITIES, AND IN THE COMING WEEKS WE WILL
EXAMINE WAYS TO MAKE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF THIS RESPECTED AND WELL-RECOGNIZED BRAND IN REACHING OUT TO CANADIANS. FURTHER WORK WILL BE REQUIRED AS WE CONSIDER ITS EFFECTS ON WEBSITES, ADMINISTRATION AND ORDERS. FOR THE INTERIM ALL CURRENT MARITIME COMMAND ORDERS, DIRECTIVES, RULES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND. ALL REFERENCES TO MARITIME COMMAND SHALL BE READ AS READING ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY

5. THE NAME CHANGE WILL BE LARGELY TRANSPARENT TO LIFE ON THE WATERFRONT AND THE CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS. THE SUCCESS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES WILL CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN ITS ABILITY TO INTEGRATE THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND CAPABILITIES OF THE NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE AND SPECIAL FORCES FOR JOINT ACTION AT HOME AND ABROAD. WE WILL MAINTAIN THE NAVY’S PROUD TRADITION OF QUOTE READY, AYE READY UNQUOTE, BUT WITH ONE SMALL, BUT VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. FROM TOMORROW FORWARD YOU CAN SAY PROUDLY THAT YOU ARE IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY 6. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. AS YOUR COMMANDER I AM PROUD TO LEAD A NAVY THAT EMBRACES ITS ROOTS WHILE PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE - QUALITIES THAT MAKE OUR SERVICE ONE OF THE FINEST AND MOST RESPECTED NAVAL FORCES IN THE WORLD


----------



## Edward Campbell

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but you're using "unify" and "integrate" in the opposite sense from what I've normally seen others do.  Most authors I've read on the subject use integration to refer to combining functions to avoid duplication between the services, and unification to mean the elimination of the former services and creation of a new identity (complete with spiffing green uniforms).
> 
> Hellyer had an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail in ca. 2007 in which he stated his continuing belief in the concept of unification, only he had decided in the interim that service uniforms should have been blue and ceremonial uniforms white.  I don't recall what colour he thought working uniforms should be.  Someone wrote a letter to the editor shortly after along the lines that he didn't know anything about the armed forces when he was the minister and had just proven that he hadn't learned anything in the intervening 30 years.




Then most authors you've read are misusuing the words. The terms were defined, in the US, in 1946 and pretty much everyone else, including ABCA and NATO agree on what they mean. See here for _unified_ (joint) vs. _specified_ (single service). _Integrate_ is used for so many functions, starting with mathematics, that it has entered the popular lexicon as a synonym for almost everything from _joint_ and _combined_ to _multi-functional_, but _circa_ 1963 their meanings were as I described them. Mr. Hellyer's henchman, Gp Capt Bill Lee of the RCAF was, knowingly, blowing smoke when he reversed the terms; he knew what the service chiefs had agreed (_unification_) and what he wanted (_integration_) - we got _integrated_ and, briefly, _unified_, too. I say briefly because the _unified_ commands (Maritime and Mobile Commands) were quickly de-unified when they lost their _organic_ air forces - because the "air element" felt hard done by because we were organized for war fighting rather than by means of locomotion.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Some of the opinion-ation out there:


> …. "I think this is appalling.... It's abject colonialism," said Jack Granatstein, military historian and author of Who Killed the Canadian Military?  During the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Canadian peacekeepers were sent to defuse tensions between Egyptian and British troops, the Canadians were criticized for showing up hoisting the Union Jack, wearing British-style uniforms and carrying regimental titles such as the Queen's Own Rifles. In response, said Mr. Granatstein, Pearson intentionally set about crafting not only a Canada-specific flag, but a Canada-specific military.  "I'm a historian, I think history matters, but we don't have to be slavish in following it and restoring it," Mr. Granatstein said.
> 
> In Quebec, the new designation has raised the ire of antimonarchists. Mario Beaulieu, president of the sovereigntist Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, called the move "rather insulting for Quebecers" and said it would do nothing to improve Conservative fortunes in Quebec. "The army deserves a better name than that," he said.
> 
> Douglas Bland, chairman of Defence Management studies at Queen's University, fears the name designation could be the beginning of a fissure that could become a headache for future governments. Future defence ministers could find themselves facing off against divided air force, navy and army leaders "trying to exert their influence on defence policy in the interest of their service."
> 
> (….)
> 
> "There was a conscious effort to make it an all-one-team Canadian Forces," said Alan Okros, an association professor of military psychology at Royal Military College. "In doing so, there were some valuable symbols from the past that were lost."  Designations were phased out, rank structures changed and names erased. "For many years we weren't even allowed to use the term 'air force,' you had to use the terms 'air environment,' " said Angus Watt, a retired lieutenant-general with Air Command. Over the years, however, the commands have drifted back to their pre-1968 traditions. "There's been a slow, gradual history of recognizing that some of the 'cleansweep' approach to unification went a bit too far," Mr. Okros said.
> 
> The three branches have regained unique ranks and the words "army," "navy" and "air force" have even found their way back into recruiting materials. "You've have a small-a air force and a small-n navy in Canada for probably a decade, but this confirms it," said David Bercuson, Director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
> 
> (….)


_National Post_, 16 Aug 11


> .... Symbolic measures that honour our military heritage are certainly welcome. But the government must not let style replace substance. Despite the unpalatable price tag, additional financial resources are necessary if Canada is to field a modern, effective fighting force, no matter what it may be called.


_National Post_ editorial, 16 Aug 11


> .... The change is purely symbolic; it will not alter the organizational or command structure. But symbolism means a great deal in the military, and so does tradition. And the change will be cost neutral, requires no wrenching parliamentary debate (the proclamations designating the names of the various branches were never revoked, the names simply went into official abeyance), and brings Canada into line with other Commonwealth realms. It's a confident move by the federal government; most members of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force will embrace their restored designations. Canadians should join them.


_Globe & Mail_ editorial, 15 Aug 11


----------



## Edward Campbell

> Douglas Bland, chairman of Defence Management studies at Queen's University, fears the name designation could be the beginning of a fissure that could become a headache for future governments. Future defence ministers could find themselves facing off against divided air force, navy and army leaders "trying to exert their influence on defence policy in the interest of their service."




There is a simple, cost effective solution to the problem Prof. (LCol (ret'd)) Bland sees:

1. Create proper _unified_ (joint) combat commands: Maritime Command with _organic_ maritime air ~ and I don't care what colour uniforms the aircrew and ground-crew wear or whether they are pilot officers or sub-lieutenants, flight sergeants or PO1s, and Mobile Command with _organic_ army aviation ~ and I still don't care about suit colour or ranks;

2. Create appropriate _specified_ (single service) combat commands like air operations command; and

3. Create appropriate _unified_ (multi-service) support 'agencies' or groups like "Materiel Group" and the Supplementary Radio System; then

4. Put all those commands and groups and agencies under the direction of the _joint_ defence staff in NDHQ, with _operations_ being under the control of the DCDS; and

5. Degrade the ranks of the CNS, CGS and CAS to RAdm/MGen and make them "professional heads of service" with specific responsibilities for doctrine, individual training and equipment requirements.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Quick question however.....how much will it all cost? To change all the names that is. And what operational benefit will it produce? In a time of greater government belt tightening is it justifiable?


----------



## crazy4slowpitch

being an american and knowing an aweful lot of my fellow Canadian men at arms, I am a bit bewildered by this changeing of "names". I happen to be in Ottawa and read the local paper and feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth. The newspaper says that it was the Airforce and Navy that were the "services that fought and emerged victorious from WW2 and Korea"
Well now. My history seems to recall that the once proud Canadian Army did a lil bit of fighting, dieing and rescueing an aweful lot of non-Canadians from the evils of tyrany and domination, but I guess your government conviently forgot all that. What are all those young men and women doing in Afghan??? sitting on their bunks, watching the navy and airforce play??? I don't think so.
If I was in your military, I would be ashamed to admit what your government is doing. It sounds more like a photo op and self agrandization. There is nothing "Royal" about anything Canadian, unless your Mr.Harper really does consider hisself "THE King of Canada"
My views may upset a few of your veterns, and I can live with that, but they are liveing in a past dream, but times have changed. I can see this being a huge waste of tax money, and IT WILL COME OUT OF YOUR MILITARY BUDGET. With what little is spent on your military and all the loss in a beaurocracy that seems bent on doing absolutely zero for your limited combat units, this is a total crock-o-shiat.
I am very proud of all the members I have met of your Canadian Armed Forces. Leave it as it is, take some money from all the useless programs that the government seems bent on throwing money at, give it to the military, to use as they see fit and DO NOT allow any politico or their minions toch it. Get NDHQ sorted and sorted quickly. The waste and graft there is so rampant and evident, it should be a national embarassment. Cut your officer ranks by at least half, add them to your junior ranks and you will have a very viable military. Why so many god damn Generals in a military that should be run by perhaps 1 general??? it is an outrage. I recall seeing a memo put out by a former defense minister a few years ago announceing the retirement of 2 generals and an admiral. Along with that memo came another announceing the promotion of 28 other officers to generals rank or equivelent. That is total B.S. replave 3 with 28?? WTF??? Peter McKay I think was minister then, but I may be wrong.
My countries military may not be any better, work just as bad as yours, but from what I see, your politicos are NOT doing any service to the men and woman who volunteer to serve as a member of your proud and strong military.
If I offend anyone, I appologize in advance and being an outsider, perhaps I see things a lil different than what they do. It ain't perfect, but there is lot's of room for improvement.
Drop the "ROYAL" crap, save the money and buy a few more LAV's and some troop transport helos get NDHQ sorted, fire/demote at least half of the officer corps and bulk up on actual field forces.


----------



## Neill McKay

Granatstein's reply is surprising, given that we are, in a cosmetic but not insignificant way, partially undoing what was one of the drivers in the killing of Canadian military history in the first place.  I'll have to give his book another read.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

My 2C: BZ for the reintroduction of the names, and well done in making it a "name change" only that will be good both for morale and for more straightforward communication with the civilians out there (who never understood the "command" system).

Now, can we make a few more "name changes"? My personal suggestion for the next one would be HMCS NADEN and HMCS STADACONNA for CFB Esquimalt and Halifax, and yes: start to call Borden, Valcartier, Gagetown etc., CAMPS, and the light blue ones Air Force Bases.


----------



## GR66

> In Quebec, the new designation has raised the ire of antimonarchists. Mario Beaulieu, president of the sovereigntist Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, called the move "rather insulting for Quebecers" and said it would do nothing to improve Conservative fortunes in Quebec. "The army deserves a better name than that," he said.



Like what...."L'armée du Quebec"?


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 5. Degrade the ranks of the CNS, CGS and CAS to RAdm/MGen and make them "professional heads of service" with specific responsibilities for doctrine, individual training and equipment requirements.



This is long overdue - we should perhaps stop referring to ECSes and instead refer to FGCSes - Force Generation Chiefs of Staff.  There is no reason for training organizations like the RCN, CA and RCAF (who do not conduct operations) to be commanded by 3* officers; primacy of operations should make them 2* officers, with a single, unified operational command, a single, unified support command and the VCDS as Chief of Staff  as the only three 3* officers.

That also removes the "meeting of equals" perspective in some senior fora - and means that the VCDS can order the FGCSes to do things, where now they get "directions" or "recommendations" that are, on occasion, casually ignored.


----------



## vonGarvin

crazy4slowpitch said:
			
		

> Drop the "ROYAL" crap,


Nope, sorry, even over 200 years on, we aren't joining in your rebellion against HM The Queen.


			
				crazy4slowpitch said:
			
		

> save the money and buy a few more LAV's and some troop transport helos get NDHQ sorted, fire/demote at least half of the officer corps and bulk up on actual field forces.


I think LAV 3 APCs cost a bit more than a simple name change and/or some troop transport. 

As for firing half the officers, which half?  The competent half?  Or the incompetent half?


----------



## dapaterson

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for firing half the officers, which half?  The competent half?  Or the incompetent half?



We'll keep whichever half you're in  >


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We'll keep whichever half you're in  >




The perpetually sloshed half?  :cheers:


----------



## vonGarvin

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for firing half the officers, which half?  The competent half?  Or the incompetent half?





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> *We'll keep whichever half you're in *  >


OH NO!  WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!!!!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here we go....


> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced today that the Government of Canada has restored the use of the historic designations of the three former services: the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), the Canadian Army (CA), and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).
> 
> “Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today’s men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Forces,” said Minister MacKay. “A country forgets its past at its own peril.  From Vimy Ridge to the Battle of the Atlantic and from Korea to the defence of Europe during the Cold War, the proud legacy of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force will once again serve as a timeless link between our veterans and serving soldiers, sailors and air personnel.”
> 
> On February 1, 1968, the government of the day amended the National Defence Act to unify the Canadian Forces. In that process, the identities of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force ceased to be used and were replaced by Maritime Command, Land Force Command, and Air Command. This decision restores the original historic identities while retaining the organizational benefits of unification.
> 
> “I am extremely proud of our men and women in uniform and even more proud to be honouring the rich history of our military,” said the Chief of Defence Staff, General Walt Natynczyk. “By restoring the historic designations of the Canadian Forces we are continuing to show unified strength here at home, and abroad.”
> 
> By reinstating the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Government is restoring a central component of Canada’s military heritage. Dating back to the first half of the 20th century, these were the names of the services that fought and emerged victorious from the First World War, the Second World War, from Korea, and also contributed to deterrence and defence in Europe and North America from the early days of the Cold War. With this decision, these historic identities will return to official use, reminding us of the Canadian tradition of service and sacrifice that today’s men and women in uniform proudly continue.


CF news release, 16 Aug 11

More info:

Backgrounder 
Fact Sheet (RCN)
Fact Sheet (CA)
Fact Sheet (RCAF)


----------



## yoman

I've noticed they've already changed the names on the 3 service's websites.


----------



## Pencil Tech

yoman said:
			
		

> I've noticed they've already changed the names on the 3 service's websites.



And it didn't cost a penny!


----------



## jollyjacktar

I was surprised and pleased to see this come about.  I don't believe it will result in the end of the world, the sun will set tonight on schedule and rise tomorow as planned desipite the clamour out there in some quarters.  
And there is no reason why this should cost the ends of the earth either.  We already have our distinct dress and insignia.  Work should be able to carry on as usual with little disruption I should imagine and any cosmetic changes that might be needed can be slowly phased in.


----------



## McG

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> And it didn't cost a penny!


You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.


----------



## bick

Personally, I don't think this was necessary.  The vast majority of our servicemen/women have never served pre 1968.  Most sailors think of themselves as being in the navy, most soldiers as being in the army etc.  We are a independent nation, whose population is no longer from the UK.  In fact, we are closer to the US.  I would have preferred Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Canadian Air Force.

I congratulate those who lobbied for it and are happy to be members of the RCN, CA and RCAF.


----------



## Pencil Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.



Do you realize how long it would have actually taken one person to change those two titles in both official languages, on both pages, in Teamsite? About 5 minutes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't think this was necessary.  The vast majority of our servicemen/women have never served pre 1968.  Most sailors think of themselves as being in the navy, most soldiers as being in the army etc.  We are a independent nation, whose population is no longer from the UK.  In fact, we are closer to the US.  I would have preferred Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Canadian Air Force.
> 
> I congratulate those who lobbied for it and are happy to be members of the RCN, CA and RCAF.



Ironic comment coming from one that calls themselve "Rhodesian" Shouldn't you be calling yourself by the current name?


----------



## Pusser

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Weird side question, but doesn't HRH have to grant the tile of "Royal" to an organization or unit for it to actually be styled "Royal"?



The Government's argument (as supported by some experts in the field) is that because the titles were never actually revoked, but rather placed into abeyance by Parliamentary/Ministerial authority, they can be reinstated by the same process.

I don't believe the Governor General has the authority to grant a "Royal" title.

I have been led to believe that this has in indeed been discussed with Her Majesty.


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander

I like the change and I think it will be fairly well received, not as much as it would have been in our parents generation perhaps, but again it will be received well and there wont be any longlasting significant criticism, especially from within the forces.


----------



## bick

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ironic comment coming from one that calls themselve "Rhodesian" Shouldn't you be calling yourself by the current name?



Not considering we are speaking about current Canadian events.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.



The ones who typed the change on the website are the same ones who day in and day out work on IT for DND and therefore those costs are factored in no matter what they do.


----------



## Pusser

crazy4slowpitch said:
			
		

> being an american and knowing an aweful lot of my fellow Canadian men at arms, I am a bit bewildered by this changeing of "names". I happen to be in Ottawa and read the local paper and feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth. The newspaper says that it was the Airforce and Navy that were the "services that fought and emerged victorious from WW2 and Korea"
> Well now. My history seems to recall that the once proud Canadian Army did a lil bit of fighting, dieing and rescueing an aweful lot of non-Canadians from the evils of tyrany and domination, but I guess your government conviently forgot all that. What are all those young men and women doing in Afghan??? sitting on their bunks, watching the navy and airforce play??? I don't think so.
> If I was in your military, I would be ashamed to admit what your government is doing. It sounds more like a photo op and self agrandization. There is nothing "Royal" about anything Canadian, unless your Mr.Harper really does consider hisself "THE King of Canada"
> My views may upset a few of your veterns, and I can live with that, but they are liveing in a past dream, but times have changed. I can see this being a huge waste of tax money, and IT WILL COME OUT OF YOUR MILITARY BUDGET. With what little is spent on your military and all the loss in a beaurocracy that seems bent on doing absolutely zero for your limited combat units, this is a total crock-o-shiat.
> I am very proud of all the members I have met of your Canadian Armed Forces. Leave it as it is, take some money from all the useless programs that the government seems bent on throwing money at, give it to the military, to use as they see fit and DO NOT allow any politico or their minions toch it. Get NDHQ sorted and sorted quickly. The waste and graft there is so rampant and evident, it should be a national embarassment. Cut your officer ranks by at least half, add them to your junior ranks and you will have a very viable military. Why so many god damn Generals in a military that should be run by perhaps 1 general??? it is an outrage. I recall seeing a memo put out by a former defense minister a few years ago announceing the retirement of 2 generals and an admiral. Along with that memo came another announceing the promotion of 28 other officers to generals rank or equivelent. That is total B.S. replave 3 with 28?? WTF??? Peter McKay I think was minister then, but I may be wrong.
> My countries military may not be any better, work just as bad as yours, but from what I see, your politicos are NOT doing any service to the men and woman who volunteer to serve as a member of your proud and strong military.
> If I offend anyone, I appologize in advance and being an outsider, perhaps I see things a lil different than what they do. It ain't perfect, but there is lot's of room for improvement.
> Drop the "ROYAL" crap, save the money and buy a few more LAV's and some troop transport helos get NDHQ sorted, fire/demote at least half of the officer corps and bulk up on actual field forces.



Your lack of understanding of the situation and Canada in general is astounding.  I have yet to figure out how this name change is going to cost us much of anything other than a few signs which would have needed replacing in time anyway.


----------



## NavalMoose

crazy4slowpitch wrote " If I offend anyone, I appologize in advance and being an outsider, perhaps I see things a lil different than what they do. It ain't perfect, but there is lot's of room for improvement.
Drop the "ROYAL" crap, save the money and buy a few more LAV's and some troop transport helos get NDHQ sorted, fire/demote at least half of the officer corps and bulk up on actual field forces."

I agree, you are an outsider...stay outside..just because you dropped the "Royal crap" centuries ago doesn't give you the right to pontificate in a foreign country. If I offend you, I apologize but you all know what opinions are like. ;D


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.



There is a fixed cost to having those people on the staff, but the incremental cost of making a change to a website is so close to zero that it may be safely neglected.



			
				Rhodesian said:
			
		

> We are a independent nation, whose population is no longer from the UK.



Who said anything about the UK?  The "Royal" is in reference to the Queen of Canada.


----------



## Pusser

One thing needs to be made clear:

"ROYAL" DOES NOT EQUAL "BRITISH!"

Canada is an independent country and has continuously evolved constitutionally since 1867.  One of the milestones in this constitutional evolution was the establishment of the Naval Service of Canada in 1910.  This was against the wishes of the Admiralty, the British Government and many Canadians.  Nevertheless, the Liberal Governement of the day pressed on and asserted Canadian independence by doing it anyway.  This same Liberal Government paid for it's arrogance ( ) and was summarily bounced from office the following year.  However, the die was cast and Canada was the first of the Dominions to have its own navy.  One could argue that the granting of the title "Royal Canadian Navy" in 1911 was in fact formal Imperial recognition of Canada's independence by noting that it was not just a local coast guard, but in fact a navy in the service of the Crown.

Why would we want to quash this important step toward independence?


----------



## The Bread Guy

More.....


> .... (Defence Minister Peter MacKay) also rejected the criticism that the government's decision signals closer ties with the British monarchy and diminishes Canada's sovereignty. MacKay said Canada's ties to the Crown "are very real," particularly when it comes to the Canadian Forces, and that those links have "no impact whatsoever" on operational matters and sovereign decisions.
> 
> "I believe that this is consistent, I believe that this is about continuity, it's about respect for our past," he said, "And I believe that this is something that the majority of Canadians will embrace."
> 
> MacKay said it doesn't diminish Canada's independence or contributions on the world stage.
> 
> He also noted that this summer's visit to Canada by Prince William and his wife Kate helped reinvigorate Canadians' sense of history and connectivity to Britain.
> 
> The NDP's defence critic Jack Harris, however, said returning to the royal designation is "unnecessary" and "divisive." He told CBC News in an interview Monday that Canadians have pride in their military institutions because they are Canadian, not because of their attachment to the monarchy.


CBC.ca, 16 Aug 11


----------



## GR66

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Government's argument (as supported by some experts in the field) is that because the titles were never actually revoked, but rather placed into abeyance by Parliamentary/Ministerial authority, they can be reinstated by the same process.
> 
> I don't believe the Governor General has the authority to grant a "Royal" title.
> 
> I have been led to believe that this has in indeed been discussed with Her Majesty.



I'd be quite surprised if the government made such a change without first seeking the approval of Her Majesty.

The change itself however was guaranteed to upset certain groups (anti-monarchists and Quebec soverientists in particular) so it doesn't surprise me at all that the decision was made to make the announcement through Government of Canada channels instead of by means of some sort of Royal Proclaimation.  

Best to have the change achieve it's desired goal (and please the desired target audience) while minimizing the negative blowback which would be much greater had Her Majesty made the announcement herself.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

*WHO GIVES A RATS ASS????????*

There, now that I got that off my chest, how long before we have new voices from the last couple of decades wanting their old name back?



			
				Jammer said:
			
		

> Why is it sooooo hard for anyone to just accept a name change. More puff than substance, but still very much appreciated,


----------



## dapaterson

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *WHO GIVES A RATS ***????????*
> 
> There, now that I got that off my chest, how long before we have new voices from the last couple of decades wanting their old name back?



Nah, just give us back that stylish '70s work dress with those oh-la-la ascots!


----------



## Privateer

I give a rats ass.  I'm glad that they made the change.  Just my opinion.


----------



## McG

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Do you realize how long it would have actually taken one person to change those two titles in both official languages, on both pages, in Teamsite? About 5 minutes.


... and add to that all the other sites that need to be changed on both the CF internet and DWAN - this is not only adjusting graphics, URLs and page titles but also page content/information.  Add in all the unit, formation and HQ pages at various levels.  Lets not forget all the other work that will needs to be done in the background to implement this - replacing promotional & recruiting materials; re-writing and approving MOOs, CFOOS, etc; replacing standing orders and directives at various levels; bringing together CF pers to be seen as all these announcements are being made; etc; etc.  The CANFORGEN and MARGEN did not write themselves.  Generals, Admirals and other senior officers and bureaucrats have spent working hours discussing, planning and preparing for this.  Infrastructure will need to be updated as signs on bases and buildings are replaced, and there is staff work that needs to go on to enable this before the actual work itself even begins.  How much time did TB spend on this topic when they could have been looking at other policy amendments or capital procurement decisions?

... and as this thread has already demonstrated, the good-idea fairy is going to climb out of the woodwork and exact her toll as staff hours are consumed by people wanting to explore old RCAF rank titles; pips & crowns; old service uniforms; bringing back RCE, RCEME, etc; etc.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> There is a fixed cost to having those people on the staff, but the incremental cost of making a change to a website is so close to zero that it may be safely neglected.





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> The ones who typed the change on the website are the same ones who day in and day out work on IT for DND and therefore those costs are factored in no matter what they do.


The time people spend implementing this change is a cost.  Yes, many of the people may already be getting paid and as such they are a fixed cost.  However, that simply means their salary quantifies the opportunity cost of not using those people on other priorities.  The name change may make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.  You may very well feel that the cost is worth it.  However, there is most certainly a measurable cost.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

The money they will save by the cancelled LDA should cover it.


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and add to that all the other sites that need to be changed on both the CF internet and DWAN - this is not only adjusting graphics, URLs and page titles but also page content/information.  Add in all the unit, formation and HQ pages at various levels.  Lets not forget all the other work that will needs to be done in the background to implement this - replacing promotional & recruiting materials; re-writing and approving MOOs, CFOOS, etc; replacing standing orders and directives at various levels; bringing together CF pers to be seen as all these announcements are being made; etc; etc.  The CANFORGEN and MARGEN did not write themselves.  Generals, Admirals and other senior officers and bureaucrats have spent working hours discussing, planning and preparing for this.  Infrastructure will need to be updated as signs on bases and buildings are replaced, and there is staff work that needs to go on to enable this before the actual work itself even begins.  How much time did TB spend on this topic when they could have been looking at other policy amendments or capital procurement decisions?
> 
> ... and as this thread has already demonstrated, the good-idea fairy is going to climb out of the woodwork and exact her toll as staff hours are consumed by people wanting to explore old RCAF rank titles; pips & crowns; old service uniforms; bringing back RCE, RCEME, etc; etc.
> The time people spend implementing this change is a cost.  Yes, many of the people may already be getting paid and as such they are a fixed cost.  However, that simply means their salary quantifies the opportunity cost of not using those people on other priorities.  The name change may make you feel warm and fuzzy inside.  You may very well feel that the cost is worth it.  However, there is most certainly a measurable cost.



Yes there is a cost to making changes, but publications, orders, signs, etc all need to be periodically reviewed, revised and updated anyway.  So making all these changes can be done in the due course of time simultaneously with other changes, the cost of which has already been factored in.  Thus I would argue that the additional cost of the change is negligible.  The direction from both the RCN and RCAF is that until the changes are made, the terms RCN and Maritime Command; and RCAF and Air Command will be synonymous.  There is no rush to make all the changes immediately.  The normal review cycle can do it.


----------



## CountDC

Technoviking said:
			
		

> , but then again, our infantry don't have mortars either, unlike most of our NATO allies, but I digress),



Infantry don't have mortars anymore?  Totally missed the demise of the mortar platoons.  When did that happen?

In the long run this name change thing will actually be a drop in the bucket money wise change and I think will be worth it to give people a better understanding of what we are.  Ever tell someone not in the military you are with CMS or LFAA? Did it just for the fun of watching them try to understand it then explained it in terms they understood - Navy and Army.


----------



## CountDC

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.



Don't worry - Brandon didn't really have anything better to do and said it only took 5 minutes of his time from cruising the internet.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nah, just give us back that stylish '70s work dress with those oh-la-la ascots!



I am going to hunt you down next time I am in Ottawa...and harshly reprimand you for that comment . The good idea fairy sat on your shoulder....didn't he?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am going to hunt you down next time I am in Ottawa...and harshly reprimand you for that comment . The good idea fairy sat on your shoulder....didn't he?


And took a dump on his keyboard, apparently, with the work dress idea....


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> You mean that the change was done by unpaid volunteer workers?  I think not.  This has costs, and one of those costs is all the pay going into the personnel implementing the change.


Those people are on salary, and would have been at work today anyway.  Or they are paid hourly, and the change was a task they would have done anyway.

Yes, there are costs (nothing is free, naturally), but it's not like we're hiring people to go into various websites to change the font on something.  And signs in front of messes, bases, stations or whatever will all change, of course.  But those are just early changes, as no sign lasts forever.  

The costs are minimal, to be perfectly honest.


----------



## Danjanou

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And took a dump on his keyboard, apparently, with the work dress idea....



Naah more than likely he has a closet full of the stuff and really really wants to wear it for nostalgia reasons. Either that or his D9er needs the closet space.  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> *WHO GIVES A RATS ASS????????*


I do



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> There, now that I got that off my chest, how long before we have new voices from the last couple of decades wanting their old name back?


I highly doubt that anyone will want Air Transport Command back, or Mobile Command, or whatever.  And I grew up in that old system.  



OK, I never really "grew up", because I still like playing guns, blowing shit up, and stuff like that.  Maybe that's why I kind of feel good about saying that I am in the Canadian Army, not just in the Canadian army.  And I won't even talk about being in Land Force Command.


----------



## vonGarvin

CountDC said:
			
		

> Infantry don't have mortars anymore?  Totally missed the demise of the mortar platoons.  When did that happen?


As Officer Commanding Mortar Platoon for 2 RCR, I marched them off in autumn, 2002.


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I am in the Canadian Army



Well said. Its an institution we can be proud of.


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I am going to hunt you down next time I am in Ottawa...and harshly reprimand you for that comment . The good idea fairy sat on your shoulder....didn't he?



Fine.  No Work Dress then.  Just a CADPAT ascot for parades.


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fine.  No Work Dress then.  Just a CADPAT ascot for parades.


Oh, just great , then. _Now_ what am I supposed to do with my Crown Royal bag?


 :-\


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Just a CADPAT ascot for parades.



No. Then the troops have to BUY them and I won't go for that.


----------



## vonGarvin

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Oh, just great , then. _Now_ what am I supposed to do with my Crown Royal bag?
> 
> 
> :-\



Nevermind, one and all, I know what to do with my old Crown Royal bags now:


----------



## OldSolduer

Oh I like her!!


----------



## dapaterson

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> No. Then the troops have to BUY them and I won't go for that.



They'll be an official part of the uniform, so they'll be issued, not purchased from the kit shop.


----------



## Good2Golf

Some folks are getting wrapped up in the literal sense of the reestablishment of the "Royal" to the Navy and Air Force as some kind of reinforcement of the link with the Monarchy, vice the reestablishment of historic/traditional organizational names.  For some (either in the services or outside), this may not mean much.  For others it means a lot, likely not for many who served Canada under the older names; however, for those who serve and/or those who may also have had previous generations serve and for whom the name change fortifies the spirit of service to one's nation...well, can that be a bad thing, especially done at nominal cost to the organization?  

I'm willing to bet that the true cost of this reestablishment of historical names cost less than it cost Air Canada to have an advertising/branding company come up with a novel brand symbol...a maple leaf...go figure.


:2c: from someone whose opinion is that it's a good thing.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Tharris

A touch anachronistic, but will we Navy folks be allowed to use the post-nominal 'RCN' again? 

IE: SLt P Bloggins RCN

Any thoughts on this? 

-T.


----------



## Danjanou

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fine.  No Work Dress then.  Just a CADPAT ascot for parades.



Arid or temperate?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Arid or temperate?



Doesn't matter, regimental and branch ones would be available for purchase long before the supply system fielded the issued versions.


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :2c: from someone whose opinion is that it's a good thing.



You're just plotting to re-establish the Army Air Corps... and wear a CADPAT ascot on parade...


----------



## bick

Got to go with Jim on this and hope the mods delete ALL reference to ascots.  Never know who has boarded the Good Idea Train at the last stop.


----------



## dapaterson

Fine.  In honour of the Senior Service, we'll add the Executive Curl to the CADPAT ascot.

Watch out, Legion of Frontiersmen!


----------



## Maverick585

So, 

I know I haven't posted in a while, been busy teaching BMOQ and BMQ, much fun. 

But, today, big news  ;D

Royal assent has been returned to the Air Force and Navy! Well, I'm not sure if it is assent, or just a name change, the Queen seems happy by the idea according to the press.

I am very pleased by this, I am just sad that my grandfather isn't here to see it. He retired Flight Lieutenant RCAF. 

Now, if we could get our old ranks back too, that would be the icing on the cake eh?

That's my two cents, who wants to throw their change in the pile 

Cheers,

Drew


----------



## vonGarvin

Maverick585 said:
			
		

> Now, if we could get our old ranks back too, that would be the icing on the cake eh?


Not me, thanks.  I rather like being a major now, and I'm afraid of which rank "they" would give back to me.  Capt?  Lt?  MCpl?


 ;D


----------



## Maxadia

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/08/16/f-forces-rebrand.html



> Opinions have been split regarding the announcement that the 'Royal' will be put back into the names of Canada's Navy and Air Force. Some feel the move is an appropriate nod to the nation's rich military history while others see it as a regression to our colonial roots. One issue most can agree upon, though, is the need to keep the cost of this name change as low as possible.
> 
> When major corporations embark on rebranding their enterprises, costs are bound to skyrocket well into the millions of dollars. British Petroleum spent a whopping $220 million in 2001 on a massive overhaul of its brand, in order to distance itself from strict petroleum products. The Canadian Forces, however, could very easily 'royalize' itself and keep costs down at the same time.
> 
> Vehicles: All Canadian Forces tanks, ships and airplanes are painted with, at most, a number and the word 'Canada,' and the RCAF logo on each plane. Unless a radical protocol change occurs, the military will not need to repaint any vehicle. However, if the decision is made to repaint, costs could be quite high. The average cost of repainting an airplane, for example, could be upwards of $60,000 for a full paint job. With nearly 400 aircraft in its fleet, the RCAF would need to spend in the area of $24 million to rebrand all of its planes.The Royal Canadian Air Force fleet of CF-18 fighters will most likely not need to be repainted. John Ulan/Canadian Press
> 
> Stationery: Over recent years, the use of preprinted letterhead has declined, since it is much cheaper to print the letterhead with a computer document. Business cards, however, remain important and would certainly need to be updated to reflect the Canadian Forces' new command designations. Assuming each active member of the military would require a new card, a supply of 250 cards each would run the military about $871,000, with the potential of reducing that cost if they restrict the use of business cards to officers only.
> 
> The different Canadian Forces uniforms will not need to be fitted with new patches after the announced name change. (Troy Fleece/Canadian Press) Troy Fleece/Canadian PressUniforms: Since each command will only see a change in name and not insignia, soldiers', pilots' and sailors' uniforms will not need to be tinkered with. According to the official Canadian Forces dress instructions, uniforms include a "CANADA" badge, a miniature Canadian flag and a command, force and formation badge, which will remain the same after the name change. Even if the military decides to make a change, costs would not be excessive, as wholesale emroidered patches can be bought at 5 cents each. With about 67,000 active personnel, at 4 patches each, costs could be kept well under $20,000.
> 
> Bases: As announced, the name of the entire Canadian military command will still be Canadian Forces. At the moment, each base is branded with that name, no matter if it's an army or navy base (e.g. CFB Trenton, CFB Halifax). As long as this trend continues, no signage will need to be changed on any base.


----------



## aesop081

Maverick585 said:
			
		

> Now, if we could get our old ranks back too, that would be the icing on the cake eh?



No, it would not be.


----------



## jollyjacktar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No, it would not be.



I agree.  The rank structure as it stands now is fine.  This is an easy change and will not cause too much disruption.  Hellyer be dammed, he took a good idea and went too far with it.  Idiot....  This new thing should not be too disruptive, nice to see and to have.  I am pleased.  We already have our distinct uniforms, for the RCN, our rank names and insignia (executive curl) that's enough.  Cheap to complete and makes for a warm fuzzy all around.  We do not need to turn the clock back all the way, nor should we.  This is good, and I am a very happy Sailor today.  Up Spirits.


----------



## OldSolduer

Now I have to tell everyone that I have friends in the RCAF and RCN. My Canadian Army brothers will disown me......woe is me!!


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Now I have to tell everyone that I have friends in the RCAF and RCN. My Canadian Army brothers will disown me......woe is me!!



That and you work at RCAF station Winnipeg  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That and you work at RCAF station Winnipeg  ;D



Yes...Yes I do....well it could be worse.


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander

Ahh, Hellyer, he had quite the career afterwards. Finished 6th, 7th or was it 8th in a PC Leadership race, and started the Canadian Action party, which has gone on to change the canadian political landscape as we know it.............................lol


----------



## buck13

I think that the history of the military is already pretty well represented with individual unit names (Royal Montreal Regiment, Canadian Grenadier Guards, etc.) and the names for ships do a pretty good job on the naval side. Oh well, I'm not really opposed to it. Doesn't change much for any of us.


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Yes...Yes I do....well it could be worse.



Anyone working at a base of the new RCAF, in any capacity, will be changed to air DEU if they are wearing another element's uniform. You are to be first.


----------



## The Bread Guy

And what's the Queen's representative have to say?


> As commander-in-chief, I welcome the Department of National Defence’s decision to restore the historic names of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> These historic titles, unused since the integration of the Canadian Forces in 1968, represent a proud tradition in Canada and an important part of Canada’s military heritage.


Governor General news release, 16 Aug 11


----------



## jollyjacktar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Now I have to tell everyone that I have friends in the RCAF and RCN. My Canadian Army brothers will disown me......woe is me!!



Fair trade, Jim.  I'll have to admit that I know folks who are/were Little Black Devils........


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from Citizens for a Canadian Republic:


> In response to the restoration of the pre-1968 titles of Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, Canada's republican movement says the backward move, designed to appeal to conservative traditionalists, could backfire.
> 
> The government may be vastly overestimating the size of the demographic this kind of action appeals to," said CCR spokesperson, Tom Freda.
> 
> "This isn't the 1950s, nor do we have 1950s values, he adds. "Canada has been accustomed to moving away from colonialist symbols, not toward them. I can't imagine the mainstream public in 2011 seeing this decision as positive."
> 
> The group also believes there will be a considerable financial cost for the changeover. Access to Information documents have revealed consistent under-reporting of the true cost to taxpayers of royal visits, so that policy is expected to continue this time as well.
> 
> Regarding the potential constitutional implications, Freda said, "Australia's military still has the royal designation and they're further ahead in the republican debate than Canada. So, in the larger scope of things, it has no relevence to our inevitable evolution to a one hundred percent Canadianized head of state."


News release, 16 Aug 11


----------



## PuckChaser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> MCpl?
> ;D



How dare you!  >


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Up Spirits.



Aha! More evidence that this was a Navy plot just so they could splice the mainbrace on company time...  ;D


----------



## Tow Tripod

Does this mean we get Dominion Day back and the Union Jack as a flag again? Sarcasm!


----------



## aesop081

Upper and Lower Canada are making a comeback too.......

You heard it from me first folks........


----------



## OldSolduer

Maybe we can get some battle honours from the War of 1812.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

So does the Naval PRes now become the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve ? 

Edit to correct a key omission

Thanks to  Michael O'Leary


----------



## Michael OLeary

I think you mean the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve.



> After the Second World War, the RCNVR was merged into the Royal Canadian Navy Reserve (RCNR).
> 
> * Canadian Forces Naval Reserve 1968-present
> * Royal Canadian Naval Reserve 1945-1968
> * Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve 1914-1920


----------



## Good2Golf

> ...Regarding the potential constitutional implications, Freda said, "Australia's military still has the royal designation and they're further ahead in the republican debate than Canada. So, in the larger scope of things, it has no relevence to our inevitable evolution to a one hundred percent Canadianized head of state."



So according to the Canadian Coalition for a Republic's logic, the "Royal" of the Australian armed forces is linked to their being "further ahead in the republican debate".

Doesn't that mean that they should support the use of the word "Royal" as it appears to help the Aussies be closer to a republic than us?  

???


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Tavor said:
			
		

> A touch anachronistic, but will we Navy folks be allowed to use the post-nominal 'RCN' again?
> 
> IE: SLt P Bloggins RCN
> 
> Any thoughts on this?
> 
> -T.



I think it would make perfect sense in a social setting, as on a party invitation card, or  a business card and so on, but the main reason we used to present ourselves that way was because we had a different rank structure from the Army. So when you saw a Lieutenant or a Captain followed by RCN, you knew that they corresponded to higher position in the pyramid than if those were in the army.

Nowaday, we have adopted the practice of putting ranks that may lead to confusion in brackets to indicate that they are Navy, such as LT(N), the practice is well understood by all and the computer program for personnel admin recognises this so I don't see why we should change it.


----------



## OldSolduer

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> So does the Naval PRes now become the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve ?
> 
> Edit to correct a key omission
> 
> Thanks to  Michael O'Leary



Be a good start right?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good lord Jim! Why not bring back the "wavvy" officer stripes while we're at it?

The present Naval Reserve is quite different from the one of the "volunteer" days. It is afully integrated portion of the Royal Canadian Navy and operates ships and teams such as harbour defense units and port inspection teams that are not to supplement the regulars but rather fulfill a permanent function in accordance wih our own standing naval defense plans. There are no reasons to distinguish the Reserve from the RCN nowadays.

Personnally, if you want to bring back more significant designations, my choice would be to bring back the HMCS NADEN, STADACONNA and so forth to designate those "bases" currently under the control of the RCN.

I am sure someone like you, working out of an RCAF Station would understand  .


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So according to the Canadian Coalition for a Republic's logic, the "Royal" of the Australian armed forces is linked to their being "further ahead in the republican debate".
> 
> Doesn't that mean that they should support the use of the word "Royal" as it appears to help the Aussies be closer to a republic than us?
> 
> ???


I read that more as "AUS has royal designations BUT it's not slowing down its republican push", not so much A causes B.


----------



## Franko

crazy4slowpitch said:
			
		

> being an american and knowing an aweful lot of my fellow Canadian men at arms, I am a bit bewildered by this changeing of "names". I happen to be in Ottawa and read the local paper and feel compelled to add my 2 cents worth. The newspaper says that it was the Airforce and Navy that were the "services that fought and emerged victorious from WW2 and Korea"
> Well now. My history seems to recall that the once proud Canadian Army did a lil bit of fighting, dieing and rescueing an aweful lot of non-Canadians from the evils of tyrany and domination, but I guess your government conviently forgot all that. What are all those young men and women doing in Afghan??? sitting on their bunks, watching the navy and airforce play??? I don't think so.
> If I was in your military, I would be ashamed to admit what your government is doing. It sounds more like a photo op and self agrandization. There is nothing "Royal" about anything Canadian, unless your Mr.Harper really does consider hisself "THE King of Canada"
> My views may upset a few of your veterns, and I can live with that, but they are liveing in a past dream, but times have changed. I can see this being a huge waste of tax money, and IT WILL COME OUT OF YOUR MILITARY BUDGET. With what little is spent on your military and all the loss in a beaurocracy that seems bent on doing absolutely zero for your limited combat units, this is a total crock-o-shiat.
> I am very proud of all the members I have met of your Canadian Armed Forces. Leave it as it is, take some money from all the useless programs that the government seems bent on throwing money at, give it to the military, to use as they see fit and DO NOT allow any politico or their minions toch it. Get NDHQ sorted and sorted quickly. The waste and graft there is so rampant and evident, it should be a national embarassment. Cut your officer ranks by at least half, add them to your junior ranks and you will have a very viable military. Why so many god damn Generals in a military that should be run by perhaps 1 general??? it is an outrage. I recall seeing a memo put out by a former defense minister a few years ago announceing the retirement of 2 generals and an admiral. Along with that memo came another announceing the promotion of 28 other officers to generals rank or equivelent. That is total B.S. replave 3 with 28?? WTF??? Peter McKay I think was minister then, but I may be wrong.
> My countries military may not be any better, work just as bad as yours, but from what I see, your politicos are NOT doing any service to the men and woman who volunteer to serve as a member of your proud and strong military.
> If I offend anyone, I appologize in advance and being an outsider, perhaps I see things a lil different than what they do. It ain't perfect, but there is lot's of room for improvement.
> Drop the "ROYAL" crap, save the money and buy a few more LAV's and some troop transport helos get NDHQ sorted, fire/demote at least half of the officer corps and bulk up on actual field forces.



This coming from a 51 year old American air softer that's never served one day in the defense of Canada.

Yep, time for you to go away wanna be.

Regards


----------



## Good2Golf

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I read that more as "AUS has royal designations BUT it's not slowing down its republican push", not so much A causes B.



True, which logically follows that having a "Royal" shouldn't at all slow Canada down either!   It's amazing how illogical some logical arguments can be.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The present Naval Reserve is quite different from the one of the "volunteer" days. It is afully integrated portion of the Royal Canadian Navy and operates ships and teams such as harbour defense units and port inspection teams that are not to supplement the regulars but _*rather fulfill a permanent function * _ in accordance wih our own standing naval defense plans. There are no reasons to distinguish the Reserve from the RCN nowadays.



What part of "other than continuing full time service" does the RCN not understand?  Current employment patterns of the Reserve Force run counter to the NDA.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> True, which logically follows that having a "Royal" shouldn't at all slow Canada down either!   It's amazing how illogical some logical arguments can be.
> 
> Cheers
> G2G


Seen - thanks.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What part of "other than continuing full time service" does the RCN not understand?  Current employment patterns of the Reserve Force run counter to the NDA.


I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction between "full time service" and a "permanent capability" (e.g. mine countermeasures expertise, port security, etc) that can be employed in time of crisis as directed by the Governor-in-Council, which is completely in accordance with the NDA.

Or were you just taking one sentence fragment out of a large legal document and using it to flog your favourite hobby horse? One thing's for sure - it has absolutely nothing to do with the renaming of the three environmental commands, so this plainly isn't the thread to bring it up in (again).


----------



## Edward Campbell

An interesting take, by Jane Taber, on the _potential_ political ramifications of “Royal” in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/turning-back-military-clock-could-boost-ailing-bloc-pollster-says/article2132218/ 


> Turning back military clock could boost ailing Bloc, pollster says
> 
> JANE TABER
> OTTAWA — Globe and Mail Update
> Posted on Wednesday, August 17, 2011
> 
> A broader Harper government strategy to bring back the feelings of the “good old days” is behind the move to restore “Royal” designations to the Canadian navy and air force, according to pollster Nik Nanos.
> 
> “It’s about turning back the clock,” the Nanos Research president told The Globe. He believes the Harper government wants to focus on “tradition and national symbols” as a way of igniting feelings of national pride.
> 
> The Conservative government moved this week to change the name of the Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Air Command to the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> But there is controversy over the use of the word “royal,” with some critics suggesting it’s an unwelcome throwback to colonial times. As such, it carries some political risk.
> 
> “For many Canadians this is not likely a significant issue, unless the cost change becomes a factor. This could, however, play to the nationalists in Quebec.,” Mr. Nanos said.
> 
> “Back on their heels from a rout in the recent federal election, this may be a straw for them to grasp in an attempt to make themselves look more relevant to nationalist-minded voters in Quebec.”
> 
> But if a name change had to come, the Harper government picked the perfect moment, the pollster added. “In the wake of a generally well-received royal visit from William and Kate ... if there is a time to embark on such an initiative which minimizes political blow-back, this is likely it.”
> 
> *Tories seize on NDP divisions*
> 
> NDP MP Paul Dewar describes the Official Opposition’s reaction to restoring the “royal” designation to the Canadian navy and air force as “a bit of a shrug.”
> 
> The Conservatives, however, are using the issue to breathlessly accuse the NDP of being divided – and of “playing politics” with Canada’s military.
> 
> “While our government is bringing back the original names of the three former services reinstates an important and recognizable part of military heritage, along with a key part of our nation’s identity, the NDP cannot make up its mind on whether it will try to score cheap partisan points or admit a historic element of Canada’s Armed Forces has been restored,” according to a poorly-worded memo sent out to Harper supporters and MPs.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay argues the move is a matter of restoring military pride and was supported by armed forces personnel, especially veterans.
> 
> But it provoked differing responses from Mr. Dewar’s NDP colleagues. Defence critic Jack Harris attacked the decision while veterans critic Peter Stoffer welcomed it. This prompted the Conservatives to argue the seeming split “is another worrying example of how the NDP is not fit to govern Canada.”
> 
> Brad Lavigne, principal secretary to the Opposition Leader, responded by saying the “name change is unnecessary and not a priority.” And he accused the Tories of longing to “live in another time.”
> 
> “Conservatives want to ignore Canada’s evolution as a country,” he told The Globe. “While there is pride in our past, there also must be a recognition that Canada has transformed from a dominion to a proud independent country that has established its own identity.”




Well, I suppose that anything that divides the NDP and publicly exposes those divisions is worthwhile.

And, frankly, the _nationalists_ in Québec can always find many, many things to excite their humiliation, if it wasn't this they would find something else. Yawn.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction between "full time service" and a "permanent capability" (e.g. mine countermeasures expertise, port security, etc) that can be employed in time of crisis as directed by the Governor-in-Council, which is completely in accordance with the NDA.
> 
> Or were you just taking one sentence fragment out of a large legal document and using it to flog your favourite hobby horse? One thing's for sure - it has absolutely nothing to do with the renaming of the three environmental commands, so this plainly isn't the thread to bring it up in (again).




It does go to the issue of what the proper title for the Navel Reserve will be under this renaming.  "Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve".


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It does go to the issue of what the proper title for the Navel Reserve will be under this renaming.  "Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve".




There was an interesting distinction drawn, back in the 1930s, between the (regular force) RCN, the (professional seamen/fishermen etc) RCNR and the (civilian) RCNVR. Ir went like this: _"The RCNVR are gentlemen trying to be sailors; the RCNR are sailors trying to be gentlemen; and the RCN are neither trying to be both."_


----------



## old medic

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve".



Volunteer, compared with ???


----------



## Michael OLeary

old medic said:
			
		

> Volunteer, compared with ???



"Recruited" by a press gang, of course.    ;D


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It does go to the issue of what the proper title for the Navel Reserve will be under this renaming.  "Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve".


If anything it will likely be RCNR


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It does go to the issue of what the proper title for the Naval Reserve will be under this renaming.  "Royal Canadian Navy Volunteer Reserve".


What does that have to do with the NDA and your belief that the RCN uniquely lacks the ability to grasp its subtleties with respect to reserve service? Unlike the RCNVR of the Second World War and the RCN(R) (as it was known at the time of unification), the Naval Reserve is a formation of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly like Maritime Forces Atlantic and Pacific. My hope is that MARLANT and MARPAC will be eventually renamed "Naval Forces"... though that's really digging for the flyshit in the pepper. But assuming that happened, I suppose the most orthogonal name for the NAVRES formation would be "Naval Forces Reserve"


----------



## aesop081

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> your belief that the RCN uniquely lacks the ability to grasp its subtleties with respect to reserve service?



The Naval reserve is not unique in this regard and dapaterson knows it very well. The Air reserves is in the same situation.


----------



## Monsoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Naval reserve is not unique in this regard and dapaterson knows it very well. The Air reserves is in the same situation.


Agreed - and so is the Canadian Army (feels oddly satisfying to be able to use that capital "A"), though at least in its case the use of permanent reservists is more _ad hoc_ than by design (not sure which is worse). In any case, since everyone seems to be getting reservists "wrong" in roughly the same way, it's been proposed by those whose business it is that that part of the NDA be revised the next time the Act gets opened for review.

Anyway - can someone move all this over to the proper thread?


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think it would make perfect sense in a social setting, as on a party invitation card, or  a business card and so on, but the main reason we used to present ourselves that way was because we had a different rank structure from the Army. So when you saw a Lieutenant or a Captain followed by RCN, you knew that they corresponded to higher position in the pyramid than if those were in the army.
> 
> Nowaday, we have adopted the practice of putting ranks that may lead to confusion in brackets to indicate that they are Navy, such as LT(N), the practice is well understood by all and the computer program for personnel admin recognises this so I don't see why we should change it.



I for one, would like to see the return of RCN, RCAF, RCR, etc as post-nominals.  Then we could get away from this "Lt(N)" nonsense.  In and of itself, I don't actually have a problem with placing a "(N)" after "lieutenant" or "captain," but the original intent has been twisted around to the point that I cringe whenever I see "Lieutenant (Navy)" written out or WORSE, spoken.  According to the NDA, the ranks in questions are: "lieutenant" and "captain," period.  The NDA then goes on to say that if the rank is being applied to a naval officer, then "(N)" shall be written afterward to denote that fact.  It is significant to note that the NDA does not say to use "(Navy)" or even "(Naval)," simply "(N)."  Frankly, whenever I hear someone introduce himself as "Lieutenenant (Navy) Bloggins, I simply think he has an inferiority complex.


----------



## 57Chevy

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Check the comments at the link.

MacKay: Renaming military corrects 'historical mistake' 
http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110816/canadian-forces-names-royal-ties-110816/20110816/?hub=MontrealHome
CTV News.ca Staff

Canada's air force and navy will undergo a name change that honours the military's royal roots, Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced Tuesday. 

Speaking in Halifax, MacKay said the Canadian air force, now officially named Air Command, will be renamed the Royal Canadian Air Force. 

The navy, now called Maritime Command, will once again be known as the Royal Canadian Navy. 

And the army, known as Land Force Command, will now be called the Canadian Army. 

MacKay said the decision corrects a "historical mistake" that was made when the various branches of the military were renamed around 1970, with the word "royal" removed. 

"After all, it was under these names that the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force brought Canadians great honour," MacKay said. 

"They fought and died in conflicts from the fields of Europe, the beaches of Normandy, the battle of Britain and the battle of Kapyong and now in the dusty fields of Afghanistan." 


Retired Maj. Gen. Lewis MacKenzie told CTV News Channel on Tuesday afternoon that the renaming will have very little impact on the institution. 

"I'm happy for the vets, I know they lobbied hard but it's not going to affect the sharp end," he said.

Other events were held simultaneously across the country to mark the transition. 

The announcement marks a return to historic names for the three branches of the military that were used up until 1968. 

When the three divisions were united under the Canadian Forces banner, the names were dropped. 

According to media reports, a Canadian Forces document described the move as a return to "an important and recognizable part of Canada's military heritage." 

Philip Gray, an 88-year-old Second World War veteran who piloted a bomber in the Royal Air Force, welcomed the return of the word "royal" to the military nomenclature. 

He said Canada earned the title during the war, and he was sad to see it go when it was removed in 1968. 

"We didn't get it for nothing, we really earned the name and to see the other air forces standing there with royal in front of their name and Canada not, didn't seem right somehow," Gray told CTV. 

Not everyone agrees. 


Christian Leuprecht, an associate professor at Kingston, Ont.'s Queens University, called it a "symbolic" move for the forces at a time when it's facing fiscal challenges.

New Democrat MP Jack Harris said the name-change is divisive among Canadians, and many feel it represents a step backwards. 

"We are a modern nation, an independent nation which has had the Canadian Forces for over 40 years and we think we should keep it that way because it's an emblematic part of Canada," Harris told CTV news Channel. 

On Tuesday, a group dubbed Citizens for a Canadian Republic also came out against the name change, calling it a "backward move, designed to appeal to conservative traditionalists." 

The group's spokesperson warned in a statement that the decision could backfire. 

"Canada has been accustomed to moving away from colonialist symbols, not toward them," said CCR spokesperson Tom Freda. 

"I can't imagine the mainstream public in 2011 seeing this decision as positive." 

He added that the decision reflects outdated "1950s values." 

The Toronto-based group also predicted that the financial cost of the changeover will be "considerable," something MacKay denied. He said the cost would be minimal and there would be no structural or organizational changes within military ranks.


----------



## Sigger

It really annoys me that things like this turns political. Why can it not be seen as just the right thing to do instead of the Tories did this for insert political gain here?

I hate that BS.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Sigger said:
			
		

> It really annoys me that things like this turns political. Why can it not be seen as just the right thing to do instead of the Tories did this for insert political gain here?



Because when someone doesn't like the party in power, everything the Government does is a political issue that must be shown to be destroying the country.


----------



## Tharris

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Upper and Lower Canada are making a comeback too.......
> 
> You heard it from me first folks........



 ;D


----------



## Tharris

Pusser said:
			
		

> I for one, would like to see the return of RCN, RCAF, RCR, etc as post-nominals.  Then we could get away from this "Lt(N)" nonsense.  In and of itself, I don't actually have a problem with placing a "(N)" after "lieutenant" or "captain," but the original intent has been twisted around to the point that I cringe whenever I see "Lieutenant (Navy)" written out or WORSE, spoken.  According to the NDA, the ranks in questions are: "lieutenant" and "captain," period.  The NDA then goes on to say that if the rank is being applied to a naval officer, then "(N)" shall be written afterward to denote that fact.  It is significant to note that the NDA does not say to use "(Navy)" or even "(Naval)," simply "(N)."  Frankly, whenever I hear someone introduce himself as "Lieutenenant (Navy) Bloggins, I simply think he has an inferiority complex.



I posted a similar query earlier on this - is there any direction?  I would enjoy to see the post-nominal return as well, though I wonder if NAVRES will become the RCNR again or if the 'one fleet' push means they will leave the reserve indicator off entirely?


----------



## Michael OLeary

The service post-nominals worked in a time when everyone in a Service wore the same uniform and was subject to the same rank labels. Switching back to their use may appear to be simple for all the Navy DEU wearing sailors in the RCN, but you'll still have, for examples, Captains wearing Army or Air Force DEU who are posted to a Naval establishment who would then be placing RCN after their name because that's who they belong to. Or will they then become _Capt I.M. Here, RCN (not-N)_?


----------



## stegner

Any word on whether the Army and RCAF will return to the British-style salute?


----------



## CountDC

Sigh - people really need to get with the times.  Going on about the enormous cost this will be to change all the signs, letterheads, business cards, badges, etc etc etc.  And they say we are going back to the dark ages.  Have they never heard of regular maintenance which the sign changes would be covered under if it was actually done?  Badges - why?  Letterheads and business cards - can we say COMPUTERS that are sitting on our desks already so the only cost there is the few seconds it takes to change the wording on the letterheads and business card templates.  

Even the gentleman in the below quote starts off good but was not able to make the jump from printing our own letterhead to printing our own business cards and why would we all need 250 of them?  Most officers I know don't even need them.

"Stationery: Over recent years, the use of preprinted letterhead has declined, since it is much cheaper to print the letterhead with a computer document. Business cards, however, remain important and would certainly need to be updated to reflect the Canadian Forces' new command designations. Assuming each active member of the military would require a new card, a supply of 250 cards each would run the military about $871,000, with the potential of reducing that cost if they restrict the use of business cards to officers only."

Let's make them all happy - ground all wings and anchor all ships for one day - the fuel savings will cover the cost of the name change.

Now find something important to complain about - such as me not having my 1.5 percent pay increase yet!!


----------



## McG

CountDC said:
			
		

> Now find something important to complain about - such as me not having my 1.5 percent pay increase yet!!


TB probably could not get to this topic becuase they busy were talking about name changes.


----------



## Franko

So what will happen to LFAA, LFQS, LFCA, LFWA? CAAA, CAQS, *CACA*, CAWA?

Regards


----------



## dapaterson

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> So what will happen to LFAA, LFQS, LFCA, LFWA? CAAA, CAQS, *CACA*, CAWA?
> 
> Regards



We'll adopt their current, unofficial names:

The Army of the East;
The Army of Quebec;
The Army of Ontario*; and
The Army of the West.

(*Less Thunder Bay and the Lakehead)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

stegner said:
			
		

> Any word on whether the Army and RCAF will return to the British-style salute?



Why would they? Considering BMQ is held in St. Jean and the elements are trained together it would not make much sense.


----------



## Strike

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why would they? Considering BMQ is held in St. Jean and the elements are trained together it would not make much sense.



Neither does having different infantry regiments doing their own drill, but...


----------



## Kirkhill

stegner said:
			
		

> Any word on whether the Army and RCAF will return to the British-style salute?



So as to demonstrate that they never get their hands dirty?  The closed palm salute was used by the Navy because their sailor's hands were always filthy from the tarry pitch on the ropes and thus a disgrace to any decent Buffer.  ;D

By the way - does the RCN still use "Buffer" "Killick" etc?


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way - does the RCN still use "Buffer" "Killick" etc?


I don't know about "Killick", but I met this sailor once.  Boy could she "buffer"   >


----------



## aesop081

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> By the way - does the RCN still use "Buffer" "Killick" etc?



Yes.


----------



## MSEng314

Yes, you hear them used on ship fairly often, but I don't think you will ever see them written anywhere.


----------



## aesop081

MSEng314 said:
			
		

> Yes, you hear them used on ship fairly often, but I don't think you will ever see them written anywhere.



Those terms are contained in "Customs and traditions of the Canadian Forces".


----------



## MSEng314

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Those terms are contained in "Customs and traditions of the Canadian Forces".



True, I just meant you would never see anything in writing describing "Killick Bloggins" or "..and then the Buffer did this," it would use their proper ranks/titles.


----------



## Mountie

Will the RCAF ranks structure ever make a return?


----------



## aesop081

Mountie said:
			
		

> Will the RCAF ranks structure ever make a return?



I wonder what that hasn't been brought up in this thread before..........


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The service post-nominals worked in a time when everyone in a Service wore the same uniform and was subject to the same rank labels. Switching back to their use may appear to be simple for all the Navy DEU wearing sailors in the RCN, but you'll still have, for examples, Captains wearing Army or Air Force DEU who are posted to a Naval establishment who would then be placing RCN after their name because that's who they belong to. Or will they then become _Capt I.M. Here, RCN (not-N)_?



I believe the following MSG may answer your question: 



> SUBJ: RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAME OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
> 
> 1. TOMORROW THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA WILL ANNOUNCE THE RESTORATION OF THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE. EFFECTIVE 16 AUGUST 2011, THE NAME QUOTE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY UNQUOTE (RCN) REPLACES QUOTE MARITIME COMMAND UNQUOTE AS A COMMAND OF THE CANADIAN FORCES
> 
> 2. IT IS NOT BY CHANCE THAT 16 AUGUST WAS SELECTED FOR THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. IT WAS ON THIS DAY 100 YEARS AGO THAT HIS MAJESTY KING GEORGE V BESTOWED ON CANADA’S THEN FLEDGLING NAVAL SERVICE THE HONOUR OF A NEW DESIGNATION. OUR NAVY STOOD WATCH AND FOUGHT FOR CANADA UNDER THE BANNER QUOTE RCN UNQUOTE FROM THAT MOMENT UNTIL 1968 - THROUGH TWO WORLD WARS, THE KOREAN WAR AND A LARGE PART OF THE COLD WAR
> 
> 3. YOU WILL REMEMBER THE OUTPOURING OF PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR OUR NAVY LAST YEAR AS WE CELEBRATED THE NAVAL CENTENNIAL. THE REINTRODUCTION BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE CURL WAS A TANGIBLE HONOUR THAT LINKED OUR PRESENT SERVICE TO OUR DISTINGUISHED PAST. THE GOVERNMENT, ON BEHALF OF ALL CANADIANS, HONOURS THE NAVY AGAIN TODAY WITH THE TITLE RCN, RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA’S NAVAL HERITAGE. YESTERDAY’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS, FORGED IN THESELFLESSNESS AND SACRIFICE OF PREVIOUS GENERATIONS OF SAILORS, SETS THE STANDARDS FOR TODAY’S GENERATION AND INFORMS OUR HIGHEST EXPECTATIONS OF SERVICE AND ACHIEVEMENT. WE HONOUR THOSE WHO PRECEDED US NOT ONLY IN OBSERVING NAVAL CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS, BUT ALSO IN THE SYMBOLS THAT ARE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF OUR CULTURE. THIS CAN ONLY HELP TO STRENGTHEN OUR IDENTITY AS A TREASURED NATIONAL INSTITUTION AND INSPIRE US TO CONTINUE TO EXCEL IN SERVICE TO CANADA
> 
> *4. TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY ABOUT NAME CHANGE. FOREMOST WE ALL ARE MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES. INSIDE THE CANADIAN FORCES, THE COMMAND CALLED QUOTE MARITIME COMMAND UNQUOTE WILL BE RENAMED QUOTE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY UNQUOTE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE NAME ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY IS MUCH MORE THAN A COMMAND. IT IS ALSO THE INSTITUTION TO WHICH EVERYONE WHO WEARS A NAVAL UNIFORM BELONGS, NO MATTER IN WHICH COMMAND THEY SERVE. RESTORING THE TITLE RCN WILL CREATE NEW OPPORTUNITIES, AND IN THE COMING WEEKS WE WILL EXAMINE WAYS TO MAKE THE MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF THIS RESPECTED AND WELL-RECOGNIZED BRAND IN REACHING OUT TO CANADIANS. FURTHER WORK WILL BE REQUIRED AS WE CONSIDER ITS EFFECTS ON WEBSITES, ADMINISTRATION AND ORDERS. FOR THE INTERIM ALL CURRENT MARITIME COMMAND ORDERS, DIRECTIVES, RULES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND. ALL REFERENCES TO MARITIME COMMAND SHALL BE READ AS READING ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY*
> 
> 5. THE NAME CHANGE WILL BE LARGELY TRANSPARENT TO LIFE ON THE WATERFRONT AND THE CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS. THE SUCCESS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES WILL CONTINUE TO RESIDE IN ITS ABILITY TO INTEGRATE THE KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND CAPABILITIES OF THE NAVY, ARMY, AIR FORCE AND SPECIAL FORCES FOR JOINT ACTION AT HOME AND ABROAD. WE WILL MAINTAIN THE NAVY’S PROUD TRADITION OF QUOTE READY, AYE READY UNQUOTE, BUT WITH ONE SMALL, BUT VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. FROM TOMORROW FORWARD YOU CAN SAY PROUDLY THAT YOU ARE IN THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY 6. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS. AS YOUR COMMANDER I AM PROUD TO LEAD A NAVY THAT EMBRACES ITS ROOTS WHILE PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE - QUALITIES THAT MAKE OUR SERVICE ONE OF THE FINEST AND MOST RESPECTED NAVAL FORCES IN THE WORLD



I read the highlighted portion to mean that only Naval DEU personnel are members of the RCN. How this effects the non-Naval DEU pers now employed in the Royal Canadian Navy is a question that may need to be looked at. You raise a valid point.


----------



## vonGarvin

I think the answer is simple.  I wear the regimental accoutrements of The Royal Canadian Regiment, even though, right now, I am not serving in any part of The Regiment.  I am still in The RCR, and I am still in the Canadian Army.  It matters not where I serve, these affiliations remain.



So, if a Log O is wearing the uniform of the Canadian Army, but serving in a unit of the Royal Canadian Air Force, well, that Log O is still in the Canadian Army, an entity which is much more than a command.

Anyway, that's how I see it.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I read the highlighted portion to mean that only Naval DEU personnel are members of the RCN. How this effects the non-Naval DEU pers now employed in the Royal Canadian Navy is a question that may need to be looked at. You raise a valid point.


The answer to this is that the effects are the same as non-RCR capbadged pers serving in 2 RCR, or non-PPCLI capbadged pers serving in 1 PPCLI, or non-RCA capbadged pers serving in 4 AD, etc, etc, etc.


----------



## ModlrMike

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I believe the following MSG may answer your question:
> 
> I read the highlighted portion to mean that only Naval DEU personnel are members of the RCN. How this effects the non-Naval DEU pers now employed in the Royal Canadian Navy is a question that may need to be looked at. You raise a valid point.



No different than in the pre-unification days when dental services to the Navy were provided by the Army Dental Corps. Those pers served with the Navy but were never part of it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I read the highlighted portion to mean that only Naval DEU personnel are members of the RCN. How this effects the non-Naval DEU pers now employed in the Royal Canadian Navy is a question that may need to be looked at. You raise a valid point.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The answer to this is that the effects are the same as non-RCR capbadged pers serving in 2 RCR, or non-PPCLI capbadged pers serving in 1 PPCLI, or non-RCA capbadged pers serving in 4 AD, etc, etc, etc.



Except that my point was not in relation to who belongs to who, it was in response to these comments:




			
				Tavor said:
			
		

> Pusser said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I for one, would like to see the return of RCN, RCAF, RCR, etc as post-nominals.  Then we could get away from this "Lt(N)" nonsense.  In and of itself, I don't actually have a problem with placing a "(N)" after "lieutenant" or "captain," but the original intent has been twisted around to the point that I cringe whenever I see "Lieutenant (Navy)" written out or WORSE, spoken.  According to the NDA, the ranks in questions are: "lieutenant" and "captain," period.  The NDA then goes on to say that if the rank is being applied to a naval officer, then "(N)" shall be written afterward to denote that fact.  It is significant to note that the NDA does not say to use "(Navy)" or even "(Naval)," simply "(N)."  Frankly, whenever I hear someone introduce himself as "Lieutenenant (Navy) Bloggins, I simply think he has an inferiority complex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a similar query earlier on this - is there any direction?  I would enjoy to see the post-nominal return as well, though I wonder if NAVRES will become the RCNR again or if the 'one fleet' push means they will leave the reserve indicator off entirely?
Click to expand...


Because the suggested return of the post-nominals "RCN" would make the use of the parenthetical "(N)" in Lt (N) and Capt (N) redundant, but possibly create confusion for non-Navy DEU wearing Lts and Capts in naval establishments.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Because the suggested return of the post-nominals "RCN" would make the use of the parenthetical "(N)" in Lt (N) and Capt (N) redundant, but possibly create confusion for non-Navy DEU wearing Lts and Capts in naval establishments.


Perhaps they could be styled Lt(A) / Lt(AF) etc?  >

:2c: My understanding WRT post-nominals is that they're reflective of naval officers only and ergo an army officer serving in the RCN would not use them.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Perhaps they could be styled Lt(A) / Lt(AF) etc?  >
> 
> :2c: My understanding WRT post-nominals is that they're reflective of naval officers only and ergo an army officer serving in the RCN would not use them.



Which would mean someone in a purple trade (but not wearing Navy DEU) could theoretically be in the Navy throughout their career, but not permitted to use "RCN" because of the colour of the uniform they were issued.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which would mean someone in a purple trade (but not wearing Navy DEU) could theoretically be in the Navy throughout their career, but not permitted to use "RCN" because of the colour of the uniform they were issued.


This isn't exactly a new concept and existed pre-unification.  Perhaps the solution is to change uniforms for those allowed?  (Dentists as an example can serve at sea in the AOR, be awarded an SSI, yet cannot wear the naval DEU.  Medical Officers, on the other hand, can wear the naval DEU and even have coloured cloth on their executive curls.  Skipping that can of worms for the moment...)  Post-nominals also exist in many western navies, including the Commonwealth and others such as the USN.

As an aside, I mildly dislike the whole (N) bit and the post-nominal is a traditional way to dispense with that qualifier.  In military writing we could dispense with the post-nominals and follow the US style of abbreviating ranks differently by service:

CAPT - USN
Capt - USA
CPT - USAF


----------



## Michael OLeary

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> As an aside, I mildly dislike the whole (N) bit and the post-nominal is a traditional way to dispense with that qualifier.



I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that, as with many things, the simple solution can create it's own share of complications.


----------



## hugh19

It is not a USN thing. All RN officers use RN as well. Or RAN or RNZN,etc.....


----------



## Ancient Hush Puppy

Knock knock, ehm can I come in please?  

First of all congratulations to the RCN and RCAF on regaining their traditional titles and identities which is how we always referred to you anyway.     As a former Brit Army WO1 I have over the years watched the Canucks move incrementally from the all green Canadian Forces (Cyprus 1972 - when I first met some of you blokes)  to the Navy and Air Force returning to dark blue and light blue uniforms, naval officers regaining their curl and finally to today.  Is there now a line in the sand or will this trend continue?  Will the RCAF take on their former rank structure:  Flt Sgt, PO, Flg Offr, Sqn Ldr etc and will the Canadian Army regain their former badges of rank and a "proper like" khaki dress uniform similar to the rest of the Commonwealth Armies instead of that (sorry 'bout this) God awful bus driver outfit?   :

Okay, okay, I'll just get me hat n coat and I'll be off

Ancient Hush Puppy


----------



## Danjanou

It's Ok Hush Puppy we all call it eh GD Busdriver suit too and worse. 8)

Lots of grins in my Legion branch last night among the old RCAF and RCN types. The couple of Jimmies were green with envy though. ;D


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Danjanou said:
			
		

> The couple of Jimmies were green with envy though. ;D


Like I said earlier, precedent is now set ... And our 110th Birthday is quickly approaching  >


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Except that my point was not in relation to who belongs to who, it was in response to these comments:



No problem I thought reference may help some.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Like I said earlier, precedent is now set ... And our 110th Birthday is quickly approaching   >








This can't be!! Canada's Senior Service, the RCN, just celebrated their 100th. 






  

 :stirpot: :worms:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

recceguy said:
			
		

> This can't be!! Canada's Senior Service, the RCN, just celebrated their 100th.
> 
> :stirpot: :worms:



Ref: http://www.rcsigs.ca/ViewPage/History/90-Years-And-Counting/Page/2/



> Captain W. Bruce M. Carruthers, a Kingston native and hero of the Boer War, had noted that, in South Africa, signalling inadequacies had severely limited the efficiency of British Empire forces. He proposed that a specialist signalling corps be created to ensure standardization of signalling among Canadian army units. His proposal was accepted and on *24 October 1903*, General Order (GO) 167 authorized formation of the "Canadian Signalling Corps (Militia)" (CSC) - the first independently organized Signal Corps in the British Empire



*[SARCASM]* As much as the Navy likes to too their own "Senior Service" pipecall, there was life before 1910 .

As I recall, last year was also the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada's *150th* Regimental birthday  *[/SARCASM]*


----------



## kratz

Regiments are NOT a service unto themself. This is the difference between the RCN being the senior service and an individual regiment celebrating an older anniversary. This of course is off topic of the "Royal" and name changes to the three elements.


----------



## aesop081

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> As I recall, last year was also the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada's *150th* Regimental birthday



The Queen's Own Rifles are not a "service" and neither is the Signal Corps.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Sorry. Guess you guys missed the sarcasm. Thought the icon _may_ have given it away.

There I edited it.  ;D


----------



## rmc_wannabe

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The Queen's Own Rifles are not a "service" and neither is the Signal Corps.



Wasn't stating as such. Regiments and Corps histories fold into the Canadian Army's history. 

I am not trying to hijack the thread, or turn this into an "expelling urine" match either. My response was a tongue in cheek response to recceguy's post. Sorry for the _miscommunication_ 



> Sorry. Guess you guys missed the sarcasm. Thought the icon may have given it away.
> 
> There I edited it.  ;D



Oh it was noted, and I will place a disclaimer on mine as well. ;D


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing, just pointing out that, as with many things, the simple solution can create it's own share of complications.


Concur with you.  War of 1812 anyone?


----------



## McG

It looks as though there might be a great big victory in the works for those who would like to turn back the clock until we look and sound like 1967.  There really are more important issues on which to be spending resources and effort.


> Forces could see run on royals
> Bryn Weese
> The Ottawa Sun
> 18 August 2011
> 
> Dusting off the former names of Canada's army, navy and air force has sparked debate about whether other royal designations should be reinstated.
> 
> On Tuesday, the government announced Maritime Command and Air Command would be renamed the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force respectively, and Land Force Command will once again be officially known as the Canadian Army. But what about the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, the Royal Canadian Medical Corps, the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, or the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, titles that were also dropped with the unification of the Canadian Forces in 1968?
> 
> Are those titles coming back, too?
> 
> HOPES NOT
> 
> Celebrated Canadian military historian Jack Granatstein hopes not. "I was afraid this was going to start," he said. "I don't think the names need to come back.
> 
> "People have said there's no cost, or very little cost to the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, but if you start slapping the royal label on some of the old army corps, then badges and shoulder flashes and buttons, all those things have to be redone, and the costs get to be significant."
> 
> The government, though, isn't ruling it out as a potential move down the road.
> 
> *"The restoration of the historical names is being done in a phased-in approach to ensure there is no impact on the capabilities, the organization or the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence," wrote Jay Paxton, senior spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay, in an e-mail Wednesday. *
> 
> CONTINUE CONSULTATION
> 
> "This government will continue consultation with members of the Canadian Forces and defence organizations as we connect our present with our past."
> 
> The problem -- at least for some of the former services -- is they don't even exist anymore, having been absorbed into the three main branches.
> 
> But, while retired major general Lewis MacKenzie said he's not going to lose sleep over whether the Royal Canadian Dental Corps title is restored, he said it's ultimately up to the dentists in the forces to decide for themselves.
> 
> "I would suggest they do what everybody else does. If they want it back, they should get their influential civilian people to lobby the government," he said. "That's how you change policy."


I do wonder what RCAF and RCN members of the Logistics branch will think of being called Royal Canadian _Army_ Service Corps ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pips and Crowns are still available! 
Pips & Crowns


----------



## rmc_wannabe

MCG said:
			
		

> I do wonder what RCAF and RCN members of the Logistics branch will think of being called Royal Canadian _Army_ Service Corps ...



RCLC/S? Royal Canadian Logistical Corps/Service ? Just a thought


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

sledge said:
			
		

> It is not a USN thing. All RN officers use RN as well. Or RAN or RNZN,etc.....


Who said that it was an exclusively USN thing?



			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Post-nominals also exist in many western navies, including the Commonwealth and others such as the USN.


----------



## CountDC

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Which would mean someone in a purple trade (but not wearing Navy DEU) could theoretically be in the Navy throughout their career, but not permitted to use "RCN" because of the colour of the uniform they were issued.



correction - in theory they could be working with the Navy vice be in the Navy. If they were in the Navy then they would be wearing the correct colour of uniform.


----------



## Michael OLeary

CountDC said:
			
		

> correction - in theory they could be working with the Navy vice be in the Navy. If they were in the Navy then they would be wearing the correct colour of uniform.



Oh, well that's easy then, we just have to change our whole cultural understanding of what it means to "belong" to a unit in one of the services.  I suppose that will make it easier for the decision to be made to have only one colour of uniform on parade when it's  a "Service-specific" event.


----------



## aesop081

Guess that other thread was right.......back to buttons and bows and shit that don't matter. Arguing who belongs to what by what colour and post-nominals  :

Are we that far away from combat already ?


----------



## Neill McKay

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Oh, well that's easy then, we just have to change our whole cultural understanding of what it means to "belong" to a unit in one of the services.



I'd suggest that belonging to a unit and belonging to the service that the unit is a part of are (and were, this time last week) distinct from one another.  For example, if you ask an army cook who happens to be posted to a ship what he does for a living, I suspect that he's more likely to say "I'm in the army" than "I'm in the navy".

There's some literature on what members of the various elements tend to identify with.  At least one author found that sailors tend to identify with the navy as a service, soldiers with their regiment or branch, and airmen with their trade.  These are all generalizations, of course.  I'd be interested in hearing from individuals who are posted out-of-element about where (unit, branch, element, or elsewhere) they hang their elemental hat.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess that other thread was right.......back to buttons and bows and crap that don't matter. Arguing who belongs to what by what colour and post-nominals  :
> 
> Are we that far away from combat already ?



I think having gone through combat set the firm line in the sand (pun not intended) of what army types do, what air types do, what navy types do, what joint forces do, what SOF forces do etc.

Our experiences in the past decade have shown what a flawed system Unification was. Afghanistan showed how different a tour can be depending on where you hung your hat and what colour it was. 

Now that its said and done, people are looking for things to reflect that distinct service. Honestly, I'd rather be changing names on signs and epaulets than having something like a CAB or some other divisive thing in a "unified" force.

Just an observation  :-\.


----------



## Michael OLeary

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess that other thread was right.......back to buttons and bows and crap that don't matter. Arguing who belongs to what by what colour and post-nominals  :
> 
> Are we that far away from combat already ?



Oh, sorry, was the war coming to my living room?  I'm only a part-timer now, so could we schedule that for 1900-2200 this evening, or I may be available for a weekend next month.  Is it OK if we discuss this when we're not on sentry duty, Warrant?


----------



## AmmoTech90

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think having gone through combat set the firm line in the sand (pun not intended) of what army types do, what air types do, what navy types do, what joint forces do, what SOF forces do etc.
> 
> Our experiences in the past decade have shown what a flawed system Unification was. Afghanistan showed how different a tour can be depending on where you hung your hat and what colour it was.
> 
> Just an observation  :-\.



I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.  There were Navy and Air Force members operating outside the wire driving TLAVs and at the same time there were Army members never more than an air conditioned SUV ride from Greenbeans.  So if anything recent combat operations have blurred the line regarding which service conducts land operations (I do not mean specific tasks on those operations such drivign tanks, firing howitzers, closing with etc...)


----------



## aesop081

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Is it OK if we discuss this when we're not on sentry duty, Warrant?



Oh yes Sir, anything you would like. If you say theres nothing better for the CF to think about then it must be so. I will deffer to your extensive operational record.


----------



## Michael OLeary

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Oh yes Sir, anything you would like. If you say theres nothing better for the CF to think about then it must be so. I will deffer to your extensive operational record.



So, now a discussion on the internet is officially taking up the CF's time and operational focus?

Would you like to provide us a list of authorized topics?


----------



## aesop081

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Would you like to provide us a list of authorized topics?



I never said what we should or shouldnt not be discussing here.

Whatever, f**k this.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make.  There were Navy and Air Force members operating outside the wire driving TLAVs and at the same time there were Army members never more than an air conditioned SUV ride from Greenbeans.  So if anything recent combat operations have blurred the line regarding which service conducts land operations (I do not mean specific tasks on those operations such drivign tanks, firing howitzers, closing with etc...)



You're equating the exceptions of a few as the actions of an entire service. Who is being blurry?

I specifically stated in my post that Joint forces, including atts and dets, did their own thing. I am pretty sure a rifle company weren't the ones operating the Air Wing, nor did we see the ships company of HMCS Montreal carrying out standing patrols through the Arghandab. 

See where I am going with this now?


----------



## Infanteer

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I never said what we should or shouldnt not be discussing here.
> 
> Whatever, f**k this.



Really, what was this then?



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess that other thread was right.......back to buttons and bows and crap that don't matter. Arguing who belongs to what by what colour and post-nominals  :



If you don't like the dicussion, either disagree with the points like an adult or don't post.  Acting like a d**k doesn't accomplish anything.


----------



## Pusser

recceguy said:
			
		

> This can't be!! Canada's Senior Service, the RCN, just celebrated their 100th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :stirpot: :worms:



"Sailors, with their built in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world." -Nicholas Monsarrat 

That's why we're the senior service.  Oh, that and the fact that the naval forces of the His/Her Majesty trace their lineage back 500 years to Henry VIII.


----------



## vonGarvin

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Oh, sorry, was the war coming to my living room?



If you were a grognard, it could be!   :nod:


----------



## wannabe SF member

Does that mean I get to wear a gorget in scarlets now?


----------



## Danjanou

Inky said:
			
		

> Does that mean I get to wear a gorget in scarlets now?



As long as it's not an ascot ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> "Sailors, with their built in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world." -Nicholas Monsarrat
> 
> That's why we're the senior service.  Oh, that and the fact that the naval forces of the His/Her Majesty trace their lineage back 500 years to Henry VIII.



I really don't know how you missed the great big S-A-R-C-A-S-M- smilies. :facepalm:

Oh wait. Maybe it's because they were written and not printed in Old English Gothic font ;D RCN & Henry VIII indeed 8)

j\k   Just more


----------



## Michael OLeary

Pusser said:
			
		

> "Sailors, with their built in sense of order, service and discipline, should really be running the world." -Nicholas Monsarrat



Nicholas Monsarrat the fiction writer?    >   ;D


----------



## AmmoTech90

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> You're equating the exceptions of a few as the actions of an entire service. Who is being blurry?
> 
> I specifically stated in my post that Joint forces, including atts and dets, did their own thing. I am pretty sure a rifle company weren't the ones operating the Air Wing, nor did we see the ships company of HMCS Montreal carrying out standing patrols through the Arghandab.
> 
> See where I am going with this now?



No.  I don't recall seeing a ships company doing section attacks during the height of unification/Cold War.  The whole name change means nothing to how the Canadian Armed Forces operates.  As we continue to mount operations force generation will not be affected by what uniform someone wears, but rather by what skill set they have.  The first time someone in an ECS objects to a member deploying where they are needed because of what colour hat they wear they will have proved Hellyer's case.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Nicholas Monsarrat the fiction writer?    >   ;D



Yeah.  The guy with combat and command experience.


----------



## Pusser

recceguy said:
			
		

> I really don't know how you missed the great big S-A-R-C-A-S-M- smilies. :facepalm:
> 
> Oh wait. Maybe it's because they were written and not printed in Old English Gothic font ;D RCN & Henry VIII indeed 8)
> 
> j\k   Just more



I didn't miss it at all.  I guess you didn't recognize it coming right back at you! ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Danjanou said:
			
		

> As long as it's not an ascot ;D



Can we incapacite the GIF (Good Idea Fairy) for a year or two?


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Guess that other thread was right.......back to buttons and bows and shit that don't matter. Arguing who belongs to what by what colour and post-nominals  :





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ... If you say theres nothing better for the CF to think about then it must be so. ...


A little unnecessarily abrasive in your approach, but you bring light to a valid concern.  The membership of this site can wax on indefinitely about restoring old ranks, uniforms, organizations, and names - in the end, there is no harm in the debate.  However, I am concerned that all these fantasies of the good idea fairy will now start to consume more time & resources of strategic staff.  Proponents will see these name changes as a sign of opportunity and begin lobbying for their preferred icon from the past.  The strike while the iron is hot idea will be further emboldened by the quote from the MND's office that more changes will be looked at.  The banter on this site is harmless, but I believe it reflects a wave of good-idea work that will be blowing through strategic staffs for a while to come now.

It would be great if someone official were to now declare that this has been it - we have done the name changes and nothing more is to come and nobody is to be pushing any more such agendas on company time.

Unfortunately, where most proponents will be retired Legion hall lobbiests, the rush to implement good ideas onto current service members may be a debate the CF cannot avoid.



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> I'd suggest that belonging to a unit and belonging to the service that the unit is a part of are (and were, this time last week) distinct from one another.  For example, if you ask an army cook who happens to be posted to a ship what he does for a living, I suspect that he's more likely to say "I'm in the army" than "I'm in the navy".


Even if he has spent his whole career on a ship or in Halifax?



			
				N. McKay said:
			
		

> There's some literature on what members of the various elements tend to identify with.  At least one author found that sailors tend to identify with the navy as a service, soldiers with their regiment or branch, and airmen with their trade.  These are all generalizations, of course.


Is any of this literature Canadian?  Does any of it examine specifically purple occupations to determine if one's self identification is influence primarily by uniform colour or employment history?


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> A little unnecessarily abrasive in your approach, but you bring light to a valid concern.



That is what puzzles me the most. It was not that long ago that we had a hotly debated topic where people were lamenting the return of "spit and polish garison stuff" that most were expecting to come along our change of circumstance in Afghanistan. Members on here are free to talk about whatever they wish, that much is true. But those discussions are not confined to here. People out there, in the real world are talking like it is open season on anything CF.

So, overnight, we collectively seem to have gone from "screw spit and polish" to "bring on buttons and bows". Now, as MCG has put it, there is a limitless supply of good ideas fairies dam-near demanding the return of everything 1967. The day this was anounced, even before the corpse of Air Command was burried, we had people asking senior leadership if we were going to go back to the old RCAF ranks and uniforms. The airplanes are falling appart but who cares, lets get some new uniforms.

So, again : Are we so far away from the battles of the last decade that we turn to buttons and bows overnight ? Could it be that we have regressed (IMHO) that fast ?

Here : http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/101544/post-1057332.html#msg1057332

Excerpts :



> But our Army captain is correct in asserting that one of the warning signs of deterioration in the military during peacetime is an emphasis on appearance over effectiveness.





> *Sigh* I'm already seeing the rumblings as things wind down. All those spit and polish types who have hidden in the dark corners for years, are now coming back out into the light. Conformity and snappy drill will now replace functionality and combat capability.


----------



## Neill McKay

MCG said:
			
		

> Even if he has spent his whole career on a ship or in Halifax?



My personal guess would be "yes", but I say that having spent my career so far employed in my own element.

Is it realistic for a purple tradesman to spend all of his career in one element, not being his own?



> Is any of this literature Canadian?  Does any of it examine specifically purple occupations to determine if one's self identification is influence primarily by uniform colour or employment history?



The particular study I'm thinking of is Canadian.  As I recall it included purple trades but I don't think it was focused specifically on them.


----------



## aesop081

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Is it realistic for a purple tradesman to spend all of his career in one element, not being his own?



Entirely. I personally know 2 individuals who wear the uniform of the RCN and have never been on a Navy base, let alone a ship.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> That is what puzzles me the most. It was not that long ago that we had a hotly debated topic where people were lamenting the return of "spit and polish garison stuff" that most were expecting to come along our change of circumstance in Afghanistan. Members on here are free to talk about whatever they wish, that much is true. But those discussions are not confined to here. People out there, in the real world are talking like it is open season on anything CF.
> 
> So, overnight, we collectively seem to have gone from "screw spit and polish" to "bring on buttons and bows". Now, as MCG has put it, there is a limitless supply of good ideas fairies dam-near demanding the return of everything 1967. The day this was anounced, even before the corpse of Air Command was burried, we had people asking senior leadership if we were going to go back to the old RCAF ranks and uniforms. The airplanes are falling appart but who cares, lets get some new uniforms.
> 
> So, again : Are we so far away from the battles of the last decade that we turn to buttons and bows overnight ? Could it be that we have regressed (IMHO) that fast ?
> 
> Here : http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/101544/post-1057332.html#msg1057332
> 
> Excerpts :



I think you may be reading into this name change thing a little too much. Even I a big proponent of a full return of all things RCN & RCAF understand this was and is a name change only. I also wonder if we sometimes think this site has some magical power that when a member suggests something then "poof" its reality in the actual RCN/CA/RCAF. Debate, when done openly and with courtesy, is ok and healthy, I think that's what forums are for. 

At CFJSR today we newbies completed out INDOC with an RSM chat to all MCpl/MS and below. He held no punches in saying the dress and deportment in our unit was lacking and is now enforcing daily inspections at troop level. I have no issue with this because we are partly paid to keep our uniforms in proper condition. Its part of life in the military.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I occasionally use Sir Frederick Middleton as my _avatar_ ...






Amongst other things that doughty old general complained that Canadians (he was referring, primarily, to officers in the militia regiments) were obsessed with "full dress and feathers" to the detriment of e.g. training and operations.

I share the concern that a cabal of _full dress and feathers_ types will, indeed, mount a concerted attack on the 13th floor where, as I opined earlier in this thread, _executive_ level time and talent will be directed to 'buttons and bows' because the MND will be engaged because it will have political overtones.

I mentioned rumours (the worst sort: officers' mess bar rumours) about the RCN and, maybe, the RCAF seeking a 'common' service identity. They may be supported by e.g. the Signals people who could 'back in' to a unique corps identity if their RCN and RCAF members all rebadged to the crown and anchor or the RCAF badge: the _remainer_ would be, _de facto_, a signal corps with which ever badge it chose:






      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Original badge   Later badge        Post Korea version      Current badge
worn in WWI     worn in WWII      until 1970s

Of course any such effort will involve considerable staff work by more than just one Signals WO; in fact several colonels and probably a BGen or two - all of whom have real jobs they are meant to be doing - will be seized with the issue; I can confidently guarantee it. You think the IT is screwed up now? Wait until the system's controllers are doing cap badges ...

That's just the one with which I have some familiarity (because the "corps within a branch" thing dates back to the 1970s). What about the others? Aren't the loggies busy enough with important stuff as it is? Do we really want the senior logistics people debating the RCOC vs the RCASC and RCAPC ... again?






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I'm rather glad to see the names RCN, CA and RCAF restored to use, but I fear that this - like the executive curl - is just the thin edge of the wedge and that it will be easy, even attractive, for very, very senior people to devote their attention to (relatively) low cost morale issue while ignoring things like inadequate funding in the government's so called _defence strategy_.


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I also wonder if we sometimes think this site has some magical power that when a member suggests something then "poof" its reality in the actual RCN/CA/RCAF.



I have no such illusions but when i hear the same things out in the real world, i have to wonder.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Entirely. I personally know 2 individuals who wear the uniform of the RCN and have never been on a Navy base, let alone a ship.



What trades are the members and are they married to hard air/land/sea personnel ? Also how much time do they have in ? These are HUGE factors you cannot leave out.

It is entirely possible for a purple person to spend their "entire" career (to a point) outside of their element. Now as my CSM on TF 1-10 told me, succession planning is putting the brakes on this happening anymore. The elements want people wearing the elemental uniform in senior positions that that position belongs too. IE: You will probably never again see an Army or Air MWO as Snr Storesman on a ship. I know in Halifax we received 6 new Sgts this year. They were or will all told if they want to stay in Halifax, any longer than minimal time, change your uniform to Navy.


----------



## Infanteer

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What trades are the members and are they married to hard air/land/sea personnel ? Also how much time do they have in ? These are HUGE factors you cannot leave out.



We had a PO Physicians Assistant that was never on a ship either.



> It is entirely possible for a purple person to spend their "entire" career (to a point) outside of their element. Now as my CSM on TF 1-10 told me, succession planning is putting the brakes on this happening anymore. The elements want people wearing the elemental uniform in senior positions that that position belongs too. IE: You will probably never again see an Army or Air MWO as Snr Storesman on a ship. I know in Halifax we received 6 new Sgts this year. They were or will all told if they want to stay in Halifax, any longer than minimal time, change your uniform to Navy.



I believe the RMS Clerk and MSE Op trades are looking to this as well.


----------



## Halifax Tar

> What about the others? Aren't the loggies busy enough with important stuff as it is? Do we really want the senior logistics people debating the RCOC vs the RCASC and RCAPC ... again?



This would be an interesting one as LOG trades have triple lineages to all three elements. Meaning would RCN Sup Techs have to change cap badges to the RCOC if this was implemented ? I could see some colossal tense debates if the LOG branch went this route, possibly fracturing the branch as a whole.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> We had a PO Physicians Assistant that was never on a ship either.



This is somewhat common as most ships only carry 1 WO PA and 1 Cpl Medic. Most medics will only see 1 ship in their careers if they are lucky!


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What trades are the members and are they married to hard air/land/sea personnel ? Also how much time do they have in ? These are HUGE factors you cannot leave out.



One is a Medic, the other is a cook. Both have their CD.

I'm not saying it is massively common however but it is realistic.


----------



## Halifax Tar

You left out if they are married to hard sea/land/air pers ? 

This will have a big influence on that persons postings.


----------



## garb811

I'd just like to point out the MP Branch is way ahead of the curve in all of this.  We already have our distinctive uniform worn by all, we own CFMPA and as of 1 Apr, we were removed from ECS command when the CF MP Gp stood up with the MP Units being OPCOM back to the ECS for employment.  The final step needed is renaming the Branch to the Canadian Provost Corps, to which the Branch traces its Birthday effective this year.  We are truly ahead of the curve; the wave of the future, leading the way for the rest of the purple world.

Halifax Tar:  I can think of a few people in the MP Branch who have been around as long as I have and who have never served in their "environmental" base.  As a matter of fact, 2 of the last 3 RSMs of 1 MP Regt/1 MP Unit wear the RCN uniform and I'm pretty sure neither of them have been to a Navy base.

And before "you" have an aneurysm, the first para is in jest.


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This will have a big influence on that persons postings.



This is quite true. In any event, neither are MSCs that i know of.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This would be an interesting one as LOG trades have triple lineages to all three elements. Meaning would RCN Sup Techs have to change cap badges to the RCOC if this was implemented ? I could see some colossal tense debates if the LOG branch went this route, possibly fracturing the branch as a whole.




This only applies to the army if, and it's a BIg *IF* the rumour I heard about 'common' service identity has any legs at all. According to the rumour all RCN members, all trades, all branches would wear the RCN cap badge, ditto the RCAF. IF that happened then army logistics people would be left in a 'green' group. Do you think 'buttons and bows' would not surface as soon as that happened?


----------



## mariomike

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjpLBqOZqxtcAx57G-SgwVxzl8_Fn7Qgm0CV_GwNqgrynZdikc[/img]



That one brings back some happy memories.


----------



## Halifax Tar

garb811 said:
			
		

> I'd just like to point out the MP Branch is way ahead of the curve in all of this.  We already have our distinctive uniform worn by all, we own CFMPA and as of 1 Apr, we were removed from ECS command when the CF MP Gp stood up with the MP Units being OPCOM back to the ECS for employment.  The final step needed is renaming the Branch to the Canadian Provost Corps, to which the Branch traces its Birthday effective this year.  We are truly ahead of the curve; the wave of the future, leading the way for the rest of the purple world.
> 
> Halifax Tar:  I can think of a few people in the MP Branch who have been around as long as I have and who have never served in their "environmental" base.  As a matter of fact, 2 of the last 3 RSMs of 1 MP Regt/1 MP Unit wear the RCN uniform and I'm pretty sure neither of them have been to a Navy base.
> 
> And before "you" have an aneurysm, the first para is in jest.



The MP branch is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of my arcs of fire my friend. I have no ability to pass judgement or comment.


----------



## PMedMoe

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I know in Halifax we received 6 new Sgts this year. They were or will all told if they want to stay in Halifax, any longer than minimal time, change your uniform to Navy.



Wonderful.  Money wasted on uniform issue.  Or, if someone wants to stay in a particular posting, just request to change to whatever element.   :


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This is quite true. In any event, neither are MSCs that i know of.



Fair enough.


----------



## garb811

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The MP branch is WAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of my arcs of fire my friend. I have no ability to pass judgement or comment.


As per my PM, the "you" was not directed at you HT...


----------



## aesop081

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Wonderful.  Money wasted on uniform issue.  Or, if someone wants to stay in a particular posting, just request to change to whatever element.   :



Imagine if someone doesnt want to change.....what then ? Post the person elsewhere ?

More money...........


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This only applies to the army if, and it's a BIg *IF* the rumour I heard about 'common' service identity has any legs at all. According to the rumour all RCN members, all trades, all branches would wear the RCN cap badge, ditto the RCAF. IF that happened then army logistics people would be left in a 'green' group. Do you think 'buttons and bows' would not surface as soon as that happened?



I could see a debate starting the in the Army LOG world over who wears the RCASC "buttons and bows" and who wears the RCOC  "buttons and bows".


----------



## PMedMoe

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Imagine if someone doesnt want to change.....what then ? Post the person elsewhere ?
> 
> More money...........



Exactly.


----------



## garb811

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Imagine if someone doesnt want to change.....what then ? Post the person elsewhere ?
> 
> More money...........


We already have bilingual pers refusing to be tested to avoid postings to Quebec, what's another impediment to being able to fill positions/keep positions filled?


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Imagine if someone doesnt want to change.....what then ? Post the person elsewhere ?
> 
> More money...........



This all ties into succession planning and what I see as a gradual shift towards environmental employment for LOG pers. We could debate the merits of a move like this all day and I don't want do that. All I am saying is this is the direction the LOG world seems to be moving towards.


----------



## Journeyman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I know in Halifax we received 6 new Sgts this year. They were or will all told if they want to stay in Halifax, any longer than minimal time, change your uniform to Navy.


So even before this operationally critical re-naming, we had some "leadership" touting form over function -- "as much as we need a half-dozen P2s, these ~sneer~ _Sergeants_ disrupt my fashion sensibilities"    :


Yep, we're well on our way to being a peacetime military.   :brickwall:


----------



## midget-boyd91

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> One is a Medic, the other is a cook. Both have their CD.
> 
> I'm not saying it is massively common however but it is realistic.



Ha! So many jokes that could be made about that.
"I had always planned on joining as a pilot.. But my wife's a cook..not to speak ill of  her culinary skills, but after trying her meatloaf  I thought the safest bet would be to become a medic"


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So even before this operationally critical re-naming, we had some "leadership" touting form over function -- "as much as we need a half-dozen P2s, these ~sneer~ _Sergeants_ disrupt my fashion sensibilities"    :
> 
> 
> Yep, we're well on our way to being a peacetime military.   :brickwall:



I'm good with it.  I've been to Halifax and Esquimalt.   ;D


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> All I am saying is this is the direction the LOG world seems to be moving towards.



Ties in to what i was trying to say earlier. The genie is now out of the bottle and its war on anything CF. We're moving back to how it was and forgetting why some of the changes were made back then. Unification was taken too far, i agree, but it doesnt mean that some of the underlying reasoning was flawed.

It indeed does look like much effort is going into buttons, bows and feel goods................Let the empire building begin.


----------



## Halifax Tar

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Exactly.



Why not simply employ and promote people within the element they wear ? Would this not have the possibility to cut down on postings ? Which we can all agree on are a HUGE cost to the CF. 

We could still have universal systems, policies and trades training. I see no reason for the CF to have 3 different supply systems, pay systems, admin ect ect ect. And should an element need to draw on another for operational reasons (IE Tours) we can continue on our current path which is to have augmentees spend multiple months working up to the air, land or sea specific requirements at the mounting base. 

Just food for thought but I stop here before this degrades into another bun toss.


----------



## aesop081

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why not simply employ and promote people within the element they wear ?



One of the reasons behind the decisions of unification is that what you are saying limited people's career progression. If you are a RCN medic MCpl, you could not get promoted to fill a medic Sgt billet in a Fd Amb. You then had to suck it up and pound salt until a RCN position opened.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Ties in to what i was trying to say earlier. The genie is now out of the bottle and its war on anything CF. We're moving back to how it was and forgetting why some of the changes were made back then. Unification was taken too far, i agree, but it doesnt mean that some of the underlying reasoning was flawed.
> 
> It indeed does look like much effort is going into buttons, bows and feel goods................Let the empire building begin.



I agree with you on all fronts but this started long before the RCN/CA/RCAF ever became a reality again. Its been going on for some time and I think the return of the old names may be the opening of the flood gates. 

What can I say ? I lead my people to the best of my ability with the tools provided by and in the guidelines set out buy our current leadership. 

No matter what happens the  Canadian Army will still go to the field, the RCAF will still fly and the RCN will still put to sea.


----------



## Halifax Tar

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> One of the reasons behind the decisions of unification is that what you are saying limited people's career progression. If you are a RCN medic MCpl, you could not get promoted to fill a medic Sgt billet in a Fd Amb. You then had to suck it up and pound salt until a RCN position opened.



Vaild point and something that I hope is well represented should these debates ever materialize. I myself am a shining example of your point.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So even before this operationally critical re-naming, we had some "leadership" touting form over function -- "as much as we need a half-dozen P2s, these ~sneer~ _Sergeants_ disrupt my fashion sensibilities"    :
> 
> 
> Yep, we're well on our way to being a peacetime military.   :brickwall:



crap, that is nothing new.  When I was active as an MP in Halifax in the late 90's the Naval Provost Marshall was a Major.  Army.  He was told taht while he was holding his postion he was required to don a Naval Uniform and be called a L/Cdr.  Which he did.  There has been forced re-branding of Purple folks here for some time.  Can't say if it occured anywhere else.  BTW, he later went back to being a Major in an Army uniform.


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> crap, that is nothing new.  When I was active as an MP in Halifax in the late 90's the Naval Provost Marshall was a Major.  Army.  He was told taht while he was holding his postion he was required to don a Naval Uniform and be called a L/Cdr.  Which he did.  There has been forced re-branding of Purple folks here for some time.  Can't say if it occured anywhere else.  BTW, he later went back to being a Major in an Army uniform.



And the shitbag who gave that "order" should have been kicked out... but was probably promoted instead.  There is no legal authority for "officers" (and I use that term loosely) to give such an order.  Seems to me that Halifax needs a good solid dose of chlorine in its gene pool.


And re: environmental promotions: Of course!  Because we want the best Army RMS clerk to be made a WO, regardless if there are 3 PO2 and two AF Sgts woho are better.  Why worry about quality when we can colour-co-ordinate?

It is to weep.


----------



## Good2Golf

> ...When I was active as an MP in Halifax in the late 90's the Naval Provost Marshall was a Major.  Army.  He was told taht while he was holding his postion he was required to don a Naval Uniform and be called a L/Cdr...



Ah yes, the Senior Service making its own rules...nice.  :


----------



## aesop081

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the Senior Service making its own rules...nice.  :



I don't know about anyone else, but i fear this is going to get worse. It will be very interesting in units that are neither RCAF, CA or RCN.


----------



## vonGarvin

The sun came up in the east this morning as predicted.  And the RCN and the RCAF carried on doing their things, and we're worried about pers management that will go to the shitter if we go back to three services with their own support trades, etc, unique to their own "colour" uniforms.

(Anyone who is complaining that pers management _*will go to*_ shit hasn't been reading these very fora, I dare say).

My question is this: if having e.g. RMS clerks who are army only serve in Canadian Army (or joint) units, RCN clerks who only serve in RCN (or joint) units, and RCAF clerks who only serve in RCAF (or joint) units is such a bad thing, and having them "purple" is so great, why then don't the rest of our allies do that?  I mean, seriously.  


I know squat about the differences between a Sup Tech for the RCAF, and one for any other element, but is there really a difference?  (I don't know, this is a legit question). 

We claim to get things right in Canada, we moan about unification of the forces, but at the very hint of RCN, RCAF or CA, we bitterly oppose it?  Why?  Would it split us?  Would not the intangibles of morale, sense of belonging, having a certain "way" of doing things, extra-regimental affialiations etc not make for a desirable vocation?  I know it's late here, and I may not be making sense, but would a supply technician who works say 10 years in an army brigade, posted to HMCS _xxxx _ not feel "out of place"?  Or is it just same shit, different place?


----------



## aesop081

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My question is this: if having e.g. RMS clerks who are army only serve in Canadian Army (or joint) units, RCN clerks who only serve in RCN (or joint) units, and RCAF clerks who only serve in RCAF (or joint) units is such a bad thing, and having them "purple" is so great, why then don't the rest of our allies do that?  I mean, seriously.



I would say that some of those allies have forces significantly larger, thus negating some of the drawbacks. The US Army is large enough to offer full career progression within. as an example. Even the mighty US military is adopting some of the methods we have (even if to small measures), witness the amalgamation of facilities into "Joint bases" ( Ft Lewis and McChord AFB were merged into Joint base Lewis McChord for example). While i was an exchange instructor at the US Army engineer school, we instructed courses for the USMC ( not unlike our unified schools).


----------



## jollyjacktar

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I know it's late here, and I may not be making sense, but would a supply technician who works say 10 years in an army brigade, posted to HMCS _xxxx _ not feel "out of place"?  Or is it just same crap, different place?



Very possible.  When I was with 1 MP PL, we had a great guy called "Chuck" newly promoted MCpl (AF) posted in from CFB Summerside.  He had always been with Zoomies and yes, you bet, he suffered culture shock.  I served all three colours while an MP.  Each brand had their own unique needs and ways of getting things done.  It was all strange at first, but you do get used to it and carry on.  Hell, right now I am feelling out my first 280 after being a Tanker Wanker all my sailing days.  It's strange, but I am adapting and overcoming as the trip goes on.
Some things are indeed same shit different day,  but not all things.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the Senior Service making its own rules...nice.  :


The MPs are the senior service?


----------



## aesop081

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The MPs are the senior service?



Sure why not, its a whole new CF after all......... ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The MPs are the senior service?



I thought it was Health Services......


----------



## aesop081

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I thought it was Health Services......



Seniors do need health services right Jim ?

 >


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And the shitbag who gave that "order" should have been kicked out... but was probably promoted instead.  There is no legal authority for "officers" (and I use that term loosely) to give such an order.  Seems to me that Halifax needs a good solid dose of chlorine in its gene pool.


It's certainly not limited to Halifax; three people in purple trades from my unit alone have been forced to CT to green to stay on class "B" in Montreal in the past two years.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And I'm sure there are other examples of people being frog marched into a change of duds because they are the wrong flavour for some Pointy Head.


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's certainly not limited to Halifax; three people in purple trades from my unit alone have been forced to CT to green to stay on class "B" in Montreal in the past two years.


Your example is different.  The RCAF and RCN demand reservists transfer to their environment for employment.  In the example you pointed to, a service member was directed to masquerade as being from the maritime environment when he in fact remained land.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's certainly not limited to Halifax; three people in purple trades from my unit alone have been forced to CT to green to stay on class "B" in Montreal in the past two years.



Resta assured I do not limit my vitriol based on environmental affiliation.   >


----------



## Kirkhill

I offer this as someone who wore a kilt and glengarry at Gagetown while the rest of my course wore berets and "cornflakes".  I don't recall that my uniform caused any particular training difficulties on course (beyond a great deal of hilarity during the kit check on day one as I declared forage cap, pants, etc missing - and giving the Pl WO a whole new set of things to find at fault).

The issue of what uniform operational forces should wear doesn't ssem to me to be an insurmountable one.

The issue that intrigues me more is the one of the purple trades and their association with CANOSCOM and the hub and spoke system that is being developed (domestically: Yellowknife and Iqualuit (possibly Resolute and Nanisivik), internationally: Jamaica, Germany, Senegal, Kenya, Kuwait, Singapore, Korea).  To those lists I wonder if a couple of mobile warehouses - or as described by McG "floating Camp Mirages" - couldn't be added.

In amongst all the Dot Com initiatives this is the one that seems to me to have the most merit.

I am sure I am going to be flamed over my next comment but here goes any way:

Why can an operational Air Force Squadron or an operational Ship not be seen in exactly the same light as an operational Armoured Regiment or Infantry Regiment or Artillery Regiment?  Plug and Play units that regardless of the colour or style of the hat, or whether or not they wear spats or black gaiters, get assigned to support government policy according to their abilities and the government's needs.

In amongst all the "F Echelon" debate about buttons and bows I see a real opportunity for real "jointness" by expanding on the CANOSCOM concept and creating a new "Service" that is "none of the above".


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> Your example is different.  The RCAF and RCN demand reservists transfer to their environment for employment.  In the example you pointed to, a service member was directed to masquerade as being from the maritime environment when he in fact remained land.


Not sure I follow you. In the example _I_ pointed to, three naval reservists were obliged to CT to the Army (without any additional training - it was just a uniform change) in order to perform clerical tasks in three separate Montreal-area units. And I can assure you that the RCN does not require purple reservists to transfer to the sea environment for employment, unless this is an unadvertised policy introduced within the last few months.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The MPs are the senior service?



No, I was refering to a Naval officer directing a Military Police officer to wear a Naval uniform and refer to himself as a LCdr while he was still a Major with Army DEU according to the NDA.

That is flat out inappropriate, and is not at all the same thing as someone being told they have to pursue a Component Transfer in order to be considered for a Reserve component's recurring Class B position.  The MP position in Halifax was and likely still is a Joint/purple position, while Class B positions belong to the Reserve Component of the Army.

Naval 'spirit' is one thing, making ones own rules is another...kind of puts the guys wearing non-issue boots and chest rigs to shame...

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> In the example _I_ pointed to, three naval reservists were obliged to CT to the Army ...


That was the example you presented.  The one you pointed to (quoted) was a directed masquerade by a Reg F member without an acutal change of environment.
I am aware of many examples of reservists having to transfer to the employing environment in order to gain employment as Cl A or in posns established as Cl B or Cl B/A (the jobs that get advertised in REO).


----------



## CountDC

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Not sure I follow you. In the example _I_ pointed to, three naval reservists were obliged to CT to the Army (without any additional training - it was just a uniform change) in order to perform clerical tasks in three separate Montreal-area units. And I can assure you that the RCN does not require purple reservists to transfer to the sea environment for employment, unless this is an unadvertised policy introduced within the last few months.



Unless things have changed that has been the norm for a long time.  Normal procedure for filling B and B/A posns were to hire within the local area and the Element.  To hire from the Navy to work at the Army required obtaining NAVRES approval and vice versa.  As these are clerks I am going to assume they are filling B/A posns which would require them to transfer to the units. I would wager the units do not have any navy positions so therefore they should rightfully change to the uniform of the element they now belong to - army. At least until us purple people get our own distinct purple uniforms - Prince for honourary Col, Purple Rain our song!! (Sorry Donnie fans he has been usurped).



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> We had a PO Physicians Assistant that was never on a ship either.
> 
> I believe the RMS Clerk and MSE Op trades are looking to this as well.



yes the RMS world is.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No, I was refering to a Naval officer directing a Military Police officer to wear a Naval uniform and refer to himself as a LCdr while he was still a Major with Army DEU according to the NDA.


You know what they say about assumptions?  I knew the officer in question and that is not how it happened at all.  Nonetheless, what does the NDA have to say about our uniform colours?  Are we all listed in some annex with our uniform colour and it takes an amendment to change DEU?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That is flat out inappropriate, and is not at all the same thing as someone being told they have to pursue a Component Transfer in order to be considered for a Reserve component's recurring Class B position.  The MP position in Halifax was and likely still is a Joint/purple position, while Class B positions belong to the Reserve Component of the Army.


Not seeing the difference at all, other than an anti-Navy bias.  Your distinction of Navy billets being "joint/purple" but Army billets "belong to the Army" is cute.  If MP X wants to fill billet Y which requires RCN uniform, then MP X can either request a DEU change (which happened in this case despite your assumptions) or not apply for the job.  Plenty of other MP billets for Army DEU types.  I'm pretty certain that the RCAF and CA apply the same rules.

PS:   I love how some RCAF types who consider themselves "Army" tend to out-Army the Army in dissing the RCN.


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> That was the example you presented.  The one you pointed to (quoted) was a directed masquerade by a Reg F member without an acutal change of environment.
> I am aware of many examples of reservists having to transfer to the employing environment in order to gain employment as Cl A or in posns established as Cl B or Cl B/A (the jobs that get advertised in REO).


Lex Parsimoniae has answered the issue very well I think, but while it's come up (because it's something I've always wondered about that we don't have in NAVRES), where is class "B/A" service defined? Is it in a DAOD or a CMP Directive? I don't see anything in QR&O chapter 9.

Apologies for the de-rail.


----------



## Franko

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> *You know what they say about assumptions?*  I knew the officer in question and that is not how it happened at all.  Nonetheless, what does the NDA have to say about our uniform colours?  Are we all listed in some annex with our uniform colour and it takes an amendment to change DEU?
> Not seeing the difference at all, other than an *anti-Navy bias.*  Your distinction of Navy billets being "joint/purple" but Army billets "belong to the Army" is cute.  If MP X wants to fill billet Y which requires RCN uniform, then MP X can either request a DEU change (which happened in this case despite your assumptions) or not apply for the job.  Plenty of other MP billets for Army DEU types.  I'm pretty certain that the RCAF and CA apply the same rules.
> 
> PS:  * I love how some RCAF types who consider themselves "Army" tend to out-Army the Army in dissing the RCN.*





Just to throw a wrench into this thread, there is a Navy RMS clerk who wears her Navy dress of the day working in the Armd Sch OR.

No one cares what the individual wears or what organization they belong to as long as they can do the job.

Seeing that the CF top leadership and politicians take this site's membership's view on all thing military seriously (they don't; we'd have hover tanks and mortars by now).....people have to keep some things in perspective. 

*This is a "feel good initiative" aimed at restoring some Esprite de Corps and nothing more.* People here involved in this thread are forgetting this little tidbit.

Congrats on getting Royal in front of the Navy and Air Force's name, it doesn't change your job one iota. It may change some salad on your tunic or paint on a wall but that's about it.

It's still summer and I'm going to go have some beer on the deck, I _suggest _that some of the members here do the same. 

Have fun with your squabble until it gets to the point of me locking it up. That last little line almost did it along with a start on the ladder.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## McG

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Not seeing the difference at all, other than an anti-Navy bias.  Your distinction of Navy billets being "joint/purple" but Army billets "belong to the Army" is cute.


One difference is that these situations are comparing PRes positions against Reg F positions.  Another difference is that these situations are comparing an actual environmental change against a masquerade.  There is a process and approval authorities for environmental transfer - one cannot (under current rules) be told to just dress in the other uniform.


----------



## Infanteer

Since the staff seems to be noticing this thread a lot, I can tell it is stinking like a piece of old cheese in the fridge.

Does anyone have anything useful to add?  If not, 5...4...


----------



## Pusser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So even before this operationally critical re-naming, we had some "leadership" touting form over function -- "as much as we need a half-dozen P2s, these ~sneer~ _Sergeants_ disrupt my fashion sensibilities"    :
> 
> 
> Yep, we're well on our way to being a peacetime military.   :brickwall:



I would argue that this is not form over function, but rather, precisely the opposite.  Notwithstanding the common elements that exist in all environments with the LOG trades, there are also some fundamental differences.  Supply Techs in ships need a few different skill sets than they do in an Army or RCAF unit, as do cooks and to an admittedly lesser extent, RMS Clerks.  None of these skill sets are so drastically different that ordinary individuals cannot pick them up in due course; however, from a leadership point of view, it's still frustrating to have to worry about training more senior NCMs in environmental procedures.  (NB: before anyone starts screaming that all the procedures should be the same, they're not and there are very good reasons as to why they're not).

More important though are the "sailor/soldier first" aspects of employment in operational units.  We expect our NCOs and warrant/petty officers to take on an operational leadership role in their respective environments.  A petty officer who has spent his entire career at sea is at a distinct disadvantage when he suddenly posted to a batallion and expected to mount the defence of a harbour (and yes, I see the irony in that phrase). By the same token, the poor sergeant coming from the field can be in a world of hurt when he's thrown into a ship and expected to make sure the storerooms are secure for sea.  I think we set people up for failure when we insist on posting them to different environments after many years in another.  Are these things insurmountable?  Of course not, but they do cause undue angst for all concerned.  It's interesting to note that we don't do this to the officers.  You will never see a Navy LogO in a service batallion, so why do we insist on putting petty officers  and killicks there?

Finally, I think the leaders in a unit should wear the uniform that goes with that unit.  In order to become a leader in an operational unit, one should be brought up through the ranks in that environment (i.e. a senior Sup Tech in a ship, should have served there as a junior one).  I agree with succession planning to achieve this.


----------



## Neill McKay

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Just to throw a wrench into this thread, there is a Navy RMS clerk who wears her Navy dress of the day working in the Armd Sch OR.



Just to offer a bit of clarification, if you mean wearing a navy uniform (incl NCDs) as opposed to combats, that's now required.  The only time naval DEU pers are supposed to wear combats is when the actual nature of their work requires it, e.g. in the field.


----------



## Franko

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Just to offer a bit of clarification, if you mean wearing a navy uniform (incl NCDs) as opposed to combats, that's now required.  The only time naval DEU pers are supposed to wear combats is when the actual nature of their work requires it, e.g. in the field.



Did not know that. TANKS!


----------



## Good2Golf

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> You know what they say about assumptions?  I knew the officer in question and that is not how it happened at all.  Nonetheless, what does the NDA have to say about our uniform colours?  Are we all listed in some annex with our uniform colour and it takes an amendment to change DEU?



I was making no assumption, but referring to the case that Jollyjacktar quoted previously (below.)



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> crap, that is nothing new.  When I was active as an MP in Halifax in the late 90's the Naval Provost Marshall was a Major.  Army.  He was told taht while he was holding his postion he was required to don a Naval Uniform and be called a L/Cdr.  Which he did...






			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Not seeing the difference at all, other than an anti-Navy bias.  Your distinction of Navy billets being "joint/purple" but Army billets "belong to the Army" is cute.  If MP X wants to fill billet Y which requires RCN uniform, then MP X can either request a DEU change (which happened in this case despite your assumptions) or not apply for the job.  Plenty of other MP billets for Army DEU types.  I'm pretty certain that the RCAF and CA apply the same rules.



The difference is for established positions for which there is a MOSID/MOC/Trade requirement, not a specific DEU requirement.  The Naval Provost Marshall could have just as easily been an Air DEU MPO, that still would not change the fact that it was the MPO OSS that was the discriminating factor, not DEU colour.  The billets are defined by MOSID & qualifications.



			
				Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> PS:   I love how some RCAF types who consider themselves "Army" tend to out-Army the Army in dissing the RCN.



RCASC actually, which was part of the CA.  

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> I would argue that this is not form over function, but rather, precisely the opposite.  Notwithstanding the common elements that exist in all environments with the LOG trades, there are also some fundamental differences.  Supply Techs in ships need a few different skill sets than they do in an Army or RCAF unit, as do cooks and to an admittedly lesser extent, RMS Clerks.  None of these skill sets are so drastically different that ordinary individuals cannot pick them up in due course; however, from a leadership point of view, it's still frustrating to have to worry about training more senior NCMs in environmental procedures.  (NB: before anyone starts screaming that all the procedures should be the same, they're not and there are very good reasons as to why they're not).
> 
> More important though are the "sailor/soldier first" aspects of employment in operational units.  We expect our NCOs and warrant/petty officers to take on an operational leadership role in their respective environments.  A petty officer who has spent his entire career at sea is at a distinct disadvantage when he suddenly posted to a batallion and expected to mount the defence of a harbour (and yes, I see the irony in that phrase). By the same token, the poor sergeant coming from the field can be in a world of hurt when he's thrown into a ship and expected to make sure the storerooms are secure for sea.  I think we set people up for failure when we insist on posting them to different environments after many years in another.  Are these things insurmountable?  Of course not, but they do cause undue angst for all concerned.  It's interesting to note that we don't do this to the officers.  You will never see a Navy LogO in a service batallion, so why do we insist on putting petty officers  and killicks there?
> 
> Finally, I think the leaders in a unit should wear the uniform that goes with that unit.  In order to become a leader in an operational unit, one should be brought up through the ranks in that environment (i.e. a senior Sup Tech in a ship, should have served there as a junior one).  I agree with succession planning to achieve this.


Agreed.




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Environmental sub-MOS would be the way to go in my opinion.  Some jobs require an Army Sup Tech, some jobs require a Navy Sup Tech, and some jobs just require a Sup Tech.  Sub-MOS would allow a mechanism for individuals to be trained in the occupation and trained in a single environment.    ... we would not loose all the flexibility that would occur in a complete split of an occupation.


----------



## Privateer

At risk of restating what Der Panzerkommandant said, aren't we over thinking this whole thing a bit?  Isn't it just about making a simple name change so that anyone who wears the Navy DEU can say, "I"m in the Royal Canadian Navy" instead of "I'm in Maritime Command [or Environment]", especially when speaking to civvies?  (And _mutatis mutandis_ for RCAF and CA pers.)  It seems like many posters are projecting their secret (or not so secret) hopes ("I've always wanted to salute like the old Army / RCMP!  Here we go!") or fears ("The CF is going to shove everyone back into their environmental silos!") on this and making it a bigger deal that it really is.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Then again when the Liberals get back in power a few years down the road again, they will probably end up dropping the "Royal". Wait for it.


----------



## dimsum

Privateer said:
			
		

> At risk of restating what Der Panzerkommandant said, aren't we over thinking this whole thing a bit?  Isn't it just about making a simple name change so that anyone who wears the Navy DEU can say, "I"m in the Royal Canadian Navy" instead of "I'm in Maritime Command [or Environment]", especially when speaking to civvies?  (And _mutatis mutandis_ for RCAF and CA pers.)  It seems like many posters are projecting their secret (or not so secret) hopes ("I've always wanted to salute like the old Army / RCMP!  Here we go!") or fears ("The CF is going to shove everyone back into their environmental silos!") on this and making it a bigger deal that it really is.



Exactly my thoughts.  It's been said already that we're not changing uniforms, ranks, etc. and it's purely a name change.  Although I may start using a false British accent and call myself F/Lt in TGIFs


----------



## Pusser

Privateer said:
			
		

> At risk of restating what Der Panzerkommandant said, aren't we over thinking this whole thing a bit?  Isn't it just about making a simple name change so that anyone who wears the Navy DEU can say, "I"m in the Royal Canadian Navy" instead of "I'm in Maritime Command [or Environment]", especially when speaking to civvies?  (And _mutatis mutandis_ for RCAF and CA pers.)  It seems like many posters are projecting their secret (or not so secret) hopes ("I've always wanted to salute like the old Army / RCMP!  Here we go!") or fears ("The CF is going to shove everyone back into their environmental silos!") on this and making it a bigger deal that it really is.



Party pooper!  This meeting of the Military Debating Society ("F you!"  "No!  F you!") is getting interesting.  Don' t let the facts or reality get in the way of a good fight! op:


----------



## Pusser

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then again when the Liberals get back in power a few years down the road again, they will probably end up dropping the "Royal". Wait for it.



Sure.  As long as they make the Mounties, The RCR, the RCD, the R22eR, etc. do it too this time around...


----------



## dapaterson

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sure.  As long as they make the Mounties, The RCR, the RCD, the R22eR, etc. do it too this time around...



Slightly different:  If we strip the "Royal" from units in the Army it would be the equivalent of stripping "HMCS" from ships, something we never did.

The RCMP, on the other hand...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

OK folks. This is all done.

Usual caveats.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## McG

> CANLANDGEN 020/11, 17 AUG 2011
> 
> 1. IT GIVES ME GREAT PLEASURE AND PRIDE TO ANNOUNCE TO YOU THAT, IN
> LINE WITH THE CDS ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENTS RESTORATION OF THE
> ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS HISTORICAL NAMES, WE WILL ONCE AGAIN BE
> OFFICIALLY KNOWN AS THE CANADIAN ARMY.  THIS NAME REPLACES OUR
> CURRENT NAME, LAND FORCE COMMAND
> 
> 2. RESTORING OUR NAME, ONE WHICH EVERY CANADIAN CAN RELATE TO, IS AN
> ESSENTIAL PART OF OUR COMMITMENT TO HONOUR THE MEMORY OF SO MANY
> BRAVE CANADIANS WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE CANADIAN ARMY. BRINGING BACK
> THE ORIGINAL NAME REINSTATES AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF
> OUR ARMY’S HERITAGE, WITHIN A UNIFIED EFFECTIVE CANADIAN FORCES
> COMMAND STRUCTURE
> 
> 3. THE RESTORATION OF THE HISTORICAL NAME WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE
> CAPABILITIES, THE ORGANIZATION, THE COMMAND RELATIONS OR THE
> OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CANADIAN ARMY.  OVER THE COMING
> MONTHS WE WILL, HOWEVER, MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES TO NOMENCLATURE,
> DOCUMENTATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS
> 
> 4. FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, ALL CURRENT LAND FORCE COMMAND ORDERS,
> DIRECTIVES, RULES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL
> FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE
> COMMAND.  ALL REFERENCES TO LAND FORCE COMMAND SHALL BE READ AS
> READING CANADIAN ARMY EFFECTIVE UPON THE ISSUANCE OF THE APPROPRIATE
> MINISTERIAL ORGANIZATIONAL ORDER
> 
> 5. THE DIRECTOR OF ARMY PUBLIC AFFAIRS IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
> COORDINATING MEDIA QUERIES. OPI IS ARMY G1
> 
> 6. IN CLOSING, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING WHAT YOU ARE:
> PROFESSIONAL, COURAGEOUS AND DEDICATED CANADIAN SOLDIERS.  IT IS A
> PRIVILEGE WORKING WITH YOU, AND TO BE THE COMMANDER OF THE ARMY.


----------



## McG

... still making the news:


> *The royal title is back, to many soldiers' delight*
> Michael Staples
> The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
> 31 August 2011
> 
> Some would say it was a long time coming.
> 
> But when it finally happened, Armed Forces veterans were all smiles.
> 
> That was the reaction earlier this month when Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced that the federal government had restored the use of the historic designations of the three former services - the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), the Canadian Army (CA), and the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF).
> 
> The move corrects what military traditionalists claim was an injustice inflicted upon them more than 40 years ago.
> 
> At that time, the existing government amended the National Defence Act to unify the Canadian Forces, thus eliminating the identities of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> They were replaced by Maritime Command, Land Force Command and Air Command.
> 
> While these were effective designations, it robbed the three services of their sense of historic identity.
> 
> The recent government decision not only restores the original historic identities, but keeps the organizational benefits of unification.
> 
> "Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today's men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Forces," Mr. MacKay said in a news release. "A country forgets its past at its own peril. From Vimy Ridge to the Battle of the Atlantic and from Korea to the defence of Europe during the Cold War, the proud legacy of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force will once again serve as a timeless link between our veterans and serving soldiers, sailors and air personnel."
> 
> By reconnecting with a central component of Canada's military heritage, the government reestablishes an important link with victories connected to the First World War, the Second World War, Korean Conflict, as well as recognizing those who contributed to both deterrence and defence in Europe and North America from the early days of the Cold War.
> 
> "With this decision, these historic identities will return to official use, reminding us of the Canadian tradition of service and sacrifice that today's men and women in uniform proudly continue," further noted the release.
> 
> Fredericton's Bob Lockhart, a retired lieutenant-colonel in the reserves, said he was "absolutely delighted" with the government's decision.
> 
> It has helped restore a sense of pride for veterans.
> 
> "It's just one of the traditions that should never have been done away with," Mr. Lockhart said.
> 
> The retired officer said he expects the return of the word "Royal" will also be well received in Quebec, home of the famous Royal 22e Régiment, also known as the Vandoos.
> 
> Fredericton-Silverwood MLA Brian Macdonald, the legislative secretary responsible for military affairs, said in restoring the names of the three branches of the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence is bringing back an essential part of our military heritage and of our Canadian identity.
> 
> "From this point forward, the historic identities of our three military commands will return to official use, reminding all Canadians of the proud tradition of service and sacrifice that the men and women serving our country continue today," Macdonald said.
> 
> The "Royal" designation, meanwhile, is still used in many Commonwealth nations including Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia and the United Kingdom.
> 
> In fact, it has never disappeared entirely from the Canadian Armed Forces.
> 
> Aside from the Royal 22e Régiment, many other units make use of it, such as The Royal Canadian Regiment and The Royal New Brunswick Regiment.
> 
> As the military pointed out at the time of the announcement, you'll also find the use of "Royal" in other aspects of everyday Canadian life, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Canadian Mint and the Royal Canadian Legion.
> 
> The government should be commended for its decision. The only question that remains unanswered is why it took so long to do it.


----------



## McG

... and apparently most Canadians are supportive:


> *Majority of people approve air force, navy getting 'royal' title back, poll says*
> John Ward
> The Canadian Press
> Published in: The Guardian (Charlottetown)
> 31 August 2011
> 
> The Harper government's unexpected decision to restore the traditional names of the navy and air force has the support of a majority of Canadians, a new poll suggests.
> 
> On Aug. 16, the Tories announced the return of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force after four decades as Maritime Command and Air Command.
> 
> A survey by The Canadian Press-Harris/Decima found that 56 per cent of respondents agreed with the change and only 31 per cent opposed it.
> 
> The poll suggests support is consistent across ages, genders and income levels. On partisan lines, Conservatives offered 72 per cent support, but even self-declared Liberals and New Democrats showed majority support.
> 
> Among Bloc Quebecois supporters however, 74 per cent opposed the change.
> 
> Regionally, there was marked disagreement only in Quebec, where 41 per cent approved of the idea and 46 per cent were against it.
> 
> Doug Anderson, senior vice-president of Harris/Decima, said the bare numbers in Quebec may conceal a deeper reality, however.
> 
> "Within the partisan scope it's really only Bloc Quebecois supporters who are opposed to it," he said.
> 
> "This means that actually among all the rest of the voters in Quebec who are either considering a federalist party or not considering the Bloc Quebecois, there must necessarily, mathematically, be overwhelming agreement with the move."
> 
> The navy gained its "royal" prefix in 1911. The air force was "royal" from 1924. They both lost the titles with unification of the Canadian Forces in 1968, which also did away with different service uniforms. The army never had a royal title and has been Land Forces Command since 1986. Now, however, it will revert to its old title of the Canadian Army.
> 
> The uniforms - air force blue, navy black and army green - were restored in 1986.


----------



## McG

> *Information on cost of name change faces 150-day delay*
> Red Deer Advocate
> 26 Oct 2011
> 
> It will take up to 150 days to answer an access-toinformation request for the costs of adding the word "royal" to the air and maritime divisions of the Canadian Forces, says the Defence Department.
> 
> In a request dated Sept. 27, The Canadian Press asked for documentation of the costs to restore the words "Royal Canadian" to the air force and navy.
> 
> However, the Canadian Forces says it needs more time because it has to consult with the Privy Council Office about possible cabinet confidentiality issues.
> 
> The department has extended the 30-day deadline for a response to March 26.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay repeatedly declined to give a cost estimate during the Aug. 16 news conference announcing the change, saying the value of restoring the traditional names was "priceless." The new names are now on the main websites for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Canadian Air Force.
> 
> The name restorations also changed the name of the Land Force Command to the Canadian Army.
> 
> Michel Drapeau, an Ottawa lawyer who specializes in access-toinformation and military law, says the delay is not acceptable.
> 
> ….


Looks like about five months until the measured costs are known ... of course, I don't imagine there has been total accounting of man-hours that have gone into this so a lot of costs will disappear into the overhead and we will never know the opportunity cost of other prioreties not worked on.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Looks like about five months until the measured costs are known ... of course, I don't imagine there has been total accounting of man-hours that have gone into this so a lot of costs will disappear into the overhead and *we will never know the opportunity cost of other prioreties not worked on.*


Yes, because the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force are so efficient at managing down time that we would have had functional stealth ships, tanks and planes by now if it weren't for the name change.  :

Meanwhile, this is me caring about this whole non-story:


----------



## McG

Engage in a false dichotomy reductio ad absurdum if you like.  General officers, decision boards, ministers and cabinet all have a finite amount of time available for info & decision briefs.  At the strategic level, months of delay can be introduced when an initiative is bumped from the agenda (of any one of the aforementioned) to make room for another.

So, we would not have had stealth ships, tanks and planes now as the alternative to name changes.  However, something(s) got bumped.  Maybe it was a capability decision or maybe it was a pay issue – there was an opportunity cost.  The magnitude/significance of that cost is probably beyond being something we can identify.


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:  Techno.

I just KNEW there was a reason we did not get the fusion drive engines we were promised in the designs for the new ships.     Love the photo.

MGC.  Really?  Just how much effort did it take to have a computer weenie change the web pages to say "Royal Canadian ..." It's not like this was strategic planning for the new winter offensive or anything.  The meetings that decided this could not have been that absorbing or time consuming either.  Any other changes like new printed forms can be done over time as new ones are needed.  (As mentioned in earlier posts.)


----------



## Loachman

We were canvassed about aircraft markings, colours, ensigns, badges, mottos, and rank designations a few days ago. A couple of people went off on uniform colours, ie going from bright blue to the old RAF Cossack Grey colour, and adding a belt. I favour the old Royal Flying Corps uniform myself.

There's definitely a bit of time and money and creep going into this.

I'd rather see the money and effort put into better Good Idea Fairy snares.


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> However, something(s) got bumped.



Conversely, i have watched the CDS and other GOFOs be briefed and make decisions in less time than it took for me to read your post. Unless you have some kind of empirical evidence that something was bumped, what you are saying is nothing more than a guess, as educated as it may be.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> There's definitely a bit of time and money and creep going into this.



_"This business will get out of control. It'll get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it"_


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice touch on the quote CDN Aviator.

You found a quote from an Admiral, albeit a naval aviator one by trade.


----------



## Monsoon

C'mon... just think how much more efficiently we could have replaced all of our PEN forms with two separate forms if we hadn't been distracted by the service names changes! We'd be on version three of the new form by now.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> However, something(s) got bumped.  Maybe it was a capability decision or maybe it was a pay issue – there was an opportunity cost.  The magnitude/significance of that cost is probably beyond being something we can identify.



 :waiting:

More like a shortened smoke break.   Or one less trip to the Rideau Centre.  Or going home at 1355 on a Friday instead of 1345.


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Conversely, i have watched the CDS and other GOFOs be briefed and make decisions in less time than it took for me to read your post. Unless you have some kind of empirical evidence that something was bumped, what you are saying is nothing more than a guess, as educated as it may be.


The reply to the ATI indicates this decision had time in front of cabinet.  That stuff gets formally scheduled.  There is only so much room on the schedule, and we have more desires than fit.

With the number of stakeholders involved in the name changes that happened, there would have been multiple info briefs and decision briefs involving a number of GOFO even before cabinet decision.  That is how our national HQ works, and that is not even beginning to consider the research, drafting of BNs, drafting of instructions and other leg-work of pers at ranks below the senior decision makers.

We can pretend that this consumed no effort because we like the decision, but that does not in actuality remove the opportunity cost.

Too be clear, I believe that the decision was the appropriate decision after having expended the effort to have the discussion.  However, I think it is questionable that we should have expended the effort to have the discussion in the first place.


----------



## Journeyman

Given the amount of time wasted by military members with all the touchy-feely mandated crap (special interest awareness, safety briefings aimed at people with the IQ of a gnat, United Way...), to say nothing of those taking the Queen's shilling while spending all day on Milnet.ca, I just can't imagine wringing my hands over the opportunity costs inherent in this decision.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Loachman said:
			
		

> We were canvassed about aircraft markings, colours, ensigns, badges, mottos, and rank designations a few days ago. A couple of people went off on uniform colours, ie going from bright blue to the old RAF Cossack Grey colour, and adding a belt. I favour the old Royal Flying Corps uniform myself.



Does that include a rakish scarf, leather helmet and goggles?


----------



## Edward Campbell

No, but I understand that RCAF wants this:







And they are suggesting this for you lot:


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *to say nothing of those taking the Queen's shilling while spending all day on Milnet.ca*, I just can't imagine wringing my hands over the opportunity costs inherent in this decision.


----------



## Loachman

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Does that include a rakish scarf, leather helmet and goggles?



I just want khaki, full-length brown riding boots, and spurs.


----------



## Danjanou

Loachman said:
			
		

> I just want khaki, full-length brown riding boots, and spurs.



Yup and I think that falls under the Too Much Information clause.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And they are suggesting this for you lot:



I'll bet they were more water proof and comfortable than the frigg'n canary suits they have us wear now.  While you're at it, I'll take a British Warm too and the Square Rig.


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, but I understand that RCAF wants this:



That image is reversed...hat badge is on the left side of the wedge....and the wedge is worn at a "jaunty angle" to the right.

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll bet they were more water proof and comfortable than the frigg'n canary suits they have us wear now.  While you're at it, I'll take a British Warm too and the Square Rig.




The _British Warm_ was a rather stylish, comfortable overcoat: neither as warm nor as utilitarian as a greatcoat.






  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



British Warm                                                                                    Greatcoat

But it, the _British Warm_, had the advantage of being useful and very acceptable as a civilian overcoat (minus, of course, the rank badge slip ons).


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _British Warm_ was a rather stylish, comfortable overcoat: neither as warm nor as utilitarian as a greatcoat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> British Warm                                                                                    Greatcoat
> 
> But it, the _British Warm_, had the advantage of being useful and very acceptable as a civilian overcoat (minus, of course, the rank badge slip ons).



No way, much better to have our current burbury (how the hell do you spell that?) which makes us look like those indecent exposure freaks found in city parks.  :-X


----------



## jollyjacktar

My mistake, a Duffel coat is more of what I was thinking of.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> No way, much better to have our current burbury (how the hell do you spell that?) which makes us look like those indecent exposure freaks found in city parks.  :-X








Burberry's is a well known, and overpriced, British outerwear vendor.


----------



## Edward Campbell

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My mistake, a Duffel coat is more of what I was thinking of.




Your image didn't work.

This is the sort of duffle coat my father wore at sea _circa_ 1940-43.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, my image did not work worth a damn.  That's the coat.


----------



## ReneeClaude

I need some wisdom here, this is what the news choose to put out concerning the CF when we have people that are doing a fine job in Afghanistan and we barely see anything about that, but the below is worth the "Top Stories" on my google news feed? Am I missing something?




> OTTAWA — When the Conservative government renamed the Royal Canadian Air Force to great fanfare this past summer, it forgot to designate a French acronym to go alongside the English RCAF, emails between senior air force officers show.
> 
> As a result, the officers were sent scrambling, initially going with the same acronym as Colombia's most notorious guerrilla force, known as FARC, before deciding to usurp the French acronym of a Canadian army unit.
> 
> According to the emails, which were obtained by Postmedia News under access to information law, the problem emerged on Aug. 16 when the air force officers examined the order signed by Defence Minister Peter MacKay authorizing the name change.
> .....
> 
> The documents also indicate air force officers had wanted to pull the branch's original regimental flags out of retirement, only to find they had deteriorated too far while being stored in a museum in Winnipeg.
> 
> "This is not the best news," a civilian contractor wrote in an email on July 20 to Deschamps, Malo and other officers. "The colours truly are being consumed 'until they turn to dust.' We could, however, bring them out in their present display case if necessary since there is absolutely no way that new colours will be ready by mid-Sept (2012)."
> 
> Deschamps responded by asking officials to look at ways to put them on display if possible.
> 
> The response from Malo is blacked out, but later talking points prepared for the media and public don't mention that the air force tried to bring the flags back. Rather, they say that "as Canada has adopted the British tradition of laying up colours 'until they turn to dust,' these particular colours should not be re-activated."
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.canada.com/force+name+lost+translation+documents+show/5785810/story.html#ixzz1f9fhF8IP


----------



## aesop081

AirForceMonkey said:
			
		

> I need some wisdom .............. Am I missing something?



Wisdom : Slow news day

Missing : Slow news day

In the end : It was "ARC" back then. The problem was what again ?


----------



## ReneeClaude

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The problem was what again ?



Why is that making news, but the great work done in Afghanistan barely gets mentioned?


----------



## aesop081

AirForceMonkey said:
			
		

> Why is that making news, but the great work done in Afghanistan barely gets mentioned?



Again, "Slow News Day"


----------



## ReneeClaude

CDN Aviator, I knew I could count on you to clarify things


----------



## aesop081

AirForceMonkey said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator, I knew I could count on you to clarify things



I'm not sure what you were expecting. A slow news days is when nothing is going and news has to be "made up" because space has to be taken up on websites and papers.

You are 37 years old according to your profile so, surely, you have seen this before.


----------



## ReneeClaude

It would just be great to see those spaces filled with news from the front and the great work being done there if they absolutely want to fill them with something concerning the CF, just saying.


----------



## cupper

I suppose saying it with a heavy french accent wouldn't suffice? >


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> I suppose saying it with a heavy french accent wouldn't suffice? >



Royal Canajin Hair Force?

 8)


----------



## Robert0288

If I had coffee in my mouth it would now be all over my desk.  Well done to you.


----------



## cupper

recceguy said:
			
		

> Royal Canajin Hair Force?
> 
> 8)


 :rofl:  :goodpost:


----------



## Taptrick

A tailor in Quebec City specialized in CF mess dress told me that new regulations were coming for the RCAF mess dress.  I think we all heard some rumors since the reintroduction of the RCAF.  Anyone knows anything?


----------



## aesop081

Taptrick said:
			
		

> Anyone knows anything?



The RCAF CWO circulated a PPT not that long ago, for distribution to all RCAF members, showing different options for a new mess dress pattern. We were told to submit our choice up the CoC.

So it is not a rumour.


----------



## Taptrick

Interresting... If anyone could share that PPT I'de be curious to see that.


----------



## aesop081

Taptrick said:
			
		

> Interresting... If anyone could share that PPT I'de be curious to see that.



Sorry, i deleted it right after i sent my response.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Checked the CWOAF DIN site, nothing on it there.


----------



## PMedMoe

CDN Aviator, do you know if people are going to be allowed to continue to wear the old Mess kit?  I don't have a dog in this fight, just curious as it's out of pocket and not issued.  I'd hate to have to go buy a new set.


----------



## aesop081

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> if people are going to be allowed to continue to wear the old Mess kit?



Yes.


----------



## dapaterson

Proof of concept artwork is  now online.


----------



## PuckChaser

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator, do you know if people are going to be allowed to continue to wear the old Mess kit?  I don't have a dog in this fight, just curious as it's out of pocket and not issued.  I'd hate to have to go buy a new set.



I believe its written directly in the CF dress instruction that you are entitled to wear whatever mess dress you paid for previously as long as it is in good repair.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Proof of concept artwork is  now online.


 or this maybe?


----------



## dimsum

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The RCAF CWO circulated a PPT not that long ago, for distribution to all RCAF members, showing different options for a new mess dress pattern. We were told to submit our choice up the CoC.
> 
> So it is not a rumour.



Your choice was a flight suit, right?  Right?   ;D

In (somewhat) all seriousness, for those of us w/o DIN access, what were the options?


----------



## aesop081

IIRC, for me there were 2 different style jackets and the colour was more like the RCAF wartime uniform.

There were 2 options for women's pattern as well.


----------



## McG

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> CDN Aviator, do you know if people are going to be allowed to continue to wear the old Mess kit?  I don't have a dog in this fight, just curious as it's out of pocket and not issued.  I'd hate to have to go buy a new set.


They won't have to buy a new one, but there will probably be presure on anyone who wants to be anyone.

I hear there are to be new capbadges and buttons for the service dress too.  On the upside, at least the government and not the member will pay for those.


----------



## 211RadOp

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I believe its written directly in the CF dress instruction that you are entitled to wear whatever mess dress you paid for previously as long as it is in good repair.



Indeed.  Annex B to Chapter 6 Para 7



> 7. Obsolete Dress Mess. Obsolete patterns of
> mess dress may be worn until they are no longer in
> satisfactory condition by CF members who
> purchased them when still authorized.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> They won't have to buy a new one, but there will probably be presure on anyone who wants to be anyone.
> 
> I hear there are to be new capbadges and buttons for the service dress too.  On the upside, at least the government and not the member will pay for those.



So much for the line that the name change won't cost significant amounts of money.  I guess my prediction of a return to the RAF-style service dress wasn't that far off the mark (as of yet.)


----------



## Infanteer

The way the F-35 project is going, the RCAF will likely be flying the F-86 pretty soon....


----------



## McG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So much for the line that the name change won't cost significant amounts of money.  I guess my prediction of a return to the RAF-style service dress wasn't that far off the mark (as of yet.)


There are a whole lot of _good ideas_ following on the heals of the name change decision.  I've seen formal discussions on turning back the clock on thinks ranging from uniform styles, pips & crowns, and "lost" royal designations of other CF entities.  That decision may very well have been the tipping point to a slippery slope.

Let's joing the band-wagon.  I say we seek a royal designation for the army.  We want the Royal Canadian Army!


----------



## dimsum

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The way the F-35 project is going, the RCAF will likely be flying the F-86 pretty soon....



Not just the RCAF.  The RAAF Air Force newspaper recently had an article which basically stated that they'll stay the course with JSF.  Hilarity (and a few choice phrases that I won't repeat here) at the table of various RAAF folk ensued.  They're actually considering buying MORE Super Hornets to stop-gap the...stop-gap, if that makes any sense.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> There are a whole lot of _good ideas_ following on the heals of the name change decision.  I've seen formal discussions on turning back the clock on thinks ranging from uniform styles, pips & crowns, and "lost" royal designations of other CF entities.  That decision may very well have been the tipping point to a slippery slope.



Since all these discussions were made years (?) ago here, I say we should use the Army.ca Crystal Ball to good effect:

The RAAF have all their bases (except RAAF Tindal, but let's forget about that for a minute) within an hour or so of a city of over 200,000 people.  I say we do the same!   >  Wait, wasn't there a National Post series of articles saying that we should be more like the ADF around February?  I thought it was eerily coincidental to when my HHT was to Brisbane  :blotto:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Indeed.  Annex B to Chapter 6 Para 7



Are you sure you are looking at the current/updated version?  I just pulled down 265 from the DHH/CF Pub's DIN site, dated 2011-06-01.

Chap 5, Annex B, Para 7.  Obsolete Mess Dress.

Obsolete patterns of mess dress are not authorized for wear by CF members.


----------



## PMedMoe

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are you sure you are looking at the current/updated version?  I just pulled down 265 from the DHH/CF Pub's DIN site, dated 2011-06-01.
> 
> Chap 5, Annex B, Para 7.  Obsolete Mess Dress.
> 
> Obsolete patterns of mess dress are not authorized for wear by CF members.



That's what I found yesterday but didn't post.


----------



## 211RadOp

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Are you sure you are looking at the current/updated version?  I just pulled down 265 from the DHH/CF Pub's DIN site, dated 2011-06-01.
> 
> Chap 5, Annex B, Para 7.  Obsolete Mess Dress.
> 
> Obsolete patterns of mess dress are not authorized for wear by CF members.



Quite possibly.  It was a copy I had on my home computer.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I am sure _that_ change will be one that makes folks happy.  Hopefully there will be some common sense used when 'whoever' determines what is 'obsolete' and what is not.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> There are a whole lot of _good ideas_ following on the heals of the name change decision.  I've seen formal discussions on turning back the clock on thinks ranging from uniform styles, pips & crowns, and "lost" royal designations of other CF entities.  That decision may very well have been the tipping point to a slippery slope.
> 
> Let's joing the band-wagon.  I say we seek a royal designation for the army.  We want the Royal Canadian Army!



Notes from a CWO conference indicates that 67% are in favour of getting RCE back.......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That would be great, but I also remind everyone that there never was a Royal Canadian Army. The royal designations were kept for the various entities making up the army (Royal C. Corps of Signals, Royal C. Service Corps, Royal C. Ordnance Corps, Royal Artillery, Royal Regiment, Royal Highland Regiment, etc. etc.).


----------



## blacktriangle

Waste of time.


----------



## PuckChaser

RC Sigs would be nice to bring back, everyone else is doing it so why can't we?


----------



## blacktriangle

I honestly think it's being looked at. There was some make-work going on that pertained to bringing RC Sigs back. 

My question is: What's the point? Why is it even a good thing? 

My Grandfather was RC Sigs...he also fought in World War II. He's dead. Other than probably having trained in some of the same buildings and used some of the same equipment ( ;D), what would modern Sigs have in common? 

All I see coming out of it would be wasted Staff work, time and money spent changing titles and uniform details, and an excuse to have some parades. 

Not trying to be a troll, but maybe someone more experienced than myself can explain why this is needed or a good use of our time, money and effort?


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Notes from a CWO conference indicates that 67% are in favour of getting RCE back.......



I wasn't aware that the CF practiced democracy for its internal decision making.  I guess I'll vote to relocate my unit to Hawaii, since I like the weather there better.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that the CF practiced democracy for its internal decision making.  I guess I'll vote to relocate my unit to Hawaii, since I like the weather there better.



lol, should have been more specific, its was the CME CWO Conference:



> Royal Canadian Engineersn title was voted in favour of by 66 percent, when it comes into affect it will include the Army, Air Force will be RCAF Construction Engineers and not RCE.


----------



## PuckChaser

Spectrum said:
			
		

> My Grandfather was RC Sigs...he also fought in World War II. He's dead. Other than probably having trained in some of the same buildings and used some of the same equipment ( ;D), what would modern Sigs have in common?
> 
> All I see coming out of it would be wasted Staff work, time and money spent changing titles and uniform details, and an excuse to have some parades.
> 
> Not trying to be a troll, but maybe someone more experienced than myself can explain why this is needed or a good use of our time, money and effort?



I see it as a way to bring some history and some pride in that history back to the branch. I don't see there being much more of a cost than when the Navy got its executive curl back. How many slipons and DEU had to be tailored at public expensive for them to gain back some of their history? Consider our 110th anniversary is coming up next October, it gives the puzzle palace plenty of time to make it happen.

If we're going back to show some royal heritage, then all branches need to be given the opportunity. I'm just as happy to see RCE being fought for, as my grandfather fought under than title when he landed in Normandy.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that the CF practiced democracy for its internal decision making.  I guess I'll vote to relocate my unit to Hawaii, since I like the weather there better.



Can I join your unit? We could have a sub unit of your unit in Vegas.....


----------



## Kat Stevens

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Can I join your unit? We could have a sub unit of your unit in Vegas.....



I want to be the Key West Field Squadron SSM.


----------



## navymich

Yet another merge of threads, doesn't always make life easy to find the one you're looking for.

This is in response to the new RCAF Mess Dress.  Here are the pics and info for each broken down from the ppt email that was sent out.  Responses were required at the beginning of March, but I have not yet heard of any decision.

 Slide 1. offers a return to the RCAF Mess dress design (male and female) 
a.      Similar RCAF jacket design with wide lapel, 
b.      Two column of buttons on the jacket, 
c.      Original RCAF blue/ grey colour 
d.      Original white waistcoat, or Branch cummerbunds 
e.      More modern cut for the pants with gold strip on each side    
f.      Light material for both jacket and pants, moving away from original heavy wool. 
g.      Female members would have the choice of evening gown or pants. 

Slide 2. offers modification to our present Mess dress (male and female) - 
a.      Similar to present Mess dress jacket with narrow lapel 
b.      Two column of buttons on the jacket 
c.      Original RCAF blue/ grey colour 
d.      Original white waistcoat, or Branch cummerbunds 
e.      More modern cut for the pants with gold strip on each side    
f.      Light material for both jacket and pants, moving away from original heavy wool. 
g.      Female members would have the choice of evening gown or pants. 

 Slide 3. Two choices of skirts for the ladies. 
a.      Return to the original RCAF below the knee style skirt or; 
b.      Long traditional style evening gown seen with our present midnight blue mess dress 
c.      Chosen skirt would be of original RCAF blue/ grey colour with gold braid on each side. 
d.      The option for ladies pants would also be available with gold braid on each side. 
e.      Light material for both skirt and pants, moving away from original heavy wool.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I honestly think it's being looked at. There was some make-work going on that pertained to bringing RC Sigs back.
> 
> My question is: What's the point? Why is it even a good thing?
> 
> My Grandfather was RC Sigs...he also fought in World War II. He's dead. Other than probably having trained in some of the same buildings and used some of the same equipment ( ;D), what would modern Sigs have in common?
> 
> All I see coming out of it would be wasted Staff work, time and money spent changing titles and uniform details, and an excuse to have some parades.
> 
> Not trying to be a troll, but maybe someone more experienced than myself can explain why this is needed or a good use of our time, money and effort?




You have, _de facto_ a Signals _grouping_ within the C&E Branch.

Now I heard, a year or two ago, a rumour that the RCN (and the RCAF?) want to return to service specific identity, i.e. all Sup Techs in Navy uniforms will wear the Navy Ops cap badge and their branch will be indicated on their collar badges, etc. IF that happens to the RCAF then Signals might want to consider reverting to his historical roots at the Canadian Signalling Corps and reviving that old badge, which might be less difficult than trying to revive the RCCS.






The original Canadian Signalling Corps badge (_circa_ 1903).
The "jimmy" badge was introduced (forced upon the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals)
when the Brits organized the Royal Corps of Signals in the 1920s and adopted Mercury
as their symbol.






The orignal collar dogs, modified to replace CSC with RCCS,
were retained until unification as Signals' collar badges.


----------



## Infanteer

I don't think you'll see Mercury going anywhere soon - the siggies love the naked man....


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> I say we seek a royal designation for the army.  We want the Royal Canadian Army!


"Canadian Army - a _royal_ pain" 
(our version of "Team America - fuck yaa")


...beyond that, I've got nothin'  It's not an issue I'll lose sleep over, either way


----------



## dapaterson

But since Canada is all about embracing diversity, we should embrace diversity of views on national governance in the naming of units.  Perhaps we should stand up the Republic of Canada Regiment, abbreviated as the RCR (as opposed to that other unit, The RCR).

:stirpot:


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... I also remind everyone that there never was a Royal Canadian Army. The royal designations were kept for the various entities making up the army (Royal C. Corps of Signals, Royal C. Service Corps, Royal C. Ordnance Corps, Royal Artillery, Royal Regiment, Royal Highland Regiment, etc. etc.).


So?  Why be tied to the past?  Let's blaze a new trail.  There is nothing saying that one entity cannot be royal while its constituent parts are also independently royal ... infact there is precedent to the contrary.  One only need look at all the royal regiments that could be found in either the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps or the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I don't think you'll see Mercury going anywhere soon - the siggies love the naked man....



Speaking of turning back clocks....


Historically speaking,  the RAF, RAC and RC Sigs (and therefore the Canuck versions thereof) were all ginger step-children of the Royal Engineers. I hereby declare myself fully on the bandwagon of Canadian Forces Creative Anachronisity by proposing to re-integrate all those wayward offspring back into the Royal Canadian Engineers. 




*standing back, popcorn ready, awaiting squeals of righteous indignation*


----------



## dapaterson

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Speaking of turning back clocks....
> 
> 
> Historically speaking,  the RAF, RAC and RC Sigs (and therefore the Canuck versions thereof) were all ginger step-children of the Royal Engineers. I hereby declare myself fully on the bandwagon of Canadian Forces Creative Anachronisity by proposing to re-integrate all those wayward offspring back into the Royal Canadian Engineers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *standing back, popcorn ready, awaiting squeals of righteous indignation*



But what about the mortars?  Won't someone think of the mortars?  We need the Royal Canadian Mortar Corps!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Speaking of turning back clocks....
> 
> 
> Historically speaking,  the RAF, RAC and RC Sigs (and therefore the Canuck versions thereof) were all ginger step-children of the Royal Engineers. I hereby declare myself fully on the bandwagon of Canadian Forces Creative Anachronisity by proposing to re-integrate all those wayward offspring back into the Royal Canadian Engineers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *standing back, popcorn ready, awaiting squeals of righteous indignation*




Only some Signal units were step-children of the Engineers; the Canadian Signalling Corps (estb 1903) did not compete with the Engineers - they did different jobs. But in 1914 the Brits assigned all signals functions (visual and telegraphy) to the RE and expected all the Imperial armies to do the same. For reasons that are a bit obscure only 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Canadian Division Signal Companies were RCE units - 1st Canadian Division Signal Company (commanded by Maj Lister of The RCR) remained as a non-RCE unit with several of its officers and most of its NCOs retaining their CSC badges and designations. The _legend_ is that Maj Lister declined to rebadge from The RCR to the RCE so, rather than lose the best Signal officer in the army, the Div Comd (successive Div Comds as Lister commanded the company for the entire war) decided not to follow the general order about making all Signal units into RCE units.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But what about the mortars?  Won't someone think of the mortars?  We need the Royal Canadian Mortar Corps!




And the (Royal) Canadian Machine Gun Corps, too!






Spiffy cap badge


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the (Royal) Canadian Machine Gun Corps, too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiffy cap badge



With water cooled machine guns?  ;D


----------



## aesop081

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> proposing to re-integrate all those wayward offspring back into the Royal Canadian Engineers.



No thanks. I was done with that years ago and have no desire to return.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> So?  Why be tied to the past?  Let's blaze a new trail.  There is nothing saying that one entity cannot be royal while its constituent parts are also independently royal ... infact there is precedent to the contrary.  One only need look at all the royal regiments that could be found in either the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps or the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.



Ooooh I dunno.  You wouldn't want to give Her Majesty too much power.  An Army of her own?   Its one thing to give her a Navy, even a bit of artillery and an Air Force. She can't do much 'arm with them at 'ome.   But an Army?  Maybe a regiment or two to protect the palaces, so long as they don't outnumber the regiments controlled by the 'Ouse of Lords, but you wouldn't want to have Her troopies wandering around, laying into good honest pub-crawlers with flat of sword and butt of musket.  That wouldn't be good for business at all, at all.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the (Royal) Canadian Machine Gun Corps, too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiffy cap badge



Modernise it......Royal Canadian Automatic Grenade Launching System Corps


----------



## Pusser

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ooooh I dunno.  You wouldn't want to give Her Majesty too much power.  An Army of her own?   Its one thing to give her a Navy, even a bit of artillery and an Air Force. She can't do much 'arm with them at 'ome.   But an Army?  Maybe a regiment or two to protect the palaces, so long as they don't outnumber the regiments controlled by the 'Ouse of Lords, but you wouldn't want to have Her troopies wandering around, laying into good honest pub-crawlers with flat of sword and butt of musket.  That wouldn't be good for business at all, at all.



You're actually not far off the mark.  The main reason the Army is not (nor ever has been) "Royal" is because, traditionally, it was not raised or financed by the sovereign (at least not directly), unlike the Navy.  Instead, regiments of soldiers were raised, equipped and financed by independent peers, who owed fealty to the sovereign (or sometimes used his army to fight against the sovereign - War of the Roses).  With the development of artillery and "engines of war," the sovereign took a more active role in the establishment and maintenance of these particular corps (i.e. established depots, factories, schools, etc).  This could be why only the RE and RA provided a standard level of training and education.  The granting of royal titles to the infantry and cavalry came later, but more as reward for good service than anything else.


----------



## McG

Of course, today the Army is funded by the crown.
It's clearly time for the Royal Canadian Army.


----------



## aesop081

MCG said:
			
		

> It's clearly time for the Royal Canadian Army.



Wait. We're going back to RCAF and RCN as those are our traditional names and you want to break with tradition by giving the Canadian Army a name it never had ??


----------



## McG

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Wait. We're going back to RCAF and RCN as those are our traditional names ...


While everyone is looking back, compensating for insecurities by clinging to names that haven't existed during their service, I am forward looking.
The Canadian Army carries enough weight and contributes enough so as to be at least as equally entitled to bear the title "Royal" as are those other environments entitled to bear the names of past services.


----------



## Kirkhill

MCG said:
			
		

> While everyone is looking back, compensating for insecurities by clinging to names that haven't existed during their service, I am forward looking.
> The Canadian Army carries enough weight and contributes enough so as to be at least as equally entitled to bear the title "Royal" as are those other environments entitled to bear the names of past services.



I've got a simple compromise.  

The RCA stays just as it is.
The RCE reforms.
The RCAC continues as it is and....... wait for it......
The Infantry Branch reforms as ....  The RCR.   >

There, that should make everybody happy, n'est ce pas?


----------



## wildman0101

Simple ,,,they earned The Royal thru blood,,sweat,, and tear's".
they earned that ROYAL thru service to not only  "Queen and Country"
and they earned that right. God Bless the Common-Wealth...
Scoty B.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You have, _de facto_ a Signals _grouping_ within the C&E Branch.
> 
> Now I heard, a year or two ago, a rumour that the RCN (and the RCAF?) want to return to service specific identity, i.e. all Sup Techs in Navy uniforms will wear the Navy Ops cap badge and their branch will be indicated on their collar badges, etc. IF that happens to the RCAF then Signals might want to consider reverting to his historical roots at the Canadian Signalling Corps and reviving that old badge, which might be less difficult than trying to revive the RCCS.



I have heard that rumour as well. Another thing forced on us by the CF big brothers who can't get it through their heads that in the Navy you are a Naval Officer or Sailor first and a tradesperson second. All of us in the Navy should wear the same Naval Operations cap badge. Yes I also mean all the Naval DEU folks who have never seen salt water. ;D


----------



## Pusser

FSTO said:
			
		

> I have heard that rumour as well. Another thing forced on us by the CF big brothers who can't get it through their heads that in the Navy you are a Naval Officer or Sailor first and a tradesperson second. All of us in the Navy should wear the same Naval Operations cap badge. Yes I also mean all the Naval DEU folks who have never seen salt water. ;D



I like this rumour and am all for it.  There were plenty of folks in the old RCN whose only contact with water was from a drinking glass, yet still wore a naval cap badge.  Separate cap badges by branch (AKA "corps") or unit is an Army tradition.


----------



## Michael OLeary

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the (Royal) Canadian Machine Gun Corps, too!



Let's go with something a little more Canadian in appearance:


----------



## AmmoTech90

Pusser said:
			
		

> I like this rumour and am all for it.  There were plenty of folks in the old RCN whose only contact with water was from a drinking glass, yet still wore a naval cap badge.  Separate cap badges by branch (AKA "corps") or unit is an Army tradition.



Sweet, reduces the workload for the Log Branch for pers management and development.  No consideration of Naval pers for succession planning, career management, training.  And seeing as the people that do a lot of that type of work in the Log Branch are one deep we simply reduce their workload, and the RCN gets to add the pers to do that.  Where are you going to get the PYs to do that?

Keep this cosmetic, stop building empires, and stop putting forward ideas that take up peoples time with frivolity.


----------



## Halifax Tar

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Sweet, reduces the workload for the Log Branch for pers management and development.  No consideration of Naval pers for succession planning, career management, training.  And seeing as the people that do a lot of that type of work in the Log Branch are one deep we simply reduce their workload, and the RCN gets to add the pers to do that.  Where are you going to get the PYs to do that?
> 
> Keep this cosmetic, stop building empires, and stop putting forward ideas that take up peoples time with frivolity.



I think you missed his point.  Its just a rumor of a change of cap badge.  You know like the Stewards had and wore until they very recently left the Log Branch for the Naval Operations Branch.  I have heard this rumor for YEARS... Nothing new...

BUT 

If youd like to go ahead and throw all Naval Loggies out of the Log Branch and into the RCN fully I would support that 110%!  >


(I know its PER season when I catch my self double spacing after each period)


----------



## q_1966

How about replacing the current issue Canadian Army buttons (excluding regimental buttons) w/ the WWII era ones top right (only with the St. Edwards Crown), only slightly different from the WWI General Service buttons below. The words on the button are French and say "Shamed be he who thinks evil of it" *that should appeal to Quebec  >

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










References:
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/insignia/buttons/buttons.htm
http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/topic/10270/t/Re-Canadian-WW-I-Buttons.html?page=-1#.T28heNlyVzI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense


----------



## AmmoTech90

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think you missed his point.  Its just a rumor of a change of cap badge.  You know like the Stewards had and wore until they very recently left the Log Branch for the Naval Operations Branch.  I have heard this rumor for YEARS... Nothing new...
> 
> BUT
> 
> If youd like to go ahead and throw all Naval Loggies out of the Log Branch and into the RCN fully I would support that 110%!  >
> 
> 
> (I know its PER season when I catch my self double spacing after each period)



You can't have your cake and eat it too, that is what I am trying to get across.  There are more implications to having people change cap badges than a tailor's bill.  Pull them out of the Log Branch and put them in the RCN and you have done just that, they are no longer the Log Branch's responsibility.

Double spaces after periods are always correct.


----------



## Pusser

One of the main reasons for removing the Stewards from the Log Branch was because the Branch was not interested in having a trade that only wore one uniform (because the Army and Air Force made it clear that they neither wanted nor required Stewards anymore).  That argument falls completely flat when you look at the Ammo Techs, who are Log trade and are only found in Army uniform.  The fact is, however, Steward is a logistics trade, plain and simple.  They fill a logistics function on board the ship, are part of the Logistics Department and report to the Logistics Officer.  On base, they are part of the Administration organization and again, fill logistics roles.  The fact that they are now part of the Naval Operations Branch is simply silly.

Much of the argument against having Air Force and Navy Log personnel wearing Air Force and Navy cap badges has been a lot of noz about Branch identity.  However, this does not seem to be a concern with General/Flag officers or Army colonels.  In fact, the Army unilaterally decided that all Army colonels, regardless of Branch (with a few exceptions for honorary colonels of regiments) will wear a colonel's cap badge, in accordance with the pre 1968 Army practice.  Why then, is it so outlandish for the current RCN and RCAF to do something similar for all the personnel who wear those uniforms?

As for only sending personnel in Naval uniform to Navy postings, Air Force personnel to Air Force postings and Army personnel to Army postings, again, I'm all for it.  Who in the Log Branch, when asked what they do for a living, says, "I'm in the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces?"  I would argue that the vast majority start their description of their career with, "I'm in the Navy/Army/Air Force."  If that's how folks identify themselves, then why not employ them accordingly.  We currently allocate uniforms in the Branch in accordance with the demographics of the CF, but why do that if it doesn't matter where you are posted?  If it doesn't matter, then why not allow Log personnel to wear whatever uniform they wish?  If it does matter, then post them to the environment where they fit in.  It always drove me nuts to see the hodge podge of uniforms in my department at Divisions on the flight deck.  Uniforms are supposed to be, well, uniform - hence the name.  When you get into joint headquarters areas, it makes more sense to have different uniforms there.  Come to think of it, when you look to our allies, that's how they often do it.

My final argument on cap badges is that we don't need a Log Branch cap badge (which doesn't look nice on a naval cap anyway) to show our membership in the Log Branch.  The old RCN showed it in other ways (e.g. trade badges for CPOs and below and, until 1961, distinction cloth for officers).  I would love to see a return to that because I think it simply makes more sense.  I'm happy to see the Army continue with the Logistics badge, as per Army tradition, but the let the RCN and RCAF follow their own traditions.  I'd even be happy to see the Army logisticians re-brand themselves as the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (and I have it on good authority that this has been brought up).  Having said all of this, there is nothing preventing the RCN and RCAF Logistics Branches and the RCLC being collectively referred to as the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces, with shared common things where shared common things make sense.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> One of the main reasons for removing the Stewards from the Log Branch was because the Branch was not interested in having a trade that only wore one uniform (because the Army and Air Force made it clear that they neither wanted nor required Stewards anymore).  That argument falls completely flat when you look at the Ammo Techs, who are Log trade and are only found in Army uniform.  The fact is, however, Steward is a logistics trade, plain and simple.  They fill a logistics function on board the ship, are part of the Logistics Department and report to the Logistics Officer.  On base, they are part of the Administration organization and again, fill logistics roles.  The fact that they are now part of the Naval Operations Branch is simply silly.
> 
> Much of the argument against having Air Force and Navy Log personnel wearing Air Force and Navy cap badges has been a lot of noz about Branch identity.  However, this does not seem to be a concern with General/Flag officers or Army colonels.  In fact, the Army unilaterally decided that all Army colonels, regardless of Branch (with a few exceptions for honorary colonels of regiments) will wear a colonel's cap badge, in accordance with the pre 1968 Army practice.  Why then, is it so outlandish for the current RCN and RCAF to do something similar for all the personnel who wear those uniforms?
> 
> As for only sending personnel in Naval uniform to Navy postings, Air Force personnel to Air Force postings and Army personnel to Army postings, again, I'm all for it.  Who in the Log Branch, when asked what they do for a living, says, "I'm in the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces?"  I would argue that the vast majority start their description of their career with, "I'm in the Navy/Army/Air Force."  If that's how folks identify themselves, then why not employ them accordingly.  We currently allocate uniforms in the Branch in accordance with the demographics of the CF, but why do that if it doesn't matter where you are posted?  If it doesn't matter, then why not allow Log personnel to wear whatever uniform they wish?  If it does matter, then post them to the environment where they fit in.  It always drove me nuts to see the hodge podge of uniforms in my department at Divisions on the flight deck.  Uniforms are supposed to be, well, uniform - hence the name.  When you get into joint headquarters areas, it makes more sense to have different uniforms there.  Come to think of it, when you look to our allies, that's how they often do it.
> 
> My final argument on cap badges is that we don't need a Log Branch cap badge (which doesn't look nice on a naval cap anyway) to show our membership in the Log Branch.  The old RCN showed it in other ways (e.g. trade badges for CPOs and below and, until 1961, distinction cloth for officers).  I would love to see a return to that because I think it simply makes more sense.  I'm happy to see the Army continue with the Logistics badge, as per Army tradition, but the let the RCN and RCAF follow their own traditions.  I'd even be happy to see the Army logisticians re-brand themselves as the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (and I have it on good authority that this has been brought up).  Having said all of this, there is nothing preventing the RCN and RCAF Logistics Branches and the RCLC being collectively referred to as the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces, with shared common things where shared common things make sense.



Thank you for so eloquently stating my own beliefs.  Pusser I fully and 110% agree.


----------



## Halifax Tar

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Double spaces after periods are always correct.



Funny I have only ever been taught to do that sense I began writing PDR/PERs


----------



## aesop081

Are we going to have separate career management for these people too ? (more career managers at NDHQ......lovely idea)

"Sgt Bloggins, yes you are #1 in your trade but the only WO position that is open, running clothing stores in Edmonton, is an Army DEU only position, sorry about that"

"Hey #4 guy...you're Army ain't ya ??"


I really hope the CF gets into another war soon and we can worry about more important things than your department being the same colour on the flight deck.


----------



## Pusser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Are we going to have separate career management for these people too ? (more career managers at NDHQ......lovely idea)
> 
> "Sgt Bloggins, yes you are #1 in your trade but the only WO position that is open, running clothing stores in Edmonton, is an Army DEU only position, sorry about that"
> 
> "Hey #4 guy...you're Army ain't ya ??"
> 
> 
> I really hope the CF gets into another war soon and we can worry about more important things than your department being the same colour on the flight deck.



Umm.  We already do in some cases.  D Mil C 6 currently has separate career managers for Navy, Army and Air Force Logistics Officers.  So, where numbers warrant, it makes sense.  I also think that there is merit in having separate promotion lists in some cases.  Despite some common training and similar basic responsibilities, I've never understood why I as Ship's Logistics Officer has to compete for promotion with a Transport Officer in Winnipeg for promotion.  What we do and the environment in which we do it is vastly different.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've never understood why I as Ship's Logistics Officer has to compete for promotion with a Transport Officer in Winnipeg...


You're right; it hardly seems fair for the sailor.


----------



## armyvern

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Are we going to have separate career management for these people too ? (more career managers at NDHQ......lovely idea)
> 
> "Sgt Bloggins, yes you are #1 in your trade but the only WO position that is open, running clothing stores in Edmonton, is an Army DEU only position, sorry about that"
> 
> "Hey #4 guy...you're Army ain't ya ??"
> 
> 
> I really hope the CF gets into another war soon and we can worry about more important things than your department being the same colour on the flight deck.



We're going to have to have separate career managers, boards and promotion lists if things keep going the way they are:

I was involved in a conversation just last week with the central powers that be about my manning levels and that certain pers would be looking at postings out without, quite possibly, a replacement because, "the RCN wants all their Snr NCOs back." 

Being we're a high op tempo pri 2 unit, my response was that no replacement is not acceptable and please pass along that the "J" stands for "Joint", so they get to fill jobs here too - not just the Army and RCAF.


----------



## aesop081

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We're going to have to have separate career managers, boards and promotion lists if things keep going the way they are:



Like i said, i'm praying for another war.

It didn't take long for the CF to go downhill again............


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We're going to have to have separate career managers, boards and promotion lists if things keep going the way they are:
> 
> I was involved in a conversation just last week with the central powers that be about my manning levels and that certain pers would be looking at postings out without, quite possibly, a replacement because, "the RCN wants all their Snr NCOs back."
> 
> Being we're a high op tempo pri 2 unit, my response was that no replacement is not acceptable and please pass along that the *"J" stands for "Joint", *  so they get to fill jobs here too - not just the Army and RCAF.


 AKA "Jarmy"


----------



## McG

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Keep this cosmetic, stop building empires, and stop putting forward ideas that take up peoples time with frivolity.


Most of this turn-back-the-clock work is all about building empires and compensating for branch emotional insecurities.  The reason the information machine so fervently repeats that "this is not divisive" is because the changes (and more so slippery slope they have opened) absolutely are and we want to sell the opposite face on it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Most of this turn-back-the-clock work is all about building empires and compensating for branch emotional insecurities.  The reason the information machine so fervently repeats that "this is not divisive" is because the changes (and more so slippery slope they have opened) absolutely are and we want to sell the opposite face on it.



Well I'm not important enough to start building an empire so that cant be it... What exactly are the "branch emotional insecurities" that you see causing me to support "turning back the clock" as you put it ?


----------



## McG

There is no operational imperative for any of these changes, yet incrementally we keep investing time, effort and resources to making changes for no other reason than because that is the way it used to be before any of us joined.  Each one of these changes is about re-establishing some historic difference - some intangible barrier to separate "my tribe" form all the others.  Yes, it is empire building.

... so, to go along with the trend, and to help isolate my tribe from the rest of you lot, I want to see the Royal Canadian Army.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

....so then we can start all over again with those who didn't serve under any "royal" desination screaming "What about us?"

I'm sure any one of you can think of real issues in your trade/element/ local bar that need more pressing work done than this silly name game............


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well I'm not important enough to start building an empire so that cant be it... What exactly are the "branch emotional insecurities" that you see causing me to support "turning back the clock" as you put it ?



Notice that it is the ones who the name change affects the least complain about it the most?


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Notice that it is the ones who the name change affects the least complain about it the most?



I do.  



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ....so then we can start all over again with those who didn't serve under any "royal" desination screaming "What about us?"
> 
> I'm sure any one of you can think of real issues in your trade/element/ local bar that need more pressing work done than this silly name game............



I would say anyone who has served on a ship, stone frigate or otherwise named unit beginning with HMC_ has served under a "royal designation". HMC_ does stand for Her Majesty's Canadian ___.  No less than RCR or the plethora of RC_ that exist in today's CF.

I do think name changes, uniforms and the like are going to play a huge factor in the future of the Log Branch, thus I believe, if it has not already, it will become a "pressing matter".  The future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance.


----------



## Journeyman

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I really hope the CF gets into another war soon and we can worry about more important things ....


Hey, I recommended to the Mods that the whole thread be moved to Radio Chatter. My conscience is clear no matter how stupid this all gets.  :nod:


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I do think name changes, uniforms and the like are going to play a huge factor in the future of the Log Branch, thus I believe, if it has not already, it will become a "pressing matter".  The future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance.


It is a very sad day if the bells & whistles of our internal distinct societies start to interpose themselves into our operating structures and organizations.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Notice that it is the ones who the name change affects the least complain about it the most?


Nice poisoning the well.  But, you assume too much.  Thanks to the little victory of the RCN & RCAF, there are potential name changes looming over many even in green uniforms these days.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Pusser said:
			
		

> One of the main reasons for removing the Stewards from the Log Branch was because the Branch was not interested in having a trade that only wore one uniform (because the Army and Air Force made it clear that they neither wanted nor required Stewards anymore).  That argument falls completely flat when you look at the Ammo Techs, who are Log trade and are only found in Army uniform.  The fact is, however, Steward is a logistics trade, plain and simple.  They fill a logistics function on board the ship, are part of the Logistics Department and report to the Logistics Officer.  On base, they are part of the Administration organization and again, fill logistics roles.  The fact that they are now part of the Naval Operations Branch is simply silly.



So we should continue to do silly things as long as the RCN is the driving force behind it?



> Much of the argument against having Air Force and Navy Log personnel wearing Air Force and Navy cap badges has been a lot of noz about Branch identity.  However, this does not seem to be a concern with General/Flag officers or Army colonels.  In fact, the Army unilaterally decided that all Army colonels, regardless of Branch (with a few exceptions for honorary colonels of regiments) will wear a colonel's cap badge, in accordance with the pre 1968 Army practice.  Why then, is it so outlandish for the current RCN and RCAF to do something similar for all the personnel who wear those uniforms?



The Army is not perfect either.  However the effort and personnel affected vary just a bit between the Army Cols and entire Log Branch.



> My final argument on cap badges is that we don't need a Log Branch cap badge (which doesn't look nice on a naval cap anyway) to show our membership in the Log Branch.  The old RCN showed it in other ways (e.g. trade badges for CPOs and below and, until 1961, distinction cloth for officers).  I would love to see a return to that because I think it simply makes more sense.  I'm happy to see the Army continue with the Logistics badge, as per Army tradition, but the let the RCN and RCAF follow their own traditions.  I'd even be happy to see the Army logisticians re-brand themselves as the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (and I have it on good authority that this has been brought up).  Having said all of this, there is nothing preventing the RCN and RCAF Logistics Branches and the RCLC being collectively referred to as the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces, with shared common things where shared common things make sense.



Once again, spending money and effort on something that tears down a structure that exists and replaces it with something stovepiped.  Army tradition by the way is not a Logistics corps.  The Log Branch is a post-unification organization that brought together several different Corps.  So the RCLC as you propose it is a simple re-branding, and still something that should not be visited unless Her Majesty decides to bestow it on us. 

[quote author=FSTO]Notice that it is the ones who the name change affects the least complain about it the most?[/quote]

True, if a member of the Canadian Forces wants to also be a member of the Royal Canadian Navy, then join/re-muster to a trade that allows that.  Log Branch should just continue along, providing support to who needs it (with 30 days notice of course).


----------



## Journeyman

It's like a train wreck; I can't look away.   :not-again:

OK, maybe we should stand up a stand-alone organization, called HMCS Wing Buttons and Bows Regiment. If there's no room at 101 or Startop, perhaps there's space with Golgafrincham Ark Fleet -- Ship B.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

I know, JM, and Pusser and I had this same discussion about two years ago.

I'll repeat that I am, personally, glad to se the RCN and the RCAF regaining some of their former traditions - even as I worry, a bit, about the amount of senior staff _focus_ that is taken off budgeting, planning, operations and training in order to deal with that ever present Canadian fascination with _"full dress and feathers"_, as Major General Middleton put it over a century ago.

I think the issue of "is it Navy members who are logisticians or Logisticians who happen to wear naval uniforms?" needs to be addressed with a bit more care. In my opinion the _unified_ branches like Medical and Logistics brings more strengths than weaknesses to the CF, _qua_ CF, even as they _might_ pose some (only perceived?) problems to individual services. In a few cases, and I will use communications, electronics and information technology as an example, I  think the decisions taken in the 1960s are in urgent need of review because I think some, indeed most of the skills are service or platform related and think that the C&E Branch should be broken apart so that the air portion can be reintegrated with AERE, where it belongs, and that IT functions (and professional/technical training) should be spread through ALL CF branches, because it is an _enabler_, not a unique, professional, stand alone frield. That doesn't mean that sailors, soldiers and FCAF members cannot serve together, providing _joint_ C_n_ support to fixed and tactical HQs, it just means that they should do so as _single service_ specialists possessed of a general purpose skillset.


----------



## q_1966

Pusser said:
			
		

> One of the main reasons for removing the Stewards from the Log Branch was because the Branch was not interested in having a trade that only wore one uniform (because the Army and Air Force made it clear that they neither wanted nor required Stewards anymore).  That argument falls completely flat when you look at the Ammo Techs, who are Log trade and are only found in Army uniform.  The fact is, however, Steward is a logistics trade, plain and simple.  They fill a logistics function on board the ship, are part of the Logistics Department and report to the Logistics Officer.  On base, they are part of the Administration organization and again, fill logistics roles.  The fact that they are now part of the Naval Operations Branch is simply silly.
> 
> Much of the argument against having Air Force and Navy Log personnel wearing Air Force and Navy cap badges has been a lot of noz about Branch identity.  However, this does not seem to be a concern with General/Flag officers or Army colonels.  In fact, the Army unilaterally decided that all Army colonels, regardless of Branch (with a few exceptions for honorary colonels of regiments) will wear a colonel's cap badge, in accordance with the pre 1968 Army practice.  Why then, is it so outlandish for the current RCN and RCAF to do something similar for all the personnel who wear those uniforms?
> 
> As for only sending personnel in Naval uniform to Navy postings, Air Force personnel to Air Force postings and Army personnel to Army postings, again, I'm all for it.  Who in the Log Branch, when asked what they do for a living, says, "I'm in the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces?"  I would argue that the vast majority start their description of their career with, "I'm in the Navy/Army/Air Force."  If that's how folks identify themselves, then why not employ them accordingly.  We currently allocate uniforms in the Branch in accordance with the demographics of the CF, but why do that if it doesn't matter where you are posted?  If it doesn't matter, then why not allow Log personnel to wear whatever uniform they wish?  If it does matter, then post them to the environment where they fit in.  It always drove me nuts to see the hodge podge of uniforms in my department at Divisions on the flight deck.  Uniforms are supposed to be, well, uniform - hence the name.  When you get into joint headquarters areas, it makes more sense to have different uniforms there.  Come to think of it, when you look to our allies, that's how they often do it.
> 
> My final argument on cap badges is that we don't need a Log Branch cap badge (which doesn't look nice on a naval cap anyway) to show our membership in the Log Branch.  The old RCN showed it in other ways (e.g. trade badges for CPOs and below and, until 1961, distinction cloth for officers).  I would love to see a return to that because I think it simply makes more sense.  I'm happy to see the Army continue with the Logistics badge, as per Army tradition, but the let the RCN and RCAF follow their own traditions.  I'd even be happy to see the Army logisticians re-brand themselves as the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (and I have it on good authority that this has been brought up).  Having said all of this, there is nothing preventing the RCN and RCAF Logistics Branches and the RCLC being collectively referred to as the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces, with shared common things where shared common things make sense.


You mean the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




I think having Logistics staff from different backgrounds (all three services) really makes for a well balanced team and brings different insight into the difficulties of getting the gear/food/mail/paperwork/ from there to here. While I'm happy we now have the RCN and RCAF. I believe it is going to far to break up the Log branch, once it is the RCASC, the Postal guys will want to be the Royal Canadian Postal Corps, and Ammo techs might want to become the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps


----------



## dapaterson

Given the immense waste of time and effort the re-introduction of RCN and RCAF have brought about, I'm beginning to get a small dose of sympathy for the much maligned Mr Hellyer.


----------



## blacktriangle

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Postal Corps



Now THAT is something I can get behind! Royal Canadian Postal Corps...HOOAH


----------



## dapaterson

If we're giving the executive curl to the RCN and new mess kit to the RCAF, the Army also deserves some historical uniform.


And I know just the thing!


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the immense waste of time and effort the re-introduction of RCN and RCAF have brought about, I'm beginning to get a small dose of sympathy for the much maligned Mr Hellyer.



I have no such sympathy at all. Were it not for his "immense waste of time and effort", we would not be seeing the current "immense waste of time and effort".

A lot of people seem to have failed to realize that we have not reverted to three separate services, but merely renamed the three environmental commands. There are plenty of people in Naval uniforms, for example, who are not members of the RCN, but are members of the Canadian Army and RCAF. The sailor who gets posted to, say, Canada Command, is also no longer RCN. We are becoming more and more stuck to a tar baby drifting aimlessly somewhere between pre-Unification and post-Unification. There is no cheap, clean, and/or easy way to get unstuck.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It might help to consider what Mr. Hellyer did and, in so far as I can piece it all together, why he did it.

Back in the early 1960s governments were facing some severe fiscal challenges; there had been a series of recessions in the 1950s and early '60s and costs, especially the costs of military hardware, were soaring at rates far, far beyond 'normal' inflation ~ the demise of the CF-105 _Arrow_ was, primarily, a financial decision and the attacks on the _Arrow_ came from the service chiefs (CNS, CGS and even CAS) who saw that the 105 would consume too big a slice of the (projected) available money.

Mr. Hellyer, in the wake of a damning report on government organization and the waste that flowed from poor organization structures, proposed to Prime Minister Pearson that he (Hellyer) should be allowed to reorganize DND in order to save enough money to afford the capital equipment plans on the drawing boards.

There was considerable input from our American friends who had explored, in great detail, two models:

1. _Integration_, which they called "purple suiting." Integration involved putting everyone into one, single service, into one uniform, à la the USMC but taken to a degree that no major Western country had attempted; and

2. _Unification_ which involved _joint_ forces from top down to as low as (but not below) ship, unit, squadron level.

The Americans concluded that _integration_ was a non-starter for a large, national force. They could not see as many solutions as they saw problems. They, based on their (recent) combat experience, chose _unification_, and, I was told on good authority, that is what they (strongly) recommended to Mr. Hellyer and his team.

Of course there's some overlap - the USMC, for example, is an _integrated_ service that operates within a _unified_ structure.

Canada adopted, _integration_ but we called it _unification_. It appears to me that the senior defence staff were in favour of US style _unification_ but some of Mr. Hellyer's staff (led by Group Captain Bill Lee, a public relations officer) wanted to go the _integration_ route - to completely reshape the CF. It was rumoured that US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara favoured _integration_ but was overruled by his own service chiefs and the president. In any event, despite a high level of public resistance, Mr. Hellyer steamed ahead with his model and the "jolly green jumper" and "functional commands" resulted.

Initially we had several _unified_ commands in an _integrated_ force: Maritime Command, for example, had its own, organic Maritime Air Group - it was a largely "air element" organization that was part and parcel of the "navy;" likewise Mobile Command (essentially the army) has its own, organic Tactical Air Group with a mix of fixed and rotary wing aircraft - air force squadrons flying as an integral part of the "army." The RCAF's history page says that _"But it_ [the 'unified' structure]_ just wasn't working. Lieutenant-General Bill Carr became the first commander of Air Command. He could see the need for change, and, as Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, was in a position to do something about it. He documented examples of air fleets not being utilized properly and recommended recognizing an air element within the Canadians Forces ... On Sept. 2, 1975, Air Command, with its headquarters in Winnipeg, was created to restore better structure to Air Force operations. The Commander of Air Command was given command of all Canadian Forces air activities, including the former Naval Fleet Air Arm and Army Flying Corps."_ In my personal opinion that's rubbish. What really happened was that the Air Force saw itself as a "loser" in Mr Hellyer's reorganization - while the Navy and the Army still existed, except in name, as full, complete, _service_ commands, the air force was split between Air Defence Command, Air Transport Command and part of Canadian Forces Europe. LGen Carr and his cronies wanted to restore a _*real*_ Air Force with one sole commander, à la Commander Maritime Command who was also, _de facto_ commander of the navy and Commander Mobile Command who was also recognized as the army commander. It was, in short, a case of high level penis envy amongst 50+ year old men. Carr also went farther down the "purple suit"/_integration_ path dragging every single aircraft and aviator into Air Command. 

Did Mr. Hellyer's reorganization work? Did it save money? _No, not as far as I can see. There was no significant saving in HQs, for example. The new CFHQ + "functional command HQ" structure was, actually, bigger than the former three service + their own commands organization that was replaced._ Did it make things more efficient? _Yes, almost certainly, especially in the areas of support services._ Did we all "adapt" to the changes? _No! Mr. Hellyer and the advocates of his project misjudged the intense loyalty that most people have to organizations ~ that's why, nearly 50 years after the fact, people still want to undo the visible attribute (buttons and bows) of his project._


----------



## blacktriangle

So what's the fascination with the "buttons and bows" anyways? Why do people have such an intense loyalty to a uniform or element? 

I can understand people having loyalty perhaps to their trade; i.e.

"I'm an Infanteer"

Or to their unit; i.e. 

"I'm in 3 RCR"

Your trade and your unit(s) at least describe what you do for a living, or detail where you may have been, or the personal/working relationships you may have forged. 

What element or branch or corp you are in doesn't really mean much. I have never heard an Infantry guy say that they are part of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. 

I don't understand the affinity some people seem to have for the uniforms they wear to work or the branches/corps they perceive themselves to be a part of. Especially for purple trades. 

If I go on a ship, I will put on NCDs. Send me to a field unit? Combats. So on and so forth. At the end of the day, tour, whatever - I take off my uniform and what am I? Does it even matter? No. It's pointless. Do whatever task is assigned, do it well. That's it, that's all. If we need constantly differentiate ourselves from one another to be effective, I think there is a problem. 

At the end of the day, I don't see why anyone needs to go further than this model:

"I am a member of the CF - I'm a ____ (trade) employed in ____ (unit)"

Someone please tell me why I am wrong...


----------



## Infanteer

Outside of the silly posts on Branch names and buttons, E.R. Campbell's post is actually quite informative and instructive of the need to be rigerous in our analysis of organizational trends in the CF and their real value.  We all say "we should have X" or "things should resemble Y", but these are all just personal opinion and have little to no objective value in helping to determine which structure would be more useful or beneficial to the CF.

MGen Gosselin (who I believe has since retired) was interested in the Unification/Integration tug of war that has consumed our culture for the last 40-som-odd years.  His articles are good reads for anyone wanting to understand the different pieces at play here (and the gravitational pull of our service cultures):

UNIFICATION AND THE STRONG-SERVICE IDEA: A 50-YEAR TUG OF WAR OF CONCEPTS AT CROSSROADS

FROM MINISTER HELLYER TO GENERAL HILLIER: UNDERSTANDING THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE UNIFICATION OF THE CANADIAN FORCES AND ITS PRESENT TRANSFORMATION

HELLYER’S GHOSTS: UNIFICATION OF THE CANADIAN FORCES IS 40 YEARS OLD – PART ONE

HELLYER’S GHOSTS: UNIFICATION OF THE CANADIAN FORCES IS 40 YEARS OLD – PART TWO


----------



## vonGarvin

Spectrum said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, I don't see why anyone needs to go further than this model:
> 
> "I am a member of the CF - I'm a ____ (trade) employed in ____ (unit)"
> 
> Someone please tell me why I am wrong...



People are social animals, and they want to self-identify with their "tribe".  This is not just in the military, but it's everywhere.  You see those kids with the spacers in their ears?  They want to fit in within a certain niche within their high school society.  Those others who wear (insert sports team name here) on their shirts?  They self-identify with that group.  It's how human beings are, and have been, for thousands of years.  

This is part of our dynamic as social creatures, and only a small part at that.  As part of our part of the big machine, we see ourselves as a heterogenic group, with many different characteristics amongst our members, but all with one thing in common, be it regiment, squadron or ship.  And we see "others" as a largely homogenic group, all of them are the same with one identifying characteristic, be it regiment, squadron or ship.

So, you see, ironically, we humans recognise that for us, that one characteristic is but one of many (for us), but the sole characteristic for the other.

In spite of any social engineering by any progressive group for anything (military, civilian, whatever), we humans are a pretty petty lot.  And to recognise this is important.  This is why, some ~50 years after the event, and in many cases several decades before many even were born, people want to belong to that group.  The smaller the better.  And we wear it as a badge of honour.

So, if you're simply a member of the CF (the largest of groups), that's fine, but most (practically all) people want to be a subset of that group, different from the others, and in a certain way, better than they.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Are you suggesting that some folk just be proud of the job they do and not worry about impressing others with fancy ribbons and bows??

Sacrilege, I tell ya.....


----------



## Jungle

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Your post



Don't forget it all started during WWII, when Hellyer enrolled in the RCAF to be a pilot; the RCAF did not need pilots at the time, so Hellyer was offered to go to the Army. Hellyer accepted, then found out he had to release from the RCAF, join the Army and go through Basic Trg again. That, rightfully so, pissed him off, so he started thinking about ways to simplify that process.

After all the penis envy and ego-stroking, we ended up with the 1968 unification, which probably looked little like what Hellyer initially thought of.


----------



## PuckChaser

Spectrum said:
			
		

> What element or branch or corp you are in doesn't really mean much. I have never heard an Infantry guy say that they are part of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps.



That's because, as TV pointed out, defined themselves as a member of the RCR, R22eR or PPCLI (or any other infantry PRes unit). Using Signals as an example, we get farmed out to whatever unit needs us, so our special identity is that we are all members of the C&E Branch, which has no ring or history compared to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps.


----------



## aesop081

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> which has no ring or history compared to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps.



Don't you mean the "Royal Canadian Corps of Signals" ?


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... On Sept. 2, 1975, Air Command, with its headquarters in Winnipeg, was created to restore better structure to Air Force operations. The Commander of Air Command was given command of all Canadian Forces air activities, including the former Naval Fleet Air Arm and Army Flying Corps."[/i] In my personal opinion that's rubbish. What really happened was that the Air Force saw itself as a "loser" in Mr Hellyer's reorganization - while the Navy and the Army still existed, except in name, as full, complete, _service_ commands, the air force was split between Air Defence Command, Air Transport Command and part of Canadian Forces Europe. LGen Carr and his cronies wanted to restore a _*real*_ Air Force with one sole commander, à la Commander Maritime Command who was also, _de facto_ commander of the navy and Commander Mobile Command who was also recognized as the army commander. It was, in short, a case of high level penis envy amongst 50+ year old men. Carr also went farther down the "purple suit"/_integration_ path dragging every single aircraft and aviator into Air Command.


The idea of an Air Command to bring together Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command is understandable - but, those air elements of Mobile Command, Maritime Command and CFE probably should have been left where they were.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> People are social animals, and they want to self-identify with their "tribe".  This is not just in the military, but it's everywhere.  ...
> 
> ...
> 
> So, if you're simply a member of the CF (the largest of groups), that's fine, but most (practically all) people want to be a subset of that group, different from the others, and in a certain way, better than they.


Yep.  And that is why we will continue expending effort, to no operational benefit, further entrenching symbolic (buttons & bows) barriers between our tribes.  My tribe is the Army, and since the RCN and the RCAF have starts on their bellies, I want the Royal Canadian Army.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's because, as TV pointed out, defined themselves as a member of the RCR, R22eR or PPCLI (or any other infantry PRes unit). Using Signals as an example, we get farmed out to whatever unit needs us, so our special identity is that we are all members of the C&E Branch, which has no ring or history compared to the Royal Canadian Signal Corps.




Except that it wasn't the _Royal Canadian Signal Corps_; it was the _*Royal Canadian Corps of Signals*_ which at various times wore variations of _RCCS_ and _Royal Canadian Signals_ on its shoulder flashes.












 and, finally, in the late '50s and throughout the '60s:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Maybe Journeyman was right,...this whole thread should be in "Radio Chatter",.....we now have folks pining for history they don't even know the name of,....but damn, it's important.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If we're giving the executive curl to the RCN and new mess kit to the RCAF, the Army also deserves some historical uniform.
> 
> 
> And I know just the thing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to hunt you down and assault you with harsh language if that ever happens!!


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Yep.  And that is why we will continue expending effort, to *no operational benefit*, further entrenching symbolic (buttons & bows) barriers between our tribes.  My tribe is the Army, and since the RCN and the RCAF have stars on their bellies, *I want the Royal Canadian Army*.


I've highlighted two parts, yellow and red.

First the yellow.

I believe that the buttons and bows provides intangible benefits that translate into operational performance.  I don't see this as a barrier between tribes, although of course the possibility exists.

Secondly, the red.

We already have "The Canadian Army".  There is no need to "royalise" it, because we have various branches, corps and regiments, many of which are already in possession of royal assent.  We have our stars on our bellies as part of the army, and even more "fancy dress" on our uniforms, all of which vary by regiment, corps or branch.

(For what it's worth, there is no "Royal Canadian Infantry Corps".  There hasn't been for many years.  There is, however, an Infantry Branch, which is colloquially referred to as "the corps".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Maybe Journeyman was right,...this whole thread should be in "Radio Chatter",.....we now have folks pining for history they don't even know the name of,....but damn, it's important.




It's tempting to agree, Bruce, but we would both be wrong. Way back when this thread was young I _pooh-poohed_ the idea, "not gonna happen," I said, "the grownups have more important things to do;" ditto for the executive curl, "it's a nice to have, " I opined, "not important enough to attract senior executive attention." *I was wrong both times.* We have both the RCN and the RCAF, and the matelots have their executive curl. The fact is, as the Technoviking says, _"buttons and bows provides intangible benefits"_ and the senior leadership is attuned to the fact, and it is a fact, that many people in the rank and file want these things.


----------



## Kirkhill

I suppose at one end of the spectrum of this discussion you could see the RCN and the RCAF in exactly the same position as the RCR or even the RCCS -  which is to say that each element is just a component of the whole and they are identified by "buttons and bows" also known as cap-badges, patches and regimentals.

At the other end you have three discrete entities (Dom Ops - Army Lead, Expeditionary Ops - Navy Lead, Strategic Ops - Air Force Lead) all of which report directly to the PMO.

Isn't this a variant of the Optimal Battle Group vs Affiliated Battle Group writ large?  Are you organizing on the basis of training and then forming on an ad hoc basis to meet every eventuality?  Or, are you organizing on a task oriented basis to meet a limited number of eventualities?


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> and it is a fact, that many people in the rank and file want these things.


And the proof is in the pudding in that we now have pages and pages of posts on this subject.  If none of us were interested in this subject this topic would have died in child birth.

Everyone wants to preen to a certain extent, and it's natural to want some buttons and bows to do it with.  TV is correct I believe in commenting we are social animals, I'd say more tribal.  And each of us want our tribe to look distinct from the other tribes.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I believe that the buttons and bows provides intangible benefits that translate into operational performance.  I don't see this as a barrier between tribes, although of course the possibility exists.


I agree to a point.  Where the buttons & bows become ends in themselves, we have gone too far.  Where we are talking about carving apart various branches (and all the various structures they contain) for the glory of the RCN, we have gone too far.  

We are at that point of too far gone now.  There are now CF members at all heights of office working to re-institute all sorts of icons, foreign to any currently serving member, simply because these icons used to exist in the service.  What we are doing now is as wrong as the unnecessary erasing of these icons half a century ago.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> We already have "The Canadian Army".  There is no need to "royalise" it, because we have various branches, corps and regiments, many of which are already in possession of royal assent.


Well, the RCN already/still was “royalized” with all of its HMCS ships.  In every war, campaign and battle fought in the history of the Canadian Army, the fight was done as a team – infantry, cavalry, armoured, artillery, engineers, logisticians, etc; our branches fought together, bled together, died together and won victory together.  Why are we not recognized together as being royal?

If the sacrifice, history and service of the Air Force and Navy cannot be properly honoured and recognized without the distinction of being royal, then I argue the Canadian Army deserves at least as much.

Hear if for the Royal Canadian Army!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I see some "slippery slope" arguments and reducing to the absurd in this thread.  For the record I think that the bringing back the titles of RCAF and RCN were good things, as was being able to say Canadian Army instead of Land Force. The military is an organization of people, and those people do actually care about things like titles and uniforms. These things are part of our identity.  Unification tried to destroy that identity in a misguided attempt to be more efficient. 

I also suggest that the importance of those things has nothing to do with being at war or peace. People still care about it during war - if they didn't why was there a bustling business in patches at KAF?

The RCN and RCAF had those titles pre-unification. The Army was not "Royal." What is more, the three services have organizational culture differences. Our Army has always been "regimental" in its focus, with branches supplanting unit-level regiments in some cases. 

Kirkhill,

I don't think that the types of operations break down as neatly by service as you propose.


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> At the other end you have three discrete entities (Dom Ops - Army Lead, Expeditionary Ops - Navy Lead, Strategic Ops - Air Force Lead) all of which report directly to the PMO.



What is a 'strategic operation'?

The navy certainly has the lead on some expeditionary operations, but not a majority.  Kosovo was, at first, Air Force driven while Libya was.  Most of our sustained expeditionary operations of the last 20 years have been Army lead.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What is a 'strategic operation'?



Why, by definition, it's one that's lead by the RCAF


----------



## Pusser

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What is a 'strategic operation'?
> 
> The navy certainly has the lead on some expeditionary operations, but not a majority.  Kosovo was, at first, Air Force driven while Libya was.  Most of our sustained expeditionary operations of the last 20 years have been Army lead.



Do you mean so bogged-down as to be difficult and unfathomable due to the extraordinary weight of the situation?  Or perhaps you meant Army led?  ;D

Sorry.  Sometimes I just can't help myself.  :


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why, by definition, it's one that's lead by the RCAF



See above.


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sorry.  Sometimes I just can't help myself.  :



Not your fault, you are from NDHQ.


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What is a 'strategic operation'?
> 
> The navy certainly has the lead on some expeditionary operations, but not a majority.  Kosovo was, at first, Air Force driven while Libya was.  Most of our sustained expeditionary operations of the last 20 years have been Army lead.



I really don't know that answer.  

I made the suggestion on divisions, I guess, with the US (as well as the UK) in mind.  At bottom I am still old fashioned enough to agree with the primary division as being between Army and Navy with the Army being originally to control people, often domestically, and the Navy being to project power overseas.  Hence the lack of a Royal Army and the inclusion of Marines in the Navy's Orbat.

I used to think that the Air Force really was just a tactical arm to support either the Navy or the Army but I have been won over to see a rationale for the Air Force as an independent entity in the same way that Nuclear Forces are an independent entity.

My thinking is that there are forces that need to be retained in being to Defend Canada at Home.  This could be Army led with the Air Force and the Navy supplying supporting forces.  There are forces required to project Canada on the world stage that require persistence.  

The Navy excels in that regard both on their own and in their ability to move a persistent ground presence (or Army presence) with adequate support to a remote theatre.

In my opinion what the Air Force brings to the table is the ability to move small, targeted forces, rapidly, over long ranges.  The force could range from a couple of 25mm rounds from a cannon to a company/battalion of troops.  Usually the ground force deployed by air doesn't have staying power, although given time even a small airhead can place and support a large force as in the situation of KAF.   In the absence of persistence then the force needs to be retained for those situations where it can deliver a shock with lasting impact.  To me that would suggest retaining a force for strategic benefit. 

But I'm not wedded to the idea.  Perhaps Canada only needs a Domestic Force and an Expeditionary Force.


----------



## Pusser

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not your fault, you are from NDHQ.



We're here to help.... honest!


----------



## aesop081

Pusser said:
			
		

> We're here to help.... honest!



Save that line for some new guy.............

Now back on track:

How stupid is this whole thing ? Just go read the thread on that guy who fell asleep guarding the PM's aircraft.


----------



## Infanteer

Pusser said:
			
		

> Do you mean so bogged-down as to be difficult and unfathomable due to the extraordinary weight of the situation?  Or perhaps you meant Army led?  ;D
> 
> Sorry.  Sometimes I just can't help myself.  :



Gack!  You got me....



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I really don't know that answer.



Judging by your response, I'd agree with this statement.  As I continue in my crusade against poor use of the term strategy, I'll argue that an operation is not 'strategic' in nature.  It is tactical.  Where the line of departure is located is irrelevant.  Strategy creates purpose for an operation and uses it results to further policy.


----------



## Kirkhill

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Gack!  You got me....
> 
> Judging by your response, I'd agree with this statement.  As I continue in my crusade against poor use of the term strategy, I'll argue that an operation is not 'strategic' in nature.  It is tactical.  Where the line of departure is located is irrelevant.  Strategy creates purpose for an operation and uses it results to further policy.



Is a 9mm round to the brain of Der Fuehrer a tactical act or a strategic act?  Does it have tactical effect or strategic effect?


----------



## Infanteer

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is a 9mm round to the brain of Der Fuehrer a tactical act or a strategic act?  Does it have tactical effect or strategic effect?



What is 'tactical act' and 'strategic act'?  How about 'tactical effect' or 'strategic effect' - the whole language is marred with the idea of ascending orders of magnitude of, essentially, the same thing.

If Hitler is killed by one of his own officers, then it is neither 'tactical' or 'strategic' as it is political assassination and is a bit of political fortune for us.  If he is  blown up by a missile or killed by a SEAL team, then it is tactical - it is merely an engagement.  A successful engagement, whether it be King Harold taking a arrow to the head or Osama taking a 5.56 to the head, is merely an act of violence that may or may not be used (through strategy) for the purpose of the war (policy).  By targeting political leadership (a bit of a post-Westphalian controversy) a military is determining that certain engagements are more useful to strategy than others (like blowing up Abdul the IED maker).


----------



## Kirkhill

I yield.  ;D


----------



## wildman0101

I was goin to responde but I yeild also. First round's on me.
Cheer's and best regard's .
Scoty B


----------



## cupper

How the flying flip did we take a left turn and get lost in this wilderness? :facepalm:


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I see some ... reducing to the absurd in this thread.


There wasn't really an attempt to be subtle with that.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I see some "slippery slope" arguments ...


While a slippery slope argument is often a logical fallacy, threatening some great downward spiral following as the result of some small thing, the slippery slope presented in this thread is of observations of the spiral happening.  Originally there was an announcement that the names of the environments would be reverted to the names of the historic services - that was to be it, that was to be all.  Now there are new mess uniforms, new capbadges, and new buttons.  There are people formally exploring & arguing the merits of reverting to pips & crowns.  There are plans and discussions (including wholesale democratic poling within some branches) on the topic of restoring other "lost" royal identities and splitting/ripping branches along environmental or other lines for the sake of these "royal" identities.  These are not just stand-up table mess discussions - they are happening in or next to the key decision making circles.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> The RCN and RCAF had those titles pre-unification. The Army was not "Royal."


So?  The Army was not previously "Royal" but the Army has certainly earned the distinction as least as well as the other two environments.  Why not a Royal Canadian Army?


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Why not a Royal Canadian Army?


Dunno.  There's a Royal Netherlands Army...


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe there will be a "Royal Canadian Army" when the Army decides that is is an army, not a collection of regiments?


(less the 'CF branches' that have turned into joint service providers...)


If someone asks "What's the Navy's hatbadge worn by sailors?"  The answer is the one and only Naval Ops hatbadge.

If someone asks "What's the Air Force's hatbadge worn by airmen or women?"  The answer is the one and only Air Ops hatbadge.

If someone asks "What's the Army's hatbadge worn by soldiers?"  The answer is another question, "What part of the Army?"


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

MCG said:
			
		

> Now there are new mess uniforms, new capbadges, and new buttons.  There are people formally exploring & arguing the merits of reverting to pips & crowns.  There are plans and discussions (including wholesale democratic poling within some branches) on the topic of restoring other "lost" royal identities and splitting/ripping branches along environmental or other lines for the sake of these "royal" identities.  These are not just stand-up table mess discussions - they are happening in or next to the key decision making circles.
> So?  The Army was not previously "Royal" but the Army has certainly earned the distinction as least as well as the other two environments.  Why not a Royal Canadian Army?



New mess uniforms and buttons are hardly going to cripple the military, and if they contribute to increased pride and esprit de corps then the time and effort invested are worth it.

Splitting up some of the larger purple trades makes sense to me for practical reasons. Supporting an army unit is different that supporting a ship and that in turn is different than supporting a squadron of aircraft. 

As for the Royal appelation, the RCN and RCAF were seeking to reclaim what was lost. The Army never lost that, and our identify is woven into our regiments and branches. Our regiments survived unification by either a miracle or trickery. Indeed, the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps' black beret was banished for a time by unification, but it survived underground and then made a resurgence. Beret colours, capbadges and PT shirts mean something to soldiers. In any case I don't think that you are genuinely arguing for the "Royal Canadian Army."

None of this is divisive. I am proud for my colleagues, and I think that it is great that the RCN got their executive curl. I'd be happy to ditch my navalized rank for pips and crowns. Heck, my first mess kit had them anyway. Having said that, I'm not about to write a briefing note on it either...

Little things like titles can be very important. If you don't believe me, call a US Marine a "soldier" and see what happens.


----------



## FSTO

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Little things like titles can be very important. If you don't believe me, call a US Marine a "soldier" and see what happens.



Just like the Navy post 1968, how long did Army rank nomenclature last before the coast told the centre to "get stuffed!"


----------



## McG

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Splitting up some of the larger purple trades makes sense to me for practical reasons. Supporting an army unit is different that supporting a ship and that in turn is different than supporting a squadron of aircraft.


Where it makes sense, there are already structures in place to do this (Log O is broken into three sub-occupations to reflect the three service environments).  If there are practical arguments, then by all means explore those - but I am not seeing those practical arguments in the discussion.  What I have seen is segregation based on tribalism.

While much was an abomination, there were some positive things that came out of the unification/integration years.  The current fetish with reversing it all risk tossing the baby with the bath water as focus is consumed on tribal identity building.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to ditch my navalized rank for pips and crowns. Heck, my first mess kit had them anyway.


Speaking of the USMC, even the US realizes the importance of a common recognizable rank system as all officers of all US services wear the same rank insignia (the USN embellishes with additional sleeve stripes, but they wear the same officer ranks as the Army).  People already seem to have enough difficulty identifying the differently named RCN ranks (aggravated by a few which do not translate literally); we don't need to complicate things more.  Lets keep with the common functional rank insignia.



			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> In any case I don't think that you are genuinely arguing for the "Royal Canadian Army."


Perhaps not I do not, but there is at least as much merit in this idea as there is in the turn-back the clock ideas.  Sure, there is a history of separate identities, but why not strengthen the collective identity with something all can rally around?  The RCN and RCAF seem to see this as a particularly important quantity.  Let's pull the Army closer together and recognize our collective contributions, sacrifices and efforts (historical & present) through bestowal of the honorific Royal Canadian Army.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's pull the Army closer together and recognize our collective contributions, sacrifices and efforts (historical & present) through bestowal of the honorific Royal Canadian Army.



Absolutely!  I would support this 110%.  If its what the people of the Canadian Army wanted. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Where it makes sense, there are already structures in place to do this (Log O is broken into three sub-occupations to reflect the three service environments).  If there are practical arguments, then by all means explore those - but I am not seeing those practical arguments in the discussion.  What I have seen is segregation based on tribalism.



Please expand on your thoughts here.  How is this tribalism ?


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> People already seem to have enough difficulty identifying the differently named RCN ranks (aggravated by a few which do not translate literally); we don't need to complicate things more.  Lets keep with the common functional rank insignia.



What are you talking about? I think it is a lot easier now to id a Commodore from a Vice Admiral. How do you tell the difference between a Brigadier General from a Lt General?


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Please expand on your thoughts here.  How is this tribalism ?


You have suggested yourself that the log branch stands to be ripped appart (litterally) purely as a matter of the buttons & bows for tribal identity.  That is know functional force design, it is tribalistic force design.


			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I do think name changes, uniforms and the like are going to play a huge factor in the future of the Log Branch, thus I believe, if it has not already, it will become a "pressing matter".  The future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance.





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?


I am talking about all the CPOs who are called PO because it is to complicated for some pers to learn other environment ranks.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> How do you tell the difference between a Brigadier General from a Lt General?


If you really don't know, then that would suggest my argument is correct even for some who've been around for a long time.


... hey, it is somewhere near the 150 day mark since the news articles stating that DND needed 150 days to assemble all the information for the ATI request on the costs of the re-naming.  Wonder if we'll see something in the papers soon.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> What are you talking about? I think it is a lot easier now to id a Commodore from a Vice Admiral. How do you tell the difference between a Brigadier General from a Lt General?



This is a cop out and MCG knows it.  We all learn the CF rank structure, including Naval ranks, at basic.  If I can remember both RCN and CA/RCAF ranks I don't see how anyone else can have a problem with this.

At my regiment If I am referred to as a MCpl I polity correct the individual and move on.


----------



## McG

I don't want to be forced into something like I've seen with the US where there needs to be separate rank code for translation purposes across environments at the NCM level.  At least with the common insignia as we have it today, even those who cannot remember the difference between a PO2 and a PO1 will be able to recognize where the seniority is, and we don't need to refer to someone as "E5".  I don't care what the RCN calls its respective ranks, but with that I don't want to see the Army introduce something to replace the insignia that are currently working.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> You have suggested yourself that the log branch stands to be ripped appart (litterally) purely as a matter of the buttons & bows for tribal identity.  That is know functional force design, it is tribalistic force design.I am talking about all the CPOs



On the contrary its not a matter of "buttons and bows".  It truly comes down to succession planning.  As Vern stated earlier the RCN has said it wants its Snr NCOs back in the Navy rikki-tik.  The reason being that it wants RCN people on RCN ships.  Take for example my trade, supply.  As was laid down to me before I left Halifax if I have dreams of being a Coxswain or even a chief storesman someday there are certain ticks in the box that I need that can only be gained within the RCN establishment.  I.E. spending time in different ranks and positions on HMC Ships gaining the experience needed to perform at the higher levels.  As well you will never again see an Army or RCAF MWO as the Log Chief on a ship.  These are key positions that the RCN has stated it wants filled with Naval pers. 

This goes much deeper than mere "buttons and bows" my friend.  

Will the Log Branch be ripped apart ? I don't know.  Do I think its a possibility ? I do.  Do I think its the right move ? Yes and No.  I think there are facets of the current common training system that are valuable and make sense, I also see no need to triplicate logistic and administration systems but I do think members should be expected and expect to serve in the uniform they wear. 

Sailors should be on ships and ships should be at sea.  To put it simply.

But my real question to you is why is it so off colored to you that Naval people be expected to serve in Naval environments ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't want to be forced into something like I've seen with the US where there needs to be separate rank code for translation purposes across environments at the NCM level.  At least with the common insignia as we have it today, even those who cannot remember the difference between a PO2 and a PO1 will be able to recognize where the seniority is, and we don't need to refer to someone as "E5".  I don't care what the RCN calls its respective ranks, but with that I don't want to see the Army introduce something to replace the insignia that are currently working.



I see no reason to tweak the current rank system.  But if the Army feels it needs a distinctive insignia then I support it.  But I'm not a solider nor will I ever be a soldier so my support is simply trite. But supportive none the less


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This goes much deeper than mere "buttons and bows" my friend.


Your words were that "name changes, uniforms and the like" were going to become "pressing matter" upon which "the future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance."  That suggests those "buttons and bows" are the driving factor above any functional or operational factors.  Perhaps you were just typing without meaning your words.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> But my real question to you is why is it so off colored to you that Naval people be expected to serve in Naval environments ?


I have no objection to this, and have, in other threads, proposed sub-occupations within certain large "purple" occupations in order to facilitate just this.  However, whole sale dismantling of the support branches would be foolish.  The future of the Logistics Branch hanging in the balance of environmental identity crises is a dynamic that should not be allowed.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... if the Army feels it needs a distinctive [rank] insignia then I support it.


It would be a wastefull effort.  The Army does not need it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Your words were that "name changes, uniforms and the like" were going to become "pressing matter" upon which "the future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance."  That suggests those "buttons and bows" are the driving factor above any functional or operational factors.  Perhaps you were just typing without meaning your words.



It is all a factor.  B&B is just the tip of the iceberg.  I apologize you seemed well versed in Naval Logistics and Log Branch "current events" I didn't realize I had to be so detailed.  I will take that into account in all further posts where you and I are in the same discussion. 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> I have no objection to this, and have, in other threads, proposed sub-occupations within certain large "purple" occupations in order to facilitate just this.  However, whole sale dismantling of the support branches would be foolish.  The future of the Logistics Branch hanging in the balance of environmental identity crises is a dynamic that should not be allowed.



So we basically agree then.  A common QL level training system and common Log/Admin systems.  Simply employ people based on their uniform requirements and succession planning.

On a side note its not a dismantling of the support branches its a reorganization.  Its not as if *poof* one day there would be no sup techs or clerks around.  Actually to you as a customer of the Log trades, would probably notice very little difference in the service second to none that is provided to you every day by your support.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> It would be a wastefull effort.  The Army does not need it.



Fair enough but I know when to stay in my lane.  Army stuff is for Army people.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> I am talking about all the CPOs who are called PO because it is to complicated for some pers to learn other environment ranks.


Not too difficult; call a CPO1 or CPO2 "Chief" and you will not get jacked.   



> If you really don't know, then that would suggest my argument is correct even for some who've been around for a long time.



Well for an Ordinary Seaman, he'll know the Naval Flag rank a lot quicker than the other two.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ... its not a dismantling of the support branches its a reorganization.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The future of the Log Branch may in fact hang in the balance.


Well which is it?  The future is in the balance, or the Log Branch will endure?  You are talking in opposite directions.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Simply employ people based on their uniform requirements and succession planning.


No.  Employ people based on training & qualification requirements and succession planning.  If we want to send Navy pers on Navy courses and Army pers on Army courses, well that is logical.  However, when it comes to filling slots after that, it is the qualifications that matter and we should not be deciding based on uniform colour if the only requirement is the common occupational training.  



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Fair enough but I know when to stay in my lane.  Army stuff is for Army people.


And balkanizing the CF is a topic relevant to all in the CF and, with all the trans-environmental branches looking at partially or fully "re-royalizing" themselves, the _Royal topic_ is very relevant to the Army too .  There are plenty of threads on this site discussing the challenges of regimental politicking in the Army (and the "three Armies"), and that brings a relevant perspective to the current topic.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well for an Ordinary Seaman, he'll know the Naval Flag rank a lot quicker than the other two.


And that is the problem.  We do not need (cannot afford) a military where mbr's cannot recognize rank of other environments.


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> And that is the problem.  We do not need (cannot afford) a military where mbr's cannot recognize rank of other environments.



Tell that to the Army and Air Force, because they're the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with it.  I've never met an RCN sailor who had difficulty remembering the difference between a warrant offcer and a petty officer (despite having the same badge), but have encountered many soldiers and air people who seem to have a great deal of difficulty getting my rank right.  Reminds me of the joke:

Air Force Captain:  (sees PO1 walking down the hall)  "Warrant."  ...   "Oh Warrant!"   ... "Warrant, please.  I need to speak with you."

PO1:  (looks suprised and turns toward Air Force Captain)  "Are you talking to me Sir?"

Air Force Captain:  "Did you not hear me?"

PO1:  "Well Sir, I heard you calling out for a warrant officer.  I'm  petty officer first class."

Air Force Captain:  "Oh, I see.  I'm sorry.  In the Air Force, you would be a warrant officer."

PO1:  "No Sir.  In the Air Force, I would be general."

We drill the CF rank structure into everyone during basic training, but in my experience, it seems that sailors are the only ones who seem to remember it.

On another note.  I see no reason to dismantle the Logistics Branch as there is indeed commonality in supporting the three environments.  However, there are also significant differences, which I believe should also be recognized and upon which personnel should be allowed to concentrate and specialize, particularly at the unit level.  As folks get more senior and are sent to joint HQs, they can bring their experiences to the table in order to work truly jointly.  To be blunt, the current "joint" structure really isn't.  In my experience, "joint" = "Army" in the CF.

Why not one Logistics Branch with three sub-branches?


----------



## Pusser

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> You mean the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think having Logistics staff from different backgrounds (all three services) really makes for a well balanced team and brings different insight into the difficulties of getting the gear/food/mail/paperwork/ from there to here. While I'm happy we now have the RCN and RCAF. I believe it is going to far to break up the Log branch, once it is the RCASC, the Postal guys will want to be the Royal Canadian Postal Corps, and Ammo techs might want to become the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps



Actually, no.  The RCASC was not as inclusive as the current Logistics Branch.  The RCASC (which was modelled on the RASC) shared in providing support to the Army with the RCOC and RCAPC.  Interestingly, the British RASC was reorganized in the 1960s and disapeared, leaving the RAOC (which then took over the RASC's supply function), the Army Catering Corps and  the Royal Corps of Transport in its wake.  These corps were then amalgamated into the Royal Logistic Corps (along with the Royal Pioneers) in 1993.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Army and Air Force, because they're the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with it.



I guess its good that all RCN pers should be wearing NCDs unless they're in a field unit. That way us unintelligent army and air force folk can get ranks right.  :



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Why not one Logistics Branch with three sub-branches?



Aren't we trying to REMOVE headquarters bloat? Sub-branches would just be another way to employ a few more staff officers and MWO+ along with clerks and support staff. If the RCN wants the Logistic branch split up, then you best be prepared to take control and provide pers for the career management of all purple trades including MPs, Comm Rsch and the like.


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Army and Air Force, because they're the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with it.  I've never met an RCN sailor who had difficulty remembering the difference ...


?  I am unclear what has  put you on the defence of the RCN's ranks.  As I have stated, I don't care about the current RCN ranks and that they are fine as they are (despite the fancy loop, they still look like everyone else's rank).  What I have stated is that the Army should not be changing to pips & crowns.  As you have illustrated, there are already confusions but they are manageable as long as the visible similarities continue to exist.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> On another note.  I see no reason to dismantle the Logistics Branch as there is indeed commonality in supporting the three environments.  However, there are also significant differences, which I believe should also be recognized and upon which personnel should be allowed to concentrate and specialize, particularly at the unit level.  As folks get more senior and are sent to joint HQs, they can bring their experiences to the table in order to work truly jointly.  To be blunt, the current "joint" structure really isn't.  In my experience, "joint" = "Army" in the CF.
> 
> Why not one Logistics Branch with three sub-branches?


I think sub-branches already pseudo-exist along more functional lines (eg: the RMS world vs the supply world) at the NCM level.  I do agree with the sub-occupations that exist at the officer level, and there is potentially merit to consider similar sub-occupations for some of the NCM occupations.  However, if differences of employment do not justify a sub-occ for each environment, then we must be prepared to consider the possibilities where there is no sub-occ or where one environment gets "its" sub-occ while the other two share a sub-occ.


----------



## ModlrMike

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I guess its good that all RCN pers should be wearing NCDs unless they're in a field unit. That way us unintelligent army and air force folk can get ranks right.  :



Especially since some can't seem to get it right even when we're in Service Dress.  >


----------



## Kirkhill

How about sending the "Purple Trades" back to the Treasury Branch? Then you could start reissuing Commissariat uniforms to civilians just like they did pre-1888. All that would be necessary is give the Commissariat responsibility for the RCN as well.   Then there is no hassle about which branch they belong to.  They become totally irresponsible.

RCASC History.


----------



## blacktriangle

Maybe someone can draft a requirement to stand up a JOINT task force to discuss all of this. Then we can all get posted to NDHQ (ok, some of you are already there...) and go back and forth on this until we all retire?


----------



## aesop081

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Maybe someone can draft a requirement to stand up a JOINT task force to discuss all of this. Then we can all get posted to NDHQ (ok, some of you are already there...) and go back and forth on this until we all retire?



F**k that s**t...........I'll pass !


----------



## blacktriangle

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> F**k that s**t...........I'll pass !



Excellent,  we have our first volunteer! Now that we have a MWO promoted and posted in, we just need to find a few staff officers, hire some Class B's, and spread ourselves out to all the different buildings around the NCR. 

This issue will be dealt with in NO TIME!


----------



## q_1966

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Excellent,  we have our first volunteer! Now that we have a MWO promoted and posted in, we just need to find a few staff officers, hire some Class B's, and spread ourselves out to all the different buildings around the NCR.
> 
> This issue will be dealt with in NO TIME!



On the bright side Cdn Aviator you get a new desk to bang your head on.


----------



## wannabe SF member

On a similar note, the people at E-veritas had themselves a field day on April 1st.

http://everitas.rmcclub.ca/?p=73801


----------



## Blatchman

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A common QL level training system and common Log/Admin systems.  Simply employ people based on their uniform requirements and succession planning.



Good Day 

Comparing the CIC training system and the handling of "buttons & Bows" to what you describe and your not far off from your suggestion.

Most of the training a CIC officer conducts is Tri Service, with the exception of our ETCs (Environmental Training Courses) and a few "specialty" courses that are environmental specific. We have a Cap Badge that is common in general look but differs between the element you have qualified for , and of course we wear the elemental uniform of the element we have trained to work with. The Tri Service CIC Cap badge you see as my avatar hasn't be worn since the 80s I do believe.

Though you will see Units and Summer Training Centre staffed by CIC officers from all three elements we do have jobs that will specify CIC-Navy,Army or Air and others open to all elements. This based off the elemental training you have received. Thus you will see the Naval uniform being worn by those doing Naval tasks and you can see all three uniforms worn in a setting of common tasks (HQ, Common training settings, etc).


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

Pusser said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Army and Air Force, because they're the ones that seem to have the biggest problem with it.  I've never met an RCN sailor who had difficulty remembering the difference between a warrant offcer and a petty officer (despite having the same badge), but have encountered many soldiers and air people who seem to have a great deal of difficulty getting my rank right.  Reminds me of the joke:



Really because when I was on Algonquin, with an RCAF MWO as the supply guy all the sailors (with the exception of a few former cbt arms types) called him Chief vice Sir... just sayin


----------



## armyvern

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> Really because when I was on Algonquin, with an RCAF MWO as the supply guy all the sailors (with the exception of a few former cbt arms types) called him Chief vice Sir... just sayin



You're bang on correct there; I've posted on this site many times regarding the very same issue that I had while serving with the Navy ... even way back when I wore blue work dress to work every day. My "superiors" in the Navy as it was then had one rank and one rank only for me and it was, "Ordinary Dummy" - exactly the same rank they called their Ordinary Seaman. How absolutely professional. My brother currently serves as a fire fighter on one of our ships - although of a much higher rank than I was back then when it was happening to me - he is still called by the naval rank despite his blue uniform by the usual suspects.

Don't let the black wearing uniforms attempt to claim moral superiority in this matter because it would be el toro poo poo. It happens everywhere and in all three enviornments --- I'd prefer not to attempt to mop it overboard.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I make the effort, and can successfully identify the correct ranks (in English only) of the other two flavours out there.  I will admit I have called an Air Det MWO "Chief" on numerous occasions, but that was by permission and not neglect or disrespect.  To do so otherwise is bloody rude unless you are honestly ignorant and that really should not be the case nowadays.

I will though and have given tit for tat, to those of other flavours who don't wish to be polite when gently corrected on my proper nomenclature.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Calling the Air Dept "Chief" is no insult.  We do it ashore in the MH Sqns, probably as a nod our RCN roots.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I just hate it when naval personnel think they are the shi*t when at best they are fart the messenger. We all make mistakes, there is no one here perfect so those out there should get off your collective high horses and realize that. JJT I was a ground pounder in a previous lifetime and did not have a problem calling a MWO or CWO Sir where appropriate. I have been navy now since 94 and after being programmed have a hard time calling them sir. Although I have yet to slip up and call one Chief.


----------



## Stoker

In my experience working with both army and air force personnel have never called someone in the air force or army anything but their proper rank. I have seen on occasion someone have a slip of the tongue and call them a navy rank but it was never intentional.
On the other and I have seen army personnel call me by my army rank on more than occasion so it does happen in the reverse. I politely correct them and tell them to carry on.


----------



## armyvern

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In my experience working with both army and air force personnel have never called someone in the air force or army anything but their proper rank. I have seen on occasion someone have a slip of the tongue and call them a navy rank but it was never intentional.
> On the other and I have seen army personnel call me by my army rank on more than occasion so it does happen in the reverse. I politely correct them and tell them to carry on.



When it's a slip up, an apology is absolutely acceptable. It happens in all three environments (despite what some would state). It's when it is done intentionally that it is absolutely unprofessional and non-excuseable.


----------



## aesop081

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Calling the Air Dept "Chief" is no insult.  We do it ashore in the MH Sqns, probably as a nod our RCN roots.



Same with LRP squadrons.


----------



## Stoker

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> When it's a slip up, an apology is absolutely acceptable. It happens in all three environments (despite what some would state). It's when it is done intentionally that it is absolutely unprofessional and non-excuseable.



Honestly Vern I never seen anyone in the Navy especially a higher rank intentionally call someone in the Air force or Army not their correct rank. As for your experience that's certainly too bad and obviously left you with a bad experience when you worked in a naval environment. Your quite correct that its very unprofessional for someone to do that.


----------



## armyvern

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly Vern I never seen anyone in the Navy especially a higher rank intentionally call someone in the Air force or Army not their correct rank. As for your experience that's certainly too bad and obviously left you with a bad experience when you worked in a naval environment. Your quite correct that its very unprofessional for someone to do that.



As I said, it's been a few decades since my experience. It was done purposefully, not just baceause they were too young or "new" to know the proper rank. When I first hit the Navy, DEU didn't exist. I'm quite hoping that no one does it on purpose anymore. I'd appreciate the thought though that someone else not insinuate that both of the other environments do (or did) this purposefully, while his does not ... he certainly seems to imply such with his post.

Perhaps, he notices the other two when they mess up his rank (what individual wouldn't notice what happens to himself - as an individual more??), but that doesn't mean that those of us from other colours don't suffer same. It is the indication that likewise does not occur that bothers me ... or that it is done purposefully in all cases.

One question for you: do you still call your OS' Ordinary Dummies (or ODs) vice Ordinary Seaman? Even naval wearing folks calling OS' by that term still seems _off_ to me. It was certainly the norm in my time.

Most hard army guys see a black hat and automatically think "armoured" and go with the army rank when naval folk are in cadpat; I did it myself just the other day to a young MS --- and I apologized profusely upon seeing the nametape.


----------



## Stoker

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As I said, it's been a few decades since my experience. It was done purposefully, not just because they were too young or "new" to know the proper rank. When I first hit the Navy, DEU didn't exist. I'm quite hoping that no one does it on purpose anymore. I'd appreciate the thought though that someone else not insinuate that both of the other environments do (or did) this purposefully, while his does not ... he certainly seems to imply such with his post.
> 
> Perhaps, he notices the other two when they mess up his rank (what individual wouldn't notice what happens to himself - as an individual more??), but that doesn't mean that those of us from other colours don't suffer same. It is the indication that likewise does not occur that bothers me ... or that it is done purposefully in all cases.
> 
> One question for you: do you still call your OS' Ordinary Dummies (or ODs) vice Ordinary Seaman? Even naval wearing folks calling OS' by that term still seems _off_ to me. It was certainly the norm in my time.
> 
> Most hard army guys see a black hat and automatically think "armoured" and go with the army rank when naval folk are in cadpat; I did it myself just the other day to a young MS --- and I apologized profusely upon seeing the nametape.



We call our OS, either Ordinary Seaman when addressing them or OS when their name is written down for instance a duty watch list.  I have heard on a occasion "Hey OS Bloggins" but very few and far between. I have been in for 23 years and never heard the term "ordinary dummy" before definitely not professional.

As for the armoured comment, that makes sense that when deployed on an army tasking navy personnel get that sometimes. Its hard to see that tiny anchor sometimes on the name tag and perfectly understandable.


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> .... that someone else not insinuate that both of the other environments do (or did) this purposefully, while his does not ... he certainly seems to imply such with his post.


Perhaps it's that particular person who gets treated dismissively, rather than his Navy rank?


----------



## aesop081

I get called a PO1 nearly every day.

In other news, the planet is still orbiting around the sun.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I think everyone can agree that slip ups happen and there's no need to take offence.

No one element holds any sort of high ground here, on this issue.

I also think, that after a couple of pages of this pissing contest, it's time to move on.
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm with recceguy, this has gone on long enough and is getting a bit chippy ... but I will mention that many, many years ago OD was, I am fairly certain, the correct abbreviation for ordinary seaman. I recall this because we had some sailors in our camp (for some reason I don't recall and probably never did understand) and I had some very small responsibility for calling a roll or something.


----------



## GAP

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I get called a PO1 nearly every day.
> 
> In other news, the planet is still orbiting around the sun.



Well, it did black out a bit last night......but the sun jumped to the side, and we had daylight again..... ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

I just received this on the regimental net and have reformatted it, although the content is unchanged. The French text is not included for reasons of space. 

Sirs and colleagues,

1.  On May 31, the Commander Canadian Army sent a letter, to the CDS' attention, which seeks to inform and receive the CDS'  support of our way-ahead on a number of changes related to the restoration of Royal prefixes.  This email aims to inform you of those elements.

2.  As you have all been consulted, it is believed that the six Army level two (L2) organizations, namely the four Land Force Areas (LFAs), the Land Forces Doctrine and Training System (LFDTS) and the 1st Canadian Division Headquarters (1 Cdn Div HQ), would be better served by aligning their name after the Army' s current name vice that of Land Forces. As such, and in line with historical lineage, the Army Commander is seeking the support in principle from the CDS to re-designate the LFAs using the divisional structure, and to change the name of LFDTS to Canadian Army Doctrine and Training Centre. 1 Cdn Div HQ, as well, would be renamed to be
changed to 1 Cdn Div.  Dependencies of those organizations, of course, would also follow suit, i.e. Area Training Centres would
become Divisional Training Centres. If supported, a change would also be brought to the Canadian Land Forces Command and Staff College, in order to be renamed Canadian Army Command and Staff College.

3.  The second element highlighted was the former arms units and corps' respective interest in restoring their Royal prefixes.  Having received the appropriate feedback from a variety of stakeholders, the following has been proposed to the CDS:

a.    The Communications and Electronics Branch recommends the reinstatement of the  ' Royal Canadian Corps of Signals'.  The
Royal Canadian Corps of Signals would remain a component of the Communications and Electronic Branch along with the associated members of the RCAF;

b.    The Electrical and Mechanical Engineering Branch recommends the reinstatement of the ' Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical 
Engineers';

c.    The Military Engineer Branch recommends the reinstatement of the 'Royal Canadian Engineers';

d.    The Military Police Branch, which originated from the Canadian Provost Corps, and recommends to be known as the CF Military Police Branch, with a Canadian Army Military Police Group;

e.    The Logistics Branch, which originated from the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps, the Royal Canadian Postal Corps, and the Canadian Army Pay Corps, recommends not changing their current name;

f.    The Medical Services Branch and the Dental Branch, which originated from the Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, have sought independently and received CDS's approval to seek replacement of their current names to 'Royal Canadian Medical Service' and 'Royal Canadian Dental Corps';

g.    The Chaplain Branch, which originated from the Royal Canadian Army Chaplain Corps recommends not changing their current name;

h.    The Infantry Branch, which originated from the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, recommends not changing their current name, as it
felt that Royal designations are best fit with individual infantry units or regiments.  As a Corps, however, they would be supportive of any infantry unit that wishes to seek a Royal designation;

i.    The Armour Branch recommends the official reinstatement of The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps; and

j.    The Artillery Branch was accorded the unique distinction of also being designated as a regiment, the Royal Regiment of Canadian
Artillery - no change, therefore, is sought or required.

5.  The third aspect which is discussed in the letter relates to the titles that refer to key Canadian Army HQ staff positions.

6.  The fourth and final category of potential changes includes the following elements of Army's heritage:

a.    The Land Forces Command March, "Celer Paratus Callidus", be changed to adopt the march "The Great Little Army", composed by Kenneth J. Alford in 1916;

b.    The Army would like to explore the possibility of officially using the designations of various rank designators (gunner, trooper,
sapper ...), which are all of common usages, but not official; and

c.    The Army will seek DHH staffing to officially change the Land Force Command Badge to the well recognized design of three
separate maple leafs, which was the 1940 Army badge (ie pre-1968).

7.  Once CDS's support is received, Army staff will continue their discussions with the appropriate offices to materialize these changes
in the near future. We will keep you appraised.


Michael R. Dabros Brigadier-General
Brigadier-général Chief of Staff Land Operations
Chef d'état-major opérations terrestre
National Defence
Défense nationale
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0K2


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'll bet a lot of people made a lot of money sitting around coming up with such *cough* new ideas.........friggin bravo.

HDHQ,....to semi-quote Winston Churchill,...."Never have so many, done so little, for so much."


----------



## PMedMoe

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I'll bet a lot of people made a lot of money sitting around coming up with such *cough* new ideas.........friggin bravo.
> 
> HDHQ,....to semi-quote Winston Churchill,...."Never have so many, done so little, for so much."



 :ditto:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Wasn't there parts in that email stating that they also are seeking to have Sapper/Trooper/Gunner/etc as offical ranks vice unoffical......


----------



## jeffb

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> b.    The Army would like to explore the possibility of officially using the designations of various rank designators (gunner, trooper,
> sapper ...), which are all of common usages, but not official; and



Yes, there was.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:facepalm: missed it the first time I read it......


----------



## Scott

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> :facepalm: missed it the first time I read it......



You're on a roll today...

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Now, in fairness, about 25 years ago - in response to a problem expressed by colleagues in the Air Force - I wrote a paper advocating the breakup of the C&E Branch and the recreation of a Canadian Signalling Corps (its original (1903) name) and the merger of the Air Force C&E people with the AERE folks into a new _"Technical-Telecommunications"_ (or something) branch which would restore some unity to Air Force C3, something which was perceived, by many senior Air Force folks, to be sadly lacking.

(There were some additional loose ends - including Navy folks in the Supplementary Radio business - and "light blue" people who were, really soldiers, and "green" people who were, really, in the Air Force C3 business but nothing which, I thought, could not be solved.)

(The paper also, more importantly, recommended that the resulting C3 _Community_ (the Naval Communications System, the Army Signals Systems, the Air Force C3 and the _Strategic_ Networks) should not have any particular responsibility for Information Technology (IT) - except where it is used in a C3 system. Log (Fin) people would do financial IT systems, EME folks would do weapons system IT and so on.)

Suffice to say nothing - other than a great deal of C&E Branch enmity towards yours truly - happened.

The Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was forced upon Canada in the early 1920s when the British Army finally moved Signals from the RE to the new Royal Corps of Signals. The Canadian Signalling Corps predated its British junior sister by about 20 years and if anyone in the Army has any respect for history it is the CSC, not the RCCS, which should be recreated.





CSC cap badge worn by
that Corps from 1903 until
around 1923 including during
the First World War.


----------



## The Bread Guy

As a taxpayer, I'm glad to see everyone's time and energy put to such great use in Ottawa.....


----------



## dapaterson

Could have sworn the CME doesn't belong to the Army.  So why is the Army asking for changes for something they don't own?

I for one am looking forward to ADM(HR Civ) getting out of her lanes in the same way, and suggesting that the PPCLI be renamed The Canadian Regiment of Hot Dudes with Great Staches, also known as CRHDGS.

Apparently the last round of cuts to the CF left sufficient slack staff capacity to advance this... methinks $2B was not enough to cut.


...and the fact that it appears that the Army HQ staff can't even read the QR&Os for the information on "ranks" to understand what's required does not fill me with joy about their abilities in other areas.


----------



## medicineman

All the money will come from somewhere other than the capital budgets...like all the newly re-re-named Corps/Regt's/etc's will draw the cash required from their newly created Corps/Regt/etc Association funds that all ranks will be required to pay into and can't have access too.  

MM 

Edited for spelling

MM


----------



## brihard

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I for one am looking forward to ADM(HR Civ) getting out of her lanes in the same way, and suggesting that the PPCLI be renamed The Canadian Regiment of Hot Dudes with Great Staches, also known as CRHDGS.



While ADM(HRCiv) may be prone to bouts of the absurd, I don't think they're that patently dishonest.  ;D


----------



## McG

It seems the predicted slippery slope is continuing to show itself.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Could have sworn the CME doesn't belong to the Army.


I suspect the branch as a whole answered a question from the Army, and the Army put that answer higher.

The Army asked the "Army side" of the CME.  The branch then conducted a giant survey to get the opinion of every CME unit & its members.  For a while, there was talk of doing things as the Sigs are doing with the RCE being recreated as a component of the CME and one's membership within the RCE would be dependant on the colour of their uniform.

I am happier with the decision requested.  A change in name to RCE needs to be for all of the CME or none of the CME.
... but then, all the time & effort probably could have been put to better use than toward having this current discussion.  Same of the time, effort and money that will be spent if this goes forward.


----------



## PuckChaser

LFCA Comd just briefed us here at one of our 18 townhalls this month that the Army is looking at getting rid of the LFAs and going back to a Divisional structure for each of the areas. Not sure how much traction this is gaining but he seemed confident it would happen.


----------



## quadrapiper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> LFCA Comd just briefed us here at one of our 18 townhalls this month that the Army is looking at getting rid of the LFAs and going back to a Divisional structure for each of the areas. Not sure how much traction this is gaining but he seemed confident it would happen.


Any potential practical benefits to this?


----------



## PuckChaser

Other than renaming LFCA to 2 Can Div or whatever its historical division number was, not that I can see. He made it sound like a superficial change only, because we can't be Land Force Areas when we dont belong to the Land Force anymore.


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... because we can't be Land Force Areas when we dont belong to the Land Force anymore.


Why not?  The Army is still the land force, it is just that the capital letters now go in spelling the former as opposed to the latter.

Any claim of the LFAs to have lineage to a division would be somewhat tenuous.  The divisions were created and stood-down in Europe for the two World Wars.  Back in Canada, we had districts ... militia districts to be more specific.  I understand that the 2nd Militia District claimed some connection to 2 Cdn Div (in theory, 2 FER would have been the 2 Cdn Div Engr Regt in mobilization), but that is now 32 CBG.  Maybe we should change from LFAs to Cdn Army Districts?  But again, why bother expending the effort.  It is not necessary.


----------



## PuckChaser

Don't shoot the messenger, just paraphrasing what we were told. I don't agree with the change if we don't have any link to the Divs, it wouldn't be right.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Calling things "divisions" and "brigades" doesn't accomplish anything if they remain just unorganized collections of tiny, ill equipped, under-trained units. In fact it is dangerous to try to paint over the many flaws by changing the names - it promotes self delusion.

There is nothing inherently wrong with renaming the CME as the RCE or changing the Army badge back to something _traditional_, even at some very modest cost, but trying to paper over the cracks is not a good idea.







1st Canadian Division was disbanded in the late 1950s or very early 1960s when we changed our NATO/North German Plain doctrine to involve large, self contained brigade groups fighting on a dispersed battlefield as part of a corps. Divisions were retained in the British Army to provide area wide administrative and logistical support (and to effect a reasonable, peace time, span of control) but we went along with the "pure" vision of independent brigade groups, each with effective, organic combat and combat service support. Is there some reason we plan to field a division again?


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall, and what I later learned, the plan was to reform the division circa 1964. In fact I saw the Canadian Army manpower plan circa 1962-1966 many years after the event and the creation of divisional troops started in about 1964.

In the bad old days - a long time back = the NPAM was organized into divisions and brigades, but this was an administrative grouping. In wartime we spread the divisions across the country, unlike the Brits and the Americans, who mobilized TA/NG formations. The Army Historical Section prepared a report on the 1920 Militia Reorganization which was published in 1849. It stated that before the Great War Eastern Canada was divided into six divisional districts while the West had three military districts. These were supposed to be the basis for mobilization, but Sam Hughes went his own way in 1914.  Post war the militia had been organized into four cavalry and 11 infantry divisions as per Defence Scheme One (war with the US) but this reverted to one cavalry and six infantry divisions in 1936. As Defence Scheme Three (war in Europe) had a corps of two divisions, the reality and the organization did not match.

What's new?


----------



## Journeyman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is there some reason we plan to field a division again?


To employ a CbtA MGen, with 'appropriate' numbers of suitably-ranked staff officers?

I've yet to see evidence that such an organization is capable of being "fielded" any time soon, or for any length of time.

[/cynical nay-saying]


----------



## Good2Golf

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

>



Edward, your "scribling on napkin" skills have improved since the last time we did battle with the Bag Lady...  ;D


----------



## Haggis

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> As a taxpayer, I'm glad to see everyone's time and energy put to such great use in Ottawa.....



This isd an Army HQ led initiative.  Leave the rest of us NDHQers out of it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haggis said:
			
		

> This isd an Army HQ led initiative.  Leave the rest of us NDHQers out of it.


In that case....


----------



## Snakedoc

Out of curiosity, is the star system used to refer to Canadian Flag/General officers something borrowed from the Americans or is it a NATO standard to refer to all of them that way?  I seem to recall hearing some Canadian Generals refer to 'One-Leaf' or 'Two-Leaf' Generals for Brigadier or Major-Generals but I'm not sure if this is common practice.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think it is an Americanism, but one which we all adopted during World War II when "star plates" became normal on flag and general officers' vehicles.

Some Canadian senior officers used maple leaves on their vehicle plates in the '60s and afterwards (I'm not sure about what happened in the '50s) others used stars. I recall a major conference in North Germany, at a very senior British HQ: the parking areas were designated by star plate signs - except for one: the Commander Canadian Army Europe, although 'only' a brigadier (this was before brigadier general) was a national force commander so he parked in the three star area!


----------



## Snakedoc

It's too bad, I always found it a bit odd that flag officer vehicle plates used stars.  The whole 'stars and stripes' type of thing seems much closer to American culture.  Leafs would seem to be closer to Canadian culture and our system of rank design.  Not a huge deal or anything to lose sleep over at night though.  Thanks for the insight E.R. Campbell.


----------



## dapaterson

Plates I have seen for General and Flag officers (whether on cars or misappropriated wall trophies in messes) have maple leaves, not stars.

The vernacular references are usually to "stars" vice "leafs" - perhaps because most Canadians associate "Leafs" with a hockey team doomed to dismal failure, and we want to believe our senior officers are Stars, not perpetual losers.


----------



## dimsum

The "star" term gets used in the ADF as well when referring to their Flag/General officers, none of which actually wear stars (or at least I don't think.)


----------



## Snakedoc

Interesting, on the west coast I've only ever seen stars on flag officer vehicles.  I'll have to keep my eye out for leaf plates next time I'm in Ottawa.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Interesting, on the west coast I've only ever seen stars on flag officer vehicles.  I'll have to keep my eye out for leaf plates next time I'm in Ottawa.


Only ever seen Maple Leafs too...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The "star" term gets used in the ADF as well when referring to their Flag/General officers, none of which actually wear stars (or at least I don't think.)


One-star through four-star is probably easier to verbalize than describing Aussie general rank (see attached)


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting, that just as in the British Army, the only officer above the rank of Captain to carry no visible sign of Her Majesty's warrant, in the form of a Crown, is the Major-General.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't know what you find so interesting there: The Australians retained the British rank structure and designations, with only two small exceptions - the warrant officers' insignias use the Australian coat-of-arms for obvious reasons, and in the R.A.N., there actually is a rank insignia for the Able Seaman rank.

In the British system, the crown does not indicate in itself that the bearer holds a warrant from her majesty: Majors and above are no more "warranted" by her majesty than the junior officers: They hold a commission from her - not a warrant. The "precedence" in symbology goes from the pip (lowest) to the crown (middle) then to the crossed sword (top).

Thus the progression:

2LT: One pip;
LT: Two pips;
Capt.: Three pips;
Maj.: One Crown
LCol.: One crown and one pip;
Col.: One crown and two pips;
Brig.: One crown and three pips (but is it a "general" rank?);
MGen.: Crossed sword  and one pip; (I guess the crossed swords would have sufficed, but I did not make the system up);
LGen.: Crossed sword and one crown; 
Gen: Crossed sword, one crown and one pip.

Field Marshalls are in a category of their own, with the laurels and crossed gun barrels.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the British system, the crown does not indicate in itself that the bearer holds a warrant from her majesty



Also Staff/Colour Sergeants and Corporals of Horse.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know what you find so interesting there: The Australians retained the British rank structure and designations, with only two small exceptions - the warrant officers' insignias use the Australian coat-of-arms for obvious reasons, and in the R.A.N., there actually is a rank insignia for the Able Seaman rank.
> 
> In the British system, the crown does not indicate in itself that the bearer holds a warrant from her majesty: Majors and above are no more "warranted" by her majesty than the junior officers: They hold a commission from her - not a warrant. The "precedence" in symbology goes from the pip (lowest) to the crown (middle) then to the crossed sword (top).
> 
> Thus the progression:
> 
> 2LT: One pip;
> LT: Two pips;
> Capt.: Three pips;
> Maj.: One Crown
> LCol.: One crown and one pip;
> Col.: One crown and two pips;
> Brig.: One crown and three pips (but is it a "general" rank?);
> MGen.: Crossed sword  and one pip; (I guess the crossed swords would have sufficed, but I did not make the system up);
> LGen.: Crossed sword and one crown;
> Gen: Crossed sword, one crown and one pip.
> 
> Field Marshalls are in a category of their own, with the laurels and crossed gun barrels.




Brigadier and brigadier general have a somewhat chequered history. The British (and Canadian) Army used brigadier until the early 1920s when a parliamentary committee in the UK complained that there were too many generals in the army - partially a reaction to the anti _brass hat_ sentiment from the Great War. The British Army's solution was to delete the rank of brigadier general and replace it with the _appointment_ of brigadier, making a it analogous, as far as I understand it, with the Royal Navy's _appointment_ of commodore which was given to selected senior captains. Eventually brigadier became a proper rank. *But*: a brigadier was not a general officer, he was the most senior of the field officers.

Officers:
  Subordinate Officers: officer cadets
  Junior Officers - subalterns and captains
  Field Officers - majors through to brigadiers
     Sometimes, but not formally, subdivided into -     )
       Field Officers ~ majors and lieutenant colonels   )  I think some Commonwealth countries use this division 
       Senior Officers ~ colonels and brigadiers            )
  General Officers - major generals through generals
  Field Marshals: field marshals 

Eventually both the commodore and the brigadier became proper ranks, but I know that, during World War II we had commodores 1st and 2nd class, the latter being senior captains. In 1960_something_, as part of Hellyer's "reforms," we reverted to BGen.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know what you find so interesting there: The Australians retained the British rank structure and designations, with only two small exceptions - the warrant officers' insignias use the Australian coat-of-arms for obvious reasons, and in the R.A.N., there actually is a rank insignia for the Able Seaman rank.


Not to mention Non-Commissioned Officer Cadet Rank in the Air Force - full ADF rank chart here.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD - I understand your point.

It was just that, on review, I found it noteworthy that all the ranks above those of Subaltern, as ERC notes, wear a crown. This includes both Field and General officers.

Given the history of the ranks 

Captain is the leader or head of a company  (ship's or army)
Lieutenant holds his place during his absence
Sergeant, or servant, serves the Lieutenants and Captain with the Sergeant-Major being the Big Servant.

The next appointment, when a whole bunch of Captains were engaged, during the Tudor times, was a Captain placed in general control of all the other Captains - the Captain-General, subsequently shortened to General.  The Captain-General brought along his own place holders and servants or Lieutenants-General and Sergeants Major General, subsequently Major General

It wasn't until, to my knowledge, the era of Nassau, Adolphus and the New Model Army when the armies were regimented into agglomorations of Companies that marched in columns that Column Commanders, or Colonels became common.  The Colonels of course needed their own place holders and servants or Lieutenant-Colonels and Colonel's Sergeant Major, subsequently Major.


I couldn't help but wonder if the lack of a crown on the Major-General's shoulder reflected the original position of the rank as an NCO.   

On the other hand both Company Sergeants-Major as well as Majors (Colonel's Sergeants-Major) wear a crown, to the confusion of many Yanks.

Also, ERC, isn't the lower insignia on the General officers' tab a Field Marshall's baton crossed with a sword?  Perhaps that could indicate that the rank is within the gift of, and at the pleasure of the General (or Captain-General, who wears crossed batons in a laurel wreath)?


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not to mention Non-Commissioned Officer Cadet Rank in the Air Force - full ADF rank chart here.



The reason for the NCOCDT rank is that aircrew NCOs such as Flight Engineers, AEAs (their version of AESOPs), etc. are promoted to Sgt once they finish training, due to some reason or another that I forget now.  Therefore, they are NCOCDTs while in training to differentiate them from the "other" NCMs that go through LAC, CPL, etc. 

The side effect is that since you can be an aircrew Sgt at 19-20, the RAAF ends up with all sorts of aircrew WOFFs (CWO equivalent) with about 8-10 years' experience in the Forces (the last bunch going through our unit had a guy who was 29 or so) instead of the time in that you'd expect for a CWO-equivalent.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The reason for the NCOCDT rank is that aircrew NCOs such as Flight Engineers, AEAs (their version of AESOPs), etc. are promoted to Sgt once they finish training, due to some reason or another that I forget now.  Therefore, they are NCOCDTs while in training to differentiate them from the "other" NCMs that go through LAC, CPL, etc.
> 
> The side effect is that since you can be an aircrew Sgt at 19-20, the RAAF ends up with all sorts of aircrew WOFFs (CWO equivalent) with about 8-10 years' experience in the Forces (the last bunch going through our unit had a guy who was 29 or so) instead of the time in that you'd expect for a CWO-equivalent.




Back in the 1950s and '60s there were, in Canada, to _apprentice programmes_: one Navy and one Army.

The Army's _soldier apprentice_ programme took 16 year olds and put them through a fairly intensive two year academics and trade regimen - they ended up as privates, trained, with better educations than they would have had, otherwise, many managing to matriculate after a few more correspondence courses. The programme existed in, at least, the RCA, RCE, RCCS and RCEME - it produced some very good, indeed exceptional NCOs and a few very good officers, too - some of whom rose up to the general officer level.

The RCN's programme was different, and I cannot recall all that much about it except that it had higher entry standards (age 17 and grade 11?) was restricted to a few very technical trades and took three years. But the RCN apprentices finished as PO2s, as I recall, which led to the same problems Dimsum just described in Australia.

Neither programme survived Mr. Hellyer. 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Have we derailed this topic, too?
 :trainwreck:


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Back in the 1950s and '60s there were, in Canada, to _apprentice programmes_: one Navy and one Army.
> 
> The Army's _soldier apprentice_ programme took 16 year olds and put them through a fairly intensive two year academics and trade regimen - they ended up as privates, trained, with better educations than they would have had, otherwise, many managing to matriculate after a few more correspondence courses. The programme existed in, at least, the RCA, RCE, RCCS and RCEME - it produced some very good, indeed exceptional NCOs and a few very good officers, too - some of whom rose up to the general officer level.
> 
> Neither programme survived Mr. Hellyer.
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Have we derailed this topic, too?
> :trainwreck:



Sorry if i have added to the train wreck, but an ex-apprentice soldier rose to CLS, and I had a beer or two with him last weekend at a gunner gathering. We and our wives have been friends since circa 1976. At that time I told my wife I thought he would go the highest of any of the officers in CTC.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Have we derailed this topic, too?
> :trainwreck:


That's what the split & move thread functions are for - good discussion, now standing on its own.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## ModlrMike

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting, that just as in the British Army, the only officer above the rank of Captain to carry no visible sign of Her Majesty's warrant, in the form of a Crown, is the Major-General.




Perhaps it stems from them being originally know as Sgt Maj General? Which also probably explains why an LGen outranks an MGen.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Interesting, on the west coast *I've only ever seen stars on flag officer vehicles*.  I'll have to keep my eye out for leaf plates next time I'm in Ottawa.



Must be hippies!  They don't want to conform.

A-AD-200-000/AG-000, The Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces


> SECTION 4
> FLAG/GENERAL OFFICER PLATES
> CAR PLATES
> 
> 1. When officers of flag/general rank, including
> foreign officers, are travelling by staff car or other
> military vehicle in their official capacity, or proceeding
> on official business, a special plate shall be displayed
> on the front and rear of the vehicle. Plates shall not be
> displayed during routine travel. If more than one officer
> of flag/general rank is in the vehicle, the plate for the
> highest rank shall be displayed.
> 
> 2. The universal-pattern plate (Figure 14-4-1)
> shall be in the Canadian national colours (red with *silver
> maple leaves* - silver heraldically representing white);
> however flag/general officers may, at their own
> personal expense, have alternative colour plates
> produced in the following traditional service colours:
> 
> a. navy – navy blue;
> b. army – scarlet (which is the universal pattern);
> and
> c. air force – air force light blue.
> 
> 3. The plate shall be displayed at all times when
> the officer is in the vehicle or while the vehicle is parked
> waiting for the officer. It shall not be displayed when
> proceeding to pick up or returning from delivery of the
> officer; nor shall it be displayed while proceeding
> without the officer except a short distance to and from
> a parking place. A hood shall be provided to cover any
> plate which is not reversible or removable.
> 
> 4. Distinguishing plates shall not be displayed on
> staff cars when the entitled officer is driving the vehicle.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the RCN apprentices finished as PO2s, as I recall, which led to the same problems Dimsum just described in Australia.



I'm not totally sure that the RAAF thinks of what I said as a "problem" per se; that's just me projecting.  That's a good question to ask my co-workers though (we have a few FSgts and WOFFs, both aircrew and non.)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm not totally sure that the RAAF thinks of what I said as a "problem" per se; that's just me projecting.  That's a good question to ask my co-workers though (we have a few FSgts and WOFFs, both aircrew and non.)




I should not have put words in your mouth; and I'm not sure it was a "problem" for the RCN, either - it was just different from the way we did things in the Canadian Army.


----------



## McG

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, is the star system used to refer to Canadian Flag/General officers something borrowed from the Americans or is it a NATO standard to refer to all of them that way?


Reference to one, two, three and four stars is a colloquialism that we adopted from the US.


----------



## McG

This topic seemed to make it back into a number of newspapers over the past week:





> *More Royal ruckus in Canadian military*
> Sub-units of army, navy, air force up for redesignation
> Murray Brewster
> Edmonton Journal
> 17 Aug 2012
> 
> The decision to rebrand the Canadian Forces touched off a Royal ruckus of sorts last year as National Defence went about extending the name change to the military's smaller branches, documents suggest.
> 
> Restoring the "Royal" prefix to the navy and air force has since become a huge point of pride for the Harper government, which billed the move as one that would help today's soldiers, sailors and aircrew connect with their storied history.
> 
> One year later, a series of briefing notes prepared for the country's top military commanders show that subordinate commands - the smaller subsets of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army - are next.
> 
> But it's not as simple as new business cards and stationery. Each designation must meet with the Queen's approval, something that takes protocol and paperwork. The latest round of recommendations have already been forwarded to Buckingham Palace.
> 
> Prior to the unification of the Forces in 1968, each branch of the military maintained its own separate engineers, logisticians and signallers. They're combined now, with each branch contributing people to the pooled system. The Canadian Army was never designated "Royal," but was eager to re-adopt the prefix for many of its sub-commands, including engineers, signallers and logisticians. But the documents show the move was considered "divisive and a potential threat" to unity if their air force and navy counterparts were excluded.
> 
> It was seen as point of tension and "controversy," said the analysis, dated Oct. 13, 2011. Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin was urged to consult other commanders to smooth the way.
> 
> Despite three days of requests, National Defence refused to comment on the documents. But Defence Minister Peter MacKay said earlier this week he believes the designation has been "warmly embraced" by those in uniform. "It has long been associated with the Canadian Forces since our inception, but it has also been warmly embraced by veterans, by Canadians far and wide, and it was well received within the Commonwealth," MacKay said.  "I suspect the Queen herself was quite happy."
> 
> The army chose to drop the antiseptic-sounding Land Forces Command and returned to its roots as simply the Canadian Army.
> 
> The artillery and armoured corps were eager to designate themselves as "Royal" once again, documents show.


----------



## Bass ackwards

From the article:

_The artillery and armoured corps were eager to designate themselves as "Royal" once again, documents show_.

Did I miss something or has it not always been RCAC, RCD, RCHA, RCA, etc ?


----------



## Old Sweat

The article had been shortened before publication. The longer version which I read in another paper noted that the artillery had already applied for and been granted the Royal designation as a regiment, ie The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery. It also reported that the armour had continued to use Royal Canadian Armoured Corps "unofficially" [my word].


----------



## je suis prest

At least as far as the artilley goes, the article is mistaken.  The artillery has been "Royal" since 1893 and it adopted the title "the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery" in 1956.  Unification did not affect that status.  The Regiment did not need to re-apply for use of the "Royal" designation as it was never removed.


----------



## McG

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> From the article:
> 
> _The artillery and armoured corps were eager to designate themselves as "Royal" once again, documents show_.
> 
> Did I miss something or has it not always been RCAC, RCD, RCHA, RCA, etc ?


Versions of the article in other papers included the statement "_The artillery and armoured corps were eager to designate themselves as "Royal" once again, documents show. In fact, the tank branch never stopped informally referring to itself in the traditional sense and gunners petitioned years ago for permission to restore their connection to the monarchy._ "  While "RCD" and "RCHA" remained official titles, use of "RCAC" was an unauthorized title.  I do not know if "RCA" remained authorized or not.

Looking to other parts of this thread, it would appear that the artillery is content to stick with the current  "Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery."


----------



## RCA

RCA is the official abbreviation for "The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery"


----------



## Wolseleydog

MCG said:
			
		

> Reference to one, two, three and four stars is a colloquialism that we adopted from the US.



Quite so, and not just us -- even the Brits themselves are beginning to succumb to this.

I was in ISAF IX HQ, commanded by the Brit Gen Richards (now the UK CDS).  He had the traditional Brit rank symbology for a general on his epaulet, but because so few internationally would recognize such arcane symbols, he wore on his shirt tab (US style) a four-star patch.  Indeed, I am sure that all he had done was gotten a US four star's combat patch, and had it sewn onto his combat shirt tab.

True story.  So its not just us here in Canada...


----------



## Journeyman

Canadian, British, and Aussie exchange officers in the US regularly wear US rank pinned to our own national rank slip-ons. Sometimes you just have to work to the lowest common denominator -- the Americans.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Journeyman said:
			
		

> . . . . . lowest common denominator -- the Americans.



Over twenty years ago when I was down at Fort Sam Houston, I wore equivalent US rank insignia (captain's bars) pinned to my Canadian uniform, the same was also true for the Aussie, German, Malaysian, Philippino, Thai, Somali, El Salvadoran . . . that were there.  The only foreigners that didn't wear US rank insignia were the Chinese Republic of China Taiwanese.  But they also were not permitted to wear their own rank insignia (or national uniforms) and could not be referred to by rank, only "mister".

A few months after I left San Antonio, the unit I was with deployed in support of the Americans during Desert Storm.  As there was a significant mixing of our troops with the Americans, it was suggested to us (and the Germans) that we (at least the officers) wear US rank insignia so they could know who was in charge.  They were politely told to get f***ed.


----------



## Infanteer

I've worked in U.S. organizations and refused to wear their insignia.  If people can't be bothered to learn their allies rank insignia (as we all learn the U.S.) then that is their problem.  As well, people tend to listen more intently when they are not sure if you are a Captain, a Major or a Colonel.... :blotto:


----------



## Journeyman

I've only ever see it done while in the States; it's never seemed required elsewhere.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Canadian, British, and Aussie exchange officers in the US regularly wear US rank pinned to our own national rank slip-ons. Sometimes you just have to work to the lowest common denominator -- the Americans.



For uniforms in which placing pins or other metallic devices may damage them, there are also specialized name tags which list the soldier/sailor/airman/other name, equivalent US Rank, branch of service and country of Origin. For example Canuck servicemen in exchange:

Bloggins
Master Sergeant
Canadian Army
Canada


----------



## dimsum

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> For uniforms in which placing pins or other metallic devices may damage them, there are also specialized name tags which list the soldier/sailor/airman/other name, equivalent US Rank, branch of service and country of Origin. For example Canuck servicemen in exchange:
> 
> Bloggins
> Master Sergeant
> Canadian Army
> Canada



Does one *really* need to state "Canada" if the line above is "Canadian Army"?


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Does one *really* need to state "Canada" if the line above is "Canadian Army"?



Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Does one *really* need to state "Canada" if the line above is "Canadian Army"?




Yes.  In some cases you do.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Does one *really* need to state "Canada" if the line above is "Canadian Army"?



If you think that's overkill, some of the name tags will also include that nation's flag as well, just in case you missed that they were foreign in some way.


----------



## fraserdw

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Field Marshalls are in a category of their own, with the laurels and crossed gun barrels.



Those are crossed batons, the traditional symbol of Imperial Command dating back to the Roman Consul, not gun barrels.  Some General officers in the Imperial system use crossed sword and baton to denote General rank.


----------



## Pusser

fraserdw said:
			
		

> Those are crossed batons, the traditional symbol of Imperial Command dating back to the Roman Consul, not gun barrels.  Some General officers in the Imperial system use crossed sword and baton to denote General rank.



I'm not sure you meant to make it sound like a personal choice.  In the British (and former Canadian) Army officer rank structure, all generals wear a crossed sword and baton (remembering that brigadiers and field marshals are not generals).  Field marshals wear two crossed batons and brigadiers wear one more "pip" than a colonel. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia.  Look at the notes below the chart and you will find a description of the pre-1920 (alluded to earlier) brigadier-general and you can see that he wore a crossed sword and baton as well.  

This chart also refers to the 'pips' as 'stars.'  In fact, pips are actually miniature Bath stars.  The badges of the various orders are correctly referred to as "stars" and most often we see them worn on the left breast (below medals) by knights and higher nobility.  In this picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elizabeth_and_Philip_1953.jpg) you can see that Prince Philip is wearing two stars (one is the Order of the Garter and the other might be the Order of the Bath, but I'm not sure).  As the senior military order in the British honours system, the Bath star was the one chosen to use in rank badges for the Army.  Although referring to general officers as two-star, three-star, etc. is an Americanism, it is not entirely out of place in the British context (except that the numbers don't match up - a brigadier having three stars and major-general having none!).  

It is interesting to note that the RN, RAN and RNZN have all adopted the RCN pattern (the RN commodore being the exception as they still don't consider him to be a flag officer) of shoulder board for their flag officers, with 1-4 stars/maple leaves to denote commodore to admiral (the "royal" navies used to use a system that was different even from the British Army).

It is also worth noting that in the British Army today, brigadiers also wear the same pattern cap badge and staff tabs that colonels do, whereas general officers have more ornate cap badges and tabs.  Field marshals' cap badges and tabs (?) are different again.


----------



## Ostrozac

And if the Canadian Army should ever move back to "traditional" ranks -- a la the Navy's recent reinstatement of the executive curl -- what would be the appropriate "star" for officer insignia? The Order of the Bath is no longer even in the Canadian Honours System. But then again, the Order of Saint Patrick is completely suspended, but that doesn't stop the Irish Guards from using the insignia.

I wonder if bringing back the old Army officer rank insignia, with the Order of Canada in place of the Order of the Bath is in the cards?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Don't we have enough real problems about which we might worry and towards which we might devote staff time and effort? How about too small budgets? How about training? How about organization? How about morale and welfare? How about ...  :facepalm:

Let's not put *any* stars on the officers' rank badges, nor crowns, either. 


Edit: typo  :-[


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don'e we have enough real problems about which we might worry and towards which we might devote staff time and effort? How about too small budgets? How about training? How about organization? How about morale and welfare? How about ...  :facepalm:
> 
> Let's not put *any* stars on the officers' rank badges, nor crowns, either.



Indubitably:

We need to worry about critical issues such as - What is the minimum windspeed at which officers need to tie up the bows on the rosettes on their kilts?  :nod:


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don'e we have enough real problems about which we might worry and towards which we might devote staff time and effort? How about too small budgets? How about training? How about organization? How about morale and welfare? How about ...  :facepalm:
> 
> Let's not put *any* stars on the officers' rank badges, nor crowns, either.



You pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.  Besides, some factions of our society (the same ones that complained about the whole "Royal" thing in general) will converge on that like a moth to a flame and get their shorts in a bunch that we're "going back to being Britain's colony again".


----------



## MeatheadMick

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I've only ever see it done while in the States; it's never seemed required elsewhere.


On an interesting Note, I've seen an American attached to 1 CMBG wear the Canadian Flag on his left shoulder, and the US Flag on his right.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

As an exchange student I wore US rank on my combats above my name tag, along with a second nametag with my rank, name and nationality on it. This made life easier, I suppose, for the US Army Armor recruits when they bumped into us foreigners. As an aside, when visiting the same base for training later in my career I did not put on US rank - that was only for time I was a member of a US unit.


----------



## PuckChaser

MPMick said:
			
		

> On an interesting Note, I've seen an American attached to 1 CMBG wear the Canadian Flag on his left shoulder, and the US Flag on his right.



The exchange officer at LFDTS wears a Cdn flag on his left arm as well.


----------



## MeatheadMick

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The exchange officer at LFDTS wears a Cdn flag on his left arm as well.



Guess it's a more common practice than I realized. It was the first time I had seen that though. Been in Kingston, Gagetown and Borden when the foreign forces are kicking around, but I suppose as an exchange officer it's a little different.

Definitely strange to see the Canadian Flag on ACU's


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As an exchange student I wore US rank on my combats above my name tag, along with a second nametag with my rank, name and nationality on it. This made life easier, I suppose, for the US Army Armor recruits when they bumped into us foreigners. As an aside, when visiting the same base for training later in my career I did not put on US rank - that was only for time I was a member of a US unit.



I was in Knox at the Mtd Warfare Sim Center in '95 as a MCpl, and we were eating at one of the Cav recruit messes.  We ended up sitting amongst some of them, and I recall this one young lad who took the seat across from me looking at my rank and you could see the "WTF" all over his face.   I think his eye twitched, and he didn't look up at any of us again.  Poor fella.

Same trip, I was trying to find the bathroom in the same messhall.  After a few minutes of looking, no dice.  I saw a group of 4 recruits with a Sgt, so I approached them.  The Sgt looked over at me, 4 recruits standing properly 'at ease' and I said "Sgt sorry to bother you, was wondering if you could point me to the bathroom".  Sgt replies "y'all looking for the latrine..." and told me where it was (much to my happiness, the door actually said LATRINE on it and made me think of FMJ instantly).  I was about to say thanks and head out and one of the recruits says "Sgt, I don't recognize these soldiers uniforms (combats, with the subdued Cdn flag on them...).  Where are they from?"  Without missing a beat, the Sgt said "They're Russians".  Big eyes popped out of the 4 FNGs heads.  I said thanks and headed off to the latrine.

When I came out, well it was pretty obvious that the word had started to spread about the fact that we were 'Russians' from the looks we were getting.   :facepalm:

So, that taken into account, I'd say nothing short of a flag-bearer ala The Olympics would help some of the troops down there, and even then....who knows.   :blotto:


----------



## Rifleman62

EIS: 


> So, that taken into account, I'd say nothing short of a flag-bearer ala The Olympics would help some of the troops down there, and even then....who knows.



I take that as a shot at our US friends. If it is, I disagree. The Sgt may have said "Russians" as a joke.

After spending several winters in San Antonio Texas. A lot of Texans know quite a bit about Canada, and have visited mainly Quebec, Vancouver/Victoria and southern Ontario in that order. As a volunteer at the Warrior Family Support Center at Fort Sam Houston, my wife and I ran into hundreds of soldiers and their families from all over the USA.

Most picked up very quickly we were from Canada, especially me, "Canada EH".

Several US Army soldiers were born in Canada, moved to the US early in their life. A couple joined the US Army rather than the Cdn Army.

The only disparaging words I ever heard were about Quebec, and there were many comments ranging from rude to will never go there again. Most knew about the separation threats. That's all I will say.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I was on course in the USA back in the mid 1960s - when we, Canadians, wore khaki, British style uniforms.

I was, most commonly, mistaken for a US Marine - they also wore dark, brown_ish_ uniforms - once, as I had two "pips," for a USMC MGen, which was a real shock as I was still in my 20s!

There were plenty of "allied" and "foreign" officers in the US back then - some (Australians, Brits, Canadians) banded together and refused to wear US ranks, etc - and our American hosts were, unfailingly, very gracious and understanding about that. We did have big, bright name-tags that explained everything except our parentage to our hosts. I felt sorry for the Brazilians, Turks and Vietnamese.


----------



## Pusser

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And if the Canadian Army should ever move back to "traditional" ranks -- a la the Navy's recent reinstatement of the executive curl -- what would be the appropriate "star" for officer insignia? The Order of the Bath is no longer even in the Canadian Honours System. But then again, the Order of Saint Patrick is completely suspended, but that doesn't stop the Irish Guards from using the insignia.
> 
> I wonder if bringing back the old Army officer rank insignia, with the Order of Canada in place of the Order of the Bath is in the cards?



I've heard discussion of using either the Order of Canada or the Order of Military Merit.  I've also heard it touted a a cost saving measure - there's no tailoring involved in promotions if the "stars" are pinned on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> EIS:
> I take that as a shot at our US friends. If it is, I disagree.



I have editted my original post to show the humorous context the story was meant, as well as the factual aspects of events I personally experienced, one day, while in Fort Knox.  (notice the  :blotto: added for clarity/context).

 8)

Editted to add, yes the Sgt was joking.  His tone of voice was "are you f**king serious" when he said "Russians"; the sarcasm was lost on the 4 troops however...


----------



## Blackadder1916

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And if the Canadian Army should ever move back to "traditional" ranks -- a la the Navy's recent reinstatement of the executive curl -- *what would be the appropriate "star" for officer insignia*? The Order of the Bath is no longer even in the Canadian Honours System. But then again, the Order of Saint Patrick is completely suspended, but that doesn't stop the Irish Guards from using the insignia.
> 
> I wonder if bringing back the old Army officer rank insignia, with the Order of Canada in place of the Order of the Bath is in the cards?



I'll second ERC's opinion that there are more important things to consider.  However, the "appropriate stars" should (if one was to place historical value to the exercise) probably be the ones that are still being officially used with current Canadian Forces dress and undress uniforms.  What rank insignia do you think is being worn by officers in scarlets and bearskin hats?  Or by officers of the RCMP?


----------



## Haggis

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've heard discussion of using either the Order of Canada or the Order of Military Merit.  I've also heard it touted a a cost saving measure - there's no tailoring involved in promotions if the "stars" are pinned on.



Whether it's the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit or an order of poutine that'll comprise the badge, the only true cost saving measure is to not fix what's not broken.


----------



## Journeyman

Haggis said:
			
		

> Whether it's the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit or an order of poutine that'll comprise the badge, the only true cost saving measure is to not fix what's not broken.


 :goodpost:

I'm not sure where this season's influx of good-idea faeries came from, but they seem more persistant than usual.


----------



## dapaterson

Haggis said:
			
		

> the only true cost saving measure is to not fix what's not broken.



But then how will folks get "Leading change" on PERs - one year you get points for changing things, wait a year or two, then change it back.  Net result:  No change, but points on two PERs.


----------



## jollyjacktar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The exchange officer at LFDTS wears a Cdn flag on his left arm as well.


Cuz, deep down they really want to be one of us... :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was on course in the USA back in the mid 1960s - when we, Canadians, wore khaki, British style uniforms.
> 
> I was, most commonly, mistaken for a US Marine - they also wore dark, brown_ish_ uniforms - once, as I had two "pips," for a USMC MGen, which was a real shock as I was still in my 20s!
> 
> There were plenty of "allied" and "foreign" officers in the US back then - some (Australians, Brits, Canadians) banded together and refused to wear US ranks, etc - and our American hosts were, unfailingly, very gracious and understanding about that. We did have big, bright name-tags that explained everything except our parentage to our hosts. I felt sorry for the Brazilians, Turks and Vietnamese.



My Dad told me a story of meeting my Mum in NYC at the end of the war when he came home.  They went out to a nightclub, he was a Capt. with three pips the shoulders of  his mess dress.  Guy Lombardo and his Royal Canadians were playing at the club that evening.  The maitre'd assumed Dad was a three star General and made mention that " they sure made them young" in the Canadian Army.  Dad did not correct him and they enjoyed the treatment expected of that exulted rank.  Guy, of course noted Dad's uniform etc. and made the effort to come over during the course of the evening and greet a fellow Canadian.


----------



## McG

On the topic of bringing in/back a UK style officer ranks : let's not waste one iota of time, effort or resources on the frivolous thing.


----------



## fraserdw

MPMick said:
			
		

> On an interesting Note, I've seen an American attached to 1 CMBG wear the Canadian Flag on his left shoulder, and the US Flag on his right.



All Americans at CTC are doing that.  Rather nice of them, considering all the complaining our guys have done about wearing Yank rank in the US.


----------



## Pusser

Haggis said:
			
		

> Whether it's the Order of Canada, the Order of Military Merit or an order of poutine that'll comprise the badge, the only true cost saving measure is to not fix what's not broken.



Your math is flawed.  It currently costs about $50 per promotion for army officers (the cost of opening up the sleeve, removing old braid/sewing on new braid and sewing the sleeve up again).  To replace that with a system where individuals pin on their new rank themselves definitely ends in a cost savings as the tailoring charges are eliminated.

HOWEVER, DO NOT TREAT THIS STATEMENT AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE CONCEPT.  I don't care one way or the other if the Army does this or not.  It's entirely up to the Army, but if you're going to make an argument, you need to consider all aspects.  The fact is that there is a cost savings to be had in changing the current system.  Of course, writing your rank on your forehead with a sharpie would also represent a cost savings (less the cost of the sharpie and soap for promotions), but I'm not saying we should do that either.


----------



## Pusser

fraserdw said:
			
		

> All Americans at CTC are doing that.  Rather nice of them, considering all the complaining our guys have done about wearing Yank rank in the US.



Do they also wear Canadian rank on their uniforms?  Saves us having to figure our their system.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Pusser said:
			
		

> Do they also wear Canadian rank on their uniforms?  Saves us having to figure our their system.



I'd say that most Canadians (not just military types) whose view of the world is shaped by an almost endless diet of  Hollywood movies and TV shows have a better idea of American rank insignia (remember that this thread started because of a question about "X star generals") than they do about Canadian insignia.  In my experience (which is of course, dated) there are many American soldiers who even had problems in determining what the stripes on the cuffs of their naval officers meant.  When I was at Fort Sam Houston, I was asked to participate (along with the other foreign officers on my course) in a seminar for the students in the Army/Baylor MHA program; the professor was a US Navy Commander who made that observation to me when one of his students (a US Army Captain) asked us about our "unusual" rank insignia.  A few years later during a visit to Travis AFB where I was giving a presentation to a large group of USAF medical reservists, my hosts (officers who I had served with during Desert Storm) were chagrined when one of their (senior?) NCOs asked what my rank was equivalent to; he wondered if I (a captain at the time) was the same as a USAF Col.  I, of course, agreed with him.


----------



## tomahawk6

I noticed that the Brits refer to rank stripes as tapes. An odd name.


----------



## Pusser

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> A few years later during a visit to Travis AFB where I was giving a presentation to a large group of USAF medical reservists, my hosts (officers who I had served with during Desert Storm) were chagrined when one of their (senior?) NCOs asked what my rank was equivalent to; he wondered if I (a captain at the time) was the same as a USAF Col.  I, of course, agreed with him.



Reminds me of the old joke:

A petty officer is walking down the hall at NDHQ when the Air Force captain calls out, "Warrant."  

The petty officer continues walking, taking no notice of the AF captain.

"Oh Warrant"

Still the PO continues, seemingly not noticing the AF captain.

"WARRANT!!!"

PO:  "I'm sorry Sir.  Were you talking to me?"

AF Capt:  "Well yes!  Who did you think I was talking to?"

PO:  "Well, probably a warrant officer.  You see Sir, I'm a petty officer first class."

AF Capt:  "Oh I see.  In the Air Force you would be a warrant officer."

PO:  "No Sir.  In the Air Force, I would be a general."


----------



## Journeyman

Once, when I was passing through Esquimalt, a PO1, MS, and ASlt walk into the TV room and the MS calls "Rounds." 
Naturally, we respond with "Jack Daniels!" "Keiths!" "Rum & Coke!"

The PO dismisses the quivering MS and ASlt and says, "you folks aren't Navy, are you?" We respond with, "Nope -- just here for the dive course." He says, "OK, I'll keep them away."

The lesson of this, and the previous post, is......life would be simpler if the Navy would just speak English.


...or at least buy a round, if you're going to offer one; cheap bastards.  :nod:


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Once, when I was passing through Esquimalt, a PO1, MS, and ASlt walk into the TV room and the MS calls "Rounds."
> Naturally, we respond with "Jack Daniels!" "Keiths!" "Rum & Coke!"
> 
> The PO dismisses the quivering MS and ASlt and says, "you folks aren't Navy, are you?" We respond with, "Nope -- just here for the dive course." He says, "OK, I'll keep them away."
> 
> The lesson of this, and the previous post, is......life would be simpler if the Navy would just speak English.
> 
> 
> ...or at least buy a round, if you're going to offer one; cheap bastards.  :nod:



 :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I noticed that the Brits refer to rank stripes as tapes. An odd name.



Its actually a highly technical term: Tape is what seamstresses and tailors call any material that comes in rolls and is used for the purpose of adding decorative edges or applications on a piece (suit, shirt, etc.).


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

It did not bother me in the least to add an American Army 1LT bar to my uniform. The whole point of rank badges is to allow others to know your rank. As a lone Canadian junior officer on a US Army base with thousands of trainees I didn't see it as a hill to die on.  

As for going back to traditional army rank pre-unification I think it would be fine. Change our DEU so something more "army" like khaki would also be fine.


----------



## fraserdw

Pusser said:
			
		

> Do they also wear Canadian rank on their uniforms?  Saves us having to figure our their system.



No, but there system is fairly simple and very much known.


----------



## exspy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Once, when I was passing through Esquimalt, a PO1, MS, and ASlt walk into the TV room and the MS calls "Rounds."



Okay, I'll take the bait.  When a sailor walks into a room and calls 'Rounds,' what does he (or she) mean?

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dan M said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll take the bait.  When a sailor walks into a room and calls 'Rounds,' what does he (or she) mean?
> 
> Cheers,
> Dan.




Similar to medical "rounds," I believe - an inspection, of sorts.


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Similar to medical "rounds," I believe - an short arm inspection, of sorts.



TFTFY.....it is the Navy after all...... ;D


----------



## Journeyman

Dan M said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll take the bait.  When a sailor walks into a room and calls 'Rounds,' what does he (or she) mean?


You'd _think_ that they were offering to buy a round of drinks, but they're not.   Apparently, it means the Duty pers are doing 'inspection rounds' and that we should stop trash-talking the Navy and come to attention or something. 

:dunno:  But I'm not sure; the PO was good to his word and we never saw them again.





			
				Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As for going back to traditional army rank pre-unification I think it would be fine. Change our DEU so something more "army" like khaki would also be fine.


I think our current green is sufficiently army-looking....and the CF has culturally adapted to our current Canadian rank badges so that I see no need to further resurrect British trappings.

The final line for me though is I'd just as soon not a single additional penny be spent changing badges and uniforms (_especially_ in times of fiscal restraint); whenever it gets brought up, someone should have an 1812 pin pushed into their forehead. 

That's just me though; others' fashion needs may vary.


----------



## jollyjacktar

GAP said:
			
		

> TFTFY.....it is the Navy after all...... ;D


being sailors, our "arms" are not "short" they're "yard arms"


----------



## tomahawk6

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Its actually a highly technical term: Tape is what seamstresses and tailors call any material that comes in rolls and is used for the purpose of adding decorative edges or applications on a piece (suit, shirt, etc.).



Thanks.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The final line for me though is I'd just as soon not a single additional penny be spent changing badges and uniforms (_especially_ in times of fiscal restraint); whenever it gets brought up, *someone should have an 1812 pin pushed into their forehead*.
> 
> That's just me though; others' fashion needs may vary.



Meh, the quality of the pins isn't that great; they'd probably break before they penetrated much more than the first few layers of skin.

However, I can think of other, more sensitive, areas where one could insert an 1812 pin to greater effect...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Meh, the quality of the pins isn't that great; they'd probably break before they penetrated much more than the first few layers of skin.
> 
> However, I can think of other, more sensitive, areas where one could insert an 1812 pin to greater effect...



Are you suggesting using an 1812 pin in order to acquire a Prince Albert?


----------



## Pusser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Once, when I was passing through Esquimalt, a PO1, MS, and ASlt walk into the TV room and the MS calls "Rounds."
> Naturally, we respond with "Jack Daniels!" "Keiths!" "Rum & Coke!"
> 
> The PO dismisses the quivering MS and ASlt and says, "you folks aren't Navy, are you?" We respond with, "Nope -- just here for the dive course." He says, "OK, I'll keep them away."
> 
> The lesson of this, and the previous post, is......life would be simpler if the Navy would just speak English.
> 
> 
> ...or at least buy a round, if you're going to offer one; cheap bastards.  :nod:



You see that's one of the problems between the three elements.  We don't all speak the same language.  Take the word "secure" for example.  If told to "secure" a building:

1)  the sailor will go inside, ensure all the windows are closed, the lights are turned off and the doors are locked.

2)  the soldier will ask his buddies to help him surround the building, then kick in the door, toss in a few grenades and then enter fully armed and shouting "clear" when checking every room.

3)  the airman/airwoman will negotiate a five year lease with an option to buy.


----------



## Pusser

fraserdw said:
			
		

> No, but there system is fairly simple and very much known.



It may be simple and well known, but not exactly logical.  Why does silver outrank gold (I know it's supposed to be bronze, but it still looks like gold).  Why does a leaf outrank a bar or group of bars, etc?

At least the Canadian and British models are progressive - more baubles means means higher rank.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> If told to "secure" a building:


Yep, that sure was a side-splitter......60? 80? years ago, when that joke first made the rounds....


----------



## dapaterson

recceguy said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting using an 1812 pin in order to acquire a Prince Albert?



Methinks, given the current crop of Royals, we're going to have to come up with a meaning for "a Prince Harry" as well...


----------



## Danjanou

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Methinks, given the current crop of Royals, we're going to have to come up with a meaning for "a Prince Harry" as well...



Perhaps they could rename this hallowed British Army tradition?

 http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Naked_Bar


----------



## Blackadder1916

Pusser said:
			
		

> It may be simple and well known, but not exactly logical.  Why does silver outrank gold (*I know it's supposed to be bronze, but it still looks like gold*).  Why does a leaf outrank a bar or group of bars, etc?
> 
> At least the Canadian and British models are progressive - more baubles means means higher rank.



No, it's supposed to be gold, not bronze (though the insignia was often produced in brass).  When the history of how specific US insignia came about is actually studied in comparison to history of British insignia, I'd say that the US system is as logical (and maybe more so) as "pips and crowns".

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/UniformedServices/Insignia_Rank/insignia_silver_gold.aspx


> The precedence of silver over gold in officer insignia of grade was not the result of deliberate intent, but arose from the desire to avoid unnecessary changes. Although the background discussed below is for Army insignia, the Navy and Marine Corps metal insignia of grade for officers have paralleled those of the Army. When the Air Force was established in 1947, it adopted the officers’ insignia of grade already in used by the Army.
> 
> Since 1780, when insignia was embroidered on the epaulettes, the grade of general officers has been denoted by a number of silver stars. This was the beginning of the present system of officers’ grade insignia.
> 
> Epaulettes were specified for all officers in 1832; for the infantry they were silver and all others had gold epaulettes. In order that the rank insignia would be clearly discernible, they were of the opposite color; that is, the infantry colonels had an eagle of gold because it was placed on a silver epaulette and all other colonels had silver eagles on gold epaulettes. At that time the only grade insignia were the stars for general officers and eagles for colonels. Epaulettes for lieutenant colonels, majors, captains, and lieutenants had no insignia -- the length and size of the fringe showing the difference of grade.
> 
> Shoulder straps were adopted to replace the epaulette for field duty in 1836. The straps followed the same color combination as the epaulettes; that is, the border was gold with silver insignia for all officers except those of infantry which had silver border with gold insignia. At that time majors were authorized leaves; captains were authorized two bars and first lieutenants were authorized one bars on the shoulder straps.
> 
> In 1851, the colonel’s eagle was prescribed in silver only. Apparently when it was decided to use only one color, the silver eagle was selected based on the fact that there were more colonels with the silver eagle that those with gold. At that time on the shoulder straps, lieutenant colonels wore an embroidered silver leaf; majors wore a gold embroidered leaf; and captains and first lieutenants wore gold bars. The second lieutenant had no grade insignia, but the epaulette or shoulder strap identified him as a commissioned officer.
> 
> In 1872, epaulettes were abolished for officers and replaced by shoulder knots. As the shoulder knots had no fringe, it was necessary that some change in the insignia on the dress uniform be made in order to distinguish the major from the second lieutenant. It was natural to use the gold leaf which the major had worn on the shoulder strap for the previous twenty-one years. In the same year, the bars on the shoulder straps of the captains and first lieutenants were changed from gold to silver to correspond with the silver devices of the senior officers.
> 
> The service uniform of olive drab gradually came to be used more frequently and by the time of World War I, the blue uniform was worn only in the evenings and on dress occasions. As a result, metal insignia was authorized for wear on the service uniform on the shoulder loop and on the collar of the shirt when worn without a jacket. Shortly after the United States entered World War I, only the service olive drab uniform was being worn. The need for an insignia for the second lieutenant became urgent. Among the proposals was one to authorized for that grade one bar, the first lieutenant two bars, and the captain three bars. However, the policy of making as little change as possible prevailed, and a gold bar was adopted in 1917, following the precedent previously established by the adoption of the major’s insignia.
> 
> Although silver outranks gold insofar as the Armed Forces metal insignia of grade, gold can be considered as outranking silver in medals and decorations and their appurtenances. The order of precedence in establishing medals when using the same design is gold, silver and bronze.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nevertheless, I still don't see the logic: why are bars lower than oak leaves, that themselves are lower than eagles? ( and why would an eagle as a superior indicator be understandable easily to a non American?).

On a different note, I see that people refer to "stripes", and tape in the case of the British members, but in the Navy, I have always heard it referred to  as "rings". The term "stripes" I have always heard used for privates, corporals, seargents, etc. So a commander is referred to  as a "three-ringer", not a "three-striper". 

That may explain why (to combine two ideas above) the "captain's rounds" on a ship create a "four-ring" circus.


----------



## fraserdw

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, I still don't see the logic: why are bars lower than oak leaves, that themselves are lower than eagles? ( and why would an eagle as a superior indicator be understandable easily to a non American?).
> 
> On a different note, I see that people refer to "stripes", and tape in the case of the British members, but in the Navy, I have always heard it referred to  as "rings". The term "stripes" I have always heard used for privates, corporals, seargents, etc. So a commander is referred to  as a "three-ringer", not a "three-striper".
> 
> That may explain why (to combine two ideas above) the "captain's rounds" on a ship create a "four-ring" circus.



The American Republic was formed during a Renaissance of Roman Republicism in European society.  Eagles were the superior symbol of Rome, the Oak Leave was the symbol of the leader of Rome in the form of a head band for Tributes, Senators.  The stars are the symbol of each colony in the Republic on the Republic's flag thus they were given to denote General officers.  As for the bars I assume that they came from some idea in congress.

This makes interesting reading:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/jointservices/a/rankhistory.htm


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, I still don't see the logic: why are bars lower than oak leaves, that themselves are lower than eagles? ( and *why would an eagle as a superior indicator be understandable easily to a non American*?).



Since rank insignia (or just about any military insignia) has a primary purpose of identifying the wearer to his "own" subordinates (and superiors) the answer you'd probably get from an American (or choose nationality of choice) is "who cares if a f***ing foreigner doesn't understand it".



> On a different note, I see that people refer to "stripes", and tape in the case of the British members, but in the Navy, I have always heard it referred to  as "rings". The term "stripes" I have always heard used for privates, corporals, seargents, etc. So a commander is referred to  as a "three-ringer", not a "three-striper".



In the one reference that I made in this thread to "stripes" on a naval officer's cuff, I was talking about an observation that a US Navy officer made to me.  (_I can't speak to other's posts_) That's what he called them, and it seems that is the officially accepted terminology of the USN.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=266


> Rank Insignia of Navy Commissioned and Warrant Officers
> 
> Navy officers wear their rank devices in different places on their uniforms, depending upon the uniform. The three basic uniforms and the type of rank devices are: khakis (a working uniform) -- pins on the collar; whites -- *stripes on shoulder boards*; and, blues -- *stripes sewn on the lower sleeve*.  . . . .


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> On a different note, I see that people refer to "stripes", and tape in the case of the British members, but in the Navy, I have always heard it referred to  as "rings". The term "stripes" I have always heard used for privates, corporals, seargents, etc. So a commander is referred to  as a "three-ringer", not a "three-striper".



I can think of one reference in a Canadian context:  a WWII bar song called "The Wearin' of the Green:"

I met with Uncle Percy and he shook me by the hand,
I said, “How is our Navy, Sir, and is it still on land.”
It is the most distressful Navy, faith, that ever yet was seen,
‘Cause half of them are Paybobs and the rest are wearing green.

Oh! I went into the Elgin – not a civvy to be found,
But lots and lots of Navy there were sitting all around.
Red or white stripes, blue stripes too, not an Exec. To be seen,
But more than all the others were the wearers of the green.

Each evening in the Bytown Mess when the beer is flowing free,
You can hear more salty chanties sung than ever hear at sea,
They sing of all the ships they’ve had and ports to which they’ve been,
But truth to tell, they lie like hell, ‘cause they’re the wearers of the green.

Some hand out railroad tickets and some put on Navy shows,
There’s even some *two-stripers* there who wash dirty clothes.
Oh! Send me back to Halifax where our ships can still be seen –
I’ll gladly leave Headquarters to the wearers of the green!

For those who are curious, the song itself refers to the former RCN/RN, etc. practice of using "distinction cloth" between rings of an officer's braid to denote branch of service.   Light green was the catch-all colour used by every branch that did not have its own distinctive colour, so entertainment, laundry and even intelligence officers wore light green (vice dark green which was for the electrical branch).  The song pokes fun at all the "wearers of the green" as being posers who aren't real sailors (i.e. don't actually go to sea).  The RCN/RN. etc. ceased the use of distinction cloth, with the exception of medical and medical support officers, around 1960, supposedly because they were running out of colours!  Beside the bar at BYTOWN in Ottawa, there is vest on display that is made out of all the colours of distinction cloth that were in use at the time.  Last I checked, the Canadian Coast Guard still does this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> For those who are curious, the song itself refers to the former RCN/RN, etc. practice of using "distinction cloth" between rings of an officer's braid to denote branch of service.   Light green was the catch-all colour used by every branch that did not have its own distinctive colour, so entertainment, laundry and even intelligence officers wore light green (vice dark green which was for the electrical branch).  The song pokes fun at all the "wearers of the green" as being posers who aren't real sailors (i.e. don't actually go to sea).  The RCN/RN. etc. ceased the use of distinction cloth, with the exception of medical and medical support officers, around 1960, supposedly because they were running out of colours!  Beside the bar at BYTOWN in Ottawa, there is vest on display that is made out of all the colours of distinction cloth that were in use at the time.  Last I checked, the Canadian Coast Guard still does this.



Perhaps the RCN, while in the throes of changing all their buttons and bows, should readopt the system. That way people could spot Staff officers, from places like Ottawa, allowing them to head the other way before being caught up in needless buffoonery.


----------



## exspy

Pusser said:
			
		

> ‘Cause half of them are *Paybobs* and the rest are wearing green.



Could you please enlighten this landlubber as to what a Paybob is and why he is called that?



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> For those who are curious, the song itself refers to the former RCN/RN, etc. practice of using "distinction cloth" between rings of an officer's braid to denote branch of service.



I've never heard of distinction cloth being used by the RCN with the exception of red for Medical Officers.  Truth be told naval uniforms are not my strongest area, in spite of two years with Sea Cadets and a summer in Quadra.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## dimsum

Dan M said:
			
		

> Could you please enlighten this landlubber as to what a Paybob is and why he is called that?



Paymaster, essentially the equivalent to today's Admin O (in a broad sense.)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pusser, you of all people would know "The wearer of the green".

Dan M: Paybobs are a little more than "Admin O's", they were to a ship like the current era'a Sea Log officers.


----------



## Rifleman62

Bring back Swagger Sticks for officers.

A committee will need to be struck to establish which swagger stick design will represent the CF ethos. Another committee will establish the orders of dress and occasions a a swagger stick will be carried. And another committee will reestablish swagger stick drill.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Bring back Swagger Sticks for officers.
> 
> A committee will need to be struck to establish which swagger stick design will represent the CF ethos. Another committee will establish the orders of dress and occasions a a swagger stick will be carried. And another committee will reestablish swagger stick drill.




I agree, 100%, with establishing the committees - each should be full time, headed by a two star, and consist of at least three colonels, seven lcols and and appropriate selection of majors: *ALL* members are to drawn from existing HQs above brigade level, no replacements are to be provided for those members. They are to report, at length, twice a week to all the L1 commanders/chiefs; their work is to continue until 2025. Should do wonders for efficiency and effectiveness.


----------



## Ostrozac

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Bring back Swagger Sticks for officers.
> 
> A committee will need to be struck to establish which swagger stick design will represent the CF ethos. Another committee will establish the orders of dress and occasions a a swagger stick will be carried. And another committee will reestablish swagger stick drill.



And, of course, the three committees will not coordinate their work, being chaired by three people who loathe each other and don't communicate.

So one committee will mandate that all officers will be required to carry an issued swagger stick at all times or face sanction and punishment, a second committee will only actually receive enough swagger sticks to equip a few dozen officers a year because they are slowly handcrafted by a little old lady located in a key politician's riding, and the third committee will go off on a tangent about how officers should actually be receiving an allowance to purchase their own swagger sticks from Blackhawk and Danner.

Oh, are we talking about swagger sticks or combat boots?


----------



## exspy

If it's good enough for the US Navy, it's good enough for us!  Just think how spiffy it'll look with CADPAT.


----------



## Rifleman62

His knob is too big for the Cdn Army.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> His knob is too big for the Cdn Army.



There's a fourth committee! Knob sizes, for those regiments and corps that choose to have knobs ... another MGen and his own platoon of staff officers gainfully employed!


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's a fourth committee! Knob sizes, for those regiments and corps that choose to have knobs ... another MGen and his own platoon of staff officers gainfully employed!


Ha, no shortage of Knobs in the CF I suspect.  Each arm has some I'll bet.


----------



## fraserdw

He must be a very small man, that cover looks like a shako on him.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

When it comes to swagger sticks and the US Military, there is no standard as to who may carry them, the size etc. 

Now I can't tell you all the ins and outs of the Marines, Air Force or Navy, but as for the Army, and yes I spent some time with one of our senior Staff Sergeants and a 1st Lieutenant from Legal looking into what AR's cover swagger sticks, and the last thing we located were Army Regs. that dated back to the American Expeditionary Force of WWI, and it seems that in the decades following the war, there was nothing further written on the issue, and for the most part they fell out of vogue.

It was therefore concluded by the Lt. and with the blessing of the SSGT that basically though in formation and while in garrison it would not be appropriate to saunter around with a swagger stick, as per formal functions where the wearing of ASU's is authorized, and there is no formation or parade etc. then it would be perfectly acceptable to carry a swagger stick.


----------



## Old Sweat

And some of the armoured and RCHA regiments carried riding crops. Clearly there is a need for a riding crop committee.

And  what about highland regiments and . . . ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And some of the armoured and RCHA regiments carried riding crops. Clearly there is a need for a riding crop committee.
> 
> And  what about highland regiments and . . . ?



Oh, ach aye ...  iper:  a cromach committee   iper: ... are we up to six MGens and reinforced company of staff offciers, now fully employed on things that do not do any serious harm to the defence of the realm?


----------



## The Bread Guy

fraserdw said:
			
		

> He must be a very small man ....


Which could also explain the.... scale of the swagger stick  >


----------



## Blackadder1916

Dan M said:
			
		

> . . . . . good enough for the US Navy . . . . .



Must be in a shore billet as I seem to recall that the USN frowned upon sailors polishing their knobs at sea.


----------



## Danjanou

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Must be in a shore billet as I seem to recall that the USN frowned upon sailors polishing each other's knobs at sea.



TFTFY


----------



## bcguy604

Since 2010 and the 100th anniversary and meeting sailors from other "Royal" Navies. I thought it would be interesting to propose an RCN NCM rank structure that would align ourselves with the RN, RAN, RNZN. 

Thoughts?


----------



## dimsum

I'm normally not nit-picky, but the RN AB rank has no insignia and the RAN WO-N is the senior WO of the entire RAN.  

To give my 2c, what's wrong with the current system now?  Especially in a "joint" environment, not having to decipher ranks is a good thing.


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm normally not nit-picky, but the RN AB rank has no insignia and the RAN WO-N is the senior WO of the entire RAN.
> 
> To give my 2c, what's wrong with the current system now?  Especially in a "joint" environment, not having to decipher ranks is a good thing.



Remember:  PER points are for leading change.  Not leading _effective_ change.


----------



## ModlrMike

Not going to happen. The return of the Executive Curl was effectively cosmetic and changed little. What you're proposing is completely revolutionary (not in a good way).


----------



## McG

bcguy604 said:
			
		

> Thoughts?


It is a horrible idea.  Equally as stupid as the demand from some to return Army officer ranks to pips & crowns.

There are already service members who seem unable to identify the rank of other services by name, we do not need them also being unable to recognize the insignia.  The current system is simple, functional and understood.  Let's not waste CF resources breaking it.


----------



## Eaglelord17

The other thing is by comparing it to the RN (im not so sure about the RAN or NZN) is it is completely seperate from the Army and the RAF unlike us were we are the Forces and there is seperate elements within it. The RN can afford to have a completely seperate rank structure as they are not part of the british army or airforce well our navy is and is expected to work with the other elements.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm just fine with the rank insignia we have at present.  I have a hard enough time explaining what a PO2 is as it is now to civilians nevermind with two anchors instead and the money could be better spent elsewhere.  That being said, there's nothing wrong with some creative thinking.  Nice try.


----------



## quadrapiper

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Not going to happen. The return of the Executive Curl was effectively cosmetic and changed little. What you're proposing is completely revolutionary (not in a good way).


Once lost, likely never regained.

Only cosmetic naval dress changes really still "available" for the currently-issued span of naval kit are bringing back three-button cuffs as an accoutrement/embellishment for CPOs in No. 1s and 3s (to be honest, though, don't know the history on that in the RCN - seen pics, but not sure from when), reintroducing gaiters and white belts for traditionally-so-kitted roles/ranks, stovepipe gaiters and brown gloves for guard commanders, binning the Army-style "officer's" cap badge for CPO1s, and getting the cutlass back into the dress regs (currently, there's something about infantry officer's swords for CPO1s, and that's it). 

Also, banning berets in service dress (other than submariners), bringing back a naval belt buckle for sword and white belts and ditching the gold braid on junior officer's caps. That last one can be justified both from a traditional and a financial standpoint.

I think the best route for the RCN as far as buttons and bows specifically is to look at things that can be simply added to current kit: as much as I'd love to see hooks back (even above chevrons, _a la_ the Sea Cadets) it's not likely to happen.


----------



## bcguy604

Thanks for all the feedback! 

The topic came up at work one day and I thought I'd put it down on paper. Certainly an interesting discussion at the very least. 

I certainly know that implementing anything of the sort is beyond the cosmetics of the uniform and ventures in to very structure of the ranking system itself!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Once lost, likely never regained.
> 
> Only cosmetic naval dress changes really still "available" for the currently-issued span of naval kit are bringing back three-button cuffs as an accoutrement/embellishment for CPOs in No. 1s and 3s (to be honest, though, don't know the history on that in the RCN - seen pics, but not sure from when), reintroducing gaiters and white belts for traditionally-so-kitted roles/ranks, stovepipe gaiters and brown gloves for guard commanders, binning the Army-style "officer's" cap badge for CPO1s, and getting the cutlass back into the dress regs (currently, there's something about infantry officer's swords for CPO1s, and that's it).
> 
> Also, banning berets in service dress (other than submariners), bringing back a naval belt buckle for sword and white belts and ditching the gold braid on junior officer's caps. That last one can be justified both from a traditional and a financial standpoint.
> 
> I think the best route for the RCN as far as buttons and bows specifically is to look at things that can be simply added to current kit: as much as I'd love to see hooks back (even above chevrons, _a la_ the Sea Cadets) it's not likely to happen.



It's too bad that they don't put as much effort into things that really matter. Playing with buttons and bows is fine when all the other problems faced by the RCN are alleviated, not before.


----------



## quadrapiper

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's too bad that they don't put as much effort into things that really matter. Playing with buttons and bows is fine when all the other problems faced by the RCN are alleviated, not before.


Agreed, to a point. 

I think that the perception on the part of people pushing for RCN-specific buttons and bows is that much of the "traditional" stuff (barring RCN-specific ranks, say) is so small a matter that it shouldn't divert any meaningful staff time or resources. Also, given that the appetite for all things RCN has been whetted, at least for some people, it might be simplest to deal with as much as possible now, especially as we've already got people being paid to deal with this sort of thing: whoever's on the dress committee, and DHH.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

I always found it odd that the largest argument against restoring Navy appropriate ranks was that it would cause confusion among the Army and Air Force. I mean are we to assume that each and every member of both the RCAF and the Army are totally incapable of assigning basic names to shapes?


----------



## Tank Troll

I would like to see it for 2 reasons
 1) No swabby would have an excuse for calling me chief or PO any more as I wouldn't have the same rank insignia as them.
 2) the Army could use the Black rank insignia for our CADPAT instead of white in garrison and our old colour in the field.


----------



## McG

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I mean are we to assume that each and every member of both the RCAF and the Army are totally incapable of assigning basic names to shapes?


There are a significant number in all three environments that have shown themselves incapable of learning a different rank system of another environment even where we do wear common badges.  This reality has been supported by many posters in the many threads on this idea.  Are you attempting to distort this argument by exaggerating it into something indefensible?  If your defence of the idea requires reducing opposing arguments into absurd exaggerations, that is probably a sign that there is no intelligent argument with which to defend your idea.



			
				Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I always found it odd that the largest argument against restoring Navy appropriate ranks was that it would cause confusion among the Army and Air Force.


If it helps, keeping the current simple, functional and recognized system in place is supported by another equally large argument.  That argument is that a change to an old system (a now foreign system) would be a waste of resources (time, money and manpower) for nothing more than aesthetics.  We are in a period of monetary restraint - we do not need to waste funds on window dressings when other things need the money.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I always found it odd that the largest argument against restoring Navy appropriate ranks was that it would cause confusion among the Army and Air Force. I mean are we to assume that each and every member of both the RCAF and the Army are totally incapable of assigning basic names to shapes?



Guess you haven't been involved in many discussions then. That's a bit of a stretch assigning blame to us for that reason, especially from a swabby. :


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ex-SHAD said:
			
		

> I mean are we to assume that each and every member of both the RCAF and the Army are totally incapable of assigning basic names to shapes?



http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/2/2-b_eng.asp?x=1&id=542


> As a Steward, I'm responsible for the well being of the officers on board-their meals and laundry, and cocktail parties and other functions on board and ashore.


 :stirpot:


----------



## brihard

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I would like to see it for 2 reasons
> 1) No swabby would have an excuse for calling me chief or PO any more as I wouldn't have the same rank insignia as them.



Hah. I'll turn that one right around. The few times I've have to deal with any CPOs (1 or 2), as an infantry guy it was so. Damned. Hard. to stop feeling like I was tiptoeing into a minefield calling a senior NCO 'Chief'. I was waiting to find out it was actually just a trap.


----------



## dimsum

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I would like to see it for 2 reasons
> 1) No swabby would have an excuse for calling me chief or PO any more as I wouldn't have the same rank insignia as them.
> 2) the Army could use the Black rank insignia for our CADPAT instead of white in garrison and our old colour in the field.



Here's a suggestion:

Replace the "CANADA" portion of the CADPAT slip-on with "NAVY".  The Army and some of the RCAF units have their unit identifiers on there, and if someone still manages to mis-read that, then they're either illiterate or taking the piss.    :nod:


----------



## Tank Troll

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hah. I'll turn that one right around. The few times I've have to deal with any CPOs (1 or 2), as an infantry guy it was so. Damned. Hard. to stop feeling like I was tiptoeing into a minefield calling a senior NCO 'Chief'. I was waiting to find out it was actually just a trap.



If you really want to see them come unglued call them "Sir".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Works both ways TT: I get a kick at calling MWO's "chief" and watch them go ballistic, or just calling an RSM "warrant" to see what happens.

And if they dont like it , I usually tell them that I'll call them out properly when they start calling me "commander" instead of major. It ends the conversation quickly.


----------



## Scott

Oh look! A thread about more useless changes for boat people. Can't wait to hear about how this is vital for morale. :


----------



## FSTO

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh look! A thread about more useless changes for boat people. Can't wait to hear about how this is vital for morale. :



Why do you mud monkeys get your knickers in such a knot every time a Navy subject comes up? Your constant refrain is "Operationally Focused!  :crybaby:" but it is always Army folk who are the first to put their un-needed and unwanted disparaging comment in. Don't you have an operational ground to pound somewhere?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FSTO said:
			
		

> Why do you mud monkeys get your knickers in such a knot every time a Navy subject comes up? Your constant refrain is "Operationally Focused!  :crybaby:" but it is always Army folk who are the first to put their un-needed and unwanted disparaging comment in. Don't you have an operational ground to pound somewhere?



Everyone on this board is entitled to voice their opinion.

Go start your own Navy site and issue passwords after vetting the application for sea time, if you don't like it.

Staff


----------



## FSTO

recceguy said:
			
		

> Everyone on this board is entitled to voice their opinion.
> 
> Go start your own Navy site and issue passwords after vetting the application for sea time, if you don't like it.
> 
> Staff



Oh there are opinions alright; and then there are OPINIONS from certain aspects of Army.ca that are frankly quite boorish to say the least.

Whatever, go ahead and ban me I hardly post here anymore anyway. The only parts that interest me are the Navy section and the Cyclone and F35 sections in the Air Force.

Good day and have a Merry Christmas!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh there are opinions alright; and then there are OPINIONS from certain aspects of Army.ca that are frankly quite boorish to say the least.
> 
> Whatever, go ahead and ban me I hardly post here anymore anyway. The only parts that interest me are the Navy section and the Cyclone and F35 sections in the Air Force.
> 
> Good day and have a Merry Christmas!



No need to get whiny. No one said anything about banning. We may be deprived of your insightful & witty repartee.

Although you may want to visit your quartermaster get a thicker skin issued.  

Relax and have some more egg nog.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Why can't we just all get along!
"Wars have begun that way, Mr Ambassodor!"
BTW recceguy, I log in to *Navy.ca *  and pay Mr Bobbit annual dues so there is no need for us (RCN personnel or 'boat people') to start a new website. With the exception of a few people who may type faster than they are thinking or may even imbibe and then type (God forbid!) or openly belittle fellow site and CF members, this one is just fine.

Happy New Year everyone!!

Pat


----------



## Scott

FSTO said:
			
		

> Why do you mud monkeys get your knickers in such a knot every time a Navy subject comes up? Your constant refrain is "Operationally Focused!  :crybaby:" but it is always Army folk who are the first to put their un-needed and unwanted disparaging comment in. Don't you have an operational ground to pound somewhere?



You'd better check my posts before you mouth off. I have far many more reasons to my opinion than that. Perhaps my "un-needed and unwanted" comment was meant to demonstrate how silly I believe this is getting. Name change, executive curl, and now this? Sorry, I do not get it. And I am perfectly entitled to post my disbelief that yet another topic on buttons, bows and names is going to develop here - because my deeper fear is that this will gain traction and waste more precious resources - away from those at _Navy.ca_. 

If my posting methods towards such offend you, or anyone else, I am sorry.


----------



## FSTO

recceguy said:
			
		

> No need to get* whiny*. No one said anything about banning. We may be deprived of your insightful & witty repartee.
> 
> Although you may want to visit your quartermaster get a thicker skin issued.
> 
> Relax and have some more egg nog.



 :facepalm:

Don't need to visit the storesman, my skin is thick enough.


----------



## FSTO

Scott said:
			
		

> You'd better check my posts before you mouth off. I have far many more reasons to my opinion than that. Perhaps my "un-needed and unwanted" comment was meant to demonstrate how silly I believe this is getting. Name change, executive curl, and now this? Sorry, I do not get it. And I am perfectly entitled to post my disbelief that yet another topic on buttons, bows and names is going to develop here - because my deeper fear is that this will gain traction and waste more precious resources - away from those at _Navy.ca_.
> 
> If my posting methods towards such offend you, or anyone else, I am sorry.



Are the opinions on this site the official policy of the CF? Not as far as I know. So if a person wants to talk about anything that is going on in the RCN, including buttons and bows (which seem to elicit a collective gnashing of teeth and apoplectic rage by some here) then that is their right. If certain folk in the CF want to look like bags of crap then they should rightly get jacked up. My personal opinion is that an officer or sailor will wear NCDs when they are at sea. When you are alongside (which for the officers their cabin is their office) unless you are actively doing something that will get you dirty you don't wear NCDs, simple as that (and no, doing divisional paperwork is not getting dirty). When you are ashore you look your best, you look like an officer, senior NCM or junior rate in the Royal Canadian Navy. You do not like some municipal garbage man.


----------



## Tank Troll

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Works both ways TT: I get a kick at calling MWO's "chief" and watch them go ballistic, or just calling an RSM "warrant" to see what happens.
> 
> And if they don't like it , I usually tell them that I'll call them out properly when they start calling me "commander" instead of major. It ends the conversation quickly.



When I first got to Halifax with my Armoured Black beret I got all kinds of grief about being in CADPAT and not NCDs and what the station Chief's policy was about wearing CADPAT. Then I got to meet said Chief at the Pink Palace on Stad and we exchanged pleasantries about why I wasn't a PO and he wasn't a RSM and that I was wearing a Regimental brass cap badge not a different naval one, thinks went well after that. Then I went to clothing stores and had to explain to the PO there that those black berets he had were indeed used for the Armour Corps. Then throw in the fact that we have Rifles in our title it was all very confusing for him. He was much happier posted back to the dockyard and not having to deal with me every time we swore in a new soldier and he would insist that they got a green beret like all other army units. 

I have called CWO that aren't RSMs Chief (as RSM is a position not a rank, much like Coxs'n)

Isn't a Commander the equivalent of a Lt Col and Lt Commander the equivalent of a Major?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Why can't we just all get along!
> "Wars have begun that way, Mr Ambassodor!"
> BTW recceguy, I log in to *Navy.ca *  and pay Mr Bobbit annual dues so there is no need for us (RCN personnel or 'boat people') to start a new website. With the exception of a few people who may type faster than they are thinking or may even imbibe and then type (God forbid!) or openly belittle fellow site and CF members, this one is just fine.
> 
> Happy New Year everyone!!
> 
> Pat



Or a person can log into Milnet.ca and see everything for the same price 

Happy Festivus


----------



## Jarnhamar

If we got rid of all the shinny buttons and pretty uniforms we could probably buy an aircraft carrier for the F35s. Then everyone would be happy (until it came time to name the carrier)


----------



## Shamrock

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If we got rid of all the shinny buttons and pretty uniforms we could probably buy an aircraft carrier for the F35s. Then everyone would be happy (until it came time to name the carrier)



I propose the RCN Diefenboat.


----------



## Tank Troll

Wouldn't that be HMCS Diefenboat


----------



## Monsoon

Scott said:
			
		

> You'd better check my posts before you mouth off. I have far many more reasons to my opinion than that. Perhaps my "un-needed and unwanted" comment was meant to demonstrate how silly I believe this is getting. Name change, executive curl, and now this? Sorry, I do not get it.


Can you see why someone in the Navy might find the plea of "it's all getting a bit silly" with respect to "buttons and bows" somewhat galling when coming from a member of an environment that has literally dozens of different regimental uniforms? We don't go in for much of that BS (we don't even have an order of full dress, have nothing comparable to regiments, and pay only the slightest attention to the fallacy of perpetuated battle honours); cut us some slack when we occasionally discuss what we do have.


----------



## PuckChaser

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Can you see why someone in the Navy might find the plea of "it's all getting a bit silly" with respect to "buttons and bows" somewhat galling when coming from a member of an environment that has literally dozens of different regimental uniforms?



Which haven't changed in how long? If the only reason someone wants to change RCN rank is so "RCAF and Army types can get rank right", then that someone is trying to score points in the leading change column of their PER and needs to focus on bigger issues. Rest assured pers in the other 2 environments would be just as harsh on someone suggesting we change ranks simply just to change ranks (See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/94678.0.html


----------



## Monsoon

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If the only reason someone wants to change RCN rank is so "RCAF and Army types can get rank right", then that someone is trying to score points in the leading change column of their PER and needs to focus on bigger issues. Rest assured pers in the other 2 environments would be just as harsh on someone suggesting we change ranks simply just to change ranks (See: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/94678.0.html


Oh don't get me wrong - I don't buy into the original suggestion. But it seems to me that Scott made it pretty clear that he's got some axes to grind about the two distinctions granted to the RCN in its centennial year - both of which were directed down from above, by the way; opposition to which cost the last CMS a third year in his job before retirement.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hah. I'll turn that one right around. The few times I've have to deal with any CPOs (1 or 2), as an infantry guy it was so. Damned. Hard. to stop feeling like I was tiptoeing into a minefield calling a senior NCO 'Chief'. I was waiting to find out it was actually just a trap.



Chiefs (CPO2 and CPO01) aren't Snr NCOs, only PO2 is a Snr NCO...


----------



## brihard

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Chiefs (CPO2 and CPO01) aren't Snr NCOs, only PO2 is a Snr NCO...



I'm using the terms in the conventional sense. I'm not gonna pedantically pick pepper out of poop on this one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

M'kay.


----------



## Ex-SHAD

Another point that has not been brought up, is if the RCN were adopt an actual Naval ranking system, then the average Jack Tar would again be known as a "Rating" and not this NCM Trudeau/Hellyer garbage.


----------



## Infanteer

As somebody who currently commands members of all three of the Commands, I think our system of unified rank insignia is a strength.  However, I am supportive of small changes that still retain the spirit of the system (eg the executive curl).  With regards to the original posters proposal, something like a fouled anchor replacing a maple leaf for the MS/PO2 ranks, or a fouled anchor over all ranks from OS to PO2, would retain the spirit of our unified system of rank insignia.

My 2 army cents.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

OK FOLKS!

KNOCK IT OFF, YOUR DEPENDS ARE SHOWING THROUGH.

ON TOPIC<>>>>YEA OR NAY OR I LOCK AND DELETE.

Bruce


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Isn't a Commander the equivalent of a Lt Col and Lt Commander the equivalent of a Major?



Quite correct TT. However, just like you commonly adress both LCol and full Col as "colonnel" when you are junior, it is customary for juniors to adress both Lcdr and Cdr as "commander".

And P.S.: The Pink Palace is in the Dockyard - not at Stad, which contrary to CFB Halifax, does not encompass the dockyard. Which is why, when we are in the dockyard we can exclaim " I have to go up to Stad." Just another one of those Navy quirks.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> If we got rid of all the shinny buttons and pretty uniforms we could probably buy an aircraft carrier for the F35s. Then everyone would be happy (until it came time to name the carrier)



Actually Obedienta, you can buy an aircraft carrier nowadays for a quarter of the price of the airplanes you ship on them. So you are not so far off the mark.

Italy has a beautifull "little" thing, named the Cavour, that could be built today for approximately $2.0b Canadian. But the thirthy or so airplanes on it (say 21 F-35 b's and 8 or 9 eh-101 or equivalent) would cost you 7 to 8 $b CAN.

What is holding us from acquiring one again is definitely the costs associated with the air and air operations - not the ship side of things.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What is holding us from acquiring one again is definitely the costs associated with the air and air operations - not the ship side of things.


And finding enough people to crew it.


----------



## Jarnhamar

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> And finding enough people to crew it.


Give reservists class B contracts


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> And finding enough people to crew it.


If the political will was there to procure a carrier, I'm sure the manning part of the equation would be well planned and implemented early in the process.


----------



## Stoker

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Give reservists class B contracts



We can't even crew the KINGSTON class with reservists and it would be Class C not B ;D


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Your constant refrain is "Operationally Focused!  :crybaby:" but it is always Army folk who are the first to put their un-needed and unwanted disparaging comment in. Don't you have an operational ground to pound somewhere?


Here is the operationally focused ground to pound: we are degrading operational capability to meet budget demands - lets preserve a little more of that capability by not wasting time, effort and money on needless window dressings.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Why do you mud monkeys get your knickers in such a knot every time a Navy subject comes up?


Why is this nonsense of pre-qualifying opinions thrown-up every time someone in the Navy wants to discuss more bling for themselves?  Again, it seems like another smoke screen for individuals to hide behind while pushing an idea that has no substantial justification/argument behind it.  Why should the Army and RCAF types have an opinion on this idea?  

Because it degrades an element of interoperability within the Canadian Forces (and therefore it affects everyone)
Because it consumes resources from the Canadian Forces' budget (and if you can afford to waste money on window dressings while others are taking operational cuts, then you can afford to give that money to operational uses in the Army, RCAF or joint environments).

Much like the teenage girl who measures her self-worth in bling & clothing, I am sure we will continue hearing from the supporters of the "this is Navy, so Army opinions don't belong" because "mom & dad" just "don't understand what it is like" and "it's not that much money"  It is time to get over it.  The bling will not correct any long-term emotional inadequacies but it will augment an existing weakness to our interoperability (pan-CF rank recognition)- so let's instead focus resources on things that will make an operational improvement in the RCN and/or the CF.

If you really want to justify a change to the RCN rank system, they try explaining why it is necessary, what problem it will correct, or how it will improve the CF.  If your only argument is about compensating for emotional inadequacies, then I would suggest window-dressings will do nothing for you and you just need to harden-up.

… but bowing to peer pressure and all the excitement over frivolous rank changes to "look more Navy/Army/Lawyer" or impose one generation's traditions over another's, here is a proposal for a wholesale revisit of the structure: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/94678/post-950380.html#msg950380
If we are going to waste our time on such irrational frivolity, then we may as well go bigger.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And P.S.: The Pink Palace is in the Dockyard - not at Stad, which contrary to CFB Halifax, does not encompass the dockyard. Which is why, when we are in the dockyard we can exclaim " I have to go up to Stad." Just another one of those Navy quirks.



Bldg S-90, called The Pink Palace, is in Stad.


----------



## Journeyman

I would just like it to be noted that I was offline and had nothing to do with today's bottom-lip fest.  

Carry on.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Here is the operationally focused ground to pound: we are degrading operational capability to meet budget demands - lets preserve a little more of that capability by not wasting time, effort and money on needless window dressings.



Okay then, shall we ground the snowbirds, Sky Hawks and that horsey thing the Lord Strathcona's do? Also we could toss in the Honorary Colonels, Air Shows as well. That all costs a whole lot more than a change of name.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Why is this nonsense of pre-qualifying opinions thrown-up every time someone in the Navy wants to discuss more bling for themselves?  Again, it seems like another smoke screen for individuals to hide behind while pushing an idea that has no substantial justification/argument behind it.  Why should the Army and RCAF types have an opinion on this idea?
> 
> Because it degrades an element of interoperability within the Canadian Forces (and therefore it affects everyone)
> Because it consumes resources from the Canadian Forces' budget (and if you can afford to waste money on window dressings while others are taking operational cuts, then you can afford to give that money to operational uses in the Army, RCAF or joint environments).



Oh that's rich coming from the green mafia. Safe to say the Army has never been a big supporter of interoperability unless it was land focused. 
BTW the Op was putting this out for discussion, not to be unloaded on by a group of mods who feel that they and only they have the right to decide what is proper and what is "window dressing"! 



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Much like the teenage girl who measures her self-worth in bling & clothing, I am sure we will continue hearing from the supporters of the "this is Navy, so Army opinions don't belong" because "mom & dad" just "don't understand what it is like" and "it's not that much money"  It is time to get over it.  The bling will not correct any long-term emotional inadequacies but it will augment an existing weakness to our interoperability (pan-CF rank recognition)- so let's instead focus resources on things that will make an operational improvement in the RCN and/or the CF.



I highly doubt that the rank structure is going to change, but then again I said that we would never see the curl or the RCN again as well, so you never know. Also if certain folks in the Army and Air Force are so obtuse that they cannot tell the difference between a Killick and a Sapper/Trooper or Gunner. Then someone should be looking at their recruitment standards.

Anyway my original reaction to Scott was to outline that there are certain opinions held on this web site. We all know who holds them and how they will react when someone (especially from the RCN) dares to raise items unique to operations at sea.


----------



## Kat Stevens

FSTO said:
			
		

> Okay then, shall we ground the snowbirds, Sky Hawks and that horsey thing the Lord Strathcona's do? Also we could toss in the Honorary Colonels, Air Shows as well. That all costs a whole lot more than a change of name.
> 
> Oh that's rich coming from the green mafia. Safe to say the Army has never been a big supporter of interoperability unless it was land focused.
> BTW the Op was putting this out for discussion, not to be unloaded on by a group of mods who feel that they and only they have the right to decide what is proper and what is "window dressing"!
> 
> I highly doubt that the rank structure is going to change, but then again I said that we would never see the curl or the RCN again as well, so you never know. Also if certain folks in the Army and Air Force are so obtuse that they cannot tell the difference between a Killick and a Sapper/Trooper or Gunner. Then someone should be looking at their recruitment standards.
> 
> Anyway my original reaction to Scott was to outline that there are certain opinions held on this web site. We all know who holds them and how they will react when someone (especially from the RCN) dares to raise items unique to operations at sea.



Wow, a little less Jan Brady syndrome if you don't mind.


----------



## Shamrock

FSTO said:
			
		

> Okay then, shall we ground the snowbirds, Sky Hawks and that horsey thing the Lord Strathcona's do?



You shut your whore mouth when you're blaspheming Poop Troop!


----------



## FSTO

Shamrock said:
			
		

> You shut your ***** mouth when you're blaspheming Poop Troop!



At least they supply something useful.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'd like to know how much a Lieutenant on a stone frigate knows about interoperability unless it _was_ land focused?


----------



## FSTO

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Wow, a little less Jan Brady syndrome if you don't mind.



"ARMY, ARMY, ARMY"  :crybaby:


----------



## Scott

Hey, dude, I am posting as a member, which I am allowed to do, and not a moderator - so can your excess use of BS excuses. If you want to debate then debate, don't try and draw us into a mods vs members fight where none exists. Read, comprehend, THEN reply.


----------



## Tank Troll

Strathcona Mounted Troop is paid for by the Regimental Society not Government funds.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Okay then, shall we ground the snowbirds, Sky Hawks and that horsey thing the Lord Strathcona's do? Also we could toss in the Honorary Colonels, Air Shows as well. That all costs a whole lot more than a change of name.


The LdSH mounted troop is funded through NPF, so I really don't care what they do.  As for the rest, I would not loose sleep if they went away (and you can find in my other posts that I have gone farther to suggest the Reg F bands also disappear).  In any case, this is not relevant.  This is both red herring and an appeal to hypocrisy. You cannot defend what you want, so you attack something else.  In fact, much of your post employs named logical fallacies.  You might make a good politician or used-care salesman, but you are not successfully proving the new rank insignia to be a good idea.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh that's rich coming from the green mafia. Safe to say the Army has never been a big supporter of interoperability unless it was land focused.


Another logical fallacy - Poisoning the Well and more Appeal to Hypocrisy.  Once again, you cannot defend what you want so you attack the people delivering the opposing argument.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> BTW the Op was putting this out for discussion, not to be unloaded on by a group of mods who feel that they and only they have the right to decide what is proper and what is "window dressing"!


Why do you insist on pre-qualifying who may have an opinion?  First Army and Air Force were not allowed to disagree, and now any Mod who disagrees with you is a big-bad boogieman.  Again: change the topic, attack the messenger so you don't actually have to defend the indefensible.  If this proposal is more than window dressing, then why don't you counter with an argument to prove as much?  In my last post, I invited you to present arguments showing this proposal as providing some value.  Instead of accepting my offer of mature debate, you attack myself and other moderators because of our position.  You do this, again, because you have absolutely no sound argument to defend changing the rank insignia.  It is a feel good way of spending money at a time where we have less of it to spend.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Also if certain folks in the Army and Air Force are so obtuse that they cannot tell the difference between a Killick and a Sapper/Trooper or Gunner. Then someone should be looking at their recruitment standards.


Again, changing the topic & attacking others.  Also, you are disregarding what has already been established - pers in the RCN are just as guilty.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> Anyway my original reaction to Scott was to outline that there are certain opinions held on this web site. We all know who holds them and how they will react when someone (especially from the RCN) dares to raise items unique to operations at sea.


Of course, new rank insignia is not something unique to operations at sea.  Even if the rank insignia is unique to RCN uniforms, it is window dressing and not impacting on operations.  Further, it is something that would follow RCN members well away from the sea and into all parts of the CF, and therefore it would not be unique to operations at sea.


----------



## Scott

I am desperately wanting to know what some folks think of spending money on name changes, curls and whatnot compared to benefits being cut.

I work in coveralls and couldn't give a fuck if they are pink and see me running tools on a rig named the Flaming Arsehole - just to give you some insight.


----------



## FSTO

bcguy604 said:
			
		

> Since 2010 and the 100th anniversary and meeting sailors from other "Royal" Navies. I thought it would be *interesting* to *propose* an RCN NCM rank structure that would align ourselves with the RN, RAN, RNZN.
> 
> Thoughts?



So lets just go back to see how this s-storm all started. I wonder if the originator has ever come back to the scene of the crime.


----------



## Tank Troll

FSTO said:
			
		

> I highly doubt that the rank structure is going to change, but then again I said that we would never see the curl or the RCN again as well, so you never know. Also if certain folks in the Army and Air Force are so obtuse that they cannot tell the difference between a Killick and a Sapper/Trooper or Gunner. Then someone should be looking at their recruitment standards.



Dude Hey Swabby isn't a Killick a leading seaman, and therefore equal to a Cpl? those other examples are Pte or equal to able seaman. and the only way we can tell the difference from gummers Troopers and Sappers is by their Cap badge or slip on. If they are not wearing either of those then they are getting called Pte.


----------



## FSTO

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Dude isn't a Killick a leading seaman, and therefore equal to a Cpl? those other examples are Pte or equal to able seaman. and the only way we can tell the difference from gummers Troopers and Sappers is buy their Cap badge or slip on. I they are not wearing either or a floppy hat then they are getting called Pte.



Give that man a cigar! He knows what a Killick is, and he can tell the difference between a cpl and pvt. There is hope for all of us yet!


Also don't call me dude.  :rage:


----------



## cupper

FSTO said:
			
		

> Give that man a cigar! He knows what a Killick is, and he can tell the difference between a cpl and pvt. There is hope for all of us yet!
> 
> 
> Also don't call me dude.  :rage:



Dude, Chill. ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

That's Pte, not Pvt.


----------



## FSTO

cupper said:
			
		

> Dude, Chill. ;D



Sorry, I'm a rage-a-holic!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FSTO said:
			
		

> Sorry, I'm a rage-a-holic!



Time to pull in your horns.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> So lets just go back to see how this s-storm all started.


Are you suggesting that discussion should be constrained to whether or not the idea is interesting with no discussion about the idea's merit simply because the OP stated the idea would be "interesting to propose"?  And you are the one accusing others of stifling dissenting opinion?!


----------



## PMedMoe

FSTO said:
			
		

> So lets just go back to see how this s-storm all started. I wonder if the originator has ever come back to the scene of the crime.



Nope.  Last active: September 14, 2012


----------



## Jarnhamar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> We can't even crew the KINGSTON class with reservists and it would be Class C not B ;D



Naw Class Bs are cheaper to hire (as long as their not on TD with meal claims, ha) less medical coverage and easier to fire


----------



## Tank Troll

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite correct TT. However, just like you commonly address both COL and full Col as "colonnel" when you are junior, it is customary for juniors to address both Lcdr and Cdr as "commander".
> 
> And P.S.: The Pink Palace is in the Dockyard - not at Stad, which contrary to CFB Halifax, does not encompass the dockyard. Which is why, when we are in the dockyard we can exclaim " I have to go up to Stad." Just another one of those Navy quirks.



Well I don't call or address Lt Cols, Cols or Majors for that matter by their rank I call them Sir. I do however refer to them by their rank. Also a MWO is not Junior to them he is subordinate big difference.

 So "up to Stad" is a Navy quirk hmmph, I thought up to Stad was used because it was UP the Hill. Live and learn.

As EITS pointed out S-90 the Pink Palace is on Stad. I was told it was called the Pink Palace by a friend of mine, who is a Commander (was a Lt Commander at the time) so this is all I have to go by.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that discussion should be constrained to whether or not the idea is interesting with no discussion about the idea's merit simply because the OP stated the idea would be "interesting to propose"?  And you are the one accusing others of stifling dissenting opinion?!



LOL, No, I am no where near as diabolical as you may think. I just wanted to point out how this whole thing got started and that he was just proposing something. 
Cripes did the QM have to get rid of the tin foil hats all of the sudden?

As a previous poster said to me "Dude, chill!"


----------



## Ex-SHAD

It also should be pointed out, that the RCN Rating structure, is not as "foreign" as many like to point out. In 1948/49 a Committee under Vice Admiral Rollo Mainguy was tasked with "Canadianizing" the RCN. As a result the former British Ratings were abandoned, and new Canadian Ratings were created to correspond with contemporary Army and RCAF Other Ranks.

Pre-48:
Boy Seaman
Ordinary Rate
Able Rate
Leading Rate
Petty Officer
Chief Petty Officer

Post-48:
Abolished Boy Seaman
Ordinary Rate 
Able Rate
Leading Rate
Petty Officer Second Class
Petty Officer First Class
Chief Petty Officer Second Class
Chief Petty Officer First Class


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've seen less discussion on the RCN side of the house over AORs, FELEX and subs then over if we should go back to some rank scale that has someone being called a 'boy seamen'.   :

Seriously...while the RCAF was 'born again' in name, we aren't pushing for pre or post 1948 ranks, or even '68 unification stuff...because it doesn't matter or make the business the RCAF does 'happen any better'.  CF rank structure doesn't include the terms "rates".  Full stop.

2013 is just around the corner....pre/post '48 ain't worth much to shore-up your part of the discussion.   :violin:


----------



## Halifax Tar

I'm all for the proposed change in RCN ranks and by extension the CF structure.  But for no other reason than "window dressing", therefore it should not be on the top of the CF's "honey do list". 

This not the biggest issue I hope our senior leadership is tackling.  There are other issues that should be prioritized over this that's for sure. 

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

And just because I'm telling everyone I meet right now my favorite Christmas present was my 2012 F150, C-Cab, 3.5L EcoBoost 4x4 ...


----------



## PuckChaser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And just because I'm telling everyone I meet right now my favorite Christmas present was my 2012 F150, C-Cab, 3.5L EcoBoost 4x4 ...



Santa must love sailors, because all I got was 3 gallons of paint for the basement.  :'(


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Santa must love sailors, because all I got was 3 gallons of paint for the basement.  :'(



I got 1 gallon for the new baby's room and orders to build access into an enclosed eve we didn't have access too, task complete.  

But don't worry there is more on my honey do list!  Especially as now it builds while I'm in Kingston!


----------



## Scott

FSTO said:
			
		

> LOL, No, I am no where near as diabolical as you may think. I just wanted to point out how this whole thing got started and that he was just proposing something.
> Cripes did the QM have to get rid of the tin foil hats all of the sudden?
> 
> As a previous poster said to me "Dude, chill!"



Oh Christ, quit making it out like you're the one who was totally on side with all of your commentary. Furthermore, suggesting that the shit storm started with the OP is false as well. IMO, it went off the rails as soon as someone (dressed, or formerly dressed, in green) _dare_ disagree with the idea. Since then it's been borderline trolling from you.

As far as how I feel on the subject, if I could borrow from another poster, Halifax Tar has it nailed. My initial reaction was based on seeing numerous subjects of the same nature at the same time that we start talking budget cuts. I even asked the question and it was conveniently ignored. I know what the answer would be from some and I respect that - but FSTO's would have me curious.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh Christ, quit making it out like you're the one who was totally on side with all of your commentary. Furthermore, suggesting that the crap storm started with the OP is false as well. IMO, it went off the rails as soon as someone (dressed, or formerly dressed, in green) _dare_ disagree with the idea. Since then it's been borderline trolling from you.
> 
> As far as how I feel on the subject, if I could borrow from another poster, Halifax Tar has it nailed. My initial reaction was based on seeing numerous subjects of the same nature at the same time that we start talking budget cuts. I even asked the question and it was conveniently ignored. I know what the answer would be from some and I respect that - but FSTO's would have me curious.



Your just sucking up for a ride in my new truck lol 

But seriously, ya I would like to see the change but again there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## Scott

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Your just sucking up for a ride in my new truck lol
> 
> But seriously, ya I would like to see the change but again there are bigger fish to fry at the moment.



Ego attached to a truck? Nothing new there. I've got the 88 4Runner in the yard.

I felt the same way about this as I did about the Halifax Rifles, 2 NSH, and so on.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Scott said:
			
		

> Oh Christ, quit making it out like you're the one who was totally on side with all of your commentary. Furthermore, suggesting that the crap storm started with the OP is false as well. IMO, it went off the rails as soon as someone (dressed, or formerly dressed, in green) _dare_ disagree with the idea. Since then it's been borderline trolling from you.


I don't have a particular dog in this fight about rank structure.   I just wanted to comment on your borderline trolling comment.  If FSTO is guilty of anything, it's counter-trolling.  The trolling occured the second someone posted something about buttons and bows being a waste of money better spent elsewhere.  To me, in a thread proposing changes like this, posing an argument as to why something won't work is good.  Immediately jumping on something with a military version of the "first world problems" response is the exact, precise and literal definition of trolling.


----------



## Journeyman

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> ...... is the exact, precise and literal definition of trolling.


Actually....."to fish by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat" is the _exact_, _precise_ and _literal_ definition of trolling.

      op:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Actually....."to fish by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat" is the _exact_, _precise_ and _literal_ definition of trolling.
> 
> op:


----------



## Scott

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I don't have a particular dog in this fight about rank structure.   I just wanted to comment on your borderline trolling comment.  If FSTO is guilty of anything, it's counter-trolling.  The trolling occured the second someone posted something about buttons and bows being a waste of money better spent elsewhere.  To me, in a thread proposing changes like this, posing an argument as to why something won't work is good.  Immediately jumping on something with a military version of the "first world problems" response is the exact, precise and literal definition of trolling.



Judging by your profile, you haven't been around for the other debates. That is what I based my response on, to go along with the utter uselessness, IMO, that the idea bears.

Thanks for coming out, though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I don't have a particular dog in this fight about rank structure.   I just wanted to comment on your borderline trolling comment.  If FSTO is guilty of anything, it's counter-trolling.  The trolling occured the second someone posted something about buttons and bows being a waste of money better spent elsewhere.  To me, in a thread proposing changes like this, posing an argument as to why something won't work is good.  Immediately jumping on something with a military version of the "first world problems" response is the exact, precise and literal definition of trolling.



Questioning the need for changes to 'buttons & bows', change simply for change sake, during times of fiscal restraint is a valid point.

It is not trolling, nor did I intend it to be, so you can quit trying to shift the arguement by misdirecting blame.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm happy enough with the status quo.


----------



## McG

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The trolling occured the second someone posted something about buttons and bows being a waste of money better spent elsewhere.  To me, in a thread proposing changes like this, posing an argument as to why something won't work is good.


No single rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood.  Over the past few years we have thrown resources at a number of buttons & bows initiatives, including the unnecessary revival of Army regiments and other acts of window dressing.  One only need skim these boards to see that the shopping list of buttons & bows desires goes on toward infinity.  Each time one good fashion idea is satisfied, it just stokes the flames for everyone else push harder on their pet idea.

Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.  Much as you may not like it, criticism of an idea must go beyond why the idea may not work.  A wasteful idea that works is still a weak idea … and in the case of this cosmetic proposal, the proponents have not even described what "work" would be achieved.  It is feel-good, buttons & bows.


----------



## Tank Troll

Scott said:
			
		

> Ego attached to a truck? Nothing new there. I've got the 88 4Runner in the yard.
> 
> I felt the same way about this as I did about the Halifax Rifles, 2 NSH, CBH and so on.



When we were stood back up there was no budget constraints it was free spending time, plus there was a need. We also weren't the only organization that was stood up then. There was the amalgamation of the Service Battalions, the 2 engineer units, 1 Cdn Div, CSOR and the list goes on. Are you against them also or just Maritime units?


----------



## jpjohnsn

recceguy said:
			
		

> Questioning the need for changes to 'buttons & bows', change simply for change sake, during times of fiscal restraint is a valid point.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> No single rain drop believes it is responsible for the flood.  Over the past few years we have thrown resources at a number of buttons & bows initiatives, including the unnecessary revival of Army regiments and other acts of window dressing.  One only need skim these boards to see that the shopping list of buttons & bows desires goes on toward infinity.  Each time one good fashion idea is satisfied, it just stokes the flames for everyone else push harder on their pet idea.
> 
> Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.  Much as you may not like it, criticism of an idea must go beyond why the idea may not work.  A wasteful idea that works is still a weak idea … and in the case of this cosmetic proposal, the proponents have not even described what "work" would be achieved.  It is feel-good, buttons & bows.


Yes, I agree, fiscal restraint is a completely valid reason for not adopting something like this.  While I'm a newbie as a member, I've been lurking around here for quite some time; long enough to see the same argument - or variations thereof - used when the government was spending money a lot more freely than it is now.  While fiscal restraint is, in fact, the order of the day, I run into guys from time to time  (and I'm definitely talking about places other than here) for whom it's just the latest excuse to oppose change like the one the OP is proposing.  This time it's fiscal restraint.  Last time it was 'don't you know there's a war on?' The time before that some other excuse.  For them, it's shutting down the discussion - not participating in it.

But, then again, why should anything be completely off the table when a government would, say, bring back the executive curl, authorize a new mess dress uniform for the RCAF (after restoring pre-unification names) and spend bags of cash of War of 1812 pins while slashing other budgets?  I can't begrudge anyone pie-in-the-sky dreams after seeing the example set for them.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It is not trolling, nor did I intend it to be, so you can quit trying to shift the arguement by misdirecting blame.


I wasn't aware that there was any blame to be apportioned.   And isn't trying to shift the argument part of debating?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Fiscal Constraint is not a counter argument either... We all know money is spent in many places that would make Ebeneezer Scrooge roll over in his grave.

For instance building doors for MOD tents, that come with doors, because the zippers cause people to bend over to much or creating fake TVs out of perfectly good cork board so people can pretend they are in a deployed TOC...

I know of a unit that its buying Rosetta Stone programs for languages like Greek for questionable reasons,  this isn't so bad and I would support it but they are being bought on an individual basis as per individual  requests BUT the are not being tracked on the CFSS ie not brought on charge.  I expect these will all walk away when the members who "sign" them out move on to other postings. 

Therefore I don't see fiscal constraint as a real counter argument at least not until will stop all the needless spending in our organization. 

As a Supply Tech I think material accounting is our greatest fiscal downfall.

Having said this changing rank symbols is no where near the top of the "Address Now" file.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> Ego attached to a truck? Nothing new there. I've got the 88 4Runner in the yard.



88 4 Runner,  tell me that isn't hard on the pocket book ?

Ego attached to my truck because I really like it ?  My bad man just trying to have a little fun.  I will keep it serious from here on out!  :facepalm:


----------



## Scott

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> 88 4 Runner,  tell me that isn't hard on the pocket book ?



Easier, thus far, than an 01 Ranger ever thought of being. I know it'll cost bits and pieces here and there, though.



> Ego attached to my truck because I really like it ?  My bad man just trying to have a little fun.  I will keep it serious from here on out!  :facepalm:



Joke dude, joke. I suggest we modify the thread's title to show that a sense of humouris required. Sarcasm smileys as well, my bad not putting one in initially.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> When we were stood back up there was no budget constraints it was free spending time, plus there was a need. We also weren't the only organization that was stood up then. There was the amalgamation of the Service Battalions, the 2 engineer units, 1 Cdn Div, CSOR and the list goes on. Are you against them also or just Maritime units?



I am against a perceived waste of funds. It is not free. Ever.

It. Is. That. Simple.

The units that have already experienced the change - fine. It's done and dusted. To the discussions about the future - I am entitled my opinion. The quicker some folks here get past that the better we all shall be.


----------



## Scott

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Yes, I agree, fiscal restraint is a completely valid reason for not adopting something like this.  While I'm a newbie as a member, I've been lurking around here for quite some time; long enough to see the same argument - or variations thereof - used when the government was spending money a lot more freely than it is now.  While fiscal restraint is, in fact, the order of the day, I run into guys from time to time  (and I'm definitely talking about places other than here) for whom it's just the latest excuse to oppose change like the one the OP is proposing.  This time it's fiscal restraint.  Last time it was 'don't you know there's a war on?' The time before that some other excuse.  For them, it's shutting down the discussion - not participating in it.



To be inclusive of more than just one stance on the subject: I was dead against the re-naming even if we had boatloads (pun intended) of money. I was against it because my fear was that when the purse eventually ran dry that some very smart members of the public, or at least some very annoying ones, would use this sort of thing as a tool to bash all of us over the head with.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> Easier, thus far, than an 01 Ranger ever thought of being. I know it'll cost bits and pieces here and there, though.
> 
> Joke dude, joke. I suggest we modify the thread's title to show that a sense of humouris required. Sarcasm smileys as well, my bad not putting one in initially.



Ok no worries... That is the issue with these things tone of voice and body language are lost which would have shown your intentions

All good... I traded in my Ranger for the new truck.  Great truck just too small for my growing family


----------



## Halifax Tar

Scott said:
			
		

> To be inclusive of more than just one stance on the subject: I was dead against the re-naming even if we had boatloads (pun intended) of money. I was against it because my fear was that when the purse eventually ran dry that some very smart members of the public, or at least some very annoying ones, would use this sort of thing as a tool to bash all of us over the head with.



I see your concerns but I think most members of the Canadian public care very little about these things and would really not even notice.  The only ones who really would, have vested interests in attacking the CF on any move we make and anything that makes us look more British.


----------



## Infanteer

Ok, since there hasn't been any discussion on the actual topic for about 2 pages, this one is getting a lock before it goes completely down the toilet.  If anyone wants to talk about the subject again, let me know and I'll reopen it.

A note for the future - the "waste of money" argument can be just as tenuous if you don't support it with some hard numbers.  Considering that this may or may not cost more or less than the TD budget for the Directorate of Employment Diversity, you can't arbitrarily wipe out a proposal due to perceived costs unless you give a good estimate of the cost/benefit analysis.


----------



## McG

I still think this would be a frivolous & wastefull exercise.  But, through an unrelated google search, I stumbled across another idea of what our re-Britished Canadian Army rank might look like.


----------



## Infanteer

Too confusing.  I'd prefer something like the Navy's executive curl - a bit of heritage, but preserves the universal system we have now.  Implementing cuff ranks on DEUs would be the way to go; you can add the pips and crowns and the small rank area but keep our universal stripes.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> I still think this would be a frivolous & wastefull exercise.  But, through an unrelated google search, I stumbled across another idea of what our re-Britished Canadian Army rank might look like.



Only problem there is:  Is that the Canadian Shield or the Ontario Shield on the Warrant Officer's badge?


----------



## McG

I don't know.  What do you think:


----------



## cphansen

Actually if we were being logical wouldn't the insigna for Lieutenant General and Major General be reversed?

 The maple leaf is the insignia for the major while the pip is the insignia for the second lieutenant and Lieutenant and Captain. 

I do understand the Major General was originally the Sargeant Major General which is why the Lieutenant General is a higher rank than a Major General. Interesting that they dropped the rank of Brigadier General.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't know.  What do you think:



Kinda takes us back to the days when our vehicles did not have DND plates, but were plated with the provincial licence plates.


----------



## vonGarvin

Here's an idea.  On the slip on, in both official languages, is your rank.  Yes, in Latin letters.

So, major would be "MAJOR/MAJOR"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here's an idea.  On the slip on, in both official languages, is your rank.  Yes, in Latin letters.
> 
> So, major would be "MAJOR/MAJOR"


Silly billy - there you go making sense again ....


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, major would be "MAJOR/MAJOR"
> 
> 
> 
> - there you go making sense again ....
Click to expand...

Wow, that's "making sense"?!   :stars:


How about we place a moratorium on things fashion, bling, ceremonial, 1812 -- take the PYs of everyone involved in those masturbatory projects and reinvest them in the field force (and fleet and...uh...zoomie equivalent).

If NDHQ has anything legitimate to add to any of these, they can get ahold of a Milnet.ca Mod and ask that the "thread" be unlocked.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Journeyman said:
			
		

> How about we place a moratorium on things fashion, bling, ceremonial, 1812 -- take the PYs of everyone involved in those masturbatory projects and reinvest them in the field force (and fleet and...uh...zoomie equivalent).



Zoomie equivalent found here   8)


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Wow, that's "making sense"?!   :stars:


I think he failed to note my sarcastic nature in his response to my post.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Kinda takes us back to the days when our vehicles did not have DND plates, but were plated with the provincial licence plates.


How is wearing the shield from the Canadian coat of arms like putting provincial plates on CF vehicles?



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> How about we place a moratorium on things fashion, bling, ceremonial, 1812 -- take the PYs of everyone involved in those masturbatory projects and reinvest them in the field force (and fleet and...uh...zoomie equivalent).


That is the right answer.


----------



## Privateer

> So, major would be "MAJOR/MAJOR"



Please tell me that was an intentional Catch-22 reference.


----------



## Michael OLeary

MCG said:
			
		

> That is the right answer.




But, we haven't even gotten around to discussing if using the Order of Canada star would require revision to the letters patent for the Order, with renewal of Royal Assent. And let us not forget that Guards regiments will demand a return to their historical and unique star (i.e., pip).    >


----------



## OldSolduer

We've had our current rank insignia since 1968. Lets leave it at that.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

:facepalm:

Why do I feel compelled to read these threads?

Oh yeah - I remember why.  I seem to continually find myself in charge of rearranging some deck chairs on a sinking ship, and I am looking for inspiration.

FFS, let's focus on something important, like the generation and employment of combat power for a G8 nation


----------



## The Bread Guy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I think he failed to note my sarcastic nature in his response to my post.


And in mine....


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> FFS, let's focus on something important, like the generation and employment of combat power for a G8 nation



And CTAT and QDJM issues.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And CTAT and QDJM issues.



You are a bad man Jim Seggie.


----------



## jeffb

This whole thread speaks to what I believe is the single most destructive force in the CF. Namely, the bubble on the PER that reads "leading change". Why is change always seen as a good thing? If I am ever in a position to change it I would rename this "Resisting change". Members would get narratives such as "Maj Bloggins successfully resisted numerous ideas for change that, if enacted, would have sowed confusion amongst the ranks and lead to increased costs to the unit."


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You are a bad man Jim Seggie.


and the War of 1812 pins.


----------



## Michael OLeary

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> FFS, let's focus on something important, like the generation and employment of combat power for a G8 nation



Which one? Because we can never seem to decide to focus on doing it for this one with a consistent approach.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> and the War of 1812 pins.



An instant collector's item.   :


----------



## OldSolduer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> An instant collector's item.   :



Any body want to bet there will be a Vimy Ridge pin?  >


----------



## Michael OLeary

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Any body want to bet there will be a Vimy Ridge pin?  >



Which we will only wear from the 9th until the 14th of April, 2017, the centennial dates of the chronological limits for the Battle Honour.


----------



## smokeydude

I like the 'Pips and Crown' idea. Cost should not be a factor as we do have to continuously buy rank slip-ons, regardless. We might as well KEEP our tradition. We tried our 'living traditions' and created a monster.  How about remembering who we are, (I'm not saying forget the peacekeepers, who wore navy bars; although many wore pips and crowns too, but the fact that we are discussing this, indicated that we do not understand Canadian heritage.) The rank stays the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to adopt the rank symbols we've been wearing since we came up with our own army. 'Is that too traditional though?'

        It is also remarkable that the symbolism of the shape of our ranks sparks such controversy.  The chevron is a universally recognized military symbol. Shall we change that too, just to specifically represent a Canadian soldier.  This would certainly appose anyone else who might wear a chevron. If you look at the picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware, he is wearing a French uniform. The U.S. Military stole the French blue uniform and rank structure. The Canada military inherited the rich tradition of the British regimental system and rank structure, and we didn't have to steal it. Why have we, as Canadians soldiers and members of 'The Armed Forces of Her Majesty Raised by Canada,'1 neglected this part of our identity? 

1.   National Defence Act. II.14. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada.


----------



## Journeyman

smokeydude said:
			
		

> Cost should not be a factor...


You don't have to actually train soldiers, let alone run the CF day-by-day do you.   :not-again:


----------



## smokeydude

*Cost should not be a factor...*
*You don't have to actually train soldiers, let alone run the CF day-by-day do you.*

Slip-on will continue to be replaced, or do YOU fill out a lost and stolen kit report every time you lose one? Embroidery costs remain consistent, regardless of of the symbol. (That is the slip-on, not the soldier)


----------



## Journeyman

smokeydude said:
			
		

> duh.


Thanks for the confirmation.

My point was that all the time, effort, PY budgets, etc, spent on unnecessary fashion and ceremonial has to come from _somewhere._  In a time of budget cuts, that "somewhere" tends to be the O&M budget....training soldiers in the field -- to some folks, the 'bread & butter' of the Army.

To say "cost should not be a factor," and when called on it, respond with a well thought-out "duh," pretty much guarantees you have no real stake in this.

Thanks for playing along.


----------



## smokeydude

This isn't ceremonial. But just for 'Journeyman,' I revised my statement to address his concern on fiscal budgets. 


        I like the 'Pips and Crown' idea. As we do have to continuously buy rank slip-ons, regardless. We might as well KEEP our tradition. We tried our 'living traditions' and created a monster.  How about remembering who we are, (I'm not saying forget the peacekeepers, who wore navy bars; although many wore pips and crowns too, but the fact that we are discussing this, indicated that we do not understand Canadian heritage.) The rank stays the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to adopt the rank symbols we've been wearing since we came up with our own army. 'Is that too traditional though?'

        It is also remarkable that the symbolism of the shape of our ranks sparks such controversy.  The chevron is a universally recognized military symbol. Shall we change that too, just to specifically represent a Canadian soldier.  This would certainly appose anyone else who might wear a chevron. If you look at the picture of George Washington crossing the Delaware, he is wearing a French uniform. The U.S. Military stole the French blue uniform and rank structure. The Canada military inherited the rich tradition of the British regimental system and rank structure, and we didn't have to steal it. Why have we, as Canadians soldiers and members of 'The Armed Forces of Her Majesty Raised by Canada,'1 neglected this part of our identity? 

1.   National Defence Act. II.14. Ottawa: Queen's Printer for Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary

smokeydude said:
			
		

> (I'm not saying forget the peacekeepers, who wore navy bars; although many wore pips and crowns too, but the fact that we are discussing this, indicated that we do not understand Canadian heritage.)



Are you actually suggesting that "our" understanding of Canadian military heritage hinges on whether or not we throw ourselves behind this idea? Please, cease the sweeping generalizations, they only undermine the credibility of your posts.



			
				smokeydude said:
			
		

> The rank stays the same. It is reasonable, therefore, to adopt the rank symbols we've been wearing since we came up with our own army.



You mean put the star of the Order of the Bath back on our shoulders?



			
				smokeydude said:
			
		

> As we do have to continuously buy rank slip-ons, regardless.



So, are you trying to infer we wouldn't purchase the new slip-ons any faster than the current ones, and only replace them as the ones we are wearing wear out?  Let's see how you'd convince the Union of RSMs of that idea.


----------



## smokeydude

Yes, Star of the Order of Bath. Although some regiments, particularly Scottish regiments, wore their own order stars. ie, Star of the Order of the Thistle. (Scottish regiments are unique in the procurement of uniform accessories, and get away with their glengarry and bellmoral hats, so I would suspect they would migrate to a Order of the Thistle.) 

As for the dissemination of slip on, the CF has announced that it will be going ahead with the distribution of hi-vis name tapes and slip ons, CF wide.  Follow that policy for distribution.


----------



## The Bread Guy

smokeydude said:
			
		

> Yes, Star of the Order of Bath. Although some regiments, particularly Scottish regiments, wore their own order stars. ie, Star of the Order of the Thistle. (Scottish regiments are unique in the procurement of uniform accessories, and get away with their glengarry and bellmoral balmoral hats, so I would suspect they would migrate to a Order of the Thistle.) ....


FTFY

I guess the question becomes:  what part of "we have WAY bigger fish to fry now that money's tight" don't you get, smokeydude?  If you have detailed costings to refute, feel free to share.  Most of those commenting have a good grasp of what's happening in the system these days.


----------



## McG

smokeydude said:
			
		

> As for the dissemination of slip on, the CF has announced that it will be going ahead with the distribution of hi-vis name tapes and slip ons, CF wide.  Follow that policy for distribution.


We are too late to hop on that train, and it only applies to one type of dress.  Your good idea still takes money away from another procurement, manpower away from working on other projects, and decision maker time that could be spent considering things with positive operational impacts.  We have a rank system that is universally understood across the CF.  Why wreck that?


----------



## Loachman

We have had our current rank insignia for forty-five years, now.

That has become our "tradition".

Nobody serving today has worn anything else.

There are many issues that are more important and far more deserving of effort and money.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Loachman said:
			
		

> We have had our current rank insignia for forty-five years, now.
> 
> That has become our "tradition".
> 
> Nobody serving today has worn anything else.
> 
> There are many issues that are more important and far more deserving of effort and money.


While I, reluctantly, concur with your message (given my druthers, I'd swap the gold hoops for old school blue-on-blue on RCAF officers' uniforms but I concur that that ship has probably sailed), you've made one error.  

The current rank insignia was established in 68 but the old uniforms and insignia were still being worn well into the 70s (especially in the reserves).  I, personally, know a couple of people who joined the reserves as teens pre-unification, had full careers in the Regs and are now in the CIC.   Two or three years from now, though, they'll all be out.


----------



## Michael OLeary

smokeydude said:
			
		

> (Scottish regiments are unique in the procurement of uniform accessories, and get away with their glengarry and bellmoral hats, so I would suspect they would migrate to a Order of the Thistle.)



Don't forget Guards regiments, they are unique too. 

I'm sure that there won't be any objection to everyone else wearing the star of a British Order. There's no way that would ruffle any feathers.



			
				smokeydude said:
			
		

> As for the dissemination of slip on, the CF has announced that it will be going ahead with the distribution of hi-vis name tapes and slip ons, CF wide.  Follow that policy for distribution.



So, now you admit that procurement and purchase would depart from "the way we do it now" for slipons. (Not to mention that returning to real stars and crowns isn't just new slip-ons for certain uniforms.)

Have you really though this through? Is your service paper really ready for the Dress Committee? Or are you just the latest passenger on the _"Unification destroyed everything!"_ bandwagon?


----------



## Rifleman62

Politics will enter into any proposed change to crowns or stars. Not only politics just from Quebec.


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:
			
		

> We have had our current rank insignia for forty-five years, now.
> 
> That has become our "tradition".
> 
> Nobody serving today has worn anything else.
> 
> There are many issues that are more important and far more deserving of effort and money.



Well said and I concur. If you want to wear pips and crowns, join the British Army.


----------



## smokeydude

*If you want to wear pips and crowns, join the British Army.*

Or any other commonwealth army except for ours.


----------



## OldSolduer

smokeydude said:
			
		

> *If you want to wear pips and crowns, join the British Army.*
> 
> Or any other commonwealth army except for ours.



I guess you don't take "no, this is not a good idea" too well, and you didn't read Loachman's very sensible reply.

We have what we have and it needs to stay that way.


----------



## McG

smokeydude said:
			
		

> Or any other commonwealth army except for ours.


So what?  Should we just fall in line with the collective.  While we are at it, lets hand our sovereignty back to London - we won't need it because we will just be the best lemming that a country can be.


----------



## smokeydude

*So what?  Should we just fall in line with the collective.* 

We would certainly not want to conform as soldiers.


----------



## McG

smokeydude said:
			
		

> We would certainly not want to conform as soldiers.


We do conform -> to our policies, standards and expectations.  We are not the UK military.  We are not the US military.  We are not the German military.  We do not blindly conform to the standards of other militaries.

Do you have a rational argument for why Canada needs to change?  Why Canada needs to spend resources to fix what is not broken?
... or is it just _fun_ sound bites that we can expect?


----------



## armyvern

smokeydude said:
			
		

> This isn't ceremonial. But just for 'Journeyman,' I revised my statement to address his concern on fiscal budgets.
> ...



You forgot to include the costs of breaking/amending the contract; it isn't cheap.  I hope you don't think that CF suppliers do that for free.

We're going to white thread on the Army's slip-ons. That cost therefore only applies to re-do of the contract specs for Army slip-ons for switch specs of thread colour only (and they'll do that at the end of a manufacturer run ergo costing diddly-squat).

You're asking to go back to eons ago for all uniform types - a substantial cost to break/amend because the pip itself, the crown itself etc etc are all considered separate and distinct variations from the contract ---- and federal entities pay handsomely to do such things. Meanwhile, here in the real world (and that one under fiscal restraint), troops can't even get issued boots at recruit school ...


----------



## Journeyman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You forgot to include......


Everything.

Save your effort; he's made several attempts to demonstrate only that he has some hard-on for British rank badges, without the vaguest understanding of what that might entail -- fiscally, culturally, historically.  And with a profile entry claiming to be 24 years old, he's never worn these ranks, so there isn't even a sentimental link.

In effect, a troll.  :boring:   He's dismissed.


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> We do conform -> to our policies, standards and expectations.  We are not the UK military.  We are not the US military.  We are not the German military.  We do not blindly conform to the standards of other militaries.
> 
> Do you have a rational argument for why Canada needs to change?  Why Canada needs to spend resources to fix what is not broken?
> ... or is it just _fun_ sound bites that we can expect?



Agreed.

It would seem that smokeydude is of the opinion that "all change" is "good".  Unfortunately, change for the sake of change is not always a good thing, nor a smart thing.



Journeyman

Does this raise the issue of the Dunning-Kruger effect?


----------



## Journeyman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Journeyman
> 
> Does this raise the issue of the Dunning-Kruger effect?


For the record, *I* didn't play the D-K card......_this_ time.   >


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> We do conform -> to our policies, standards and expectations.  We are not the UK military.  We are not the US military.  We are not the German military.  We do not blindly conform to the standards of other militaries.
> 
> Do you have a rational argument for why Canada needs to change?  Why Canada needs to spend resources to fix what is not broken?
> ... or is it just _fun_ sound bites that we can expect?



Awesome post. And I fully agree. We are the Canadian Forces, not the Canadian Forces under British/UK command.

I could give a rats a$$ what other armies do.


----------



## Jungle

Honestly, I do not care much about this; they can change the rank pattern if they want. To whatever they want.
There are 2 kinds of people: those who wear rank, and those whose rank carry them. Proof of this theory is the new Army high-vis slip-ons.
Some people identify themselves so much to their rank, they are uncomfortable if people cannot see it from 50m...

Everyone I work with knows my rank. I introduce myself to those I do not know. After that, rank is secondary. People get too hung up about drawings on slip-ons...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

:goodpost:

What he said.

Milpoints on the way.


----------



## Loachman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I could give a rats a$$ what other armies do.



I could, depending upon which direction they are advancing/shooting, etcetera.


----------



## Monsoon

Jungle said:
			
		

> Proof of this theory is the new Army high-vis slip-ons.
> Some people identify themselves so much to their rank, they are uncomfortable if people cannot see it from 50m...


...and some people just find it awkward to have to squint intently at strangers' torsos as they walk around large bases to figure out if they need to salute them or not. Obviously no one wears rank (or name tags) for the benefit of the people who already know them.


----------



## OldSolduer

Loachman said:
			
		

> I could, depending upon which direction they are advancing/shooting, etcetera.



I meant FRIENDLY foreign armies.


----------



## Loachman

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I meant FRIENDLY foreign armies.



Even some of them.


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> ...and some people just find it awkward to have to squint intently at strangers' torsos as they walk around large bases to figure out if they need to salute them or not. Obviously no one wears rank (or name tags) for the benefit of the people who already know them.



This speaks to many units dressing improperly.  If you're in an office day to day, there's already a set of high visibility ranks available for the Army.  Gold on Green.  Of course, it requires the use of an iron and some shoe polish...


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This speaks to many units dressing improperly.  If you're in an office day to day, there's already a set of high visibility ranks available for the Army.  *Gold on Green*.  Of course, it requires the use of an iron and some shoe polish...



How about silver on green?   :stirpot:


----------



## cphansen

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Everything.
> 
> Save your effort; he's made several attempts to demonstrate only that he has some hard-on for British rank badges, without the vaguest understanding of what that might entail -- fiscally, culturally, historically.  And with a profile entry claiming to be 24 years old, he's never worn these ranks, so there isn't even a sentimental link.
> 
> In effect, a troll.  :boring:   He's dismissed.



I do not understand why this thread is even continuing. As someone who has worn both pips and stripes and was proud of having earned the rank, the rank insignia didn't matter to me. The members of my regiment knrw who I was

I was a little disappointed when the rank badges and drill changed.  I was overjoyed to get out of the old battledress and into combats. I did miss the British style salute. It allowed me to thumb my nose. I had broken my thumb as a kid and it healed crooked if I saluted per the manual it wasn't the mark of respect it should be so I didn't salute as per the manual.

I had to explain that to a few drill sargeants as a trooper. A few of them actually smiled or laughed when I explained/demonstrated.


----------



## ArmyRick

For Smokeydude, 

Not all commonwealth ranks are exactly the same. The Australians have implemented an Army WO (Senior WO1 in the army), I believe they have actually made it a rank not just an appointment (he is not WO2 or WO1, he is WO).

The New Zealand, Aussies and Us have a different rank badge for CWO/WO1, based on our respective coat of arms. Thats because we are all different armies.

We are NOT a colonial force under british rule and I agree with the majority here. Our CF rank is unique and we have had it almost a half century. Guess what? It is not going to change anytime soon because someone is having a pouty about us not wearing British army rank.


----------



## ModlrMike

What all these proponents of a "uniquely" Canadian system miss is that ours is already unique. Regardless of the Service, everyone knows what each others' rank is. The names may change, but we're still all the same. I propose we stick with what we have, it serves us well, and separates us from the majority of international Forces with their disparate rank badges.


----------



## dimsum

I think this is just a "grass is greener" thread gone wrong.  When I explain to my Aussie colleagues about our rank system, they eventually end up agreeing that our system isn't "traditional", but definitely makes ranks between the services easier to understand.  

Don't believe it?  Look up the ADF rank picture tables v. ours.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Jungle said:
			
		

> Honestly, I do not care much about this; they can change the rank pattern if they want. To whatever they want.
> There are 2 kinds of people: those who wear rank, and those whose rank carry them. Proof of this theory is the new Army high-vis slip-ons.
> Some people identify themselves so much to their rank, they are uncomfortable if people cannot see it from 50m...
> 
> Everyone I work with knows my rank. I introduce myself to those I do not know. After that, rank is secondary. People get too hung up about drawings on slip-ons...



Very insightful. 

I can't remember where I heard it but it reminds me of a comment I came across.  'At the end of the day all the chess pieces go back in the same box.'


----------



## McG

It seems there will always be people pushing for rank changes in order to make things "look more Army/Air Force/Navy" or impose one generation's traditions over another's.  None of these good ideas should ever gain traction.  However, there are a number of legitimate (though not necessarily all significant) complaints about the rank structure & progression itself.  Perhaps, instead of focusing on what badges should/could look like, we could talk about how to improve the CF rank structure and address some of these emotional icon topics within that solution.

I know many in the Army who lament the devaluation of Cpl from the first leadership rank to a journeyman status indicator, and the "insta-corporal" (certain occupations immediately promoted on reaching 3s qual) exacerbates this.  The automatic promotion from Lt to Capt also devalues the distinction between those to ranks (though there most certainly is a difference between those ready to be Capt and those who just get it anyway).  This needs to be fixed.

I have heard from members of the RCN that the lack of the Midshipman (a second tier of subordinate officer) is a problem, and that unification has left them with more levels of NCM rank than make sense aboard a ship.  At the same time, there are times and places in the Army where an intermediate rank (or appointment) would be helpful to set-apart pers with a responsibility to "lead their peers."  At the same time, there are some technical trades that require added level of authority to carry out their jobs.  Both of these requirements could be satisfied by establishing more levels of appointments, the availability of which may vary by MOS, environment and unit.  As we already have "MCpl" as the precedent for an appointment, "Master" could be used as the standard appointment prefix for most ranks.  As appointments would not need to exist uniformly across all occupations, environments or occupations without the need for all our current ranks levels would have the option to not use an appointment level.  We could even decide that all appointments would be while so employed.

Canada is lacking a rank at the NATO OF-10 level and the US "six star" level.  Where we want to be seen as a big-hitter military, we need to be able to put guys at this level - even if, like our allies who have these ranks, we only use them in wartime or honorary upon retirement.  While Nimitz did the Fleet Admiral thing well, history's most impressive officers at this level have been Field Marshals and Field Marshal Generals.  Fans of Commonwealth tradition will also note existence of the Air Marshal rank (though not at the OF-10 level). And so, by also creating the unheard-of "Sea Marshal," we could introduce a series of marshal ranks as a unique Canadian level over the Admirals and Generals.  Tipping our hat to the other founding nation, the six star would be Marshal of Canada.

So, with all those good-ideas imposed on the rank system, there is room to slide in a few of those apparently strongly desired cosmetic changes.  But, a full turn-back the clock exercise is no good.  We need to recognize our full heritage (which includes the period of unification), and we need to maintain insignia recognizable across all elements.

First of all, to recognize the period of our heritage most heavily influence by unification, the rank of Sergeant will be imposed across all three services (though, colonial identity purists could make an argument that we should go with the WO ranks across all services as the RN has both POs and WOs).

Next, officer rank insignia will be unchanged.  The exception will be that all generals of the Army & Air persuasion will also wear the executive curl (after all, we cannot risk DGMEPM wandering around with more bling that any of the Comd CA, Comd RCAF, VCDS or CDS).  Sea/Field/Air Marshals shall have an additional arm braid and shoulder insignia of crossed batons in laurels under a crown (to please our pro UK insignia crowd).

The Air Force officers will go to a system that recognizes the RAF (and therefore RCAF) roots in both Army and Navy.  It will also recognize the pre-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Navy Ranks) and the post-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Army ranks).  To do this, we will simply substitute a few "Army Ranks" into the list of "Navy Ranks."

In the RCN, Acting Sub Lieutenant is to wordy and confusing.  Following the Commonwealth tradition of the RNZN, we will established Ensign as a commissioned rank equivalent to the Army 2Lt.  This will have the added Canadian benefit of matching the rank to its French translation.

For NCMs, the rank insignia will remain largely unchanged.  The same chevrons, crowns and 1957 Coat of Arms.  However, the maple leaves will be replaced with environmentally specific images to appease the "we need to look more Army/Navy/Air Force" groups.  Instead of "Master Private" we will call this level of appointment "specialist" or "Lance Corporal."  We will also allow a deviation to reflect nine ranks that can be found in the NDA - those of Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Aircraftman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, and Craftsman.  For these ranks, the environment specific "Master" designator will be unique to the rank (such as a flaming grenade for Gunner, CME beaver for Sapper, or a propeller for Aircraftman) but its placement over the single chevron will leave it understood by all.  These branch or occupation specific markings will not continue at any higher rank level (not even for Master Bombardier).

… and if we are going to keep musicians in the CF, I would introduce "Musician" as a Pte level appointment with the lyre over one chevron to distinguish the rank.  This would replace the practice of insta-Sgt within that occupation.

Of course this would require some small NDA adjustments:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-142.html#h-221 

… and some might recognize that this is all an evolution a mostly satirical proposal I've made once before.  The things that really need to be changed can be changed without re-inventing all the window dressings.


----------



## jpjohnsn

MCG:

OF-10 is not a "six-star" rank, it's a "five-star" rank and I do not believe Canada has never - even in war-time - had anyone of that rank.  Canada only ever had two Air Chief Marshals (OF-9) - ACMs Breadner and Miller - and they were both post-war.

The use of the name "Air Marshal" for OF-10 would be problematic as it is LGen-level (OF-8) for every other air force that uses an RAF-descendent rank system.  The OF-10 rank level for the current RAF (and the former RCAF) was "Marshal of the R(C)AF"  In Canada it was a rank on paper only and they never even bothered to come up with an abbreviation for it!  If you were to resurrect the position (which I think is pointless because if Canada never bothered having one during WW2, what's going to change now to warrant one?) there is a ready-made name _that still is listed in the NDA_. 

I'd have to think about your overall rank system more before commenting but as for the rank insignia system, again, if you are going to make it "air force-y", revert, revert, revert.  The only rank badge that you would have to invent would be the MCpl rank badge, and funnily enough, the air cadets have one: two hooks and a crown (flight corporal - STUPIDEST name ever; it shares it's name with a rank on Battlestar Galactica; but it's at the MCpl level)

But then again, reverting would cause issues at the Sgt and WO level as the old Sgt rank had no crown and WO would be a Flight Sergeant (3 hooks and a crown) and that would totally defeat the purpose of a single rank insignia system.  Incorporating eagles into the ranks as well as shoulder insignia would be too many (eagles on the shoulders and eagles on the ranks?  You'd need two separate rank badges so the eagles' heads both point towards the rear, etc).

I see absolutely almost no issues with the current rank insignia.  Within the next year or two the RCAF will have passed the point where the "new" insignia have been in use for longer than the "old" ones.   My nostalgia for the old RCAF is strong enough that, if asked, I would revert to old rank names (adding MCpl) and, probably, bring back the Leading Aircraftmen propellor insignia for the "one-hook" privates (but I'm not hung up on that).  I'd also ditch the gold insignia and return to, probably, a post 1958 silver tread for RCAF rank insignia for NCMs and blue-on-blue braid for the officers.  But if that never happens, I'm okay with that too.  It's the RCAF once more, so I've got my cookie and I'm happy with that  

As an aside, before anyone who's taken a look at the RCAF website jumps on me for it, the Old RCAF/New RCAF rank equivalence chart they have (which also appears in some other training pubs) is completely screwed up.  They basically took the 8 ranks/appointments of the two separate eras and lined them up and called them equivalent.  They ain't.  Aircraftman second class, aircraftman first class and leading aircraftman were all classifications of Aircraftman with is the same as today's private.   Cpl AND MCpl of today's ranks equals the old corporal; and Sgt and up are then equivalent.  

Now if I could only get people to wear their bloody wedges properly...  >


----------



## McG

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> OF-10 is not a "six-star" rank, it's a "five-star" rank …


That might be why I proposed a "six star" rank that is senior to the proposed OF-10 ranks.



			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> The use of the name "Air Marshal" for OF-10 would be problematic as it is LGen-level (OF-8) for every other air force that uses an RAF-descendent rank system.


I have acknowledged as much.  So what?  We don't want an RAF rank system - we want a Canadian rank system.



			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If you were to resurrect the position … there is a ready-made name _that still is listed in the NDA_.


Nope.  The NDA only goes to the OF-9 level.  That is why we need the OF-10 and "six star"  - to put ourselves on the playing field of our allies (and like our allies never use the ranks except for wartime and honoraries).


----------



## Journeyman

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If you were to resurrect the position (which I think is pointless because if Canada never bothered having one during WW2, what's going to change now to warrant one?) ....


 To account for our perfect storm of creating new headquarters/bureaucratic staffs coupled with rampant rank inflation.  

Gone are the days when a _mere_ Sgt could fly an aircraft, a HQ staff of more than three could somehow function without the presence of a LCol/Col Chief of Staff.....a bird-table was a, well, a table.......a Bde Int staff was 4 people, not a 144-person ASIC....


----------



## jpjohnsn

MCG said:
			
		

> I have acknowledged as much.  So what?  We don't want an RAF rank system - we want a Canadian rank system.


So what?  Because we don't work in isolation.  By your logic, we could just as easily call the "four star" naval rank, "captain" since, just because no other navy uses it that way, doesn't mean we can't.  If you are going to use a "traditional" name - use it correctly.


> Nope.  The NDA only goes to the OF-9 level.  That is why we need the OF-10 and "six star"  - to put ourselves on the playing field of our allies (and like our allies never use the ranks except for wartime and honoraries).


Seen - my mistake,  Been too many years since I did the OPDPs and I had that Annex and my collection of old RCAF pubs mixed up.  But section 21 of the NDA does open the door pretty far for a return to the old rank names without any need to amend it.  All it would need is a DAOD (not advocating it, just noting it)

Again, our military will never be large enough to warrant such a rank and, I'm sorry, short of Arthur Currie rising from the dead, we probably aren't ever going to be put in a position commanding a multinational formation large enough where we would need that rank.


----------



## dapaterson

Hell, the current CF isn't big enough to justify a four-leaf CDS - a VAdm/LGen CDS, with the rest of the command positions following that example, would perhaps be a good first indication of a new appetite for restraint.


----------



## McG

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> So what?  Because we don't work in isolation.  By your logic, we could just as easily call the "four star" naval rank, "captain" since, just because no other navy uses it that way, doesn't mean we can't.  If you are going to use a "traditional" name - use it correctly.


Why?  In France, the rank of Major is a non-commissioned rank and yet the sky is not falling on CF Francophone members.  Besides, if we ever do get someone to that lofty height in wartime, they will be known well enough by our allies that confusion won't be a problem.



			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Again, our military will never be large enough to warrant such a rank and, I'm sorry, short of Arthur Currie rising from the dead, we probably aren't ever going to be put in a position commanding a multinational formation large enough where we would need that rank.


Of course our military will never be large enough to warrant the "five star" or "six star" ranks, so they will never exist as a peace time rank except on paper.  There's no harm.  But why not set the conditions that a Canadian of sufficient skill could command a multi-national force in wartime at that level?


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> We will also allow a deviation to reflect nine ranks that can be found in the NDA - those of Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Aircraftman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, and Craftsman.  For these ranks, the environment specific "Master" designator will be unique to the rank (such as a flaming grenade for Gunner, CME beaver for Sapper, or a propeller for Aircraftman) but its placement over the single chevron will leave it understood by all.  These branch or occupation specific markings will not continue at any higher rank level (not even for Master Bombardier).



If I understand correctly, these are nine alternate rank designations to private. The next rank level across the board is corporal, with the exception of the Artillery trades which uses the designation of Bombardier. Are you proposing to keep this as is or eliminate the Bdr designation?

And I assume that under your proposal there won't be a specific "Master" designation for the appointment to Master Corporal, but rather simply the addition of a trade specific symbol to the Corporal rank. Or are you proposing to eliminate the Master Corporal appointment completely, and go with what would essentially be a system where we have Privates, Senior privates or Specialists, then Corporals, with Corporal as the first qualified leadership rank?


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hell, the current CF isn't big enough to justify a four-leaf CDS - a VAdm/LGen CDS, with the rest of the command positions following that example, would perhaps be a good first indication of a new appetite for restraint.



Considering 3* traditionally command a Corps of about 30,000-50,000, a 4* commanding the 80,000-ish uniformed members of the CF seems appropriate.


----------



## McG

cupper said:
			
		

> If I understand correctly, these are nine alternate rank designations to private. The next rank level across the board is corporal, with the exception of the Artillery trades which uses the designation of Bombardier. Are you proposing to keep this as is or eliminate the Bdr designation?


Bdr & MBdr could continue to be used as they are now.  However, the branch specific insignia would not exist.  The Bdr would wear the same Cpl cheverons as every other Cpl in the CF, and the MBdr would wear Cpl cheverons with crossed swords like every other MCpl in the Army uniform.

The files attached to that post showed all the NCM ranks & appointments less the Specialist/Lance Corporal/Trooper/Gunner/Sapper/Signalman/Aircraftman/Guardsman/Fusilier/Rifleman/Craftsman/Musician appointment.  The branch specific insignia would not exist for any appointment less the Pte level - an environmental (Army, Navy or Air) insignia would mark the appointment at ather ranks.


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> Bdr & MBdr could continue to be used as they are now.  However, the branch specific insignia would not exist.  The Bdr would wear the same Cpl cheverons as every other Cpl in the CF, and the MBdr would wear Cpl cheverons with crossed swords like every other MCpl in the Army uniform.
> 
> The files attached to that post showed all the NCM ranks & appointments less the Specialist/Lance Corporal/Trooper/Gunner/Sapper/Signalman/Aircraftman/Guardsman/Fusilier/Rifleman/Craftsman/Musician appointment.  The branch specific insignia would not exist for any appointment less the Pte level - an environmental (Army, Navy or Air) insignia would mark the appointment at ather ranks.



OK. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I have a somewhat different view which is attached.

I have not attached ranks, much less rank names, rather I have used functions - mostly, reflecting my own background and experience, related to the Army's requirements.

As a general rule:

     1. Fewer very senior officers;

     2. Commanders always, without fail, outrank the most senior staff officer in the next higher headquarters - no exceptions allowed ever, for any reason because there are no good reasons, ever, for staff officers to be equal to
         or higher in rank to their commanders' immediate subordinate commanders;

     3. Leaders, at all levels, are paid a premium in relation to tradesmen;

     4. *Real* technicians are paid more than other tradesmen - which reflects the reality of the labour market - BUT having the word technician in your job description or trade name does make you a *real* technician; and

     5. Junior tradesmen are assumed to be useful CF members and are paid above Statistics Canada's _Low Income Cutoff_ (which is a variable indicator).


----------



## ArmyRick

My personal view is why change the rank structure? It mostly works and I believe by gradual "bump" and re-assignment in responsibilities, we will have a rank structure that works (pay adjusting to it).
Recruits no change
Private same
Private (Trained) becomes Private (skilled) One Shevron
Corporal (Now require PLQ) In infantry Section 2IC
Master Corporal (Trades trained) Infantry do ASA/FFQ, serve as section commander
Sergeant (Advance Trades Trg) Infantry complete PL 2IC Course, serve as PL 2IC
WO (ILP) In Infantry example CQMS or OPS WO type jobs
MWO and CWO no change in trg, same appointments.

There would be NO money spent on new rank badges
Ranks should be easier and quicker to progress through (In Infantry there are MANY of us who agree, 35-40 year old SGT and 40-45 year old WO is not practical, don't care if you disagree, don't be a child about it!) 

It also makes CPL a real leadership rank again and the idea of a skilled private would recognize him as a sort of journeyman.

Thats my two cents.


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Commanders always, without fail, outrank the most senior staff officer in the next higher headquarters - no exceptions allowed ever, for any reason because there are no good reasons, ever, for staff officers to be equal to or higher in rank to their commanders' immediate subordinate commanders;



Wouldn't this create problems for advancement to higher command levels? It would seem that lower command positions would have to first fill staff positions of the next higher command first. Not that this would be a bad thing, but if staff positions were not available it would hold back being able to fill command positions. And eventually as you moved up the CoC you'd run out of staff positions compared to the number of lower command positions.

It's a good idea, and makes a fair amount of sense, but it seems that there would be this inherent problem of bottlenecking at some point.


----------



## McG

Subordinate commanders (or COs) used to always outrank the staff of the higher HQ.  It worked for decades, and we only recently deviated.


----------



## ArmyRick

As far as I understand it, you should rotate between staff officer and command positions within a unit. If I understood's cupper's question correctly (not sure I did, break out the puppets and explain it to me), there should be no reason to do staff officer job followed by another staff officer and continious in an advancing officers career, correct?
Example
LT = PL Comd
CAPT = LAV CAPT (Comd posn) then Brigade HQ (Staff Officer) followed by Coy 2IC (Comd posn)
Major = Area HQ (Staff Officer) followed by OC Rifle Company (Comd)
etc, etc, etc

Does this seem like I am on right track?


----------



## Infanteer

What Edward and MCG were getting at was rank inflation in HQs.

In the Commonwealth system, staff never outranked line.  In a Bde, the senior staff officer was a Major, who never outranked the LCol COs.  In Div, it was a LCol who never outranked the Brigadier Bde Comds.  In a Corps, the senior staff officer was a BGen who never outranked the MGen Div Comds.

We've moved, through osmosis, to a U.S. system which is the opposite; Ops Staff, from battalion S3s on up, are generally post-command ranks and senior to the subordinate commander.   This has happened to the British Army as well.  We now see that, where 20 years ago, the working rank in a Brigade HQ was Captain and at Division Major, now-a-days it is all one level higher (with LCols running all over the place at a Area HQ).

The system leads to inflation (because  a LCol means more Majors to brief them, ergo more Captains to do the work) and can upset the supposedly inviolable marker between line and staff.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Considering 3* traditionally command a Corps of about 30,000-50,000, a 4* commanding the 80,000-ish uniformed members of the CF seems appropriate.



Considering the CF was hard pressed to maintain 3K troops in the field, I think a little humility on the part of our senior leaders is in order.


----------



## Jungle

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... I think a little humility on the part of our senior leaders is in order.



From my 3 decades of observation, humility does not seem to be taught at the Staff College... too many of our senior leaders enjoy the rock star treatment too much. It goes back to my previous comment about high vis slip ons...


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What Edward and MCG were getting at was rank inflation in HQs.
> 
> In the Commonwealth system, staff never outranked line.  In a Bde, the senior staff officer was a Major, who never outranked the LCol COs.


I don't know what halcyon day this hearkens back to, but as far back as the First World War my great-grandfather was the senior staff officer in the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade. Granted that the position he filled was called "Brigade Major", he held it as a post-battalion command LCol, and I was under the impression that this was by no means exceptional, even at the time.

How recently are we talking about here?


----------



## Infanteer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Considering the CF was hard pressed to maintain 3K troops in the field, I think a little humility on the part of our senior leaders is in order.



"Maintained in the field" and "commanded" are two separate things.  Your opinion on GOFO humility does not get around the fact that the numbers of soldiers in the CF are entirely appropriate to a 4*.


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> "Maintained in the field" and "commanded" are two separate things.  Your opinion on GOFO humility does not get around the fact that the numbers of soldiers in the CF are entirely appropriate to a 4*.



If we discount BTL & those on the way out, we're right at the cusp.  I'd rather err on the side of underranked.  If we declare war (and we're at 73+ years and counting) we can adjust.


----------



## Infanteer

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> I don't know what halcyon day this hearkens back to, but as far back as the First World War my great-grandfather was the senior staff officer in the 2nd Canadian Infantry Brigade. Granted that the position he filled was called "Brigade Major", he held it as a post-battalion command LCol, and I was under the impression that this was by no means exceptional, even at the time.
> 
> How recently are we talking about here?



Your great-grandfather must have been an exception, and I'm sure there is a good story behind it, but it wasn't the norm.

Brigade Majors were typically the only staff qualified personnel within a Brigade (they wore red tabs and had been to Camberly or Quetta).  A Brigade Major was the senior major within a brigade (he'd usually go on to command a unit following a successful staff tour) and Comds were picky in whom they selected.  Read _We Lead, Others Follow: First Canadian Division 1914-1918_ for a in-depth discussion on BMs in the Red Patch Division.

This system was used until the 1970s, when the title of BM fell out of use and was replaced by "G3".  In practice, the system was still maintained, as the G3 remained the senior staff officer at Brigade.  It was only, from my research, in the early 2000s that Brigades received a LCol Chief of Staff who displaced the BM/G3.


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Your great-grandfather must have been an exception, and I'm sure there is a good story behind it, but it wasn't the norm.


Huh - well, something else to dig up in the family history.


----------



## Infanteer

Was your great-grandfather LCol Hubert Kemmis-Betty?


----------



## cavalryman

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This system was used until the 1970s, when the title of BM fell out of use and was replaced by "G3".  In practice, the system was still maintained, as the G3 remained the senior staff officer at Brigade.  It was only, from my research, in the early 2000s that Brigades received a LCol Chief of Staff who displaced the BM/G3.



4 CMBG had LCol COS in the late 1980s when I was attached to Bde HQ.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> "Maintained in the field" and "commanded" are two separate things.  Your opinion on GOFO humility does not get around the fact that the numbers of soldiers in the CF are entirely appropriate to a 4*.



Perhaps one 4 star but not 113 at various levels of stars and 366 Col/Capt(N)  

Tally them up its all on the CMP website.  Seems pretty top heavy for a force of, what in reality, 60-80K all ranks ?


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Was your great-grandfather LCol Hubert Kemmis-Betty?


No - LCol R. Gordon Stewart. He was with the Bde from deployment to the front until early 1915 when he was invalided to the UK.


----------



## Infanteer

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps one 4 star but not 113 at various levels of stars and 366 Col/Capt(N)
> 
> Tally them up its all on the CMP website.  Seems pretty top heavy for a force of, what in reality, 60-80K all ranks ?



You won't find me arguing against that.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> No - LCol R. Gordon Stewart. He was with the Bde from deployment to the front until early 1915 when he was invalided to the UK.



It appears that, during the first year, there were some overranked staff officers in key positions like the BM.  This may have been due to lack of psc qualified personnel.  Would be interesting to dive into - unfortunately, the official history doesn't list key staff officers for the First World War (the Second World War one does) so it'd involve some digging into the archives (which are all online now, IIRC).


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Perhaps one 4 star but not 113 at various levels of stars and 366 Col/Capt(N)
> 
> Tally them up its all on the CMP website.  Seems pretty top heavy for a force of, what in reality, 60-80K all ranks ?



The senior ranks are Reg and Res, and so the total for the CF is 100,000 all ranks, with the senior ranks accounting for less than 0.47% of the total.

By comparison, the US Army has just over 1,000,000 all ranks and has 230 flag officers and 4,380 Cols, or 0.42% of the total.

The Canadian Army has approximately 30,000 all ranks Reg and Res.  There are 15 flag officers and 33 Cols employed in the Canadian Army


----------



## Monsoon

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It appears that, during the first year, there were some overranked staff officers in key positions like the BM.  This may have been due to lack of psc qualified personnel.  Would be interesting to dive into - unfortunately, the official history doesn't list key staff officers for the First World War (the Second World War one does) so it'd involve some digging into the archives (which are all online now, IIRC).


Gah! Just checked - it was the 4th Bde and early 1916 that he left. Shouldn't have tried to do it by memory.

I've managed to track him down in the Bde's war diary (which as Bde Maj he kept), but there isn't much to suggest why he was appointed. The unit he had commanded (in Canada) followed him to the front a year later (after he was gone), so it's possible he asked for the appointment to get over earlier.

// End of thread derailment.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> As far as I understand it, you should rotate between staff officer and command positions within a unit. If I understood's cupper's question correctly (not sure I did, break out the puppets and explain it to me), there should be no reason to do staff officer job followed by another staff officer and continious in an advancing officers career, correct?
> Example
> LT = PL Comd
> CAPT = LAV CAPT (Comd posn) then Brigade HQ (Staff Officer) followed by Coy 2IC (Comd posn)
> Major = Area HQ (Staff Officer) followed by OC Rifle Company (Comd)
> etc, etc, etc
> 
> Does this seem like I am on right track?




That would equate, roughly, with my proposal where junior leaders are divided into "small team" (detachment or group) and "large team" (section) leaders and the rifle PL 2IC is the first level of senior leader.


----------



## McG

Here are some interesting rank insignia from pre-unification:  http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/insignia/ncocorpsbadges.htm


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The senior ranks are Reg and Res, and so the total for the CF is 100,000 all ranks, with the senior ranks accounting for less than 0.47% of the total.
> 
> By comparison, the US Army has just over 1,000,000 all ranks and has 230 flag officers and 4,380 Cols, or 0.42% of the total.
> 
> The Canadian Army has approximately 30,000 all ranks Reg and Res.  There are 15 flag officers and 33 Cols employed in the Canadian Army



So, CAF = 113 GOFOs for 100K; US Army = 230 GOFOs for 1 000K.  Therefore, CF has 5x the number of GOFOs per capita compared to the US Army.  Adjusting for the "joint" elements not covered off by the US Army, and we've still probably got twice the number per capita.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, CAF = 113 GOFOs for 100K; US Army = 230 GOFOs for 1 000K.  Therefore, CF has 5x the number of GOFOs per capita compared to the US Army.  Adjusting for the "joint" elements not covered off by the US Army, and we've still probably got twice the number per capita.



Ack all.  However, if you accept that all forces have the same "functions" that have to be done, irrespective of size, it is not so out of whack.  Also, you cannot compare a service to an Armed Force in toto.  230 to 33 is a more useful comparison.  Moreover, note that The proportion GOFO to Col is dramatically different between the US Army and the CF.

Meh.  I am in the CF, not some other military.


----------



## dapaterson

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Meh.  I am in the CF, not some other military.



ACK to that.  But if we use "The other militaries are doing it" as justification (like justifying an MGen JAG), then we have to look at everything, and not just cherry-pick.  So maybe make our Bde Comds Brigadiers, but make some of staff Colonels...


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Here are some interesting rank insignia from pre-unification:  http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/insignia/ncocorpsbadges.htm




Very often, in many (most?) regiments and corps, the use of a device above a sergeant's stripes was used to differentiate a lance sergeant from a substantive sergeant.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ACK to that.  But if we use "The other militaries are doing it" as justification (like justifying an MGen JAG), then we have to look at everything, and not just cherry-pick.  So maybe make our Bde Comds Brigadiers, but make some of staff Colonels...




This may belong in the "Good ol' days" thread but ... many, many years ago (and until the 1960s in the British Army) it was routine for some LCols to be promoted directly to Brig, signaling that they were destined for command and even higher ranks; and other LCols to Col, signaling that they were destined for staff and _special to corps_ employment and, probably not as high ranks as they might have wished.

There might be some merit in reinventing brigadier, as a "colonel equivalent" to differentiate army officers who have been selected for combat command.


----------



## medicineman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very often, in many (most?) regiments and corps, the use of a device above a sergeant's stripes was used to differentiate a lance sergeant from a substantive sergeant.



Was there not one to also denote the rank/appointment of Staff Sgt?  I actually had a Second World War vet accuse me of being a "Staff" simply because of the maple leaf over my chevrons one Nov 11th...

MM


----------



## Infanteer

I believe Staff Sergeants filled roles that we'd now ascribe to senior WOs - CQs, HQ positions, etc, etc.  Sergeants would fill in as Pl 2ICs.

Australia is, I believe, phasing out the Staff Sergeant rank for whatever reason.


----------



## Tank Troll

Has any one heard about new names for the Areas IE LFAA will be 5th Canadian Div


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Heard rumours of that today......


----------



## Old and Tired

Andy

Hit me up tomorrow before we fly out or after we get back.  I have the complete presention on my computer at work. Makes for some interesting and humorous reading. Delusions of grandeur from somewhere.

H


----------



## Journeyman

Yes, it took the Army_ this_ long to come up with a response to the Air Force and Navy getting "Royal" back....and this was the best they could come up with.

LFCA gets the 4th Div's green patch -- soylent green.


----------



## slayer/raptor

can anyone provide this presentation?


----------



## Ostrozac

I am of two minds on this. First, I do believe that the "Area" concept and name has outlived its' usefulness. Most of the Regular Army units on the east coast have no command relationship to Land Forces Atlantic Area -- one of the units in Gagetown is under the command of Land Forces Central Area, and many more are part of Land Forces Doctrine and Training. But rather than renaming the chain of command, I would have preferred that we go back to having brigade commanders reporting directly to Army Headquarters. Which, I vaguely recall, was the practice until the late 80's. At least I think that the Commander SSF reported directly to Saint Hubert -- can any of the more experienced guys corroborate this? 

And Mods -- we may need a new thread for formation patches and names.


----------



## Old and Tired

I have a copy of the presentation. I'll only send it to dwan addresses so shoot me a PM.


----------



## Journeyman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> And Mods -- we may need a new thread for formation patches and names.


Why? The Pips & Crowns topic was resuscitated by some kid (who hasn't posted since), and these Div names/badges add _just as much_ value to the CF.   :nod:


----------



## Ostrozac

Oh, and did CTC finally get a brigade badge? They've been talking about that one for a long time.


----------



## Tank Troll

H 

I have already have it I g0t it via the RSMs net. 

Journeyman 

That isn't in response to the RCN or the RCAF titles it is above and beyond that, The vote by the Infantry units on "the issue of change to Royal Canadian Infantry Corps" is in response to the above mentioned Royal prefix.


----------



## Old and Tired

RGR. I got it twice once because some one didn't read the GAL correctly so it's the unabridged version then again through the Chief Comm Op / Foreman of Sigs route.

H


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I believe Staff Sergeants filled roles that we'd now ascribe to senior WOs - CQs, HQ positions, etc, etc.  Sergeants would fill in as Pl 2ICs.
> 
> Australia is, I believe, phasing out the Staff Sergeant rank for whatever reason.




In the infantry SSgts were CQMS, and Pl 2ICs of some specialist platoons: Mortals, A Tk and Signals, amongst others; there were also SSgts in e.g. the RCEME Maint Pl and in the BOR.

In some corps, Engineers and Signals, for example, SSgts were the most senior NCOs in most troops ~ Engr Fd Tp, Rad or COMCEN Tp in a Sig Sqn as well as being SQMS.


----------



## ArmyRick

Why would aussies eliminate the S/SGT rank? The rank seems to have a role and function within their army.


----------



## McG

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Oh, and did CTC finally get a brigade badge? They've been talking about that one for a long time.


I hope not.  Between CTC and LFDTS, there is one too many layers of HQ.



			
				Tank Troll said:
			
		

> That isn't in response to the RCN or the RCAF titles it is above and beyond that, The vote by the Infantry units on "the issue of change to Royal Canadian Infantry Corps" is in response to the above mentioned Royal prefix.


Actually, the cosmetic rebranding of the RCAF and RCN was the tipping point to a slippery slope on many rebranding initiatives.  Both re-royalizing branches and re-naming areas are part of this.


----------



## MikeL

Any dates for the inevitable parades?  I need to book a dental  


Is the change just in name and the ORBATs stay the same for the Area HQ / soon to be Division HQ?


----------



## PuckChaser

Oh god... I can think of one unit in the CF that now belongs to 2 Divisions, LFCA and 1 Can Div HQ. Patch on each arm? Or maybe just paint DEU half green, half red.  ;D


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Has any one heard about new names for the Areas IE LFAA will be 5th Canadian Div



Two questions.

1. Whose great idea was this? And what was the rationale? 

2. Why 5th *Canadian* Div?


----------



## Tank Troll

HQ 1 Cdn Div stays the same
SQFT 2 Cdn Div 
LFWA 3 Cdn Div
LFCA 4 Cdn Div
LFAA 5 Cdn Div


----------



## dapaterson

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Two questions.
> 
> 1. Whose great idea was this? And what was the rationale?
> 
> 2. Why 5th *Canadian* Div?



Because 5th *Acadian* Div was too controversial?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Because 5th *Acadian* Div was too controversial?



Har har...

What I meant was, you don't see the yanks going around calling everything single unit 'x American Brigade/Division' yet we have Canadian Divisions and Canadian Mechanized Brigade Groups....IN CANADA? 

Is this simply so that in a time of multilateral war we don't have to change all the letterheads? Or is Ottawa afraid of one of said units forgetting where it came from and going home with the Aussies at the end of the next dust-up?


----------



## cupper

Better than being called a 5th Column. ;D


----------



## jeffb

I suspect the reason goes back to the First and Second World Wars. In both the First and Second World War commonwealth divisions were denoted by their national origin. This practice also took place on the German side in the First World War where you will find Hannoverian Divisions, Bavarian, etc. 

Even the British quite frequently attached a region of origin to the division names although this practice was not universal. In the First World War, the Territorial Divisions and the "New Army" divisions frequently had a territorial affiliation whereas the Regular Army divisions did not. Many of these divisions were perpetuated in the Second World War and retained their names.


----------



## dapaterson

I think it's just the very powerful Felt Industry lobbyists flexing their muscle.

(about as reasonable an explanation as any other)


----------



## Journeyman

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> What I meant was, you don't see the yanks going around calling everything single unit 'x American Brigade/Division' yet we....


Much as in the "pips & crowns" discussion, we're not Brits so who gives a fuck what they do. The same applies here with the Americans -- who gives a rat's ass what they name their units.


And I can only assume that you're not referring to the 82nd Airborne Division (_All Americans_)


----------



## Infanteer

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> 2. Why 5th *Canadian* Div?



It is in accordance with our historical nomenclature.  In the First World War, we had 4 Divisions that were titled "X Canadian Division".  During the Second World War, we had 5 (3 Infantry and 2 Armoured) that saw active service and 3 that served as home defence - they were titled "X Canadian Infantry/Armoured Division".


----------



## daftandbarmy

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Har har...
> 
> What I meant was, you don't see the yanks going around calling everything single unit 'x American Brigade/Division' yet we have Canadian Divisions and Canadian Mechanized Brigade Groups....IN CANADA?
> 
> Is this simply so that in a time of multilateral war we don't have to change all the letterheads? Or is Ottawa afraid of one of said units forgetting where it came from and going home with the Aussies at the end of the next dust-up?



It's all about branding: my Canadian Army includes Quebec!  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very often, in many (most?) regiments and corps, the use of a device above a sergeant's stripes was used to differentiate a lance sergeant from a substantive sergeant.



And in the Guards Division Corporals - Sect Comd - have three (silver) stirpes and Sergeants - or Pl 2 ICs - have gold stripes. More ridiculousness we do not need in the CF.


----------



## winnipegoo7

5th Canadian Division began assembling in Britain in Jan 1917 as part of a plan to create a 2nd Canadian Corps, but this never happened. Instead the 5th Division was broken up and used to supply replacements to the Canadian Corps.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/5thdivision.htm


----------



## ArmyRick

Funny enough you brought that up. If you ever work with one our two guards regiments (I have not done CG but I am course with two of them now), they have maintain some of those guards traditions, ranks etc but only for CEREMONIAL functions. I know in most regiments they have regimental dress which is rightfully NOT paid for by  tax payers (and it shouldn't be).

The CG I believe is fully funded by public though due to its public relations function and there formal tasks at GG house. 

Any guardsman want to expand on that?


----------



## ArmyRick

Not sure I 100% agree with this whole div concept but its here now. Or almost anyways.


----------



## Jungle

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Not sure I 100% agree with this whole div concept but its here now. Or almost anyways.



It makes sense if you look at the alternative: changing the "Land Force" to "Canadian Army" in the area names would make LFCA the "Canadian Army Central Area", or CACA.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jungle said:
			
		

> It makes sense if you look at the alternative: changing the "Land Force" to "Canadian Army" in the area names would make LFCA the "Canadian Army Central Area", or CACA.



I think there'd be less opposition to that naming convention, as it somehow fits.


----------



## kratz

I should hope none of the units in that affected area carry a shovel on their crest.  :warstory:


----------



## Staff Weenie

Delusions of grandeur.......

If we took all the SMP veh in Canada, could we equip and sustain a single Div? I can tell you there are not enough Ambs to cover a Div, and there's not a chance of putting together enough resources for a Fd Hosp too.


----------



## Jungle

kratz said:
			
		

> I should hope none of the units in that affected area carry a shovel on their crest.  :warstory:



Or a pump...


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It is in accordance with our historical nomenclature.  In the First World War, we had 4 Divisions that were titled "X Canadian Division".  During the Second World War, we had 5 (3 Infantry and 2 Armoured) that saw active service and 3 that served as home defence - they were titled "X Canadian Infantry/Armoured Division".



@Journeyman as well..

Fair enough, just seems redundant, that's all. Especially after the new combats are in the system with the 4''x4'' canadian flags on either shoulder.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

winnipegoo7 said:
			
		

> 5th Canadian Division began assembling in Britain in Jan 1917 as part of a plan to create a 2nd Canadian Corps, but this never happened. Instead the 5th Division was broken up and* used to supply replacements to the Canadian Corps*.
> 
> http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/5thdivision.htm



LFAA is a perfect match then......


----------



## Shamrock

Crud.  Jungle took my funny.


----------



## Mountie

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> My personal view is why change the rank structure? It mostly works and I believe by gradual "bump" and re-assignment in responsibilities, we will have a rank structure that works (pay adjusting to it).
> Recruits no change
> Private same
> Private (Trained) becomes Private (skilled) One Shevron
> Corporal (Now require PLQ) In infantry Section 2IC
> Master Corporal (Trades trained) Infantry do ASA/FFQ, serve as section commander
> Sergeant (Advance Trades Trg) Infantry complete PL 2IC Course, serve as PL 2IC
> WO (ILP) In Infantry example CQMS or OPS WO type jobs
> MWO and CWO no change in trg, same appointments.
> 
> There would be NO money spent on new rank badges
> Ranks should be easier and quicker to progress through (In Infantry there are MANY of us who agree, 35-40 year old SGT and 40-45 year old WO is not practical, don't care if you disagree, don't be a child about it!)
> 
> It also makes CPL a real leadership rank again and the idea of a skilled private would recognize him as a sort of journeyman.
> 
> Thats my two cents.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Delusions of grandeur.......
> 
> If we took all the SMP veh in Canada, could we equip and sustain a single Div? I can tell you there are not enough Ambs to cover a Div, and there's not a chance of putting together enough resources for a Fd Hosp too.



Not too mention there is no way for CFHS to sustain that level of support in the HR department.  There just isn't enough of us go around.


----------



## Infanteer

The Divisions are simply the Areas with a different name; they are territorial (static) and not expeditionary, so don't get hung up on operational support required for 5 Divs.

These Divisions are not different than those that the British used to manage their home forces.  Than again, the Brits only had three of those (2, 4 and 5 Div) and rolled them up into a single command.  Now, curiously, Canada has 3 more Divisions and about a dozen more Highland Regiments than the British Army.

The Brits, however, don't have the geographical concerns that make our Area/Div system more useful.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Very much understood Infanteer, but it brings to mind images of Hitler moving flags around on the map, not realizing that his Divs were down to Bn strength.....

There needs to be an organizational structure, and span of control in Canada is an immense problem (even in an age of video-conferencing). I'm just not sure that naming it a 'Division' is the best idea.......


----------



## Infanteer

If I look through 200 years of Western military history, Brigades have been commanded by formations called Divisions.  Considering an Area commands an oversized regular Brigade, 2-3 understrength Reserve Brigades, and a bunch of supporting units, we are probably not far off the mark in calling them a Division.  I am not too fussed by this exercise in repainting signs and letterhead.


----------



## GnyHwy

Is this just a "simple" way of combining reserves and reg force under a unified command, rather than having 2 Divs: 1 reg and 1 reserve?  Forgive my ignorance of the reserve CoC, but were they always under their own command or did they fall under the "old" areas.

Anyway, that is how I simplify it in my pea brain.

I will also echo Infanteer's comments about not getting wrapped up around actual numbers.  We won't likely be standing up a Div anytime soon, and if we did, we all know that a whole lot of borrowing would have to take place no matter how were organized.  This may make it simpler, and wouldn't create an unfillable void when an entire Bde/Area/Div leaves its home.  Further, reference to borrowing and my question at the top, it makes it easier if the area reserves are under the Div already.




			
				Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> If we took all the SMP veh in Canada, could we equip and sustain a single Div? I can tell you there are not enough Ambs to cover a Div, and there's not a chance of putting together enough resources for a Fd Hosp too.



Considering we don't really have any SMPs currently, you are correct by saying we cannot equip a Div.  What we have are a lot MILCOTS, which are not SMPs.  Hence, why the MSVS project is still ongoing eventhough we have medium logistics trucks running around.


----------



## Infanteer

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Is this just a "simple" way of combining reserves and reg force under a unified command, rather than having 2 Divs: 1 reg and 1 reserve?  Forgive my ignorance of the reserve CoC, but were they always under their own command or did they fall under the "old" areas.



The change is strictly in name only - Reserve Brigades came under command of the Areas and the only thing different will be that a Res CBG Commander's Boss will have new letterhead.

The geography of Canada is what makes the territorial system that we have now better than a functional one of 1 Div Reg, 2 Div Res.  Area Commanders fill useful functions in provincial relations, domestic operations, and regionalized Reg/Res management.  Not to mention the fact that, in a functional system, a single Div Commander in central Canada would be that much more removed from his subordinate formations.


----------



## dapaterson

This is all well and good until a commander decides to "operationalize" his Div HQ and, in so doing, removes capability from the troops he's supposed to be training.

As static, non-deployable managerial HQs, I get twitchy when we rename them in a way that may suggest a capability not resident therein.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As static, non-deployable managerial HQs, I get twitchy when we rename them in a way that may suggest a capability not resident therein.


At least we're not trying to emulate the Americans with their parenthetical Divisions, like (Mountain), or (Airborne).  If we were, it would be 1st Canadian Division (Power Point)


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> At least we're not trying to emulate the Americans with their parenthetical Divisions, like (Mountain), or (Airborne).  If we were, it would be 1st Canadian Division (Power Point)



And don't forget

2nd Canadian Division (Tabernac)
3rd Canadian Division (Oakleys)
4th Canadian Division (Centre of the Universe - just ask us)
5th Canadian Division (Pogey)


----------



## little jim

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> HQ 1 Cdn Div stays the same
> SQFT 2 Cdn Div
> LFWA 3 Cdn Div
> LFCA 4 Cdn Div
> LFAA 5 Cdn Div



If we really wanted to fully embrace our heritage and follow the America model we will have to stand down HQ 1 Cdn Div and re-name them I Canadian Corps.  (They would just have to pivot their little red patches.)

Because if we have four division HQ you need to have a Corps HQ above them.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Delusions of grandeur.......
> 
> If we took all the SMP veh in Canada, could we equip and sustain a single Div? I can tell you there are not enough Ambs to cover a Div, and there's not a chance of putting together enough resources for a Fd Hosp too.



While your at it, you can equip the Reserve armour with tanks like these
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_y0ZlSySQA1Q/TQmBsK369VI/AAAAAAAAHJg/7en7vuL7fJ8/s1600/tank-1965.jpg

edit to fix grammar


----------



## dapaterson

Of course, this could be just a cunning plan in preparation for the implementaion of Defence Scheme Number 1.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

little jim said:
			
		

> If we really wanted to fully embrace our heritage and follow the America model we will have to stand down HQ 1 Cdn Div and re-name them I Canadian Corps.  (They would just have to pivot their little red patches.)
> 
> Because if we have four division HQ you need to have a Corps HQ above them.....



And we all know a Corps HQ cannot function without an Army HQ, and would not an Army HQ merit a Field Marshal, with his little baton?


----------



## McG

Jungle said:
			
		

> It makes sense if you look at the alternative: changing the "Land Force" to "Canadian Army" in the area names would make LFCA the "Canadian Army Central Area", or CACA.


As we don't have a tradition of including "Canadian" in the title of areas, it could have been "Army Central Area" or ACA.  With the exception of 1 Cdn Div, we have no tradition of divisions in Canada.  We did have Districts prior to there being Areas.  Why not "Canadian Army Central District" or even "Canadian Army Central Division" to emphasis the geographic nature (as opposed to operational nature of the historic numbered divisions)?

... of course, that assumes the name even needed to change.  Why not just leave things as Land Force Areas?  That would have required no effort, money or time but it would have provided the same value.


----------



## Loachman

The Militia Districts became the Reserve Brigades.

What morphed into the LFAs were Militia Areas, ie Central Militia Area.


----------



## AIC_2K5

I seem to recall reading under Leslie's Transformation report a recommendation for putting the Reg F brigades under 1 Can Div and resurrecting 2 Can Div in Montreal and putting all Reserves in its command. 2 Div would be double-hatted as headquarters for JTF East under Canada Command, while 1 Div would essentially be triple-hatted as commanding all Reg F Army, serving as headquarters JTF Central, and generating a deployable expeditionary headquarters.


----------



## Ostrozac

I'm a big fan of formation patches to reduce confusion, as it is sometimes hard to explain to the troops something as important as the chain of command. With badges, it can be spelled out in a visual way.

So when all of this is settled, if I understand the dress regs correctly:

21 EW Regiment will wear the 1 Div patch on their left shoulder, and the 4 Div patch on their right. 
4 AD Regiment and 4 ESR will wear the 1 Div patch on their left shoulder, and the 5 Div patch on their right.

And I think that the new Army Intelligence and Influence Activity units are supposed to be headquartered in Kingston, and were supposed to be under command of LFCA, so therefore the bulk of Army Int, Pysops, and CIMIC personnel will wear 4 Div patches, regardless of where in Canada they work. 

In theory, I'm a big fan of formation patches to reduce confusion...


----------



## Jarnhamar

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I'm a big fan of formation patches to reduce confusion, as it is sometimes hard to explain to the troops something as important as the chain of command. With badges, it can be spelled out in a visual way.
> 
> So when all of this is settled, if I understand the dress regs correctly:
> 
> 21 EW Regiment will wear the 1 Div patch on their left shoulder, and the 4 Div patch on their right.
> 4 AD Regiment and 4 ESR will wear the 1 Div patch on their left shoulder, and the 5 Div patch on their right.
> 
> And I think that the new Army Intelligence and Influence Activity units are supposed to be headquartered in Kingston, and were supposed to be under command of LFCA, so therefore the bulk of Army Int, Pysops, and CIMIC personnel will wear 4 Div patches, regardless of where in Canada they work.
> 
> In theory, I'm a big fan of formation patches to reduce confusion...



But where will our illegal patches go?


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> The Militia Districts became the Reserve Brigades.


True, but when they existed the historical Militia Districts contained subordinate militia brigades and by the end of WWII they were responsible to FG divisions.  In 1946 the responsibilities looked like this:

Militia District 1 (London/SW Ontario) -> 1st Infantry Division
Militia District 2 (Toronton/Central Ontario) -> 2nd Infantry Division
Militia District 4 (Montreal/West Quebec) -> 3rd Infantry Division
Militia District 5 (Quebec/East Quebec) -> 4th Infantry Division
Militia District 6 (Halifax/Nova Scotia) -> 5th Infantry Division
Militia District 10 (Winnipeg/Manitoba) -> 6th Infantry Division

So, "District" has precedent as a static FG equivalent to a Div.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/districts.htm


----------



## Loachman

Roger.

I suppose that it depends upon how far back into the past one wishes to delve.

When I joined in 1973, and up until LFCA HQ stood up in the early nineties, Central Militia Area included Windsor, London, Toronto, Ottawa and Northern Ontario Militia Districts.

I note the complete absence of Western Canada in the 1946 structure.


----------



## McG

Western Canada was there.  Its MDs also contained brigades each but none included the Div HQ and Div Tps.


----------



## WLSC

> Posté par: MCG
> « le: Aujourd'hui à 17:37:09 » True, but when they existed the historical Militia Districts contained subordinate militia brigades and by the end of WWII they were responsible to FG divisions.  In 1946 the responsibilities looked like this:
> 
> Militia District 1 (London/SW Ontario) -> 1st Infantry Division
> Militia District 2 (Toronton/Central Ontario) -> 2nd Infantry Division
> Militia District 4 (Montreal/West Quebec) -> 3rd Infantry Division
> Militia District 5 (Quebec/East Quebec) -> 4th Infantry Division
> Militia District 6 (Halifax/Nova Scotia) -> 5th Infantry Division
> Militia District 10 (Winnipeg/Manitoba) -> 6th Infantry Division
> 
> So, "District" has precedent as a static FG equivalent to a Div.



My Regiment, Les FMR, and the R de Mais where 2 inf Div.  Only the R de Chaud where 3 inf Div.  For the other army corps i.e. Armour, I dont know.  So, the FMR and the R de Mais will be back in the 2 Cnd Div.  I know...


----------



## Jungle

MCG said:
			
		

> As we don't have a tradition of including "Canadian" in the title of areas, it could have been "Army Central Area" or ACA.  With the exception of 1 Cdn Div, we have no tradition of divisions in Canada.  We did have Districts prior to there being Areas.  Why not "Canadian Army Central District" or even "Canadian Army Central Division" to emphasis the geographic nature (as opposed to operational nature of the historic numbered divisions)?



I now realise I should have included a smilie in there, somewhere, to indicate I was joking... CACD is just not funny...  it is apparently not obvious to everyone.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

So can anyone tell a civilian if there is actually anything substative to this or is it just part of the apparent Canadian Military tradition of renaming things every x years ? (c.f. 1920 miltia reorg, 1936 militia reorg and etc..)


----------



## The Anti-Royal

Someone (or a whole bunch of someones) just got an M for leading change on their 2012/13 PERs.  Fantastic . . .


----------



## GnyHwy

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> So can anyone tell a civilian if there is actually anything substative to this or is it just part of the apparent Canadian Military tradition of renaming things every x years ? (c.f. 1920 miltia reorg, 1936 militia reorg and etc..)



These are all hypothetical, but this should make our numbering and naming conventions simpler, making it easier for networking, tactical and operatonal software, sharepoint etc.  It could eliminate the possibility of people giving themselves important sounding office acronym names that no one understands. i.e. Lead Executive's Assistant to the Department Energy Resources (LEADER) could now be known as  56R1.

I am bit bias towards numbers though, mostly because they make sense, and I have a vendetta against acronyms.


----------



## Journeyman

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> ..... this should make our numbering and naming conventions simpler....


Titles like "Atlantic Area" or "Western Area" require simplification?



> easier for networking, tactical and operatonal software, sharepoint


Really?  Whether we call something Unit123 or The Winnipeg Suburban Hussars, The Matrix is still only 1s and 0s.



> (LEADER) could now be known as  56R1


I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, let alone track how it somehow follows on from LFCA -->> 4 Cdn Div.



Why am I not on the Dist List for some of these meds?!  :stars:


----------



## Jed

Whatever happened to: Because I said so.  ;D Nobody follows direction anymore.


----------



## Kirkhill

The subject of "brevetting" came up in discussion recently.

Perhaps some of these tarted up holding pens for replacements could be "commanded" by brevetted Majors-General with substantive ranks of Colonel or even Lt Colonel.


----------



## Tank Troll

I think it is because only certain units had a brigade patch on their left shoulder and others had nothing so this way every one will have something on their left shoulder of their DEUs. 

Or some General was tired of having Generals for other armies look at him funny when he told them what area he commanded and they did understand the term. So now he can say he is a Div Commander and everyone will know what he is.  :2c:


----------



## little jim

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> I think it is because only certain units had a brigade patch on their left shoulder and others had nothing so this way every one will have something on their left shoulder of their DEUs.
> 
> Or some General was tired of having Generals for other armies look at him funny when he told them what area he commanded and they did understand the term. So now he can say he is a Div Commander and everyone will know what he is.  :2c:



Would be curious to see the .ppt of this.

Division Commanders are usually Major Generals (Two-star) with a couple (or more) Brigader Generals (One-star) as DCGs.  Working that the LFA Comd are BGs does this mean more GOs?


----------



## PanaEng

little jim said:
			
		

> Would be curious to see the .ppt of this.
> 
> Division Commanders are usually Major Generals (Two-star) with a couple (or more) Brigader Generals (One-star) as DCGs.  Working that the LFA Comd are BGs does this mean more GOs?


Indeed, my friend, the cynic would say that but I'm sure it is for a higher purpose.... !!!!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Please don't get too wrapped around too many axles about all this.

When operations move to the back burner, as they have, people turn their attention to organization and _administrivia_.

Like it or not we are pretty much bound to have a geographic command structure of some sort - what you call the geographic components doesn't really matter; in my career we called them commands and areas and districts and heaven alone knows what else. And it didn't really matter. We have also, over the past century or so, tried a wide range of regular/reserve organizational arrangements. Despite having reservists accounting for about 20% (sometimes more) of the strength of units in a combat theatre in this century we have never gotten close to a _comfortable_ structure. There are too many _cultural_ differences between the two components and the pace of unit life is too different.

From a strictly personal perspective, I think:

1. 1st Canadian Division is a farce - the "old red patch" is fine (and, in my opinion) is _*historically*_ preferable to the current gaudy, commercial, American style brigade patches) but we must recognize that we have no division - only three understrength brigades;

2. Calling the four "areas" divisions is a harmless affectation - like call ing the Canadian Navy the Royal Canadian Navy; and

3. We ought to have four geographic joint commands with a mix of regular force joint task forces, formations, bases and units, and separate reserve components (navy, army and, when appropriate, air force) also.

But: what we really need is a structure that makes organizational, administrative and economic sense. Names and patches are the least of our worries.


----------



## PanaEng

:goodpost:


----------



## PPCLI Guy

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Indeed, my friend, the cynic would say that but I'm sure it is for a higher purpose.... !!!!



Really?  You think the leadership that venal?

Again, this is simply a name change to echo the change from LFC to Canadian Army.  No tin foil hats required.


----------



## GnyHwy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Titles like "Atlantic Area" or "Western Area" require simplification?



No, not necessarily, but their subordinates likely do.  I was eluding to tactical software in respect to tacsigns, callsigns, nicknames etc and how we should organize ourselves in garrison the way we maybe organized in battle.  Numbering makes sense, especially if you want to know parent organizations.  

When we do joint operations, do you expect our allies to know our nicknames?



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really?  Whether we call something Unit123 or The Winnipeg Suburban Hussars, The Matrix is still only 1s and 0s.



It does make a difference.  Having numbers makes the subordinate and parent organizations obvious.  When an ally looks at one of our the tacsigns and it says it is the 4th Coy, of the 2nd Btln, of the 1st Bde, (perhaps the Hussars) he'll get it.  If it says "Suburban Hussars" it will certainly raise questions.  Secondly, if we are to train as we fight, and the use of sharepoint and tactical sofware all the time is a step in the right direction IMO, then using C/Ss now rather than nicknames is a good thing. 

Lastly, the matrix you mention, is a lot shorter if you don't include letters, let alone full words.




			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, let alone track how it somehow follows on from LFCA -->> 4 Cdn Div.



What I said was;



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> It could eliminate the possibility of people giving themselves important sounding office acronym names that no one understands. i.e. Lead Executive's Assistant to the Department Energy Resources (LEADER) could now be known as  56R1.



You reduced it to 





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> (LEADER) could now be known as  56R1.



Good job :sarcasm: removing all the context and then criticizing it.  My comment was  :sarcasm: and a joke, and I think most probably understood that.  I would expect that since most of your posts are :sarcasm: that you would get my  :sarcasm: , but I guess not.  I'll be more deliberate next time  :sarcasm:


----------



## Journeyman

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> I'll be more deliberate next time


Thanks


----------



## SeR

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> When an ally looks at one of our the tacsigns and it says it is the 4th Coy, of the 2nd Btln, of the 1st Bde



I see what you're talking about but to rename the areas as divisions just seems pointless, considering there would only be three Reg Force brigades for five divisions, which makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## McG

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Having numbers makes the subordinate and parent organizations obvious.  When an ally looks at one of our the tacsigns and it says it is the 4th Coy, of the 2nd Btln, of the 1st Bde, (perhaps the Hussars) he'll get it.  If it says "Suburban Hussars" it will certainly raise questions.


Well that is how one of our Allies does things, but there are a whole host of other English speaking allies who have the same system of named units and regiments as do we.



			
				GnyHwy said:
			
		

> … if we are to train as we fight, … then using C/Ss now rather than nicknames is a good thing.


This is a red herring.  The new divisions are not intended to fight.

Also, I wouldn't refer to regimental and unit names as nicknames.  These are not nicknames.


----------



## Old and Tired

Slight de-rail for a moment.  I'm down in Virginia on Ex.  I have received all the PM's and I'll for a Charlie Charlie call with the presentation when I get back.  It will be edited to remove info that I'm not sure is for wider dist.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Old and Tired said:
			
		

> Slight de-rail for a moment.  I'm down in Virginia on Ex.  I have received all the PM's and I'll for a Charlie Charlie call with the presentation when I get back.  It will be edited to remove info that I'm not sure is for wider dist.



Have fun in Ft Pickett, not sure which unit you are with but you will be getting some ATT'S from 37 CER.....


----------



## Jarnhamar

I like the idea of calling it divisions. Makes it feel like we're bigger than we actually are.


----------



## jeffb

Areas are commanded by Brig Generals currently. Divisions are commanded by Maj Generals as is the case now with 1 Can DIV and is pretty standard across NATO. Does this change signal that there are now a whole bunch of command positions for Maj Generals being created? I wonder if this means that the CMBG's are going to go back to have Brigadiers as their commanders with CBGs being commanded by Colonels? With the re-inclusion of the service Btn's back into the brigades it would make sense given the relative size of a CMBG to other NATO brigades.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I have read nothing - and we have a couple of relatively "well connected" folks here in Army.ca - to suggest that this will produce any more rank inflation.

It's just a name change and, as someone wittily observed, a chance for the flannel patch industry to grow and prosper again.

That being said, I'm sure there is a clutch (covey?) of BGens wondering if they can use this to their advantage. We must all hope that cooler heads prevail.


----------



## Old Sweat

And my old friend Edward beat me to it once again. Never underestimate the ability of the Canadian Army in peacetime to chase its tail in search of bureaucratic perfection. I have dubbed the process dyanmic inertia; it has scaled some Guns of Navarronish organizational peaks while accomplishing absolutely nothing at all.


----------



## Gorgo

I personally would split the new divisions - if they're coming (knock on wood)! - this way:

Central Area:  2 CDN DIV
Atlantic Area:  3 CDN DIV
Western Area:  4 CDN DIV
Québec Area:  5E DIV DU C

Since the area-based support units all are numbered with "1" (West), "2" (Central), "5" (Québec) and "3" (Atlantic), it would just make much more sense IMO.  Saves a load of re-numbering at the local levels.

Of course, since all support units numbered "4" were meant for Europe many moons ago and given that 1 CDN DIV is the full time division, there'd be no choice but to put the 4th Division out west.

Again, this is just me.


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Calling the four "areas" divisions is a harmless affectation - like call ing the Canadian Navy the Royal Canadian Navy; and



That's gonna leave a mark! ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> I personally would split the new divisions - if they're coming (knock on wood)! - this way:
> 
> Central Area:  2 CDN DIV
> Atlantic Area:  3 CDN DIV
> Western Area:  4 CDN DIV
> Québec Area:  5E DIV DU C
> 
> Since the area-based support units all are numbered with "1" (West), "2" (Central), "5" (Québec) and "3" (Atlantic), it would just make much more sense IMO.  Saves a load of re-numbering at the local levels.
> 
> Of course, since all support units numbered "4" were meant for Europe many moons ago and given that 1 CDN DIV is the full time division, there'd be no choice but to put the 4th Division out west.
> 
> Again, this is just me.



Unless of course you are PPCLI, in which case it will be very cool to be wearing the French Grey of the 3rd Div again....


----------



## MilEME09

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Unless of course you are PPCLI, in which case it will be very cool to be wearing the French Grey of the 3rd Div again....



I'm Sure they would be thrilled to get the "Water Rats" Nickname old Monty gave them from WWII back as well


----------



## Gorgo

Or heck, do it this way:

1) United Québec Area and Atlantic Area into a new "Land Forces Eastern Area" (Secteur d'Est de la Force Terrestre);

2) Divide the division this way:

LFCA - 2 CDN DIV
SEFT - 3e DIV DU C
LFWA - 4 CDN DIV

We'd have the old Canadian Corps from WW1 back on line with no problem at all.


----------



## Ostrozac

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Or heck, do it this way:
> 
> 1) United Québec Area and Atlantic Area into a new "Land Forces Eastern Area" (Secteur d'Est de la Force Terrestre);



Now that is a great idea!

LFAA doesn't have a regular brigade -- and as far as I can remember it only has three regular units under command -- the Area Training Centre, 4 AD and 4 ESR -- plus the ASG and two bases/ASUs/garrisons/camps (I can never  figure out the naming convention for what used to be called a Canadian Forces Base): Gagetown and Moncton. Moncton is supposed to be closed, leaving Atlantic Area with only a single base. I seem to remember that Aldershot isn't part of 3 Area Support Group, but I can't remember if it's under command of the Navy or the Air Force. And I'm very sure that the Halifax-based HQ is a lodger unit of the Navy.

Reserve units necessarily have to be located where the population is, and the population of Quebec plus the four atlantic provinces clocks in at 10.2 million, still less than Ontario's population of 12.8. So span of control shouldn't be an issue. Plus commander LFAA doesn't have a CJOC responsibilty as a JTF Commander, unlike the other three area commanders, so axing that position wouldn't require changes to the domops plan.


----------



## Gorgo

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Now that is a great idea!
> 
> LFAA doesn't have a regular brigade -- and as far as I can remember it only has three regular units under command -- the Area Training Centre, 4 AD and 4 ESR -- plus the ASG and two bases/ASUs/garrisons/camps (I can never  figure out the naming convention for what used to be called a Canadian Forces Base): Gagetown and Moncton. Moncton is supposed to be closed, leaving Atlantic Area with only a single base. I seem to remember that Aldershot isn't part of 3 Area Support Group, but I can't remember if it's under command of the Navy or the Air Force. And I'm very sure that the Halifax-based HQ is a lodger unit of the Navy.
> 
> Reserve units necessarily have to be located where the population is, and the population of Quebec plus the four atlantic provinces clocks in at 10.2 million, still less than Ontario's population of 12.8. So span of control shouldn't be an issue. Plus commander LFAA doesn't have a CJOC responsibilty as a JTF Commander, unlike the other three area commanders, so axing that position wouldn't require changes to the domops plan.



The Area Training Centre for Atlantic Area is Aldershot, BTW.

And I agree.  There's no sense in having four areas/divisions when the reserve brigade set-up doesn't allow that sort of thing in either SQFT or LFAA.

What I would think should happen if - God forbid, of course! - a massive mobilisation is called for and multiple brigades are needed to get somewhere ASAP, the reserve units would be charged to mobilise one company/squadron/battery to form units like the WW1 CEF battalions for immediate use, then proceed to mobilise active battalions/regiments as back-up troops.  For instance, if we look at LFEA/3E DIV DU C, we can do this:

*5e Groupe-Brigade Mechanise du Canada*
QGET 5e GBMC
12e RBC (augmented with squadron from 12e RBC[M])
1re R22eR (augmented with company from 4e R22eR)
2e R22eR (augmented with company from 6e R22eR)
3e R22eR (augmented with company from FUS SL)
5e RALC (augmented with battery from 6e RAC)
5e RGC (augmented with squadron from 35e RGC)
430e ETH (augmented with flight from 438e ETH)
5e AMB C (augmented with company from 55e AMB C)
5e BON SVC (augmented with company from 35e BON SVC)
5e PPM (augmented with reserve personnel from 5e RPM)
5e PEL REINS (augmented with personnel from 4e CIE REINS)

*3rd Canadian Mechanised Brigade Group*
3 CMBG HQ & SIGS - formed from QG 34e GBC, QG 35e GBC, HQ 36 CBG & HQ 37 CBG, with signals from 34e RT. 35e RT, 36 SIG REGT & 37 SIG REGT
3 ARMD REGT - formed from R DE HULL, RCH(M), SHER H, 8 CH(PL), PEIR & HAL RIF
31 INF BN - formed from CGG, BW(RHR) OF C, R MONT R, FUS MR, R DE MAIS & FUS SHER
32 INF BN - formed from VOL DE Q, R DE LA C, R DE SAUG, 1 RNBR & NS(NB)R
33 INF BN - formed from WNSR, PL FUS, NS HIGHRS, CB HIGHRS, 1 R NFLD R & 2 R NFLD R
3 ARTY REGT - formed from 2 FD REGT RCA, 62e RAC, 1 FD REGT RCA & 3 FD REGT RCA
3 CER - formed from 34e RGC, 36 CER & 37 CER
403 THS - mobilised from 403 HOTS
3 FD AMB - formed from 51e AMB C, 52e AMB C, 33 FD AMB & 35 FD AMB
3 SVC BN - formed from 34e BON S, 36 SVC BN & 37 SVC BN
3 MP PL - formed from 5e RPM & 3 MP REGT
3 INT PL - formed from 3 INT COY

There we go!  A nice little light division, ready to rock.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> The Area Training Centre for Atlantic Area is Aldershot, BTW.




Just to clarify Aldershot is a DET of LFAATC GAGETOWN


----------



## Ostrozac

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> The Area Training Centre for Atlantic Area is Aldershot, BTW.



My mistake -- I thought it was in Gagetown, on the road going to 403 Squadron. That's where it used to be.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> My mistake -- I thought it was in Gagetown, on the road going to 403 Squadron. That's where it used to be.



It still is,  Bldg M-5 and L-33 are LFAATC and Aldershot is a DET of this......


----------



## Gorgo

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Just to clarify Aldershot is a DET of LFAATC GAGETOWN



Ah, sorry!  I didn't know that.


----------



## McG

Here we go - improved frivolous rank change graphics.
(As referenced here)


----------



## SeR

MCG said:
			
		

> Here we go - improved frivolous rank change graphics.
> (As referenced here)



Very interesting! I find it's a great idea that the standard maple leaf above the chevrons is replaced by a trade identifying emblem!


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> Here we go - improved frivolous rank change graphics.
> (As referenced here)



I'm a big fan of being able to call someone Master Chief.  ;D


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> Here we go - improved frivolous rank change graphics.



Given our fixation with growing headquarters, we'll need a HQ Specialist rank:







    :nod:


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

MCG said:
			
		

> Here we go - improved frivolous rank change graphics.
> (As referenced here)



There were ranks added to the RCN in 68 during unification, and the navy has said since that it did not really need them, so why add yet again MORE ranks, with the unneccessary addage of the Sgt and Master Sgt ranks.  Which if we looked at other militaries, would probably be more aptly called Sgt and Staff Sgt, as they are usually next to each other in the order of ranks (UK, Aus, NZ, USA, etc)

I will say I like the fact that there is not a number after the ranks though, something I never liked.  I like the USA's version of Chief, Senior Chief, Master Chief.

I do wonder though why the AF doesn't get more AF specific ranks if we're going to use Airman as a rank, might as well have flight sergeants and what not.


----------



## McG

MrBlue said:
			
		

> There were ranks added to the RCN in 68 during unification, and the navy has said since that it did not really need them, so why add yet again MORE ranks


That is addressed; go read the referenced post.  There could be fewer levels of rank but more levels of appointments.  If certain levels of appointment do not work for RCN occupations, then the Navy does not need to use levels (ie. the Navy could choose to have no Master Seamen).


----------



## ArmyRick

Fred, 

I see from your profile you have been out a while. I noticed you got a little hungry to start ORBATing some units upon mobilisation. With due respect, lets keep it on topic, we are talking about the re-naming of Areas to Divisions. Keep "fictional" or "proposed thinking" of ORBATs and FORCE GEN/EMP units to another thread. 

Has anyone seen a CANFORGEN or a CANLANDGEN on this yet? I first heard about it from the Infantry School RSM two weeks ago.


----------



## dangerboy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen a CANFORGEN or a CANLANDGEN on this yet? I first heard about it from the Infantry School RSM two weeks ago.



There has not been a CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN published yet with the details.  I think it is just email traffic to Command Teams.


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen a CANFORGEN or a CANLANDGEN on this yet? I first heard about it from the Infantry School RSM two weeks ago.


No, but there was a letter from Army HQ asking for the Div structure and a shopping list of other cosmetic changes that was posted here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1149690.html#msg1149690


----------



## NMPeters

Nothing is official yet and the CANFORGEN and/or CANARMYGEN will be released upon MND approval.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Yes the RCA got around the crap that happened at unification, by making the entire branch one Regiment.  For the rest of the hard army branches, we don't need Royal Assent or anything more than the Ministers ok to call ourselves Corps again.  Once we are Corps we are automatically Royal again as the Queen never rescinded the honour she gave us.  The complex part is the branches that sucked in RCAF and RCN functions post unification, and still have them, like the Signals and CME branches, they had to come up with plans that will give their Army components their historical Royal titles while still serving the RCAF/RCN mandates.  Or go like the Log Branch and just not change so they don't have to deal with those issues


----------



## Old EO Tech

NMPeters said:
			
		

> Nothing is official yet and the CANFORGEN and/or CANARMYGEN will be released upon MND approval.



At least since apparently the Log Branch is not asking for Royal Assent to be granted the Royal title, none of these changes are beyond the powers of the MND, so as long as the CDS agrees with this list it should not take that much longer to see that CANFORGEN/LANFORGEN.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes the RCA got around the crap that happened at unification, by making the entire branch one Regiment.  For the rest of the hard army branches, we don't need Royal Assent or anything more than the Ministers ok to call ourselves Corps again.  Once we are Corps we are automatically Royal again as the Queen never rescinded the honour she gave us.  The complex part is the branches that sucked in RCAF and RCN functions post unification, and still have them, like the Signals and CME branches, they had to come up with plans that will give their Army components their historical Royal titles while still serving the RCAF/RCN mandates.  Or go like the Log Branch and just not change so they don't have to deal with those issues



Not too hard to fathom. As I recall, for our branch, we have 1 RCAF trade, 1 RCN, 1 Purple trade (who by all logic should be absorbed inti thr INT branch... despite what everyone else calls them), and one mega sized Army trade that encompasses the bulk of the pers who would be redesignated RCCS. 

My spidey senses tingle in the direction that if we are going hard into reinventing a wheel, with an emphasis on logic; ATIS  will fold back into the RCAF along with their other techie cousins, NCI Ops will fall back to RCN, Comms Research will follow the logical path to the INT Branch and theremainder will be redesignated RCCS. Hmm seems like deja vu.


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Not too hard to fathom. As I recall, for our branch, we have 1 RCAF trade, 1 RCN, 1 Purple trade (who by all logic should be absorbed inti thr INT branch... despite what everyone else calls them), and one mega sized Army trade that encompasses the bulk of the pers who would be redesignated RCCS.
> 
> My spidey senses tingle in the direction that if we are going hard into reinventing a wheel, with an emphasis on logic; ATIS  will fold back into the RCAF along with their other techie cousins, NCI Ops will fall back to RCN, Comms Research will follow the logical path to the INT Branch and theremainder will be redesignated RCCS. Hmm seems like deja vu.




Making the Intelligence Branch responsible for SIGINT operations and analysis would be a recipe for diaster. The Intelligence Branch would, first of all, need a top to bottom makeover that, I suspect, it would be unwilling to undertake.

I'm not defending the current SIGINT/EW structures but what you are suggesting would make things worse.

There's nothing wrong with a tri-coloured SIGNIT/EW Branch which is *not* exclusively or even predominantly found from within the C&E Branch.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Further, and beating a favourite  :deadhorse: "royalizing" Canadian Army Signals would be a historical blunder.

The Canadian Signalling Corps was established in 1903 while the signals function remained either regimental or was an Engineer responsibility in every other British Empire (later Commonwealth) country.






The Canadian Signal Corps cap badge
_circa_ 1903 to the early 1920s

In the early 1920s, based on the rapidly changing technologies, the imperial army leaders agreed that a separate Corps of Signals was required and it/they were created ~ except in Canada where one already existed.






     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



The early Royal Corps of Signals Badge              And the early RCCS badge was similar but with  
looked like this                                                 a spray of maple leaves surrounding it

So, if we want to return to our *Canadian* roots we need a Canadian Signal Corps wearing a "crossed flags" badge and devoid of a Royal designation. If we want to be "let's pretend" colonials, à la the 1940s, '50s and '60s then let's return to the RCCS which was foisted upon us by the Brits.


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> … we don't need Royal Assent or anything more than the Ministers ok to call ourselves Corps again.  Once we are Corps we are automatically Royal again as the Queen never rescinded the honour she gave us.


According to recent news the CF is about to see a 1 to 2+ billion dollar cut.  We don't need to take more money away from operations to spend on cosmetic rebranding or turn-back-the-clock exercises.


----------



## FSTO

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Not too hard to fathom. As I recall, for our branch, we have 1 RCAF trade, 1 RCN, 1 Purple trade (who by all logic should be absorbed inti thr INT branch... despite what everyone else calls them), and one mega sized Army trade that encompasses the bulk of the pers who would be redesignated RCCS.
> 
> My spidey senses tingle in the direction that if we are going hard into reinventing a wheel, with an emphasis on logic; ATIS  will fold back into the RCAF along with their other techie cousins, *NCI Ops will fall back to RCN*, Comms Research will follow the logical path to the INT Branch and theremainder will be redesignated RCCS. Hmm seems like deja vu.



Are you meaning Naval Combat Information Operators? Never thought they left Maritime Command/RCN.


----------



## PuckChaser

FSTO said:
			
		

> Are you meaning Naval Combat Information Operators? Never thought they left Maritime Command/RCN.



They didn't. The only RCN pers we have in the branch are 291ers.

Despite the C&E Branch trying to get everything signals under its umbrella, leaving the NavComm (or NCI Op?) out for whatever reason means they failed.

If the government is trying to squeeze water from a stone and cut our budget again, royalizing is something I'd like to see us give up. Especially considering we can barely kit our troops out in serviceable uniforms and boots due to contracting/quality issues.


----------



## FSTO

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They didn't. The only RCN pers we have in the branch are 291ers.
> 
> Despite the C&E Branch trying to get everything signals under its umbrella, leaving the NavComm (or NCI Op?) out for whatever reason means they failed.
> 
> If the government is trying to squeeze water from a stone and cut our budget again, royalizing is something I'd like to see us give up. Especially considering we can barely kit our troops out in serviceable uniforms and boots due to contracting/quality issues.



At the time of unification, the RCN communicators consisted of Naval Signalmen (hoisted signal flags, flashing light, semaphore, operated bridge communications and handled message traffic and the "Radio Ladies" their official name escapes me. The "Sparkers" made sure the radio and other communication equipment worked. This trade was amalgamated to form Naval Communicators. I seem to recall that during unification there was an attempt to bring the Sigs and Sparkers into Communications Command, but for some reason that was abandoned.


----------



## Gorgo

FSTO said:
			
		

> At the time of unification, the RCN communicators consisted of Naval Signalmen (hoisted signal flags, flashing light, semaphore, operated bridge communications and handled message traffic and the "Radio Ladies" their official name escapes me. The "Sparkers" made sure the radio and other communication equipment worked. This trade was amalgamated to form Naval Communicators. I seem to recall that during unification there was an attempt to bring the Sigs and Sparkers into Communications Command, but for some reason that was abandoned.



Understandable.  It's the same reason IMO that medical technicians and physician's assistants on a ship are not part of the CF Health Services Group these days.  A Navy ship, when it heads to sea, has to be under the total and complete command of the captain.  Having parts of the ship's company - and vital parts at that - answer administratively to a different command would make problems, especially if the people at CFCC (to use the above-noted example) tried to influence operational matters which are properly the purview of the ship's captain and the direct chain of command above him.


----------



## dapaterson

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Understandable. _* It's the same reason IMO that medical technicians and physician's assistants on a ship are not part of the CF Health Services Group these days*_.  A Navy ship, when it heads to sea, has to be under the total and complete command of the captain.  Having parts of the ship's company - and vital parts at that - answer administratively to a different command would make problems, especially if the people at CFCC (to use the above-noted example) tried to influence operational matters which are properly the purview of the ship's captain and the direct chain of command above him.



Actually, they are.  All Health personnel belong to the Mothership, regardless of where they are.


----------



## mikeninercharlie

"they are.  All Health personnel belong to the Mothership, regardless of where they are."  dapaterson


Unless the situation has changed significantly since I retired, just over a year ago, ALL medical personnel ( Med Tech, PA, MO) are posted to/hard wired into the ships and submarines in which they sail. They do not belong to the mothership, that battle was fought during the Inter Component Capability Capability Transfer over a decade ago. Some light blue, organizational genius who had never spent a  day at sea tried to argue for the ownership of all medical assets, and left meeting after being well and truly sorted out by a small naval person with one eyebrow. In fact, the sole concession was transferring the Diving Unit's PA to the establishment of their supporting clinic.  BTW, I'm quite sure that the only mothership that a cox'n of one of our subs belongs to is one coated with black rubber tiles!


----------



## dapaterson

ACK & thanks for the history lesson - I wasn't aware that common sense had prevailed against the HS monster anywhere in the CF.


----------



## MARS

mikeninercharlie said:
			
		

> left meeting after being well and truly sorted out by a small naval person with one eyebrow



 ;D  Was that this guy, on the left, perhaps?  If so, that would have been pretty epic.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Has there been any financial numbers released on the cost of adding Royal to some organization yet ?


The RCN, CA, and RCAF were renamed in August 2011.  In January 2013, a CANFORGEN was published informing of renaming certain RCN orders to bring them in line with the change.  How can we publish the final costs if we are still expending time and effort (and probably money) on this name change.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> The RCN, CA, and RCAF were renamed in August 2011.  In January 2013, a CANFORGEN was published informing of renaming certain RCN orders to bring them in line with the change.  How can we publish the final costs if we are still expending time and effort (and probably money) on this name change.



Well if we don't know then perhaps the sky isn't falling after all... 

Time will tell but lets not blame low troop numbers in a rifle company on historical name changes to the RCN, CA and RCAF.  Until we actually know what the final cost is and and how the funds to cover the cost were procured its all just hearsay and chicken little syndrome.


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well if we don't know then perhaps the sky isn't falling after all...


The sky is not falling, but we have put ourselves on a slippery slope and the appetite for aesthetic initiative seems insatiable.  I would argue that the renamings may be symblomatic1 of institutional misplaced priorities during a time of fiscal restraint.  We do not know the cost of renaming not because the cost has been small but because we continue to spend resources on this year and a half old change.  But there are things we do know.

We have soldiers wearing threadbare combat uniforms because there was not the manpower to put the time and effort to keeping that procurement on timeline.  But, we had the manpower to put time and effort to progressing the name change work.  Major crown projects are returning huge sums of money and pushing-off deliverables of operational capabilities because there is not the manpower to put the time and effort into getting the leg work done.  But, we have the manpower to put time and effort into designing and proposing new renamings substantiated against the previous renamings.   Operating budgets of field units, flying units and ships are taking a huge hit, but we have vote one money for new signs, buttons, badges, songs, heraldic badges, electronic graphics, webpages, flags, and other such things that come included with a renaming. 


1. deliberate hybrid word to get some connotation from both symptomatic and symbolic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MCG said:
			
		

> The sky is not falling, but we have put ourselves on a slippery slope and the appetite for aesthetic initiative seems insatiable.  I would argue that the renamings may be symblomatic1 of institutional misplaced priorities during a time of fiscal restraint.  We do not know the cost of renaming not because the cost has been small but because we continue to spend resources on this year and a half old change.  But there are things we do know.
> 
> We have soldiers wearing threadbare combat uniforms because there was not the manpower to put the time and effort to keeping that procurement on timeline.  But, we had the manpower to put time and effort to progressing the name change work.  Major crown projects are returning huge sums of money and pushing-off deliverables of operational capabilities because there is not the manpower to put the time and effort into getting the leg work done.  But, we have the manpower to put time and effort into designing and proposing new renamings substantiated against the previous renamings.   Operating budgets of field units, flying units and ships are taking a huge hit, but we have vote one money for new signs, buttons, badges, songs, heraldic badges, electronic graphics, webpages, flags, and other such things that come included with a renaming.
> 
> 
> 1. deliberate hybrid word to get some connotation from both symptomatic and symbolic.



MCG,
it doesn't matter what points you make to the kid in the store having a tantrum for a chocolate bar.............


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> MCG,
> it doesn't matter what points you make to the kid in the store having a tantrum for a chocolate bar.............



Who's having a tantrum ?  Please expand. 

MCG, 

I hear your points,  I actually agree the operational capability of the CF is paramount and should be Pri 1 all stop.  I think there are bigger fish to fry for saving money and I doubt the name changes actually took that many pennies away from O&M budgets for the CF, but when/if that total cost is ever released I may be proven wrong.  

Material Accounting and Procurement will be our financial down fall.  This is the area that needs sweeping changes and accountability reinforced.  The word "No" is used way to little these days.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

HT,
Not specifically aimed at you, [though it appears that way] just 57 pages tired of this ridiculous subject.
Let's get on with real issues............


----------



## McG

… and to that end, let's not turn-back any of the recent clock-turn-back exercises (or other window dressing exercises), but lets also not announce any new ones.


----------



## NMPeters

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> At least since apparently the Log Branch is not asking for Royal Assent to be granted the Royal title, none of these changes are beyond the powers of the MND, so as long as the CDS agrees with this list it should not take that much longer to see that CANFORGEN/LANFORGEN.



Let's not confuse the Royal Designations with the Divisional Nomenclature. Both are separate issues and both have different levels of approval. The CDS can approve the use of "Royal" for the Branches and Corps, whereas the Divisional Nomenclature requires MND approval since CFOOs (Canadian Forces Organization Orders) and MOOs (Ministerial Organization Orders) are needed to make it happen and those are signed by the MND (and we're not talking one or two here) when he decides he wants to sit down and sign them. So how long that will take is anyone's guess.


----------



## Infanteer

Can I trade 1 x CFOO drafter for 1 x Vehicle Tech?


----------



## Journeyman

Hell, I could use a coffee as a higher priority than a CFOO drafter.  A Veh Tech? You're reaching for the stars


----------



## McG

NMPeters said:
			
		

> The CDS can approve the use of "Royal" for the Branches and Corps, ...


Of course, this will quickly lead to the need for CFOOs and MOOs as branch schools and other branch pure units begin to rename for the purpose of aligning with new branch titles.  There will also be the requests to the Canadian Heraldic Authority for new letters of patent and/or heraldic badges to go along with the rebranding (this step will also apply to the creation of divisions).


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And that was kinda brought up during EX UBIQUE 2013 with MGen Whitecross calling us the RCE now.... and the disconnect now lies with the RCAF and RCN and us as the CME, you can only have one "Royal" designation....


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> .. you can only have one "Royal" designation....


That is a complete falsehood.  One only need to look at the Infantry and Armoured which were each designated "Royal" as corps and yet contained many regiments that were seperately designated as "Royal."


----------



## Nfld Sapper

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a complete falsehood.  One only need to look at the Infantry and Armoured which were each designated "Royal" as corps and yet contained many regiments that were seperately designated as "Royal."



Yes they noted that the army has kept this, but the explanation given is that you can not be a Royal Canadian Engineer within Royal Canadian Air Force  :dunno:


----------



## Kirkhill

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yes they noted that the army has kept this, but the explanation given is that you can not be a Royal Canadian Engineer within Royal Canadian Air Force  :dunno:



But you can be a Royal Marine within the Royal Navy?


----------



## MilEME09

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But you can be a Royal Marine within the Royal Navy?



different country, different rules, even if its still in the commonwealth


----------



## McG

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> different country, different rules, even if its still in the commonwealth


The precident existed in Canada too.  One could be an RCD within the RCAC.
The can't be RCAF and RCE argument is a gimick in an emotional turf battle that has nothing to do with any actual tradition or restriction.


----------



## ArmyRick

Where is this no Royal twice in rule written? Reference in either our army, the brit army, the royal navy, what ever...


----------



## BillN

How about the _Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers_...a "double royal" in one regimental title !


----------



## garb811

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yes they noted that the army has kept this, but the explanation given is that you can not be a Royal Canadian Engineer within Royal Canadian Air Force  :dunno:


My guess is it is because the Air Force is furiously working to bring everyone back to the "you all belong to the RCAF first and your Branch second" standard so they aren't going to agree with anything that dilutes that.


----------



## Edward Campbell

garb811 said:
			
		

> My guess is it is because the Air Force is furiously working to bring everyone back to the "you all belong to the RCAF first and your Branch second" standard so they aren't going to agree with anything that dilutes that.




In some (many?) respects dividing branches into Army corps within the branch and RCN and RCAF 'components' within those same branches would help the Navy and Air Force solidify their hold on their own people. As others have pointed out, the C&E Branch, for example, is, already, _de facto_ three components: Army Signals, an Air Telecom/IT group and a tri-service SIGINT group. Rebranding the Army component as the _Canadian Signalling Corps_ (as it was designated in 1903) or _Canadian Signal Corps_ (as it was renamed in 1913) would put it firmly within the Army and would allow the RCAF to lay claim to the undivided loyalty of the _light blue_ component of the C&E Branch.


----------



## Pryce

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Q: Re-introduce Lance Corporal?
> 
> A: No, not required.
> 
> 
> If we re-introduced Lance Corporal, wouldn‘t we then have to get rid of Master Corporal?  In the days of Lance Corporals and the like, the Corporal rank was the first leadership rank.  That is why on ceremonial dress MCpl‘s wear two chevrons, indicating the rank of Corporal which is/was the same rank.  Confused yet?  Let‘s just leave the present rank structure the way it is.



Becasue their rank is Corporal(B), they just hold the appointment of Master Corporal.


----------



## Infanteer

We'll see if Zoomie can revisit his thoughts from a decade ago....


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> a CFOO drafter.




Looks like a Class B job, non annuitant of course.  >


----------



## NMPeters

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, this will quickly lead to the need for CFOOs and MOOs as branch schools and other branch pure units begin to rename for the purpose of aligning with new branch titles.  There will also be the requests to the Canadian Heraldic Authority for new letters of patent and/or heraldic badges to go along with the rebranding (this step will also apply to the creation of divisions).



Don't I know it! This is not an easy file to deal with, that's for sure!!

Edited to add: The file is still at the staff level so no decisions have yet been made one way or the other by leadership.


----------



## Infanteer

Take it to the PMs if you want to have a snowball fight.


----------



## little jim

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What Edward and MCG were getting at was rank inflation in HQs.
> 
> In the Commonwealth system, staff never outranked line.  In a Bde, the senior staff officer was a Major, who never outranked the LCol COs.  In Div, it was a LCol who never outranked the Brigadier Bde Comds.  In a Corps, the senior staff officer was a BGen who never outranked the MGen Div Comds.
> 
> We've moved, through osmosis, to a U.S. system which is the opposite; Ops Staff, from battalion S3s on up, are generally post-command ranks and senior to the subordinate commander.   This has happened to the British Army as well.  We now see that, where 20 years ago, the working rank in a Brigade HQ was Captain and at Division Major, now-a-days it is all one level higher (with LCols running all over the place at a Area HQ).
> 
> The system leads to inflation (because  a LCol means more Majors to brief them, ergo more Captains to do the work) and can upset the supposedly inviolable marker between line and staff.



This has not been my experience when working with the US system.  The past two Division G3's I worked for were newly promoted Colonels who were hoping to come out on the CSL for Brigade Command.  This will definitely not be the case in the future as the Division Staff are being down-ranked by FORSCOM.  Future Division G3's, for example, should be at the post-Command LTC rank.  Other staff primaries will likewise be effected.

I would offer that in an increasingly international or coalition headquarters I would 'love it' if we went back to the pips and crowns for the Army.  Our allies, irrespective of nation, find it difficult to determine what exactly our uniforms tell them.  The crossed swords on the name tape are a poor at identifing Army officers - especially when working in a coalition environment where commonwealth Air Force and Navy ranks seem to be easier for our allies to identify with.  Of course the RAF Regiment has a similar problem.  Some of their best fighters are on the ground.


----------



## McG

little jim said:
			
		

> Our allies, irrespective of nation, find it difficult to determine what exactly our uniforms tell them.


Unless you are constraining "allies" to mean other commonwealth countries, then this is not a unique Canadian problem.  There is no universally accepted method to indicate officer ranks.  Some of our NATO allies use chevrons on jr offr ranks.  France, Romania and others use bars/stripes similar to ourselves.  Poland and Croatia use a combination of pips and stripes.  Even amongst the nations that do use pips and/or stars, there is no accepted standard as to how increasing seniority of the icon is denoted.  And, the most recognized system of all (the US) is completely unlike any of the European pips systems.

No.  Changing back to pips will give us little advantage in a coalition setting, but it would impaire our internal to the CF interoperability.  Lets not waste money on it.


----------



## George Wallace

Heck.  Going with Pips doesn't make it any easier, as MCG pointed out.

Take a look at the NATO Ranks Chart and see what the commonality is amongst all the nations, and you can then see where the difficulties lie.


Now remember, in Star Trek, the Red T-shirts were the cannon fodder.


----------



## old fart

From a Brit Army (Enlisted) perspective the NATO chart has never been correct.

A Brit Army Cpl is a section comd.  The US equivalent is a Sgt...in many platoons you can find two Sgt's in the same squad.  As for the Brit LCpl, they are the section 2ICs- a rank that requires being selected for and passing what used to be a fairly arduous leadership cadre lasting about a month long in days of old.   

In Canada as we know, the usual rank of a section commander is like the US, a Sgt (can be MCpl)....

Brits have one Sgt in a troop/pl, equivalent to a Cdn Eng Recce Sgt.  Of course they also have Tp Staffy equivalent to a CF Army WO.  No issue with how UK Staffies and Sgts are shown in the chart. I wonder why the Brits never aligned that chart properly slotting in their Cpl and LCpl's.  

In Chilliwack once-upon-a-time, a US company on a SUE filled the WO and Sgt's mess....they were running heavy with two Sgt's per squad....the US also had a Brit Troop attached......their section commanders being Cpls were not allowed to play in the Sgt's mess of course...but US Sgt's Squad leaders and 2I/Cs who were far more junior in experience of course were.  Those Brits section commanders had already come to terms with who was who.  Of course they could not go into the Sgt mess in the UK either....a Cdn Sgt section commander of course can.

Simply stated...a Brit Army Cpl is equivalent to a US Sgt and a Cdn 6A Sgt.....certainly not equivalent to a US/Cdn Cpl as the chart traditionally shows.  The Brit LCpl is the same as a MCpl....earning his way to the rank/appt as the Cdn MCpl has and certainly not equivalent to a Cdn Private or US PFC.

My two pips....


----------



## ArmyRick

Some interesting points, I mentioned a few post back about not changing the rank structure but rather the appointments (at least in the infantry context) and how they could be slightly adjusted.

Has anybody else noticed Canadian Infantry section commanders (SGT) tend to be older than most other NATO countries?


----------



## old fart

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very often, in many (most?) regiments and corps, the use of a device above a sergeant's stripes was used to differentiate a lance sergeant from a substantive sergeant.



A branch specific badge over Sgt chevrons is still very much in use in many of the Regts and Corps in the UK.  A crown over the chevrons being a different matter....denoting the rank of S/Sgt of which most I expect are aware.

Badges such as the Engr Bomb or PTI crossed sword's etc have nothing to do with being a Lance Sgt (really a Cpl)...a term which in my recollection only applied to the Foot Guards....at least from the late 40s when my father was conscripted.  I joined the Brits in 78...never heard anyone outside the Guards called that.  Boxed against an Irish Guards Lance Sgt once....(Lost the Bout...).  Those that wear such a badge would be fully qualified Sgts.

Guards Cpls are referred to as Lance Sgt's to this day as far as I know.....but nowhere else. Lance Sgt's are not acting Sgts.....its just a name for Guards Full Cpl's these days.

Another two pips worth.....


----------



## MikeL

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Has anybody else noticed Canadian Infantry section commanders (SGT) tend to be older than most other NATO countries?



I've noticed that when working with/around Americans.  I think the youngest Inf Sgt(Reg Force) I know was 26/27 when he got the rank.  I know a couple guys in the US Army and they were promoted to Sgt and SSG around 23/24.


----------



## McG

So, we are speculating that the average US Army sect comd is 24/25 in comparison to the 26/27 year old Canadian.
Is there a difference in average enrolment age that might explain this two year difference?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Take a look at the NATO Ranks Chart and see what the commonality is amongst all the nations, and you can then see where the difficulties lie.


There is an idea.  If NATO were to adopt standardized but environment/service specific rank insignia, then a case might be made for Canada to adopt the NATO standard.    ... but I cannot see most nations accepting such a standardization of insignia.  So changing our own insignia remains a frivolous idea.


----------



## cupper

The age discrepancy can be explained by looking at the Nato equivalency chart. 

A US Sgt is equivalent to our MCpl. The Equivalent for a Cdn Sgt is a US Staff Sgt. A 2 to 4 year difference in career progression.


----------



## MikeL

MCG said:
			
		

> So, we are speculating that the average US Army sect comd is 24/25 in comparison to the 26/27 year old Canadian.
> Is there a difference in average enrolment age that might explain this two year difference?



For the examples I listed, all pers joined up when they were 18/19.

IMO it would be easier to speculate the average time it would take to get from Private to Sergeant.  I know Canadian Infantryman that became a Sgt from the ages of 26/27 - early 30s.  Based on the guys I know in the US and seeing online photos of US Troops(that list age) generally,  the impression I get is that a number of US Sgts are in their early/mid 20s.  As well,  25 and up for SSG,  plus some 23-24 year old SSGs.


----------



## dapaterson

There are available, on the DWAN, up-to-date reports that provide five-year age bands for each rank, by gender, Reg and Res.

So, for example, you can see that there is one female Reg F MWO in the 35-39 year old age group; four male Reg F Sgts in the 20-24 age group; two male Reg F WOs under 30; two male Reg F Cols below the age of 40; and four female Reg F Majs under the age of 30.


Lots and lots of UFI.


----------



## ArmyRick

In some cases age has an impact. I have brought up before and people get hot headed about it. Recently at the infantry school, they showed the ideal rate of progression they would like to see in the coming years and it had promotion to WO around 12 years. That is not the norm (maybe the PPCLI) in most infantry units.

I do agree with seeing younger infantry section commanders (ideally 25-30). From most of my fellow grunts I have spoken to agree, its still a decent age that your body isn't shutting down yet and for a section commander, he is out there pounding dirt with the troops. 

Anyways back to the rank issue, I say leave CF rank structure as is. It has worked for us for 40 some odd years, let it be. If we tinker with it now, it would be how many millions more wasted?


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are available, on the DWAN, up-to-date reports that provide five-year age bands for each rank, by gender, Reg and Res.


Is that under CMP? Do you have a link, by chance?


----------



## dapaterson

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Is that under CMP? Do you have a link, by chance?



http://dhrim04.desc.mil.ca/engraph/statistical_e.asp?cat=1

Lots of interesting reports available there.


Or, for the next time they re-org the DWAN and break all the links:

Go to the CMP homepage.
Select HRMS 7.5/EMAA
Select HR Reporting System
Select Statiistical Reports


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://dhrim04.desc.mil.ca/engraph/statistical_e.asp?cat=1
> 
> Lots of interesting reports available there.
> 
> 
> Or, for the next time they re-org the DWAN and break all the links:
> 
> Go to the CMP homepage.
> Select HRMS 7.5/EMAA
> Select HR Reporting System
> Select Statiistical Reports



Looks like I've found something to do when I'm bored at work other than read court martial decisions and laugh. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Monsoon

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://dhrim04.desc.mil.ca/engraph/statistical_e.asp?cat=1
> 
> Lots of interesting reports available there.


Finally - the tool we need to inform our many speculative "too many generals" threads! The numbers seem to be 177:123,569 (all flag ranks, Reg F and Res F, effective strength only), for a ratio of about 1:700.


----------



## McG

Too bad the stats don't break down farther into occupations.


----------



## Haggis

MCG said:
			
		

> Too bad the stats don't break down farther into occupations.



The Custom Reports available on the same site do break it down much further, but they require a password.


----------



## ARMY_101

Noticed this ridiculous story quickly garnered national media attention:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/03/12/canadas-military-is-getting-a-new-name-again/



> OTTAWA – Having already re-inserted “royal” into the names of the Canadian air force and navy, the Harper government is making another change to Canada’s military identity.
> 
> It is now quietly working to remind Canadians that their soldiers carry guns by doing away with the Chretien-era “Canadian Forces” to describe the military, and instead returning to former moniker “Canadian Armed Forces.”
> 
> Unlike the great fanfare that accompanied the Harper government’s decision to reinstate the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force, this most recent change is much more subtle.
> 
> But analysts say it is notable as part of a continuing trend of various Canadian governments rebranding the military in images more to their liking.
> 
> “I’m guessing the government wants to re-establish the image that the Canadian Forces is not Boy Scouts, as (former prime minister Jean) Chretien called them,” said Douglas Bland, a retired lieutenant-colonel and now chair of defence management studies at Queen’s University.
> 
> A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the terms Canadian Forces and Canadian Armed Forces are interchangeable, according to the National Defence Act.
> 
> But Paloma Aguilar confirmed Canadian Armed Forces “is now being used consistently by the prime minister and Minister MacKay.”
> 
> “Of the two, we think the Canadian Armed Forces is more appropriate,” she said in an email. “Our military is an armed military.”
> 
> Bland said Canadian Armed Forces was the definitive name of Canada’s military after the navy, army and air force were “unified” into one common force in 1968.
> 
> But the Chretien government quietly removed “armed” from the name as it was instigating deep budget cuts in the 1990s, he said, because it was keen on “softening” the military’s image — which helped “deflect any criticism about not buying military equipment.”
> 
> “Almost without notice it was changed by the Chretien government to the Canadian Forces,” said Bland, who at the time opposed the decision. “Changing it was a political move.”
> 
> While Bland believed the Harper government’s decision to change the name back is also politically motivated, he nonetheless approved because “it does, in our small circle within the armed forces and those who are around it, give a sense of what we’re actually about.”
> 
> It’s not the first time the Harper government has pushed the rewind button when it comes to naming the Canadian military; in August 2011, the Harper government reinstated to the “royal” designation to the names of the Canadian navy and air force after they were abolished in 1968.
> 
> The move was praised as a salute to the country’s history, but also decried as a throwback to colonial times as well as part of an attempt by the Harper government to tie the military and other national institutions and images to the Conservative brand.
> 
> Perhaps ironically, the change back to Canadian Armed Forces comes as the Defence Department faces billions of dollars in budget cuts, which has prompted concerns from some military commanders about the impact on training, reserve units and long-term planning.



Also see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/five-ways-harper-is-rebranding-the-government/article9710708/

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/national/Canadian+Forces+quietly+name/8085657/story.html

Except that there is no renaming! The CF has been formally known as the "Canadian Armed Forces" according to the _National Defence Act_, which was drafted during the unification in 1968 and amended in 1985. There is no renaming!


----------



## Wolseleydog

Technically correct that there has been "no renaming."

But there does indeed appear to have been a policy decision to utilize "CAF" in preference to "CF."

My reaction to that is (as my university aged daughter would say) "whatever," but I am bemused by this assertion (repeated across several media stories now), that there was a change from "CAF" to "CF" in the Chretien years.


----------



## Old Sweat

I think, and perhaps other aged members can confirm, that in the early days of unification there were objections to the use of CAF as this was the original title of the Canadian Air Force. Instead it was decided to use CF, and there was nothing devious or anti-operational or whatever about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think, and perhaps other aged members can confirm, that in the early days of unification there were objections to the use of CAF as this was the original title of the Canadian Air Force. Instead it was decided to use CF, and there was nothing devious or anti-operational or whatever about it.




In fact, in some places, there was an attempt to simply use "forces" because it worked, after a fashion, in both English and French.

Plus there was a glossy magazine, the name of which escapes me, which appeared to have the sole aim of displaying pictures of people in three different uniforms working together.

The late 1960s and the entire 1970s and most of the 1980s were terminally silly about such things.


----------



## Occam

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Plus there was a glossy magazine, the name of which escapes me, which appeared to have the sole aim of displaying pictures of people in three different uniforms working together.



Sentinel?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Occam said:
			
		

> Sentinel?




That sounds right.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The late 1960s and the entire 1970s and most of the 1980s were terminally silly about such things.



A masterpiece of understatement!

One theory that had a lot of traction at the time was that no procedure or policy could be put in place if it had previously been used by one of the former single services. Then Colonel Don Holmes' comments on this summed up what too many were too gutless to say, "the reason it wasn't being done was that it was dumb."


----------



## OldSolduer

We were terminally silly about a lot of things, like not being allowed to wear combats to the bank or the grocery store.

One general said the combat uniform was "too aggressive " to be worn in public.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We were terminally silly about a lot of things, like not being allowed to wear combats to the bank or the grocery store.
> 
> One general said the combat uniform was "too aggressive " to be worn in public.



Same was said about camouflage uniforms.  Made the soldier too aggressive.


----------



## PuckChaser

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We were terminally silly about a lot of things, like not being allowed to wear combats to the bank or the grocery store.
> 
> One general said the combat uniform was "too aggressive " to be worn in public.



Field Caps were said to be "too aggressive" during Op CADANCE... no idea how many heat casualties that idea caused.


----------



## Old Sweat

Jim, you didn't see the half of it. For starters it was absolutely verboten to say army, navy or air force. Instead the correct terms were land element, sea element and air element and a number of people, me not included, took this very seriously.

Some day I'll tell you the story about the Central Region vanguard being deployed on very short notice from Petawawa to Ottawa by helicopter to secure a number of key installations at the start of the FLQ crisis. However, as the unit did not have the time to complete the dangerous cargo procedure, their SAA followed them by road.

Sorry for the side track.


----------



## OldSolduer

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Jim, you didn't see the half of it. For starters it was absolutely verboten to say army, navy or air force. Instead the correct terms were land element, sea element and air element and a number of people, me not included, took this very seriously.
> 
> Some day I'll tell you the story about the Central Region vanguard being deployed on very short notice from Petawawa to Ottawa by helicopter to secure a number of key installations at the start of the FLQ crisis. However, as the unit did not have the time to complete the dangerous cargo procedure, their SAA followed them by road.
> 
> Sorry for the side track.



Please, go ahead. 

I find these stories to be teachings in that they tell us how not to do things.


Thank you.


----------



## McG

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> “Of the two, we think the Canadian Armed Forces is more appropriate,” she said in an email. “Our military is an armed military.”


Is there an example of an un-armed military?  Is "armed" not really implicit when talking about a military?

Oh well.  There will be a bun fight over who gets the acronym when we royalize the single unified service to the Royal Canadian Armed Forces ... but I suppose we could avoid it by aptly shifting the current RCAF name to the Royal Canadian Armed Air Force.


----------



## Old Sweat

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Please, go ahead.
> 
> I find these stories to be teachings in that they tell us how not to do things.
> 
> 
> Thank you.



The procedure was streamlined several years later, and I am not sure of the current situation. At the time it was not the only horror story, but the forces had been concentrating on becoming green and a lot of operational things were let slide. No one very far up the food chain had thought about printed instructions like ROE to the troops and the only doctrine most of the troops had seen was from Brit pubs like Keeping the Peace which were based on colonial situations. The Canadian legal situation flowing from Part 11 of the NDA was quite different, which was belatedly recognized.


----------



## quadrapiper

MCG said:
			
		

> Is there an example of an un-armed military?  Is "armed" not really implicit when talking about a military?
> 
> Oh well.  There will be a bun fight over who gets the acronym when we royalize the single unified service to the Royal Canadian Armed Forces ... but I suppose we could avoid it by aptly shifting the current RCAF name to the Royal Canadian Armed Air Force.


Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces?


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The new pattern RCAF mess kit is about to be approved AFAIK, in short order (I heard it would be avail in May).  (pic attached)


Interesting rank on the sleeve.  Is the RCAF adopting the RCN style of stripes above the General's stripe to identify rank?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd be guessing so will have to defer to someone who knows for sure.


----------



## McG

Looks like the RCAF doesn't want to risk Comd RCAF having less arm bling than DGMEPM, Cmdt CFC, CMP, CFC, etc.  If it goes that way, I wonder how long for the Army to follow?


----------



## jpjohnsn

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting rank on the sleeve.  Is the RCAF adopting the RCN style of stripes above the General's stripe to identify rank?


Or, to put it another way, is the RCAF adopting pre-unification RCAF style of stripes above the General's stripe to identify rank?


----------



## McG

It is definitely the post-unification style stripes and not the pre-unification style.


----------



## Stonegeneral

This change would be in keeping with pre-unification RCAF rank insignia as the mess dress and full dress uniforms of the old service were worn in gold as opposed to the composite braid (blue and black rank braid) found in the old service dress.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Back to ranks; my *sense*, based on what I've read and heard over the years is that the RCN and the RCAF do not need the same (or as many) ranks as does the Army.

I believe that something like what I have shown in the table below might meet our needs. Plus, see my really important comments in the table attached to this post from about six weeks ago.

Don't get hung up on rank titles. We need rank titles and insignia that:

     1. Make sense to our own people;

     2. Make our people proud of the rank they hold;

     3. Work in both official languages, especially in abbreviated form; and

     4. Are sensible to Canadian civilian and our allies.

I think that the Army needs to put much of its emphasis on junior leadership: section/tank commander and below. This is where soldiers learn to be leaders. I think we should return to the "good old days" when unit commanding officers could _appoint_ lance corporals (who got a helluva pay raise, I might add) because they, not some remote bureaucrats or computers in Ottawa, know who is (or is not) likely to develop into a good leader. Most of the authority to promote up to and including Petty Officer 2nd Class, Sergeant and Senior technician (in my terms) needs to reside with ship and unit COs and formation (Group, Brigade and Wing) commanders; Ottawa needs to have a supporting and administrative role.

We need to rethink how we "honour" our top level people. Being the CF or Command or even Brigade Warrant Officer is NOT as important as being a Cox'n, RSM or Wing WO - the former are support jobs, the latter are operational and they should be first in the order of precedence; if anything fancy is to be added to the coat of arms (a gold wreath, for example) it should be to the badge of the Cox'n, RSM or Wing WO.

My  :2c: - and it's worth everything you're paying for it.


----------



## McG

Edward,
I think the existence of appointments at each NCM rank level, which environments and occupation managers could opt to use or not, would provide a mechanism to address the Army's need for more levels of NCO.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MCG said:
			
		

> Looks like the RCAF doesn't want to risk Comd RCAF having less arm bling than DGMEPM, Cmdt CFC, CMP, CFC, etc.  If it goes that way, I wonder how long for the Army to follow?



I hope to God that the proposed rank structure/insignia chart you put up is a joke?


----------



## wannabe SF member

You're gonna jynx it!!!  >


----------



## quadrapiper

Never quite understood why or how the current Private structure or terminology evolved. How does the role of a modern AB or Private compare to a pre-unification AB, LCpl, or Leading Aircraftsman?


----------



## CombatDoc

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I hope to God that the proposed rank structure/insignia chart you put up is a joke?


No joke. You can see that both the Army and the Air Force had the good sense to add the Admiralty Curl to all their ranks, clear acknowledgement of the Senior Service's superior haberdashery.


----------



## Jungle

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I hope to God that the proposed rank structure/insignia chart you put up is a joke?



Well, it's PER season; if one is not _Leading Change_, one cannot get the points for it...


----------



## quadrapiper

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> No joke. You can see that both the Army and the Air Force had the good sense to add the Admiralty Curl to all their ranks, clear acknowledgement of the Senior Service's superior haberdashery.


Or that, in fact, the whole mess is being driven by a cabal of tailors and gold-lace makers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Never quite understood why or how the current Private structure or terminology evolved. How does the role of a modern AB or Private compare to a pre-unification AB, LCpl, or Leading Aircraftsman?




They didn't correspond "way back when:" the Navy AB and the RCAF LAC were journeyman tradesmen - able to work under moderate supervision. A LCpl was a Non Commissioned Officer with all that implied.

The old RCN AB and the LAC are the equivalent of todays Cpl/Pte in so far as most corporals, today, do not have any real leadership responsibilities, BUT all corporals are NCOs, just like the LCpl was.

As to why: one of Minister Hellyer's main aims, back in the early 1960s, was to address a compensation problem. The CF had fallen quite far behind in pay but there was no political will to raise salaries. One of Minister Hellyer's _outcomes_ was to, essentially, make every AB, private (trained higher rate) in the army and LAC a corporal and give them a healthy pay raise. He also _inflated_ the rank of sergeant by making it the rank for the tank commander and infantry section commander, vice corporal which had been the case for 50_ish_ years. Junior officer ranks were similarly _inflated_ in 1966/67. I can assure that many people serving back then really appreciated the pay raises.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

So how was that pay raise Mr. Campbell...... ;D


----------



## dapaterson

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> So how was that pay raise Mr. Campbell...... ;D



Well, it came around after he had retired...

 >


----------



## Edward Campbell

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> So how was that pay raise Mr. Campbell...... ;D



It wasn't really a pay raise, just a rank adjustment, making lieutenants into captains a couple or three years early.* (My promotion came a couple of months before that.)

Although Mr. Hellyer _inflated_ the ranks, the real, serious pay raises came later, around 1970, when the Trudeau government approved a series of public sector _reforms_ which included tying military salaries to civil service _bench marks_. We all _*noticed*_ that.  ;D


_____
* But the new system did away with qualifications (examinations) for promotion - something that was not rectified for many, many years.


----------



## McG

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I hope to God that the proposed rank structure/insignia chart you put up is a joke?


Who's to say.  I've seen far too much email traffic on pips & crowns in the last two years.  I'd like to think it is all going to nowhere, but there has been a steady stream of image over substance changes/announcements over this same time period (and we know more things are still in the works).  If there has to be change, I'd rather see something that builds on our modern pan-CAF rank tradition (to facilitate our internal CAF cooperation with a commonly recognized rank).  I would also hope any change is driven around improving the rank structure/system as opposed to being driven around introducing a new image.

I have provided a satirical proposal before, but the things that really need to be changed in our rank system can be changed without reinventing all the window dressings.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> It seems there will always be people pushing for rank changes in order to make things "look more Army/Air Force/Navy" or impose one generation's traditions over another's.  None of these good ideas should ever gain traction.  However, there are a number of legitimate (though not necessarily all significant) complaints about the rank structure & progression itself.  Perhaps, instead of focusing on what badges should/could look like, we could talk about how to improve the CF rank structure and address some of these emotional icon topics within that solution.
> 
> I know many in the Army who lament the devaluation of Cpl from the first leadership rank to a journeyman status indicator, and the "insta-corporal" (certain occupations immediately promoted on reaching 3s qual) exacerbates this.  The automatic promotion from Lt to Capt also devalues the distinction between those to ranks (though there most certainly is a difference between those ready to be Capt and those who just get it anyway).  This needs to be fixed.
> 
> I have heard from members of the RCN that the lack of the Midshipman (a second tier of subordinate officer) is a problem, and that unification has left them with more levels of NCM rank than make sense aboard a ship.  At the same time, there are times and places in the Army where an intermediate rank (or appointment) would be helpful to set-apart pers with a responsibility to "lead their peers."  At the same time, there are some technical trades that require added level of authority to carry out their jobs.  Both of these requirements could be satisfied by establishing more levels of appointments, the availability of which may vary by MOS, environment and unit.  As we already have "MCpl" as the precedent for an appointment, "Master" could be used as the standard appointment prefix for most ranks.  As appointments would not need to exist uniformly across all occupations, environments or occupations without the need for all our current ranks levels would have the option to not use an appointment level.  We could even decide that all appointments would be while so employed.
> 
> Canada is lacking a rank at the NATO OF-10 level and the US "six star" level.  Where we want to be seen as a big-hitter military, we need to be able to put guys at this level - even if, like our allies who have these ranks, we only use them in wartime or honorary upon retirement.  While Nimitz did the Fleet Admiral thing well, history's most impressive officers at this level have been Field Marshals and Field Marshal Generals.  Fans of Commonwealth tradition will also note existence of the Air Marshal rank (though not at the OF-10 level). And so, by also creating the unheard-of "Sea Marshal," we could introduce a series of marshal ranks as a unique Canadian level over the Admirals and Generals.  Tipping our hat to the other founding nation, the six star would be Marshal of Canada.
> 
> So, with all those good-ideas imposed on the rank system, there is room to slide in a few of those apparently strongly desired cosmetic changes.  But, a full turn-back the clock exercise is no good.  We need to recognize our full heritage (which includes the period of unification), and we need to maintain insignia recognizable across all elements.
> 
> First of all, to recognize the period of our heritage most heavily influence by unification, the rank of Sergeant will be imposed across all three services (though, colonial identity purists could make an argument that we should go with the WO ranks across all services as the RN has both POs and WOs).
> 
> Next, officer rank insignia will be unchanged.  The exception will be that all generals of the Army & Air persuasion will also wear the executive curl (after all, we cannot risk DGMEPM wandering around with more bling that any of the Comd CA, Comd RCAF, VCDS or CDS).  Sea/Field/Air Marshals shall have an additional arm braid and shoulder insignia of crossed batons in laurels under a crown (to please our pro UK insignia crowd).
> 
> The Air Force officers will go to a system that recognizes the RAF (and therefore RCAF) roots in both Army and Navy.  It will also recognize the pre-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Navy Ranks) and the post-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Army ranks).  To do this, we will simply substitute a few "Army Ranks" into the list of "Navy Ranks."
> 
> In the RCN, Acting Sub Lieutenant is to wordy and confusing.  Following the Commonwealth tradition of the RNZN, we will established Ensign as a commissioned rank equivalent to the Army 2Lt.  This will have the added Canadian benefit of matching the rank to its French translation.
> 
> For NCMs, the rank insignia will remain largely unchanged.  The same chevrons, crowns and 1957 Coat of Arms.  However, the maple leaves will be replaced with environmentally specific images to appease the "we need to look more Army/Navy/Air Force" groups.  Instead of "Master Private" we will call this level of appointment "specialist" or "Lance Corporal."  We will also allow a deviation to reflect nine ranks that can be found in the NDA - those of Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Aircraftman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, and Craftsman.  For these ranks, the environment specific "Master" designator will be unique to the rank (such as a flaming grenade for Gunner, CME beaver for Sapper, or a propeller for Aircraftman) but its placement over the single chevron will leave it understood by all.  These branch or occupation specific markings will not continue at any higher rank level (not even for Master Bombardier).
> 
> … and if we are going to keep musicians in the CF, I would introduce "Musician" as a Pte level appointment with the lyre over one chevron to distinguish the rank.  This would replace the practice of insta-Sgt within that occupation.
> 
> Of course this would require some small NDA adjustments:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-142.html#h-221


----------



## dapaterson

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4731

The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:

Royal Canadian Armoured Corps; 
The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers; 
Royal Canadian Corps of Signals; 
Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and 
The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. 

The new title of the Canadian Army Military Police Group has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.


----------



## medicineman

Oh well, guess I won't see the RCAMC come back any time soon...

MM


----------



## StarFury

News Release

*Minister MacKay delivers keynote address at Canadian Club and announces the Restoration of historic identities of Canadian Army Corps*



> NR 13.110 - April 19, 2013
> 
> TORONTO, ON – In a keynote address at the Canadian Club of Toronto today, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced that the Government of Canada has restored the historical names of five Canadian Army corps, in addition to changing the title of another organization.
> 
> Minister MacKay’s speech, entitled “The Heritage and Future of the Canadian Armed Forces”, focused on the Government's investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Defence portfolio’s relationship with Canadian business and the impact of Defence spending in Canadian communities.
> 
> “I am proud to say that since 2006, this Government has embarked on a “decade of delivery” for the Canadian Armed Forces, delivering the equipment, the infrastructure and the personnel support that these men and women need,” said Minister MacKay.
> 
> The announcement of the restoration of historical names for Canadian Army corps is the next step in the phased approach begun in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored.
> 
> “Our country continues to ask a great deal of our soldiers.  Our government is committed to honouring their actions, heritage and sacrifices,” said Minister MacKay. “Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today’s men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Army.”
> 
> The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:
> 
> •Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;
> •The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;
> •Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;
> •Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and
> •The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
> 
> The new title of the Canadian Army Military Police Group has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.
> 
> These and other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.


----------



## mikeninercharlie

Or, the Royal title could be awarded to coincide the the retirement / laying up of the QMB, and presentation of the "Princess Royal's Banner" later this year...


----------



## medicineman

Here's hoping...never thought of that  ;D.

MM


----------



## George Wallace

Royal Canadian Armour Corps is not a change.  It has always been the Royal Canadian Armour Corps (RCAC).


----------



## Rheostatic

> “decade of delivery”


I see what you did there.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Royal Canadian Armoured Corps is not a change.  It has always been the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps (RCAC).




While the Armour Branch continued to use the designation RCAC after 1968, I *believe* the Royal Canadian Arnoured Corps, proper, was disestablished. 

Regiments, including the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, whcih was a corps with two _components_ (the RCA and the RCHA) each with several regiments, kept their _Royal_ titles but the others ceased to exist, officially.


----------



## eliminator

New RCAF mess kit prototype Is up on the RCAF CWO's Facebook page....


----------



## dapaterson

eliminator said:
			
		

> New RCAF mess kit prototype Is up on the RCAF CWO's Facebook page....



Good to know that in our ongoing effort to streamine and eliminate paperwork we no longer need the CF dress manual or chain of command - we've got Facebook instead!


----------



## Kirkhill

What?  The Purple trades don't get their Crown?

Royal Waggoners?  Commissariat?  Train? Service? Control? QM?....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What?  The Purple trades don't get their Crown?
> 
> Royal Waggoners?  Commissariat?  Train? Service? Control? QM?....



You mean Logistics specifically I would assume by your post...

We are a mess of too many people who have many different ideas of our identity; and I believe (as a loggie, Sup Tech) this comes from a lack of esprit de corps (sp ?). 

We need to tackle our own identity issues from within before we go seeking crowns and royal designations.  Perhaps this isn't our foremost priority but never the less, as I stated before, I do believe we need to tackle it before we seek to rename our selves.


----------



## McG

It is good to see we are looking after branding while other problems go undressed for lack of national level staff.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The RCN, CA, and RCAF were renamed in August 2011.  In January 2013, a CANFORGEN was published informing of renaming certain RCN orders to bring them in line with the change.  ... we are still expending time and effort (and probably money) on this name change.


It seems the Army has also continued to expend energy on the follow-up to the almost 2 year old rebranding.  Two weeks ago it had a CANFORGEN informing of the renaming of CANLANDGENS to CANARMYGEN to come in line with the previous change.  Unlike the earlier message from the RCN, the Army also told us to expect additional changes to Army nomenclature pending analysis and appropriate approval from all stakeholders.  I suppose today's announcement was part of that foreshadowed nomenclature change.  I wonder if the div names are still waiting in the wings or if this was the last shoe to drop.


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> You mean Logistics specifically I would assume by your post...
> 
> We are a mess of too many people who have many different ideas of our identity; and I believe (as a loggie, Sup Tech) this comes from a lack of esprit de corps (sp ?).
> 
> We need to tackle our own identity issues from within before we go seeking crowns and royal designations.  Perhaps this isn't our foremost priority but never the less, as I stated before, I do believe we need to tackle it before we seek to rename our selves.



Loadmasters, packer/riggers, cooks, clerks, drivers and ammo techs. Among many, many, others. You truly do have a leadership challenge to create a single Logistics Branch identity that doesn't exclude any of your components. Calling it the Royal Canadian Logistics Branch wouldn't solve that alone. It's harder than just buttons and bows.

Just for curiosity's sake, is the Logistics Branch the single largest reg force capbadge? I figure it would be either Logistics or Air Operations, but I wonder what the actual numbers are.

One day when I'm bored I'll total up the TES of each Reg Force MOSID -- just to satisfy this curiousity.


----------



## Armynewsguy

The RCEME Rats are back!   :camo:


----------



## CombatDoc

medicineman said:
			
		

> Oh well, guess I won't see the RCAMC come back any time soon...
> 
> MM


No, you won't, because RCAMC is specific to the Army Medical Corps which doesn't correspond to the tri-service, purple nature of the CFMS.  More appropriate Royal designations, perhaps...


----------



## Halifax Tar

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> No, you won't, because RCAMC is specific to the Army Medical Corps which doesn't correspond to the tri-service, purple nature of the CFMS.  More appropriate Royal designations, perhaps...



A Very astute point and one that can be applied to Logistics as well


----------



## dapaterson

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> No, you won't, because RCAMC is specific to the Army Medical Corps which doesn't correspond to the tri-service, purple nature of the CFMS.  More appropriate Royal designations, perhaps...



Dentists, on the other hand, have always been all Army...

"Royal Canadian Tooth Decay Prevention Corps"


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Loadmasters, packer/riggers, cooks, clerks, drivers and ammo techs. Among many, many, others. You truly do have a leadership challenge to create a single Logistics Branch identity that doesn't exclude any of your components. Calling it the Royal Canadian Logistics Branch wouldn't solve that alone. It's harder than just buttons and bows.
> 
> Just for curiosity's sake, is the Logistics Branch the single largest reg force capbadge? I figure it would be either Logistics or Air Operations, but I wonder what the actual numbers are.
> 
> One day when I'm bored I'll total up the TES of each Reg Force MOSID -- just to satisfy this curiousity.



Its a complete guess but I would say you are right in saying Log being may be the most populated cap badge in the CF.  Sup Techs, Ammo Techs, Cooks, Truckers, Clerks, Traffic Techs, Posties and then the Log Os as well... Did I miss anyone ?


----------



## medicineman

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> No, you won't, because RCAMC is specific to the Army Medical Corps which doesn't correspond to the tri-service, purple nature of the CFMS.  More appropriate Royal designations, perhaps...



I get that...but since I was never really accepting of the Mothership beaming us back up anyway, I can always dream  ;D.

MM


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> I wonder ... if this was the last shoe to drop.


Found my answer in the press release.  We have another year of branding announcements ahead (and ensuring consumption of resources to implement).



> These and other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.


----------



## CombatDoc

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Its a complete guess but I would say you are right in saying Log being may be the most populated cap badge in the CF.  Sup Techs, Ammo Techs, Cooks, Truckers, Clerks, Traffic Techs, Posties and then the Log Os as well... Did I miss anyone ?


Are stewards considered Log?


----------



## Happy Guy

Quote from: Ostrozac on Today at 17:14:11
Loadmasters, packer/riggers, cooks, clerks, drivers and ammo techs. Among many, many, others. You truly do have a leadership challenge to create a single Logistics Branch identity that doesn't exclude any of your components. Calling it the Royal Canadian Logistics Branch wouldn't solve that alone. It's harder than just buttons and bows.

Just for curiosity's sake, is the Logistics Branch the single largest reg force capbadge? I figure it would be either Logistics or Air Operations, but I wonder what the actual numbers are.

One day when I'm bored I'll total up the TES of each Reg Force MOSID -- just to satisfy this curiousity.

Its a complete guess but I would say you are right in saying Log being may be the most populated cap badge in the CF.  Sup Techs, Ammo Techs, Cooks, Truckers, Clerks, Traffic Techs, Posties and then the Log Os as well... Did I miss anyone ? 

____________________________________________________

The Logistics Branch is the result of the amalgamation of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC), the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps (RCOC), the Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps (RCAPC), the Royal Canadian Army Postal Corps with their respective administrative and logistics counterparts from the RCN and the RCAF.  The Logistics Branch is one of the largest in the CAF - roughly 11,000.

The Logistics Branch declined to form the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC).  I can only speculate the reason why but I believe that Halifax Tar is essentially correct.  What happens to the Branch if you allow the army component to become the RCLC?  What happens to the RCN and RCAF components?


----------



## kratz

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Are stewards considered Log?



Not since they moved out of CFSAL and into CFNOS. 

Now they are a hard sea trade.


----------



## 392

MCG said:
			
		

> ...I wonder if the div names are still waiting in the wings or if this was the last shoe to drop.



I'm pretty sure this is still going ahead - the div names being implemented was one of the details in amongst a bunch of other points from the last Army Council meeting that was forwarded down the pipe from K'town.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4731
> 
> The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:
> 
> Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;
> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;
> Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
> 
> The new title of the Canadian Army Military Police Group has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.



 :deadhorse:

I will repeat that, in so far as the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals is concerned, I am saddened that whoever is doing this is hung up on the 1960s and is ignoring our own, distinctive, Canadian, military history.

The Royal Corps of Signals was born in the early 1920s and the existing Canadian Signal Corps (which was established on 24 Oct 1903 by General Order 167) was required to rebadge to conform to imperial standards. Prior to the establishment of the Royal Corps of Signals, and its imperial (Commonwealth) offshoots, signalling in the British Empire was a function of the Royal Engineers, except in Canada where the responsibilities were shared prior to and during World War I (1st Division Signal Company was a Canadian Signal Corps unit commanded, throughout the war, by Maj FA Lister of The RCR; 2nd, 3rd and 4th Division Signal Companies were RCE units).

     The Canadian Signal Corps had a distinctive crossed flags badge:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





     In the 1920s the Brits adopted Mercury, the messenger of the gods, ("Jimmy" in Signals parlance) as their symbol and the original RSigs badge incorporated him:

                
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     The Canadians adopted a similar badge with a wreath of maple leaves:

                 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     But, while the Brits (and Australians and Indians and so on) adopted "Jimmy" as both a cap and collar badge the Canadians adapted their CSC cab badge and made it their distinctive collar badge:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





Adopting the name _Royal Canadian Corps of Signals_ ignores a big slice of Canada's military history, as does retaining "Jimmy" as the corps' central visual "device." The correct decision would have been to name the Army component of the C&E Branch the *Canadian Signal Corps* and to restore (adapt) that Corps' historic badge:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




End :deadhorse:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

ER Campbell,

I wonder how political this decision is.

To my knowledge, I do not know a single living person that served under a CSC designation.  I do however know quite a few WW2, Korea, and pre unification vets that have waited a long time to see a return to the way we were. 

The dead can't vote after all...  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

After going from being a 215, to a 00329, to a 00362, to a 00362-04 I am just waiting for the Good Idea Fairy to come up with yet another rebranding of Sigs that has no operational or strategic benefit to getting messages passed. 

Just my nickel (rounded up)


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> ER Campbell,
> 
> I wonder how political this decision is.
> 
> To my knowledge, I do not know a single living person that served under a CSC designation.  I do however know quite a few WW2, Korea, and pre unification vets that have waited a long time to see a return to the way we were.
> 
> The dead can't vote after all...  :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> After going from being a 215, to a 00329, to a 00362, to a 00362-04 I am just waiting for the Good Idea Fairy to come up with yet another rebranding of Sigs that has no operational or strategic benefit to getting messages passed.
> 
> Just my nickel (rounded up)




I think the _politics_ lies with a (relatively) small handful of people - some of whom even served in the military - who believe that Paul Hellyer was (still is, actually - he's alive and well) the devil incarnate and that everything he did was, perforce, the devil's work. (How else to explain the naval officer's uniform that was displayed, à la _in memorium_, in the front hall of the HMCS Bytown wardroom (officers' mess) in Ottawa?) For the longest time - still going on - we put buttons and bows at least on the same level as operational effectiveness. These folks are committed to undoing Mr. Hellyer's experiment - even the useful parts, and there are some. They are persistent and that works when mounting an essentially _political_ campaign like this.

I well remember when, early in the Mulroney government, we spent tens of millions of very scarce dollars on _Coates of many colours"_ - our name (in at least one part of NDHQ) for the distinctive environmental uniform (DEU) project direct, because it was an election promise, by then MND Bob Coates. It was wildly popular. Soldiers (and sailors and RCAF members, too) _like_ "buttons and bows." New bling, new badges and new uniforms are very popular with the troops; if they weren't you know that admirals and generals from Thériault to Natynczyk and now Lawson wouldn't keep promoting and supporting them.

Hell's bell's, I supported the reintroduction of the _executive curl_ and I am happy with the restoration of RCN and RCAF and, indeed, RCE, RCCS and RCEME except that I wish our historical focus extended back beyond 1968. I have no objection, at all, to _Royal Canadian Corps of Signals_ (I served with considerable pride in that Corps), I just wish we were doing it right: reestablishing the CSC and then seeking royal assent for renaming it RCCS thus ensuring that Signals reflects all of its history, including 1903-1920. My objection isn't a big thing and I doubt it will have much effect - although I will bend LGen Therialut's ear on the matter - but I do have a certain respect for history and I fear we will ignore it.


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A Very astute point and one that can be applied to Logistics as well



I agree. "Corps", in my mind, is an army thing, "Branch" is a tri-service (or bi-service) thing. If you want to call the Communications and Electronics Branch the "Royal Canadian Signals" or "Royal Canadian Signals Branch"-- I have no issues. If you want to call it the "Royal Canadian Corps of Signals" -- then I think you are excluding your air force and navy pers that wear the same capbadge, for no good reason. 

I have the same issues with my engineer colleagues -- why couldn't the new name for the "Canadian Military Engineers" be simply "Royal Canadian Engineers" -- throwing "corps" into the mix implies, to me, an intent to split away the air force engineers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I agree. "Corps", in my mind, is an army thing, "Branch" is a tri-service (or bi-service) thing. If you want to call the Communications and Electronics Branch the "Royal Canadian Signals" or "Royal Canadian Signals Branch"-- I have no issues. If you want to call it the "Royal Canadian Corps of Signals" -- then I think you are excluding your air force and navy pers that wear the same capbadge, for no good reason.
> 
> I have the same issues with my engineer colleagues -- why couldn't the new name for the "Canadian Military Engineers" be simply "Royal Canadian Engineers" -- throwing "corps" into the mix implies, to me, an intent to split away the air force engineers.




I'm guessing that the intention is to separate the Army Engineers and Signals from their Navy and Air Force confreres. My assumption is that the intention is to allow the Army to take greater "ownership" of those people, including their training and career progression. That shouldn't mean that Signal officers will not be trained or employed in fixed (strategic) communications or strategic SIGINT but it should mean that Signal officers will be, primarily, trained and employed in Army combat operations for, at least, the beginning of their careers.

In other words I think the Corps designation is intentional and it is meant to be divisive.

My  :2c: - and worth everything you're paying for it, too.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Time for some Rogue thoughts:

In Praise of Infantry

Field-Marshal Earl Wavell

First published in "The Times," Thursday, 19th April 1945

MY attention was lately called by a distinguished officer to the fact that, whereas in official correspondence and in the Press it is the practice always to use initial capital letters in referring to other arms of the service—e.g. Royal Armoured Corps, Royal Artillery, etc.—the infantry often suffered the indignity of a small "i". My friend wished to adopt the usual method of an Englishman with a grievance and to write to The Times about it! But he proposed to do it vicariously, through me. Hence this article. I had not, I admit, noticed the small "i" myself, nor would it have worried me greatly if I had. But I do feel strongly that the Infantry arm (with a capital "I") does not receive either the respect or the treatment to which its importance and its exploits entitle it. This may possibly be understandable, though misguided, in peace; it is intolerable in war.

Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm. The role of the average artilleryman, for instance, is largely routine; the setting of a fuse, the loading of a gun, even the laying of it are processes which, once learnt, are mechanical. The infantryman has to use initiative and intelligence in almost every step he moves, every action he takes on the battle-field. We ought therefore to put our men of best intelligence and endurance into the Infantry.

Yet the Infantry in peace or war receives the lowest rates of pay, the drabbest uniforms, sometimes even the least promising of recruits; most important of all, it ranks lowest in the public estimation and prestige. This is all wrong and should be set right by methods more important than a capital I.

In all the long history of war on land the front-line fighting man, whose role is to close with the enemy and force him to flee, surrender, or be killed—the only method by which battles are ever won—has two categories only—those who fight mounted—once the Knights-at-arms, then the Cavalry, now the Royal Armoured Corps—and those who fight on their feet—the inevitable, enduring, despised, long-suffering Infantry (with a very capital I). Artillery, Engineers, R.A.S.C., and the like simply handle the weapons and equipment which Infantry have from time to time discarded, when they found that they encumbered their mobility and lessened their power to perform their primary role of closing with the enemy. The cannon, bombard, or what-not, when first introduced was an infantry weapon; when it impeded mobility it was handed over to second-line men, to support the Infantry. Similarly with other weapons and devices.

So that the real front-line fighters, mounted or dismounted, are the men who should receive such panoply and glamour as are accorded to this dreary business of war. The mounted men have always had it—prancing steeds, glittering uniforms, sabretaches, scimitars, dolmans, leopard-skins, and the like in the old days; the imposing clatter of tanks and smart black berets in these sterner days. But the infantryman who bears the danger, the dirt, and the discomfort has never enjoyed the same prestige.

In peace, the Royal Armoured Corps, the Artillery, the Engineers all had Inspectors to look after their interests. The Infantry had to content themselves with a humiliating asterisk in the Army List and a footnote which explained that the Director of Military Training (who was sometimes a gunner or engineer) also acted as Inspector of Infantry. The Royal Armoured Corps had a centre at Bovington, the Artillery at Woolwich, the Engineers at Chatham. But the Infantry were homeless. There was a Cavalry Journal, an Artillery Journal, an Engineer Journal, but no Infantry Journal. I understand that it is intended to repair these omissions after the war.

But I believe that what the Infantry would appreciate more than anything is some outward and visible symbol. No one grudges the parachutist his very distinctive emblem, but the infantryman is, I will maintain, subject to greater and more continuous, though less spectacular, risk than the parachutist, and should certainly have an emblem. What it should be I must leave to others—a rampant lion, crossed bayonets, a distinctive piping ?

It can surely not have escaped notice that nearly all our leaders who have distinguished themselves in this war have been infantrymen—Field-Marshals Dill, Alexander, Montgomery, Wilson; Generals Auchinleck, O'Connor, Platt, Leese, Dempsey, and others. Last war was a very static war, but there was a fashion for cavalry generals; in this war infantry generals have shown that they can move as fast as any.

http://regimentalrogue.com/misc/in_praise_of_infantry.htm


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm guessing that the intention is to separate the Army Engineers and Signals from their Navy and Air Force confreres. My assumption is that the intention is to allow the Army to take greater "ownership" of those people, including their training and career progression.



How would that work for the 291 trade? The only 2 solutions are to remove them as a purple trade and make them strictly Army, or send them to another branch.


----------



## buzgo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How would that work for the 291 trade? The only 2 solutions are to remove them as a purple trade and make them strictly Army, or send them to another branch.



Here is a suggestion: ATIS and the CELE(AIR) trades go to the RCAF. Comm research gets its own EW branch. 

I know that the Air trades have been rumbling about this for a while, maybe the time is right for them to make their move.


----------



## PuckChaser

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Comm research gets its own EW branch.



Good way to employ a bunch of Chiefs and more officers, but does 600 or so pers need their own branch? I don't think so at all.


----------



## buzgo

Aren't there a number of small branches? Band, JAG, TDEV, PSel, Chaplains, Dental...


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How would that work for the 291 trade? The only 2 solutions are to remove them as a purple trade and make them strictly Army, or send them to another branch.




Why do they have to change?

I expect that we will routinely find a mix of people - uniforms - in Amy Signal units and in Air Wings: the necessary mix of technical skills, leadership ability and experience should decide who goes where. Do we really care what suit colour the folks in Leitrim wear? Do they all have to be one colour? I think the answer is no.

We should not be surprised to find many tri-service units in our modern _joint_ forces.  Do you mind that the CH147 _Chinooks_ are flown by light blue pilots; do those pilots care that the radios in their CP are operated and maintained by green soldiers? Would the CO of a Tac Hel Sqn care if his chief cook wears a navy blue uniform? I don't think so, at least not so long as the meals were good.


----------



## PuckChaser

What I meant was, if you're going to split out the Army pers in the C&E Branch back into the Army, do you now have 2 branches (C&E and RCCS), or do you split the 291ers up and send them to their respective elements?

As to what uniform people wear in Letrim... I'll hold my tongue on that one.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4731
> 
> The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:
> 
> Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;
> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;
> Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
> 
> The new title of the Canadian Army Military Police Group has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.



Out of curiosity more than anything else but were there official French equivalents of the historic designations ? or was the English name used even when the rest of the text was in French? If there wasn't anything historic does there not need to be French equivalents or is there a historical exemption?


----------



## Ostrozac

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity more than anything else but were there official French equivalents of the historic designations ? or was the English name used even when the rest of the text was in French? If there wasn't anything historic does there not need to be French equivalents or is there a historical exemption?



Yes, there are french equivalents. I'm not sure if these were also used in the 60's. 

_Les anciennes désignations des corps suivants ont été rétablies :

    Corps blindé royal canadien;
    Corps du Génie royal canadien;
    Corps royal canadien des transmissions;
    Corps d’infanterie royal canadien;
    Corps royal canadien des ingénieurs électriciens et mécaniciens._


----------



## cupper

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity more than anything else but were there official French equivalents of the historic designations ? or was the English name used even when the rest of the text was in French? If there wasn't anything historic does there not need to be French equivalents or is there a historical exemption?



Oh dear.  :worms:


----------



## Good2Golf

They missed the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.  :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## cupper

Does anybody really miss the Service Corps?


----------



## jpjohnsn

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> They missed the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.  :nod:
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I know my dad was hoping they'd figure a way to bring it back.  He joined as a soldier apprentice and served in the Service Corps.


----------



## Good2Golf

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I know my dad was hoping they'd figure a way to bring it back.  He joined as a soldier apprentice and served in the Service Corps.



The Service Corps had one of the best march pasts, IMO.  :nod:

jpjohnsn, what was your father's trade?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Gorgo

Just was announced by Minister MacKay on Friday:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4731

*Minister MacKay delivers keynote address at Canadian Club and announces the Restoration of historic identities of Canadian Army Corps

NR 13.110 - April 19, 2013
*

TORONTO, ON – In a keynote address at the Canadian Club of Toronto today, the Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced that the Government of Canada has restored the historical names of five Canadian Army corps, in addition to changing the title of another organization.

Minister MacKay’s speech, entitled “The Heritage and Future of the Canadian Armed Forces”, focused on the Government's investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, the Defence portfolio’s relationship with Canadian business and the impact of Defence spending in Canadian communities.

“I am proud to say that since 2006, this Government has embarked on a “decade of delivery” for the Canadian Armed Forces, delivering the equipment, the infrastructure and the personnel support that these men and women need,” said Minister MacKay.

The announcement of the restoration of historical names for Canadian Army corps is the next step in the phased approach begun in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored.

“Our country continues to ask a great deal of our soldiers.  Our government is committed to honouring their actions, heritage and sacrifices,” said Minister MacKay. “Restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today’s men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Army.”

The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:

    Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;
    The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;
    Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;
    Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and
    The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.

The new title of the Canadian Army Military Police Group has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.

These and other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The Service Corps had one of the best march pasts, IMO.  :nod:


"Wait for the Waggon" (with or without that extra "g") is as familiar to me as "O Canada"  


> jpjohnsn, what was your father's trade?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Dad joined as one of the Green Monsters and was a driver when he joined 2 Tpt Coy.  He mostly drove trucks but also trained on motorcycles for riding dispatch.   He was with the first group of service corps-types that went to Cyprus in '64.  

He's turning 70 this year and still does most of his own vehicle maintenance.


----------



## Gorgo

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> He's turning 70 this year and still does most of his own vehicle maintenance.



That's great to hear! *thumbs up*


----------



## 392

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I know my dad was hoping they'd figure a way to bring it back.  He joined as a soldier apprentice and served in the Service Corps.



My Grandfather was in the RCASC, and he was hopeful one day it would return (along with all the other Royal designations). It's too bad he didn't live to see the day  :yellow:


----------



## VIChris

Is this a change in name only, or are we going to be completely re-branding? As in cap-badges, re-painting logos on buildings etc.?


----------



## Edward Campbell

VIChris said:
			
		

> Is this a change in name only, or are we going to be completely re-branding? As in cap-badges, re-painting logos on buildings etc.?




I suspect there are cap badge proposals all ready prepared, just waiting for some (further) high level encouragement.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect there are cap badge proposals all ready prepared, just waiting for some (further) high level encouragement.


A year later and both RCN and CA are still announcing new changes directly falling out of the renaming of the FG commands.  The Army told us to expect additional changes to Army nomenclature pending analysis and appropriate approval from all stakeholders (ie. consumption of staff and decision maker resources), and the press release on the current name changes confirms that "other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War."  Without a doubt, the newest renaming will spawn much (largely hidden) wasting of resources on further renamings, rebadgings, and other brand adjustings.

I overheard a number of EME ... RCEME guys talking over the weekend and they had already heard from their CoC that they would be replacing all DEU buttons at members' expense.  They were not too excited about spending their own money for a change that they were largely indifferent toward, and they found an amount of dry amusement from the fact that the "RCEME" name actually reflects a minority of the branch's history.



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> What happens to the Branch if you allow the army component to become the RCLC?  What happens to the RCN and RCAF components?


Why would the RCN and RCAF elements have to be excluded from such a new name?  The no double royal argument is a fallacy as illustrated by the RCR within the RCIC and the RCD within the RCAC.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Why would the RCN and RCAF elements have to be excluded from such a new name?  The no double royal argument is a fallacy as illustrated by the RCR within the RCIC and the RCD within the RCAC.



I dont think it has to do with the double royal thing you bring up, right or wrong I would suspect it has more to do with the different elements the LOG branch is made up of and that RCLC is too "army" sounding for some of those who dont wear the army DEU.


----------



## Ostrozac

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I dont think it has to do with the double royal thing you bring up, right or wrong I would suspect it has more to do with the different elements the LOG branch is made up of and that RCLC is too "army" sounding for some of those who dont wear the army DEU.



For me, at least, the problem is the word "corps" -- in our tradition, it sounds army, not army-navy-air force. "Branch", in my mind is the Canadian tri-service or bi-service counterpart to corps. I don't have a problem with a tri-service "Royal Canadian Logistics" or "Royal Canadian Logistics Branch" -- but a "Royal Canadian Logistics Corps" seems to exclude the Navy and Air Force logisticians.

I have the same issue with the Engineers and the Signals calling themselves Corps.

And I crunched the numbers, Logistics is our single biggest Reg Force cap-badge. More than Air Operations. More than Naval Operations. What they do is important.

Although totally off-topic the US Navy has a tradition of having Corps without much bother... the US Navy has a USN JAG Corps, a USN Medical Corps, etc... Different naming conventions, different traditions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Corps,_U.S._Navy


----------



## 392

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I have the same issue with the Engineers and the Signals calling themselves Corps.



My understanding is the Engr branch was asked if they wanted to go this route, and after consultation as a branch, said "yes".  :2c:


----------



## PuckChaser

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> My understanding is the Engr branch was asked if they wanted to go this route, and after consultation as a branch, said "yes".  :2c:



Same with Sigs.


----------



## Kat Stevens

This just in, The RCN has now done away with the term division, as it sounds way too pongoish.  Henceforth, and with immediate effect, the divisional system shall be referred to as "that bumblef*ck".  Ship's companies also shall be renamed gaggles.


----------



## Jungle

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This just in, The RCN has now done away with the term division, as it sounds way too pongoish.  Henceforth, and with immediate effect, the divisional system shall be referred to as "that bumblef*ck".  Ship's companies also shall be renamed gaggles.



Well played !!  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This just in, The RCN has now done away with the term division, as it sounds way too pongoish.  Henceforth, and with immediate effect, the divisional system shall be referred to as "that bumblef*ck".  Ship's companies also shall be renamed gaggles.



Pretty close to what I was thinking when I attended my first parade night in NavRes. After 20 years in army units my CSM trained head just about exploded right off my shoulders.


----------



## Halifax Tar

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Pretty close to what I was thinking when I attended my first parade night in NavRes. After 20 years in army units my CSM trained head just about exploded right off my shoulders.



About what ?  The use of the term division(s) ? 

The term division is an old naval term and has been used by at least the RN sense the days wooden ships and iron men.  



> Division: Middle organizational level in most naval commands, below department and above branch. Usually headed by a junior officer (JO). Common divisions are powerplants, airframes, 1st Lieutenant, etc... Divisions are sometimes divided into branches or work centers.
> 
> DIVO: Division Officer.



Quartermaster is another term that is used by both armies and navies but like division has two very different meanings



> In the Royal Navy and Commonwealth navies (Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Australian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, South African Navy), the quartermaster is the seaman who is functioning as the helmsman. In harbour, the quartermaster is the senior member of the gangway staff and is responsible for supervising the boatswain's mate and the security of the brow.



But I fail to see what point you were trying to make in regards to the topic at hand.  Or was this an attempt at being facetious ?


----------



## medicineman

My guess is he was talking about the "bumblef*&k" and "gaggles" as descriptors to what happened on said parade night...

MM


----------



## SeR

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> The historical designations of the following corps have been restored:
> 
> Royal Canadian Armoured Corps;
> * The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers;*
> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals;
> Royal Canadian Infantry Corps; and
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.



Would anyone happen to know if the current _Canadian Military Engineers_ name is being replaced by this one, or does this refer solely to the "army component" of the branch?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I believe it only applies to those in the ARMY DEU.....


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Message from D Sigs, circulated via email today:



> Fellow Signallers and members of the Communications and Electronics (C&E) Branch,
> 
> During his presentation to the Canadian Club of Toronto last Friday, the Minister of National Defence announced that the Government of Canada has restored the historical names of five Canadian Army Corps including that of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals (RCCS).  This announcement was described as the next step in the phased approach that began in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored.
> This announcement is a proud moment for Signallers of all ranks regardless of where they are employed or whom they support as it acknowledges the rich tradition of the Corps and bestows upon the current members of the Corps the same qualities and reputation that our forebears were richly granted.  We should definitely be proud of that fact and commit ourselves to carry on what they have started with as much professionalism, dedication, and sacrifice as they have.
> Of course, the restoring of the royal designation means different things to different people.  In the next few weeks, as we take the time to define what it means to us and decide on how we intend to display it, we must collectively keep in mind that there are two facts that are paramount: first, the RCCS remains a proud component of the Communications and Electronics Branch (C&E Branch) and second, that the Corps continues to be aligned with other Corps within the Canadian Army.  To that end, it is essential that no initiative be taken, no events planned, and no changes made before we have had a chance to seek and obtain endorsement of the governance framework related to our Royal Canadian Corps of Signals.
> A communiqué outlining the concept of implementation resulting from this name change is in the process of being drafted for consideration by senior leaders of the C&E Branch before being presented to the Commander of the Canadian Army for approval.  You will be kept informed of the way forward on a regular basis.
> I thank you in advance for your support and request that you please distribute this message to all members of the Corps and its extended family.
> Velox Versutus Vigilans



This just makes a whole heap of sense. :

We're part of the Army, but we're part of the branch first. Even though a vast majority of the Branch will now fall under the corps. Is the requirement there to keep a Branch designation for 2 Trades (ATIS and Comms Research)? Thoughts? Any Engineers forsee a similar problem?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I heard a rumour that 291ers would be moving to the Int capbadge.  Maybe if that happens ATIS will move over to a RCAF managed occ?


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Message from D Sigs, circulated via email today:
> 
> This just makes a whole heap of sense. :
> 
> We're part of the Army, but we're part of the branch first. Even though a vast majority of the Branch will now fall under the corps. Is the requirement there to keep a Branch designation for 2 Trades (ATIS and Comms Research)? Thoughts? Any Engineers forsee a similar problem?




The idea of a "Corps within a Branch: in not new; I first heard it in the early 1980s.

*The question of size is interesting ... what is the approximate strength of the C&E Branch (my perception is that it is HUGE) and what is Navy/Army/Air split in the C&E Branch?*

(Back prior to _integration_ or _unification_ in the mid 1960s the old RCCS was a small corps; it had three main components:

     1. The Northwest Territories and Yukon Radio System - a couple of hundred officers and soldiers;

     2. The Canadian Army Signal System - which had the _bridge_ sites (Nanaimo, Penhold, Shilo, Carp, etc ...) that formed the basis for the CFCS and then CFCC for decades - a few hundred more people; and

     3. The field force - 1 Signal Regiment, four brigade Signal Squadrons and a couple of independent troops - maybe 1,250 all ranks.)


----------



## Edward Campbell

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour that 291ers would be moving to the Int capbadge.  Maybe if that happens ATIS will move over to a RCAF managed occ?




There were, several years ago, many AERE and CELE (Air) officers who strongly advocated for a split of the C&E Branch and an amalgamation of CELE (Air) and part of the AERE branch to reunite all the air force people involved in C3.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour that 291ers would be moving to the Int capbadge.  Maybe if that happens ATIS will move over to a RCAF managed occ?



I know quite a few ATIS Techs that would love this option. Shields them further from the MES implosion the Army types have pushed for  ;D

As for the 291s, it will be a interesting show where they go. INT would be the most logical choice seeing as they all fall under the same G2/J2 side IMHO.

Who knows. I'm still waiting on my Spec Pay  :


----------



## Ostrozac

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *The question of size is interesting ... what is the approximate strength of the C&E Branch (my perception is that it is HUGE) and what is Navy/Army/Air split in the C&E Branch?*



All ranks? About 5500

Army (Sigs and ACISS) 3500
Air Force (CELE and ATIS) 1300
Tri-Service (Comm Research) 700

Exact numbers may vary a bit, these are the best numbers I have.


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour that 291ers would be moving to the Int capbadge.



That rumour has been around for years, never seen anything tangible out of it.


----------



## McG

SeR said:
			
		

> Would anyone happen to know if the current _Canadian Military Engineers_ name is being replaced by this one, or does this refer solely to the "army component" of the branch?





			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I believe it only applies to those in the ARMY DEU.....


The answer can be found in the title of the press release: Restoration of historic identities of Canadian Army Corps

It is unfortunate that the solution was not all or nothing.  This will now become an unnecessary divisive label within the branch, particularly within the construction trades which span Army and RCAF uniforms yet have no differences in training or career employment/paths/opportunities.



			
				Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> My understanding is the Engr branch was asked if they wanted to go this route, and after consultation as a branch, said "yes".  :2c:


The Army asked, and I know many answered that such a renaming should have to be all the branch or none of it.  I do not know what answer was aggregated together at the top and passed to the Army.  In any case, it doesn't seem to have mattered what specific branches requested.  We have seen in this thread that the Infantry Branch recommended against changing their name yet they were still rolled back into the RCIC.


----------



## The_Dictat

> Quote from: Eye In The Sky on Yesterday at 15:22:28
> I heard a rumour that 291ers would be moving to the Int capbadge.
> 
> That rumour has been around for years, never seen anything tangible out of it.




Met Techs where rebadged to Int last summer as they fall under Chief of Defence Intelligence...  However, Met Tech and Int Op share the same career manager, therefore the decision was easy to make


----------



## Halifax Tar

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> Met Techs where rebadged to Int last summer as they fall under Chief of Defence Intelligence...  However, Met Tech and Int Op share the same career manager, therefore the decision was easy to make



Met Tech as in Meteorological Tech ? (Weather witch to us sailors)  Really ?


----------



## MikeL

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> Met Techs where rebadged to Int last summer as they fall under Chief of Defence Intelligence...  However, Met Tech and Int Op share the same career manager, therefore the decision was easy to make



The post you quoted was about MOC 291 Comm Research not Met Techs. 




> Meteorological Hat Badge Change


http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/22w-22e/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=13758


----------



## The_Dictat

I asked questions around. The rebadging of 291s to Int as been abandonned. It is too specialized and had not enough similitudes to the Int branch. Also, the Sigs branch fought hard to keep 291s under their umbrellas.

And yes Met Tech were rebadged to Int ... and the weather witches I talked  to are okay with that.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> I asked questions around. The rebadging of 291s to Int as been abandonned. It is too specialized and had not enough similitudes to the Int branch. Also, the Sigs branch fought hard to keep 291s under their umbrellas.
> 
> And yes Met Tech were rebadged to Int ... and the weather witches I talked  to are okay with that.



My question is why did Comm & Elec Branch fight to keep 291ers? Is it a numbers thing or just strictly a historical thing?


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> My question is why did Comm & Elec Branch fight to keep 291ers? Is it a numbers thing or just strictly a historical thing?



You'd have to ask D Sigs and the remainder of the Branch. The switch to INT is a contentious issue even among 291ers, some think its good, some don't. Most don't care as long as they can stay in Letrim for 25 years and move to CSEC after.


----------



## Robert0288

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You'd have to ask D Sigs and the remainder of the Branch. The switch to INT is a contentious issue even among 291ers, some think its good, some don't. Most don't care as long as they can stay in Letrim for 25 years and move to CSEC after.



Or just don't care either way.


----------



## Mountie

MCG said:
			
		

> *Comparison of selected NATO Army Ranks*
> Based on STANAG 2116, 1992 (Edition 5)
> 
> 
> *NATO**Canada**US**UK**France*OR-9CWOSergeant-MajorWarrant Officer Class IMajor
> Adjudant-chefOR-8MWOMaster SergeantWarrant Officer Class IIAdjudantOR-7WOSergeant First ClassStaff Sergeant*OR-6SgtStaff SergeantSergeantSergent-chefOR-5Sgt/MCplSergeantSergeantSergentOR-4CplCorporalCorporalCaporal-chefOR-3Pte(T)Private 1st ClassLance CorporalCaporalOR-2Pte(B)Private E.2PrivateSoldat de 1ère classeOR-1Pte(R)Private E.1Private (Class 4)Soldat de 2ème classe
> _[size=8pt]
> 
> Lets take this a step farther.   Our new MCpl rank can be referred to simply as Cpl.   Our Sr Pte appointment could be known as Lance-Cpl (LCpl), PFC, or Master Pte (MPte).
> _


_

I agree with this idea and have two options:  I'll just use the Army ranks for the sake of the example.


Option #1 (similar to the French Army model)
Chief Warrant Officer  ** appointment as CF CWO & Army Sergeant Major only
Master Warrant Officer (RSM)
Warrant Officer (CSM/BSM/SSM)
Master Sergeant 
Sergeant 
Master Corporal 
Corporal 
Private Trained 
Private Basic 
Recruit 

Option #2  - eliminates Master Corporal but introduces 2 appointments or acting ranks
Chief Warrant Officer 
Master Warrant Officer 
Warrant Officer 
Sergeant 
Lance Sergeant  **appointment only when required
Corporal 
Lance Corporal  **appointment only when required
Private Trained 
Private Basic 
Recruit _


----------



## blacktriangle

Dear god, why do we need this? 

Is this kind of crap all the CF has going on these days?


----------



## OldSolduer

I'll say it again :

We have a good rank structure in place already and I, for one, see no reason to change.

No pips, no crowns. We have been told to make fiscal cuts, and people are advocating we spend more on dress uniform changes. :facepalm:


----------



## blacktriangle

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see a break down of costs incurred by returning to Royal this, Royal that, as well as the Naval executive curl...and any rank changes that come about. 

Whatever the number is, no matter how small, should be scrutinized and then subtracted from the CAF's budget next FY.


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'll say it again :
> 
> We have a good rank structure in place already and I, for one, see no reason to change.
> 
> No pips, no crowns. We have been told to make fiscal cuts, and people are advocating we spend more on dress uniform changes. :facepalm:



I agree, with one caveat. Why not go all the way and make M/Cpl a full actual rank rather than simply an appointment?


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> I agree, with one caveat. Why not go all the way and make M/Cpl a full actual rank rather than simply an appointment?



I believe that would literally would take an act of Parliament. Can anyone else shed some light on this?


----------



## cupper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I believe that would literally would take an act of Parliament. Can anyone else shed some light on this?



I believe that is the case, as it would require amendments to the appropriate sections of the NDA. But why not push to have it done? For all intents and purposes the appointment is treated as a full rank in the day to day. It's only when you get into the weeds of the application of the NDA for some issue or matter that it falls back to the level of appointment.


----------



## McG

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> No pips, no crowns. We have been told to make fiscal cuts, and people are advocating we spend more on dress uniform changes. :facepalm:





			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see a break down of costs incurred by returning to Royal this, Royal that, as well as the Naval executive curl...and any rank changes that come about.
> 
> Whatever the number is, no matter how small, should be scrutinized and then subtracted from the CAF's budget next FY.


Well, it appears the Museum of Civilization's name change is going to cost $1 million1, and that looks a lot simpler than the string of rebranding & renamings that we've been doing.


1. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/mobile/news/ottawa/number+curators+Canadian+Museum+Civilization+Canadian+Museum/8296277/story.html


----------



## Gorgo

The_Dictat said:
			
		

> I asked questions around. The rebadging of 291s to Int as been abandonned. It is too specialized and had not enough similitudes to the Int branch. Also, the Sigs branch fought hard to keep 291s under their umbrellas.
> 
> And yes Met Tech were rebadged to Int ... and the weather witches I talked  to are okay with that.



I'm curious.  When exactly did this happen?


----------



## MJP

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Couldn't agree more. I'd like to see a break down of costs incurred by returning to Royal this, Royal that, as well as the Naval executive curl...and any rank changes that come about.
> 
> Whatever the number is, no matter how small, should be scrutinized and then subtracted from the CAF's budget next FY.



I think the sillness has to end.  All the recent good idea fairy things cost money, time and effort, which is just astounding in this time of fiscal restraint.  Anyone that says something is cost neutral is deluding themselves.  I will use my former Regt, which I love dearly.  They have recently been given permission to put a PPCLI patch on their DEUs for the next 2 years to celebrate the 100th.  In my heart I think it is one awesome way to allow soldiers to show pride in their Regt.  I don't know if it is NPF or public monies being used to buy the badges but for arguments sake lets say NPF.  No big deal.  Not a true cost to public in that case.  However clothing is preparing right now to tailor those DEUs, which probably means contracting it out as the base tailor(s) can't handle the throughput.  Usually though not always we have bought the thread that the contractors use plus pay the cost per item for them to sew it on.  Very very quickly it adds up and probably wasn't budgeted for (actually I know it isn't built into the tailoring budget).  A small example of how the good idea fairy (even one I admit I like) can quickly balloon costs that weren't expected.


----------



## McG

MJP said:
			
		

> I think the sillness has to end.  All the recent good idea fairy things cost money, time and effort, which is just astounding in this time of fiscal restraint.  Anyone that says something is cost neutral is deluding themselves.


Yep.  Unless there is some functional deficiency in the CAF rank system, it should be left alone.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MJP said:
			
		

> I think the sillness has to end.  All the recent good idea fairy things cost money, time and effort, which is just astounding in this time of fiscal restraint.  Anyone that says something is cost neutral is deluding themselves.  I will use my former Regt, which I love dearly.  They have recently been given permission to put a PPCLI patch on their DEUs for the next 2 years to celebrate the 100th.  In my heart I think it is one awesome way to allow soldiers to show pride in their Regt.  I don't know if it is NPF or public monies being used to buy the badges but for arguments sake lets say NPF.  No big deal.  Not a true cost to public in that case.  However clothing is preparing right now to tailor those DEUs, which probably means contracting it out as the base tailor(s) can't handle the throughput.  Usually though not always we have bought the thread that the contractors use plus pay the cost per item for them to sew it on.  Very very quickly it adds up and probably wasn't budgeted for (actually I know it isn't built into the tailoring budget).  A small example of how the good idea fairy (even one I admit I like) can quickly balloon costs that weren't expected.



...or it could be mandated that the troops sew the badges on themselves with government supplied needle and thread   If they don't want to sew/can't sew then they can pay to have it professionally done themselves.


----------



## George Wallace

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ...or it could be mandated that the troops sew the badges on themselves with government supplied needle and thread



Would that be the NSN Needles and Thread that are going at approx. 6K USD per pop?


----------



## MikeL

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Would that be the NSN Needles and Thread that are going at approx. 6K USD per pop?



6k for needles and thread?  How much needles and thread are part of that package?


----------



## Mountie

MCG said:
			
		

> Yep.  Unless there is some functional deficiency in the CAF rank system, it should be left alone.



I think all that some of us were saying is ditch the Hellyer Corporal and make it a real command rank, therefore eliminating the need for a master corporal appointment.  Thus:

CWO
MWO
WO
SGT
CPL
PTE(T) - with two different pay levels if necessary.
PTE(B)
PTE(R)

With acting ranks or short-term appointments of L/CPL & L/SGT for those that feel the need for appointments.  (ie.  a senior PTE is going to be section 2i/c for an exercise, so give him the temporary appointment of L/CPL for the duration of the exercise.) They wouldn't be part of the normal rank progression.  

So its not actually adding any ranks.  In fact its removing one level, the automatic CPL.  Thereby eliminating the need for a MCPL appointment and just referring to the current MCPL as CPL.  Would this really cost millions of dollars?


----------



## McG

Why does waste have to be into the millions of dollars before we decide against it?
If there is no requirement, then there should be no commitment of resources.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Mountie said:
			
		

> With acting ranks or short-term appointments of L/CPL & L/SGT for those that feel the need for appointments.  (ie.  a senior PTE is going to be section 2i/c for an exercise, so give him the temporary appointment of L/CPL for the duration of the exercise.) They wouldn't be part of the normal rank progression.



Where is the logic in removing 1 appointment only to replace it with 2 more?     

I don't see the issue with having the MCpl appointment.  I've been in 2+ decades and the current rank structure works fine and dandy.  Changing ranks is *cosmetics* to me with no tangible change, improvement or effeciency gained.  So why bother? 

Common sense and CF policy have always worked (but not usually together at the same time, or...by accident/dumb luck).  I've been an Instructor on course as a Sgt, with the Crse WO also being a Sgt, but his appointment to the Crse WO job made him 'the boss'.  I've also been a Crse WO as a Sgt with Sgt instructors, etc.   Or in a Recce Tp, a MCpl as Ptl Comd and another one as the Jnr C/S CC; no issues that couldn't be sorted out with a 5 second one-way talk at the Tp WO lvl.



> So its not actually adding any ranks.  In fact its removing one level, the automatic CPL.  Thereby eliminating the need for a MCPL appointment and just referring to the current MCPL as CPL.  Would this really cost millions of dollars?



So, in essence NO CHANGE except in rank name.  So therefore, no point.  IMO.


----------



## Journeyman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Common sense and CF policy have always worked.


  rly:   Pardon?


----------



## PMedMoe

Journeyman said:
			
		

> rly:   Pardon?



I'm not even sure that "common sense" and "CF policy" should be in the same sentence.  That's like saying "We're going on a fun run!"   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

:blotto:  post modified...


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Would that be the NSN Needles and Thread that are going at approx. 6K USD per pop?



Right from CGCS

  Item Identification 
  NSN:  8315-21-903-1150
  DMC:   A 
  ECL:  NNNN 
  DOD:  Gen Inst 2b 

   STATUS:  Item is active

  ITEM NAME:  SEWING KIT
  Unit of Issue:    
  KT 
  CFSS UOI price:    $6.00 




 ERN Xref Data - from MASIS - Current use 
22102000(00001) 22119000(00001) 87999000(00001) 

 ERN xref Data - from MASIS - Historical use


----------



## George Wallace

MJP said:
			
		

> Right from CGCS
> 
> Item Identification
> NSN:  8315-21-903-1150
> DMC:   A
> ECL:  NNNN
> DOD:  Gen Inst 2b
> 
> STATUS:  Item is active
> 
> ITEM NAME:  SEWING KIT
> Unit of Issue:
> KT
> CFSS UOI price:    $6.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERN Xref Data - from MASIS - Current use
> 22102000(00001) 22119000(00001) 87999000(00001)
> 
> ERN xref Data - from MASIS - Historical use



I am sure, like the USAF and their 6K USD hammers, we must have some special needles that will be in the same price range for this proposed change.    >


----------



## MJP

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am sure, like the USAF and their 6K USD hammers, we must have some special needles that will be in the same price range for this proposed change.    >



Oh believe me if you punch sewing into CGCS you get some mighty expensive things that I am sure will fit the bill nicely


----------



## a_majoor

My boss made a very telling statement today (after seeing one of the white "High Visibility" rank slip ons).



> When they issue stuff like that we have now transitioned to a peace time army....


----------



## SeR

> When they issue stuff like that we have now transitioned to a peace time army....



And why would that be the case?


----------



## McG

($6 + small spool of red thread) x every soldier in the PPCLI = $ ?K

Any way you look at it, these image things cost money.  Anyway, I have noticed the recent renamings (or "re-royalizations") in civilian news for the first time.  I guess the civilian press has the same degree of general indifference that most seem to have around here ... not high enough on the GAF metre to even warrant conversation in the mess.



> Royal name is returning
> The Daily Gleaner (Fredericton)
> Michael Staples
> 01 May 2013
> 
> If you're an admirer of this country's military and you're fond of the "royal" designation, then you can be excused if you have a big smile on your face these days.
> 
> It seems the federal government also loves the name.
> 
> In an address last month at the Canadian Club of Toronto, Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced the restoration of five Canadian Army corps historical names, in addition to changing the title of another organization.
> 
> According to the Department of National Defence, the restoration is the next step in a phased approach begun in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was resurrected.
> 
> The following corps have had their historical designation restored:
> 
> Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, originally the Canadian Calvary Corps, was formed in 1910.
> They were designated the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps in 1945 by King George VI.
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers was created in 1903 as the Canadian Engineer Corps.
> They were designated Royal Canadian Engineers in 1904 and Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers in 1936.
> Royal Canadian Corps of Signals. The Canadian Signals Corps (militia), originally formed in 1903, was designated Royal Canadian Corps of Signals in 1921 by King George V.
> Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. The Canadian infantry Corps was formed in 1942 and designated Royal Canadian Infantry Corps in 1947 by King George VI.
> The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers was stood up in 1944 from amalgamating the related electrical and mechanical engineering elements of Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps.
> The Canadian Army Military Police Group name has also been adopted by the previous Land Force Military Police Group.
> These and other heritage changes are being phased in over the next year as Canada and its military prepares to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the Second World War.
> 
> In a backgrounder prepared on the topic, the military said the decision to restore the historical names was carefully considered and included an examination of the rationale for the change, the history of the name being changed, and the legal implications of making a name change.
> 
> "These historical designations link Canadian Army soldiers to the successes of their military past and the promise of their future," noted the backgrounder. "The restoration of the former names of units and corps will have a long-term positive impact on the pride associated with soldiers' membership in those organizations and, in turn, on their operational effectiveness."
> 
> The "royal" designation is an honour that has been bestowed on many units of the Canadian Army, including these: The Royal Canadian Dragoons; Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians); The Royal Canadian Hussars (Montreal); The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery; 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery; 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery; The Royal Canadian Regiment; Royal 22e Regiment; The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada; The Royal Regiment of Canada; The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth Regiment); The Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada; The Royal New Brunswick Regiment; The Royal Winnipeg Rifles; The Royal Regina Rifles; The Royal Westminster Regiment; The Royal Montreal Regiment; and The Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
> 
> Minister MacKay, in his Toronto address, said Canada asks a great deal of its soldiers and that restoring these historic identities is an important way of reconnecting today's men and women in uniform with the proud history and traditions they carry with them as members of the Canadian Army.
> 
> There's no doubt that those who wear the military uniform, both past and present, are a proud group and are very much aware of the rich traditions that go along with their specific units. Restoring the "royal" designation is a small but significant move - one that's bound to be appreciated.


I am a little put-off by the suggestion that some how pride or operational effectiveness were impaired in the absence of the royal title.  I know it was not intended, but that comment is a bit of a backhand to the accomplishments of every renamed branch for over the past half century.  

But, if I am wrong and the "Royal" designation really is that important to the moral and effectiveness of the force, then why have we only been applying it to pieces of the machine?  Why are we not shooting for the designation of whole as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces?


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> But, if I am wrong and the "Royal" designation really is that important to the moral and effectiveness of the force, then why have we only been applying it to pieces of the machine?  Why are we not shooting for the designation of whole as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces?



Dr Evil.

Is that you?


 ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

MCG said:
			
		

> But, if I am wrong and the "Royal" designation really is that important to the moral and effectiveness of the force, then why have we only been applying it to pieces of the machine?  Why are we not shooting for the designation of whole as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces?



It doesn't matter to me if, for example, the artillery regiment in Valcartier is a "legere" regiment or a "cheval royal" regiment. It matters to me that they have plenty of M777 and know how to use them. The same goes for these new name changes -- what does it add to the fight?

Does it matter if we call LGen Devlin the Chief of Land Staff, or Commander Land Forces Command, or Commander Canadian Army if it's the same guy doing the same job?

I'm not always against name changes... I think that Land Forces Atlantic Area is a silly name since it commands relatively few of the Land Forces in the area of the Atlantic. Similarly Land Forces Central Area doesn't really adequately describe a formation which includes a battalion garrisoned in New Brunswick. And Joint Task Force West has no assigned naval or air component, so it's not really joint...


----------



## Loachman

No RJTF, JTFW or otherwise, has an "assigned ... air component".

408 Squadron in Edmonton and a bunch of bombers and other assorted flying machines in Cold Lake do, however, live within its boundaries.


----------



## Eaglelord17

MCG said:
			
		

> But, if I am wrong and the "Royal" designation really is that important to the moral and effectiveness of the force, then why have we only been applying it to pieces of the machine?  Why are we not shooting for the designation of whole as the Royal Canadian Armed Forces?



Because then there would be two RCAF's  ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

Loachman said:
			
		

> No RJTF, JTFW or otherwise, has an "assigned ... air component".



I know. And Commander JTFW also lacks ships; I've never seen a CPF or MCDV operate out of Churchill. Which makes his formation not very "Joint". 

Calling it "Regional Task Force West" or "Task Force West" might have worked.


----------



## cupper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I'm not even sure that "common sense" and "CF policy" should be in the same sentence.  That's like saying "We're going on a fun run!"   :nod:



More like mixing fire and gasoline. Cool to watch, but does a lot of damage and creates a big mess that someone else has to clean up later.


----------



## OldSolduer

This thread should be locked up. The current rank systems is fine. It works. It doesn't need "tweaking" or whatever word/three letter acronym you care to call it. Enough already.


----------



## Halifax Tar

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4754

Uh-oh... Any one want to guess ?


----------



## Jammer

Royal Navy Jack...with a maple leaf somewhere?


----------



## Halifax Tar

I have no clue but I'm sure it will get a reaction lol


----------



## MARS

We have all been directed to keep it closely held until the announcement is made.  But yes, there will be some minor adjustments to our jack/ensign configurations.  For certain, some ship or ships are going to screw up daily Colours in the short term...


----------



## Gorgo

Probably flip the National Flag and Navy Jack around to make the latter the Navy Ensign, IMO.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Probably flip the National Flag and Navy Jack around to make the latter the Navy Ensign, IMO.




That would be nice, actually. I like the "new" white ensign and I agree it should fly from the stern of HMC Ships.







It shouldn't cost anything to shift the flags from stem to stern and vice versa ... except rounds of drinks from the officer who, as MARS suggests, screws up the daily "colours' ceremony.


----------



## Loachman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I know. And Commander JTFW also lacks ships; I've never seen a CPF or MCDV operate out of Churchill. Which makes his formation not very "Joint".
> 
> Calling it "Regional Task Force West" or "Task Force West" might have worked.



All but two have no ships in their area, and little to no ability to employ them.

It does not require the presence of all three elements to  create "jointness". Two are sufficient.

And the RJTFs are "joint" because they _*could*_ have at least two elements in their clutches. Typically, they have none on a regular basis.


----------



## Privateer

And... voila:



> Today, the flag previously known as the Naval Jack is adopted as the new Canadian Naval Ensign, and the National Flag becomes the new Naval Jack, which mirrors a standard practice amongst Commonwealth nations.



http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4762


----------



## GnyHwy

Saw this floating around Facebook.  Was told at work that the current cap badge would remain though.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This thread should be locked up. The current rank systems is fine. It works. It doesn't need "tweaking" or whatever word/three letter acronym you care to call it. Enough already.



Amen Brother!


----------



## a_majoor

You mean I'll never get my promotion to ста́рший сержа́нт?


----------



## Edward Campbell

So here is the new "white ensign" - distinctively Canada and well grounded historically - as it was when it was the Naval Jack.

And all at no cost, too. BZ, Navy!


----------



## medicineman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You mean I'll never get my promotion to ста́рший сержа́нт?



No - you didn't meet standards for leading change (or it's cyrilic equivalent).

MM


----------



## a_majoor

medicineman said:
			
		

> No - you didn't meet standards for leading change (or it's cyrilic equivalent). [ведущих изменении]
> 
> MM



I'll have to dispute that using the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle defense: _Everything_ changes when I observe it.... ;D


----------



## Pencil Tech

OK I've noticed that this topic hasn't been locked up. Some people wanted it locked up but it isn't doing any harm or offensive in any way so I'm glad it's still open because I'm as much of a nerd as the next guy and I'd like to suggest something with regard to RCAF ranks. I don't think for the most part that the old RCAF/RAF ranks work in most instances eg. Wing Commander equivalent to LCol doesn't jibe with reality, then again Brigadier-General in the air force seems odd to me too. I would suggest pre-unifaction ranks for RCAF general officers as follows:

Air Chief Marshall
Air Marshall
Air Vice-Marshall
Air Commodore

Then, in the spirit of Captain (N) and Lieutenant (N) the rest of the officers as follows:

Air Colonel
Air Lieutenant-Colonel
Air Major
Air Captain
Air Lieutenant
Air 2nd Lieutenant

Then NCMs as follows:

Air Chief Warrant Officer
Air Master Warrant Officer
Air Warrant Officer
Air Sergeant
Master Airman
Leading Airman
Airman
Private (R)

Pretty airy I know! But the individual ranks sound dignified, reflect the air force, and don't change the rank structure, and wouldn't confuse the the other elements too much.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Many allied air forces, including _eg_ Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Singapore use the same rank names in the army and air force. It is _eg_ Australia, Britain, NZ and India that are "out of step."


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> OK I've noticed that this topic hasn't been locked up. Some people wanted it locked up but it isn't doing any harm or offensive in any way so I'm glad it's still open because I'm as much of a nerd as the next guy and I'd like to suggest something with regard to RCAF ranks. I don't think for the most part that the old RCAF/RAF ranks work in most instances eg. Wing Commander equivalent to LCol doesn't jibe with reality, then again Brigadier-General in the air force seems odd to me too. I would suggest pre-unifaction ranks for RCAF general officers as follows:
> 
> 
> Then, in the spirit of Captain (N) and Lieutenant (N) the rest of the officers as follows:
> 
> Air Colonel
> Air Lieutenant-Colonel
> Air Major
> Air Captain
> Air Lieutenant
> Air 2nd Lieutenant
> 
> Then NCMs as follows:
> 
> Air Chief Warrant Officer
> Air Master Warrant Officer
> Air Warrant Officer
> Air Sergeant
> Master Airman
> Leading Airman
> Airman
> Private (R)
> 
> Pretty airy I know! But the individual ranks sound dignified, reflect the air force, and don't change the rank structure, and wouldn't confuse the the other elements too much.



 If we're in the mood to unravel Unification further, let their be a return to Flight Sergeants and Pilot Officers.

Your model is a mouthful to get out and holds no historical or sentimental significance to the RCAF. IMHO,  the RCAF has more pressing matters to attend to ( see F-35 Procurement, CH-149 Cormorant spare parts fiasco, CH-148 Procurement fiasco etc.) before they hop into the De Lorean with the rest of us in the CA and RCN.


----------



## Loachman

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I would suggest pre-unifaction ranks for RCAF general officers as follows:



Firstly, not everybody in a light blue dress uniform is "RCAF".

Secondly, many people in the "RCAF" wear green or dark blue/white uniforms.

I will vote for this if we do the same thing to the Navy, like Sea Private, Sea Corporal, and on up.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

These would be historical ranks for the RCAF but as others said they are out of place in this day.......


----------



## dapaterson

Per the NDA, when authorized, Air Force ranks are:

Air Chief Marshal
Air Marshal
Air Vice-Marshal
Air Commodore
Group Captain
Wing Commander
Squadron Leader
Flight Lieutenant
Flying Officer
Pilot Officer
Officer Cadet

Warrant Officer, Class 1
Warrant Officer, Class 2
Flight Sergeant
Sergeant
Corporal
Aircraftman


(Remember, Master Corporal is an appointment, not a rank)

See: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-142.html#h-221


Per QR&O chapter 3, article 3.01 these ranks are not currently authorized for use.


----------



## Old EO Tech

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> Saw this floating around Facebook.  Was told at work that the current cap badge would remain though.



Yes Tim does a great job of putting RCEME and GEMRC into one capbadge but in practice they would not fit on a manufactured capbadge, and the Corp didn't want the cost of production two badges apparently, a problem that did not exist in 1967.  You can read the official letter here.

http://www.rceme.com/News/Communique%20001-2013.pdf


----------



## MilEME09

CFSEME is getting renamed? oh no now techs will have to hate a new name


----------



## cupper

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CFSEME is getting renamed? oh no now techs will have to hate a new name



And this would be different from the last time?


----------



## Old EO Tech

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> CFSEME is getting renamed? oh no now techs will have to hate a new name



I would imagine that this will happen to all the new Royal Schools, but yes welcome to The RCEME School


----------



## cupper

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I would imagine that this will happen to all the new Royal Schools, but yes welcome to The RCEME School



Helluva lot better and informative than CFSAOE


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I would imagine that this will happen to all the new Royal Schools …


Is there a point where we will just put an end to the name changes that cause other name changes that cause other image changes and so on?  The only people I saw get really excited this time were the few who hope the slippery slope goes all the way to pips & crowns.  Enough already.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Those interested in pips and crowns - a group which excludes me, even though I wore mine with great pride - should look back father than the 1960s and remember that we have a military history that predates people of my age. Thus, if we are going to mess about with rank badges maybe we should insist that they fit on the sleeve, where they were in e.g. the First World War:







At the risk of repeating myself, if someone wants to fiddle with the ranks they should propose something that is:

     1. Sensible ~ based on "symbols" that have meaning to military members*;

     2. Consistent** with common (allied) usage; and

     3. Distinctively Canadian.

_____
*    Tell me, please, what the star of the Order of the Garter means to you
** Stars and pips of various designs are in common use within e.g. NATO but so are bars and other devices. There is no "standard." See also, e.g. Singapore, Japan and Finland.


----------



## Jungle

MCG said:
			
		

> Is there a point where we will just put an end to the name changes that cause other name changes that cause other image changes and so on?  The only people I saw get really excited this time were the few who hope the slippery slope goes all the way to pips & crowns.  Enough already.



And then, in the not-so-distant future, Canada will become a republic, and we will remove all the royal titles and crowns from everything...  ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> Is there a point where we will just put an end to the name changes that cause other name changes that cause other image changes and so on?  The only people I saw get really excited this time were the few who hope the slippery slope goes all the way to pips & crowns.  Enough already.



And if it costs little to the public purse but effectively increases moral, why not?  After getting A-raped at unification, it took us until 1991 just to get our horse back and until now to get the Royal back that was earned by the maintainers in the RCOC and then RCEME in 1944 and was never revoked by the Queen.  This is not an "image change" this is a proud Corps returning to serve the Canadian Army, as it always did.  And it's not a few people getting excited, walk to the nearest RCEME Day celebration in 5 days and check out the "few people" celebrating the first RCEME day in 46 years :-/

And I'm willing to bet the other new Corps feel the same way, I know the RCE and RCAC guys out on Ex PR/MR with me do.

Cheers


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> And if it costs little to the public purse but effectively increases moral, why not?


Normally, the obligation is for the guys pushing the idea to show that the benefits warrant the costs.  In this case, I have seen no demonstration of benefits.  If there is no value, there should be no expenditure of resources, regardless of how convenient it may be to wish cost out of the consideration.  (Noting how the RCEME letter posted above delegates most implementation costs to local budgets & Sect 32 authority, we probably can never learn what this will have cost).



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> After getting A-raped at unification ...


Why is it that arbitrarily imposing new names, badges, icons, and identities always trotted out as the boogeyman by people trying to justify imposing new names, badges, icons, and identities?  What was bad in the '60s is good for us today?



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> ... it's not a few people getting excited, walk to the nearest RCEME Day celebration in 5 days and check out the "few people" celebrating the first RCEME day in 46 years :-/
> 
> And I'm willing to bet the other new Corps feel the same way, I know the RCE and RCAC guys out on Ex PR/MR with me do.


Speaking around the bde, I get the feel that GAF ≈ 0.  Last month's problems and irritants persist as this month's problems and irritants.  The promised moral spike has not materialized - Western Area EME retention problems are not magically cured as RCEME; the sustainment of heavy equipment operation is not made healthier by the name RCE.  As I said earlier, the guy who hopes to see pips & crowns is very excited but everyone else is instead talking about the issues that existed before the announced name change.

The decision is made, so lets get on with it.  But, lets also put a moratorium on any new exercises turning the clock back to the early '60s.  We have more important things to do with our limited resources.


----------



## Happy Guy

I am a new member, with over 30 years of service in CME and the Log Branch, and I have just finished reading the posts for this particular thread. 

The concept of morale while easy to understand is complex and subject to dynamic internal and external influences.  Having a return to a Royal designation will not mean an immediate upsurge in esprit de corps as MGG stated.  Neither will having more money poured into the respective environments.  In my experience it is the CO and RSM who have a more direct impact on morale than a renaming, "branding" or whatever you wish to call it.  My branch (Log) will retain its status quo and my own morale would have not been positively improved by becoming a member of the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC).  Instead I would more happier knowing that leadership, at all levels, is effectively looking after their soldiers.  Let's get this part consistently right first, unless the return to the Royal designation is part of a cunning plan to improve the overall quality of leadership in the CAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I am a new member, with over 30 years of service in CME and the Log Branch, and I have just finished reading the posts for this particular thread.
> 
> The concept of morale while easy to understand is complex and subject to dynamic internal and external influences.  Having a return to a Royal designation will not mean an immediate upsurge in esprit de corps as MGG stated.  Neither will having more money poured into the respective environments.  In my experience it is the CO and RSM who have a more direct impact on morale than a renaming, "branding" or whatever you wish to call it.  My branch (Log) will retain its status quo and my own morale would have not been positively improved by becoming a member of the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC).  Instead I would more happier knowing that leadership, at all levels, is effectively looking after their soldiers.  Let's get this part consistently right first, unless the return to the Royal designation is part of a cunning plan to improve the overall quality of leadership in the CAF.



Although I support doing away with all of the strapping of unification completely I fully agree with your post, especially coming from a fellow member of the LOG branch.


----------



## Danjanou

Jungle said:
			
		

> And then, in the not-so-distant future, Canada will become a republic, and we will remove all the royal titles and crowns from everything...  ;D



That sound you just heard was two dozen Blackberry Colonels at Disneyland on the Rideau collectively wetting themsleves in their cubicles at this prospect and the opportunities it will present for clicking the "Leading Change" bubble on their PERs.  8)


----------



## McG

The executive PER does not have a leading change bullet.


----------



## dapaterson

Danjanou said:
			
		

> That sound you just heard was two dozen Blackberry Colonels at Disneyland on the Rideau collectively wetting themsleves in their cubicles at this prospect and the opportunities it will present for clicking the "Leading Chang" bubble on their PERs.  8)



Leading Chang?  I guess that's part of the "Diverse Army".


----------



## JorgSlice

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Leading Chang?  I guess that's part of the "Diverse Army".



:rofl:


----------



## Danjanou

oops :-[

hey I was typing on a moving train


----------



## PanaEng

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> And if it costs little to the public purse but effectively increases moral, why not?  After getting A-raped at unification, it took us until 1991 just to get our horse back and until now to get the Royal back that was earned by the maintainers in the RCOC and then RCEME in 1944 and was never revoked by the Queen.  This is not an "image change" this is a proud Corps returning to serve the Canadian Army, as it always did.  And it's not a few people getting excited, walk to the nearest RCEME Day celebration in 5 days and check out the "few people" celebrating the first RCEME day in 46 years :-/
> 
> And I'm willing to bet the other new Corps feel the same way, I know the RCE and RCAC guys out on Ex PR/MR with me do.
> 
> Cheers


horse droppings!
 The only ones who care are the old squad; the new kids, the ones that matter (unfortunately for me and others) don't give a rodent's anus.


----------



## SeR

PanaEng said:
			
		

> horse droppings!
> The only ones who care are the old squad; the new kids, the ones that matter (unfortunately for me and others) don't give a rodent's anus.



That's a rather stereotypical statement to be making since in reality, it's all about personal preference. As a matter of fact, the majority of older serving members I have spoken with couldn't care less about any of the name changes.

Out of curiosity, who are the "ones who matter" (from your point of view)?


----------



## dapaterson

SeR said:
			
		

> That's a rather stereotypical statement to be making since in reality, it's all about personal preference. As a matter of fact, the majority of older serving members I have spoken with couldn't care less about any of the name changes.
> 
> Out of curiosity, who are the "ones who matter" (from your point of view)?



By PanaEng's standards, the ones that matter don't care.

You stated you don't care.

Therefore, you are one of the ones that matter.


----------



## SeR

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You stated you don't care.



Actually, I hadn't said whether or not I cared for changes. However, since you mentioned that, I guess I could be classified as one of the "new kids"  since I am rather fond of the whole renaming.


----------



## gcclarke

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is there another superficial rank change we can make so the RCN gets press again?   ;D



I know I'm replying to a rather old post here, but we could change Acting Subbies to Ensigns. Or perhaps Naval cadet to Midshipmen.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Why would we import USN ranks?


----------



## Edward Campbell

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why would we import USN ranks?




We shouldn't, we have already, usually without much thought, imported too many US customs and practices ...
.
.
.
.
.
... but ...
.
.
.
.
.
... until 1871 _ensign_ was the lowest commissioned rank in most British infantry regiments (it was replaced by 2Lt in 1871); in British cavalry regiments the 2Lt equivalent was, again until 1871, _cornet_.

As far as I know we share the rank of sub-lieutenant with several navies and we and, at least, the Netherlands use the same badge so were in good company.


----------



## jollyjacktar

And we used to have Midshipmen in our Navy...


----------



## Monsoon

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And we used to have Midshipmen in our Navy...


According to Section 21 of the National Defence Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/FullText.html), what we now have is in fact called a "Naval Cadet Midshipman". Presumably it could be colloquially referred to as "Midshipman" as easily as "Naval Cadet", if the powers that be decided to start using that terminology.


----------



## dimsum

gcclarke said:
			
		

> I know I'm replying to a rather old post here, but we could change Acting Subbies to Ensigns. Or perhaps Naval cadet to Midshipmen.



We could, but how would that raise the profile of the RCN enough that Joe/Jane Schmo in Swift Current, SK would a) know about the RCN and b) want to join?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> According to Section 21 of the National Defence Act (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/FullText.html), what we now have is in fact called a "Naval Cadet Midshipman". Presumably it could be colloquially referred to as "Midshipman" as easily as "Naval Cadet", if the powers that be decided to start using that terminology.



Incorrect: The table is misleading in its labelling: At that rank, depending on the circumstances, you are either a Naval Cadet (lowest, used before completing phase 3) or a Midshipman (highest, you are now in Phase 4 or above). Look at the sub-lieutenant description above in the table: it reads "Sub-lieutenant Commissioned Officer". It's the same thing: you are either a Sub-lieutenant (came through the officer stream) or are a Commissioned Officer (commissioned from the rank after achieving at least Petty Officer rank).

P.S.: If the current NDA table still lists the old Air Force ranks (column four) does anyone know why they don't use them?


----------



## Monsoon

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Incorrect: The table is misleading in its labelling: At that rank, depending on the circumstances, you are either a Naval Cadet (lowest, used before completing phase 3) or a Midshipman (highest, you are now in Phase 4 or above). Look at the sub-lieutenant description above in the table: it reads "Sub-lieutenant Commissioned Officer". It's the same thing: you are either a Sub-lieutenant (came through the officer stream) or are a Commissioned Officer (commissioned from the rank after achieving at least Petty Officer rank).
> 
> P.S.: If the current NDA table still lists the old Air Force ranks (column four) does anyone know why they don't use them?


QR&Os Chapter 3 states that everyone uses the "Column I" ranks, but then goes on to say (in the amendment inserted in the 80s) that members wearing a Navy uniform use the "Column II" ranks.


----------



## WLSC

Well, just got a memorandum with a survey asking if we would like to go back to old CA rank designation and pipes & crown...  :facepalm:  RUMINT says it as been sold on economics, pipes & crown are less expensive to use than tailored officer rank.   :


----------



## kratz

This site has to stop being so successful or higher ups could cease reading the "good ideas" from the site.  :warstory:


----------



## Old Sweat

FusMR said:
			
		

> Well, just got a memorandum with a survey asking if we would like to go back to old CA rank designation and pipes & crown...  :facepalm:  RUMINT says it as been sold on economics, pipes & crown are less expensive to use than tailored officer rank.   :



It was really cheap in the bad, old days. Officers had to buy their badges of rank, cap badges, regimental/corps buttons and collar dogs, shoulder titles, etc, etc. All ranks had to buy their regimental/corps belt buckles and lanyards and everybody had to pay for tailoring to get flashes, etc sewn on their uniforms.


----------



## cupper

kratz said:
			
		

> This site has to stop being so successful or higher ups could cease reading the "good ideas" from the site.  :warstory:



Maybe we need to start screening members when they register, anyone with power to make great change to be rejected unless they can show they can come up with their own original ideas.


----------



## McG

FusMR said:
			
		

> Well, just got a memorandum with a survey asking if we would like to go back to old CA rank designation and pipes & crown...


Where did this come from?  I strongly hope this is just some local initiative that is not going to gain any traction.



			
				FusMR said:
			
		

> RUMINT says it as been sold on economics...


The economics solution on buttons & bows would put all three environments back into one common uniform.  This is not about economics.  This may be someone's personal insecurities, where they need the trappings of another army in order to feel good about themselves.  This may be Dr Seuss' Sneetches whose shallow self worth was dependant upon bling to look different than the other guy.  We don't need it.  We have built a unique Canadian system of rank identification for which there is at least as much (if not more) for us to take pride as compared to British rank, and we look sufficiently different in our distinctive environmental uniforms - there is no need for change.  There is most certainly no need to impose a now foreign rank system onto our Army.

The only thing to be gained from such a move would be new barriers to communication as more service pers become unable to identify different ranks between the environments.


----------



## Rifleman62

Letter attached.


----------



## McG

If we need to introduce stupid, frivolous rank changes then we may as well go bigger than just imposing another country's rank system.  As Edward previously mentioned, any new system must be distinctly Canadian.  This nonsense is a better idea than pips & crowns:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> It seems there will always be people pushing for rank changes in order to make things "look more Army/Air Force/Navy" or impose one generation's traditions over another's.  None of these good ideas should ever gain traction.  However, there are a number of legitimate (though not necessarily all significant) complaints about the rank structure & progression itself.  Perhaps, instead of focusing on what badges should/could look like, we could talk about how to improve the CF rank structure and address some of these emotional icon topics within that solution.
> 
> I know many in the Army who lament the devaluation of Cpl from the first leadership rank to a journeyman status indicator, and the "insta-corporal" (certain occupations immediately promoted on reaching 3s qual) exacerbates this.  The automatic promotion from Lt to Capt also devalues the distinction between those to ranks (though there most certainly is a difference between those ready to be Capt and those who just get it anyway).  This needs to be fixed.
> 
> I have heard from members of the RCN that the lack of the Midshipman (a second tier of subordinate officer) is a problem, and that unification has left them with more levels of NCM rank than make sense aboard a ship.  At the same time, there are times and places in the Army where an intermediate rank (or appointment) would be helpful to set-apart pers with a responsibility to "lead their peers."  At the same time, there are some technical trades that require added level of authority to carry out their jobs.  Both of these requirements could be satisfied by establishing more levels of appointments, the availability of which may vary by MOS, environment and unit.  As we already have "MCpl" as the precedent for an appointment, "Master" could be used as the standard appointment prefix for most ranks.  As appointments would not need to exist uniformly across all occupations, environments or occupations without the need for all our current ranks levels would have the option to not use an appointment level.  We could even decide that all appointments would be while so employed.
> 
> Canada is lacking a rank at the NATO OF-10 level and the US "six star" level.  Where we want to be seen as a big-hitter military, we need to be able to put guys at this level - even if, like our allies who have these ranks, we only use them in wartime or honorary upon retirement.  While Nimitz did the Fleet Admiral thing well, history's most impressive officers at this level have been Field Marshals and Field Marshal Generals.  Fans of Commonwealth tradition will also note existence of the Air Marshal rank (though not at the OF-10 level). And so, by also creating the unheard-of "Sea Marshal," we could introduce a series of marshal ranks as a unique Canadian level over the Admirals and Generals.  Tipping our hat to the other founding nation, the six star would be Marshal of Canada.
> 
> So, with all those good-ideas imposed on the rank system, there is room to slide in a few of those apparently strongly desired cosmetic changes.  But, a full turn-back the clock exercise is no good.  We need to recognize our full heritage (which includes the period of unification), and we need to maintain insignia recognizable across all elements.
> 
> First of all, to recognize the period of our heritage most heavily influence by unification, the rank of Sergeant will be imposed across all three services (though, colonial identity purists could make an argument that we should go with the WO ranks across all services as the RN has both POs and WOs).
> 
> Next, officer rank insignia will be unchanged.  The exception will be that all generals of the Army & Air persuasion will also wear the executive curl (after all, we cannot risk DGMEPM wandering around with more bling that any of the Comd CA, Comd RCAF, VCDS or CDS).  Sea/Field/Air Marshals shall have an additional arm braid and shoulder insignia of crossed batons in laurels under a crown (to please our pro UK insignia crowd).
> 
> The Air Force officers will go to a system that recognizes the RAF (and therefore RCAF) roots in both Army and Navy.  It will also recognize the pre-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Navy Ranks) and the post-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Army ranks).  To do this, we will simply substitute a few "Army Ranks" into the list of "Navy Ranks."
> 
> In the RCN, Acting Sub Lieutenant is to wordy and confusing.  Following the Commonwealth tradition of the RNZN, we will establish Ensign as a commissioned rank equivalent to the Army 2Lt.  This will have the added Canadian benefit of matching the rank to its French translation.
> 
> For NCMs, the rank insignia will remain largely unchanged.  The same chevrons, crowns and 1957 Coat of Arms.  However, the maple leaves will be replaced with environmentally specific images to appease the "we need to look more Army/Navy/Air Force" groups.  Instead of "Master Private" we will call this level of appointment "specialist" or "Lance Corporal."  We will also allow a deviation to reflect nine ranks that can be found in the NDA - those of Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Aircraftman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, and Craftsman.  For these ranks, the environment specific "Master" designator will be unique to the rank (such as a flaming grenade for Gunner, CME beaver for Sapper, or a propeller for Aircraftman) but its placement over the single chevron will leave it understood by all.  These branch or occupation specific markings will not continue at any higher rank level (not even for Master Bombardier).
> 
> … and if we are going to keep musicians in the CF, I would introduce "Musician" as a Pte level appointment with the lyre over one chevron to distinguish the rank.  This would replace the practice of insta-Sgt within that occupation.
> 
> Of course this would require some small NDA adjustments:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-142.html#h-221


----------



## cupper

Don't forget the Corporal Captain. Just in case you need to sneak your NCM driver into the Officer's Mess for a quick one.


----------



## OldSolduer

This is loony. 

We have a structure that works. The good idea fairy needs to be slapped into submission on this one.

We are Canadians, not Brits, Aussies, Americans or Uzbeks for that matter.

Leave it alone, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Thank you.


----------



## OldSolduer

:facepalm:





			
				FusMR said:
			
		

> Well, just got a memorandum with a survey asking if we would like to go back to old CA rank designation and pipes & crown...  :facepalm:  RUMINT says it as been sold on economics, pipes & crown are less expensive to use than tailored officer rank.   :



Just received this survey..... :2c:  :facepalm:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

So all this tightening the belt for expenses was just for dramatic effect???


----------



## daftandbarmy

I can't wait. 

Nothing like trying to sew three cloth pips onto each epaulette of your Para smock (and they'd better not be crooked) to make you feel like a real steely eyed dealer of death.  :

Maybe this was an added extra bonus we got for buying those used British subs?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> This is loony.
> 
> We have a structure that works. The good idea fairy needs to be slapped into submission on this one.
> 
> We are Canadians, not Brits, Aussies, Americans or Uzbeks for that matter.
> 
> Leave it alone, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Thank you.



 :goodpost:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> Just received this survey..... :2c:  :facepalm:



Well- you know what to do with the survey.  Make sure that you identify you are a CWO.


----------



## WLSC

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well- you know what to do with the survey.  Make sure that you identify you are a CWO.



Better, the RSM and me have the same recommandation and it look like;



> Citation de: Jim Seggie le Hier à 23:41:24
> This is loony.
> 
> We have a structure that works. The good idea fairy needs to be slapped into submission on this one.
> 
> We are Canadians, not Brits, Aussies, Americans or Uzbeks for that matter.
> 
> Leave it alone, stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Thank you.



We've tried to bring fusiliers instead of private, it fail.


----------



## OldSolduer

One of the questions is if we would like to see our Ptes renamed to Rifleman, which I support.

They want to know if we like a "gender neutral" term, like "rifle person". I said no.


A waste of time and effort


----------



## WLSC

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> One of the questions is if we would like to see our Ptes renamed to Rifleman, which I support.
> 
> They want to know if we like a "gender neutral" term, like "rifle person". I said no.
> 
> 
> A waste of time and effort



I'm in line with you.  That's not a big revolution.  However, when it comes to officers rank...  It his a foreign rank system.  Not ours.  Not for the last 45 years.  I've never saw nothing else and i identify to that.  Not foreign symbol of rank.  :2c:


----------



## wannabe SF member

FusMR said:
			
		

> I'm in line with you.  That's not a big revolution.  However, when it comes to officers rank...  It his a foreign rank system.  Not ours.  Not for the last 45 years.  I've never saw nothing else and i identify to that.  Not foreign symbol of rank.  :2c:



I wouldn't call the officer ranks used in Canada  until 68 "foreign symbols of rank". While I agree that Pips and Crowns is not something we should be focusing on at the moment, I strongly support the obliteration of as much as possible of Trudeau's new model army.


----------



## OldSolduer

Inky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call the officer ranks used in Canada  until 68 "foreign symbols of rank". While I agree that Pips and Crowns is not something we should be focusing on at the moment, I strongly support the obliteration of as much as possible of Trudeau's new model army.



While I can identify both the current rank and the pips and crowns ranks, why do we need to do this? To feel better about ourselves?
The current rank identification system is fine as it is. 

This is a red herring, a distraction to calm the masses.


----------



## Gorgo

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> While I can identify both the current rank and the pips and crowns ranks, why do we need to do this? To feel better about ourselves?
> The current rank identification system is fine as it is.
> 
> This is a red herring, a distraction to calm the masses.



Agreed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Inky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call the officer ranks used in Canada  until 68 "foreign symbols of rank". While I agree that Pips and Crowns is not something we should be focusing on at the moment, I strongly support the obliteration of as much as possible of Trudeau's new model army.




It wasn't "Trudeau's new model army." He inherited it from Lester B Pearson who approved, in 1966, all the changes proposed by Minister of National Defence Paul Hellyer.

Mr Hellyer was trying to solve a dreadful problem: the costs of maintaining modern, combat ready armed forces was rising at a rate that far, far exceeded the general rate of inflation and the public will to pay the ever increasing bill had been waning since the 1950s.

A royal commission on government organization, the _Glassco Commission_, had just reported (1962/63) and it had been especially critical of the defence bureaucracy, especially the military bureaucracy. Glassco concluded that DND and the Canadian military needed to be _integrated_ and _unified_ and he relied heavily on what he saw and heard in the UK and USA, both of which had just gone through the _unification_ - *joint commands* - processes.

Minister Hellyer adopted a more radical approach: _unification_ (joint commands), which was recommended by London and Washington for all allies, and something more - a level of _integration_ (tri-service organizations) which had not been proven anywhere else (although the USA had, for example, established a tri-service Defence Communications Agency) and he took it a HUGE step further: a single service.

It is not clear, not me anyway, where cost cutting stopped and irresponsible social engineering began but there was not, at least not that I have ever read/heard/seen, any reasoned justification for a single service.

That being said:

     1. _Unification_ was and still is a good thing, even if most Canadian admirals and generals hate it and few Canadian bureaucrats are willing to confront the operationally timid, empire building senior officers;

     2. Some levels of _integration_ are also good; some are not very good;

     3. The _single service_ model *failed* - or, rather, it never caught on. In fairness it was never tested.

Since we were going to a single service, for whatever reasons, a single rank system made good sense.

With _Coates of many colours_ ~ our name for the introduction of separate, single service "distinctive environmental uniforms" _circa_ 1985 (named after Conservative Defence Minister Bob Coates) ~  the need for a single rank system became less pressing but there was no compelling reason to change back to pre-1968 systems. (In my opinion there still isn't.)

The problems with the rank systems, introduced in 1966, is not with badges, it's with a system that was designed to get us all a big pay raise.

In the 1960s the military had fallen farther and farther behind in pay; behind the private and public sectors. There had been several outside pay reviews, all of which recommended big increases,  but they had come to nothing - the political will was lacking. The military wasn't unpopular but it was in an "out of sight, out of mind" state and the government of the days was happy with that. Mr Hellyer decided to make his big social engineering project (a single service) popular by buying our support with a HUGE, for its time, pay deal: instant promotions for most privates and subalterns. Additionally, a new deal was struck which "benchmarked" military salaries to selected public service jobs - one of them was draughtsman, don't ask me why I remember that after almost 50 years, but I do - and the newly vigorous public service unions saw to it that our pay kept on increasing.

Badges are not an issue, or, at least, they ought not to be. The rank _structure_, especially the part that ties promotion to trade level, on the other hand, does need reform and if new ranks and new badges fall out of that then there is no harm done.


----------



## Ostrozac

If the designation of Rifleman is officially brought back -- then what should we call a Private serving in the Halifax Rifles (RCAC)? Should he be a Trooper or a Rifleman? 

I personally think that his designation and insignia isn't as important as ensuring that he has the equipment and training to serve on operations in the Armoured Recce role. But lately we as an army seem to be spending as much time debating heritage, drill and ceremonial as tactical role and equipment.


----------



## Jacky Tar

It's the same sort of mentality that led to introducing the SSI. Seriously, I need a little anchor on my tunic to tell me I've been to sea? I'm pretty sure my memories of runs ashore does that, and doesn't cost the taxpayers a thing.


----------



## Franko

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> If the designation of Rifleman is officially brought back -- then what should we call a Private serving in the Halifax Rifles (RCAC)? Should he be a Trooper or a Rifleman?



Armour = Trooper

Regardless of the title of the unit. Even though it was never official until recently, that's what a trained private in the Corps was called.

Regards


----------



## mariomike

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> It's the same sort of mentality that led to introducing the SSI.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't worry, the Army will probably apply to have a little tent insignia to show how often we go to the field. After all, we need badges to show that we do our jobs, right?



Maybe some ( not meaning PuckChaser or Jacky Tar ) do.

Warrior, Sea Service, battle fitness, & other penile measuring badges
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/108075.0/nowap.html

Sea Service Insignia
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/95432.0.html
"Seeing as 'we' were reminded several times that this topic seemed to have hijacked another one, I thought I would start it's own."
5 pages.


----------



## McG

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's simply one more thing -- SSI badges, adding "Royal" to prefixes, 1812 pin, renaming Areas to "Divisions," discussing pip/crown rank badges -- simply massive amounts of staff work being pissed away, with the sole effect (for both supporters and those bitching -- the result is the same) of distracting people from the budget cuts, the abysmal state of equipment acquisition, and the reality that we have more General/Flag Officers (and requisite bag men staff) than a military of our size remotely warrants.
> 
> 
> Nero fiddling.....Potemkin Village.....Titanic needing ice for the drinks carts......hell, insert whatever metaphor works for you.


Sadly, the idea of returning to pips & crowns is like a zombie.  It will continue to bring itself back to life as long as somebody holds a fetish for the idea and higher HQs do not clearly salt the ground against the notion.



			
				Inky said:
			
		

> I wouldn't call the officer ranks _Union Flag_ used in Canada  until '68 _'65_ "foreign symbols of rank _of the nation_".


Your observation about rank could be just as easily made of flags, and you would find that "foreign" descriptor used quite accurately in such a conversation.  Where unique Canadian symbols and structures have replaced those derived from the UK for over a half century, I think it is fair to say those long retired symbols and structures are now foreign in Canada.



			
				Inky said:
			
		

> ... I strongly support the obliteration of as much as possible of Trudeau's new model army.


That fetish has no place in discussion of CAF future.  The future structures and symbols of our military should not be the reached through the arguments of a guilt by association fallacy and an ensuing witch hunt to rub-out the good, bad and neutral effects of a long past event.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Badges are not an issue, or, at least, they ought not to be. The rank _structure_, especially the part that ties promotion to trade level, on the other hand, does need reform and if new ranks and new badges fall out of that then there is no harm done.


Sure but the end product must continue to facilitate communication between the environments and, as you said earlier, the end product needs to be Canadian.  Putting pips & crowns on the Army while everyone else continues to wear stripes would be a failure in both regards.


----------



## Jacky Tar

And just to buck the trend about 'the older ones don't care', I'll chip in to say I do. Those sleek greyhounds of death bear the title HMCS, not CFS. Tradition - the shared heritage of units and services that link those now serving with those who've gone before - is one of the fundamental reasons men and women will put their lives on the line when common sense would dictate shagging ass in the other direction. It's the necessity of not letting down the team, which isn't just your fellow tradesmen, your messmates and so forth; it's also not letting down everyone who has worn the uniform, sweated through Basic, endured sergeants and petty officers, ducked incoming fire or fought a valiant battle against waters rising in the engine room or herded a wounded aircraft back to base when by rights it ought to have fallen out of the sky. It's not sane, it's not sensible, it's not rational - but it IS key to morale and discipline, and any senior leader who dismisses the importance of traditions and heritage and the visible symbols thereof should get a swift kick in the arse.

And for Pana, I sure as hell matter.


----------



## McG

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Tradition - the shared heritage of units and services that link those now serving with those who've gone before - is one of the fundamental reasons men and women will put their lives on the line when common sense would dictate shagging ass in the other direction.


It is commraderie and shared experience with the team currently on the line that motivates guys to push themselves.  It is not wearing badges or bearing labels that were last used the grandfathers of the current soldiers, sailors and airmen.  The reality of the name change exercise has been pointed out in another thread:


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's simply one more thing -- SSI badges, adding "Royal" to prefixes, 1812 pin, renaming Areas to "Divisions," discussing pip/crown rank badges -- simply massive amounts of staff work being pissed away, with the sole effect (for both supporters and those bitching -- the result is the same) of distracting people from the budget cuts, the abysmal state of equipment acquisition, and the reality that we have more General/Flag Officers (and requisite bag men staff) than a military of our size remotely warrants.
> 
> 
> Nero fiddling.....Potemkin Village.....Titanic needing ice for the drinks carts......hell, insert whatever metaphor works for you.


----------



## dapaterson

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> but it IS key to morale and discipline, and any senior leader who dismisses the importance of traditions and heritage and the visible symbols thereof should get a swift kick in the arse.



So, the traditions and heritage of the past 40+ years, together with their visible symbols, should be respected then?


----------



## Jed

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> And just to buck the trend about 'the older ones don't care', I'll chip in to say I do. Those sleek greyhounds of death bear the title HMCS, not CFS. Tradition - the shared heritage of units and services that link those now serving with those who've gone before - is one of the fundamental reasons men and women will put their lives on the line when common sense would dictate shagging ass in the other direction. It's the necessity of not letting down the team, which isn't just your fellow tradesmen, your messmates and so forth; it's also not letting down everyone who has worn the uniform, sweated through Basic, endured sergeants and petty officers, ducked incoming fire or fought a valiant battle against waters rising in the engine room or herded a wounded aircraft back to base when by rights it ought to have fallen out of the sky. It's not sane, it's not sensible, it's not rational - but it IS key to morale and discipline, and any senior leader who dismisses the importance of traditions and heritage and the visible symbols thereof should get a swift kick in the arse.
> 
> And for Pana, I sure as hell matter.



I support you on this, Jacky Tar. I felt this way all through my 22 yrs of service and do so now. I am annoyed when bean counter leadership and comments from the cheap seats continually dismiss this feeling with a "it just doesn't matter" attitude.


----------



## FSTO

When unification was imposed it hit the RCN the hardest on the identity front.

Loss of Rank - Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral - Cpl, Sgt and General

Loss of uniform - Square Rig, eight button jacket - Rifle green army suit

Loss of name - Royal Canadian Navy - Maritime Command

Army 

To the most part  they kept their rank
Uniform - From Khaki to Rifle Green and not much else was different
Name - Pretty much all of the regiments kept their names - and from my experience, soldiers identify more with their regiments then they do with the army as a whole. But please correct me if that is not the case.

So I understand if the CADPAT crew here roll their eyes and scoff at the "waste" for the changes. But to the RCN which fought unification (but not integration when it made sense) tooth and nail from the start, and basically waged a guerrilla war for the last 40 years. These last two years have been very satisfying to say the least.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> So I understand if the CADPAT crew here roll their eyes and scoff at the "waste" for the changes. But to the RCN which fought unification (but not integration when it made sense) tooth and nail from the start, and basically waged a guerrilla war for the last 40 years. These last two years have been very satisfying to say the least.



So, insubordination is, eventually, its own reward...


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So,* insubordination * is, eventually, its own reward...



Nice.   

Anyway, I am sure that the CADPAT crew would have been pleased as punch if this had gone the other way and they were forced into square rig and were called Killicks.

But we can go around this buoy for an eternity. You have your opinion and many in the RCN have a different one. And they are not about to change.


----------



## George Wallace

FSTO said:
			
		

> When unification was imposed it hit the RCN the hardest on the identity front.
> 
> Loss of Rank - Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral - Cpl, Sgt and General
> 
> Loss of uniform - Square Rig, eight button jacket - Rifle green army suit
> 
> Loss of name - Royal Canadian Navy - Maritime Command
> 
> Army
> 
> To the most part  they kept their rank
> Uniform - From Khaki to Rifle Green and not much else was different
> Name - Pretty much all of the regiments kept their names - and from my experience, soldiers identify more with their regiments then they do with the army as a whole. But please correct me if that is not the case.



Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't:

Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral still Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral;

Naval DEUs being worn, with Naval officers having the "swirl"; and

HMCS (insert name here) still, and always has been, HMCS (insert name here)?

Growing pains over the years, but some things NEVER did change.  Like the Army Regiments, Naval craft still retained their names and their crews their esprit de corps.


----------



## Jacky Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, the traditions and heritage of the past 40+ years, together with their visible symbols, should be respected then?



Nice try; I see where you're going with this and I'm not going to bite. Yes those 40+ years should be respected, but not at the cost of ignoring or sweeping under the carpet the preceding 60+ years (for RCN and RCAF), or 100+ for many if not most Army units. The whole 'unification' thing was a ghastly mistake so far as heritage and traditions, and the resulting crash of morale, was concerned. Merging and unifying redundancies, yes. The idea of merging the services into a 'nairmy' as a friend of mine put it, was utterly ridiculous. While I don't fault Mr. Hellyer's intent, I do fault the method and the resulting kick in the morale and esprit-de-corps must be laid squarely at the feet of him and the government of the day.


----------



## Jacky Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> When unification was imposed it hit the RCN the hardest on the identity front.
> 
> Loss of Rank - Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral - Cpl, Sgt and General
> 
> Loss of uniform - Square Rig, eight button jacket - Rifle green army suit
> 
> Loss of name - Royal Canadian Navy - Maritime Command
> 
> Army
> 
> To the most part  they kept their rank
> Uniform - From Khaki to Rifle Green and not much else was different
> Name - Pretty much all of the regiments kept their names - and from my experience, soldiers identify more with their regiments then they do with the army as a whole. But please correct me if that is not the case.
> 
> So I understand if the CADPAT crew here roll their eyes and scoff at the "waste" for the changes. But to the RCN which fought unification (but not integration when it made sense) tooth and nail from the start, and basically waged a guerrilla war for the last 40 years. These last two years have been very satisfying to say the least.



Dammit, we so badly need a "THIS!" button, 'cause I'd hit that bugger about 10,000 times on this post


----------



## FSTO

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't:
> 
> Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral still Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral;
> 
> Naval DEUs being worn, with Naval officers having the "swirl"; and
> 
> HMCS (insert name here) still, and always has been, HMCS (insert name here)?
> 
> Growing pains over the years, but some things NEVER did change.  Like the Army Regiments, Naval craft still retained their names and their crews their esprit de corps.



Now it is, but at the time of unification, the ranks were abolished and the uniform was drastically changed.  Yes we kept HMCS but unlike the army (once a PPCLI always a PPCLI) the RCN is different. I have been in several ships (currently HMCS OTTAWA) but I identify more with RCN then I do with HMCS (insert name here). That is my feelings, can't speak for other members of the Navy.


----------



## Jacky Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> George Wallace said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't:
> 
> Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral still Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral;
> 
> Naval DEUs being worn, with Naval officers having the "swirl"; and
> 
> HMCS (insert name here) still, and always has been, HMCS (insert name here)?
> 
> Growing pains over the years, but some things NEVER did change.  Like the Army Regiments, Naval craft still retained their names and their crews their esprit de corps.
> 
> 
> 
> Now it is, but at the time of unification, the ranks were abolished and the uniform was drastically changed.  Yes we kept HMCS but unlike the army (once a PPCLI always a PPCLI) the RCN is different. I have been in several ships (currently HMCS OTTAWA) but I identify more with RCN then I do with HMCS (insert name here). That is my feelings, can't speak for other members of the Navy.
Click to expand...


I'll expand on it to note:

Leading Seaman, Petty Officer, Admiral --> Cpl, Sgt, General from 1968 to c. 1987 --> LS, PO, Adm again

Square rig / officer's rig / executive curl (not 'swirl') --> jolly greens & straight stripes fm 1968 to c. 1987 --> 'naval'-ized CFs c. 1987, executive curl restored in 2011

HMCS <name> - not 100% sure on this one; would have to do some research, but my understanding is that for a brief (about 2 year) period, they were in fact labelled as CFS <name>. Don't take that as gospel, though.

Basically the sailor's visual identity got chucked right out the scuttle and we had LCols commanding ships, MWOs as department chiefs, etc. HMCS was, for the longest time, about _all_ the naval identity we had left. My CF490 called me a Pte, not an OS when I joined. Yes, we were authorized to use naval ranks onboard ship and within naval units; that was it. As FSTO says, naval personnel identify more with the service than a specifc ship; we say we're sailors, not Princess Pats or VanDoos or whatever, and unification basically forced a soldier pattern on all sailors. It doesn't work for the Navy, because we do our business differently than the Army, and that's how it should be. A ship is not a company, nor it is a squadron.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, insubordination is, eventually, its own reward...



Actually, it is a long held naval tradition in Commonwealth navies.

Right after unification, when it became clear that there was no changing Mr. Hellyer's mind (if he had one) and most of the serving admirals elected to retire rather than carry it out, it became known as The Revolt of the Admirals.

It has always been British Naval Tradition to say "Aye Aye,Sir" to an incorrect order - and then go and execute instead that which you know is the right thing to do anyway. So long as you were right to start with and win, little harm will come to you.

One of the most famous quote from Lord Nelson himself is an invitation to disobey order: "No captain can do wrong who lays his ship alongside an enemy". 
Sounds harmless, but it was a complete contradiction of the then existing Admiralty orders on the conduct of battle for ships-of-the-line, that admitted of no excuse whatever to break ranks and create openings in the line.


----------



## OldSolduer

Excuse me , but maybe, just maybe there are more pressing issues to deal with. 

Like budgets, operational effectiveness, training our troops.....


----------



## Jacky Tar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Excuse me , but maybe, just maybe there are more pressing issues to deal with.
> 
> Like budgets, operational effectiveness, training our troops.....



I would say "as pressing", not "more pressing". Morale and esprit de corps are harder to quantify than budgets, training and operational effectiveness but it's just as important.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> I would say "as pressing", not "more pressing". Morale and esprit de corps are harder to quantify than budgets, training and operational effectiveness but it's just as important.



With good challenging training moraleand e spirit de corps are built, not on what rank we should use.


This is a distraction from the issues we face.


----------



## Jacky Tar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> With good challenging training moraleand e spirit de corps are built, not on what rank we should use.
> 
> 
> This is a distraction from the issues we face.



I think we'll  have to agree to disagree, sir


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> I think we'll  have to agree to disagree, sir



Disagreeing doesn't make you right.

Or wrong, I guess.

And as far as the Navy not using their ranks under unification, and just aboard ships, that's plain hog manure. I've been around a long time and the Navy has always used their own terms. Just like the terms Trooper, Sapper, Gunner, etc. were used when we were told to stop using them back in those heady days of unification.


----------



## FSTO

recceguy said:
			
		

> Disagreeing doesn't make you right.
> 
> Or wrong, I guess.
> 
> And as far as the Navy not using their ranks under unification, and just aboard ships, that's plain hog manure. I've been around a long time and the Navy has always used their own terms. Just like the terms Trooper, Sapper, Gunner, etc. were used when we were told to stop using them back in those heady days of unification.



I agree with you, but offically the government of Canada abolished the different ranks with the passing of Bill C-243, "The Canadian Forces Reorganization Act


----------



## dimsum

*Devil's advocate rant on*

Let's turn this around.  Say that instead of the RCN and RCAF changing to Green, everyone started changing to pre-unification RCAF dress.  I say this because there were zero identifiers for anything aside from the element (RCAF) and whether you were aircrew or not (one and two wings).  All officers would start as Pilot Officer, then Flying Officer....etc.  How much would the Army have loved losing PPCLI, R22eR, etc?  How ridiculous would the ranks be if viewed from an Army perspective?  

That's how the RCN (and to a lesser degree, the RCAF) felt in 1968, I'm sure.

A short while ago, I saw something from my friends in the PPCLI regarding wearing the red shoulder flash again.  The response for a shoulder flash (ie. "we should never have stopped wearing them", etc.) is pretty telling on how pers in the regiment feel.  If you were a member of a regiment, it doesn't matter if the regiment wears blue, black, tan, or clown suits; you are part of the regiment and its traditions.  As mentioned before, "Once a [regimental member], always a [regimental member]" doesn't apply to pers in the Navy and Air Force (not just in Canada) since every few years, they get posted off the ship or sqn, likely to never return.  So we end up identifying with the larger organization; and in the case of the RCN, built on the RN and with such close ties to the Commonwealth, uniform and rank structure (big parts of their traditions) do stand out.  If you put a member (especially an Officer) from the RN, RAN, and RNZN side by side and didn't look at their shoulders, where their country name was, you would be hard-pressed to figure out which was which.  Similarly with the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF; a good reason why the RCAF hasn't fought hard to restore old rank titles was that since we work with the USAF so closely, we might as well keep to their ranks, at least in the Officer side.  

*rant off*

Of course, we can just tell people to buy their dress uniforms again.  That will save money, I'm sure.   :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> With good challenging training moraleand e spirit de corps are built, not on what rank we should use.
> 
> 
> This is a distraction from the issues we face.



 I think that some elemental considerations are required here, which may explain the need to "agree to disagree".

In my first summer as an officer cadet (we did not call ourselves naval cadet then), I managed a "marginal" in the leadership phase of my B.O.C., a decidedly "army" oriented course. Yet, immediately after, in my MARS II - a decidedly Navy course which included a seven weeks at sea deployment, I was evaluated as "Strong Leadership qualities- should progress quickly in rank".

While one can claim that leadership is leadership, I think that there are differences in its effective use in different  circumstances, and the army circumstances are different than the Navy circumstances and not everyone is cut for one type of leadership or the other. I believe the same can be said of what builds morale and esprit de corps: it may vary based on the circumstances, and is therefore different in the Army as opposed to the Navy. 

IMHO, the esprit de corps in the Army is, by necessity built up from the smallest unit on: It starts with the platoon - fierce loyalty to one's platoon is the starting point, going up to Company, then Battalion and then Regiment. I am not even sure if there is an "esprit de corps" attaching to the Army overall. Since a soldier usually spends most of his career in the same regimental surroundings, this works perfectly and yes: challenging training builds morale and esprit de corps. 

In the Navy, the situation is rather different. As Captain, for instance, I spend as much time considering issues of Morale at the fleet level as I spend considering that of my own crew, because the next time I am in port, I may well loose a quarter of my seaman to another ship, or a shore organization and I myself gain some replacement seaman right from another ship before next sailing. And unlike Army training which can be made challenging by change of activity (carry out a winter raid between Bagotville and Valcartier, have a platoon take some boy scouts out for adventure training for a week, etc), Navy training is relatively set in what does and the challenge is usually made more challenging by increase in tempo, only. We call those "work-ups" and they certainly do build team work - but it is unrealistic to keep such tempo up for very long period as it then becomes counter-productive in terms of morale.

All this to say that there may be some differences between elements that explain why, in the Navy the relationship is to the service as a whole, not to your current sub-unit of it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

OMG.............this thread is like listening to teenage girls whine about fashion.


----------



## Jed

Have you ever tried to have a ball team pick the kind of uniform they should wear?   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think that some elemental considerations are required here, which may explain the need to "agree to disagree".
> 
> In my first summer as an officer cadet (we did not call ourselves naval cadet then), I managed a "marginal" in the leadership phase of my B.O.C., a decidedly "army" oriented course. Yet, immediately after, in my MARS II - a decidedly Navy course which included a seven weeks at sea deployment, I was evaluated as "Strong Leadership qualities- should progress quickly in rank".
> 
> While one can claim that leadership is leadership, I think that there are differences in its effective use in different  circumstances, and the army circumstances are different than the Navy circumstances and not everyone is cut for one type of leadership or the other. I believe the same can be said of what builds morale and esprit de corps: it may vary based on the circumstances, and is therefore different in the Army as opposed to the Navy.
> 
> IMHO, the esprit de corps in the Army is, by necessity built up from the smallest unit on: It starts with the platoon - fierce loyalty to one's platoon is the starting point, going up to Company, then Battalion and then Regiment. I am not even sure if there is an "esprit de corps" attaching to the Army overall. Since a soldier usually spends most of his career in the same regimental surroundings, this works perfectly and yes: challenging training builds morale and esprit de corps.
> 
> In the Navy, the situation is rather different. As Captain, for instance, I spend as much time considering issues of Morale at the fleet level as I spend considering that of my own crew, because the next time I am in port, I may well loose a quarter of my seaman to another ship, or a shore organization and I myself gain some replacement seaman right from another ship before next sailing. And unlike Army training which can be made challenging by change of activity (carry out a winter raid between Bagotville and Valcartier, have a platoon take some boy scouts out for adventure training for a week, etc), Navy training is relatively set in what does and the challenge is usually made more challenging by increase in tempo, only. We call those "work-ups" and they certainly do build team work - but it is unrealistic to keep such tempo up for very long period as it then becomes counter-productive in terms of morale.
> 
> All this to say that there may be some differences between elements that explain why, in the Navy the relationship is to the service as a whole, not to your current sub-unit of it.



I get it. 

Rum, sodomy and the lash.

Also, I don't think you know much about the army. At least it doesn't show in your explanation.

However, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Now I have to go shower, this thread has made me feel dirty for some reason.

I'll give it wide berth from now on.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I have to agree with Dimsum and OGBD and I think anyone not in the know nor in agreement can conduct a little experiment. If you look at individual's profiles on this website, for the most part, Navy list their current Unit only and it will change as they are posted. Many of the contributors from the greener side of the house list ALL their Units. There is an obvious tie to the Unit and I wish the Navy (can't speak for RCAF) had that. I wish when posted to (for example) HMCS HALIFAX that every time I went to sea, it was on board HAL but that can never happen. I am sure if you ask most Navy, and I am speaking for myself only but I have 13 sea going Units on my MPRR and this does not include attached postings; this is not uncommmon. Oddly enough, my fondest memories were of my time on board Gatineau: Was it the best crew, best ship, best trips/ports? - I can't say. What I do know is that I served on that one platform for a total of just under 8 years-I still proudly wear what little paraphernalia from the ship's canteen I still have out of pure pride and I suspect that is why we feel so strong about this. To say "...teenage girls whine about fashion": What if someone were to suggest the removal of all but rank, medals/ribbons, name tag and Canada flashes from the Army's 1A uniform-No sashes, no unique collar/shoulder dogs, no kilts, no unique headdress etc. Maybe (just maybe) some of the non Navy (and AF) types may be able to understand?

Pat


----------



## dapaterson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So we end up identifying with the larger organization; and in the case of the RCN, built on the RN and with such close ties to the Commonwealth, uniform and rank structure (big parts of their traditions) do stand out.  If you put a member (especially an Officer) from the RN, RAN, and RNZN side by side and didn't look at their shoulders, where their country name was, you would be hard-pressed to figure out which was which.  Similarly with the RAF, RAAF and RNZAF; a good reason why the RCAF hasn't fought hard to restore old rank titles was that since we work with the USAF so closely, we might as well keep to their ranks, at least in the Officer side.



So it's good to lack a distinct Canadian identity, and be lumped in with the last vestiges of a dying empire instead?

As for the USAF, they're a poor example for anyone to emulate...


----------



## McG

I cannot seem to understand why all the Navy types are in here crying about their personal hardship suffered under unification.  Putting aside the fact that none of the pers were serving at the time to have actually suffered anything, the Navy has had its British identity back for years with the black uniforms and the old rank names.  The recent SSI and executive curl are just icing on the cake for the Sneetch like need to identify one's self worth by looking different.  That is done and in the past.  There is neither need nor suggesting or re-imposing the reverted _abuses_ of unification which uniquely oppressed the Navy.

Can we not agree it is time for this stupidness to stop?  Nothing new.  Nothing undone.  Any continued effort to look like it is 1955 is absolute waste.  It is a distraction of both resources and attention from things that actually matter.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> So I understand if the CADPAT crew here roll their eyes and scoff at the "waste" for the changes. But to the RCN ... these last two years have been very satisfying to say the least.


Fine.  But now that the roll-back unification march is pushing onto the Army and even where the roll-back is unwanted it is being forced upon us (go back in this thread to see were the Infantry Corps asked not to be remade into the RCIC that it became anyway), perhapse you can accept that blindly, stupidly remolding the military into the image of 1955 is not the right way to go.



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> The whole 'unification' thing was a ghastly mistake so far as heritage and traditions, and the resulting crash of morale, was concerned.


And where the majority of the CAF has been able to establish a proud connection with the current symbols, why should the ghastly mistake be repeated by ripping out now established heritage and traditions to re-impose those of the past?


Here is a shopping list of what our priorities and concerns could be right now:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82898/post-1193048.html#msg1193048
As an institution, let's get some of those items right before we continue cosmetically reinventing ourselves as a colony.


----------



## FSTO

:

Just trying to give you some context. If you choose to dismiss it, that's your prerogative.


----------



## Jacky Tar

What FSTO said. As he and others have invited the members of the green crew here present to do, imagine for a moment that the unification has required all branches to wear essentially a naval-pattern uniform. I guarantee there'd have been 40 years of pissing and moaning from a significant portion of those who would have felt - rightly! - that their traditions and heritage had been trampled underfoot, with the concomittant damage to individual and unit morale.

I really do NOT understand the attitude on the part of some here (no names needed) that dismiss this. Is it the CF's most pressing concern? No, not by a long chalk, and I've never argued that it is. But neither is it beneath notice; it affects personnel and unit performance. And as noted previously, those of us who ascribe a greater importance to it than others are not necessarily wrong except in the eyes of those who disagree. It doesn't appear likely that anyone here is about to convince me otherwise and I rather doubt I'll be able to sway them as well. God knows there's nothing more tenacious than an opinion held in the face of disagreement. 

As for those who opt to simply dismisss with ridicule and contempt the opinions of those who disagree with them - well, this is the Internet and it doesn't surprise me. It does kind of disappoint me, though.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> What FSTO said. As he and others have invited the members of the green crew here present to do, imagine for a moment that the unification has required all branches to wear essentially a naval-pattern uniform. I guarantee there'd have been 40 years of pissing and moaning from a significant portion of those who would have felt - rightly! - that their traditions and heritage had been trampled underfoot, with the concomittant damage to individual and unit morale.
> 
> I really do NOT understand the attitude on the part of some here (no names needed) that dismiss this. Is it the CF's most pressing concern? No, not by a long chalk, and I've never argued that it is. But neither is it beneath notice; it affects personnel and unit performance. And as noted previously, those of us who ascribe a greater importance to it than others are not necessarily wrong except in the eyes of those who disagree. It doesn't appear likely that anyone here is about to convince me otherwise and I rather doubt I'll be able to sway them as well. God knows there's nothing more tenacious than an opinion held in the face of disagreement.
> 
> As for those who opt to simply dismisss with ridicule and contempt the opinions of those who disagree with them - well, this is the Internet and it doesn't surprise me. It does kind of disappoint me, though.



Well said.  Milpoints inbound!


----------



## jpjohnsn

I'm two score and more than a few years old but on the day that the RCAF officially came back into existence, I felt like a kid at Christmas and, yes, part of me would like to see more of the "Old RCAF" bits and bobs come back.  And this despite the fact that I know, logically, that a few of the criticisms and objections against it in this thread are valid.

When I was a boy and became interested in (obsessed with) aircraft there was no air force in Canada.  The RCAF was gone and Air Command hadn't stood up yet. We had aircraft but no air force.  For me, learning about Canada's air force meant looking back at the RCAF.  When I joined air cadets, my first CO was an ex-Reg Force pilot who'd joined the RCAF in '53, served through unification and transferred to the CIL in the late 70s.  He wore green because he had to but he was, until his death a couple of years ago, pure pre-68 RCAF at heart and he filled our heads and hearts full of RCAF history, customs and traditions.  

When I joined up, I was thrilled that the CF had switched to DEU and I got to wear blue (though not the old air force blue) instead of the green.  

But, logically, I know it's money being spent that could be better spent on other things. And I know that we were almost to the point where the time since the RCAF had ceased to exist was about to be longer than it did exist (almost but not quite) so some new traditions had overtaken the old ones.  And I know that, at this point, there probably isn't the appetite to reintroduce the old ranks, etc but, honestly, that kid down deep inside of me poring over the old books and going to museums and hearing those stories is always going to look back at those things even as the adult me looks forward.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> What FSTO said. As he and others have invited the members of the green crew here present to do, imagine for a moment that the unification has required all branches to wear essentially a naval-pattern uniform. I guarantee there'd have been 40 years of pissing and moaning from a significant portion of those who would have felt - rightly! - that their traditions and heritage had been trampled underfoot, with the concomittant damage to individual and unit morale.



I understand where you're coming from, however I have been in for 7 years and know no different. as I recall, the Coates of Many Colours came out in 1987. I wasn't even a twinkle in my father's eye when that change occurred and therefore know none of the horrors of the Unification nightmare. You'll find a vast majority of junior NCOs and officers are in the same boat. 



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> I really do NOT understand the attitude on the part of some here (no names needed) that dismiss this. Is it the CF's most pressing concern? No, not by a long chalk, and I've never argued that it is. But neither is it beneath notice; it affects *personnel and unit performance*.



I would find the high rate of release, reduction in training, cancellation of new equipment, and breakdown of infrastructure to have more of an impact on unit performance and personnel than buttons and bows. I do admit it's a hell of a lot cheaper than replacing ships, fighters, and LAVs and thats most likely why there is this push to hop into the De Lorean and "right the wrongs of Unification."

I'd be a hell of a lot happier if D RCCS told me if i was going to be getting Spec Pay or when the IRIS system will be replaced, rather than if we're going back to the RCCS collar dogs & cap badges. 

I equate it to being told "sorry, still not fresh rations, only IMPs, but hey, least we're feeding you right?"


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> Just trying to give you some context.


Context to sp what argument?  Nobody is suggesting undoing what has been undone.  The RCN has its unique identifiers back and nobody is suggesting to undo even the recent unnecessary changes.  However, the wheel of undoing unification continues to turn and Army guys are saying to just leave us alone.  We are happy with the identity that we have built for ourselves over the last half century.  We know our history and lineage.  We do not need grandpa’s uniform to feel good and confident in ourselves.  



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> What FSTO said. As he and others have invited the members of the green crew here present to do, imagine for a moment that the unification has required all branches to wear essentially a naval-pattern uniform.


The Navy has had its distinctive environmental uniform and unique rank titles since 1986.  Neither you nor FSTO have ever suffered from the tramplings of unification.  By the length of career in your profiles, you have both only ever served in a navy that is uniquely identifiable as both Canadian and navy.  This harkening back to abuses of unification is a red herring.  The Canadian Navy’s visibly distinct identity was in place for 25 years before the recent changes started happening.  They were unnecessary, but they are done and they will stay.  Any further change back to 1955 would also be unnecessary, and such efforts should be correctly seen as stealing resources and attention away from the issues that really do matter.



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> … it affects personnel and unit performance.


Executive curls, royal titles, pips, sam brown belts and other such cosmetics do not affect pers or unit performance.  Large problems of personnel and unit performance are symptoms of greater problems in leadership, organization, policies, and procedure.  Addressing an EME retention problem by making them RCEME has effectively thrown a placebo at the problem; someone might feel good about themselves for a few weeks but the problem is not abated.  If there are significant problems of personnel and unit performance, lets stop frittering away efforts into turning our image back to 1955.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I was glad to see the executive curl return - I thought it might not happen because some people would say it makes us look to British, but it did and it looks fine.

I don't object to the Royal Canadian Navy or the Royal Canadian this, that or the other (well, I do object, a wee bit, to the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, but only because I think if we are going "back" we should go all the way back to 1903 and call it the Canadian Signal Corps and adopt the original cap badge, not the one the Brits foisted on us 20 years later, but that's a quibble). 

I really like the white ensign being restored to its proper place.

I don't care if the RCAF wants to adopt black and blue or silver rank badges.

I do oppose a return to pips and crowns. I'm opposed not only because I think it's a waste of staff effort and money but also because I think we want our ranks to be distinctively Canadian. Does that mean I like stripes on the sleeve? No, not very much, but I don't dislike them enough to replace with something that I took off around over 40 years ago. IF we you are going to change things I, personally, would like to see fewer crowns - including the crowns on WOs rank badges.

My _sense_, from reading Army.ca, is that RCN and, maybe to a lesser degree, RCAF folks want a stronger service identity, but the next move in that direction, as I understand it from the rumour mill, will need to be pretty major: rebadging the _purple_ people with either the Naval Ops or Air Ops badges. I first heard this proposed a couple or few years ago - before the executive curl was approved - in the HMCS Bytown Wardroom here in Ottawa. I was lunching with a friend and we joined a conversation of some pretty senior serving and retired members and that topic came up and the strongest supporter, in our little group, was a Log branch four striper. I just heard a similar thought, from a fairly senior RCAF CELE officer just a couple of weeks ago. The CELE officer not only wants to rebadge, he wants to disband the C and E Branch and merge CELE (Air) with AERE to recreate the old (pre 1968) _Tech Tel_ Branch. Those kinds of ideas require considerable thought; I think the split of C and E into Signals, SIGINT and Tech Tel _might_ have a lot of merit, but bigger brains than mine need to think about it.

We have, in my opinion, pretty much done with _buttons and bows_; the next steps will, indeed, involve messing about with the fundamental structure of the CF. I'm happy to agree that some "messing about" is probably overdue, but any further steps need to be fully examined and implemented with care because some other "messing about" will, without question, do some harm, too.


----------



## Happy Guy

To build upon what E.R. Campbell just wrote.

With the restoration of the Royal designation to the CAF, I believe that we will experience more changes to both the buttons and bows part but I'm afraid also to its fundamental character.

I know that some senior naval LOG Officers are agitating to a return to wearing the naval command badge (because it is the service that they most strongly identify with and not the branch) and to a lesser extent the air LOG to the air command badge.  What I am most afraid of is that the three environments (services) will eventually decide that they are so operationally different that they will form their own distinct administrative, financial and logistic systems thereby negating the benefits of having one system.  I am now working with the Americans and they are envious of our one unified administrative/financial/logistic because it makes logical sense, it does save money and will make them more efficient - they cannot easily do it because of the large number of unique weapons, size and scope of their operations pertaining to each of their services.

When I was younger I yearned for a more operationally Army oriented LOG branch.  The LOG branch struggled to find its identify after unification and sort of wandered off the main path, although not far from it.  After 10+ years of fighting we now have a operationally-oriented LOG branch that is focused on training LOG personnel for operations across the entire operations spectrum.  I am still wearing the same cap badge, almost the same green uniform and rank insignia, but I am happy and even more proud of the LOG branch.

I am not opposed to the buttons and bows but I am afraid that senior Officers will move to dismantle aspects of the unified administrative/financial/logistics systems for their unique environmental (service) operational reasons.


----------



## ModlrMike

I agree with much of what you've said, ER. What folks misunderstand is who the winners and losers were with unification. I propose that the Army was a winner in that the regiments remained intact, and we adopted an essentially army rank structure and uniform. The Airforce won some, and lost some. We kept the base / lodger unit structure as a replacement for wing / squadron; and they gained control over maritime air assets. Where they lost was in rank structure and distinct identity. The Navy lost the most: identity, assets, personnel, and to some degree rank structure. If one wants to imagine the full impact unification had on the Navy they only need to think what the Army might have felt if all the regiments were de-badged and rolled into a single entity.

That being said, I also think that the Navy is almost all the way to where it wants to be. I would personally support renaming Naval Cadet to Midshipman and perhaps go so far as to replace A/SLt with Ensign. I have no real opinion on the army front except to agree that pips and crowns is the wrong direction.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> ... pips and crowns is the wrong direction.




That's it .. I wish I'd said that.

The "right direction" is towards a distinctively Canadian and unified _Canadian Armed Forces_ with three proud service _components_, honouring ALL their fine traditions, including those that have been established since 1968.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's it .. I wish I'd said that.
> 
> The "right direction" is towards a distinctively Canadian and unified _Canadian Armed Forces_ with three proud service _components_, honouring ALL their fine traditions, including those that have been established since 1968.



In your opinion ERC where does this leave the _purple_ folks ?  Or what would you like to see happen to the _purple_ folks ?

No trolling or instigating intended I simply think you may have an informed and interesting idea.


----------



## GAP

As an outsider looking in I see.....army, navy, air force.


Not purple, blue, green, etc.. 

 :2c:


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Context to sp what argument?  Nobody is suggesting undoing what has been undone.  The RCN has its unique identifiers back and nobody is suggesting to undo even the recent unnecessary changes.  However, the wheel of undoing unification continues to turn and Army guys are saying to just leave us alone.  We are happy with the identity that we have built for ourselves over the last half century.  We know our history and lineage.  We do not need grandpa’s uniform to feel good and confident in ourselves.
> The Navy has had its distinctive environmental uniform and unique rank titles since 1986.  Neither you nor FSTO have ever suffered from the tramplings of unification.  By the length of career in your profiles, you have both only ever served in a navy that is uniquely identifiable as both Canadian and navy.  This harkening back to abuses of unification is a red herring.  The Canadian Navy’s visibly distinct identity was in place for 25 years before the recent changes started happening.  They were unnecessary, but they are done and they will stay.  Any further change back to 1955 would also be unnecessary, and such efforts should be correctly seen as stealing resources and attention away from the issues that really do matter.
> Executive curls, royal titles, pips, sam brown belts and other such cosmetics do not affect pers or unit performance.  Large problems of personnel and unit performance are symptoms of greater problems in leadership, organization, policies, and procedure.  Addressing an EME retention problem by making them RCEME has effectively thrown a placebo at the problem; someone might feel good about themselves for a few weeks but the problem is not abated.  If there are significant problems of personnel and unit performance, lets stop frittering away efforts into turning our image back to 1955.



- I have never ever advocated changing the Army's uniform or rank structure. I actually do not care what the Army does with itself.  That is an issue you can debate with your breathern in cadpat.
-  Although I joined the Navy in 1989, I studied extensively the unification crisis, the effect it had on the Navy at the time and the battles the Navy has had to retain its uniqueness. Not all of us fell off the turnip truck infront of Cornwallis or Chilliwack. I would suspect quite a few of us actually knew our military history before we joined.
- Although you dismiss the day the DEU's were re-introduced, there was much celebrating in naval circles, with bonfires that burned the old greens
- Finally, I have no idea about your fixation with 1955. The Canadian Armed Forces Reorganization Act was passed into law in 1968.

Anyway. We all know with crystal clarity your opinion on this matter. If you get into a position that you can affect policy and put more money into training and ops, fill your boots.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FSTO said:
			
		

> I actually do not care what the Army does with itself.  -



I typed about 3 replies and deleted them all because I could not see myself ever stooping to the level of that post...........


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> In your opinion ERC where does this leave the _purple_ folks ?  Or what would you like to see happen to the _purple_ folks ?
> 
> No trolling or instigating intended I simply think you may have an informed and interesting idea.




I honestly don't know. I think we made some real gains in _integrating_ some services in 1968; I would hate to see the baby thrown out because someone doesn't like the bathwater. I listened with considerable interest to the C and E split and subsequent CELE/AERE merger proposal because the officer advancing the idea is senior enough to know whereof he speaks. His approach seemed well reasoned to me, but I'm an outsider.

I have wondered, but not out loud, if Navy Log really fits all that well. The RCN needs a supply/pay branch, I guess, but maybe the army needs a bigger supply/transport/maintenance/pay branch. Maybe nobody needs a higher level _finance_ service - maybe that's all a civilian function, just like maintenance of civilian pattern vehicles in dockyards.

But the short answer is:  :dunno:


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I typed about 3 replies and deleted them all because I could not see myself ever stooping to the level of that post...........



What was wrong with that ?  Essentially he's saying _he's staying in his lane_...  He's not Army and has no dog in this fight WRT Army uniform issues...  Exactly what level has he stooped too ?


----------



## FSTO

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I typed about 3 replies and deleted them all because I could not see myself ever stooping to the level of that post...........



????????
That I don't care what the Army clothes itself in? Or what they put on their shoulders or wrists? C'mon man, lighten up. It's the Army's choice. As far as I know the Navy has no dog in the pips and crowns fight.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I honestly don't know. I think we made some real gains in _integrating_ some services in 1968; I would hate to see the baby thrown out because someone doesn't like the bathwater. I listened with considerable interest to the C and E split and subsequent CELE/AERE merger proposal because the officer advancing the idea is senior enough to know whereof he speaks. His approach seemed well reasoned to me, but I'm an outsider.
> 
> I have wondered, but not out loud, if Navy Log really fits all that well. The RCN needs a supply/pay branch, I guess, but maybe the army needs a bigger supply/transport/maintenance/pay branch. Maybe nobody needs a higher level _finance_ service - maybe that's all a civilian function, just like maintenance of civilian pattern vehicles in dockyards.
> 
> But the short answer is:  :dunno:



Interesting.  I would agree the army requires a larger "tail" to support its operations.  I would also agree the Navy needs less of a RCEME tail than the Army side.  As for higher level finance that's admittedly beyond my scope. 

I think we can successfully split LOG into elements while maintaining a single supply/logistics and admin/pay systems and training center.  This will still enable commands like MARLANT to be force generators for things like Afghanistan as the basic trades knowledge will still be intact and all that is required is some army/soldiering training, as is done now anyways.  I was put through this grinder during TF 1-10. 

As for the C&E branch again that's beyond my scope.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _sense_, from reading Army.ca, is that RCN and, maybe to a lesser degree, RCAF folks want a stronger service identity, but the next move in that direction, as I understand it from the rumour mill, will need to be pretty major: rebadging the _purple_ people with either the Naval Ops or Air Ops badges.



So long as they wear their "Trade" badges on the lapel of their jacket or a "trade" designation on the shoulder, the Cap badge of the service (not of naval "ops") is what used to exist for everyone: it unifies and identifies with the service while permitting identification of the trade. I have problem with this for the officers, though, because I am not necessarily in favour of going back to sleeve colours between the stripes.

I also agree that the Navy is about back to where it wants to be.

BTW for those suggesting "ensign" for A/Slt: We have never had Ensigns as a naval rank in Canada, except in the French structure, where both A/Slt and Slt's are Enseigne de vaisseau, 1st and 2nd class.

And I aslo fully agree: Don't touch our single/unified system of administration/finance/logistics and I would even say of messaging/communication. However, allow that, dependant on the service, one officer's duties may entail more or less of the various tasks as appropriate (in the Navy, the ship's log officer has to do the supply, finances, NPF, pay, food services and transport not because he/she is that much more competent (though they are  ) but because none of these function taken independently would amount to enough work to keep the officer fully employed.


----------



## Jacky Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> The Navy has had its distinctive environmental uniform and unique rank titles since 1986.  Neither you nor FSTO have ever suffered from the tramplings of unification.  By the length of career in your profiles, you have both only ever served in a navy that is uniquely identifiable as both Canadian and navy.


Joined in '84; rejoined in '92. I was a private, not an ordinary seaman in Wallyworld and I wore the jolly greens, and hated them. Which also fails to address the point FSTO and I were raising: If Army personnel had been forced into a single service uniform that looked like a navy or airforce suit, there would have been cries of dismay all over the joint, and loud cheering from the green section when they got their regimental identies back. Way to ignore the thrust of my comment.



> Executive curls, royal titles, pips, sam brown belts and other such cosmetics do not affect pers or unit performance.  Large problems of personnel and unit performance are symptoms of greater problems in leadership, organization, policies, and procedure.


Point me to where I said symbols of identity are the be-all and end-all; I didn't. I said their removal was a contributing factor to the erosion of morale, and it was. The relative importance of it as a factor is obviously less in your opinion, moreso in mine. But do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth, sir.


----------



## Old Sweat

As one of the few members on here who was serving when all this happened, the concept was for a single uniform without special buttons or badges and, eventually a common cap badge. Circa 1972 the CANFORGEN announcing the common cap badge was prepared and in the office of Jadex, who was the new CDS, for release. He had second thoughts and canvassed the senior leaders, who recommended further study, which is Ottawa-speak for make it go away. 

Specific collar dogs had begun to appear about 1970-1971 and buttons, as I recall, came a bit later, followed by cloth and then metal regimental/branch shoulder flashes.

I certainly do not begrudge either the RCN or the RCAF distinctive uniforms and identifiers such as the executive curl. At the same time, I see no reason to go back to pips and crowns. For whatever it is worth, we have spent about as many years in nasty places under the present officer rank badges as we did under the former: Fenian Raids/Northwest Rebellion/Boer War/Both World Wars and Korea as opposed to the Balkans/Somalia/Haiti/East Timor/Afghanistan.

Edit to add: I learned of the cap badge CANFORGEN from a source who was working near CDS land and happened to come across the pile of copies of the message awating release. I think I was shown a copy but am not sure.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _sense_, from reading Army.ca, is that RCN and, maybe to a lesser degree, RCAF folks want a stronger service identity, but the next move in that direction, as I understand it from the rumour mill, will need to be pretty major: rebadging the _purple_ people with either the Naval Ops or Air Ops badges. I first heard this proposed a couple or few years ago - before the executive curl was approved - in the HMCS Bytown Wardroom here in Ottawa. I was lunching with a friend and we joined a conversation of some pretty senior serving and retired members and that topic came up and the strongest supporter, in our little group, was a Log branch four striper. I just heard a similar thought, from a fairly senior RCAF CELE officer just a couple of weeks ago. The CELE officer not only wants to rebadge, he wants to disband the C and E Branch and merge CELE (Air) with AERE to recreate the old (pre 1968) _Tech Tel_ Branch. Those kinds of ideas require considerable thought; I think the split of C and E into Signals, SIGINT and Tech Tel _might_ have a lot of merit, but bigger brains than mine need to think about it.
> 
> We have, in my opinion, pretty much done with _buttons and bows_; the next steps will, indeed, involve messing about with the fundamental structure of the CF. I'm happy to agree that some "messing about" is probably overdue, but any further steps need to be fully examined and implemented with care because some other "messing about" will, without question, do some harm, too.





			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> In your opinion ERC where does this leave the _purple_ folks ?  Or what would you like to see happen to the _purple_ folks ?


This is very much the point of my greatest concern.  I too have heard talk from various places of those who already want to start leveraging these revived labels and identities to start pulling apart the successful aspects of unification or start expanding fiefdoms built around these revived labels. 

I look to the infantry where there is a significant imbalance of personnel with the east being over strength, the center being a little below where it aught to be and the west being substantially under strength.  Unfortunately, an infantryman is not an infantryman; because of regimental labels, we cannot just post manpower from east to west in order to balance the equation (if we should be able to or not is a matter for another conversation).  The infantryman occupation is probably large enough to weather these imbalances and capitalize on the benefits of the regimental system.  For smaller occupations, I worry about the barriers created by imposing new labels along uniform colours.

The construction trades within the CME have career paths and employment opportunities that are fully divorced from uniform colour.  These occupations are small and susceptible to transient imbalances of personnel.  Now with the RCE label applied exclusively on uniform colour, talk of all pers in blue will wear the air ops badge, and those personalities who never pass an opportunity to point out there dislike for the appearance of that multi-coloured sub unit on parade … I worry the erosion of current shared symbolism that facilitates the bonding and interchangeability of personnel within these occupations, and I worry about artificial barriers impairing healthy, effective personnel management.

Perhaps the occupations within C&E are so wildly different that a split is appropriate there – I don’t know.  RCEME was already all Army before its recent renaming.  I would be hesitant to split the Logistics branch.  Certainly it is possible to point to distinctiveness within environments up to the sub-unit level, and occupations such as Sup Tech, MSE Op, and RMS Clk are probably large enough to weather imbalances much like the infantry.  However, our domestic institutional support converges, if not at local levels such as bases then at the national level.  Further, our deployed operations are supported by joint national support elements (which may feed support subunits that are more along environmental lines).  At the unit level and above, our Logistic branch needs to be comfortable working across branches. Where flexibility is a principle of war, it is not a good idea to apply new (or revived) labels that will restrict movement of personnel into and between jobs.

The Army has seen wise enough not to impose regimental identities onto the combat support and service support that work within regimental lines.  I hope the CAF at large can see to the same end.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> - I have never ever advocated changing the Army's uniform or rank structure. I actually do not care what the Army does with itself.


I haven't suggested you did advocate as much, but the de-unification agenda is now reaching onto the Army and so the Army is what is relevant in the discussion today.  Unless you are pushing to see additional Navy specific returns to the past, then the RCN's recent cosmetic changes are a done deal and themselves a thing of the past.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> -  Although I joined the Navy in 1989, I studied extensively the unification crisis, the effect it had on the Navy at the time and the battles the Navy has had to retain its uniqueness. Not all of us fell off the turnip truck infront of Cornwallis or Chilliwack. I would suspect quite a few of us actually knew our military history before we joined.


There is a difference between knowing your history and parading around as though you are a victim of unification when in reality the Navy had been restored a unique Canadian naval identity (including uniform and rank) prior to your ever serving a day.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> - Although you dismiss the day the DEU's were re-introduced, there was much celebrating in naval circles, with bonfires that burned the old greens


I have not dissmissed the re-introduction of DEUs.  I only pointed out that your reference to suffering in the green CF suit is someone fallicious.  That wrong was righted so far in the past that it was no longer honest to say the Navy was suffering from lost identity in 2010, 2011 or 2012.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> - Finally, I have no idea about your fixation with 1955. The Canadian Armed Forces Reorganization Act was passed into law in 1968.


It is an arbitrary pre-unification date.  You could substitute 1960 or 1965 if it makes you feel better.



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> If you get into a position that you can affect policy and put more money into training and ops, fill your boots.


Interesting that you seemingly present it as a bad thing to put time, effort, money and attention into ops and trg.



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> If Army personnel had been forced into a single service uniform that looked like a navy or airforce suit, there would have been cries of dismay all over the joint, and loud cheering from the green section when they got their regimental identies back. Way to ignore the thrust of my comment.


I have not ignored the thrust of your comment.  I have stated that a half century old error that was corrected a quarter century later is not argument for the necessity of additional changes in this decade.  The question of if the uniform had been black or blue or pink or purple is irrelevant.  In hindsight, I think we should have gone with a nice battleship grey.



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> Point me to where I said symbols of identity are the be-all and end-all; I didn't.


I did not say anything of the sort.  You said executive curls affects personnel and unit performance.  I said they do not.  If personnel and unit performance are lacking, it is a failing of leadership and not a lack of bling that is to blame.



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> But do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth, sir.


Will you reciprocate?



			
				Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> I said their removal was a contributing factor to the erosion of morale, and it was.


Sure it was, a half century ago.  Morale and operational performance were not still suffering for want of executive curl in 2001.


----------



## PMedMoe

I'm a purple trade and I, for one, would resist being shoved into any particular element.  I wear an Army uniform because that's what I got when I joined.  Honestly, had I been designated Navy, I could have said I've worn the uniform of all three elements.   :nod:

Never mind rank and all that stuff, I want a summer weight uniform!


----------



## cupper

At least your branch or component hasn't gone through four different names during your career.

In the mere 6 years I was in the reserves during the 80's, we went from LORE to LEME to EME.

Now we are back to our former and historic RCEME which we had been working towards since they started spinning the wheel of fortune, and it finally came up to what it should have been in the first place.

Did the name changes help or hurt esprit de corps. Not really. Branch / Corps pride was always strong. Hell, the switch to LEME gave us a point of pride, because we could always tell people "LEME Alone!"  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Perhaps the occupations within C&E are so wildly different that a split is appropriate there – I don’t know.  RCEME was already all Army before its recent renaming.  I would be hesitant to split the Logistics branch.  Certainly it is possible to point to distinctiveness within environments up to the sub-unit level, and occupations such as Sup Tech, MSE Op, and RMS Clk are probably large enough to weather imbalances much like the infantry.  However, our domestic institutional support converges, if not at local levels such as bases then at the national level.  Further, our deployed operations are supported by joint national support elements (which may feed support subunits that are more along environmental lines).  At the unit level and above, our Logistic branch needs to be comfortable working across branches. Where flexibility is a principle of war, it is not a good idea to apply new (or revived) labels that will restrict movement of personnel into and between jobs.



We may disagree on allot on this board but I do believe I put forward a practical and functional way to over come your point: 



> I think we can successfully split LOG into elements while maintaining a single supply/logistics and admin/pay systems and training center.  This will still enable commands like MARLANT to be force generators for things like Afghanistan as the basic trades knowledge will still be intact and all that is required is some army/soldiering training, as is done now anyways.  I was put through this grinder during TF 1-10.


----------



## McG

Is your proposal not what the Logistics have now?  One branch and occupations that are split into sub-occs?  The model of sub-occupations for environments that need them could be extended from just the officer occupation to be applied in some NCM occupations.  I think we have another thread selling this idea - probably in this one: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22558.0.html


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> Is your proposal not what the Logistics have now?  One branch and occupations that are split into sub-occs?  The model of sub-occupations for environments that need them could be extended from just the officer occupation to be applied in some NCM occupations.  I think we have another thread selling this idea - probably in this one: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22558.0.html



The LOG branch does some of these things already but I propose actually splitting into element governed logistics.  So the RCAF clerk would spend the majority of their career employed as the RCAF requires them vice the LOG branch.  While maintaining the common training and systems will enable that RCAF clerk to be able to fill in as a clerk for an army OR for a specified duration, i.e. tours, when called upon by the greater need of the CAF as a whole.  Of course there will be work up training involved such that I went through for 9 months in Pet for TF 1-10.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The LOG branch does some of these things already but I propose actually splitting into element governed logistics.  So the RCAF clerk would spend the majority of their career employed as the RCAF requires them vice the LOG branch.  While maintaining the common training and systems will enable that RCAF clerk to be able to fill in as a clerk for an army OR for a specified duration, i.e. tours, when called upon by the greater need of the CAF as a whole.  Of course there will be work up training involved such that I went through for 9 months in Pet for TF 1-10.



What is the benefit?  This builds silos and differences, when we should be working to eliminate them.  Why emulate the Army's self-inflicted RCR/PPCLI/R22eR divisions, when the current Log model works.

There are also a large number of "purple" positions in the log branch - how do you manage for those?


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What is the benefit?  This builds silos and differences, when we should be working to eliminate them.  Why emulate the Army's self-inflicted RCR/PPCLI/R22eR divisions, when the current Log model works.
> 
> There are also a large number of "purple" positions in the log branch - how do you manage for those?



Well lets just admit the services are all different and require different things from their people.  Taking a WO from Edmonton with 17 years their and dropping that WO on a ship is of no benefit to anyone and only drains what I would expect to be more resources from the ship its self.  I support specialization over a jack of all trades.  Concentration of effort. 

I see a greater bang for your buck if for instance the Army was to train and employ a Sup Tech from first posting to retirement.  Why lose all that corporate knowledge and throw the soldier into a completely different environment ?  If I was in charge of the Army I would be pissed that some MWO/CPO2 in Ottawa arbitrarily decides that all the time and money my organization has invested in this soldier should be thrown out to ensure the existence of the LOG branch its self. 

As for the purple positions in the LOG branch well essentially there would be no LOG branch except for CFLTC.  Take those billets rotate the leadership spots between the elements and divide the cadre staff in the three elements where required (No Navy truckers or TFC Techs). 

This would slow down career progression but the CAF is not here to promote people right ?  Needs of the service before self right ?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Well lets just admit the services are all different and require different things from their people.  Taking a WO from Edmonton with 17 years their and dropping that WO on a ship is of no benefit to anyone and only drains what I would expect to be more resources from the ship its self.  I support specialization over a jack of all trades.  Concentration of effort.
> 
> I see a greater bang for you buck for the Army to train and employ a Sup Tech from first posting to retirement.  Why lose all that corporate knowledge and throw the soldier into a completely different environment ?  If I was in charge of the Army I would be pissed that some MWO/CPO2 in Ottawa arbitrarily decides that all the time and money my organization has invested in this soldier should be thrown out to ensure the existence of the LOG branch its self.
> 
> As for the purple positions in the LOG branch well essentially there would be no LOG branch except for CFLTC.  Take those billets rotate the leadership spots between the elements and divide the cadre staff in the three elements where required (No Navy truckers or TFC Techs).



So who does LCMM work?  That's not environmental specific.  Who does embassy work as RMS clerks?  Who works NDHQ Log O positions?  Who works CJOC?

Building three environmental Log Branches costs more money for training, more people for management.... overall, it's a lose/lose proposition.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So who does LCMM work?  That's not environmental specific.  Who does embassy work as RMS clerks?  Who works NDHQ Log O positions?  Who works CJOC?
> 
> Building three environmental Log Branches costs more money for training, more people for management.... overall, it's a lose/lose proposition.



LCMM and IM positions can be public servants.  We generally don't keep our uniformed members in those positions long enough to really dig in anyways.  Embassy work ?  How many embassies are there ?  Divide them between the elements.  Or how was this done pre-unification ?  Were all embassy clerks Army ?  It worked then it will work now.  NDHQ Log O position rotates as well. 

CJOC now there is a beast of burden.  CJOC is essentially Army so let it be Army.  I remember the Gen in charge of CANOSCOM visiting us while Toronto was hunting pirates in '07.  He openly said he had no clue what we were doing but if we had any questions about Afghanistan he would love to field them.  CFJSR is an Army unit for all intents and purposes give it to the Army and be done with it.


----------



## Good2Golf

CJOC is not "essentially Army", it is essentially DCDS group (Int'l/Contl) re-established.  Seems like some folks  are building the Jarmy into something more than it really is.  There are some outside the Senior Service who believe that if Admirals had spent more time working through the initial post-Unification period to mitigate its effects than they did falling on their swords and patting each other on their backs for a display of displeasure well-executed before they bled out, that more could have been done to shape things their way than for setting the Service up to have a deep-seated lip-on for the next half century...

Then again, everyone's mileage will vary, and some have gained more satisfaction and pleasure from working along side some pretty amazing and dedicated people than they have whining about how unfairly their spirit was broken... 

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Swingline1984

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> He openly said he had no clue what we were doing but if we had any questions about Afghanistan he would love to field them.



So then you are commiting the same mistake below, I suggest you educate yourself.



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> CFJSR is an Army unit for all intents and purposes give it to the Army and be done with it.



I spent quite a lot of time supporting Naval interests while employed with CFJSR.  In fact I spent more time on Air and Sea bases than on Army ones.


----------



## Halifax Tar

1984 said:
			
		

> I spent quite a lot of time supporting Naval interests while employed with CFJSR.  In fact I spent more time on Air and Sea bases than on Army ones.



My current experience differs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Following the reintroduction of this historic rank structure, I recommend that we then proceed to reintroduce the leadership qualities and tactics of the time. It's only a logical next step, n'est ce pas?

Luckily there are film clips available to aid us with this important transformation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBiUWQ5YLQ4


oops, almost forgot  :sarcasm:


----------



## buzgo

It is almost like CFJSR is actually 2 units forced into an unholy union... one of the units is, in fact, an Army Div HQ & Signal Regt. The other is the CF's strategic rear link communications asset. 

Wait a minute....


----------



## Gorgo

signalsguy said:
			
		

> It is almost like CFJSR is actually 2 units forced into an unholy union... one of the units is, in fact, an Army Div HQ & Signal Regt. The other is the CF's strategic rear link communications asset.
> 
> Wait a minute....



That's the way it got formed up back in 2000.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

signalsguy said:
			
		

> It is almost like CFJSR is actually 2 units forced into an unholy union... one of the units is, in fact, an Army Div HQ & Signal Regt. The other is the CF's strategic rear link communications asset.
> 
> Wait a minute....



Witchery! And heresy! There is no way that could ever work. Ever. Theres no evidence that it worked pre 2000. NONE!

Someone call the Spanish Inquisition (read "D RCCS") and make this heathen repent! 

   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Witchery! And heresy! There is no way that could ever work. Ever. Theres no evidence that it worked pre 2000. NONE!
> 
> Someone call the Spanish Inquisition (read "D RCCS") and make this heathen repent!
> 
> ;D



Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dvt0Y39eMvpI


----------



## Gorgo

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
> 
> http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vt0Y39eMvpI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dvt0Y39eMvpI



LOL!


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I do oppose a return to pips and crowns. I'm opposed not only because I think it's a waste of staff effort and money but also because I think we want our ranks to be distinctively Canadian. Does that mean I like stripes on the sleeve? No, not very much, but I don't dislike them enough to replace with something that I took off around over 40 years ago. IF we you are going to change things I, personally, would like to see fewer crowns - including the crowns on WOs rank badges.


So, while the Infantry are currently pondering a Canadian Army return to British pips & crowns, do your comments suggest that you would be more open to the imaginary ideas of this fellow who would replace both crowns and the star of the Order of the Bath?

... or maybe we keep things as they are but find room for a Canadian field marshal general at the top?


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> So, while the Infantry are currently pondering a Canadian Army return to British pips & crowns, do your comments suggest that you would be more open to the imaginary ideas of this fellow who would replace both crowns and the star of the Order of the Bath?
> 
> ... or maybe we keep things as they are but find room for a Canadian field marshal general at the top?



sounds like a way to inflate HQ even more, not that I don't think it one day would be needed, but as of now the CF would need to be 2-3x its size to warrant such a rank


----------



## McG

Nah.  We would use it like the Brits - have it on the books but so not promote anyone to the rank except at those times when the rank becomes needed.


----------



## McG

Taking Edward's proposal the we reduce the number of crowns used as Canadian rank insignia, and continuing to provide a not-more frivolous counterproposal to the Infantry's request for pipis & crowns:

[quote Author=MCG]It seems there will always be people pushing for rank changes in order to make things "look more Army/Air Force/Navy" or impose one generation's traditions over another's.  None of these good ideas should ever gain traction.  However, there are a number of legitimate (though not necessarily all significant) complaints about the rank structure & progression itself.  Perhaps, instead of focusing on what badges should/could look like, we could talk about how to improve the CF rank structure and address some of these emotional icon topics within that solution.

I know many in the Army who lament the devaluation of Cpl from the first leadership rank to a journeyman status indicator, and the "insta-corporal" (certain occupations immediately promoted on reaching OFP) exacerbates this.  The automatic promotion from Lt to Capt also devalues the distinction between those to ranks (though there most certainly is a difference between those ready to be Capt and those who just get it anyway).  This needs to be fixed.

I have heard from members of the RCN that the lack of the Midshipman (a second tier of subordinate officer) is a problem, and that unification has left them with more levels of NCM rank than make sense aboard a ship.  At the same time, there are times and places in the Army where an intermediate rank (or appointment) would be helpful to set-apart pers with a responsibility to "lead their peers."  And also, there are some technical trades that require added level of authority to carry out their jobs.  All of these concerns could be satisfied by establishing more levels of appointments (the availability of which may vary by MOS, environment and unit) while at the same time reducing the number of actual ranks.  As we already have "MCpl" as the precedent for an appointment, "Master" could be used as the standard appointment prefix for most ranks - this appointment would be identified in the current rank system by a maple leave over the chevron(s) that denote a rank.  As appointments would not need to exist uniformly across all occupations, environments or occupations without the need for all our current ranks levels would have the option to not use an appointment level.  As an option all appointments could exist only as while-so-employed.

Canada is lacking a rank at the NATO OF-10 level and at the US "six star" level.  Where we want to be seen as a big-hitter military, we need to be able to put guys at this level - even if, like our allies who have these ranks, we only use them in wartime or honorary upon retirement.  While Nimitz did the Fleet Admiral thing well, history's most impressive officers at this level have been Field Marshals and Field Marshal Generals.  Fans of Commonwealth tradition will also note existence of the Air Marshal rank (though not at the OF-10 level). And so, by also creating the unheard-of "Sea Marshal," we could introduce a series of marshal ranks as a unique Canadian level over the Admirals and Generals.  Tipping our hat to the other founding nation, the six star would be Marshal of Canada.

So, with all those good-ideas imposed on the rank system, there is room to slide in a few of those apparently strongly desired cosmetic changes.  But, a full turn-back the clock exercise is no good.  We need to recognize our full heritage (which includes the period of unification), we need a distinctly Canadian solution,  and we need to maintain insignia recognizable across all elements.

First of all, to recognize the period of our heritage most heavily influence by unification, the rank of Sergeant will be imposed across all three services (though, colonial identity purists could make an argument that we should go with the WO ranks across all services as the RN has both POs and WOs).

Next, officer rank insignia will be unchanged.  The exception will be that all generals of the Army & Air persuasion will also wear the executive curl (after all, we cannot risk DGMEPM wandering around with more bling that any of the Comd CA, Comd RCAF, VCDS or CDS).  Sea/Field/Air Marshals shall have an additional arm braid and shoulder insignia of crossed batons in laurels under a crown (to please our pro UK insignia crowd).

The Air Force officers will go to a system that recognizes the RAF (and therefore RCAF) roots in both Army and Navy.  It will also recognize the pre-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Navy Ranks) and the post-unification rank structure (bearing similarities to Army ranks).  To do this, we will simply substitute a few "Army Ranks" into the list of "Navy Ranks."

In the RCN, Acting Sub Lieutenant is too wordy and confusing.  Following the Commonwealth tradition of the RNZN, we will establish Ensign as a commissioned rank equivalent to the Army 2Lt.  This will have the added Canadian benefit of matching the rank to its French translation.

For NCMs, the rank insignia will remain largely unchanged using the same chevrons, crowns and 1957 Coat of Arms.  However, The Warrant Officer and Petty Officer ranks will be made more Canadian by replacing the crown with the shield of the Canadian Coat of Arms.  For appointments designated by chevrons surmounted by a maple leaf, the maple leafs will be replaced with environmentally specific images to appease the "we need to look more Army/Navy/Air Force" groups.  Instead of "Master Private" we may call this level of appointment "specialist" or "Lance Corporal."  We will also recognize the nine additional private level ranks that can currently be found in the NDA - those of Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Aircraftman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman, and Craftsman.  For these ranks, the environment specific "Master" designator will be unique to the rank (such as a flaming grenade for Gunner, CME beaver for Sapper, or a propeller for Aircraftman) but its placement over the single chevron will leave it understood by all.  These branch or occupation specific markings will not continue at any higher rank level (not even for Master Bombardier).

… and if we are going to keep musicians in the CF, I would introduce "Musician" as a Pte level appointment with the lyre over one chevron to distinguish the rank.  This would replace the practice of insta-Sgt within that occupation.[/quote]


----------



## Franko

This is full on retarded.

Leave well enough alone. The current rank system has been in situ for the majority of the serving members of the CF, with a scant few who are still serving that remember something different like pips and crowns. They are the minority.

I think there are a few things that the money can be spent on better then baubles on a freaking uniform, like allowing units to expand training and freeing up some funds for other REAL shortfalls. Giving back Royal titles are nice, feel good measures, but does it enhance what we do? Does it improve the operational effectiveness of any unit?

Nope.

Bad enough that we apparently have five divisions now.    :

Seeing that we can't even field a force of one div.....this is just utter madness and should be shot down by higher IMHO.

Regards


----------



## Old Sweat

:goodpost:


----------



## McG

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> This is full on retarded.


Absolutely it is ... but the RCIC's consideration of asking for Pips & Crowns and my foolish counter proposal fit that description.  What the CF needs right now is to keep things exactly as they are, or make only minor changes specifically linked to operational deficiencies in the existing rank system.

I have received some angry PMs from a few Navy types insisting they would rather see WOs as opposed to Sgts in the Navy  … at least they could then claim to be keeping in step with the British RN as opposed to doing something similar to the Canadian Army.  They also prefer "first class" to denote seniority within a commonly named rank.  Okay, for the Navy guys, here it is:


----------



## SeR

MCG said:
			
		

> Taking Edward's proposal the we reduce the number of crowns used as Canadian rank insignia, and continuing to provide a not-more frivolous counterproposal to the Infantry's request for pipis & crowns:



I have two questions for this hypothetical rank system:
     - what would be the difference between an officer cadet and a master cadet; and
     - why would the Canadian military every be in need of *six* general/flag officer ranks?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

SeR said:
			
		

> I have two questions for this hypothetical rank system:
> - what would be the difference between an officer cadet and a master cadet; and
> - why would the Canadian military every be in need of *six* general/flag officer ranks?



Well, with 5 divisions it's only a matter of time before someone creates a Corps HQ.  Heck, we could almost have 2 Corps (3 Divisions and 2 Divisions) which would require an Army HQ.... The good idea train will always keep chugging along


----------



## George Wallace

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Well, with 5 divisions it's only a matter of time before someone creates a Corps HQ.  Heck, we could almost have 2 Corps (3 Divisions and 2 Divisions) which would require an Army HQ.... The good idea train will always keep chugging along



Sprinkling a little bit of that "Good Idea Faerie Dust" around, are you?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sprinkling a little bit of that "Good Idea Faerie Dust" around, are you?



I forgot to put the   :sarcasm: on my post

Sadly, however, I have heard the idea of a perceived need for a Corps HQ talked about at the mess


----------



## Old Sweat

A very smart guy, unfortunately now deceased, used to quip that if you put three Canadian officers together in a room, they'd form a headquarters.


----------



## McG

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Bad enough that we apparently have five divisions now.    :


Has that been officially decreed now?


----------



## Franko

Last email I saw said it was either in the works or its been done.

Regards


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A very smart guy, unfortunately now deceased, used to quip that if you put three Canadian officers together in a room, they'd form a headquarters.



And then immediately put in a requirement to be assigned their own legal advisor.  ;D


----------



## d_edwards

I really dont see the benefit of changing the current system, and does not seem worth the upheavel.   If anything needs to be changed why not start with the sillyness of mcpl being an appointment, when it is in everything but name a promotion.   People are not appointed into and out of mcpl as may have been the intent when created.


----------



## McG

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Last email I saw said it was either in the works or its been done.


That is unfortunate.  A few weeks ago I was present at a Defence Renewal Team townhall.  RAdm Smith gave a presentation on enhancing DND and the CAF through improving efficiency and reducing duplication of processes.  He talked a good talk about fixing processes, but he and his team did not speak of organizations.  But organizations and processes are intimately related, evolving and being created in parallel.  A major review of processes will inevitably lead to a review of organization as streamlining and efficiencies make elements of old structures redundant.  But, where people are rarely emotionally attached to their processes, there is significant emotional attachment to organizations.

I did not get to ask durning the townhall, but after I asked one of the team members about the plan to overcome emotions protecting organizations.  Apparently, the hope is that there will be so much institutional buy-in during the process refinement phase that nobody will question organizational changes when they are fallout of the review of processes.  I do not think that optimism will work.  Relabelling organizations with emotionally charged names will only increase the barriers to defence renewal.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> That is unfortunate.  A few weeks ago I was present at a Defence Renewal Team townhall.  RAdm Smith gave a presentation on enhancing DND and the CAF through improving efficiency and reducing duplication of processes.  He talked a good talk about fixing processes, but he and his team did not speak of organizations.  But organizations and processes are intimately related, evolving and being created in parallel.  A major review of processes will inevitably lead to a review of organization as streamlining and efficiencies make elements of old structures redundant.  But, where people are rarely emotionally attached to their processes, there is significant emotional attachment to organizations.
> 
> I did not get to ask durning the townhall, but after I asked one of the team members about the plan to overcome emotions protecting organizations.  Apparently, the hope is that there will be so much institutional buy-in during the process refinement phase that nobody will question organizational changes when they are fallout of the review of processes.  I do not think that optimism will work.  Relabelling organizations with emotionally charged names will only increase the barriers to defence renewal.



Can you go more into more specifics on this ?  Very interesting to say the least.  PM if you'd rather.


----------



## McG

You can probably find more info straight from the Defence Renewal DWAN page.  I am on leave for a while, so can't send the link myself.


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> You can probably find more info straight from the Defence Renewal DWAN page.  I am on leave for a while, so can't send the link myself.



+1

And they're requesting ideas be sent directly to them via email.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> You can probably find more info straight from the Defence Renewal DWAN page.  I am on leave for a while, so can't send the link myself.



Ya me too Pata until Jan


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> Absolutely it is ... but the RCIC's consideration of asking for Pips & Crowns and my foolish counter proposal fit that description.  What the CF needs right now is to keep things exactly as they are, or make only minor changes specifically linked to operational deficiencies in the existing rank system.
> 
> I have received some angry PMs from a few Navy types insisting they would rather see WOs as opposed to Sgts in the Navy  … at least they could then claim to be keeping in step with the British RN as opposed to doing something similar to the Canadian Army.  They also prefer "first class" to denote seniority within a commonly named rank.  Okay, for the Navy guys, here it is:



How "official" are these proposals?


----------



## McG

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> How "official" are these proposals?


Look at the signature block in the letter attached to this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425/post-1230405.html#msg1230405


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> Look at the signature block in the letter attached to this post: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/24425/post-1230405.html#msg1230405



Seen, but the Director of Infantry doesn't have the authority to change _all_ the CF ranks. I assume the proposal is from DH & R or similar?


----------



## Kat Stevens

"Master Private"?  is that a soldier who manages not to piss on his own feet, thereby "mastering his privates"?  Holy Hannah...


----------



## McG

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Seen, but the Director of Infantry doesn't have the authority to change _all_ the CF ranks.


DInf does not have authority to change any ranks.  Proposals do not always begin at the authority who may approve them.  The RCIC is debating a return to pips & crowns and to some old rank titles.  Given our recent penchant for all things turning back the clock, this idea will consume effort as it percolates amongst units, is compiled, pushed higher debated an analyzed at multiple levels and then approved and imposed upon us.  The current system is just fine; we should just leave it alone.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> DInf does not have authority to change any ranks.  Proposals do not always begin at the authority who may approve them.  The RCIC is debating a return to pips & crowns and to some old rank titles.  Given our recent penchant for all things turning back the clock, this idea will consume effort as it percolates amongst units, is compiled, pushed higher debated an analyzed at multiple levels and then approved and imposed upon us.  The current system is just fine; we should just leave it alone.




While I have no particular brief for changes to the rank _symbols_, I would argue that the current rank _system_ does need improvements.

When, back in the 1960s, Mr. Hellyer's team designed the _system_ we you use now they wanted to include technical (trade) and leadership skills in each rank level. Unfortunately we ended up with a system in which promotion to ever higher *leadership* levels are made solely on trade skills/training and time in ~ consider both corporal and captain.

We often say that the heart and soul of the army is the sergeants' mess; I would not disagree but the success of the sergeants' mess (and, therefore, the success of the whole army) depends on the strength of the base of corporals from which it is drawn. I believe that Mr. Hellyer's _reforms_ weakened that base, as it did the base from which major and colonels are drawn, by failing to tie promotion to both technical skills and leadership.

I have explained before that we have defined levels of leadership:

     0. Follower - recruits, soldiers under training and, indeed, trained, journeymen soldiers with no leadership responsibilities;

     1. Leaders of one or two others;

     2. Leaders of small teams - say 4 people;

     3. Leaders of large teams - say 4 to 10 people, a tank or a rifle section;

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     4. Leaders of large specialized teams - say and engineer section;

     5. Commanders (and deputy commanders) of small units - platoon/troop commanders and 2I/Cs;

     6. Commanders of specialized platoon and troops and 2I/Cs of sub units;

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     7. Commanders of sub units - companies and squadrons;

     8. Commanding officers of small independent units;

     9. Commanding officers of units; and

     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     10. Formation commanders.

I would argue that each level _might_ require a different mix of demonstrated leadership and technical skills and experience.

It is my personal belief that the line between junior and senior leaders ought to be drawn, roughly, where I have shown them  . There is, also, a whole host of _leaders_ who are in _management_ jobs - and I include sergeants major in this - who are in the levels 4-5-6 area.


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> DInf does not have authority to change any ranks.  Proposals do not always begin at the authority who may approve them.  The RCIC is debating a return to pips & crowns and to some old rank titles.  Given our recent penchant for all things turning back the clock, this idea will consume effort as it percolates amongst units, is compiled, pushed higher debated an analyzed at multiple levels and then approved and imposed upon us.  The current system is just fine; we should just leave it alone.



So who did the posted charts and proposed new ranks come from?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> Absolutely it is ... but the RCIC's consideration of asking for Pips & Crowns and my foolish counter proposal fit that description.  What the CF needs right now is to keep things exactly as they are, or make only minor changes specifically linked to operational deficiencies in the existing rank system.
> 
> I have received some angry PMs from a few Navy types insisting they would rather see WOs as opposed to Sgts in the Navy  … at least they could then claim to be keeping in step with the British RN as opposed to doing something similar to the Canadian Army.  They also prefer "first class" to denote seniority within a commonly named rank.  Okay, for the Navy guys, here it is:



Ref the diagram, I noticed in the _Special Appointments at the Pte/AB Rank_, there was no Trooper for those who wear the maroon beret.   Also WRT to the diagram, I have to say I think the proposed WO rank looks 'tarded.

While I have no iron in this fire and no wish to see a new rank system forced upon the CF, if it _were_ to happen, I'd personally rather (the RCAF atleast)  return to the pre-'68 ranks.  Why not, bell-bottom's came back in style after a few years too....


----------



## jpjohnsn

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ref the diagram, I noticed in the _Special Appointments at the Pte/AB Rank_, there was no Trooper for those who wear the maroon beret.   Also WRT to the diagram, I have to say I think the proposed WO rank looks 'tarded.
> 
> While I have no iron in this fire and no wish to see a new rank system forced upon the CF, if it _were_ to happen, I'd personally rather (the RCAF atleast)  return to the pre-'68 ranks.  Why not, bell-bottom's came back in style after a few years too....


The comparison chart comparing pre-68 and current RCAF ranks is messed up.  It's based on a chart someone produced a number of years ago that has, somehow, made its may onto the RCAF website and its pub "On Windswept Heights".  Basically they took the 8 pre-68 OR&WO ranks/appointments, put them beside the 8 current NCM ranks/appointments and called them equivalent.  This doesn't match the schedule in Sec 21 of the NDA even remotely.  The ranks chart on the "History of the Royal Canadian Air Force" page on Wikipedia is closer to reality.

Now, hopefully, if the RCAF decides to roll back time and go with a version of their legacy rank system, they don't follow the air cadets' lead with respect to the MCpl rank.  They introduced a rank between Cpl and Sgt a few years ago and someone had the bright idea that Flight Corporal was a sufficiently "air force-y" name for it  :facepalm:.  As far as I can tell, the only other reference to FCpl out there is a rank on Battlestar Galactica. :brickwall:


----------



## a_majoor

While vastly entertaining, I doubt this is going to get any real traction for the simple reason these ranks and the structure has evolved over centuries of real world experience. When military forces were much smaller, then the rank structure ending with Captain (and electing a Captain-General to ride herd over a group of Captains) was quite sufficient, but the 1500's are a long way in the past....

Anyone wanting to see the utility (or futility if you will) of re naming and re ranking the military only need study the experience of the USSR in the period between the Bolshevik Revolution and WWII with their system of "functional ranks". They not only ended up with a bizzare and convoluted system of ranking which was even more complex than the old Imperial ranks, but eventually reverted back to the "old" system of ranks and titles during WWII.


----------



## Jacky Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We often say that the heart and soul of the army is the sergeants' mess; I would not disagree but the success of the sergeants' mess (and, therefore, the success of the whole army) depends on the strength of the base of corporals from which it is drawn. I believe that Mr. Hellyer's _reforms_ weakened that base, as it did the base from which major and colonels are drawn, by failing to tie promotion to both technical skills and leadership.
> 
> I have explained before that we have defined levels of leadership:
> 
> 0. Follower - recruits, soldiers under training and, indeed, trained, journeymen soldiers with no leadership responsibilities;
> ...
> 10. Formation commanders.
> 
> I would argue that each level _might_ require a different mix of demonstrated leadership and technical skills and experience.
> 
> It is my personal belief that the line between junior and senior leaders ought to be drawn, roughly, where I have shown them  . There is, also, a whole host of _leaders_ who are in _management_ jobs - and I include sergeants major in this - who are in the levels 4-5-6 area.



An excellent post, ERC, and one with which I agree whole-heartedly. For the Navy, it is likewise said that the backbone is the Chiefs and Petty Officers mess, and for much the same reasons; it forms the bulk of the Navy's collective experience and again that derives from the knowledge gained as OSs, killicks, master killicks, etc. I would say that in the Navy the levels of leadership break down differently and that is simply due to the fact that the Navy's business is done differently from the army's.

0 - Follower - recruits, sailors under training, trained sailors without leadership responsibility

1 - Small party leaders - usually three or four, a senior and juniors who are tasked to assist/learn

2 - Section I/C - in the naval context a section is a sub-division of a department - Log, Deck, Eng, CSE, etc. Good examples are the Snr Electrician, Senior Hull Tech, etc. within the Engineering department. However, not all sections are the same size - e.g., the Senior Firefighter typically has 4 or 5 firefighters in his section (CPF) while the Senior Electrician usually has 11 or 12.

-------------------

3 - Large group leader - Departmental chiefs; again, departments onboard can vary considerably in size depending on the trades involved.

4 - Unit-level leaders - Cox'n; senior NCM - Navy's equivalent to a sergeant-major

5 - Student officers - commissioned but still under training, or without formal leadership responsibility

6 - Section commanders - Officers in command of a section within a department; typically as understudies/students learning the department head's responsibilities

-------------------

7 - Department commanders (plus 2 I/Cs) - Heads of Department; also Assistant Head of Department (qualified but not so employed)

8 - Commanding officers & XOs (ship, shore unit)

9 - Commanding officer of task groups/fleet

10 - Formation commander

For myself, I firmly believe the qualities of leadership required in the Navy and Air Force are much the same as for the Army, but because of the nature of life at sea they must manifest in different ways. As my brother the cannon-cocker put it once, a ship is a large crew-served weapon.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ...
> While I have no iron in this fire and no wish to see a new rank system forced upon the CF, if it _were_ to happen, I'd personally rather (the RCAF atleast)  return to the pre-'68 ranks.



My Dad would agree with you.  He wasn't at all happy about giving up his crabfat for the jolly greens. He still has his old pre-unification mess kit, but he got rid of all his green stuff when he retired.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While vastly entertaining, I doubt this is going to get any real traction for the simple reason these ranks and the structure has evolved over centuries of real world experience. When military forces were much smaller, then the rank structure ending with Captain (and electing a Captain-General to ride herd over a group of Captains) was quite sufficient, but the 1500's are a long way in the past....
> 
> Anyone wanting to see the utility (or futility if you will) of re naming and re ranking the military only need study the experience of the USSR in the period between the Bolshevik Revolution and WWII with their system of "functional ranks". They not only ended up with a bizzare and convoluted system of ranking which was even more complex than the old Imperial ranks, but eventually reverted back to the "old" system of ranks and titles during WWII.



Are you referring to the official memo or the suggestions made in this thread? I don't see any great harm in simply changing the aesthetics of officer ranks (and the inevitable adjustments to ranks such as Warrant Officer and the likes).


----------



## McG

Inky said:
			
		

> I don't see any great harm in simply changing the aesthetics of officer ranks (and the inevitable adjustments to ranks such as Warrant Officer and the likes).


It would be unnecessary and therefore wasteful of time, effort and resources.  It would create a new barrier to communication between environments that already have trouble correctly identifying each other's ranks.  It would throw out a half century of practice for a fetish to look more British.



			
				ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> So who did the posted charts and proposed new ranks come from?


Those a a creation for this thread.   They nicely illustrate the foolishness that you get when designing a rank system for the look cool factor.  For some reason, the pips & crowns crowd just cannot see that their proposal is just as silly looking for the modern CAF.

We have enough history of our own that we do not need to aesthetically return to colonial roots to be proud of ourselves.  We have more reason to be proud under a unique image of our own creation.


----------



## a_majoor

Inky said:
			
		

> Are you referring to the official memo or the suggestions made in this thread? I don't see any great harm in simply changing the aesthetics of officer ranks (and the inevitable adjustments to ranks such as Warrant Officer and the likes).



Both


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> Those a a creation for this thread.   They nicely illustrate the foolishness that you get when designing a rank system for the look cool factor.  For some reason, the pips & crowns crowd just cannot see that their proposal is just as silly looking for the modern CAF.



Wow. Considering you referenced the memo by the DInf, I took that as you saying they were proposed/endorsed by him.


----------



## OldSolduer

The move to go to pips and crowns is ridiculous. We have a system that works. 

We are Canadian. We are not British, Australian or any other nation that uses that system.

Let sleeping dogs lie.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The move to go to pips and crowns is ridiculous. We have a system that works.
> 
> We are Canadian. We are not British, Australian or any other nation that uses that system.
> 
> Let sleeping dogs lie.



This reinforces my opinion that "Change for the sake of change, is not always a good thing."


----------



## little jim

To those that PM'd me thanks, surprising how things change when you haven't had a @forces.gc.ca email for two years. 

Back to your regular programming.


----------



## McG

little jim said:
			
		

> Is this even the same pot of money as what we want (ammo, trg, courses, ex, eqpt that works)?


Going back to pips and crowns would take money from training and operations.  It also takes staff effort and decision maker time away from more important activities.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Someone posted the image of the "Improved Canadian Forces Rank System" (posted here earlier) on a Canadian Forces Facebook Group yesterday.  The pics and resulting comments have since been deleted with an apology from the poster saying that someone higher in their chain of command had passed it to them under the guise of it being official.  But based on the comments, let's just say there wasn't a lot of support out there for that particular proposal.


----------



## OldSolduer

I really hope that someone higher up the food chain crushes this particular good idea fairy scheme.


----------



## Privateer

I wonder - and this is pure speculation - whether this idea has some life at the General ranks because, to a casual observer looking at the "rings" on DEU sleeves, it appears that RCN Admirals outrank their CA and RCAF peers.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I really hope that someone higher up the food chain crushes this particular good idea fairy scheme.



I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........


----------



## dimsum

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........



Now why isn't there a "slow clap" emoticon?


----------



## jpjohnsn

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........


I'm not surprised.  The person who posted it on FB obviously didn't know it wasn't real.  I suspect someone saw the chart in this thread  and passed it along because they found it amusing (or were trying to make a point about their opinion on changing the rank insignia) and somewhere along the route, the fact it wasn't meant to be taken seriously got missed.  By the time it got posted on Facebook, the poster though it gospel.

Kind of like what just happened here...


----------



## ARMY_101

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised.  The person who posted it on FB obviously didn't know it wasn't real.  I suspect someone saw the chart in this thread  and passed it along because they found it amusing (or were trying to make a point about their opinion on changing the rank insignia) and somewhere along the route, the fact it wasn't meant to be taken seriously got missed.  By the time it got posted on Facebook, the poster though it gospel.
> 
> Kind of like what just happened here...



To be fair, when I asked about the legitimacy of these charts, I was told to refer to the letter posted signed by Director of Infantry. To me, that meant the new proposed ranks were endorsed by DInf, so I can see the confusion in saying "hey! Look at these new proposed ranks endorsed by a Col."


----------



## jpjohnsn

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> To be fair, when I asked about the legitimacy of these charts, I was told to refer to the letter posted signed by Director of Infantry. To me, that meant the new proposed ranks were endorsed by DInf, so I can see the confusion in saying "hey! Look at these new proposed ranks endorsed by a Col."


Yes, I suppose that would be fair.  My apologies


----------



## Haggis

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........




..... for now.  There will be another PER season next year and another "Leading Change" dot to fill.


----------



## little jim

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........



Well then we can now follow on with the re-designation of the Areas to divisions with the US example of re-naming our CMBGs to ABCTs, HBCTs, IBCTS, SBCTs and ABNCTs......

Of course it is interesting to note in light of the DInf letter that the US move from HBCTs to ABCTs started with a memo out of their Armor School.."..


----------



## McG

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> To be fair, when I asked about the legitimacy of these charts, I was told to refer to the letter posted signed by Director of Infantry.


You asked about the legitimacy of the proposals in this thread (something different than asking about the charts) and were pointed to the one legitimate proposal.  If you then went into this thread (which is full of fictional ridiculous ideas) and copied something else to FB, then your failing to read what you were pointed to is only your fault.  If you posted something imaginary and claimed it to be fact, then your failure to research is the cause of misinformation.  Let's not candy coat it.


----------



## ARMY_101

MCG said:
			
		

> You asked about the legitimacy of the proposals in this thread (something different than asking about the charts) and were pointed to the one legitimate proposal.  If you then went into this thread (which is full of fictional ridiculous ideas) and copied something else to FB, then your failing to read what you were pointed to is only your fault.  If you posted something imaginary and claimed it to be fact, then your failure to research is the cause of misinformation.  Let's not candy coat it.



To be clear, I did not post anything to Facebook, but I can understand why someone would when they hear it's a significant proposal supposedly backed by a Colonel:

"How official are these proposals?" (in ref to the 'new' and improved rank charts, the cut off for OFP/merited promotions above that point, etc)

Response: "Take a look at the signature block attached to the letter" (in ref to the letter, signed by a Col, supporting those charts)


----------



## McG

You asked about proposals and did not read the reference provided to determine which proposal.  The charts have appeared a number of times in this thread, often labeled as satirical.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ah! The dangers of sarcastic threads sometimes. Perhaps this whole thread should be moved to radio chatter?


----------



## cphansen

Before you move the thread to Radio Chatter, I would like to point out the ONLY reason worthwhile to  even consider changing the rank structure back to pips and crowns.

That reason is 115,000 casualities from Ridgeway until the current date and I don't think that casualities from 1965 are greater than 1000.  Many more Canadians have served under the pips and crowns and even died than have ever done so under the rings.  The only reason worth changing is to honour their sacrifice  but IMHO I believe that they died in service to Canada not to a rank system.  The only way to honour their memory is to appreciate theirs and for us to be prepared to make our sacrifice when needed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Did you just argue with yourself about your own point to support the change and actually convince yourself you were wrong??


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you just argue with yourself about your own point to support the change and actually convince yourself you were wrong??



If only the rest of this thread were so simple....


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did you just argue with yourself about your own point to support the change and actually convince yourself you were wrong??



Again...where is that "slow clap" emoticon?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

You mean this one?


----------



## Happy Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........


Crushed meaning the image posted on Facebook or this Pips and Crowns initiative?


----------



## Mountie

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "Master Private"?  is that a soldier who manages not to piss on his own feet, thereby "mastering his privates"?  Holy Hannah...



I'm not suggesting its a good idea, but its no different then a private first class.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Crushed meaning the image posted on Facebook or this Pips and Crowns initiative?



The initiative.  The Army Comd (Des) also weighed in with this morning with a resounding no.


----------



## Infanteer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The initiative.  The Army Comd (Des) also weighed in with this morning with a resounding no.



Thank the lords, saner heads have prevailed....


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thank the lords, saner heads have prevailed....



I wonder if it took him 39 pages of internet twaddle to come to that conclusion... ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No: 38 pages. In the last one we have just all been kidding around to deride those who could not tell the difference between real posts and sarcasm


----------



## daftandbarmy

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Thank the lords, saner heads have prevailed....



And now we can get on with the more important rank insignia alignment (with DEU standards) project: mess kit. 

Hey, it's a good rumour, pass it on  ;D


----------



## Privateer

Fools!  He only said that _this_ initiative was a no-go... meaning, no doubt, that other initiatives are being polished up as we type!


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And now we can get on with the more important rank insignia alignment (with DEU standards) project: mess kit.
> 
> Hey, it's a good rumour, pass it on  ;D



Rumour you say?  Let me direct you to the "new RCAF mess kit" CANFORGEN, esp the part about GO ranks   >


----------



## Towards_the_gap

;D


----------



## Tank Troll

A lot of the reserve units wear pips and crowns on mess dress including my regiment. That being said I think that is as far as it should go. Leave the rank structure as is, along with the current insignia. If any change is need make MCpl a full rank not an appointment.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Rumour you say?  Let me direct you to the "new RCAF mess kit" CANFORGEN, esp the part about GO ranks   >



It doesn't matter if the RCAF wants to follow the RCN in terms of how GOFO ranks are displayed. 





Source: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/109961/post-1218892.html#msg1218892

I heard a rumous from an Air Force acquaintance, that some RCAF members want to go to silver/light blue rank badges - think e.g. Air Cadets. I just shrugged; it's not a fundamental change but it would cost money that would have to come from somewhere in the day-to-day operations and maintenance allocation (things like food and fuel and boots, bullets and beans).





Source:  http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Air_Cadets_Guide

What would matter would be if the RCAF or Canadian Army or the RCN wanted to fundamentally alter the *rank structure*. 

There are, in my *personal opinion*, good reasons to change the rules for some, indeed many ranks and those changes _might_ require some structural changes and even some changes to what ranks exist and how they are displayed, but the changes are in that priority:

     1. The "rules" for each rank - qualifications, training, time in, etc;

     2. Structural changes which might result from changes to the rules; and

     3. "Display" changes that may be required only is structural changes are needed.


----------



## McG

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The Army Comd (Des) also weighed in with this morning with a resounding no.


Thank you!  I imagine DInf now knows that pips & crowns are not getting any traction?



			
				jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Someone posted the image of the "Improved Canadian Forces Rank System" (posted here earlier) on a Canadian Forces Facebook Group yesterday.  … based on the comments, let's just say there wasn't a lot of support out there for that particular proposal.


It seems taking away WOs' crowns is not popular (or at least, using the shield in place of crowns is disliked).  However, if the poll in this thread is to be believed, there is not a lot of support for any aesthetic rank changes.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I heard a rumous from an Air Force acquaintance, that some RCAF members want to go to silver/light blue rank badges - think e.g. Air Cadets..


The RCAF changing the colour of its ranks bothers me less than the CA attempting to adopt pips & crowns.  It is no less frivolous and wasteful, and (like the Sneetches) it is about padding one's sense of self worth through a peacock display.  However, it would not alter the language we have with rank that is universally recognized by all Canadian service personnel.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> Thank you!  I imagine DInf now knows that pips & crowns are not getting any traction?



The DInf letter actually states that the RCIC is NOT in favour of reverting to pips and crowns.


----------



## McG

That must be the letter that went higher as opposed to the one that found its way to this thread.  There was no clear position on pips and crowns but a solicitation for opinions.  I suppose this means the aggregate of replies was a no.


----------



## Privateer

You never know...  Perhaps it is allegorical, but the story made its way around that the reintroduction of the executive curl was prompted by comments made by Prince Charles on the Navy DEU during a visit to Canada.  Perhaps all it would take would be for a similar whisper in Minister McKay's ear by Prince Harry on some future visit, and pips and crowns will be all the rage again.


----------



## Loachman

No bad idea ever dies completely.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

A bad idea dies a thousand deaths, a good idea dies but once?


----------



## OldSolduer

Privateer said:
			
		

> You never know...  Perhaps it is allegorical, but the story made its way around that the reintroduction of the executive curl was prompted by comments made by Prince Charles on the Navy DEU during a visit to Canada.  Perhaps all it would take would be for a similar whisper in Minister McKay's ear by Prince Harry on some future visit, and pips and crowns will be all the rage again.




Yes of course, we would jump at the chance to obey the desires of someone third inline to the throne.


Not this cat.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Privateer said:
			
		

> You never know...  Perhaps it is allegorical, but the story made its way around that the reintroduction of the executive curl was prompted by comments made by Prince Charles on the Navy DEU during a visit to Canada.  Perhaps all it would take would be for a similar whisper in Minister McKay's ear by Prince Harry on some future visit, and pips and crowns will be all the rage again.



Look atthe opening paragraph of that DInf leter: _"There is considerable interest from the Minister of National Defence Office in the restoration of historical aspects of the CAF community."_

My guess is that most senior officers are loathe to make any more changes, including pips and crowns, but, as others have suggested, the dreaded _good idea fairy_ doesn't always wear a uniform.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that most senior officers are loathe to make any more changes, including pips and crowns, but, as others have suggested, the dreaded _good idea fairy_ doesn't always wear a uniform.


 :nod:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Look atthe opening paragraph of that DInf leter: _"There is considerable interest from the Minister of National Defence Office in the restoration of historical aspects of the CAF community."_
> 
> My guess is that most senior officers are loathe to make any more changes, including pips and crowns, but, as others have suggested, the dreaded _good idea fairy_ doesn't always wear a uniform.



As stated in other threads, some person in uniform forget/deny how much of a political canvas we are for governments. Not something I condone or think is right, but a sad reality and something GOFOs need to realise and be more vocal about when all logic is lost in an idea.


----------



## cupper

Just wait, the time is coming, when you will see a red, white and blue uniform with "Gouvernment du Canada / Government of Canada" shoulder flashes.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> As stated in other threads, some person in uniform forget/deny how much of a political canvas we are for governments.


Fortunately, politicians understand patriotism, and preserving a uniquely Canadian rank system with a half century of service would be a patriotic thing.  Reverting to a British system would not be.


----------



## WLSC

MCG said:
			
		

> Fortunately, politicians understand patriotism, and preserving a uniquely Canadian rank system with a half century of service would be a patriotic thing.  Reverting to a British system would not be.



I agree.  I would go almost as far of unification pt 2 in regard of reactions of the troops.  At the time, few people saw some good in unificating the officers ranks.  Today, it would be, few would see good in going back to a now foreing system.  50 years is 2 generations of soldiers.  We are canadians, with our own (almost) symbol.  Lets keep it like that.   :2c:


----------



## TCM621

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> A bad idea dies a thousand deaths, a good idea dies but once?



Love it.


----------



## McG

Loachman said:
			
		

> No bad idea ever dies completely.


Bad jokes never die either.  This one has pulled out the unpopular WO shields and put the crowns back:


----------



## jpjohnsn

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I heard a rumous from an Air Force acquaintance, that some RCAF members want to go to silver/light blue rank badges - think e.g. Air Cadets. I just shrugged; it's not a fundamental change but it would cost money that would have to come from somewhere in the day-to-day operations and maintenance allocation (things like food and fuel and boots, bullets and beans).


On the other hand, if they just went back to the old RCAF OR/WO rank badges, Logistik is already producing those rank badges for use by the air cadets so the start-up cost might be less than starting from scratch.  And the air cadets kindly even added a rank badge at the MCpl level a few years ago.    *kidding*


----------



## Edward Campbell

I know I'm repeating myself, but ... this thread does not need to go to radio chatter.

Did the reintroduction of the _executive curl_ raise Navy moral? Probably, a bit - I'm pretty sure it didn't hurt. Did it help solve staffing problems? No, at least not by very much - maybe one or two seagoing officers who were considering leaving said to themselves, "Oh, good, this is more like the Navy in which i want to serve: one that respects its traditions." But there may also have been officers who got frustrated when they could not get command/senior staff attention for important issues because the _grownups_ were preoccupied with "buttons and bows."

BUT

There are, I think, fair and valid criticisms of the *rank structure* - the system which 'decides' who gets to wear (and be paid for) which badge. I think a review of a system put in place 45 years ago is, probably, due.

It may be that such a review will conclude that technical skill and leadership ability are both required for promotions and that either:

     1. Formal, service appropriate leadership training must be added, as a mandatory requirement, to many, many (most? all?) CF courses for advancement to PL 5A, PL 6A and 6B and, maybe even, PL 7; or

     2. Leadership training must be done (passed) before promotion to PL 5A, PL 6A and 6B and, maybe even, PL 7.

Someone will, surely, note that some sailors, soldiers and RCAF members will be able to pass the highest trade courses but will be poor leaders, unable to qualify for any leadership rank, even leading seaman/corporal but those people will want some tangible, visible representation of their specialist skills - such as the US Army provides. That, and other factors, _may_ lead them - the CF _grownups_ - to reconsider what you wear on your epaulets, sleeves, collars and cuffs.

But changes to rank badges just for the sake of change is not a good use of staff time or funds.


----------



## Tank Troll

MCG said:
			
		

> Bad jokes never die either.  This one has pulled out the unpopular WO shields and put the crowns back:



Crowns are good every one needs to be crowned every now and again. The beaver and the tank need to go and be replaced with something else. Now I'm all for tanks and beaver (some times one helps to get the other   ) but there is a time and a place for both. Replace the tank outline with crossed Calvary swords and the beaver with shovels or picks or axes or some such thumper head item  ;D


----------



## a_majoor

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> BUT
> 
> There are, I think, fair and valid criticisms of the *rank structure* - the system which 'decides' who gets to wear (and be paid for) which badge. I think a review of a system put in place 45 years ago is, probably, due.
> 
> It may be that such a review will conclude that technical skill and leadership ability are both required for promotions and that either:
> 
> 1. Formal, service appropriate leadership training must be added, as a mandatory requirement, to many, many (most? all?) CF courses for advancement to PL 5A, PL 6A and 6B and, maybe even, PL 7; or
> 
> 2. Leadership training must be done (passed) before promotion to PL 5A, PL 6A and 6B and, maybe even, PL 7.
> 
> Someone will, surely, note that some sailors, soldiers and RCAF members will be able to pass the highest trade courses but will be poor leaders, unable to qualify for any leadership rank, even leading seaman/corporal but those people will want some tangible, visible representation of their specialist skills - such as the US Army provides. That, and other factors, _may_ lead them - the CF _grownups_ - to reconsider what you wear on your epaulets, sleeves, collars and cuffs.
> 
> But changes to rank badges just for the sake of change is not a good use of staff time or funds.



I know this was discussed in some other thread some time ago, but perhaps the best way to avoid the "idiots with degrees" syndrome would be to invoke some sort of 3600 reporting in place of or as a supplement to the PER system. The advantage that I see in going down that road is while mastery of subject matter and credentials can be checked and reported via the PER, "competency" or lack thereof can be uncovered through the use of the 3600 format; your troops and subordinates will _certainly_ know if you can do your job or not, and this sort of check also makes gaming the system much, much harder to do.


----------



## McG

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> The beaver and the tank need to go and be replaced with something else.


What?!  That's not just any tank - it is a Sherman Firefly.  Since there is no common unifying tool across the branch and because the Engr and Arty grenades have the same silhouette, the beaver was an easy answer.  :clown:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I know this was discussed in some other thread some time ago, but perhaps the best way to avoid the "idiots with degrees" syndrome would be to invoke some sort of 3600 reporting in place of or as a supplement to the PER system.


It was probably covered somewhere in here:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25156.0.html
You've brought out another relevant factor to this thread.  The majority of perceived problems (including the concerns raised by Edward) could be addressed not through a change to the rank system but through changes to the promotion system.  Another argument in favour of just leaving the rank system alone.


----------



## TCM621

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Someone will, surely, note that some sailors, soldiers and RCAF members will be able to pass the highest trade courses but will be poor leaders, unable to qualify for any leadership rank, even leading seaman/corporal but those people will want some tangible, visible representation of their specialist skills - such as the US Army provides. That, and other factors, _may_ lead them - the CF _grownups_ - to reconsider what you wear on your epaulets, sleeves, collars and cuffs.



I like that idea a lot. There should be some way to reconginize people who are very good at their jobs yet are not leadership material. I have seen a fair amoutn of social hand grenades and piss poor leaders who get promoted to leadership positions because they are good techs, etc. For leadership, they may have to make the choice between, recommending for promotion, the person with better leadership potential or the best person in the job. A specialist rank could be a way of promoting a person who will never be a leader but is great at their job.


----------



## dapaterson

Trade Advancement through Skill and Knowledge - TASK.  The concept died in the 1990s, as increasing pay for one group means decreasing for others unless you get more money in the pay budget.

Idea is great - but it needs several tens of millions of dollars annually to make it happen.


----------



## quadrapiper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Trade Advancement through Skill and Knowledge - TASK.  The concept died in the 1990s, as increasing pay for one group means decreasing for others unless you get more money in the pay budget.
> 
> Idea is great - but it needs several tens of millions of dollars annually to make it happen.


Would a pay-by-skills scheme not replace a certain number of promotions being conducted as an ad-hoc means of doing the same thing?


----------



## dapaterson

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Would a pay-by-skills scheme not replace a certain number of promotions being conducted as an ad-hoc means of doing the same thing?



The establishment still identifies a requirement for people at those higher ranks.  So if Bloggins remains a Cpl Basket Weaver Tech instead of being promoted, and continues to gain additional pay, somenoe else will become the MCpl Basket Weaver Tech instead.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The establishment still identifies a requirement for people at those higher ranks.  So if Bloggins remains a Cpl Basket Weaver Tech instead of being promoted, and continues to gain additional pay, somenoe else will become the MCpl Basket Weaver Tech instead.




But the establishment says used to say Cpl-Pte and Capt-Lt: it should have identified the exact number of corporals - *leaders* of small teams - required, and the exact number of captains - commanders of selected elements and junior (grade 3) staff officers - required; all the rest of the junior soldiers and officers should have been privates and subalterns.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the establishment says used to say Cpl-Pte and Capt-Lt: it should have identified the exact number of corporals - *leaders* of small teams - required, and the exact number of captains - commanders of selected elements and junior (grade 3) staff officers - required; all the rest of the junior soldiers and officers should have been privates and subalterns.


This still needs to be corrected - throw in the requirement for merit based promotions for these ranks (or at the very least for Capt).


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... according to Sun Media:


> Two years ago the government announced it would re-insert the "royal" back in the titles of its navy and air force and revert to the historical name for the army, and the cost of that rebranding stands at more than a million dollars, QMI Agency has learned.
> 
> Documents obtained by Ottawa researcher Ken Rubin through access-to-information requests show that the name-change for the army alone, from Land Force Command to Canadian Army, cost taxpayers $583,000.
> 
> Changing the Air Command to the Royal Canadian Air Force snatched roughly $470,000 from the public purse, while switching the Maritime Command to the Royal Canadian Navy cost about $7,000.
> 
> The total cost so far for all three adds up to $1.06 million.
> 
> When Defence Minister Peter MacKay made the name-change announcement in 2011, he explained implementation would take place over the next two to three years. Almost two years later, many of those changes are well underway.
> 
> The majority of the costs relate to signage changes, branding on everything from equipment to uniforms to ships to letterhead ....


----------



## Kat Stevens

The Governor General spends that on toilet paper in a year.


----------



## McG

1 million and we are still making cosmetic name changes so it will be more money lost that could have gone into ops and trg.


----------



## cupper

They really need to do an audit, 'cause me thinks the Navy is hiding something.


----------



## Monsoon

cupper said:
			
		

> They really need to do an audit, 'cause me thinks the Navy is hiding something.


Yeah - an audit. _That_ will save money.  :


----------



## cupper

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Yeah - an audit. _That_ will save money.  :



You  don't think that it would be money well spent to figure out how the Navy could do the change over for less than 1% of the combined cost of the Army and Air Force?  ;D


----------



## Monsoon

cupper said:
			
		

> You  don't think that it would be money well spent to figure out how the Navy could do the change over for less than 1% of the combined cost of the Army and Air Force?  ;D


Verve and perspicacity don't get captured in audits, my friend.  ;D

But seriously - the differences are in what is being measured. Apparently the CA and RCAF accounting included the share of fixed salary costs notionally attributable to things like the PA announcement, supporting staff work, etc, while the RCN accounted for marginal expenses related to the name change only (signage, etc). The former might be more rigourous from an accounting standpoint, and would be what you'd want to know if this was an activity you were doing regularly, but I think the latter better answers the question the public has in mind when they ask, "What did this cost us?"


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> 1 million and we are still making cosmetic name changes so it will be more money lost that could have gone into ops and trg.



A million can buy lots of bullets.....


----------



## cupper

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Verve and perspicacity don't get captured in audits, my friend.  ;D



I still say the Navy is hiding something. Can't trust them Sailor types. >


----------



## PuckChaser

Ladies and Gentlemen, here come the pips and crowns:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882


----------



## Old Sweat

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gentlemen, here come the pips and crowns:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882



What he said.

News Release


Canada restores historical features of the Canadian Army

NR 13.221 - July 8, 2013

HALIFAX – The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced today the Government of Canada’s intent to restore Canadian Army rank insignia, names and badges to their traditional forms. 

“Our Government is committed to honouring the traditions and history of the Canadian Army,”said Minister MacKay.  “The restoration of these historical features will encourage the esprit de corps of our soldiers and reinforce a rich military tradition that will continue to develop as they serve their country.  Wherever I travel in Canada, these changes continue to be cherished in the hearts of our veterans.”

The changes include the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and patches for the current Land Force Areas; traditional rank insignia for officers; corps shoulder titles from the restoration of Royal titles to a number of Canadian Army corps in April 2013; and the Canadian Army’s secondary badge. Further, the Minister of National Defence announced the intention to restore the historical Army rank names for non-commissioned members.

“The restoration of these features is a significant step in the restoration of the Canadian Army’s traditions,” said Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army.  “Symbols and traditions establish links to soldiers’ heritage, and are important.  It is very significant that our non-commissioned members have the prospect of being able to bear the same ranks as their forbearers, and our officers will proudly wear the same insignia worn by Canadians who fought in the First and Second World Wars and Korea.” 

These restorations are the next step in the phased approach that began in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored.  Stemming from this initial restoration, and in line with historical lineage, the Canadian Army’s secondary badge will be reinstated, and the Land Force Areas will be renamed under division names, with division patches introduced accordingly.  

Additionally, following from the restoration of traditional titles to a number of Canadian Army corps, shoulder titles for members of these corps will be restored. The intent is also to restore historical rank names for non-commissioned members, the traditional and internationally recognized convention of army insignia of stars and crowns for officers, and gorget patches for colonels and general officers.

-30-

For more information on the restoring the Canadian Army’s Historical Identity, please visit http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4880


----------



## cupper

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Ladies and Gentlemen, here come the pips and crowns:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882



Someone has been reading this forum way too much.


----------



## PuckChaser

cupper said:
			
		

> Someone has been reading this forum way too much.



70 pages of the good idea fairy.


----------



## blacktriangle

FOR REAL?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

You know, I am actually wishing that Paul Hellyer would consider a comeback tour...


----------



## The Bread Guy

As a taxpayer and former member, here's my WTF slow clap ...





In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby on politiicans, ".... they need activity. It is their substitute for achievement."

Standby for media ATIP of how much THIS will cost.

What next - Pilot Officers and Flight Sergeants back in the RCAF?


----------



## blacktriangle

So does this mean all NCM's are getting an essential demotion on the rank they wear? I.E. Sgts are going to wear the ranks of Cpls, and Cpls will be hook Ptes or some BS like that?


----------



## PuckChaser

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So does this mean all NCM's are getting an essential demotion on the rank they wear? I.E. Sgts are going to wear the ranks of Cpls, and Cpls will be hook Ptes or some BS like that?



It sounds like it, I just looked up the pre-unification ranks and I'm thinking I'll hold off getting my mess kit rank until they sort this gongshow out.


----------



## blacktriangle

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It sounds like it, I just looked up the pre-unification ranks and I'm thinking I'll hold off getting my mess kit rank until they sort this gongshow out.



No doubt brother, no doubt...

Good to know that everything the military has done since the late 60's doesn't mean squat - apparently.


----------



## cupper

Spectrum said:
			
		

> So does this mean all NCM's are getting an essential demotion on the rank they wear? I.E. Sgts are going to wear the ranks of Cpls, and Cpls will be hook Ptes or some BS like that?



As I read it, rank name will only change for those indicated in the clarifying news release (eg. privates will use the traditional regimental / branch / corps terminology). 

There will be changes to the insignia, reverting to the use of pips and crowns. How this will effect NCMs remains to be seen.


----------



## Edward Campbell

From the DND blurb:



> [O] Privates of the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps will be referred to as “Trooper”;
> [O] Privates and corporals of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery will be referred to as “Gunner” and “Bombardier” respectively;
> [O] Privates of the Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers will be referred to as “Sapper”;
> [O]Privates of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals will be addressed as “Signaller”;
> [O]Some Privates of the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps will be referred to as “Fusilier,” “Rifleman” or “Guardsman”, depending on their type of unit; and
> [O]Privates of the Corps of Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers will be referred to as “Craftsman”.




It's nice - and I dare say typical - that Signals, in trying to be politcally correct/gender neutral, has managed to screw the pooch.

_Signaller_, in the 1960s - which is what the underemployed in NDHQ appear to be trying to recreate, referred to a soldier in any arm except Signals who was qualified in regimental signalling. The rank for private soldiers in the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was signalman. Now it appears that _gusradsman_ is good enough for the men and women in the ranks of of the CGG and GGFG so why is it too "masculine" for Signals?


----------



## blacktriangle

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> From the DND blurb:
> 
> 
> It's nice - and I dare say typical - that Signals, in trying to be politcally correct/gender neutral, has managed to screw the pooch.
> 
> _Signaller_, in the 1960s - which is what the underemployed in NDHQ appear to be trying to recreate, referred to a soldier in any arm except Signals who was qualified in regimental signalling. The rank for private soldiers in the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals was signalman. Now it appears that _gusradsman_ is good enough for the men and women in the ranks of of the CGG and GGFG so why is it too "masculine" for Signals?



Missed the second part, thanks! 

I'd still wait out on the Mess Kit PuckChaser...just the way things are going and all


----------



## PuckChaser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's nice - and I dare say typical - that Signals, in trying to be politcally correct/gender neutral, has managed to screw the pooch.



C&E Branch screwing the pooch? Say it isn't so...  : The Branch CWO even had the terms identified the way you stated last October during the Sgts Indoc course.

I'm wondering if I'll get 2 Div patches, one for each arm? Or one on top of the other? My DEU is about to look like a RCEME flag.


----------



## Old Sweat

One could remark, with tongue firmly in cheek, that the RCEME seem content to call their lowest rank Craftsman instead of the gender neutral Crafter, which I guess they would have if they had followed the RCCS lead.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> C&E Branch screwing the pooch? Say it isn't so...  : The Branch CWO even had the terms identified the way you stated last October during the Sgts Indoc course.
> 
> I'm wondering if I'll get 2 Div patches, one for each arm? Or one on top of the other? My DEU is about to look like a RCEME flag.




It's because they are focused on the late 1960s, a time they regard, quite erroneously, as some sort of khaki coloured "golden age," and, not surprisingly, because  they don't know their own Corps' history and traditions. Not surprising because they were never in the bloody RCCS ... but they wanted to have been. It is a bad, sad, case of penis envy by officers who joined _circa_ 1968 and retired just recently or are about to retire. They want to wear the ranks they never had before they put away their uniforms; they're the same people who think wearing your mess kit after you're retired is *a)* something a gentleman would do (it isn't), or *b)* appropriate (it isn't that, either).


----------



## OldTanker

Its disappointing that the Army staff have nothing better to do with their time, not to mention the taxpayers' dollars, than to pursue irrelevant projects like this. Perhaps the money could have been better spent on operational training or equipment than baubles. Now I have no idea what a Canadian Division is.


----------



## Old Sweat

I just got some information from a confidential source whom I trust that the push for this came largely from outside the army and indeed outside the department. I am not sure how much support there was for various items in the army and in DND. I suspect the restoration of rank titles may have had more internal support than did bringing back the old badges of rank and gorget patches.


----------



## McG

Based on the >56% who replied in the poll to just leave the ranks alone (more than double those who wanted to see pips & crowns) it would seem the decision has been imposed by ones out of touch with what the troops think is important.  A half century of Canadian identity tossed to the trash.  It is important that we connect with the image of our grand parents' generation and their service in the first half of the twentieth century, forget about all the service in the second half of the century and our losses in Afghanistan.  

Now, not only will the different services be unable to properly name the ranks of the others, they will not recognize them either.  There is nothing better than a new barrier to effective communication.  This is going to be money well spent.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I just got some information from a confidential source whom I trust that the push for this came largely from outside the army and indeed outside the department. I am not sure how much support there was for various items in the army and in DND. I suspect the restoration of rank titles may have had more internal support than did bringing back the old badges of rank and gorget patches.




I heard something similar from a very senior serving officer who shared the view, expressed here by several members, that the CF has nearly a half century of new, very honourable traditions of its own which are built upon that foundations of the "old" army but which deserve to be respected i the 21st century.

But many people - especially those who "just missed" pips and crowns and Sam Browne belts and all that - hunger for what they think, erroneously I repeat, were the 'good old days.'


----------



## McG

Now that the areas becoming divisions is announced, I wonder how long it will de before there are Velcro div patches for all our combat sleeves.


----------



## The Bread Guy

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> Verve and perspicacity don't get captured in audits


Sounds like a t-shirt aching to be silk screened ....


----------



## PanaEng

I'm still hoping it is a belated April 1st joke - the insanity!!!

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882



> The changes include the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and patches for the current Land Force Areas; traditional rank insignia for officers; corps shoulder titles from the restoration of Royal titles to a number of Canadian Army corps in April 2013; and the Canadian Army’s secondary badge. Further, the Minister of National Defence announced the intention to restore the historical Army rank names for non-commissioned members.



- mod edit to remove link in accordance with Milnet.ca policy -


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here's a second source.  

Canada News Centre Story Link

Canada restores historical features of the Canadian Army
NR 13.221 - July 8, 2013

HALIFAX – The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, announced today the Government of Canada’s intent to restore Canadian Army rank insignia, names and badges to their traditional forms.

“Our Government is committed to honouring the traditions and history of the Canadian Army,” said Minister MacKay.  “The restoration of these historical features will encourage the esprit de corps of our soldiers and reinforce a rich military tradition that will continue to develop as they serve their country.  Wherever I travel in Canada, these changes continue to be cherished in the hearts of our veterans.”

The changes include the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and patches for the current Land Force Areas; traditional rank insignia for officers; corps shoulder titles from the restoration of Royal titles to a number of Canadian Army corps in April 2013; and the Canadian Army’s secondary badge. Further, the Minister of National Defence announced the intention to restore the historical Army rank names for non-commissioned members.

“The restoration of these features is a significant step in the restoration of the Canadian Army’s traditions,” said Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army.  “Symbols and traditions establish links to soldiers’ heritage, and are important.  It is very significant that our non-commissioned members have the prospect of being able to bear the same ranks as their forbearers, and our officers will proudly wear the same insignia worn by Canadians who fought in the First and Second World Wars and Korea.”

These restorations are the next step in the phased approach that began in August 2011, when the historical name of the Canadian Army was restored.  Stemming from this initial restoration, and in line with historical lineage, the Canadian Army’s secondary badge will be reinstated, and the Land Force Areas will be renamed under division names, with division patches introduced accordingly. 

Additionally, following from the restoration of traditional titles to a number of Canadian Army corps, shoulder titles for members of these corps will be restored. The intent is also to restore historical rank names for non-commissioned members, the traditional and internationally recognized convention of army insignia of stars and crowns for officers, and gorget patches for colonels and general officers.


----------



## The Bread Guy

<related but a tangent>
Elsewhere in the "everything old is new again" department, _".... This keeps very much with the tradition of the Canadian Officer Training Corps which was set up on campuses around Canada until 1968 ...."_ - more in another thread here
</related but a tangent>


----------



## PanaEng

Freaking ridiculous.

So now I can call my sappers "sappers" - what is different? same for the armoured and artillery folks - wasn't gunner, bombardier and trooper in general use?

the pys for this committee could have paid for more of these riflemen, sappers, gunners and troopers training or for better equipment...


----------



## Gorgo

I swear, the government seems to be rushing through things to get them in place before the next election!  :


----------



## birdgunnnersrule

This is a waste of money and time when we should be investing in operational capabilities and training.   Let's all head to the tailors for latest and greatest accoutrement's that will need to be purchased to implement this plan.  My two cents.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The 2nd announcement to follow will be the one that states "this will be at the mbr's cost and they must sew them on themselves".   8)


----------



## medicineman

I wonder if I'm now going to be a Staff or Colour Sgt vice what I am now...and if I get a pay raise with that.

 :stirpot:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Can we have a pool on how long it takes the underemployed in Ottawa to decide that there could be a HQ above all those colourful, new "divisions" and the whole shebang ought to be called 1 CDN Corps and some folks, those in the redundant HQ anyway, should have a nice badge of their own?


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can we have a pool on how long it takes the underemployed in Ottawa to decide that there could be a HQ above all those colourful, new "divisions" and the whole shebang ought to be called 1 CDN Corps and some folks, those in the redundant HQ anyway, should have a nice badge of their own?



Ooo, Oooo!

I predict this will be the first official pronouncement of the new Minister of Defence once the cabinet shuffle takes place.


----------



## Gorgo

cupper said:
			
		

> Ooo, Oooo!
> 
> I predict this will be the first official pronouncement of the new Minister of Defence once the cabinet shuffle takes place.



Now I'm hoping that the next MND will have some common sense in his/her head!


----------



## cupper

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Now I'm hoping that the next MND will have some common sense in his/her head!



You can't have your cake and eat it too! ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

But when will the RCAF get its Wing Cos back?
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4880
http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/mark-collins-five-divisions-for-a-canadian-army-that/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Armymedic

Waste 

Of

Time

And 

Money.


----------



## Loachman

cupper said:
			
		

> You can't have your cake and eat it too!



Yes, you can.

This is the most commonly screwed-up cliche ever.

The correct version is "You can't eat your cake and have it too".


----------



## Teen_Cadet

I wonder of this means that the (army) cadets will also undergo a rank structure change, considering our ranks are modelled after the CF. Opinions?


----------



## cupper

Teen_Cadet said:
			
		

> I wonder of this means that the (army) cadets will also undergo a rank structure change, considering our ranks are modelled after the CF. Opinions?



Oy Vay. How to throw gasoline onto the fire.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But when will the RCAF get its Wing Cos back?
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4880
> http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/mark-collins-five-divisions-for-a-canadian-army-that/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




How about this for a guess? The RCAF brass were approached but said, "No! For operational reasons we want to look as much like the USAF as possible and Capt/Maj/LCol is what we want."


----------



## Michael OLeary

The only thing that sstrikes me about all of this is that, like the 1812 honours, the people working hardest to see it happen are not those it will happen to.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor

I'll toss a couple nickels into this seeing as pennies are gone.  I see a lot of comment about how much this will cost.  I have to ask has anyone considered the because we are transitioning to a new US style Velcro everything to your uniform style of combat clothing and that the method we attach our rank insignia is changing (yes every single rank slip on will be reproduced into a Velcro on patch) that it might actually cost less to embroider pips and crowns onto slip ons might actually cost less that the current method (embroidery is charged by the stich). I would argue that if this is going to occur (which it is) now is probably the time to do it.

On the other side I see a couple of history comments on here as well.  From ahistorical perspective in the late 60s the CF unified and every branch, regiment, and core lost lost almost a century worth of traditions.  The Royal dish nation has returned to the corps and branches, the executive curl has returned the the navy and column four of the rank system in the NDA is now allowed (shal) be used CAF wide and not simply within those branches.  Food for thoght.


----------



## devil39

Why do I feel like we are trading Manhattan Island for a handful of coloured beads?

While we're at it......I'll trade my PLD for the return of the Sam Browne belt  :


----------



## Good2Golf

devil39 said:
			
		

> Why do I feel like we are trading Manhattan Island for a handful of coloured beads?
> 
> While we're at it......I'll trade my PLD for the return of the Sam Browne belt  :



Isn't your PLD 100% of $0.00?

Tricky bugger!


----------



## Michael OLeary

devil39 said:
			
		

> While we're at it......I'll trade my PLD for the return of the Sam Browne belt  :



Can we return to leather covered scabbards for our swords too?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Not_So_Arty_Newbie said:
			
		

> From ahistorical perspective in the late 60s the CF unified and every branch, regiment, and core lost lost almost a century worth of traditions.



Someone has yet to explain how changing uniforms -- which had happened before 1970 -- equalled the destruction and banishment of traditions. Regiments still celebrated the same birthdays, still saluted and presented arms to their Colours, which were still consecrated on presentation and occasionally trooped with dignity and honour, still lines up by the same order of precedence on parade and still had mufti parades and played broom-i-loo when appropriate.  Let's not confuse clothing with traditions.


----------



## devil39

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can we return to leather covered scabbards for our swords too?



Absolutely....the two do go hand in hand.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

...and while we are at  it- Horses!  We need horses all round!


----------



## devil39

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Isn't your PLD 100% of $0.00?
> 
> Tricky bugger!



But I also meant everybody else's PLD too....I'm not self centred!


----------



## Michael OLeary

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...and while we are at  it- Horses!  We need horses all round!



Time to make a list of lost things we need back ...

Two-for-one happy hours
Mandatory happy hours
Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
Field Punishment No. 1
Bands, bands in every unit and establishment


----------



## devil39

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Time to make a list of lost things we need back ...
> 
> Two-for-one happy hours
> Mandatory happy hours
> Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
> Field Punishment No. 1
> Bands, bands in every unit and establishment



Booze in the field....at all times


----------



## devil39

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Time to make a list of lost things we need back ...
> 
> Two-for-one happy hours
> Mandatory happy hours
> Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
> Field Punishment No. 1
> Bands, bands in every unit and establishment


Oh....and I'd prefer smoking in offices to watching some guy spit chew into his gatorade bottle....


----------



## cavalryman

Will our General Officers also revert to the pre-1968 rank insignia?  That scheme needs an even bigger rank translator app than 2lt to Col...


----------



## Old EO Tech

Now all we need to do is restore the true CArmy/RCAF salut instead of the RCN one we were all forced to adopt at unification   And change back the NCO/WO rank names to SSgt/WO2/WO1 :-/


----------



## Privateer

Coming next... a return to paying compliments in the "traditional" manner, which will result in remedial open-palm salute drill training for all CA and RCAF pers.

Edit:  Mind-meld with Old EO Tech, apparently.  Our keyboards are as one!


----------



## Old EO Tech

Privateer said:
			
		

> Coming next... a return to paying compliments in the "traditional" manner, which will result in remedial open-palm salute drill training for all CA and RCAF pers.



Beat you by 40 seconds


----------



## Michael OLeary

devil39 said:
			
		

> Oh....and I'd prefer smoking in offices to watching some guy spit chew into his gatorade bottle....



I'll concede that point, and no need for hiding ashtrays in desk drawers, that (allegedly) can (potentially) lead to QM buildings burning down.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

devil39 said:
			
		

> Booze in the field....at all times



This is actually a good idea  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

devil39 said:
			
		

> But I also meant everybody else's PLD too....I'm not self centred!



Oh no, certainly not you!

No more boot bands.  We need gaiter weights.  And a field uniform made from wool.    :nod:


----------



## devil39

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Time to make a list of lost things we need back ...
> 
> Two-for-one happy hours
> Mandatory happy hours
> Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
> Field Punishment No. 1
> Bands, bands in every unit and establishment



Swagger sticks..... I have two PPCLI swagger sticks....I'll sell one to PPCLI Guy for $8000


----------



## vonGarvin

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Waste
> 
> Of
> 
> Time
> 
> And
> 
> Money.



Not the first waste of time/money:
One

Two

Three

At least we'll look like most of other NATO armies for the officer corps:








Meh.


----------



## Michael OLeary

And spiffys, we need spiffys.



> The olive drab, long sleeved shirt worn by ORs, did not have a fuzed collar so it wrinkled and curled up easily so obviously had to have something purchased from Maple Leaf Services to rectify the situation. This "something" was known as a "spiffy" and like Viagra was responsible for making a limp and wrinkled shirt collar into a stiff presentable one. The spiffy was an ingenious little device, made of stainless steel wire, slightly thinner than a paper clip. It was made in the shape of a flat bottomed "U", which fitted under the shirt col1ar and tie with two spring loaded sharpened ends which impaled the pointed ends of the col1ar. The springs kept the collar stretched and flat. Although somewhat delicate, it performed its job in an admirable manner. One of my favourite "it really happened" stories concerned a friend who was on his way to London, in uniform, by train and had accidentally broken his spiffy. During a stop at Union Station in Toronto, he approached the young female clerk who operated a variety kiosk and enquired, "Do you have any spiffys?". She gave him a look of absolute disgust and replied, "No Sir, you get THOSE in a drug store!". Thinking of course he was attempting to purchase the unmentionable condom.



Source: http://theroyalcanadianregiment.ca/history/20questions_young_soldier/1956_collison.html


----------



## vonGarvin

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Two-for-one happy hours
> Mandatory happy hours
> Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
> Field Punishment No. 1



Why not?  Put the "happy" back in "Happy Hour".  And field punishment number 1?  It would solve so many problems...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not the first waste of time/money:
> One
> Two
> Three



Just because you didn't like them doesn't mean someone you don't like didn't get promoted for coming up with them.   >


----------



## vonGarvin

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Just because you didn't like them doesn't mean someone you don't like didn't get promoted for coming up with them.   >


Aha!  We found the MGS/C-16/LSVW procurer!   >  _J'accuse!_


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I want to know who the good idea faerie is that took all our sarcastic ideas from here seriously, got them implemented and will now get a promotion and a $10,000.00 suggestion award.

Now that I retire in 18 some odd days, I'm starting to have a whole new hilarious outlook on the business. ;D

Have a ball folks


----------



## Franko

What I'd like to know is: who or what is the driving force behind all this change just for change sake?

There was obviously no input from the rank and file at all.

Regards












[/quote]


----------



## devil39

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Time to make a list of lost things we need back ...
> 
> Two-for-one happy hours
> Mandatory happy hours
> Smoking in offices (ok, maybe not that one)
> Field Punishment No. 1
> Bands, bands in every unit and establishment



Bring back no requirement for a second language profile of CBC to get promoted or have potential......   (edit - or at least in the PPCLI)


----------



## cavalryman

Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...


----------



## The Bread Guy

Flight Sergeant - from extinction back to distinction?


----------



## Michael OLeary

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...



The majors will be the ones with grey hair. Right?


----------



## PuckChaser

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...



Sigs guys won't have a problem, we're used to a Brit Major kicking around at CFSCE.


----------



## Michael OLeary

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sigs guys won't have a problem, we're used to a Brit Major kicking around at CFSCE.



Yeah, but he's kind of distinctive in the "dresses differently" department.


----------



## devil39

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...



The officers will have tiny crowns.....


----------



## OldSolduer

Pips and crowns are back. :facepalm:


----------



## cavalryman

devil39 said:
			
		

> The officers will have tiny crowns.....


Unless the RCN and RCAF change their insignia for PO1/WO a lot of army Majors are going to be invited to the POs/WOs Mess...  Not that there's anything wrong with that ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

> "Good soldiers, bad officers; however don't forget that without them we would not have any Civilization."  Field Marshal Erwin Rommel on Italians



That reminds me of a Turkish--and Canadian--friend of mine (with a perfect and ironic command of English) who many years ago when at Carleton referred to "social persplective" .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Yeah, but he's kind of distinctive in the "dresses differently" department.



Multicam is clever at a distance, looks like the faded CADPAT you get from Clothing in Kingston.  >


----------



## Michael OLeary

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Multicam is clever at a distance, looks like the faded CADPAT you get from Clothing in Kingston.  >



So, he's not one of those Brit exchange officers with 27 orders of dress that start with a pullover sweater?


----------



## PuckChaser

I haven't seen a pullover sweater yet, but I lucked out and was at CFSCE in the summer. I wonder if the Brit Maj that's on exchange at my unit will bust it out in the winter.


----------



## Armymedic

Speaking of multicam....

How will this affect those who wear a "Land Forces" uniform, but is not in the Canadian Army, i.e. those employed by MILPERSCOM and CANSOFCOM?


----------



## The Bread Guy

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Unless the RCN and RCAF change their insignia for PO1/WO a lot of army Majors are going to be invited to the POs/WOs Mess...  Not that there's anything wrong with that ;D


Hey, with the rank badge looms a runnin', that's where the Flight Sgt/Staff Sgt insignia come in - it's GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!


----------



## dapaterson

This is needed for whoever had the bright idea to change the rank insignia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWI7A6lqIEI


----------



## jpjohnsn

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Hey, with the rank badge looms a runnin', that's where the Flight Sgt/Staff Sgt insignia come in - it's GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!


If the RCAF wants to do it on the cheap, the air cadets have a full set of rank insignia good to go.  >


----------



## cavalryman

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Speaking of multicam....
> 
> How will this affect those who wear a "Land Forces" uniform, but is not in the Canadian Army, i.e. those employed by MILPERSCOM and CANSOFCOM?



I suppose that if you're rifle green, it's crowns, pips and gorgets for thee... just like it was the executive curl for all those commissioned folks in Navy blue (black), regardless of your command.  Though we could imagine stylized memo pads and quills in lieu of crowns and pips for the Adjudant General folks (as we'll soon rename CMP).  I shan't even speculate for the folks wearing the tan beret.   Anyone wish to wager on when ADM(Mat) will be renamed the QMG?


----------



## The Bread Guy

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> If the RCAF wants to do it on the cheap, the air cadets have a full set of rank insignia good to go.  >


In addition to the not-all-that-long-ago-added "Flight Corporal"....   





....so they have a sorta-kinda equivalent to the Master Corporal rank in Army Cadets   :


----------



## dapaterson

So, quick math: Say ~7K officers in a land DEU across the Reg F, P Res and COATS, each needing their uniform changed at crown expense.  If it's $50 per uniform for the changes, that's $350K.  (Remember, the tailors will have to unstitch the arms to remove the braid - not a simple rip off /add on job).

Plus every one of those 7K will need two new slip-ons for CADPAT, and 4 for DEU shirts.    At about $5 each, that's another $210K.  

So we're at $560K for the rank change alone.  The Div HQ nomenclature will bring additional costs (plus tailoring); to say nothing to amending all the CF computer systems to reflect the new ranks.


(And let's not even start talking about mess kit - lots of pissed off folks, having to get alterations at their own expense because of this...)


----------



## Michael OLeary

So, will we move the rank to the shoulder, or turn the clock back a little further to "proper" cuff rank?


----------



## AmmoTech90

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...



I was a WO embedded with a Brit unit, no problems.  They have a rank/appointment (WO2/CSM) that is identical to our WO rank, they don't get confused, hopefully we shouldn't.  Although, given we came up with this idea, maybe the CF (or maybe just the Army) is a bit simple...


----------



## Haggis

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ... to say nothing to amending all the CF computer systems to reflect the new ranks.



The new (recycled) ranks already exist in the NDA and are cross referenced to the current ranks as shown in the Schedule to the NDA.  With the development of the new Military Personnel Management Capability Transformation "GUARDIAN" system, this change can be delayed until the new software is implemented without any effect on the operations of the CAF _unless_ someone sees fit to change the NDA.


----------



## Ostrozac

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, will we move the rank to the shoulder, or turn the clock back a little further to "proper" cuff rank?



Very good point -- is changing our insignia to a World War II style insulting to our World War I heritage? Do we also need red tabs for everyone who is qualified AOC? Should we bring back mandatory moustaches?

I can't wait to wrap up my puttees -- it's a pity that since the procurement system has such trouble with combat boots, the puttees will probably be wrapped around a pair of Danners I bought with my own money. But I guess every organization has to have priorities.


----------



## SeR

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4882


> Additionally, following from the restoration of traditional titles to a number of Canadian Army corps, shoulder titles for members of these corps will be restored.



Does this means that the colourful cloth shoulder titles (such as the ones on the old garrison jackets) replace the metal ones?

On another note, does anyone have any idea when army officers should expect to receive these knew badges? Maybe a month, or closer to a year's time?


----------



## McG

I was recently approached by a German Army major who wanted to share how much he liked the Canadian ranks because they were simple, easy to read from a distance, and easy to understand (intuitive).

If we absolutely had to change our rank badges, it would have been better to develop something of our own as opposed to just throwing the British rank back up like a good colony.  But, there was not a need to change rank insignia.


----------



## SeR

Well I just found an answer to my own question (if anyone else is interested):



> MacKay said the changes will be phased in over the next four years, replacing symbols as the older uniforms wear out.



http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130708-172839.html


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> I was recently approached by a German Army major who wanted to share how much he liked the Canadian ranks because they were simple, easy to read from a distance, and easy to understand (intuitive).
> 
> If we absolutely had to change our rank badges, it would have been better to develop something of our own as opposed to just throwing the British rank back up like a good colony.  But, there was not a need to change rank insignia.



It seems we have lost that battle.


----------



## dimsum

SeR said:
			
		

> Well I just found an answer to my own question (if anyone else is interested):
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130708-172839.html



Four years?!  I can see the nervous twitches on RSM's faces already.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Four years?!  I can see the nervous twitches on RSM's faces already.



Including this one. IMO this was unnecessary, as I have said in the past.


----------



## Michael OLeary

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2013/07/20130708-172839.html



> The government says the move will cost $245,000 and will eventually pay for itself and then save cash as the changes employ removable pins instead of the *current embroidered collars, lapels and shirt sleeves.*



What badges are embroidered directly on collars, lapels or sleeves?
How how is changing rank styles going to affect that?
Does this also imply there will be no embroidered versions of pips and crowns?

I can just see pips on the shoulder, held on with the cheap clasps like we saw on the 1812 pin, popping off every time they get caught by the edge of a seat belt.  Carry lots of spares folks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And let's not even start talking about mess kit - lots of pissed off folks, having to get alterations at their own expense because of this...



..............but now there`s a distinction between Retired and Serving. Problem solved.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...



Trust me. One word or look from either and you`ll have no doubt who you`re dealing with.


----------



## infant

Hey 21 signatures is 21 signatures

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reinstate-pips-and-crowns-for-canadian-army-officers/signatures.html



			
				Nerf herder said:
			
		

> What I'd like to know is: who or what is the driving force behind all this change just for change sake?
> 
> There was obviously no input from the rank and file at all.
> 
> Regards


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not the first waste of time/money:


The idea that the existence of waste in some places excuses waste in other places is complete nonsense.  By that thinking, we may as well just burn our money because past waste makes current and future waste all okay.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> At least we'll look like most of other NATO armies for the officer corps:


Not really.  When you look at who shows up to play, pips are not the majority.  Where pips are used, there is not consistency between armies as to the relationship between numbers of pips and the rank.  Four bobbles of one nation may be three for another.  Of all the NATO nations that use pips, we will be the only one not wearing something of our own national indication.  There is no silver lining to this decision.



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But when will the RCAF get its Wing Cos back?
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4880
> http://cdfai3ds.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/mark-collins-five-divisions-for-a-canadian-army-that/





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How about this for a guess? The RCAF brass were approached but said, "No! For operational reasons we want to look as much like the USAF as possible and Capt/Maj/LCol is what we want."


Based on other posts to this site:
* the infantry were asked if they wanted to be RCIC again; they said no but it was forced on them anyway, and
* the Army was asked if it wanted pips & crowns; the answer was no but those are now imposed on us anyway.

My guess is that, should the RCAF be asked about which ranks it wants, it will not matter a damn as the decision will have already been made that the clock will needlessly, wastefully be turned back regardless of the answer.


----------



## Gorgo

I'm getting a headache reading about all these throwback changes.  What the heck is so wrong with having our own rank insignia that - while acknowledging the past - still makes us look unique?

I swear . . . come 2015, the Conservatives are going to be trounced at the polls.  :facepalm:


----------



## Thompson_JM

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Including this one. IMO this was unnecessary, as I have said in the past.



 :ditto:

while I may be a lowly Corporal.... (or is that L/Cpl soon?) This seems like a ridiculous waste of money to accomplish nothing when we have much better, more important things to put the cash towards.... 

While I know the CF would hardly mourn my departure, it's stuff like this coupled with some other unit level BS that really makes me just want to say "To hell with this" and hang up the hat....  This isnt the same place I joined 14 years ago.... It feels like it's just sliding down, and I think I'd like to get off before I hit bottom.


----------



## Franko

infant said:
			
		

> Hey 21 signatures is 21 signatures
> 
> http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/reinstate-pips-and-crowns-for-canadian-army-officers/signatures.html



That has to be a joke.

It's funny that no one in the rank and file was consulted in a vast survey, only a select few from what I hear, and now this regression to the old rank system by people outside of the CF.

I even read a few civy friends of mine on FB are glad that its changing back. When challenged on it as to why its a good idea, after the present system being in place for over 40 years....they couldn't give a decent reason why.

I literally groaned as I read that some CIC friends were happy about putting up pips.

Regards


----------



## NavyShooter

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Hmmm.... WO=Crown.... Major=Crown.... placement on cadpat=same...  I sense a disturbance in the Farce...


 
I endured this in the UK for 2 weeks...

The fact that the two crowns are distinctly different in size meant that I was much less likely to be mistaken for a Major, and much more likely to be mistaken for a WO2, who wears a similar crown (CSM equiv)....so I got called "SIR" a lot either way...

Explaining to them that I was a Petty Officer First Class (or Army Warrant Officer Equiv) did little to quell this....  *sigh*


----------



## GnyHwy

So does this mean that each major unit will have 1 x CWO, which still looks the same, and 1 x RQMS, which looks like an MWO, as well as 4 or 5 WOs, which used to be MWOs, which will now look like our WO, which will still be confused with what they thought looked like a Maj, but did the job of a Staff Sergeant, but is now actually a Sgt Maj that looks like a large Major insignia, but also looks like a small Sgt Maj insignia?  Oh yeah!  That should clear things up. :facepalm:

Perhaps we should remove all confusion and just spell the rank across our chests.

245K eh?  Wait till the opposition prints the total life cycle cost of a few billion(ish) for the next 100 years, and then you'll see a stink.


----------



## Haggis

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> So does this mean that each major unit will have 1 x CWO, which still looks the same, and 1 x RQMS, which looks like an MWO, as well as 4 or 5 WOs, which used to be MWOs, which will now look like our WO, which will still be confused with what they thought looked like a Maj, but did the job of a Staff Sergeant, but is now actually a Sgt Maj that looks like a large Major insignia, but also looks like a small Sgt Maj insignia?



_*So far * _ (emphasis required) no one has proposed rejigging the NCM ranks in the Army.

So far.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Haggis said:
			
		

> _*So far * _ (emphasis required) no one has proposed rejigging the NCM ranks in the Army.
> 
> So far.



Except for Bombardiers and Colour Sergeants.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Haggis said:
			
		

> GnyHwy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean that each major unit will have 1 x CWO, which still looks the same, and 1 x RQMS, which looks like an MWO, as well as 4 or 5 WOs, which used to be MWOs, which will now look like our WO, which will still be confused with what they thought looked like a Maj, but did the job of a Staff Sergeant, but is now actually a Sgt Maj that looks like a large Major insignia, but also looks like a small Sgt Maj insignia?
> 
> 
> 
> _*So far * _ (emphasis required) no one has proposed rejigging the NCM ranks in the Army.
> 
> So far.
Click to expand...



I know I am repeating myself, but:

     1. The existing rank/pay system was not designed for any _military_ reason. It's AIM, back in the mid 1960s, was to address a serious pay/morale problem - and it did. It had a secondary benefit in that it made
         all the other _unification/integration_ changes far more palatable to the rank and file and the junior officers;

     2. There is nothing inherently wrong with the current system but there were, 50 years ago, and still are, in my opinion, some serious flaws with implementation, specifically: promotion to the *vital* junior
         leadership ranks (corporal and captain) is based, in the main, on trade skill and time in, not on leadership training and or ability;

     3. I _perceive_, from discussions with Navy and RCAF folks, that the common rank system, which is OK for the Army, is less than ideal for the RCN and RCAF;

     4. We are overdue a comprehensive review of ranks and trades (and trade levels) and the qualifications and pay for both. That review there _might_ provoke a restructuring of the rank and trade/classification
         systems and that, in turn, might provoke some reconsideration of rank badges.

But this is the Government of Canada so the political cart is well out in front of the military horse.


----------



## dapaterson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Except for Bombardiers and Colour Sergeants.



No, Colour Sergeant does not appear in the schedule to the NDA, and thus is not an official rank in the CAF.  Nor is ensign.  Which means nothing: legally, sapper, trooper and gunner were not permitted either, and yet they survived.

From the MND's comments yesterday, however, apparently he wants those two restored; therefore, he is calling for an amendment to the NDA.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> If we absolutely had to change our rank badges, it would have been better to develop something of our own as opposed to just throwing the British rank back up like a good colony.


Our (current) Army Officer rank insignia look an awful lot like the French Army.

But the fact of the matter is that the new Army Officer ranks will look more like what the rest of the British Commonwealth have:

Indian Army Officers:






Pakistan Army Captain:






And NATO:

German Captain:





Danish Captain:





Belgian Captain:





Hellenic Captain:





And some non-NATO European Armies
Swedish Captain:





Irish Captain:





So, borrowing from the UK, here's what our rank will look like for Captain:






Meh.


----------



## vonGarvin

Haggis said:
			
		

> _*So far * _ (emphasis required) no one has proposed rejigging the NCM ranks in the Army.
> 
> So far.


Eliminate the appointment of MCpl, and make Cpl a true Junior NCO rank, merited for promotion to it, then it's good.

Same with Captain, make it a merited promotion.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> The idea that the existence of waste in some places excuses waste in other places is complete nonsense.  By that thinking, we may as well just burn our money because past waste makes current and future waste all okay.
> Not really.  When you look at who shows up to play, pips are not the majority.  Where pips are used, there is not consistency between armies as to the relationship between numbers of pips and the rank.  Four bobbles of one nation may be three for another.  Of all the NATO nations that use pips, we will be the only one not wearing something of our own national indication.  There is no silver lining to this decision.
> Based on other posts to this site:
> * the infantry were asked if they wanted to be RCIC again; they said no but it was forced on them anyway, and
> * the Army was asked if it wanted pips & crowns; the answer was no but those are now imposed on us anyway.
> 
> My guess is that, should the RCAF be asked about which ranks it wants, it will not matter a damn as the decision will have already been made that the clock will needlessly, wastefully be turned back regardless of the answer.



I'm sorry, but your post sounds like a whole lot of whinging about nothing, as if this decision by the government precluded us from getting something we needed, such as a bridge layer.  

Meh.


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> So, will we move the rank to the shoulder, or turn the clock back a little further to "proper" cuff rank?




Interesting to note in those photos that our current use of "bars" for our officer ranks are reflected in those "cuff ranks".

Four bars for a full Colonel.
Three bars for a Lt Col.
Two bars for a Capt.
One bar for a 2Lt.

Major and Lt bars are reflected more by level of officer than actual rank; ie Senior officer and Junior officer.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting to note in those photos that our current use of "bars" for our officer ranks are reflected in those "cuff ranks".



Yes.  But I doubt it was intentional back in 1968 (or whenever).  After all, we (the CAF) adopted the former RCN ranks for officers.


----------



## Edward Campbell

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting to note in those photos that our current use of "bars" for our officer ranks are reflected in those "cuff ranks".
> 
> Four bars for a full Colonel.
> Three bars for a Lt Col.
> Two bars for a Capt.
> One bar for a 2Lt.
> 
> Major and Lt bars are reflected more by level of officer than actual rank; ie Senior officer and Junior officer.




Ranks were _sensible_ on the cuff when most officers, even junior ones, were mounted. Rank badges on the shoulder were hard to see from the ground.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I mentioned this to the Army SM this morning. Consider it crushed...........



So...
Not so crushed then...


----------



## a_majoor

It's the 21rst century people.

We don't need any cloth/metal/plastic insignia on the uniforms:

_All_ ranks will be displayed on the members Facebook page and on the display of the smartphone. When in doubt of a member's rank/position; use the smartphone to check to member in question's status......... >


----------



## Haggis

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ranks were _sensible_ on the cuff when most officers, even junior ones, were mounted. Rank badges on the shoulder were hard to see from the ground.



Someone suggested, a few pages back, that we should return to horses as well.  I guess when the NDCDC actually decides where and how the new (recycled) officer ranks will be worn we will know if the Cavalry will return to the Army Order of Battle.


----------



## dapaterson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> It's the 21rst century people.
> 
> We don't need any cloth/metal/plastic insignia on the uniforms:
> 
> _All_ ranks will be displayed on the members Facebook page and on the display of the smartphone. When in doubt of a member's rank/position; use the smartphone to check to member in question's status......... >



We're rolling back to the late 1800s with this, not moving to the 21st century.  Besides, the CAF issues BlackBerries with the camera disabled; nothing smart about those phones.


----------



## vonGarvin

Thucydides said:
			
		

> _All_ ranks will be displayed on the members Facebook page and on the display of the smartphone. When in doubt of a member's rank/position; use the smartphone to check to member in question's status......... >


Or, much like in The Sims, a floating holograph with their rank for ease of identification.  And location:






Or just text that says the rank, in NATO-ese: "OF-1"  "OF-2", etc  >


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We're rolling back to the late 1800s with this, not moving to the 21st century.


Puh-Lease.  We are making our army officers wear different insignia.  Big friggin' deal.  So what that it looks like that which we used to have.  Or that many of our allies have ("common look and feel").


So long as they don't make us adopt SS rank insignia, it's all good.


----------



## vonGarvin

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> So...
> Not so crushed then...



Apparently not.  In April of this year, the Comd CA was asked by a candidate on the Combat Team Commander Course if we were changing our rank insignia for officers.  He was told "no, we aren't."  I guess the Gov't forgot to tell him.


meh.


----------



## Remius

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No, Colour Sergeant does not appear in the schedule to the NDA, and thus is not an official rank in the CAF.  Nor is ensign.  Which means nothing: legally, sapper, trooper and gunner were not permitted either, and yet they survived.
> 
> From the MND's comments yesterday, however, apparently he wants those two restored; therefore, he is calling for an amendment to the NDA.



I think that's what he meant.  They are adding Colour Sgt to the rank system.  Thus the only real NCM change.


----------



## dapaterson

I assume that with this obsession with aping all things British, we're going to abolish the CF Dental Service next?   >


----------



## dapaterson

Crantor said:
			
		

> I think that's what he meant.  They are adding Colour Sgt to the rank system.  Thus the only real NCM change.



No, that's not all.  The QR&O as written do not permit the sue of Trooper, Sapper, etc.  Authorizing those already on the schedule to the NDA requires a QR&O amendment.  That is a change.

Adding new ones to the schedule requires an amendment to the NDA.  That is a major change, and ties up Parliament where, one would hope, there are more substantive issues to address.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but your post sounds like a whole lot of whinging about nothing, as if this decision by the government precluded us from getting something we needed, such as a bridge layer.


I am sorry that need to use illogical extremes to defend your position.  Bridge layer?  No, but I can think of all kinds of equipment that is deficient or unavailable which should be getting time, effort and money well ahead of bling.  Uniforms, boots and load carriage come to mind as things that should be well ahead of this.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Our (current) Army Officer rank insignia look an awful lot like the French Army.


If you are judging via wikipediea diagrams maybe but, working with a number of French Army officers, I can assure you that the ranks are quite different.  They have more incommon with German junior enlisted ranks.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> But the fact of the matter is that the new Army Officer ranks will look more like what the rest of the British Commonwealth have:


Why do we need to look like the British?  Do we not have enough of our own history and heritage to be proud of our own symbols?  Why should the desire for the Canadian Army to look British Army warrant the destruction of commonly understood symbols that facilitated communication with the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces?



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> But the fact of the matter is that the new Army Officer ranks will look more like what the rest of … NATO:


So for the rank of Captain there are a collection of countries that use the three pip icon.  There are also a substantial number which do not including USA, France, Romania, Bulgaria, Portugal, Slovania.  Poland and Estonia use pips but have four to show Captain.  Most pip using nations show Major with one pip and a stylized emblem/icon to denote field grade.  Surely the British system that uses a field grade denoting icon/emblem (the crown) with no pip must be wrong … it certainly does not fit your suggested effect of resembling more of our allies as most allies have more pips at the ranks of Maj, LCol and Col.  Of course there are further deviations.  There are pip using countries that include a stylized icon/emblem with the junior officer ranks, making these appear field grade next to the majority of others.  Of course there are other pip using countries that do not add an additional icon/emblem to denote field grade but instead use differing styles (or colour) of pip.  And of course, the British badges for brigadier go on to reflect a completely different idea than our rank of brigadier general.   This return to pips does nothing to make us look “more army” and it does nothing to facilitate communication with NATO at large.  It is about looking British, and it does erode communication within the CAF at large.
(Even if there were truth to the idea that pips & crowns make us look “more army” the importance of looking “more army” in the eyes of other militaries should come second to looking Canadian)



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes.  But I doubt it was intentional back in 1968 (or whenever).  After all, we (the CAF) adopted the former RCN ranks for officers.


The RCN will tell you their ranks had an executive curl, and the RCAF will tell you theirs were a different colour.  We adopted something uniquely ours with elements that reflected all three of the prior services.  We have now lost that uniquely Canadian Armed Forces rank.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Meh.


Your “meh” would imply indifference to the topic, but your continued return to defend the change suggests you are happy seeing this come to pass.  It’s fine if you are a supporter (we are all entitled to opinions), but admit the position as opposed to feigning indifference.

Even some of the stupid fictional ideas presented in this thread would be better that putting back on British ranks because at least they would have maintained a uniquely Canadian system.  We are being like the 24 year old who moves back in with mom & dad.  Of all the roll-back the clock initiatives, pips & crowns are the stupidest one of the few that will have lasting negative impacts on our military.


----------



## a_majoor

If the madness is going to continue unabated, here is a reference for the Divisional and Brigade patches as well.

Anyone in NDHQ ever stop to consider that putting that much velcro on a uniform is a fire hazard?


----------



## q_1966

I applaud the return to pips and crowns, in addition to the other things mentioned in the backgrounder. http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4880


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Why?


----------



## q_1966

For the same reasons I applauded bringing back the Executive Curl; the titles RCN, Canadian Army & RCAF. A lot of people bitched when those were brought in too.


----------



## McG

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Why?


The tin foil hat theory: because he is RCN.  All the Canadians svc mbrs who I have seen get excited about this were ex-pat Brits or RCN.  So, I speculate it was the navy pushing this whole thing through because they felt threatened by the Army wearing something too similar ... it diminished there distinct naviness.   :Tin-Foil-Hat: 

In seriousness, all the Army guys said WTF when learning of this today and the one guy who did get excited was RCN, but I would not suggest that is a statistically significant observation.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Ok but you're not telling me why you feel it's good to go back to the old way.


----------



## q_1966

MCG said:
			
		

> The tin foil hat theory: because he is RCN.  All the Canadians svc mbrs who I have seen get excited about this were ex-pat Brits or RCN.  So, I speculate it was the navy pushing this whole thing through because they felt threatened by the Army wearing something too similar ... it diminished there distinct naviness.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> In seriousness, all the Army guys said WTF when learning of this today and the one guy who did get excited was RCN, but I would not suggest that is a statistically significant observation.



My uniform was army, while on ship I wore NCD's with Cadpat epaulettes.



			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Ok but you're not telling me why you feel it's good to go back to the old way.



Re-establishing historical links is important, the argument I made for bringing back the RCN was, let's say your Grandfather served in the Royal Canadian Navy and you desperately wanted to serve in his footsteps, It would mean a lot more to be able to serve in the same Royal Canadian Navy. Same can be said if you replaced Royal Canadian Navy with Royal Canadian Regiment only it was called the Canadian Regiment.

History is in many ways part fantasy that plays into your mind as you read books and imagine what it was like in days of yore, in reality it sucked the same as now just in a different way. However it still raises the morale. When you go to the museum or look at the photo's, read about the Battle Honours, story's, awards for gallantry of your Regiment, Ship, Squadron etc. I'm sure it fills you with immense pride to be apart of that. Uniform changes to Pips and Crowns and more so Division Patches only help to build on that.


----------



## jpjohnsn

MCG said:
			
		

> The tin foil hat theory: because he is RCN.  All the Canadians svc mbrs who I have seen get excited about this were ex-pat Brits or RCN.  So, I speculate it was the navy pushing this whole thing through because they felt threatened by the Army wearing something too similar ... it diminished there distinct naviness.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
> 
> In seriousness, all the Army guys said WTF when learning of this today and the one guy who did get excited was RCN, but I would not suggest that is a statistically significant observation.


I have an alternate theory.  We have a Prime Minister who has a passion for military history and sees pre-unification as the Canadian Military's "golden age".  He also has a hate-on for PET that borders on pathological (even though integration and unification pre-date Trudeau as PM) and has been systematically dismantling anything that even carries the whiff of Trudeau.  Finally, he's a hard-core monarchist.

Someone made a comment somewhere around here that they hoped any new MND would see some sense and stop all this back to the future, retro-CF stuff.  I'm going to put it out there and say that the current MND was not driving this - it came from higher up the food chain and a change in MND would not make one whit of difference.

Before Christmas, I fully expect to see, as the old song goes:  Wing Commanders, Group Captains, Flight Sergeants too - hands in their pockets with &$%*# all to do...


----------



## cavalryman

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I have an alternate theory.  We have a Prime Minister who has a passion for military history and sees pre-unification as the Canadian Military's "golden age".  He also has a hate-on for PET that borders on pathological (even though integration and unification pre-date Trudeau as PM) and has been systematically dismantling anything that even carries the whiff of Trudeau.  Finally, he's a hard-core monarchist.
> 
> Someone made a comment somewhere around here that they hoped any new MND would see some sense and stop all this back to the future, retro-CF stuff.  I'm going to put it out there and say that the current MND was not driving this - it came from higher up the food chain and a change in MND would not make one whit of difference.
> 
> Before Christmas, I fully expect to see, as the old song goes:  Wing Commanders, Group Captains, Flight Sergeants too - hands in their pockets with &$%*# all to do...



From today's News Conference at the Vigil

QUESTION: There are plans? So you’re expanding what you announced yesterday with the Army renaming to the Air Force?

MACKAY: We’re looking at a number of ways in which we can continue to restore historic symbols, ranks, insignia that respect the history of the Canadian Forces. So specific to the Air Force ranks, we’ll look at it. We’ve looked at all of the various ranks and environments in the Canadian Forces.  As you know, we restored the Navy curl and the executive curl. We believe this is consistent in keeping with what was stripped away and taken from the Canadian Forces in 1968 by a previous government.


----------



## northernboy_24

Pips and Crowns are a pretty dumb idea.  When "limited resources" restricts training budgets and restricts how fast people get effective strength, we waste money on something that has no operational impact on the day to day workings of the military.  Wearing pips won't make me a better officer, it will just mean that the government spent more money on a stupid uniform component for me that I will wear but will not spend money on a good pair of boots.  What I woulnd't do for a good set of issued boots.  250K (will likely cost a lot more in the long run) can buy a lot of nice boots for the troops.


----------



## dapaterson

cavalryman said:
			
		

> From today's News Conference at the Vigil
> 
> QUESTION: There are plans? So you’re expanding what you announced yesterday with the Army renaming to the Air Force?
> 
> MACKAY: We’re looking at a number of ways in which we can continue to restore historic symbols, ranks, insignia that respect the history of the Canadian Forces. So specific to the Air Force ranks, we’ll look at it. We’ve looked at all of the various ranks and environments in the Canadian Forces.  As you know, we restored the Navy curl and the executive curl. We believe this is consistent in keeping with what was stripped away and taken from the Canadian Forces in 1968 by a previous government.



I guess this means we're going to finally get those nuclear submarines the dastardly Perrin Beatty promised back in 1987, then failed to deliver.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Didn't the old army have more tanks too?


----------



## vonGarvin

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I assume that with this obsession with aping all things British, we're going to abolish the CF Dental Service next?   >



:rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> In seriousness, all the Army guys said WTF when learning of this today and the one guy who did get excited was RCN, but I would not suggest that is a statistically significant observation.



I'm an "Army Guy" and I didn't say WTF.


----------



## Journeyman

I'm an Army guy, and my vote goes in the "pips/crowns - stupid idea" box.   :not-again:


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> I am sorry that need to use illogical extremes to defend your position.  blah blah blah  :crybaby: blah blah blah


[rant]
I have no position.  

If you're so concerned about the government's coffers, then suggest something that would improve efficiency.  You know, blocking army.ca from DND computers ought to have us back to work instead of whinging (which is exactly what you're doing: whinging).  That the ministry came up with this decision did not preclude it from making other decisions.  Change your fucking slip on and get back to work


[/rant]


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Of all the roll-back the clock initiatives, pips & crowns are the stupidest one of the few that will have lasting negative impacts on our military.



I have to focus in on this.  

Whether we wear pips/crowns (much like many of our allies, not just the Brits), or we wear bars (like many Navies and the French Army) or we wear pogs or simply slip ons that have our NATO rank (OF-1, OF-2) written out, it's all part of the uniform, and is of little consequence.  How, pray tell, will me wearing a pip/crown mix have lasting negative impacts on our military?

(I'm certain that there was similar whinging back in 1968, but we survived.)  

I'm afraid that this is much ado about nothing.  Pips, stripes, bubblegum wrappers, it's all packaging, and it's not the worst thing to happen, so get over it.

My  :2c:


----------



## dapaterson

It boils down to national image and national self confidence.  We are a mature, independent nation.  We had a perfectly fine system, and no need to adopt the remnants of a failed colonial empire.

However, I do agree that at the end of the day it's merely packaging.


Ultimately, is this the worst thing ever?  No. 

Ham omlette IMP still holds that title.


----------



## StarFury

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ham omlette IMP still holds that title.



For the win!


----------



## q_1966

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It boils down to national image and national self confidence.  We are a mature, independent nation.  We had a perfectly fine system, and no need to adopt the remnants of a failed colonial empire.



We are not a failed Colonial Empire, a republic like the US.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I have no position.


If you had no position, you would not be making a persistent effort to defend the change.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> ... blocking army.ca from DND computers ought to have us back to work ...


I do not know if you are using government time and resources for posting your arguments, but I assure you that I am on my own time and my own electronic resources.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Change your fucking slip on and get back to work.


It is still several hours before I am expected on duty.  Where should you be?



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> How, pray tell, will me wearing a pip/crown mix have lasting negative impacts on our military?


It introduces a new and lasting barrier to communication between environments.  There are already too many who cannot identify the ranks of other environments, now we will have to suffer many who cannot recognize those ranks either.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ultimately, is this the worst thing ever?  No.
> 
> Ham omlette IMP still holds that title.


You just made me shudder.  I'll probably not sleep well tonight now either.


----------



## Scott

The measuring contest can get idled back a bit, please. 

Staff


----------



## GR66

Maybe it's just me but all this dicking around with symbolic changes smacks of a leadership (both political and military) that has no clear sense mission.  It seems painfully obvious to me that the Canadian military (and more broadly our foreign policy in general) has much more important problems to face, but instead serious thought, time and effort is spent on clothing and naming issues.  

That sense of malaise I worry has more potential to do long term damage to the effectiveness of the CF than any budget cuts.  An imaginative, motivated, driven organization can find ways to succeed in the face of adversity, but a directionless, indecisive bureaucracy that is afraid to make difficult decisions won't succeed no matter how much money you throw at it.


----------



## a_majoor

GR66 said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me but all this dicking around with symbolic changes smacks of a leadership (both political and military) that has no clear sense mission.  It seems painfully obvious to me that the Canadian military (and more broadly our foreign policy in general) has much more important problems to face, but instead serious thought, time and effort is spent on clothing and naming issues.
> 
> That sense of malaise I worry has more potential to do long term damage to the effectiveness of the CF than any budget cuts.  An imaginative, motivated, driven organization can find ways to succeed in the face of adversity, but a directionless, indecisive bureaucracy that is afraid to make difficult decisions won't succeed no matter how much money you throw at it.




 :goodpost:


For the win!


----------



## Edward Campbell

GR66 said:
			
		

> Maybe it's just me but all this dicking around with symbolic changes smacks of a leadership (both political and military) that has no clear sense mission.  It seems painfully obvious to me that the Canadian military (and more broadly our foreign policy in general) has much more important problems to face, but instead serious thought, time and effort is spent on clothing and naming issues.
> 
> That sense of malaise I worry has more potential to do long term damage to the effectiveness of the CF than any budget cuts.  An imaginative, motivated, driven organization can find ways to succeed in the face of adversity, but a directionless, indecisive bureaucracy that is afraid to make difficult decisions won't succeed no matter how much money you throw at it.




This sort of thing is:

     1. Very, very popular with a large chunk of the Conservative _base_;

     2. Something about which the Minister can talk when he has no other good news to offer - and there is a political _imperative_ for ministers to announce things; and

     3. Cheap.


----------



## Danjanou

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ham omlette IMP still holds that title.



hey I used to like the ham omlette.  8)


----------



## dapaterson

Danjanou said:
			
		

> hey I used to like the ham omlette.  8)



You ate them out of the aluminum mess tins, didn't you?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'd rather see the money go to buying new C9's and C6's myself


----------



## Loachman

Whoever is pushing for and approving this stupidity should be made to eat ham omelette IMPs, cold, out of unwashed aluminum mess tins for a week.

While wearing crappy issued boots.


----------



## PuckChaser

Loachman said:
			
		

> While wearing crappy issued boots.



If they can get boots issued at all.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'd rather see the money go to buying new C9's and C6's myself



Canadian soldiers are peacekeepers we don't need new guns.


*slowly backs away from the thread*


----------



## Old Sweat

If I was a betting man, and I have heard whisperings, I would wager that all this stuff originated outside the department in a pretty well connected group. (Pauses to add another layer of tinfoil) They have played the lobbying game exceptionally well and built support in high places until direction came from on high to get on with it. As noted, all this stuff sells well to the base and dismantles a visible Liberal achievement without really annoying too many people and not costing too much. 

Believe me, this is by no means as divisive and hard on morale and even on the basis of service ethos as was the unification and integration process in the sixties. As one who lived through it, it was chaos piled on uncertainty and slathered with distasteful careerism by far too many senior officers. There really isn't too much more that can or need be done to provide a tri-service veneer on the well functioning single service base.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This sort of thing is:
> 
> 1. Very, very popular with a large chunk of the Conservative _base_;
> 
> 2. Something about which the Minister can talk when he has no other good news to offer - and there is a political _imperative_ for ministers to announce things; and
> 
> 3. Cheap.



No argument about the truth of what you are saying.  However there are a great many more important things that could be done (on all fronts...not just the military) that would also be very, very popular with a large chunk of the Conservative base.

If the current government/leader is unable to bring those types of things forward to the Canadian public then perhaps it's time for the current government/leader to be replaced with someone who can.  I'm not a dedicated (big "C") Conservative but they would likely get my vote if they were to pursue a fresh and dynamic take on their basic policies.  Instead they are more and more looking like a tired caretaker administration (Chretien/Martin anyone?) that is running short on ideas and is replacing them with politics.  

It sure would be a pleasant change to see a leader not try to hang on past their "Best Before Date" and bring his/her party down with them.  History sure isn't on their side, but it would be nice to see the CPC bring forward a new leader to run the next leg of the race before they're already behind.


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Apparently not.  In April of this year, the Comd CA was asked by a candidate on the Combat Team Commander Course if we were changing our rank insignia for officers.  He was told "no, we aren't."  I guess the Gov't forgot to tell him.
> 
> 
> meh.



They government seems to forget to tell lots of people lots of things....past and present governments.


----------



## George Wallace

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Re-establishing historical links is important, ........
> 
> 
> History is in many ways part fantasy that plays into your mind as you read books and imagine what it was like in days of yore, in reality it sucked the same as now just in a different way. However it still raises the morale. When you go to the museum or look at the photo's, read about the Battle Honours, story's, awards for gallantry of your Regiment, Ship, Squadron etc. I'm sure it fills you with immense pride to be apart of that. ........



Totally off topic, but I see the return of the Penny soon if this keeps up.








And where did that Avro Arrow Thread go to?


----------



## George Wallace

Just out of curiosity, where did this come from and what is the difference between a Master Private and a Trooper/Sapper/Gunner/etc.?


----------



## buzgo

GR66 said:
			
		

> No argument about the truth of what you are saying.  However there are a great many more important things that could be done (on all fronts...not just the military) that would also be very, very popular with a large chunk of the Conservative base.
> 
> If the current government/leader is unable to bring those types of things forward to the Canadian public then perhaps it's time for the current government/leader to be replaced with someone who can.  I'm not a dedicated (big "C") Conservative but they would likely get my vote if they were to pursue a fresh and dynamic take on their basic policies.  Instead they are more and more looking like a tired caretaker administration (Chretien/Martin anyone?) that is running short on ideas and is replacing them with politics.
> 
> It sure would be a pleasant change to see a leader not try to hang on past their "Best Before Date" and bring his/her party down with them.  History sure isn't on their side, but it would be nice to see the CPC bring forward a new leader to run the next leg of the race before they're already behind.



It would be nice to have a government that had the sense to come up with a REAL defence strategy, perhaps a new white paper? We're saddled with the Canada First Defence Strategy which as far as can tell, was written as a public affairs exercise.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> My uniform was army, while on ship I wore NCD's with Cadpat epaulettes.
> 
> Re-establishing historical links is important, the argument I made for bringing back the RCN was, let's say your Grandfather served in the Royal Canadian Navy and you desperately wanted to serve in his footsteps, It would mean a lot more to be able to serve in the same Royal Canadian Navy. Same can be said if you replaced Royal Canadian Navy with Royal Canadian Regiment only it was called the Canadian Regiment.
> 
> History is in many ways part fantasy that plays into your mind as you read books and imagine what it was like in days of yore, in reality it sucked the same as now just in a different way. However it still raises the morale. When you go to the museum or look at the photo's, read about the Battle Honours, story's, awards for gallantry of your Regiment, Ship, Squadron etc. I'm sure it fills you with immense pride to be apart of that. Uniform changes to Pips and Crowns and more so Division Patches only help to build on that.



Fortunately you still can serve in the same Navy as your grandfather; both the destroyers and the tankers are over 40 years old and have had several generations serving on them.  Some of the auxiliary boats are even older and remain in active service with no replacements in sight.

History is great, but I would feel more pride serving on a ship that didn't have holes rusted right through it, or original components labeled 'RCN' because they dated from before unification.  Getting the executive curl didn't change anything; the history from the vessels was still there, but rather then having enough fuel to go to sea to do silly things like training, they spent several million making all the shoulder boards and epaulets.  

I'm guessing the folks in relish would prefer to have enough kit to go around, or spare parts for their vehicles rather then then this unnecessary foolishness.  Similarly, I think most of the chair force would prefer adequate gear or more flight time then going back to their old ranks.

If they really want to affect morale, stop slashing benefits, stop screwing people that get hurt out of a medical pension, and cut back the procurement process, which seems perfectly designed to take a decade to buy anything to avoid spending money, so people are left with out of date gear.

  I can't see how this benefits anyone in uniform, none of whom were around when all this came in back in the late 60s with unification.  All we know is the current ranks, which works well and is uniquely Canadian.  They are closing messes on the bases and getting rid of commissionaires because of funding shortages; this whole effort smacks of someone clearly out of touch with today's reality.  How many thousands of epaulets are they going to need on short notice?  Even if we were flush with cash and looking for a make work project this would be a waste of time.

Although if they are going to continue with this, I want a tricorn hat, a cape and a sword, with a skiff of my own and a letter of marque.

I guess the only good thing about this is that the juniour army folks now officially got their rank names, although to be honest I had no idea it wasn't already that way for most of them.


----------



## Inquisitor

Excellent!!!! All that is now required is too form a minimum of one, preferably two Corps Headquarters!!!! Of course these will probably require the creation of an Army headquarters .  Well Done Chaps, Well done indeed. Lets have two cheers for those responsible!!!!


----------



## cupper

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Eliminate the appointment of MCpl, and make Cpl a true Junior NCO rank, merited for promotion to it, then it's good.
> 
> Same with Captain, make it a merited promotion.



No, no, no.

If we are going to go through the exercise of amending the NDA to add Colour Sgt. and various branch / corps terms for Pte., all we have to do is change MCpl from an appointment to an actual full blown rank.

We set the qualification for promotion to include successful completion of what ever the current equivalent of the JLC, minimum time in rank of Cpl, merit and whatever trade level training deemed necessary.

This way it allows Pte. to advance in rank to Cpl based on merit, trade skill training and time in only.


----------



## Scott

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fortunately you still can serve in the same Navy as your grandfather; both the destroyers and the tankers are over 40 years old and have had several generations serving on them.  Some of the auxiliary boats are even older and remain in active service with no replacements in sight.
> 
> History is great, but I would feel more pride serving on a ship that didn't have holes rusted right through it, or original components labeled 'RCN' because they dated from before unification.  Getting the executive curl didn't change anything; the history from the vessels was still there, but rather then having enough fuel to go to sea to do silly things like training, they spent several million making all the shoulder boards and epaulets.
> 
> I'm guessing the folks in relish would prefer to have enough kit to go around, or spare parts for their vehicles rather then then this unnecessary foolishness.  Similarly, I think most of the chair force would prefer adequate gear or more flight time then going back to their old ranks.
> 
> If they really want to affect morale, stop slashing benefits, stop screwing people that get hurt out of a medical pension, and cut back the procurement process, which seems perfectly designed to take a decade to buy anything to avoid spending money, so people are left with out of date gear.
> 
> I can't see how this benefits anyone in uniform, none of whom were around when all this came in back in the late 60s with unification.  All we know is the current ranks, which works well and is uniquely Canadian.  They are closing messes on the bases and getting rid of commissionaires because of funding shortages; this whole effort smacks of someone clearly out of touch with today's reality.  How many thousands of epaulets are they going to need on short notice?  Even if we were flush with cash and looking for a make work project this would be a waste of time.
> 
> Although if they are going to continue with this, I want a tricorn hat, a cape and a sword, with a skiff of my own and a letter of marque.
> 
> I guess the only good thing about this is that the juniour army folks now officially got their rank names, although to be honest I had no idea it wasn't already that way for most of them.



Careful, some of your brethren will have you swinging from a yardarm if you keep spouting that heresy

+ a fucking million, by the way


----------



## OldSolduer

With regard to pips and crowns:

What are the chances the issue ones will not be acceptable to certain high ranking members, who will then demand the officers purchase "approved" pips and crowns....

My  :2c:  plus tax.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Re-establishing historical links is important, the argument I made for bringing back the RCN was, let's say your Grandfather served in the Royal Canadian Navy and you desperately wanted to serve in his footsteps, It would mean a lot more to be able to serve in the same Royal Canadian Navy. Same can be said if you replaced Royal Canadian Navy with Royal Canadian Regiment only it was called the Canadian Regiment.



What if I wanted to serve in the same Navy as my Father??   I guess he's not as important as my Grandfather??.......by what, and who's, standards??
Your's is the stupidest train of thought I've read today......[and it's almost over]


----------



## Michael OLeary

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Re-establishing historical links is important, the argument I made for bringing back the RCN was, let's say your Grandfather served in the Royal Canadian Navy and you desperately wanted to serve in his footsteps, It would mean a lot more to be able to serve in the same Royal Canadian Navy. Same can be said if you replaced Royal Canadian Navy with Royal Canadian Regiment only it was called the Canadian Regiment.



The RCR was titled the "Canadian Regiment of Infantry" from 14 May 1892 until 24 May 1893. How far back are we turning this frigging "traditions" clock again?


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The RCR was titled the "Canadian Regiment of Infantry" from 14 May 1892 until 24 May 1893. How far back are we turning this frigging "traditions" clock again?



That is OK.....The RCD were the Cavalry School Corps......but I don't think that would wash these days with an Armour School and all.


----------



## Michael OLeary

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is OK.....The RCD were the Cavalry School Corps......but I don't think that would wash these days with an Armour School and all.



Well, for clarity, we would have to get rid of a few things, like the other Permanent Force regiments.   >


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This sort of thing is:
> 
> 1. Very, very popular with a large chunk of the Conservative _base_;
> 
> 2. Something about which the Minister can talk when he has no other good news to offer - and there is a political _imperative_ for ministers to announce things; and
> 
> 3. Cheap.


You called it first, E.R - this from Sun Media ....


> .... While (Minister Peter) MacKay called the move something of an homage to Canadian military history, military historian Desmond Morton sees it otherwise.
> 
> "This is an homage to elderly vets who vote Conservative," Morton told QMI Agency. "This is highly political."
> 
> Morton recounted a story about an Air Force pilot "who told me about how he has to buy a new uniform every time they change these things, which is stupid and costly."
> 
> The government has said the cost of the Army name changes will total $245,000, though no numbers have been put on the Air Force upgrade.
> 
> "I guess MacKay can say this is cheap, and I mean, for him, it will be," Morton said. "But let's not confuse military desires with Conservative political ideology here. It looks like the Conservatives are getting ready for the 1915 election."



Also, a response from the Conference of Defence Associations:


> The Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) commends the Federal Government for its intent to restore the Canadian Army rank insignia, names and badges to their traditional forms.
> 
> We are very pleased that the changes include the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and patches for the current Land Force Areas; traditional rank insignia for officers; and corps shoulder titles from the restoration of Royal titles to a number of Canadian Army corps in August 2011. We also applaud the Minister's intention to restore the historical Army rank names for non-commissioned members.
> 
> The CDA welcomes this gesture and celebrates alongside past and present members of the three services. The CDA trusts, however, that this act will be accompanied by continued efforts to improve the capabilities of Canada's Army in the coming years.
> 
> Following the sacrifices made and the casualties Canada's Army has taken in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan and Haiti, in recent years, Canada must continually maintain essential military capabilities when the government places our servicemen and women in harm's way ....


----------



## FJAG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> What if I wanted to serve in the same Navy as my Father??   I guess he's not as important as my Grandfather??.......by what, and who's, standards??
> Your's is the stupidest train of thought I've read today......[and it's almost over]



eace:

Bit harsh there Bruce. "Get Nautical" may not have been too elegant with his wording but far from stupid.

I'm personally one of those who ate my RP4s out of aluminium mess tins and always regretted the  loss of our pips and crowns and all the other things that made us an army. At the time there was much disdain for wearing the same rings on our sleeves as the air force and navy - in our eyes that cheapened the rank (and yes I do know how stuck up and condescending that sounds) 

I was never too fond of titles like "Militia Area X" or "Land Force X Area" either. Since each of those headquarters commands several brigades the term "Division" fits from an army point of view (and yes, I do know that they aren't full combat ready brigades and divisions but as administrative/holding units they don't need to be either). My sincere hope is that they don't uprank the commanders to MGens - BGens are just fine.

When I see all the arguments made by other posters above to keep things at the status quo it actually takes me back to 1969. We all hated to see things change then too and had hundreds of arguments as to why they shouldn't. I think it's just normal to want things to stay the same unless there is a compelling, obvious reason for change. This change may not be liked by everyone but it does have its uses and empowering army esprit de corps (or navy or air force esprit de corps for that matter) is all to the good. The cost involved is just a small drop in a very large bucket (The 1969 bucket was a lot smaller and the integration/unification change drops were much bigger than today's).

While I'm a great fan of what made us different as soldiers back then let me just make one thing crystal clear: I don't for one minute think that the old army (especially the Cold War army) is what we should go back to. Today's soldiers and officers are vastly better than those of us from the post unification period: today's folks are better educated; better trained; better equipped. 

A lot of my desire for change is to get back to a pre-unification state of mind. Unification was a horror: it was blatantly a smokescreen and minor cost savings exercise which the then Liberals hid behind while downsized field units at the same time that they built a bigger central bureaucracy. The post-unification period was one of ever declining capability and morale for all three services. This overarching headquarters bureaucracy (NDHQ and CF) has unfortunately continued to grow out of control and needs massive reduction and simplification. My only complaint about the recent changes re rank and designations is that it does nothing to correct that critical issue. I do have hope but then I've always been a glass half full kind of guy.

Have a wonderful day  :cheers:


----------



## erik.hillis

Divisions? How's that going to work? With the size of the reg force, you'd think the entire reg force would be one division?

I'm big on Canadian military history, so I like the idea but I don't see how this would work in a non-world war scenario.

Does 1 CMBG become the 1st division, 2 CMBG 2nd Division? Any guesses on that? Because in WW2 atleast the 1st division had RCR, PPCLI and R22e within (with a bunch of other now reserve units).

And what do you call them? Infantry Division / Armoured Division ... Mechanized Division?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

If I was I apologize.

I don't care about the 'status quo' as far as it's "my way"............I only care about wasting money and time on "look at me" window dressing.
If I though for a second this made anything/anyone  a better fighting force then I'd say "window dress" away..........


----------



## McG

Who is CDA celebrating with?  The poll in this thread has a statistically significant number of replies.  62% do not want to change from the current ranks.


----------



## dimsum

Cavalryman said this, but I'll add the link to the MND suggesting the RCAF may (will?) also revert to pre-1968 ranks.

http://o.canada.com/2013/07/09/rcaf-could-follow-army-with-historic-british-style-ranks-mackay/

I'm not going to comment on whether that's a good idea or not, but I'll ask this:  Prior to 1968, were there French names for RCAF ranks?  Did they follow the French Air Force or literally translate the RAF/RCAF titles?


----------



## Inquisitor

This is somewhat off topic. 

The Us military in evaluating robots is looking at a least one that looks like a headless mule and is designed to carry Packs ammo etc over rugged terrain in support of dismounted units. It is still experimental, prone to glitch and likely exceedingly costly. 

A more sensible alternative may be traditional, cheap, popular with Grunts, Green, proven since Marius of SPQR fame, and even support the the agricultural community in  Ontario.  If properly implemented, a highly unlikely event it could be the 21st century equivalent of the Avro Arrow. 

Now I completely understand  that with all factors in its implementation is highly unlikely. For OPSEC purposes it may be worthwhile to give it a code name, as the Brits did with the tank. For this purpose I suggest that its initial designation should be Mule.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> Who is CDA celebrating with?


The rest of the Conservative Party base that likes this?  :dunno:


----------



## SeR

EchoHotel06 said:
			
		

> Divisions? How's that going to work? With the size of the reg force, you'd think the entire reg force would be one division?
> 
> I'm big on Canadian military history, so I like the idea but I don't see how this would work in a non-world war scenario.
> 
> Does 1 CMBG become the 1st division, 2 CMBG 2nd Division? Any guesses on that? Because in WW2 atleast the 1st division had RCR, PPCLI and R22e within (with a bunch of other now reserve units).
> 
> And what do you call them? Infantry Division / Armoured Division ... Mechanized Division?



Believe it or not, it's already on Wikipedia!

- First Division: Headquarters

- Second Division: 5 CMBG; 34 CBG; 35 CBG

- Third Division: 1 CMBG; 38 CBG; 39 CBG; 41 CBG

- Fourth Division: 2 CMBG; 31 CBG; 32 CBG; 33 CBG

- Fifth Division: 36 CBG; 37 CBG


----------



## erik.hillis

SeR said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, it's already on Wikipedia!
> 
> - First Division: Headquarters
> 
> - Second Division: 5 CMBG; 34 CBG; 35 CBG
> 
> - Third Division: 1 CMBG; 38 CBG; 39 CBG; 41 CBG
> 
> - Fourth Division: 2 CMBG; 31 CBG; 32 CBG; 33 CBG
> 
> - Fifth Division: 36 CBG; 37 CBG



Interesting if that's how it's going to work. Looking forward to wearing that green patch when it makes it's way down.


----------



## Inquisitor

It seems likely  that  the band  is warming up for the 1914 bicentennial of the Great War.  It will likely dwarf  the  150 anniversary 1812-14 event. 

This can be a good thing 

I would be utterly non-surprised  to see events announcements etc.   help strengthen the CPC "Stong on Defence" brand, and also as pre-game for the 1915 General election.


----------



## PuckChaser

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> It seems likely  that  the band  is warming up for the 1914 bicentennial of the Great War.  It will likely dwarf  the  150 anniversary 1812-14 event.



Been 200 years since the Great War already? My how time flies.


----------



## ModlrMike

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> It seems likely  that  the band  is warming up for the 1914 bicentennial of the Great War.  It will likely dwarf  the  150 anniversary 1812-14 event.
> 
> This can be a good thing
> 
> I would be utterly non-surprised  to see events announcements etc.   help strengthen the CPC "Stong on Defence" brand, and also as pre-game for the 1915 General election.



Sorry to nitpick, but I presume you mean centennial...


----------



## infant

Why do you think it is a joke?  If there were no less than 21 dedicated souls who thought strongly enough about pips and crowns to sign the petition, there has got to be a good 30-35 total members out there that agreed but weren't quite strong-willed enough to make a stand...

Never underes­timate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. 

- Margaret Mead



			
				Nerf herder said:
			
		

> That has to be a joke.
> 
> It's funny that no one in the rank and file was consulted in a vast survey, only a select few from what I hear, and now this regression to the old rank system by people outside of the CF.
> 
> I even read a few civy friends of mine on FB are glad that its changing back. When challenged on it as to why its a good idea, after the present system being in place for over 40 years....they couldn't give a decent reason why.
> 
> I literally groaned as I read that some CIC friends were happy about putting up pips.
> 
> Regards


----------



## q_1966

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Cavalryman said this, but I'll add the link to the MND suggesting the RCAF may (will?) also revert to pre-1968 ranks.
> 
> http://o.canada.com/2013/07/09/rcaf-could-follow-army-with-historic-british-style-ranks-mackay/
> 
> I'm not going to comment on whether that's a good idea or not, but I'll ask this:  Prior to 1968, were there French names for RCAF ranks?  Did they follow the French Air Force or literally translate the RAF/RCAF titles?



Apparently the RCAF are reverting back to pre-1968 ranks.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130709-153319.html

- *MOD EDIT TO REMOVE LINK IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILNET.CA RULES* -


----------



## Hussar1987

Well, here goes...  And I apologize for the offence.

I think its great.  We have been using naval rank for 40 years and it was one of the poor points of unification.  Unification made sense for supply, admin, etc; but uniforms and ranks? Please.  The old system is still internationally recognized in many of the countries where we work.  Our current system? Indecipherable to most.  This does not make us any more British or a colony than New Zealand, Australia, or the dozens of other countries that evolved from the British military tradition.  Anybody think that Australians spend their days lamenting the fact that they have not broken further from their Brit heritage?  Hardly.  They are proud enough to not lose sleep over these sort of things.  When are we going to grow up and remember that we have every reason - and more - to be proud of who we are AND where we came from?  

The cost of this is nothing. 250k is probably what it costs to put Rick Mercer in the back of an F-18 for another inept attempt to kiss the CBC's butt.  Where has that money got us?

Enough with the "times are so bad" crap.  We just came off a sugar high where we got C-17s, Chinooks, Leo 2s, M-777s, Pensions for Reservists, and a whole host of other expensive pieces of equipment.  We'd be getting a new fighter too except the government balked, got scared, and re-started a procurement process (to cost extra millions) because of a very vocal and interested minority.  We all know we spend money stupid stuff.  Sometimes a lot of money on stupid stuff.  This aint one of those.  This is a little money on something that many of us think is important.  

And our treatment of our injured, sick, and veterans is probably the best in the world.  It can be improved but it aint bad and when things go wrong we generally fix them.  

Yes the hundred little cuts are a pain in the butt and do not likely amount to much but things could be worse.  

The Brits just cut their Army by 20%, the Americans are going through sequester, the French are going to cut at least a full Brigade, the Dutch are selling 100% of their tanks, the Kiwis got rid of all their fighters, etc, etc, etc.  

It's 250k to have the Army where and Army rank and one that makes historical sense.  1968 was not that long ago.  It was a bad decision, it has been fixed, and apparently the sky is NOT falling.


----------



## Inquisitor

"Apparently the RCAF are reverting back to pre-1968 ranks."

This is truly an act that will provide a tremendous boost to the morale and well being of RCAF Personal. 

Reminds me with a tear in me eye of the traditional solemn anthemn

Out of sympathy for the  for the tone deaf I will not publish the link to my youtube anthem, your welcome. 

Ahem

"Squadron Leaders, Wing Commanders, Group Captains too. 

Hands in their pockets with **** ***   I mean nothing to do

Drinking  the beer of a squadron of men   (see note a
May the Lord (see note b)   **** on them sideways  pray the  Airmen (see note a - again)

Amen (see note c)


The first thing we pray for is we pray for some beer 

Gallons and Gallons and Gallons of beer 

And if we have one Gallon, then let us have 10

Lets have a ****** brewery pray the airmen  (note  again)
Amen (note c again)

The second thing we pray for is we pray for some  ,,, 

Darn, the tune just doesn't seem to carry the same way.  


Note a: Airmen, personnel

Note b: Lord:. devine being of your faith group

Note c: Amen, religious affirmation of your choice


----------



## dimsum

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> Apparently the RCAF are reverting back to pre-1968 ranks.
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/07/20130709-153319.html
> 
> - *MOD EDIT TO REMOVE LINK IN ACCORDANCE WITH MILNET.CA RULES* -



Not to put a damper on anyone wishing this, but I don't equate the MND's quote of "we'll look at it" with "it's going to happen".


----------



## little jim

It's funny, well not really, but the amount of staff effort that has been spent on this problem, nay issue.  You have to wonder where it was pushed from especially given the comments from PPCLI Guy and his discussion with Comd CA.  Then consider how many pages this thread is and some of the rank involved.

Somewhere some senior officer is patting his back and his senior enlisted advisor is telling him the troops will love it.

Of note is since this story broke I have received numerous notes from coalition officers.  The best from an Australian Colonel:

"Splendid.  Welcome back to the Commonwealth from your sojourn with communism."


----------



## Infanteer

Interesting, I've been on holidays and was unaware that Armageddon unfolded 2 days ago...mostly because I ignore this thread.  Some thoughts:

1.  I'm not too chuffed at pips and crowns - it's cosmetic and we'll quickly figure it out.  What I would appreciate is keeping the rank on the cuff of the DEU and using the cuff designation similar to that posted by Michael O'Leary.  Easier to see than shoulder titles/epaulets and, with the stripe system, still keeps us "joint" in terms of a common rank designation while still showing off pips and crowns.

2.  On the topic of uniforms, before we change any rank, I'd really like to get a new DEU that doesn't look like left over props from _Saturday Night Fever_.  Something modern, comfortable and a better colour (khaki, OD?) so I actually want to wear it out as Service Dress.  If we had a real, proper service dress (to include simplifying it and getting rid of a lot of crap that we stick on it - that's for full/ceremonial dress) then we wouldn't have to walk out in our Combat Uniforms, which shouldn't generally be worn out of the training/garrison environment (it's like wearing dirty mechanics coveralls to a business meeting).

3.  I hope that if Army NCM rank structure is looked at that they do a re-evaluation of what is actually required (Edward has pointed this out on numerous occasions and I agree with it).  There are some tweaks required to represent the differences between leadership responsibility and training/experience levels (ie - a journeyman is not necessarily a leader).

4.  I hope the RCAF stays away from the RAF officer rank system because that would be confusing as hell.  Our Squadrons and Wings are commanded by a rank level higher then that of Squadron Leader and Wing Commander (squadrons would be commanded by Wing Commanders and wings by Group Captains).  Plus, we don't have Groups (although changing 1 CAD and 2 CAD to 1 and 2 Group, RCAF, is probably just around the corner....).


----------



## dimsum

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 4.  I hope the RCAF stays away from the RAF officer rank system because that would be confusing as hell.  Our Squadrons and Wings are commanded by a rank level higher then that of Squadron Leader and Wing Commander (squadrons would be commanded by Wing Commanders and wings by Group Captains).  Plus, we don't have Groups (although changing 1 CAD and 2 CAD to 1 and 2 Group, RCAF, is probably just around the corner....).



I agree with that.  Call me crazy, but I'm an AF aircrew type that thinks the US-based ranks work.  I wouldn't mind swapping the DEU to the same cut and colours as the RAF, but keep the rank names.  Plus, they're less of a mouthful; try saying "Squadron Leader" five times fast.

I'm surprised that the non-aircrew types in the RAF, RAAF, RNZAF and other AFs that go by that system didn't revolt at being "Pilot Officer", "Flying Officer", etc.  If I was an Engineer or Logistics Officer, how does being called "Pilot Officer" or "Flying Officer" make any sense?


----------



## Franko

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ....  If we had a real, proper service dress (to include simplifying it and getting rid of a lot of crap that we stick on it - that's for full/ceremonial dress) then we wouldn't have to walk out in our Combat Uniforms, which shouldn't generally be worn out of the training/garrison environment (it's like wearing dirty mechanics coveralls to a business.



We had that. It was called work dress, which turned into garrison dress. It didn't work then, why would it work now?


----------



## jpjohnsn

Hussar1987 said:
			
		

> Well, here goes...  And I apologize for the offence.
> 
> And our treatment of our injured, sick, and veterans is probably the best in the world.  It can be improved but it aint bad and when things go wrong we generally fix them.


Sorry for the digression from the thread but I have  to address this...

While it's better than some - maybe even better than most, it certainly isn't the best in the world.  As for "fixing" things that go wrong - from my personal perspective, too much time is spent in delaying tactics and then fixing things *after* they've gone wrong then using a little common sense and compassion to prevent things from going wrong in the first place.

My Grandad suffered hearing loss that was related to his service.  After years of treatments and hearing aids he found out that he could put in a claim to the VAC.   With my dad's help (he is ex-army too), he put in a claim that was rejected but he was encouraged to reapply.  This happened a couple of times over the course of a few years until they finally approved it and said the cheque was in the mail.  

Now, I know Canada Post isn't the most efficient mode of sending things from place to place but it then took 6 months for that cheque to arrive.  During that time they kept saying 'don't worry it's on the way'.  

So it arrived after 6 months but my grandad never got to see it because he died just before it came.  My mother, his beneficiary, called the VAC and told them what happened and they said she could deposit the cheque as part of his estate.  Smashcut to a short time later when the VAC decided they wanted the money back.  While my parents are trying to talk to someone about it they seized the funds from the account!

My dad had sought the help of Pat Stogran but the VAC refused to talk about it until after it hit the press (and wasn't the minister all handshakes and smiles after that  ).  Yes, the money eventually made it into the estate but my Grandad never got to benefit from his claim and my parents had a lot of unnecessary stress put on them when the stress of my Grandad's death and settling his estate was already on them.

So, yeah, they "fixed" the problem but it shouldn't have needed fixing.  :rage:


----------



## McG

Hussar1987 said:
			
		

> We have been using naval rank for 40 years and it was one of the poor points of unification.


The unified rank system was not Navy – this is a ridiculous notion.  It was uniquely Canadian and it incorporated elements from the former services.  If you are referring simply to the officers’ bars and not the rank system as a whole, it is still an inaccurate statement as the RCN will remind you that RCN ranks have an executive curl that the unified CAF ranks never did.


			
				Hussar1987 said:
			
		

> The old system is still internationally recognized in many of the countries where we work.  Our current system? Indecipherable to most.


The notion that our current system is indecipherable to our allies is balderdash.   From working in a joint coalition environment, I have seen that our allies have no more problems understanding who we are than they have recognizing anyone else.  There are so many variations on the means to present ranks through pips, this change will put us no farther ahead amoungst NATO Armies.  As I posted earlier, a German Army major was even praising our ranks system to me the day prior to this announcement because our system was simple and intuitive.  


			
				Hussar1987 said:
			
		

> When are we going to grow up and remember that we have every reason - and more - to be proud of who we are AND where we came from?


Absolutely.  Let’s show pride in who we are, and let’s not forget where we came from.  But, erasing those signs of how we have grown to replace them with iconography of the UK is hiding who we are.  There are plenty of institutions, images, icons, etc – they fairly represent where we came from.  We do not need to erase the signs we have evolved as an independent nation.


			
				Inquisitor said:
			
		

> "Apparently the RCAF are reverting back to pre-1968 ranks."
> This is truly an act that will provide a tremendous boost to the morale and well being of RCAF Personal.


You must be joking.  Look at the poll above.  A strong majority don’t want this.  Imposing an alien rank system on a group who just want to be left with the old rank system is not a recipe for moral boosting.


			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> 3.  I hope that if Army NCM rank structure is looked at that they do a re-evaluation of what is actually required (Edward has pointed this out on numerous occasions and I agree with it).  There are some tweaks required to represent the differences between leadership responsibility and training/experience levels (ie - a journeyman is not necessarily a leader).


Fully agree this is what should be going on, but I don’t share any optimism that this will occur.  The change is about aesthetics with no concern for operational value to the CAF.
There are so many other things that should have had priority for cabinet decision making time.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

cupper said:
			
		

> No, no, no.
> 
> If we are going to go through the exercise of amending the NDA to add Colour Sgt. and various branch / corps terms for Pte., all we have to do is change MCpl from an appointment to an actual full blown rank.
> 
> We set the qualification for promotion to include successful completion of what ever the current equivalent of the JLC, minimum time in rank of Cpl, merit and whatever trade level training deemed necessary.This way it allows Pte. to advance in rank to Cpl based on merit, trade skill training and time in only.



But that is actually 'the case' now, IAW _CFAO 49-4, Annex A, Table 1, Serial 4_.   2 yrs Seniority as Cpl, QL5A and JLC in addition to the general prereq's that apply to all serials.


----------



## PanaEng

MCG said:
			
		

> The unified rank system was not Navy – this is a ridiculous notion.  It was uniquely Canadian and it incorporated elements from the former services.  If you are referring simply to the officers’ bars and not the rank system as a whole, it is still an inaccurate statement as the RCN will remind you that RCN ranks have an executive curl that the unified CAF ranks never did.The notion that our current system is indecipherable to our allies is balderdash.   From working in a joint coalition environment, I have seen that our allies have no more problems understanding who we are than they have recognizing anyone else.  There are so many variations on the means to present ranks through pips, this change will put us no farther ahead amoungst NATO Armies.  As I posted earlier, a German Army major was even praising our ranks system to me the day prior to this announcement because our system was simple and intuitive.  Absolutely.  Let’s show pride in who we are, and let’s not forget where we came from.  But, erasing those signs of how we have grown to replace them with iconography of the UK is hiding who we are.  There are plenty of institutions, images, icons, etc – they fairly represent where we came from.  We do not need to erase the signs we have evolved as an independent nation.You must be joking.  Look at the poll above.  A strong majority don’t want this.  Imposing an alien rank system on a group who just want to be left with the old rank system is not a recipe for moral boosting.Fully agree this is what should be going on, but I don’t share any optimism that this will occur.  The change is about aesthetics with no concern for operational value to the CAF.
> There are so many other things that should have had priority for cabinet decision making time.



Good Post! precisely what I think about this.

My morale and that of many of my guys is actually taking a hit from all this nonsense - there are far more important stuff to take care off first than this drivel!
However, when the time comes, I will wear what I am told and carry on.


----------



## Kat Stevens

PanaEng said:
			
		

> Good Post! precisely what I think about this.
> 
> My morale and that of many of my guys is actually taking a hit from all this nonsense - there are far more important stuff to take care off first than this drivel!
> However, when the time comes, I will wear what I am told and carry on.



And everything else is irrelevant. To quote any number of people one rank or more higher than me any time I bitched about something naff;  "If you don't like it, get the f*ck out, nobody is making you stay".  Wow, that felt goooood.  Just like SHARP, Son of SHARP, and every other lab experiment foisted off on the CAF since unification, like it or hate it, you still gotta eat it.


----------



## Inquisitor

little jim said:
			
		

> Of note is since this story broke I have received numerous notes from coalition officers.  The best from an Australian Colonel:
> 
> "Splendid.  Welcome back to the Commonwealth from your sojourn with communism."



Seems kind of Ironic coming from a Digger. Google 'Breaker Morant" and you'll see that they deservedly had no love for the Imperials. So much so that they refused to put their corps under Imperial command in WWI. Not that it did them much good at Gallipoli. 

Some of  our WWII Officer veterans remarked that one of the main dangers of the  London blackout was Aussies looking to mug "Pommie B*****d" officers

They'd mistake our officers for Brits.

Our officers had sword-canes made up to discourage this.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> And everything else is irrelevant. To quote any number of people one rank or more higher than me any time I bitched about something naff;  "If you don't like it, get the **** out, nobody is making you stay".  Wow, that felt goooood.  Just like SHARP, Son of SHARP, and every other lab experiment foisted off on the CAF since unification, like it or hate it, you still gotta eat it.



I always hate when people say that; you can't on one hand tell people it's a calling then dismiss their complaints out of hand.  Every time I hear that kind of BS, especially from senior leadership, wearing the uniform becomes more of a job just like any other.

To me this seems to be similar to painting your living room while the ceiling is falling in, and a purely political exercise to once again trot out the military with window dressing announcements while on the other hand you continue to reduce actual support.  Sure, we'll carry on and get used to it, but with so much more real important things on the go, is a simple distraction.  

If nothing else having a common rank structure and insignia made interoperations among elements.  This seems to simply run counter to that whole idea and increase the divide between elements.  If you don't know the difference already between an army captain and an airforce captain or a lieutenant navy, some colonial-era markings aren't going to help.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Seems kind of Ironic coming from a Digger. Google 'Breaker Morant" and you'll see that they deservedly had no love for the Imperials. So much so that they refused to put their corps under Imperial command in WWI. Not that it did them much good at Gallipoli.
> 
> Some of  our WWII Officer veterans remarked that one of the main dangers of the  London blackout was Aussies looking to mug "Pommie B*****d" officers
> 
> They'd mistake our officers for Brits.
> 
> Our officers had sword-canes made up to discourage this.




 :bullshit:

You might want to read a little history; try the Mediterranean Expeditionary Force for a start.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I always hate when people say that; you can't on one hand tell people it's a calling then dismiss their complaints out of hand.  Every time I hear that kind of BS, especially from senior leadership, wearing the uniform becomes more of a job just like any other.
> 
> To me this seems to be similar to painting your living room while the ceiling is falling in, and a purely political exercise to once again trot out the military with window dressing announcements while on the other hand you continue to reduce actual support.  Sure, we'll carry on and get used to it, but with so much more real important things on the go, is a simple distraction.
> 
> If nothing else having a common rank structure and insignia made interoperations among elements.  This seems to simply run counter to that whole idea and increase the divide between elements.  If you don't know the difference already between an army captain and an airforce captain or a lieutenant navy, some colonial-era markings aren't going to help.




And it makes not one jot of difference how you, I or the CDS feel about it,  a Big Giant Head has made a decision, and all the gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloth in the world by those who row the galley won't change that.  And for the record,  I hate that too, as a lowly CFL I got a steady diet of it, it was just nice to try that shoe on for once.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I always hate when people say that; you can't on one hand tell people it's a calling then dismiss their complaints out of hand.  Every time I hear that kind of BS, especially from senior leadership, wearing the uniform becomes more of a job just like any other.
> 
> To me this seems to be similar to painting your living room while the ceiling is falling in, and a purely political exercise to once again trot out the military with window dressing announcements while on the other hand you continue to reduce actual support.  Sure, we'll carry on and get used to it, but with so much more real important things on the go, is a simple distraction.
> 
> If nothing else having a common rank structure and insignia made interoperations among elements.  This seems to simply run counter to that whole idea and increase the divide between elements.  If you don't know the difference already between an army captain and an airforce captain or a lieutenant navy, some colonial-era markings aren't going to help.




These decisions, like those taken in the 1960s which they are reversing, are essentially wholly political. In the 1960s the government of the day was faced with serious financial problems, and government, all of government including DND, costs too much. DND - the military - was the worst; the costs of our equipment was soaring, the rate of inflation for military hardware far, far exceeded the general rate of inflation and the rate of GDP growth. The military ate up a larger and larger share of the federal budget for steadily diminishing returns. Minister Hellyer, advised by some pretty smart bureaucrats, proposed a solution ~ not *the* solution, just a solution to part of the problem.

Despite the HUGE pay raise ~ and instant promotions ~ _circa_ 1968, morale took a real beating in the late 1960s and 1970s. The _integration/unification_ process was ill-conceived and badly ineptly implemented (I'm not sure how a really bad plan can be well implemented).

Successive Conservative governments (Prime Minister Mulroney with _"Coates of many colours"_ (the "distinctive environmental uniform" project spearheaded by Minister Bob Coates) and now these initiatives by Prime Minister Harper) have tried to reverse many, and perhaps too many, of Minister Hellyer's ideas.

But, at bottom, Kat Stevens is right - none of us was conscripted and we could/you can always get out without too much fuss and bother. So we you take what's on offer or walk away. We were, you still are, always entitled to bitch and complain ~ in fact I was taught many years ago that when the bitching stops you've got a real problem because your leadership has failed.

I'm not overly fond of the idea of reintroducing "pips and crowns" despite the fact that I wore both proudly back in the 1960s and (on my mess jacket) beyond. But I was unimpressed with the CF stripes, so I'm not unhappy to see them gone. 

The CF has bigger fish to fry: first it must, as it has many times in the past, survive budget cuts and public apathy or even hostility.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If nothing else having a common rank structure and insignia made interoperations among elements.  This seems to simply run counter to that whole idea and increase the divide between elements.  If you don't know the difference already between an army captain and an airforce captain or a lieutenant navy, some colonial-era markings aren't going to help.



 :bullshit: x2
Really? Common insignia is the single point of failure in the ability of the CAF to carry out combined operations? If that is true then we are royally and truly FUBARD.

By the way it is really easy to tell the difference between Army, RCAF, and RCN;

Army - CADPAT - you can make out the rank from a distance
RCAF - CADPAT - you cannot see the rank at all
RCN - NCD -  you can make out the rank from a distance


----------



## jollyjacktar

FSTO said:
			
		

> By the way it is really easy to tell the difference between Army, RCAF, and RCN;
> 
> Army - CADPAT - you can make out the rank from a distance - not with my old man eyes many's the time.
> RCAF - CADPAT - you cannot see the rank at all - agreed
> RCN - NCD -  you can make out the rank from a distance - agreed


I suppose on the whole, it's better to be harder to spot for some of us.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> By the way it is really easy to tell the difference between Army, RCAF, and RCN;
> 
> Army - CADPAT - you can make out the rank from a distance
> _*RCAF - CADPAT - you cannot see the rank at all*_
> RCN - NCD -  you can make out the rank from a distance



But it's still easy to sort the RCAF into rank groups, even when in CADPAT:

Working = Pte-MCpl
Watching, hands on hips = Sgt - CWO
Watching, hands in pockets = Officer


----------



## OldSolduer

We'll wear what we're told to, within reason.

We have our marching orders, and march we will.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But it's still easy to sort the RCAF into rank groups, even when in CADPAT:
> 
> Working = Pte-MCpl
> Watching, hands on hips = Sgt - CWO
> Watching, hands in pockets = Officer



That's a gooder!   ;D


----------



## Inquisitor

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :bullshit:



I may as well take my lumps. 

I did not do proper research.  I apologize and will try much harder to do better. I did look up Australian Corps in Wiki and they did serve under Imperial Command. 

This reproduced from the  Breaker Morant  WIKI 

"After the events in this movie, Major Thomas returned to Australia and continued his civilian law practice. Witton served three years of his sentence, then was released after a national outcry. In 1907, he wrote a book entitled Scapegoats of the Empire, an account of the Breaker Morant affair (reprinted in 1982). Witton's book proved so inflammatory and anti-British that it was suppressed during both world wars."

Regarding the Officers in  London  I stand by my anecdote.  Events such as those I mentioned in the last post, as well as our events such as the disaster of Force C at Hong  Kong Led Colonial Governments such as Canada and Australia to look at Imperial requests for troops with a much more jaundiced eye and lead the respective forces to take on a more national character over time. This at least in my opinion and that of many others. 

Another factor that I don't think has received much attention. The 60's was a time on increased nationalism around the world. Britain implemented its  East of Suez policy.  Funny, A new article posted  April 29  looks like they may be reversing it. 

Middle East and Africa very active. 

It was our Centennial that decade. The New Flag.  etc. etc.  

With all that its has taken to get us where we are now,  and the most generous allocations of funds in past years that we are ever likely to see. It seems a pretty sad use of money and peoples time to make these changes.


----------



## JorgSlice

FSTO said:
			
		

> :bullshit: x2
> Really? Common insignia is the single point of failure in the ability of the CAF to carry out combined operations? If that is true then we are royally and truly FUBARD.
> 
> By the way it is really easy to tell the difference between Army, RCAF, and RCN;
> 
> Army - CADPAT - you can make out the rank from a distance
> RCAF - CADPAT - you cannot see the rank at all
> RCN - NCD -  you can make out the rank from a distance



Good thing new rank patches for the ECU will have embroidery done in white thread.


----------



## McG

> *Back to the future*
> Military pulling ranks, maple leaf
> Allison Salz
> The Edmonton Sun
> 11 July 2013
> 
> A move by Canada's military to go back into its past by bringing in British-style ranks and designations won't have much of an impact at CFB Edmonton, says one retired Canadian Forces Member.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced Monday that Canada's military will stop using regional designations and instead organize it by numbered divisions. The Edmonton Garrison will no longer head the "Land Force Western Area," and instead will be the headquarters for the "3rd Canadian Division."
> 
> "There wouldn't be much impact in way of personnel, there wouldn't be much impact on numbers," said Lewis MacKenzie, a 71-year-old Gulf War Vet.
> 
> "It'll probably cost more to change the rank badges of all the officers."
> 
> The Land Force Western Area -- now the 3rd Canadian Division -- stretches from Thunder Bay, Ont., to the West Coast.
> 
> The changes will mean that the ranks will return to historical rank names like sapper, gunner, trooper and bombardier.
> 
> The army will also replace the maple leaf designation on officers' shoulders and patches with traditional "pips and Crowns."
> 
> "I guess if I was a decision maker, I probably would have reintroduced the pips and crowns for the lieutenant colonel and colonels, etc, but *I probably would have kept the maple leaf for the general officers," MacKenzie said.  "It's a nice distinction when you're dealing internationally." *


The retired general is right: it is nice to have a unique national distinction when dealing internationally.  Let’s not take that away from ourselves.



> *Return to pips sparks war of words*
> Ottawa marches back to the past with revival of british-style ranks
> Katherine Dedyna
> Times Colonist
> 11 July 2013
> 
> Ottawa's order that the highest ranking Canadian Army officers abandon maple leaf badges for British stars and crowns last used in 1968 has sparked a war of words about whether marching toward the past is a good idea.
> 
> The changes, which would put an end to gold braid bands on officers' tunic cuffs in favour of shoulder crowns and stars - or pips - were signalled by Defence Minister Peter McKay this week.
> 
> Some privates in the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps will retain that name, but those in the armoured corps will be called troopers, those in artillery will be called gunners and those in the engineering corps will be called sappers - as they were during the two world wars and the Korean War.
> 
> Ottawa also intends to rename army divisions as they were a century ago:
> 
> The Land Force Western Area, including B.C., will soon be called 3rd Canadian Division.
> 
> The changes align with a Conservative push to emphasize the Britishness in Canada's history - the "royal" designation was restored to the navy and air force in 2011- and countermand edicts from the Trudeau Liberals that forced unification of the Canadian army, navy and air force 45 years ago.
> 
> Replacing the maple leaf on the uniforms of highest-ranking officers is "just beyond belief," said David Zimmerman, a military historian at the University of Victoria.
> 
> He called the changes "bizarre," especially as Canadians fighting in the First and Second World Wars helped forge a national identity.
> 
> He also questioned the cost involved in the changes, given that the army is facing cutbacks. "I think if you had had gone up to someone in the army and said, 'What are your top 10 issues you want addressed,' I don't think that would have been in their top 10. I don't even know if it would be in the top 50."
> 
> Ted Leaker, president of the Gorge Road branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, expects the changes will restore some of the pride lost when the unified Canadian Armed Forces were created in 1968.
> 
> "A lot of the army traditions were thrown out the window," said Leaker, who started as a private and retired as a lieutenantcolonel. "I can tell you that if you are in a rifle regiment, you would be quite happy to be called a rifleman again instead of a private."
> 
> Alex Morrison, former head of the Royal Roads School of Humanitarian Studies (formerly the School of Peace and Conflict), agreed, calling the changes "absolutely wonderful" and predicting that a majority of those in the military would welcome the return of historical insignia, badges and titles.
> 
> "The army is tired of wearing essentially navalrank insignia," said Morrison, a retired lieutenantcolonel, adding that for a long time, serving members could not even use the word army. "It's good for morale."
> 
> But one non-commissioned member on duty at Ashton Amouries in Saanich asked: "What's a pip?"
> A serving officer noted: "In 1968, when the members used to their system felt they were losing their identity, is the same thing not true of the reversion for the new generation?"
> 
> Herb Pitts, a retired major-general, points out there are two generations of military personnel who have known only the current system.   "I don't know who is advising who in this regard and what gave rise to this change, but from my point of view, it's cosmetic, and that's about the best I can say," Pitts said. Unification was "traumatic for most of us but ... we lived through it and we've had a good army since."


In 1968 the government reached into the Army and, against the desire of most members and the expressed wishes of Army leadership, a in-place symbols of identity/rank were thrown out the window and new ones imposed.  Today the government is reaching into the Army and, against the desire of most members (as suggested by the above poll) and the expressed wishes of Army Command (as confirmed by a few sources in this thread), the in-place symbols of identity/rank are being thrown out the window and new ones imposed.  If it was wrong then, it is wrong today.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> In 1968 the government reached into the Army and, against the desire of most members and the expressed wishes of Army leadership, a in-place symbols of identity/rank were thrown out the window and new ones imposed.  Today the government is reaching into the Army and, against the desire of most members (as suggested by the above poll) and the expressed wishes of Army Command (as confirmed by a few sources in this thread), the in-place symbols of identity/rank are being thrown out the window and new ones imposed.  *If it was wrong then, it is wrong today.*


 :nod:

Meanwhile, an editorial point ....


> For all of his alleged political smarts, Stephen Harper is surprisingly out of touch with most Canadians when it comes to his fascination with Canada’s former days as a British colony.  In recent years, Harper has unilaterally imposed measures that reinforce an image of our prime minister as a man who loves our outdated colonial roots, loves the monarchy and loves all things British.  It’s an image that stands in stark contrast to how most Canadians want to see our country in the 21st century — independent, proud and one that has cast off its last ties to a foreign power ....


.... and counterpoint:


> .... Critics will, no doubt, carp at the Conservatives for surrendering to some lingering colonial mentality, but that view betrays a jejune awareness of the traditions that bind soldiers together. To consciously retain your traditions and the symbols that go with them is not a symptom of some colonial inferiority complex, but rather a hallmark of a nation confident in its identity, a people who aren’t insecure about their real past (as distinct from a politically corrected past imposed on them). Indeed, those nervous about “colonial” symbols arguably reveal the insecurities of their own national identity ....


----------



## Journeyman

> Ted Leaker, president of the Gorge Road branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, expects the changes will restore some of the pride lost


Well, as long as the f*cking Legion is happy.....   :


----------



## JorgSlice

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, as long as the f*cking Legion is happy.....   :



...and if they want to play hard ball;

Reverting back to the times of old has removed the pride younger soldiers like myself had (Not true of course). let's be honest here, how many CF members from days of Pips are still serving? Not many I imagine


----------



## slayer/raptor

For those who did serve back then what is it going to look like on our uniforms? (I realize DEUs didn't exist back then) But on our dress uniform will the pips and crowns be embroidered or will they be metal pins? Does the colour depend on your trade?

I looked a bit on how the brits do it and it seems they are embroidered with the backing of a different colour depending on trade.

Thoughts?


----------



## Edward Campbell

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> ...and if they want to play hard ball;
> 
> Reverting back to the times of old has removed the pride younger soldiers like myself had (Not true of course). let's be honest here, how many CF members from days of Pips are still serving? Not many I imagine




Only as honouraries ~ but they can have a BIG _political_ voice.

Pips and crowns were replaced with the current rank badges for all officers commissioned after about 1969 or 70 - that's 43 or 44 years ago. Given the retirement age was raised to 60 in 2005 that means that any officers who were commissioned at, say, the ago of 20 in 1968 - as "one pip wonders" (2Lts) - would have been at CRA (age 55) in 2003. Officers commissioned in 1970, who _might_ have been extended to age 60 in 2005 were commissioned in the "new" system.

People who wore pips and crowns include: me, and Old Sweat here on Army.ca, and Lew MacKenzie, Alex Morrison and Herb Pitts, all of whom are quoted in the articles MCG posted.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, as long as the f*cking Legion is happy.....   :



Maybe in 15 or 20 years the Legion Megacorps will enjoy seeing pips and crowns replaced with poppy's(tm).


----------



## Edward Campbell

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> For those who did serve back then what is it going to look like on our uniforms? (I realize DEUs didn't exist back then) But on our dress uniform will the pips and crowns be embroidered or will they be metal pins? Does the colour depend on your trade?
> 
> I looked a bit on how the brits do it and it seems they are embroidered with the backing of a different colour depending on trade.
> 
> Thoughts?




Given my previous post, only those of us who are filling "honourary" appointments are likely to have any idea of the "plan," (and that doesn't include me) but one *hopes* that the rank badges on your service dress, your green serge tunic, will be metal - maybe black for rifle regiments and gold for all others. The pips and crowns on your slip-ons for shirt sleeve and sweater order _might_ be different colours, I can _imagine_ that some some regiments and corps/branches will advocate that.

You are right that we did wear cloth badges on our battle dress/garrison dress and on slip-ons in e.g. with shirt sleeve order. I cannot remember which regiments/corps wore which colours but there were, at least, scarlet, blue and gold "backings" and, of course, rifle regiments wore black badges with red backings - NCOs and officers.


----------



## Old Sweat

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> For those who did serve back then what is it going to look like on our uniforms? (I realize DEUs didn't exist back then) But on our dress uniform will the pips and crowns be embroidered or will they be metal pins? Does the colour depend on your trade?
> 
> I looked a bit on how the brits do it and it seems they are embroidered with the backing of a different colour depending on trade.
> 
> Thoughts?



I was serving way back then, and really have no idea what the new models pips and crowns will look like and/or whether they will be cloth and sewn on or metal and pinned. If I was to guess, I would go for the former.

Back then some regiments/branches wore metal badges and some had cloth ones sewn on epaulets. In fact, depending upon the order of dress the badges could be either cloth or metal. For example, an officer could have cloth pips and crowns on his battledress and metal ones on his service dress - the brown one of the approximate cut of the DEU - and word with a Sam Browne belt.

Being a gunner, I had two sets for my battledress and slips on for summer bush - cloth when I was in a RCA unit and metal when I was in a RCHA regiment.

You are correct regarding different colours of cloth pips and crowns for different corps. One could hope simplicity will prevail, but I fear simplicity is a feature of too much of the thought process and not of the typical CF result.


----------



## Old Naval Guard

Hello, So when do Cdn army officers start changeing over to the pips and crowns?. Will this be at unit expense or members? . While I think from 2nd Lt to Col this is a good idea. I think General officers should keep their Maple Leafs .Cheers ONG


----------



## Infanteer

> He also questioned the cost involved in the changes, given that the army is facing cutbacks. "I think if you had had gone up to someone in the army and said, 'What are your top 10 issues you want addressed,' I don't think that would have been in their top 10. I don't even know if it would be in the top 50."



In no particular order:

1.  Lack of updated B Veh fleet (trucks of all sizes);

2.  Continued failure of delivery of Sea King replacement;

3.  Lack of standardized Army A vehicle platform;

4.  Poor human resource management system that sees front line units and ships chronically understrength;

5.  Extremely sluggish and unresponsive honours and awards system to recognize our best;

6.  Insufficient joint force projection capability;

7.  Lack of universal joint container system to simplify expeditionary logistics;

8.  Archaic Army Reserve organizational model; 

9.  Insufficient amounts of excellent, critical equipment (eg.  AN/PVS-14 MNVG); and

10.  Lack of AH.

Nope, rank insignia not there....


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm shocked, shocked to find that ...
.
.
.
.
.
... there's been no discussion of lanyards and whistle cords.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Hello, So when do Cdn army officers start changeing over to the pips and crowns?. Will this be at unit expense or members? . While I think from 2nd Lt to Col this is a good idea. I think General officers should keep their Maple Leafs .Cheers ONG



I agree, and so does Lew MacKenzie.


----------



## jpjohnsn

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm shocked, shocked to find that ...
> ... there's been no discussion of lanyards and whistle cords.


For the RCAF side, I have three words...

Instant dictator kit.


----------



## Remius

Infanteer said:
			
		

> 8.  Archaic Army Reserve organizational model;



Well at least we now have the rank identifiers to go with this one.  Rather than modernise the reserves we just have to bring everything backwards and we are good, in fact this is the likely solution to everything.

Ammo problems?  No problem.  Issue Lee enfields and muskets, much less ammo required.  Problem solved.


----------



## mariomike

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... there's been no discussion of lanyards and whistle cords.



The importance ( to some ) of which side they were worn rated a three page ( locked ) discussion, "Lanyards- which side is battle honour/dishonour?".

We wore the thin blue, white and gold RCASC ( militia ) lanyards on the left. Similar to the one on the left side of the pic posted. ( We still wore the old Battle Dress, with lanyard, in the early 1970's. )


----------



## Kirkhill

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well at least we now have the rank identifiers to go with this one.  Rather than modernise the reserves we just have to bring everything backwards and we are good, in fact this is the likely solution to everything.
> 
> Ammo problems?  No problem.  Issue Lee enfields and muskets, much less ammo required.  Problem solved.



Spontoons lad, Spontoons.  A proper man's weapon.







Frankly I think you have all been out in the sun too long and have gone doolally.  And I say this as a friend of both the forces and the monarchy and as a Brit.

You're Canadians. Not Brits.   At very least the pips could remain as maple leaves.


----------



## Privateer

Is there a source confirming that the general offices will loose the maple leaves?  That would be a bad idea, in my opinion, regardless of what one thinks of pips and crowns in general.


----------



## FSTO

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is there a source confirming that the general offices will loose the maple leaves?  That would be a bad idea, in my opinion, regardless of what one thinks of pips and crowns in general.



I don't think RCN Flag Officers will be losing their Maple Leafs. Can't speak for the others though.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Although it will cost some money, I am pleased, just for old time's sake, to see the Canadian Army's (secondary) badge return:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Crantor:



> Issue Lee enfields



Surely Martini-Henrys!  We basically missed out on them first time round:
http://www.cascity.com/forumhall/index.php?topic=25630.0

More:
http://www.martinihenry.com/






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dapaterson

Lee Enfields?  How un-Canadian.  We need Ross Rifles!


----------



## PuckChaser

Still too modern, need to go right back to our British roots with the Snyder-Enfield.


----------



## Michael OLeary

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Lee Enfields?  How un-Canadian.  We need Ross Rifles!



And the poor maligned McAdam shovel too.


----------



## a_majoor

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And the poor maligned McAdam shovel too.




Oliver pattern webbing, and (I think) seven button tunics....


----------



## Inquisitor

Cavalry - If the Troopers are wearing IPE we can even call them Armoured Cavalry.  I Horsepower. 

Give the Horse breeding industry in Ontario a boost. Green Technolgy.  

Mounted Rifles as well.


----------



## OldSolduer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And the poor maligned McAdam shovel too.


And crappy boots, remember we must buy Canadian.


----------



## Mountie

I don't have a strong opinion either way.  I would probably agree with MGen. MacKenzie, pips & crowns for junior and senior officers, but leave the maple leaf for the general officers.  

Regardless, I don't think pips & crowns are going to erase national identity.  I may have a little bias, but there isn't really a bigger Canadian icon than the RCMP.  We wear the red serge and breaches of the British Army cavalry.  We use the British Army ranks of the 1870's, which included crowns & pips for commissioned officers and even the three chevrons and surmounted crown for sergeants.  No maple leafs, only pips and crowns.  Nobody ever accuses us of being British.  We are Canadian through and through. 

http://rankmaven.tripod.com/canircmp.htm


----------



## McG

But the RCMP has always held that rank.  It did not return to it after a half century of service under a unique Canadian rank system.  The Army does have a unique Canadian system that is to be thrown away in favour of a British system.


----------



## Mountie

Fair enough.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think that, of all time in the Commonwealth, it was tradition for police forces to model themselves on the military rank symbols of the time, to denote their "para-military" view of themselves (the"Thin Blue Line"). Of course this military ancestry is historically even more correct for the RCMP.

Thus, most large Canadian police forces use the "british" style of pips and crowns, even to this day. Interestingly enough, the exception is Québec: about 25 years ago the uniforms of the large police forces (Montreal, Quebec , QPP) went through a major redesign and upgrade. As a result, they incorporated the current Canadian military practice of the time and ended up adopting our current "bars" system.

A sergeant-detective wears the half-stripe, a sergeant a full-stripe, lieutenant-detective one-and-a-half, a lieutenant two, a commander two-and-a-half, inspector three, chief inspector four, and the various grades of directors wear the "generals" one two or three fleur-de-lys in lieu of the maple leafs - for obvious reasons.


----------



## Haggis

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Cavalry - If the Troopers are wearing IPE we can even call them Armoured Cavalry.  I Horsepower.
> 
> Give the Horse breeding industry in Ontario a boost. Green Technolgy.
> 
> Mounted Rifles as well.



I am sending my youngest daughter to the closest CFRC straightaway.  She is a Performance Horse Handling graduate, an excellent shot and quite fearless on the beasts.


----------



## Danjanou

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Cavalry - If the Troopers are wearing IPE we can even call them Armoured Cavalry.  I Horsepower.
> 
> Give the Horse breeding industry in Ontario a boost. Green Technolgy.
> 
> Mounted Rifles as well.



We could raise a local version of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey's_Scouts

though knowing Disneyland on the Rideau we'd end up with this

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

 :


----------



## jpjohnsn

MCG said:
			
		

> The Army does have a unique Canadian system that is to be thrown away in favour of a British system.


Wishing to retain a system that's been in use for 45 years (and not "half a century") is absolutely a valid argument.  The change happened, we're a couple of generations into it and there is no pressing need to change.  I don't feel that having something "uniquely Canadian" is a valid argument, though.  Why is a system unique to a single country such a selling point?  It's nothing more than a lie the members of the CF in 68 told themselves over and over to make themselves feel better in the wake of unification.  It's been told so often and so long that it's now the "conventional wisdom".  It's a distant cousin of  the "Peacekeeping Myth". 

If unification had not included a change of insignia, the notion of a uniquely Canadian system wouldn't be on anyone's radar today.

Pips and crowns being  called the British System is a nice hot-button turn of phrase that is, as far as I'm concerned, specially designed to play on the Great Canadian Inferiority Complex.  While the design of the pips and crowns is from Britain, at this point it's no more British than hamburgers are American.  It's a British system, an Australian System and the system of many other countries.  On 31 January 1968, it was as Canadian a system as the hoops and maple leaves were to become after 1 Feb 68.

What I'm waiting for is the tearing of hair and rending of clothes when the RCAF goes retro.  Anyone who knows about the history of ranks will know that the RCAF and RAF system of NCO ranks and the insignia they used parted ways pretty soon after the war.   By 1968, there would have been no confusing the two.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect the RN was the seed for the current rank badges for officers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, if you want to compare to pre-unification officers rank, then bear in mind that, aside from the colour pattern of grey-and-blue being used, the RCAF ranks of the time corresponded exactly with the Navy pattern (i.e small and large stripes in combinations, in almost the same number and sequence as the Navy ranks.)

At least we can be happy that they didn't decide to change the non-comms rank system. If people think there will be confusion with the pips and crowns, imagine what it would have been had the Navy gone back to square-knots, fouled anchor and cuff-buttons to identify their seaman, petty's and chief petty's.  

By the way, if the Army is going back to the previous system all the way up to General, does any one know if that means that Brigadiers will be senior officers again, and majors junior officers?


----------



## Old Sweat

I doubt if there will be any fiddling with brigadiers vice brigadier generals. As for your other point, majors were not junior officers, they were "field" officers.


----------



## McG

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Why is a system unique to a single country such a selling point?


The world over (universally amongst our NATO allies but with some exceptions external to the alliance) military ranks are distinct to a nation and they often contain imagery and symbolism of national pride.  Just as a flag is linked with the identity of its nation, so too is the rank insignia and uniform of the military.


----------



## The lone gunmen

Lets make no mistake the NDA has always had the NCM nomenclature correct. To say DND is going to formalize would seem redundant.

 http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-146.html#docCont


----------



## dapaterson

The lone gunmen said:
			
		

> Lets make no mistake the NDA has always had the NCM nomenclature correct. To say DND is going to formalize would seem redundant.
> 
> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-5/page-146.html#docCont



QR&O volume 1.  Chapter 3.  Please read it.

(And note that neither "Ensign" nor "Colour Sergeant" appears therein.)


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Under what circumstances would columns III and IV of the schedule apply?


----------



## dapaterson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Under what circumstances would columns III and IV of the schedule apply?



When QR&O 3.01 gets amended.


----------



## FJAG

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> Pips and crowns being  called the British System is a nice hot-button turn of phrase that is, as far as I'm concerned, specially designed to play on the Great Canadian Inferiority Complex.  While the design of the pips and crowns is from Britain, at this point it's no more British than hamburgers are American.  It's a British system, an Australian System and the system of many other countries.



 :goodpost:

The German army uses pips for junior officers and pips with wreaths for higher ranks.  Italians use stars for junior ranks and stars and a crown-like element or wreath for higher ranks. Many armies, even the Japanese and the Chinese, use an officer designation based on stars  (pips are even called stars) with various add-on devices for higher ranks. Only a few armies (like the French) use stripes at the junior and field levels. Generally stripes are a broadly used navy rank designator.

On a separate topic, I'm not sure why it is so important to keep the maple leaf for generals. They wear their army uniforms so rank badges could easily be army ones based on pips, crowns and sword/baton. Most of you probably were born long after the national flag debate. Many westerners felt alienated by the maple leaf flag because the maple (especially the red or sugar maples) were basically a tree that ranged throughout eastern Canada and was not indigenous to the west (although many have been planted there over the last fifty years.) The Liberal government of the day wasn't representative of the west and couldn't care less about western criticism. All they wanted was to get a flag that didn't have the union jack in the corner and was in their party's red and white colours.  :cdnsalute:

Unification, integration and a new flag. Interesting times the sixties were.  :brickwall:


----------



## Michael OLeary

FJAG said:
			
		

> (pips are even properly called stars)



FTFY

As in the star of the Order of the Bath



> Originally founded as a military order of chivalry, the star (or pip) is worn as army officers' rank insignia.


----------



## Privateer

And yet I love our flag and would blow a gasket if someone proposed to go back to the Red Duster.

Wait, given that we fought under that flag in WWII and Korea (while wearing pips and crowns, no less)... you don't think...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Privateer said:
			
		

> And yet I love our flag and would blow a gasket if someone proposed to go back to the Red Duster.
> 
> Wait, given that we fought under that flag in WWII and Korea (while wearing pips and crowns, no less)... you don't think...



And puttees too, and bell-bottoms for sailors.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Privateer said:
			
		

> And yet I love our flag and would blow a gasket if someone proposed to go back to the Red Duster.
> 
> Wait, given that we fought under that flag in WWII and Korea (while wearing pips and crowns, no less)... you don't think...



Really? I'd take the red duster over the red rag any day of the week. The maple leaf flag is about as bland and nondescript as it gets.


----------



## CombatDoc

Inky said:
			
		

> Really? I'd take the red duster over the red rag any day of the week. The maple leaf flag is about as bland and nondescript as it gets.


Once you finish your training and deploy on operations wearing the maple leaf on your left shoulder, your opinion may change. Although I hope you never experience a ramp ceremony, once you salute a coffin draped with the maple leaf it changes your appreciation of it.


----------



## Happy Guy

Combat Doc,
Thank you for well written and diplomatic reply to Inky.
I have never been prouder to wear the Maple Leaf while deployed.  While I was born under the Red Ensign I was raised under the Maple Leaf and there lies my heart.


----------



## FJAG

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Combat Doc,
> Thank you for well written and diplomatic reply to Inky.
> I have never been prouder to wear the Maple Leaf while deployed.  While I was born under the Red Ensign I was raised under the Maple Leaf and there lies my heart.



 :nod:

Notwithstanding my comments above re western resentment when the maple leaf flag was introduced, I agree totally. The maple leaf flag is a simple iconic design that is easily recognized from a distance and clearly identifies us to others. I've always worn mine with pride.

 :cdnsalute:


----------



## Monsoon

As somebody who has deployed wearing a maple leaf on my shoulder, and who has experienced a degree of gratitude at having a readily-identifiable national symbol in that context and others, I'm also not prepared to deny that a great deal of what we regard as "uniquely Canadian symbolism" is canned nationalism pulled out of the collective asses of Pearson through Trudeau during the 20-year period spanning 1963 to 1983.

While I don't frankly get a vote in the pips-n-crowns debate as a sailor, I'm willing to concede that Canada was a country for nearly a century before that nationalism project took place, and an historical entity for much longer. I don't see anything inherently wrong with recognizing that in our symbolism. I also don't buy the argument against replacing symbols by fiat, particularly when the symbols in question were adopted specifically to whitewash over actual history and symbols that were formerly in use.

So, as long as officer commissions don't go on sale at the CANEX, I don't see this historical reversion as much of a Big Deal.


----------



## dimsum

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Once you finish your training and deploy on operations wearing the maple leaf on your left shoulder, your opinion *may* change. Although I hope you never experience a ramp ceremony, once you salute a coffin draped with the maple leaf it changes your appreciation of it.



:goodpost:  Especially the second sentence.

I'd say replace "may" with "will".


----------



## Infanteer

FJAG said:
			
		

> The maple leaf flag is a simple iconic design that is easily recognized from a distance and clearly identifies us to others. I've always worn mine with pride.



+1


----------



## Ostrozac

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> As in the star of the Order of the Bath



Which, for me, is the biggest problem that I have with adopting the army officer rank insignia of the pre-1968 era, as the Order of the Bath is no longer in the Canadian honours system.

I would be very happy, for example, if the new "pips" were the star of the Order of Military Merit. And if the three reserve guards regiments wore the star of the Order of Canada.

But to me, the Star of the Order of the Bath is an insignia of an allied nation, not a Canadian insignia.


----------



## OldSolduer

Inky said:
			
		

> Really? I'd take the red duster over the red rag any day of the week. The maple leaf flag is about as bland and nondescript as it gets.


You call the flag of my nation a "red rag" again and we'll be having words.  :rage:

Get a plucking grip.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Inky said:
			
		

> Really? I'd take the red duster over the red rag any day of the week. The maple leaf flag is about as bland and nondescript as it gets.



I'm insulted that we both wear the same uniform. The difference being that the only flag on your left shoulder is velcro'ed on. My "Red Rag" as you call it is a bit more permanent. Unlike you I have something called pride in the symbol of my country... I'm sorry that the flag known the world over for compassion, professionalism, excellence, and that which represents a safe haven of freedom and opportunity for many is just not exciting enough for you... Perhaps we can find you a be-dazzler and you can "Jazz" yours up a little.....  :cdnsalute:

Sgt Maj Seggie said it best... 

Grip. 
Get one. 

Out.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Which, for me, is the biggest problem that I have with adopting the army officer rank insignia of the pre-1968 era, as the Order of the Bath is no longer in the Canadian honours system.
> 
> I would be very happy, for example, if the new "pips" were the star of the Order of Military Merit. And if the three reserve guards regiments wore the star of the Order of Canada.
> 
> But to me, the Star of the Order of the Bath is an insignia of an allied nation, not a Canadian insignia.




That's a fair point and there is no reason why whoever is designing the "new/old" system couldn't adapt the "pips and crowns" to make them more Canadian.

Someone thought this up:







... and it is certainly within the _spirit_ of pips and crowns, even if the maples leaves are not exactly pips.

Consider other nations that use the _British_ system, but adapted to suit their own national symbolism:





India





Pakistan


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Someone thought this up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... and it is certainly within the _spirit_ of pips and crowns, even if the maples leaves are not exactly pips.


Mind you, with this system, confused old farts like myself would flinch at how young Brigadier Generals have become under the new rank system  ;D


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect the RN was the seed for the current rank badges for officers


Our current ranks could be described as officers with the RCAF stripes in the RCN gold with GOFO pips converted to maple leaves,  NCMs in RCAF ranks (which were themselves inspired from Army  ranks) coloured in the same RCN gold with the maple leave replacing the crown when used with chevrons, and all levels with titles inspired from the Army.  As I’ve stated before, it is a little bit of all the old services.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... and it is certainly within the _spirit_ of pips and crowns, even if the maples leaves are not exactly pips.


“Pip” just implies a small easily countable icon/image.  Pips can be stars, suns, crowns, anchors, diamonds, hearts, clubs, spades, or even maple leaves.  
My preference is still that we leave the existing rank in place but, if we really are hell-bent on (again) ripping away the icons serving soldiers identify with, then I would prefer to see a uniquely Canadian icon identified for the pip.  I would also suggest that the ranks be Maj: 1 pip + crown, LCol 2 pips + crown, and Col 3 pips + crown.  It is not the British way, but it is consistent with far more of those NATO allies who do use pips and it solves the distinguishing Maj for WO question.

… but again, the better options would be to just leave things alone followed by evolving the current system to meet our needs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> … but again, the better options would be to just leave things alone followed by evolving the current system to meet our needs.




But it appears that our your political masters have decided to replace the current system.

Perhaps someone will pay a bit of attention to those who, while accepting, even respecting the government's wish to change from one tradition back to an older one, will respect the wishes of many serving and retired members to have a more _Canadian_ "look" to our army ranks.


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Mind you, with this system, confused old farts like myself would flinch at how young Brigadier Generals have become under the new rank system  ;D



Remembering back to the days when we all wore our rank on our shoulder slip-ons, and I as a Cpl was being saluted; I am waiting to see how many Warrant Officers will be mistaken for much higher (however you may view it) ranks ( Majors ).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here is the text of an E-mail I sent, today, to Minister MacKay at peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca



> Pips and crowns
> 
> Dear Minister MacKay;
> 
> I am a retired Army officer – I was commissioned in the early 1960s so I remember “pips and crowns” and khaki and Sam Browne belts and all that very well – and I am a Conservative (a member, indeed, of the Leaders Circle). I also have several friends who serve, today, in the Canadian Army.
> 
> I am pleased to see a return of some useful old traditions; despite some good results, most of Paul Hellyer’s integration/unification project failed – sometimes because it was ill conceived, sometimes because the bureaucrats (military and civilian) had other agendas.
> 
> I note, however, that, except for a few honorary colonels, everyone who ever wore pips and crowns is retired, they’re all my age (I’m in my 70s) so we are changing a system which is all that a generation and more of Canadian soldiers have ever known, a system which they wore into battle and, sadly, into their graves, too. I do not wish to argue against the return of pips and crowns but I do wish to argue for a uniquely Canadian implementation.
> 
> The pips I wore were, properly, stars – it was, in fact, a stylized version of the very elaborate star of the Knight Grand Cross of the military division of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath. As far as I know the Order of the Bath is not part of the Canadian Honours system so one wonders if that star is the most appropriate symbol for Canadian Army officers’ rank badges.
> 
> A pip is, after all, just a symbol. It can be a star – and several armies use stars of several different styles – or any other convenient symbol. Perhaps a Canadian Army “pip” could be a maple leaf, like the ones general officers currently wear. The system (one pip, two pips, three pips, crown, crown plus a pip, crown plus to pips and so on) would remain the same but the pip could be a maple leaf. If a star is deemed necessary then could it not be a Canadian star – perhaps the star of the Order of Canada with a maple leaf in the centre?
> 
> I applaud our government’s respect for traditions, but I am convinced that most serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces want to be distinctively Canadian even as they observe much loved traditions, and simply bringing back symbols which are no longer Canadian may be an easily avoidable error.
> 
> Yours truly
> 
> Edward Campbell


----------



## ModlrMike

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remembering back to the days when we all wore our rank on our shoulder slip-ons, and I as a Cpl was being saluted; I am waiting to see how many Warrant Officers will be mistaken for much higher (however you may view it) ranks ( Majors ).



I spent 7 months with the British Army in Bosnia as a PO1. I was saluted once in that entire time. The major's crowns had a backing of scarlet (maroon for medical officers) that differentiated them from the WO. In addition, the major's crowns were a little smaller, so the red flash was the giveaway. Something we could probably do to minimize confusion.


----------



## George Wallace

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I spent 7 months with the British Army in Bosnia as a PO1. I was saluted once in that entire time. The major's crowns had a backing of scarlet (maroon for medical officers) that differentiated them from the WO. In addition, the major's crowns were a little smaller, so the red flash was the giveaway. Something we could probably do to minimize confusion.



The size of the crown is also different, but think now of it being placed onto CADPAT Slip-ons and the confusion is still going to be there.   Of course, unless conducting a 'Sniper Check' in the Field, it is a moot point.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is the text of an E-mail I sent, today, to Minister MacKay at peter.mackay@parl.gc.ca


Well done - it'll be interesting to see what kind of response you receive.


----------



## XMP

To clear up some possible misconceptions,  among the proposals so far are;

1. No change to the existing General Officer's  insignia.  Sword and baton, Crown and maple leaves remain the same.  Scarlet gorget tabs on the collars for Full Colonels and General Officers.

2. The star to be the outline of the Order of the Bath, but with the centre Bath insignia to be replaced by the Cross of the Order of Military Merit, resulting in a uniquely Canadian, but recognizably Commonwealth rank badge. <p>





<P>
One PROPOSED Pattern of Star and Crown Rank Badges.

This system was first looked at in 1985 when DEU came into service.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Remembering back to the days when we all wore our rank on our shoulder slip-ons, and I as a Cpl was being saluted; I am waiting to see how many Warrant Officers will be mistaken for much higher (however you may view it) ranks ( Majors ).



Reminds me of a story I read many years ago in the_ Humour in Uniform_ section of Readers Digest magazine. As I remember it the story went something like this:

A Canadian Army unit (pre-Hellyer days) is on deployment to an American army base. A Canadian Major is heading to his quarters followed by his aide-de-camp (LT) carrying his kitbag/eqpt. As they go along a group of American soldiers are watching them and wondering who they are.  

"Who the heck is that?" One American soldier asks.

Another replied, " I don't know but it must be their king, because he's got a two star general carrying his kitbags!"


----------



## MarkOttawa

Further to milnews.ca on Edward Campbell's message to the minister,
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1242609.html#msg1242609



> Well done - it'll be interesting to see what kind of response you receive.



If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly--in that fashion.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The size of the crown is also different, but think now of it being placed onto CADPAT Slip-ons and the confusion is still going to be there.   Of course, unless conducting a 'Sniper Check' in the Field, it is a moot point.



The Aus and British army (and probably others?) WO2 crowns are the same size as our WO/PO1 and embroidered in the centre of the slip-ons, with a square "box" around it.  The Aussie version is below, under WO2:

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Ranks/Other-Ranks

A Major's crown is smaller and placed in the bottom edge of the slip-on/shoulder strap:

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Ranks/Officer-Ranks

All this to say that there is very little confusion between the two ranks, even on slip-ons.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Well if we adopt SSgt as a replacement for WO, our WO2 would still have a wreath, so there would be no confusion between any WO rank and Major :-/


----------



## dimsum

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well if we adopt SSgt as a replacement for WO, our WO2 would still have a wreath, so there would be no confusion between any WO rank and Major :-/



How dare you inject common sense into this argument?   >


----------



## Franko

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well if we adopt SSgt as a replacement for WO, our WO2 would still have a wreath, so there would be no confusion between any WO rank and Major :-/



Where did you see that in the announcement, or are you projecting your own ideas?

The only thing mentioned was Officers getting changed and nothing more. As for the NCO nomenclature mentioned in the article/ announcement, they've always been used in an official capacity within their respective trades. 

The amount of pure speculation and innuendo in this thread is amazing at times. 

Regards


----------



## Old EO Tech

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Where did you see that in the announcement, or are you projecting your own ideas?
> 
> The only thing mentioned was Officers getting changed and nothing more. As for the NCO nomenclature mentioned in the article/ announcement, they've always been used in an official capacity within their respective trades.
> 
> The amount of pure speculation and innuendo in this thread is amazing at times.
> 
> Regards



That is what "if" generally means, yes this is just my opinion of others speculation.  And no, no official announcements of Army NCM ranks structure change has been made.  But we are all allowed to dream in a public forum


----------



## dapaterson

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> Where did you see that in the announcement, or are you projecting your own ideas?
> 
> The only thing mentioned was Officers getting changed and nothing more. As for the NCO nomenclature mentioned in the article/ announcement, they've always been used in an _*unofficial *_capacity within their respective trades.
> 
> The amount of pure speculation and innuendo in this thread is amazing at times.
> 
> Regards



FTFY.  QR&O 3.01 is clear; that various trades, branches and units ignored it is a different matter.


----------



## TCBF

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Well if we adopt SSgt as a replacement for WO, our WO2 would still have a wreath, so there would be no confusion between any WO rank and Major :-/



- WO crowns were developed upon unification. as battledress was still worn well into 1973 by some units (it took a long time to issue the 'Rifle Green' CFs into the entire CF), the WO crowns were made larger. The Major's crowns stayed small, as that left room for all of the pips one added as one hit LCol, Col, etc. So, on the combat clothing slip ons for the parka 1964, there was a big crown for WO and a small crown for Maj. this would have expired after 1973, I would think.

- The good news is that now, we fall into line with armies that represent about one-quarter of the earth's population. 

- Now, if only we could ditch the 'naval' salute and return to the 'military' salute (to use those terms in their obsolete historical context).


----------



## a_majoor

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The good news is that now, we fall into line with armies that represent about one-quarter of the earth's population.



So should i be brushing up on the rank structure and insignia of the PLA or the Indian Armed forces?        >


----------



## TCBF

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So should i be brushing up on the rank structure and insignia of the PLA or the Indian Armed forces?        >



- I reckon we both know the answer to that. We'll let the others stew. ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

TCBF said:
			
		

> - WO crowns were developed upon unification. as battledress was still worn well into 1973 by some units (it took a long time to issue the 'Rifle Green' CFs into the entire CF), the WO crowns were made larger. The Major's crowns stayed small, as that left room for all of the pips one added as one hit LCol, Col, etc. So, on the combat clothing slip ons for the parka 1964, there was a big crown for WO and a small crown for Maj. this would have expired after 1973, I would think.
> 
> - The good news is that now, we fall into line with armies that represent about one-quarter of the earth's population.
> 
> - Now, if only we could ditch the 'naval' salute and return to the 'military' salute (to use those terms in their obsolete historical context).



For what it is worth, I agree that we should return to the Army's open palm salute and dump the Naval salute that was put in place in 68 to somewhat compensate the Navy for being the biggest loser in other areas of dress and traditions.


----------



## George Wallace

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> For what it is worth, I agree that we should return to the Army's open palm salute and dump the Naval salute that was put in place in 68 to somewhat compensate the Navy for being the biggest loser in other areas of dress and traditions.



Just start declaring it too 'Merican and you know what will happen.....We will return to the old salute too....... And the silliness continues.........


----------



## McG

To help people out, here is what is in the NDA for ranks:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So should i be brushing up on the rank structure and insignia of the PLA or the Indian Armed forces?        >




I daresay that the Indian Army's rank structure is familiar - it is the one to which we are returning, but with distinctively Indian (rather than British) pips and the Lion Capital of Asoka, the symbol of India instead of a crown. The system is the same, the symbols are different.

The PLA uses a system which is very similar in its logic, based on stars for junior officers (1 star = 2Lt, 2 stars = Lt, 3 stars = Capt) and stars within two stripes for senior officers (Maj to Col) and stars and a wreath for generals.


----------



## The Bread Guy

TCBF said:
			
		

> - WO crowns were developed upon unification. as battledress was still worn well into 1973 by some units (it took a long time to issue the 'Rifle Green' CFs into the entire CF), the WO crowns were made larger. The Major's crowns stayed small, as that left room for all of the pips one added as one hit LCol, Col, etc. So, on the combat clothing slip ons for the parka 1964, there was a big crown for WO and a small crown for Maj. this would have expired after 1973, I would think.


With all these crowns soon to be in play, one wonders if the transition'll drag on long enough to worry about whether it'll be a Queen's Crown ....





.... or a King's Crown?




 >

BTW, good to see you back TBCF!


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> With all these crowns soon to be in play, one wonders if the transition'll drag on long enough to worry about whether it'll be a Queen's Crown ... or a King's Crown?


As the crown is not dependant upon gender but upon the choice of the monarch, it may be generations still before we need to switch from the Crown of St Edward to the Tudor Crown (or any of the others in the crown jewels).


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> As the crown is not dependant upon gender but upon the choice of the monarch, it may be generations still before we need to switch from the Crown of St Edward to the Tudor Crown (or any of the others in the crown jewels).




And one more crown, just for fun ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 .. the _Guelphic_ crown which was worn by at least one regiment of the Canadian Army in the 19th century and into the 20th:


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> As the crown is not dependant upon gender but upon the choice of the monarch, it may be generations still before we need to switch from the Crown of St Edward to the Tudor Crown (or any of the others in the crown jewels).


Seen - thanks!


----------



## Gorgo

XMP said:
			
		

> To clear up some possible misconceptions,  among the proposals so far are;
> 
> 1. No change to the existing General Officer's  insignia.  Sword and baton, Crown and maple leaves remain the same.  Scarlet gorget tabs on the collars for Full Colonels and General Officers.
> 
> 2. The star to be the outline of the Order of the Bath, but with the centre Bath insignia to be replaced by the Cross of the Order of Military Merit, resulting in a uniquely Canadian, but recognizably Commonwealth rank badge. <p>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <P>
> One PROPOSED Pattern of Star and Crown Rank Badges.
> 
> This system was first looked at in 1985 when DEU came into service.



That looks positively beautiful, XMP!  Well done, sir.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> For what it is worth, I agree that we should return to the Army's open palm salute and dump the Naval salute that was put in place in 68 to somewhat compensate the Navy for being the biggest loser in other areas of dress and traditions.



It's not a naval salute. For what its worth, while the naval salute is given "palm down" (As an engineering type, Old EO Tech, you will appreciate that this tradition, in the Navy came because a visiting monarch was saluted palm front by a naval mechanic and, well, he had a greasy spot in his palm _ thereafter the hand down salute was ordered by the monarch), it was given (pre-unification) with the wrist bent, so that the hand was parallel to the deck. You can still see old dinosaurs like me doing that when onboard ship and using "shipboard drill".


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not a naval salute. For what its worth, while the naval salute is given "palm down" (As an engineering type, Old EO Tech, you will appreciate that this tradition, in the Navy came because a visiting monarch was saluted palm front by a naval mechanic and, well, he had a greasy spot in his palm _ thereafter the hand down salute was ordered by the monarch), it was given (pre-unification) with the wrist bent, so that the hand was parallel to the deck. You can still see old dinosaurs like me doing that when onboard ship and using "shipboard drill".



So that bent wrist thing is *intentional*?!


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So that bent wrist thing is *intentional*?!



It is the Navy after all.   >


----------



## a_majoor

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And one more crown, just for fun ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .. the _Guelphic_ crown which was worn by at least one regiment of the Canadian Army in the 19th century and into the 20th:



Thanks for that. One of the old capbadges in my collection had an unusual crown that I always called an "Imperial" crown simply because it dated to the time of Queen Victoria. I now know what it really is (a shame I can't actually wear it....)


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... And the silliness continues.........


Sadly, that statement fits this whole shmozzle.  Hopefully were are coming near the end of this run.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's not a naval salute. For what its worth, while the naval salute is given "palm down" (As an engineering type, Old EO Tech, you will appreciate that this tradition, in the Navy came because a visiting monarch was saluted palm front by a naval mechanic and, well, he had a greasy spot in his palm _ thereafter the hand down salute was ordered by the monarch), it was given (pre-unification) with the wrist bent, so that the hand was parallel to the deck. You can still see old dinosaurs like me doing that when onboard ship and using "shipboard drill".



Well I will defer to your greater knowledge, but it was definitely Naval inspired if not quite adhering to the exact Naval salute of pre-unification.


----------



## Good2Golf

Best Naval salute hands down, Lt (Ret'd) Bill Glover, RCN, now a city councillor in Kingston, ON.  Always a classic spirally-unwinding 180° arm swing with a flat 90° palm drop, then a periscope-like 90° forward wrist rotation accompanied by a melodic "Morning!" no matter the time of day.  ;D

Regards
G2G


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Best Naval salute hands down, Lt (Ret'd) Bill Glover, RCN, now a city councillor in Kingston, ON.  Always a classic spirally-unwinding 180° arm swing with a flat 90° palm drop, then a periscope-like 90° forward wrist rotation accompanied by a melodic "Morning!" no matter the time of day.  ;D
> 
> Regards
> G2G



You forgot the British accent!


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You forgot the British accent!



Riight!  Sergeant-Major.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a good solid analysis of what is really wrong with "pips and crowns:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/pips-and-crowns-mere-diversions/article13200030/#dashboard/follows/


> Pips and crowns? Mere defence diversions
> 
> PETER JONES
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Monday, Jul. 15 2013
> 
> The news that the Canadian army is getting back its “pips and crowns” as rank insignia is the latest in a series of moves the Conservatives have been making over time to reclaim the 1950s as the model for Canadian society. The air force and navy are “Royal” once more and the navy has the “executive curl” back on its officer’s uniforms. Army formations and units have been given back their old names. The War of 1812 suddenly matters.
> 
> No doubt this latest move will play well with some element of the party base – although one wonders how many people will change their vote to Conservative because of pips and crowns. These insignia will look a bit funny on green uniforms (only in Canada, you say), but perhaps this will be used down the road as justification for shifting the army back to khaki.
> 
> All of this is harmless enough, and the cost is infinitesimal in the context of the overall defence budget. But what’s more serious is that these moves to recreate the past increasingly seem to be substitutes for an actual post-Afghanistan defence policy and for expensive but much-needed re-equipment programs.
> 
> Crafting a new defence policy would be hard. It would involve making difficult and controversial choices about which military capabilities to retain and which not to retain, since Canada can’t afford to maintain front-line combat capabilities across all three services unless the defence budget is significantly increased. It would also involve confronting the politically explosive question of which bases to close.
> 
> In place of this, we have pips and crowns. It’s all beginning to take on the appearance of a magician’s sleight of hand: “Don’t worry about the lack of policy or new equipment, look over here at all these shiny new pips and crowns. Boy, talk about a commitment to our boys and gals in uniform!”
> 
> Thus, the Royal Canadian Navy has its old name back, and its officers are beginning to look a bit more British than American – but it has no new replenishment ships. Years after these vital ships were to have been replaced, and after one false start, the project remains stuck at the design stage. On top of that, the project has been woefully underfunded.
> 
> The government will cry poverty, of course. But this doesn’t obscure the fact that they have so misspent so much as to be largely to blame for the mess. But surely the Conservatives can’t be blamed for the global financial crisis, you say? Fair enough, but the historic surplus they inherited had been largely frittered away on such things as boutique tax cuts before the crisis hit. They had to go so heavily back into debt when stimulus spending was required, and now appear to be relying on pips and crowns to distract from their inability to fulfill their defence promises.
> 
> So what’s next? Well, if the government is running true to form, my bet is a resurrection of the old air force (sorry, RCAF) ranks. Instead of having majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels and brigadier-generals, the RCAF will soon have squadron leaders, wing commanders, group captains and air commodores marching about.
> 
> They had better march aggressively. The way things are going, they won’t have any actual airplanes to fly once the F-18s have reached their “best before” date.
> 
> _Peter Jones is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa._




This is it, this is the nub of the issue:

          "... these moves to recreate the past increasingly seem to be substitutes for an actual post-Afghanistan defence policy and for expensive but much-needed re-equipment programs ... Crafting a new defence policy
           would be hard. It would involve making difficult and controversial choices about which military capabilities to retain and which not to retain, since Canada can’t afford to maintain front-line combat capabilities across
           all three services unless the defence budget is significantly increased ... In place of this, we have pips and crowns."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Yes Edward,......but even on this site there are those who think these mere trinkets are better than sliced bread.....


----------



## McG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yes Edward,......but even on this site there are those who think these mere trinkets are better than sliced bread.....


The poll still shows the majority are opposed, and I suspect we would find the numbers shift even stronger against this change if we could filter the results to just the opinion of currently serving Army.  Unfortunately, I don't think that opinion will be supported by anything more than anecdotal evidence.


Wait for it.  The next act of frivolity will see the NDA amended in Parliament to include extra ranks.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## OldTanker

Some more musings on this subject . . . Who is really behind this change? It doesn't appear to be the serving members of the Canadian Army, nor those with recent service. For them I think there is a strong sense that the Army forged its own traditions over the past 30-some years wearing the uniforms and badges it did, and these traditions are as valuable as any. However, I think there are a generation of officers (NCMs are too clever to get wrapped-up into this nonsense) who joined the Army in the early stages of unification and who are now retired and in some cases, in positions of influence with the current government. Since I fit into the former category (certainly not the latter), I can appreciate some of their feelings. For those who didn't have to wear the first iteration of the "new" CF uniforms, you won't realize how bad they were. They were generic, boring, and totally non-military. I remember well the battles over regimental buttons, collar dogs, etc.  And "work dress"? Good lord. Those of us who were new to the Army listened to our seniors and mentors bemoan the "good old days", which as Edward notes, really weren't so good at all, and in particular we heard about the wonderful uniforms the Army had before unification. For us, as we struggled with trying to make the new uniforms look at least somewhat military, the second-hand memories of the pre-unification uniforms seemed that much more appealing. For many of us, old (pre-unification) was better. Now, some of my peers have taken these memories, flawed and dated as they are, and used them to lobby our government for the changes we are seeing. To my mind, this is simply a misguided attempt to return to a time we didn't even really understand, but thought was better. I listened to a couple of "old boys" crowing about this the other day, how they had rescued the Army from our terrible Navy rank badges. I served my entire career wearing those badges, and I am as proud of them as I would have been of any others. Just my thoughts. Old Tanker


----------



## Jarnhamar

[quote author=Peter Jones]
 the cost is infinitesimal in the context of the overall defence budget. 
[/quote]

I would bet the CF members who feel the money spent on this is infinitesimal aren't the ones sitting in busted vehicles out in the training area for 8 hours in 40C heat.   Or deal with not being able to exchange their uniforms, having constant equipment shortfalls etc..


----------



## cupper

Or taking part time jobs because the cost of living increase of being posted to Cold Lake means they can't make ends meet.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> ...
> Wait for it.  The next act of frivolity will see the NDA amended in Parliament to include extra ranks.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:




I suspect you're right ~ might as well go the whole hog.


----------



## Rifleman62

It's a done deal changing Army ranks, no matter what the survey said. Get on with it.

The only hope is that the pips are redesigned and recognizable as Canadian. This government is stubborn and will not change it's mind.



> ObedientiaZelum
> 
> I would bet the CF members who feel the money spent on this is infinitesimal aren't the ones sitting in busted vehicles out in the training area for 8 hours in 40C heat.   Or deal with not being able to exchange their uniforms, having constant equipment shortfalls etc..



Posted elsewhere I believe on 11 Jul.

Extract:



> *Billions left unspent in DND budget*
> 
> Critics call tactic deficit-slashing by stealth
> 
> By Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press July 12, 2013
> 
> New figures from the parliamentary budget office show National Defence has not spent billions of dollars set aside for it during the last budget year, a trend described as deficit-slashing by stealth.
> 
> The data on quarterly expenditures in the federal government show that by the end of the last fiscal year in March, the department had spent $2.3 billion less than allocated by Parliament.
> 
> That's more than 10 per cent of the annual defence appropriation, also the single biggest discretionary line item in the federal budget.
> 
> Figures for previous years show that $9.6 billion has gone unspent in defence since the 2006-07 budget year - a trend defence officials have blamed on late equipment projects and an inefficient bureaucracy.


----------



## McG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It's a done deal changing Army ranks, no matter what the survey said. Get on with it.


We will get on with it.  That doesn’t make the decision any less wrong or wasteful.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Posted elsewhere I believe on 11 Jul.


 I am not sure your intent in referencing the unspent money being returned at the FY end.  It is better to return money than to have wasted it, so I know you are not suggesting the returned funds justify the waste that is steadily being poured into the exercise of roll-back the clock aesthetics.

Unfortunately, one of the biggest wastes in this whole thing is not money but effort.  For all the staff effort that will go into this in Ottawa, we could probably have found a PY to push through a few minor projects (or help accelerate a major project) and spend some of that money we perpetually return.   Or maybe this PY could have updated some years our of date CFAOs on military careers and promotion (an area where we could create helpful improvements to how pers progress through the ranks).  When we do decide what we are going to get, that is going to take-up the purchasing time of a TA and SM working for soldier systems in ADM(Mat) – that means these pers will be postponing the buying of potentially more relevant soldier kit.  In all the time that the MND and his staff spent discussing, planning, and presenting the various little bits of these silly aesthetic identity changes – what files were marking time?  Where is the solution to the housing problem in Cold Lake?  Where is the solution to the families that have lost tens of thousands because the housing markets were less than favourable when the CAF ordered a move?  How many expenditures requiring ministerial approval time expired?

... and where does this waste end?  There is no sign or guarantee that the end is near.  They can keep plinking away for years stripping away various bits of the modern CAF identity to replace it with things that current serving members no longer identify with.


----------



## Kat Stevens

As long as we're kicking around unnecessary, wasteful, and time consuming changes, where was all this outrage when something as simple and long lived as the old MOC system got changed?  Yes, I know MOS is much more American, and therefore all good to go and huah and so forth with all the cool kids, but it was not necessary, it was a uniquely Canadian system that our soldiers had fought and died under proudly.    ^-^


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> it was a uniquely Canadian system that our soldiers had fought and died under proudly.    ^-^



I'm sorry but that's a bit much, the very last thing I thought of as I went downrange on a suspected IED overseas was 'phew, thank goodness I am a 043 and not a 00339-1), and I very much doubt our fallen, their families or their friends gave a damn when somone changed a number for another number.


----------



## MikeL

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> As long as we're kicking around unnecessary, wasteful, and time consuming changes, where was all this outrage when something as simple and long lived as the old MOC system got changed?  Yes, I know MOS is much more American, and therefore all good to go and huah and so forth with all the cool kids, but it was not necessary, it was a uniquely Canadian system that our soldiers had fought and died under proudly.    ^-^





			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that's a bit much, the very last thing I thought of as I went downrange on a suspected IED overseas was 'phew, thank goodness I am a 043 and not a 00339-1), and I very much doubt our fallen, their families or their friends gave a damn when somone changed a number for another number.



I agree with Towards_the_gap on this one.

As well,  our changing of MOC to MOSID is not similar to the American MOS codes in any way IMO.

Example for the NCM side
Canadian Army Infantry MOC 031, MOSID 00010 
USMC Infantry MOS 03XX(various codes for Rifleman, Reconnaisance man, etc)
US Army Infantry MOS 11B/11C

As well, there are additional skill/special qualifications identifiers added to US Army MOSs' such as B4 for Sniper, P for Paratrooper, etc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that's a bit much, the very last thing I thought of as I went downrange on a suspected IED overseas was 'phew, thank goodness I am a 043 and not a 00339-1), and I very much doubt our fallen, their families or their friends gave a damn when somone changed a number for another number.





			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I agree with Towards_the_gap on this one.
> 
> As well,  our changing of MOC to MOSID is not similar to the American MOS codes in any way IMO.
> 
> Example for the NCM side
> Canadian Army Infantry MOC 031, MOSID 00010
> USMC Infantry MOS 03XX(various codes for Rifleman, Reconnaisance man, etc)
> US Army Infantry MOS 11B/11C
> 
> As well, there are additional skill/special qualifications identifiers added to US Army MOSs' such as B4 for Sniper, P for Paratrooper, etc.



You guys gotta lighten up and start recognizing humour when you see it :


----------



## MikeL

recceguy said:
			
		

> You guys gotta lighten up and start recognizing humour when you see it :



Ack,  after reading it again it does seem to be more humour/sarcastic... but with the way some people are posting/saying our current salute needs to go, and we should bring back SSgt and WO2/change all NCM ranks, etc it's hard too tell if some people are joking or actually serious with the reverting everything back talk.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that's a bit much, the very last thing I thought of as I went downrange on a suspected IED overseas was 'phew, thank goodness I am a 043 and not a 00339-1), and I very much doubt our fallen, their families or their friends gave a damn when somone changed a number for another number.



I realize your reply was in to a post in jest but I sure hope as you went downrange on suspected IEDs in AFG that you were not worrying about Pips and Crowns, Executive Curls or Royal titles either!


----------



## Rifleman62

> MCG: Unfortunately, one of the biggest wastes in this whole thing is not money but effort.  For all the staff effort that will go into this in Ottawa, we could probably have found a PY to push through a few minor projects (or help accelerate a major project).................



Of course. Lots of time and effort. More to come though. Regiments will be delving into their history/customs/traditions to ascertain what pips they will wear. Then staff through the various HQ staff (Bde/Div/Army) to NDHQ for a "decision" .

Lets see. What colour are our pips to be? Photos from: http://williamscully.ca/gallery2/v/Products/rank+insignia/metalpips/

My _personal_ fav is gun metal, or if need be, for some junior Rifle Regts or former Rifle Regts now running around in armored jeep type vehs, black on_ Rifle Green_ epaulets. 

By the way. A tradition is anything the military has done twice. 

PS. Now that LFA's are Divs, are we going back to MGen in comd?


----------



## Kat Stevens

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I agree with Towards_the_gap on this one.
> 
> As well,  our changing of MOC to MOSID is not similar to the American MOS codes in any way IMO.
> 
> Example for the NCM side
> Canadian Army Infantry MOC 031, MOSID 00010
> USMC Infantry MOS 03XX(various codes for Rifleman, Reconnaisance man, etc)
> US Army Infantry MOS 11B/11C
> 
> As well, there are additional skill/special qualifications identifiers added to US Army MOSs' such as B4 for Sniper, P for Paratrooper, etc.





			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but that's a bit much, the very last thing I thought of as I went downrange on a suspected IED overseas was 'phew, thank goodness I am a 043 and not a 00339-1), and I very much doubt our fallen, their families or their friends gave a damn when somone changed a number for another number.


That was easy.


----------



## SeR

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> PS. Now that LFA's are Divs, are we going back to MGen in comd?



Considering the fact that they changed all of the brigade commander positions from BGen to Colonel some time ago, I doubt that they would make this change.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Just wait for that soon to be classic reply, coming to a Public Affairs (PA) Media Response Lines (MRL) document near you:

Q - _"So General, what's the difference between the Division you command and the Divisions of the Second World War?"_

A - _"Have you seen our new army rank insignia? Let me call my Aide over to show you. Oh, Captain A. De. Cretin, come over here please."_


----------



## Michael OLeary

SeR said:
			
		

> Considering the fact that they changed all of the brigade commander positions from BGen to Colonel some time ago, I doubt that they would make this change.



In any case, using a less expensive general is an austerity measure.


----------



## FJAG

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I would bet the CF members who feel the money spent on this is infinitesimal aren't the ones sitting in busted vehicles out in the training area for 8 hours in 40C heat.   Or deal with not being able to exchange their uniforms, having constant equipment shortfalls etc..



Let's see now: you've got Leo 2s, LAV 3s, Coyotes, M777s, frequency hopping radios while we had Centurions, M113s, Ferrets, 105mm C1s and L5s, deuce and a halfs and three quarter ton trucks made in 1952 and even older C42/45 radios with tuning needles.

Nope. We didn't know anything about busted down kit in our day. :sarcasm: And don't even get us started on budget drops and massive downsizing. 

The reason we think its infinitesimal is because it is. 

If you think you can do better with a Liberal or NDP defence minister go ahead and vote for one. I've seen a whole herd of Liberal ones and have had my fill.  :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let's see now: you've got Leo 2s, LAV 3s, Coyotes, M777s, frequency hopping radios while we had Centurions, M113s, Ferrets, 105mm C1s and L5s, deuce and a halfs and three quarter ton trucks made in 1952 and even older C42/45 radios with tuning needles.
> 
> Nope. We didn't know anything about busted down kit in our day. :sarcasm: And don't even get us started on budget drops and massive downsizing.
> 
> The reason we think its infinitesimal is because it is.
> 
> If you think you can do better with a Liberal or NDP defence minister go ahead and vote for one. I've seen a whole herd of Liberal ones and have had my fill.  :cheers:



Be gentle on him.... He is a young pup and still has a lot to experience.   ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary

The seven years of lean look pretty scary if all you've known are the seven years of fat.


----------



## McG

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I would bet the CF members who feel the money spent on this is infinitesimal aren't the ones sitting in busted vehicles out in the training area for 8 hours in 40C heat.   Or deal with not being able to exchange their uniforms, having constant equipment shortfalls etc..





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Let's see now: you've got Leo 2s, LAV 3s, Coyotes, M777s, frequency hopping radios while we had Centurions, M113s, Ferrets, 105mm C1s and L5s, deuce and a halfs and three quarter ton trucks made in 1952 and even older C42/45 radios with tuning needles.
> 
> Nope. We didn't know anything about busted down kit in our day.


Thanks for the "you don't know how good you got it" story, but I think you missed the point.  We have problems today that could be better addressed if we were not wasting on turning back the clock.  That problems existed in another time is a red herring to this conversation.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Lots of time and effort. More to come though. Regiments will be delving into their history/customs/traditions to ascertain what pips they will wear. Then staff through the various HQ staff (Bde/Div/Army) to NDHQ for a "decision" .


I hope this doesn’t come to pass.  We would then be demanding the individuals purchase their own overly ornate (overly expensive) regimentally specific pips while the generic army pips continue to be bought and thrown in the trash.

On a different but not unrelated topic, what will become of the “CANADA” shoulder tabs when the new cloth branch/regimental tabs replace the metal tabs and move from the epaulet to the shoulder of the sleeve?


----------



## PanaEng

:goodpost:

here is a sitrep we just received (attached)
:


----------



## PuckChaser

I'm wondering what the sitrep means when they say "Signaller will be addressed". Addressed as its incorrect, or addressed as in change the NDA to reflect a different rank?


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm wondering what the sitrep means when they say "Signaller will be addressed". Addressed as its incorrect, or addressed as in change the NDA to reflect a different rank?



It means, as I understand it, that the approved, in the existing NDA, rank of _Signalman_, will not be used and you will, somehow or other, be _administratively_ rather than _legally_ told to use _Signaller_.

The "incorrect" element is that in the 20th century _signaller_ was a term used to refer to signalling specialist in all arms except Signals. It is the one term which Signals *never* used internally .. but, hey, who cares about customs and traditions, anyway?


----------



## Jarnhamar

FJAG said:
			
		

> we had Centurions, M113s, Ferrets, 105mm C1s and L5s, deuce and a halfs and three quarter ton trucks made in 1952 and even older C42/45 radios with tuning needles.
> 
> Nope. We didn't know anything about busted down kit in our day. :sarcasm: And don't even get us started on budget drops and massive downsizing.



I would have thought that in light of dealing with busted kit and poor spending practices in the past the CF members who witnessed it would be even more keen on seeing those problems corrected for the future.

Just because the CF spends money on something dumb like flying Rick Mercer around or wastes money elsewhere shouldn't be a justification for more of it IMO.


----------



## captloadie

I wonder how long before tradition bumps into PCism. Rifleman? Craftsman? What about all the ladies and others who don't want to be identified by a gender biased rank? Should the Champion for Woman in the CAF not have weighed in on this issue by now?

Let the grievances and charter challenges begin  >


----------



## SeR

captloadie said:
			
		

> I wonder how long before tradition bumps into PCism. Rifleman? Craftsman? What about all the ladies and others who don't want to be identified by a gender biased rank? Should the Champion for Woman in the CAF not have weighed in on this issue by now?
> 
> Let the grievances and charter challenges begin  >



What's the alternative? Riflewoman or Rifleperson? I sure hope they don't take this road.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

SeR said:
			
		

> What's the alternative? Riflewoman or Rifleperson? I sure hope they don't take this road.  ;D


How about "musketeer" as a non-gender-linked reference?  ;D


----------



## Remius

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> How about "musketeer" as a non-gender-linked reference?  ;D



I like it.  How about Rifle-er.  Or Rifle-ee.  Guardsman could just be Guardian.  craftsman could be Crafter or Crafty.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Crantor said:
			
		

> I like it.  How about Rifle-er.  Or Rifle-ee.  Guardsman could just be Guardian.  craftsman could be Crafter or Crafty.   ;D




Or _private_, or would that not be sufficiently _traditional_? After all it's only been in use since the 18th century.


----------



## Remius

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or _private_, or would that not be sufficiently _traditional_? After all it's only been in use since the 18th century.



Well we could also go back to Roman Legion ranks.  Centurions, Decurions, Tessararius, Praetor, Optio, Legionary.  The potential is immense.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or _private_, or would that not be sufficiently _traditional_? After all it's only been in use since the 18th century.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we could also go back to Roman Legion ranks.  Centurions, Decurions, Tessararius, Praetor, Optio, Legionary.  The potential is immense.
Click to expand...

Ah, but these aren't _THE_ traditions we're trying to harken back to, right?


----------



## Loachman

And there's have to be a Mistress Corporal appointment as well...


----------



## Haggis

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or _private_, or would that not be sufficiently _traditional_? After all it's only been in use since the 18th century.



According to the SITREP referenced above, "stated that the rank nomenclature for certain Canadian Army non-commissioned members, which has been informally used in the past, will now _be considered_ for formalization.'  infers that this is not a done deal yet and could still be challenged.

In that "Private" is currently the formal rank in the Schedule to the NDA, the non-gender neutral terms "Rifleman", "Guardsman" and "Craftsman", could be relegated to "alternative forms of address" following any successful court challenge based on gender rights.

While we're at it, why not re-name all Privates in Highland and Scottish Regiments to "Clansman"?  The CO can be the "Clan Chieftain".  Just a thought.....


----------



## Remius

Loachman said:
			
		

> And there's have to be a Mistress Corporal appointment as well...



Gold.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Crantor said:
			
		

> I like it.  How about Rifle-er.  Or Rifle-ee.  Guardsman could just be Guardian.  craftsman could be Crafter or Crafty.   ;D



We actually do use the term "Crafty" informally in the RCEME Corp


----------



## Journeyman

Haggis said:
			
		

> ..... to "Clansman"?  The CO can be the "Clan Chieftain".


I was under the impression that the head of the "Clansman" would be "Imperial Wizard."


----------



## George Wallace

SeR said:
			
		

> What's the alternative? Riflewoman or Rifleperson? I sure hope they don't take this road.  ;D



Rifleperson

Riflewoman

Ummm!  I often wondered about fanatical feminists who objected to the use of "man" in titles such as Fireman, Policeman, etc.  They for some illogical reason still accept titles that contain the male gender as appropriate.  My logic follows that these fanatical feminists are really aliens from another planet, as they can surely not be HUMAN.


----------



## Privateer

Reading the ARMY NAME CHANGE SITREP gave me a _Hunt for Red October_ moment:

http://youtu.be/Emdzsz_XvfA


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Rifleperson
> 
> Riflewoman
> 
> Ummm!  I often wondered about fanatical feminists who objected to the use of "man" in titles such as Fireman, Policeman, etc.  They for some illogical reason still accept titles that contain the male gender as appropriate.  My logic follows that these fanatical feminists are really aliens from another planet, as they can surely not be HUMAN.


The most radical probably consider themselves humyn ....


----------



## tomydoom

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The most radical probably consider themselves humyn ....



I have a cousin that is into all of that stuff and she uses, "Humyn", "Womyn", "Persyn" etc.. It is really very annoying.


----------



## Kirkhill

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I have a cousin that is into all of that stuff and she uses, "Humyn", "Womyn", "Persyn" etc.. It is really very annoying.



Hymyn????


----------



## tomydoom

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Hymyn????



I nearly spit out my coffee..


----------



## Jed

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Hymyn????



Looks and sounds punctured to me.  >


----------



## a_majoor

IF we want to go back to a very functional tradition:

http://www.romanobritain.org/8-military/mil_legion_structure.htm


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> That was easy.




Well played.....well played...


----------



## Pusser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Rifleperson
> 
> Riflewoman
> 
> Ummm!  I often wondered about fanatical feminists who objected to the use of "man" in titles such as Fireman, Policeman, etc.  They for some illogical reason still accept titles that contain the male gender as appropriate.  My logic follows that these fanatical feminists are really aliens from another planet, as they can surely not be HUMAN.



Hmm,  women in the Navy don't seem to have a problem with seamen....


----------



## Eye In The Sky




----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Hmm,  women in the Navy don't seem to have a problem with seamen....



Not touching that one! lol


----------



## anglo-saxon

To all the nay-sayers on here, I offer this: You (and I) are but a small and very recent part of this nation's (and therefore it's military's) history. Thank goodness our heritage is somewhat older than a mere 45 years (we are wearing 1812 pins for a reason, after all!).

The changes perpetrated against Canada's military, described as "unification" 45 years ago, was a divisive and incredibly damaging act, which resulted not only in immense change in the landscape and culture of the Canadian Forces, but also its very legal status. All three services lost their individual legal status when unified as a single force (and remain as such today). A great many very senior officers, many of them WWII and Korea vets, either resigned in protest at that time or were forced into retirement. This was wholesale change was for political gain alone and at the expense of this country's armed forces and at huge expense to the public. The subsequent rank, insignia, and nomenclature changes were a direct result of that obscene act.

That the "bars" of Canadian Army officers will be replaced by pre-unification "pips" and crowns is (along with other reversions), to me a small realignment towards the right direction. I also offer this: Had the pips and crowns never been done away with in the first place, there would be no clamour today to change them to something else and no one will convince me otherwise.  In fact, had that been the case and had such a suggestion been made, I firmly believe that our pips and crowns would be most jealously guarded by all. I am therefore quite certain that people today are resistant to this change only because it is what they know and are used to; a glaring indicator of their fundamental failure to consider our history and heritage in its full sense. Perhaps those same people, therefore, need to be just a little less self-absorbed and far more honouring of this nation's history and heritage.

Getting rid of these silly bars and returning to pips and crowns is not only long overdue, it should never have happened in the first place. And those who sneer at "trinkets", "baubles", "buttons", and "bows" are fundamentally missing the point. Such insignia and accouterments are among the ONLY outward symbols of who and what we are. Should we all be generic and characterless for the sake of a few shekels or to appease those who just don't get it? I think not! If that were the case, then why not just replace the CDS with the president of the Treasury Board and have done with it? (Yes, I know it sometimes feels like that has happened already, but that is beside the point.) I do not for one minute begrudge the armoured folk wearing their spurs and chain mail, nor the Guards' their huge "Colour Sergeant" rank badge, nor the highlanders or anybody else their respective peculiarities. It's called "character"! Something I believe we as a force could do with more of.

One thing is for sure: The young officers coming in the door to be trained today will be as proud of their pips and (hopefully, one day) crowns as the rest of us have been with our rank insignia. They will care not a jot for bars!

I for one look forward to the French grey of "3 Div" with proper Army rank insignia!


----------



## Towards_the_gap

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> Getting rid of these silly bars and returning to pips and crowns is not only long overdue, it should never have happened in the first place. And those who sneer at "trinkets", "baubles", "buttons", and "bows" are fundamentally missing the point. Such insignia and accouterments are among the ONLY outward symbols of who and what we are.



So our performance on the field of battle or other operations does not qualify, in your mind, as an OUTWARD SYMBOL of who and what we are?

Reference my earlier post, when in contact or other highly dangerous operational activity...buttons, bows, pips, crowns and all that other tat go by the way side. I couldn't have cared less what rank insignia I wore. I was there to do a job, not play dress up and pretend it was the 1950's again.

But you go ahead and look down your nose at those of us who see this as wasteful window-dressing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm glad you think ypur so much more important than those whom have served since unification.....


----------



## a_majoor

anglo-saxon; the reason this announcement is being treated with derision by officers and the rank and file (I am currently working in Kingston and hear it on a daily basis in the DFAC, gym and workplace) is because *we* are all aware this is government window dressing to focus attention away from the pressing needs of our entire military machine.

We need manpower to fill the empty slots (in Maple Resolve it was quite apparent we don't have enough of the Pte-Cpl types at the sharp end), modern equipment to do the jobs we are tasked to do (basic stuff like trucks and combat boots) and a serious look at our structure and doctrine (what does the government want us to do and how do they want us to do it?). Our Navy and AirForce comrades in arms can cough up a laundry list of shortfalls they need attended to as well.

In that context, it really does not matter if we have pips and crowns, or paint ourselves in Woad to distinguish ourselves from other NATO nations. If the government actually had the well being of the Armed Forces in mind, then they would roll up their sleeves and start working on a Defense White Paper, and then lay out a multi year plan on how to fulfill it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> To all the nay-sayers on here, I offer this: You (and I) are but a small and very recent part of this nation's (and therefore it's military's) history. Thank goodness our heritage is somewhat older than a mere 45 years (we are wearing 1812 pins for a reason, after all!) ....


Ah, the "my way, way back heritage is better than your only one generation or so heritage" argument ....


			
				Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> .... But you go ahead and look down your nose at those of us who see this as wasteful window-dressing.





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> .... *we* are all aware this is government window dressing to focus attention away from the pressing needs of our entire military machine .... If the government actually had the well being of the Armed Forces in mind, then they would roll up their sleeves and start working on a Defense White Paper, and then lay out a multi year plan on how to fulfill it.


 :nod: x 2


----------



## Jed

I never wore any pips or a crown and have experienced a fair bit of service in the CF, mostly Reg force. I suppose I am the rare bird of my vintage that sees this as a positive change. 

Character is good for the CF. All serving members are going to require lots of it as the bean counters clamp down on the significant budget items. Have some fun with it for Chrissake. At least all you folks that dis the USA on a regular basis can say ,hey, I'm not one of those guys.


----------



## Robert0288

Thucydides said:
			
		

> anglo-saxon; the reason this announcement is being treated with derision by officers and the rank and file (I am currently working in Kingston and hear it on a daily basis in the DFAC, gym and workplace) is because *we* are all aware this is government window dressing to focus attention away from the pressing needs of our entire military machine.



+1.  While in the mess down here in kingston, all I've heard is what a waste this is, and how getting new boots in the system is probably a much better focus.  There is a BMQ is running down here, and I think its been more than 2 weeks and some of them still don't have boots.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> +1.  While in the mess down here in kingston, all I've heard is what a waste this is, and how getting new boots in the system is probably a much better focus.  There is a BMQ is running down here, and I think its been more than 2 weeks and some of them still don't have boots.



Perhaps you can borrow some of those cardboard boots anglo-saxon wore in the trenches :


----------



## Michael OLeary

Most commenters here aren't "dissing the change", they are dissing the hollow reasons being offered for it. The Army is changing rank insignia, first and foremost, _because it was told to_. Dress is up however you like with semantics, the Army will get on with it and do it, but don't expect everyone to stand and cheer because some small change from Unification has been partly overturned through political lobbying. Standing one points of "past honour" only serves to denigrate the honour that has been build on sweat and blood over the past four decades. It's a change, anyone who's been in past coffee break has seen change. Let's not delude ourselves, we're not returning to the pre-1970 system of rank insignia, we're going to invent a new one that has some aspects of it.

My other  :2c: - Pips and Crown and Politics


----------



## Old EO Tech

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Most commenters here aren't "dissing the change", they are dissing the hollow reasons being offered for it. The Army is changing rank insignia, first and foremost, _because it was told to_. Dress is up however you like with semantics, the Army will get on with it and do it, but don't expect everyone to stand and cheer because some small change from Unification has been partly overturned through political lobbying. Standing one points of "past honour" only serves to denigrate the honour that has been build on sweat and blood over the past four decades. It's a change, anyone who's been in past coffee break has seen change. Let's not delude ourselves, we're not returning to the pre-1970 system of rank insignia, we're going to invent a new one that has some aspects of it.
> 
> My other  :2c: - Pips and Crown and Politics



Having read your other article, I will say that Rum Rations authorized by CO's/Comds are seemingly making a come back as are large "smokers".  I took part in both this spring as part of Ex PR/MR, and frankly having served since the 80's, I never thought I'd see either....so things can change for the better.

We can argue about all the current changes to the Army, and whether they are good or bad, in the end we will soldier on and continue with what the government gives us.


----------



## Inquisitor

Having read your other article, I will say that Rum Rations authorized by CO's/Comds are seemingly making a come back as are large "smokers".  I took part in both this spring as part of Ex PR/MR, and frankly having served since the 80's, I never thought I'd see either....so things can change for the better.

Wasn't the standard at one time two beer a day or a shot of navy rum dark part of field rations part of rations ???? not that you got them in the field, I belive they were ammo for the smoker. 

If so .... and is reinstated -I suggest we support these changes whole-heartedly. I'll  drink to that  ;D

My introduction to the rum was beiing attached to 3RCR for a winter Internal security exercise in the 70's - Glasses fogged up as I stepped into a tent, off sentry on roadblock,  got handed a coffee cup with with something dark in it - big gulp - thought I'd explode


----------



## George Wallace

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> To all the nay-sayers on here, I offer this: You (and I) are but a small and very recent part of this nation's (and therefore it's military's) history. Thank goodness our heritage is somewhat older than a mere 45 years (we are wearing 1812 pins for a reason, after all!).
> 
> The changes perpetrated against Canada's military, described as "unification" 45 years ago, was a divisive and incredibly damaging act, which resulted not only in immense change in the landscape and culture of the Canadian Forces, but also its very legal status. All three services lost their individual legal status when unified as a single force (and remain as such today). A great many very senior officers, many of them WWII and Korea vets, either resigned in protest at that time or were forced into retirement. This was wholesale change was for political gain alone and at the expense of this country's armed forces and at huge expense to the public. The subsequent rank, insignia, and nomenclature changes were a direct result of that obscene act.
> 
> That the "bars" of Canadian Army officers will be replaced by pre-unification "pips" and crowns is (along with other reversions), to me a small realignment towards the right direction. I also offer this: Had the pips and crowns never been done away with in the first place, there would be no clamour today to change them to something else and no one will convince me otherwise.  In fact, had that been the case and had such a suggestion been made, I firmly believe that our pips and crowns would be most jealously guarded by all. I am therefore quite certain that people today are resistant to this change only because it is what they know and are used to; a glaring indicator of their fundamental failure to consider our history and heritage in its full sense. Perhaps those same people, therefore, need to be just a little less self-absorbed and far more honouring of this nation's history and heritage.
> 
> Getting rid of these silly bars and returning to pips and crowns is not only long overdue, it should never have happened in the first place. And those who sneer at "trinkets", "baubles", "buttons", and "bows" are fundamentally missing the point. Such insignia and accouterments are among the ONLY outward symbols of who and what we are. Should we all be generic and characterless for the sake of a few shekels or to appease those who just don't get it? I think not! If that were the case, then why not just replace the CDS with the president of the Treasury Board and have done with it? (Yes, I know it sometimes feels like that has happened already, but that is beside the point.) I do not for one minute begrudge the armoured folk wearing their spurs and chain mail, nor the Guards' their huge "Colour Sergeant" rank badge, nor the highlanders or anybody else their respective peculiarities. It's called "character"! Something I believe we as a force could do with more of.
> 
> One thing is for sure: The young officers coming in the door to be trained today will be as proud of their pips and (hopefully, one day) crowns as the rest of us have been with our rank insignia. They will care not a jot for bars!
> 
> I for one look forward to the French grey of "3 Div" with proper Army rank insignia!



So much utter nonsense here, I was positive that you had never served a day in your life and were just awakening out of a coma.  This is utter tripe.  

For better or worse "Unification" happened.  Being the MILITARY a common uniform and rank system  was created.  This is the military and "uniformity" is one of a military's distinct characteristic.  To have members of a nations military of a common rank running around wearing different rank badges reflecting a different Branch of Service is not uniform.  The Canadian Armed Forces have no Bases, Installations, Units, Ships, etc. that are made up solely of one Environment or Branch of Service, just as none of them are made up of members from one race, religion, language, etc.  Airforce members serve aboard ship.  Every "Army" Base has a wide mix of Air and Naval members serving in various capacities.  This new CANFORGEN forced upon us by the CPC will create an environment where every Canadian Armed Force Base, Installation, Unit, Ship, etc. will have a wide mix of rank badges; Pips and Crowns, Bars, Stripes, etc. due to the simple fact that all Environments/Branches/Corps serve on or in them.  This has not even brought into account that our members, besides creating confusion at home, will be adding confusion abroad while serving with members from other nations.  

I am so surprised that the word "Dinosaur" has not cropped up in this discussion yet.  I am convinced that your contribution here, besides being the whims of a "Monarchist" fantasizing of the "Good Ole Days" has earned you the distinction of being called a "Dinosaur".


----------



## The_Dictat

Just to diverge from the current discussion in the last few pages...

I have started to use 2 Can Div in my signature block ;D


----------



## McG

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> That the "bars" of Canadian Army officers will be replaced by pre-unification "pips" and crowns is (along with other reversions), to me a small realignment towards the right direction. I also offer this: Had the pips and crowns never been done away with in the first place, there would be no clamour today to change them to something else and no one will convince me otherwise.  In fact, had that been the case and had such a suggestion been made, I firmly believe that our pips and crowns would be most jealously guarded by all. I am therefore quite certain that people today are resistant to this change only because it is what they know and are used to; a glaring indicator of their fundamental failure to consider our history and heritage in its full sense. Perhaps those same people, therefore, need to be just a little less self-absorbed and far more honouring of this nation's history and heritage.


I would suggest the self-absorbed are those in the minority who feel it right to strip the current serving soldiers of visible identifiers of their identity in order to impose the fetish of an historical image.

Tradition is something that evolves, sometimes consciously, sometimes not, sometimes out of desire, and other times out of necessity.  You are probably right: in some fictitious reality where Canadians continued to wear pips & crowns, there would be argument against change to anything different.  Your fantasy land is irrelevant to the current discussion; in your fantasy land and analogy, that would be someone attacking/throwing-away the visible identifiers of their identity.  How can you use this analogy to argue for doing just that very thing (stripping of visible signs of identity) to the soldiers of the real word?

To refer to pips & crowns as our traditional rank is a lie – they are our historical rank, but our tradition has changed.  After two generations, the current tradition (the thing the Army now identifies with) is the current system of rank.

Not only is the current rank now our tradition, it is more functional than the historical ranks.  It facilitates communication across the environments because, even though service pers may not be able to name the rank, all CAF members can recognize the rank of any other CAF member.  If you go into a coalition environment today, you will find a great mix of every nations’ army, navy, air force, marines and gendarmerie – our common CAF rank actually helps in this environment as well because our allies only have one rank system to learn.  The idea that pips are an Army rank system and therefore pips & crowns will improve communication within a pure army coalition is a farce – the British system of pips & crowns differs from the norm “on the continent” (and there is even variation amongst those nations).  In the end, the only way we will ever see a rank that truly improves recognition in a coalition environment will be if we successfully lobby for pan-NATO Joint rank insignia ... that notion is probably several bridges too far.  Sticking closer to home, we could preserve the enhanced ability to communicate across environments which is provided by our current rank system.

So, to rephrase a dumbass:  Perhaps those people who would impose their historical fetish, need to be just a little less self-absorbed and far more honouring of this nation's current tradition.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am so surprised that the word "Dinosaur" has not cropped up in this discussion yet.  I am convinced that your contribution here, besides being the whims of a "Monarchist" fantasizing of the "Good Ole Days" has earned you the distinction of being called a "Dinosaur".


 :nod:


----------



## Remius

I see this as degrees of functionality.  What was functional back then is not necessarily functional now.  Look at our combat dress.  Cadpat, buttons are hidden, velcro etc.  Now go back and look at at our OD, battle dress, wool jackets etc etc.  Those things may have been functional then but as the world evolves so must our "traditions".

Many units have traditions and have traditional garb in the form of ceremonial dress.  THAT is where you can keep those traditions.  Pips, crowns, bearskin hats, chest plates and pith helmets.  All great traditional dress and items and all recognised as valid orders of dress.  Keep it in the NPP world.  If units really care about those traditions they will take measures to ensure they are perpetuated, and many do. If not then they will be relegated to books, photos and paintings because in the end no one cared enough to make them important, and that should tell you something.

As for the rank changes, most of those ranks are used everyday.  Bombadier, Fusilier, Guardsman etc while all informal now, are currently used in the common lingo so for that why not just formalise what is already currently being used anyway.  That really has no cost, keeps those affected more or less happy and we carry on.  Which is what the army wanted.  Formalised no cost change but someone wanted to add more that no one really wanted.

It's like when you order something you want by mail and you get it but they send you a pile of crap you don't need with it to thank you for your business.

I am the first to be all for tradition and recognising units' unique branding but not at the expense of common sense and ill spent effort and money.  So if a regiment wants to raise money for pith helmets and traditional swords for whatever reason I have no issues with that, as long as they put the effort, find the funds and get it done themselves.  If the PPCLI want their red tab, and can justify it then let them, no big deal.  many reserve units spend NPP on things like kilts, balmorals, headress,patches etc etc.  It is all NPP and they manage it themselves.


_Modified to correct NPF and use the correct term NPP_


----------



## George Wallace

Crantor said:
			
		

> I see this as degrees of functionality.  What was functional back then is not necessarily functional now.  Look at our combat dress.  Cadpat, buttons are hidden, velcro etc.  Now go back and look at at our OD, battle dress, wool jackets etc etc.  Those things may have been functional now but as the world evolves so must our "traditions".
> 
> Many units have traditions and have traditional garb in the form of ceremonial dress.  THAT is where you can keep those traditions.  Pips, crowns, bearskin hats, chest plates and pith helmets.  All great traditional dress and items and all recognised as valid orders of dress.  Keep it in the NPF world.  If units really care about those traditions they will take measures to ensure they are perpetuated, and many do. If not then they will be relegated to books, photos and paintings because in the end no one cared enough to make them important, and that should tell you something.
> 
> As for the rank changes, most of those ranks are used everyday.  Bombadier, Fusilier, Guardsman etc while all informal now, are currently used in the common lingo so for that why not just formalise what is already currently being used anyway.  That really has no cost, keeps those affected more or less happy and we carry on.  Which is what the army wanted.  Formalised no cost change but someone wanted to add more that no one really wanted.
> 
> It's like when you order something you want by mail and you get it but they send you a pile of crap you don't need with it to thank you for your business.
> 
> I am the first to be all for tradition and recognising units' unique branding but not at the expense of common sense and ill spent effort and money.  So if a regiment wants to raise money for pith helmets and traditional swords for whatever reason I have no issues with that, as long as they put the effort, find the funds and get it done themselves.  If the PPCLI want their red tab, and can justify it then let them, no big deal.  many reserve units spend NPF on things like kilts, balmorals, headress,patches etc etc.  It is all NPF and they manage it themselves.



Good post.  One correction though; it is not NPF monies, but NPP monies.


----------



## Remius

Whoops.  Thanks for the correction George.  NPP is the correct term.


----------



## SeR

George Wallace said:
			
		

> This has not even brought into account that our members, besides creating confusion at home, will be adding confusion abroad while serving with members from other nations.



George:

If they managed to figure things out fifty years ago, I think the Forces (and our NATO allies) will be able to cope with it again. I do agree with you that the current system of bars is simpler, but people will get used to the new one in no time.

Using the fact that people might get confused is in no way a valid argument.


----------



## Remius

It may not be THE valid argument but it is still a valid one when you add up the sum of all the arguments against this.

While confusion may not be a valid argument on its own, it becomes a valid one when added to things like unecessary, unwanted and expensive.


----------



## George Wallace

SeR said:
			
		

> George:
> 
> If they managed to figure things out fifty years ago, I think the Forces (and our NATO allies) will be able to cope with it again. I do agree with you that the current system of bars is simpler, but people will get used to the new one in no time.
> 
> Using the fact that people might get confused is in no way a valid argument.



My point is; we are going to have the Navy wearing their Executive Swirl and bars, the Army with Pips and Crowns and the Air Force with.........We don't have to leave the country to see that there will confusion in who's who.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Yes, if only there were other nations in the world that function with three or four or even more separate services with their own rank structures without spiralling into a misidentification death spin.  If only...


 :stirpot:


----------



## OldSolduer

Crantor said:
			
		

> It may not be THE valid argument but it is still a valid one when you add up the sum of all the arguments against this.
> 
> While confusion may not be a valid argument on its own, it becomes a valid one when added to things like unecessary, unwanted and expensive.



Hear hear good sir!

Let me say this however:

We have been given legal orders by the GoC. We are duty bound to follow them, not matter how much we disagree with this.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We have been given legal orders by the GoC. We are duty bound to follow them, not matter how much we disagree with this.



Can we be a conscientious objector?  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Can we be a conscientious objector?  ;D


No, frig..... Lol


----------



## Privateer

I foresee a future topic merge:  "Wearing an ancestor's pips and crowns... and sword... and puttees....and..."


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I doubt anglo-saxon ever served a day in Britain, on a joint base, where you saw a bewildering array of odd badges, propellers, anchors, letters, swirls, wagon wheels, crossed swords, rifle green and black rank slides, pips, crowns both WO and Majors, in all manner of odd colours. Heck some corps even gave their officers completely different capbadges than soldiers. Walking through one of those bases you encountered another soul and performed a 20 sec check of ''capbadge, headdress, uniform complete (ie MTP/DPM/Barracks Dress), rank slide, stable belt, wristlet (if in summer dress) and/or sleeves (depending on order of dress), by which point you've guessed the completely wrong rank and are in the midst of getting jacked up after calling a Navy CPO a Machinist Boatswain 3rd class, because being in a seperate service no one ever told you what the 1045 different navy rank badges actually mean.

It's bloody confusing. The brits get away with it because their Army alone is ( or at least was) bigger than the CF combined. When you are a bantamweight (like the CF), economy of scale matters and it is far simpler to have common ranks for all three services.

Link NSA.CA (not safe for army.ca, naughty language)
http://terminallance.com/comics/2010-03-02-Strip_17_The_Stare_web.jpg


----------



## PMedMoe

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Link NSA.CA (not safe for army.ca, naughty language)
> http://terminallance.com/comics/2010-03-02-Strip_17_The_Stare_web.jpg



 :rofl:

Naughty language?  Hardly...


----------



## Remius

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Let me say this however:
> 
> We have been given legal orders by the GoC. We are duty bound to follow them, not matter how much we disagree with this.



And in the end that is all that really matters.  We can discuss the return of bars in 2035 when nostaligia for the past era hits a peak.  Prime Minister Pierre Polievre will likely force it on the CF like the afghanistan pin all members will be wearing to commemorate that war.  ;D


----------



## anglo-saxon

Wow, looks like I hit a nerve on some of you princesses. Doesn't take much for some of you to get all twitchy and vitriolic, does it? True colours indeed! Bless yer little cotton socks! I bet you feel all tough behind the wheel of your Prius, too. Bottom line: We've go it handed to us, like it or not. Deal with it. I'm glad to say that, despite the poll and general snivelling on this forum, I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes. As a wise man once said: "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!" 

A-S out!


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Wow, where to begin with that nonsense.....that's right, I won't bother.

So anglo-saxon, you admit that the change is a joke then?


----------



## Old Sweat

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I doubt anglo-saxon ever served a day in Britain, on a joint base, where you saw a bewildering array of odd badges, propellers, anchors, letters, swirls, wagon wheels, crossed swords, rifle green and black rank slides, pips, crowns both WO and Majors, in all manner of odd colours. Heck some corps even gave their officers completely different capbadges than soldiers. Walking through one of those bases you encountered another soul and performed a 20 sec check of ''capbadge, headdress, uniform complete (ie MTP/DPM/Barracks Dress), rank slide, stable belt, wristlet (if in summer dress) and/or sleeves (depending on order of dress), by which point you've guessed the completely wrong rank and are in the midst of getting jacked up after calling a Navy CPO a Machinist Boatswain 3rd class, because being in a seperate service no one ever told you what the 1045 different navy rank badges actually mean.
> 
> It's bloody confusing. The brits get away with it because their Army alone is ( or at least was) bigger than the CF combined. When you are a bantamweight (like the CF), economy of scale matters and it is far simpler to have common ranks for all three services.
> 
> Link NSA.CA (not safe for army.ca, naughty language)
> http://terminallance.com/comics/2010-03-02-Strip_17_The_Stare_web.jpg



The old three services here were something similar to what you described. In the Canadian Army (Regular) which numbered just under 50,000 there were 13 infantry battalions in six different regiments, all of which had all sorts of 'regimental and battalion quirks' along with four armoured regiments with ditto on dress. Even the four different RCHA regiments all had their own peculiarities in uniform and accoutrements. With practice one could pretty well tell which unit somebody was from, and then there were the other services. It seemed to work okay and with variations had managed to cope with, among others, Kaiser Bill, LCpl Hitler, A and Chairman Mao.


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Yes, if only there were other nations in the world that function with three or four or even more separate services with their own rank structures without spiralling into a misidentification death spin.  If only...


I would be curious what nation has four or more entirely distinct rank systems in their military.

Of course, the US has realized the importance of inter service communication with a common officer insignia for all services, and the Army and Marines sharing nearly identical rank insignia for non-commissioned ranks too.  The Israelis have a completely unified rank structure for all services while South Korea has common rank insignia for all.  I suppose it is unusual that these nations, which for decades have been fighting or preparing to fight for national survival, have determined that simplified communication is more important than service/environment peacockery.  They must be doing it wrong.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The old three services here were something similar to what you described. In the Canadian Army (Regular) which numbered just under 50,000 there were 13 infantry battalions in six different regiments, all of which had all sorts of 'regimental and battalion quirks' along with four armoured regiments with ditto on dress. Even the four different RCHA regiments all had their own peculiarities in uniform and accoutrements. *With practice * one could pretty well tell which unit somebody was from, and then there were the other services. It seemed to work okay and with variations had managed to cope with, among others, Kaiser Bill, LCpl Hitler, A and Chairman Mao.



Understood, but my point is in bold, the rank structure we had up until this announcement meant everyone knew who was who in the zoo. The individual corps/regiments had their unofficial ranks (sapper/gunner/trooper) but in a joint context you knew if you were talking to the bossman or a peon straight away. 

I'm more vexed by anglo-saxon's argument that the CF up until now was some sort of faceless corporate treasury board entity with no real character. My argument is, that character showed itself remarkably well in the last 10 years of conflict, regardless of what rank badge people wore. He doesn't seem to understand that on the battlefield, nobody really pays attention to rank slides anyways. 


probably because he never got near one


----------



## Kat Stevens

MCG said:
			
		

> I would be curious what nation has four or more entirely distinct rank systems in their military.
> 
> Of course, the US has realized the importance of inter service communication with a common officer insignia for all services, and the Army and Marines sharing nearly identical rank insignia for non-commissioned ranks too.  The Israelis have a completely unified rank structure for all services while South Korea has common rank insignia for all.  I suppose it is unusual that these nations, which for decades have been fighting or preparing to fight for national survival, have determined that simplified communication is more important than service/environment peacockery.  They must be doing it wrong.



Lighten up, you'll have a stroke.  This is officer talk, and I couldn't give a flying rodents rectum if they made you wear magenta chamber pots on your heads.  I never had any rank, and am therefore indifferent to the trappings of it.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

MCG said:
			
		

> I would be curious what nation has four or more entirely distinct rank systems in their military.
> 
> Of course, the US has realized the importance of inter service communication with a common officer insignia for all services, and the Army and Marines sharing nearly identical rank insignia for non-commissioned ranks too.  The Israelis have a completely unified rank structure for all services while South Korea has common rank insignia for all.  I suppose it is unusual that these nations, which for decades have been fighting or preparing to fight for national survival, have determined that simplified communication is more important than service/environment peacockery.  They must be doing it wrong.



If you look at US Naval officer rank insignia, their service dress insignia is completely different than the 'standard' US officer insignias.  Enlisted rank insignia between the 4 (5 if you count the coast guard) is also quite different with significant differences.  In Marine Corps boot camp we had to memorize both USMC and US Navy enlisted and officer rank insignia and structure, but had no training on rank insignia for the US Army, Air Force, or Coast Guard.

I think it'll just be a matter of time before the RCAF reverts to its pre-unification officer rank titles and insignia.  Then we'll see a gradual revertment back to a modified 'pre-unification' rank structure/insignia for the Army, Navy, and Air Force whereby WO is replaced by Staff Sergeant (Colour Sergeant in guards units), and Flight Sergeant for the Army and Air Force respectively, and the Navy goes back to theirs.  Master Corporal will likely remain and Corporal will be a non-command NCO.


----------



## Jed

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Understood, but my point is in bold, the rank structure we had up until this announcement meant everyone knew who was who in the zoo. The individual corps/regiments had their unofficial ranks (sapper/gunner/trooper) but in a joint context you knew if you were talking to the bossman or a peon straight away.
> 
> I'm more vexed by anglo-saxon's argument that the CF up until now was some sort of faceless corporate treasury board entity with no real character. My argument is, that character showed itself remarkably well in the last 10 years of conflict, regardless of what rank badge people wore. He doesn't seem to understand that on the battlefield, nobody really pays attention to rank slides anyways.
> 
> 
> probably because he never got near one



I don't want to presume that I know what a-s was thinking, but: Maybe he misses the time when the Army didn't have the PC approach stuck so far up its arse that it could take a joke. Jeez, today with all this PC crap, no rum ration, 2 beer per man per day perhaps, clandestine smokers, bean counters and power point wizards prevailing; he feels that the organization stuck it to the man in a small way by getting back pips and crowns. I am damn sure he meant no disrespect for the current warriors we now know.


----------



## Jarnhamar

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> Wow, looks like I hit a nerve on some of you princesses. Doesn't take much for some of you to get all twitchy and vitriolic, does it? True colours indeed! Bless yer little cotton socks! I bet you feel all tough behind the wheel of your Prius, too. Bottom line:


I'm not sure if you're on drugs or just being a big crybaby because people didn't buy into your bullshit.

What does someone driving a Prius have to do with being tough? Is that in the same ballpark as someone saying "I bet you feel tough behind that computer screen / desk"
Are you going to challange someone to a duel next, big guy? 



> despite the poll and general snivelling on this forum, I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes.


THAT I can believe, and says a lot too.


----------



## MARS

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> , I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes.



Two questions: are these people still serving? (if in Honorary positions, please clarify that fact).  And: what is their rationale/motivation for lobbying in support of this change?

It might help the rank and file who resent this change to understand the who's and why's behind the change.

Regards.

MARS


----------



## Fishbone Jones

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> Wow, looks like I hit a nerve on some of you princesses. Doesn't take much for some of you to get all twitchy and vitriolic, does it? True colours indeed! Bless yer little cotton socks! I bet you feel all tough behind the wheel of your Prius, too. Bottom line: We've go it handed to us, like it or not. Deal with it. I'm glad to say that, despite the poll and general snivelling on this forum, I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes. As a wise man once said: "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!"
> 
> A-S out!



Go read the rules while having your time out. Start with trolling and personal attacks.

I could be mistaken but I see an introduction to the Warning System coming down the pipe.

---Staff---


----------



## Remius

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> Wow, looks like I hit a nerve on some of you princesses. Doesn't take much for some of you to get all twitchy and vitriolic, does it? True colours indeed! Bless yer little cotton socks! I bet you feel all tough behind the wheel of your Prius, too. Bottom line: We've go it handed to us, like it or not. Deal with it. I'm glad to say that, despite the poll and general snivelling on this forum, I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes. As a wise man once said: "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!"
> 
> A-S out!



I don't believe I became votriolic and I'll assume you are directing this at others.  My socks are wool and I drive a Yaris.  Thought I'd get that out of the way.

General snivelling.  Well to be honest I know more that are not for the change.  And it really has nothing to do with tradition.  It has to do with something that costs half a million dollars when much more important things should be looked at.  You don't go buy brand new curtins when you have no money for food and the kids are starving because the curtins remind you of grandma.   What you call snivelling can be interpreted as concern for misplaced priorities.  While you may be all for the new/old rank system and the nice stitching it will be (it does look nice)  some would prefer boots, ammo, training etc.  It isn't snivelling at all.  Our budget is being cut and the most important announcements in 2013 are a return to pips, crowns and curls.  Meanwhile no one can say if there will be money for training or ammo next year or even what the heck our focus should be.  

I like and prefer the pips and crowns.  They look sharp.  But really, there are more important things to do and look at.  And you are right.  We will live with it and deal with it.  Just like the next time we have a "good idea" to live and deal with that takes ressources from what we are supposed to be doing.

The army didn't want this and did not support it.  Others thought otherwise.  Maybe, just maybe, next time we can let the army decide what's good for the army and those others can go back to moving little army men on a board somewhere while sipping port and smoking cigars. 

It's a done deal and I'll do what I'm told but it won't stop me from doing this:    :facepalm:  

(I use that last part in jest since I do not want to promote the bad habit of smoking)


----------



## OldSolduer

anglo-saxon said:
			
		

> Wow, looks like I hit a nerve on some of you princesses. Doesn't take much for some of you to get all twitchy and vitriolic, does it? True colours indeed! Bless yer little cotton socks! I bet you feel all tough behind the wheel of your Prius, too. Bottom line: We've go it handed to us, like it or not. Deal with it. I'm glad to say that, despite the poll and general snivelling on this forum, I know a lot more people who are for all of this change than against it. Many of them actually lobbied for the changes. As a wise man once said: "If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't have joined!"
> 
> A-S out!



Who do you think you are? 

And by the way I drive a Dodge Ram and its cousin the Challenger.

You might want to reconsider your approach with people.


----------



## PanaEng

Jed said:
			
		

> I don't want to presume that I know what a-s was thinking, but: Maybe he misses the time when the Army didn't have the PC approach stuck so far up its arse that it could take a joke. Jeez, today with all this PC crap, no rum ration, 2 beer per man per day perhaps, clandestine smokers, bean counters and power point wizards prevailing; he feels that the organization stuck it to the man in a small way by getting back pips and crowns. I am damn sure he meant no disrespect for the current warriors we now know.


You got it wrong Jed: The Man stuck it to the organization...


----------



## George Wallace

Fact is, todays Soldiers are much more educated than those pre-unification.  They are observant enough, and knowledgeable enough, to recognize BS when they see it.  This for them is an exercise in futility; a trivial order that makes little or no sense when there are, as pointed out, much larger issues that need to be addressed.  

OH!  Just for a-s:  All my socks match.  They all have blue bands on their tops.


----------



## armyvern

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Fact is, todays Soldiers are much more educated than those pre-unification.  They are observant enough, and knowledgeable enough, to recognize BS when they see it.  This for them is an exercise in futility; a trivial order that makes little or no sense when there are, as pointed out, much larger issues that need to be addressed.
> 
> OH!  Just for a-s:  All my socks match.  They all have blue bands on their tops.



You nailed it;  just got back to work from leave today and my troops had a flurry of "WTF!?" questions about this waste-a-money when there's shit we actually need.  I missed the news on this while away so could only sigh.

My issued socks all have green bands (but I wear tan socks every day) & I drive one of 3 Jeeps; most importantly, I have no idea what a prius looks like.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

I took a hiatus from this lofty debate and come back to see anglo-saxons milpoints plummet from +350 to -2000.

That in itself made me laugh.

I'll admit, I have no dog in this fight, being out and all, but I'm glad to see common sense prevailing as evidenced by the general mood towards this pips and crowns nonsense. I get that everyone will shrug and get on with the job, but I do feel for you guys, knowing the state of the budget, it's effect on training and what other, more pressing matters are facing the army and CF as a whole.

My commiserations to you all.


----------



## Kat Stevens

I get what everyone is saying about the cost in money, staffing, and aggravation, but really, did we not have a thread around here somewhere of what it cost to put a higher HQ in the field for what amounted to a giant circle jerk?  How about those  bukake fests get reduced if Gunner Gump needs a new pair of boots?  All these HQ exercises could be done over facebook.  How many pairs of new and wonderful socks do you think the projected cost of this change would buy once R&D, retooling a mill in Quebec, sourcing ballistic spider silk, and exhaustive field trials and colour preference study groups are paid for?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I get what everyone is saying about the cost in money, staffing, and aggravation, but really, did we not have a thread around here somewhere of what it cost to put a higher HQ in the field for what amounted to a giant circle jerk?  How about those  bukake fests get reduced if Gunner Gump needs a new pair of boots?  All these HQ exercises could be done over facebook.  How many pairs of new and wonderful socks do you think the projected cost of this change would buy once R&D, retooling a mill in Quebec, sourcing ballistic spider silk, and exhaustive field trials and colour preference study groups are paid for?



 :goodpost:

This


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I get what everyone is saying about the cost in money, staffing, and aggravation, but really, did we not have a thread around here somewhere of what it cost to put a higher HQ in the field for what amounted to a giant circle jerk? ...



Yes, yes we do.  i think you will find that most of having issues with the latest changes to dress also posted in those other threads and also have issues with the mentioned circle-jerks, anything self-licking and self-perpetuating etc etc.

Most of us though, don't hang out with those Hon Cols et al who lobbied for this however.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Kat. Good points, but I may be out of line by thinking I speak for the majority here but it is not the details about cost and whether 2000 pairs of pips, crowns etc is going to mean cancelling MR 2014 (one can hope though right), but rather, it is the principle of the matter. 

Is this issue, the restoration of antiquated ranks, really the most pressing defence matter at the minute? 

How many man-hours were spent on this project? More than we'd all care to admit I think.

Especially when you have articles appearing in national press quoting the commander of the Canadian Army as saying certain modern skills are 'on life support'.


----------



## Gunner98

I am sure it has already been said but this sounds like one of LGen Devlin's Army legacy achievements.


After 28 years of nonsense, I am glad I will take off my uniform for the last time before I put a Crown (or a Pip) on for the first time.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Again, I really couldn't give a flying f*ck at a rolling doughnut about any of this, just trying to stir the pot a bit.


----------



## McG

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> I am sure it has already been said but this sounds like one of LGen Devlin's Army legacy achievements.


It has not been said.  Rather, a handful have pointed out that the General was openly opposed to the idea up until the MND's office called up and told him it was happening.


----------



## Gunner98

MCG said:
			
		

> It has not been said.  Rather, a handful have pointed out that the General was openly opposed to the idea up until the MND's office called up and told him it was happening.



Are you (and others) saying this was a MacKay legacy or the last straw for MacKay as MND?


----------



## Michael OLeary

This is the legacy of the lobby group that sold the Government on the plan.

http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33198


----------



## FJAG

MCG said:
			
		

> It has not been said.  Rather, a handful have pointed out that the General was openly opposed to the idea up until the MND's office called up and told him it was happening.



And then he said:

“The restoration of these features is a significant step in the restoration of the Canadian Army’s traditions,” said Lieutenant-General Peter Devlin, Commander of the Canadian Army. “Symbols and traditions establish links to soldiers’ heritage, and are important. It is very significant that our non-commissioned members have the prospect of being able to bear the same ranks as their forbearers, and our officers will proudly wear the same insignia worn by Canadians who fought in the First and Second World Wars and Korea.”

:endnigh:  

Like some prior posters, I don't have a dog in this hunt either: just a personal preference.

So far I've avoided any temptations to become a contractor, but judging by some of the above posts I think there may be a good living to be made in developing and running a "Rank Identification Training Program" for the CF.  

What do you say Old Sweat? Are you game? :stirpot:


----------



## McG

FJAG said:
			
		

> And then he said:


Doing his job.  Many a leader has had the behind doors debate with the higher command and then come out to sell a decision they do not personally agree with.  Just as we will all get on with it when the time comes.

Yes, it is not the end of the world.  That makes it no less unnecessary, unwanted, wasteful, unhelpful, and occasionally insulting.


----------



## Old Sweat

:deadhorse: 

It's a b*tch that a real good officer like General Devlin is getting painted with this just as he retires. Again, this change originated outside the military and even, I think, the department. It has all the indications of one of those things that are really of little real import, but consume time, goodwill and money that could better be used on more important matters at an astronomical rate,

And I have no intention of running seminars on how to tell the difference between second lieutenants and majors and captains and colonels.

Can anybody spell "lock?"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This is the legacy of the lobby group that sold the Government on the plan.
> 
> http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33198


Great catch - thanks for sharing.  It appears from some of the posts there that a LOT more details have been sorted out than it might seem based on other posts here.  It'll be interesting to see what kind of response ERC gets to his emailed suggestion.


----------



## Gunner98

MCG said:
			
		

> Doing his job.  Many a leader has had the behind doors debate with the higher command and then come out to sell a decision they do not personally agree with.  Just as we will all get on with it when the time comes.
> 
> Yes, it is not the end of the world.  That makes it no less unnecessary, unwanted, wasteful, unhelpful, and occasionally insulting.



If LGen Devlin truly did not support this decision why didn't he just let the incoming commander make the announcement.  As of 10:00 a.m. today it is no longer Devlin's concern, but history will show this as one of his and ex-MND's legacies.  Perhaps he was just taking one for the team.  LGen Hainse will be stuck explaining over the next year how these dollars will be 'wisely' spent under his watch.  It is kind of strange(surely not without precedent) to have two DND/CF leaders who appear responsible for a decision leaving their jobs before a major transformation like this is implemented and ultimately defended by their successors.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4899

_- mod edit to change link to comply with Milnet.ca policy - _


----------



## McG

Do you believe it was the LGen Devlin who chose the timing of the announcement with the MND?


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you believe it was the LGen Devlin who chose the timing of the announcement with the MND?


 I don't. LGen Devlin is on his way out, and what better time to make the announcement. This was a directed from the highest IMO.


----------



## Old Sweat

I'm with Jim on this.


----------



## PanaEng

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I took a hiatus from this lofty debate and come back to see anglo-saxons milpoints plummet from +350 to -2000.
> 
> That in itself made me laugh.
> 
> I'll admit, I have no dog in this fight, being out and all, but I'm glad to see common sense prevailing as evidenced by the general mood towards this pips and crowns nonsense. I get that everyone will shrug and get on with the job, but I do feel for you guys, knowing the state of the budget, it's effect on training and what other, more pressing matters are facing the army and CF as a whole.
> 
> My commiserations to you all.


When you start missing this nonsense in real life we have a spot for you in 33 CER...


----------



## Gunner98

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you believe it was the LGen Devlin who chose the timing of the announcement with the MND?



MCG you remind me why I should quickly recede back into darkness - I will say I don't believe LGen Devlin chose to retire either-  but you remind me why I did.


----------



## Jarnhamar

Did someone say General?

I'm looking forward to putting a range on hold and sitting in the sun for an hour on a hot hot afternoon while we wait for a general to come and tell the troops how important this is and how great it will be for morale.

A sacrificial lamb private raising his hand when asked if there's any questions and asking the general something about not having enough money to train, vehicles states or something like that. 

Some of the SNCOs and Officers will stare daggers at the kid, the rest of the SNCOs and Officers smirking to themselves and the general giving a canned answer to a completely different question, thanking the kid for his great question ask his name (maybe a glance at the RSM) and move on to the next question.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> :deadhorse:
> 
> It's a b*tch that a real good officer like General Devlin is getting painted with this just as he retires. Again, this change originated outside the military and even, I think, the department. It has all the indications of one of those things that are really of little real import, but consume time, goodwill and money that could better be used on more important matters at an astronomical rate,
> 
> And I have no intention of running seminars on how to tell the difference between second lieutenants and majors and captains and colonels.
> 
> Can anybody spell "lock?"



Of course it came from outside the department. I'll bet my bottom dollar it came directly from the Prime Minister.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm with Jim on this.


I'm with Jim and Old Sweat on this, too.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :deadhorse:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with Jim and Old Sweat on this, too.
Click to expand...


Having to tailor uniforms....._again_.....I appear to be with the horse on this.   :not-again:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'm with Jim and Old Sweat on this, too.
> 
> 
> Having to tailor uniforms....._again_.....I appear to be with the horse on this.   :not-again:


I'm just with Jim & OS on where the announcement came from (not from someone in green, but above), not in favour of the extra tailoring.


----------



## Journeyman

I knew what you meant   



Just thought I'd take another opportunity to express what a dumbass idea it is


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I knew what you meant
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd take another opportunity to express what a dumbass idea it is


My misread then - let the discussion continue.


----------



## McG

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> ... I will say I don't believe LGen Devlin chose to retire either-  but you remind me why I did.


I apologies if something offended you.  You seemed to have implied that the general chose the time of the announcement to ensure he could personally attach himself to the initiative.  I am curious if that is what you believed.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I read that as "somebody other than the general chose the general's retirement timing". I have no idea either way, I'm just saying that's how I read it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

More symbolic awesomeness!


> Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, the new Commander of the Canadian Army, today announced that the Canadian Army is adopting a new primary badge, visual identifier, and tagline.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The new primary badge of the Canadian Army is based on a badge used prior to the unification of the Canadian Armed Forces in 1968, but encased in a more recent version of the badge frame. It features crossed swords, which symbolize the history of the Canadian Army as one team working together in the defence of Canada. The three maple leaves, conjoined on one stem, are taken from the Royal Arms of Canada, and represent service to Canada, service to our sovereign, and the heritage of the Canadian Army.
> 
> The visual identifier, derived from the primary badge, features a crown atop the maple leaves and swords, as well as the words “Canadian Army” in both official languages. The new tagline – Strong. Proud. Ready. – echoes organizational values and underscores the importance of readiness for full-spectrum operations.
> 
> Symbols are an important component of military culture. With commemorations of the First World War scheduled to begin in 2014, the timing is right for the Canadian Army to restore symbols that link it to its military heritage.


----------



## tomydoom

I must say, I think the visual identifier looks sharp, but the tag line looks like something off of a video game box.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I must say, I think the visual identifier looks sharp, but the tag line looks like something off of a video game box.



I was thinking the same thing. Too stark a contrast with the polished look of the header and badge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This started with those 'executive curls' and now...there's just no stopping it!!!   >


----------



## PanaEng

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This started with those 'executive curls' and now...there's just no stopping it!!!   >


It seems like it started with this Clive dude at  British & Commonwealth Military Badge Forum (online name: servicepub) as posted earlier - at least for the Army changes.
Seems like my email address is banned there - maybe they saw some of my posts here...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I don't speak French, but the word 'prete', in the new Army motto, looks like it's pronounced 'pretty'. ;D

I can be corrected, but I still say things like "Pass the horses ovaries silver platter" so it likely won't make a difference.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well with any luck this will be replacing Cadpat, the new design is combat proven, off the shelf and will reduce the forces carbon footprint.


----------



## medicineman

We getting the Lee-Metford rifle to go with it too?

MM


----------



## tomydoom

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well with any luck this will be replacing Cadpat, the new design is combat proven, off the shelf and will reduce the forces carbon footprint.


It's probably organic too.  ;D


----------



## Danjanou

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well with any luck this will be replacing Cadpat, the new design is combat proven, off the shelf and will reduce the forces carbon footprint.



Where did you find recceguy's GMT Grad photo? >


----------



## Privateer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This is the legacy of the lobby group that sold the Government on the plan.
> 
> http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33198



I see that MCG has straightened them out on that other forum.


----------



## Danjanou

Privateer said:
			
		

> I see that MCG has straightened them out on that other forum.



And having read the other posts there,  count on his banning in 5...4...3...2.....   :


----------



## FSTO

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And having read the other posts there,  count on his banning in 5...4...3...2.....   :



Maybe they welcome opposing points of view? Just saying.


----------



## jollyjacktar

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Did someone say General?
> 
> I'm looking forward to putting a range on hold and sitting in the sun for an hour on a hot hot afternoon while we wait for a general to come and tell the troops how important this is and how great it will be for morale.
> 
> A sacrificial lamb private raising his hand when asked if there's any questions and asking the general something about not having enough money to train, vehicles states or something like that.
> 
> Some of the SNCOs and Officers will stare daggers at the kid, the rest of the SNCOs and Officers smirking to themselves and the general giving a canned answer to a completely different question, thanking the kid for his great question ask his name (maybe a glance at the RSM) and move on to the next question.



Sounds like the Admiral's Town Hall meetings recently in Hfx.  Lot's of shuffling the feet and servings of waffles all around when questions about Sea Pay other bones of contention came up.  From what I gather it rather spoiled the cute puppies and fluffy kittens tone they were wanting to present.


----------



## q_1966

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/return-of-pips-crowns-pleases-former-soldier-1.542383


----------



## George Wallace

Get Nautical said:
			
		

> http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/return-of-pips-crowns-pleases-former-soldier-1.542383



Nice letter from a person who enlisted in 1940 and served until 1964.  He must be close to being dead now.  So why is it necessary to return to the Pips and Crowns of his day?  Is this only to fulfill a 'Death Wish' for this fellow?  The old gent is, however, wrong in his accusation that Hellyer got rid of all the Irish Regiments in the Canadian Armed Forces.  I think the Irish Regiment of Canada would be surprised to hear that they had been disbanded approximately some sixty years ago.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

He'd be the surprised one to see Pte Wong, Cpl Goldberg and Sgt Abdullah of the modern Irish Regt. All of whom don't give a toss for changing rank insignia on a fetishtic whim.


* in case you didn't guess already, names are fictional.


----------



## Chanada

Not part of the pips and crowns per se and maybe not worth much other than a bit of respect to an old soldier.  As we go through another uniform change one thing is a constant in our army culture.   For whatever reason in our army culture change in any direction will always be the subject of all kinds of comments and references to historical CF folklore.  And since we haven't seen the final visual results other than the new "brand" released today, I expect this  thread will see lots more incite and mission creeping speculation  from all quarters in coming weeks.  

If you have nothing better to do take a look at the transcript of LGen Peter Devlin's final remarks on why he is so proud of the Army we managed to maintain through the dark decades and have re-built over the past decade into one that really is something that has achieved things that left most of us who were fortunate to serve through them to think in terms of something I once saw on a slide during a brief to CDS in JTFA - "Who'd a thunk it!?"

Actually his comments about Irish Regiments are not totally inaccurate.  The Irish Regiment of Canada, like the Irish Fusiliers was as part of a Defence Review in 1964...ordered disbanded/reduced to nil str/placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle.  However after a bit of a political campaign the Government was convinced to maintain the Irish Regiment by re-designating and converting 58th Field Regt RCA to be 2nd Bn Irish Regiment of Canada...Hence there is a 2nd Bn Irish but no 1st Bn.  Pro Patria


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nice letter from a person who enlisted in 1940 and served until 1964.  He must be close to being dead now.  So why is it necessary to return to the Pips and Crowns of his day?  Is this only to fulfill a 'Death Wish' for this fellow?  The old gent is, however, wrong in his accusation that Hellyer got rid of all the Irish Regiments in the Canadian Armed Forces.  I think the Irish Regiment of Canada would be surprised to hear that they had been disbanded approximately some sixty years ago.



He probably meant they were taken off the Reg Force order of Battle, which is true, we have no Irish/Scottish regiments in the Reg Force, as they did not fit into the uni-bag uniforms of post unification CF :-/


----------



## q_1966

George Wallace said:
			
		

> He must be close to being dead now.



Must you be that disrespectful.


----------



## Danjanou

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> He probably meant they were taken off the Reg Force order of Battle, which is true, we have no Irish/Scottish regiments in the Reg Force, as they did not fit into the uni-bag uniforms of post unification CF :-/



We never had any Regular Force "Irish" Regiments


----------



## cupper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This started with those 'executive curls' and now...there's just no stopping it!!!   >



It started when they decided to go back to three separate distinct environmental uniforms.

Then we were plagued with good ideas and bad ideas there after.


----------



## a_majoor

Some _useful_ heritage that might be considered for the next go round:

Machine gun platoons. Reviving a great piece of WWI heritage now that we have the monstrous and inordinately heavy C-16, grouping them together under centralized control and with access to transport and other items for the care and feeding of the weapons and their gun crews in the manner pioneered by Candians in WWI will give gun crews a huge boost in morale. crossed "Vickers" machine gun collar dogs optional.

Carrier Platoon. A similar reversion to a WWII heritage due to the limited number of LAV III platforms. We are already moving in that direction (check out the LAV Barn in Petawawa to centralize all the LAVs on base), why not formalize it? I have not been able to Google if the members of the Carrier platoon had any special identifiers, but we can always form a committee to study the matter (another fine part of the Canadian Military Heritage).

Motor Regiments: Another WWII innovation, this woud fit nicely with Reserve units that have no organic armoured transport of their own. Imagine the pride of the various Highland, Rifle, Guard and even Infantry regiments as they can make rapid and efficient administrative moves with all their kit and supplies! 

Combat Support Company. A proud part of Canada's Cold War heritage, members of the Combat Support Company did a multitude of special tasks. Reviving this fine example of Canadian military heritage will restore a great deal of pride in Canadian Infantry Battalions,  and at a minimum could also give rise to a number of specialist badges sewn onto the cuffs of DEU's. 

Navy and Air Force members may have useful heritage suggestions, and of course therre are plenty more Army heritage items we could promote... >


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Navy ... members may have useful heritage suggestions



Pouges Reference in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...  >


----------



## dimsum

tomydoom said:
			
		

> It's probably organic too.  ;D



Is it just me or does it look like the thing hanging from the breast pocket look like a bottle opener?

Well, it *is* Friday (here)   :cheers:


----------



## tomydoom

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does it look like the thing hanging from the breast pocket look like a bottle opener?
> 
> Well, it *is* Friday (here)   :cheers:



Now that you mention it, it does! Now the combat bottle opener, how many years of study and redesigns would that take?


----------



## Inquisitor

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Some _useful_ heritage that might be considered for the next go round:
> 
> 
> Motor Regiments:
> 
> Combat Support Company. A proud part of Canada's Cold War heritage, members of the Combat Support Company did a multitude of special tasks. Reviving this fine example of Canadian military heritage will restore a great deal of pride in Canadian Infantry Battalions,  and at a minimum could also give rise to a number of specialist badges sewn onto the cuffs of DEU's.
> 
> Navy and Air Force members may have useful heritage suggestions, and of course therre are plenty more Army heritage items we could promote... >



Is it just me or is the thread teetering on the brink of outright heresy??? 

Motor Regiments - Do you mean Motorized Infantry??? If so Pres had pools of organic transport for years well into the 70's.  and could do organic wheel lifts.

or Transport companies - ala US style. Either pretty much amounts to the same thing. 

Combat support companies - Mortars and MG's are often referred to as "Essence of Infantry" in terms of their sheer throw weight, Removing Mortars HAAW, assault pioneers etc seems like a HUGE retrograde step but I'm sure this has been covered in depth elsewhere.


----------



## Inquisitor

Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Heresy - cuz that started the miniature giant space hamster in my head spinning on his little treadmill- never a good sign 

Rather than continuing to read the tea leaves lets look at the last, in my opinion) attempt to give the CAF a middle power role. I'm talking Perrin Beatty here. Leading into an even better topic. that has been a source of endless discussion  by historians and trivial challenge players. 

I'm talking the big one. New Clear Weapons!!!!! Canada's heritage is proud Bomarc missiles with no  new clear warheads, Kamikaze New clear strike CF-104s.  Honest john rockets - Nato Doctrine on the 60s for each Nato Brigade to have one new clear weapon a day, at least that's my belief, I could be wrong. Talk about big time intimate support!!! Off topic Always wondered who the pervert was that came up with that term, as opposed to direct support. 

Now I imagine that in an era of declining budgets this will be difficult to justify. Maybe the US has some old Davey Crockets that they will let us have cheap. You know the 106 tube w a small tactical new clear warhard.  Lethal radius of warhead exceeded maximum range of weapon. Kinda like an IQ test for the weapons crews.  Plus do you really want a BN commander running around with this kinda firepower???

Perhaps we should put this Jeannie back in the bottle.


----------



## MARS

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Heresy - cuz that started the miniature giant space hamster in my head spinning on his little treadmill- never a good sign
> 
> Rather than continuing to read the tea leaves lets look at the last, in my opinion) attempt to give the CAF a middle power role. I'm talking Perrin Beatty here. Leading into an even better topic. that has been a source of endless discussion  by historians and trivial challenge players.
> 
> I'm talking the big one. New Clear Weapons!!!!! Canada's heritage is proud Bomarc missiles with no  new clear warheads, Kamikaze New clear strike CF-104s.  Honest john rockets - Nato Doctrine on the 60s for each Nato Brigade to have one new clear weapon a day, at least that's my belief, I could be wrong. Talk about big time intimate support!!! Off topic Always wondered who the pervert was that came up with that term, as opposed to direct support.
> 
> Now I imagine that in an era of declining budgets this will be difficult to justify. Maybe the US has some old Davey Crockets that they will let us have cheap. You know the 106 tube w a small tactical new clear warhard.  Lethal radius of warhead exceeded maximum range of weapon. Kinda like an IQ test for the weapons crews.  Plus do you really want a BN commander running around with this kinda firepower???
> 
> Perhaps we should put this Jeannie back in the bottle.



What in the love of God is all that supposed to mean?


----------



## FJAG

Chanada said:
			
		

> If you have nothing better to do take a look at the transcript of LGen Peter Devlin's final remarks ...



Looked for it but couldn't find it. Could you post a link please?


----------



## northernboy_24

The combat bottle opener is here. Check your gerber, a can/bottle opener is one of the options.


----------



## Kat Stevens

MARS said:
			
		

> What in the love of God is all that supposed to mean?



Wow, glad I'm not the only one this sailed right overhead for.


----------



## George Wallace

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Heresy - cuz that started the miniature giant space hamster in my head spinning on his little treadmill- never a good sign
> 
> Rather than continuing to read the tea leaves lets look at the last, in my opinion) attempt to give the CAF a middle power role. I'm talking Perrin Beatty here. Leading into an even better topic. that has been a source of endless discussion  by historians and trivial challenge players.
> 
> I'm talking the big one. New Clear Weapons!!!!! Canada's heritage is proud Bomarc missiles with no  new clear warheads, Kamikaze New clear strike CF-104s.  Honest john rockets - Nato Doctrine on the 60s for each Nato Brigade to have one new clear weapon a day, at least that's my belief, I could be wrong. Talk about big time intimate support!!! Off topic Always wondered who the pervert was that came up with that term, as opposed to direct support.
> 
> Now I imagine that in an era of declining budgets this will be difficult to justify. Maybe the US has some old Davey Crockets that they will let us have cheap. You know the 106 tube w a small tactical new clear warhard.  Lethal radius of warhead exceeded maximum range of weapon. Kinda like an IQ test for the weapons crews.  Plus do you really want a BN commander running around with this kinda firepower???
> 
> Perhaps we should put this Jeannie back in the bottle.





			
				MARS said:
			
		

> What in the love of God is all that supposed to mean?



Inquisitor

It has always been our practice to clean weapons daily, before and after firing, before and after putting into long-term storage, and any other time that may require maint.  




















OH!....For some reason he was talking about "NUCLEAR" weapons......not new clear....Clean?    ..... Perhaps someone was posting after too many at the pub?


----------



## Michael OLeary

Everyone stay calm, we need Old Sweat to weigh in with a comment on the potential to re-invent the RCA SSM Batteries.

 >


----------



## Gunner98

MCG said:
			
		

> I apologies if something offended you.  You seemed to have implied that the general chose the time of the announcement to ensure he could personally attach himself to the initiative.  I am curious if that is what you believed.



Why I said you remind me why I did - was - even as a LGen he probably had no choice in either decision - Pips or retirement.  The fact that he had to make the announcement likely had more to do with MacKay's legacy and imminent departure than his own.  I was not offended by your comments, just reminded how silly life is at all rank levels.


----------



## McG

I understand now.  Cheers.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

cupper said:
			
		

> Pouges Reference in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...  >



We never stopped  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Everyone stay calm, we need Old Sweat to weigh in with a comment on the potential to re-invent the RCA SSM Batteries.
> 
> >



Having never served in the SSM Batteries, or as 2 SSM (Trg) Bty was known after a missile failed to fire during a demonstration, "Sorry Sir Misfire Battery."

And don't get going on the cyclical (or is it random) nature of changes in organizations and equipment in the air defence and locating functions.


----------



## Danjanou

MARS said:
			
		

> What in the love of God is all that supposed to mean?



Someone failed to read the printed instructions on their meds again re dosage. 8)


----------



## Old Sweat

I was going to comment on the "new clear" post, but as a cold war gunner with a nuclear weapons employment qualification I thought it better to not dignify it with a response.


----------



## Journeyman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> More symbolic awesomeness!





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> .....but the word 'prete', in the new Army motto, looks like it's pronounced 'pretty'.



No problem; you got it right. 

My language profile _may_ have slipped a bit, but the whole thing reads "Fat, but Fire-y and Pretty."  Honest   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No problem; you got it right.
> 
> My language profile _may_ have slipped a bit, but the whole thing reads "Fat, but Fire-y and Pretty."  Honest   :nod:



That could describe me. Perhaps I'm retiring too soon :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar

Sounds like an add for cougars. Forty firey and pretty.


----------



## tomydoom

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Sounds like an add for cougars. Forty firey and *[glow=red,2,300]pretty[/glow]*.



I don't recall the last adjective being present in Sassy's, in Pet, back in the day.


----------



## Jarnhamar

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I don't recall the last adjective being present in Sassy's, in Pet, back in the day.



See, sometimes traditions are better left in the past  ;D


----------



## tomydoom

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> See, sometimes traditions are better left in the past  ;D



I suspect the difference now would be that I'm no longer 20. You get more open minded as you age.


----------



## Remius

Seeing as how french is my first language when I see teh english words I see STRANGE PRUDE READ


----------



## tomydoom

Crantor said:
			
		

> Seeing as how french is my first language when I see teh english words I see *STRANGE PRUDE READ*



Sounds like a form of sensitivity training.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't speak French, but the word 'prete', in the new Army motto, looks like it's pronounced 'pretty'. ;D
> 
> I can be corrected, but I still say things like "Pass the horses ovaries silver platter" so it likely won't make a difference.



As someone who's first language is french I can tell you that it is indeed not pronounced pretty.


----------



## Journeyman

MrBlue said:
			
		

> As someone who's first language is french I can tell you that it is indeed not pronounced pretty.


Well thankfully _that's_ cleared up.     :


----------



## FJAG

Interesting point for all those concerned with the costs involved. There is actually a cost reduction based on reduced future tailoring costs.

*- mod edited to remove link, text to comply with Milnet.ca policy - *  
 :cdnsalute:


----------



## medicineman

What about the cost of the combat slip ons?  They're still going to have to embroider all those pips and crowns on, or are they going to just have low vis pins to plug and play?

MM


----------



## dapaterson

And we all know that all DND accounting is complete and aboveboard.  Just look at the F-35...


----------



## Teager

I don't think they accounted for all the pins that pop off and get lost and need to be replaced. So even if the pin is $5.00 or $6.00 if its replaced a few times the price will climb. I guess the old saying of you get what you pay for applies.


----------



## George Wallace

MrBlue said:
			
		

> As someone who's first language is french I can tell you that it is indeed not pronounced pretty.



Speaking of French; I wonder how this will go over with approx 1/3 of the Army, 5 GBMC in Valcartier and the rest of SQFT?  How will they take going back to a "BRITISH" rank system?  Did any of those 'monarchist' civilian dinosaurs think of that when they lobbied for this change?    >


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Speaking of French; I wonder how this will go over with approx 1/3 of the Army, 5 GBMC in Valcartier and the rest of SQFT?  How will they take going back to a "BRITISH" rank system?  Did any of those 'monarchist' civilian dinosaurs think of that when they lobbied for this change?    >


<Colonel Blimp voice>"They'll take what we give 'em, the snivelling ingrates, and they'll like it, too!"</Colonel Blimp voice>




Or something like that, probably.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

The same way French-Canadian soldiers have conducted themselves for 250 years: professionally.

My experience is that those in uniform who work in or are from La Belle Provence are not the ones who will raise a stink about something like this. Politicians on the other hand........


----------



## rmc_wannabe

So....division patches eh?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Side note, as I have been on Pata for a while, has CJOC come out with a command badge yet ?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Side note, as I have been on Pata for a while, has CJOC come out with a command badge yet ?



http://www.cjoc-coic.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Look at the Mission statement... sure looks like a command insignia...


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.cjoc-coic.forces.gc.ca/index-eng.asp
> 
> Look at the Mission statement... sure looks like a command insignia...



Seen thanks!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

milnews.ca said:
			
		

>



Pretty uncanny the way Col Blimp and your avatar look so similar ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Pretty uncanny the way Col Blimp and your avatar look so similar ;D


I may have been just as sweaty in that shot, but I'm not quite as crusty - yet ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> Pretty uncanny the way Col Blimp and your avatar look so similar ;D




Thanks for that reminder  ;D  I've changed my _avatar_ from one (historical) doughty old soldier to another (fictional) one ~ mainly in honour of this thread which seems to have been necessitated by Col Blimp's Canadian confreres, mainly "honoraries."


----------



## PanaEng

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interesting point for all those concerned with the costs involved. There is actually a cost reduction based on reduced future tailoring costs.
> 
> *- mod edited to remove link, text to comply with Milnet.ca policy - *
> :cdnsalute:


in the alluded article they use the wording to the effect of "it is hoped that the cost will be paid off in 5 years..."
Hope is not a COA.


----------



## McG

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interesting point for all those concerned with the costs involved. There is actually a cost reduction based on reduced future tailoring costs.


This decision was made without thought of money.  If money were a factor, the RCN would not have been allowed to adopt the executive curl, which is more expensive to tailor onto a uniform or produce in slip ons.  If money were the factor, then the whole CAF would be going to pips & crowns.  Money was not relevant in the decision making process - at best the partial cost estimate provides a convenient argument for those who want to cement the change onto an Army that decided it did not want it.

... But I am not convinced this will eventually pay for itself either – instead of sewing a ribbon of rank onto just the officer uniforms, we will sew divisional patches on the sleeves of every member in the Army (and change them on any number of postings).  How much will it cost to embroider pips and crowns onto the dress shirt slip-ons as opposed to sewing on the strip of ribbon?  How will costs compare to embroider the more intricate pips & crowns onto operational clothing slip-ons as opposed to embroidering the simple bars now?

Regardless, the biggest wastes in this whole thing is not money but effort.  For all the staff effort that will go into this in Ottawa, a person could probably have been found to instead push through a few minor equipment projects or help accelerate a major project to get soldiers operationally needed clothing or equipment.   Or maybe this person could have updated some years out of date CFAOs on military careers and promotion (resulting in usefull improvements to how personnel progress through the ranks).  When a decision is made on the design of the new ranks, that is going to take-up the purchasing time of a item and supply managers working for soldier systems in ADM(Mat) – that means these people will be postponing the buying of potentially more relevant soldier kit.  In all the time that the MND and his staff spent discussing, planning, and presenting the various little bits of these silly aesthetic identity changes – what files were marking time?  Where is the solution to the housing problem in Cold Lake?  Where is the solution to the families that have lost tens of thousands because the housing markets were less than favourable when the CAF ordered a move?  How many expenditures requiring ministerial approval time expired?

Our real problems will wait unsolved while the aesthetics of pips and crowns gets rushed to fruition.  The speculation of hoped for savings is desperate flailing for justification, but the analysis is not complete and anything gained has been thrown away in the same announcement as we start sewing on div patches.


----------



## George Wallace

Was just into NDMC or HCC or whatever the CAF wants to call it these days.  Of the five elevators in the building, only two have been working for the past ten years.  Today, I am not sure if both are still working, but I do know that the one I was on does not stop on all the floors.  You have to get off on Main to go to the basement.  Two years ago there was a medical emergency in 33 Bde OR, up on the sixth floor (actually the seventh).  The paramedics had to take a person out on a stretcher.  If it had been on a day that all the elevators were unserviceable that person may have died.  But we have new Pips and Crowns.


----------



## dapaterson

Reservists who have elected for the Reserve pension in 2007, ordered by Parliament in 1999, still do not know how much they owe or what they will receive as a benefit.

But we now have pips and crowns.



Soldiers cannot be issued combat boots as we are out of many common sizes.

But we now have pips and crowns.


----------



## FJAG

It seems to me that I'm becoming the poster boy for pips and crowns and believe me, I don't want to be. All I want to say is folks should keep some perspective in what is really an emotional issue and not a fiscal one. 

The emotional issue is whether you want pips and crowns because of their tie in to past history and other commonwealth nations or whether you prefer the uniquely Canadian traditions developed over the last fifty years. In my mind there is no right or wrong on either side of that issue; just honestly held personal preferences.

Where I tend to think those who oppose the change are off base is when they complain about the costs associated with the change; both hard costs for the insignia etc and soft costs associated with the lost opportunity of staff effort spent on making the changes happen.

We've now had posts about elevators not functioning at NDMC/HCC and the fact that the reserve pension program is badly screwed up.

People let's face reality. 

DND has a $20 Billion budget (and yes I do know that we are underspending again). With $20 Billion (even $18 Billion) you can fix an awful lot of elevators and even the administration of reserve pensions --- if you want to. Both of those items and thousands of other were screwed up and went unfixed long before anyone talked about pips and crowns. Things are screwed up principally because our bureaucracy (both military and civilian) is deeply, deeply flawed.

We have so many flawed programs and processes that needlessly cost us billions and wastes thousands of person years in each and every year that we ought to be collectively thoroughly ashamed of our department. 

In light of what DND does spend and waste each year, this program is truly just a drop in the bucket in both cash and effort. With respect to those who still want to make the fiscal arguments -- go ahead but to me those arguments sound hollow: they are just a rationalization for the fact that emotionally you don't want to see the change. Quite frankly I can understand and respect the emotional argument of those who don't want to see the change. That's because the emotional argument is based on an honest desire to keep the badges that they have lived and fought with during their career. The fiscal argument is smoke and mirrors no matter how much you've convinced yourselves.

I think some of posters are also short changing the positive effect that this change may have on morale.

I appreciate that there are straw polls out there to suggest that many if not most people don't want to see the change. It's easy to get those kind of results when you cynically load the question by insisting this is a government initiative being rail-roaded through the hierarchy which we can't afford and which takes time away from the maim mission. 

To this point in time I have seen no generals or colonels or honorary colonels etc fall on their swords and decrie this initiative. That indicates active leadership support (at worst tacit support).  

One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns. I don't for one minute question your right to make comments but hopefully you will appreciate that I will give less weight to your comments about how detrimental to morale the whole thing is then the weight I will give to the comments of those who are directly effected.

Generally the buttons and bows that identify us as "special" are beneficial for morale. I know my morale went up when we went to DEUs. The "other folks" went to various shades of blue and we army guys threw out our midnight blue mess kit and went to scarlets (which I paid for with pleasure) and also got tan summer dress (conversely, my morale went down when some genius told me to give back my tan uniform and wear my winter weight greens in the summer)

Anyway, that's my  :2c:  Hopefully I can now stop  :brickwall: and maybe I'll even stop  :stirpot:

 :cheers:


----------



## McG

FJAG said:
			
		

> Where I tend to think those who oppose the change are off base is when they complain about the costs associated with the change; both hard costs for the insignia etc and soft costs associated with the lost opportunity of staff effort spent on making the changes happen.
> 
> ...
> 
> We have so many flawed programs and processes that needlessly cost us billions and wastes thousands of person years in each and every year that we ought to be collectively thoroughly ashamed of our department.


Waste is waste, and it is always bad.  You do not justify waste by pointing to bigger problems and declaring the smaller one to therefore be okay.  As a supporter of pips & crowns, you might believe this is money & effort well spent, and feel free to try demonstrating that somewhere there is value coming from this (I do not believe there is) but do not present us the foolish notion that bigger waste exists and therefore any smaller waste is justified.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I think some of posters are also short changing the positive effect that this change may have on morale.


Where will this positive effect occur?  Even now, the only person I have seen get visibly excited by this announcement was RCN.  Every Army person who I have spoken to has viewed this negatively on a  spectrum of disbelief that effort is being squandered up to anger at a sign that the powers are disconnected from what actually matters to serving personnel.  There have been a few self-identified supporters within this thread, and I can think of one Army acquaintance who closely held this fetish and is probably quite happy.  However the evidence (anecdotal as it may be) suggests the moral effect will be neutral at best but more likely it will be mildly negative on the whole.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I appreciate that there are straw polls out there to suggest that many if not most people don't want to see the change. It's easy to get those kind of results when you cynically load the question by insisting this is a government initiative being rail-roaded through the hierarchy which we can't afford and which takes time away from the maim mission.


I suppose it is easy to dismiss a statistically significant poll result when one does not agree with the conclusion.  For the sake of note, the poll existed since before the political announcement and the vote in opposition to change has always lingered in the 60 to 62% support while the supporters of pips & crowns have been have consistently been in the 19 to 21 % support (18 to 30% if you throw in the crew asking for us to copy current UK ranks).  It is true that internet pols have a tendency toward a bias, but the bias of this site is stacked to favour the opinion of current serving CAF members (possibly even more so toward current serving CA).



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns.


I am not sure that is the case.  The opinions seem to be coming from all corners of the military, and the strongly held opinions against include a nice mix of Army officer and NCO.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns. I don't for one minute question your right to make comments but hopefully you will appreciate that I will give less weight to your comments about how detrimental to morale the whole thing is then the weight I will give to the comments of those who are directly effected.



I am an Army officer with some years of service - in fact I started my career in a unit that wore pips and crowns on all but service dress, which we seldom wore.

This is a bad idea.  It is counter-intuitive, and will, I believe, turn out to be counter-productive.  The NCMs that I have spoken to about this issue inevitably roll their eyes, for they (quite rightly) feel that we have bigger fish to fry than what kind of accouterments officers will be wearing.  I could not give a toss either way - the rank after all has never been an indicator of the man in my books, and so the rank badges matter even less.

Will I fall on my sword over this?  Not at all.  Not because I endorse the farce, but rather because I will stay to fry those bigger fish referred to above.  I will, of course, wear the new rank badges, but with no sense of pride or history - rather with a sense of stoic acceptance.

My two cents.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Side note, as I have been on Pata for a while, has CJOC come out with a command badge yet ?



To replace the ninja star on our uniforms? No, not yet.  Hope you are enjoying your leave!


----------



## George Wallace

FJAG said:
			
		

> One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns. I don't for one minute question your right to make comments but hopefully you will appreciate that I will give less weight to your comments about how detrimental to morale the whole thing is then the weight I will give to the comments of those who are directly effected.



BS.  Or perhaps you are suggesting that it will only be Army OFFICERS who will have to be identifying who is who under the new rank system for the Army?  Are you suggesting that NCMs, Air Force officers, Navy officers, and personnel of our Allies need not be able to identify who or what a Canadian Army officer is?  How utterly arrogant of you.  Then again, perhaps you are suggesting that we don't salute those that we can not identify as officers?  

This affects EVERYONE, not a select few ARMY OFFICERS.    

And just to add to your following:


			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Generally the buttons and bows that identify us as "special" are beneficial for morale. I know my morale went up when we went to DEUs. The "other folks" went to various shades of blue and we army guys threw out our midnight blue mess kit and went to scarlets (which I paid for with pleasure) and also got tan summer dress (conversely, my morale went down when some genius told me to give back my tan uniform and wear my winter weight greens in the summer)




Perhaps you dream of going back to those days when you had to buy both Patrols and Scarlets.  Patrol dress was a Duty and after hours order of dress.  Scarlets was/is a ceremonial dress.  Mess Kit (if you are referring to this as Scarlets) was/is a formal Mess dress.  This would give us three more orders of dress that you as an 'officer' would be expected to have and wear at the appropriate times.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This thing has happened; to my certain knowledge I wasn't involved in any way; I'm pretty sure that none of my friends nor the people with whom I interact a lot here on Army.ca were involved, either.

There was ~ has been since the 1960s ~ a strong reaction against many (most) of Paul Hellyer's _innovations_, especially those related to uniforms. Part of that reaction was _Anglophilia_ and it counters the _Anglophobia_ that has been part of _official Ottawa_ (but not _military Ottawa_) since about 1925 when O.D. Skelton put his stamp on almost everything in the Canadian government. That _Anglophobia_ grew in intensity, especially in Québec, in the 1940s and '50s. But it wasn't only in Québec and it wasn't only in the civil service. The Mainguy Repprt (1949) which concluded (_inter alia_) that, "there was amongst the men a very real and almost universal opinion that the Canadian Navy was not sufficiently Canadian ... [and] there was a general insistence also on the necessity of building up whenever possible Canadian traditions," highlighted the fact that Canadian sailors (and soldiers and air force members, too, no doubt) wanted to be - and to be seen to be - distinctively Canadian. A friend reminded me that the Canadian Army's experience in World War II was unique: while the Australians, for example, served alongside, and subordinate to, the British they also served with the Americans. We, the Canadians, were, for the most part,* always subordinate to the British Army, essentially we were "part" of it; while the Canadians were kept "separate" they were often, almost routinely in 1944/45 heavily augmented with British brigades, divisions and corps. The RCAF ran a distinctly Canadian (and vital to the eventual allied victory) operation in Canada (the Commonwealth Air Training Plan) but overseas there were RCAF squadrons, later wings and, by the end of a the war, a whole group but nothing above tactical level. The RCN did provide a commander of a major allied theatre of war (RAdm Murray was Commander-in-Chief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic ~ that is the only time a Canadian has been an allied C-in-C) but the RCN was, by design and by inclination, a subset of the RN. When NATO was formed, in 1949, and Canada agreed to send a brigade to Germany it was _natural_ that it would be part of 1st British Corps. (The RCAF, on the other hand, established 1 Air Division in France and Southern Germany as part of 4ATAF.)

I can tell you that, in the 1960s, even though we used some different equipment, we, Canadian officers,** looked British (except for a subdued Canada flash on some uniforms, it took a keen eye to spot a Canadian in a sea of Brits) , we _thought_ British (our doctrine and training were based on what came out of the UK) and, in some cases, we acted British (many of our social customs still are very British). Was that a big problem? No, the Brits, although in real, measurable, visible decline as a great military power, were still pretty good at what they did ~ not as good as they could or should have been but, within NATO near the top of the heap. (The "top of the heap" were Canadians.)

Is it a "good idea" to return to British Army rank badges? No. Will it do any harm ~ beyond some wasted staff effort (mostly by officers who you might not want doing anything really important, anyway)? No. One hopes that the pips will be made a bit more Canadian, but ...

Should we be angry? No. Should we be disdainful of those who want this change? No. Should we be bitching? Well, many years ago, I was taught, by a very, very good senior officer that when the troops stop bitching we have real problems, so I guess the bitching healthy.

But, some people are taking this too seriously. It has no, zilch, nada operational impact ~ event the wasted staff effort didn't, I guarantee, make us less capable. If sailor or soldier cannot learn the rank system then they are, I suggest, intellectually unfit for any sort of service ~ the argument that someone might salute a warrant officer is beyond fallacious, it is silly. It, the whole pips and crowns issue, is a tempest in a teapot; I urge members to treat it as such.

_____
*   There were some Canadian Army units in the South Pacific (1 Canadian Special Wireless Group, at least) and I'm quite ignorant of the command relationships.
** Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, did look somewhat - rather a lot - different from Brits.


----------



## Journeyman

FJAG said:
			
		

> It seems to me that I'm becoming the poster boy for pips and crowns and believe me, I don't want to be.


Then stop.  It seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Pencil Tech

FJAG said:
			
		

> It seems to me that I'm becoming the poster boy for pips and crowns and believe me, I don't want to be. All I want to say is folks should keep some perspective in what is really an emotional issue and not a fiscal one.
> 
> The emotional issue is whether you want pips and crowns because of their tie in to past history and other commonwealth nations or whether you prefer the uniquely Canadian traditions developed over the last fifty years. In my mind there is no right or wrong on either side of that issue; just honestly held personal preferences.
> 
> Where I tend to think those who oppose the change are off base is when they complain about the costs associated with the change; both hard costs for the insignia etc and soft costs associated with the lost opportunity of staff effort spent on making the changes happen.
> 
> We've now had posts about elevators not functioning at NDMC/HCC and the fact that the reserve pension program is badly screwed up.
> 
> People let's face reality.
> 
> DND has a $20 Billion budget (and yes I do know that we are underspending again). With $20 Billion (even $18 Billion) you can fix an awful lot of elevators and even the administration of reserve pensions --- if you want to. Both of those items and thousands of other were screwed up and went unfixed long before anyone talked about pips and crowns. Things are screwed up principally because our bureaucracy (both military and civilian) is deeply, deeply flawed.
> 
> We have so many flawed programs and processes that needlessly cost us billions and wastes thousands of person years in each and every year that we ought to be collectively thoroughly ashamed of our department.
> 
> In light of what DND does spend and waste each year, this program is truly just a drop in the bucket in both cash and effort. With respect to those who still want to make the fiscal arguments -- go ahead but to me those arguments sound hollow: they are just a rationalization for the fact that emotionally you don't want to see the change. Quite frankly I can understand and respect the emotional argument of those who don't want to see the change. That's because the emotional argument is based on an honest desire to keep the badges that they have lived and fought with during their career. The fiscal argument is smoke and mirrors no matter how much you've convinced yourselves.
> 
> I think some of posters are also short changing the positive effect that this change may have on morale.
> 
> I appreciate that there are straw polls out there to suggest that many if not most people don't want to see the change. It's easy to get those kind of results when you cynically load the question by insisting this is a government initiative being rail-roaded through the hierarchy which we can't afford and which takes time away from the maim mission.
> 
> To this point in time I have seen no generals or colonels or honorary colonels etc fall on their swords and decrie this initiative. That indicates active leadership support (at worst tacit support).
> 
> One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns. I don't for one minute question your right to make comments but hopefully you will appreciate that I will give less weight to your comments about how detrimental to morale the whole thing is then the weight I will give to the comments of those who are directly effected.
> 
> Generally the buttons and bows that identify us as "special" are beneficial for morale. I know my morale went up when we went to DEUs. The "other folks" went to various shades of blue and we army guys threw out our midnight blue mess kit and went to scarlets (which I paid for with pleasure) and also got tan summer dress (conversely, my morale went down when some genius told me to give back my tan uniform and wear my winter weight greens in the summer)
> 
> Anyway, that's my  :2c:  Hopefully I can now stop  :brickwall: and maybe I'll even stop  :stirpot:
> 
> :cheers:



What he said.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> beyond some wasted staff effort (mostly by officers who you might not want doing anything really important, anyway)?



...and that says about all of it right there.

For anyone interested, when my unit (aka, the real army) got back to work yesterday this topic was not discussed nor did it seem to raise/lower any morale.  It seems the only places really focused on this kind of stuff are internet forums and political associations.  Have at 'er.


----------



## Remius

@FJAG

You bring up some valid points.  I agree in the end this is small stuff and yes it may be that it is getting more attention than it deserves.  In a budget the size of DND's it is as you say a drop in the bucket.  But when you get enough drops it fills the bucket.

And as you are aware, perception is everything.  This was a somewhat public announcement.  We have problems that are department wide, varied and numerous.  These days we are seeing cutbacks and benefits contraction all across the board.  While the few hundred thoussand dollars this will cost is nothing in the grand scheme it does contribute to erode morale that is being already eroded by all those little drops.  In a few years this will add up as we keep dismissing those drops.  I've said this before, I like the pips and crowns but I would rather they focus on something else.  The timing is just plain wrong right now.

As for the leadership supporting this, well, I know for a fact that the Army leadership at least did not support this and in fact the let the CoC know that they didn't support it.  But they are following orders like everyone else should.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> One more thing, and I say this with respect -- the primary change is to army officer rank badges; OR ranks and the other services are unchanged -- yet many of the strongest comments I see here come from people who will never have to wear the new pips and crowns. I don't for one minute question your right to make comments but hopefully you will appreciate that I will give less weight to your comments about how detrimental to morale the whole thing is then the weight I will give to the comments of those who are directly effected.



This comment however undoes a lot of your very valid points though.  Being someone who will likely not be wearing pips and crowns until perhaps the very end of my career I will comment and you can give it whatever weight you want because frankly I'm not sure (by using that logic) I should give any of your comments on the issue more weight to them either (you are retired yes?).  But with respect to your service and generally level headed postings here on army.ca I will (otherwise I would not be responding).  Understand this: 

This directly affects all serving members. (We can argue morale, fiscal concerns etc etc and for the most part I agree with you on these things). The CF rank structure is something we all learn and deal with consciously or unconsciously everyday and we all must take ownership of it.  The money and effort still came from the community pot.  The CoC works both ways up and down.  And perhaps if the people most upset about this are the ones not wearing these things then perhaps maybe, those wearing (or will be wearing them) should not give less weight to their concerns  (you know, knowing your troops and promoting the welfare and all that basic leadership stuff we all know about...).  This reminds me at times when I inform an officer that he is improperly dressed or forgot to salute a monument and he brushes that off or thanks me and just plains ignores what i said without realizing that I'm doing my effing job.  But feel free to only listen to those that will be wearing the pips and crowns.

I know you said it with respect and I know that isn't likely the way you have conducted yourself as an officer, but it sounded very disrespectful.


_edited for spelling and for accuracy_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I'm not fond of posts with just these smiley thingy's but..........
 :goodpost:


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> To replace the ninja star on our uniforms? No, not yet.  Hope you are enjoying your leave!



Thats the one!  Thanks RQ.  Leave is going well. 

MODs sorry for the side track


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If sailor or soldier cannot learn the rank system then they are, I suggest, intellectually unfit for any sort of service ...


I would agree with your assessment of minimum required intellectual capacity.  Unfortunately, as many in this thread have observed and stated, the CAF has set the bar below this level and we are full of personnel who demonstrably cannot learn the rank of another environment.  Further, in a joint multinational environment (as you will find anywhere Canadians are currently deployed), uniformly recognizable tri-environmental rank insignia actually does enhance the ability of our multinational partners to recognize and engage with us (because there is only one system to learn).

Simplicity is a principle of war (US doctrine, but you will often find it listed as a fundamental in Canadian doctrine).  Design to the lowest common denominator, and minimize potential points of failure.  Leaving things as they still are makes good military sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Crantor said:
			
		

> You bring up some valid points.  I agree in the end this is small stuff and yes it may be that it is getting nmore attention than it deserves.  In a budget the size of DND's it is as you say a drop in the bucket.  But when you get enough drops it fills the bucket.


----------



## KevinB

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Should we be angry? No. Should we be disdainful of those who want this change? No. Should we be bitching? Well, many years ago, I was taught, by a very, very good senior officer that when the troops stop bitching we have real problems, so I guess the bitching healthy.



Years ago a retired Col I respected (he is deceased) told me once that when troops stopped bitching means they are planning a coup...

From a outside the CF perspective, I think this is 9 times retarded, and irresponsible.  That said I agree that this effort is being done by folk you would not want to rust with anything useful.

As far as a why the hell not: All one needs to do is look at the USAF NCO rank and see that no one really knows what those ranks mean.   Fortunately at my GS level I can simply call everyone dude until they are Generals.  Even the USMC ranks are confusing for non Marines.


----------



## Jed

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This thing has happened; to my certain knowledge I wasn't involved in any way; I'm pretty sure that none of my friends nor the people with whom I interact a lot here on Army.ca were involved, either.
> 
> There was ~ has been since the 1960s ~ a strong reaction against many (most) of Paul Hellyer's _innovations_, especially those related to uniforms. Part of that reaction was _Anglophilia_ and it counters the _Anglophobia_ that has been part of _official Ottawa_ (but not _military Ottawa_) since about 1925 when O.D. Skelton put his stamp on almost everything in the Canadian government. That _Anglophobia_ grew in intensity, especially in Québec, in the 1940s and '50s. But it wasn't only in Québec and it wasn't only in the civil service. The Mainguy Repprt (1949) which concluded (_inter alia_) that, "there was amongst the men a very real and almost universal opinion that the Canadian Navy was not sufficiently Canadian ... [and] there was a general insistence also on the necessity of building up whenever possible Canadian traditions," highlighted the fact that Canadian sailors (and soldiers and air force members, too, no doubt) wanted to be - and to be seen to be - distinctively Canadian. A friend reminded me that the Canadian Army's experience in World War II was unique: while the Australians, for example, served alongside, and subordinate to, the British they also served with the Americans. We, the Canadians, were, for the most part,* always subordinate to the British Army, essentially we were "part" of it; while the Canadians were kept "separate" they were often, almost routinely in 1944/45 heavily augmented with British brigades, divisions and corps. The RCAF ran a distinctly Canadian (and vital to the eventual allied victory) operation in Canada (the Commonwealth Air Training Plan) but overseas there were RCAF squadrons, later wings and, by the end of a the war, a whole group but nothing above tactical level. The RCN did provide a commander of a major allied theatre of war (RAdm Murray was Commander-in-Chief, Canadian Northwest Atlantic ~ that is the only time a Canadian has been an allied C-in-C) but the RCN was, by design and by inclination, a subset of the RN. When NATO was formed, in 1949, and Canada agreed to send a brigade to Germany it was _natural_ that it would be part of 1st British Corps. (The RCAF, on the other hand, established 1 Air Division in France and Southern Germany as part of 4ATAF.)
> 
> I can tell you that, in the 1960s, even though we used some different equipment, we, Canadian officers,** looked British (except for a subdued Canada flash on some uniforms, it took a keen eye to spot a Canadian in a sea of Brits) , we _thought_ British (our doctrine and training were based on what came out of the UK) and, in some cases, we acted British (many of our social customs still are very British). Was that a big problem? No, the Brits, although in real, measurable, visible decline as a great military power, were still pretty good at what they did ~ not as good as they could or should have been but, within NATO near the top of the heap. (The "top of the heap" were Canadians.)
> 
> Is it a "good idea" to return to British Army rank badges? No. Will it do any harm ~ beyond some wasted staff effort (mostly by officers who you might not want doing anything really important, anyway)? No. One hopes that the pips will be made a bit more Canadian, but ...
> 
> Should we be angry? No. Should we be disdainful of those who want this change? No. Should we be bitching? Well, many years ago, I was taught, by a very, very good senior officer that when the troops stop bitching we have real problems, so I guess the bitching healthy.
> 
> But, some people are taking this too seriously. It has no, zilch, nada operational impact ~ event the wasted staff effort didn't, I guarantee, make us less capable.   If sailor or soldier cannot learn the rank system then they are, I suggest, intellectually unfit for any sort of service ~ the argument that someone might salute a warrant officer is beyond fallacious, it is silly. It, the whole pips and crowns issue, is a tempest in a teapot; I urge members to treat it as such.
> 
> Exactly, This bitching is getting annoying.
> 
> 
> _____
> *   There were some Canadian Army units in the South Pacific (1 Canadian Special Wireless Group, at least) and I'm quite ignorant of the command relationships.
> ** Canadian soldiers, on the other hand, did look somewhat - rather a lot - different from Brits.


----------



## Gunner98

New symbolism, new tagline, old rank indicators for Canadian Army Officers...it  reminds me of the old saying' "Like shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic".  As a military our Masters are focussed on the past - War of 1812, followed next by World War I.  What is the next mission, the next focus for troops, is it really about the window dressing or will there be a new raison d'être, too?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> .... As a military our political Masters are focussed on the past - War of 1812, followed next by World War I ....


FTFY


----------



## Gunner98

milnews,

After reading the CDS Guidance to the CAF, I am not sure it is just our political masters that are focussed on our past.  

"There should be no doubt that we are facing many uncertainties, and I am aware that, in the current economic and geopolitical environment, it can be difficult to find the way forward and to set clear priorities. But I also believe that it is never a bad time to lay down clear, realistic, and (above all) positive expectations and ambitions. We have dealt with many of the same challenges we see today at various points in the past, and we have learned from those experiences. This time around, we are also able to draw upon the efforts of the newly-formed Defence Renewal Team as they take a pan-Defence look at how we can find new efficiencies to make the CAF more operationally effective. Ultimately, I repose my greatest confidence in you, the men and women of the CAF. Supported by sound and compassionate leadership, a strong operational focus, and forward-looking strategies, your resilience, professionalism, and dedication to duty will keep us on course."


----------



## Old EO Tech

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...and that says about all of it right there.
> 
> For anyone interested, when my unit (aka, the real army) got back to work yesterday this topic was not discussed nor did it seem to raise/lower any morale.  It seems the only places really focused on this kind of stuff are internet forums and political associations.  Have at 'er.



Same at my work, I figured there would be some discussion, but after all spring in the field and leave coming up, it wasn't a topic at all.


----------



## Jacky Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> ... But I am not convinced this will eventually pay for itself either – instead of sewing a ribbon of rank onto just the officer uniforms, we will sew divisional patches on the sleeves of every member in the Army (and change them on any number of postings).  How much will it cost to embroider pips and crowns onto the dress shirt slip-ons as opposed to sewing on the strip of ribbon?  How will costs compare to embroider the more intricate pips & crowns onto operational clothing slip-ons as opposed to embroidering the simple bars now?



By that argument sailors shouldn't be wearing ship's badges on their NCDs. As for cost to embroider pips and crowns, how would the unit cost of embroidering them be more than the unit cost of producing NCM rank slip-ons?


----------



## Journeyman

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> .....we are also able to draw upon the efforts of the newly-formed Defence Renewal Team as they take a pan-Defence look at how we can find new efficiencies to make the CAF more operationally effective.


     _~whew~_

I thought we would have to move into the future without the 'benefit' of _yet another_ NDHQ committee....    :


----------



## cupper

KevinB said:
			
		

> ... when troops stopped bitching means they are planning a coup...



There in lies the solution: We all stop talking about it, the powers that be think we are plotting a coup, ans so they reverse the decision. ;D


----------



## McG

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> By that argument sailors shouldn't be wearing ship's badges on their NCDs. As for cost to embroider pips and crowns, how would the unit cost of embroidering them be more than the unit cost of producing NCM rank slip-ons?


Welcome in from left field.  Where does all this come from?  The department made an announcement on new Army officer ranks and Div patches, it then presented the claim that this will save money based solely off the convenient numbers to the exclusion of that detail which may prove otherwise.  The Navy wearing ship's badges does not have a place in the math of costs prior and costs after - it is a constant.  Likewise, the NCM rank insignia will remain a constant.  One should not be comparing the pending new officer ranks to the current NCM ranks as a basis to demonstrate costs savings, one must compare the present officer ranks to the pending new ranks.  In a nutshell, the equation is this:

This announcement (New Officer Rank + New Div Patches) ≠ savings.

The only place the Navy uniform is relevant in this discussion is that the more expensive executive curl illustrates that these changes are not being done with cost as a consideration.  If savings happen, it is an accident.  We should not misrepresent that accident as though it were a deliberate consideration.


----------



## Old Sweat

This message from the Army G1 to the "Div G1s" was repeated on the regimental net. It is posted without comment, and please don't shoot the messanger. I note that the illustrations did not come through on the reproduction.

G1 HERITAGE SITREP 02

Div G1 reps, here is expedient SITREP 02 to further assist your Div G1s and Div SMs to respond to the recent MND announcements on changes to CA identity.  

TOPICS in this SITREP 

1.      Cost 
2.      Divisions 
3.      NCM Rank Names 
4.      Officers Rank Insignia 
5.      CA Corps 
6.      CA Secondary Badge 

The key changes from SITREP 01 are in paras 2 and 4. 

1.      COST 
The CA HQ is doing everything to manage the changes from these MND announcements while minimizing the cost impact on CA operations.  Our approach to implementation of the changes from the MND announcement will always feature, where feasible, introduction of the changes through normal maintenance (painting new signs only when needed) and restocking when current inventories are exhausted (badges, correspondence).  The CA HQ is very serious about cost.  This has already limited the degree of change the HQ is permitting.  Soldiers are taxpayers, our mission and operations are our priority.

2.      DIVISIONS 
•All LFAs were renamed to Divisions effective 12 Jul 13.  There was no change to 1 Cdn Div HQ.
•The Division long names follow this example:  4th Canadian Division    and the short form is   4 Cdn Div.  The French translations are still being confirmed. .


•Divisions will get division formation patches for wear on the left upper sleeve of the DEU.  The colours above are NOT the exact pantones.  The current brigade formation patches will stay on the right upper sleeve.  CA HQ has met with DHH/DSSPM to initiate the procurement of the patches.  No work is required at the L2 level until the patches are produced.   
•LFAs did not qualify for a Flag.  The new Divisions do qualify for a Camp Flag to indicate the location of the HQ.  
•The traditional 2 Div C flag is found below.  All Divisions camp flags will mirror this historic flag pattern of our WW II Divisions based on the patch colour background and a stylized maple leaf in gold.  According to CFP 200 Ch 4 Sect 6 para 17, Divisions must pay for these flags non-publicly like regiments currently do.  The CA HQ is requesting these flags be publicly funded.  MTF.  No action required at Div level for now as CA HQ will push your flags to you after the current design consultation with DHH.  
•It is recommended that there be no changes to the LFA badges at this time.
•Divisions may have mottos and marches.  This is being discussed with the Division G1 reps under separate correspondence.  



3.      NCM RANK NAMES 

The changes to NCM rank names will not be official until the QR&O 3.01 is amended. Since 1968, we have been informally referring to Ptes, for example, in the RCAC as Troopers but it was not official.  Our NCMs lost their historic rank names in 1968.  The MND has announced that the GoC will restore the NCM names along with the officers rank badges.  The Corps were consulted and all approved the renaming, the RCIC added more.  The CA will staff a change to QR&O 3.01 in order to make it official.  After the QR&O is changed, there still may be some hiccups with CFTPO and maybe HRMS but we are already working this.  The end-state is:

(English / French) 

RCAC/CBRC.  Trooper/Cavalier will be restored for the trained Private/Soldat. 
RCA/ARC.  Gunner/Artilleur for the trained Private/Soldat. 
RCA/ARC.  Bombardier for Corporal/Caporal.  
RCE/GRC.  Sapper/Sapeur for the trained Private/Soldat. 
RCCS/CTRC.  Signalman/Signaleur for the trained Private/Soldat will be superceded by the introduction of the alternate designation Signaller/Signaleur in Ch 11 of CFP 200.

RCIC/CIRC.   Guardsman/Garde for the trained Private/Soldat in the Regiments of Guards. 
RCIC/CIRC.   Rifleman/Carabinier for the trained Private/Soldat in regiments with historical connection to rifle regiments.

RCIC/CIRC.   Fusilier for the trained Private/Soldat in regiments with historical connection to regiments of fusiliers.
 RCEME/GEMRC.  Craftsman/Spécialiste for the trained Private/Soldat will be superceded by the introduction of the alternate designation Craftsman/Artisan in Ch 11 of CFP 200.

These changes are being made to honour our soldiers and the history of the CA.  There are also some alternate designations and forms of address that will be formalized by adding them to a new Ch 11 of CFP 200.

RCA/ARC.  Master-Bombardier/Bombardier-chef can be used officially in the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery as an alternate designation/form of address for the Master-Corporal/Caporal-chef appointment.

RCIC/CIRC.  The alternate designation/form of address 'Colour Sergeant/Sergent Fourrier' for Warrant Officers can be used in the Regiments of Guards.  

RCIC/CIRC.  The alternate form of address 'Ensign/Enseigne' for Second Lieutenants can be used in the Regiments of Guards. 

RCEME/GEMRC.  The use of 'Artisan' can be used for the French form of address for Spécialiste (Craftsman).  

For years these rank names have been used informally.  They are simply being re-made formal. 

4.      OFFICER RANK INSIGNIA

The CA was not apprised of this announcement until days before the MND made it.  It was announced less than 2 weeks ago so we can only offer preliminary information.  It is not generally understood how our Army came to wear the current Navy rank.  This SITREP will hopefully allow you to dispel wrong information.

Key Talking Points 

a.     ‘Stars and Crowns’ is not British.  The officers of almost 100% of the armies on every continent of the world including China, Russia, Finland, Colombia, and including the Salvation Army and RCMP wear a system of two identifiers: (i) a star, and (ii) a national symbol…it is an international convention and customary practice so an officer from any country can negotiate on the battlefield or work in coalitions like the UN or NATO and with civilian agencies.  Canada's Army used this international customary practice from 1885, officially recognized it in 1903, but lost it in 1968.

b.      The CA lost stars and crowns as rank insignia in 1968 when the CA and RCAF plus the RCN were directed to put-up Merchant Navy rank.  The RCN successfully got their 'fighting-Navy' executive curl back for their 100th anniversary.  Now, the CA will return to Army vice Navy rank in time for the 100th anniversary of WWI and the 75th anniversary of WWII.

c.     Cheaper.  It costs $33.00 to tailor an officer’s DEU sleeve rank every time they get a new jacket or are promoted.  It costs $5-6.00s for a pair of crowns or stars.  The CA will save 80% of the costs and pay-off the initial project in just over 4 years.  ‘Stars and crowns’ is going to save money for the CA not cost money.

This is what we can share now and will continue to share more in next Friday's SITREP. 
•Date of Implementation.  Stars and Crowns cannot be implemented until a meeting off the National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee endorses the design for wear on DEU uniform.  The CA will likely announce two dates: (i) the date that crowns and stars are available from each officer's Logistik Unicorp account, and (ii) the date they need to be put-up.  
•The full implementation may take considerable time to fully introduce because we were unaware of the change and there is no current stock of crowns or stars in the supply system.  
•The CA will introduce the traditional rank system of WW II as found in Figure 14 of the 1953 CA Dress Regulations.  We have already met with DHH and DSSPM for purchase discussions.
•DEU.  The CA will buy and issue one pattern of star and crown at public expense based on one national CA/DHH approved pattern.  The crowns and stars will be push pin like the NCM rank badges so the uniform is not damaged.
•Rifle and Guards Regiments.  The CA will respect the traditional prerogative of rifle regiments and Regiments of Guards to purchase their alternate colours and patterns of stars and crowns respectively on DEU, patrol, ceremonial, and mess dress.  For DEU, the CA HQ has requested public funding but the outcome is not known.  For DEU, rifle regiments must still apply to the chain of command and submit their alternative designs for approval by the CCA and DHH.  Rifle regiments may contact the G1 Heritage Pat Bryden at 613 415 7707 for additional guidance.    
•CADPAT. There is a new high visibility CADPAT rank slip on/velcro project running as we speak.  The project will change all CADPAT rank to higher visibility thread.  This project will introduce stars and crowns for officers prior to mass production.  Thanks to this project, there will be no new cost to put crowns and stars onto CADPAT slip-ons.
•DEU Slip-ons.  The CA with DHH will also approve patterns for the officers' slip-on for the CA.  Decisions are now being made on the extent of patterns and the extent of public funding support.  Vendors are already offering rank badges and insignia to units. Some units might lean forward and we suggest Divisions advise units to not proceed until key decisions are made on (a) permissible public and non-public purchasing, (b) the extent to which units will be permitted to deviate from the CA patterns, and (c) the CA date to implement new DEU rank is announced in a CANARMYGEN.  All regiments can trust that our CA HQ is working in the interest of regimental identity and speed to meet the MND intent.  
•Mess Dress.  It is recognized that a substantial number of our CA units still informally use stars and crowns on their mess dress.  The current CA recommendation will be that officers with Navy bars on their mess dress will only be required to put-up stars and crowns voluntarily (grandfathered) but it will be mandatory if/when the officer is promoted.  This will be further developed.  



5.      CORPS 
•On 19 Apr 13, the MND restored the names of:

(English / French) 
RCAC / CBRC 
RCE / GRC 
RCCS / CTRC 
RCIC / CIRC 
RCEME / GEMRC 

The RCA / ARC was already Royal and not affected. 
•For the CA, this changed the names of some (not all) Branches are now referred to as Corps.  Branches with RCN and RCAF personnel in them like the Logistics Branch are still proudly called Branches.
•CA HQ has already coordinated with Corps Directors and we have met with DHH//DSSPM to order new metal shoulder titles and cloth CADPAT flashes.  These will be both ENG or FRE.  When they are produced (NMB 3-4 months), our plan is to push the new metal shoulder titles to soldiers through their indiv Logistik Unicorp account.



6.      CA HISTORIC DEVICE AND VISUAL IDENTIFIER
 •The MND has approved the CA to use a version of our proudly worn circa 1940-60s CA badge as our secondary badge.  It is being called the heraldic term the 'CA historic device'.  
•This change is important as we are about to enter a significant period of commemoration from 2014-20.  Our veterans are very pleased.
•CA Flag.  A new CA Camp Flag has already been requested for procurement by DHH for delivery this FY.  
•CA Pocket Badge on DEU.  CA HQ has already met with DHH and DSSPM to initiate procurement of a new pocket badge for DEU that will be delivered in at the beginning of the next FY 14-15.  





Star of the Order of the Bath

Insignia of the Order of the Bath; the Latin inscription "Tria Juncta in Uno" translates as "three join to become one" - a reference thought to refer either to the Union of England, Scotland and France, the Union of England, Scotland and Ireland, or, possibly, to the Holy Trinity. The second inscription, "ich dien", translates as "I Serve"

The CA is adopting the Order of the Bath for the star component of the rank insignia for Officers.  As you can see the star has a top and bottom, and there are specific inscriptions including "I Serve". 

Pre-integration(and we assume that will happen with the new badges), cloth versions of the star could not be produced with enough detail to show the finer points of the design – the crowns were often just shown as 3 blobs – so it was hard to see which way was up.  If any of you have any of the old red battle dress stars at home you will note that they were very simplified and the centres were just round white spots so there was no ‘up’ side.

Which way is up?  The crowns must always point up – the triangle formed by the crowns must point up(towards the head of the wearer).


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thanks for sharing that OS - answers a few more questions, indeed.


> .... ‘Stars and crowns’ is going to save money for the CA not cost money ....


May be true, but I have to wonder if this will be the case for individuals?


----------



## McG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> c.     Cheaper.  It costs $33.00 to tailor an officer’s DEU sleeve rank every time they get a new jacket or are promoted.  It costs $5-6.00s for a pair of crowns or stars.  The CA will save 80% of the costs and pay-off the initial project in just over 4 years.  ‘Stars and crowns’ is going to save money for the CA not cost money.


Again, what is the cost comparison for the rank slip-ons?  What happens to all the rank savings when one considers the cost of tailoring division patches onto every soldier’s uniform and frequently changing these patches as soldiers are posted every summer?  What is the cost if public purse picks-up and maintains separate stocks of the desired regimentally unique pips & crowns  ... and the division flags?  This cheaper argument is arrived at by taking a convenient slice of the whole change and focusing on that to the exclusion of the whole announcement.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ‘Stars and Crowns’ is not British.  The officers of almost 100% of the armies on every continent of the world including China, Russia, Finland, Colombia, and including the Salvation Army and RCMP wear a system of two identifiers: (i) a star, and (ii) a national symbol…it is an international convention and customary practice so an officer from any country can negotiate on the battlefield or work in coalitions like the UN or NATO and with civilian agencies.  Canada's Army used this international customary practice from 1885, officially recognized it in 1903, but lost it in 1968.


How does one refer to “almost 100% of the armies” of the world while excluding the USA, France, Portugal, Israel, Romania, Slovenia, and more?  Using systems of pips is not British, but the stars and crowns certainly are.  There is no international convention (written or otherwise) and customary practice as to how pips systems designate rank – certainly, amongst those nations that use stars and a national/other symbol to denote field grade officers, the British system follows a pattern of its own.

There could be a little more truth to the internal communications.  I still feel the “cheaper” claim to be in doubt, and we certainly are adopting a British system of Stars & Crowns (especially in light of our choice to keep the Star of the Order of the Bath).


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> ......... and we certainly are adopting a British system of Stars & Crowns (especially in light of our choice to keep the Star of the Order of the Bath).



I noticed that.  In one statement they say that is not copying the British design, and in the next they say that they will keep the "Star of the Order of Bath".  I guess they thought no one would pick up on that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> There could be a little more truth to the internal communications.


Public Affairs Branch motto notwithstanding, it tends to be about messaging, not (complete) truth.


----------



## Michael OLeary

One hidden cost is the removal of rank stripes from every officer's tunic, including for those who would not have had their rank changed again. So, the first issue of stars and crowns will be $33 plus $5-6 for every officer just for the DEU tunic. Slip-ons likewise are not a neutral cost, many people have spares of the existing rank style and may not have needed to replace them all.



> ‘Stars and Crowns’ is not British.



But the specific design we may be adopting might  be. 


Personally, I don't give a crap about the cost. I also don't care who else wears a similar system, how many do so because they imitated the British rank structure through prior affiliation (Sally Ann?) or because they were imitating the British Army dress (following a perception of professionalism) as they modernized their own. What bothers me is the way this was apparently shoved down the Army's throat and now the CA is supposed to play catch-up in explaining how great this is for all of us. Never, in any of my readings on either of the World Wars was I given the impression that any sense of honour, pride or accomplishment hung directly on the specific style of rank badging worn by anyone. If they Army had taken the time to simply sell us on this as an Army initiative, I wouldn't be perturbed at all. It could have been wrapped in whatever justification they wanted, and perhaps we could have actually designed a Canadian star to go with the crown.

If this is truly _a fait accompli_ and not a Chain of Command initiative, then all that's left is the disappointment with the cheap reproductions we can expect. In which case, quality brass stars and crowns will become a sought after ebay item.


----------



## McG

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> ‘Stars and Crowns’ is not British.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the specific design we may be adopting might  be.
Click to expand...

Indeed it is.


----------



## George Wallace

I wonder if the $5-$6 price tag is accurate and at today's dollars?  How much of that price will be affected by the costs required of a manufacturer to retool a line of machinery to produce the new Pips and Crowns?  Will there be a recurring order placed annually, or will the manufacturer disassemble that line of machinery after the order has been filled, requiring retooling of machinery at some time in the future to fill depleted stocks"?  Will the cost of these accoutrements still remain constant?


----------



## McG

I am also a little disappointed that the language needed to sell this change has taken a tone derogatory of the current system with its nearly half century of service.  That rank we told you to wear your whole career with pride, the one you did in fact wear with pride - it is junk, it is bad, "it is Navy."  Much like the backhanded slight of "restoring lost pride" I am sure the originator of the comment did not intend the slap.  But there it happened.

We had a proud, unique Canadian rank system.  It had roots in all the former services, and its wearers should justifiably have been proud.  That is about to change, but lets not rub the old system through the mud in order to socialize the new system.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Guys, guys, guys ....





 ;D


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Guys, guys, guys ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;D



Is that the appropriate Crown?   >


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is that the appropriate Crown?   >


Got me there!


----------



## a_majoor

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Our veterans are very pleased.



*I'm not*....for the multitude of reasons upthread.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Thucydides said:
			
		

> *I'm not*....for the multitude of reasons upthread.



But you're not a veteran. Only WWI, WWII, or Korea Vets count. Basically everyone pre Unification that supported this are the veterans the GoC counted in this statement.  :sarcasm:


----------



## Jarnhamar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Guys, guys, guys ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

>


Don't you mean this?




Oh, THAT kind of "Royal" ....  >


----------



## armyvern

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 4.      OFFICER RANK INSIGNIA
> 
> The CA was not apprised of this announcement until days before the MND made it.  It was announced less than 2 weeks ago so we can only offer preliminary information.
> 
> ...
> 
> Key Talking Points
> 
> ... (c) the CA date to implement new DEU rank is announced in a CANARMYGEN.  All regiments can trust that our CA HQ is working in the interest of regimental identity and speed to meet the MND intent.



So, I guess that tells me this was a political decision vice a decision made by the Canadian Army.  Former-MND though, not the current.

Wonder if they'll be proudly made in China like the 1812 pins; hopefully not. Sigh.


----------



## PuckChaser

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This message from the Army G1 to the "Div G1s" was repeated on the regimental net. It is posted without comment, and please don't shoot the messanger. I note that the illustrations did not come through on the reproduction.



Thanks for the info, OS. Most of the time this stuff doesn't trickle down to my level on the totem pole, its good to know wheels are moving and there are plans being drawn up.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, I guess that tells me this was a political decision vice a decision made by the Canadian Army.  Former-MND though, not the current.



I agree completely. The wording indicates to me that they want people to read between the lines that this was a forced change, not a requested one.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, I guess that tells me this was a political decision vice a decision made by the Canadian Army.  Former-MND though, not the current.


Same PM, though


----------



## Old EO Tech

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> •The CA will introduce the traditional rank system of WW II as found in Figure 14 of the 1953 CA Dress Regulations.  We have already met with DHH and DSSPM for purchase discussions.



I assume that since this comment was under the Officer rank para, that they mean that only the officer ranks will change to WW2 rank system, and the NCM rank system, other than renaming a few Pte's, is not going to change....at least not yet....


----------



## AJFitzpatrick

So are members of the Halifax Rifles (RCAC) currently refereed to as Privates, Rifleman or Troopers ? What will they be referred to ?



> RCAC/CBRC.  Trooper/Cavalier will be restored for the trained Private/Soldat.
> ....
> RCIC/CIRC.   Rifleman/Carabinier for the trained Private/Soldat in regiments with *historical connection* to rifle regiments.



My emphasis


----------



## dangerboy

AJFitzpatrick said:
			
		

> So are members of the Halifax Rifles (RCAC) currently refereed to as Privates, Rifleman or Troopers ? What will they be referred to ?
> 
> My emphasis



The portion you highlighted refers to RCIC (Royal Canadian Infantry Corps), however the Halifax Rifles are not Infantry, they are Armoured, belonging to the RCAC (Royal Canadian Armoured Corps).


----------



## McG

With the door opened to Rifle and Guard regiments to seek special pips, how long before the highlanders seek to further differentiate themselves with the Star of the Order of the Thistle and the Crown of Scotland (an accepted heraldic inclusion of the crown jewels)?  We do need to explore every possible way to make ourselves look different from eachother.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> With the door opened to Rifle and Guard regiments to seek special pips, how long before the highlanders seek to further differentiate themselves with the Star of the Order of the Thistle and the Crown of Scotland (an accepted heraldic inclusion of the crown jewels)?  We do need to explore every possible way to make ourselves look different from eachother.



I have no dog in this fight, but do have an honest question; how do Army Regiments/units pay for their own regimental buttons/collar dogs/etc?  Is it paid for by the member or does the unit absorb the cost?  If so, couldn't the same procedure be used for whatever stars/crowns the unit adopts?


----------



## McG

Members pay the cost of unique regimental buttons and cloth titles for DEU shoulder slip-ons.  The initial set of collar dogs are usually issued, but many of the branch/regimental mafia ensure members buy the higher quality kitshop collar dogs ... the same is often true of metal shoulder titles and regimental cap badges.


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> Members pay the cost of unique regimental buttons and cloth titles for DEU shoulder slip-ons.  The initial set of collar dogs are usually issued, but many of the branch/regimental mafia ensure members buy the higher quality kitshop collar dogs ... the same is often true of metal shoulder titles and regimental cap badges.



So when are the mafias going to demand their junior officers buy the "regiment ally approved" pips and crowns.

 :clubinhand: :stirpot:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So when are the mafias going to demand their junior officers buy the "regiment ally approved" pips and crowns.
> 
> :clubinhand: :stirpot:




Probably from the very start ~ and it used to be the norm, when we were, relative to the economy, a damned site less well paid than are today's officers.


----------



## a_majoor

I'm surprised no one didn't think of this before: In order to fully integrate Canadian history and heritage into the Canadian Armed Forces, all officers will be identified by coloured sashes worn around the waist. This is in keeping with historical practices dating to the time of New France, when Canada was first settled by Europeans.

The proud military heritage of the _Carignan-Salières Regiment_,  _Compagnies Franches de la Marine_ and the _Canadian Voyageurs_ will be celebrated again, and with a potentially massive cost saving as jackets and tunics need no tailoring and the sashes can also double as scarves in cold weather!


----------



## WLSC

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one didn't think of this before: In order to fully integrate Canadian history and heritage into the Canadian Armed Forces, all officers will be identified by coloured sashes worn around the waist. This is in keeping with historical practices dating to the time of New France, when Canada was first settled by Europeans.
> 
> The proud military heritage of the _Carignan-Salières Regiment_,  _Compagnies Franches de la Marine_ and the _Canadian Voyageurs_ will be celebrated again, and with a potentially massive cost saving as jackets and tunics need no tailoring and the sashes can also double as scarves in cold weather!



Is this mean, we'll be able to elect our captain ??  >



> Réponse #3284 le: juillet 24, 2013, 06:42:12
> 
> •The CA will introduce the traditional rank system of WW II as found in Figure 14 of the 1953 CA Dress Regulations.



I think they should at least put the OMM in lieu of Order of Bath.  At least, we would have something canadian left.  :2c:


----------



## Danjanou

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm surprised no one didn't think of this before: In order to fully integrate Canadian history and heritage into the Canadian Armed Forces, all officers will be identified by coloured sashes worn around the waist. This is in keeping with historical practices dating to the time of New France, when Canada was first settled by Europeans.
> 
> The proud military heritage of the _Carignan-Salières Regiment_,  _Compagnies Franches de la Marine_ and the _Canadian Voyageurs_ will be celebrated again, and with a potentially massive cost saving as jackets and tunics need no tailoring and the sashes can also double as scarves in cold weather!



Damn it who leaked this to you? This was the shiny pony's er the chosen one's plan  once the Libs swept to power and abolished the whole pips and crowns thing even after it  had been implemented and therefore we'd be on the hook for cancellation fees and law suits from the textile industry and retired Guards subbies with nothing better to do but sit in front of a computer and not look at porn.  8)


----------



## GR66

The obvious solution to any potential cost for these changes is to simply have officers purchase their commissions.  In fact such a scheme could be an excellent boost to the CF.  There would be no more complaints of HQ bloat in Ottawa or too many high ranking officers in tiny Reserve units if having those positions actually helped pay for some useful kit!

 ;D

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


(edited to add the missing "no")


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Overall I think this is a waste of time, resources and staff/system work.  I just don't see the need, but in the end I'll do as I'm told.  On the up side since my mess kit already has the pips and crowns on it I won't have to fork out more of my own money to get them changed.

If I'm losing my bars though, I want skill badges!  BADGES!  We need some stinkin' badges!


----------



## FutureSight

In a time of fiscal constraints, I am curious how much money will be spent to re-write all the documentation to include the documentation.

This 're-royalization' is a little problematic. After unification, I can understand the sentiments of those who served at that time. Now however, unification was almost 50 years ago, we have had our current system for almost (if not more than) half of our existance as a formed Military. Why change it? Another who served during that time has since retired and although I hold the utmost respect for out veterans and members who have prior service, this is our Canadian Armed Forces, a modern military and I for one am content without these royal designations. It does not effect the pride I take in dawning my uniform nor how I conduct myself not will it. I am proud of the Armed Forces but disagree with this decision.

As for those who make the arguement that this re-royalization is offensive to those who do not like Britian or then Monarchy, I simply say this. You swear an oath to the Queen when you join... Said and done. If you do not like it, do not join.


----------



## a_majoor

FutureSight

At this point, I think we are all aware that the members will take a deep breath and follow orders regardless of what they may think of them(just like they did back in the 1990's running from the plane and catching the helmets and body armour tossed to them by departing troops trying to board the plane out of Former Yugoslavia).

Now we are just using sarcasm (sashes for rank, commission purchases, new ranks like Master Private, elaborate fake rank charts etc.) to express our scorn, ridicule and contempt upon those back room lobbyists who managed to divert time, energy and resources from more pressing issues in the Armed Forces. Perhaps it is even working, aside from the official announcements that the Bureaucracy needs to inform people, there is a certain silence from people and groups who under other circumstances might want to step forward and claim credit for this cretinous idea.

If we can shame them into silence, then we have won a moral victory of sorts.


----------



## Rifleman62

> The crowns and stars will be push pin like the NCM rank badges so the uniform is not damaged


.

Curious how that will be accomplished with pips as they are hollow. Photos show how The Rifles have done this.

Rifle Regts could/may go back to the Rifle Regt tradition of officers not wearing rank  or sholder boards on their mess kit. The RWpgRif officers currently wear miniature gun metal pips and crowns. 

There is no standard for the Cdn Rifle Regts. Each of the five Rifle Regt does its own thing. Some wear black, some gun metal, some miniature and so on.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

RookieMistake said:
			
		

> Said and done. If you do not like it, do not join.



...hahahahhahahaaaaaa............no wait, holy crap, you were serious.  Hope you have a great career only doing things you "like".


----------



## armyvern

Crap; was hoping to come online and read that this decision had been repealed and that sanity has been allowed to be restored to the CAF - alas no joy for me.  Must go drink multitudes of tequila.


----------



## cupper

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Crap; was hoping to come online and read that this decision had been repealed and that sanity has been allowed to be restored to the CAF - alas no joy for me.  Must go drink multitudes of tequila.



Sounds to me like you started before you came online. >


----------



## armyvern

cupper said:
			
		

> Sounds to me like you started before you came online. >



Any excuse will do.


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Crap; was hoping to come online and read that this decision had been repealed and that sanity has been allowed to be restored to the CAF ...


Perhaps the insanity is all a sign you are actually asleep and dreaming.  I mean, who would really select the image of a British order, within which Canadians are excluded from promotion since 1935, to serve as a sign of rank within the Canadian Army?  We are only allowed in at the lowest level (and even that has not happened since the Korean War when it was awarded to a single Canadian), and yet we want to use it as the symbol of authority within our Army?  It kind of suggests we have a subservient position next to the British officers who are actually permitted to ascend the levels of the order which we have selected to represent authority within our Army.


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Now we are just using sarcasm (sashes for rank, commission purchases, new ranks like Master Private, elaborate fake rank charts etc.) to express our scorn, ridicule and ...


Speaking of which, that alternative nonsense has not made an appearance in this thread for a while.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> ... who would really select the image of a British order, within which Canadians are excluded from promotion since 1935, to serve as a sign of rank within the Canadian Army?  We are only allowed in at the lowest level (and even that has not happened since the Korean War when it was awarded to a single Canadian), and yet we want to use it as the symbol of authority within our Army?  It kind of suggests we have a subservient position next to the British officers who are actually permitted to ascend the levels of the order which we have selected to represent authority within our Army ...




 :goodpost:


I have no brief for or against pips and crowns, but I would have preferred something that was:

     1. Distinctly Army ...

          a. I'm not sure there is much, if anything, to the notion that sailors, soldiers and air force members cannot learn multiple rank systems ~ but I guess we could use that _skill and knowledge_ as a baseline to
              separate the terminally stupid from the marginally acceptable, and

          b. I agree with the proponents that systems based on _devices_, including "stars," are the norm ~ arrangements and devices vary with countries, but horizontal stripes are the exception, not the rule; 

     2. Distinctively Canadian - using maple leaves and other devices rather than crowns and the Bath Star; and, most importantly

     3. Based on a thorough review of all skill and knowledge qualifications for all ranks which would, I'm guessing, have led to revisions and consequential (and more acceptable) changes to rank identifiers.

What does annoy me is that this was imposed on the Army in an unnecessary effort to pacify a small, *militarily ignorant* but vocal and determined segment of the Conservative base. 


Edit: typo


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Distinctively Canadian - using maple leaves and other devices rather than crowns and the Bath Star; and, most importantly


Like this?


----------



## ModlrMike

MCG said:
			
		

> Like this?



I think the star from the Order of Canada would be a better option.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I like th maple leaves instead of starts, but bow about replacing the crown with this?






Crest of the Governor General of Canada


Consider the Indian Army system which respects its British (Imperial) roots but is distinctively Indian:





Indian Army rank insignia - officers


----------



## Pencil Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> Like this?


I like it but I see you added an extra "star" to avoid confusing Major and WO. I think that confusion is overstated.


----------



## jpjohnsn

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I like th maple leaves instead of starts, but bow about replacing the crown with this?
> 
> Consider the Indian Army system which respects its British (Imperial) roots but is distinctively Indian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian Army rank insignia - officers


The difference being, of course, India is a republic that only recognizes HM the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth whereas, in Canada, she is also our Head of State (the GG being her viceregal representative).  There is no need to replace the crown.

BTW, they spelled lieutenant wrong on that graphic.


----------



## McG

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I like it but I see you added an extra "star" to avoid confusing Major and WO. I think that confusion is overstated.


There is that, but also it conforms to the Canadian pattern established with the general ranks.  Also, it would make our internal messaging more honest, where the latest SITREP mentions international convention and customary practice, because the system of keeping at least one star at every rank is a far more customary in international practice.  The system where the star is absent from some ranks is uniquely British, and the SITREP has said we adopting an international norm and not a British system.


----------



## a_majoor

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I like th maple leaves instead of starts, but bow about replacing the crown with this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crest of the Governor General of Canada
> 
> 
> Consider the Indian Army system which respects its British (Imperial) roots but is distinctively Indian:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian Army rank insignia - officers



My god! A Republican reble in our midst!  ;D

Actually, that ties nicely into your other idea of creating a distinctly Canadian Regency once HRH passes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thucydides said:
			
		

> My god! A Republican reble in our midst!  ;D
> 
> Actually, that ties nicely into your other idea of creating a distinctly Canadian Regency once HRH HM passes.




Ta da!  :nod:


----------



## ballz

I've never been too caught up in switching back to the old stuff... RCN, RCAF, The Canadian Army... old British ranks... yada yada yada...

However, I just came across this picture, and since it seems the best way to make something happen is to start a rumour... I "heard" The RCR Officer Corps will be turning in their current clothe cap badges for these beauties...

The metal NCM cap badge looks so sharp, I never understood why the officer's wore the clothe version (I've been told it's a tradition passed on from Britain that officers wear clothe cap badges)... but these are the sharpest version of our treasured 8-point star I've ever seen...


----------



## Michael OLeary

ballz said:
			
		

> However, I just came across this picture, and since it seems the best way to make something happen is to start a rumour... I "heard" The RCR Officer Corps will be turning in their current clothe cap badges for these beauties...



One small problem. Those are helmet plates for the white foreign service helmet, and they are about 4 inches wide and high,

I think you mean something like this:






Or, how about a nice bronze Officers' Service Dress badge (although we'd need to update the crown):






Unsubstantiated rumours should at least have a shred of credulity.


----------



## Pencil Tech

If they are going with the rank insignia as they were at unification, they might notice that the insignia for "Brigadier" is a crown and three pips, whereas the general officer ranks have insignia built around the crossed baton and Marmeluke sword, adding pip and crown according to rank. That is because "Brigadier" is considered a field officer rank above Colonel (not a general) where these insignia are currently used (UK etc). In the First World War we had a rank of "Brigadier General" like we do now. The rank insignia was like other general officers in that it had simply the crossed baton and sword, but no pip or crown. I will be interesting to see how they deal with this. IMO, if they're going to do this they should leave BGen and above the way they are now and just change Slt to Col.


----------



## George Wallace

ballz said:
			
		

> I've never been too caught up in switching back to the old stuff... RCN, RCAF, The Canadian Army... old British ranks... yada yada yada...



But this gives credibility to the old dinosaurs.......Now you can become one too.   ;D


----------



## ballz

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> One small problem. Those are helmet plates for the white foreign service helmet, and they are about 4 inches wide and high



Yes, I realized that when I posted it. I didn't think I'd have to point out that you can just get them manufactured smaller to fit a beret...



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> I think you mean something like this:



That looks almost identical to the current NCM cap badge. I wouldn't want to steal their thunder.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Or, how about a nice bronze Officers' Service Dress badge (although we'd need to update the crown):


I wouldn't argue with that. Both of these look real sharp.









I just don't think the clothe version is the best option. It looks great the first week you've got it, after that it deteriorates real quick and often becomes unsightly before being changed.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> But this gives credibility to the old dinosaurs.......Now you can become one too.   ;D



I'll never be welcomed at the old dinosaurs club ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

One commentator's take on being piled on ....


> As a writer of opinion pieces, I am used to receiving messages about them. Most are negative; people who agree with you are less likely to take the time to write something than those who don’t. But that’s OK. The views expressed by those who write are often interesting. Most correspondents are respectful, even as they disagree with you. If nothing else, it’s nice to know people are reading your stuff.
> 
> Nothing prepared me, however, for the significant response which a recent contribution to the Globe and Mail on defence policy received. The piece, entitled “Pips and crowns? Mere diversions” appeared on July 5th.
> 
> One would have thought that those who supposedly care about defence issues would have seen through this trick.
> 
> (....)
> 
> .... in the absence of new money or hard choices about how best to spend what is allocated to defence—but faced with a voting base which expects them to be pro-defence—the Tories have resorted at regular intervals to cynically tossing out symbols (such as the word ‘Royal’ for the Air Force and the Navy) and minor adjustments to uniforms (to make them look more as they did prior to the unification of the Forces).
> 
> What amazes me is how successful this trick seems to have been. I received a substantial number of comments, of varying degrees of politeness and coherence, which seemed intent on re-fighting the battle over unification. They accused me of all manner of failures: in supporting the troops, in being a patriotic Canadian, etc. etc.
> 
> What I found remarkable in all of this was how few of these people had really read the piece. I was not opposed to returning the ‘pips and crowns’ (though I didn’t see it doing much good), but I was opposed to using these symbolic gestures to hide the fact that support both for defence spending and for the effort to create an actual defence policy are woefully in decline under this Tory government.
> 
> One would have thought that those who supposedly care about defence issues would have seen through this trick. But few did; symbolism was all, substance was nothing ....


----------



## McG

When the announcement was first made, I noticed a number of civilians in the comment sectins of papers defending the change with arguments of support the troops and "image and identity are important to soldiers."  As we'll meaning as these commenters were/are, arguing that this has anything to do with supporting the troops is wrong.  Replacing our image/signs of identity with foreign signs/image does nothing positive for the majority.

If one wants to support the troops, then fix some of the soldier kit problems that have been plaguing us for years.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> When the announcement was first made, I noticed a number of civilians in the comment sectins of papers defending the change with arguments of support the troops and "image and identity are important to soldiers."  As well meaning as these commenters were/are, arguing that this has anything to do with supporting the troops is wrong.  Replacing our image/signs of identity with foreign signs/image does nothing positive for the majority.


I'm actually willing to cut someone who's truly ignorant about the system (not in a pejorative sense, but just someone who doesn't know) some slack with such comments.  The intensity/nastiness of some attacks from some of those who have either been in or is supposed to know how the system works, though, makes one question their security.


----------



## RangerRay

MCG said:
			
		

> Like this?



I like this, using maple leaves instead of Order of the Bath stars.  A little bit of new with a little bit of old, with a symbol much much more relevant to Canadians.

But I agree with most here; is this something that should have time, money and effort spent on it right now?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

RangerRay said:
			
		

> But I agree with most here; is this something that should have time, money and effort spent on it right now?



I give you a graphical explaination. Just replace KIRK with MND, and Spock with Comd CA:


----------



## McG

Just had this opinion piece sent to my attention.  I have to say I agree with most of what it presents.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1142420-rank-hypocrisy-nomenclature-nostalgia-serves-no-one-in-forces


> *Rank hypocrisy: Nomenclature nostalgia serves no one in Forces*
> Chronical Herald
> Jay Underwood
> July 16, 2013
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s cabinet shuffle has been called a “generational” change (except for the prime minister himself) that may be intended to improve the Conservative party’s image with younger voters before an election is called in 2015.
> 
> That is, if course, the right of any party — even if it currently seems to be a reshuffling of the deck chairs on the Titanic for Harper, who is facing increasing competition from the young Liberal Justin Trudeau, and the leader of the NDP, Thomas Mulcair.
> 
> What is not acceptable is Harper’s attempt to lock in votes from the senior sector by announcing that members of the Canadian army will soon be reverting back to rank titles and insignia dropped by the “unification” plan steered by Liberal defence minister Paul Hellyer in 1968.
> 
> Like a good soldier, Lt.-Gen. Peter Devlin, commander of the Canadian army, followed the orders of his civilian commander and issued a statement claiming these changes “will reinforce and celebrate our proud history. These intended changes include the Canadian army secondary badge, rank nomenclature and insignia, corps insignia, and the re-introduction of divisional nomenclature and insignia for the land force areas.”
> 
> Devlin said the changes were in keeping with the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the start of the First World War next year, and “the timing is right for the Canadian army to restore symbols that link it to its proud heritage. The aim of these changes is to reinforce the ties between present-day soldiers and previous generations of warriors and to celebrate our army heritage, relevant customs and traditions.”
> 
> These ties have never been lost in the Canadian military; every regiment, squadron and naval fleet maintains its own archive of the unit’s participation in the defence of the country, and the preservation of peace elsewhere around the world.
> 
> This sounds like jargon developed for him by the policy advisers in the Conservative party, who are perhaps less aware than Devlin of the modern heritage established by Canadian soldiers who died under the Hellyer ranks and insignia.
> 
> The fact is, none of today’s serving soldiers ever served under the old titles and insignia, and there are no survivors left from the First World War who would share this “proud” commemoration.
> 
> Indeed, what does this reversal say about the deaths of 186 soldiers in Afghanistan (158), Iraq (five) and Bosnia (23), who served proudly under the present rank and insignia, and were buried with them?
> 
> There was a hint in the general’s announcement that he might realize his soldiers are not as open to the concept as are the civilian bureaucrats managing the future of the Conservative party. It almost sounded like he was issuing his soldiers an order (bold added for emphasis):
> 
> “I expect all who wear the Canadian army uniform to embrace these changes with enthusiasm, alacrity and respect for the proud history and traditions that they represent.”
> 
> The history of which most Canadian soldiers today are probably most proud is the era of their service — and that began long after Hellyer ruined the old history which Harper is trying to revive to keep himself in power.
> 
> _ Jay Underwood is a retired Nova Scotia journalist and newspaper editor/publisher. He served briefly as the military information officer for 1st Battalion, The Nova Scotia Highlanders (North), Canada’s largest infantry reserve regiment_


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Just had this opinion piece sent to my attention.  I have to say I agree with most of what it presents.
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1142420-rank-hypocrisy-nomenclature-nostalgia-serves-no-one-in-forces




It's over and done with ... it's time to get to grips with the things that matter: how to _manage_ and, more important *lead* in the new (actually old and, sadly, _normal_ for many people) climate of tight budgets.

These "buttons and bows" issues - executive curl, RCN and RCAF, and now pips and crowns - do, however, show us that a well organized civilian lobby, probably led by or, at least, involving our engaged "honoraries," can influence the government. Maybe there's something in there that some of us - including both senior serving and old, retired members - can exploit for the real good of the military. How do we or can we get these people to support important causes?


----------



## dimsum

Um....where did he get the stat that 5 CAF members died in Iraq  ???


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> These "buttons and bows" issues - executive curl, RCN and RCAF, and now pips and crowns - do, however, show us that a well organized civilian lobby, probably led by or, at least, involving our engaged "honoraries," can influence the government. Maybe there's something in there that some of us - including both senior serving and old, retired members - can exploit for the real good of the military. How do we or can we get these people to support important causes?


Like, say, this, to pick a recent example at hand?


----------



## McG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Um....where did he get the stat that 5 CAF members died in Iraq  ???


I assumed he meant to write middle east.  Golan and MFO losses are five deaths.
Not sure why he would look at these when we have plenty more recent examples than Golan from other theatres around the world.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> I assumed he meant to write middle east.  Golan and MFO losses are five deaths.
> Not sure why he would look at these when we have plenty more recent examples than Golan from other theatres around the world.



Fair enough, but I'm sure someone will read it and fire up the outrage bus since "we were never in Iraq"*.  

* - Yes, I know that the Deputy Commanding General of III Corps is a Canadian.


----------



## OldSolduer

I agree with Mr. Campbell. Tis a done deal and all the hand wringing in the world will not change it.

I intend to brief my NCOs that we may not have wanted this, but now we have it and they'll get on the pips and crowns bus with the rest of The Army. All five divisions of us......


----------



## SupersonicMax

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Fair enough, but I'm sure someone will read it and fire up the outrage bus since "we were never in Iraq"*.
> 
> * - Yes, I know that the Deputy Commanding General of III Corps is a Canadian.



A couple of pilots flew during OIF while on exchange with other services.


----------



## McG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The other very important lesson was to never BS the troops about anything. If you don't know say so, find out, confirm then pass on the info. Once you lose your credibility, you may never get it back.


So, you are saying one probably shouldn't encourage COs to socialize soldiers to the change through the use of untrue information?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1245117.html#msg1245117


----------



## myself.only

OK, here's my  :2c:

First off, I'm a CIC officer.

Ahem
OK, now for anyone who's still reading...

IMO it's a damn shame that anyone on the MND staff thought to attach to this insignia change an objective of elevating pre-unification vets.  :facepalm:
Clearly they failed to appreciate it would shift into a contest of who's generation of vets is better than another generation of vets... and that's just utter BS.  Like the adoption of DEU and re-naming from LFC, this change should have gone forward as a step toward supporting an army heritage for all mbrs of the CA and all generations of vets. 

And really, that's what it is, right?  All we're seeing is the return of the pre-unification Army rank insignia to the CA after it got its pre-unification name back.  Whether or not you think unification itself was good, bad or a pleasant mix of both across the spectrum, that "discussion" in no way should smear the accomplishments and legacy of those who served before, during or (should it end) after that process.  

OK yes it's a political bit of window dressing but that's what the powers that hold the purse-strings do with every decision and it doesn't mean no good can come of it. 

Now for the more practical v. symbolic aspects:

1.  I will defer to the judgment of far wiser mbrs as to whether or not distinctive elemental rank badges like pips and the executive curl can be divisive or confusing in a purple work environment. I don't think it would be but that could be my blind confidence in the CAF coming out.  And if it does, I'd think we'd get over it in short order. 

2.  Yes, while the money isn't much, it could have gone to better things. 
But, IMHO, I think we're deluding ourselves if we get stuck on this and think that cancelling this project would buy boots for Bloggins.  Unlike the rest of us, the public sector doesn't live in a fiscal world where you restrain from baubles because bills have to get paid. They live in a world where money buys media coverage and consequent political leverage and that is the yardstick for measuring the worth of a project. So, honestly, I don't think that if this money didn't go to trinkets, it would go to Bloggins' boots or a thousand other higher priorities.
It's more like your brother-in-law handing you free tickets for a sporting event you had no previous interest in.  It's unexpected and you'd rather have the cash value, but that's not a realistic option. 

3.  Having said that, I don't find the badge system unappealing as insignia.  
Of course, sharing an armoury with multiple PRes units, we're used to seeing it on blues. 
Seeing the badges in CADPAT..... well, I will have to squint a lot less to spot the difference between the Capts and the Majs.... of course, I will probably more than make up for it squinting to distinguish between the WOs and the Majs.
Such is life.

Anyway, that's my  :2c:


----------



## Tetragrammaton

Any truth to the reintroduction of the rank of Lance Corporal or the elimination of the appointment of Master Corporal?

I keep hearing this same rumor from various knowledgeable and well-informed members.


----------



## George Wallace

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Any truth to the reintroduction of the rank of Lance Corporal or the elimination of the appointment of Master Corporal?
> 
> I keep hearing this same rumor from various knowledgeable and well-informed members.



All RUMOUR.


----------



## OldSolduer

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Any truth to the reintroduction of the rank of Lance Corporal or the elimination of the appointment of Master Corporal?
> 
> I keep hearing this same rumor from various knowledgeable and well-informed members.



I have not heard that.....yet.


----------



## dimsum

Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Any truth to the reintroduction of the rank of Lance Corporal or the elimination of the appointment of Master Corporal?



Well, at least for LCpl, if enough people start saying it.... >


----------



## McG

myself.only said:
			
		

> Yes, while the money isn't much, it could have gone to better things.
> But, IMHO, I think we're deluding ourselves if we get stuck on this and think that cancelling this project would buy boots for Bloggins.  Unlike the rest of us, the public sector doesn't live in a fiscal world where you restrain from baubles because bills have to get paid. They live in a world where money buys media coverage and consequent political leverage and that is the yardstick for measuring the worth of a project. So, honestly, I don't think that if this money didn't go to trinkets, it would go to Bloggins' boots or a thousand other higher priorities.


It is not the money it is the effort that is the biggest waste.  Absolutely yes we could have gotten "boots for bloggins" if time and effort had not been sunk into this foolishness.  DSSPM is the one office responsible for both buttons & bows and for operational soldier kit.  Where would you prefer their efforts go?  Now answer that question for all the staffs and decision makers who have had time invested in this.  This lobby group's fetish is moving forward at lightning speed and diverting effort from problems and matters that actually are important to soldiers.



			
				myself.only said:
			
		

> Having said that, I don't find the badge system unappealing as insignia.


There was nothing unappealing about the existing insignia either, and  I would suggest that the Star of the Order of the Bath is unappealing on a present day Canadian uniform.



			
				Tetragrammaton said:
			
		

> Any truth to the reintroduction of the rank of Lance Corporal or the elimination of the appointment of Master Corporal?


No.  There is no truth to the rumour.  The announcement specifically stated which ranks were returning.  LCpl is neither in the NDA nor part of the plan.


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> It is not the money it is the effort that is the biggest waste.  Absolutely yes we could have gotten "boots for bloggins" if time and effort had not been sunk into this foolishness.  DSSPM is the one office responsible for both buttons & bows and for operational soldier kit.  Where would you prefer their efforts go?  Now answer that question for all the staffs and decision makers who have had time invested in this.  This lobby group's fetish is moving forward at lightning speed and diverting effort from problems and matters that actually are important to soldiers.



Talk about rubbing our faces in it. The very people who should be given 5F discharges for failing to do their jobs will now be getting points on their PERs, perques and promotions for being so "efficient" with this nonsense instead. And there are _no_ escuses for DSSPM; the issue of not havong any boots has been ongoing for many years, and we can point to ather travesties like the decade long introduction of a new rucksack. Having my soldiers going around in uniforms held together by guntape on a PLQ course a few years ago because there are no replacement uniforms of the correct size (while stores waits for the issue of the "improved combat uniform") is totally unacceptable either.

As a minimum I suggest we strip all the field kit from every person employed at DSSPM and re issue it to the field force; _they_ can be the ones going to work in coveralls and running shoes.


----------



## George Wallace

"Cost" has been bandied about quite a bit in this discussion.   The claim that these changes will not cost much has already been disproven.  Yes, the new ranks will only require the placement of pins onto the epaulettes of the officer uniforms, and thus not require tailoring.  That is only half of the equation.  The officer uniforms WILL still require tailoring in order to remove the old rank badges.  No cost savings at all.  Of course the argument will be made that the savings will be made over the long term.  That may be a short sighted statement as well, as now ALL officers will have to make the tailoring changes, not just the newly commissioned ones.  Long term is just that, long term.  It will be many years before the cost savings may be seen, if any.  By then, who knows, we may decide to change the ranks again. 


The "Order of Bath" is another faux pas of the decision makers of this move.  A British Order is still a British Order, not Canadian.  This makes the claim that these will be Canadian symbols a lie.  The various suggestions made in this discussion forum as to what to place into the Pip as a Canadian symbol are more in the spirit of the order to make this change than the proposal put forward by the instigators of the change.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Maybe we can use the opportunity to immortalize the visionaries responsible for this change and other similar initiatives with a simplified version of this for the pips;


----------



## Pusser

Although I would agree that the cost-saving argument is not as strong as some folks are making it out to be, there is some merit in it.  Yes, all officer uniforms will have to be tailored to remove the current braid, as opposed to just those of newly commissioned and promoted officers; however, this is a one-time cost that has been factored into the overall calculations.

I would have preferred maple leaves or even Order of Military Merit insignia for the pips, but I do know that one of the reasons for the choosing the Bath star was that it is currently readily available, even in Canada.  Remember that the RCMP (an iconic Canadian institution if there ever was one) has always used it and still does.

As an interesting side note, the reason the British chose the Bath star for officer rank badges in the first place was that at the time it was the principal military honour.  This is no longer the case as the Order of the British Empire now fills that role, yet the use of the Bath star continues.


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> ... this is a one-time cost that has been factored into the overall calculations.


Calculations that did not include any of the new re-occuring costs resulting from this announcment (stocking and sewing of division pathches, stocking of Colonel's Gorgets and General's Gorgets, stocking of unique division flags, unique regimental rank insignia) or of any previous "heritage" crusade change (like the increased cost of giving the Navy an executive curl).  Calculatoins that also disregard all the other initial costs from this announcment and all the previous "heritage" announcments.  At over a million already spent, it is going to be decades before pips & crowns pay for the changes.

... and lets not try selling something for cost when cost was only an after thought to the decision.  If this is going to be about cost, then put all the environments into this nice cheaper British Army rank.  Then we can really save some money.


----------



## Michael OLeary

My main concern on the "cost" front is that when the plan starts to look more expensive than projected, the savings will be sought out in the wrong place, by buying cheaply made insignia that will look like crap and wear poorly.


----------



## JorgSlice

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Talk about rubbing our faces in it. The very people who should be given 5F discharges for failing to do their jobs will now be getting points on their PERs, perques and promotions for being so "efficient" with this nonsense instead. And there are _no_ escuses for DSSPM; the issue of not havong any boots has been ongoing for many years, and we can point to ather travesties like the decade long introduction of a new rucksack. Having my soldiers going around in uniforms held together by guntape on a PLQ course a few years ago because there are no replacement uniforms of the correct size (while stores waits for the issue of the "improved combat uniform") is totally unacceptable either.
> 
> As a minimum I suggest we strip all the field kit from every person employed at DSSPM and re issue it to the field force; _they_ can be the ones going to work in coveralls and running shoes.



Great post.


----------



## dapaterson

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> My main concern on the "cost" front is that when the plan starts to look more expensive than projected, the savings will be sought out in the wrong place, by buying cheaply made insignia that will look like crap and wear poorly.



Don't worry.  If past experience is any indication, we'll spend lots and lots of money to buy cheaply made insignia that look like crap and wear poorly.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't worry.  If past experience is any indication, we'll spend lots and lots of money to buy cheaply made insignia that look like crap and wear poorly.



Reminds me of this;


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> Calculations that did not include any of the new re-occuring costs resulting from this announcment (stocking and sewing of division pathches, stocking of Colonel's Gorgets and General's Gorgets, stocking of unique division flags, unique regimental rank insignia) or of any previous "heritage" crusade change (like the increased cost of giving the Navy an executive curl).  Calculatoins that also disregard all the other initial costs from this announcment and all the previous "heritage" announcments.  At over a million already spent, it is going to be decades before pips & crowns pay for the changes.
> 
> ... and lets not try selling something for cost when cost was only an after thought to the decision.  If this is going to be about cost, then put all the environments into this nice cheaper British Army rank.  Then we can really save some money.



I would argue that all of the costs were indeed included.  NOTHING gets done in DND without a cost analysis.  Whether the assumptions made prove true in the end is an entirely different matter.

The fact is that change is constant and ongoing and there is always a cost associated with it.  Sometimes change results in immediate cost savings.  Sometimes it results in longer term savings.  Sometimes increased costs are anticipated and sometimes they're not.  No one knows for sure until after the changes are implemented and even then, it could take awhile to find out.  Why do so many folks seem so worked up about the increased costs in this instance?  We make changes to uniforms all the time.  Embellishments are often added and removed at the whim of the various clothing and dress committees.  Admittedly, pips and crowns are a radical change, but the other items are pretty routine in the bigger picture (particularly when compared to some other changes that have occurred over the years).  I really don't see a big difference here. 

It is worth noting that plenty of Army officers I've talked to are pretty excited about the change and are looking forward to it.  It may have been politically driven, but it is not without support within the Army.

On the subject of saving money by going with poor quality items, I will give the example of the executive curl in the Navy.  By going to the curl, it forced the supply system to use high quality braid because the cheap plastic crap that we used for years on straight stripes can't be curled.  I never used the supplied stuff because as far as I was concerned it was an embarrassment.  So from a personal perspective, the re-introduction of the executive curl represents a savings to me!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that plenty of Army officers I've talked to are pretty excited about the change and are looking forward to it.  It may have been politically driven, but it is not without support within the Army.



Every one of them must avoid this site like the plague......


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> I would argue that all of the costs were indeed included.  NOTHING gets done in DND without a cost analysis.  Whether the assumptions made prove true in the end and whether political decision makers truly take this factor into account is an entirely different matter.


TFTFY


----------



## McG

Pusser said:
			
		

> I would argue that all of the costs were indeed included.  NOTHING gets done in DND without a cost analysis.


This decision was not made in DND though.  Go look back at the last SITREP.  This decision was a surprise that DND and the CAF learned about just before it was announced.

That aside, I have seen plenty done in DND without a proper cost analysis.  When it comes to PRICIE, we can be good at only seeing the details that support our argument.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Why do so many folks seem so worked up about the increased costs in this instance?  We make changes to uniforms all the time.


Folks are worked up about a dishonesty being used to defend an unwanted decision.  This change has never been about money from the perspective to its proponents.  If it were about cutting costs, then the RCN would also be switching from what is the most expensive rank in the CAF.  The fact is, the heritage campaign is introducing so many new reoccurring costs that is deceiving to ignore all of those while pointing a single element and claiming savings.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> It is worth noting that plenty of Army officers I've talked to are pretty excited about the change and are looking forward to it.  It may have been politically driven, but it is not without support within the Army.


None that I have talked to are happy about it.  I know of one officer who was a proponent of the idea, but he did not get any supporters when he would propose the idea in the mess.  I suppose the poll does show there is nearing 20% support (though that number is skewed by non-CA votes), but there is a much bigger number that says just leave things alone.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Embellishments are often added and removed at the whim of the various clothing and dress committees.  Admittedly, pips and crowns are a radical change, but the other items are pretty routine in the bigger picture (particularly when compared to some other changes that have occurred over the years).  I really don't see a big difference here.


Were you not one of the individuals vehemently arguing that Army guys should not question the embellishments the Navy thought were a big deal to its uniform?  Lets take away your Eliot's eye and put you in pips &crowns, and you can then tell us what the big deal is.  It is not who you are, and it is not who we are.

When the time comes, we will wear the foreign rank.  But it still will not be who we are.


----------



## Jed

Frankly, I was more choked when they made us start wearing the poppy like a Civi. On the tunic and not on the beret were it was a lot more logical and less of a bother with losing it due to seatbelts and such.

Now it matters not.


----------



## myself.only

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The "Order of Bath" is another faux pas of the decision makers of this move.



I agree.  
The OMM or something with a maple leaf would definitely have been more appropriate.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Jed said:
			
		

> Frankly, I was more choked when they made us start wearing the poppy like a Civi. On the tunic and not on the beret were it was a lot more logical and less of a bother with losing it due to seatbelts and such.
> 
> Now it matters not.



I agree that was dumb on many levels.

Jon


----------



## Rocky Mountains

The pip that broke the camel's back?  I think the F35s could have put on financial stress on the system or maybe new frigates but people worrying about the cost of pips really have nothing to worry about.

"Order of Bath?" - I've got a small handful of pips and I just thought they were a random design.  For the cost of a colonel we could design and buy enough distinctively Canadian pips for everyone who needs them.  If you need help, I could pick the colonel.


----------



## CombatDoc

Yaaaaaaawn. I can't believe folks are still discussing this. The decision has been made - "we're going left" - let's get on with it.  As has been made abundantly clear on this forum, this was a political vice CoC decision. Move along, nothing to see here, these are not the naval ranks you were looking for!


----------



## Infanteer

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Yaaaaaaawn. I can't believe folks are still discussing this. The decision has been made - "we're going left" - let's get on with it.  As has been made abundantly clear on this forum, this was a political vice CoC decision. Move along, nothing to see here, these are not the naval ranks you were looking for!



+1.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I found this little video, which is linked from the _Globe and Mail's_ web site, interesting: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-uniform-vault-home-to-thousands-of-artifacts-from-canadas-military-history/article13822793/#dashboard/alerts

It reminds us, perhaps, that there is some "history" behind the recent changes which are, generally, not welcomed by serving members.

I especially enjoyed Ms Doucette's comment that "when you're wearing a military uniform, you're wearing your resume on your jacket." We've toned it down a bit, but I can remember tunic sleeves that told everyone everything they needed to know about me: regiment or corps, formation, rank, trade/specialty, years of service and marksmanship ability ~ it's still there, of course, just a bit more subdued.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It reminds us, perhaps, that there is some "history" behind the recent changes which are, generally, not welcomed by serving members.


There was "some history" behind rank at the bottom of Canadian officers' sleeves too, but that is conveniently ignored now.  So we will join the only 7 of 53 Commonwealth countries outside of the UK which wear un-nationalized UK rank.


----------



## Monsoon

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Yaaaaaaawn. I can't believe folks are still discussing this. The decision has been made - "we're going left" - let's get on with it.  As has been made abundantly clear on this forum, this was a political vice CoC decision. Move along, nothing to see here, these are not the naval ranks you were looking for!


It's... not... dead... yet. Just... a few... more... kicks.


----------



## myself.only

MCG said:
			
		

> So we will join the only 7 of 53 Commonwealth countries outside of the UK which wear un-nationalized UK rank.



Well, well, I'd like to say the ranks aren't un-nationalized..... but then that "Order of the Bath"  ??? decision pretty much kills and buries any argument before it can even stand up. 
Oy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's... not... dead... yet. Just... a few... more... kicks.



I think the issue isn't so much the Pips and Crowns,.........it's the sad-sack bunch of political ass-kisser's at the head of the military food chain who, once again, just kneeled down and puckered up to a slimy bunch of politicions/ old bagmen.  At least in my opinion anyways.........


----------



## medicineman

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think the issue isn't so much the Pips and Crowns,.........it's the sad-sack bunch of political ***-kisser's at the head of the military food chain who, once again, just kneeled down and puckered up to a slimy bunch of politicions/ old bagmenlickers.  At least in my opinion anyways.........



FTFY.

MM


----------



## Infanteer

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think the issue isn't so much the Pips and Crowns,.........it's the sad-sack bunch of political ***-kisser's at the head of the military food chain who, once again, just kneeled down and puckered up to a slimy bunch of politicions/ old bagmen.  At least in my opinion anyways.........



Is that what you call "following orders"?


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Wait, that can't be right... the CAF is run by soldiers isn't it? I mean, it's the military, right?  Why would politicians be in charge?!?!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is that what you call "following orders"?



Not if a person was in the military.

However, I see nothing wrong with a civilian expressing his opinion on a change that was foisted on the military, in no small part, by another bunch of civilians.

Free country, freedom of speech, all that jazz.


----------



## Inquisitor

May I respectfully suggest that may not be the best course of action - Recceguy?

When I posted a comment that was much less disrespectful about Jason Kenny, I was advised to be civil. 

One can think whatever one wants, and I do not care for the perceived target group either. 

However from my youth a very good piece of advice stayed with me i.e.  "You may not repect the person but you must respect the rank"

FWIW


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> May I respectfully suggest that may not be the best course of action - Recceguy?
> 
> When I posted a comment that was much less disrespectful about Jason Kenny, I was advised to be civil.
> 
> One can think whatever one wants, and I do not care for the perceived target group either.
> 
> However from my youth a very good piece of advice stayed with me i.e.  "You may not repect the person but you must respect the rank"
> 
> FWIW



No, you can't suggest. It's not me we're talking about. As much as you'd like it to be.

I wasn't defending his wording, but his right to say it. 

He's the one that will decide how far he wants to go, not you, not me.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Is that what you call "following orders"?



I must follow orders at my present job, and we have a rank stucture, [in fact we just went back to military terms] but those above me and around me know damn well when I think they are being stupid..............






			
				Inquisitor said:
			
		

> However from my youth a very good piece of advice stayed with me i.e.  "You may not repect the person but you must respect the rank"



I have zero requirement to "respect the rank", that went away when I pulled pole.


----------



## The Bread Guy

One of those supporting the pips & crowns changes, via his Twitter feed- 


> Nice letter today from @pmharper thanking me for my support in gov. restoring Canadian Army traditional rank insignia. HonLCol Vic Fedeli


That would also be Conservative MPP for Nipissing Vic Fedeli, Honorary Lieutenant Colonel of the Algonquin Regiment.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

When will the army.ca ranks be changed? I can't wait to see pips 'n crowns here too!


----------



## Franko

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> When will the army.ca ranks be changed? I can't wait to see pips 'n crowns here too!



Unlike the CF, this site is privately owned and not swayed by special interest groups or politicians.

It's up to the boss.

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Teager

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One of those supporting the pips & crowns changes, via his Twitter feed- That would also be Conservative MPP for Nipissing Vic Fedeli, Honorary Lieutenant Colonel of the Algonquin Regiment.



I'm guessing there isn't much support if Harper is able to send letters to those that support the change.  I hope Harper didn't miss thanking anyone else or they'll be upset they didn't get a letter.  >


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> When will the army.ca ranks be changed? I can't wait to see pips 'n crowns here too!



I think you should get out more.....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I think you should get out more.....



I think you should get one of these:

http://youtu.be/87ra6qKzXDA


----------



## PPCLI Guy

:rofl:


----------



## McG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> it's the sad-sack bunch of political ass-kisser's at the head of the military food chain who, once again, just kneeled down and puckered up to a slimy bunch of politicions/ old bagmen.


The military leadership has done what it is supposed to do: accepted the supremacy of civilian authority.  This change is stupid, but with budget cuts coming/happening,  major restructurings becoming required, and bigger millstones on the Army’s neck.  Leadership should be falling on their swords over this because the Army needs them focused on navigating through some difficult years ahead.

I just receive the powerpoint from G1 Heritage Ceremonial Events titled “International Army Officer Rank Convention.”  I am disappointed pers in positions of authority are still trying to sell this through distortion of the truth.  The speaker notes go into touting the value of an international “system of stars and crowns” that facilitates communication between friend and foe on the battle field, and the slides attempt to show such international convention exists.  Too bad we’ve already seen demonstrated that to be false.

Compiling a selection of three star captain ranks on a slide and suggesting this is proof of a universal system is dishonest when you ignore the plethora of three star insignia which indicate other ranks and when you ignore the plethora of captain ranks not denoted by three stars.  Compiling a slide major ranks denoted by a “national/superior symbol” and claiming this is proof of a universal system is dishonest when you hide the fact that half those ranks are not actually a “national/superior symbol” but rather a system that uses distinctly different pips at the levels of junior officers, field grade officers, and general officers (as is the style in Taiwanese, Finish, Danish, Israeli and many Asia/Pacific nations).  And whoever puts a US major’s oak leaf next to a crown to declare that we all use a “national/superior symbol” to denote the rank of major ... well that person must clearly hope they are communicating to a pack of idiots incapable of looking at the US rank as a whole and realize it has nothing in common with the British rank.

If one wants to look at various rank systems, there arguably is a convention by plurality if one constrains themselves only to pip/star using nations in Europe.  If one accepts this substantiation as a convention, then one must accept that the UK rank deviates from the convention.  The arguments selling the rank change in fact suggest that we should design something of our own in order to communicate with NATO.

Hopefully, sometime soon, somebody influences the Army’s internal messaging machine to just stick to the truth:  “The government has decided to go back to a version of our historical ranks as a means of connecting with our history and in preparing for various significant military 100th and 75th anniversaries.  Let’s go.”  That is all the message needed and any further salesmanship starts getting into misrepresentations.


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> The speaker notes go into touting the value of an international “system of stars and crowns” that facilitates communication between friend and foe on the battle field, and the slides attempt to show such international convention exists.



Too bad, with body armour and chest rigs, we don't really wear rank on the battlefield.


----------



## medaid

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Too bad, with body armour and chest rigs, we don't really wear rank on the battlefield.



Think how pretty everyone will look in Garrison though...


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> If one wants to look at various rank systems, there arguably is a convention by plurality if one constrains themselves only to pip/star using nations in Europe.  If one accepts this substantiation as a convention, then one must accept that the UK rank deviates from the convention.  The arguments selling the rank change in fact suggest that we should design something of our own in order to communicate with NATO.
> 
> Hopefully, sometime soon, somebody influences the Army’s internal messaging machine to just stick to the truth:  “The government has decided to go back to a version of our historical ranks as a means of connecting with our history and in preparing for various significant military 100th and 75th anniversaries.  Let’s go.”  That is all the message needed and any further salesmanship starts getting into misrepresentations.



To add to the idiocy of these arguments for the return to our "historical" army ranks, and to be inline with international ranking systems; the authors of this change did not take into account the numerous armies in NATO and allied nations who use 'stars' and other national symbols in their Jr NCO ranks.  

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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This government is having a deficit in honest media releases. Partial due to politicians, but also caused by bureaucrats, senior leaders and media relation folks with no background knowledge and a hazy association with ethics. A perfect storm


----------



## Kirkhill

One thing this effort does do is it makes the CAF more compatible with the Brits, Aussies and Kiwis.  That makes it easier to contemplate the "permanent" formation of ANZAC divisions and the Korean war vintage 27th British Commonwealth Bde and 1 Commonwealth Division.

Equally, for the RCN if makes it easier to contemplate Laurier's vision of the RCN adding assets (Rainbow and Niobe) to the RN for distant waters work rather than a fully functional, independent RCN.


----------



## Journeyman

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> One thing this effort does do is.......


That seems like a straw being clutched.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I note that the BC Sheriff's use pips and crowns for their senior ranks (slurping coffee in the local Timmies), no image on the web that I can find.


----------



## Good2Golf

The wierdest part is where the British Major General uses swords and a 2nd Lieutenant's star, where at the Lieutenant General uses swords and a Major's crown...  ???

On the plus side of the RCAF's rank, at least the same concept of thin, thick and thicker bars will/would be maintained...


Regards
G2G


----------



## myself.only

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The wierdest part is where the British Major General uses swords and a 2nd Lieutenant's star, where at the Lieutenant General uses swords and a Major's crown...  ???



Meh. I can follow the logic of junior officer symbol for the more junior general, twisted as that is... but hey gotta love how the BGen is like "3-star SuperColonel!"


----------



## Inquisitor

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The wierdest part is where the British Major General uses swords and a 2nd Lieutenant's star, where at the Lieutenant General uses swords and a Major's crown...  ???



Seems to make sense to me,  crown for the later more senior rank pip for the former less senior rank.


----------



## George Wallace

myself.only said:
			
		

> Good2Golf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wierdest part is where the British Major General uses swords and a 2nd Lieutenant's star, where at the Lieutenant General uses swords and a Major's crown...  ???
> 
> 
> 
> Meh. I can follow the logic of junior officer symbol for the more junior general, twisted as that is... but hey gotta love how the BGen is like "3-star SuperColonel!"
Click to expand...


The Major General is a shortened term.  It was originally Sgt-Major General, Lt Gen, Gen......or so folklore goes.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> On the plus side of the RCAF's rank, at least the same concept of thin, thick and thicker bars will/would be maintained...


For now, anyway  >


----------



## Kirkhill

Journeyman said:
			
		

> That seems like a straw being clutched.



Thin gruel I admit.

The aggravation isn't necessary.  And I'm on record up-thread as saying as much.

However, in looking for tea leaves to read, I wouldn't be surprised if this government were looking for a like-minded club of nations with which it could increase its international influence.  In that context the old settler nations of the Commonwealth, together with Britain, might fill the bill.  A portion of the Anglosphere as it were.

The UN doesn't meet the requirement.  And NATO is looking more and more like the Western European Union and just as effective.

The Commonwealth entity has political cover if through no other mechanism than the personal oath to the monarch, unadulterated by any national considerations, taken by all Commonwealth troops. (I stand to be corrected on that assertion).


----------



## Inquisitor

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The Commonwealth entity has political cover ).



Shhhhhhh!!!! You'll give away the plan!!!  Well I may as well. That would allow PM Mugabe to act as a mentor for PM Harper in the finer points of running a parliamentary  democracy. 

(Ducks for cover)


----------



## dapaterson

So you're assuming strategic intent for international infuence, and not pandering to a small band of anachronistic blowhards.


You go, crazy dreamer!


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're assuming strategic intent for international infuence, and not pandering to a small band of anachronistic blowhards.
> 
> 
> You go, crazy dreamer!



Reality is so painful,  I much prefer my dreams.  Somebody, somewhere has a plan.  Don't they?


----------



## myself.only

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Major General is a shortened term.  It was originally Sgt-Major General, Lt Gen, Gen......or so folklore goes.



Yeah, IIRC, the rank comes from Cromwell's New Model Army denoting the General Officer in charge of Infantry.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Reality is so painful,  I much prefer my dreams.  Somebody, somewhere has a plan.  Don't they?



A cunning plan?


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A cunning plan?



Must be.  So cunning as to be completely obscure.


----------



## myself.only

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Somebody, somewhere has a plan.  Don't they?



Oh yes rest assured they do.  ;D

Alas, it's just getting re-elected.  :facepalm: But they definitely have plans.


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're assuming strategic intent for international infuence, and not pandering to a small band of anachronistic blowhards.


So young to be so cynical ....


----------



## McG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> On the plus side of the RCAF's rank, at least the same concept of thin, thick and thicker bars will/would be maintained...


Yeah, but the RCAF ranks in the NDA translate worse than the RCN ranks.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Curious how that will be accomplished with pips as they are hollow. Photos show how The Rifles have done this.
> 
> Rifle Regts could/may go back to the Rifle Regt tradition of officers not wearing rank  or sholder boards on their mess kit. The RWpgRif officers currently wear miniature gun metal pips and crowns.
> 
> There is no standard for the Cdn Rifle Regts. Each of the five Rifle Regt does its own thing. Some wear black, some gun metal, some miniature and so on.



I will post pictures of our (Voltigeurs) pips and crowns. They are matte metallic gray coloured.


----------



## Rifleman62

Mr.St-Cyr

Who at your unit is the OPI?

The Rifle Regts should get together and pick one colour so it will be easier to obtain from one supplier, etc. If i.e. The QOR of C want to have a 1/4 inch Mellon (red) under their badges so be it.

Black rank badges will be near impossible by themselves to see on Service Dress: a Mellon background will help. The RWpgRif went to rifle green facing from red some years (1935) after becoming affiliated with the Rifle Brigade and I doubt the regiment will go back.

Our current affiliation has evolved to The Rifles in the UK who only wear the Mellon on No 1's which would be our Patrols equivalent. Otherwise the UK uniforms are broadly tan in colour so black badges stand out.

I personal favor gun metal/pewter colour which the regiment currently wears. Pewter will still be somewhat difficult to see on the shoulder of SD.

The QOR, Brocks, RWpgRif and Halifax Rifles are currently passing info. Please PM your regimental contact. Thanks.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Black rank badges will be near impossible by themselves to see on Service Dress



I thought that was the whole point of Black Badges on Rifle Green.   ???


----------



## Rifleman62

Of course. Tradition.

GI Heritage SITREP extract:



> •CADPAT. There is a new *high visibility* CADPAT rank slip on/velcro project running as we speak.  The project will change all CADPAT rank to* higher visibility thread. * This project will introduce stars and crowns for officers prior to mass production.  Thanks to this project, there will be no new cost to put crowns and stars onto CADPAT slip-ons.



In light of the above, plus all the controversy on the visibility of ranks/saluting, IMHO I doubt that the Army will allow the officer ranks to be near invisable, thus the Mellon backing or pewter colour.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Mr.St-Cyr
> 
> Who at your unit is the OPI?
> 
> The Rifle Regts should get together and pick one colour so it will be easier to obtain from one supplier, etc. If i.e. The QOR of C want to have a 1/4 inch Mellon (red) under their badges so be it.
> 
> Black rank badges will be near impossible by themselves to see on Service Dress: a Mellon background will help. The RWpgRif went to rifle green facing from red some years (1935) after becoming affiliated with the Rifle Brigade and I doubt the regiment will go back.
> 
> Our current affiliation has evolved to The Rifles in the UK who only wear the Mellon on No 1's which would be our Patrols equivalent. Otherwise the UK uniforms are broadly tan in colour so black badges stand out.
> 
> I personal favor gun metal/pewter colour which the regiment currently wears. Pewter will still be somewhat difficult to see on the shoulder of SD.
> 
> The QOR, Brocks, RWpgRif and Halifax Rifles are currently passing info. Please PM your regimental contact. Thanks.







These are the pips we use over black shoulderboards. The crowns are the same colour but the inside of the crown is a dark red. They look a little brighter than they actually are on the pic because of the lighting.


----------



## Franko

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I would have much preferred Regional nomenclature for the Divs as it is far more representative of their static, institutional role and it is easier to remember.  (Western Division, Central Division, Division Quebec, Atlantic Division).



That would make sense....and we'll have none of that here.

Regards


----------



## Old EO Tech

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> That would make sense....and we'll have none of that here.
> 
> Regards



Well you an argue for or against this change just like the other moves to historical linkages.  But the Div numbers used are linked to the historical divisions force generated by the Militia Districts in each area.  At least it will give our uniforms a bit more colour 

Jon


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the RCAF ranks in the NDA translate worse than the RCN ranks.


... of course, if we are going to insert two new ranks and change the translation for Craftsman, we could go full-stupid and revisit all the rank translation in the NDA.  To make life simple for future heritage and/or cultural announcements, we should provide sufficient flexibility within just the NDA so that minor tinkering of QR&O will allow us to easily flip-flop between past and present or English and French inspired options.


----------



## Old Sweat

What we have here is a demonstration of unimportant issues dominating the time and energy of people. Take a look at the number of pages (137) and posts (3418) devoted to this buttons and bows issue compared to the pages (31) and posts (751) on Syria, which is a potential cause of widespread war in the Middle East and beyond.

Edit - number of pages and posts added.


----------



## tomahawk6

so division is the new name for regiment ? The Army has nowhere near the manpower/formations to field 5 divisions.Enlighten me please.


----------



## ARMY_101

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> so division is the new name for regiment ? The Army has nowhere near the manpower/formations to field 5 divisions.Enlighten me please.



Regiment =/= division

Fireteam < Squad < Section < Platoon < Company / Battery / Troop < Battalion / Squadron < Regiment < Brigade < Division < Corps < Field army < Army group


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I am pretty sure that T6 knows how an army is organized...

His question was more about how Canada tends to have understrength units and formations running about.


----------



## tomahawk6

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am pretty sure that T6 knows how an army is organized...
> 
> His question was more about how Canada tends to have understrength units and formations running about.



Yep,thanks SK !!


----------



## McG

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> so division is the new name for regiment ?


See here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1241314.html#msg1241314

The topic was discussed earlier in the same thread (prior to announcement) but may not be worth searching for.


----------



## Inquisitor

This is a classic example of The Canadian Army embracing the use of Russian style maskirovka  operations, to confuse and befuddle potential adversaries. A classic example of this is found during WWII when Governor Generals  Foot Guards was equipped with Sherman tanks, leading to much confusion amongst Axis Intelligence staffs when they saw the units designation  in the opposing order of battle. 

An alternate explanation is that our formations are the perfect size and everyone else's are overstrength.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

Traditionally for most of the first half of the last century the Non-Permanent Active Militia was organized on a geographic brigade and division structure. Unlike other real armies that had a population base to support such a concept, when war came the expeditionary force was mobilized with formations and units from across the country in each division and in the supporting troops. If there is a deception plan, the only people being taken in by this fiendishly unclever plot are those who see it as a sign of military progress.


----------



## Inquisitor

Old Sweat makes an interesting point. Brings me to a point that I have long wondered about. Seems almost every Canadian unit from the WWII Order of Battle still exists. So, yes in the event of mobilization 4 Divisions plus Corp troops could be generated. 

On the other side of the pond, The British with a much longer tradition have been amalgamating units since the 60's. 

There are other threads that support the idea of doing the same thing to a number of Pres units. Heck, you could combine half of them, get rid of a umm lot of senior officers and honoraries save a pile of money and still have the same number of spear carriers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

But the thin green line will look dashing against the rubble of Damascus


----------



## 392

ARMY_101 said:
			
		

> Regiment =/= division
> 
> Fireteam < Squad < Section < Platoon / Troop < Company / Battery / Troop  / Squadron< Battalion / Squadron  / Regiment< Regiment < Brigade < Division < Corps < Field army < Army group



FTFY. Yellow highlights are my injections. 

And yes, I understand that the next higher formation for an Inf Bn is the mothership Regiment, however as this listing seems to encompass all 4 Cbt Arms, I listed Regt being equivalent to a Bn in size.

And did I miss something? When did we start calling Assault Groups "Squads" in Canada?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Capt. Happy said:
			
		

> FTFY. Yellow highlights are my injections.
> 
> And yes, I understand that the next higher formation for an Inf Bn is the mothership Regiment, however as this listing seems to encompass all 4 Cbt Arms, I listed Regt being equivalent to a Bn in size.
> 
> And did I miss something? When did we start calling Assault Groups "Squads" in Canada?



AFAIK "squad" does not exist in Canadian doctrine.  And though these Divisions are territorial divisions similar to what the UK has done in the past.  Technically 2 or more BG do make a Div, even if said PRes Div's can't actually generate more than a couple Coy's at best for a Dom Op :-/

Jon


----------



## Infanteer

MCG said:
			
		

> LFCA became 4 Div, and SQFT became 2 Div ... interesting.  The "historical" force generating home for 2 DivHQ & Tps was 2 Militia District (Central Ontario) and the force generating home for 4 Div HQ & Tps was 5 Militia District (Eastern Quebec).



I am guessing that 2 Div was selected for SQFT due to the historical prominence of 2 Cdn Div/2 Cdn Inf Div in commanding the francophone units of Canada.  The R22R fought the First World War as part of 2 Cdn Div while 5 CIB, as part of 2 Cdn Inf Div during the Second World War, was originally destined to be a Franco Brigade but scrapped due to, I believe, a concern for a lack of a decent casualty replacement system should the Bde receive heavy casualties (this was confirmed with the exchange of the Chaudieres with the Cal Highs) .

This is why 3 CIBG was renamed 5 GBMC in the late 1960s; to pay homage to the historical "numbered" home of the francophone units of our Army.


----------



## Rifleman62

Inquisitor



> Seems almost every Canadian unit from the WWII Order of Battle still exists.



I take it you were joking. If not, put a check mark by the unit or it's successor that is still on the CF ORBAT.

http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-inf-1CA1945-e.htm   First Canadian Army May 45


----------



## Danjanou

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Inquisitor
> 
> 
> I take it you were joking. If not, put a check mark by the unit or it's successor that is still on the CF ORBAT.
> 
> http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-inf-1CA1945-e.htm   First Canadian Army May 45



Hmm 12 Inf Bde from 5 Armoured Div is missing? 

Also as long as we're talking about the entire WW2 Order of Battle lets not forget the 3 Infantry Divisions in Canada and all therir subunits.


----------



## McG

Inquisitor said:
			
		

> Seems almost every Canadian unit from the WWII Order of Battle still exists.





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I take it you were joking. If not, put a check mark by the unit or it's successor that is still on the CF ORBAT.
> 
> http://www.junobeach.org/e/4/can-tac-inf-1CA1945-e.htm


There have been more than enough regiments resurrected in the last few years.  Lets not create ideas for more wasteful opportunities.


----------



## Ostrozac

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Hmm 12 Inf Bde from 5 Armoured Div is missing?



Yes, that's correct, as of May 1945. Armoured Divisions in the Italy Campaign had one armoured brigade and two infantry brigades, Armoured Divisions in Northwest Europe had one armoured brigade and one infantry brigade. So when 5 Div moved from Italy to Northwest Europe, the 12th Infantry Brigade was disbanded.


----------



## myself.only

ORBAT issues aside, so Areas are now called Divs, new letterhead all around but that's probably not a sign of impending apocalypse.  
Out of idle curiosity: do we know if the RCN and RCAF pers who now are in these "new" Divs will also wear the Div patch on their uniforms?  Or is that an Army only insignia?


----------



## Danjanou

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Yes, that's correct, as of May 1945. Armoured Divisions in the Italy Campaign had one armoured brigade and two infantry brigades, Armoured Divisions in Northwest Europe had one armoured brigade and one infantry brigade. So when 5 Div moved from Italy to Northwest Europe, the 12th Infantry Brigade was disbanded.



Makes sense or I forgot that ( I wrote that pre timmies this morning). The Bde aas an adhoc formation cobbled together as more Infantry were needed in Italy.


----------



## Old Sweat

The 12th Brigade was a temporary organization that was only in existence for about eight months. Its formation was opposed by Army Headquarters in Ottawa but was accepted as an operational necessity. The framework for the three battalions was found from within the resources of 1 Canadian Corps, using the Westminster Regiment (Motor) from 5th Armoured Brigade, the 4th Canadian Reconnaissance Regiment (4th Princesss Louise Dragoon Guards) from the 1st Division and the 1st Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment from Corps troops. Thus the only new unit that appeared on the order of  battle was the last, which was redesignated the Lanark and Renfrew Scottish Regiment. The matter is discussed starting on p. 478 in The Canadians in Italy 194-1945, Volume II of the official history.


----------



## Kirkhill

Looking over the ORBAT I would suggest that Inquisitor was pretty much on the mark with respect to the Infantry and a little off the mark with respect to the Armoured Corps.

Everyone else seems to have managed amalgamation and rationalization quite nicely.


----------



## Jacky Tar

myself.only said:
			
		

> ORBAT issues aside, so Areas are now called Divs, new letterhead all around but that's probably not a sign of impending apocalypse.
> Out of idle curiosity: do we know if the RCN and RCAF pers who now are in these "new" Divs will also wear the Div patch on their uniforms?  Or is that an Army only insignia?



I would imagine an RCN or RCAF supply tech (or any other 'purple' trade) posted to an Army unit will wear the suitable division patch for the duration of their posting; just as an Army writer posted to a ship already wears the naval NCDs and a ship's crest while posted to a ship.

That does make me wonder if the old designations in the RCN will be resurrected, though. C5 Escort Group instead of MOG 5?


----------



## Ostrozac

Field formation patches are only worn on Land DEU. We had plenty of airmen and sailors posted to 2 CMBG units -- none wore the 2 Brigade patch.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> I would imagine an RCN or RCAF supply tech (or any other 'purple' trade) posted to an Army unit will wear the suitable division patch for the duration of their posting; just as an Army writer posted to a ship already wears the naval NCDs and a ship's crest while posted to a ship.
> 
> That does make me wonder if the old designations in the RCN will be resurrected, though. C5 Escort Group instead of MOG 5?



I may be wrong but I doubt they will as brigade patches were not worn by RCN/RCAF pers.  This is of course me assuming that the new div patches will flow along the same lines and the old brigade ones, and we all know what assuming does


----------



## myself.only

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I may be wrong but I doubt they will as brigade patches were not worn by RCN/RCAF pers.  This is of course me assuming that the new div patches will flow along the same lines and the old brigade ones, and we all know what assuming does



 :nod: agree on both your line of reasoning.... and the futility of being reasonable


----------



## dapaterson

My (old) copy of CFP 265 states that field formation patches are only worn on Army service dress.

(Still have to get people to change their command badges when they move from one to another - had a nice long chat once with a PO2 RMS clerk posted to an Army unit who refused to remove his Maritime Command badge...)


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My (old) copy of CFP 265 states that field formation patches are only worn on Army service dress.
> 
> (Still have to get people to change their command badges when they move from one to another - had a nice long chat once with a PO2 RMS clerk posted to an Army unit who refused to remove his Maritime Command badge...)



That must have been some time ago.  I was in Halifax from 2001 - 2011 and I never saw a Maritime Command badge    Hope I didn't make you feel too old lol


----------



## tomahawk6

So if you have a division would that mean a new Major General's post ?


----------



## Infanteer

Wait for it, but for now they are BGen's jobs.

Honestly, I have no qualms with the naming of the formation above Brigade as Division.  There is a Brigade's worth of Reservists (although we have 3) and a (large) regular Brigade in Western Canada - two Brigades to my Army mind are commanded by a Division, which sounds much better than a Land Force Area.


----------



## Kirkhill

Officer Commanding 5 Div Substantive Captain Brevetted Major General Acting Unpaid.


----------



## myself.only

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Officer Commanding 5 Div Substantive Captain Brevetted Major General Acting Unpaid While So Employed.


----------



## Lightguns

I have been watching this thread from outside as a guest for some time.  All this going back is really un-important.  It is what it is and our job is to get on with it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I have been watching this thread from outside as a guest for some time.  All this going back is really un-important.  It is what it is and our job is to get on with it.


That said, this wouldn't be much of a "discussion forum" without some discussion, right?


----------



## jpjohnsn

At the risk of spooling things up again, has anyone heard anything from the rumour mill on when or if there will be changes to RCAF ranks?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  if you don't mention it maybe 'they' will forget about us!


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  if you don't mention it maybe 'they' will forget about us!


That does it.....I am phoning the 1 CAD CWO and "suggest" this to him.... >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Damn.  Where is that "Men In BlacK" mind-zapper gadget of mine at.... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Damn.  Where is that "Men In BlacK" mind-zapper gadget of mine at.... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


Too late, those things don't work on us CWOs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Okay how about a simple bribe; a 60 perhaps?  Texas Mickey??   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens

Too late mate, the all seeing Eye of Mordor is now firmly fixed on you.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Great. Just great.

 :tempertantrum:


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Our Air Force ranks are American - we need something more Canadian.  There aren't enough Air Chief Marshals swirling on computer chairs tossing paper airplanes at each other in Ottawa.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Too late mate, the all seeing Eye of Mordor is now firmly fixed on you.



And the Jedi Knights are after you as well.....


You really need to change the RCAF rank structure......


----------



## Danjanou

Will you guys stop discussing secrets here in the open forum, you know the consequence. Those that are really behind all the new pips and crowns and buttons and bows will soon be after you.  8)


----------



## OldSolduer

You never said The Stonecutters were in on this.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

How could they not be?


----------



## Danjanou

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You never said The Stonecutters were in on this.....



You know this means you're now going to have to wear the "Stone of Shame."


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> You really need to change the RCAF rank structure......


Flight Sergeant - from extinction, (back) to distinction!


----------



## Kat Stevens

At least these people aren't in on it...yet...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FveBzGMD6zw


----------



## McG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!  if you don't mention it maybe 'they' will forget about us!


The former MND is already on record that this is being looked at.  It is too late to hope we can prevent the good idea fairy getting out on this.  It is probably the same too-old-to-serve lobby of civilians working to impose their fetish of British ranks upon the whole of the CF ... and they will probably continue to misrepresent reality so that the truth does not have to impede their sales campaign.

Clearly, we have nothing more important into which we should be investing our staff efforts and leadership's time.


----------



## Inquisitor

Totally excellent!!!! And for the Senior Service - First Sea Lord, Second Sea Lord,  .... Admiral of the Red? Admiral of the Blue? ;D


----------



## Loachman

And for the second senior service, First Landlord, and for the junior service, Lord of the Flies.

Although there is only one service in Canada.


----------



## Rifleman62

MCG:   





> It is probably the same too-old-to-serve lobby of civilians working to impose their fetish of British ranks upon the whole of the CF ... and they will probably continue to misrepresent reality so that the truth does not have to impede their sales campaign.



I ask this in all honesty, what evidence are you aware of to support this statement? I spoke to an Hon Col who is quite active in military affairs and he was not aware of a lobby for the change.

This is not a challenge; it is a request for substantiation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> MCG:
> I ask this in all honesty, what evidence are you aware of to support this statement? I spoke to an Hon Col who is quite active in military affairs and he was not aware of a lobby for the change.
> 
> This is not a challenge; it is a request for substantiation.




I can vouch for one "honorary" who was involved in this ~ at least he told a group of us that he was. I'm not sure how formal the "lobby" was, in fact it may be wrong to use that term at all. I also know that one reserve officer, who serves full time in a staff position, was involved, too, but _I think_ the two officers I mention were not connected; in other words I think there were at least two groups pushing this.

The "honorary" is quite pleased with what he did. He believes that he did a good thing FOR the Army; he thinks most serving officers will welcome the change. While I know a few officers who are vehemently opposed to the change, my _sense_ is that most accept it with good grace, but they would like to have been consulted, as they believe their RCN confrères were over the return of the executive curl.


----------



## medicineman

Loachman said:
			
		

> And for the second senior service, First Landlord, and for the junior service, Lord of the Flies.



 :rofl:

So who would the First Landlord collect rent from?

MM


----------



## armyvern

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...While I know a few officers who are vehemently opposed to the change, my _sense_ is that most accept it with good grace, but they would like to have been consulted, as they believe their RCN confrères were over the return of the executive curl.



I have _heard_ that the Army Dress Committee firmly rejected going back to pips & crowns last year; seems current serving soldier opinion on the matter doesn't count for much in the political world of today.  ATI request for those minutes would be an interesting read I am sure.

Way to right a wrong done decades ago by wronging those of today who have also done their fair share to forge the history of the modern Cdn Army.


----------



## Edward Campbell

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have _heard_ that the Army Dress Committee firmly rejected going back to pips & crowns last year; seems current serving soldier opinion on the matter doesn't count for much in the political world of today.  ATI request for those minutes would be an interesting read I am sure.
> 
> Way to right a wrong done decades ago by wronging those of today who have also done their fair share to forge the history of the modern Cdn Army.




Agree.

Had anyone asked me ~ no one did ~ I would have said, "No, leave well enough alone, unless you are going to design a *uniquely Canadian system* for the Army and the RCAF, and even for the RCN in some cases." But, as I said, no one did ask me so, a week plus ago, when it was mentioned, I said, "Well, it's decided; get on with your real work and change slips-ons when someone tells you."


----------



## Kat Stevens

This is all getting just a little too ridiculous now, they're clothing accoutrements, for fuck's sake, not like you're asked to give up your reserved parking spaces or anything really important like that.  If you feel that strongly, show up for work on D Day +1 in your old rank blingy thingy  and prepare to eat what comes your way.  I'm sure being officers and gentlemen, or women, this will amount to a scolding look and several cross words in the mess over brandy and caviare.  The decision is made, and, to quote everybody one rank higher than me, ever, "suck it up and get on with it".  Nobody asked us sappers back in 1984 if we though disgraceful unrecognisable cloth hatbadges in place of our beautiful shiny metal ones was a simply fab forward fashion move.  We just went to the QM and got the nasty thing sewn on.  It sucked, we hated it, and had absolutely no say in it. The next day, the sun came up, and several hours later, it set.  If implementing the change is such a gigantic staffing burden that it derails operation of the entire fucking army, we got much bigger problems than I thought.  Just one insignificant old Cpl's opinion.


----------



## FJAG

:goodpost:

+1

Looking forward to the usual rebuttal from the usual crowd.

op:


----------



## armyvern

FJAG said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> +1
> 
> Looking forward to the usual rebuttal from the usual crowd.
> 
> op:



Yep --- right here.  I see troops whose feet are fucked every day because of their useless footwear.  In my mind, the savings of this rank-step-backwards would be better put towards boots for troops.  Nope, it won't cover boots for all of them, but it would be a fine start.

It's actually something soldiers NEED.

From a member of the usual crowd.   :


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is all getting just a little too ridiculous now, they're clothing accoutrements,


But it is not just a uniform change - check the title of the thread.  It is a slippery-slope parade of squandered effort and resources as a piece of uniform is changed here, then a name there, and a regiment revived somewhere else, and then another uniform tinker, and some more rebranding, and on and on.  And we have been told, right in the media, that there is more to come.

We do not have enough manpower to accomplish the things we need in a year, but we can pump effort it into making things happen that we don't need or want?


----------



## Kat Stevens

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep --- right here.  I see troops whose feet are fucked every day because of their useless footwear.  In my mind, the savings of this rank-step-backwards would be better put towards boots for troops.  Nope, it won't cover boots for all of them, but it would be a fine start.
> 
> It's actually something soldiers NEED.
> 
> From a member of the usual crowd.   :



Okay, I'll bite, how many pairs of boots do you think the cost of this move will buy?  How will they be divvied out? Will recruits get first crack, or will they be reissued old shit boots, like I was in basic IN 1980?!  If you can't buy enough for the whole class, you shouldn't bring them at all.  Maybe if ninjaforce2 gave up their Oakleys and kevlar underwear you could get a few dozen more pairs of boots?  That should help...


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll bite, how many pairs of boots do you think the cost of this move will buy?  How will they be divvied out? Will recruits get first crack, or will they be reissued old shit boots, like I was in basic IN 1980?!  If you can't buy enough for the whole class, you shouldn't bring them at all.  Maybe in ninjaforce2 gave up their Oakleys and kevlar underwear you could get a few dozen more pairs of boots?  That should help...



It doesn't matter how many pairs it will buy; it is just another useless and non-required expenditure.  The fact is that we are living through another era of darkness.  Enough with the political ordering of vote-buying buttons and bows to satiate the retired crowd and on with cutting costs from the self-licking empires out there.  Combine all of those savings and our troops would have the _basic_, yet critical, kit like boots that they need to train with.

1 soldier in ill-fitting and useless footwear is 1 soldier TOO MANY when we can apparently afford useless, staff intensive garbage like this.  But heck, it does justify keeping more staffers around the higher HQ for yet anther footprint reduction that is seeing O&M slashed at the tactical level.


----------



## ModlrMike

Boots issues have existed long before now, and they will continue to exist long afterwards. Claiming that not the changing rank badges will somehow improve the state of our footwear defies understanding.

We had footwear issues under the old badges, we had footwear issues under the new badges, and we'll have footwear issues under the new old badges.


----------



## Kat Stevens

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how many pairs it will buy; it is just another useless and non-required expenditure.  The fact is that we are living through another era of darkness.  Enough with the political ordering of vote-buying buttons and bows to satiate the retired crowd and on with cutting costs from the self-licking empires out there.  Combine all of those savings and our troops would have the _basic_, yet critical, kit like boots that they need to train with.
> 
> 1 soldier in ill-fitting and useless footwear is 1 soldier TOO MANY when we can apparently afford useless, staff intensive garbage like this.  But heck, it does justify keeping more staffers around the higher HQ for yet anther footprint reduction that is seeing O&M slashed at the tactical level.




My entire point is that the decision has been made, now deal with it, all the dripping and moaning in an online forum in the world isn't going to change it.  Another quote from the numberless masses of people with more rank than me "if you don't like it, vote with your feet and get out".  Much shorter bitching threads than this one have been locked and dumped because they were pointless.  This one entered that realm about 75 pages back.


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> My entire point is that the decision has been made, now deal with it, all the dripping and moaning in an online forum in the world isn't going to change it.  Another quote from the numberless masses of people with more rank than me "if you don't like it, vote with your feet and get out".  Much shorter bitching threads than this one have been locked and dumped because they were pointless.  This one entered that realm about 75 pages back.



We will deal with it, that does't mean we have to like it.  I suppose, with your suggestion from the higher-ranked people of yore, that you certify your release went in as a direct result of the shitty capbadge?  Didn't think so.


Lock 'er up; it won't change a thing and certainly won't make the pips & crowns anymore palatable to us unwashed masses.


----------



## Kat Stevens

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We will deal with it, that does't mean we have to like it.  I suppose, with your suggestion, that you certify your release went in as a direct result of the shitty capbadge?  Didn't think so.



Sorry, lost me there.  I was released because I suffered a debilitating injury to my lower back whilst performing my duties on exercise and spent over a year learning to walk upright, but thanks.  I already said I sucked it up and wore the stupid thing, don't quite get your point, but I'm sure it was some attempt at a slur of some type.


----------



## armyvern

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sorry, lost me there.  I was released because I suffered a debilitating injury to my lower back whilst performing my duties on exercise and spent over a year learning to walk upright, but thanks.  I already said I sucked it up and wore the stupid thing, don't quite get your point, but I'm sure it was some attempt at a slur of some type.



Nope, you brought up earlier about the horribly cheap capbadges, then posted a response to me about "getting on with it" which included a quote from higher-ranks of yore suggesting that if "one didn't like it, one should get out".

What then was your point?  I certainly read it as a suggestion for me to GTFO.  I then asked if that's what you did with the capbadges.


----------



## Infanteer

_Out, out brief candle!  Pips and crowns are but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more.  It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing._


----------



## Kat Stevens

Infanteer said:
			
		

> _Out, out brief candle!  Pips and crowns are but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more.  It is a tale told be an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing._



Let this be the whole of the law thread, delete the rest.


----------



## Old Sweat

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What then was your point?  I certainly read it as a suggestion for me to GTFO.  I then asked if that's what you did with the capbadges.



Don't go. There are too many staff officers wanting to blame the RQ 'cause the pips and crowns haven't arrived for you to go just yet.


----------



## George Wallace

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Boots issues have existed long before now, and they will continue to exist long afterwards. Claiming that not the changing rank badges will somehow improve the state of our footwear defies understanding.
> 
> We had footwear issues under the old badges, we had footwear issues under the new badges, and we'll have footwear issues under the new old badges.



That isn't the issue as much as the waste of time and resources to plan, implement and change something that is NOT broken.


----------



## Good2Golf

Infanteer said:
			
		

> _Out, out brief candle!  Pips and crowns are but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more.  It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing._




...and from the same work: "_What's done, is done..._"


----------



## Kat Stevens

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and from the same work: "_What's done, is done..._"



And from an equally important work:  "This is one doodle that can't be undid, homeskillet"


----------



## Rifleman62

Why do we always have so much trouble with boots? Why?

I don't want to fight about this with anyone. I personally like pips and crown, but if anyone asked me I would have said leave the current ranks as it is as it is too late to reverse.



> Enough with the political ordering of vote-buying buttons and bows to satiate the retired crowd



IMHO. I don't think the Honouraries have any power to influence any election, or elect anyone. Too few and far between. Add all the honouraries, past serving, serving, friends of and  I don't think they could influence any vote anywhere in Canada.

Would really like to know where this started. What was the process before it got to the Dress Committee?  Just curious cause this change is not an issue:it is an order to change Army officer badges of rank. End of story.


----------



## George Wallace

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> IMHO. I don't think the Honouraries have any power to influence any election, or elect anyone. Too few and far between. Add all the honouraries, past serving, serving, friends of and and I don't think they could influence any vote anywhere in Canada.
> 
> Would really like to know where this started. What was the process before it got to the Dress Committee?  Just curios cause theis change is not an issue:it is an order to change Army officer badges of rank. End of story.



This did not come from the Army......It came about because of a group of Lobbyists.


----------



## Rifleman62

Maybe it did. But how do you know this? What have you seen to substantiate this?


----------



## George Wallace

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Maybe it did. But how do you know this? What have you seen to substantiate this?



 ???

Have you not been reading this thread and looking at the links?


----------



## Rifleman62

Yes, but must have missed the definitive proof it was a lobby of i.e really old retired per 1968 officers and the honouraries.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Yes, but must have missed the definitive proof it was a lobby of i.e really old retired per 1968 officers and the honouraries.



See this blog post, in particular the comment made in reply: High Seas in a Melmac Cup

There's been no nominal roll of the group published, but someone obviously had the connections to get this moved as a political agenda item.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> See this blog post, in particular the comment made in reply: High Seas in a Melmac Cup
> 
> There's been no nominal roll of the group published, but someone obviously had the connections to get this moved as a political agenda item.



The comment on the bottom of the article on your blog is just as interesting.


----------



## George Wallace

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Yes, but must have missed the definitive proof it was a lobby of i.e really old retired per 1968 officers and the honouraries.



Here are a couple of links that may help:

Owner/publisher of Service Publications ( and excellent publisher of reference material ) states in the very first post:

Pips and Crowns re-instated 



> I have been working with a small group, both within DND and outside, to see this happen.
> 
> http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...itional-forms/
> 
> In addition to Pips and Crowns, traditional rank terminology is now official.
> 
> Clive
> __________________
> Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progressed.




More discussion on Network54 - canadiansoldiers.com  moderated by Michael Dorosh; a former member of this site.


----------



## Kirkhill

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> See this blog post, in particular the comment made in reply: High Seas in a Melmac Cup
> 
> There's been no nominal roll of the group published, but someone obviously had the connections to get this moved as a political agenda item.



Most peculiar "success" this one.  It appears to be an "orphan".


----------



## Rifleman62

I saw that at the time on that web site. I never saw the links and proof on this site as stated by some Army.ca members.

Did you see the link that Michael O'Leary posted?  If not here see below so we can put this to bed that it was not entirely old retired officers and honouraries alone.

Possibly some "bright",young, shiny LCol who looks like Andrew Leslie got extra PER points. I don't know.



> Posted by: George Wallace
> « on: Today at 19:46:49 »
> 
> Insert Quote
> 
> 
> Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 19:14:29
> 
> Yes, but must have missed the definitive proof it was a lobby of i.e really old retired per 1968 officers and the honouraries.
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of links that may help:
> 
> Owner/publisher of Service Publications ( and excellent publisher of reference material ) states in the very first post:
> 
> Pips and Crowns re-instated
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> I have been working with a small group, both within DND and outside, to see this happen.
> 
> http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...itional-forms/
> 
> In addition to Pips and Crowns, traditional rank terminology is now official.
> 
> Clive
> __________________
> Those who live by the sword will be shot by those of us who have progr Sunday, 21 July 2013 - 3:09 PM EDT



Info from Michael O'Leary's post:



> Name: "Clive M. Law - Service Publications"
> Home Page: http://www.servicepub.com/brooker.html
> 
> Michael,
> 
> Thanks for the plug in the third para but I need to correct the comment that this was a lobby group. My post in the British & Commonwealth badge forum clearly states "I have been working with a small group,* both within DND and outside*, to see this happen."
> 
> *The initial concept was developed inside the Army* (although I had floated the idea of the Star of the Order of Canada to DHH over 20 years ago with not so much as an acknowledgement of my letter.)
> *
> Both the former and current Army Heritage Officers* have been on this file for a while and the re-introduction of the "Canadian Army" as a name provided much of the impetus. *Needless to say, serving officers do not dream up ideas and run with them without official sanction so it is safe to conclude that the Army was involved.*
> 
> *Insofar as the 'outsiders' are concerned, some are historians, some are serving Militia officers and others have served in either the Regular Force or the Reserves.* All provided input to the Heritage Officer, based on our specific areas of knowledge (mine happens to be 'material culture') in order to ensure that the Army, once they made the decision, gets it right. None of us 'lobbied' DND and our input was that of Subject Matter Experts.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Clive (aka 'servicepub')


----------



## George Wallace

I think someone needs to more clearly define what a "Lobby Group" and a "Lobbyist" is and not try and deny what they actually were/are doing.


----------



## Furniture

A few short points from the uneducated and non-lobbyist position I occupy.

There was a survey that was conducted at some time that concluded that the "army" didn't want change. 

There was an order from on high that says the army officer ranks will consist of "pips and crowns".

Why is there still discussion on this? A routine training exercise with two ships just cost millions more than any badges could, despite how important some colonels think the army is. 

The job we do is expensive, and will never be cheap. If it we were cheap we wouldn't be worth the money, if we charged what we were worth nobody could afford us. 

This is the lot in life we choose, and it's one we love.


----------



## Old Sweat

Rifleman62 has posted a very interesting statement from Clive Law via Michael O'Leary in which Mr Law implies states that someone sufficiently high in the "army" chain of command to shepherd the project along. Whether he is correct or not, this give some credence to the notion that there was some high level support somewhere. At the least it calls into question the "band of renegades sabotaged us theory." 

Time to move on, I think, as we've got more important things to occupy us.


----------



## McG

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> A routine training exercise with two ships just cost millions more than any badges could ...


Well, to rehash previously made arguments that you did have time to take note of:

1.  If you believe your statement above, then you are a horrible steward of resources.  Being able to point to (potentially larger) acts of waste/loss is not sound justification for other deliberate acts of waste.  By your arguments, it is okay to go set fire to a LAV in the back compound if, hey, that costs less than two ships colliding at sea.  Waste is bad.  Let's not try to pretend otherwise.

2.  The biggest waste in all of this has not been money.  It has been wasted effort at the staff, command and political levels.  We do not have enough human capital to spend allotted money on the things we need in a given FY.  But we will take manpower from the staff responsible for soldier equipment and focus it on aesthetic as opposed to operational issues.  We do not have enough manpower to bring up to date the rules, regulations, directives and policies that govern the CAF (as demonstrated by the continued existence of CFAOs and in-force 10 year old CANFORGENs).

3.  This is not just about badges.  It is the whole heritage train of change on its frivolous unending slog forward.  Money and effort thrown away here and there.  Sandboxes being entrenched with emotional labels at a time when where are trying to review our structures for effectiveness and efficiency.  And persons openly talking about destroying the good, beneficial elements of unification for the glory of an historical stovepipe.



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Rifleman62 has posted a very interesting statement from Clive Law via Michael O'Leary in which Mr Law implies states that someone sufficiently high in the "army" chain of command to shepherd the project along.


I am tracking the former Army Commander specifically answering townhall pips questions (prior to the announcement) that we don't need them, they are not who we are today, and we don't want them.  Anyone "high in the chain" pushing this was doing the pushing outside of the chain, and putting their personal fetish ahead of consideration for the collective.


----------



## Furniture

Perhaps I'm simply more of a pessimist than you. If it wasn't time spent discussing "pips and crowns" it would be time wasted discussing when and where the mortar gloves are appropriate to be worn, or which particular unit would receive tier two uniform points. Maybe they would discuss the merits of Cognac VS Scotch, or whether squash or racket ball was superior.... 

I know that was being extreme but in the end what of substance do you really that staff time was going to be used for? I've read all 141 pages of this thread and have simply seen the same people claim that "pips and crowns" are a waste and that staff time could be used for other things. In this current political climate we aren't getting any new capabilities, or major unannounced expenses so the staff might as well be doing something that gets us in the news in a way that isn't negative.


----------



## McG

Times are tough so the staff may as well focus on getting us in the news?  To be blunt, that is stupid.  Because times are tough the staff must focus on getting us the best milage on the resources we have.  More cuts are coming.  The staff time could be far better spent doing the analysis of how to reduce our headquarters' footprint, streamline bureaucracy, and improve efficiency.  There is fat to cut, but it is harder to find and requires staff effort to make appropriate cuts that preserve the health of the forces.  Now even more than in times of plenty, our command and staff efforts need to focus on steward ship of resources.

But you are right in one sense.  As others in this thread and the media have pointed out, this may be about distracting everyone with bling ... hopefully the pigs won't notice the house is falling down around them if they are bought off with something shiny.


----------



## Furniture

MCG said:
			
		

> Times are tough so the staff may as well focus on getting us in the news?  To be blunt, that is stupid.  Because times are tough the staff must focus on getting us the best mileage on the resources we have.  More cuts are coming.  The staff time could be far better spent doing the analysis of how to reduce our headquarters' footprint, streamline bureaucracy, and improve efficiency.  There is fat to cut, but it is harder to find and requires staff effort to make appropriate cuts that preserve the health of the forces.  Now even more than in times of plenty, our command and staff efforts need to focus on steward ship of resources.



I don't disagree with anything you've said at all. I just lack faith that those are the tasks our staff people would have done with their time. I have full faith that people in staff positions will ensure that their position continues to exist no matter how useless it is, and they may even go so far as to insist that their position is filled by a higher rank with the corresponding support staff to ensure the extra useless paper work is completed. To be frank I'd rather they waste their time with frivolous uniform changes than reorganize themselves into more redundant headquarters that require ever expanding HQ staffs.

EDIT: To Expand on what I mean so that there is no confusion.

Lets take a theoretical 10 man office. In that office you will have two dedicated hard workers, the type that are mission focused and take what they do seriously. You will have three capable but unmotivated workers, they just don't feel what they are doing is important or simply just don't care that day. The next three are the actively lazy, the type that try to look busy yet take pride in having done nothing productive in a long time. Following those three are the truly incompetent, maybe well meaning, maybe just the type that are best described as oxygen thieves.

Now, lets say that at any time any of the people but the bottom two (we all know they actually exist) could be in any of the groups posted to that office a given day. So of the average office of 10 men two are working hard on something and the other eight are just putting in time unless it's something pressing or interesting.

 In fairness maybe not all offices break down into something this simple, but my experience has shown this is about the average. In relation to this topic, the two that work hard are working hard on the things that matter no matter what the distraction is. The three that are just not feeling it may contribute, may debate "pips and crowns", or may slack off and surf army.ca... The last five are going to be drinking coffee and talking golf/hockey/TV/knitting/etc. no matter what is happening. 

This is why I can't manage to get outraged about time spend discussing uniform changes, or whether or not we call all Airmen members of the RCAF even if they are on a ship.


----------



## The Bread Guy

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> .... In this current political climate we aren't getting any new capabilities, or major unannounced expenses so the staff might as well be doing something that gets us in the news in a way that isn't negative.


Speaking as a taxpayer, "Since we're not getting loads o' new hardware, let's do things we don't need to do, or fix things that aren't problems, so the media will look at us nice" isn't what I'd call an optimal stragegy.


----------



## myself.only

MCG said:
			
		

> ...reduce our headquarters' footprint, streamline bureaucracy, and improve efficiency.  There is fat to cut...



So... these would be the objectives pursued by NDHQ but for the effort and time required to select artwork for the CA's new rank badges?
Pips not Intent are holding things back?


----------



## Edward Campbell

How does one  :ignore:  this thread, (but not the entire _The Canadian Military_ page) please?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The constant in government will as be:

Money for operational requirement = no or not enough

Money for non-critical window dressing = Will always be found

the above applies to carpets, cubicle furniture, pips, crowns, harassment training, paint for rocks, etc, etc


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> ....Money for non-critical window dressing = Will always be found
> 
> the above applies to carpets, cubicle furniture, pips, crowns, harassment training, paint for rocks, etc, etc


For example, these, but not these


----------



## McG

Well, it is two months since the announcement.  I suppose now is as good a time as any to close the poll.


 Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone. 118 (59%) Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  38 (19%)  Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.  1 (0.5%)  Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  9 (4.5%) Create a whole new Canadian system.  8 (4%)  Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.  7 (3.5%)  Copy the UK rank system - it is the evolved prototype anyway.  16 (8%)  Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.  2 (1%)  Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn. 1 (0.5%)


----------



## JorgSlice

Could have had some boots by now...


----------



## OldSolduer

:goodpost:





			
				PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Could have had some boots by now...


----------



## Bzzliteyr

There was a poll?


----------



## Tank Troll

Damn it was rough catching up on all this and wanted to make sure that I read everything. Gen Leslie told us army folk down in Halifax in 2010 right after the Navy got told that they were getting there Executive curl back that _He ask the MND if the army could have there pips and crowns back_ Don't know if this was where it all started but it is as good as any to start to look at.


----------



## myself.only

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Could have had some boots by now...



OK so correct me if I'm getting this wrong but the CAF issues some combination of four different types of operational boots currently in service: Mk IIIs, WWBs, the tan boot, and the chocolate temperate boot?
Yet soldiers are going on crse without any of the above? 

Wow, 4 boots and 0 issued.... that's concurrent activity... I'd say we've mastered the art of full spectrum FUBAR.  :facepalm:


----------



## Pencil Tech

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Damn it was rough catching up on all this and wanted to make sure that I read everything. Gen Leslie told us army folk down in Halifax in 2010 right after the Navy got told that they were getting there Executive curl back that _He ask the MND if the army could have there pips and crowns back_ Don't know if this was where it all started but it is as good as any to start to look at.



Say what? All I know about this monumental issue I learned by reading this thread, and so nobody, I mean like nobody, in the Army wants these evil pips and crowns, especially since months and months of staff time that could easily be spent on solving the problems of the world have been dedicated to forcing poor defenceless army officers to put these horrible things on their shoulderstraps. I was sure I learned here that it must be an evil plot out of the Prime Minister's Office (even though most of the people making the noise here voted for the current Prime Minister - suck it up). And now you come along and tell me that this Gen. Leslie guy asked for this? This Gen. Leslie was in the Army..he used to like, run it, right? Gosh!   :facepalm:;D


----------



## McG

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> Gen Leslie told us army folk down in Halifax in 2010 right after the Navy got told that they were getting there Executive curl back that _He ask the MND if the army could have there pips and crowns back_


LGen Devlin took command of the Army on 10 Jun 2010, and the executive curl officially returned on 11 Jun 2010.  

I have no knowledge of Mr Leslie's thoughts on pips and crowns, but if he made a request it was as he stepped into being a civilian.  Back in that same timeframe, the leaders of the Army discussed and concluded thay the Army did not want to change.  During his tenure, Devlin was clear when this topic came up - the army did not want it.  



			
				Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> ... since months and months of staff time that could easily be spent on solving the problems of the world have been dedicated to forcing poor defenceless army officers to put these horrible things on their shoulderstraps.


You are distracting with a strawman.  No one rain drop feels it is responsible for the flood.  Pips and crowns are just one bit of the heritage deluge sucking effort away from things that matter.


----------



## a_majoor

myself.only said:
			
		

> OK so correct me if I'm getting this wrong but the CAF issues some combination of four different types of operational boots currently in service: Mk IIIs, WWBs, the tan boot, and the chocolate temperate boot?
> Yet soldiers are going on crse without any of the above?
> 
> Wow, 4 boots and 0 issued.... that's concurrent activity... I'd say we've mastered the art of full spectrum FUBAR.  :facepalm:



Well actually they have NSN's for three boots (good luck tryng to get Mk III's, however you may feel about them), but have extremely limited quantities of any; most recruits will get _one_ pair of boots, and if it so happens the one pair in stock that fits you are CWW boots, then that is what you get. Watching two separate courses here in Kingston over the summer without boots (or even uniforms) was a pretty depressing experience, and certainly hardened _my_ attitude towards the sorts of people who push non operational issues at the expense of the troops. This Clive Law should get a smack upside the head, delivered by a recruit who had to undergo training without the proper kit....

Yes we will shake our heads and continue to do what we are told and soldier on as best we can.  (Latest WTF moment today was being on a range and seeing several officers with the "high visibility" rank slipons attached to their tac vests, I didn't even bother to ask)


----------



## Tank Troll

MCG said:
			
		

> LGen Devlin took command of the Army on 10 Jun 2010, and the executive curl officially returned on 11 Jun 2010.
> 
> I have no knowledge of Mr Leslie's thoughts on pips and crowns, but if he made a request it was as he stepped into being a civilian.  Back in that same timeframe, the leaders of the Army discussed and concluded thay the Army did not want to change.  During his tenure, Devlin was clear when this topic came up - the army did not want it.
> You are distracting with a strawman.  No one rain drop feels it is responsible for the flood.  Pips and crowns are just one bit of the heritage deluge sucking effort away from things that matter.


The anoucement for the Executive Curl was made in 2010 during the Navy's hundred year celebration. Yes they did not get it till 2011. Gen Leslie was made Chief of Transformation in June of 2010 and did retire till Sept of 2011.


----------



## McG

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> The anoucement for the Executive Curl was made in 2010 during the Navy's hundred year celebration. Yes they did not get it till 2011.


I noted 2010 not 2011, so I am not sure what your point is.  For three years, the leadership of the Army was opposed to change.
Pointing to a man who no longer spoke for the Army through this period while the Army was speaking the opposite ... it does more to support the notion that this change was about pleasing the retired crowed.


----------



## Tank Troll

I was just saying that Gen Leslie _before he retired_ told a bunch of us in Halifax that he ask the MND if the army could get their pips and crowns back. That was in 2010 after the anouncement that the Navy was getting it Executive Curl back. Now whether he pushed this after he retired I do not know.


----------



## Loachman

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This Clive Law should get a smack upside the head, delivered by a recruit who had to undergo training without the proper kit....



Why limit it to just one recruit? Where is your sense of generosity?


----------



## Journeyman

Loachman said:
			
		

> This Clive Law should get a smack upside the head, delivered by a recruit who had to undergo training without the proper kit....
> 
> 
> 
> Why limit it to just one recruit? Where is your sense of generosity?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he meant, "one recruit _at a time_"


----------



## Loachman

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Why limit it to just one recruit? Where is your sense of generosity?
> Perhaps he meant, "one recruit _at a time_"



I opt for "All at Once".


----------



## Towards_the_gap

No man has a head so big.


----------



## Loachman

From your point of view.

_He_ seems pretty puffed-up about his role, however.


----------



## Jungle

Not sure if this has been posted:

http://www.servicepub.com/clive.html



> At times I reenact a WWII Canadian War Correspondent. The picture at left was taken by noted reenactment photographer Janice Lang, in the courtyard of the Canadian War Museum.



Reenactment...  : how about "serving". I've seen some egos over the years; this guy seems to be in his own category.


----------



## OldSolduer

Jungle said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been posted:
> 
> http://www.servicepub.com/clive.html
> 
> Reenactment...  : how about "serving". I've seen some egos over the years; this guy seems to be in his own category.



Maybe he'd like to share a short bus with another......short bus type.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Jungle said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been posted:
> 
> http://www.servicepub.com/clive.html
> 
> Reenactment...  : how about "serving". I've seen some egos over the years; this guy seems to be in his own category.



I believe he did serve, at least a platoon commander in the GGFG see the last photo on the link.  Not sure what this gentleman has done incorrect in your eyes.


----------



## a_majoor

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why limit it to just one recruit? Where is your sense of generosity?



Well, we could have the symbolic recruit do a "smack" every anniversary on behalf of every one, or just line up one year's recruit intake and have them go in sequence.....

All at once, while appealing, might degenerate into something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffwFXGPRDu4


----------



## shootemup604

> Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone. 118 (59%)
> Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  38 (19%)
> Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.  1 (0.5%)
> Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  9 (4.5%)
> Create a whole new Canadian system.  8 (4%)
> Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.  7 (3.5%)
> Copy the UK rank system - it is the evolved prototype anyway.  16 (8%)
> Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.  2 (1%)
> Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn. 1 (0.5%)



By the numbers above many support the change.  It isn't a majority, but it certainly disproves the argument that no one wanted it.

Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  38 (19%) +
Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.  9 (4.5%) + 
Copy the UK rank system - it is the evolved prototype anyway.  16 (8%) =
31.5% of respondents to this poll support this change.  I'm also interested to know the NCO vs. Off. breakdown in this.


----------



## armyvern

shootemup604 said:
			
		

> ... I'm also interested to know the NCO vs. Off. breakdown in this.



On the NCO front, it's 0 here.  On a good note though, the CO (via the RSM) did just authorize troops to wear boots they purchase themselves (hey, at least then they'll have boots to wear). 

 :

It ain't a "pips & crowns" thing; it's the fact that every single dime wasted on shit like this and self-licking ice creams cones should be put towards stuff the troops actually need - and don't have - that's actually required to do the damn jobs this country expects of them. Seems pretty fuckin' simple to me.


----------



## Lightguns

Jungle said:
			
		

> Not sure if this has been posted:
> 
> http://www.servicepub.com/clive.html
> 
> Reenactment...  : how about "serving". I've seen some egos over the years; this guy seems to be in his own category.



If you look at the bottom, he has served as an LT in the Guards in 74.  He obviously went on to a fairly good career as a military historian and has a nice body of work that helps preserve our customs.  I   him.  Thanks for posting the site now I have some more books to buy and read.

Nothing wrong with historical re-enactors, their research into the smallest detail of the life of their subject often brings to forward things soldiers do that are both interesting and enlightening.  They preserve military history in a way that no static display ever could.

As for ego, well, it is his personal page, one should be proud of oneself.

Go back to www.servicepub.com, he has a bunch of great stuff coming up!

Edited to change there to their....... ooopsy!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Article Link

September 13, 2013 

On March 13, 2013, the Governor General of Canada, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, approved a new badge for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The badge was unveiled in Ottawa on September 15, 2013, following the national ceremony marking the 73rd anniversary of the Battle of Britain.

This change to RCAF insignia came about in the wake of the restoration of the traditional name for Canada’s air force – Royal Canadian Air Force – which occurred on August 16, 2011. The restoration was a return to the name that had been approved for the air force in 1923 by His Majesty King George V and that came into effect on April 1, 1924.

The Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and Royal Canadian Air Force merged into a single service known as the Canadian Armed Forces on February 1, 1968, when the Unification Act came into effect.

In reality, the air force disappeared completely as a separate command entity, as air assets were distributed among other commands. However, in 1975, Air Command was formed and its commander became responsible for all air assets within the Canadian Armed Forces.

The new Royal Canadian Air Force badge hearkens back to the pre-unification RCAF badge. It shows a golden eagle volant – or flying with outstretched wings – on an azure (sky blue) background. The badge combines pride in the past with contemporary spirit; the eagle flying solo reflects the confident, experienced, resilient, agile and integrated RCAF.

This new badge replaces the Air Command badge, which showed an eagle rising from a Canadian astral crown.

The Royal Canadian Air Force retains the Air Command motto Sic Itur Ad Astra – “such is the pathway to the stars”. This motto was first granted to the Canadian Air Force when it was formed in 1920. Sic Itur Ad Astra was replaced by Per Ardua Ad Astra, the motto of the Royal Air Force, when the Royal Canadian Air Force came into being in 1924. Thus, Sic Itur Ad Astra continues to recall the very earliest days of the establishment of a national air force.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Interesting timeline WRT the unveiling.


----------



## dapaterson

What's interesting?  The Air Force was formed on April Fools Day and the new badge was award Friday the 13th.


----------



## Old Sweat

September 15th is Battle of Britain Sunday.


----------



## McG

Does this mean that all air operations types will be changing their hat badges?


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG said:
			
		

> Does this mean that all air operations types will be changing their hat badges?



It's not like there were urgent requirements for things like, oh let's see, FWSAR or a replacement for the Sea Kings or even a new fighter. 

 :sarcasm:


----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

> Does this mean that all air operations types will be changing their hat badges?



Would anyone really notice?


----------



## PuckChaser

cupper said:
			
		

> Would anyone really notice?



After looking at the old and new one... nope.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It's not like there were urgent requirements for things like, oh let's see, FWSAR or a replacement for the Sea Kings or even a new fighter.
> 
> :sarcasm:



Blah blah staff burden!!  Blah blah waste of money!!  Blah blah insult to all who loved the old one!!  Blah blah my lips are chapped and I can't stop smiling!!  Blah blah...


----------



## caocao

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After looking at the old and new one... nope.



It's not quite the badge that we were asking for.  We wanted the background colour to be going from light blue to dark to represent sky and space.  DHH and their artists thought that it was way too hard to reproduce so we ended up with pretty much the same thing!


----------



## Good2Golf

It looks good to many of us folks at line units.

 :2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## eliminator

New CJOC Command Badge on the streets?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It's not like there were urgent requirements for things like, oh let's see, FWSAR or a replacement for the Sea Kings or even a new fighter.
> 
> :sarcasm:


Hey, like the pips & crowns - decision made, decision stays made, "everything old is new again" continues to lead the way, and you'll like it!
 ;D

In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, _"Politicians .... need activity. It is their substitute for achievement."_



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> After looking at the old and new one... nope.


Hence the need for an announcement!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Perhaps this is what he meant about timelines. From the article "*The badge was unveiled in Ottawa on September 15, 2013*". That would be today 


Anyway. thanks to the RCAF for finally getting on board with this useless bullshit that has preoccupied the Navy from taking care of their boats and the Army from giving their soldiers boots.


----------



## Furniture

I'd say the RCAF was ahead of the game, they have been fudging the maritime helicopter battle since the MKIII boots were new.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

recceguy said:
			
		

> Perhaps this is what he meant about timelines. From the article "*The badge was unveiled in Ottawa on September 15, 2013*". That would be today



Bingo!  Maybe that article wasn't supposed to come out until Monday.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> Does this mean that all air operations types will be changing their hat badges?



I haven't heard anything about that but I did hear talk that we are going to be wearing a (now new) command badge again.

The old command badge (below) looks quite different than the Air Ops cap badge;  I don't think we'll change cap badges, just be issued a command badge again.


----------



## Lightguns

...... I have to say that I am becoming a convert to the nah camp. A few more decorations and the routine wearing of white gloves and belts with Cadpat and we will be amongst the finest third world armies on the planet.


----------



## eliminator

Old Air Command "Command Badge" for reference:


----------



## eliminator

Better shot of the new CJOC badge


----------



## Infanteer

They need to add the Tommy Gun to it.

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


----------



## Lightguns

New DND rule: All LtGen will have their own command tribal badge. Who will first to be voted the Nortel Campus?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Excessive government spending on useless gimmicks? Sounds like Monty Python have already covered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8


----------



## ARMY_101

> The Maple Leaf, September 2013, Volume 16, Number 8
> 
> Ask the Defence Team
> 
> *Question: Sir, I’ve noticed in several
> documents the term Canadian
> Armed Forces (CAF) being used
> again. Have we gone back to CAF or are
> will still the Canadian Forces (CF)?*
> 
> Thank you to everyone who
> submitted questions about the
> name modification of our institution.
> For those who may not be aware,
> we are now using “Canadian Armed
> Forces (CAF)” in the place of “Canadian
> Forces (CF)” in many of our internal and
> external communications products (for
> example: News Releases, CANFORGENs,
> correspondence, speeches, etc.). While
> both names are quite accurate and
> correct, in late October 2012, the
> Government of Canada directed that the
> Canadian Forces would, from that point,
> be known as the Canadian Armed Forces.
> Since then, we have taken the first
> steps in implementing this government
> direction; but much work remains to
> defining the scope of this re-branding.
> 
> To provide a little context, and as several
> of you noted in your messages to us,
> the National Defence Act (NDA) is the
> document which governs the official
> naming of our institution. Specifically,
> Part 2 of the NDA, The Canadian Forces
> Constitution, Section 14, http://laws-lois.
> justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/page-5.html#
> h-10 notes: “The Canadian Forces are the
> armed forces of Her Majesty raised by
> Canada and consist of one Service called
> the Canadian Armed Forces.” While subtle,
> the distinction noted in the NDA between
> the CF and CAF is, in some cases,
> significant, and as a result we must
> carefully analyze how we implement this
> name change.
> 
> For now, we will use CAF in most of our
> daily correspondence and communications.
> We will also continue to use CF in
> our orders and directives (QR&Os, DAODs,
> etc.), and in formally established Unit and
> position names (i.e. CFB, CFCWO, etc.)
> until our analysis is complete and more
> formal direction is issued by my office.
> 
> General Tom Lawson, CDS


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I haven't heard anything about that but I did hear talk that we are going to be wearing a (now new) command badge again.
> 
> The old command badge (below) looks quite different than the Air Ops cap badge;  I don't think we'll change cap badges, just be issued a command badge again.



Command badge as in the one worn on the breast pocket for instructors at St-Jean?  More bling?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Command badge as in the one worn on the breast pocket for instructors at St-Jean?  More bling?



Instructors in St. Jean would wear the CMP Command Badge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Command badge as in the one worn on the breast pocket for instructors at St-Jean?  More bling?



Yup.  Centered on right breast pocket. AF types used to wear one; Dad was a FE and wore one on the tri-service CF dress uniform before the DEUs came back.


----------



## Zarack21

This came down from my chain today.






EDIT - Here is the link, for some reason it's not working.

http://imgur.com/7p9ANfg


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

When are the pips and crowns supposed to be worn officially?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Wait, out. Last I heard. They were still working out the little kinks like pattern and size for DEU insignia and whatnot. 

Edit to add: The ppt said something about issuing DEU insignia via Logistik Unicorp among other projects too.

Here are some pictures. Note the new (velcro?) ranks for the ICU. Warrant officer cadpat rank will be a larger crown to distinguish from Major. The Bgen rank is the WWI Bgen and not the British Brigadier rank. Gorgets for Col's and Generals.


----------



## Old Sweat

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> When are the pips and crowns supposed to be worn officially?



There was a missive on a demi-official Gunner regimental net yesterday that stated Summer 2014 for the change to pips and crowns.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> There was a missive on a demi-official Gunner regimental net yesterday that stated Summer 2014 for the change to pips and crowns.



I've heard that too. Would make sense; July 1914 is when WWI started. Sort of a 100 year anniversary thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I see _Bloggins_ has been on the fast track; last I heard he was a Cpl !


----------



## dapaterson

If there's adequate staff to pursue this initiative, it's clear that further cuts are possible in NDHQ with no ill effect.


----------



## FJAG

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I see _Bloggins_ has been on the fast track; last I heard he was a Cpl !



Gunner! Bloggins was always a Gunner.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I see _Bloggins_ has been on the fast track; last I heard he was a Cpl !



Wait a few years and Bloggins will be CDS  >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> There was a missive on a demi-official Gunner regimental net yesterday that stated Summer 2014 for the change to pips and crowns.



Thanks!  

The main reason I ask is that my wife works at CP Gear and was saying that she spent the last 3 days ironing pip and crown epaulettes for huge orders in Ottawa and elsewhere in the CF world.


----------



## Robert0288

FJAG said:
			
		

> Gunner! Bloggins was always a Gunner.



Probably explains why he keeps setting himself on fire or running trucks into buildings in all those videos we have to watch. >


----------



## FJAG

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> Probably explains why he keeps setting himself on fire or running trucks into buildings in all those videos we have to watch. >



He also showed up on just about every sample charge report/sheet I ever sent out. Really surprised he made it to Col.

 ;D

I quite like the new badges  :stirpot: I like seeing the old white bandaid back for the officer cadet rank. Not so fond of the new brigadier rank badge though. The old one with three pips and a crown had more "presence" but I see where it was necessary since brigadier is currently a general rank and it looks like the Aussie one as well.

 :cheers:


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:
			
		

> He also showed up on just about every sample charge report/sheet I ever sent out. Really surprised he made it to Col.
> 
> ;D
> 
> I quite like the new badges  :stirpot: I like seeing the old white bandaid back for the officer cadet rank. Not so fond of the new brigadier rank badge though. The old one with three pips and a crown had more "presence" but I see where it was necessary since brigadier is currently a general rank and it looks like the Aussie one as well.
> 
> :cheers:



FYI, the Aus Army Brigadier rank insignia is the crown with three pips, not the crossed sword and baton.  

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Ranks/Officer-Ranks


----------



## FJAG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> FYI, the Aus Army Brigadier rank insignia is the crown with three pips, not the crossed sword and baton.
> 
> http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Ranks/Officer-Ranks



You're absolutely right. I was looking at this chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Army_officer_rank_insignia and saw the insignia for "until 1922" and missed seeing the "since 1928" one.

_Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa_  :sorry:


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If there's adequate staff to pursue this initiative, it's clear that further cuts are possible in NDHQ with no ill effect.


Yes.  Clearly we have surplus capacity to be squandered.



			
				Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I've heard that too. Would make sense; July 1914 is when WWI started. Sort of a 100 year anniversary thing.


How appropriate that we comemerate a war (in which it is said were earned our nationhood through outstanding performances in battle; outstanding performance that was achieved not because we marched in blind step with the British but because we often forged our own paths and ways) by returning to the image of the British and shedding what was our own functioning system.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

You're preaching to the converted. However, the DND announcement should've said that they were bringing us back in line with the rest of the Commonwealth rather than conforming to an ''international convention.'' The Argument is moot if you compare the ''new'' ranks with those of countries we barely cooperate with in the first place. I've worked with more Brits, Aussies and Kiwis than I have with Poles, Greeks, or Albanians for example. Most American servicemen don't even know the ranks of the services other than their own so I wouldn't worry about them not understanding pips 'n crowns either.

I definitely agree with what you're saying with regards to the''international convention'' argument. If DND's rhetoric spoke of bringing us back to the Commonwealth's convention the argument would make much more sense. I'll grant you that some Commonwealth countries replaced the St Edward's Crown with their own national symbol.


----------



## McG

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> However, the DND announcement should've said that they were bringing us back in line with the rest of the Commonwealth rather than conforming to an ''international convention.''


But that too would have been a lie.  Of the 54 nations in the Commonwealth, there are only 7 armies that have not nationalized thier rank in some way.




			
				Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I've worked with more Brits, Aussies and Kiwis than I have with Poles, Greeks, or Albanians for example. Most American servicemen don't even know the ranks of the services other than their own so I wouldn't worry about them not understanding pips 'n crowns either.


Our experiences differ.  I have done plenty with any of French, German, Romanian, Turk and Italian to match or exceed any exposure that I have had to Aussies or Kiwis - and together those nations match or exceed what I have done with the UK.  As for what the US seem to recognized, I have not noticed they have any problem recognizing Canadian or continental European generals, but I have watch many walk right past British Brigadiers and MGens without batting an eye.


----------



## myself.only

IMHO they should have just said: we're bringing us back to the Canadian Army rank badges.
Done.
No Albanians, no Brits, no Americans, no Mobile Command, just CA.


----------



## McG

myself.only said:
			
		

> IMHO they should have just said: we're bringing us back to the Canadian Army rank badges.


But they are not Canadian Army rank badges.  They are British Army rank badges that we once wore when we subordinated ourselves to the British.
There is nothing Canadian about the Star of the Order of the Bath.  Canadians within the order (the last one being a single admission during the Korean War) must remain subordinate while British counterparts are able to be promoted within the order.  How does that belong anywhere in Canadian symbols of rank?


----------



## myself.only

MCG said:
			
		

> But they are not Canadian Army rank badges.



Oh hold on.  Actually I believe that they are.
The last time we had a Canadian Army - not Mobile Command or LFC - I am pretty sure that is what they wore.

Now why they wore it is another subject and not relevant. 
Or at least not anymore relevant then similar re-history lessons... like claiming every Sgt should feel slighted because historically the rank comes from the Latin _serviens_. 

Again, my  :2c: is that once they chose to revert  to the CA badges they should have just said: we're reverting to what the Canadian Army wore when we last had one.


----------



## McG

myself.only said:
			
		

> Oh hold on.  Actually I believe that they are.


Believe all you want.  It is British rank that we will be wearing, and from a time where we served subordinate to British higher headquarters.
Where the new symbol of rank is of an organization in which Canadian's are always subordinate, then that symbol is not a fit Canadian symbol rank.


----------



## myself.only

MCG said:
			
		

> Believe all you want.



Hey, if I'm wrong and it's not a reversion to the pre-unification Canadian Army officer rank badges, then please post images of what those rank badges were.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## McG

It is a reversion to British ranks.  The Canadian Army wore British rank, and it will wear British rank again.


----------



## tomydoom

MCG said:
			
		

> Believe all you want.  It is British rank that we will be wearing, and from a time where we served subordinate to British higher headquarters.
> Where the new symbol of rank is of an organization in which Canadian's are always subordinate, then that symbol is not a fit Canadian symbol rank.



I suspect the Australians and New Zeelanders would object to characterising the Pips and Crown as being subordinate to the British Army. Further, I would suggest that the Canadian Army in the years leading up to unification was no more subordinate to any foreign higher headquarters then it is now. 

The above said, I believe that choosing the star of a Canadian order such as the Order of Military Merit or Order of Canada would have been preferable to reinstating Order of Bath based pips. As pointed out earlier, then we would have joined majority of the Commonwealth in using a nationalised version of the pips and crowns.


----------



## vonGarvin

As long as I stop wearing Naval Officer rank insignia, I'm good with that.


Now as long as nobody confuses me with an RCMP Inspector, I'll be happy.


----------



## myself.only

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now as long as nobody confuses me with an RCMP Inspector, I'll be happy.



Hmmm... and how do you feel about "bus driver"?


----------



## Edward Campbell

myself.only said:
			
		

> Hey, if I'm wrong and it's not a reversion to the pre-unification Canadian Army officer rank badges, then please post images of what those rank badges were.
> Thanks in advance.




I promised myself to not rejoin this debate, but ...







... assuming this image is correct then we are (mostly) reverting to the badges that the Canadian Army wore 100 years ago, in World War I. Brigadier generals wore a crossed sword (sabre?) and baton until the early 1920s when, in response to a complaint in parliament that the British Army had too many generals, the Army cut the rank of brigadier general and replaced it with brigadier, (three pips and a crown) which was, pointedly, not a general officer. I say "mostly" because I have no idea what insignia officer cadets wore _circa_ 1913.

It is, assuredly, British Army rank and we worse whatever the Brits told us to wear - remember that the Statutes of Westminster don't come until the 1930s, and King George VI's letters patent setting out the rights and duties of our governor general don't arrive until 1947; but we were a _*Canadian* Army_ 100 tears ago, and important political and even _strategic_ decisions were taken by Ottawa, not London, so you're right, too.

While I share the wish of many that we had adopted a rank system which is more _Canadian_ (which means, I suppose, less British) (and I rather like the ideas of maple leaves as pips or OMM stars as pips), we are getting this and I think it's time to just accept it for what it is: a political decision made to appease (or pacify) a small but vocal and effective constituency. If our Army generals had felt as strongly about all this as do some members here then it, the change, would likely not have happened. My guess is that since it is happening there was, at best, _indifference_ to the proposal amongst our Canadian Army generals.


----------



## McG

tomydoom said:
			
		

> I suspect the Australians and New Zeelanders would object to characterising the Pips and Crown as being subordinate to the British Army.


Maybe.  In defence of their position, neither of those Armies has ever nationalized its rank system.  We have our own system, and are de-nationalizing that.  The Australians and New Zealanders are also in a minority with only five other Commonwealth Armies that have not nationalized their rank.  It is not the crown that suggests subordination next to the British - it is the Star of the Order of the Bath.  It is the antithesis of rank on our uniforms.



			
				tomydoom said:
			
		

> Further, I would suggest that the Canadian Army in the years leading up to unification was no more subordinate to any foreign higher headquarters then it is now.


It is hard to say.  The CA had only just moved out from the British Army of the Rhine, and many were still unhappy about moving from a UK command to an US one.  Psychologically, the CA still strongly identified with the British.

We've grown up in the last half century.  Why do we need to go back?


----------



## myself.only

Well, I'm sure Freud and Oedipus would love this debate about how much we'll look like mom. 
 ;D

Hey, as I said before, I'd have taken the opportunity to ditch the Order of the Bath if it'd been up to me.

However, as it's not up to me, I'll just say then that the key messaging should have been: with restoring the name Canadian Army we're restoring the rank badges of the Canadian Army. OUT.
No "compared to country X".  No "my veterans are better than your veterans".  No "honour needs restoration."

All of that additional messaging just.... well, it's like those rambling answers you give your wife when she asks "ok, so why do you love me" and you realize too late that no matter what you spit out you were so much better off keeping it simple.
But hey, try to convince politicians of that....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

The British Brigadier rank was initially considered but it was dropped for WWI Bgen. I speculate it was done so that the status of the 0-7 Rank remained a general / flag officer rank. Brigadier is a senior officer rank.


----------



## Loachman

When the Army G1 states, in official communication, that CF Officers have worn "Merchant Navy rank" since 1968 and that this is a correction, I am more than a little peeved. I've worn the current rank insignia since 1975, and nobody ever tried to tell me that one before. This has been spun as "honouring vets because pips and crowns is what they wore and, occasionally, died wearing". Other vets have worn and, occasionally, died wearing, our current rank insignia. The "justification", then, implies that our current rank insignia is somehow dishonourable, less worthy than a now-foreign and outdated one. Canadian Vets died while serving under the Union Jack and Red Ensign, too. The current Canadian flag is only three years younger than our rank insignia. Should it be replaced by the Red Ensign, in a blatant attempt to appease and garner votes from a shrinking segment of Canadian society who most likely already vote Conservative, and will not likely change their vote to Conservative anyway? The Red Ensign is just as "traditional" as our current rank insignia, after all.

If the Army had asked, or otherwise indicated a desire, for this, then I'd have no objection whatsoever - although I'd still think that it was a stupid waste of time, money, and effort for no logical reason.

As for TV's "Naval rank" comment, well, it wasn't that either - there was no Executive Curl. The whole CF rank insignia was a compromise between the three predecessor Services. The RAF-based RCAF Officer rank was itself an earlier similar compromise: as the RAF was formed from an amalgamation of the Royal Flying Corps (Army) and Royal Naval Air Service, the Officer rank was based upon the RN rank system and the non-commissioned rank was based upon the British Army system.

I wish that there was a spray for Good Idea Fairies.


----------



## myself.only

Loachman said:
			
		

> This has been spun as "honouring vets because pips and crowns is what they wore and, occasionally, died wearing". Other vets have worn and, occasionally, died wearing, our current rank insignia. The "justification", then, implies that our current rank insignia is somehow dishonourable, less worthy than a now-foreign and outdated one.



See I think that this is the messaging that the leadership of our institution should have killed off immediately.
 :facepalm:
Well, folks, for what it's worth when I teach my cadets the "new" CA rank badges, there will not even be a hint of the above "honouring some vets" spin.  Best I can do.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ......... If our Army generals had felt as strongly about all this as do some members here then it, the change, would likely not have happened. My guess is that since it is happening there was, at best, _indifference_ to the proposal amongst our Canadian Army generals.



As I understand it, our generals did object to this, but not being officially in a position to make a "political, united and vocal stand" against a Government pushed proposal, we saw a partisan change made by the Government in response to that very small but vocal Lobby.

I imagine that it would be along the lines of a "military coup" to have had the military in any way, shape or form, object loudly and perhaps forcefully to a Government sponsored initiative; and we couldn't, as Canadians, have that, could we?


----------



## vonGarvin

When all is said and done, the military is but a political arm of the government, the front line of its foreign policy.  If they want us to wear a succession of rainbow-coloured stripes as rank insignia, then that's that.  

I just wonder what Army.CA would have looked like if it were around when the then-current insignia, etc, was being tossed out in favour of a naval rank insignia for the officers?  Not to mention the army adopting a naval salute!!!!  The horror!


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Technoviking said:
			
		

> When all is said and done, the military is but a political arm of the government, the front line of its foreign policy.  If they want us to wear a succession of rainbow-coloured stripes as rank insignia, then that's that.
> 
> I just wonder what Army.CA would have looked like if it were around when the then-current insignia, etc, was being tossed out in favour of a naval rank insignia for the officers?  Not to mention the army adopting a naval salute!!!!  The horror!



Et tu Brute?


----------



## Old Sweat

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I just wonder what Army.CA would have looked like if it were around when the then-current insignia, etc, was being tossed out in favour of a naval rank insignia for the officers?  Not to mention the army adopting a naval salute!!!!  The horror!



As I recall, at the time we were all pretty well overwhelmed by a bewildering mass of changes, many of which just seemed to be being imposed to create something unique as Canada blazed the way into a brave, new world of military effectiveness. We were also all too conscious of the grim reality that if we had persisted with three separate services and headquarters loosely coordinated by a geriatric Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, we would have been hacked into ineffectiveness to fit into the amount of money the government was willing to spend on defence.

We also could not publicly express our opinion of the folly of the process as well as our opinion of the venality of various GOFOs who sold out for promotions. I don't know if social media and the proliferation of TV channels would have made a difference.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall, at the time we were all pretty well overwhelmed by a bewildering mass of changes, many of which just seemed to be being imposed to create something unique as Canada blazed the way into a brave, new world of military effectiveness. We were also all too conscious of the grim reality that if we had persisted with three separate services and headquarters loosely coordinated by a geriatric Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, we would have been hacked into ineffectiveness to fit into the amount of money the government was willing to spend on defence.
> 
> We also could not publicly express our opinion of the folly of the process as well as our opinion of the venality of various GOFOs who sold out for promotions. I don't know if social media and the proliferation of TV channels would have made a difference.




Agreed on all counts.

I think that some forms of _social media_, this one ~ Army.ca, to be specific ~ provide a very useful forum for serving members to debate and express dissent in an ethically _acceptable_ way.


----------



## wannabe SF member

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The British Brigadier rank was initially considered but it was dropped for WWI Bgen. I speculate it was done so that the status of the 0-7 Rank remained a general / flag officer rank. Brigadier is a senior officer rank.



Wow wow Wow! What's up with the caps? Save for gunnery instructors and some reserve ceremonial uniforms, I ain't seen anyone in the army wear those in my short career. Are they just still in the manual or are we also gonna go back to wearing caps?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Inky said:
			
		

> Wow wow Wow! What's up with the caps? Save for gunnery instructors and some reserve ceremonial uniforms, I ain't seen anyone in the army wear those in my short career. Are they just still in the manual or are we also gonna go back to wearing caps?



When the Army got rid of the forage cap, General officers were still allowed to wear them at their own expense.  I believe this is still on the books as a policy though I have never seen a Gen officer wear a forge cap.

For sure though that page makes you wonder if they are making another uniform change....hopefully this doesn't trickle down to the NCM's...I really hated wearing a forge cap :-/

Jon


----------



## Loachman

Well, they are _*Traditional*_ (TM).

But who knows, other than the Good Idea Fairy itself, what further madness lies in wait.


----------



## x_para76

I'm a bit of loyalist but even I can see that returning to the Brit system is a complete waste of time and money. I agree that since the conflict in Afghanistan we've been working more closely with our commonwealth brethren than we have for a while but I still don't think that this change really makes that any easier. The only thing I can see us doing similar to the Brits rank wise is making the Canadian rank of corporal a 2 I/c position that requires a leadership course and no longer just a mandatory pay rise. No need to resurrect the rank of lance corporal, just make corporal a leadership position.


----------



## OldSolduer

A rumour has started that someone maybe looking at bringing back the Sam Brown belt and khaki dress uniforms.

This is an unconfirmed rumour only.


----------



## x_para76

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A rumour has started that someone maybe looking at bringing back the Sam Brown belt and khaki dress uniforms.
> 
> This is an unconfirmed rumour only.



Don't know if you're being serious here or not but to be honest the Brit No 2's weren't that bad. That being said though the CF DEU'S are doing the job so again why change?


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Don't know if you're being serious here or not but to be honest the Brit No 2's weren't that bad. That being said though the CF DEU'S are doing the job so again why change?



 ;D

Isn't that what we have been saying about Army rank badges?  Why change?

Because some small but very vocal Lobby group has caught the Government's ear.

 :


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall, at the time we were all pretty well overwhelmed by a bewildering mass of changes, many of which just seemed to be being imposed to create something unique as Canada blazed the way into a brave, new world of military ineffectiveness. We were also all too conscious of the grim reality that if we had persisted with three separate services and headquarters loosely coordinated by a geriatric Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, we would have been hacked into ineffectiveness to fit into the amount of money the government was willing to spend on defence.
> 
> We also could not publicly express our opinion of the folly of the process as well as our opinion of the venality of various GOFOs who sold out for promotions. I don't know if social media and the proliferation of TV channels would have made a difference.



FTFY

My recollection from that time (granted I was a cynical young subbie then) was that soldiers and units were disappearing around us at an alarming rate as the size of the army dropped into the abyss. We felt anything but effective, brave and new notwithstanding.

Becoming "uniquely Canadian", considering our antiquated equipment at the time and our shrinking numbers, was synonymous with becoming part of a third string team and not one of national pride. In those days the last thing anyone wanted was to emulate or get close to the US. This was the height of the Vietnam War and the depth of the disintegration of their officers' corps. While we envied their materiel we all considered their soldiers as a bad joke at the time (the belief that we were much better than them, soldier for soldier was the little dignity[or conceit] we retained). On the other hand we all respected the Brits and most of us had been quite happy to be like them in appearance and deportment if nothing else (You may remember that not only did we change our uniform, we even changed our drill (and why did we even have to change the way we saluted anyway?)

In all other respects you're bang on the money, OS.

 :cdnsalute:

 :cdnsalute:


----------



## x_para76

FJAG said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> My recollection from that time (granted I was a cynical young subbie then) was that soldiers and units were disappearing around us at an alarming rate as the size of the army dropped into the abyss. We felt anything but effective, brave and new notwithstanding.
> 
> Becoming "uniquely Canadian", considering our antiquated equipment at the time and our shrinking numbers, was synonymous with becoming part of a third string team and not one of national pride. In those days the last thing anyone wanted was to emulate or get close to the US. This was the height of the Vietnam War and the depth of the disintegration of their officers' corps. While we envied their materiel we all considered their soldiers as a bad joke at the time (the belief that we were much better than them, soldier for soldier was the little dignity[or conceit] we retained). On the other hand we all respected the Brits and most of us had been quite happy to be like them in appearance and deportment if nothing else (You may remember that not only did we change our uniform, we even changed our drill (and why did we even have to change the way we saluted anyway?)
> 
> In all other respects you're bang on the money, OS.
> 
> :cdnsalute:
> 
> :cdnsalute:



Can anyone here answer that question? Why did we change our salute? The RCMP maintained the traditional Brit salute.


----------



## Rifleman62

I have a Sam Brown, Black for sale.


----------



## Privateer

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Can anyone here answer that question? Why did we change our salute? The RCMP maintained the traditional Brit salute.



One service (Canadian Armed Forces), one salute, I should think.


----------



## x_para76

Which of the 3 services was using a different salute prior to going to going to a unified salute. Did the change of the salute have anything to do with the French?


----------



## Privateer

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Which of the 3 services was using a different salute prior to going to going to a unified salute. Did the change of the salute have anything to do with the French?



RCN


----------



## Rifleman62

Of course, you could state that the Trudeau government adopted the American (style) of saluting for all three services!


----------



## x_para76

No the Trudeau government wouldn't have done anything to make the CF less British


----------



## tomydoom

X_para76 said:
			
		

> No the Trudeau government wouldn't have done anything to make the CF less British



I hope that's sarcasm.


----------



## x_para76

I certainly agree that the CF needs it's own identity separate from our British counterparts. However, I feel that some the changes that were made just for the sake of making us less British weren't for the better.


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I certainly agree that the CF needs it's own identity separate from our British counterparts. However, I feel that some the changes that were made just for the sake of making us less British weren't for the better.


They, however, were made and the following generations have know nothing else.  Fifty years from now, when some vocal group lobbies to change the ranks again, I imagine there will be many who hold similar opinions as you about the ranks we are changing from now.  So, if you retired ages ago, why worry about what the current generation is wearing and don't mess with things you don't have any involvement in.  You grew up in days long gone in the past.  They still have their own histories to write.  The insinuations already posted in this thread as to what other changes may be in the works just add to the comic effect of this "forced" change.  It is after all nothing more than a grand farce perpetuated by people living on past fantasies.


----------



## FJAG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ... So, if you retired ages ago, why worry about what the current generation is wearing and don't mess with things you don't have any involvement in.  You grew up in days long gone in the past. ...



George. The issue isn't whether folks are retired or not. Without rehashing a whole lot of stuff that's already been said in this thread, it isn't retired people that influence decisions: it "influential" people who influence decisions. Whether or not they are retired is inconsequential.

Based on your profile I'd guess that you are as retired as I am with quite a few years under your belt. On retirement you probably felt the same effect that I did: one day I was an active cog in the middle of things; the next day I was a non entity as far as the organization was concerned. Most of us are quite satisfied with that state of being. We show up now and then for reunions but basically we leave the running of the outfit to the young pups to sort out.

There are a few other folks, however, who mostly for altruistic reasons keep an active connection. Some insert themselves into the process, others are sought out actively by the organization for the value added contribution they can still make (such as honourary colonels, mentors, advisors etc). Regardless, these folks are the ones who can still move policy forward. They are the ones who, for whatever reasons, have "influence" within the higher ranks of the bureaucracy or the political structure. 

Decisions like the one we've been debating here are in fact political decisions whether made exclusively by serving senior soldiers, the politicians alone or a cabal of influential people from several sources having lunch or cocktails together at the Château Laurier. These cabals are how the Ottawa policy sausage machine works. I'm quite sure that the cabal in question didn't include anybody who humped a pack in Afghanistan recently but then again the troopies are rarely, if ever, consulted.

In essence your complaint has nothing to do with old retired folks. What you're really advocating for is a democratic voice when changing traditions and heritage but with the vote confined to those people who will be effected. 

When have we ever done that in the past? 

I'm quite sure nobody poled the ranks of the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards after Waterloo as to whether or not they wanted to wear bearskins and be called Grenadiers from hereon in. I expect that decision came from some cabal of high end, probably retired, inbred influential lords of the regiment who thought the troops would look swell on parade with them. I don't doubt that there was subsequently boisterous debate in the men's canteen with those who liked their old traditions and didn't want an impractical, hot, heavy bearskin on one side opposed by the then few remaining veterans of the battle who thought it was a great idea. 

You do great posts George but I don't think you should count out "retired" folks from having input or influence in areas of our traditions and heritage. Traditions and heritage by definition go back a long way and many of those retired folks worked hard to maintain older traditions and build newer ones (Just like the serving guys and gals do today). Those retired folks have a long institutional memory of things that the serving folks haven't experienced. Their contribution, properly weighed against other considerations, can still bring value to any debate on this topic.  :2c:

Have a good weekend.

 :cheers:


----------



## wannabe SF member

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A rumour has started that someone maybe looking at bringing back the Sam Brown belt and khaki dress uniforms.
> 
> This is an unconfirmed rumour only.









But in all seriousness, I believe that economic realities will kill that one if it ever even gets considered. Redesigning and replacing a couple of thousand DEUS would cost a lot of money methink.


----------



## George Wallace

What if? 

Probable more sensible decisions would be made.


 ;D


----------



## Pencil Tech

And in other news....My boss is an RCAF Colonel. He mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he was retiring next year and I asked him if he thought he would retire as a Colonel or a Group Captain. He said "Group Captain, definitely".


----------



## Journeyman

You must work in NDHQ, where such things seem to occupy a lot of time.   :


----------



## FJAG

"Squadron Leaders, Wing Commanders; Group Captains too
Hands in their pockets with ..... all to do
Drinking the beer of the poor AC2
May the Lord ..... on them sideways ..."   ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You must work in NDHQ, where such things seem to occupy a lot of time.   :



Of course.  With no combat mission to micro manage anymore, what else are they going to do?  ;D


----------



## Pencil Tech

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You must work in NDHQ, where such things seem to occupy a lot of time.   :



Busted.


----------



## FSTO

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A rumour has started that someone maybe looking at bringing back the Sam Brown belt and khaki dress uniforms.
> 
> This is an unconfirmed rumour only.



I seriously question all the moaning and dripping here about changes to DEU's. The army and air force folks hardly wear them anyway so why all the angst?


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> I seriously question all the moaning and dripping here about changes to DEU's. The army and air force folks hardly wear them anyway so why all the angst?



The moaning and dripping is regarding changes to ranks ... that the Cdn Army and the RCAF wear on every uniform.

There's been_ two _posts ref the khaki rumour - two.


----------



## Pusser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They, however, were made and the following generations have know nothing else.



Not entirely true.  Certainly, when I entered the training system in the early 80s all of our senior personnel and many of our instructors had started out in the old RCN and very actively kept the old traditions and desires alive.  Virtually everyone (with the exception of a single PO2 I once met) hated the green uniform and had no problems saying so.  There was much lament amongst everyone (and it didn't matter if you joined before or after unification) about what we had "lost" and there was constant effort to try and bring back what we could.  The enthusiasm for the lost/stolen traditions of our elders certainly was alive and well and manifested itself in a variety of ways (e.g. RCN buttons on green uniforms, mess dress for daytime weddings, NADEN and STADACONA bands kitted out in blue uniforms - paid for by the NOAC, any excuse to dress in traditional blue uniforms that we could think of, etc).  When I joined, there was no discussion whatsoever that we would ever get out of the green uniform and we were all ecstatic when it happened.  From what I've heard, it took several years after 1968 to get everyone into green with the final hold-outs having to be ordered to change.  When the DEU first started appearing in 1986, folks couldn't get them on fast enough.  

Having said all of this, although both officers and C&POs were united in their opinions on lost/stolen traditions and uniforms, they did differ widely on other aspects of the "good" old days.  For the most part, the opinion on the lower deck was that unification had greatly improved their quality of life and so wasn't such a bad thing overall.


----------



## jpjohnsn

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Don't know if you're being serious here or not but to be honest the Brit No 2's weren't that bad. That being said though the CF DEU'S are doing the job so again why change?


I had the pleasure of wearing a set of the old RCAF tropical worsted uniform (which was uniquely Canadian as the RAF, RAAF, etc never adopted them) for an historical display a couple of years ago.  I say pleasure because it was INCREDIBLY hot that day but the cloth was very lightweight and breathed very well.  Purely on a comfort level, given the choice between having to the lightweight blue DEU and the old Tee-dubs in the summer, I'd take the latter every day of the week.

Mind you, they aren't without their problems (besides the dated cut).  They are definitely NOT machine washable and many veterans I met that day told me that had to watch the heat setting on the iron as using too high a setting would turn them pink.


----------



## McG

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... is regarding changes to ranks ...


and flags, and other badges, and resurrected regiments, and rebranded branches, and miscellaneous renamings, and other "heritage" window dressings.


----------



## FJAG

Pusser said:
			
		

> Having said all of this, although both officers and C&POs were united in their opinions on lost/stolen traditions and uniforms, they did differ widely on other aspects of the "good" old days.  For the most part, the opinion on the lower deck was that unification had greatly improved their quality of life and so wasn't such a bad thing overall.



That's a very true statement. I remember in particular that we officers in the late seventies were still bemoaning the "base system" whereby much of each regiment's admin tail was hived off from the "regimental family" to the "impersonal CF base" staff.

We were all gob-smacked when a survey of all ranks established that the lower ranks greatly preferred the "base system" to their own officers because our posting and job rotation cycles were so rapid and our absence on courses etc so frequent that they felt that their officers simply didn't know them well enough to properly look after their interests. The "base" on the other hand was providing more stability and continuity.  ???

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

So, does this all get filed under "Hellyer was right"?


----------



## Old Sweat

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So, does this all get filed under "Hellyer was right"?



Where he was correct was in the integration of a number of functions including commands, communications and logistics. Unfortunately he went too far too quickly and a number of things were done such as a lot of the trade amalgamations without thinking it through. As for FJAG's observation re the troops prefering the base system, few of them had experience with a full self-administering unit. However, it was still moot. The troops were probably justified in not trusting unit administration, given the amount of screwing they were getting down through the chain of command. 

Given the circumstances of the time, probably whatever had been done would not have been too popular and certainly not too effective, efficient and even economical.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pusser said:
			
		

> Having said all of this, although both officers and C&POs were united in their opinions on lost/stolen traditions and uniforms, they did differ widely on other aspects of the "good" old days.  For the most part, the opinion on the lower deck was that unification had greatly improved their quality of life and so wasn't such a bad thing overall.



I am not totally convinced it was unification that did this.

Even before there were talk of unification, the RCN lower rank structure and pay scales had been modified to be brought in line with the Army and RCAF ones. That was a big morale booster that had nothing to do with unification. Similarly, the Navy had just completed four years before unification its ten years transition to the "Cadillac" living standards of the St-Laurent and its derivative ships. Again, the disappearance of the old ships, with hammocks instead of bunks, scuttles instead of air conditioning and crappy galleys instead of modern onboard bakeries/food preparation systems had a major positive impact on morale. Finally, the lessons of the Mainguy report were also being implemented in full and as a result the officer's "british big ship" approach was quickly disappearing to be replaced with the wartime Navy "small ship teamwork" approach. All these things contributed to an increase in the quality of life of the lower deckers.

As for the "Khaki" debate, its interesting to note here that at the time of unification, each of the three services, RCN, Army and RCAF, had a khaki uniform in their kit, which save for the Army, was a distinctly Canadian thing as neither the RAF nor the RN had such uniform (the Canadian services had acquired them as a copy of the American practice and because it was so much more comfortable in summer). There was a lot of speculation in the mid seventies as to whether the unification would have gone smoother had the new "common" uniform been khaki instead of dark green.


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As for FJAG's observation re the troops prefering the base system, few of them had experience with a full self-administering unit. However, it was still moot. The troops were probably justified in not trusting unit administration, given the amount of screwing they were getting down through the chain of command.



You may recall that we downsized massively after integration and that for almost a decade we had very few new recruits and almost stagnant promotion within the senior NCO ranks. The majority of the other ranks who took part in this DND run survey had served under both systems. 

Many of us junior officers however had joined the reg f after integration when this came out. We were perhaps less shocked when this came out than the field officers and above. I know after this came out I talked it over with my TSM and detachment commanders over a few beers and became convinced that the attitude was indeed wide-spread and justified. Unfortunately I was also quite convinced that under the then existing career models it was quite insoluble.

It wasn't quite what dapaterson quipped that "Hellyer was right" but more a case that a money saving activity had a collateral outcome that mitigated an existing leadership problem.

:cheers:


----------



## dapaterson

[Paging Scott Taylor]

All right them, how about "A pissed off Corporal can do more to improve the lot of service personnel than the chain of command."

[/Paging Scott Taylor]


 >


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> [Paging Scott Taylor]
> 
> All right them, how about "A pissed off Corporal can do more to improve the lot of service personnel than the chain of command."
> 
> [/Paging Scott Taylor]
> 
> 
> >



 :facepalm: Arrghh!


----------



## Allgunzblazing

I've read on this forum that pre-unification, the army salute was with the palm facing outward. Are there any plans to revert the current standard to how it was earlier? 

My apologies if this post is in the wrong thread.


----------



## McG

Allgunzblazing said:
			
		

> I've read on this forum that pre-unification, the army salute was with the palm facing outward. Are there any plans to revert the current standard to how it was earlier?


Why?  There is already far to much effort wasted into changing back the clock for the sake of changing back the clock.
Maybe instead, those who want to live in the past just go buy themselves some whitewall tires.

This roll back the clock slippery slope needs to come to an end.
The new old uniforms probably will happen because we don't need them but the fetishists seem to have the ear of those in power.  Good thing we don't need operational clothing sorted out. :


----------



## OldSolduer

So when are you all going to call me WO1?


----------



## wannabe SF member

MCG said:
			
		

> Why?  There is already far to much effort wasted into changing back the clock for the sake of changing back the clock.
> Maybe instead, those who want to live in the past just go buy themselves some whitewall tires.
> 
> This roll back the clock slippery slope needs to come to an end.
> The new old uniforms probably will happen because we don't need them but the fetishists seem to have the ear of those in power.  Good thing we don't need operational clothing sorted out. :



Well I heard this rumor today at 1 Div HQ that they were considering bringing back the battledress as garrison wear.
 :sarcasm:


----------



## Jacky Tar

FJAG said:
			
		

> Gunner! Bloggins was always a Gunner.



No, no... Bloggins was always a Gunner's _Mate_... Leading Seaman Gunner's Mate Bloggins.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So when are you all going to call me WO1?



At about the same time as my position is called an Artificer Sergeant Major  ;D

Jon


----------



## armyvern

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So when are you all going to call me WO1?



When would like us to begin RSM?


----------



## Jacky Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Seggie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So when are you all going to call me WO1?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When would like us to begin RSM?
Click to expand...


No worries, Cox'n


----------



## George Wallace

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> No, no... Bloggins was always a Gunner's _Mate_... Leading Seaman Gunner's Mate Bloggins.



Bloggins was a clone.


----------



## George Wallace

Allgunzblazing said:
			
		

> I've read on this forum that pre-unification, the army salute was with the palm facing outward. Are there any plans to revert the current standard to how it was earlier?
> 
> My apologies if this post is in the wrong thread.



Would reverting to the old salute not necessitate the "un-unification" ( New word for the undoing of unification/break up.) of the Canadian Armed Forces back into three distinct Services and all the inefficiencies involved?  The Canadian Armed Forces is comprised of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army; a whole new organization that deserves a "Common Salute".   Not really relevant, as so many these days don't know how to give a proper salute anyway.


----------



## cupper

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> No, no... Bloggins was always a Gunner's _Mate_... Leading Seaman Gunner's Mate Bloggins.



Apparently Bloggins was such a problem that he got kicked from service to service.

Ah Infamy, thy name is Bloggins. ;D


----------



## FJAG

Jacky Tar said:
			
		

> No, no... Bloggins was always a Gunner's _Mate_... Leading Seaman Gunner's Mate Bloggins.



Okay. Okay. I'm prepared to share Bloggins. We still claim Herbie though.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jed

Hey, What about Buddy?  My domestic niner keeps wondering who this Buddy guy is.


----------



## Loachman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Canadian Armed Forces is comprised of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Army



And CJOC and SEFCOM and other organizations.

The three that you mentioned are just renamed environmental commands, rather than separate services again.


----------



## George Wallace

Loachman said:
			
		

> And CJOC and SEFCOM and other organizations.
> 
> The three that you mentioned are just renamed environmental commands, rather than separate services again.



Those were the phrases I was looking for.  

Thanks


----------



## Pusser

Loachman said:
			
		

> And CJOC and SEFCOM and other organizations.
> 
> The three that you mentioned are just renamed environmental commands, rather than separate services again.



This is complicated a bit by the fact that the Comd RCN has made it very clear that the RCN is *not* just an environmental command.  His direction is that all CF personnel in naval uniform are members of the RCN.  It would be nice if more of them had actually at least seen a ship before....


----------



## Pusser

Allgunzblazing said:
			
		

> I've read on this forum that pre-unification, the army salute was with the palm facing outward. Are there any plans to revert the current standard to how it was earlier?
> 
> My apologies if this post is in the wrong thread.



It was only palm outward for the Army and Air Force.  The current CF salute came from the Navy and has been that way since the middle of the 19th Century when sailors were directed to turn their palms down because Queen Victoria didn't like to see their tar-stained hands.


----------



## George Wallace

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is complicated a bit by the fact that the Comd RCN has made it very clear that the RCN is *not* just an environmental command.  His direction is that all CF personnel in naval uniform are members of the RCN.  It would be nice if more of them had actually at least seen a ship before....



I take it he failed that OPDP back in the day.


----------



## myself.only

Pusser said:
			
		

> His direction is that all CF personnel in naval uniform are members of the RCN.



Well, I'm guessing that's pretty much recognizing that the members see themselves as in the navy, don't they?


----------



## Ostrozac

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is complicated a bit by the fact that the Comd RCN has made it very clear that the RCN is *not* just an environmental command.  His direction is that all CF personnel in naval uniform are members of the RCN.



That's an interesting take on the old chain of command. I would submit that, for example, the RSM of 21 EW Regiment is part of the Canadian Army, regardless of whether is an army/air/navy DEU Comm Researcher. And what about guys that are posted to the various ships and fleet establishments that wear Land and Air DEU? Are they not part of the RCN too?


----------



## Infanteer

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is complicated a bit by the fact that the Comd RCN has made it very clear that the RCN is *not* just an environmental command.  His direction is that all CF personnel in naval uniform are members of the RCN.  It would be nice if more of them had actually at least seen a ship before....



Hmmm...doesn't really jive with the NDA now, does it.  I guess he's treating as a Regimental Affiliation; a Royal is a Royal, even if he is posted to Adm (POL).  However, that Royal is not part of the Army, but things may be easier if he just tells people "I am in the Army".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hmmm...doesn't really jive with the NDA now, does it.  I guess he's treating as a Regimental Affiliation; a Royal is a Royal, even if he is posted to Adm (POL).  However, that Royal is not part of the Army, but things may be easier if he just tells people "I am in the Army".



No your right it doesn't.  It came out in the MSG that disclosed his vision of the new RCN.  I read it that all those who where the RCN DEU are sailors and should take pride in that.  Nothing more.  I don't think it was meant in anyway that the RCN was asserting its dominance over all Naval dressed personnel.  To sum up it was just a nudge to take pride in your uniform.  That is all.


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "un-unification"


I worry that there are people quietly working to see de-unification.  We are a better military today because of unification *and* our evolution since.  I worry that there are some (including some with influence) who would put peacock symbols and tribal penile-measuring ahead of the interests of the CF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> I worry that there are people quietly working to see de-unification.  We are a better military today because of unification *and* our evolution since.  I worry that there are some (including some with influence) who would put peacock symbols and tribal penile-measuring ahead of the interests of the CF.



I don't think there is the political or organizational will to fully "de-unify" the CAF,  but I do think we may see more changes tweaks.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> I worry that there are people quietly working to see de-unification.  We are a better military today because of unification *and* our evolution since.  I worry that there are some (including some with influence) who would put peacock symbols and tribal penile-measuring ahead of the interests of the CF.




Yes and no. The real _unification_ (joint) efforts did make us better, but too much, I would suggest most of Mr. Hellyer's project involved _integration_ (purple suiting for its own sake) and we had to recover from that before we could evolve.

In my view we would have accomplished _unification_ of support services anyway ~ almost everyone else did, and everyone else did without following our _integration_ model. We have not gone far enough in _unification_, in my view; in my opinion we should have a joint _command and control_ structure from NDHQ all the way down to formation level.

Anyway:  :highjack:   :sorry:


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think I'd personally take more pride in my uniform if the ships weren't rusting out and otherwise falling apart.

Doing a HIRA (hazards identification and risk analysis) exercise doesn't make problems actually fix themselves or go away.  Keep my fingers crossed every day on the way to work that today isn't the day someone will get killed when a piece of equipment fails to meet the all mighty OPSCHED.

That, to me, is why these projects are so offensive; we have far bigger issues and high level staff time is being wasted on efforts like these.


----------



## George Wallace

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think I'd personally take more pride in my uniform if the ships weren't rusting out and otherwise falling apart.
> 
> Doing a HIRA (hazards identification and risk analysis) exercise doesn't make problems actually fix themselves or go away.  Keep my fingers crossed every day on the way to work that today isn't the day someone will get killed when a piece of equipment fails to meet the all mighty OPSCHED.
> 
> That, to me, is why these projects are so offensive; we have far bigger issues and high level staff time is being wasted on efforts like these.



Agreed.  This is a common problem for all the Elements of the CAF.  Both the Air Force and Army are facing the same problems.  As the Government cuts from the Defence Budget, the promotion of trinkets like new rank badges really do nothing to encourage the serving members.  Pride in the uniform they serve in is one thing, but when they sit and watch their equipment and tools of the Trade rust out as well as their infrastructure crumbling; then they become demoralized.  Today's Service Member is intelligent and when they see the writing on the wall, they often decide with their feet and find greener pastures.

I grew up in a time when we had more aircraft on one of our four Fighter Wings in Europe than we have in our whole CAF today.  The trend I have seen in equipment purchases over six decades is that when equipment is replaced, it is replaced with half of the previous fleet, be it trucks, tanks, aircraft, or ships.  Often capabilities are cut completely.  By 2060, we may have a one plane, one tank, one ship CAF.   :-[


----------



## PMedMoe

As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.

Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :


----------



## jpjohnsn

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.
> 
> Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :


Hmmm....  Earlier this week I heard that the word out of Winnepeg was that the RCAF ranks were not going to revert after all.  Since there had been a bit of a lull since we got a new MND, I was starting to think the back-to-the-future stuff might all be over.  With this, I'm wondering if it still might be coming after all.


----------



## medicineman

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.
> 
> Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :



We getting new shoulder flashes, hat badges or epaulettes?

MM


----------



## PMedMoe

medicineman said:
			
		

> We getting new shoulder flashes, hat badges or epaulettes?
> 
> MM



 :dunno:   Email didn't say.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

I know we are getting new shoulder flashes....both cadpat and deu...timeline for DEU ones is Jan 14 but according to the branch chief, don't hold your breath....


----------



## Navy_Pete

So it's not too late for me to hope for a tricorn and cape to go with my DEUs?  Maybe trade specific colours back in the navy epaulettes (like the red for medical)?

Just think of the low radar cross section of a wooden sailing ship! No one will suspect a thing!  Or bring back triremes, that's good PT.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> So it's not too late for me to hope for a tricorn and cape to go with my DEUs?  Maybe trade specific colours back in the navy epaulettes (like the red for medical)?
> 
> Just think of the low radar cross section of a wooden sailing ship! No one will suspect a thing!  Or bring back triremes, that's good PT.



 8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.


Confirmed by the Info-machine!


> Traditional designations have been restored to the two health services branches of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to honour and commemorate Canada’s proud history respecting its military medical and dental professionals.
> 
> The Canadian Forces Medical Service will be renamed the Royal Canadian Medical Service to reflect the tri-service integration of the three former navy, army, and air force medical services since 1959. The Canadian Forces Dental Services will be restored to the Royal Canadian Dental Corps.
> 
> “"The bestowing and restoration of the Canadian Forces Health Services historical names is an essential part of the government's commitment to honour the memories of so many brave Canadians who have sacrificed in service to Canada,"” said the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence. “"It reinstates an important and recognizable part of our military heritage, as well as a key part of our nation’s identity."”
> 
> The Governor General, in his role as Commander-in-Chief of the CAF, communicated the approval of these changes by Buckingham Palace, while addressing the CAF leadership on October 8, 2013.
> 
> “"Just as the original granting of Royal designations to the military medical and dental services was in recognition of their heroic service during the World Wars, their restoration honours the skill, dedication, and valour of our personnel in recent operations,"” said Brigadier-General Jean-Robert Bernier, the Surgeon General. “"In providing care to our military colleagues and to any other population, whether deployed or in garrison, Canadians can count on us to prove worthy of this symbolic link to our heroic predecessors and to our sovereign."”
> 
> The restoration of Royal designations for the two CAF health services branches is another step in the phased approach that began in August 2011 to recognize traditional service and corps identities in the CAF ....





			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :


Indeed!


----------



## cupper

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.
> 
> Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :



Come on, admit it. You were jealous and feeling left out. ;D


----------



## dapaterson

Maybe we need to establish a "Royalty level" for the CAF, so every time we designate one group as Royal, we take the designation away from another.  That way we can just have add-on "Royal" signs we move from unit to unit or formation to formation.

"Sorry, Royal 22nd Regiment, it's time for the Music Branch to be Royal, so you're going back to just being 'The 22nd Regiment'".


----------



## PMedMoe

cupper said:
			
		

> Come on, admit it. You were jealous and feeling left out. ;D



Nope.  Now I'm jealous because Dental got the "Corps" designation....


----------



## Old Sweat

Moe, I ain't even gonna suggest you'e Queenish.

In the bad, old days the Royal Canadian Dental Corps looked after all three services, although I'm not sure how much they spent pouring over CAMT 2-2, Drill, All Arms.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... although I'm not sure how much they spent pouring over CAMT 2-2, Drill, All Arms.



The PPCLI are all dentists?


----------



## x_para76

Since they'll henceforth be known as a corps will they also be reinstating the rank of staff sergeant in place of warrant officer?


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The PPCLI are all dentists?



The thought of an infanteer being the dentist about to do work on my teeth just gae me a whole new fear of going to the dentist


----------



## Michael OLeary

I've been to some CF dentists whose work felt like they were digging a trench on Headline Ridge.


----------



## Jungle

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Sorry, Royal 22nd Regiment, it's time for the Music Branch to be Royal, so you're going back to just being 'The 22nd Regiment'".



Most of us probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow...


----------



## PMedMoe

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Moe, I ain't even gonna suggest you'e Queenish.



Good, 'cause _I'm_ a Princess!


----------



## GAP

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Good, 'cause _I'm_ a Princess!



You gotta grow up sometime!! Queen is the next step, then Dragon Queen, then....oh, you ain't ever gonna reach that one......


----------



## Edward Campbell

GAP said:
			
		

> You gotta grow up sometime!! Queen is the next step, then Dragon Queen, then....oh, you ain't ever gonna reach that one......




You mean _The Faerie Queene_?


----------



## PMedMoe

Nah, there's enough people in my trade to fight over being in charge.   :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer

The Royal Canadian Bicycle and Mess Tin Repair Corps has a nice ring to it..... >


----------



## GAP

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You mean _The Faerie Queene_?



 :rofl:    :cheers:


----------



## PMedMoe

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You mean _The Good Idea Faerie Queene_?



FTFY.


----------



## Danjanou

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You mean _The Faerie Queene_?



Looks like a former CO of mine, whom apparently now commands a cubicle at Disneyland on the Rideau. I could see them being OIC Buttons, bows and bling to.  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Since they'll henceforth be known as a corps will they also be reinstating the rank of staff sergeant in place of warrant officer?



No, no, no !

A whole new designation: Ordinary Dental Tech, Able Dental Tech, Leading Dental Tech, Master Dental Tech, Petty Dental Tech (1st and 2nd class) then Chief Petty Dental Tech (again 1st and 2nd class).


----------



## medicineman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No, no, no !
> 
> A whole new designation: Ordinary Dental Tech, Able Dental Tech, Leading Dental Tech, Master Dental Tech, Petty Dental Tech (1st and 2nd class) then Chief Petty Dental Tech (again 1st and 2nd class).



I've always called the Dental Corps the Tooth Fairies...maybe it would be fitting if they went to the fairy service  >.

MM


----------



## Danjanou

medicineman said:
			
		

> I've always called the Dental Corps the Tooth Fairies...maybe it would be fitting if they went to the fairy service  >.
> 
> MM



See ERC's post above re possible uniform and Comander?  >


----------



## Navy_Pete

recceguy said:
			
		

> 8)



Tee hee hee!  I can't help but giggle when I see Captain Crunch and think of the might Algonquin!  I'm a terrible person.

The embroidered shoulder curl things are pretty impressive though, for those that always wondered 'What would Nelson do?'

Why wonder?  Join the RCN, see the high seas in your grandfather's ship, and see the historic Sea King in action!

At least we could recycle some of the vintage posters...


----------



## Ajraddatz

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Maybe trade specific colours back in the navy epaulettes (like the red for medical)?


Medical still has their red stripes, unless that's changed really recently - look up Commodore Jung on Google images and you'll see him with the red stripe between his bars as a Capt(N) and then under the bar as a Commodore.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Sorry, I should have been a bit clearer.  Only the medical guys still have the red stripes; previously all the trades in ww2 era had different colour stripes (kind of like the different coloured shirts in Star trek).

Engineers were purple, I think log was green (or maybe that was command?).  Unfortunately I can't find a link to it anywhere as I've only ever seen it in the maritime museum once, but that is the origin of the stupid purple pen tradition for the engineer.  Carry over from the RN, which they've also abandoned.

Little bit ff topic: But this is in no way a suggestion to go back to that; I think the executive curl was already kind of a waste of money that could have better spent on actual parts or equipment (although it does look pretty snazzy in the gold braids on shoulder boards)


----------



## FSTO

Executive - (today's MARS officers) had no colour between the stripes

Medical Department to wear alternate stripes of scarlet
Paymaster's Department to wear alternate stripes of white
Engineer's Department to wear alternate stripes of purple.
The coloured stripes were initially made of velvet but were later replaced by coloured cloth and the use of this was finally abolished by the Royal Navy in May 1955 except for the Medical and Dental Branches.

There was no official uniform for the Merchant Navy until September 1918, although some of the larger shipping lines had had their own company uniforms for many years before this, and some had followed the Royal Navy and introduced the same distinctive colours for their Engineers, Medical and Purser's Departments.

Source

http://www.rmg.co.uk/explore/sea-and-ships/facts/faqs/general/did-engineer-officers-in-the-royal-and-merchant-navy-wear-purple-cloth-between-the-rank-stripes-on-their-uniform-as-a-sign-of-mourning-for-the-engineers-who-died-in-the-titanic

To be honest, I cringe everytime I see a sailor strolling about Esquimalt in NCD's and a ball cap perched on their head. I am pissed off when I see an officer in the same rig ashore. Good god man/woman, have some pride. You are well paid; the shirts, pants, sweaters and peak caps are replaced by points. The only reason I can see for them to be wearing NCD's ashore is that they are too damn lazy or cheap to send their pants to the dry cleaners and pull out the iron for their shirts. Or even worse their XO or supervisor has turned a blind eye to the practice. I have never been to Ottawa but I really hope that CRCN has put an end to sailors and Naval Officers wearing NCD's (or even worse CADPAT!) in the NCR.


----------



## dapaterson

FSTO said:
			
		

> To be honest, I cringe everytime I see a sailor strolling about Esquimalt in NCD's and a ball cap perched on their head. I am pissed off when I see an officer in the same rig ashore. Good god man/woman, have some pride. You are well paid; the shirts, pants, sweaters and peak caps are replaced by points. The only reason I can see for them to be wearing NCD's ashore is that they are too damn lazy or cheap to send their pants to the dry cleaners and pull out the iron for their shirts. Or even worse their XO or supervisor has turned a blind eye to the practice. I have never been to Ottawa but I really hope that CRCN has put an end to sailors and Naval Officers wearing NCD's (or even worse CADPAT!) in the NCR.



Unfortunately, CJOC and CANSOFCOM think their HQs are "operational" and thus wear CADPAT / NCDs as their dress of the day, despite the fact that they are cubicle dwellers like all the rest.  It would be fun to cost out the difference between DEU and operational dress, and show how much is wasted by wearing out operational clothing ass first...


----------



## Jed

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, CJOC and CANSOFCOM think their HQs are "operational" and thus wear CADPAT / NCDs as their dress of the day, despite the fact that they are cubicle dwellers like all the rest.  It would be fun to cost out the difference between DEU and operational dress, and show how much is wasted by wearing out operational clothing ass first...



All this nit picking from Rag Pickers sure kills the operational mentality of the average troop.  ;D


----------



## armyvern

Jed said:
			
		

> All this nit picking from Rag Pickers sure kills the operational mentality of the average troop.  ;D



Awesome; perhaps this rag picker will end up posted there one day.  They'll have to move my zero trade 9erD out of there first though 'cause we'd kill each other.  True story.   

Once did a field EX in Pet with an Officer of  1 Cdn Div who had to be advised that Pet's FOB was not named "HMCS" anything and to get the floppy onto his head.  The horror.  Also a true story.  Sadly.


----------



## McG

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> As of 1300 hrs yesterday, the Canadian Forces Medical Service and the Canadian Forces Dental Service became the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, respectively.
> 
> Yippee! More money to be spent on new buttons, bows, badges, etc....   :


I agree.  At least this label was applied across the branches as opposed to selectively based on uniform colour, and it won't become a point for us v.s. them division/friction (deliberate or otherwise).  The CME should have completely gone to RCE (as it was post unification and prior to "de-royalization") or none of it should.  Uniform colours make no difference on the training or career paths of tradesmen.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Maybe we need to establish a "Royalty level" for the CAF, so every time we designate one group as Royal, we take the designation away from another.  That way we can just have add-on "Royal" signs we move from unit to unit or formation to formation.


Let's just jump straight to "Royal Canadian Forces" and be done with this (all military forces are armed, so the word is redundant).


----------



## FSTO

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Awesome; perhaps this rag picker will end up posted there one day.  They'll have to move my zero trade 9erD out of there first though 'cause we'd kill each other.  True story.
> 
> Once did a field EX in Pet with an Officer of  1 Cdn Div who had to be advised that Pet's FOB was not named "HMCS" anything and to get the floppy onto his head.  The horror.  Also a true story.  Sadly.



There is quite a difference between being at sea or in the field and being a cubicle warrior ashore or at some static HQ in Ottawa. Do you really think you are more operationally focused by what you wear?  Especially when I see all the two tone CADPAT, too tight flight suits or the Naval Officer doing the "dockyard stroll" with scuffed sea boots, wrinkled NCD's and a faded ball cap. Is that the image we want to present to the Canadian public?


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:
			
		

> There is quite a difference between being at sea or in the field and being a cubicle warrior ashore or at some static HQ in Ottawa. Do you really think you are more operationally focused by what you wear?  Especially when I see all the two tone CADPAT, too tight flight suits or the Naval Officer doing the "dockyard stroll" with scuffed sea boots, wrinkled NCD's and a faded ball cap. Is that the image we want to present to the Canadian public?



I was never ashamed of wearing operational clothing whilst I was serving and had no problem being seen by the public in combats or CADPAT. The navy example you give and who apparently doesn't take care of his dress or his deportment would look like a piece of s**t regardless of what uniform he wore. 

Most of my career was spent in the post-Vietnam aftermath where our leadership (both political and military) wanted us to look like corporate executives and not soldiers. I found the last decade refreshing both for the fact that we were operational and and because we were not afraid to let the public or the nervous Nellies in Ottawa see us that way.

Surely there are more important things in life then debating whether or not the guy in the next cubicle should be wearing CADPAT. How about the fact that the army still doesn't have separate summer/winter weight uniforms?

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FJAG said:
			
		

> How about the fact that the army still doesn't have separate summer/winter weight uniforms?



Yeah! What about it ???

It's their own damn fault, that's what's about it.

When the DEU's were introduced by the Mulroney government, the Army was given a winter uniform (green DEU) and a summer uniform (Khaki DEU). Many years later, as the soldiers complained about "too many" uniforms, it was decided to get rid of one of them - at the intimation of the "Army" itself. In a survey of the troops, the soldier voted to keep the green DEU and get rid of the Khaki.

So you are talking about either a non starter point or just one more back to the future type of matter for the Army.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Summer uniform .... CADPAT cargo shorts.

Problem solved.    >


----------



## FSTO

My issue is that you wear operational clothing when you are out of the office. Which is:
in the field
at sea
flying or servicing an airplane

Which is the most expensive uniform? CADPAT, Flight suits and NCDs
What uniform is most easily kept up and/or replaced? DEU's

And the refain I hear from the ships "Well what if we have to respond to an emergency???". That is what the duty watch is for, the rest of us muster on the jetty, if you happen to rip your DEU pants you can order another pair, and officers haven't instantaneously combusted since the Korean War and they aren't about to do so now.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> My issue is that you wear operational clothing when you are out of the office. Which is:
> in the field
> at sea
> flying or servicing an airplane
> 
> Which is the most expensive uniform? CADPAT, Flight suits and NCDs
> What uniform is most easily kept up and/or replaced? DEU's
> 
> And the refain I hear from the ships "Well what if we have to respond to an emergency???". That is what the duty watch is for, the rest of us muster on the jetty, if you happen to rip your DEU pants you can order another pair, and officers haven't instantaneously combusted since the Korean War and they aren't about to do so now.



Wait wait wait... So if I'm posted to HMCS ___ you think my dress of the day should be some form of DEU unless I'm part of the duty watch?


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Wait wait wait... So if I'm posted to HMCS ___ you think my dress of the day should be some form of DEU unless I'm part of the duty watch?



Doesn't matter what I think you should wear. The trend has been NCD's for everyone all the time when posted to a ship. I wear salt and peppers all the time unless I am OOD. I think I am dying breed though, but I haven't caught on fire yet!
Back when I first joined the OOD wore their tunic during the winter months.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> When the DEU's were introduced by the Mulroney government, the Army was given a winter uniform (green DEU) and a summer uniform (Khaki DEU). Many years later, as the soldiers complained about "too many" uniforms, it was decided to get rid of one of them - at the intimation of the "Army" itself. In a survey of the troops, the soldier voted to keep the green DEU and get rid of the Khaki.



I was serving at the time and there was never a vote that reached the regiment where I was. 

I absolutely loved the uniform. It was the best looking one we had (even considering that we wore black shoes and a green hat with a tan uniform.

We never actually got a clear explanation for loosing the tan DEUs (technically we didn't loose them - we got to keep them but couldn't wear them) but the most widespread rumour at the time was that the army CWOs got together to get rid of them because the uniform was getting noticeably stained by oil etc from rifles.

If anyone has some factual info, I'd be interested in hearing it.

 :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace

FJAG said:
			
		

> I was serving at the time and there was never a vote that reached the regiment where I was.
> 
> I absolutely loved the uniform. It was the best looking one we had (even considering that we wore black shoes and a green hat with a tan uniform.
> 
> We never actually got a clear explanation for loosing the tan DEUs (technically we didn't loose them - we got to keep them but couldn't wear them) but the most widespread rumour at the time was that the army CWOs got together to get rid of them because the uniform was getting noticeably stained by oil etc from rifles and boot polish.
> 
> If anyone has some factual info, I'd be interested in hearing it.
> 
> :cheers:



I am with you.  I never heard of any vote happening.  I do remember the Tans becoming rather transparent when wet (rain or sweat).  I believe it was less too many uniforms for the troops to maintain as it was too many uniforms being manufactured.  That budget just got cut in half with the disuse of the Tans.

By the way, Oldgateboatdriver, the New green DEU is a heavier weight uniform than the old CF Rifle Green uniform.  It was meant for winter.  With the disappearance of the Tans, we have seen a noticeable drop in the number of full DEU parades by units for the months from May through October.


----------



## Navy_Pete

It's not a trend; it's driven by the fact that anyone onboard could be required to take immediate action as discoverer of a fire/flood.  The NCDs provide fire protection, hence the requirement.

Traditions are great until your plastic belt burns and melts to your pants and you become a liability for your shipmates.  Generally kind of unlikely, but that's the reason.

NCDs are a bit different though, you aren't really supposed to walk around town in it.  They really were meant to truly be work dress.  They also tend to hang off most folks like a desperate blind date due to the 'room for expansion'.  They do a great job at providing short term burn protection, but they are not flattering.  Think it's stupid HQs wear 'operational dress' but my opinion and 2 bucks will get you a coffee...


----------



## a_majoor

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's just jump straight to "Royal Canadian Forces" and be done with this (all military forces are armed, so the word is redundant).



As a technical matter, the Army belongs to Parliament (although units may receive a Royal warrent), so the Sovereign has no instrument to oppress the people. The Royal Navy and Royal Airforce are for the Defense of the Realm, and not very useful for oppression, so the Sovereign is nominally allowed to keep those. A chap called Charles 1 has some ideas about that, but Parliament and Oliver Cromwell sorted that out.


----------



## McG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a technical matter ....


Your post is wrong.  Read the NDA.
We do not have bits of our military reporting to different authorities.


----------



## George Wallace

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a technical matter, the Army belongs to Parliament (although units may receive a Royal warrent), so the Sovereign has no instrument to oppress the people. The Royal Navy and Royal Airforce are for the Defense of the Realm, and not very useful for oppression, so the Sovereign is nominally allowed to keep those. A chap called Charles 1 has some ideas about that, but Parliament and Oliver Cromwell sorted that out.



I didn't know that the Air Force was that old.    >


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Your post is wrong.  Read the NDA.
> We do not have bits of our military reporting to different authorities.


Get over yourself. He just explained our tradition why the army isn't "royal", but why the air force and navy are.  Yes, it's from our British heritage.  So bloody what.


----------



## FJAG

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As a technical matter, the Army belongs to Parliament (although units may receive a Royal warrent), so the Sovereign has no instrument to oppress the people. The Royal Navy and Royal Airforce are for the Defense of the Realm, and not very useful for oppression, so the Sovereign is nominally allowed to keep those. A chap called Charles 1 has some ideas about that, but Parliament and Oliver Cromwell sorted that out.



In Canada each of DND and the CF as two whole entities are accountable to parliament. There are no separate relationships vis a vis parliament and the crown for the army, navy or air force). 

DND and the CF both operate under the authority of the MND.

The MND, DMND and the CDS are accountable and responsible for the use of the power and resources of DND and the CF with which they are entrusted by parliament.

DND and the CF implement the direction and decisions of the MND. (There's a whole lot more mumbo jumbo about the governor in council, treasury board, the department of finance, the GG being the commander in chief and other stuff but you get the general idea)

 :cheers:


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> 1. It's not a trend; it's driven by the fact that anyone onboard could be required to take immediate action as discoverer of a fire/flood.  The NCDs provide fire protection, hence the requirement.
> 
> 2. NCDs are a bit different though, you aren't really supposed to walk around town in it.  They really were meant to truly be work dress.  They also tend to hang off most folks like a desperate blind date due to the 'room for expansion'.  They do a great job at providing short term burn protection, but they are not flattering.  Think it's stupid HQs wear 'operational dress' but my opinion and 2 bucks will get you a coffee...


1. Driven by the MSE mafia (i kid!). And I got that same argument from one of the MSE Officers, (former PO1 who just came from HMCS GALIANO BTW, so he was completely co-opted by the DC collective!  ;D). Since Ostend Harbour in WWII how many major alongside fires have we had?
2. Agree with you 100%


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

FJAG said:
			
		

> In Canada each of DND and the CF as two whole entities are accountable to parliament. There are no separate relationships vis a vis parliament and the crown for the army, navy or air force).
> 
> DND and the CF both operate under the authority of the MND.
> 
> The MND, DMND and the CDS are accountable and responsible for the use of the power and resources of DND and the CF with which they are entrusted by parliament.
> 
> DND and the CF implement the direction and decisions of the MND. (There's a whole lot more mumbo jumbo about the governor in council, treasury board, the department of finance, the GG being the commander in chief and other stuff but you get the general idea)



Believe it or not, the traditions highlighted by our esteemed colleague and the reasons why the Navy and Air Force are Royal and while the Army is not predate the NDA by a fair margin.. in the Royal Navy's and the Army's case several centuries. Yes, it is from the British tradition (surprise!).

The Army is the oldest service and its organization (the Regimental system) differs from the other services. The Monarch would ask Nobles to raise militias (Regiments) and these Noblemen would become their colonels. They'd decide what uniforms their soldiers wore and whatnot. Also, the colonels would appoint a lieutenant colonel who would be the tactical commander during battles and the colonel would be the patriarch of the regiment. Which is why regiments still have ''colonels in chief'' and ''honorary colonels'' today and why lieutenant colonels command battalions. This rag-tag bunch of units was eventually conglomerated into the Army.

The Navy and Air Force were far more centralized entities when they were created rather than a collection of militias like the Army was. Also, the business of building wooden tall-ships in the 16th century was a rather expensive venture and single Lords did not keep enough coin in their piggy banks. Therefore, the Monarch was directly involved in their creation through national tax collection to fund His Majesty's Ships. 

Also, there was this nasty political intrigue sort of business where after the Civil War the Parliament didn't trust the monarch with a standing army. An island nation needs a standing navy but its harder to justify the army... especially if an army can be used to harass the populace! 

Next we'll be arguing over why the navy had a different salute... oh wait..


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Get over yourself. He just explained our tradition why the army isn't "royal", but why the air force and navy are.  Yes, it's from our British heritage.  So bloody what.



Some friendly advice.
Take a step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath lad.
Bruce


----------



## armyvern

FSTO said:
			
		

> My issue is that you wear operational clothing when you are out of the office. Which is:
> in the field
> at sea
> flying or servicing an airplane
> ...



My "office" (I am in a CJOC operational Unit) includes a big-ass compound full of green and tan vehicles, gennys and some other more-fancy kit, TAT etc that is constantly being handled, maintained at high readiness or prepped/reconstituted from EX.  You think green stuff only gets touched in the field?  That's akin to saying a sailor only boards/touches a ship and meets their awesome Mexican friend manual labour when the ship is asea.

DEUs as my daily dress?  R_ii_-ight. LMFAO.


----------



## FJAG

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Believe it or not, the traditions highlighted by our esteemed colleague and the reasons why the Navy and Air Force are Royal and while the Army is not predate the NDA by a fair margin.. in the Royal Navy's and the Army's case several centuries. Yes, it is from the British tradition (surprise!).
> 
> The Army is the oldest service and its organization (the Regimental system) differs from the other services. The Monarch would ask Nobles to raise militias (Regiments) and these Noblemen would become their colonels. They'd decide what uniforms their soldiers wore and whatnot. Also, the colonels would appoint a lieutenant colonel who would be the tactical commander during battles and the colonel would be the patriarch of the regiment. Which is why regiments still have ''colonels in chief'' and ''honorary colonels'' today and why lieutenant colonels command battalions. This rag-tag bunch of units was eventually conglomerated into the Army.
> 
> The Navy and Air Force were far more centralized entities when they were created rather than a collection of militias like the Army was. Also, the business of building wooden tall-ships in the 16th century was a rather expensive venture and single Lords did not keep enough coin in their piggy banks. Therefore, the Monarch was directly involved in their creation through national tax collection to fund His Majesty's Ships.
> 
> Also, there was this nasty political intrigue sort of business where after the Civil War the Parliament didn't trust the monarch with a standing army. An island nation needs a standing navy but its harder to justify the army... especially if an army can be used to harass the populace!
> 
> Next we'll be arguing over why the navy had a different salute... oh wait..



Yes and no to some of those things.

Army units were raised from the fiefdoms of knights and sundry lords throughout England and Scotland's early history but these were under the authority of the King. True they weren't called a royal army but in effect they were the king's feudal militia of sorts.

Naval units were not dissimilar going back to longboats and trading vessels used by the early Saxons and subsequently the Normans. But the real start of a centralized "navy" started with Henry VII and greatly expanded by Henry VIII who was the founder of a true Navy Royal with capital ships heavily gunned. The Navy is in fact recognized as the senior service due to its origins at this time.

Army development was sporadic before the Civil War. The main issues between the King and Parliament had much of its origins with religion (what with Charles marrying a Catholic and attempting to introduce a high Anglican which made most protestants nervous). The two armies that coalesced around the King and around Parliament were actually quite small with most of the country remaining as neutral as they could. It should be noted that the "New Model Army" which was formed by Parliament during the First Civil War was disbanded in 1660 at the time of the Restoration. In 1661 Charles II issued royal warrants to create a new standing force. This force, a royal force, was the true foundation of today's British army. It wasn't until 1689 in the Bill of Rights coerced out of James II that it was provided "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law" This consent is required to be renewed at intervals. The point here though is that it is not Parliament's army. The King raises and runs the army and could (at the time) wage war he was simply limited from having it as a standing army within England without Parliament's consent.

Around the turn of the 20th century the army and navy started playing with airplanes and separately created the Royal Flying Corps (established 1912 by royal warrant from what had previously been the "Air Battalion of the Royal Engineers") and the Naval Air Service (1912) renamed Royal Navel Air Service (1914). These two organizations combined in 1918 as the Royal Air Force.

So what's the point of all this historically:

1. Other than the "New Model Army", disbanded in 1660, the English army has never "belonged" to parliament. Parliament merely consented to the King raising or keeping a standing army on English soil. 

2. The Royal Navy gets its title from Henry VIII naming it such. 

3. The Royal Air Force got its name because someone liked the word Royal at the time its several components were formed or coalesced.  

4. I have really no idea why the term "Royal Army" never took but colloquially one referred to taking the "King's Shilling" or the "King's army". Further, throughout the numerous reforms and reorganizations (from named after their Colonels, to numbers, to county names, etc) the term "Royal" became attached (by warrant) to numerous regiments and corps of the British army. One can't deny the fact that even though it was not and is not called a "Royal Army" it was in fact one and nowadays is as much one as the current Navy and Air Force.

 :stirpot:


----------



## eliminator

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am with you.  I never heard of any vote happening.  I do remember the Tans becoming rather transparent when wet (rain or sweat).  I believe it was less too many uniforms for the troops to maintain as it was too many uniforms being manufactured.  That budget just got cut in half with the disuse of the Tans.
> 
> By the way, Oldgateboatdriver, the New green DEU is a heavier weight uniform than the old CF Rifle Green uniform.  It was meant for winter.  With the disappearance of the Tans, we have seen a noticeable drop in the number of full DEU parades by units for the months from May through October.



On abit of a side note, is winter and summer weight DEUs only available to the RCAF? While I have two complete sets of air DEUs hanging in my closet, I can't recall once ever being directed to wear one over the other. I bet most RCAF pers aren't even aware that there is two different versions. Perhaps some $$ could be saved by creating a medium weight air DEU.


----------



## McG

FJAG said:
			
		

> 4. I have really no idea why the term "Royal Army" never took but colloquially one referred to taking the "King's Shilling" or the "King's army". Further, throughout the numerous reforms and reorganizations (from named after their Colonels, to numbers, to county names, etc) the term "Royal" became attached (by warrant) to numerous regiments and corps of the British army. One can't deny the fact that even though it was not and is not called a "Royal Army" it was in fact one and nowadays is as much one as the current Navy and Air Force.


And if the infantry is sufficiently "not very useful for oppression" as to be labeled "Royal" then that argument does not hold up against the Army as a collective.  And we do (again) have the Royal Canadian Infantry Corps. 

We have been heavily messaged recently that "Royal" is required to honour the performance and accomplishments of military organization.  That is why it is being reapplied everywhere.  If this argument is true, then the Canadian Armed Forces deserve this recognition.  So let's get right to the aim of it and ensure nobody is missed by going with "Royal Canadian Forces."


----------



## old fart

MCG said:
			
		

> ...We have been heavily messaged recently that "Royal" is required to honour the performance and accomplishments of military organization.  That is why it is being reapplied everywhere.  If this argument is true, then the Canadian Armed Forces deserve this recognition.  So let's get right to the aim of it and ensure nobody is missed by going with "Royal Canadian Forces."



HM Forces in the UK....HM Canadian Forces this side of the pond.  

The British Army over there....The Canadian Army here.....

I think you are continuing to spew bollox....


----------



## McG

old fart said:
			
		

> HM Forces in the UK....HM Canadian Forces this side of the pond.
> 
> The British Army over there....The Canadian Army here.....


Three services there.... A single service here....

Were hell bent on wasteful changes for the sake of it.  Let's go the whole way.


----------



## old fart

MCG said:
			
		

> Three services there.... A single service here....
> 
> Were hell bent on wasteful changes for the sake of it.  Let's go the whole way.



"Royal Canadian Forces".....no precedent for that, it makes no sense and does not sound right! 

Just waffle on your part.   Let it go....


----------



## McG

old fart said:
			
		

> "Royal Canadian Forces".....no precedent for that, it makes no sense and does not sound right!


Of course there is no precedent.  We were stripping the label "Royal" as we were creating the Canadian Forces. We are going the other way now, so why shouldn't the Canadian Forces be properly recognized for its greatness?
Look, the government has been slapping the label "Royal" all over the military declaring that this is necessary to honour/recognize performance, achievement, greatness, and all such things.  One cannot have this both ways; either "Royal" is a required mark for distinction (in which case we should demand the "Royal Canadian Forces") or it is not (which would suggest this whole heritage train is a farce).

If we get the royal designation for the whole of the forces, then we can be done with this.


----------



## tomydoom

old fart said:
			
		

> Just waffle on your part.   Let it go....


MCG is expressing his opinion on "Re-Royalization" by using the rhetorical device "reductio ad absurdum".


----------



## Canadian_Patriot

So I've been reading up on all of the "Historical Changes" happening, I want to see what others think about the maple leaf removed in so many places and being replaced with a crown and having the word "Royal" in front of everything again (ex;  "The Canadian Forces Medical Service will be renamed the Royal Canadian Medical Service to reflect the tri-service integration of the three former navy, army, and air force medical services since 1959. The Canadian Forces Dental Services will be restored to the Royal Canadian Dental Corps.") http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=the-canadian-armed-forces-health-services-return-to-their-historical-identities/hmk9z0ph

Just wondering other people thoughts!


----------



## myself.only

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> ... the maple leaf removed in so many places and being replaced with a crown



Not sure what you're referring to by this.

Perhaps you could provide some examples?


----------



## Canadian_Patriot

myself.only said:
			
		

> Not sure what you're referring to by this.
> 
> Perhaps you could provide some examples?



Well the army logo changed from crossed swords and a good looking maple leaf to 3 odd looking maple leaves conjoined on a steam with a crown on top of it all, and I heard (Not sure if this is 100% true) but when the new ranks are finalized the maple leaf on the Master Corporal and Sargent rank are supposed to revert back to pre unification design and be replaced with a crown.


----------



## McG

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Just wondering other people thoughts!


Thread merged with the on-going discussion.  You can read back through the pages to get an idea of what people think.



			
				Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> ... I heard (Not sure if this is 100% true) but when the new ranks are finalized the maple leaf on the Master Corporal and Sargent rank are supposed to revert back to pre unification design and be replaced with a crown.


You heard wrong.  The maple leaf will remain in the NCO ranks.  The Army general officer ranks will be stripped of the Maple leaf (which convineintly followed the "1 star", "2 star" model understood by all of NATO); and it is not the crown replacing the maple leafe (the Crown is already in the general officer ranks) but rather the Star of the Order of the Bath.  Again, the significance of this is explained on previous pages.


----------



## Canadian_Patriot

See what bugs me is do we need to do this? It's fine now, sure we are still part of the commonwealth but we are Canada we have our own unique ranks without "Royal" on everything this is supposed to "Bring Canada in line with the rest of the Commonwealth". Not to mention this will cost a lot of money that could be better spent on new equipment or just plain funding for say recruitment centers. I live in Nova Scotia and the the only Recruitment center (full time not militia reserves what ever you would like to call it) is in P.E.I, I think one in the province would be nice.


----------



## cupper

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> I live in Nova Scotia and the the only Recruitment center (full time not militia reserves what ever you would like to call it) is in P.E.I, I think one in the province would be nice.



Google. 30 seconds. Try it some time.

http://www.forces.ca/en/centres/findarecruitmentcentre-110


----------



## PuckChaser

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> I live in Nova Scotia and the the only Recruitment center (full time not militia reserves what ever you would like to call it) is in P.E.I, I think one in the province would be nice.



I guess you just failed the first recruitment test....


----------



## Canadian_Patriot

cupper said:
			
		

> Google. 30 seconds. Try it some time.
> 
> http://www.forces.ca/en/centres/findarecruitmentcentre-110



What the? Last time I was checked this site it said there weren't any around. This is really embarrassing now.


----------



## Cui

So, are you actually a sergeant in the CF, or just in cadets?


----------



## Canadian_Patriot

Cui said:
			
		

> So, are you actually a sergeant in the CF, or just in cadets?



Cadets plan on serving the day I turn 17 though.


----------



## ModlrMike

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Cadets plan on serving applying the day I turn 17 though.



FTFY


----------



## PuckChaser

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Cadets plan on serving the day I turn 17 though.



Maybe you should fill that part in your profile, before someone jumps down your throat for using a rank you haven't earned.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Well the army logo changed from crossed swords and a good looking maple leaf to 3 odd looking maple leaves conjoined on a steam with a crown on top of it all, and I heard (Not sure if this is 100% true) but when the new ranks are finalized the maple leaf on the Master Corporal and Sargent rank are supposed to revert back to pre unification design and be replaced with a crown.



I wouldn't go so far as saying the three maple leaves look odd. After all, they look more like actual maple leaves than the stylized one prominent on our flag. I remember McKay saying that the new Land command badge adds 2 maples leaves to everyone's DEU and only removes a handful of maple leaves from a few generals' should boards.


----------



## George Wallace

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I wouldn't go so far as saying the three maple leaves look odd.



I would go so far as to say that Canadian_Patriot should read up on his/her history.  They do not seem to have a grasp on it with the comments that they are making.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

That would be a fair appraisal of the situation.


----------



## Infanteer

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> What the? Last time I was checked this site it said there weren't any around. This is really embarrassing now.



 :rofl:

Reading this thread is like reading a Scooby Doo book to my kid...."I woulda got away if it weren't for you kids and that google!!!|


----------



## McG

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> See what bugs me is do we need to do this?


No.  We do not need to.



			
				Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> It's fine now, sure we are still part of the commonwealth but we are Canada we have our own unique ranks without "Royal" on everything this is supposed to "Bring Canada in line with the rest of the Commonwealth".


There is nothing wrong with the designator "Royal" but it is unneccesary at this time of shrinking resources.
As for "bring Canada in line with the rest of the Commonwealt," there are only seven Commonwealth Armies that do not have nationalized rank.  This change puts us in that minority.   



			
				Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Not to mention this will cost a lot of money that could be better spent on new equipment or just plain funding for say recruitment centers.


Time and effort have been the bigger wastes of this activity.


----------



## Old Sweat

Canadian_Patriot said:
			
		

> Well the army logo changed from crossed swords and a good looking maple leaf to 3 odd looking maple leaves conjoined on a steam with a crown on top of it all, and I heard (Not sure if this is 100% true) but when the new ranks are finalized the maple leaf on the Master Corporal and Sargent rank are supposed to revert back to pre unification design and be replaced with a crown.



This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, but the 'new' logo is actually the historic Canadian Army badge that was replaced by the CF badge at unification.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, but the 'new' logo is actually the historic Canadian Army badge that was replaced by the CF badge at unification.



Indeed:







   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Historic British Army Badge                                                                                                                        Historic Canadian Army Badge







                                                      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



British (Joint) Forces Badge                                                                                                                       Unified Canadian Forces Badge







                                                                                        
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




    
Interim Canadian Army Badge                                                                                                                   The *New* (old) Canadian Army Badge


----------



## Monsoon

But... but... the old CF badge looked exactly like the joint forces badge of our colonial oppressors! Panic! Dismay! We should have a uniquely Canadian... blah blah blah (refer to previous 150 pages of indignant posts to finish this sentence as you see fit).


----------



## Lightguns

It is not the same you evil monarchist stooge, it has maple leaves!!!!! ;D

Edited to add grin to assure that this is nothing more than humour.


----------



## McG

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> But... but... the old CF badge looked exactly like the joint forces badge of our colonial oppressors!


Of course, that is not true.  The CF badge is distinctly Canadian with the wreath of maple leafs.
Things, like the British Army officer insignia we are about to re-adopt, is distinctly British.
There are differences.



			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> We should have a uniquely Canadian... blah blah blah (refer to previous 150 pages of indignant posts to finish this sentence as you see fit).


The past 151 pages have covered a whole range of things.  Canadian symbols have only been a part of that.  Where Canadian symbols have been discussed, the argument has not been that all symbols should be uniquely Canadian - the argument has been that we should not throw-out what has been created as uniquely Canadian.  But, I realize you are attempting to use a strawman; acuratly representing dissenting arguments would be unhelpful to your case.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Interim Canadian Army Badge


I believe that image was called the Army Logo when used outside of other formal devices (flag, badge and command pin).  Otherwise, that crossed swords and leaf should have the crown overtop just as is the case with the old/new Army badge.


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> But, I realize you are attempting to use a strawman; acuratly representing dissenting arguments would be unhelpful to your case.


You misunderstand me - I don't really care about the issue at all either way. But I do find it strange and somewhat tiresome that _some people_ are doggedly unable to move on following this political/command-level decision.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> You misunderstand me - I don't really care about the issue at all either way. But I do find it strange and somewhat tiresome that _some people_ are doggedly unable to move on following this political/command-level decision.




I think he misunderestimated the will of the commander in chief!  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w65CSu6Cc4A


----------



## McG

There is a fair difference between observing something is stupid on a faceless message board vs not following direction.  This good idea is not at execution phase for the masses.  When it gets time to implement, this political (not command) decision will be followed.  That does not make the decision less foolish and wasteful.

If you hold no opinion on this change and are tiered of the thread carrying on, then why post an argument for any position?  It only furthers that which tires you.


----------



## Monsoon

MCG said:
			
		

> There is a fair difference between observing something is stupid on a faceless message board vs not following direction.


And there's a difference between "observing something is stupid" and engaging in near-endless trolling on the subject by making ever more ridiculous mock-recommendations regarding rank and insignia.

If there were a way to have this thread removed from my "new replies to your posts" list, believe me when I say I would have done it looong ago.


----------



## McG

Trolling?  Who have you seen stirring to start a fight?
If you don't like the thread, then skip it when it shows on the new posts lists.
Don't come arguing in favour of something and claim to hold no opinion.


----------



## Bzzliteyr

Just be thankful you never accidentally posted to the "word association" thread.


----------



## slayer/raptor

A friend of mine's wife works at CP gear, they are producing the new rank slipons for the army.  Also, I was under the impression that the ranks for the General officers were not changing.  But according to the pictures in the previous pages they are.  Anyone have any insight on this?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> A friend of mine's wife works at CP gear, they are producing the new rank slipons for the army.  Also, I was under the impression that the ranks for the General officers were not changing.  But according to the pictures in the previous pages they are.  Anyone have any insight on this?



Here:


----------



## McG

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> ... I was under the impression that the ranks for the General officers were not changing.  But according to the pictures in the previous pages they are.  Anyone have any insight on this?


Right from the very first announcement, the government and military have said that Army officers were going back to British rank.  There was no caveate for general officers.
The only people I have seen agrue general officers would not change are civilians who publicly celebrate their role in having lobbied for the change.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

MCG said:
			
		

> Right from the very first announcement, the government and military have said that Army officers were going back to British rank.  There was no caveate for general officers.
> The only people I have seen agrue general officers would not change are civilians who publicly celebrate their role in having lobbied for the change.



Haha, yeah. I read that thread myself. It looks like they took offense at your posts and nuked it.


----------



## a_majoor

Readopting the trefoil Maple Leafs provides a great intro for a new initiative:

Redo the Canadian Flag! The three maple leaf design ("Pearson Pennant") was apparently the design favoured by the then PM; now we can reopen old acrimonious debates among an even wider community of Netizens!


----------



## cupper

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Readopting the trefoil Maple Leafs provides a great intro for a new initiative:
> 
> Redo the Canadian Flag! The three maple leaf design ("Pearson Pennant") was apparently the design favoured by the then PM; now we can reopen old acrimonious debates among an even wider community of Netizens!



Shhhhhh!

It will give the Harper Government ideas. Especially with the Conservative Blue panels. ;D


----------



## a_majoor

See, cupper, you're already off to a good start  

Of course if we really want to sell this idea to the Conservatives, we also need a blue connecting stripe across the top of this flag to represent the Arctic Ocean as well.....


----------



## MilEME09

Thucydides said:
			
		

> See, cupper, you're already off to a good start
> 
> Of course if we really want to sell this idea to the Conservatives, we also need a blue connecting stripe across the top of this flag to represent the Arctic Ocean as well.....



With a Blue C in the middle behind the maple leafs?


----------



## cupper

Hell, let's just go with big blue C's on both sides and the top. 

And along the bottom, well ..... I'll leave it to the readers to come up with their own idea's


----------



## wannabe SF member

So I just received this powerpoint presentation outlining the changes. One of the slides showed that dentists, doctors and chaplains would wear emerald green, dull cherry and purple gorget tabs respectively:

-Would that be for anyone who happens to be part of the trade or just generals?


Also Green on Green for the dentists seems to me like a bad design choice given the color of the army DEU.


----------



## JorgSlice

Inky said:
			
		

> So I just received this powerpoint presentation outlining the changes. One of the slides showed that dentists, doctors and chaplains would wear emerald green, dull cherry and purple gorget tabs respectively:
> 
> -Would that be for anyone who happens to be part of the trade or just generals?
> 
> 
> Also Green on Green for the dentists seems to me like a bad design choice given the color of the army DEU.



GO/FO are the only ones that will wear the forget patches as far as I know.

Theres a significant difference between rifle green and emerald green


----------



## x_para76

I know it's already been said on here a thousand times but this hole re-royalisation of the CF is colossal waste of money and resources. The only thing IMO that makes sense is to bring back the rank of lance corporal or make the current rank of corporal a 2 I/c position and not just a merit increase for pay. Subsequently the rank structure and responsibilities would then change ie. a sergeant would be a platoon 2 I/c and so on. Other than that things are fine as they are.


----------



## JorgSlice

I believe that the reinstatement of the RCAF and RCN was long overdue. It should have never changed in the first place.

However, the rank changes and the change over to Division is, frankly, retarded.


----------



## Ostrozac

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> GO/FO are the only ones that will wear the forget patches as far as I know.



Colonels, too.


----------



## JorgSlice

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Colonels, too.



I had a feeling it would include Colonels.


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I know it's already been said on here a thousand times but this hole re-royalisation of the CF is colossal waste of money and resources. The only thing IMO that makes sense is to bring back the rank of lance corporal or make the current rank of corporal a 2 I/c position and not just a merit increase for pay. Subsequently the rank structure and responsibilities would then change ie. a sergeant would be a platoon 2 I/c and so on. Other than that things are fine as they are.



Do you even logic?

I mean, first you say that the hole (sic) thing is a colossal waste of money and resources, when the most significant thing they are doing is chancing army officer insignia from naval insignia to army insignia.  Then you suggest changing the entire rank structure for NCMs.


Seems legit.


/sarcasm


----------



## x_para76

Actually all I'm suggesting is that we no longer make the rank of corporal a mandatory pay raise and make it an actual leadership position.  The courses for promotion system has changed so many times in the last 10 years anyways that I'm sure no one would notice.


----------



## vonGarvin

Then just eliminate the MCpl "appointment". And accept that we will now have PFLs, not CFLs.


----------



## x_para76

That works for me! I never understood why someone should be promoted based on time served and not due to having proven themselves competent as a leader.


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> That works for me! I never understood why someone should be promoted based on time served and not due to having proven themselves competent as a leader.



Could it be that they have been Trade Qualified with supplemental skills, and NOT IN LEADERSHIP roles?


----------



## x_para76

I can't be bothered to argue with you on this George. You obviously think the current system works brilliantly and can't see that there are any flaws in it.


----------



## Michael OLeary

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered to argue with you on this George. You obviously think the current system works brilliantly and can't see that there are any flaws in it.



The question is not whether the current system has flaws (_which does not mean that the flaws you think exist are the problem_), but whether your solution will actually be an improvement worth the effort and angst the change will create.

It appears to me that you're just trying to force fit the Canadian structure to match what you saw in the UK.


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I can't be bothered to argue with you on this George. You obviously think the current system works brilliantly and can't see that there are any flaws in it.



Thank you, as I really don't look at you as having a grasp of to how the system works.


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I never understood why someone should be promoted based on time served and not due to having proven themselves competent as a leader.


This dates back to when the MND of the time (Hellyer, I believe), wanted an across the board pay raise for Privates, because so many were privates for life and he felt that even though they didn't merit a promotion, he thought that they deserved a pay raise.  But the treasury board said "no".  So, Mr. Hellyer changed the requirements for promotion to Cpl.  So, instead of merit, we have cpls who are Jr. NCOs by virtue of having served a certain amount of time in.


----------



## x_para76

TV thanks for that very clear and concise explanation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technoviking said:
			
		

> This dates back to when the MND of the time (Hellyer, I believe), wanted an across the board pay raise for Privates, because so many were privates for life and he felt that even though they didn't merit a promotion, he thought that they deserved a pay raise.  But the treasury board said "no".  So, Mr. Hellyer changed the requirements for promotion to Cpl.  So, instead of merit, we have cpls who are Jr. NCOs by virtue of having served a certain amount of time in.




That's it, in outline; his "system" also produced similar results for captains, because we had too many, too long in the tooth, too poorly paid lieutenants.

Our pay, in the early to mid 1960s was *poor*, so poor that we were in _retention_ trouble. Pay was fine for corporals and above and for captains and above but the wait to get there, especially for army officers who had to pass exams to get from lieutenant to captain, was a real problem.


----------



## FJAG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That's it, in outline; his "system" also produced similar results for captains, because we had too many, too long in the tooth, too poorly paid lieutenants.
> 
> Our pay, in the early to mid 1960s was *poor*, so poor that we were in _retention_ trouble. Pay was fine for corporals and above and for captains and above but the wait to get there, especially for army officers who had to pass exams to get from lieutenant to captain, was a real problem.



Exactly right. The officer change had the desired result in that with lieutenants, captains and majors there were clear pay differences that distinguished the rank although we established positions (like infantry platoon commander) that became annotated Lieutenant/Captain rather than just Lieutenant.

We did create a major problem in the junior NCO category though in that it became clear that we needed a junior NCO "rank" as the Cpl rank by itself just didn't cut it any more; so we introduced the MCpl "appointment" for those corporals who had completed specific leadership training and were assigned to leadership positions. Trouble was the pay difference pretty much amounted to about $5.00 a month (which even then wasn't much) and resulted in extreme dissatisfaction amongst those Jnr NCOs who got the appointment and all the responsibility that went with it for really very little extra pay. (At the time we did joke a lot about needing a "Master Captain" appointment to distinguish "real captains" like a Company 2i/c or Ops O from the "lieutenant/captain" platoon commanders)

While the pay issue has gotten much better it's interesting to note that Master Corporal, even after being around for almost fifty years, is still not a rank. The ranks of the CF are set out in the schedule to the NDA and does NOT include Master Corporals. The appointment instead is done by virtue of QR&O 3.08.

 :cheers:


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

FJAG said:
			
		

> (At the time we did joke a lot about needing a "Master Captain" appointment to distinguish "real captains" like a Company 2i/c or Ops O from the "lieutenant/captain" platoon commanders)



Haha nice one. 

CFR FTW


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> TV thanks for that very clear and concise explanation.


You're welcome


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ... the most significant thing they are doing is chancing army officer insignia from naval insignia to army insignia.


Reducing the whole heritage event debacle to just the part about becoming the only Army in NATO to wear another nation’s insignia is an inaccurate diminishment of all that has (and is being done).  With the previous MND clearly stating more announcements will be coming, we have already seen:

Renamed environnemental commands
Renamed branches & re-named fregments of branches
Renamed Areas/Divisions
New flags & pennants
New formation and unit badges/crests
Revived regiments (along with the new related accoutrements) 
New marches
New RCAF mess kit
New signs and stationary (reflecting all the re-naming and re-branding)
New web graphics and over hauled web-pages
New command pins for various L1
Renamed bases, training centres and schools
Executive curl for RCN officers
Div patches 
New/re-done heraldry
Sexy 1812 pins
While I am sure the graphic artists guild and various database designers are thrilled, this has been a freight train of waste.



			
				X_para76 said:
			
		

> ... all I'm suggesting is that we no longer make the rank of corporal a mandatory pay raise and make it an actual leadership position.





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> ... we did joke a lot about needing a "Master Captain" appointment to distinguish "real captains" like a Company 2i/c or Ops O from the "lieutenant/captain" platoon commanders.


I find the insta-capt more of a concern than the insta-corporal.  It needs to become a merit based promotion, and all those Capt/Lt positions need to be converted to Lt positions.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> While I am sure the graphic artists guild and various database designers are thrilled, *this has been a freight train of waste.*



You're quite right, it has been; I can't believe I actually read another of your plaintiff posts whinging about something that's going to happen anyway.  

In case you haven't noticed, practically every other army in NATO has a variation of "pips and crowns" as their insignia for army officers.

As for some of the shit your whinging about: think about it.  Take for example flags and pennants.  They get replaced quite often, and for what, 25 billion dollars?  Well, maybe if they are glued onto the side of F 35s, maybe, but...
Crests?  Same thing
"Revived" Regiments?  Do you mean thinks like the Cape Breton Highlanders?  Or the North Shore Regiment?  See above re: pennants and stuff.  

RCAF Mess kit?  Purchased by the person, and I'm not certain, but last I checked, the wailing about RCAF mess kit is so overwhelming, it's been deafening.


No, wait, that was you.  Sorry, next point.

Web Graphics?  FFS, have you never seen *any* DWAN page?  They change so often....and it's not like they suddenly go "Hey, we need a pimply-faced 20 something to hire so that we can change our webpage..."

More like "Hey, you, Bloggins, make a new page."

Anyway, your whinging and whining is really grating.   As for "another nation's insignia", here's a bit of a lesson for you:







This is a close up of a captain's battle dress tunic in The Royal Canadian Regiment circa 1943.  Does it look like the British Army?  Yep!  Sure does!  Same as with the NZ Army, Aus Army, etc.  So, it's not quite accurate to say that it's another nation's insignia, rather, it's the insignia that armies of the Commonwealth wear.  Except for us.  For now.


In short:


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> In case you haven't noticed, practically every other army in NATO has a variation of "pips and crowns" as their insignia for army officers.


They do, and they typically follow a convention that is different than the unique British pattern.


			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> ... it's the insignia that armies of the Commonwealth wear.  Except for us.  For now.


No.  Only 7 Armies of over 50 Commonwealth nations wear British rank.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Take for example flags and pennants.  They get replaced quite often, ...


Maybe.  But, where we were a common flag and pennant was previously used across the Army we will now have several distinct pennants.  We lose economies of scale and increase the work to keep these on supply shelves.


			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> "Revived" Regiments?  Do you mean thinks like the Cape Breton Highlanders?  Or the North Shore Regiment?  See above re: pennants and stuff.


Again, more unique bits and bobs means more cost and effort to keep shelves stocked.  In recent years, I have seen the supply system run-out of capbadges, command pins and other uniform accoutrement because the supply manager cannot keep-up.  Are you okay with hiring another PG03 so we can keep on-top of buying all the new bling?
Further, where we are in a time of fiscal restrained, is it a good idea to create a new label around which people can rally against healthy organizational restructure?  The reserve regiment has often been the lightning rod to bring resistance to a more efficient & effective reserve structure.

I understand you are dismissive of my arguments because you are emotionally attached to the new rank change.  It is the same reason  for why you feel you must be belligerent in your tone and why you insist on referring to the old rank as “navy rank”.  Regardless of how dismissive you want to be of all the parts, each bit adds-up and more are coming.


----------



## muskrat89

Technoviking - when I issue your Recorded Warning, I'll be sure and use your "Deal With It" gif.

STOP making this personal.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## Infanteer

As the last 25 pages have been simply  :argument:, I'm locking this.  If you have something new and fascinating about CAF reforms, send a mod an email to reopen it.


----------



## McG

Newest SITREP.


----------



## Gooba97531

Well, from what I've heard, this is actually happening. Effective later in 2014, the officers in the Canadian Army will be getting new rank insignias. On the other forms of media, people are claiming it as a waste of money and that the government should spend it on things that matter. So, what're you're opinions?


----------



## SMG III

Being a history buff, I'm sort of excited about it.

I never really liked the bar system, and I like that we have been going back to our history, what with the RCAF, RCN and now the traditional ranks.

I hope to one day be an officer, and would be more proud to wear the pips. Our officers who accepted the German surrender wore pips and crown.

I'm proud of our past, our history.

----As a side note, I think they look better too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think there is about 150 pages of opinions on the already existing thread.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16520.0.html  [LOCKED]

...so I'll merge it here.
Bruce


----------



## bllusc

Is there any talk of major changes to DEU such as colour, Sam Browne belts etc?


----------



## Journeyman

bllusc said:
			
		

> Is there any talk of major changes to DEU such as colour, Sam Browne belts etc?


        :facepalm:


You know, all this Pips & Crown garbage started with a Reservist who had the ear of the tribal elders.  I'm seeing a trend.

Maybe if we got rid of the Reserves (or at least the faction fixated on playing dress-up), then perhaps the 'good ideas' would come to a halt and the Army could focus its time, energy, and money on war-fighting.


I know....it's a pretty fucked-up concept.    :not-again:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> 
> You know, all this Pips & Crown garbage started with a Reservist who had the ear of the tribal elders.  I'm seeing a trend.
> 
> Maybe if we got rid of the Reserves (or at least the faction fixated on playing dress-up), then perhaps the 'good ideas' would come to a halt and the Army could focus its time, energy, and money on war-fighting.
> 
> 
> I know....it's a pretty ****ed-up concept.    :not-again:



 :goodpost:  ;D


----------



## Loachman

bllusc said:
			
		

> Is there any talk of major changes to DEU such as colour, Sam Browne belts etc?



Somebody shoot this man before the Good Idea Fairy hears him.


----------



## Pusser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, but they already have copycat Brit rank badges so there was no opportunity for the Aussie version of the _pips and crowns_ clowns to make mischief with scarce taxpayers' dollars.



And rumours are building with respect to RCAF rank badges.  These would be the biggest changes yet in the CF, affecting all ranks (i.e. not just the officers) - quasi-British braid (black and silver) braid for the officers and silver embroidery for NCM rank badges -   silver embroidery for aircrew badges.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Caution:  ff topic:

A rumour which persists and which I heard, in a modified version, again, just yesterday evening from an acquaintance who is a retired RCAF member, is that both the RCN and the RCAF want to _absorb_ the so called purple trades ~ Log and C&E Branch (Air) etc ~ by putting all people in RCN and RCAF uniforms into common RCN and RCAF cap badges, too. 

_Branch identity_ would be shown by some combination of trade badges, _left wings_ and coloured stripes.

(I have no useful information on this. I questioned a fairly senior RCAF C&E officer about it last year. He replied that he too had heard the rumours, but that, as far as he knew ~ and he thought his position would put him "in the loop" ~ no one at "the top" of the RCAF heap was pushing it. However, he suggested that support for that, and for a _reunification_ of C&E (Air) and AERE into one, single, engineering/technical branch, enjoyed a high level of support in the C&E community.)


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Caution:  ff topic:
> 
> A rumour which persists and which I heard, in a modified version, again, just yesterday evening from an acquaintance who is a retired RCAF member, is that both the RCN and the RCAF want to _absorb_ the so called purple trades ~ Log and C&E Branch (Air) etc ~ by putting all people in RCN and RCAF uniforms into common RCN and RCAF cap badges, too.
> 
> _Branch identity_ would be shown by some combination of trade badges, _left wings_ and coloured stripes.
> 
> (I have no useful information on this. I questioned a fairly senior RCAF C&E officer about it last year. He replied that he too had heard the rumours, but that, as far as he knew ~ and he thought his position would put him "in the loop" ~ no one at "the top" of the RCAF heap was pushing it. However, he suggested that support for that, and for a _reunification_ of C&E (Air) and AERE into one, single, engineering/technical branch, enjoyed a high level of support in the C&E community.)



Perhaps, once again, it is originating in the PMO's office and another of Harper's attempts to appease the long retired RCAF and RCN folk and uphold our "traditions".     >


----------



## Pusser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Caution:  ff topic:
> 
> A rumour which persists and which I heard, in a modified version, again, just yesterday evening from an acquaintance who is a retired RCAF member, is that both the RCN and the RCAF want to _absorb_ the so called purple trades ~ Log and C&E Branch (Air) etc ~ by putting all people in RCN and RCAF uniforms into common RCN and RCAF cap badges, too.



Well, that would be in keeping with past traditional practice in the old RCN and RCAF.  Since we're on a big re-building of tradtions trend at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised  if that does happen.  Frankly nothing surprises me anymore on this front.  If you had told me when I first joined that we would once again be wearing separate uniforms, have executive curls/pips and crowns or use the royal titles we lost in 1968, I would have called the soothsayer crazy. 

It is interesting to note though that some of the biggest opponents to common RCN/RCAF cap badges are the respective Branch mafias, claiming that Branch identity will be lost.  However, nary a peep was heard when all Army colonels went to a common badge a few years ago....


----------



## McG

Clearly a near half-century of Canadian tradition is not enough.  We need British symbols in order to have any pride.  Let's just get to the chase - tear down that foolish new flag and get the Union Jack back up.

:


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> ..... tear down that foolish new flag and get the Union Jack back up.


That way all Canadians can share in the 'joy' that the Army's had inflicted upon it.


----------



## MAJONES

Had some general through a few months ago for a town hall.  He was quite emphatic that we will be retaining the current RCAF ranks, but will be changing the slip ons for operational dress.


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps, once again, it is originating in the PMO's office and another of Harper's attempts to appease the long retired RCAF and RCN folk and uphold our "traditions".     >


At a lower cost than buying shiny new metal objects, too!


----------



## McG

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Had some general through a few months ago for a town hall.  He was quite emphatic that we will be retaining the current RCAF ranks, but will be changing the slip ons for operational dress.


Like the Army Generals who emphatically stated we would not (nor wanted to) return to pips & crowns in months leading to the announcement?


----------



## Rifleman62

Let's also get rid of O'Canada and have The Maple Leaf Forever as the National Anthem while we are at it. Keep the flag though (it goes with the tune!)


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Clearly a near half-century of Canadian tradition is not enough.  We need British symbols in order to have any pride.  Let's just get to the chase - tear down that foolish new flag and get the Union Jack back up.
> 
> :



Calm down.  Your blatant anti-British slant is embarrassing



(Standing by for muting in three, two, one....)


----------



## Journeyman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Calm down.  Your blatant anti-British slant is embarrassing


I didn't see it as anti-British, but as pro-_Canadian_.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Caution:  ff topic:
> 
> A rumour which persists and which I heard, in a modified version, again, just yesterday evening from an acquaintance who is a retired RCAF member, is that both the RCN and the RCAF want to _absorb_ the so called purple trades ~ Log and C&E Branch (Air) etc ~ by putting all people in RCN and RCAF uniforms into common RCN and RCAF cap badges, too.
> 
> _Branch identity_ would be shown by some combination of trade badges, _left wings_ and coloured stripes.



This came up when Comd RCAF's ADC (a Log O) showed up in a flying suit for a visit with a Log "half wing" badge where the wings would be.  She had to explain that every trade in the RCAF has their device on the DEU and hat while, like the RAF, the RAAF only have trade badges if they are aircrew (and medical folks, with the Caduceus on tunic lapels and slip-ons).  

The RAAF Log, Admin, Engineering, etc. folks didn't seem to mind that they didn't look any different than each other, and asked me why we (the RCAF) cared so much.


----------



## FSTO

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well, that would be in keeping with past traditional practice in the old RCN and RCAF.  Since we're on a big re-building of tradtions trend at the moment, I wouldn't be surprised  if that does happen.  Frankly nothing surprises me anymore on this front.  If you had told me when I first joined that we would once again be wearing separate uniforms, have executive curls/pips and crowns or use the royal titles we lost in 1968, I would have called the soothsayer crazy.
> 
> It is interesting to note though that some of the biggest opponents to common RCN/RCAF cap badges are the respective Branch mafias, claiming that Branch identity will be lost.  However, nary a peep was heard when all Army colonels went to a common badge a few years ago....



It will be nice to see our Sea Log Officers (who are a different beast from the Army and Air Loggies) wearing the Naval Operations Badge. They are integral to the smooth operations of the RCN and should never have been cleaved off.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> It will be nice to see our Sea Log Officers (who are a different beast from the Army and Air Loggies) wearing the Naval Operations Badge. They are integral to the smooth operations of the RCN and should never have been cleaved off.



And not the NCMs ?


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> And not the NCMs ?



BIG OOPS! I should have said Sea Logistics Branch!

Typical MARS officer, you should know how we roll. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I certainly hope this doesn't grow into an ugly monstrosity like the Army Pips & Crowns one did.  op:

That thing just became more and more painful to look at every day that passed.


----------



## DAA

recceguy said:
			
		

> I certainly hope this doesn't grow into an ugly monstrosity like the Army Pips & Crowns one did.  op:
> 
> That thing just became more and more painful to look at every day that passed.



"Do I salute the guy wearing the BIG Crown or is it the guy wearing the little Crown?"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MAJONES said:
			
		

> Had some general through a few months ago for a town hall.  He was quite emphatic that we will be retaining the current RCAF ranks, but will be changing the slip ons for operational dress.



So...back to the green thread on OD slip ons?  We just changed from that set-up to the CADPAT with blue thread, to the CAG with blue thread and now go back?  

Jesus I just had my stuff tailored so I could put the red/white flag on.   I hope they have lots of slip ons made;  I need 8 sets minimum.  

I have any idea..let's not do ANY uniform changes, and put all that money that was slated to be spent on "non-essentials" in YFRs (seeing as that hit is coming in a few short weeks).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I questioned a fairly senior RCAF C&E officer about it last year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

DAA said:
			
		

> "Do I salute the guy wearing the BIG Crown or is it the guy wearing the little Crown?"



You'll find out soon enough when you salute the wrong one


----------



## Tibbson

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Let's also get rid of O'Canada and have The Maple Leaf Forever as the National Anthem while we are at it. Keep the flag though (it goes with the tune!)



I've been in favour of that move for many years.  Don't get me wrong, I love Oh Canada and have had it as my national anthem since I was 8 years old however I've long thought The Maple Deaf Forever would have been a better choice.


----------



## Tibbson

DAA said:
			
		

> "Do I salute the guy wearing the BIG Crown or is it the guy wearing the little Crown?"



You'll know you guessed wrong when I don't salute back.


----------



## Zoomie

Dimsum said:
			
		

> This came up when Comd RCAF's ADC (a Log O) showed up in a flying suit for a visit with a Log "half wing" badge where the wings would be.


Did you correct the ADC on how he/she was incorrectly badged.  Only flying wings go on the left.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> I've been in favour of that move for many years.  Don't get me wrong, I love Oh Canada and have had it as my national anthem since I was 8 years old however I've long thought *The Maple Deaf Forever*  would have been a better choice.



How would you hear it?


----------



## Loachman

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> The Maple _*D*_eaf Forever



What was that?

I can't hear you.

The music's too loud.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Did you correct the ADC on how he/she was incorrectly badged.  Only flying wings go on the left.



Or the fact that a Log O (assuming not a former MAMS type because of the 'no Wings') is even in a flying suit... ;D


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Or the fact that a Log O (assuming not a former MAMS type because of the 'no Wings') is even in a flying suit... ;D



Something about wearing the same dress as the Comd.   He's in a flying suit, she's in a flying suit (or something to that effect.)  It didn't seem to me like she was wearing it b/c she personally wanted to.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Meh, no biggy to me.  I think it's funny in a way, thinking of an email I'd gotten a copy of from the Div CWO, about how the "flying suits ONLY for aircrew" stance that is going to be enforced and how it wasn't right to allow it 'because it had been going on for so long' in ref to folks in places like North Bay.

If the Big Boss is allowing it... 8)


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So...back to the green thread on OD slip ons?  We just changed from that set-up to the CADPAT with blue thread, to the CAG with blue thread and now go back?
> 
> Jesus I just had my stuff tailored so I could put the red/white flag on.   I hope they have lots of slip ons made;  I need 8 sets minimum.
> 
> I have any idea..let's not do ANY uniform changes, and put all that money that was slated to be spent on "non-essentials" in YFRs (seeing as that hit is coming in a few short weeks).



I don't have access to DWAN (obviously), so when did this come up?


----------



## DAA

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Meh, no biggy to me.  I think it's funny in a way, thinking of an email I'd gotten a copy of from the Div CWO, about how the "flying suits ONLY for aircrew" stance that is going to be enforced and how it wasn't right to allow it 'because it had been going on for so long' in ref to folks in places like North Bay.
> 
> If the Big Boss is allowing it... 8)



Hey, I will have you know that those people in North Bay are not just "operational" but also "deployed in place"!     :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I don't have access to DWAN (obviously), so when did this come up?



The flag?  I heard about it late Fall.  The *CADO* update as the email referred to it was to have everyone toeing the line by end of the FY...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DAA said:
			
		

> Hey, I will have you know that those people in North Bay are not just "operational" but also "deployed in place"!     :facepalm:



And soon...in CADPAT only.   >


----------



## Tibbson

recceguy said:
			
		

> How would you hear it?



OMG, how did I do that.  It's not even like I can use the excuse the D is next to the L on my keyboard. I musta worked too hard today figuring out the new PER system.


----------



## DAA

Schindler's lift said:
			
		

> OMG, how did I do that.  It's not even like I can use the excuse the D is next to the L on my keyboard. I musta worked too hard today figuring out the new PER system.



You best go back through those PERs.  A bullet comment such as "a key link in the operation" may have come out as "a key dink in the operation".........


----------



## kev994

DAA said:
			
		

> "Do I salute the guy wearing the BIG Crown or is it the guy wearing the little Crown?"



More importantly, how do I know if it's big or little? I've got no point of reference.


----------



## Tibbson

Has anyone heard when the arny officers are supposed to change over to their "new" old rank insignia or is this an initiative that has been left to die in silence?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Wait for it I do believe there will be parades for that, same goes for the Div Patches too.... :


----------



## Happy Guy

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Has anyone heard when the army officers are supposed to change over to their "new" old rank insignia or is this an initiative that has been left to die in silence?



I heard from my boss that Army Officers are to change to their new ranks sometime before the start of the 100th anniversary of WW1, 5 August.  I gathered from reading the posts here that the new ranks will be available through Logistiks.

Cheers


----------



## vonGarvin

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I heard from my boss that Army Officers are to change to their new ranks *sometime before the start of the 100th anniversary of WW1, 5 August.*



Here's hope they don't commemorate that anniversary by once again going over the top!


----------



## Happy Guy

Hah! Good one.

In this context I think that we will see a vast number of politicians from all parties "*going over the top*", so to speak, with photo ops and spouting (spewing) banal canned speeches without any real meaning or feeling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I heard from my boss that Army Officers are to change to their new ranks sometime before the start of the 100th anniversary of WW1, 5 August.  I gathered from reading the posts here that the new ranks will be available through Logistiks.
> 
> Cheers



There's a CO in Windsor that bought his own from CP Gear and has been wearing them since November 2013.


----------



## dapaterson

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's a CO in Windsor that bought his own from CP Gear and has been wearing them since November 2013.



...which the Army Commander has explicitly prohibited.  Not that that stops certain members of the Buttons and Bows Brigade...


----------



## x_para76

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's a CO in Windsor that bought his own from CP Gear and has been wearing them since November 2013.



I'm surprised that a certain C.O from Hamilton hasn't done the same thing.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's a CO in Windsor that bought his own from CP Gear and has been wearing them since November 2013.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> ...which the Army Commander has explicitly prohibited.  Not that that stops certain members of the Buttons and Bows Brigade...


He clearly realizes the strategic importance of peacock fashion.  One's worth is measured through the distinctiveness and flamboyance of appearance. 
Is he also one of the wise leaders bullying subordinates over the disloyalty of not investing immediately in new mess kit rank, warning of impediments to promotion despite Army instructions that mess kit need not be changed until (and if) next promoted?

There is another new element in British general and air marshal rank insignia that I hope we adopt ... The Brits the only nation whose GOFOs I've noted doing this (and doing it fairly uniformly), and if we followed then we would have the bling to outshine any enemy.  Not only could we be the only NATO member country without our own rank insignia, we would also be the first to simultaneously dress as two of our allies.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Why don't you give it a rest?  Your constant bleating about this is getting tiresome.  Decision made, live with it or make it your hill to die on.  Either way, just stop.


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Why don't you give it a rest?


Why don't you stop reading the thread if it tires you?
I didn't bring the topic back up.  I only responded to revived discussion.


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Why don't you stop reading the thread if it tires you?
> I didn't bring the topic back up. * I only responded to revived discussion.*




No, you didn't.  You essentially ranted, which is your prerogative as DS on this site.  But don't worry, I won't criticize you for it, because I don't want to end up in the warning bin.  Again.

Now, if some guy is out wearing something, anything on his uniform that he ought not to, or is out of dress in any other way (boots not bloused, cap badge over the wrong eye or body part, etc), then I guess we can call him or her out on it.  Which we do.  

But your laser-beam focus *seemed*a bit...spiteful.  Just how it came across is all.


----------



## Kirkhill

155 pages - time for some more tradition.

The traditional version of the British Grenadiers:

"Some talk of constipation and some of diarrhea,
Some talk of masturbation and some of gonorrhea,
But of all the worst diseases there's none as can compare,
To the drip, drip, drip 
Of the syphilitic prick,
Of the British Grenadiers."

I do love tradition.

Except when I crave novelty.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now, if some guy is out wearing something, anything on his uniform that he ought not to, or is out of dress in any other way (boots not bloused, cap badge over the wrong eye or body part, etc), then I guess we can call him or her out on it.  Which we do.
> 
> But your laser-beam focus *seemed*a bit...spiteful.  Just how it came across is all.


Recceguy told us of a CO who ignored direction in order to participate in peacock pageantry.   My experience of such leaders is that they impose such things in their subordinates ... The type who demand unnecessary fashion procurements from the kit shop and threaten to freeze careers as a consequence.  I am curious if RG's guy fits that model.

In any case, you are only so bothered by my post because you are a cheerleader for this change.  You attack me because it is easier than defending what you want (ie. the change to British Rank of the 1920's).  Those who neither emotionally invested nor tediously stubborn have given up commenting, and I am sure that they would be thrilled if we not continue to debate the topic.  But, I am tediously stubborn and willing to remind of the change's foolishness in any conversation on this topic. I also enjoy a good argument, and so you can feel free to post all your thoughts on why you think it is best for the Canadian Army to wear British Army rank; we can then bore everyone else as we go back and forth on the topic.

But, if you want to just employ ad hominem, belligerently pretending your complaint is my persistence while you demonstrate the same persistence in championing British Army rank, then I suppose someone will come along and lock this thread again.  But that won't silence the opinion.  While I try to constrain my commentary on re-Britification of the Canadian military to this thread, for many this is symbolic/illustrative of disconnect in priorities.  Pips & crowns is and will continue to be the poster child for those seeking an analogy of robbing from necessary to feed frivolous; it will be the joke in any discussion of waste and inefficiency.
... and I don't/won't have to post anything for that to be the case.  The sentiment is being expressed by all sorts of people through a plethora of threads (even at least twice this past few days).




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What are we all wasting time on Pips and Crowns for?  Will they help us to destruct the TB or any other belligerent that we may face in the future?  Needless staff work and expense is wasted on so many projects; Tim Horton's was relatively minor in the scheme of things considering.  It didn't call for a devolution of our history.






			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> "America does not need the Air Force" - does Canada?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid all that would be accomplished, besides causing a boom for the acme pips and crowns company and the peerless executive curl company, would be to create another bunch of headquarters. You would have the head of the army, and then you would need a head of land forces and a head of the army air force and then a transport brigade and a aviation brigade and a fighter brigade and on an on. And the same thing would happen with the navy.
Click to expand...





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... look on the brights side:
> 
> 1. New RCAF mess dress;
> 
> 2. Rumour has it that the RCAF will get new (old) rank badges and new (old) rank designations; and
> 
> 3. Pips and crowns for the Army and the executive curl for the RCN.
> 
> These are the priorities we can manage under the Conservatives' _Canada First Defence Strategy_; there's no time to fuss about friggin' foreign flying machines.






			
				Ludoc said:
			
		

> Eye In The Sky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removing MCpl and replacing with Lance Cpl and Cpl is "6 half and one dozen of the other".  Would serve no purpose other than to keep the base tailor busy and spend some tax dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> *cough* Pips and Crowns *cough*
Click to expand...





			
				OldTanker said:
			
		

> ... its only two-weeks -and-a-bit away, and still no direction or plan? I do notice however that there is no shortage of direction on where the pips and crowns will go and what the new Army buttons will look like. Maybe all the decision-making effort is going into trivial issues. Plus ca change . . .






			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> But we're getting new badges on a pretty regular basis....and growing new HQs..... and renaming the ones we have...
> 
> .... sure, we're cannibalizing B Vehs and the troops have to share mukluks for an arctic exercise, but you can't have _everything_.   op:



The good news, for you, is that no conversation on this site is going to change where we are going with "new" British ranks.  So you don't need to worry about anybody upsetting your getting to see these British ranks on Canadian uniforms.

... now, how about we get back to the discussion and leave things for RG to come answer the questions about the guy he was telling us about?


----------



## myself.only

Probably didn't paste correctly but I believe that this is a recent change to the website:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page?

In addition new badges for DEU are available thru Logistik.

I imagine there's a CANFORGEN out there but haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

myself.only said:
			
		

> Probably didn't paste correctly but I believe that this is a recent change to the website:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page?
> 
> In addition new badges for DEU are available thru Logistik.
> 
> I imagine there's a CANFORGEN out there but haven't seen it yet.



The only badges avail through LOGISTIKS AFAIK are the NCM badges (and only when ordering a new tunic) and the Canada flashes... all others are provided through the supply system or kit shops...


----------



## dapaterson

CANFORGEN came out today with direction: all officers in Army DEU are to log on to the clothing system to request their initial issue of a new DEU tunic, together with accoutrements.

However, permission to wear the new ranks has not yet been issued.

Further information is hidden on the Army site at: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/assets/ARMY_Internet/images/00-news/2014/04/PinningOnDiagram2014-04.jpg


----------



## Eye In The Sky

myself.only said:
			
		

> Probably didn't paste correctly but I believe that this is a recent change to the website:
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank-army.page?
> 
> In addition new badges for DEU are available thru Logistik.
> 
> I imagine there's a CANFORGEN out there but haven't seen it yet.



Yup, saw it today.


----------



## sapperboysen

When I logged onto Logistik I was asked to put in my measurements for a new tunic. A directive came down from my HQ that all army officers are to order new tunics as the braid leaves the sleeve all "un-military" in appearance. Nothing a good dry cleaning and press couldn't fix, but I digress. Also coming with the new tunic are two sets of metal pips, the new army buttons (as I'm CIC and don't have regimental ones), and three pairs of slip-ons. This is just to get the initial issue out. Any orders after will be through local supply bases. Also of note is that jacket orders will be frozen until April 2015 unless there are "exceptional circumstances".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> The only badges avail through LOGISTIKS AFAIK are the NCM badges (and only when ordering a new tunic) and the Canada flashes... all others are provided through the supply system or kit shops...



Check the CANFORGENs.  The DEU ones will be thru Logistik, and CADPAT stuff thru supply.  Dates, etc are detailed in the CANFORGEN.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Check the CANFORGENs.  The DEU ones will be thru Logistik, and CADPAT stuff thru supply.  Dates, etc are detailed in the CANFORGEN.



Seen.


----------



## Loachman

MCG said:
			
		

> There is another new element in British general and air marshal rank insignia that I hope we adopt ... The Brits the only nation whose GOFOs I've noted doing this (and doing it fairly uniformly), and if we followed then we would have the bling to outshine any enemy.  Not only could we be the only NATO member country without our own rank insignia, we would also be the first to simultaneously dress as two of our allies.



But one of the "justifications" for adopting British rank insignia was that stars and crowns were a more internationally-standardized rank insignia than bars/rings.

So these guys are Captains and Lieutenants, no?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> CANFORGEN came out today with direction: all officers in Army DEU are to log on to the clothing system to request their initial issue of a new DEU tunic, together with accoutrements.



And so much for the "no-cost" claim as well.

How many pairs of mukluks would this buy?


----------



## McG

Over $100 per uniform x how many thousand Army officers, so we can wear a foreign rank?


----------



## George Wallace

Just received "Reference C - Restoring CA Identity".  This is not a low cost move on any account:  

New Brass Shoulder titles.  
New Div Patches for all.   
New Commanders Flags and Pennants.  
New Distinctive CA Buttons.  
New, distinctive rank for officers, not only on DEU tunics, but also on caps.  
New brass and clothe pips and St Edward's Crowns, with different colours for different Branches and Corps.  
New high vis CADPAT insignia and ranks.   
Return to  Gorget Patches.  
New Mess kit accoutrements.  

No mention of boots.



On the bright side: No mention of Puttees.   >


----------



## Towards_the_gap

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the bright side: No mention of Puttees.   >




Yet.... It's still early in the fiscal year....


----------



## caocao

So no cost moves this year so the CA could get a new rank system in place...i am so happy and supportive of this wonderfull initiative.

 :sarcasm:


----------



## OldSolduer

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Yet.... It's still early in the fiscal year....


Oh frig here we go.

Maybe I can invoke the spirit of Hamish Seggie Sr and learn how to wind puttees.


----------



## larry Strong

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Oh frig here we go.
> 
> Maybe I can invoke the spirit of Hamish Seggie Sr and learn how to wind puttees.




Pretty sure I have a pair stashed away in my militaria collection. Could dig 'em out for you 




Larry


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> Over $100 per uniform x how many thousand Army officers, so we can wear a foreign rank?



Ah, but is it foreign?  Or merely a return to the former which was for more years than our present CF, albeit familiar, rings.  In time, what was old and is new again will not seem strange.  I don't even blink an eye nor have I for some time at the executive curl.


----------



## OldSolduer

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Pips & Crowns for *everyone*!!    :blotto:



Maybe a return to the old ranks of "Flying Officer" or whatever the RAF came up with and probably still use.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it....oh wait.....


----------



## McG

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, but is it foreign?


We have established that it is foreign.  Canada has chosen the image of a British order, within which Canadians are excluded from promotion since 1935, to serve as a sign of rank within the Canadian Army.  Canadians are only allowed in at the lowest level of the order of the bath (and even that has not happened since the Korean War when it was awarded to a single Canadian), and yet we want to use it as the symbol of authority within our Army?  Not only is that a foreign symbol, it kind of suggests we have a subservient position next to the British officers who are actually permitted to ascend the levels of the order which we have selected to represent authority within our Army.

About 70% of the CAF is under the age of 40 and, since it has been near a half century with the current rank, therefore the British rank has been foreign through out the whole lifetime of most serving members.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> .... so much for the "no-cost" claim as well.
> 
> *How many pairs of mukluks would this buy?*


QFFT


----------



## OldSolduer

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Pretty sure I have a pair stashed away in my militaria collection. Could dig 'em out for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Larry



Oh I'm sure you do.......

Don't go to all that trouble though...... >


----------



## FJAG

:deadhorse:

 :cheers:


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> *Not only is that a foreign symbol, it kind of suggests we have a subservient position next to the British officers who are actually permitted to ascend the levels of the order which we have selected to represent authority within our Army.*



I have zero dog in this, and I agree with the "why change?" argument in general, but the bolded bit makes me wonder if the Australians and New Zealanders also think that due to their Army officers using the same pip, if they are also subservient to the British?  

I could go to the nearest Aus Army base and ask, but I think I'd need to bring a) football protective gear, and b) an armed escort.


----------



## myself.only

MCG said:
			
		

> We have established that it is foreign.



No. 
Prior to the Unification of the Canadian Armed Forces there was the Canadian Army. Those are the badges being re-adopted not coincidentally with the name CA. I'm sure there's books about them.

Now if some people are disappointed and think that the CA should have something "more Canadian" and would like to draw beaver-shaped pips and Crowns made in the likeness of Wayne Gretzky, that's their own art project and they can knock themselves out to dream up a whole new CA fashion statement.

And clearly one can argue it's not money well spent.

But sorry, neither artistic frustration nor offended frugality makes the rank badges of the pre-Unification CA foreign.


----------



## cupper

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I could go to the nearest Aus Army base and ask, but I think I'd need to bring a) football protective gear, and b) an armed escort.



Only do it if you can get a hold of the new pips first (even though you aren't one of the privileged many). 

That would make it al the more fitting.


----------



## McG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I have zero dog in this, and I agree with the "why change?" argument in general, but the bolded bit makes me wonder if the Australians and New Zealanders also think that due to their Army officers using the same pip, if they are also subservient to the British?


Well, unlike Canadians, it would seem Australians are still eligible for promotion within the Order of the Bath.  So, it is not an apples to apples comparison.

I did have a conversation with an Australian Army major recently in which he mentioned that he occasionally confused an RCAF member as being Canadian Army.  When I told him we were reverting to the old British rank and his uncertainty would be solved in the future, he noted with dismay that was no good; Once a commonwealth country has gone out to forge an element to its own identity, it cannot ever go back to the British symbols/images that it left behind.  Now, that's only one Australian opinion, but I suspect you would get something similar if you asked about reverting Australian symbols back to British ones that they stopped using a half century ago ... especially if it will also cost them into the seven figure digit rank.



			
				myself.only said:
			
		

> Prior to the Unification of the Canadian Armed Forces there was the Canadian Army. Those are the badges being re-adopted not coincidentally with the name CA. I'm sure there's books about them.


The same can be said of the Canadian flag.  It only has two years seniority on Canadian rank insignia.  Should we tear it down to fly the Union Jack again?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

MCG said:
			
		

> The same can be said of the Canadian flag.  It only has two years seniority on Canadian rank insignia.  Should we tear it down to fly the Union Jack again?



Don't give the clowns any ideas..........


----------



## x_para76

I agree that there isn't any point really in going back to the old pips and crowns system it seems that some here are resentful of any association with the British army. Or am I incorrect?


----------



## RedcapCrusader

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I agree that there isn't any point really in going back to the old pips and crowns system it seems that some here are resentful of any association with the British army. Or am I incorrect?



Not so much resentful of the British system or our connection/history... But more so because we had our own distinct rank systems for Officers that worked and was uniquely Canadian. Something that took 100 years to achieve.


----------



## Journeyman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I could go to the nearest Aus Army base and ask, but I think I'd need to bring a) football protective gear, and b) an armed escort.


Ah, but over there "_football_ protective gear" means dropping to the field and clutching your ankle.....even if they're still playing the national anthem.  op:

/rugby


----------



## OldSolduer

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Not so much resentful of the British system or our connection/history... But more so because we had our own distinct rank systems for Officers that worked and was uniquely Canadian. Something that took 100 years to achieve.



The system we have based on the Brit system has served us well, and our Regiments are allied with several British regiments. That I am proud of.

What I am not so find of is the process in which this happened.


----------



## George Wallace

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> ..........., and our Regiments are allied with several British regiments. That I am proud of.



True, but we have units that are also allied with German, French and American units as well.  Implying that we are only affiliated with the Brits is a bit misleading.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Oh frig here we go.
> 
> Maybe I can invoke the spirit of Hamish Seggie Sr and learn how to wind puttees.



Fantastic! They can bring me back as a civilian SME ;D

I can still teach a class that will have them wrapping their putties, in a prescribed fashion, in under two minutes.

A  simple $100,000.00 stipend will be all it takes to get me to sign on.


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Check the CANFORGENs.  The DEU ones will be thru Logistik, and CADPAT stuff thru supply.  Dates, etc are detailed in the CANFORGEN.



Not to back track to much,but does this mean everything DEU related will be on Logistik finally? so I can finally get my Corporal collar dogs that have been out of stock since the dawn of time?


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> Fantastic! They can bring me back as a civilian SME ;D
> 
> I can still teach a class that will have them wrapping their putties, in a prescribed fashion, in under two minutes.
> 
> A  simple $100,000.00 stipend will be all it takes to get me to sign on.


Standby for a MERX posting ....   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Not to back track to much,but does this mean everything DEU related will be on Logistik finally? so I can finally get my Corporal collar dogs that have been out of stock since the dawn of time?



I have no idea, but as that would make perfect sense, it is highly unlikely to happen  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Privateer said:
			
		

> Well, I am envisioning RCAF pers going out and buying whatever the metal rank devices are, only to have to throw them away and buy new ones when the RCAF rank insignia are "royalized" or whatever the verb may be.



Do NOT even suggest we are going to change anything, not 1 single thing that is associated with DEU...rumours start that way, rumours turn into fact and the next thing  :facepalm:.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Pips & Crowns for *everyone*!!    :blotto:





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe a return to the old ranks of "Flying Officer" or whatever the RAF came up with and probably still use.


Flight Sergeant - from extinction back to distinction!


----------



## Privateer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Do NOT even suggest we are going to change anything, not 1 single thing that is associated with DEU...rumours start that way, rumours turn into fact and the next thing  :facepalm:.



Come on... you know it's gonna happen... how much can a little rank ribbon cost anyways?  All the cool services commands are doing it...  

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/commissionedranks.cfm

 >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Sheldon Cooper in me would have a brain attack, trying to wrap his head around the concept that the Sqn DCO (Maj) would be called Sqn Leader and the Sqn CO would be called Wing Commander...even though the Wing Commander is the real Wing Commander, a Col who would be called Group Captain.

 :stars:

I will pay good money for anyone who captures and/or kills the Good Idea Fairy before the RCAF is brought into this!!!


----------



## cavalryman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Sheldon Cooper in me would have a brain attack, trying to wrap his head around the concept that the Sqn DCO (Maj) would be called Sqn Leader and the Sqn CO would be called Wing Commander...even though the Wing Commander is the real Wing Commander, a Col who would be called Group Captain.
> 
> :stars:
> 
> I will pay good money for anyone who captures and/or kills the Good Idea Fairy before the RCAF is brought into this!!!



Word around Sodom on the Rideau is that the RCAF will not be exempt from the  "Back to the future" festivities.  Make of that what you will.


----------



## CanadianCamel

Hello all,

I was on the Logistik Unicorp website and it prompted me to place an order for new DEU Jacket/Tunic. Anybody know what the new one is supposed to look like? I am aware it has pips and crowns now, however are they getting rid of the cuff braids completely? Cannot seem to find any conclusive info on the new design, just good old rumor mill talk.


----------



## McG

The new one will be the same as the one you have now just pristine for the new British rank:

http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1306318#msg1306318


----------



## CanadianCamel

That clears everything up. 

Thanks!


----------



## dimsum

Privateer said:
			
		

> Come on... you know it's gonna happen... how much can a little rank ribbon cost anyways?  All the cool services commands are doing it...
> 
> http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/commissionedranks.cfm
> 
> >



As someone who works with RAAF and the occasional RAF exchange person, the RAAF rank ribbon is slightly different than the RAF version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_of_the_RAAF#Officers

Biggest difference being in the RAF FLTLT rank, the two pieces of braid have a bit of a space so it looks almost like a SQNLDR's rank, whereas there isn't any space in the RAAF FLTLT rank.  I've gotten caught out a few times on that slight difference  :-[



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Sheldon Cooper in me would have a brain attack, trying to wrap his head around the concept that the Sqn DCO (Maj) would be called Sqn Leader and the Sqn CO would be called Wing Commander...even though the Wing Commander is the real Wing Commander, a Col who would be called Group Captain.



Yeah, it confused me too.  But, at least here they call the most senior officer in a Wing the OC, not Wing Cdr, for that reason.  The progression being XO, CO, OC of [insert Wing name], Cdr of [insert Group name].  

But, that would be one more to add to the Good Idea Fairy pile so let's keep that quiet.....shhhh.


----------



## Gorgo

Saw the pictures of the official standing up of 4 CDN DIV at the Forces' website.

Two questions:

Why is the division flag of 4 CDN DIV have the older-style maple leaf in lieu of a proper eleven-point maple leaf like 1 CDN DIV has?

And why wear the patch on the LEFT shoulder?  Are the folks in Kingston going to have their badges swapped over or what?

 :sarcasm:

Gads, I love to nitpick, don't I?


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> The new one will be the same as the one you have now just pristine for the new *British* rank:
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1306318#msg1306318




British?  Here's a photo of two Canadian officers in 1943.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> British?  Here's a photo of two Canadian officers in 1943.


I can do the same with a photo of Canadian soldiers using the Union Jack.  We've grown up as a nation since then.  The flag and the ranks are British symbols; they are not Canadian any more.


----------



## myself.only

Technoviking said:
			
		

> British?  Here's a photo of two Canadian officers in 1943.



Bloody foreigners  :


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> British?  Here's a photo of two Canadian officers in 1943.



I see what you did there.




















Puttees.      >


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> I can do the same with a photo of Canadian soldiers using the Union Jack.  We've grown up as a nation since then.  The flag and the ranks are British symbols; they are not Canadian any more.




I wore those rank badges for many years (and the damned puttees, too) and I was then and am now as Canadian as you are. I take offense to your comment. It's a cheap shot at all those of us who did wear pips and crowns.

I know this upsets you but this is a _return_ to a, one, _traditional_ (1914_ish_) aspect of our military history. I'm not 100% happy with it but it's here and we should all get over it.


----------



## myself.only

Heck not that anyone cares but I find the recent change of the thread title offensive biased twaddle.


----------



## jpjohnsn

myself.only said:
			
		

> Heck not that anyone cares but I find the recent change of the thread title offensive biased twaddle.


+1


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wore those rank badges for many years (and the damned puttees, too) and I was then and am now as Canadian as you are. I take offense to your comment. It's a cheap shot at all those of us who did wear pips and crowns.


Edward, 
I am not denying what was but arguing what is.  The Union Jack was also a Canadian symbol under which Canadians fought.  That does not diminish the past Canadian-ness of those soldiers.  It does not make either appropriate for a return today.


----------



## FJAG

MCG said:
			
		

> Edward,
> I am not denying what was but arguing what is.  The Union Jack was also a Canadian symbol under which Canadians fought.  That does not diminish the past Canadian-ness of those soldiers.  It does not make either appropriate for a return today.



I too wore the pips (stars) in my early years with pride as a Canadian officer. 

One thing some people may not recall at the time that we switched to the new rings model was that many at the time thought we were being "Frenchified". The French army was recognized at the time as the most obvious wearers of rings as ranks for officers (although the pattern was different for us - it was not a duplication of their ranks - just a style change). I doubt however that it was "Frenchification" just as I'm certain that what is happening today is not  "re-Britification" (Incidentally, neither are puttees "British". The German army and the Austrian one wore puttees in World War 1 before going over to jack boots). It may be that there is "re-Royalization" but I see nothing wrong with that considering the Queen is still Canada's head of state.

The matter is done, son.  We've moved to a return to ranks worn historically by the Canadian army. You may think that this is inappropriate but others think that it is entirely appropriate. The bottom line is that it is now our steady-state reality.

It's time to  and get on board with the program.

op:


----------



## vonGarvin

Here's something that would solve everything for everybody.

People get an IFF transponder on their uniform (microchip).  When you approach someone you have to salute, a servo automatically gets your arm into a salute.


Or, better yet, you get to wear a sort of Google Glasses contraption.  As someone approaches, the microchip identifies them by rank.  Then over them floats a customizable rank insignia.  If you want their rank floating above them in text, so be it.  Or you can have it shaped like anything: UK Rank, German Rank, hell, even Imperial Roman Rank!  Of course, you can make it anything, and the limit is your imagination 

 :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> I can do the same with a photo of Canadian soldiers using the Union Jack.  We've grown up as a nation since then.  The flag and the ranks are British symbols; *they are not Canadian any more.*














I guess Manitoba and Ontario need to grow up...


----------



## George Wallace

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Here's something that would solve everything for everybody.
> 
> People get an IFF transponder on their uniform (microchip).  When you approach someone you have to salute, a servo automatically gets your arm into a salute.
> 
> 
> Or, better yet, you get to wear a sort of Google Glasses contraption.  As someone approaches, the microchip identifies them by rank.  Then over them floats a customizable rank insignia.  If you want their rank floating above them in text, so be it.  Or you can have it shaped like anything: UK Rank, German Rank, hell, even Imperial Roman Rank!  Of course, you can make it anything, and the limit is your imagination
> 
> :nod:



If you suggest these, then I suggest "virtual salutes" automatically appear in those visors, eliminating one having to raise their arm to physically go through the motion.  We can go even further where we all will be like in the movie Surrogates
where we just lay in a coma like state in our 'beds' and robots go about our daily lives.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Let's stop all this moaning and groaning about the pips and crowns.... it's here deal with it... my  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Edward,
> I am not denying what was but arguing what is.  The Union Jack was also a Canadian symbol under which Canadians fought.  That does not diminish the past Canadian-ness of those soldiers.  It does not make either appropriate for a return today.




The does not address the *offensive* nature of your comment which suggests that people like me, who wore pips and crowns, are somehow less Canadian than you. That's a cheap shot and it is not, in my opinion, in accordance with Army.ca's expectations of civil and polite discourse.

I repeat: I know you oppose this, I understand many of your objections and I share some of them, but you are taking this to an unnecessary extreme.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The does not address the *offensive* nature of your comment which suggests that people like me, who wore pips and crowns, are somehow less Canadian than you. That's a cheap shot and it is not, in my opinion, in accordance with Army.ca's expectations of civil and polite discourse.


Edward, 
My apologies.  It is not my intent to suggest anything less of what was Canadian in 1960's, nor of the people who used those symbols.  The star of the Order of the Bath was a Canadian symbol but, in the 21st century, it is not.  In fact, I believe I am endorsing your opinion that the Star of the Order of the Bath was inappropriate for Canadian officers and that Canada should have a Canadian/Canadianized rank system (like the majority of the Commonwealth).



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> ,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess Manitoba and Ontario need to grow up...


I suppose that is for the people of those provinces (and I am neither) to decide what they want on their flag.  As a national Canadian symbol, the Union Jack is not our flag.  Are you arguing that it would be legitimate for the government to revert to using the Union Jack as such, or are you posing a red herring?



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> The matter is done, son.  ... The bottom line is that it is now our steady-state reality.


Well, it is not steady-state yet; it is not even allowed to be worn yet.  We still have to buy a new dress jacket for every army officer of every component (Reg, Res & COATS) and ship it to their home address so that they can look good after the change.  But I suppose you are right, this topic revived on the news of the increased wastage of the change and we became distracted in the merits of the change.  We are permanently parking hundreds of vehicles from our support fleets because we cannot afford to operate them, but we have seven figures available for this?  So, getting away from merit and back to cost:




			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> ... so much for the "no-cost" claim as well.
> 
> How many pairs of mukluks would this buy?






			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just received "Reference C - Restoring CA Identity".  This is not a low cost move on any account:
> 
> New Brass Shoulder titles.
> New Div Patches for all.
> New Commanders Flags and Pennants.
> New Distinctive CA Buttons.
> New, distinctive rank for officers, not only on DEU tunics, but also on caps.
> New brass and clothe pips and St Edward's Crowns, with different colours for different Branches and Corps.
> New high vis CADPAT insignia and ranks.
> Return to  Gorget Patches.
> New Mess kit accoutrements.
> 
> No mention of boots.






			
				caocao said:
			
		

> So no cost moves this year so the CA could get a new rank system in place...i am so happy and supportive of this wonderfull initiative.



If removing the current rank braid ruins the uniform, then we should just wear both insignia at least until members are individually promoted or must replace their jacket for regular wear (or retire without need of a new jacket).  It would even be more accurate for those who insist this is a heritage move; up until the end of the First World War, rank was denoted by both stars & crowns and cuff braids.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Christ, 157 friggin' pages of moaning, groaning, butt hurt and denial.

This thread, no matter how many times it's morphed, was old on page 2.

It's been explained time and time again, yet some people just can't accept the change and hope when they finally open their eyes and look at the world, it'll just be a bad dream.

Guess what Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore and no matter how many times you click the heels of your combat boots, you are not going back to the way it was.

The change is made, save us your angst and go find some other windmill to tilt at.

God, I wish we had a function that allowed us to ignore single threads  :facepalm:


----------



## Privateer

I liked the movie Groundhog Day.  I suspect that I am morbidly fascinated with this thread for much the same reason.


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...
> God, I wish we had a function that allowed us to ignore single threads  :facepalm:


----------



## blacktriangle

I now agree with those that think this entire venture is solely political…

Perfect window dressing for a once again declining (and generally unpopular) defence portfolio. But we will make it work, just as all of you have done in the past.


----------



## blackberet17

Technoviking said:
			
		

> British?  Here's a photo of two Canadian officers in 1943.



Shame about those two officers. They were killed shortly after the photo was taken.


----------



## Edward Campbell

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Shame about those two officers. They were killed shortly after the photo was taken.




Indeed: LCol Ralph Crowe, Commanding Officer of The RCR and Maj JHWT "Billy" Pope, the Regiment's 2I/C were both killed in Sicily: LCol Crowe at the Battle of Nissoria on 24 July 1943 and Maj Pope just a week before at Valguarnera.


----------



## dimsum

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Or, better yet, you get to wear a sort of Google Glasses contraption.  As someone approaches, the microchip identifies them by rank.  Then over them floats a customizable rank insignia.  If you want their rank floating above them in text, so be it.  Or you can have it shaped like anything: UK Rank, German Rank, *hell, even Imperial Roman Rank!  Of* course, you can make it anything, and the limit is your imagination



Centurio Primus Pilus and Legatus Legionis _do_ have a nice ring to them....   :nod:

But yes, it's getting (it got?) old.  It's happening to the CA and if rumours in other threads are more than that, perhaps the RCAF as well.  Meh.


----------



## Ludoc

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's been explained time and time again, yet some people just can't accept the change and hope when they finally open their eyes and look at the world, it'll just be a bad dream.
> 
> Guess what Dorothy, you're not in Kansas anymore and no matter how many times you click the heels of your combat boots, you are not going back to the way it was.


Actually if this whole thing has taught us anything, it is that if we whine and complain for 50 years it will go back to the way it was.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Ludoc said:
			
		

> Actually if this whole thing has taught us anything, it is that if we whine and complain for 50 years it will go back to the way it was.



Hang onto that thought. If you practice it enough it'll serve you well in your career


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Centurio Primus Pilus and Legatus Legionis _do_ have a nice ring to them....   :nod:
> 
> But yes, it's getting (it got?) old.  It's happening to the CA and if rumours in other threads are more than that, perhaps the RCAF as well.  Meh.



Next thing you know they will be bringing back the swagger stick.  ;D


----------



## my72jeep

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Next thing you know they will be bringing back the swagger stick.  ;D


Sounds well though out.
  :goodpost:  op: :sarcasm:


----------



## Tibbson

At what rank (pips and crown OR rings) will our officers once again be able to have a "batman/woman"?  Do they pick from anyone in the Unit or do we look at expanding the Steward trade?


----------



## dapaterson

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> At what rank (pips and crown OR rings) will our officers once again be able to have a "batman/woman"?  Do they pick from anyone in the Unit or do we look at expanding the Steward trade?



[bad visual pun]

If someone is a high enough rank, their batman also gets a helper.







[/bad visual pun]


----------



## FJAG

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> At what rank (pips and crown OR rings) will our officers once again be able to have a "batman/woman"?  Do they pick from anyone in the Unit or do we look at expanding the Steward trade?



True story:

In 1969 took my BOTC in Victoria (yes we wore pips with band aids even at CFOCS Venture).

There was a kid from Quebec City in my platoon. At dinner on day three of the course he found out that the CF no longer assigned an officer a batman. Immediately after breakfast on day four he pulled the plug and went home.

 ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Tibbson

FJAG said:
			
		

> True story:
> 
> In 1969 took my BOTC in Victoria (yes we wore pips with band aids even at CFOCS Venture).
> 
> There was a kid from Quebec City in my platoon. At dinner on day three of the course he found out that the CF no longer assigned an officer a batman. Immediately after breakfast on day four he pulled the plug and went home.
> 
> ;D
> 
> :cheers:



From the little I've read on the subject it seems like it was a pretty good go and a sought after position.


----------



## jollyjacktar

My Dad told me that he spent more money on the welfare of his batman than on himself.  He had a specially made feather sleeping bag made up with a canvass cover just for the guy, Dad made do with a blanket or two.  His feeling was that they were a partnership of sorts and needed to look after each other.


----------



## Happy Guy

Getting off the track from this thread ...

A long, long time ago I had a Postal Sgt (ex Canadian Guards or Queen Rifles), who worked for me.  He used to be a batman for a Gen and he really enjoyed the job.  When he got married, the Gen paid for the ceremony and wedding reception in appreciation for all his hard work.
I gathered that it was a very much a symbiotic relationship with mutual respect from both sides.


----------



## Kirkhill

Technoviking said:
			
		

> People get an IFF transponder on their uniform (microchip).  When you approach someone you have to salute, a servo automatically gets your arm into a salute.




Wouldn't work.  I would have had to learn how to drink with my left hand...... 






I didn't realize you lot were still narking on about this.

158 pages and counting.


----------



## cupper

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I didn't realize you lot were still narking on about this.
> 
> 158 pages and counting.



The narking has been going on since the Good Idea Fairies brought dreamed up the whole unification thing with the White Paper in 1964.

50 years and still going strong. The Energizer Bunny can't even keep going that long without a little blue pill. ;D


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Wouldn't work.  I would have had to learn how to drink with my left hand......


Of course it would work!  It would be de-activated if your head-mounted-unit (aka "head dress") were not in place.  And messes would have some sort of deactivation chip thingy to neutralise the auto-salute function.

Remember, when this goes to DLR, it has to be as complicated as possible, and be as far from its initial intention as possible.  (e.g.: we started with rank insignia, we ended up with a complicated system of auto-saluting uniforms)

 :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Remember, when this goes to DLR, it has to be as complicated as possible, and be as far from its initial intention as possible.  (e.g.: we started with rank insignia, we ended up with a complicated system of auto-saluting uniforms)



Backwards, I think. When something goes to DLR it is simple in concept, cheap, achievable in time and accomplishes the aim.

When it has morphed out the DLR door, it's overly complicated, horrendously expensive, has the timelines of a calving glacier, as well as not achieving or looking remotely like the original concept.

I think that's what you were trying to suggest ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

recceguy said:
			
		

> Backwards, I think. When something goes to DLR it is simple in concept, cheap, achievable in time and accomplishes the aim.
> 
> When it has morphed out the DLR door, it's overly complicated, horrendously expensive, has the timelines of a calving glacier, as well as not achieving or looking remotely like the original concept.
> 
> I think that's what you were trying to suggest ;D



Calving glaciers are quite spectacular .

Stuff DLR puts out is spectacular as well but in the wrong way .....


----------



## vonGarvin

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think that's what you were trying to suggest ;D



Pretty much


----------



## McG

So, if I understand the commentary, we want one of these?


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> So, if I understand the commentary, we want one of these?


No, not necessarily.  Just a chip, perhaps worn where we now wear rank.  Nothing visible to the naked eye.

This chip is a transponder.  Every person in the CAF has one.  And a receiver.  So, when two members of the CAF approach one another, in each member's HUD that is on their contact lens, there is a floating "bubble" that appears above the other person, and in plain text, it has their rank.

Here's the neat thing: you can customize it.  So, if person "A" wants to see the other ranks in Romulan Imperial Star Fleet (or whatever), then voila!  The other person has superimposed on them that very rank identifier.  


The next procurement cycle will take it one step further, where servos and gears in the sleeves ("SmartPAT") will automatically "salute" the other, more senior rank, *UNLESS* the person wearing the SmartPAT is in a non-saluting area (mess, bathroom, range, on operations, etc).

:nod:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, not necessarily.  Just a chip, perhaps worn where we now wear rank.  Nothing visible to the naked eye.
> 
> This chip is a transponder.  Every person in the CAF has one.  And a receiver.  So, when two members of the CAF approach one another, in each member's HUD that is on their contact lens, there is a floating "bubble" that appears above the other person, and in plain text, it has their rank.
> 
> Here's the neat thing: you can customize it.  So, if person "A" wants to see the other ranks in Romulan Imperial Star Fleet (or whatever), then voila!  The other person has superimposed on them that very rank identifier.
> 
> 
> The next procurement cycle will take it one step further, where servos and gears in the sleeves ("SmartPAT") will automatically "salute" the other, more senior rank, *UNLESS* the person wearing the SmartPAT is in a non-saluting area (mess, bathroom, range, on operations, etc).
> 
> :nod:



They should also find a way to program the seniority of Captains.  That way an Ops O, Adjt, etc can just automatically look down upon the 1 year Captain without having to awkwardly ask him if he's done AOC


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That's some funny shit going on up above.  Well done.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> So, if I understand the commentary, we want ... the whole damned thread locked up and put out of its misery.




FTFY


----------



## Nfld Sapper

:goodpost: :bravo:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It seems that Walt who dressed up as a 1960 Major, was just ahead of his time, another 2 years and no one would have noticed the difference.


----------



## FJAG

Colin P said:
			
		

> It seems that Walt who dressed up as a 1960 Major, was just ahead of his time, another 2 years and no one would have noticed the difference.



 :facepalm:

Only if we we're going back to brown tropical worsted or battle dress.

After the tan summer uniform fiasco I doubt that will ever be a possibility.

:stirpot:


----------



## Michael OLeary

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> They should also find a way to program the seniority of Captains.  That way an Ops O, Adjt, etc can just automatically look down upon the 1 year Captain without having to awkwardly ask him if he's done AOC



That question doesn't have anything to do with looking down on young captains, it's the eternal search for the last guy or gal that did AOC, because they hold in their heads the latest version of staff college _acronymic trivia_TM and may be able to interpret the latest staff work crap show the unit received.

And labelling years of service in Captains will be easy: starting at the bottom, every five years time in rank one pip changes to yellow, after all three are yellow, they start changing to  red.   ;D


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Tuesday night was the telephone conference for regiments that deviate from the gold coloured pattern pips and crowns (Rifles, Armoured, Guards, etc.) with Col Bydren the G1 Heritage. He said implementation was aimed at 4th August 2014. The constraint was that the Army wanted to be 100% sure every officer could change their rank on every order of dress. I am attending the francophone conference next week as well. Units that wish to deviate from the standard (gold) insignia have until end of June to submit their proposals to Ottawa.


----------



## dapaterson

Strictly speaking, in his capacity as the Army's G1 Heritage, he's Mr Bryden.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Technoviking said:
			
		

> No, not necessarily.  Just a chip, perhaps worn where we now wear rank.  Nothing visible to the naked eye.
> 
> This chip is a transponder.  Every person in the CAF has one.  And a receiver.  So, when two members of the CAF approach one another, in each member's HUD that is on their contact lens, there is a floating "bubble" that appears above the other person, and in plain text, it has their rank.
> 
> Here's the neat thing: you can customize it.  So, if person "A" wants to see the other ranks in Romulan Imperial Star Fleet (or whatever), then voila!  The other person has superimposed on them that very rank identifier.
> 
> 
> The next procurement cycle will take it one step further, where servos and gears in the sleeves ("SmartPAT") will automatically "salute" the other, more senior rank, *UNLESS* the person wearing the SmartPAT is in a non-saluting area (mess, bathroom, range, on operations, etc).
> 
> :nod:



And if they don't salute as required, the chip sends a negative entry to the member's online PER file.  ;D


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, in his capacity as the Army's G1 Heritage, he's Mr Bryden.



 :goodpost:


----------



## cudmore

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-return-to-old-style-ranks-insignia-costs-millions-1.2679716

At a time of federal belt-tightening, the Conservative government's return to World War II-era ranks and insignia will require new dress uniforms for Canadian soldiers and naval officers at a cost of $4.5 million.

Defence Department figures show the bulk of that cost — $3.1 million — will go to buy new jackets for the dark green dress uniforms army officers wear to formal events and on parades.

A similar change for naval officers — the addition of a curl to the top bar of their traditional naval rank — has a cost of $1.35 million, the Defence Department says.

That puts the cost of new jackets for the highest-ranking soldiers and sailors at almost $4.5 million.

Those costs are only necessary because of Conservative government changes to rank titles for the army and insignia for officers in the army and navy announced last year.

As a result, army officers will no longer wear gold-coloured bars sewn to their tunic sleeves or epaulettes. Instead, they will revert to the complicated system of pips and crowns worn during WW II. 

But it appears those gold bars cannot be simply removed from army officers' dress jackets and the military must now order new dress jackets for every one of the army's officers.

Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's press secretary, Johanna Quinney, said the government's move was designed to honour the traditions and history of the Canadian Forces.

"This initiative encourages esprit de corps for our soldiers and reinforces our country's rich military history," Quinney said. "The return of the historical identity of the Canadian Armed Forces also strengthens the link between today's members and the previous generations of heroes who bravely served our country."

These costs come as the military labours to come up with $1 billion in cost savings as part of a government-mandated defence renewal initiative. That process was sparked by a demand from Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself, laid on the table the day Gen. Tom Lawson took command as chief of the defence staff.

"The Forces must be restructured to ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line," Harper said at the time. "The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance, and as I've said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail." 

Historic rank titles

The army will now also be forced to spend more than $250,000 for the new crowns and pips officers will wear on their epaulettes and gorget patches — those red tabs some army officers wear on the collars of their shirts.

The costs are part of a host of changes announced since 2011 to return certain Canadian ranks and titles to their traditional equivalents. Both the navy and air force acquired the title "Royal" in their name and the army has become the "Canadian Army."

Among the changes is the formalization of historic rank titles for certain army soldiers. Privates in the military communications trade, for instance, are now called signallers.

The changes have been mocked by some who wonder why the government is reverting to army ranks and insignia that went out of use in 1968 — almost 20 years before the last soldier to die in Afghanistan was even born.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris says it's a waste of money.

"This is certainly not an austerity measure," Harris told CBC News. "For what, to throw back to the Second World War? Why turn back the clock for something that is totally unnecessary? We had a perfectly adequate and relatively well-known set of insignia for the public.

"Meanwhile, the needs of our veterans and military personnel in uniform who have housing issues, medical and mental health issues and have other needs that they are crying out for help for, are being treated with — well, I wouldn't call it indifference, but not the priority they deserve."


As part of the move, the four former Land Force Areas have been renamed divisions and awarded new colour-coded shoulder patches for their dress uniforms. The Defence Department expects that change will cost about $1 million.

"Bringing back the divisional structure reinstates an important and recognizable part of military heritage, along with a key part of our nation's identity," military communications adviser Ashley Lemire wrote in an email.

"This will honour the sacrifices of former members of the Canadian Army, while establishing clear lineage to the contributions of today's soldiers."


----------



## McG

cudmore said:
			
		

> ... $3.1 million — will go to buy new jackets for the dark green dress uniforms army officers wear ...


That could have been more than one outstanding field training event.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> That could have been more than one outstanding field training event.



Or 10% of the cost of Ex MAPLE RESOLVE 14.   :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

FJAG said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Only if we we're going back to brown tropical worsted or battle dress.
> 
> After the tan summer uniform fiasco I doubt that will ever be a possibility.
> 
> :stirpot:



The Tan uniform was coming in as I left, I actually liked the look, far better than the puke green we had been wearing for work dress


----------



## ekpiper

The latest National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee meeting minutes have been posted.

I'll draw everyone's attention to Item 11, though I won't post the contents of it on an open forum as I haven't seen a press release.

http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/cfp-pfc/doc/NDCDC_2014_05_12.pdf


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> That could have been more than one outstanding field training event.



Or in some way expand the treatment for the ill and injured.....


----------



## ekpiper

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Can you give us a summary of para 11 as I can't connect to the link.
> 
> Thanks.



Despite the fact that this is unclassified, I am hesitant to leak information, though very readily available on the DIN, and echoing prior rumour on this board. I'll PM you directly, Jim.


----------



## jpjohnsn

ekpiper said:
			
		

> Despite the fact that this is unclassified, I am hesitant to leak information, though very readily available on the DIN, and echoing prior rumour on this board. I'll PM you directly, Jim.


Seen and when we are cleared to rant, I'm in but probably not for the reasons most will.


----------



## dapaterson

Para 11 should be read in conjunction with para 18...


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Para 11 should be read in conjunction with para 18...



Which says?


----------



## Lightguns

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Which says?



We're poor!


----------



## acen

It's about time Para 18 happened, too many good ideas like the one in Para 11 and the reason for this whole thread in the first place.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Can someone PM me Para 11 and 18?  I am not able to get to a DWAN PC for a bit.  I am HOPING it has nothing to do with me needing to see a tailor...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Can someone PM me Para 11 and 18?  I am not able to get to a DWAN PC for a bit.  I am HOPING it has nothing to do with me needing to see a tailor...



Looks like my spider sense is still working...tks for the PM.


----------



## Loachman

It could have been worse, I suppose, and probably will be before too long.

That's me in my Eeyore voice.


----------



## little jim

Would appreciate if someone could pm me the details.  For those of us who have no access to DWAN....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

The reason they have to buy new tunics is because simply removing bars would leave shadows where they were stitched on the sleeves. A Sgt upon promotion to WO does the same.


----------



## vonGarvin

cudmore said:
			
		

> Instead, they will revert to the complicated system of pips and crowns worn during WW II.



THIS line has irked me all day.  Yeah, I get it: this is the CBC.  And I get it: they don't like "the Harper Government" tm  But they don't have to drag us into it.

First of all, the system is no more complicated than our current officer insignia, and one could argue that it's less complicated.  I mean, why then are so many armies using a system similar to the "pips and crowns" insignia (even though there are variations: using oak leaves vice crowns, etc).

And yes, we used the system in WW II.  I suppose that makes us archaic.  But then again, we used that system back in 1969, and it was then that our system changed for no good reason (other, perhaps, than a case of butt hurt by Hellyer, but I digress...)

Finally, why not compare the soon to be implemented insignia with that of the RCMP, rather than of some "archaic, complicated system"?


----------



## PuckChaser

We do far more complex things in the CAF, that I think we can figure out 2 symbols and their hierarchy for 11 ranks. Complicated is not a descriptor I'd use, despite not really buying into the full usefulness of changing back to the tune of multi-millions. Especially since it was originally sold as "replace old tunics as they are worn out/promoted", which morphed into "you will order a brand new tunic by Aug 14 at Crown expense".


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

The CANFORGEN about changing to pips and crowns upon promotion is only for mess kit. Combat and DEU's all change at the same time.


----------



## willy

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The reason they have to buy new tunics is because simply removing bars would leave shadows where they were stitched on the sleeves. A Sgt upon promotion to WO does the same.



I didn't.  I had the jacket cleaned and pressed and it looked just fine.  I have two jackets with WO crowns that formerly bore Sgt hooks and neither one has anything wrong with it.  The only thing that keeps me from wearing those ones is that I've embraced my new rank and gotten way too fat for them.

1 x new tunic x every Army Offr in the CAF seems like a lot of money that doesn't need to get spent.

Edit- typo


----------



## PMedMoe

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The reason they have to buy new tunics is because simply removing bars would leave shadows where they were stitched on the sleeves. A Sgt upon promotion to WO does the same.





			
				Willy said:
			
		

> I didn't.  I had the jacket cleaned and pressed and it looked just fine.  I have two jackets with WO crowns that formerly bore Sgt hooks and neither one has anything wrong with it.



I didn't either.  And you can be damn sure if I had, I would have had to use points to do so.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

> I didn't.  I had the jacket cleaned and pressed and it looked just fine.  I have two jackets with WO crowns that formerly bore Sgt hooks and neither one has anything wrong with it.



Ditto. I kept the same tunic when I CFR'd. However, this is what I was told when I asked G1 Heritage about it.



> The only thing that keeps me from wearing those ones is that I've embraced my new rank and gotten way too fat for them.



lmao. Good thing I read that between coffee sips.



> 1 x new tunic x every Army Offr in the CAF seems like a lot of money that doesn't need to get spent.



Yes. I think there is a consensus that this isn't the most opportune moment to spend funds on this kind of project. Buddy of mine is commanding an infantry soldier DP1 and they aren't teaching M203, M72, 84mm, Claymore et al. Only C7, C9, C6. The 2 Div TC cut the other weapons out because their budget was slashed and no money for ammo.


----------



## McG

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The reason they have to buy new tunics is because simply removing bars would leave shadows where they were stitched on the sleeves. A Sgt upon promotion to WO does the same.


Only if the new WO chooses to invest in a new jacket.  The WO does not get a no cost jacket like all of the officers will be getting.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> … why not compare the soon to be implemented insignia with that of the RCMP, rather than of some "archaic, complicated system"?


Why not compare to the Ottawa or Toronto police forces which somehow managed to nationalize the rank insignia while we, a national institution starting from a blank slate, are returning to the Star of the Order of the Bath?



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> … back in 1969, and it was then that our system changed for no good


As it is being changed now for no good reason?



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> First of all, the system is no more complicated than our current officer insignia, …


1 common rank insignia for all = less complicated than three rank insignia

(NATO 1 star = Cdn 1 leaf, NATO 2 star = Cdn 2 leaf, etc) = less complicated than (NATO 1 star = Cdn no star, NATO 2 star = Cdn 1 star)




			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> … one could argue that [stars and crowns are] less complicated.


Only if one were a cheerleader for the cause.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> [If it is more complicated] why then are so many armies using a system similar to the "pips and crowns"


Only commonwealth nations use a pattern similar to stars and crowns (and the majority of such nations have nationalized the specific pips/icons).  Continental armies follow different patters with their stars that arguably the patterns of the continental armies are less complicated than the British pattern … but I would not give that as a blanket statement.

Yes, one can selectively pick a few rank levels and present that rank with a hand-picked selection of nations (and to the exclusion of ranks higher and/or lower) to create the illusion that we are joining some international standard.  Captain is a popular rank for presenting this distorted reality.  Try this at the LCol level and all of a sudden the British pattern looks one rank junior to any other “stars and superior national symbol” pattern in NATO. 



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> … there are variations: using oak leaves vice crowns, etc


I hope you are not referring to the internal piece of propaganda that put the US major’s oak leaf next to a St Edward’s crown and suggested we will now have more in common with the US Army because both countries use “a single superior national symbol” for the rank of major.  Firstly, the “superior national symbol” in the US rank is the eagle for Colonels and navy Captains.  Secondly, the only similarity between US rank and near-future Canadian Army rank is the deceptive individual who hoped the military was gullible enough to accept the selected representation as reality.



			
				Willy said:
			
		

> 1 x new tunic x every Army Offr in the CAF seems like a lot of money that doesn't need to get spent.


Add in individual shipping to home addresses, and tailoring to re-attach all the brigade patches and skill hazard badges … and more tailoring for all those who don’t fit a standard size.



			
				Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> I think there is a consensus that this isn't the most opportune moment to spend funds on this kind of project.


Yep.


----------



## Privateer

No matter where you stand on this issue, those slides are priceless!

"Dammit, we need rank insignia commonality with Nazi generals!"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

MCG said:
			
		

> Only if the new WO chooses to invest in a new jacket.  The WO does not get a no cost jacket like all of the officers will be getting.



...........and why not? They are Officers also.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

The argument for an ''international'' standard is farcical. If anything, the only international standard we're joining is the Commonwealth one, which is unique. The argument for resemblances between the Commonwealth system and other European/American systems the PDF tries to attract our attention to is defeated when you examine them all closer. I think it is a very poor talking point at best.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Annndddd, here we go, back to the first few pages  :






(In case you miss it, that's a star being sucked into a black hole. Just like this thread.)


----------



## Privateer




----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Privateer said:
			
		

> No matter where you stand on this issue, those slides are priceless!
> 
> "Dammit, we need rank insignia commonality with Nazi generals!"



And exactly how do General Foulkes rank insignia resemble those of Generaloberst Blaskowitz's? They are two completely different systems. 

The German system used different shoulder board types for company, field, and general grade officers as actual ''superior'' symbols and then used from zero to three pips or crossed batons in the case of a generalfeldmarschall to denote actual ranks.

Like I said... poor talking points.


----------



## MilEME09

Courtesy of the CBC



> *Canadian Forces' return to old-style ranks, insignia costs millions*
> 
> At a time of federal belt-tightening, the Conservative government's return to World War II-era ranks and insignia will require new dress uniforms for Canadian soldiers and naval officers at a cost of $4.5 million.
> 
> Defence Department figures show the bulk of that cost — $3.1 million — will go to buy new jackets for the dark green dress uniforms army officers wear to formal events and on parades.
> 
> A similar change for naval officers — the addition of a curl to the top bar of their traditional naval rank — has a cost of $1.35 million, the Defence Department says.
> That puts the cost of new jackets for the highest-ranking soldiers and sailors at almost $4.5 million.
> 
> Those costs are only necessary because of Conservative government changes to rank titles for the army and insignia for officers in the army and navy announced last year.
> 
> As a result, army officers will no longer wear gold-coloured bars sewn to their tunic sleeves or epaulettes. Instead, they will revert to the complicated system of pips and crowns worn during WW II.
> 
> But it appears those gold bars cannot be simply removed from army officers' dress jackets and the military must now order new dress jackets for every one of the army's officers.
> 
> Defence Minister Rob Nicholson's press secretary, Johanna Quinney, said the government's move was designed to honour the traditions and history of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> "This initiative encourages esprit de corps for our soldiers and reinforces our country's rich military history," Quinney said. "The return of the historical identity of the Canadian Armed Forces also strengthens the link between today's members and the previous generations of heroes who bravely served our country."
> 
> These costs come as the military labours to come up with $1 billion in cost savings as part of a government-mandated defence renewal initiative. That process was sparked by a demand from Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself, laid on the table the day Gen. Tom Lawson took command as chief of the defence staff.
> 
> "The Forces must be restructured to ensure administrative burdens are reduced and resources freed up for the front line," Harper said at the time. "The Canada First Defence Strategy must continue to advance, and as I've said before, with the constant search for more teeth and less tail."
> 
> The army will now also be forced to spend more than $250,000 for the new crowns and pips officers will wear on their epaulettes and gorget patches — those red tabs some army officers wear on the collars of their shirts.
> ​The costs are part of a host of changes announced since 2011 to return certain Canadian ranks and titles to their traditional equivalents. Both the navy and air force acquired the title "Royal" in their name and the army has become the "Canadian Army."
> 
> Among the changes is the formalization of historic rank titles for certain army soldiers. Privates in the military communications trade, for instance, are now called signallers.
> 
> The changes have been mocked by some who wonder why the government is reverting to army ranks and insignia that went out of use in 1968 — almost 20 years before the last soldier to die in Afghanistan was even born.
> 
> NDP defence critic Jack Harris says it's a waste of money.
> 
> "This is certainly not an austerity measure," Harris told CBC News. "For what, to throw back to the Second World War? Why turn back the clock for something that is totally unnecessary? We had a perfectly adequate and relatively well-known set of insignia for the public.
> 
> "Meanwhile, the needs of our veterans and military personnel in uniform who have housing issues, medical and mental health issues and have other needs that they are crying out for help for, are being treated with — well, I wouldn't call it indifference, but not the priority they deserve."
> 
> As part of the move, the four former Land Force Areas have been renamed divisions and awarded new colour-coded shoulder patches for their dress uniforms. The Defence Department expects that change will cost about $1 million.
> 
> "Bringing back the divisional structure reinstates an important and recognizable part of military heritage, along with a key part of our nation's identity," military communications adviser Ashley Lemire wrote in an email.
> 
> "This will honour the sacrifices of former members of the Canadian Army, while establishing clear lineage to the contributions of today's soldiers."



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-return-to-old-style-ranks-insignia-costs-millions-1.2679716


----------



## Ostrozac

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The argument for an ''international'' standard is farcical. If anything, the only international standard we're joining is the Commonwealth one, which is unique. The argument for resemblances between the Commonwealth system and other European/American systems the PDF tries to attract our attention to is defeated when you examine them all closer. I think it is a very poor talking point at best.



And it's not even a standardized system throughout the entire Commonweatlh -- Cameroon and Mozambique have officers' rank insignia based on the French Army and the Portuguese Army, respectively, but both nations are members of the Commonweatlh.


----------



## Old EO Tech

I'm surprised that the RCAF changes have not recieved more of a spot light here.  And as a former Air Cadet, I'm really surprised they did not use the historical Air Craftsman/Leading Air Craftsman ranks instead of Aviator which seems rather a US Navy-ism. I guess the RCEME Corps is the only one to put heritage ahead of being PC :-/


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> Only if the new WO chooses to invest in a new jacket.  The WO does not get a no cost jacket like all of the officers will be getting.
> Why not compare to the Ottawa or Toronto police forces which somehow managed to nationalize the rank insignia while we, a national institution starting from a blank slate, are returning to the Star of the Order of the Bath?
> As it is being changed now for no good reason?
> 1 common rank insignia for all = less complicated than three rank insignia
> 
> (NATO 1 star = Cdn 1 leaf, NATO 2 star = Cdn 2 leaf, etc) = less complicated than (NATO 1 star = Cdn no star, NATO 2 star = Cdn 1 star)
> 
> Only if one were a cheerleader for the cause.
> Only commonwealth nations use a pattern similar to stars and crowns (and the majority of such nations have nationalized the specific pips/icons).  Continental armies follow different patters with their stars that arguably the patterns of the continental armies are less complicated than the British pattern … but I would not give that as a blanket statement.
> 
> Yes, one can selectively pick a few rank levels and present that rank with a hand-picked selection of nations (and to the exclusion of ranks higher and/or lower) to create the illusion that we are joining some international standard.  Captain is a popular rank for presenting this distorted reality.  Try this at the LCol level and all of a sudden the British pattern looks one rank junior to any other “stars and superior national symbol” pattern in NATO.
> I hope you are not referring to the internal piece of propaganda that put the US major’s oak leaf next to a St Edward’s crown and suggested we will now have more in common with the US Army because both countries use “a single superior national symbol” for the rank of major.  Firstly, the “superior national symbol” in the US rank is the eagle for Colonels and navy Captains.  Secondly, the only similarity between US rank and near-future Canadian Army rank is the deceptive individual who hoped the military was gullible enough to accept the selected representation as reality.
> Add in individual shipping to home addresses, and tailoring to re-attach all the brigade patches and skill hazard badges … and more tailoring for all those who don’t fit a standard size.
> Yep.



TL; DR

My post you quoted was focused on that one line of the CBC. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## vonGarvin

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The argument for an ''international'' standard is farcical. If anything, the only international standard we're joining is the Commonwealth one, which is unique. The argument for resemblances between the Commonwealth system and other European/American systems the PDF tries to attract our attention to is defeated when you examine them all closer. I think it is a very poor talking point at best.



There are similarities  with other army ranks. To wit:








That's a Bundeswehr captain's insignia
There are more examples.


Note I said similar,  not same.  So, next time, please attempt to be accurate in your posts.


----------



## McG

Technoviking said:
			
		

> TL; DR


I suppose it is fine if that was too long for you to read.  

But, given your subsequent post, I will point out that the text you have quoted identifies the rank of captain as the preferred rank of those deliberately seeking to create a distorted reality in favour of the UK rank.  

So, don't go back and read what might disprove your arguments.  However, you might want to use the full range of ranks of whatever nation to argue your point.  That way you at least won't appear to have drank the .pdf's Cool Aid.


----------



## Infanteer

Just got new rank insignia sewn on Mess Kit.  It actually looks pretty nice.  Huzahh for "pips and crowns"!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the RCAF changes have not recieved more of a spot light here.  And as a former Air Cadet, I'm really surprised they did not use the historical Air Craftsman/Leading Air Craftsman ranks instead of Aviator which seems rather a US Navy-ism. I guess the RCEME Corps is the only one to put heritage ahead of being PC :-/


Aviator is more gender neutral.  Takes the "man" out of the equation.


----------



## Edward Campbell

recceguy said:
			
		

> Annndddd, here we go, back to the first few pages  :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (In case you miss it, that's a star being sucked into a black hole. Just like this thread.)




 :goodpost:  I'm with recceguy and I promised myself to ignore this thread, but ...


It was explained to me, by a _Bundeswehr_ officer, many years decades ago, when I wore pips, that we could easily relate ranks if we saw the pip within a wreath as being the same as a crown. It was not the wreath that equaled a crown, he explained, otherwise a major wouild have just a wreath. The equivalent was a pip surrounded by a wreath: thus, a pip/wreath with on extra pip = lieutenant colonel and a pip/wreath with two pips = colonel.






So, contrary to what MCG suggests, the German system, from subaltern to colonel is a copy of "pips and crowns" as long as one understands what is clearly visible and logical - the crown equivalent is a pip surrounded by a wreath.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Aviator is more gender neutral.  Takes the "man" out of the equation.



Then that would mean that the CAF would not have any females.....ummmm?.......women............ummmm?.......???........ah?......No, not human.........How about we have Men and Aliens?


----------



## vonGarvin

Thank you Mr. Campbell. 

I'll also note that knowing this system allows me to decipher the variations of this theme as seen on various NATO and PfP nations when I instruct at international NATO schools.


----------



## Jungle

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then that would mean that the CAF would not have any females.....ummmm?.......women............ummmm?.......???........ah?......No, not human.........How about we have Men and Aliens?



I propose _Airperson_


----------



## George Wallace

Jungle said:
			
		

> I propose _Airperson_



Still not gender neutral......Airperson....  ;D

Sons are subordinate to adults.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then that would mean that the CAF would not have any females.....ummmm?.......women............ummmm?.......???........ah?......No, not human.........How about we have Men and Aliens?



 :dunno:    I was of course just throwing it out there.  In today's PC realm it seems as if "the man" is making everything PC friendly, and I'm suggesting if you will, Aviator fits that bill nicely.  Of course, I may be wrong with my assumptions on the reason for this particular title choice.


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :dunno:    I was of course just throwing it out there.  In today's PC realm it seems as if "the man" is making everything PC friendly, and I'm suggesting if you will, Aviator fits that bill nicely.  Of course, I may be wrong with my assumptions on the reason for this particular title choice.



I wouldn't say you're too far off, Sigs went from its historic Signalman, to Signaller.


----------



## Loachman

Technoviking said:
			
		

> There are similarities  with other army ranks. To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a Bundeswehr captain's insignia
> There are more examples.



Yes. As another example, the US Armed Forces also have a three-pip/star rank insignia, proving the theory of standardization beyond any doubt.


----------



## vonGarvin

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yes. As another example, the US Armed Forces also have a three-pip/star rank insignia, proving the theory of standardization beyond any doubt.


le sigh

If someone is going to confuse a Lieutenant General with a Captain, they ought not to be serving.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Really guys? None of this stuff, all gazillion pages, is worth getting into a pissing contest about. If it is, for you, you must live a pretty boring existence. :2c:


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :dunno:    I was of course just throwing it out there.  In today's PC realm it seems as if "the man" is making everything PC friendly, and I'm suggesting if you will, Aviator fits that bill nicely.  Of course, I may be wrong with my assumptions on the reason for this particular title choice.



In all honesty, I find this whole "gender" thing that the feminists have brought up for debate to be so trivial and ridiculous, that I seriously don't give it any credibility.  It is, in my opinion, a joke and only that; something that one can 'tongue in cheek' make fun of.   A debate that is amusement only, never to be taken seriously.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> ... you must live a pretty boring existence. :2c:


Some days, I suppose so.   :clown:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... contrary to what MCG suggests, the German system, from subaltern to colonel is a copy of "pips and crowns" as long as one understands what is clearly visible and logical - the crown equivalent is a pip surrounded by a wreath.


You might make the argument in the case of Germany that the star and wreath are so entwined as to be a single icon equivalent to the crown.  That would be the only continental army for which you could make such an argument.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

_Pearl grey _ bars and privately purchased CANEX brown leather jackets for RCAF officers. 

Nothing nobody saw coming.

<< Insert .gif with Emperor Palpatine saying "Your transformation is complete." >>


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Some days, I suppose so.   :clown:
> You might make the argument in the case of Germany that the star and wreath are so entwined as to be a single icon equivalent to the crown.  That would be the only continental army for which you could make such an argument.




Nope.

It works, similarly, for e.g. the Belgians, Czechs, Dutch and Estonians, too.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nope.  It works, similarly, for e.g. the Belgians, Czechs, Dutch and Estonians, too.


I don't see it.  They all have two physically seperated icons at the major rank.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't see it.  They all have two physically seperated icons at the major rank.



This is my last post in a thread which I regard has having seriously outlived its usefulness, but ...


















Netherlands Army Colonel, Lieutenant colonel, Major, Captain and Lieutenant - mimics the German system

I get it, MCG, that you dislike detest this change in system; I'm not its biggest fan myself, but your position that this is, somehow, an _uncommon_ system is, in my opinion, simply incorrect. It, a system of _pips_ and some other device plus one or two (or three) pips, is in fairly common use in e.g. Germany, India and the Netherlands. It is not _uniquely_ British.

Given that there was (is) a *political will* to reverse Mr Hellyer's _integration_ experiment, I wish we had chosen something more distinctively Canadian ... but the people pushing this don't really care about our military traditions, they just want to undo Mr Hellyer's _monster_.

It's done, it's decided ... and it will change again, in another 25 to 50 years.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I suggest you


----------



## myself.only

ekpiper said:
			
		

> The latest National Defence Clothing and Dress Committee meeting minutes have been posted.
> 
> I'll draw everyone's attention to Item 11, though I won't post the contents of it on an open forum as I haven't seen a press release.
> 
> http://cmp-cpm.forces.mil.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/cfp-pfc/doc/NDCDC_2014_05_12.pdf



If someone with ready access to the above could please PM me the gist of paras 11 and 18 it'd be much appreciated.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Netherlands Army …  mimics the German system


So do the plurality of continental armies.  That system is 1 through 3 (or 4) stars for junior officers, an embellishing icon with same 1 through three stars for field/senior officers, and a more elaborate embellishing icon with same 1 through three stars for general officers.  From the rank of Major the British system is different, and the British system gets increasingly different as one looks to the general ranks.  Look to Italy, Luxembourg, Sweden and Monaco to see how the European pattern does stars and crowns.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's done, it's decided ... and it will change again, in another 25 to 50 years.


… and whatever they decide to do then will not be worth the cost and effort either.

At this point, I hope “they” just leave the plan alone and don’t revisit it again.  The money has been spent or committed, most of the effort is invested, and it would likely waste more to keep the current rank than to continue on with this backward transformation.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I get it, MCG, that you dislike detest this change in system; …
> 
> Given that there was (is) a *political will* to reverse Mr Hellyer's _integration_ experiment, I wish we had chosen something more distinctively Canadian ... but the people pushing this don't really care about our military traditions, they just want to undo Mr Hellyer's _monster_.


It is not _this_ change specifically – it is the larger slippery slope of which it is a part.  It started with badges in the Navy and spread to badges, flags, buttons, titles and names in other places.  It is the resultant revival of tribalism and various empire-building that this has emboldened.  It is the throw-the-baby-with-the-bathwater approach to reversing integration. 
It is the legislating RCN, CA and RCAF as commands (reducing future MNDs’ flexibility to organize) at a time when many of our allies are looking at greater integration for reasons of both efficiency and effectiveness.  

Unfortunately, threads on higher level military organization don’t seem to have legs right now.  So we keep coming back to this thread and talk of badges.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that the RCAF changes have not recieved more of a spot light here.  And as a former Air Cadet, I'm really surprised they did not use the historical Air Craftsman/Leading Air Craftsman ranks instead of Aviator which seems rather a US Navy-ism. I guess the RCEME Corps is the only one to put heritage ahead of being PC :-/



I mentioned to someone earlier that it sure will be funny to have a AF DEU RMS Clerk Pte, posted to say, 3 RCR or something, referred to as "Aviator Bloggins".  Not that AC/LAC is much more representative of their actual job/function.   ^-^

Maybe they should have left the Aviator/prop thing for the hard air MOSIDs.  Which wouldn't make sense either really, as they don't fly.  I guess the Aviator should have been for flying trades only.

So, _Pte_ for AF DEU trades that aren't air ops, _Aircraftsman/woman _with prop for Pte's who are hard air trades but not flying trades, and _Aviator_ with a prop for flying trades.

Now...what to do about Cooks and Stewards who are flight crew, but not aircrew, who aren't maintainers or clerks, but do get a flight badge?  Hmmmm.  

See?  Simple.   :blotto:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

myself.only said:
			
		

> If someone with ready access to the above could please PM me the gist of paras 11 and 18 it'd be much appreciated.



Don't expect me to explain it though. This is starting to sound like a scene from Pirates of Penzance.

11.  RCAF rep briefed on the changes to the RCAF rank and nomenclature changes approved by the XXXX.  All insignia will be changed from gold to pearl grey.  Pte rank will be changed to "aviator" with a propeller replacing the chevron for Pte(T).  Chair requested RCAF to review the proposal to have general officers wear both shoulder rank and rank braid on the sleeves of the service dress jacket.  Target date for implementation is to be determined.


18.  DSSPM emphasized that they have had significant cuts to their budget and will need to find financial economies.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Why did you redact the part about the PM? I'm sure he won't mind people knowing.


----------



## eliminator

Hopefully they don't mean silver for both the officer and NCM ranks. The officer stipes are supposed to be "wedgewood blue and midnight blue woven in grosgrain black" or something like that?

What about buttons, badges, and shoulder titles? Silver as well?


----------



## eliminator




----------



## McG

eliminator said:
			
		

> What about buttons, badges, and shoulder titles? Silver as well?


Clearly, we have nothing more important on which to spend our money.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Glad to see the money we dont have to stock our parts bin is being well used elsewhere.  I couldn't authorize a few hundred dollar parts buy to keep ships at sea without an hpr, even if i knew not having the part would be an hpr and they will need one shortly when they do PM.... :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace

eliminator said:
			
		

>



LOL!   At first glance, I thought I was looking at a bunch of ancient hockey jerseys hanging together.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

eliminator said:
			
		

> What about buttons, badges, and shoulder titles? Silver as well?



I'd have to bet "yup" on that, so every trade badge, type of Wings,  and flight crew badges, NCM and Officer "Canada" for DEU shoulder badges.  Likely a full meal deal.  

And its "pearl grey" not silver  >.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd have to bet "yup" on that, so every trade badge, type of Wings,  and flight crew badges, NCM and Officer "Canada" for DEU shoulder badges.  Likely a full meal deal.
> 
> And its "pearl grey" not silver  >.



Geez.  With all of that changing, might as well return to the RAF-style tunic and colour.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Why did you redact the part about the PM? I'm sure he won't mind people knowing.



Because that's how I received it.

People wanted to know what the paras 11 & 18 said, so I got it for them.

Besides, who approved it is immaterial, based on the content.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Geez.  With all of that changing, might as well return to the RAF-style tunic and colour.



And now that everyone has a wedge but not a forge cap...might as well bring those back too.

And...an issued pipe.


----------



## Privateer

eliminator said:
			
		

> Hopefully they don't mean silver for both the officer and NCM ranks. The officer stripes are supposed to be "wedgewood blue and midnight blue woven in grosgrain black" or something like that?



It actually sounds something like this...





Article:  http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/January%202009/0109uniform.aspx

_Disclaimer:  I have no greater insight than anyone else about what is actually being considered_


----------



## Eye In The Sky




----------



## Fishbone Jones

The right marker is saying "Wow, think of all the uniforms we could have made with that Major's (Sqn Commander, Wing Commander, Flight Leader? :dunno jacket."

And I'll bet the Flight Sgt (?) in the rear rank is that Major's kid.


----------



## FSTO

Link is now broken. And the minutes on the DHH site end at 23 Oct 2013


----------



## garb811

And those minutes are probably now classified TS/SA.   >


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I mentioned to someone earlier that it sure will be funny to have a AF DEU RMS Clerk Pte, posted to say, 3 RCR or something, referred to as "Aviator Bloggins".  Not that AC/LAC is much more representative of their actual job/function.   ^-^
> 
> Maybe they should have left the Aviator/prop thing for the hard air MOSIDs.  Which wouldn't make sense either really, as they don't fly.  I guess the Aviator should have been for flying trades only.
> 
> So, _Pte_ for AF DEU trades that aren't air ops, _Aircraftsman/woman _with prop for Pte's who are hard air trades but not flying trades, and _Aviator_ with a prop for flying trades.
> 
> Now...what to do about Cooks and Stewards who are flight crew, but not aircrew, who aren't maintainers or clerks, but do get a flight badge?  Hmmmm.
> 
> See?  Simple.   :blotto:



Is it any stranger than call someone Leading Seaman when they have never set foot on a ship let alone been at sea? Why begrudge the Air Force distinctive rank names when the Navy and Army never gave theirs up?

To be honest I fail to see why people are making such a big deal out of names and badge colours. People change tunics and badges all the time so in the end a few tunics will be changed a few days/weeks/months earlier, and we will have to use all of our required grade 10 math and English trained minds to learn a few new word to describe the same ranks we have known since joining...


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> Clearly, we have nothing more important on which to spend our money.


Yes - like training, spare parts for major equipment - or care of the ill and injured....

Just bein a jerk......


----------



## Eye In The Sky

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> To be honest I fail to see why people are making such a big deal out of names and badge colours. People change tunics and badges all the time so in the end a few tunics will be changed a few days/weeks/months earlier, and we will have to use all of our required grade 10 math and English trained minds to learn a few new word to describe the same ranks we have known since joining...



It's more about the fact that budgets are being cut/shrunk/call it what you want.  There is $ being spent on changing ranks, DEU tunics and the like at the same time.

The money and effort could be better used elsewhere.


----------



## eliminator

I dont see why everyone is getting so bent out of shape by the money aspect. A few million is a drop in the bucket. DND wastes tens of millions dollars on a regular basis with go-nowhere projects and useless capital expenditures. They give back hundreds of millions a year because financial managers can't spend it on time. Three to five million is not that much for a tangible result.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That's your tax dollars (and mine...) you are so casually turfin' away.   Personally speaking as a tax payer I'd like to see my $ used wisely.  As a guy who needs YFR to do my job, I'd rather have some more gas and box lunches then pearl gray DEU stuff.


----------



## George Wallace

eliminator said:
			
		

> I dont see why everyone is getting so bent out of shape by the money aspect. A few million is a drop in the bucket. DND wastes tens of millions dollars on a regular basis with go-nowhere projects and useless capital expenditures. We give back hundreds of millions a year because we can't spend it on time. Three to five million is not that much for a tangible result.



 ;D

Although the act is final and we HAVE to accept it; we question the PRIORITIES the GOVERNMENT has when it comes to NATIONAL DEFENCE - Fancy buttons and bows or actual war-fighting equipment?


----------



## Old EO Tech

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Aviator is more gender neutral.  Takes the "man" out of the equation.



Which was my point about being PC rather than honour our History, the EME Branch actually conducted a informal survey of all our women and they voted to keep Craftsman as our Pte replacement and not try and fine some meaningless gender neutral replacement :-/


----------



## dapaterson

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Which was my point about being PC rather than honour our History, the EME Branch actually conducted a informal survey of all our women and they voted to keep Craftsman as our Pte replacement and not try and fine some meaningless gender neutral replacement :-/



Besides, "Craftsman" sounds a lot better than "Waiting for parts because DRMIS is down again"-man.


----------



## Journeyman

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> .....the EME Branch actually conducted a informal survey ......


Hang on, this 162 pages (and counting) is about something being done for "our morale," and someone...somewhere...actually asked the question?  Madness.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Which was my point about being PC rather than honour our History, the EME Branch actually conducted a informal survey of all our women and they voted to keep Craftsman as our Pte replacement and not try and fine some meaningless gender neutral replacement :-/



Interesting, what was the breakdown of the responses from male and female respondents?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Interesting, what was the breakdown of the responses from male and female respondents?



It was pretty overwhelming in favour of keeping Craftsman, over 90% for both men and women.  The RCEME Corp got extremely screwed over at unification, and we have been clawing our way out ever since, so it was not surprising that we have a strong sense of our history as a Corps.  Which is taught to every new Craftsman on their DP1 in Regimental Coy at the RCEME School.


----------



## Michael OLeary

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> It was pretty overwhelming in favour of keeping Craftsman, over 90% for both men and women.



That is good to hear.


----------



## Old EO Tech

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Besides, "Craftsman" sounds a lot better than "Waiting for parts because DRMIS is down again"-man.



We don't wait for DRMIS anymore....we just go over to the junk yard of Vehicles that we just parked as part of divestment :-/


----------



## Old EO Tech

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Hang on, this 162 pages (and counting) is about something being done for "our morale," and someone...somewhere...actually asked the question?  Madness.



Goes to show that there is some good leadership out their.....sometimes...


----------



## PuckChaser

eliminator said:
			
		

> I dont see why everyone is getting so bent out of shape by the money aspect. A few million is a drop in the bucket. DND wastes tens of millions dollars on a regular basis with go-nowhere projects and useless capital expenditures. They give back hundreds of millions a year because financial managers can't spend it on time. Three to five million is not that much for a tangible result.



Because we're tightening the belts so much they're turning into corsets, and we're buying new bloody loops for RCN officers and a whole couple thousand new tunics for little to no reason. Some of that 5 million bucks could go to TD money to prevent one of my soldiers from having to ride a bus for 24hrs just to get to Pet (because its most economical), and the TD money isn't there for him to stay over a weekend inbetween courses.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

If a few pennies aren't spent on one project, they aren't automatically available for another project.  Budgets are built line by line and the beauty of a defence budget is there is no right amount.  It's all judgemental - no war.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If a few pennies aren't spent on one project, they aren't automatically available for another project.  Budgets are built line by line and the beauty of a defence budget is there is no right amount.  It's all judgemental - no war.



Available is only one issue...get the purchases/contracts pushed threw PSGSC before the end of the FY is quite another issue....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If a few pennies aren't spent on one project, they aren't automatically available for another project.  Budgets are built line by line and the beauty of a defence budget is there is no right amount.  It's all judgemental - no war.



And?  Is that reason to throw good money away after bad?

 :


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And?  Is that reason to throw good money away after bad?
> 
> :



in the case of bad money, sometimes it seems they keep things running to justify another Colonels position at NDHQ. I mean really do we need to spend millions keeping projects open if only like a few dozen (big and small) will actually be progressing?


----------



## Loachman

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If a few pennies aren't spent on one project, they aren't automatically available for another project.



If a few pennies (Really? "Pennies"? I wish that I had just a fraction of one of those "pennies" back in my bank account) are spent on one (misguided and irresponsible) project, they are automatically unavailable for another project - like parts, fuel, ammunition, TD funds and a bazillion other things far more worthwhile.



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Budgets are built line by line and the beauty of a defence budget is there is no right amount.



Show me the lines by lines in the budget for this silliness. Whether or not there are "right amounts", there certainly are wrong ones.

Part of the money being wasted on this was ripped from my pay. I am not amused by any of it. Public funds should be used judiciously and responsibly, and not to fuel somebody's ego.



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> It's all judgemental - no war.



Whatever that means.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If a few pennies aren't spent on one project, they aren't automatically available for another project.  Budgets are built line by line and the beauty of a defence budget is there is no right amount.  It's all judgemental - no war.



We had a huge across the board cut at ADM(Mat) so that we are now trying accounting/tracking things to the dollars.  Single dollars, over a lot of millions.  So yes, $5M is a huge deal to spend on friggen buttons, ribbons and stupid curls.


----------



## vonGarvin

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D
> 
> Although the act is final and we HAVE to accept it; we question the PRIORITIES the GOVERNMENT has when it comes to NATIONAL DEFENCE - *Fancy buttons and bows or actual war-fighting equipment?*



That's a false dichotomy.  


It's neither.  

The priority of *any* democratically elected government is to keep getting elected.  Period.  Everything else is directed at that main aim.


----------



## dimsum

General Disorder said:
			
		

> That's a false dichotomy.
> 
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> The priority of *any* democratically elected government is to keep getting elected.  Period.  Everything else is directed at that main aim.



Exactly.  All interests such as national defence, health care, education, etc. goes up and down in priority towards that aim - just that more voters (and therefore politicians) would place a higher priority on health care, education, etc. than national defence.


----------



## McG

The false dichotomy is in the argument that suggests money not wasted on A would otherwise be wasted on B and that we should therefore support wasting on A.  Money wasted from the defence budget is money that should have been spent on defence requirements (training, equipment, maintenance, operations, etc).  George's statement, while maybe a simplification, was illustrative of a factual dichotomy.

And there was no special appropriation giving funds to defence for the purpose of heritage transformation.  This is not money that might have gone to healthcare or education; it is money that was already in the defence budget; it is money that should have gone to defence requirements.


----------



## CombatDoc

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> in the case of bad money, sometimes it seems they keep things running to justify another Colonels position at NDHQ. I mean really do we need to spend millions keeping projects open if only like a few dozen (big and small) will actually be progressing?


You are recycling the old trope about safeguarding Colonel positions at the Centre, presumably based on prior experience in Project Management, acquisitions, dealing with PWGSC, TB, etc.  Things are more complex than they appear, although I completely agree that many projects are progressing with glacial speed despite our best efforts. 

Using your analogy is like saying that the reason we still have the LSVW fleet (+ MSVW + HLVW) - and have not yet completed MSVS acquisition to replace them - is to keep Vehicle Techs gainfully employed on the shop floor.


----------



## McG

From yesterday's paper.


----------



## Loachman

What paper? I want to mail a beer to the cartoonist.


----------



## McG

The Record.  Click the image for a link.


----------



## slayer/raptor

Finally have access to DWAN and looking at the last minutes by the dress committee, para 11 has been whited out. Interesting...


----------



## upandatom

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> We had a huge across the board cut at ADM(Mat) so that we are now trying accounting/tracking things to the dollars.  Single dollars, over a lot of millions.  So yes, $5M is a huge deal to spend on friggen buttons, ribbons and stupid curls.



100s of jobs cut-( I have a very keen interest in that with ADM MAT as I seen thousands wasted a week on paycheques for people, still)

but I agree, even when It comes to the Army trades, (Signals, EME, etc) that buy their own brass buttons for their uniforms. 

We have new uniforms, (that look like garbage,) entering the system that ARE not needed for non Combat arms trades -Does a Clerk need Knee pad pockets on their combats? NO- IDGAF about this soldier first stuff, yes we are, but there are soldiers 24/7 out there day to day work. So why is all this money being wasted on this stupid SH#$. 

Now new ranks? after these god awful readable from space name tags and soon toe be epaulets? 

We piss money into the wind here, Lets not even discuss Major Equipment Procurements like vehicles, and Aircraft, etc, Lets stick to Clothe the Soldier

1. Boots, -how many ridicuolous pairs of boots are out there at what cost? How many of them were recalled for "Slippery on Ice", or falling apart, or didnt meet requirements. 
2. Uniforms- I see various types, styles, pockets adjusted here, knee pad pockets here. 
3. The Tacvest- The useless buddy down strap that cant be used because it rips, the fact there isnt enough pockets, or useful pockets. 
4. These Nametags, they werent even Phased in, they were, mass issued "you will use these now," not when yours become too used and abused these will be issued. 
5. And now rank structure- (using basic numbers here, I know we have more) 
    each soldier recieves 3 Epaulets? soo roughly 180 000 new epaulets, (not including stock)
    120 000 Brass ranks, 
    120 000 DEU sewn on ranks, (man hours to sew on said ranks)
    and add in the cost to pay someone to go into the system and change everything, 
    At the same time switching from SIGS to RCSIGS, EME to RCEME, etc. 

Im not against making anything "Royal Canadian," i just dont see why we are trying to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Hmm... I have para 11. I printed it off before the white out..


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What's it say?


----------



## Loachman

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Finally have access to DWAN and looking at the last minutes by the dress committee, para 11 has been whited out. Interesting...



Fascinating.

The document was removed for a few days - the link went dead - and now it's back up with that para gone.

Perhaps the whole initiative has, too.

Although it's hard to be that optimistic.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

If anyone wants I have para 11 and 18, you can pm me ......


----------



## Privateer

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> If anyone wants I have para 11 and 18, you can pm me ......



Or you can scroll back to reply #4004, above:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1314039#msg1314039


----------



## Old EO Tech

Interesting, maybe they are reconsidering spending money on new RCAF rank.....or just hiding it from prying eyes and doing it anyway


----------



## dimsum

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Interesting, maybe they are reconsidering spending money on new RCAF rank.....or just hiding it from prying eyes and doing it anyway



....or, the changes aren't sweeping enough and "they" want to change everything.  Uniforms and all.   :stirpot:

Although I hope it's that they've come to their senses and canned the whole idea.


----------



## upandatom

The Paras contradict eachother, spend money to save money???


----------



## cupper

upandatom said:
			
		

> The Paras contradict eachother, spend money to save money???



Time value of money.

Buy new uniforms now while, and you can put off replacing them beyond the time that you would have had to replace the current uniforms.

But the cynic in me says otherwise though.


----------



## upandatom

cupper said:
			
		

> Time value of money.
> 
> Buy new uniforms now while, and you can put off replacing them beyond the time that you would have had to replace the current uniforms.
> 
> But the cynic in me says otherwise though.



1. Propellor thing - :- seems kind of- silly
2. The money spent on "New" uniforms could be used to drastically improve the quality of the current ones. Hence preventing having to buy new ones. Current DEUs look cheap, feel cheap, I hate to see the cost of a set. The shirts arent made decently, a Tailors wont "tailor" the shirt. Being tall, broad shoulders and neck, small waist, the shirts fit like a cheap quality poncho and bunch up at the waist. (Not everyone with a 46" chest in the CF is a rolly polly olly mofo)

A gradual introduction to me seems the best way if it absolutely has to be done.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Okay, waste of money... yes, absolutely, no arguments from me on that point.  

However, based on the tiny amount of info in the minutes, I don't understand what the intentions are with changes to the RCAF rank.  The LAC props sound retro but "aviator" is not the historical rank name - not even close.  Aviateur, I believe, is the former translation for aircraftman but the the AC1 and AC2s were "no-hook privates".  LEADING aircraftmen had the propellers.   The worst-case, gender-neutral, politically correct and immensely stupid scenario should be the leading aviators wearing props on their sleeve. 

The "pearl grey" reference is also a bit confusing.  Last generation, pre-unification RCAF OR insignia was, basically, identical to what the air cadets wear now - and that is white (they called it silver-white back in the day).  Pearl white is quite a bit grey-er.  If they stayed with the proper colour, LOGISTIK already produces the propeller insignia for the cadets.  Hell, Logistik already produces the entire old-school RCAF OR insignia set (plus a MCpl equivalent badge) for the air cadets already.  It would be dirt-cheap solution if they wanted to ditch the maple leaves and bring back the crowns.  >

Officer braid, as eliminator posted, was wedgewood blue on midnight blue.   The fact that the only name-change mentioned was for private/aviator is curious too.

With all of the changes to the RCN and CA, this doesn't make any sense to me as it doesn't sound like a return to historical ranks in the slightest.  

The comment about whether shoulder and other insignia would have to change colour too is a great point - they would have to - but the last generation, old-school RCAF buttons were gold Sta-Brite not silver.  The current buttons are perfect the way they are.

I wonder if the old-style RCAF wings are poised to make a comeback too.   ???


----------



## George Wallace

Who knows what lurks in the minds of men?
















The Shadow knows.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> However, based on the tiny amount of info in the minutes, I don't understand what the intentions are with changes to the RCAF rank.



It is actually pretty simple.  From the now-removed Para 11.

_11.  RCAF rep briefed on the changes to the RCAF rank and nomenclature changes approved by the XXXX.  All insignia will be changed from gold to pearl grey.  Pte rank will be changed to "aviator" with a propeller replacing the chevron for Pte(T).  Chair requested RCAF to review the proposal to have general officers wear both shoulder rank and rank braid on the sleeves of the service dress jacket.  Target date for implementation is to be determined._  



> The LAC props sound retro but "aviator" is not the historical rank name - not even close.  Aviateur, I believe, is the former translation for aircraftman but the the AC1 and AC2s were "no-hook privates".  LEADING aircraftmen had the propellers.   The worst-case, gender-neutral, politically correct and immensely stupid scenario should be the leading aviators wearing props on their sleeve.



The prop is what was worn pre-unification;  my Dad has a picture from the late 50's with one on his sleeve (was an Airframe Tech at the time). 



> The "pearl grey" reference is also a bit confusing.  Last generation, pre-unification RCAF OR insignia was, basically, identical to what the air cadets wear now - and that is white (they called it silver-white back in the day).  Pearl white is quite a bit grey-er.  If they stayed with the proper colour, LOGISTIK already produces the propeller insignia for the cadets.  Hell, Logistik already produces the entire old-school RCAF OR insignia set (plus a MCpl equivalent badge) for the air cadets already.  It would be dirt-cheap solution if they wanted to ditch the maple leaves and bring back the crowns.



And nothing says anything anywhere about returning to pre-unification ranks;  the RCN didn't either with the return of the Executive Curl (which started this whole thing IMO).



> I wonder if the old-style RCAF wings are poised to make a comeback too.   ???



Our briefing on this was "no".  Only the color of the current stuff will change.  I wouldn't be surprised if Officer rank slips on go similar to the RAF ones.

But, none of this adds any real value to anything we do where I work so, hopefully this will go away.  Use the money to put stuff in the bins at Supply for stuff we really need to do our business.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Use the money to put stuff in the bins at Supply for stuff we really need to do our business.


QFTT


----------



## Loachman

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> I wonder if the old-style RCAF wings are poised to make a comeback too.   ???



Then the leaf in the middle would have to be replaced in both official languages with RCAF/ARC in very tiny letters. There is no need to layer on more assininity.

Although I'd not care about that so much if the Tac Hel and MH communities got their old wings back too.


----------



## jpjohnsn

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It is actually pretty simple.  From the now-removed Para 11.
> 
> _11.  RCAF rep briefed on the changes to the RCAF rank and nomenclature changes approved by the XXXX.  All insignia will be changed from gold to pearl grey.  Pte rank will be changed to "aviator" with a propeller replacing the chevron for Pte(T).  Chair requested RCAF to review the proposal to have general officers wear both shoulder rank and rank braid on the sleeves of the service dress jacket.  Target date for implementation is to be determined._
> 
> The prop is what was worn pre-unification;  my Dad has a picture from the late 50's with one on his sleeve (was an Airframe Tech at the time).
> 
> And nothing says anything anywhere about returning to pre-unification ranks;  the RCN didn't either with the return of the Executive Curl (which started this whole thing IMO).
> 
> Our briefing on this was "no".  Only the color of the current stuff will change.  I wouldn't be surprised if Officer rank slips on go similar to the RAF ones.
> 
> But, none of this adds any real value to anything we do where I work so, hopefully this will go away.  Use the money to put stuff in the bins at Supply for stuff we really need to do our business.


My fault, I don't think I made my point very well.  What I was trying to says is that if we're going retro, let's go retro.  If we aren't going retro, don't do anything that requires spending one thin dime.

Both the navy and army struck some kind of balance between retaining some of the current names/insignia and adopting (or adapting) historical ones.  The current exercise with the RCAF, other than bringing back the LAC (sorry, *aviator* props), seems to be following up by creating things that aren't based on the customs and traditions of either incarnation of the RCAF.  

If it's possible, it's actually a worse waste of money than pips and crowns and executive curls.  At least their's has some kind of justification - however slight.  As it stands now, the RCAF change has none at all.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ahh I see what you are saying now, and agree.


----------



## Loachman

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> My fault, I don't think I made my point very well.  What I was trying to says is that if we're going retro, let's go retro.  If we aren't going retro, don't do anything that requires spending one thin dime.



If the CF was driving this whole exercise, then there might be a little more logic to it (like not bothering in the first place), but it isn't, so there isn't.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I heard from my boss that Army Officers are to change to their new ranks sometime before the start of the 100th anniversary of WW1, 5 August.  I gathered from reading the posts here that the new ranks will be available through Logistiks.
> 
> Cheers



I understand that it's all been pushed back to the Fall. No surprises there....


----------



## McG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I understand that it's all been pushed back to the Fall. No surprises there....


Indeed not.  Once the new jackets arrive via currier to all officers' homes, it will still be a few months for the tailor shops to attach new brigade patches, skill hazard badges, PPCLI tabs, and other sew-on bits that can be found on army uniforms.


----------



## Old EO Tech

The Patricia's all have their uniforms in now for the Div Patch, and all officers will have their pips on their new tunics as well, before the 100th.  So no delays here....just a lot of sewing and pinning....


----------



## jranrose

Somewhat related to this forum. Not only is it Canadian’s that are bringing back commonwealth insignias so are the New Zealanders with bringing back knighthoods and Australia bringing back knighthoods and considering bringing back the Commonwealths honours system including the George Cross, Military Cross… etc. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/4957283/New-Zealand-restores-Knights-and-Dames-to-the-top-of-its-honours-system.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbott-reintroduces-knight-and-dame-honours-for-australians-20140325-35fzo.html
http://www.news.com.au/national/prime-minister-tony-abbott-backs-return-to-the-days-of-knights-with-british-honours-system/story-fncynjr2-1226864799471
http://www.news.com.au/national/australian-war-heroes-back-tony-abbotts-plans-for-return-to-traditional-medals-for-galantry/story-fncynjr2-1226865886822


----------



## my72jeep

Any one have a copy of the new dress regs, with regards to the wearing of the slipons? my new ones arrived from Logistik with CANADA on them not CIC. When I called Logistik they had no idea what I was talking about. I ask this as my Cadpat ones came with CIC on them.


----------



## MilEME09

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Any one have a copy of the new dress regs, with regards to the wearing of the slipons? my new ones arrived from Logistik with CANADA on them not CIC. When I called Logistik they had no idea what I was talking about. I ask this as my Cadpat ones came with CIC on them.



From what I've heard is that Canada is the defult one thats been shipped in the first batch and individual units then place orders based on their numbers for how many they need with what ever unit on the bottom of them.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

You can have a CIC tab sewn on. Same thing as the old slip ons.


----------



## my72jeep

Ok makes sense.


----------



## Navy_Pete

jpjohnsn said:
			
		

> My fault, I don't think I made my point very well.  What I was trying to says is that if we're going retro, let's go retro.  If we aren't going retro, don't do anything that requires spending one thin dime.
> 
> Both the navy and army struck some kind of balance between retaining some of the current names/insignia and adopting (or adapting) historical ones.  The current exercise with the RCAF, other than bringing back the LAC (sorry, *aviator* props), seems to be following up by creating things that aren't based on the customs and traditions of either incarnation of the RCAF.
> 
> If it's possible, it's actually a worse waste of money than pips and crowns and executive curls.  At least their's has some kind of justification - however slight.  As it stands now, the RCAF change has none at all.



For the record, there are lots of folks in the Navy that think the executive curl was a waste of money.  The only plus side was that it was still recognizable as the same rank, whereas the army one is a bit more involved.  However, I would have preferred the same money to go towards fuel and rations for sea days, or parts for the bins, but that's just me. :2c:


----------



## JRBond

Has anyone gotten a solid answer on when we're supposed to put up the new ranks?


----------



## McG

Newest SITREP came out last week.  General Officers will switch in Sept.  Everyone else will continue waiting for the direction sometime later this fall.


----------



## Old EO Tech

JRBond said:
			
		

> Has anyone gotten a solid answer on when we're supposed to put up the new ranks?



The word on the last SITREP was "on order" with sometime this fall as the official kickoff.  I know as part of the 100th, all PPCLI officers of all capbadges have been ordered to don them for the 100th, this week.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

2 Cdn Div patches are due to be on all uniforms NLT end of October to be ready for 11 November. In line with this, the only tunics officers are to send to tailors for installation of the patches are the new ones we received with pips and crowns. An end state for the officer ranks by 11 November is a definite possibility.


----------



## McG

Below is the latest SITREP.  I see that even Army HQ and CADTC will have formation patches (1st Cdn Army and 1st Cdn Corps patches respectively).  Think I would have rather seen the Canadian Army Pacific Force patch used for CADTC ... Now (as then) it would remind that the organizations foundations flow from the other five divisions/areas.

Oh well, I suppose a CTC Bde patch will be next?


----------



## eliminator

Hmm, I've already seen a few officers wearing their new slip ons in 3B.....guess they didn't get the memo.  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones

LCol Lafreniere of The Windsor Regiment has been wearing the new rank since he got promoted and took over the Regiment last fall.


----------



## Lightguns

Some serious mission creep in this one!  Wait til everyone has Velcro on their arms, Brigade patches, unit patches, platoon patches, section patches, and little bitty combination flare gun-police whistle patches!


----------



## Danjanou

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Some serious mission creep in this one!  Wait til everyone has Velcro on their arms, Brigade patches, unit patches, platoon patches, section patches, and little bitty combination flare gun-police whistle patches!



And Pins dude don't forget pins.

War of 1812 Pin, will soon be followed by:

100th Anniversary of WW1 Pin
End of War of 1812 Pin
100th Anniversary of first Canadians to see Action in WW1 Pin
100th Anniversary of Vimy Ridge Pin
25th Anniversary of the End of the Cold War Pin
100th Anniversary of the End of WW1 Pin........

Dress Unifroms are goigng to look like servers at TGIF or Walmart :


----------



## Infanteer

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I know as part of the 100th, all PPCLI officers of all capbadges have been ordered to don them for the 100th, this week.



That is incorrect.


----------



## dimsum

Danjanou said:
			
		

> And Pins dude don't forget pins.
> 
> War of 1812 Pin, will soon be followed by:
> 
> 100th Anniversary of WW1 Pin
> End of War of 1812 Pin
> 100th Anniversary of first Canadians to see Action in WW1 Pin
> 100th Anniversary of Vimy Ridge Pin
> 25th Anniversary of the End of the Cold War Pin
> 100th Anniversary of the End of WW1 Pin........
> 
> Dress Unifroms are goigng to look like servers at TGIF or Walmart : *US Army personnel*



FTFY   ;D


----------



## Brasidas

Danjanou said:
			
		

> 100th Anniversary of WW1 Pin
> End of War of 1812 Pin
> 100th Anniversary of first Canadians to see Action in WW1 Pin
> 100th Anniversary of Vimy Ridge Pin
> 25th Anniversary of the End of the Cold War Pin
> 100th Anniversary of the End of WW1 Pin........









Please tell me that it ends with the 1812 pin.


----------



## dapaterson

The problem with a funny joke on the internet is that someone, somewhere, is stupid enough to take it seriously.


----------



## Brasidas

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem with a funny joke on the internet is that someone, somewhere, is stupid enough to take it seriously.



Been out to pasture and away from such announcements for a few months. This is still the thread about the pips and crowns silliness, isn't it?


----------



## dimsum

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64880&site=combatcamera

Well there you go.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

What an utter waste of money.


----------



## MilEME09

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> What an utter waste of money.



I agree money can be better spent restarting the MMEV program and giving us air defense again, along with a host of other projects. Then again maybe this was one of the only things the TB would approve


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64880&site=combatcamera
> 
> Well there you go.



 :facepalm:

We have met the enemy.....I am sure you all know the rest of the quote.


----------



## Happy Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64880&site=combatcamera
> 
> Well there you go.



I must admit a tinge of sadness when I first picked up my new rank (former) insignia and after looking at these photos I now know how the RCN / CA / RCAF felt when they were forced to wear the current rank insignia after unification.  I was surprised by how attached I am to the "navy / merchant marine" stripes - it's all I've ever worn besides the chevrons when I was a NCM. 

I'm not sure how the RCAF will feel when they revert back to their historic ranks but I know that my navy friends were indifferent when they got their curl back.

Cheers


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I agree money can be better spent restarting the MMEV program and giving us air defense again, along with a host of other projects. Then again maybe this was one of the only things the TB would approve



[tangent]
MMEV was inteded as an example of a stupid internet idea that took on a life of its own.

While there is a need for LLAD for the CAF, MMEV is not a solution.
[/tangent]


----------



## Danjanou

Brasidas said:
			
		

> Please tell me that it ends with the 1812 pin.



Oh I was joking.... but then one never knows. I'm sure the good idea fairy has now whispered this in the ear of some cubicle dwelling Blackberry Colonel in Disneyland on the Rideau.


----------



## dimsum

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how the RCAF will feel when they revert back to their historic ranks but I know that my navy friends were indifferent when they got their curl back.



I thought the talk on here a few months ago was that it was (permanently?) shelved?


----------



## dapaterson

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Oh I was joking.... but then one never knows. I'm sure the good idea fairy has now whispered this in the ear of some cubicle dwelling Blackberry Colonel in Disneyland on the Rideau.



Unlike the "Year of the Veterans" pin that was placed on uniforms by pure force of Hillier, the 1812 pin has its origins slightly north and slightly west of Disneyland on the Rideau.


----------



## H11F

Hmm... Looking at that picture (posted a few up from Combat Camera), I find the ranks actually fairly hard to see.  And I'm 5'7" (on a good day... wind at my back... slight slope to the ground), so well - with everything on the epaulette that makes it a tad hard to spot who is what.  At least on the cuff it was easy to spot.  Not that I want to add anymore to this whole (finished?) process, but I wish we had just kept them on the cuff as what appears (key word, as I am going off of a few pictures) to have been done in the First World War.

This website has a decent picture -> http://regimentalrogue.com/misc/researching_first_world_war_soldiers_part18.htm

Again, really no dog in this fight other than to say it's not all that visible, and I have to wear the things.


----------



## McG

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how the RCAF will feel when they revert back to their historic ranks but I know that my navy friends were indifferent when they got their curl back.





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> I thought the talk on here a few months ago was that it was (permanently?) shelved?


According to the dress committee, you will be subjected to the heritage transformation next:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1314039.html#msg1314039


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is no mention of changing the existing ranks (except Pte to Aviator), just the color.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Oh, we are quite aware of that, Master Aviator. Just don't tell the Squadron Leader.


----------



## slayer/raptor

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64881&site=combatcamera

Take away the medals and the BGen looks like a no hook pte...


----------



## dapaterson

That's why he's got the gorget patches.  Just in case...


----------



## CougarKing

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64881&site=combatcamera



Another picture from the same event as above, of a sample of the restored officer and warrant officer ranks being examined by an official, courtesy of the Canadian Army's Facebook site.


----------



## wannabe SF member

What's with the pre-1968 pattern Officer's dress hanging to the side?

I smell another "leading change" PER point in the works.


----------



## dapaterson

It took place at a ceremony commemorating the centennial of the start of the Great War.  No leading change.  More like reliving the past.


----------



## Transporter

Inky said:
			
		

> What's with the pre-1968 pattern Officer's dress hanging to the side?
> 
> I smell another "leading change" PER point in the works.



That pre-68 uniform is sharp looking.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Oh, we are quite aware of that, Master Aviator. Just don't tell the Squadron Leader.



Let me get my "then and now" RCAF rank calculator out...a Sqn Leader then would be a Flight Commander now...the CO is the Wing Commander...and the Wing Commander is a Group Captain.

Now I see the problem.  We need "Groups" again.   And A LOT more planes & eggbeaters.  8)

There shall be no Master Aviator mentioned again else someone puts it in their "I should mention this at work!" file folder...and it become part of the Good Idea Fairy Plan.     rly:

What I could really use is a better flashlight, some increase in YFR...new rank, not so much.


----------



## Danjanou

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unlike the "Year of the Veterans" pin that was placed on uniforms by pure force of Hillier, the 1812 pin has its origins slightly north and slightly west of Disneyland on the Rideau.



With the exception of a few select drinking establishments ( and their regular patrons) I tend to look at the entire National Capital Region as one giant vortex of stupidity.  8)


----------



## wannabe SF member

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It took place at a ceremony commemorating the centennial of the start of the Great War.  No leading change.  More like reliving the past.



Seems like we've been doing that for quite a while now.


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It took place at a ceremony commemorating the centennial of the start of the Great War.  No leading change.  More like reliving the past.



Leading us all back to the future.

Apparently the good idea fairies travel at 88 mph.


----------



## PuckChaser

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Take away the medals and the BGen looks like a no hook pte...



Don't worry, you don't make GOFO without a few meritorious service/OMM medals handed out.


----------



## eliminator

Hopefully all this rank and insignia change drama will result in any WW1 commemorative pins being declared too costly.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't worry, you don't make GOFO without a few meritorious service/OMM medals handed out.



That and 'no hook Privates' don't walk around with an entourage at there beck and call.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Let me get my "then and now" RCAF rank calculator out...a Sqn Leader then would be a Flight Commander now...the CO is the Wing Commander...and the Wing Commander is a Group Captain.



In the RAAF (and I suspect the RAF as well), the title for the person commanding a Wing is an OC (e.g. OC 82 Wg), which is a GPCAPT.  

I'm not saying it makes sense, but after a few years here it doesn't seem as ridiculous to me as when I first got here.


----------



## Lightguns

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64881&site=combatcamera
> 
> Take away the medals and the BGen looks like a no hook pte...



I have the overwhelming desire to call him "Inspector"!


----------



## The Bread Guy

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=photos&template=detail_eng.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=64881&site=combatcamera
> 
> Take away the medals and the BGen looks like a no hook pte...


Couldn't possibly mistake him for a Pte.

He got one of the new uniforms first, right?


----------



## Lightguns

Bet he has got some nice new shiny Cadpat with Mandarin collars in his closet (and no holes in the pants)!


----------



## Danjanou

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Bet he has got some nice new shiny Cadpat with Mandarin collars in his closet (and no holes in the pants)!



Still wrapped in the packaging  8)


----------



## blackberet17

eliminator said:
			
		

> Hopefully all this rank and insignia change drama will result in any WW1 commemorative pins being declared too costly.



...until someone realizes they were made in China, and causes a $hit storm...


----------



## Poppa

recceguy said:
			
		

> That and 'no hook Privates' don't walk around with an entourage at there beck and call.



I did....or were they my Pl WO and Sect Comd just constantly sorting me out :dunno:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> In the RAAF (and I suspect the RAF as well), the title for the person commanding a Wing is an OC (e.g. OC 82 Wg), which is a GPCAPT.
> 
> I'm not saying it makes sense, but after a few years here it doesn't seem as ridiculous to me as when I first got here.



Would make more sense than the Sqn CO being a 'Wing Commander'  >


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Would make more sense than the Sqn CO being a 'Wing Commander'  >



Then again, the a/c in the Sqn all have wings (be they rotary or seized) so a Sqn CO does command wings


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Then again, the a/c in the Sqn all have wings (be they rotary or seized) so a Sqn CO does command wings


The word-geek pedant in me thinks that would be more clearly stated by naming him/her "commander of wings"


----------



## Fishbone Jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Then again, the a/c in the Sqn all have wings (be they rotary or seized) so a Sqn CO does command wings



:facepalm: Wow, coming from your normally murthy humour, that is, definitely scrapping the ground below the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## eliminator

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> ...until someone realizes they were made in China, and causes a $hit storm...



Perhaps we could all be issued a WW1/Vimy Ridge "sticker" to affix to our War of 1812 pins. That should save a few bucks.

Too bad the Army didn't seize the opportunity to change over to the olive coloured tunics since every officer was issued a new tunic anyways.....


----------



## x_para76

eliminator said:
			
		

> Yes but that would effectively be going back to the old Brit No 2's and then the whole army would have to change their DEU's and this thread would go on for anther 100 pages.


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> ........... and this thread would go on for anther 100 pages.



In the scheme of life and the way that this thread is going; that is about to happen anyway.   :-\


----------



## Jed

Don't worry. The Olive DEUs will be back in the next round of uniform updates.  >


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Yes but that would effectively be going back to the old Brit No 2's and then the whole army would have to change their DEU's and this thread would go on for anther 100 pages.



Look at this positively; the only time to worry about a soldier is when he stops bitching.


----------



## Jed

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Look at this positively; the only time to worry about a soldier is when he stops bitching.


Exactly. Let's worry about big problems.


----------



## medicineman

Jed said:
			
		

> Exactly. Let's worry about big problems.



Why would we start now?  I'm willing to bet that this is some numpty's idea of keeping our minds off the worse things going on, like parking fees  >.

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jed said:
			
		

> Don't worry. The Olive DEUs will be back in the next round of uniform updates.  >



Not so fast!  The Olive DEU won't be 'reintroduced' until each and every Army Officer has his/her rank changes on the current DEU completed.  Then...and _only_ then...will the "Olive Army DEU with EIS" be announced.  >

Meanwhile, the olive DEU "project" will use up all the funding and, sadly  :-[, the RCAF will have to stick with the already working DEU colors and rank.  Until 2030 (my CRA year).


----------



## q_1966

Historic Individual Regiment Uniforms, just get rid of the DEU...besides the Canadian Army Buttons they are introducing were not worn on Great War and WWII uniforms.


----------



## Jed

But don't you know that all us army guys look like bus drivers in this existing DEU? Except for the tan summer DEU for a couple of years.


----------



## NavyShooter

Sorry Jed, it's us Navy guys and our NCD's that truly look like bus drivers.  

I will admit though, the fire retardant pants with the cargo pockets and the sewn in creases are pretty awesome.  

So....let me just toss this out there....suppose a PO1 is going to be wearing CADPAT....does he have to get new slip-ons, or are the old/current ones still correct?  If so, doesn't that mean we'll have 3 different sized crowns floating about???


----------



## caocao

Nope, all 3 elements are getting the new bigger and better crown on the WO/PO1 slip ons.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

Bigger, longer and uncut.


----------



## NavyShooter

But I have been cut....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

lol. Next time you see a PO1 try to explain that to him  :warstory:


----------



## wannabe SF member

Erm. Has anyone heard about this before?

LINK REMOVED AS PER SITE GUIDELINES


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Inky said:
			
		

> Erm. Has anyone heard about this before?



Tag Air Force, you're up!


----------



## dimsum

Inky said:
			
		

> Erm. Has anyone heard about this before?



....what happened to "we won't change the uniform, just the rank and title"   ???


----------



## slayer/raptor

Wouldn't it be funny (sad?), if after all the new Army DEU tops being sent to Officers, we had to do it all over again with a new army DEU. After all if the airforce is doing it, then we can too?


----------



## jpjohnsn

Though I like the old-style uniform better, I suspect that the "new uniform" will be current DEU with new insignia and accoutrements like retro dress belts (maybe the whole instant dictator kit) and sword belts.


----------



## Happy Guy

Or maybe the RCAF watched and learned from the RCN and CA's mistakes. Perhaps it's going full retro including silk scarves, rakish (squashed) forage cap, moustache with a devil may care demeanor much like Lord Flashheart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC3sURgYxng


----------



## cupper

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Or maybe the RCAF watched and learned from the RCN and CA's mistakes. Perhaps it's going full retro including silk scarves, rakish (squashed) forage cap, moustache with a devil may care demeanor much like Lord Flashheart: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QC3sURgYxng



Only if the new uni comes with it's own PhD from Cambridge.


----------



## PuckChaser

New RCAF uniforms: Because we didn't waste enough money buying every Army officer a new tunic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It was SUPPOSED to just be change in rank color...and Pte to Aviator...


----------



## McG

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> New RCAF uniforms: Because we didn't waste enough money buying every Army officer a new tunic ...


and defence budget dollars could not possibly be better spent on training, maintenance or readiness.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It was SUPPOSED to just be change in rank color...and Pte to Aviator...


Those were the only details in the notes of the CAF dress committee, and word on the street this morning was only new rank insignia and new rank names.  The new uniform claim came later in the afternoon today.  The mandate of the dress committee is uniforms; it was necessary to describe the rank of aviator to explain that the insignia would be a propeller but same requirement did not exist to describe the other insignia changes, so I would not be surprised to see rank names changed beyond just that of Aviator.  However, a new uniform would be within the dress committee's mandate, so I would have expected to see mention if that were planned.  Maybe the new uniform is false rumour.  We should wait for the announcement.

I wonder what the sales pitch is going to be?  I hope it is better than the Army implying new similarities with France and USA, suggesting over 150 years of heritage from between 1880 and 1968, or pretending rank was not worn on the sleeve in the First World War.

This weekend also marks the start of Canadian Army general officers (and only the general officers) wearing the British rank insignia again.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MEDIA ADVISORY

New uniform for the Royal Canadian Air Force

September 19, 2014OttawaDepartment of National Defence

Media are invited to a photo opportunity with the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence and Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, for the unveiling of the new Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) uniform at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum during the Battle of Britain parade.

When: September 21, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.
Where: Canada Aviation and Space Museum, 11 Aviation Parkway, Ottawa, ON K1K 2X5
What: Introduction of new uniform for the RCAF

-30-

Notes to editor / news director:

Media are requested to arrive at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum 11 Aviation Parkway, Ottawa, Ontario at 10:00 a.m. to set-up their gear. Please contact Lieutenant-Colonel David Devenney at (613) 994-3422 or David.Devenney@forces.gc.ca to confirm your attendance at this event, no later than 4:00 p.m. September 19, 2014.

Contact information:

Lieutenant-Colonel David Devenney
 Royal Canadian Air Force Public Affairs
 Phone: (613) 994-3422
 David.Devenney@forces.gc.ca

 Media Relations
 Department of National Defence
 Phone: (613) 996-2353
 Toll-Free: 1 866 377-0811

Article Link


----------



## Loachman

Absolute insanity, whatever it looks like.

And no shortage of better things to spend scarce money on.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm going to bet NCMs get 'pearl grey' rank and insignia...officers go to WWII style tunic with belt and RAF style rank.

Takers?


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall, and it's a long time ago, RAF officers had a belt on their tunics, but the RCAF did not. RAF buttons were shiny, but RCAF officers' buttons were not. We'll see.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Loachman said:
			
		

> Absolute insanity, whatever it looks like.
> 
> And no shortage of better things to spend scarce money on.


Makes me shake my head even more given our other discussion regarding helos


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As I recall, and it's a long time ago, RAF officers had a belt on their tunics, but the RCAF did not. RAF buttons were shiny, but RCAF officers' buttons were not. We'll see.



Dad got married in his RCAF dress uniform (LAC at the time) in '61 and I'm 99% sure in the pictures, he had a belt on the tunic.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Looks like they had belts, at one time, anyway ...


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looks like they had belts, at one time, anyway ...



Aside from Canada flashes and badges, think of the cost savings when we just order x amount from RAF suppliers!   >


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Aside from Canada flashes and badges, think of the cost savings when we just order x amount from RAF suppliers!   >



Silly boy......you know they will be manufactured in Canada therefore cost how much more.....than ordering from RAF suppliers...... >


----------



## dimsum

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Silly boy......you know they will be manufactured in Canada therefore cost how much more.....than ordering from RAF suppliers...... >



I know.   :-[

We'd have to make the garment tags bilingual anyway.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thinking of the 'new' pattern RCAF mess kit that came out recently...I'm still going with tunics w/belts and the like.

And the re-birth of the forge cap in DEU >


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Thinking of the 'new' pattern RCAF mess kit that came out recently...I'm still going with tunics w/belts and the like.
> 
> And the re-birth of the forge cap in DEU >



Yep.  Unveiling it at the Battle of Britain ceremony was (to me) a bit of a giveaway, as opposed to Remembrance Day or next July 1st.


----------



## aequitas

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=886239

Minister Nicholson unveils new uniform for the Royal Canadian Air Force
The Honourable Rob Nicholson, PC, QC, MP for Niagara Falls and Minister of National Defence and Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin, Commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF), unveiled the new RCAF uniform today at the Battle of Britain ceremony in Ottawa.

The new uniform’s inspiration, is drawn from pre-unification rank insignia while maintaining the modern elements and terminology familiar to serving members today. The insignia for most ranks will be recognizable as the symbols that air force personnel have worn for nearly half a century.

In recognition of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the RCAF this year, rank insignia and national shoulder titles for both officers and non-commissioned members will return to a distinctive pearl-grey stitching, the original colour worn by RCAF non-commissioned members until 1968. Dress tunic buttons will not change in design but their colour will switch from gold to silver. General officers headdress piping (embroidery) will also change from gold-coloured to pearl-grey.

Quick Facts
As part of the Government’s ongoing restoration of the Canadian Armed Forces’ distinctive service cultures and proud history, the RCAF will now wear a new uniform, enhancing the identity of Canada’s youngest military branch.
The one change will see is the new RCAF rank title of “Aviator” replace the use of “Private,” “Airman” and “Airwoman”. It will apply to newly enlisted non-commissioned members of the RCAF.
The “Aviator” rank insignia will be represented by a single stitched propeller on the uniforms of RCAF personnel.
The propeller insignia will be awarded to RCAF personnel upon graduation from occupational specialty training with 30-months of qualifying service.
The RCAF will maintain its current rank terminology for officers.
Starting April 1, 2015, RCAF personnel will begin to exhibit their new colours as their uniforms are tailored to incorporate the new accoutrements.
All RCAF members will be dressed in their new colours by the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain in September, 2015.


----------



## aequitas

I didn't see it posted anywhere yet. Feel free to move if this isn't the right spot for this


----------



## The Bread Guy

Note to the Info-machine:  would it kill you to include links to photos when the news is "look at the new x"?


----------



## aequitas

Thanks for the sound, non sarcastic advice! I have been working on it the site is not letting me upload the poster. I have been trying. If you have it please feel free.


----------



## aequitas

Ok my apologies people I have tried several times to get the photos uploaded but it just won't work. They are all on the RCAF Facebook page for viewing.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Then thanks for trying.

Also, this isn't the only case of "look at this" with no pix linked I've seen, so it's not a "you" issue, it appears to be an issue higher up in the Info-machine chain re:  including links to photos with news releases and backgrounders.


----------



## cavalryman

Looking at LGen Blondin's picture, I see the RCAF opted for the deluxe "belt-and-suspenders" package for general officer DEU tunics, with new-old Air Marshall stripes on the cuffs while retaining the old-new CF leafs on the shoulder straps.   :facepalm:
https://www.facebook.com/rcaf1924


----------



## Journeyman

aequitas said:
			
		

> .....I have tried several times to get the photos uploaded but it just won't work.


----------



## McG

At least the "new uniform" description seems untrue, but it is still unfortunate to see that we have found yet another place to waste a million or more dollars while operational capability and readiness are being actively attritted for lack of money.


----------



## aequitas

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Then thanks for trying.
> 
> Also, this isn't the only case of "look at this" with no pix linked I've seen, so it's not a "you" issue, it appears to be an issue higher up in the Info-machine chain re:  including links to photos with news releases and backgrounders.



Rgr, i am on my phone and the pictures only save as jpeg the error msg keeps says jpeg aren't auth. And provides a list of auth files.  Can't convert on my phone. Anyways off topic. 

Barring the fact this is another waste of money. Money we dont have alot of these days, I personally think it looks better. Not sure about the whole calling a pte, an aviator that's different. Wonder if it will actually catch on.


----------



## The Bread Guy

aequitas said:
			
		

> Rgr, i am on my phone and the pictures only save as jpeg the error msg keeps says jpeg aren't auth. And provides a list of auth files.  Can't convert on my phone. Anyways off topic.


My question was more like:  why can't "the system" include a link to where the pix are in the news release?  Flickr, Facebook, wherever.  I realize you've been trying to get 'er done sharing here - thanks.



			
				aequitas said:
			
		

> Barring the fact this is another waste of money. Money we dont have alot of these days, I personally think it looks better. Not sure about the whole calling a *pterrorist*,  an aviator that's different. Wonder if it will actually catch on.


Interbranch rivalry is one thing, but calling RCAF Aviators "pterrorists" is going a bit pfar, no?  ;D  Gotta love that auto-complete.


----------



## aequitas

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> My question was more like:  why can't "the system" include a link to where the pix are in the news release?  Flickr, Facebook, wherever.  I realize you've been trying to get 'er done sharing here - thanks.
> Interbranch rivalry is one thing, but calling RCAF Aviators "pterrorists" is going a bit pfar, no?  ;D  Gotta love that auto-complete.



Yea I don't know where that came from.. auto correct at its best. I fixed it but you caught it first


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

On the picture, Blondin doesn't look happy with the uniform change.


----------



## Container

It seems fine- the changes don't seem that bad.

Are they doing like the Army did and issuing everyone a second jacket?

I cant for the life of me figure out what the difference in my two DEU jackets is. Why not just update the new flashes and patches on the old jackets or am I missing something significant?


----------



## Journeyman

TB said:
			
		

> On the picture, Blondin doesn't look happy with the uniform change.


He's just having withdrawal symptoms; someone snatched away his leather jacket and Snoopy-as-fighter-pilot leather flying helmet.   :nod:


----------



## Old Sweat

Or he was just informed of the soon to be announced CF18 life extension programme which will take the fleet out to 2035 and told the new duds is the consolation prize.


----------



## PuckChaser

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or he was just informed of the soon to be announced CF18 life extension programme which will take the fleet out to 2035 and told the new duds is the consolation prize.



CF18 life extension? Is that what they're calling the push to purchase Super Hornets instead of F-35s?


----------



## Loachman

So it was only semi-retard rather than full-retard.

This is foolish enough, but I was bracing for much worse.

At least I am still a Captain. I cannot say "R**F" without choking, but "Fl***t li*******t" would induce projectile vomitting.


----------



## Happy Guy

Perhaps it's just me but why does a RCAF General Officer require rank insignia on both the shoulders and the sleeves?


----------



## Journeyman

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Perhaps it's just me but why does a RCAF General Officer require rank insignia on both the shoulders and the sleeves?


To appease the RAF _and_ USAF?  :dunno:


----------



## Old Sweat

Or so he is easier to spot, so the airmen, oops aviators, can more easily pretend they didn't see him? >


----------



## Jungle

Journeyman said:
			
		

> To appease the RAF _and_ USAF?  :dunno:



Or to appease the egos ? If that's the case, they're probably still looking for an additional spot to put the ranks. I would recommend the pant legs.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Uniform looks fine... I don't mind the new Army GO Uniforms either... they look better with the gorgets than they did before.


----------



## pidd

Loachman said:
			
		

> So it was only semi-retard rather than full-retard.
> 
> This is foolish enough, but I was bracing for much worse.
> 
> At least I am still a Captain. I cannot say "R**F" without choking, but "Fl***t li*******t" would induce projectile vomitting.



Your attitude, Captain, is precisely one of the reasons for the long awaited restoration of the RCAF.   If your memory and respect for the Tradition is so utterly shallow, perhaps after you puke over your Hellyer Greens you might find an antidote by reading of the heroism and valour of Flight Lieutenant David Hornell, VC, RCAF.  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/gal/vcg-gcv/bio/hornell-de-eng.asp 

Never mind the edit, hit the wrong button. Post is unchanged


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Pidd,

It may not occurred to you, but for two Wings in the RCAF, there is no RCAF tradition.

Both 1 Wing and 12 Wing now find themselves in an RCAF, to which they never belonged, pre-unification. If you are such an expert in tradition, please show me where in the pre-1967 RCAF one could find army helicopters and naval helicopters?

This is the problem.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

pidd said:
			
		

> Your attitude, Captain, is precisely one of the reasons for the long awaited restoration of the RCAF.



I, and I believe others, aren't following the...meaning of your post.



> If your memory and respect for the Tradition is so utterly shallow, perhaps after you puke over your Hellyer Greens you might find an antidote by reading of the heroism and valour of Flight Lieutenant David Hornell, VC, RCAF.  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/gal/vcg-gcv/bio/hornell-de-eng.asp



With due respect, exactly what is The Tradition you are referring to?  I grew up in an Air Force family at Air Force bases.  I am now 7+ years into my RCAF service.  I've never heard of The Tradition.  In the many times I've listen to my father talk of his service years with 13,000+ flying hours, he has never schooled me on or mention The Tradition.

Dad joined the RCAF and was around when Unification happened.  In his retirement picture he is in the "CAF green" DEU everyone wore; I've asked him about Unification and how it was and he said he was one who didn't really care about "shit like that", as it had nothing to do with being able to do the job they were supposed to be doing (VP Sqn).

My rank will stay the same.  The job I do will stay the same.  What will change is the color of my shoulder tags, rank, my Wings, and my buttons on my DEU and wedge.  Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a connection to DEU stuff, and job capabilities.  

Like my old man, I am more concerned about the latter.  :2c:


----------



## McG

Pidd, 
Welcome back to the conversation.  I see you are already playing in your red herrings - only the Army currently wears a green uniform.  That the navy and Air Force used to wear a similar uniform is irrelevant to the current changes - that _wrong_ was long ago corrected.  

Will you be sharing with us your contempt for serving members (with particular focus on the regular force) and your disdain for the red maple leaf flag over a proper Red ensign?  And I guess, anything the Canadian military does which is not aping the UK will be accused, by you, of aping the US?

As for knowing tradition, the RCAF is abandoning as many years of history as it is restoring in this change.  Why are you the authority on which is more right?

RAF rank insignia in Canada 1920 to 1968 = 48 years
Modern insignia in Canada 1968 to 2015 = 47 years

Nobody should be cheering the wasting of millions on badges while we cut operational capability and readiness to save funds.

edit to fix link


----------



## Tibbson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Absolute insanity, whatever it looks like.
> 
> And no shortage of better things to spend scarce money on.



Obviously this is where the money goes that they saved by prohibiting "in city" moves upon release.  I now see the bigger picture!!!


----------



## x_para76

MCG said:
			
		

> Pidd,
> Welcome back to the conversation.  I see you are already playing in your red herrings - only the Army currently wears a green uniform.  That the navy and Air Force used to wear a similar uniform is irrelevant to the current changes - that _wrong_ was long ago corrected.
> 
> Will you be sharing with us your contempt for serving members (with particular focus on the regular force) and your disdain for the red maple leaf flag over a proper Red ensign?  And I guess, anything the Canadian military does which is not aping the UK will be accused, by you, of aping the US?
> 
> As for knowing tradition, the RCAF is abandoning as many years of history as it is restoring in this change.  Why are you the authority on which is more right?
> 
> RAF rank insignia in Canada 1920 to 1968 = 48 years
> Modern insignia in Canada 1968 to 2015 = 47 years
> 
> Nobody should be cheering the wasting of millions on badges while we cut operational capability and readiness to save funds.



To play devils advocate what has the RCAF been involved in of any historical significance since 1968? They likely haven't lost a plane to enemy action since WW2 or Korea.


----------



## dapaterson

X_para76 said:
			
		

> To play devils advocate what has the RCAF been involved in of any historical significance since 1968? They likely haven't lost a plane to enemy action since WW2 or Korea.



Buffalo 461, in August 1974.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_461


----------



## LightFighter

Not a plane, but a Canadian Chinook was brought down by enemy fire in 2010.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/insurgents-downed-canadian-chopper-military-1.969037

In addition the recent operation in Afghanistan, they(RCAF) also deployed as part of Operation Mobile/Unified Protector and hit targets in Libya.


----------



## TCM621

X_para76 said:
			
		

> To play devils advocate what has the RCAF been involved in of any historical significance since 1968? They likely haven't lost a plane to enemy action since WW2 or Korea.


Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya.

Oh: and they were in the air for 9/11


----------



## McG

The Syrians shot a Buffalo out of the sky in '74, and we lost aircraft and crew in Afghanistan.

And our Air Force has done successful combat ops in that time that did not have losses; those should not be discounted.


----------



## eliminator

X_para76 said:
			
		

> To play devils advocate what has the RCAF been involved in of any historical significance since 1968? They likely haven't lost a plane to enemy action since WW2 or Korea.



Are combat losses really the best indicator of "historical significance"?

The RCAF, unlike the CA, is always actively engaged in a variety of 24/7/365 operations. SAR, Sovereignty enforcement, and Transport are just some of the ongoing domestic operations that come to mind. Kosovo, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Libya are just a few notable international deployments. Strategic transport and air det support to the RCN are often overlooked. 

The day to day life of the RCAF is much different than the garrison (Monday to Friday 07:30-15:30) routine of the army. 

So, to say that the RCAF hasn't been up to anything worthy to be considered as historically significant since 1968 would be missing the point of what the air force function is all about in Canada.


----------



## x_para76

I was merely replying to the question which is a more significant period in the history of the RCAF the period from 1920-1968 or 1968 and beyond? Clearly no modern airforce has been involved in anything on the scale of WW2 with perhaps the exception of the Americans in Vietnam.


----------



## vonGarvin

X_para76 said:
			
		

> To play devils advocate what has the RCAF been involved in of any historical significance since 1968? They likely haven't lost a plane to enemy action since WW2 or Korea.


RCAF Chinook shot down in Afghanistan....

I watched my brothers in the command now known (again) as RCAF fly combat operations in support of ground combat operations in Afghanistan.  Trust me, they've been there (rotary wing operations, along with some EOD operations....)


Anyway, the dichotomy of "uniforms or jets" is rather false.  If the RCAF wants uniforms, then fine.  I'm certain treasury board approves, and I'm certain that budget "A" wasn't lowered to support Budget "B", causing baby orphans to go without baby milk made in Iraqi baby milk factories....


I'm also certain that this isn't the first instance of any military anywhere wasting money.  Doesn't make it right, but it's not unique, nor I suspect the most expensive...


----------



## Journeyman

There seems to be no shortage of ex-militia 'experts' on Air Force matters.....   :not-again:



And _one more time_.....opinions vs *informed* opinions.   :


----------



## George Wallace

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I was merely replying to the question which is a more significant period in the history of the RCAF the period from 1920-1968 or 1968 and beyond? Clearly no modern airforce has been involved in anything on the scale of WW2 with perhaps the exception of the Americans in Vietnam.



No Land or Naval forces have partaken in any significant action since WW II either, other than Korea and Vietnam.  Even the Falklands were by no means a large military endeavour taking a long period of time.


----------



## Halifax Tar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No Land or Naval forces have partaken in any significant action since WW II either, other than Korea and Vietnam.  Even the Falklands were by no means a large military endeavor taking a long period of time.



While I assume you mean the RCN hasn't been in a "shooting war" sense Korea, the RCN has by no means been stagnant or lacking in operations. 

The RCAFs contributions to the Afghanistan Campaign are undeniable.  Other than flying detainees back to KAF every one, of my many, helo rides was on an RCAF chopper.  Not to mention it was RCAF transport aircraft who got me to Afg both times I was deployed. 

Either way good for you RCAF I like your new uni's.  I hope the RCN moves in a similar fashion.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> While I assume you mean the RCN hasn't been in a "shooting war" sense Korea, the RCN has by no means been stagnant or lacking in operations.
> 
> The RCAFs contributions to the Afghanistan Campaign are undeniable.  Other than flying detainees back to KAF every one, of my many, helo rides was on an RCAF chopper.  Not to mention it was RCAF transport aircraft who got me to Afg both times I was deployed.



You missed my point addressing X_para76's comment.  Yes all Elements have been deployed; but not on as grand a scale as the Second World War.  

I don't believe the WEST has the will to deploy troops on that scale at this time at any time since.


----------



## McG

X_para76 said:
			
		

> I was merely replying to the question which is a more significant period in the history of the RCAF the period from 1920-1968 or 1968 and beyond? Clearly no modern airforce has been involved in anything on the scale of WW2 with perhaps the exception of the Americans in Vietnam.


what about winning the Cold War?



			
				General Disorder said:
			
		

> Anyway, the dichotomy of "uniforms or jets" is rather false.  If the RCAF wants uniforms, then fine.  I'm certain treasury board approves, and I'm certain that budget "A" wasn't lowered to support Budget "B", causing baby orphans to go without baby milk made in Iraqi baby milk factories....


It would be a false dichotomy if one were to link money wasted on badges to "baby orphans ... without baby milk" but only you are using that analogy.  The fact is that DND and the CAF have not been given money from parliament to do this.  No extra money means that funding these initiatives is coming out of the defence budget.  It is indeed uniforms vs capability.  Your baby milk argument is nothing but a strawman.

... And on the topic of logical falacies:


			
				General Disorder said:
			
		

> I'm also certain that this isn't the first instance of any military anywhere wasting money.  Doesn't make it right, but it's not unique, nor I suspect the most expensive...


Two wrongs make a right is another fallacy.  Now in particular, the CAF cannot afford to waste.  Capability and readiness are on the line.


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> So it was only semi-retard rather than full-retard.
> 
> This is foolish enough, but I was bracing for much worse.
> 
> At least I am still a Captain. I cannot say "R**F" without choking, but "Fl***t li*******t" would induce projectile vomitting.



You have something against "Lieutenant"?   ;D


----------



## McG

And mainstream press is now covering this.


> *New Royal Canadian Air Force uniform unveiled*.
> CTV Ottawa
> 21 Sep 2014, 7:00PM EDT
> 
> The Royal Canadian Air Force unveiled its new uniform Sunday, a move that's supposed to bring the force closer to its distinguished history and traditions.
> 
> The new uniform, complete with small changes including the move from gold to pearl-grey buttons and details, was launched at the annual Battle of Britain ceremony at the Canada Aviation and Space Museum.
> 
> One rank will be changing, despite initial reports the RCAF would return to British-style ranks. Privates will now be known as Aviators, a gender-neutral term that will be identified by a single stich propeller. One RCAF official told CTV News that changing all the ranks would be too complicated and confusing.
> 
> Hundreds of current and former airmen and airwoman were on hand for the ceremony, in addition to dignitaries including Defence Minister Rob Nicholson, and Lieutenant General Yvan Bloudin.
> 
> In a statement, Minister Nicholson said the updated uniform will strengthen the bond between current forces members and their predecessors.
> 
> LGen Godin offered similar sentiments, saying he is proud to wear a uniform that more closely resembles what RCAF members wore when the force was created 90 years ago.
> 
> "It's our link to the Royal Canadian Air Force of the Past," he told CTV Ottawa.
> 
> "We are proud to be wearing the uniform of our forefathers, the ones who taught us what we are doing."
> 
> Veterans who attended the ceremony said they are happy to see the air force returning to their roots.
> 
> "I joined the RCAF and I put that uniform on and wore it for years. It's nice to see it back," said one veteran.
> 
> "I think they are very nice. It's about time," said a WWII veteran.
> 
> RCAF personnel will begin wearing the new uniform on April 1, 2015. All personnel will be in the new uniforms in time for the 75th anniversary of the Battle of Britain.


http://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/new-royal-canadian-air-force-uniform-unveiled-1.2017526#


----------



## Good2Golf

pidd said:
			
		

> Your attitude, Captain, is precisely one of the reasons for the long awaited restoration of the RCAF.   If your memory and respect for the Tradition is so utterly shallow, perhaps after you puke over your Hellyer Greens you might find an antidote by reading of the heroism and valour of Flight Lieutenant David Hornell, VC, RCAF.  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/gal/vcg-gcv/bio/hornell-de-eng.asp
> 
> Never mind the edit, hit the wrong button. Post is unchanged



Perhaps a few graphics will help you pull your head out of the sunless orifice within which it currently resides.  Just because you fail to fully understand the history and tradition of aviation in the Canadian service is no reason to berate serving members of a branch which is not nearly as neatly aligned with the RCAF as your uninformed attack makes it out to be.


----------



## vonGarvin

Good2Golf said:
			
		

>



[tangent]

Is that a "Grasshopper" Observation aircraft?

[/tangent]


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't believe the WEST has the will to deploy troops on that scale at this time at any time since.


Hell, who can afford it unless it's truly a fight to the death?  I cannot imagine what that sort of commitment would run nowadays.


----------



## Edward Campbell

General Disorder said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> 
> Is that a "Grasshopper" Observation aircraft?
> 
> [/tangent]




I'm pretty sure, since it has a Mobile Command badge, that it is a L-19 "Bird Dog" which, I think, replaced the _Grasshopper_.

Anyway ...





US Army _Grasshopper_





Canadian Army L-19 _Bird Dog_
.
.
.
And
.
.
.




RCAF L-19 _Bird Dog_ ... apparently Canadian Army pilots are better at landings


----------



## George Wallace

General Disorder said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> 
> Is that a "Grasshopper" Observation aircraft?
> 
> [/tangent]



L-19 Bird Dog    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV427haEN2k


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Regarding The Tradition of the RCAF, I think it is appropriate at this juncture to remind everyone of the old adage about the difference between Navies and Air Forces:

"Navies are 1000 years of traditions unimpeded by progress, while Air forces are 100 years of progress unimpeded by tradition".


----------



## Old Sweat

And the helicopter is a CH113 Voyageur of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.

For a shot of tradition, the last member of one of the Canadian services to be awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross was Captain Peter Tees, RCA, an Air OP pilot in the British Commonwealth Division in Korea. Among other things, he managed to safely land his aircraft after it was hit by an artillery round in flight and on the morning of 3 May, 1953 he took off to observe the area behind the Chinese lines after the all night attack on 3 RCR. Tees observed a large number of Chinese troops that had previously not been detected and engaged them with the divisional artillery, inflicting heavy casualties on them.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Not be forgotten:

A list of aircraft flown by RCN Aviators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Royal_Canadian_Navy

Another example of how the RCAF isn't totally built on a traditional AF history.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

"pidd' came on and read the thread but then booked it without commenting..................I guess one can't have some cold water reality thrown on his tradition fire.


----------



## Pusser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In his retirement picture he is in the [color=yellow[b]]"CAF green" DEU [/b] [/color] everyone wore; I've asked him about Unification and how it was and he said he was one who didn't really care about "crap like that", as it had nothing to do with being able to do the job they were supposed to be doing (VP Sqn).



This is not a dig, nor am I trying to yank anyone's chain, but this statement does illustrate an interesting phenomena within the language.  It's interesting how the meaning of certain terms gets lost over time and can even completely change.  It is absolutely impossible for anyone to have worn the "CF green DEU."  The abbreviation, "DEU" stands for "Distinctive Environmental Uniform" and was really more of a Departmental project, started in 1985 under Mulroney's first PC Government,  than an actual set of clothes.  However, over time, "DEU" has become synonymous with what would more correctly be called "service dress" (i.e. numbers 1 and 3 orders of dress) and in many cases is used to refer only to the jacket and tie version.  However, all uniforms that are distinctive by environment actually form the "DEU."  Mess dress was part of the project as well.  In the case above, the member is wearing his "service dress" in the photo.  He could not have been wearing "DEU," because not only did the term not exist at the time, but it was not distinctive by environment - we all wore the same uniform back then (and I personally hated it, but that's another story).

As for the other comment on not really caring about unification, that's not really surprising.  The CDS at the time of unification was an RCAF officer and many of the changes imposed on the Army and the RCN had  actually already been in place in the RCAF.  Unification did not equal monumental change there.  Furthermore the traditions of the "air environment" of the CF were not as badly decimated as those of the land and particularly the sea environments.  That's not to say, however, that there weren't overall improvements either, but that too is another topic.


----------



## George Wallace

There was no such thing as DEU's in the CAF/CF/CAF prior to 1985 as Pusser points out.  They were know as CF's or Service Dress.


----------



## Good2Golf

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And the helicopter is a CH113 Voyageur of 1 Transport Helicopter Platoon, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.


   :nod:   

Pusser:  Indeed, or as we simply called them, "CFs."


----------



## pidd

'The Tradition' to which I have referred is not specifically to the RCAF but to the entirety of the Canadian military's tradition from which the air force emerged.  My criticism of the Captain's post was not directed toward him as an officer per se but to the dismissive and mocking attitude he directed at the RCAF and the rank of Flight Lieutenant.  It reflects an undo lack of respect for 'those who have gone before us' and whose service was forged in fire.

Without re-treading the well-worn history of unification and the subsequent civilianisation of the armed forces in 1974 by integrating DND with the armed forces, the direct and deliberate consequence of the Liberal policy was to break Canada's military from its tradition, especially its British roots and inheritance.  This was a political act designed within a larger plan to erase and then re-create the country's image through the invention of new symbols and structures.  Although this process did not completely succeed in its course, from the monarchy, the G-G, Defence and myriad other government departments and services, the overall goal for a time was largely achieved.  Still, this overhaul remained divisive, not only within the military but in the Canadian population as a whole.  Naturally, as decades have passed, so have the passions gone to rest that were deeply held by and with previous generations.

Tradition is not a static but a living reality that reflects and is built upon the customs, institutions and the like from the past.  Tradition evolves but it is not cut off from its primary source as in 'revolution'. 'Colonels-at-sea' in a Water Element was a novelty completely unhinged.  Whatever administrative advantages were and have been gained through the re-creative process, and the jury is still out on that, there have been many since and now who believe that most of what was done to Canada's military was a mistake.  Even Mr. Hellyer admits that he should have left the uniforms, etc. alone.  

As Chris Hadfield said in support of the restoration of the RCAF, the living tradition within a military unit is especially important to those who serve and have served in battle, past and present.  To suggest that the air force has no tradition because it is a 'young service' compared with the navy and army is to deny the precious legacy passed on by those who built the foundation of the service and sanctified it with their blood and sacrifice.  The 'Battle of Britain', defence of Malta and Bomber Command consist of more than having done a job.  They marked a place, an identity through achievement, not only of the RCAF as a whole but of each and every squadron, with officers and all ranks and the symbols that represented them.  This is, of course, also true in part of those who serve now and in the time before and after the DEU and the emerging discussion of re-connecting them with their comrades from the past.

Some believe that symbols are not as important as kit and equipment, with a view that the military is primarily utilitarian both in its identity and purpose.  History strongly suggests otherwise; where one cannot divorce the 'Spitfire' from the 'Flight Lieutenant' piloting the aircraft; an officer who was a son, a brother, a human being with a passionate attachment to his service.  If the military is more than buttons and bows it's also more than nuts and bolts and that's is through the cementing of identity through cumulative events that result in Tradition.  This is why regiments guard their colour, with their battle honours, like a lion in its pride.  Battle Honours, badges, medals and even uniforms are symbols of whom those privileged enough to 'own' them derive esprit de corps; deeply held and shared with their mates.

The Conservatives, in their re-incarnation and policy asserted from the beginning that they would restore the tradition of the armed forces as well as re-build them.  It is not unfair to argue that more needs to be done in the re-building, equipping and increase in size of the armed forces.  It is also not unfair to recognise that they have instituted a deliberate re-connect and identity of the navy, army and air force with the Canadian military tradition.  That so much of that restoration is a link with the British tradition is obvious.  
From British colony, to British Dominion to indepent Commonwealth nation, our country's institutions, including our military is intimately joined to who we were and are at our foundation, through war and the great events of battle and which has become an integral part of the Canadian identity.  The symbols we retain reflect that profound history and reality.

It appears that the government has chosen to follow the 'somethings borrowed, somethings blue, somethings old and somethings new' approach with the RCAF.  That's a very Canadian thing in itself; even if there, as with the Liberals four decades ago, is an undercurrent of political nuance and sensibility.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

...and once again I ask you- where does a Sea King Squadron find itself in terms of this RCAF?

Our roots are RCN.  One could at least argue with unification, that did not much matter. Nobody's roots mattered. Now that we have restored the 3 services (seemingly) and are adopting the pre-1967 narrative wholesale, while ignoring all of us who have served post  1967, what to we do about naval and army air?


----------



## Journeyman

Edit:  a more long-winded response than SeaKingTacco, who posted while I was ranting.   ;D



			
				pidd said:
			
		

> 'The Tradition' to which I have referred is not specifically to the RCAF but to *the entirety of the Canadian military's tradition * from which the air force emerged.  My criticism of the Captain's post was not directed toward him as an officer per se but to the dismissive and mocking attitude he directed at the RCAF and the rank of Flight Lieutenant.  It reflects an undo lack of respect for 'those who have gone before us' and whose service was forged in fire.


If you are considering the entirety of our military tradition, then why are you having such difficulty comprehending that those in the maritime helicopter and army aviation worlds don't give a rat's ass about "The 'Battle of Britain', defence of Malta and Bomber Command" -- wonderful yet completely meaningless examples to those communities. 



> Still, this overhaul remained divisive, not only within the military but *in the Canadian population as a whole*.


 You honestly believe that the Canadian population cares about unification?!   :stars: 



> Some believe that symbols are not as important as kit and equipment, with a view that the military is primarily utilitarian both in its identity and purpose.  History strongly suggests otherwise.....


So you agree with the importance of identity (even if the thought hasn't worked its way through to you yet) that grey helicopters should be RCN and green ones, CA  -- _especially_ given the members of those communities continuously pointing out they're the poor step-children to the F-35- and leather jacket-fixated RCAF.


Now, I have no dog in this fight personally (other than budget wastage, but I guess it's the RCAF's turn), but I've worked with enough Army and Navy flight crews that I empathize.  Saying "but...but....Flight Lieutenants flew Spitfires" probably isn't going to win you the high-school debating club trophy.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

pidd,

And I say, if you think for a second, that those who fell before us would want even a single serving member to also fall because ' we the living' thought that tradition was more important then kitting the present members in the best equipment/training possible, then you dishonour their memory in the worst way.

That is why I'm pissed at this whole 'rehash' kife.............


----------



## McG

Pidd is a supporter of the Red Ensign society's aims (if not the society itself).  I don't think he understands that Canadians have grown to identify with their symbols that have replaced older British icons in our institutions and society.  One half century of history is more equal than another half century.  Even though the CAF today is not the three services of past, those old identities will be forced to fit ... Whether serving members want it or not.

Where is all that talk of responsible use of taxpayer money from the destroyer and AOR divestment thread?


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...and once again I ask you- where does a Sea King Squadron find itself in terms of this RCAF?
> 
> Our roots are RCN.  One could at least argue with unification, that did not much matter. Nobody's roots mattered. Now that we have restored the 3 services (seemingly) and are adopting the pre-1967 narrative wholesale, while ignoring all of us who have served post  1967, what to we do about naval and army air?



Pray that they retain their 'traditional' effectiveness and some independence of thought and action from the RCAF?  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

There are, were as we saw, beginning with _coats of many colours_* in the mid 1980s, those who _believe_, with absolute faith, that everything Paul Hellyer did was 100% wrong. (It always struck me as odd that Mr Hellyer's staunchest and most informed critics, people like Admiral Landymore and General Moncel, were supporters of much of the _unification_ (joint forces, etc) programme; it was _integration_ ~ exemplified by the one colour (CF green) single service sub-structure ~ that they thought was dangerously wrong.) These people are fixated on an era in which, in many cases, they weren't even born and certainly, unlike a handful of us here, did not serve. (For the record, I wore pips and crowns on my service dress and combat uniforms; I joined when LGen SF (Fin) Clark was Chief of the General Staff and General Charles Foulkes was Chairmen of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the precursor of the CDS; the "good old days were, indeed, both old and days.)

I'm not opposed to changes in uniforms, many (most) armies update their uniforms on a periodic basis: some changes make a lot of good sense, others not so much. I'm not opposed to changing rank badges, either. I _think_ the RCN's _executive curl_ is harmless, not absolutely necessary but if it raises the moral of a few officers then, certainly, not a bad thing. I would have preferred distinctively Canadian Army rank badges, even if it involved _pips and crowns_, but, again, despite the fact that the money could have been better used to buy e.g. more boots, it is not a huge problem. Some people like them, some don't, all will survive. I rather like the look of the RCAF's new service dress, again there might well be be other, better things on which that money could have been spent, but "maintenance of moral" is important and some serving officers say these _gee gaws_ are good for moral.

What I am opposed to is: a bloated, even morbidly obese command and control superstructure, the misuse of the defence budget as a regional support/job creation slush fund and, oh yes, the submerging of Naval and Army aviation in the Air Force, which I _suspect_ _might_ even cause _some_ operational problems, and even the use of foreign symbols like the Garter Cross on Army officers pips when a perfectly good Canadian cross - say the Cross of the Order of Military Merit - could have been chosen (at somewhat higher costs, I admit), and I especially object to serving military officers playing politics, partisan party politics, behind the backs of the commanders and senior staff officers under whose command and direction they serve.

_____
* Our internal name for the Distinctive Environmental Uniform project, the brainchild of Defence Minister Robert Coates


----------



## Rocky Mountains

General Disorder said:
			
		

> RCAF Chinook shot down in Afghanistan....
> 
> I watched my brothers in the command now known (again) as RCAF fly combat operations in support of ground combat operations in Afghanistan.  Trust me, they've been there (rotary wing operations, along with some EOD operations....)
> 
> 
> Anyway, the dichotomy of "uniforms or jets" is rather false.  If the RCAF wants uniforms, then fine.  I'm certain treasury board approves, and I'm certain that budget "A" wasn't lowered to support Budget "B", causing baby orphans to go without baby milk made in Iraqi baby milk factories....
> 
> 
> I'm also certain that this isn't the first instance of any military anywhere wasting money.  Doesn't make it right, but it's not unique, nor I suspect the most expensive...



Afghanistan - Eight of the 21 people aboard the Canadian CH-147 Chinook suffered minor injuries.

WW II - 18,000 Air Force dead

The point was that traditions developed at a time of extreme sacrifice in WWII and is certainly valid.  Note that Canada had no significant Air Force in WWI and only transport aircraft in Korea.


----------



## pidd

I've never heard of the 'Red Ensign Society'...but I'll always cherish that emblem just as I have learned to honour the Maple Leaf flag.  
Mr. Monkhouse:  I have never said that sending our guys into battle in new uniforms without equipment is a choice.  C'mon.
We honour those who have gone before us by respecting the Tradition and keeping strong.  We should be ahead of most nations when it comes to our capability and strength.  It's not an either or.
Journeyman:  How sad to suggest that the Navy or Army don't give a damn about the Battle Honours of the Air Force.  I think...no...I know you are dead wrong.  It is an insult to suggest that those in the Navy and Army are petty, self-interested little people.
As for unification, I lived through it and remember well the Canadian population's utter disgust and outrage.  Of course there is little care now, as I said, with generations having passed.  The Canadian military has become an enigma of sorts today and for many, reduced to the highway of heroes on the news.
Look, my original post was specifically about the new RCAF uniform, etc. in response to someone's mocking of the RCAF.
I haven't referred to the naval and army flight identities because that was not a part of my conversation.  
Do I agree that the Navy air arm be identified as such? Of course.  Same with Army helicopters.  My late brother in the RCN flew off the Bonnie.  He wanted the three sevices to be completely restored...including the RCAF and the Black Watch return to the regular Army instead of a gazillion battalions of other regiments.  Alas, sometimes half a loaf, etc. etc.
If you think that respecting an RCAF Flight Lieutenant with a VC is a mere 'debating point' then you reveal more than you think.
As for the comments that I ran away from all the distinguished posts with cold feet due to the incredibly high quality of others posts:  As incredible as it might seem to some of you, there are other responsibilities in one's life besides entering into a futile debate with the Ad Hominum Society.  Perhaps you might consider going back to picking the wings off of all the plentiful flies in the basement.


----------



## George Wallace

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Note that Canada had no significant Air Force in WWI and only transport aircraft in Korea.



Yes and No.

.......Twenty-two RCAF fighter pilots, however, flew the North American F-86 Sabre on exchange duty with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in Korea


----------



## LightFighter

pidd said:
			
		

> and the Black Watch return to the regular Army instead of a gazillion battalions of other regiments.



A gazillion battalions of other regiments? The Reg Force has 9 Infantry battalions, 3 per regiment(PPCLI, RCR, R22eR). How is that a gazzalion battalions?

Also, why should the Black Watch become a Reg Force regiment? Would it become a forth Reg Force regiment, or would it replace a regiment?


----------



## Rocky Mountains

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes and No.
> 
> .......Twenty-two RCAF fighter pilots, however, flew the North American F-86 Sabre on exchange duty with the U.S. Air Force (USAF) in Korea



Okay and 12,000 Canadians did serve in the RFC RNAS and RAF in WWI.  The RCAF suffered no deaths in Korea.


----------



## Good2Golf

pidd said:
			
		

> ...If you think that respecting an RCAF Flight Lieutenant with a VC is a mere 'debating point' then you reveal more than you think...



Or, with more of an open mind, you might have considered what members of today's "RCAF" but who fly and support the Navy in direct support as Naval Aviators think about the respect they accord upon  Lieutenant (RCN) Robert Hampton Gray, VC, DSC.  One could say that to think a 'Flight Lieutenant' is the only way to respectfully think of a Canadian two-stripe officer with a VC is just as shallow as those whom you critique for their views of tradition.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## pidd

It was the Captain who ridiculed the rank of a distingished officer...not me.  It was the man who held that mocked rank that he and everyone should respect.


----------



## Privateer

It seems strange to me that the powers-that-be decided to keep the shoulder rank for general officers while introducing sleeve rank.  It looks too busy for my eyes. Can anyone shed light on the decision to have this "bilingual" rank on RCAF general officers?


----------



## Lightguns

LightFighter said:
			
		

> A gazillion battalions of other regiments? The Reg Force has 9 Infantry battalions, 3 per regiment(PPCLI, RCR, R22eR). How is that a gazzalion battalions?
> 
> Also, why should the Black Watch become a Reg Force regiment? Would it become a forth Reg Force regiment, or would it replace a regiment?



I think what the gentlemen means is the single battalion regiment, which was a tradition of the Canadian infantry.  In the 50 and 60s we went to two battalion regiments, after Hellyerism, we nowhave three 3-battalion regiments.  Mainly, this was done to remove those units without a Canadian "identity" (ie; Highlanders and Guards, who leftist Canada sees as the continuance of Imperial tradition and to build more French spekaing units in the peace-time army).  In the 70s and 80s, there was some debate about going back to single battalion regiments to eliminate the "regimental mafias" whose politicking is often negative to kit distribution, training and effectiveness of our infantry.  The theory is that a single battalion could not control infantry establishments and politics as much as three like-badged battalions.  It may have merit....

I wrote a paper in the 90s when there were 10 battalions that a two battalion establishment would serves us better.  Each regiment would have a first battalion of the Reg For and a second battalion of the PRes, a third battalion could be held as a Special Force unit for mobilization.  Brigades would have 2 infantry battalions (4 companies each) and the remainder of the brigade would be structured to serve the 8 infantry companies (Square ORBAT).  Reserve would serve with Reserve and Reg with Reg but passage to the Reg For is through your regiment's reserve unit.  Regimental depots operate in the summer only and train only Reserve candidates on DP1 but to a Reg For standard.  The best of the best get to Reg posting if they wish and the reminder hone their skills on weekends and compete for other Reg billets throughout the year.


----------



## Journeyman

pidd said:
			
		

> Journeyman:  How sad.....


Since your default setting of those disagreeing seems to be limited to feelings of 'insult, disrespect, and dishonour,' and you believe providing contrary examples is _ad hominem_, there really isn't much more to contribute.







You feel free to carry on though.


----------



## Lightguns

Privateer said:
			
		

> It seems strange to me that the powers-that-be decided to keep the shoulder rank for general officers while introducing sleeve rank.  It looks too busy for my eyes. Can anyone shed light on the decision to have this "bilingual" rank on RCAF general officers?



No, I cannot, the sleeve rank is tradition and the shoulder rank is more Army than RCAF.  I would think they want to keep up with their counterparts to the South, maybe?  Or maybe it is just a bling fetish!


----------



## opcougar

> The Royal Canadian Air Force’s (RCAF) new uniform respects the contributions and sacrifices of airmen and airwomen who served – and continue to serve – with pride and professionalism.
> 
> Main aspects of the new uniform are drawn from pre-unification rank insignia maintaining the modern elements and terminology familiar to serving members. The insignia for most ranks will be recognizable as the symbols that air force personnel have worn for nearly half a century.
> 
> Rank names, with the exception of “Private,” will remain the same.
> 
> The RCAF’s shoulder titles and uniform buttons will also be updated to harmonize with the new rank insignia.



http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=tp&crtr.page=1&nid=886249&crtr.tp1D=930

http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/09/21/new-look-to-rcaf-uniform


----------



## OldSolduer

LightFighter said:
			
		

> A gazillion battalions of other regiments? The Reg Force has 9 Infantry battalions, 3 per regiment(PPCLI, RCR, R22eR). How is that a gazzalion battalions?
> 
> Also, why should the Black Watch become a Reg Force regiment? Would it become a forth Reg Force regiment, or would it replace a regiment?


DEU for a Highland unit is much more expensive than trouser wearing regiments. Consider the cutaway tunic, a balmoral, a a glengarry, kilt, sporran, and the huge skeen do - I don't know how to spell that -and its a huge investment.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The three Battalions Regiment are not a result of the Hellyer "unification".

IIRC, at Unification, there were four infantry regular Regiment with two Battalions each: RCR, PPCLI, Canadian Guards and the R22nd. There were also two regular Regiments with one battalion of regulars and one of reserves: The Blackwatch and the Queen's own Riffle. The whole for a total of 10 infantry battalions.

After unification, DND wanted to reduce infantry by two Battalions, and Hellyer wanted to eliminate obvious "britishness". As a result the Queen's Own and Blackwatch regulars were zero manned and the Canadian Guards disbanded. At the same time, one new Battalion was added to the R22nd to absorb the "freed" French Canadian soldiers and the Airborne Regiment was stood up as Canada's rapid-response force.

I believe it is only after the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment that the PPCLI's and RCR got their third Battalion.

P.s.: Re: The extra RCAF general's "bling", my personal view is that they kept the shoulder ranks and the sleeve ones for either of two reasons: 1) As highly practical people, they figure that this way, no one will be confused: they'll get it one way or the other; or, 2) They just couldn't stand to look like they had less bling than the Navy or the Army - hey! We are airforce and therefore the "top-dogs".


----------



## FSTO

One back to the past initiative I would support would be the ditching of Brookfield and let our Log Officers and RMS Clerks handle moves.
But I digress..


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The three Battalions Regiment are not a result of the Hellyer "unification".
> 
> IIRC, at Unification, there were four infantry regular Regiment with two Battalions each: RCR, PPCLI, Canadian Guards and the R22nd. There were also two regular Regiments with one battalion of regulars and one of reserves: The Blackwatch and the Queen's own Riffle. The whole for a total of 10 infantry battalions.
> 
> After unification, DND wanted to reduce infantry by two Battalions, and Hellyer wanted to eliminate obvious "britishness". As a result the Queen's Own and Blackwatch regulars were zero manned and the Canadian Guards disbanded. At the same time, one new Battalion was added to the R22nd to absorb the "freed" French Canadian soldiers and the Airborne Regiment was stood up as Canada's rapid-response force.
> 
> I believe it is only after the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment that the PPCLI's and RCR got their third Battalion.
> 
> P.s.: Re: The extra RCAF general's "bling", my personal view is that they kept the shoulder ranks and the sleeve ones for either of two reasons: 1) As highly practical people, they figure that this way, no one will be confused: they'll get it one way or the other; or, 2) They just couldn't stand to look like they had less bling than the Navy or the Army - hey! We are airforce and therefore the "top-dogs".




You're partially right. In 1966 there were 12 battalions in the RCIC in six regiments: The Regiment of Canadian Guards, The Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, the Royal 22nd Regiment, the Queens Own Rifles of Canada and the Royal Highland Regiment of Canada (the Black Watch). (The R22R soon had three battalions, one of which was soon to be the 'divisional' anti-tank battalion.) The Canadian Airborne Regiment was formed _circa_ 1968. The big cuts came in 1969, when Prime Minister Trudeau ordered them coincidentally with halving the size of 4CMBG in Germany and moving it out of the line of fire - the North German Plain - and into the CENTAG area in the mountainous South of Germany. This was preparatory to the 1970 foreign policy White Paper.


----------



## dangerboy

For the 3rd Battalions, I can't speak about the RCR or the R22eR, but for the PPCLI, 3 PPCL was formed on 30 Nov 1950.  It was reduced to nil strength on 8 Jan 1954 andf the majority of its pers went to form 2nd BN Canadian Guards.  It was reactivated in April 1970 when the QOR of C was reverted to Militia


----------



## Old Sweat

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The three Battalions Regiment are not a result of the Hellyer "unification".
> 
> IIRC, at Unification, there were four infantry regular Regiment with two Battalions each: RCR, PPCLI, Canadian Guards and the R22nd. There were also two regular Regiments with one battalion of regulars and one of reserves: The Blackwatch and the Queen's own Riffle. The whole for a total of 10 infantry battalions.
> 
> After unification, DND wanted to reduce infantry by two Battalions, and Hellyer wanted to eliminate obvious "britishness". As a result the Queen's Own and Blackwatch regulars were zero manned and the Canadian Guards disbanded. At the same time, one new Battalion was added to the R22nd to absorb the "freed" French Canadian soldiers and the Airborne Regiment was stood up as Canada's rapid-response force.
> 
> I believe it is only after the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment that the PPCLI's and RCR got their third Battalion.



Not quite, post Korea there were 15 battalions; one four battalion regiment - The Canadian Guards - which was formed from the two Canadian Infantry Battalions formed for NATO and Korea and the third battalions of The RCR and the PPCLI; one three battalion regiment - the R22nd; and four two battalion regiments - The RCR, PPCLI, QOR and RHC. By 1960 two of the Guards battalions had gone to free up manpower to activate the 8CH and FGH as regular armoured regiments. When it was decided to create an airborne regiment, two battalions - 1 Canadian Guards and 2 Queen's Own Rifles - were disbanded to provide the establishment spaces. Finally as part of the 1970 force cuts, the Canadian Guards, QOR and RHC, were disbanded, while 3 Mechanized Commando was stood up in Europe and The RCR and Patricias each got a third battalion by rebadging 2nd Canadian Guards and 1 QOR respectively. That left ten battalions, three in each of the regular regiments and the airborne regiment, which was an all arms (less armoured) organization. 

Prior to the disbandment of the airborne, it had been decided to go to six full(?) battalions and three 10/90 battalions, but the pressure of the Balkans resulted in us going back to nine battalions, while the airborne went, ostensibly because of Somalia, but I believe based on information I got privately it was done for establishment reasons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pusser said:
			
		

> This is not a dig, nor am I trying to yank anyone's chain, but this statement does illustrate an interesting phenomena within the language.  It's interesting how the meaning of certain terms gets lost over time and can even completely change.  It is absolutely impossible for anyone to have worn the "CF green DEU."  The abbreviation, "DEU" stands for "Distinctive Environmental Uniform" and was really more of a Departmental project, started in 1985 under Mulroney's first PC Government,  than an actual set of clothes.  However, over time, "DEU" has become synonymous with what would more correctly be called "service dress" (i.e. numbers 1 and 3 orders of dress) and in many cases is used to refer only to the jacket and tie version.  However, all uniforms that are distinctive by environment actually form the "DEU."  Mess dress was part of the project as well.  In the case above, the member is wearing his "service dress" in the photo.  He could not have been wearing "DEU," because not only did the term not exist at the time, but it was not distinctive by environment - we all wore the same uniform back then (and I personally hated it, but that's another story).



Holy crap.  I said "CAF green DEU" in my post, I don't know what they called it when he was in (he retired in '81).  He might have called it dress uniform, CFs, his Twister Night suit, whatever.  It was a conversation I had with him when the RCAF was given the RCAF name back officially last year.  The "CAF green DEU" is my language, in that post.  I don't know what they called it specifically, I was 11 when he retired.

Now that we've focused on the 'peas' of my post, the 'steak' part of it was part about it  (dress uniform stuff) not really meaning much to the people who had bigger things on their list of important stuff, such as flying ops.  Which seems to be more common with those who are involved with the same stuff today.

 :2c:


----------



## opcougar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The three Battalions Regiment are not a result of the Hellyer "unification".
> 
> IIRC, at Unification, there were four infantry regular Regiment with two Battalions each: RCR, PPCLI, Canadian Guards and the R22nd. There were also two regular Regiments with one battalion of regulars and one of reserves: The Blackwatch and the Queen's own Riffle. The whole for a total of 10 infantry battalions.
> 
> After unification, DND wanted to reduce infantry by two Battalions, and Hellyer wanted to eliminate obvious "britishness". As a result the Queen's Own and Blackwatch regulars were zero manned and the Canadian Guards disbanded. At the same time, one new Battalion was added to the R22nd to absorb the "freed" French Canadian soldiers and the Airborne Regiment was stood up as Canada's rapid-response force.
> 
> I believe it is only after the disbanding of the Airborne Regiment that the PPCLI's and RCR got their third Battalion.
> 
> P.s.: Re: The extra RCAF general's "bling", *my personal view is that they kept the shoulder ranks and the sleeve ones for either of two reasons: 1) As highly practical people, they figure that this way, no one will be confused: they'll get it one way or the other; or, 2) They just couldn't stand to look like they had less bling than the Navy or the Army - hey! We are airforce and therefore the "top-dogs".   *



So which of the two would you be willing to put money on then?  ;D


----------



## Mick

While it appears that Air Ops branch-specific specialty / trade badges (e.g. Pilot / ACSO / AESOp / AERE / AEC / AVN etc) will now be issued in pearl-grey instead of gold, what will this mean for RCAF pers who wear non-Air Ops badges such as ship's diver, parachutist, aeromedical, EOD, loadmaster, rigger etc.  Will these badges be issued in pearl-grey for blue uniforms, while remaining gold for others?


----------



## kratz

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy crap.  I said "CAF green DEU" in my post, ...



While Pusser's post may have been pedantic, how often do we (the royal we), 
on this site censure new members for not being concise when posting?


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy crap.  I said "CAF green DEU" in my post, I don't know what they called it when he was in (he retired in '81).



Holy crap Batman!  What does DEU stand for?  When your Dad switched to the CF uniform, it was one Canadian Armed Forces uniform; no environment/element.  Thus not DEU.  

Semantics.  That is all.  Just a historical correction to what the uniform was.  Prior to that you would have had the Army wearing Tropical Worsted or TW's (T-Dubs).  Again, not DEU's.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Groovy.  Great.  I should have said "green CFs".  My bad.  If everyone is done picking that particular piece of fly-shit out of the pepper...if not PM me.


----------



## George Wallace

Not meant in any way as a slight towards your reference; only a correction.


----------



## dimsum

After seeing the video interview with Comd RCAF, is it just me or is the tunic colour actually darker than our current one?  Even with the spotlight (literally) shining on him, it looked darker and with more contrast with the blue nametag.


----------



## eliminator

mick said:
			
		

> While it appears that Air Ops branch-specific specialty / trade badges (e.g. Pilot / ACSO / AESOp / AERE / AEC / AVN etc) will now be issued in pearl-grey instead of gold, what will this mean for RCAF pers who wear non-Air Ops badges such as ship's diver, parachutist, aeromedical, EOD, loadmaster, rigger etc.  Will these badges be issued in pearl-grey for blue uniforms, while remaining gold for others?



I cant see them offering every hazardous skill in silver just for the RCAF per that hold such quals. 

A similar question is what colour wings will members of other elements wear?


----------



## eliminator

Dimsum said:
			
		

> After seeing the video interview with Comd RCAF, is it just me or is the tunic colour actually darker than our current one?  Even with the spotlight (literally) shining on him, it looked darker and with more contrast with the blue nametag.



It might just be the lighting. I'm surprised the RCAF is still issued "lightweight" and "heavyweight" DEU tunics and pants.


----------



## FJAG

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> DEU for a Highland unit is much more expensive than trouser wearing regiments. Consider the cutaway tunic, a balmoral, a a glengarry, kilt, sporran, and the huge skeen do - I don't know how to spell that -and its a huge investment.



Sgian-dubh - see wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgian-dubh - and they're generally quite small.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf

pidd said:
			
		

> It was the Captain who ridiculed the rank of a distingished officer...not me.  It was the man who held that mocked rank that he and everyone should respect.



That's a rather skewed sense of logic.  So let me see if I have this right...because a Flight Lieutenant was awarded the VC, no one can critique the fact that some are trying to imply that a rank that never formed part of another service's aviation branch now should unquestioningly be taken to be the only representative rank at that level for all things that fly?

Just because an army aviator takes issue with people thinking that every two-striper who flies should be called a Flight Lieutenant, when if is clear historically that there were also Navy and Army aviators flying before unification, you make some absurd illogical connection that he is personally disparaging a VC awardee?  You need to assess whether it is everybody else who is out of step, or just you...


----------



## Scott

Does anyone else read pidd's posts in an outraged posh Brit accent?

Just me?


----------



## cupper

Scott said:
			
		

> Does anyone else read pidd's posts in an outraged posh Brit accent?
> 
> Just me?



Complete with a grumbling "Hurrumph" at the end.


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sgian-dubh - see wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sgian-dubh - and they're generally quite small.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



And only represent one third of the cutlery generally carried by the appropriately attired Highlander.. :dileas:


----------



## vincent.escanlar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looks like they had belts, at one time, anyway ...



Doesn't this show that gold thread for the CANADA, wings and gold buttons are the correct traditional RCAF colours for these items? Or is there some other tradition that hasn't been mentioned? The backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=886249) mentions pearl gray was the colour for NCM rank insignia, and that officer insignia will change to match, but nothing else to explain why the CANADA, wings and buttons are also changing.


----------



## eliminator

Not sure where the idea came from for the silver buttons on the new uniform.

http://www.rathbonemuseum.com/CANADA/CANMax/CANMax.html


----------



## McG

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Doesn't this show that gold thread for the CANADA, wings and gold buttons are the correct traditional RCAF colours for these items? Or is there some other tradition that hasn't been mentioned? The backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=886249) mentions pearl gray was the colour for NCM rank insignia, and that officer insignia will change to match, but nothing else to explain why the CANADA, wings and buttons are also changing.


It would appear the RAF uses pearl grey and silver for wings and buttons.  Maybe the RCAF of old was not the model for the transformation?


----------



## Furniture

MCG said:
			
		

> It would appear the RAF uses pearl grey and silver for wings and buttons.  Maybe the RCAF of old was not the model for the transformation?



Instead of looking at the British as the inspiration maybe we should be looking south to the other "New World" Air Force we share a lot in common with.


----------



## Lightguns

Dimsum said:
			
		

> After seeing the video interview with Comd RCAF, is it just me or is the tunic colour actually darker than our current one?  Even with the spotlight (literally) shining on him, it looked darker and with more contrast with the blue nametag.



Either the diff between lightweight and heavyweight OR like most General Officers, he is wearing a tailor made which maybe be wool instead petrol by-product.


----------



## Lightguns

dangerboy said:
			
		

> For the 3rd Battalions, I can't speak about the RCR or the R22eR, but for the PPCLI, 3 PPCL was formed on 30 Nov 1950.  It was reduced to nil strength on 8 Jan 1954 andf the majority of its pers went to form 2nd BN Canadian Guards.  It was reactivated in April 1970 when the QOR of C was reverted to Militia



Ack, we had 3 battalions in each leg regiment in the 70s and 80s.  We used to call 3 PPCLI "Hollywood" or "Pot Smokers" (that was when good soldiers did not do narcotics, as it let down the team).


----------



## Lightguns

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Instead of looking at the British as the inspiration maybe we should be looking south to the other "New World" Air Force we share a lot in common with.



We could not afford a fashion war with them.


----------



## Lightguns

eliminator said:
			
		

> Not sure where the idea came from for the silver buttons on the new uniform.
> 
> http://www.rathbonemuseum.com/CANADA/CANMax/CANMax.html



The "silver" buttons are intended to mimic highly shone brass buttons.  According to my Black Watch retired Brother in law, they could make the battle dress brass shine like silver.  Of course, they spent 2 hours every night doing that.  Imagine how we would react now, if, we spent 2 hours on brass and 2 hours on boots EVERY night, not on course, not on parade, just a regular day routine.  There would 6 of us in the army!


----------



## Edward Campbell

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Instead of looking at the British as the inspiration maybe we should be looking south to the other "New World" Air Force we share a lot in common with.




Maybe we did ...  





  :    :    :   :

In the 1990s, US Air Force Chief of Staff General Merrill A. McPeak introduced his own design, which proved very unpopular and was quietly replaced after he retired.


----------



## Good2Golf

It likely helped that his design made him look like commander of the Argentinian Air Force...or United Airlines, and thus the flush was executed apparently withind days/weeks or his retirement.   

Here's hoping that the USAF uniform remains as Capt Tony Nelson wore it as he 'Dreamed of Genie'...  :nod:


G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell

I, personally, think the _colour scheme_ on the new RCAF uniforms is both tasteful and sensible and, at least, a tiny bit distinctively Canadian.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, personally, think the _colour scheme_ on the new RCAF uniforms is both tasteful and sensible and, at least, a tiny bit distinctively Canadian.


I would have to agree.  I don't think we should be wasting money on this now, but at least the Air Force created something Canadian unlike the Army putting the Star of the Order of the Bath onto uniforms again.


----------



## Lightguns

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I, personally, think the _colour scheme_ on the new RCAF uniforms is both tasteful and sensible and, at least, a tiny bit distinctively Canadian.



Me too, BZ RCAF!  Maybe us army guys should keep our "Helleyer cuff rank" but in black with our new pips!!!!! LOL!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Instead of looking at the British as the inspiration maybe we should be looking south to the other "New World" Air Force we share a lot in common with.



Since our zoomies fly the F-18's, are you proposing they use the US Navy or Marines uniforms for inspiration? 

And are you also proposing the extensive use of multi coloured ribbons, for such things as crossing the street without holding your sergeant's hand and other similar situations?



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Here's hoping that the USAF uniform remains as Capt Tony Nelson wore it as he 'Dreamed of Genie'...  :nod:



I thought it was major Nelson ??? Little historical factoid here: The USAF tunic of that lore was the model for the CF "all green force" Service dress.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I thought it was major Nelson ??? Little historical factoid here: The USAF tunic of that lore was the model for the CF "all green force" Bus Driver Green Service dress.



FTFY  ;D

My biggest disappointment is that we didn't get rid of that ugly plastic pop bottle green colour for the DEUs in this last round of 'buttons a bows'.


----------



## Lightguns

Been a long time since I heard "Bus Driver Green".  Agreed, I would have loved to have Olive!


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _"official"_ green chosen for the CF in the 1960s was/is _rifle green_ and, in my _opinion_ it was/is a good choice for a Canadian Army uniform.

Now, there are some variation s in _rifle green_ and "CF green" as this photo shows ...





The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada

... but the origins of infantry wearing very dark green uniforms are found in North America, in units like Gorham's Rangers Roger's Rangers (1744 and 1755, respectively).

"The green uniforms in themselves were something of a revolution, as they constituted an early form of camouflage and were an indication of the value the Rangers placed on concealability." 








                         Roger's Rangers                        and              Butler's Rangers

So a dark, rifle green uniform has at least as much _Canadian_ history as scarlet or khaki.





Private of the Queen's Own Rifles during the North West Rebellion of 1885


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _"official"_ green chosen for the CF in the 1960s was/is _rifle green_ and, in my _opinion_ it was/is a good choice for a Canadian Army uniform.
> 
> Now, there are some variation s in _rifle green_ and "CF green" as this photo shows ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada
> 
> ... but the origins of infantry wearing very dark green uniforms are found in North America, in units like Gorham's Rangers Roger's Rangers (1744 and 1755, respectively).
> 
> "The green uniforms in themselves were something of a revolution, as they constituted an early form of camouflage and were an indication of the value the Rangers placed on concealability."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roger's Rangers                        and              Butler's Rangers
> 
> So a dark, rifle green uniform has at least as much _Canadian_ history as scarlet or khaki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Private of the Queen's Own Rifles during the North West Rebellion of 1885



I could live with proper Rifle Green and Black Buttons. The shade of green we chose is deffo not the right shade AFAIK; and the cheesy buttons are just hugly.

Well would you look at me: Mr. Fashion Sense coming out of his airborne closet!  :bowing:


----------



## Lightguns

Actually, the new Army buttons are very well made, they are heavy twice the wieght of my RCAs and damaging them was hard to do.


----------



## Cecere85

Why no forage cap?


----------



## Kirkhill

Cecere85 said:
			
		

> Why no forage cap?



Because you have Logistics now.  No foraging is required.


----------



## Old Sweat

Decades ago, sometime after the CF uniform was announced, a friend now deceased who had been the ADC to the General Officer Commanding Eastern Command in Halifax told me that the Canadian Army was going to replace battledress with a service dress type uniform made of the brown shade of the CWAC uniform, not to be confused with the chocolate milk coloured service dress worn by Canadian Guards officers. Whoee doggies, that's a long sentence.

I'm not sure how that would have gone over given the "keep 'em pregnant and in the kitchen" mindset of the Canadian Army of a half century past.


----------



## rotrhed

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Doesn't this show that gold thread for the CANADA, wings and gold buttons are the correct traditional RCAF colours for these items? Or is there some other tradition that hasn't been mentioned? The backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=886249) mentions pearl gray was the colour for NCM rank insignia, and that officer insignia will change to match, but nothing else to explain why the CANADA, wings and buttons are also changing.



The years have taken a toll on that tunic and the wings and shoulder flashes have discoloured. Here's how they started (silver, or pearl grey):


----------



## Tibbson

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The "silver" buttons are intended to mimic highly shone brass buttons.  According to my Black Watch retired Brother in law, they could make the battle dress brass shine like silver.  Of course, they spent 2 hours every night doing that.  Imagine how we would react now, if, we spent 2 hours on brass and 2 hours on boots EVERY night, not on course, not on parade, just a regular day routine.  There would 6 of us in the army!



With the number of people I see now wearing those ugly plastic shoes I suspect buttons that need polish would not last long.


----------



## Tibbson

After reading most of the 172 pages contained in this thread I must say that inspite of the odd pedantic posts I've probably learned more Canadian military tradition then I have throughout my career.  To cover it all in book form would no doubt fill a few volumes.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I could live with proper Rifle Green and Black Buttons. The shade of green we chose is deffo not the right shade AFAIK; and the cheesy buttons are just hugly.
> 
> Well would you look at me: Mr. Fashion Sense coming out of his airborne closet!  :bowing:



Just curious, as it's completely out of my lane, but since Army uniform "bling" is mostly dependent on Regiment/Branch (ie. black buttons for Rifle Regts, kilts, etc.), what's to stop Regiment X from applying to get a change from the "new norm"?  Even now, buttons, shoulder titles, and to an extent ranks (Mess Dress specifically but I suppose CG Scarlets too) are different depending on what unit you're in.

The thing that comes to mind first is the shape/colour of the Pip, but I suppose it could be extended to other things.  The scenario I could see is that when a brand-new officer gets posted to a unit, he/she gets/buys the shoulder titles, buttons, collar dogs and whatever version of Pip is decided on by the unit.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Just curious, as it's completely out of my lane, but since Army uniform "bling" is mostly dependent on Regiment/Branch (ie. black buttons for Rifle Regts, kilts, etc.), what's to stop Regiment X from applying to get a change from the "new norm"?  Even now, buttons, shoulder titles, and to an extent ranks (Mess Dress specifically but I suppose CG Scarlets too) are different depending on what unit you're in.
> 
> The thing that comes to mind first is the shape/colour of the Pip, but I suppose it could be extended to other things.  The scenario I could see is that when a brand-new officer gets posted to a unit, he/she gets/buys the shoulder titles, buttons, collar dogs and whatever version of Pip is decided on by the unit.



Brilliant idea. The Regimental system shall smash the Bus Driver Green monopoly!


----------



## McG

I wonder if the CAF uniform (pre-RCAF) played a role in the colour selection of the recent Air Force uniform tinkerings.

http://www.cmhg.gc.ca/cmh/image-596-eng.asp?page_id=657


----------



## Pusser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Holy crap.  I said "CAF green DEU" in my post, I don't know what they called it when he was in (he retired in '81).  He might have called it dress uniform, CFs, his Twister Night suit, whatever.  It was a conversation I had with him when the RCAF was given the RCAF name back officially last year.  The "CAF green DEU" is my language, in that post.  I don't know what they called it specifically, I was 11 when he retired.
> :2c:



Wow!  I really didn't expect to set off a firestorm.  I did not mean to criticize in any way.  My point was that over time, terminology changes and sometimes loses its original meaning.  In this case, I was pointing out that a term that started as a name for a project has changed into one for an order of dress.  I was commenting on the evolution of the language.  That's it.  That's all.  I apologize for any other inferences or implications as they were entirely unintentional.

PS:  Other examples are:

FOD (Foreign Object Damage) where a term describing the end result has become the item that actually causes it

DAG (Departure Action Group) where a noun for the organization that performs the function has become a verb for the action itself


----------



## Tibbson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Just curious, as it's completely out of my lane, but since Army uniform "bling" is mostly dependent on Regiment/Branch (ie. black buttons for Rifle Regts, kilts, etc.), what's to stop Regiment X from applying to get a change from the "new norm"?  Even now, buttons, shoulder titles, and to an extent ranks (Mess Dress specifically but I suppose CG Scarlets too) are different depending on what unit you're in.
> 
> The thing that comes to mind first is the shape/colour of the Pip, but I suppose it could be extended to other things.  The scenario I could see is that when a brand-new officer gets posted to a unit, he/she gets/buys the shoulder titles, buttons, collar dogs and whatever version of Pip is decided on by the unit.



My understanding is it would still need to be brought before the national level dress committee for approval first.


----------



## Lightguns

Approved by Army Council, then the Army Commander and then brought to the National Committee by the Army Rep, it would have to come with funding as it does effect the whole CAF or the whole Army, that funding would have to be unit or an approved funding request signed by the Army Commander OR a very strong case to make DND fund it.  

I am not sure when it changed but when I joined the PPCLI in 81, we bought everything, fom built up boots and clickers, to hat badges, buttons and red shoulder flashes, nothing regimental was supplied by DND.  Sometime after that, the cheap coated versions of collar dogs and hat badges started being issued from Supply but we still were recommended to buy the brass version at the Kit Shop, as a coated hat badge could get you inspected "harder".  Reserve regiments have less resources to demand the procurement of regimentals but they all had em via a wealthy supporter.


----------



## Old Sweat

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I am not sure when it changed but when I joined the PPCLI in 81, we bought everything, fom built up boots and clickers, to hat badges, buttons and red shoulder flashes, nothing regimental was supplied by DND.  Sometime after that, the cheap coated versions of collar dogs and hat badges started being issued from Supply but we still were recommended to buy the brass version at the Kit Shop, as a coated hat badge could get you inspected "harder".  Reserve regiments have less resources to demand the procurement of regimentals but they all had em via a wealthy supporter.



That certainly was the practice in the Canadian Army. When I arrived at the RCA Depot for recruit training one of the course NCOs collected a few bucks from each of us. That paid for our regimental lanyards and belt buckles that were presented to us on graduation parade. Eventually the regiment realized that shining brass really did not make us better soldiers and we were "encouraged" to have our buttons, etc gold plated at, once again, our own expense. (It was worth ever penny.) The cost of tailoring battle dress, etc was also an individual responsibility. After I became an officer, I no longer received the monthly clothing credit and had to purchase all my kit, including uniforms, boots, pips, etc except for bush dress and later combat clothing. The provision of tailoring services by the Crown came along with integration


----------



## FSTO

When I joined the Navy back in 89, the issued Naval Operation cap badge and DEU sleeve rank ribbon were very cheap looking. So after BOTC I went and bought a better looking cap badge (metal thread). I had my tunic tailored with a fairly high quality of ribbon and I also picked up a couple of sets of slips ons, shoulder boards that used the same material. These were all supplied by Mia's tailor shop in Esquimalt.


----------



## opcougar

Scott said:
			
		

> Does anyone else read pidd's posts in an outraged posh Brit accent?
> 
> Just me?



Definition of "posh Brit accent" please?  ;D Unless he went to the right public school (read: private), and then attended OxBridge, then it's hardly "posh".

This coming from a Cockney lad (East London born and bred)


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Brilliant idea. The Regimental system shall smash the Bus Driver Green monopoly!


Ah, a member of the “Culture eats strategy for lunch” school ....


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Approved by Army Council, then the Army Commander and then brought to the National Committee by the Army Rep....


And when the Army Council and Army Commander say "what a stupid idea," just have someone and his Honourary end-run to the PMO.  

_Apparently_ that's how it's done.   


Edited for straying too close to ID'ing the guilty party.


----------



## Lightguns

True, but as the elected representatives of a democratic nation, they should be free to do any legal end run around the military they wish.  It's the nature of the beast and up to a majority of the people to decide whether the decision is good or bad.  Merely ours to carry out dutifully.


----------



## daftandbarmy

opcougar said:
			
		

> Definition of "posh Brit accent" please?  ;D Unless he went to the right public school (read: private), and then attended OxBridge, then it's hardly "posh".
> 
> This coming from a Cockney lad (East London born and bred)



The head of the British Army may be able to help us out:  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgL0oq5SbrU&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Journeyman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> True, but as the elected representatives of a democratic nation.....


Those doing the manoeuvring were in no way elected; they acted 'politically' after being told to fuck off by Comd CA, but they are _not_ politicians.

Once politicians directed the change, yes, we follow.  Completely separate issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And when the Army Council and Army Commander say "what a stupid idea," just have someone and his Honourary end-run to the PMO.
> 
> _Apparently_ that's how it's done.
> 
> 
> Edited for straying too close to ID'ing the guilty party.




Agreed!



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are, were as we saw, beginning with _coats of many colours_* in the mid 1980s, those who _believe_, with absolute faith, that everything Paul Hellyer did was 100% wrong. (It always struck me as odd that Mr Hellyer's staunchest and most informed critics, people like Admiral Landymore and General Moncel, were supporters of much of the _unification_ (joint forces, etc) programme; it was _integration_ ~ exemplified by the one colour (CF green) single service sub-structure ~ that they thought was dangerously wrong.) These people are fixated on an era in which, in many cases, they weren't even born and certainly, unlike a handful of us here, did not serve. (For the record, I wore pips and crowns on my service dress and combat uniforms; I joined when LGen SF (Fin) Clark was Chief of the General Staff and General Charles Foulkes was Chairmen of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, the precursor of the CDS; the "good old days were, indeed, both old and days.)
> 
> I'm not opposed to changes in uniforms, many (most) armies update their uniforms on a periodic basis: some changes make a lot of good sense, others not so much. I'm not opposed to changing rank badges, either. I _think_ the RCN's _executive curl_ is harmless, not absolutely necessary but if it raises the moral of a few officers then, certainly, not a bad thing. I would have preferred distinctively Canadian Army rank badges, even if it involved _pips and crowns_, but, again, despite the fact that the money could have been better used to buy e.g. more boots, it is not a huge problem. Some people like them, some don't, all will survive. I rather like the look of the RCAF's new service dress, again there might well be be other, better things on which that money could have been spent, but "maintenance of moral" is important and some serving officers say these _gee gaws_ are good for moral.
> 
> What I am opposed to is: a bloated, even morbidly obese command and control superstructure, the misuse of the defence budget as a regional support/job creation slush fund and, oh yes, the submerging of Naval and Army aviation in the Air Force, which I _suspect_ _might_ even cause _some_ operational problems, and even the use of foreign symbols like the Garter Cross on Army officers pips when a perfectly good Canadian cross - say the Cross of the Order of Military Merit - could have been chosen (at somewhat higher costs, I admit), and I especially object to serving military officers playing politics, partisan party politics, behind the backs of the commanders and senior staff officers under whose command and direction they serve.
> 
> _____
> * Our internal name for the Distinctive Environmental Uniform project, the brainchild of Defence Minister Robert Coates


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

+1 on Daftandbarny.

Also, remember that it is the proper function of the CDS to advise the Government on military matters. If his (or her)  Comd CA advises the CDS that its "a stupid idea", the CDS should advise the Government of same and all their "elected" status should not let them act differently without good cause.


----------



## McG

> Baubles, RCAF edition
> The Galloping Beaver
> Monday, September 22, 2014
> 
> The news yesterday was about the RCAF (officers, mostly, save for 'aviators') joining the RCN and the Army (officers, entirely) in the back to the future schtick of reverting to pre-Trudeau unification ranks and symbolism.
> 
> Judging by the RCAF Facebook and Twitter comments, it is slightly controversial. Some pragmatists saw nothing wrong with the yellow-gold bars that were the norm until now and see this sort of exercise as a waste of money when, you know, wounded vets are being seriously fucked out of pensions and badly needed ships, planes, and trucks remain unrealised. Others wax wistfully about how some sort of 'honour' is now restored and recall with fondness the pre-1968 uniforms tucked away in closets. Still others are less than satisfied because this looks like a  compromise between the old RCAF of Wing Commanders and Pilot Officers* (because the last really big War, Commonwealth, at so on), and the post-Hellyer Majors, Colonels and Generals, with updated versions of the rank insignia of the former superimposed on the latter. To me, it seems like a very made in Canada solution where competing traditions were compromised. Former privates, who are most definitely not pilots, are now something called 'Aviator' which is meant to be a gender-neutral variation of the 'Leading Aircraftsman'  - nevermind 'aviatrix' I guess. (Will the army finally drop the weird MCpl rank/appt thing, and reinstate the lance jack? Unlikely.) I also don't quite understand why RCAF Air Commodores and Marshals Generals require TWO distinct versions of their rank insignia on their DEUs (seriously, why?).
> 
> The NCOM ranks haven't changed save for the lowest symbolised rung.  This stuff really is all about the officers (and politicians).
> 
> Yet, the RCN just officially lost FOUR of its most important warships, the RCAF's Hornet replacement is unknown, and the wounded are cast-off, and Canada quite literally just got sold to Chinese investors by the Harper government. Who this shiny back-to-the-future Canadian Forces are meant to serve now remains an open question.  Could get weird in ten or twenty years.
> 
> *CTV is reporting that maintaining the Army, sorry, uh, "Royal Flying Corps" officer rank titles is because a return to the RAF-type ranks (ahem, also in use in many other air forces!) is "too confusing". Not sure I buy that.


http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.ca/2014/09/baubles-rcaf-edition.html

It seems to me that the RCAF GO shoulder boards may be analogous to the Army's GO gorgets.  The. RAF has shoulder boards for "officers of Air rank" (ie. the Air Marshal ranks).  I can't find evidence that the RCAF ever used these shoulder boards in the past, but it seems they have grabbed-on and taken things a step farther by having shoulder insignia unique to each level.

Is it silly?  No more so than the Army needing bright red tabs with little oak leaves for Army GOs to stand out.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.ca/2014/09/baubles-rcaf-edition.html
> 
> It seems to me that the RCAF GO shoulder boards may be analogous to the Army's GO gorgets.  The. RAF has shoulder boards for "officers of Air rank" (ie. the Air Marshal ranks).  I can't find evidence that the RCAF ever used these shoulder boards in the past, but it seems they have grabbed-on and taken things a step farther by having shoulder insignia unique to each level.
> 
> Is it silly?  No more so than the Army needing bright red tabs with little oak leaves for Army GOs to stand out.



I had that same thought on why RCAF GO need both sleeve rank and shoulder boards, but I guess since they don't get the medals that Army GO tend to get they need more bling elsewhere


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

The RCN kept the old general ranks (shoulderboards) but they don't wear both at the same time. The ''old ranks'' must be for slip-ons for combat uniform, NCD, DEU shirts, sweaters, great coats, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RCAF GUIDANCE ON NEW UNIFORM AND RANK TITLE

UNCLASS

1.  AS PART OF THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA S ONGOING RESTORATION OF THE DISTINCTIVE SERVICE CULTURES THAT MAKE UP THE CANADIAN ARMED FORCES, THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF) HAS BEEN GRANTED A NEW UNIFORM AND RANK TITLE ENHANCING THE IDENTITY OF CANADA S YOUNGEST MILITARY BRANCH

2. THE AIM OF THIS CANFORGEN IS TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO MILITARY AND CIVILIAN PERSONNEL OF THE RCAF ON THE ROLL OUT OF THE NEW UNIFORM AND RANK TITLE 

A.  ON 21 SEPTEMBER, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE INTRODUCED A NEW RANK TITLE CALLED AVIATOR. THIS TERM REPLACES PRIVATE AND SHALL BE USED AS OF 1 APRIL 2015 IN THE DAILY DUTY LANGUAGE OF ALL RCAF PERSONNEL ADDRESSING THIS RANK 

B. NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO THE CURRENT RANK STRUCTURE TITLES OF THE RCAF. RANK NAMES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PRIVATE, WILL REMAIN THE SAME 

C.  IN RECOGNITION OF THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE RCAF, RANK INSIGNIA BUTTONS AND NATIONAL SHOULDER TITLES FOR BOTH OFFICERS AND NON COMMISSIONED MEMBERS WILL RETURN TO A DISTINCTIVE PEARL GREY STITCHING, THE ORIGINAL COLOUR WORN BY RCAF NON COMMISSIONED MEMBERS UNTIL 1968 

D.  GENERAL OFFICERS HEADDRESS PIPING (EMBROIDERY) WILL CHANGE FROM GOLD COLOURED TO PEARL GREY. TUNIC AND WEDGE CAP BUTTONS, AS WELL AS BELT BUCKLES WILL CHANGE FROM GOLD TO SILVER 

E.  NEW RANK AND INSIGNIA ITEMS WILL ENTER THE SUPPLY SYSTEM COMMENCING MARCH 2015. IT IS PLANNED THAT PEARL GREY EPAULETTES, ALONG WITH A NEW SILVER BELT AND SILVER WEDGE CAP BUTTONS FOR SUMMER WEAR, WILL BE MAILED TO EACH MEMBER BY LOGISTIC UNICORPS. AT THE SAME TIME, TUNIC INSIGNIA WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BY LOGISTIC UNICORPS TO SUPPLY DEPOTS AND TAILORING SHOPS. TAILORING OF TUNICS WILL COMMENCE IN APRIL 2015. MORE DETAILS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RANK AND INSIGNIA WILL FOLLOW 

F.  IT IS EXPECTED THAT ALL RCAF MEMBERS WILL BE DRESSED IN NEW PATTERN INSIGNIA COLOURS BY THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN IN SEPTEMBER 2015 

G.  RANK AND INSIGNIA HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO MATCH THE PRESENT RANK THUS ENABLING THE CONTINUED USE OF EXISTING TUNICS. MEMBERS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO UTILIZE THEIR CLOTHING POINTS FOR INITIAL ISSUE OF THESE NEW ITEMS (IE BELT, GO WEDGE) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curious on the "for summer wear" part.  Is there something coming different for "winter wear", 'cause I wear the same wedge 12 months a year.   ???

/pet peeve/  they are SLIP ONS not epaulettes.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> RCAF GUIDANCE ON NEW UNIFORM AND RANK TITLE
> 
> 
> A.  ON 21 SEPTEMBER, THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE INTRODUCED A NEW RANK TITLE CALLED AVIATOR. THIS TERM REPLACES PRIVATE AND SHALL BE USED AS OF 1 APRIL 2015 IN THE DAILY DUTY LANGUAGE OF ALL RCAF PERSONNEL ADDRESSING THIS RANK



So does this mean than an Army DEU RMS clerk will still call an Aviator "Private", since it is only the daily duty language of RCAF personnel?   anic:


----------



## McG

... And in defence of not changing all the rank titles, it appears the RCAF of 1965 wanted "Army titles".

http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=a-return-to-the-royal-canadian-air-force-ranks-a-historical-examination/i0dslunm


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So does this mean than an Army DEU RMS clerk will still call an Aviator "Private".....


Probably, but only in the name of efficiency since "Aviator" doubles the number of syllables, wasting valuable work time.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It is funny to think we use rank in the first place  :rofl:

 ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

TUNIC AND WEDGE CAP BUTTONS, AS WELL AS BELT BUCKLES WILL CHANGE FROM GOLD TO SILVER

That's a neat trick. The RCAF has finally discovered the secrets of alchemy!



Oh, they only mean the colours will change, not the materials? But I want my Philosopher's Stone, dammit!


----------



## GR66

Reverse Alchemy...turning valuable GOLD into something less valuable.  A specialty of governments for millennia!


----------



## vonGarvin

GR66 said:
			
		

> Reverse Alchemy...turning valuable GOLD into something less valuable.  A specialty of governments for millennia!


:rofl:


----------



## McG

Colonels put up British rank on 07 November, but it looks like everyone else will continue to wear the current rank on Rememberance Day.  It also appears that we will have a few more new rank titles in the Army than previously announced.



> CANFORGEN 187/14 COMD CA 033/14 271300Z OCT 14
> UPDATE ON CA RESTORED RANK IMPLEMENTATION
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS:A. CANFORGEN 194/13 COMD CA 038/13
> B. CANFORGEN 123/14 COMD CA 024/24
> C. CANFORGEN 131/14 COMD CA 025/14
> 
> 1. THIS MSG APPLIES TO ALL CAF OFFRS REG AND RES, CIC OFFICERS, AND HONORARY APPOINTEES WHO WEAR THE ARMY UNIFORM. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESTORED ARMY RANK CONTINUES TO PROGRESS AND STILL ON ORDER
> 
> 2. ON 19 SEP 14, ALL GENERAL OFFICERS PUT UP THEIR RESTORED OFFICER RANK AS PART OF ARMY WEEK
> 
> 3. ON 7 NOV 14, ALL FULL COLONELS THAT WEAR AN ARMY UNIFORM WILL PUT UP THEIR RESTORED OFFICER RANK PRIOR TO REMEMBRANCE DAY. THIS ALSO INCLUDES ALL COLONELS IN CHIEF, COLONELS COMMANDANT, HONORARY COLONELS, AND COLONELS OF THE REGIMENT
> 
> 4. TAILORING OF RANK SLIP-ONS AND TUNICS CONTINUES TO BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR WHEN THE REMAINDER OF OFFICERS FROM LCOL TO OCDT THAT WEAR THE ARMY UNIFORM WILL BE READY TO PUT UP THEIR RESTORED RANK. THESE OFFICERS ARE DIRECTED TO EXPEDITE THE TAILORING OF THEIR DEU UNIFORM AND THE PICK-UP OF THEIR INITIAL TWO HIGH VISIBILITY (EVI) CADPAT RANK SLIP-ONS WITH EVI UNIT IDENTIFIER FROM CLOTHING STORES. IN THE NCR ONLY, FOR TAILORING CONCERNS PLEASE CONTACT MAJ LOMBARDO AT 613 617 3994
> 
> 5. UNTIL ORDERED, LCOLS TO OCDTS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO WEAR THE RESTORED RANK EXCEPT ON THE NO 2 AND NO 2A MESS DRESS UNIFORMS WHERE IT IS ENCOURAGED
> 
> 6. PLEASE DIRECT QUESTIONS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RANK AND UNIFORMS TO G4 SUPPLY 2 CWO LENNY WILLETT AT 613-971-7464
> 
> 7. AS A SITREP ON THE RESTORATION OF OUR SOLDIERS NCM RANK NAMES: THE LEGISLATIVE AND IT SYSTEMS WORK REQUIRED FOR THE FORMAL RESTORATION OF OUR NCM RANK NAMES (TROOPER, GUNNER, BOMBARDIER, SAPPER, SIGNALLER, FUSILIER, RIFLEMAN, GUARDSMAN, COLOUR SERGEANT, ENSIGN, CRAFTSMAN) AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RANK NAMES MUSICIAN, PIPER, DRUMMER, AND RANGER CONTINUES AND WILL BE ANNOUNCED WHEN FORMALIZED. PLEASE ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS TO GI HERITAGE, MR PATRICK BRYDEN AT 613-415-7707
> 
> 8. SIGNED BY LGEN J.M.M. HAINSE, COMD CA


----------



## medicineman

Oh goody goody...I guess I don't have to worry about being a Staff Sgt any time soon.   :

MM


----------



## rmc_wannabe

medicineman said:
			
		

> Oh goody goody...I guess I don't have to worry about being a Staff Sgt any time soon.   :
> 
> MM



Shhh! The Good Idea Fairy is always listening..... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## medicineman

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Shhh! The Good Idea Fairy is always listening..... :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Just realized, might still happen since a colour sgt is equivalent to staff sgt in certain branches...thought I escaped the nonsense.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> Shhh! The Good Idea Fairy is always listening..... :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Maybe the GIF needs to be deafened.....


----------



## Tibbson

MCG said:
			
		

> 7. AS A SITREP ON THE RESTORATION OF OUR SOLDIERS NCM RANK NAMES: THE LEGISLATIVE AND IT SYSTEMS WORK REQUIRED FOR THE FORMAL RESTORATION OF OUR NCM RANK NAMES (TROOPER, GUNNER, BOMBARDIER, SAPPER, SIGNALLER, FUSILIER, RIFLEMAN, GUARDSMAN, COLOUR SERGEANT, ENSIGN, CRAFTSMAN) AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RANK NAMES MUSICIAN, PIPER, DRUMMER, AND RANGER CONTINUES AND WILL BE ANNOUNCED WHEN FORMALIZED.



OMG, its bad enough trying to find someone on in the GAL now...never mind having to try 15-20 rank variations if you only have a name.  Now is that TROOPER John Smith, GUNNER John Smith, BOMBARDIER John Smith, SAPPER John Smith, SIGNALLER John Smith, FUSILIER John Smith, RIFLEMAN John Smith, GUARDSMAN John Smith, ..... PIPER John Smith, DRUMMER John Smith or RANGER John Smith you were looking for?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> OMG, its bad enough trying to find someone on in the GAL now...never mind having to try 15-20 rank variations if you only have a name.  Now is that TROOPER John Smith, GUNNER John Smith, BOMBARDIER John Smith, SAPPER John Smith, SIGNALLER John Smith, FUSILIER John Smith, RIFLEMAN John Smith, GUARDSMAN John Smith, ..... PIPER John Smith, DRUMMER John Smith or RANGER John Smith you were looking for?



This will only delay GAL updates another 6 to 8 weeks. Don't worry, SSC has this under control :


----------



## Kirkhill

GALs? You get issued GALs? 

What do the GALs get issued?


----------



## Tibbson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> GALs? You get issued GALs?
> 
> What do the GALs get issued?



We don't discriminate.  They can get GALs too if they want.


----------



## Staff Weenie

Why stop now with the turning back of the clock.....

How about bringing back swagger sticks, and the Sam Browne, and then a batman for the Officers! Except I want mine to be surly just like Baldrick!


----------



## Tibbson

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Why stop now with the turning back of the clock.....
> 
> How about bringing back swagger sticks, and the Sam Browne, and then a batman for the Officers! Except I want mine to be surly just like Baldrick!



I kinda prefered the more simple minded Baldrick of the first season personally.    And if we ever do bring back batmen at least can serve to alleviate the current shortages of Gentleman's gentlemen.  Good staff like Bates are hard to find.

Now, when did they say the next season of Downton Abby is due to begin?


----------



## Kirkhill

Scoff as you will about the batman - but perhaps you might want to update the terminology and call him a Personal Assistant.

Accompany officer to meetings, driver, radioman, officer's oppo in the field to watch his back....., orderly, runner....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> OMG, its bad enough trying to find someone on in the GAL now...never mind having to try 15-20 rank variations if you only have a name.  Now is that TROOPER John Smith, GUNNER John Smith, BOMBARDIER John Smith, SAPPER John Smith, SIGNALLER John Smith, FUSILIER John Smith, RIFLEMAN John Smith, GUARDSMAN John Smith, ..... PIPER John Smith, DRUMMER John Smith or RANGER John Smith you were looking for?



OBVIOUSLY we have too many John Smiths' and not enough rank variations for each to have his own.  More ranks needed!!   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Or you can adopt the Welsh standard - based on a world full of Joneses.



> Welsh Nicknames
> Postby stifyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:50 pm
> 
> Over the years I have come across many nicknames and have had a few myself. With so many Jones`s, a baker would be known as Jones the Bread and the butcher would be known as Jones the Meat. I recall a baker being known as Dai the Crust whilst somebody posh living nearby was Dai Upper Crust. I used to work in the Customs office of the Swansea -Cork ferry and one of the regular Irish lorry drivers came into our office for his return journey to Irland. He related an incident from the previous day when he was delivering in the Valleys and was looking for Bed & Breakfast. He called into a cafe where he had a cup of tea and made enquiries about lodgings in the area. Everybody were very helpful said Paddy and they all agreed that his best bet was Bed & Breakfast at Nellie Paynters. They gave him directions and he set off up the hill to what he believed was Nellie Paynters house. When a woman answered the door he asked if she was Nellie Paynter and did she do Bed & Breakfast. The woman replied that she did Bed & Breakfast but her name was Nellie Jones. The woman explained that her husband was a painter & decorater and hence the name Nellie Paynter.
> 
> Earlier today I came across some old article from the National Geographic website about Wales which included references to the Welsh habit of nicknames and included 2 which gave me a laugh and hence this posting. See below :
> 
> Harry was the eighth person I'd met with the name Jones. Everyone seemed to be called Jones, Williams, Davies, or Evans. To prevent confusion, the Welsh use nicknames, and nowhere is their teasing wit and love of language more apparent. Most nicknames derive from a person's occupation, like the builder I heard of called Will Five Bricks or the baker Dai Bread in Dylan Thomas's Under Milk Wood. My favorites were the two Evanses from a village in Carmarthenshire. One was an undertaker, the other a travel agent. The travel agent was known as Evans There and Back, the undertaker as Evans One Way.



http://www.forumwales.com/fwforum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=5736


----------



## Tibbson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Scoff as you will about the batman - but perhaps you might want to update the terminology and call him a Personal Assistant.
> 
> Accompany officer to meetings, driver, radioman, officer's oppo in the field to watch his back....., orderly, runner....



Doesn't the PS insist that all PAs be at least a CR4 or higher?  I can't see any of them leaving their offices any time soon and I have a hard enough time getting them to do anything even mildly outside of their job description when they are IN their offices.  Besides, when PSAC goes out on strike we'd have to shut down the officer corps.


----------



## McG

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> Why stop now with the turning back of the clock.....
> 
> How about bringing back swagger sticks, and the Sam Browne, ...


Carefull with that.  There is a brown uniform lobby pushing for more changes out there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Doesn't the PS insist that all PAs be at least a CR4 or higher?  I can't see any of them leaving their offices any time soon and I have a hard enough time getting them to do anything even mildly outside of their job description when they are IN their offices.  Besides, when PSAC goes out on strike we'd have to shut down the officer corps.



Disregard all previous.....any takers for Orderly?


----------



## ArmyRick

Well since we are adopting such British systems again, lets go all out.

Amalgamate several regiments (So we can have the Canadian Rifles, Royal Canadian Scottish Regiments, etc)

Adopt multicam since it looks damn cool

BRING back the Canadian Guards! Employ out of work people doing public duties year round at Ottawa and Quebec City (GG residence there I believe?)

Reduce recruiting ages to appropriate ages (no older than 28 and half years or whatever age they limit people to)

Boot people out after 22 years unless your like an RSM or CO or higher

What say you, lads? Like this idea or shall we toss it in the rubish bin?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> BRING back the Canadian Guards! Employ out of work people doing public duties year round at Ottawa and Quebec City (GG residence there I believe?)



Yes, GG's summer residence is at the Citadel in Quebec City (tucked in with the officer's mess and the R22R Colonel's residence). But I think the Vandoos who guard him will not tolerate mere Canadian Guards on their turf to ensure his security  .


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Well since we are adopting such British systems again, lets go all out.
> 
> Amalgamate several regiments (So we can have the Canadian Rifles, Royal Canadian Scottish Regiments, etc)
> 
> Adopt multicam since it looks damn cool
> 
> BRING back the Canadian Guards! Employ out of work people doing public duties year round at Ottawa and Quebec City (GG residence there I believe?)
> 
> Reduce recruiting ages to appropriate ages (no older than 28 and half years or whatever age they limit people to)
> 
> Boot people out after 22 years unless your like an RSM or CO or higher
> 
> What say you, lads? Like this idea or shall we toss it in the rubish bin?



How about just raise the fitness standards to equivalent British Army levels without sparking a wave of Charter challenges? That should help with the rest of the weeding out process....  ;D

Oh, and use the word 'rubbish' more often, as you have demonstrated in your post.


----------



## my72jeep

When does the wearing of the new ranks come on line? Or has it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Depends on the rank.


----------



## my72jeep

Captain.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Still "on order" and there seems to be a push on to get them up soon.....

"New Officers Rank, please make this a priority over the patches because once the Army Commander gives the order that’s it, officers will wear this rank only so please emphasis this point please."


----------



## my72jeep

Ok thanks I thought I had heard or read that it was to happen by Nov. 11.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Ok thanks I thought I had heard or read that it was to happen by Nov. 11.



Think that was the original plan but tunic tailoring seems to be the problem....

EDITED TO ADD

Just like we are still waiting for "on-order" to put up RCE....


----------



## Old EO Tech

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Think that was the original plan but tunic tailoring seems to be the problem....
> 
> EDITED TO ADD
> 
> Just like we are still waiting for "on-order" to put up RCE....



Yes I don't really understand why the new metal shoulder titles need to be linked to the CADPAT versions....not like we wear them at the same time.


----------



## daftandbarmy

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Think that was the original plan but tunic tailoring seems to be the problem....
> 
> EDITED TO ADD
> 
> Just like we are still waiting for "on-order" to put up RCE....



And, being a good soldier, I now have a tunic ready to go for the 'new' way so am not able to be properly dressed for R Day. 

Ironic? Oh yeah...  :nod:


----------



## Tibbson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, being a good soldier, I now have a tunic ready to go for the 'new' way so am not able to be properly dressed for R Day.
> 
> Ironic? Oh yeah...  :nod:



So being dressed wrong....is right and being dressed right....is wrong.  OMG Alice, we're definitely through the looking glass now.


----------



## my72jeep

My quandary as to what tunic to wear was solved buy 30 cm of snow and a town of Ill prepared towns people. I work at a tire shop......


----------



## daftandbarmy

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> So being dressed wrong....is right and being dressed right....is wrong.  OMG Alice, we're definitely through the looking glass now.



I rest my case:

“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.” 

― Joseph Heller, Catch-22 

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/814330-catch-22


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, being a good soldier, I now have a tunic ready to go for the 'new' way so am not able to be properly dressed for R Day.
> 
> Ironic? Oh yeah...  :nod:



 :facepalm:


----------



## McG

New advances in the heritage transformation:


> CAF Chaplain Branch returns to its roots
> The Ottawa Sun
> 20 Nov 2014
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Chaplain Branch is returning to its historical roots with its new name -- the Royal Canadian Chaplain Service (RCChS). The Royal designation has been restored to honour and commemorate the branch's long and proud history of providing spiritual care and support to CAF operations, our military members and their families.
> 
> The restoration of a Royal prefix to the CAF Chaplain Branch was sought to reconnect with the heritage of the former Royal Canadian Army Chaplain Corps and the chaplain services of the pre-unification Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force. "The restoration of the Royal prefix recognizes both the valorous service Canadian military chaplains have provided throughout past conflicts and the tremendous accomplishments they have witnessed in recent military operations, most notably in Afghanistan," said Brigadier-General John Fletcher, Chaplain General of the CAF. "We are truly humbled and blessed to receive this great honour."
> 
> Both at home and abroad, CAF chaplains provide comprehensive religious and spiritual support, advice, and care to military commanders, CAF members and their families. The RCChS includes chaplains from various denominations and faiths: 90 Roman Catholic, 48 Anglican, 39 United, eight Presbyterian, six Pentecostal, two Methodist, two Wesleyan, nine other Christian, two Muslim, and two Jewish.



Apparently this change took effect on 16 Oct:  http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=894079


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

At this rate the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps is right around the corner.


----------



## Ostrozac

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> At this rate the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps is right around the corner.



Much more likely is the Royal Canadian Logistics Service. De-amalgamation isn't in style -- when's the last time we actually established a new reg force personnel branch? Was it the Int Branch in the 1980's?

Just out of curiosity -- what was the division of labour back in the day between the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps? Where did what we now know as Supply Techs, MSE Ops, Cooks, and Clerks fall into the two cap badges? (I know that Log has 10ish MOSIDs, but I think those are the four biggest).


----------



## mariomike

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity -- what was the division of labour back in the day between the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps? Where did what we now know as Supply Techs, MSE Ops, Cooks, and Clerks fall into the two cap badges? (I know that Log has 10ish MOSIDs, but I think those are the four biggest).



Cooks, clerks and truckers were RCASC, if that is what you are asking.

"The Cooks, clerks and Truckers..."
 http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Blog-Article/b/22728/A-Million-Memories

A brief history of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
http://rcasc.org/rcasc_hist_breif.html


----------



## Old Sweat

As I recall, the last three were all part of the RCASC, while the RCOC did supply. RCOC also provided the parachute packers.


----------



## dapaterson

Logisitics occupations:

Logistics Officers

Ammunition Technicians
Cooks
Mobile Support Equipment Operators
Postal Clerks
Resource Management Support Clerks
Supply Technicians
Traffic Technicians

(Court Reporters are now part of the Legal Branch, and the occupation is now open to other than RMS applicants)

If someone wishes to introduce the Roayal designation for the occupations under the Logistics branch, it would be much cleaner to do it anew and designate the current branch as such; trying to reverse engineer the current structure into the old ones would be a nightmare.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Much more likely is the Royal Canadian Logistics Service. De-amalgamation isn't in style -- when's the last time we actually established a new reg force personnel branch? Was it the Int Branch in the 1980's?
> 
> Just out of curiosity -- what was the division of labour back in the day between the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps? Where did what we now know as Supply Techs, MSE Ops, Cooks, and Clerks fall into the two cap badges? (I know that Log has 10ish MOSIDs, but I think those are the four biggest).



OK, until the 1940s, the RCOC was supply and maintenance ... the RCEME was formed out of the Ordnance Corps. Essentially RCOC equalled supply and RCASC was responsible for transport, food services, and some clerical services - most clerks were on regimental/corps establishments: one was more likely to see a RCD, RCCS or PPCLI clerk as chief clerk in brigade or even div HQ than a RCASC clerk. (The RCASC clerks were added when the old Corps of Military Staff clerks was disbanded (1946) and while the intention was that the RCASC would provide the clerks for HQs the fact, on the ground, was that the BM or DAA&QMG was very likely to pick a clerk from a unit in which he (they were all "he" way back then) had served and that was, most often, going to be a _regimental_ clerk with OpsCen experience.)

We always had four types of types support units: ordnance (supply) units, with names like Ordnance Field Park that supplied everything from tanks and howitzers to boots and belts; supply and transport companies and battalions that supplied food and moved most thing - not those (relatively few) things that the ordnance corps moved by itself; maintenance units/workshops that fixed things (ordnance units until 1944, RCEME etc units after that) and personnel (reinforcement) holding units.

I agree that a Royal Canadian Logistic Corps is more likely than a return to RCOC and RCASC but I think RCEME, the finance and admin clerks and the MPs* should be brought into that mix/cap badge, too.

_____
* The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are _part_of the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.


----------



## McG

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Much more likely is the Royal Canadian Logistics Service. De-amalgamation isn't in style -- when's the last time we actually established a new reg force personnel branch? Was it the Int Branch in the 1980's?


While the branch still exists as an umbrella, the CME was recently split into RCE and "not-RCE."


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> While the branch still exists as an umbrella, the CME was recently split into RCE and "not-RCE."




The C&E Branch is, I think, doing the same ... there is a "Corps within a Branch" structure in which some members are RCCS and the rest are not.

But there is a persistent rumour that some (many?) RCAF people want to reintegrate the Air C&E people with their AERE/Air Tech confrères into a renewed _Tech/Tel_ branch ... which, _in my opinion_, makes some (rather a lot, actually) good technical sense.


----------



## cupper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree that a Royal Canadian Logistic Corps is more likely than a return to RCOC and RCASC but I think RCEME, the finance and admin clerks and the MPs* should be brought into that mix/cap badge, too.



Fixed that for you. ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar

I was told that the "Royal Canadian Logistics Corps", or something of that nature was floated about, but it was turned down by the branch as those of us in the RCN and RCAF uni's have no historical tie to a "corps" of any sort and it sounded too Army. 

Heard this while recently on a CFTPO to CFLTC 

I really don't care what they call my branch.


----------



## Happy Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, until the 1940s, the RCOC was supply and maintenance ... the RCEME was formed out of the Ordnance Corps. Essentially RCOC equalled supply and RCASC was responsible for transport, food services, and some clerical services - most clerks were on regimental/corps establishments: one was more likely to see a RCD, RCCS or PPCLI clerk as chief clerk in brigade or even div HQ than a RCASC clerk. (The RCASC clerks were added when the old Corps of Military Staff clerks was disbanded (1946) and while the intention was that the RCASC would provide the clerks for HQs the fact, on the ground, was that the BM or DAA&QMG was very likely to pick a clerk from a unit in which he (they were all "he" way back then) had served and that was, most often, going to be a _regimental_ clerk with OpsCen experience.)
> 
> We always had four types of types support units: ordnance (supply) units, with names like Ordnance Field Park that supplied everything from tanks and howitzers to boots and belts; supply and transport companies and battalions that supplied food and moved most thing - not those (relatively few) things that the ordnance corps moved by itself; maintenance units/workshops that fixed things (ordnance units until 1944, RCEME etc units after that) and personnel (reinforcement) holding units.
> 
> I agree that a Royal Canadian Logistic Corps is more likely than a return to RCOC and RCASC but I think RCEME, the finance and admin clerks and the MPs* should be brought into that mix/cap badge, too.
> 
> _____
> * The really important requirements for MPs in battle are: traffic control, mostly in the read area, and POW handling - both are _part_of the Big L Logistics realm. I know some MPs will disagree; that's OK, they're wrong. If we have a real war again we can have RCMP units again when we need real, professional police officers in military uniforms.


I can't see the Branch willing to include RCEME and the MPs.

The current Logistics Branch took 46 years of hard work to build some semblance of cohesive between the three environments, services, corps, officer classifications and trade.  Prior to 1968 there was no Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC) hence if the Branch does decide to go that route it would take some sort of tiger team to develop from the ground up this Corps.  Given that RCASC, RCOC, RCAPC (Pay) and RCPC (postal) are all long gone with little or traditions passed on this might could be considerable challenge.  
Anyway Army Log did not escape the insignia "improvements" now happening.  Watch for future announcements regarding changes to the Officers' mess kit and shoulder title on the DEU.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I had no idea what I have caused. Lol


----------



## dapaterson

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Watch for future announcements regarding changes to the Officers' mess kit and shoulder title on the DEU.



In other words, for those who rushed to make the change right away, "He who hesitates is sometimes saved, not lost".


----------



## McG

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I was told that the "Royal Canadian Logistics Corps", or something of that nature was floated about, but it was turned down by the branch as those of us in the RCN and RCAF uni's have no historical tie to a "corps" of any sort and it sounded too Army.


Those should not be barriers.  The Chaplain Branch also had RCN and RCAF components with no historical ties to a Corps, and the branch asked not to be renamed.  It is getting the heritage transformation regardless (as also happened to the Infantry Branch when it asked not to be renamed).  Change to Army officer rank insignia was also opposed by the Director Infantry and by the Army Commander.  Conceivably, the RCLC is just waiting to be the next "thing" of the heritage transformation that the CF asked to not happen.  



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The C&E Branch is, I think, doing the same ... there is a "Corps within a Branch" structure in which some members are RCCS and the rest are not.
> 
> But there is a persistent rumour that some (many?) RCAF people want to reintegrate the Air C&E people with their AERE/Air Tech confrères into a renewed _Tech/Tel_ branch ... which, _in my opinion_, makes some (rather a lot, actually) good technical sense.


Unfortunately, it does not make good sense in the CME where many MOS function across environmental lines.


----------



## Kirkhill

Can't it be argued that the RCAF is a creature of the Canadian Army, historically, and that the Canadian Army is a creature of the British Army?

On those grounds then, the progenitor for the Logistics Branch is actually a corps of civilians: the C(c)ommissariat.  That institution goes back at least to the days of Marlborough.

The Admiralty equivalent was its Victualling Board with its Commissioners and Agents Victualler (and Pursers), all of whom were civilians, which was established in 1683 (prior to The Glorious Revolution).  In 1689 the Admiralty established two other civilian boards: The Sick and Hurt Board and The Transport Board (during the Wars of The Glorious Revolution).  The fourth of the Admiralty Boards was The Navy Board which dated back to the days of the Henries (VII and VIII).

It would take until the 1880s before Logistics were militarized.

Commissaries and Agents Victualler were civil servants charged with wisely spending public funds in the open market to ensure that the private enterprises known as Regiments and His/Her Majesty's Ships were adequately equipped and provisioned for their particular tasks.

The Army and the Navy have histories.  The Air Force and Logistics remind me of the Chinese quip about the French Revolution - it is too soon to tell if they have histories.

Edit to add:

The Ordnance Corps also has a history.

From Wikipedia



> The introduction of gunpowder to Europe led to innovations in offensive weapons such as cannon and defences such as fortifications. In the 1370s, to manage the new technology, the royal household appointed a courtier to administer weapons, arsenals and castles. The office and main arsenal were located in the White Tower of the Tower of London.[3] The earliest known Master of Ordnance was Nicholas Merbury, appointed about 1415-1420 by Henry V of England. Merbury was present at the Battle of Agincourt.[4] In 1544 the Office of Ordnance was created by Henry VIII of England, its principal duties being to supply guns, ammunition, stores and equipment to the King's Navy. In 1671, the Board of Ordnance was established, successor to both the aforementioned Office and to a department called the Office of Armoury (a parallel body, which had originally been responsible for provision of armour; latterly there had been substantial overlap between the two offices).[5]


----------



## McG

> CANFORGEN 203/14 COMD CA 037/14 261359Z NOV 14
> CA RESTORED RANK IMPLEMENTATION 08 DEC 14
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS: A. CANFORGEN 194/13 COMD CA 038/13
> B. CANFORGEN 123/14 COMD CA 024/14
> C. CANFORGEN 131/14 COMD CA 025/14
> D. CANFORGEN 187/14 COMD CA 033/14
> 
> 1.   THIS MSG APPLIES TO ALL CAF OFFRS REG AND RES, CIC OFFICERS, AND HONORARY APPOINTMENTS WHO WEAR THE ARMY UNIFORM. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESTORED ARMY RANK IS NOW ORDERED AS AUTHORIZED FOR WEARING BY ALL OFFICERS EFFECTIVE MON 08 DEC 14
> 
> 2.   TAILORING OF RANK SLIP-ONS AND SERVICE DRESS TUNICS HAS CONTINUED OVER THE PAST FIVE MONTHS AND CONTINUES TO BE INCOMPLETE IN SOME LOCS. THEREFORE, THE REMAINDER OF OFFICERS FROM LCOL TO OCDT THAT DO NOT HAVE THEIR UNIFORMS WITH RESTORED RANK READY, MAY CONTINUE TO WEAR THEIR CURRENT RANK DURING A TRANSITION PERIOD FOR EIGHT MORE WEEKS UNTIL 02 FEB 15 BY WHICH TIME ALL OFFICERS MUST BE FULLY COMPLETED THEIR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RESTORED RANK ACROSS ALL ORDERS OF DRESS
> 
> 3.   OFFICERS ARE NOW DIRECTED TO COMPLETE ANY TAILORING OF THEIR DEU UNIFORM AND TO PICK-UP THEIR INITIAL TWO EVI CADPAT RANK SLIP-ONS WITH EVI FLASHES FROM THEIR LOCAL CLOTHING STORES NLT 02 FEB 15. IN THE NCR ONLY, FOR TAILORING CONCERNS PLEASE CONTACT MAJ LOMBARDO AT 613-617-3994
> 
> 4.   PLEASE DIRECT QUESTIONS ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF RANK AND UNIFORMS TO G4 SUPPLY CWO WILLETT AT 613-971-7464
> 
> 5.   WEARING THE RESTORED RANK ON MESS DRESS NO 2 AND 2A IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED BY THE UNDERSIGNED BUT THE FORMER RANK CAN BE GRANDFATHERED UNTIL PROMOTION
> 
> 6.   A POSTER CHART OF THE RESTORED CA RANK SUITABLE FOR PRINTING, DISPLAY, OR EDUCATION PURPOSES MAY BE FOUND ON ACIMS AT HTTP://ACIMS.MIL.CA/SP/HERITAGE/ OFFICIALDOCUMENTS/FORMS /ALLITEMS.ASPX. PLEASE ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS TO G1 HERITAGE, MR PATRICK BRYDEN AT 613-415-7707
> 
> 7.   SIGNED BY LGEN J.M.M. HAINSE, COMD CA


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Have they come out with a fancy PP detailing to the unwashed masses what the new old ranks equate to?


----------



## PuckChaser

I think that's the acims link referenced. I've seen a few floating around.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Officially?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_ranks_and_insignia  :dunno:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Yeah I know but I want to see the guy that got his leading change button filled with some honest work. 

I should also edit the wiki page lol


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I was told that the "Royal Canadian Logistics Corps", or something of that nature was floated about, but it was turned down by the branch as those of us in the RCN and RCAF uni's have no historical tie to a "corps" of any sort and it sounded too Army.
> 
> Heard this while recently on a CFTPO to CFLTC
> 
> I really don't care what they call my branch.



Isn't it the RCN?
Because you are a sailor first and tradesperson second?


----------



## StarFury

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think that's the acims link referenced. I've seen a few floating around.



This is what is to in the msg, though in pdf.  There is also a french ver.


----------



## Happy Guy

The new Army Officers' rank insignia is here to stay and I acknowledge and respect the decision that was made.

Some general observations.
Since the general introduction I must admit that I have a hard time identifying ranks when Officers are wearing DEUs, less Cols and above who wear the red gorgets).  The new DEU ranks are hard to see.  When they are wearing the DEU parka then I'm left with looking at the cap badge to immediately confirm whether I need to salute, or wait until they are about two metres in front of me when I see the rank.  There have been several times when I saluted senior Officers at the last minute with the usual amusing after effects - they scrambling to return the salute.
Sigh ... it was much easier when Army Officers wore stripes.
I'm impressed with the high quality of metal pips and crowns.
I think that the colour borders around the DEU pips and crowns slip ons are a waste of money considering the dark green background.  The red and yellow I can easily see but blue and light green are harder to differentiate, besides I look at the branch / corps / regt identifier first and not the colour border.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Just a quick observation I noticed recently is that the current government in its obsession to 'bring back the past' has actually killed more real traditions (those that were actually maintained) than any other government likely since PET. 

Just with the Navy alone for three quick examples (I won`t even begin to go into detail on the other things lost as we have all heard it before) we have lost Sliders, Drinking at sea, and Beards on ship (that were a big part of Naval Tradition).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Just a quick observation I noticed recently is that the current government in its obsession to 'bring back the past' has actually killed more real traditions (those that were actually maintained) than any other government likely since PET.
> 
> Just with the Navy alone for three quick examples (I won`t even begin to go into detail on the other things lost as we have all heard it before) we have lost Sliders, Drinking at sea, and Beards on ship (that were a big part of Naval Tradition).



I doubt 'the government' issued directives on all of those, I'd suspect it was the RCN doing it...


----------



## Eaglelord17

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sliders - scuttlebutt throughout the fleet is that in some quarters it was changed as counter to what they feared might be public perception on such a ghastly tradition.  I don't know if said public were aware of sliders, or had an opinion on it, but, the Admiral who was at the helm when the change was implemented is not remembered kindly by most of the sailors.
> I am pretty sure the public didn't know of this tradition, but it is something to make up for being taken away from your family of months on end. It was also a good time to do banking or other personal admin required as the stores and other business were still open.
> 
> Beards - safety issue and is quite frankly no issue except for a few diehards whom you couldn't change their opinion of it at any rate.
> From a personal standpoint I feel I would be safer with a beard than without it, my face is a odd size that doesn't like to seal well as my nose is to big for a medium mask so I have to wear a large mask, but my face itself is very narrow. To pass my Fit test it took 3 tries and even then it was just barely able to pass it. Civilians wear the same kit (drager) with beards without issue so why can't we (I am done arguing this point though as it is the eternal argument that we all know the sides of)
> 
> Booze - it is believed almost universally, amongst the rank and file, there have been some Admirals who have been gunning and waiting for an excuse, any excuse, to kill it off if they can.  There have unfortunately been a couple of deaths while ships were in port overseas and said deaths were believed to have alcohol as a contributing factor.  WHITEHORSE, well that too was in port, but seems to be the straw that broke the camels back on the issue.  Reactions from what I have been hearing is mixed.  There are some who applaud and many who don't.  Time will tell if this policy decision was prudent or if it will blow up in the PR face of the navy one day down the road.  Debate will no doubt continue on this for some time to come.  My personal opinion is that it was a knee jerk reaction as these decisions sometimes are, there will be tears, but I don't see it going back to the way it was.  It is said that "Booze is NOT unauthorized at sea, you can have it during special events like Banyans"  The cynic in me sees the next step is to outlaw Banyans.  (that, will take care of the loophole methinks...).  Again, the Admiral who was at the helm for this decision is being called names in some quarters that are unprintable and probably chargeable under numerous statutes    he won't be fondly remembered by the matelots.
> I am not going into detail on this one as even though I never used it much, I liked having the option to (the fact they raised prices sucks as well).



Personally I just hate the fact we are getting all this royalism crap that does nothing to actually better our military and you could argue it actually harms it by taking away money and effort from where it is needed. There are so many simple things that can be done to save money and actually benefit the military (e.g. issuing engineers on board ships coveralls as I can guarantee if all engineers actually followed the hazmat rules with our uniforms we would be taking them in for disposal every week just to be issued new ones). But that is a topic which is worthy for a thread within itself.


----------



## FSTO

On a happier note.
We get rid of the 1812 pin as of 16 Feb 2015.

 ;D


----------



## dangerboy

FSTO said:
			
		

> On a happier note.
> We get rid of the 1812 pin as of 16 Feb 2015.
> 
> ;D



I am waiting for the Vimy Ridge pin to replace it  .


----------



## kratz

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I am waiting for the Vimy Ridge pin to replace it  .



...or the Canada 150 pin.     :stirpot:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Or the 1914-1918 pin.


----------



## dapaterson

kratz said:
			
		

> ...or the Canada 150 pin.     :stirpot:



...made in China, of course...


----------



## Stonegeneral

Better get the tickets ready for the Canada 150 Medal lottery too...


----------



## Happy Guy

*[size=24pt]**Mods please delete all references to pins*[/size].

The Good Idea Fairy will catch wind of this and there goes another hundreds of thousands of dollars for another meaningless device that we don't want to wear.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Stonegeneral said:
			
		

> Better get the tickets ready for the Canada 150 Medal lottery too...



C'ept now that we're broke, we'll be expected to buy the lottery tickets too...


----------



## Pusser

FSTO said:
			
		

> On a happier note.
> We get rid of the 1812 pin as of 16 Feb 2015.
> 
> ;D



That just means that I no longer have to remember to forget to put it on.


----------



## Tibbson

Mine broke about two weeks after they gave it to me.  Chinese quality eh.


----------



## McG

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I am waiting for the Vimy Ridge pin to replace it  .





			
				kratz said:
			
		

> ...or the Canada 150 pin.     :stirpot:





			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> ...The Good Idea Fairy will catch wind of this and there goes another hundreds of thousands of dollars for another meaningless device that we don't want to wear.


If it makes you feel better, I keep hearing that the good idea fairy lobby is fixed on pushing new/old brown army uniforms.  The commemorative pin idea might get missed under the radar.



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I think that the colour borders around the DEU pips and crowns slip ons are a waste of money considering the dark green background.  The red and yellow I can easily see but blue and light green are harder to differentiate, besides I look at the branch / corps / regt identifier first and not the colour border.


Don't worry.  It is not about money.  It is about enabling all to show-off that they are better because they look different than the next guy. 



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Since the general introduction I must admit that I have a hard time identifying ranks when Officers are wearing DEUs, less Cols and above who wear the red gorgets).  The new DEU ranks are hard to see.  ...
> 
> Sigh ... it was much easier when Army Officers wore stripes.


Too bad we did not wear "navy ranks" on our sleeves in either of the World Wars.  Then we might have reverted back to something easier to identify, maybe introducing a Canadian star based on the OMM and retaining a pattern of GO insignia a little more in-line with international norms.

... or maybe that good idea is just waiting to roll-out with the brown uniforms.  :blotto:


----------



## Happy Guy

I've been living under a rock in NDHQ and I've never heard of any lobby group wanting to change the colour of the DEU.

I've heard that the Army considered reinstituting Lance Corporal to Warrant Officer 1 but thankfully they did not have the cooperation from the RCN and RCAF.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I've been living under a rock in NDHQ and I've never heard of any lobby group wanting to change the colour of the DEU.
> 
> I've heard that the Army considered reinstituting Lance Corporal to Warrant Officer 1 but thankfully they did not have the cooperation from the RCN and RCAF.



I understand the RCAF may have a dog in the fight as their ranks are similar but why would the RCN care if the CA wanted to rename some ranks and appointments ?


----------



## Happy Guy

In the CA, a Lance Corporal would be a Cpl / LS now and a Cpl would be a MCpl / MS.  This would be a major change.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> In the CA, a Lance Corporal would be a Cpl / LS now and a Cpl would be a MCpl / MS.  This would be a major change.



Ya I get that.  But the name change would only effect CA and maybe RCAF if they followed suit no?  The RCN doesn't use Cpl, MCpl ect and never had L/Cpl ect so I don't see why the RCN would be concerned.  Its sort like the LT(N), Capt(N) and the different nomenclature uses in the CA and RCAF no ?  Seems to work fine now. 

Defiantly not arguing with you I just don't see the reason for resistance the RCN could muster for what is essentially just a name change that doesn't effect them more than just needing to learn a couple of new rank names.  I for one would like to see the CA return to using L/Cpl for Pte(T).


----------



## bLUE fOX

I thought a L/Cpl was what we would call a trained private now? Also, if i remember rightly, didn't the RCN have fewer ranks then the CF?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Yes the pre-unification RCN ranks went:

OS
AB
LS 

PO2
PO1
CPO2
CPO1 

The MS rank (appointment) had no equivalent.  But essentially the LS would have been a combination of the LS and MS ranks and responsibilities. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_ranks_of_the_Canadian_Forces
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/tableofranksandresponsibilities.htm
http://mpmuseum.org/rcnrank_ratings.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, even that was more ranks than originally found in the Navy.

From 1910 to 1950, the ranks were OS, AB, LS, then PO, and CPO (single class of each). It is only in 1950 that the second grade of PO and CPO's were introduced, to bring the system more in line with the Army's.

Also, in the RCN, prior to unification, Commodore was not a rank but an appointment, for officers. Basically, a Commodore was merely a senior Captain that was in a position to exercise command over other Captains (for instance, the base Commander Stadaconna could be appointed Commodore since he had the Captain in charge of Fleet School and the Dockyard Master [a Captain] under his command.). The normal progression as to go from Captain to Rear-Admiral.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, even that was more ranks than originally found in the Navy.
> 
> From 1910 to 1950, the ranks were OS, AB, LS, then PO, and CPO (single class of each). It is only in 1950 that the second grade of PO and CPO's were introduced, to bring the system more in line with the Army's.
> 
> Also, in the RCN, prior to unification, Commodore was not a rank but an appointment, for officers. Basically, a Commodore was merely a senior Captain that was in a position to exercise command over other Captains (for instance, the base Commander Stadaconna could be appointed Commodore since he had the Captain in charge of Fleet School and the Dockyard Master [a Captain] under his command.). The normal progression as to go from Captain to Rear-Admiral.



Noted.  I was only giving the most recent pre-unification RCN ranks.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

We had an NCO town hall with the RCAF CWO about 1 month ago and his words I quote: "There will be no name changes in the RCAF rank structure; other than Aviator which we already know about." 
He also talked about the CA name changes and the rumours are untrue. Again in both the RCAF & the CA, the changes in the Rank structure is complete.


----------



## StarFury

TB said:
			
		

> We had an NCO town hall with the RCAF CWO about 1 month ago and his words I quote: "There will be no name changes in the RCAF rank structure; other than Aviator which we already know about."
> He also talked about the CA name changes and the rumours are untrue. Again in both the RCAF & the CA, the changes in the Rank structure is complete.



But was there not a member here who reported being at a town hall where the Comd CA indicated that there would not be a return to stars and crowns for the army?


----------



## George Wallace

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> In the CA, a Lance Corporal would be a Cpl / LS now and a Cpl would be a MCpl / MS.  This would be a major change.



I always was under the impression that one chevron was a Lance Corporal.  This would make a one hook, fully trained Pte a L/Cpl.  
Cpl would still be Cpl and M/Cpl would still be an appointment......or a Lance Sgt?


----------



## daftandbarmy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I always was under the impression that one chevron was a Lance Corporal.  This would make a one hook, fully trained Pte a L/Cpl.
> Cpl would still be Cpl and M/Cpl would still be an appointment......or a Lance Sgt?



In the UK a LCpl's hook was well earned by a fully trained private, with 3 years in and a recommendation from his OC, provided he had passed a junior leadership course we always called the 'Drill and Duties Cadre'. The course lasted about 3-4 weeks as I recall and - in addition to a 'robust' physical selection component - introduced the NCO hopefuls to the way things ran in the battalion from the drill, guard and other duties, and discipline angle. LCpls being assigned as section 2ICs, they also covered the field portion of that job.

Failure rates were about 50% as I recall, stemming mainly from those who didn't really want to put up a hook and were just happy as private soldiers... until they got their heads in the game.

I always found the products of this type of process were excellent JNCOs who could be relied upon for just about anything, in the garrison or on operations.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the UK a LCpl's hook was well earned by a fully trained private,



It was the same in the CA, until 'Unification' and new rank structure.


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, even that was more ranks than originally found in the Navy.
> 
> From 1910 to 1950, the ranks were OS, AB, LS, then PO, and CPO (single class of each). It is only in 1950 that the second grade of PO and CPO's were introduced, to bring the system more in line with the Army's.



This was done in order to harmonize pay across the three services (a sensible pre-Hellyer stab at integration).  The Army and Air Force had more ranks than the Navy, so the Navy had to introduce two new ones.  Interestingly, the PO2 was still considered a junior rank, messed with the LS and below, did cleaning stations and wore square rig.  Only with unification did the PO2 make it into the C&POs' mess (much to the chagrin of some crusty old C&POs I met in my youth).  The RN still only has one PO and one CPO.  Years back (c. 70/80s ?), they did introduce a "Fleet Chief Petty Officer" whose badge was a coat of arms, but that has since been replaced with two grades of warrant officer.

In the current NATO structure:

OR 6:  RCN PO2 = RN PO (badge is crossed anchors and crown)
OR 7:  RCN PO1 = RN CPO (badge is three buttons on the cuff)
OR 8:  RCN CPO2 = RN WO2 (badge is a crown and laurel)
OR 9:  RCN CPO1 = RN WO1 (badge is a coat of arms)

As a side note, from at least WWII, the RCAF had two grades of warrant officer (WO2 - crown and laurel, WO1 - coat of arms), while the RAF had only one (WO - coat of arms).  This is still the case today.


----------



## Happy Guy

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Lance Corporal is not a rank, it is an appointment.
> 
> Lance Corporal does NOT equal a Master Corporal!
> 
> In the old system, you had
> 
> Privates
> Corporals
> Sergeants
> 
> A private could be appointed Lance Corporal; he wore one chevron and was generally 2 i/c of a section.
> 
> A corporal wore two chevrons and was a section commander.
> 
> A corporal could be appointed Lance Sergeant, he would wear three chevrons and was generally a weapons crew commander or similar position.
> 
> They got rid of the Lance Corporal and Lance Sergeant appointments, and instead created the appointment of Master Corporal.  A Master Corporal is considered a command rank like the old Corporal position; THEN you needed a junior NCO course to be a corporal.  NOW you need the junior NCO course to be a master corporal.
> 
> The Corporal of old was thus equal to the Master Corporal of today in terms of authority and command powers.
> 
> Lance Corporal was a weird in between kind of a thing, and while technically considered a full fledged NCO, I don‘t believe he was all that well respected in actual practice.  The Lance Corporal then and the Corporal now are in effect the same thing - a position with no real command power and little actual authority, though to a new private, today‘s corporal is a bit better at getting attention than the Lance Jack of old.


Going back to the begining of this discussion in 2003 - proposal for the return of the Lance Corporal rank.
I was lead to believe that this was the intent of the CA with the reintroduction of the Lance Corporal rank.  If this was the case concurrence by the RCN and RCAF would be required.
Obviously this discussion has brought about differing ideas of what a Lance Corporal is in terms of roles and responsibilities.  I joined in 1978 and all of my instructors were products of pre-unification.  I do remember them sneering at the now Cpl rank and wishing for the return of L/Cpl and Cpl in terms of their traditional roles and responsibilities.


----------



## FJAG

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> . . .
> Obviously this discussion has brought about differing ideas of what a Lance Corporal is in terms of roles and responsibilities.  I joined in 1978 and all of my instructors were products of pre-unification.  I do remember them sneering at the now Cpl rank and wishing for the return of L/Cpl and Cpl in terms of their traditional roles and responsibilities.



Most of the discussion above has been dancing around the biggest difference as between the old Pte/LCpl/Cpl structure and today's Pte/Pte(T)/Cpl/MCpl one and which is the leadership responsibilities.

Under the old structure Pte was the rank of the worker-bee soldier while the Cpl was the junior NCO leader rank. The L/Cpl was not a rank but merely an appointment given to Ptes who showed leadership potential and abilities and who were put into actual leadership roles with the authority and the responsibilities of Jnr NCOs.

Under the new system that Hellyer established, both Pte's and Cpls were considered worker-bee ranks and not leadership positions. If you were to equate the structure to the industrial world, Ptes were the "apprentices" learning their jobs through courses and On-job-training programs and the Cpls were the trained "journeymen". The Pte(T) classification merely differentiated those "apprentices" that had reached a certain limited level of training but not yet the full range of OJT and experience. 

The MCpl appointment was instituted in recognition of the fact that there had to be a way of distinguishing within the Cpl rank structure those Cpls who were worker-bees and those Cpls who were given the authority and the responsibilities commensurate with junior leadership roles.

From a leadership structure point of view MCpls equate to the old system Cpls. The L/Cpl concept is completely gone from our structure.

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:
			
		

> Most of the discussion above has been dancing around the biggest difference as between the old Pte/LCpl/Cpl structure and today's Pte/Pte(T)/Cpl/MCpl one and which is the leadership responsibilities.
> 
> Under the old structure Pte was the rank of the worker-bee soldier while the Cpl was the junior NCO leader rank. The L/Cpl was not a rank but merely an appointment given to Ptes who showed leadership potential and abilities and who were put into actual leadership roles with the authority and the responsibilities of Jnr NCOs.
> 
> Under the new system that Hellyer established, both Pte's and Cpls were considered worker-bee ranks and not leadership positions. If you were to equate the structure to the industrial world, Ptes were the "apprentices" learning their jobs through courses and On-job-training programs and the Cpls were the trained "journeymen". The Pte(T) classification merely differentiated those "apprentices" that had reached a certain limited level of training but not yet the full range of OJT and experience.
> 
> The MCpl appointment was instituted in recognition of the fact that there had to be a way of distinguishing within the Cpl rank structure those Cpls who were worker-bees and those Cpls who were given the authority and the responsibilities commensurate with junior leadership roles.
> 
> From a leadership structure point of view MCpls equate to the old system Cpls. The L/Cpl concept is completely gone from our structure.
> 
> :cheers:




IIRC the L/Cpl and the M/Cpl are one in the same, with the latter a victim of creeping rank inflation. Regardless, I find it interesting that both ranks remain hyphenated


----------



## midget-boyd91

Here's a question:
Why doesn't the CAF just make a Master Corporal a full blown, completely separate rank on it's own? I mean, it is currently an "appointed position" rather than a fully fledged rank:  a position appointed to an individual based on their leadership abilities, knowledge and experience. However, isn't that what all promotions are based upon (in theory) anyhow? So why have this remain in a sort of grey area between ranks as it is right now?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Here's a question:
> Why doesn't the CAF just make a Master Corporal a full blown, completely separate rank on it's own? I mean, it is currently an "appointed position" rather than a fully fledged rank:  a position appointed to an individual based on their leadership abilities, knowledge and experience. However, isn't that what all promotions are based upon (in theory) anyhow? So why have this remain in a sort of grey area between ranks as it is right now?



Why not eliminate it completely and replace it with a Junior Sgt rank like most of our allies?

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


----------



## FJAG

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> IIRC the L/Cpl and the M/Cpl are one in the same, with the latter a victim of creeping rank inflation. Regardless, I find it interesting that both ranks remain hyphenated



I don't believe L/Cpls and M/Cpls are one and the same. As an example, in the artillery gun detachments were commanded by Sgts with Bdrs as 2i/cs before the change as far back as WW2 and commanded by Sgts with MBdrs as 2i/c after the changeover. It is my understanding that the establishment of an infantry section being commanded by a Sgt with a Cpl 2i/c may also goes back as far as WW2 or Korea. Same for Tanks where I believe the ranking of crew commanders had changed by Korea. OldSweat would be a much better authority on historical organizations than I am.

In short I think the rank inflation to the sergeant level (if it truly was inflation rather than an acknowledgement that the complexity of arms and tactics and responsibilities at the section/detachment level required a higher more experienced rank) happened before unification and before the disappearance of the LCpl. 



			
				uncle-midget-Oddball said:
			
		

> Here's a question:
> Why doesn't the CAF just make a Master Corporal a full blown, completely separate rank on it's own? I mean, it is currently an "appointed position" rather than a fully fledged rank:  a position appointed to an individual based on their leadership abilities, knowledge and experience. However, isn't that what all promotions are based upon (in theory) anyhow? So why have this remain in a sort of grey area between ranks as it is right now?



Good question. The short answer is that the CF rank structure is part of the National Defence Act and therefore would require that parliament pass a law amending the NDA. Getting amendments to the NDA are difficult in that one competes with other high priority legislation from other departments and for a very long time after unification amendments to the NDA were few and far between. There have, however, been many NDA based bills placed before parliament in the last decade and why this item hasn't attracted attention escapes me. My suspicion is that it does not have the support of Treasury Board for some reason and not enough priority within DND's leadership to make an issue of it.

 :cheers:


----------



## Old Sweat

The infantry section issue is complicated and I can only address it as an outsider. During the Second World War and Korea, in fact up to the mass promotion to corporal and beyond, the section was commanded by a corporal with a lance corporal as 2i/c. Come mass promotion day, which I recall was in fall 1966, a section could be made up of several corporals with some privates. Corporals, including some who held the rank before "the day" found themselves doing fatigues alongside very junior Hellyer corporals and privates. Units tried expediencies such as "anointing" selected corporals as "senior corporals" and sewing a crown on their hooks to indicate their status. FJAG could comment on the legality of the measure as applied to the Code of Service Discipline.

This is where I get to the chicken or the egg bit. I know the infantry upgraded section commanders to sergeants, and they may have played the complexity card which would have obfuscated the issue, but in my opinion the aim was to reestablish the chain of command. At some time, before or after the sergeant upgrade, the appointment of master corporal was created. I think it came later, but I'm not sure.


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The infantry section issue is complicated and I can only address it as an outsider. During the Second World War and Korea, in fact up to the mass promotion to corporal and beyond, the section was commanded by a corporal with a lance corporal as 2i/c. Come mass promotion day, which I recall was in fall 1966, a section could be made up of several corporals with some privates. Corporals, including some who held the rank before "the day" found themselves doing fatigues alongside very junior Hellyer corporals and privates. Units tried expediencies such as "anointing" selected corporals as "senior corporals" and sewing a crown on their hooks to indicate their status. FJAG could comment on the legality of the measure as applied to the Code of Service Discipline.
> 
> This is where I get to the chicken or the egg bit. I know the infantry upgraded section commanders to sergeants, and they may have played the complexity card which would have obfuscated the issue, but in my opinion the aim was to reestablish the chain of command. At some time, before or after the sergeant upgrade, the appointment of master corporal was created. I think it came later, but I'm not sure.



I'm like you OldSweat in that I know guns have been commanded by sergeants well before unification. As to infantry I have seen several different establishments but note the following from Capt O'Leary's aricle on Infantry Section tactics:

"Gradual changes were made to section and platoon organizations and equipment as weapons, manning and equipment evolved. By 1944, the platoon consisted of a headquarters, a platoon mortar detachment, and three sections, each of which consisted of a rifle group and a Bren gun group. The rifle section strength was one sergeant and nine men, while the platoon total strength was 1-4-24."

http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/sect_atk.htm

As to legality of the _ad hoc_ appointments, I also remember the confusion ongoing at the time. With those _ad ho_c "senior corporals" appointments the big issue was what legal authority did such an appointee have over other corporals. 

When the Minster of National Defence made QR&O 3.08(4) he directed that MCpls have "authority and powers of command over all other corporals". 

In the absence of 3.08, amongst corporals _per se_ seniority could be determined as per QR&O 3.09 and where authority is specifically authorized by a CO under QR&O 3.20. These latter two regulations had nowhere near the force and power of QR&O 3.08. 

Unfortunately I have been unable to determine when exactly 3.08 was promulgated. Like you I'm sure that there was a lag involved. I do know that when I was the GPO of my first troop in the summer of 1970, I already had three M/Bdr 2i/cs (all of whom were actually the detachment commanders of my guns because the three of the three gun sergeants on my establishment (all Korea vets), one was the permanent regimental duty sergeant, one was permanently assigned to run the regimental canteens and the third was detached to something else that I just can't recall. (I was also missing my Troop Sergeant Major and my Tech sergeant dual hatted in that role.) 

As an aside at that time my MBdrs earned a generous $5.00 per month more as M/Bdrs then they did as Bdrs - let me tell you that that was the subject for quite some tension.

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Perhaps someone with more historical knowledge can enlighten me.

When I joined in the mid-seventies, the boards showing the various ranks that were then in use did not show the appointment of Master Corporal. They did, however, show, between the single chevron of the Private (trained) and the double chevron of the Corporal, another rank called Lance-Corporal with its insignia being the single chevron with the maple leaf on top. It indicated below that this was for the land forces only. Even though those were the insignia on the board, I never saw anyone waring the insignias for "Lance-Corporal" that was so described.

So here are my questions for more knowledgeable people:

1) Anybody else recalls seeing a board showing such ranks, or am I completely out to lunch (with a "Brian Williams" brain cramp  )?

2) Is it correct to think that pre-unification, the Lance-Corporal was below the full Corporal rank, and not above? and,

3) Did the appointment to Master-Corporal not come about originally as a result of an Army practice that developed (locally at first) of distinguishing between the Corporals that were fully qualified for the rank from those that were Lance-Corporal/Private(trained) that had been booted up before their time to the rank of Corporal as a result of a certain minister's raming down the CF's throat Unification? My understanding was that to distinguish between the two, the fully qualified Corporal took to putting a maple leaf over their double chevron to indicate full qualification in rank, and the leadership had no choice but to start to recognize the practice and then formalized it in QR & O's.


----------



## Old Sweat

Lance Corporal was an appointment that ranked below corporal. Units could appoint 12.5% of their privates lance corporals. By the way, there was a boost in pay involved.

The law of unintended consequences kicked in with the mass promotion to corporal, as all of a sudden there were not enough privates to do the fatigues and housekeeping tasks. Corporal had gone overnight from being a key leadership and command position to something that was both a leadership and a worker post, or maybe not. Some units began to create senior corporals who wore a crown on their hooks. (Crowns of the correct size were in the system for majors and for staff sergeants to wear above their three hooks.) From there it took a bit of bureaucratic gymnastics to create master corporals and to give them permanence. By that I mean if posted, they did not cease the appointment, which had been the case with lance corporals.


----------



## MilEME09

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Lance Corporal was an appointment that ranked below corporal. Units could appoint 12.5% of their privates lance corporals. By the way, there was a boost in pay involved.
> 
> The law of unintended consequences kicked in with the mass promotion to corporal, as all of a sudden there were not enough privates to do the fatigues and housekeeping tasks. Corporal had gone overnight from being a key leadership and command position to something that was both a leadership and a worker post, or maybe not. Some units began to create senior corporals who wore a crown on their hooks. (Crowns of the correct size were in the system for majors and for staff sergeants to wear above their three hooks.) From there it took a bit of bureaucratic gymnastics to create master corporals and to give them permanence. By that I mean if posted, they did not cease the appointment, which had been the case with lance corporals.



you mean this guy?


----------



## Old Sweat

Lance Corporal was a single hook* without a maple leaf or whatever. It disappeared from the rank structure before the CF green suit was issued.

* Being the Canadian Army, there were exceptions. In the Canadian Guards and, I think, perhaps the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada lance corporals wore two hooks, like corporals. In the Guards the two could be distinguished because they wore different forage caps. Guards corporals wore a forage cap with a metal edging on the brim, while the hats worn by lance corporals and guardsmen lacked the edging.


----------



## GR66

During WWII at least there was also a Lance Sergeant.  I remember seeing a document a number of years ago (embarkation list maybe?) showing my uncle with the rank of L/Sgt with the Black Watch when he arrived in Normandy.


----------



## Old Sweat

Again, like lance corporal, units could appoint 12.5% of their corporals lance sergeants. They wore three hooks without any extra regimental/corps extras. For example sergeants in the artillery wore a gun above their hooks while their counterparts in the engineers wore a grenade. In this case the appointment did not bring a raise in pay, so the individuals had to pay sergeants' mess dues on a corporal's salary. On posting the appointment cease and the individual reverted to corporal.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> you mean this guy?



That's the one I remember seeing on the boards in 1975/76.

BTW Old Sweat, as you are talking about the Guards (I understand it is spelled Guards, but I was told it is pronounced Gods), I have also heard the expression Corporal-in-Waiting and Sergeant-in-Waiting. Were those ranks in Guards regiments before Unification?


----------



## Pusser

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> * Being the Canadian Army, there were exceptions. In the Canadian Guards and, I think, perhaps the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada lance corporals wore two hooks, like corporals. In the Guards the two could be distinguished because they wore different forage caps. Guards corporals wore a forage cap with a metal edging on the brim, while the hats worn by lance corporals and guardsmen lacked the edging.



The British Army still does a lot of this stuff and it's very confusing!  The have lance corporals and lance serjeants (depending on regiment).  Most lance corporals wear a single chevron, but in at least one regiment, they wear two (and corporals and sergeants wear three, but of different colours).  then there are corporals of horse (who are actually warrant officers) and it goes on.... 

As I recall, in the beginning of the CF green uniform, all of the "chevronned" ranks (i.e. Pte(T) through Sgt) had a maple leaf, which explains the single chevron badge shown above.  The corporal's maple leaf was set inside the chevrons (i.e. above the bottom one, but superimposed on the upper one), whilst the master corporal's was set above both chevrons (as it is today).  My feeling is that the corporal's badge was too similar to the master corporal's and it was causing confusion, so the leaf was dropped altogether.  If the corporal's badge had no leaf, then it made no sense for the Pte(T) to have one either, so that too was dropped.  I don't believe that the single chevron with leaf and the single chevron without leaf were ever used at the same time (except perhaps for a transition period) as they were both used for the same rank.

As an aside, leading seaman in the navy who were appointed master seaman and were still wearing square rig, put a crown above their anchors (the rank badge for LS in RCN 1.0 - chevrons had nothing to do with rank then).


----------



## Old Sweat

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's the one I remember seeing on the boards in 1975/76.
> 
> BTW Old Sweat, as you are talking about the Guards (I understand it is spelled Guards, but I was told it is pronounced Gods), I have also heard the expression Corporal-in-Waiting and Sergeant-in-Waiting. Were those ranks in Guards regiments before Unification?



I don't recall the expressions, but that means little. The Guards sometimes were their own worst enemies, as in Petawawa circa 1958 or 1959. Someone fairly high in the food chain decided it would be nice to have a sailing club, so orders were issued each and every member of the battalion would contribute a certain sum per month deducted by pay assignment to pay for the boats, club house, etc. The use of the boats apparently was heavily tilted in favour of the officers. Not surprisingly the press got ahold of it and the scheme was short lived, but references to sail boats persisted in the army and the land force for decades.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I don't recall the expressions, but that means little. The Guards sometimes were their own worst enemies, as in Petawawa circa 1958 or 1959. Someone fairly high in the food chain decided it would be nice to have a sailing club, so *orders were issued each and every member of the battalion would contribute a certain sum per month deducted by pay assignment *to pay for the boats, club house, etc. The use of the boats apparently was heavily tilted in favour of the officers. Not surprisingly the press got ahold of it and the scheme was short lived, but references to sail boats persisted in the army and the land force for decades.



Just like the way the money was raised for this? http://www.themilitarymuseums.ca/


----------



## Blackadder1916

Pusser said:
			
		

> . . .
> As an aside, leading seaman in the navy who were appointed master seaman and were still wearing square rig, put a crown above their anchors (the rank badge for LS in RCN 1.0 - chevrons had nothing to do with rank then).



As  shown here.





The accompanying caption at http://mpmuseum.org/rcn_uniform_ratings2.html is:

"The rank insignia is that of a Leading Seaman with at least 3 years service. The Crown above the Leading Seaman's rank insignia is uncommon and it is described in CFP 152 (Seaman's Handbook) dated 6 July 1970 "Master seaman wear a crown above the leading seaman insignia." This would have been in wear until the "square rig pattern uniforms" were withdrawn in the mid 1970s and replaced by the  CF Greens."

The Canadian Military Police Virtual Museum is probably the best researched and presented website concerning Canadian uniforms and insignia (though MP-centric) that I've found.  Its page on unification era rank insignia is at http://mpmuseum.org/securncm1.html


----------



## daftandbarmy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Lance Corporal was a single hook* without a maple leaf or whatever. It disappeared from the rank structure before the CF green suit was issued.
> 
> * Being the Canadian Army, there were exceptions. In the Canadian Guards and, I think, perhaps the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada lance corporals wore two hooks, like corporals. In the Guards the two could be distinguished because they wore different forage caps. Guards corporals wore a forage cap with a metal edging on the brim, while the hats worn by lance corporals and guardsmen lacked the edging.



In the Guards' Division, nothing makes sense. Apparently, Queen Victoria didn't like to see one stripe. SO they gave LCpls two stripes and full Corporals three stripes but made them white or 'silver'. Hence, they were called 'Silver sergeants' as I recall:

Lance-sergeant rank within Foot Guards[edit]

In the Foot Guards, all corporals are automatically appointed to the rank of lance-sergeant on their promotion; lance-sergeants perform the same duties as corporals in other regiments and are not acting sergeants, despite their name.

The appointment to a separate rank originated in the British Army and Royal Marines, as it could be removed by the soldier's commanding officer, unlike a full sergeant, who could only be demoted by court martial. Lance-sergeants first appeared in the nineteenth century, but [4] the practice was abolished in 1946, except in the Foot Guards and the Honourable Artillery Company. Both sergeants and lance-sergeants wear three rank chevrons, but in full dress, Foot Guards lance-sergeants are distinguished from full sergeants by their white chevrons and button loops (full sergeants wearing gold along with a red sash over the right shoulder).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_Guards


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> As  shown here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The accompanying caption at http://mpmuseum.org/rcn_uniform_ratings2.html is:
> 
> "The rank insignia is that of a Leading Seaman with at least 3 years service. The Crown above the Leading Seaman's rank insignia is uncommon and it is described in CFP 152 (Seaman's Handbook) dated 6 July 1970 "Master seaman wear a crown above the leading seaman insignia." This would have been in wear until the "square rig pattern uniforms" were withdrawn in the mid 1970s and replaced by the  CF Greens."
> 
> The Canadian Military Police Virtual Museum is probably the best researched and presented website concerning Canadian uniforms and insignia (though MP-centric) that I've found.  Its page on unification era rank insignia is at http://mpmuseum.org/securncm1.html



The rank is the Anchor and Crown insignia.  The chevron denoted good conduct time served in that rank, if I am not mistaken.  Meaning the chevron was not a rank identifier at all but a TI badge, in the RCN.


----------



## Tibbson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's the one I remember seeing on the boards in 1975/76.
> 
> BTW Old Sweat, as you are talking about the Guards (I understand it is spelled Guards, but I was told it is pronounced Gods), I have also heard the expression Corporal-in-Waiting and Sergeant-in-Waiting. Were those ranks in Guards regiments before Unification?



I found one of those back when I was on my QL5 and spent the day telling the QL3s in our quarters that they were changing the rank structure to Private, Master Private, Corporal, Sergeant.... and that this was the new rank badge that all Corporals would change to when they became "Master Privates" instead.  

I had a bit of 'splainin to do to the school Chief monday morning but luckily he saw the humour in it.  hehe


----------



## Happy Guy

When was the single chevron with the Maple Leaf phased out?  I received my first hook (sans leaf) in 1978 and I don't recall ever seeing this rank insignia back then.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The rank is the Anchor and Crown insignia.  The chevron denoted good conduct time served in that rank, if I am not mistaken.  Meaning the chevron was not a rank identifier at all but a TI badge, in the RCN.



Almost right Halifax Tar.

Yes, only the anchor and crown above denote the rank in this picture. And in fact, pre-unification, the Navy did not refer to these as "ranks" for non-commissioned members. They were know as "rates". So in order, you rated as ordinary duty seaman, then able bodied seaman (which is where the "AB" short form we use comes from by the way), neither one of which wore any rate identifier at all (many Commonwealth Navies have since introduced an identifier for the ABs nowadays - it is a badge depicting a square knot). You then rated a leading seaman (the fouled anchor). As B1916 indicated yesterday, for the short time they existed in old uniform, the crown over the anchor denoted appointment to master seaman. The Petty Officer second class rate was indicated by two fouled anchors crossed. Above that, the PO1s and CPOs wore the fore-and-aft rig (normal DEU if you prefer) and had the same rate indicators as we now have [I am skipping the era when we only had one rate of PO and CPO each].

The red (or gold/blue depending on the uniform) chevron, known as badges, reflected not time in rank, but time in the service. One chevron for three years, two to denote seven years, and three to denote 11 years, IIRC. They were only worn up to and inclusive of the rate of PO2 (i.e. on the square rig). The officers and PO1 and above did not wear anything to denote time in, other than the Good Conduct and Long Service medal if earned (precursor to the CD). 

This system really confused the "chevron-centric' Air force and Army personnel at times, as they looked at the chevrons as the ranks and considered the anchor or anchors above it as mere decoration indicating "Navy". Thus, for instance the old "AB-Three-Badges" who would wear three chevrons but no rate identification at all, would look like a sergeant to them, while they would look at a young PO2 with only two chevrons as a corporal.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> In the Guards' Division, nothing makes sense. Apparently, Queen Victoria didn't like to see one stripe. SO they gave LCpls two stripes and full Corporals three stripes but made them white or 'silver'. Hence, they were called 'Silver sergeants' as I recall:
> 
> Lance-sergeant rank within Foot Guards[edit]
> 
> In the Foot Guards, all corporals are automatically appointed to the rank of lance-sergeant on their promotion; lance-sergeants perform the same duties as corporals in other regiments and are not acting sergeants, despite their name.
> 
> The appointment to a separate rank originated in the British Army and Royal Marines, as it could be removed by the soldier's commanding officer, unlike a full sergeant, who could only be demoted by court martial. Lance-sergeants first appeared in the nineteenth century, but [4] the practice was abolished in 1946, except in the Foot Guards and the Honourable Artillery Company. Both sergeants and lance-sergeants wear three rank chevrons, but in full dress, Foot Guards lance-sergeants are distinguished from full sergeants by their white chevrons and button loops (full sergeants wearing gold along with a red sash over the right shoulder).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_Guards



I think I need to get some Tylenol   .


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Almost right Halifax Tar.
> 
> Yes, only the anchor and crown above denote the rank in this picture. And in fact, pre-unification, the Navy did not refer to these as "ranks" for non-commissioned members. They were know as "rates". So in order, you rated as ordinary duty seaman, then able bodied seaman (which is where the "AB" short form we use comes from by the way), neither one of which wore any rate identifier at all (many Commonwealth Navies have since introduced an identifier for the ABs nowadays - it is a badge depicting a square knot). You then rated a leading seaman (the fouled anchor). As B1916 indicated yesterday, for the short time they existed in old uniform, the crown over the anchor denoted appointment to master seaman. The Petty Officer second class rate was indicated by two fouled anchors crossed. Above that, the PO1s and CPOs wore the fore-and-aft rig (normal DEU if you prefer) and had the same rate indicators as we now have [I am skipping the era when we only had one rate of PO and CPO each].
> 
> The red (or gold/blue depending on the uniform) chevron, known as badges, reflected not time in rank, but time in the service. One chevron for three years, two to denote seven years, and three to denote 11 years, IIRC. They were only worn up to and inclusive of the rate of PO2 (i.e. on the square rig). The officers and PO1 and above did not wear anything to denote time in, other than the Good Conduct and Long Service medal if earned (precursor to the CD).
> 
> This system really confused the "chevron-centric' Air force and Army personnel at times, as they looked at the chevrons as the ranks and considered the anchor or anchors above it as mere decoration indicating "Navy". Thus, for instance the old "AB-Three-Badges" who would wear three chevrons but no rate identification at all, would look like a sergeant to them, while they would look at a young PO2 with only two chevrons as a corporal.



Thanks OGBD.   

PS I knew better than to use the term Rank.  I will administer 10 lashings with a wet noodle.


----------



## Lightguns

Sounds like we need to change current naval ranks back to rates.  Right who's up for it?!!! ;D


----------



## StarFury

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Sounds like we need to change current naval ranks back to rates.  Right who's up for it?!!! ;D



Red Alert!

The Good Idea Fairy has arrived!


----------



## George Wallace

StarFury said:
			
		

> Red Alert!
> 
> The Good Idea Fairy has arrived!



Or just call it a "typo".


----------



## medicineman

Was having a post Remembrance Day lunch at the Legion in Sussex,NB a number of years back when I overheard a vet down the table referring to me as a "Staff" (Sgt)...so when am I going to get to be one of those for real?

Discuss.

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> Was having a post Remembrance Day lunch at the Legion in Sussex,NB a number of years back when I overheard a vet down the table referring to me as a "Staff" (Sgt)...so when am I going to get to be one of those for real?
> 
> Discuss.
> 
> MM



I thik we should do a Monty Python one night.....who wants to join me marchin up and down the square?


----------



## medicineman

Wouldn't be the first time I did that...none of the kids got it though  :.

MM


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Almost right Halifax Tar.
> 
> Yes, only the anchor and crown above denote the rank in this picture. And in fact, pre-unification, the Navy did not refer to these as "ranks" for non-commissioned members. They were know as "rates". So in order, you rated as ordinary duty seaman, then able bodied seaman (which is where the "AB" short form we use comes from by the way), neither one of which wore any rate identifier at all (many Commonwealth Navies have since introduced an identifier for the ABs nowadays - it is a badge depicting a square knot). You then rated a leading seaman (the fouled anchor). As B1916 indicated yesterday, for the short time they existed in old uniform, the crown over the anchor denoted appointment to master seaman. The Petty Officer second class rate was indicated by two fouled anchors crossed. Above that, the PO1s and CPOs wore the fore-and-aft rig (normal DEU if you prefer) and had the same rate indicators as we now have [I am skipping the era when we only had one rate of PO and CPO each].
> 
> The red (or gold/blue depending on the uniform) chevron, known as badges, reflected not time in rank, but time in the service. One chevron for three years, two to denote seven years, and three to denote 11 years, IIRC. They were only worn up to and inclusive of the rate of PO2 (i.e. on the square rig). The officers and PO1 and above did not wear anything to denote time in, other than the Good Conduct and Long Service medal if earned (precursor to the CD).
> 
> This system really confused the "chevron-centric' Air force and Army personnel at times, as they looked at the chevrons as the ranks and considered the anchor or anchors above it as mere decoration indicating "Navy". Thus, for instance the old "AB-Three-Badges" who would wear three chevrons but no rate identification at all, would look like a sergeant to them, while they would look at a young PO2 with only two chevrons as a corporal.



My turn to correct (Sorry).

To be clear, the badges of rank in the pre-unification RCN were:

OS-AB:  no badge
LS: single fouled anchor (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
MS: single fouled anchor with crown (not sure if this really counts as "pre-unification") (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
PO2:  crossed fouled anchors (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
PO1:  crossed fouled anchors with crown (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
CPO2:  three buttons (both cuffs)
CPO1:  three buttons with crown (both cuffs)

Even though PO1s wore the fore and aft rig, they did wear chevrons as well with the old RCN PO1 rank badge (on the left sleeve, with a trade badge on the right sleeve).  Only chief petty officers wore rank on the cuff of both sleeves and their trade badges on the collars.  I believe there was a brief period where PO1s, CPO2s and CPO1s were still wearing old RCN blue uniforms, but with modern CF rank badges (i.e. crown, crown and laurel, and coat of arms) vice the old RCN badges,in which case the PO1s would not have worn chevrons at that point, but as I said, I believe that period was very brief.  As an aside, the master seamen in square rig made their badges by cutting the crown off of a PO1 badge.  As far as I know, no specific badges were ever manufactured

The chevrons were for "good conduct" and could be taken away by summary trial, so they did not necessarily represent time in service, just time assessed as "good."

1 chevron = three years
2 chevrons = eight years
3 chevrons = 13 years

The Navy Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (LS&GC) was for 15 years and the member had to have been awarded all three GCs (officers were not eligible at all); however, this was replaced by the Canadian Forces Decoration in 1949


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> My turn to correct (Sorry).
> 
> To be clear, the badges of rank in the pre-unification RCN were:
> 
> OS-AB:  no badge
> LS: single fouled anchor (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
> MS: single fouled anchor with crown (not sure if this really counts as "pre-unification") (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
> PO2:  crossed fouled anchors (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
> PO1:  crossed fouled anchors with crown (upper left sleeve - worn with GCs)
> CPO2:  three buttons (both cuffs)
> CPO1:  three buttons with crown (both cuffs)
> 
> Even though PO1s wore the fore and aft rig, they did wear chevrons as well with the old RCN PO1 rank badge (on the left sleeve, with a trade badge on the right sleeve).  Only chief petty officers wore rank on the cuff of both sleeves and their trade badges on the collars.  I believe there was a brief period where PO1s, CPO2s and CPO1s were still wearing old RCN blue uniforms, but with modern CF rank badges (i.e. crown, crown and laurel, and coat of arms) vice the old RCN badges,in which case the PO1s would not have worn chevrons at that point, but as I said, I believe that period was very brief.  As an aside, the master seamen in square rig made their badges by cutting the crown off of a PO1 badge.  As far as I know, no specific badges were ever manufactured
> 
> The chevrons were for "good conduct" and could be taken away by summary trial, so they did not necessarily represent time in service, just time assessed as "good."
> 
> 1 chevron = three years
> 2 chevrons = eight years
> 3 chevrons = 13 years
> 
> The Navy Long Service and Good Conduct Medal (LS&GC) was for 15 years and the member had to have been awarded all three GCs (officers were not eligible at all); however, this was replaced by the Canadian Forces Decoration in 1949



We should start a petition to reinstate the old RCN NCM rank insignia's.  >  We could even revive the GCs  >


----------



## my72jeep

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> We should start a petition to reinstate the old RCN NCM rank insignia's.  >  We could even revive the GCs  >


Oh he'll you just woke up the good idea fairy . Nothing to see here people please move along.


----------



## dimsum

my72jeep said:
			
		

> Oh he'll you just woke up the good idea fairy . Nothing to see here people please move along.



Why stop there?  Square Rig!*   >

*Although having marched in ANZAC Day parades with older AB and LS from the RAN, I have to say Square Rig looks ridiculous on people over the age of 25.


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be the first time I did that...none of the kids got it though  :.
> 
> MM



I have several Sgts and at least one WO who would gladly join in.


----------



## medicineman

We'll have to hook up one night...maybe get the Brig SM to come along, lol.

MM


----------



## Pusser

Dimsum said:
			
		

> *Although having marched in ANZAC Day parades with older AB and LS from the RAN, I have to say Square Rig looks ridiculous on people over the age of 25.



These guys don't seem to mind:  http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/20/veterans-not-allowed-to-wear-naval-uniforms-in-public-without-consent/

Perhaps, it could also be an incentive to work hard and get promoted? ;D


----------



## blackberet17

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I thik we should do a Monty Python one night.....who wants to join me marchin up and down the square?



I've always wanted to learn how to play the piano...


----------



## blackberet17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLJ8ILIE780


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Perhaps, it could also be an incentive to work hard and get promoted? ;D



C'mon!  its 2015 we all now hard work has nothing to with promotion!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Never Had!

Have you never heard of the old Russian (pre-soviet era) classification of officers?

They rated them on two basis to obtain a four categories matrix:  Stupid and Hard Working, Stupid and Lazy, Smart and Hard Working, Smart and Lazy.

The Stupid and Hard Working, you wanted to run out of the military pronto: Their stupidity caused problems that needed corrective action and being hard working they caused lots of it; the Stupid and Lazy, you could live with at the lower level of officer: They did not do much damage and, they were quickly eradicated in case of war; the Smart and Hard Working made the best staff officers, while the Smart and Lazy made your best senior command officers: They could devise the best plans and had great ideas, but being lazy, always limited themselves to no more than needed to be done and always came up with the easiest, least demanding solution to problems.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Never Had!
> 
> Have you never heard of the old Russian (pre-soviet era) classification of officers?
> 
> They rated them on two basis to obtain a four categories matrix:  Stupid and Hard Working, Stupid and Lazy, Smart and Hard Working, Smart and Lazy.
> 
> The Stupid and Hard Working, you wanted to run out of the military pronto: Their stupidity caused problems that needed corrective action and being hard working they caused lots of it; the Stupid and Lazy, you could live with at the lower level of officer: They did not do much damage and, they were quickly eradicated in case of war; the Smart and Hard Working made the best staff officers, while the Smart and Lazy made your best senior command officers: They could devise the best plans and had great ideas, but being lazy, always limited themselves to no more than needed to be done and always came up with the easiest, least demanding solution to problems.



I think that quote should be attributed to General Freiherr von Hammerstein-Equord, the chief of the German Army high command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht - OKW) in 1933.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord

 ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## OldSolduer

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> I've always wanted to learn how to play the piano...



Or go to the cinema .


----------



## blackberet17

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Or go to the cinema .



Or be home with the...wait...

I do have a book I'd quite like to read...


----------



## OldSolduer

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> Or be home with the...wait...
> 
> I do have a book I'd quite like to read...



Good catch!


----------



## blackberet17

CAP pal and I were known for quoting Monty Python all the time...good for morale, I say.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> CAP pal and I were known for quoting Monty Python all the time...good for morale, I say.



That's silly, and a bit suspect I think ;D 
http://youtu.be/ol5Dfs7jqFI


----------



## OldSolduer

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!


Ministry of Silly Walks.....


----------



## Kat Stevens

MCG said:
			
		

> The British rank investment could have payed for 10 years of armed police security at the cenotaph.


But it's not British rank, old bean, it's YOUR rank, you know, Canajan innit?


----------



## McG

There is nothing Canadian about the Star of the Order of the Bath.


----------



## Kat Stevens

But it's on your Canadian green tuxedo, issued to you by Her Majesty, therefore, ergo, and ipso fatso, it is indeed Canadian rank. QED, innit?


----------



## McG

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> But it's on your Canadian green tuxedo, issued to you by Her Majesty, therefore, ergo, and ipso fatso, it is indeed Canadian rank. QED, innit?


I suppose then: Welcome to the British Armed Forces of Canada.  

I understand you are pleased with the investment, but your post about the cost of OC police at the cenotaph covering the costs of restoring British ranks was flat out wrong.  We paid 10 times (not counting what units have spent out of NPF) on the Army.


----------



## Kat Stevens

You need to know when you are being messed with.  I know this is your least favourite and the worst decision ever made in the history of the army, anywhere, any time.  I am neither an officer, nor a serving member of the CAF any more, 23 years of lifting heavy things that my betters told me to lift saw to that.  I don't care if officers wear Wellington's chamber pot for a hat, and enough braided gold paracord to embarrass a South American Field Marshall for rank, it's just fun to spool someone up sometimes, nothing personal.  Nobody else here takes most of what I say seriously, after all I was just a Corporal, and neither should you. Smile once in a while, you'll live longer.


----------



## McG




----------



## cupper

MCG said:
			
		

>



You just added 15 minutes to your life. Congrats.


----------



## dimsum

Well I, for one, thought the Defence Attache's COL pip/crowns rank and gorget patches looked good the last time I saw him.   >


----------



## TCBF

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... after all I was just a Corporal, ...



- There is no such thing as "just a Corporal".


----------



## vonGarvin

MCG said:
			
		

> I suppose then: Welcome to the British Armed Forces of Canada.


I know you don't like it.  So do us all a favour and submit your release.


You're welcome


----------



## OldSolduer

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I know you don't like it.  So do us all a favour and submit your release.
> 
> 
> You're welcome



There's not many who do like it. I will admit I don't and think its someone's fetish with "everything British is better".

We do, however, have our marching orders. And we are marching.


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There's not many who do like it. I will admit I don't and think its someone's fetish with "everything British is better".
> 
> We do, however, have our marching orders. And we are marching.



If any experience with the hideous RAAF General Purpose Uniform (the Smurf outfit) has given me, it's that within a year, no one will even question it.  I'll bet $10 that within a generation, people will be wondering why Army.ca was questioning the Army's return to the ranks and patches.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I'm intrigued by our various reactions to _pips and crowns_ ... only a few of us, those whose service predates about 1970s, ever wore them or served with people who did.

I'm not surprised, therefore, that many people dislike them because they replace something (common stripes) to which they were accustomed and with which they were comfortable.

I'm not surprised, either, that there are those who disliked the stripes. I was never a fan but I didn't hate them ... but I knew, still know, a few people who did.

I _wish_ we had a distinctively Canadian rank system based upon, say, just for example, bars for junior officers and a maple leaf and bar system for majors and above or, just another example, maple leaves as 'pips' and some other device (maybe the GG's lion) instead of the crown.







I _wish_ the gorget patches were a bit smaller and bit less garish. Maybe this sort of thing:






 or 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But, even though it doesn't affect me, I think it is time to get over it.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Then there are those like me ERC.
I don't care if they wear clown faces for ranks................just stop wasting money on this stupid, stupid shit when units need to beg, borrow and/or steal things like trucks and mukluks just to get to the field.

FREAKIN' TRUCKS..................


----------



## Pencil Tech

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There's not many who do like it. I will admit I don't and think its someone's fetish with "everything British is better".
> 
> We do, however, have our marching orders. And we are marching.



And that someone is the current prime minister. You'll vote for him again though, of course.


----------



## OldSolduer

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> And that someone is the current prime minister. You'll vote for him again though, of course.



I don't vote for the PM. I vote for the candidate in my riding who I THINK might represent our interests fairly.


----------



## Loachman

I still have not accepted being stuck in a light blue dress uniform.

And I, for one, will not be voting Conservative this time, for the first time ever (PC/Reform/Alliance/Conservative in that order, to date). That is not due to this particular issue, but it has been added to the stack.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Wait.   I thought it was only the rank that was changing.


----------



## slayer/raptor

I heard today that the artillery (from the arty col cmdt) will likely be returning to wearing royal blue berets like before (and also like the british arty). Any other branches making a beret switch?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Has the CAF Artillery ever worn blue berets?


----------



## OldSolduer

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Has the CAF Artillery ever worn blue berets?



I think they may have pre unification. Our elders will confirm that In due course I would think.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I think they may have pre unification. Our elders will confirm that In due course I would think.



I haven't heard that...but it would set a nice precedence for all of us Board of Ordnance Corps to wear the Dark Blue berets that we wore pre-unification.  But I haven't heard even a wish for this from the RCEME mafia....


----------



## McG

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'll bet $10 that within a generation, people will be wondering why Army.ca was questioning the Army's return to the ranks and patches.


I don’t know.  2043 will be the 50th anniversary of the Canadian VC.  Instead of reflecting on the present fashion change in rank, they will be wondering why they are changing from the only rank they have known to devolve even farther back to what was worn when the vast majority of Canadian won VCs occurred and many military histories were forged.  >


----------



## daftandbarmy

Yeah.....

Next thing you know we'll see some regiments wearing black buttons, fixing 'swords' and marching at some insanely rapid pace. And they'll probably make one unlucky regiment keep a Billy Goat as a mascot, just like the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Or kilts..... They'll reintroduce kilts and pipe bands. And mess kit, with red jackets and stuff.

 ;D


----------



## McG

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I don't care if they wear clown faces for ranks................just stop wasting money on this stupid, stupid shit when units need to beg, borrow and/or steal things like trucks and mukluks just to get to the field.
> 
> FREAKIN' TRUCKS..................





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> ... I, for one, will not be voting Conservative this time, for the first time ever (PC/Reform/Alliance/Conservative in that order, to date). That is not due to this particular issue, but it has been added to the stack.


Here is the crux of it.  The big problems of the CF are not the fashion transformation of rank insignia, buttons, badge colours, div patches, flags, etc.  However, the fashion transformation is perfectly illustrative of the backward priorities and misplaced efforts that are amongst the big problems.  We have invested millions into this (over four million on the Army rank alone), but at the same time our budget was being hacked to the point that the PBO is warning the funds will fail to sustain the CAF; we have fleets of ships and land vehicles that are being parked because we cannot afford to keep them safe & operational, and training is continually eroding.  In one year from surprise announcement from the government, the Army had managed to implement this whole good idea.  How long have we been waiting for new trucks, FWSAR, AORs/JSSs, boots, etc?  If it is a priority for the government, it gets the money and it gets the effort and it happens (as should be the case in a democracy).  Right now, the priorities are backwards, and the good idea fairies know it so they keep coming with the next new thing … like more colours of beret or brown uniforms.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I _wish_ we had a distinctively Canadian rank system based upon, say, just for example, bars for junior officers and a maple leaf and bar system for majors and above or, just another example, maple leaves as 'pips' and some other device (maybe the GG's lion) instead of the crown.


I Agree here.  I think I can find pictures of exactly what you describe, if you are interested.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I _wish_ the gorget patches were a bit smaller and bit less garish.


Or maybe we balance them out with a few other garish accessories?   >  The shoulder knots and increasingly elaborate cuff braids from the time of confederation have been tried on the modern uniform. We just need to extend it beyond the band.


----------



## Old Sweat

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Has the CAF Artillery ever worn blue berets?



We had dark blue berets in the mid-fifties, until replaced with the standard blue forage cap for dress up events along with the caps, peaked, winter and the bush hat. As I recall it was an army-wide change, with only the RCAC retaining their black berets.


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> Here is the crux of it.  The big problems of the CF are not the fashion transformation of rank insignia, buttons, badge colours, div patches, flags, etc.  However, the fashion transformation is perfectly illustrative of the backward priorities and misplaced efforts that are amongst the big problems.  We have invested millions into this (over four million on the Army rank alone), but at the same time our budget was being hacked to the point that the PBO is warning the funds will fail to sustain the CAF; we have fleets of ships and land vehicles that are being parked because we cannot afford to keep them safe & operational, and training is continually eroding.  In one year from surprise announcement from the government, the Army had managed to implement this whole good idea.  How long have we been waiting for new trucks, FWSAR, AORs/JSSs, boots, etc?  If it is a priority for the government, it gets the money and it gets the effort and it happens (as should be the case in a democracy).  Right now, the priorities are backwards, and the good idea fairies know it so they keep coming with the next new thing … like more colours of beret or brown uniforms.




You're almost on target ...

The real crux of it is that a (quite) small, but politically very astute group, including some members in the _middle management_ ranks of the CF, can outmanoeuvre the military leadership and  management. There is, within the Conservative Party of Canada base, a small, generally ill informed, but very "rah rah" group of CF _"supporters"_ who _believe_ that Paul Hellyer was the devil incarnate and that all his evil works must be undone. You can meet a few of them, and their still serving acolytes, in the wardrooms and messes (regular and reserve) here in Ottawa, but they are, mainly, found amongst the 60, 70 and 80 year old associate members of sundry reserve force messes, and it is in communities, where they have some influence with local, backbench MPs, that they do their work. 

(One can try, and believe me I have, to explain that Mr Hellyer's _reforms_, while having gone too far in some areas (including the "jolly green jumper") were not all bad. Mr Hellyer (and Air Chief Marshal Frank Miller), for example, left us with an organizational superstructure that was infinitely superior ~ operationally and administratively ~ than the rubbish foisted on on the CF by e.g. Minister James Richardson (and Gen Jacques Dextraze) ~ the formation of Air Command and the concomitant destruction of the then existing _joint operational_ structure, and Minister Bill Graham (and Gen Rick Hillier) ~ the current _bloated_ system. This small, but politically active and astute band of (mostly) retired and serving (mostly reserve) officers is focused on _traditions_, not operations or, even, budgetary sanity.)

That the _movement_ existed was known ~ well known ~ to the admirals and generals: they saw it's first "win" in the return of the executive curl (2010). That should have signalled to the serving _senior management_ that the government would do what was needed to keep its base happy and the _guesstimated_ costs ($250,000) would be regarded as trivial. The army leadership juat said, "this isn't *our* priority," and assumed the issue would die; it didn't and the "scarlet Majors at the Base"* won the battle.

The crux of the matter is that the CF's _senior management_ is disconnected from the country it serves and from the government that gives it direction. _Senior management_ had an _option_ (to paraphrase Brian Mulroney)** in 2010, 11 and 12: it could have and, _in my opinion_, should have recognized how the political winds were blowing; it could have and, _my opinion again_, should have recognized that some serving and many retired officers wanted some change back, towards, other, older, traditions. _Senior management_, even as late as 2013, could have, and should have, _I think_, gotten out in front of the issue and given us a _Canadian_ solution to political direction. It didn't. Army (and CF) _senior management_ _failed_ in leadership.

_____
*   See _Base Details_ (1918) by Siegfried Sassoon: surely one of the bitterest of the "war poems" genre. 
**  Brian Mulroney flummoxed Prime Minister John Turner on the issue of the Senate appointments "left over" by Prime Minister Trudeau. Prime Minister Turned said he had no choice but to make the appointments Prime Minister Trudeau had announced, Mr Mulroney thundered, "You had an option, sir!" That one phrase may have doomed Turner. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-mansbridge/100-days-that-changed-canada_b_1102783.html?


Edit: format


----------



## George Wallace

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> We had dark blue berets in the mid-fifties, until replaced with the standard blue forage cap for dress up events along with the caps, peaked, winter and the bush hat. As I recall it was an army-wide change, with only the RCAC retaining their black berets.



The Royal Blue berets worn by Artillery lasted into the seventies, when that army-wide directive came out.  I wore it with the red felt tab behind the hatbadge in the early '70's.


----------



## FJAG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Royal Blue berets worn by Artillery lasted into the seventies, when that army-wide directive came out.  I wore it with the red felt tab behind the hatbadge in the early '70's.



That sounds about right to me as I wore it as an arty OR in the late sixties (with the red felt and brass or anodized badge) and subsequently as an officer in the early seventies (with an embroidered badge/no felt).

I'm not sure that "Royal Blue" is an accurate description of the colour. "Royal Blue" in my mind is a lighter more intense colour like that on the lower half of the artillery flag. To the best of my recollection the beret's colour was called "dark blue" or even "Navy blue" as it was a very dark shade not far off from the armoured corps black berets.

While I've generally been a supporter of going back to the old rank badges etc, (primarily because I'm still carrying with me the resentment I felt in 1970 when people took away my perfectly serviceable pips and made me look like an Air Force officer with all those stupid rings), I'm not so sure that the blue beret is worth the bother. White lanyards on the other hand . . . that would be something interesting.  ;D 

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62

ERC:





> This small, but politically active and astute band of (mostly) retired and serving (mostly reserve) officers is focused on traditions, not operations or, even, budgetary sanity.)


I have never seen this in all my years (45) in the Militia. In my early years, I would not have been aware due to junior rank, but as a MWO/CWO/Capt and up never saw it. Heard about Reserves 2000, read some of their stuff, knew well one Res Col who spoke a bit about it. As a Bde HQ wonk, CO, etc I would say the HCol/HLCol were more concerned with recruiting, equipment, unit strength, training both individual and collective, and retention (which is part and parcel of the before mentioned). Same with PRes Offrs. Things may be different out East and in Ottawa and I don't doubt you one bit. Winnipeg, Lethbridge, Kelowna, never observed it.

I agree with you though ERC. Just this is not my experience. Buttons and Bows No; Recruiting, equipment etc, Yes. The only time buttons and bows came up, was as the RSM, I drafted, for the Regimental Senate, as requested by the Army, the wish list for the RWpgRif when we went to the CF Rifle Green Service Dress uniform. We of course wanted black buttons, crossbelts etc.

I have just spent over a year getting CA approval for officers metal Crowns/Stars and embroidered slipons. The RWpgRif wear gunmetal Offr badges on Rifle Green background/border. Try finding a manufacturer, let alone one that will do small quantities, etc. The RWpgRif pays for these as the Crown will not issue. It costs money the Senate does not have. The whole idea was a pain, although I favor wearing an army rank rather  than cuff rings. Too bad we did not go to Maple Leafs vice Stars etc. Now it will never change.

I hate to bring this up after the above, but .......

daftandbarmy:





> Next thing you know we'll see some regiments wearing black buttons, fixing 'swords' and marching at some insanely rapid pace.



The _tradition_ for Rifle Regts is that they _do not ceremonially_ fix 'swords' ever. Not even on composite parades. Stand fast.


----------



## Old Naval Guard

Something like this, I am glad to see this return in my time in the militia I often heard gunner types wanting a return to their traditions.ONG


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Old Naval Guard said:
			
		

> Something like this, I am glad to see this return in my time in the militia I often heard gunner types wanting a return to their traditions.ONG



...and I've never heard it even brought up once.


----------



## Happy Guy

After over thirty years in the Army (both Reg & Militia) I have never held of any Res Offrs or Hon Col demanding for the return of the old uniforms or the "pips and crowns".  In the mess they would sometimes talk nostalgically of the old days when Offrs had to buy their expensive uniforms despite their meagre pay and allowance.  The vast majority of Res pers that I've met were more concerned about money for trg and eqpt.  Funny enough it was the Jr Offrs who wanted the old khaki service dress, rank insignia, walking stick and so forth.  However as they progressed in rank they too were more concerned about trg and eqpt.

I know that we will encounter more uniform changes in the CA because the dam has been broken now and all common sense is gone.


----------



## OldSolduer

If the middle managers outflanked the CLS and CDS, that in itself is a disloyal act IMO.


----------



## McG

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Has the CAF Artillery ever worn blue berets?


Yes, but … The very dark navy blue beret was not the Artillery beret.  Like the rifle green beret of today, the dark navy blue beret was the universal beret for all Army less a few with specific branch colours.  Those specific exceptions being armour (black), infantry (scarlet), rifle regiments (rifle green), and parachutists (maroon).  These coloured berets replaced the universal khaki beret of the Second World War (less for Armd who had adopted the black beret from the beginning).

It appears the coloured berets were slowly adopted beginning in 1951, and they lasted 17 years until unification when rifle green replaced scarlet and navy blue.  Despite the date of initiation, I’ve seen no pictures to suggest the coloured berets displaced khaki berets in Korea.  It would seem a bit of a stretch to claim the navy blue beret is a significant lost piece of a corps’ identity.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> If the middle managers outflanked the CLS and CDS, that in itself is a disloyal act IMO.




There were a few serving junior and middle ranked officers, including, _I think_, one on the army staff, who were also politically active and participated, actively, in the campaign to "bring back 1965." One honorary colonel, _to my certain knowledge_, was an active participant and used his title/position in his pleadings with politicians. But they, serving officers (regular and reserve) and honoraries, were only one small part of the machine. Most of the impetus came from retired members who were (are) politically active in their communities.

As someone else noted, _it appeared to me_ that more senior retired officers had other fish to fry and the buttons and bows issue, in the army, seemed to be the domain of retired captains and majors, many of who kept some (limited) social ties with the army, usually through the local reserve unit in their community.

It was interesting, to me, to note that the executive curl had top level naval command/staff support and that the brief to the minister came from within the Navy and was actively supported by the leadership. Our Army leadership appeared to dismiss _pips and crowns_ as some sort of old, retired, _Colonel Blimpish_ fantasy ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





          ... it wasn't. It was, broadly, a small, low level, well focused and _aggressive_ grass-roots campaign that appealed to enough Conservative _insiders_ to ensure success. It wasn't a secret ... I heard it discussed at length, by a mix of serving and retired officers, in the Army Officers' Mess in Ottawa back in 2011 or 12. Like the Army's _senior management_ I just shrugged and let it pass, believing that it was all "sound and fury, signifying nothing." I was wrong, too.


----------



## Old Sweat

I share Edward's assessment. The Army Commander and his staff were outflanked and found themselves unable to come up with a coherent argument of why it was not a good idea.


----------



## Good2Golf

Never underestimate the incredibly disproportionate influence that an otherwise "lower level" individual can have in any organization.  All it takes is to catch the ear of someone close to someone close to a person of influence...

This is how Ottawa can work at times, Rifleman.  "It is what it is..." *sigh*

Regards
G2G


----------



## cupper

I seem to recall that in the early to mid 80's there was a behind the scenes push by serving and former reserve officers to get the Halifax Rifles reinstated as an active reserve unit. There was always rumours to that effect while I was in. So it wouldn't be all that surprising that various regimental mafia within the army had an agenda to move back to the old rank system, bows and buttons and such.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

If our leadership was/can be outmanoeuvred by a bunch of low level retirees then perhaps we need new leadership.


----------



## Tibbson

Agreed but I say it would be easier to just task those low level retirees with getting us new vehicles, ships and aircraft.  They'd probably get them faster then anyone else could.


----------



## Rifleman62

MCG: 





> It appears the coloured berets were slowly adopted beginning in 1951, and they lasted 17 years until unification when rifle green replaced scarlet and navy blue.  Despite the date of initiation, I’ve seen no pictures to suggest the coloured berets displaced khaki berets in Korea.



I got some green berets photos for you.

The RWpgRif Coy of the 1st Cdn Rifle Regt, 27 Cdn Inf Bde parading in Winnipeg prior to departure to Germany in 1951.
Two photos of the QOR of C in Korea 1954 or 55. In the first photo are some of the officers, on the left is Lt Ron (Awful) Werry, later a CO of the RWpgRif.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was interesting, to me, to note that the executive curl had top level naval command/staff support and that the brief to the minister came from within the Navy and was actively supported by the leadership. Our Army leadership appeared to dismiss _pips and crowns_ as some sort of old, retired, _Colonel Blimpish_ fantasy ...



I think that is the big difference between the Ex.-Curl and the "pips-and-crowns": The Navy has wanted that to happen, in fact right from back when we got back in black uniforms. And there are, to an extent, some valid reasons for that which have nothing to do with "re-Britification".

It is often said that the world navies have more in common with one another than with their respective armies and air forces. It has to do with the fact that outside of wars and large exercises, armies and air forces tend not to meet or work closely with/against one another very often, whereas navies constantly meet and operate together on the high seas. After all, the sea is quite indiscriminate -it want to kill us all. As a result, there is a "confrerie" of the sea in all navies, and this appears to be reflected in choices of uniforms and ranking system. This was striped from the Canadian Navy when we got into greens and the Navy sought to correct that from the very day it occurred. 

You can observe that (with the exception of the French, who have a totally different system of officer ranks, which is however consistent within their armed forces) all NATO navies, and many, many other nations navies, and to a large extent, merchant mariners, use a system that is similar or very close to ours (or we are back now to using a system that is close to the world's navies'), the only small difference being that the US and Germany have stars over their rank instead of Elliot's eyes (all others). Note here that when we got "back in black", the Navy proposed to the Minister, if he didn't want to look like "re-britifying", to use a gold maple leaf over the officer cuff ranks - à la USA with their star, but also the same way the Canadian Coast-Guard does. It was declined at the time. So every time naval officers of NATO, or other navies, met with one another for any reason, the Canadian officer looked out of sort with an "unfinished" uniform , sticking out like a sore thumb. So the Navy view developed and continued to exist as an ongoing and current situation to be corrected, not as nostalgia for another era. 

I have never been aware that similar deeply entrenched views or feelings towards the rank symbols existed in the Army as a perceived actual and ongoing situation, even though there were some people with nostalgic feelings for the past pre-unification days.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Whenever budgets get tight in the military, uniforms are messed with as a distraction from the dire state of things.  Mid 80s metal hat badges were done away with as a cost cutting measure, even though I paid for every one but the initial issue, and some godawful cloth abominations were foisted off on us, which we still had to pay for.  Late 80s, two smashing versions of DEU, one too damn heavy, the other transparent in the rain.  This is just another version of "See?  We care, we're giving them cool new stuff".


----------



## Edward Campbell

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> If our leadership was/can be outmanoeuvred by a bunch of low level retirees then perhaps we need new leadership.




In fairness, _I think_ the Army's _senior management_ was outmanoeuvred or outflanked etc because they didn't believe that "buttons and bows" was an issue. Remember: three and four years ago they were just learning to adapt to "post-Afghanistan" and were looking at very different, "bigger" problems. But they either forgot or ignored the fact, and I assert it is a fact, that politics matters more than _strategy_ and morale ~ which, like it or not, includes "buttons and bows" for many people ~ matters more than budgets.

I don't fault the Army's "grown ups" for being outflanked; my problem is that when they saw the problem they failed to offer more acceptable alternatives. I believe in a thing called _utilitarianism_, often grossly oversimplified and described as "the greatest good for the greatest number" and _I believe_ the Army should have adopted a _utilitarian_ approach because it was evident, to the military _senior management_, that this was a divisive issue:

     - some people welcomed the change, they (even those who had never worn anything else), _hated_ one friend described as "merchant navy" rank;

     - some people noted, with considerable personal pride, that we/you (the CF) had done some damned fine soldiering in places like the Balkans and Afghanistan with naval type stripes on their slip ons. They wanted no change, at all; and

     - many people, while not caring much about stripes or pips, wanted any change to be distinctively Canadian.

_I think_ the leadership _failed_ all three groups. Even many of those who detested the _integrated_ rank badges didn't want a simple return to a _foreign_ (British) system. I also _think_ that those who wanted to keep stripes were flogging a dead horse: the politicians had spoken, stripes were "out," *but* they had not gotten into the fine details of what was to be"in." There was, in other words, a (narrow) window through which the Army could have, should have, _in my opinion_, offered alternatives.

If it had to be pips and crowns why did they not propose to, at least, _Canadianize_ the pips by using the cross of the Order of Military Merit rather then the cross of the (British) Order of the Bath? (I am very certain that such a proposal was floated at least part way up the chain.) That would have pacified some, probably many, of the opponents. 

Just for example:






   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



A pip based on the star of the Order of the Bath       A proposed pip based on the
                                                                          star of the Order of Military Merit


----------



## McG

Indeed ERC, the better options were/are many.  My preference would also have been to have kept the GOs' pattern unchanged so that our number of leafs/pips would still conform to the international standard of generals' stars.


----------



## dapaterson

Or, instead of looking to the past, we could have looked to the future:


----------



## cupper

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or, instead of looking to the past, we could have looked to the future:



As long as they don't switch to a red shirt uniform as well, everyone should be OK.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cupper: You mean that you and Dataperson have no problems with the Army adopting the "Navy" rank system, but did not want the "Navy" stripes ???


----------



## Pencil Tech

FJAG said:
			
		

> That sounds about right to me as I wore it as an arty OR in the late sixties (with the red felt and brass or anodized badge) and subsequently as an officer in the early seventies (with an embroidered badge/no felt).
> 
> I'm not sure that "Royal Blue" is an accurate description of the colour. "Royal Blue" in my mind is a lighter more intense colour like that on the lower half of the artillery flag. To the best of my recollection the beret's colour was called "dark blue" or even "Navy blue" as it was a very dark shade not far off from the armoured corps black berets.
> 
> While I've generally been a supporter of going back to the old rank badges etc, (primarily because I'm still carrying with me the resentment I felt in 1970 when people took away my perfectly serviceable pips and made me look like an Air Force officer with all those stupid rings), I'm not so sure that the blue beret is worth the bother. White lanyards on the other hand . . . that would be something interesting.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



In the British Army I believe it is referred to as Midnight Blue and is the standard colour of beret in the Army across several corps, outside of The Rifles (who wear Rifle Green like our standard beret), The Royal Tank Regt, who wear black, The Parachute Regt who wear maroon, and the various colours worn by Guards, Household Cavalry etc.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Cupper: You mean that you and Dataperson have no problems with the Army adopting the "Navy" rank system, but did not want the "Navy" stripes ???



Strictly speaking, I'm advocating adopting the rank system of the United Federation of Planets.  Not the RCN.  You'll notice that Kirk, Picard, and all the lesser Captains of Starfleet never wore Elliot's Eye.






They do, however, appear to be wearing the old Army Fitness badges on their lapels...


----------



## Tibbson

I always had a thing for Dr Crusher....but I digress.

I was doing some looking around among the various Commonwealth countries and was struck by the manner in which India made their rank structure more relevant to the country.  




Its a shame our opportunity was squandered.  

On another point though, I understand the differences in the coloured backing for the pip/crowns but I've also noted that some are wearing gold insignia while a few others seem to be wearing silver.  Why the difference and what does it signify?


----------



## OldSolduer

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> I always had a thing for Dr Crusher....but I digress.



That makes two of us.


----------



## cupper

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Cupper: You mean that you and Dataperson have no problems with the Army adopting the "Navy" rank system, but did not want the "Navy" stripes ???



Well, I was just pointing out the fact that if they decide to institute the redshirts, we're all screwed. Everyone knows redshirts never survive beaming down on the planet surface, or the first port of call.

Seriously though, I came in  a couple of years before we ditched the green traveshamockey for the separate uniforms for each service. So I lived with the post unification rank insignia, and was out well before this current change. So for me, I fall into the cohort that never knew the pips and crowns, the executive curl and the old rank structure. I have vague memories of some of the pre-unification Navy uniforms and rank when my father served, and even those memories were a minority as most of his career was in the greens as well.

So I really don't have much of a dog in this fight, other than to say that I agree that maybe we should have had a more uniquely Canadian version of the pip, such as has been previously suggested (order of Canada, order of Military Merit, the Maple Leaf).

But one thing I did live through was something only a few can lay claim to. As a Veh Tech I was subjected to three name changes in my branch in a short 3 year span. I joined the LORE branch, then we switched to LEME, then EME. All under the same cap badge. Shortly after I left the branch rebadged to the horse, and we became EME / GEM. and then with this last move, we finally became what we  should have been all along - RCEME.


----------



## TCBF

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That makes two of us.



- Well, if no TNG is available, you could always watch the first few minutes of "The Hunt For Red October." Cheryl Gates McFadden plays Jack Ryan's wife, Caroline.


----------



## Tibbson

True but unfortunately most of her work was left on the cutting room floor.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

First RCAF Aviator rank badges presented 

Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) Commander, Lieutenant-General Yvan Blondin and Chief Warrant Officer (CWO) of the RCAF, CWO Patrick Young, present the new Aviator (Avr) Rank to Avr Monika Melanson and Avr Michael Lewis in Ottawa, Ontario, on April 24, 2015.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Oh hey if you can't see what this is about we will just point it out to you"


----------



## medicineman

The young guy on the right looks like he's being lifted off his feet...

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Private Aviator we have is REALLY hoping he gets his Cpl's soon.

The placement of the prop might make them look like 2Lts to some folks.   ;D


----------



## Ostrozac

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Private Aviator we have is REALLY hoping he gets his Cpl's soon.
> 
> The placement of the prop might make them look like 2Lts to some folks.



That's really funny.

Similarly, with the new Canadian Army ranks, I also find it amusing that a large number of people in my current garrison cannot distinguish at a glance between a CFR'd Captain and a Colonel. They all are older dudes with three white thingys on the rank slide. Multiple cases of Captains and Majors (and one Lieutenant Colonel) saluting Captains.

How long before we see gorget patches on combat uniforms, Blackadder-style?


----------



## cavalryman

Aren't propellers supposed to go on beanies?
  *ducks*


----------



## daftandbarmy

Now that we have the pips & crowns etc, I'm looking forward to the remainder of the 'culture shift' package to be installed:  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ1ljlnSjU&list=RDIDQ1ljlnSjU#t=0


----------



## Eye In The Sky

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Aren't propellers supposed to go on beanies?
> *ducks*



no.  No.  Don't even say that.   I fear someone might go " hey, good idea!"


----------



## Michael OLeary

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Now that we have the pips & crowns etc, I'm looking forward to the remainder of the 'culture shift' package to be installed:  ;D
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDQ1ljlnSjU&list=RDIDQ1ljlnSjU#t=0



Do you mean moving officer's rank to the cuff?


----------



## Old EO Tech

Being a former Air Cadet, I'm going to say that that does look pretty stupid, the prop was never designed to go on a slip-on, it should be worn on a brassard if worn with a shirt....but what do I know :-/

And I personally have no issues telling the difference between a Army Capt and Colonel....now RCAF or RCN rank on CADPAT is hard to see past 5 feet.


----------



## cupper

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> no.  No.  Don't even say that.   I fear someone might go " hey, good idea!"



Hey! Great idea!  >


----------



## Happy Guy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> How long before we see gorget patches on combat uniforms, Blackadder-style?


Wait for it.


----------



## Happy Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'd even be happy to see the Army logisticians re-brand themselves as the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (and I have it on good authority that this has been brought up).  Having said all of this, there is nothing preventing the RCN and RCAF Logistics Branches and the RCLC being collectively referred to as the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces, with shared common things where shared common things make sense.


Wait for it.  Changes are coming to Army Log.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Can we please kill this good idea fairy..... :facepalm:


----------



## Old Sweat

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> How long before we see gorget patches on combat uniforms, Blackadder-style?



It really does help snipers with target selection.

I doubt it will ever happen. Circa 1964 when we first got combat clothing, the rank badges were subdued and red tabs were discarded for a reason. All the decision makers were Second World War and/or Korea veterans and knew what happened when senior officers drew attention to themselves in forward areas. At the very least they were mortar magnets and we had at least one brigade commander shot by a "sniper" or more likely, a straggler when he appeared very far forward in Normandy.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Wait for it.  Changes are coming to Army Log.



Source and specifics please


----------



## PuckChaser

You can already see minor changes, slip on flashes and shoulder titles now read Logistics, not Log. Their kit shop is in the canex, easy to see.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Do you mean moving officer's rank to the cuff?


Again?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You can already see minor changes, slip on flashes and shoulder titles now read Logistics, not Log. Their kit shop is in the canex, easy to see.



I was hoping to bring back the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Wait for it.  Changes are coming to Army Log.




This is, in reality, what the Communications and Electronics Branch did: there is a C&E Branch and there are, of course, _purple_ C&E units, but there is, also, within the C&E Branch, a Royal Canadian Corps of Signals and, within the Canadian Army, Signal units. I think the Engineers are the same.

(I have heard a _*rumour*_, nothing more and not even from a A1 source, that Signals wants to return to some variant of either the 1903 (crossed flags) or 1920s (_Jimmy_ in a triangular wreath of maple leaves) badges.)


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Wait for it.  Changes are coming to Army Log.



I have no idea what you may or may not be alluding too but I do wait with baited breath too see what you are talking about. 



			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I was hoping to bring back the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps   ;D



This would be an interesting move on the part of the Log Branch especially because it is made up of the RCOC, RCASC, RCAPC, RCPC, the Accountant, Supply and Secretariat, and Logistics Branches branch of the RCN and the support trades of the RCAF (how ever they were grouped).  

This is the big problem with the Log branch and the roll back to all things pre-unification.  We are a multiple personality beast.


----------



## MJP

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Wait for it.  Changes are coming to Army Log.





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Source and specifics please



I don't know Happy Guy's source but similar musings were thrown around during the recent CA Logistics officer's PD session.  The folks talking about the change were fairly adamant that it would not be a return to Canadian Army Logistics Corps although they were fairly mum on specifics.  As usual no name change no will make a stronger Log branch, nor will it make the B Fleet new again or get us new trucks nor increase our effectiveness so my care level was low and was only half listening.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is, in reality, what the Communications and Electronics Branch did: there is a C&E Branch and there are, of course, _purple_ C&E units, but there is, also, within the C&E Branch, a Royal Canadian Corps of Signals and, within the Canadian Army, Signal units. I think the Engineers are the same.



Edward, RCE applies only to those that wear the Army DEU....the rest use ENGINEERS


----------



## Edward Campbell

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Edward, RCE applies only to those that wear the Army DEU....the rest use ENGINEERS



Yes, same for Signals: Army wear RCCS, others (Navy and RCAF) wear the C&E cap badge and appropriate (to service) trade/specialty badges, on the tunic collar for RCN NCMs and on the left breast (half wing) for RCAF members.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MJP said:
			
		

> I don't know Happy Guy's source but similar musings were thrown around during the recent CA Logistics officer's PD session.  The folks talking about the change were fairly adamant that it would not be a return to Canadian Army Logistics Corps although they were fairly mum on specifics.  As usual no name change no will make a stronger Log branch, nor will it make the B Fleet new again or get us new trucks nor increase our effectiveness so my care level was low and was only half listening.



Just a quick point.  There has never been a "Canadian Army Logistics Corps."  So there cannot be a return to this title.


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Edward, RCE applies only to those that wear the Army DEU....the rest use ENGINEERS


Which is unfortunate.  Particularly on the construction side, the occupation, training and employment streams are identical but some guys are RCE while others don't merit the title.  It's like if one were to have infantry where, via lottery, some guys in the battalion were part of the regiment and other guys were just there serving under the RCIC badge.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> The folks talking about the change were fairly adamant that it would not be a return to Canadian Army Logistics Corps although they were fairly mum on specifics.


Or it is a slight of word game.  You are not returning to the RCLC because no such thing ever existed.  Instead, you will be founding the identity.



			
				MJP said:
			
		

> As usual no name change no will make a stronger Log branch, nor will it make the B Fleet new again or get us new trucks nor increase our effectiveness so my care level was low and was only half listening.


Sadly, the genie is out of the bottle and we are on the slippery slope.  Everyone with personal or tribe insecurities sees that now is the window, and they are engaging in the effort to ask for some change in fashion to make themselves (and their tribe) appear different and therefore special.  So, this will continue to distract from trucks, boots, ships, family support, management streamlining, etc.


----------



## MJP

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Just a quick point.  There has never been a "Canadian Army Logistics Corps."  So there cannot be a return to this title.



Cool man, like I said I wasn't paying attention to the buttons and bows people so I might have heard it wrong.  I was waiting to hear about things that matter.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MJP said:
			
		

> Cool man, like I said I wasn't paying attention to the buttons and bows people so I might have heard it wrong.  I was waiting to hear about things that matter.



No worries.  It would be interesting to see what else would come out of a name change like that as Log is made up of, and employed in all environments, not just Army.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

There was the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps


----------



## George Wallace

Well.....We went from RCEME to LORE to LEME to EME to  :stars: and now we are back to RCEME ?


It isn't new.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> There was the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps



Yes there was but it did not encompass all things currently Logistics. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....We went from RCEME to LORE to LEME to EME to  :stars: and now we are back to RCEME ?
> 
> 
> It isn't new.



We love name/title changes.  There is no doubt about that.


----------



## Happy Guy

It was during the CA Log PD session.  My friends, in talking with the Log Br secretariat pers, said that the Br are reconsidering this after saying no to adopting the Royal title.  It was implied that the Royal title might be coming to CA Log and be organized in the same fashion as the C&E Br.  One of the audience members during the briefing suggested title The Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC).

It is the start of the slippery slope.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> It was during the CA Log PD session.  My friends, in talking with the Log Br secretariat pers, said that the Br are reconsidering this after saying no to adopting the Royal title.  It was implied that the Royal title might be coming to CA Log and be organized in the same fashion as the C&E Br.  One of the audience members during the briefing suggested title The Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (RCLC).
> 
> It is the start of the slippery slope.



I have no doubt this is/was talked about.  The unfortunate thing is that the Log Br is made up of more than just CA pers.  Things like this throw a wrench into many things that we strive to do and I think it hurts our branch pride or esprit de corps, we seem to pull in many different directions.  Too many personalities in the beast if you will.  

I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to adopt the REME model, when they brought back DEUs, and just make us all one uniform.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The idea of a "Corps within a Branch" structure goes back until, at the very least, the 1970s in the C&E Branch. It was proposed ~ as a Canadian Signalling Corps, à la 1983, considered/debated and, ultimately rejected, but it resurfaced again, to my certain knowledge, in the 1980s and '90s. Sometimes the proponents were Army people within the C&E Branch; at least once the notion was floated from others, non Signals folks, in Mobile Command HQ as a way to reassert (institutional) Army influence over Signals training; once it was used by some C&E Air people who wanted to split the C&E Branch and merge C&E Air with AERE to recreate the pre _unification_ Tech-Tel community ~ and there were some pretty good operational reasons advanced for that proposal.

Leaving aside the "buttons and bows" issues, there are, often, very good reasons to examine and debate organizational structures: what made (some) sense in the 1960s may not make as much (or any) good sense in 2020.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The idea of a "Corps within a Branch" structure goes back until, at the very least, the 1970s in the C&E Branch. It was proposed ~ as a Canadian Signalling Corps, à la 1983, considered/debated and, ultimately rejected, but it resurfaced again, to my certain knowledge, in the 1980s and '90s. Sometimes the proponents were Army people within the C&E Branch; at least once the notion was floated from others, non Signals folks, in Mobile Command HQ as a way to reassert (institutional) Army influence over Signals training; once it was used by some C&E Air people who wanted to split the C&E Branch and merge C&E Air with AERE to recreate the pre _unification_ Tech-Tel community ~ and there were some pretty good operational reasons advanced for that proposal.
> 
> Leaving aside the "buttons and bows" issues, there are, often, very good reasons to examine and debate organizational structures: what made (some) sense in the 1960s may not make as much (or any) good sense in 2020.



What I find interesting is that the Nav coms and other Naval signalling trades/occupations never "bought into" to the C&E branch.  Comms Research aside of course.  I don't know if I would include them as a true sigs type.  Perhaps a mix of Sigs and Int.


----------



## Edward Campbell

My _understanding_, which may be deeply flawed, is that the original plan was not to _integrate_ the RCN, CA and RCAF comms/signals/tels functions, but, rather, to _unify_ some functions into what became the CF Communications System (later CF Communications Command) ~ as a near mirror image of the US Defence Communications Agency. It was also agreed that some schools should be _unified_ (and RCN crypto training, for example, is done by the C&E Branch). But the plans went awry and the _integration_ of Army Signals and RCAF Tels (and ground based radar) went ahead, despite the objections of both the field army and the air force.


----------



## Happy Guy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I wonder if it wouldn't have been better to adopt the REME model, when they brought back DEUs, and just make us all one uniform.


RCEME doesn't deploy on ships.  There is no requirement.

There was talk in the early 2000s about having the Log Br members be either in Navy or Army in recognition that the Air Force Log support trades need to learn Army fighting skills for base defence and for deployments to austere forward operating bases.  Two uniforms does makes sense because the Naval and Army operating environments and the skills required to fight in it are vastly different.  I'm not sure what happened but the Log Br still wears three types of uniforms.  The RCAF is trying to learn and retain a semblance of Army fighting skills and there is still no dedicated base defence unit like the RAF Regt.


----------



## Old EO Tech

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....We went from RCEME to LORE to LEME to EME to  :stars: and now we are back to RCEME ?
> 
> 
> It isn't new.



Yes but that was forced from on high during Unification/Integration, it certainly was not wanted by the RCEME Corp at the time.  Changing all the Corps to Branches may have removed the Royal titles from everyday use(though technically the Corps always retained the Royal as only the Queen not the Government can grant or rescind a Royal title) there was still no need to go to LORE, the EME Branch as it eventually became anyway, could have existed from day one.

And if it wasn't for the Army forming Service Bn's we could have done what the Artillery did, and form all the Field Workshops as Bn under one Royal Regiment....but I'm sure Army politics at the time made this off the table.  The RCEME Corps had made a lot of enemies in it's success as the second largest Corp in the Army at the time.  Only the RCIC was larger.


----------



## mariomike

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> The RCEME Corps had made a lot of enemies in it's success as the second largest Corp in the Army at the time.



If size matters, I remember them telling us that almost one soldier in seven was a member of the RCASC. 

182 pages and counting!


----------



## Old EO Tech

mariomike said:
			
		

> If size matters, I remember them telling us that almost one soldier in seven was a member of the RCASC.
> 
> 182 pages and counting!



I have no problem believing that is true, especially prior to RCEME being formed in 1944, all those tech's belonged to RCASC or RCOC.


----------



## MilEME09

Wasn't by the end of WWII something like 3 out of every 5 soldiers were actually in support trades in the Canadian military?


----------



## Edward Campbell

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Wasn't by the end of WWII something like 3 out of every 5 soldiers were actually in support trades in the Canadian military?




That sounds like a reasonable ratio.

If you have a large combat force, several divisions, deployed in a (remote) theatre then you are going to have "lines of communications" (supply lines and so on) and you are going to have lots of units, filled with lots of people, to gather, pay for, sort, move, distribute, repair and, generally, _manage_ the bullets and beans and boots and bulldozers and ballistic computers that the fighting forces, and the LoC units, themselves, need.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> RCEME doesn't deploy on ships.  There is no requirement.
> 
> There was talk in the early 2000s about having the Log Br members be either in Navy or Army in recognition that the Air Force Log support trades need to learn Army fighting skills for base defence and for deployments to austere forward operating bases.  Two uniforms does makes sense because the Naval and Army operating environments and the skills required to fight in it are vastly different.  I'm not sure what happened but the Log Br still wears three types of uniforms.  The RCAF is trying to learn and retain a semblance of Army fighting skills and there is still no dedicated base defence unit like the RAF Regt.



I think my point may have been missed.  I am well aware that REME pers do not deploy on ships.  But if the Log Br was all one uniform I surmise it would make career management and Br related issues (i.e. Royal titles ect) much easier.

Example.  I just spent 3 years in a field unit.  I was one of 5 MS/MCpl Sup Techs.  I did the CAF Common PLQ but my Army DEU peers had to do the Army PLQ.  So we can be employed in the same environment, doing the same job but they needed an extra dose of training, while I did not, because I ware the RCN DEU.  And then we get merited against each other both with the "same level of qualification".  

I remember back in the early 2000s when the whole Army/RCN only Log Br was being mused.  I wonder what happened to it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I would like to _think_, (maybe I just _hope_) that looking at Branch structure is more than just "buttons and bows" and "Royal" this, that or the other.

Do the _administrative_ structures of branches (careers and training and so on), which were set, 50 years ago, in the mid 1960s, still meet the _operational_ needs of the CAF in 2015? If _identity_ (teamwork, sense of shared destiny, etc) matters then, by all means, do what you can to enhance it ~ it's a bit like changing the six year olds' hockey team name from _Mites_ to _Lions_ ~ but make changes when, and only when, it makes real, military (whose _Principles of War_ includes *Maintenance of Morale*) sense.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I would like to _think_, (maybe I just _hope_) that looking at Branch structure is more than just "buttons and bows" and "Royal" this, that or the other.
> 
> Do the _administrative_ structures of branches (careers and training and so on), which were set, 50 years ago, in the mid 1960s, still meet the _operational_ needs of the CAF in 2015? If _identity_ (teamwork, sense of shared destiny, etc) matters then, by all means, do what you can to enhance it ~ it's a bit like changing the six year olds' hockey team name from _Mites_ to _Lions_ ~ but make changes when, and only when, it makes real, military (whose _Principles of War_ includes *Maintenance of Morale*) sense.



You ask the poignant question that needs to be asked.  The Log Br needs a full review and justification of its current structure and design.  

I maintain, no Br in the CAF has suffered the results of unification like the Log Br.  Many personalities pulling in many different directions, aimlessly.


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Many personalities pulling in many different directions, aimlessly.



Clearly, you've never seen The RCR, PPCLI and R22eR in a room together, nor seen the Army's Force Development process and its unstated requirement to maintain the balance of terror between the Regiments, resulting in some... "interesting" decisions about equipment allocations (cough CCVs in Gagetown cough).


----------



## Old Sweat

I just finished Adrew Godefroy's new book on combat development in the Canadian Army up to and including the immediate post-unification period. Much of the combat development process was triggered by people saying "what if we did this?" and then studying and trialling a concept to death before implementing or discarding it.

In 1963 in Gagetown 3 CIBG did a major exercise to trial an anti-tank concept that the CD process was formulating. All the Centurions had a coloured number on the back of the turret so the operational research guys could track them and periodically during the exercise, we got "stand fasts." We did just that and RCAF Lancasters fly back and forth over the exercise are photographing it for later analysis. This lead to the conversion of 3 R22R to an anti-tank battalion a year or so later.


----------



## Halifax Tar

A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style. 

OS - Same as current insignia 
AB - Same as the insignia used by th RNZN 
LS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor 
MS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor with a laural 
PO2 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors
PO1 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors with a crown on top 
CPO2 - Same as current insignia
CPO1 - Same as current insignia 

*Chiefs will not be getting the three buttons on their sleves* 

I know many will bemoan this and state that we need other things first but I strongly support this "adjustment".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well if it means you not getting a new boat then I guess so eh.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Well if it means you not getting a new boat then I guess so eh.



That didnt take long at all.  I hardly think this is what is hold up the cutting of steele.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

It's optics and a waste of time and money. Money that could be better invested elsewhere


----------



## PuckChaser

Especially since the RCN already made a big scene for the 100th when they got the exec curl back. If historic ranks were such a big deal, they should have been changed then with a more positive set of optics. Now it just sounds like "but the RCAF got thier ranks changed!!"


----------



## blacktriangle

Yep, another colossal waste of time and effort.


----------



## OldSolduer

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> It's optics and a waste of time and money. Money that could be better invested elsewhere



Correct, but we have pips and crowns. Pot this is kettle.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

My statement goes for all elements. It's just that its not too late for the a Navy


----------



## Happy Guy

As stated by many before ... starting down a slippery slope.

Within the Log Br
- RCN and RCAF wanting their pers to wear their cap badges
- too many Log differences between environments therefore need to set up different schools
- too many differences environments therefore Log pers becomes environment specific in occupation and service
- but ... wait service bemoaning that there are not enough Log pers to meet their needs 
- unification of all Log pers into a common system and school and requirement to serve in any environment no matter what uniform - sounds familiar?


----------



## Brasidas

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style.
> 
> OS - Same as current insignia
> AB - Same as the insignia used by th RNZN
> LS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor
> MS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor with a laural
> PO2 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors
> PO1 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors with a crown on top
> CPO2 - Same as current insignia
> CPO1 - Same as current insignia
> 
> *Chiefs will not be getting the three buttons on their sleves*
> 
> I know many will bemoan this and state that we need other things first but I strongly support this "adjustment".



Its yet more BS.

Yes, sure, there's an historical basis. But bows and fracking buttons cost money that could be better spent elsewhere. HCol's have spent political capital that we could've used elsewhere on something that would improve operational capability and/or quality of life for troops.

This is a terrible idea. Its going to be yet another incremental cost, recalling thousands of uniforms so that patches of cloth can be torn off and sewn on, buying and throwing out/modifying plenty of epaulettes that were perfectly serviceable.

Throw that on top of the glorious return of the executive curl, the diamonds and crowns, the beanie rank insignia, the corps, and various name changes, including all the documentation, posters, and especially the administrative hassle.

What do we get out of all of it? Out of each incremental change tacked-on? How widespread is the warmer and fuzzier esprit de corps that some advocates are excited about?  Hardly anyone I know in Sigs gives a damn about the glorious return of RCCS - all our trades are still very much broken thanks in large part to another brilliant leading change bubble. 

My grandfathers might have given a damn about RCAF traditions and trinkets, but they and their culture are literally dead. My father and I spent our entire careers in the post-unification CF. Living traditions just get trumped by a handful of nostalgic old men, along with more relevant spending priorities.

The mistakes to date aren't going to get undone, but it needs to stop.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Not to mention the rising opinion that once the Queen dies Canada should divest itself from all things Monarchy.


----------



## kratz

We could wait 30 years for someone to be nostalgic about unification and see everyone revert to where we just left.


----------



## Rocky Mountains

Brasidas said:
			
		

> But bows and fracking buttons cost money that could be better spent elsewhere.



Despite this sentiment being expressed hundreds of times, there is no reason to believe that a dollar saved in doo-dads is ever going to become a cog in the latest killing machine.  Smarter people than me might be weighing doo-dads against a reduced deficit.


----------



## Brasidas

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Despite this sentiment being expressed hundreds of times, there is no reason to believe that a dollar saved in doo-dads is ever going to become a cog in the latest killing machine.  Smarter people than me might be weighing doo-dads against a reduced deficit.



And the concerted campaign by HCols & co that lead to this garbage couldn't have been for something more meaningful?


----------



## FJAG

Brasidas said:
			
		

> And the concerted campaign by HCols & co that lead to this garbage couldn't have been for something more meaningful?



What makes you think that some of them haven't been trying but this was the only thing that they could get?

On top of that there is less power amongst the honoraries then you might think. The real power lies amongst the functionaries at Treasury Board. Many a good idea has foundered there.

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style.
> 
> OS - Same as current insignia
> AB - Same as the insignia used by th RNZN
> LS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor
> MS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor with a laural
> PO2 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors
> PO1 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors with a crown on top
> CPO2 - Same as current insignia
> CPO1 - Same as current insignia
> 
> *Chiefs will not be getting the three buttons on their sleeves*
> 
> I know many will bemoan this and state that we need other things first but I strongly support this "adjustment".



You beat me to it.  I was in the mess today for Welfare Wednesday lunch and heard the very same thing.   :facepalm:

I'm not behind this endeavour.  We could use the money elsewhere, I'm sure.  More bread and circus antics prior to an election.  Not, the concrete support I want to see from the adults in Ottawa.


----------



## FSTO

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style.
> 
> OS - Same as current insignia
> AB - Same as the insignia used by th RNZN
> LS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor
> MS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor with a laural
> PO2 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors
> PO1 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors with a crown on top
> CPO2 - Same as current insignia
> CPO1 - Same as current insignia
> 
> *Chiefs will not be getting the three buttons on their sleves*
> 
> I know many will bemoan this and state that we need other things first but I strongly support this "adjustment".


Can us officers get the proper officer jacket instead of the chiefs jacket? I'll even pay for the tailoring myself! ;D


----------



## Happy Guy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Can *us* officers get the proper officer jacket instead of the chiefs jacket? I'll even pay for the tailoring myself! ;D


US Officers do wear a six button jacket - I know I couldn't resist it.
You want a eight button jacket like your counterparts in the RN, RAN and RNZN.


----------



## FSTO

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> US Officers do wear a six button jacket - I know I couldn't resist it.
> You want a eight button jacket like your counterparts in the RN, RAN and RNZN.


Well played sir!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style.
> 
> OS - Same as current insignia
> AB - Same as the insignia used by th RNZN
> LS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor
> MS - 1 Verticle fouled anchor with a laural
> PO2 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors
> PO1 - 2 Crossed fouled anchors with a crown on top
> CPO2 - Same as current insignia
> CPO1 - Same as current insignia
> 
> *Chiefs will not be getting the three buttons on their sleves*
> 
> I know many will bemoan this and state that we need other things first but I strongly support this "adjustment".




Will chevrons be used (again) to indicate length of service?

If the RCN uses chevrons for length of service, how long until the army goes "back to the future, too?" (We used to wear up to three upside down chevrons on the left sleeve, below the crossed rifles, to indicate length of service.)


----------



## Tibbson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Not to mention the rising opinion that once the Queen dies Canada should divest itself from all things Monarchy.



Support is still at 60% so its hardly time to start figuring out how to rewrite the Constitution.  What a can of worms that would be.  We open it to change the system of government and groups will demand the Senate system changed, the french will demand changes, the First Nations will demand changes, Alberta will demand changes....  I can't see a government wanting to take that mess on.


----------



## Tibbson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> You beat me to it.  I was in the mess today for Welfare Wednesday lunch and heard the very same thing.   :facepalm:
> 
> I'm not behind this endeavour.  We could use the money elsewhere, I'm sure.  More bread and circus antics prior to an election.  Not, the concrete support I want to see from the adults in Ottawa.



Adults?  Now thats a big assumption.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Adults?  Now thats a big assumption.



Ah, touché.  You've got me there.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> A little birdy in a tree just told me the RCN is formally moving ahead with trying to change its NCM rank insignia back to a more Pre-unification style.



$10 says that some Good Idea Fairy will now think that going back to Square Rig for MS and Below and 8-button jackets for Officers is what's needed next, just like the our Commonwealth counterparts.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Will chevrons be used (again) to indicate length of service?
> 
> If the RCN uses chevrons for length of service, how long until the army goes "back to the future, too?" (We used to wear up to three upside down chevrons on the left sleeve, below the crossed rifles, to indicate length of service.)



There was no mention of time in chevrons.  



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> $10 says that some Good Idea Fairy will now think that going back to Square Rig for MS and Below and 8-button jackets for Officers is what's needed next, just like the our Commonwealth counterparts.



Hmmmmm I think I will propose this next time  >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I say leave the system alone. After all, everybody knows instantly where one stands for rank across the whole CF by looking at those current ranks, even for officers, for which, both the Navy and Air-Force use different styles and colours but same structure (half-stripe all the way to four stripes, etc.). It is only the Army officers which have, of late, switched to an incomprehensible system (for those of us that don't see them often).

Moreover, reintroducing those old ranks would confuse the use of fouled anchors for everyone: In the old days, it appeared in crests and on the Leading Rate rank badge only. Nowadays, you have one on your name tag (Why? the whole uniform clearly shows you are Navy and only an idiot needs another sign that this is so), and most of us also have one on the front of the jackets (of varying colour) to indicate time at sea.

How many fouled anchors does a Leading Seaman with more than 400 days of sea time need to wear?

So again I say leave more than good enough alone.

If they are incline to bring this stupidity however, I say go ahead for the square rig: Most comfortable piece of gear I ever wore in the heat of summer. But remember, it's not just for up to Master Seaman. It went all the way up to Petty Officers second class inclusive.


----------



## Edward Campbell

If someone is going to raise the issue of _uniforms_ then, please, for the love of all the gods, think _forward_ not backward. Sailors, soldiers and air force members need uniforms for a variety of functions: _*combat*_ (at sea, on land and in the air); heavy, dirty work (like changing the track on a tank or repairing a diesel engine); cleaner work (aircraft or electronics maintenance, for example); office work and "duties;" and ceremonials. Each uniform, and each service, has its own specific requirements but one of them, for the _"duties"_ uniform should be that it is "smart," while being both comfortable and easy to maintain and can be worn, proudly, on duty and when leaving the base to go home.

I hold no  brief for or against the "square rig," but I wonder: is it comfortable and easy to maintain? Is it what we want for 21st century fighting men and women?


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If someone is going to raise the issue of _uniforms_ then, please, for the love of all the gods, think _forward_ not backward. ...........................................
> 
> ............................ Is it what we want for 21st century fighting men and women?



So it isn't just ISIL who want to drive us back into the Dark Ages.     >


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If someone is going to raise the issue of _uniforms_ then, please, for the love of all the gods, think _forward_ not backward. Sailors, soldiers and air force members need uniforms for a variety of functions: _*combat*_ (at sea, on land and in the air); heavy, dirty work (like changing the track on a tank or repairing a diesel engine); cleaner work (aircraft or electronics maintenance, for example); office work and "duties;" and ceremonials. Each uniform, and each service, has its own specific requirements but one of them, for the _"duties"_ uniform should be that it is "smart," while being both comfortable and easy to maintain and can be worn, proudly, on duty and when leaving the base to go home.
> 
> I hold no  brief for or against the "square rig," but I wonder: is it comfortable and easy to maintain? Is it what we want for 21st century fighting men and women?



Flying suits for everyone!   >


----------



## Old Sweat

There still are a few of us who remember when the green suit came into wear for the regular force in the late sixties. The concept was to keep it as simple as possible, without even collar dogs but eventually with a common cap badge. In fact in late 1971 or early 1972 a CANFORGEN was in the CDS's office for his signature ordering the forces to start wearing the "cornflake" but for whatever reason he declined to sign it.

In fact, collar badges came back before the cap badge incident I related above, and buttons followed a few years later. Next were shoulder titles and with the election of the Mulroney government, we went to DEUs, over the strong objection of the CDS.

I wonder how much angst and frustration would have been avoided if the powers-at-be had not gone for a common uniform. Hellyer was keen of implementing his military revolution, so that probably would have been a non-starter.

So what to all this? I suspect this latest bit of fiddling with dress is all part of a natural evolution, like it or not, and there always was an undercurrent of discontent held by a powerful minority waiting to get a receptive ear in Ottawa. It wan't the first time and it won't be the last time where a minority view prevailed because they were organized and knowledgeable enough to push the right buttons.


----------



## Halifax Tar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hold no  brief for or against the "square rig," but I wonder: is it comfortable and easy to maintain? Is it what we want for 21st century fighting men and women?



I think OGBD is insinuating square rig as a replacement for No. 1, 2B and 3 orders of dress not as a replacement for No. 5.  

I believe that the RCN had a working rig as well that was something similar to USN dungarees.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Flying suits for everyone!   >




Ummmm!  One piece Crewsuits have been done.  They are only good for visiting the Disco in the local village during Reforger and telling the fräuleins that you are a helicopter pilot.  Please don't try to do what bears do in the woods, without tucking in it in all the way or you may smell rather foul for the next few days and develop a crappy attitude.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...a minority view prevailed because they were organized and knowledgeable enough to *push the right buttons*.



No pun intended?


----------



## Old Sweat

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No pun intended?



I thought about that when I wrote it, but decided to see who would comment on it.


----------



## Pelorus

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why? the whole uniform clearly shows you are Navy and only an idiot needs another sign that this is so.



Funny you should mention that.  There are changes coming to NCDs as it has been determined that the current version is not explicit enough that one is in the Navy.


----------



## dapaterson

Cue the Village People in 3... 2.. 1...


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Cue the Village People in 3... 2.. 1...


Your wish is my command ....


----------



## Privateer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If they are incline to bring this stupidity however, I say go ahead for the square rig: Most comfortable piece of gear I ever wore in the heat of summer. But remember, it's not just for up to Master Seaman. It went all the way up to Petty Officers second class inclusive.



My (unscientific) impression is that the people most in favour of the return of the square rig are those who would not have to wear it.  I can't see this being a favourable change from the view point of recruiting.


----------



## Happy Guy

I was talking to a RN Officer, former rating, and he was telling me that the square rig is not that easy to maintain nor is it that comfortable.  I've always thought that square rig looked sharp but I'm just glad that I'll never have to wear it.

Cheers


----------



## daftandbarmy

Privateer said:
			
		

> My (unscientific) impression is that the people most in favour of the return of the square rig are those who would not have to wear it.  I can't see this being a favourable change from the view point of recruiting.



Based on that criteria, I can see us bringing back the Sam Browne belt too  :


----------



## OldSolduer

Privateer said:
			
		

> My (unscientific) impression is that the people most in favour of the return of the square rig are those who would not have to wear it.  I can't see this being a favourable change from the view point of recruiting.



Agreed. We did not want pips and crowns, but lo and behold.....


----------



## Kirkhill

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I was talking to a RN Officer, former rating, and he was telling me that the square rig is not that easy to maintain nor is it that comfortable.  I've always thought that square rig looked sharp but I'm just glad that I'll never have to wear it.
> 
> Cheers



Lessee....

Spit shine ammunition boots
Iron the pants inside out with the crease along the seams but ensure no sharp edges. (Old RCN Hands folded them with the Seven Seas - seven flat folds across each of the legs so that they could stowed easily in the duffel).
Gun shirt ironed flat  and starched with two creases following straight down from the corners of the collar (or a central crease depending on the CO).
Jersey wool tunic pressed with collar ironed with two peaks and a valley.
Nelson collar also ironed and starched with two peaks and a valley.
Silk pressed flat under wet t-cloth and worn under tunic collar and over tunic front.  Tied to front of tunic with tally's.
Lanyard worn under collar, over silk and wrapped around silk and tallys.
Hat scrubbed white.
Tally band tied with double reef bow, pressed flat and secured to cap with a stitch at each point of the bow.
Chin stay not to be worn down unless everybody has it down.

Gaiters and belts, when worn, to be blancoed (excess blanco to be removed to prevent staining of pants and tunic) and brass to be polished.

Every Tuesday night in preparation for Wednesday night at RCSCC Howe - Recollections of a P2. (Not including band parades and special functions).

Dead easy to maintain....  :nod:


----------



## vonGarvin

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Lessee....
> 
> Spit shine ammunition boots
> Iron the pants inside out with the crease along the seams but ensure no sharp edges. (Old RCN Hands folded them with the Seven Seas - seven flat folds across each of the legs so that they could stowed easily in the duffel).
> Gun shirt ironed flat  and starched with two creases following straight down from the corners of the collar (or a central crease depending on the CO).
> Jersey wool tunic pressed with collar ironed with two peaks and a valley.
> Nelson collar also ironed and starched with two peaks and a valley.
> Silk pressed flat under wet t-cloth and worn under tunic collar and over tunic front.  Tied to front of tunic with tally's.
> Lanyard worn under collar, over silk and wrapped around silk and tallys.
> Hat scrubbed white.
> Tally band tied with double reef bow, pressed flat and secured to cap with a stitch at each point of the bow.
> Chin stay not to be worn down unless everybody has it down.
> 
> Gaiters and belts, when worn, to be blancoed (excess blanco to be removed to prevent staining of pants and tunic) and brass to be polished.
> 
> Every Tuesday night in preparation for Wednesday night at RCSCC Howe - Recollections of a P2. (Not including band parades and special functions).
> 
> Dead easy to maintain....  :nod:


That was me as an OS at RCSCC Quinte.  Though I thought that the collars were opposite: one had two peaks and one valley, the other with one peak and two valleys.  :dunno:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Privateer said:
			
		

> My (unscientific) impression is that the people most in favour of the return of the square rig are those who would not have to wear it.  I can't see this being a favourable change from the view point of recruiting.



 I think I may have been misunderstood here. I am NOT a proponent of bringing back the square rig or the old ranks for the non-commissioned members (even though, for night clothing in tropical climes, I would have no problem with authorizing the wear of a flat pressed 100% cotton gun shirt instead of a T-shirt).

That is why I started my sentence with "if they are inclined to bring this stupidity …

I ask you to imagine the current NCM service dress of say a LS or MS with say 600 days of sea time. Picture that in your mind: gold anchor on the breast for sea time, name tag, medals, etc. but, instead of the stripes on his shoulders (both of them) a 10 cm high gold anchor on each side.

I am sorry but it doesn't work for me. The cut of that uniform makes it look a bit goofy. Even worse for a PO2 with crossed anchors. It does work on a square rig.

So again don't get me wrong. My view is: keep the current DEU and keep the current NCM rank badges.

And Kirkhill, even with the current DEU we still spit shine our boots and scrub our hats .


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

BTW, Kirkill and TV: don't confuse Sea Cadets with reality.

While the creases and folds (valleys or peaks, etc.) existed in the RCN and were usually required for formal parade and guard duties (as to number and positions, it varied based on the seaman's experience: there was an informal code for which passage permitted what fold and its placement), the day to day wearing was for the gun shirts, collars and jersey to be ironed flat. As for the tying and pressing of the cap tally, you only did it once for every change of ship or unit, then you stitched it down in position for ever.


----------



## Kirkhill

Agreed OGBD

Stoker Father-In-Law said he never ironed in the "Seven Seas".  His pants were just rolled inside out and stuffed into his duffle.

Either way it was almost as tedious as figuring out kilts, sporrans, flashes, spats, hose, hose tops, sgian dubhs, kilt panels, kilt cut tunics, glens and balmorals....not to mention beaver tails in or beaver tails out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Bull, Blanco and Brasso. 

Capo and button sticks all around!  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Quod ???


----------



## torg003

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I ask you to imagine the current NCM service dress of say a LS or MS with say 600 days of sea time. Picture that in your mind: gold anchor on the breast for sea time, name tag, medals, etc. but, instead of the stripes on his shoulders (both of them) a 10 cm high gold anchor on each side.
> 
> I am sorry but it doesn't work for me. The cut of that uniform makes it look a bit goofy. Even worse for a PO2 with crossed anchors. It does work on a square rig.



Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinion.  I have the opposite point of view, I think the current army/AF  style chevrons worn on a navy uniform looks wrong.  Wearing traditional style naval ranks would look much better (and who said they'd be worn on both arms, traditionally rank only worn on left arm).
People get bent out of shape about the money that would be spent to do this, but if you think about it, it's going to save money in the long run (cheaper to produce an embroidered anchor on a piece of cloth backing, for example, than two large embroidered chevrons).
Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents, since there aren't any more pennies).


----------



## Kirkhill

Why not skip all the Velcro stuff and just reinstate another practice from the Dark Ages instead.

The Brassard.


----------



## Tibbson

torg003 said:
			
		

> Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents, since there aren't any more pennies).



As long as you are doing it electronically there is no reason to round up.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

torg003 said:
			
		

> Fair enough, everyone's entitled to their opinion.  I have the opposite point of view, I think the current army/AF  style chevrons worn on a navy uniform looks wrong.  Wearing traditional style naval ranks would look much better (and who said they'd be worn on both arms, traditionally rank only worn on left arm).
> People get bent out of shape about the money that would be spent to do this, but if you think about it, it's going to save money in the long run (cheaper to produce an embroidered anchor on a piece of cloth backing, for example, than two large embroidered chevrons).
> Just my 2 cents (or 5 cents, since there aren't any more pennies).



Fair enough also, but then get rid of the SSI anchor on the front and go back to the badges (chevron) for time in under the rank, left arm only again. But then, do you put the (enlarged) trade badge back on the right sleeve and get rid of the collar ones?


----------



## torg003

No need to return to time in chevrons as that may be too confusing for the other elements.  Yes, I would like to see large trade badges brought back for the right arm as well (not sure if that is planned or not), but keep the ones on the collar for CPOs.


----------



## cupper

Screw it.

Let's just get rid of all the uniforms and have the troops, air-people and sailors parade and fight naked.

Might even put an end to the whole sexualized workplace too. >


----------



## Kirkhill

cupper said:
			
		

> Screw it.
> 
> Let's just get rid of all the uniforms and have the troops, air-people and sailors parade and fight naked.
> 
> Might even put an end to the whole sexualized workplace too. >



Excellent idea......

In the interests of retained heritage and tradition I propose the reintroduction of Woad rank and unit markings.....

Lines to be no more than one finger wide with no more than three curlicews in a row


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I like Cupper's solution, but obviously Kirkhill, there is just no satisfying some people's need to do one better, is there  …  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I like Cupper's solution, but obviously Kirkhill, there is just no satisfying some people's need to do one better, is there  …  ;D



 >   :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Fair enough also, but then get rid of the SSI anchor on the front and go back to the badges (chevron) for time in under the rank, left arm only again. But then, do you put the (enlarged) trade badge back on the right sleeve and get rid of the collar ones?



Yes, really what's to happen now with all the anchors here and there on the uniform.  We can't all have mini Killicks all over as that would get confusing even amongst ourselves.  I too do hope the SSI dies with this new "whatever" is coming.  

As for the comment earlier from another poster that the NCD uniform's not naval enough and is to be changed, for Christ's sake what else would they have us wear to show our connection to the sea?  Hats in the shape of Cods or Whales...  :  Of course this will necessitate new DEU jacket issues to go with the new rank badges.  More money wasted.  Logistik is probably the little bird behind this all.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:

This is swiftly becoming one big   :trainwreck:


----------



## Michael OLeary

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hats in the shape of Cods or Whales...  :


----------



## jollyjacktar

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

>



Perfect.   ;D


----------



## Rheostatic

Dimsum said:
			
		

> $10 says that some Good Idea Fairy will now think that going back to Square Rig for MS and Below and 8-button jackets for Officers is what's needed next, just like the our Commonwealth counterparts.


It's not British. It's an _International System_.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:
			
		

> ... I think the current army/AF style chevrons worn on a navy uniform looks wrong.  Wearing traditional style naval Royal Navy ranks would look much better (and who said they'd be worn on both arms, traditionally rank only worn on left arm).


FTFY.  The majority of NATO navies seem content to use chevrons while only one uses the system we once did.  Not that I think we should decide our uniforms based on what other nations have determined to be popular, but it is clearly not accurate to suggest chevrons are un-navy.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> The current fetish for dis-unifying the Log branch is not driven by rational, professional analysis, but rather by operator ego and their desire to have uniform uniforms on parade.





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> A wholesale splitting along environmental lines is not in the best interests of the CAF; it only serves the buckles, buttons and bows brigade and assures them of all green or blue or black on parade.  We are too small a military to let each group do their own things for reasons of uniform colour.


 :nod:

Unfortunately, despite operations in Iraq and east Europe, we have the peacetime military mindset.  Buttons, bows and tribe insecurities/egos are at the top of the priorities list. There is something wrong when a service member would rather be confused as being from the wrong nation over being confused as a member of the wrong service



			
				Happy Guy said:
			
		

> As stated by many before ... starting down a slippery slope.


We are well along the slippery slope.  There are plenty of wants coming out of the wood work:

Brown uniforms & Sam Brown belts for the Army
Square Rig for the Navy
Double breasted jackets for Navy officers
A return to Blue berets (from when blue was the colour for those without their own beret colour) for Artillery
inventing a Royal Canadian Logistics Corps
potential for modified NCDs being driven by a need to look "more navy" as opposed to any functional requirement

We are well past the stage of simple nonsensical discussions of nonsensical tinkering with rank insignia.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Dark Blue berets were actually the colour of any Corp that originated from the Board of Ordinance, So RCA is only one of them, RCE and RCEME would also be appropriate for wearing them.


----------



## McG

Armour wore black, rifles wore green, Irish and highlanders didn't wear berets, parachutists wore maroon, all other infantry were scarlet, and everyone else wore the dark blue.


----------



## Ostrozac

Why don't we just do a complete overhaul of all three DEU, then? Instead of an incremental change being announced every month. That way we can overhaul everything. And we can consider everything, all the good idea fairies, at once, including some of the more obscure British beret colours (khaki for guards, light green for int, grey for nurses), forage caps, wedge caps, summer tans, battle dress, garrison dress, parachute smocks, wooly sweaters, high-collar blue patrols, sam brownes. The same project can look at whatever else the air force and the navy still want to change.

Right now we are changing stuff so quickly that the CF Dress Instructions are constantly out-of-date. A full project to overhaul the DEU would at least take a few years, and would stop the madness of strange announcements made at random times, at least for a while.


----------



## Old Sweat

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Why don't we just do a complete overhaul of all three DEU, then? Instead of an incremental change being announced every month. That way we can overhaul everything. And we can consider everything, all the good idea fairies, at once, including some of the more obscure British beret colours (khaki for guards, light green for int, grey for nurses), forage caps, wedge caps, summer tans, battle dress, garrison dress, parachute smocks, wooly sweaters, high-collar blue patrols, sam brownes. The same project can look at whatever else the air force and the navy still want to change.
> 
> Right now we are changing stuff so quickly that the CF Dress Instructions are constantly out-of-date. A full project to overhaul the DEU would at least take a few years, and would stop the madness of strange announcements made at random times, at least for a while.



It occurred to me that one way to stamp out this daisy chain of changes to dress musical chairs is to reintroduce the pre-integration policy of having officers purchase their own uniforms and accoutrements without receiving any allowance for clothing upkeep, etc. One suspects one would look at the prospect of wearing a sam browne differently if it involved forking over a four figure sum for a real pukka one from a supplier in the UK.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> It occurred to me that one way to stamp out this daisy chain of changes to dress musical chairs is to reintroduce the pre-integration policy of having officers purchase their own uniforms and accoutrements without receiving any allowance for clothing upkeep, etc. One suspects one would look at the prospect of wearing a sam browne differently if it involved forking over a four figure sum for a real pukka one from a supplier in the UK.




Not to mention that officers no longer have batmen ~ not even the CDS based on the dress and deportment of the incumbent ~ and the damned things need a lot of care and polishing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

One man, one kit I say.  Officers can polish their own stuff, just like us oar-pullers do.


----------



## Stoker

I saw the Dress Committee minutes and there are some proposals to "jazz up" the current NCD uniform". One is add the naval jack to the back of the ball cap and get rid of the crease in the front of the pants. SSI will be added to the NCD shirts and trade badge. NCD jackets will move the naval ensign to the pocket, the naval jack will be added to the opposite pocket. I believe ships badge will be moved to the shoulder. Epaulets will be removed and one placed to the front of the jacket. Reflective tape will be added as well. Other additions is to have a new name tape with NAVY/MARINE on it. Looks like a lot of these changes was proposed by the RCN Chief.


----------



## medicineman

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> ...Looks like a lot of these changes was proposed by the RCN Chief.



He bored or just trying to keep up with the Jonses?

MM


----------



## Happy Guy

In addition to the below:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Brown uniforms & Sam Brown belts for the Army
> Square Rig for the Navy
> Double breasted jackets for Navy officers
> A return to Blue berets (from when blue was the colour for those without their own beret colour) for Artillery
> inventing a Royal Canadian Logistics Corps
> potential for modified NCDs being driven by a need to look "more navy" as opposed to any functional requirement


I have heard the following suggestions which have been proposed to the Branch Directors.  Fortunately the vast majority of which have been wisely rejected by the senior Army staff:
- return of patrol blues for the Reg F (members pay)
- chain mail for the Armoured Corps (members pay)
- reinstatement for SSgt and LCpl ranks (requires consent from the other environments)

I have no idea of who (group(s) or individuals) are pushing this.  I have a difficult time believing that our senior leadership (Officers & NCOs) are pushing for these changes.  I just wish that someone would ask our opinion.  
I don't want to buy a set of ceremonial uniforms and accessories that I would very rarely wear.  
I don't see why changing WO to SSgt in the CA will make things any better.  Will the RCAF do the same?
I don't see how the raising of the RCLC will make feel prouder of my Branch or being in the Army - it's fine the way it is.  

Cheers


----------



## medicineman

For me, on the bright side, if I became a Staff vice a WO, I wouldn't need to re-re-tailor my uniform when I get re-promoted back to Reg Force retirement rank...assuming we keep the same rank badge.  Of course, they'll go back to the crown in the chevrons instead of the maple leaf, so will need to get the thing re-tailored...again.

MM


----------



## George Wallace

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> ........... Other additions is to have a new name tape with NAVY/MARINE on it. Looks like a lot of these changes was proposed by the RCN Chief.



I can foresee a lot of confusion coming into play when you visit US ports and installations.


----------



## Stoker

That was proposed when they went to the new style of jacket and I breathed a sign of relief as I thought it looked too flashy. I guess someone really wanted it as its reared its head again.


----------



## dapaterson

Reactionary malcontents with a grudge against Hellyer, rejoicing in their triumph, as the institution crumbles around them.

See also: Pyrrhic victory.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I saw the Dress Committee minutes and there are some proposals to "jazz up" the current NCD uniform". One is add the naval jack to the back of the ball cap and get rid of the crease in the front of the pants. SSI will be added to the NCD shirts and trade badge. NCD jackets will move the naval ensign to the pocket, the naval jack will be added to the opposite pocket. I believe ships badge will be moved to the shoulder. Epaulets will be removed and one placed to the front of the jacket. Reflective tape will be added as well. Other additions is to have a new name tape with NAVY/MARINE on it. Looks like a lot of these changes was proposed by the RCN Chief.



That's enough to give me a permanent headache.

I have always been of the view that you  either say it or show it, but not both, and that you avoid being redundant as much as possible.

So lets see (first of all for our non naval brethren's comprehension: The Naval Jack is the Canadian flag; the Ensign is a white flag with the Canadian flag in the upper left corner and the RCN blue anchor with seahawk motif on the right fly):

Naval jack to the back of the ball cap: Good. It's the canadian flag.

No crease pants: Who cares.

SSI added to the NCD shirt: Useless.

Trade badge added to the NCD shirt: I have no problem.

NCD jackets with Ensign on one pocket and the Naval Jack on the other pocket: What drugs are they on? that's a lot of Canadian flags in the same place. and on both pockets at the same time? Very "busy". Pick one or the other. My personal choice then would be the Naval Jack. You kill two birds with a single stone - a Canadian flag and a naval identification so you don't have to mess around with the name tag by adding "NAVY/MARINE to it.

Ship's badge to the shoulders: I have no problem, but it's starting to look like an air force uniform .

Epaulets removed and a single one on the front of the jacket: No, absolutely not, no way. If the army likes to hide their ranks on their combat (and for good army reasons), let them. In the Navy, I want to be able to look out the bridge window/bridge wing at a group and see immediately if there is a PO/CPO/officer down there in charge of an evolution and pinpoint their location quickly. If I walk in the Combat centre/Ops room/CCR/MCR, with most people facing console and having their back to me, I want to be able to spot quickly the OOW/EOOW/Ops Chief/ etc. etc. Single epaulets on the front denies that information to me.


----------



## Stoker

There are other proposals such as a removal liner, however that compromises the fireproof characteristics of the NCD's. I believe the reasoning for the epaulet change was non visibility if wearing a backpack over each shoulder, the others is to make it more "naval" and visible. Obviously and hopefully some of these changes will be shot down. I like the cap idea, see no need for a new name tape and repositioning of the ships badge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Our flying jackets have a removal liner, I have never heard anything about it compromising the FR properties.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> There are other proposals such as a removal liner, however that compromises the fireproof characteristics of the NCD's. I believe the reasoning for the epaulet change was non visibility if wearing a backpack over each shoulder, the others is to make it more "naval" and visible. Obviously and hopefully some of these changes will be shot down. I like the cap idea, see no need for a new name tape and repositioning of the ships badge.



So basically, they want us to change a piece of shipboard working dress, used in an environment where we constantly are facing consoles, the piece of gear we operate or have large objects in our way so we only see the top of ourselves (like the bridge) and therefore can't see the other person's jacket front, because [probably] some jackass officer who was biking to the dockyard got pissed off at a seaman not saluting who gave the excuse that he could not see his rank under the backpack? Or am I missing something here?

I mean, how often do we have a backpack on in the goddam Navy?


----------



## PuckChaser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I mean, how often do we have a backpack on in the goddam Navy?



All the time if all the ships are decommissioned before the new ones get here?  >


----------



## medicineman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I mean, how often do we have a backpack on in the goddam Navy?



I do know I used to correct a lot of people that thought they were purses...so there was at least one epaulette showing  >

MM


----------



## Castus

MCG said:
			
		

> Armour wore black, rifles wore green, Irish and highlanders didn't wear berets, parachutists wore maroon, all other infantry were scarlet, and everyone else wore the dark blue.



Really? Every picture I see of the regiment (Patricia's) back in the day has them wearing khaki coloured berets. I've never seen scarlet ones before. Can somebody shed light on this?


----------



## McG

Khaki berets were universal (less the black armoured beret) until the 50's.  The period of scarlet infantry berets preceded the Airborne Regiment and the PPCLI were filling the Airborne role with maroon berets.


----------



## Old Sweat

MCG answered the question, and the coloured berets were, I think, a post-Korea thing. Berets except black for the RCAC and maybe maroon for the Airborne School in Rivers went out in the fall of 1958. The three Defence of Canada Force battalions, each of which had 250 airborne positions, plus two riggers, did not wear maroon berets, and took this with less than good grace.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> MCG answered the question, and the coloured berets were, I think, a post-Korea thing. Berets except black for the RCAC and maybe maroon for the Airborne School in Rivers went out in the fall of 1958. The three Defence of Canada Force battalions, each of which had 250 airborne positions, plus two riggers, did not wear maroon berets, and took this with less than good grace.




That's right ... _circa_ 1960 everyone in the infantry, except the Black Watch, wore either the bush cap (summer) or cap, winter, peaked (winter), including the guys on the jump roll.

Edited to add:

There were a few exceptions: Canadian Guards colour sergeants and above wore peaked caps, and QORofC officers, some of them anyway, wore wedge caps.

Edit: correction


----------



## Pusser

Privateer said:
			
		

> My (unscientific) impression is that the people most in favour of the return of the square rig are those who would not have to wear it.  I can't see this being a favourable change from the view point of recruiting.



It is worth noting that when the USN dropped its "Cracker Jack" uniform in the early 70s (yes, they did have all ranks in the same basic uniform for awhile), recruiting plummeted sufficiently enough that they quickly reinstated it.


----------



## medicineman

I think I burned my forage cap when we went to berets only in the Army around 1990...I hated wearing that thing.  Pics lying around of my dad when he was in the RCHA during the 60's have him only wearing the midnight blue forage cap with red band and his bush cap, as well as the steel skid lid.  I think the bush dress looked reasonably smart...but that doesn't mean I think we should go back to it.

To any good idea fairies out there, take a 5 pound sledge and repeatedly hit yourself in the crotch with it until you think of something that actually makes sense instead of fixing something that doesn't really need it.

MM


----------



## Pusser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I can foresee a lot of confusion coming into play when you visit US ports and installations.



No more so than when French, Italian or Spanish sailors visit those places.  Sometimes I think folks spend too much time worrying about not confusing the Americans.  They're really not as thick as some folks seem to think they are.  I work with a lot of Americans of all ranks right now and they're all pretty much aware that "marine" means "navy" in several of the other languages heard throughout NATO.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> So basically, they want us to change a piece of shipboard working dress, used in an environment where we constantly are facing consoles, the piece of gear we operate or have large objects in our way so we only see the top of ourselves (like the bridge) and therefore can't see the other person's jacket front, because [probably] some jackass officer who was biking to the dockyard got pissed off at a seaman not saluting who gave the excuse that he could not see his rank under the backpack? Or am I missing something here?
> 
> I mean, how often do we have a backpack on in the goddam Navy?



Actually they're ubiquitous nowadays, to the point it was pondered if they needed or were willing to get a navy version of the patrol pack the other kids use.  In the end they decided to cheap out and decree that if your going to have  a backpack it must be complementary to the uniform.  

I'm against the proposed change to the NCD jacket on the basis of cost.  This will make it the third version in not too many years.  It's getting expensive to be a Kardashian, the money could better be spent on really important things...


----------



## Jed

My father in law has a tan-brown (sand?) beret. He was a RRR, rifleman, WWII. When did they change infantry to green berets?


Ooops sorry. I did not read far enough down on this endless thread.


----------



## medicineman

I do believe there is a special place for the dweebs in the Buttons and Bows Brigade that are spending our hard earned tax dollars on their egos:


----------



## Ostrozac

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> In the end they decided to cheap out and decree that if your going to have  a backpack it must be complementary to the uniform.



I remember that! In their desire to micromanage what kind of backpack you can carry to work, they managed to come up with a definition that is so restrictive that it makes the issue patrol pack technically in violation of the dress regs. That is, of course, the sort of nonsense that is ignored by everyone, but I still got a chuckle out of it.


----------



## Old Sweat

This sort of crap never changes. Way back in the early sixties, I think though it might have been a year or two earlier, somebody in the press wrote a piece about how sloppy soldiers looked walking to work (in Ottawa?) with lunch boxes or, even worse, brown paper bags. The giant minds in the Canadian Army immediately stopped work on everything else to produce an order that if one was bring a lunch to work, it must be carried in the issue small pack and slung over the left shoulder using one of the cross straps from battle order. Eager to develop initiative and decision making skills, the great men did not decree that it must be the left or the right strap (they were different,) but allowed it up to the troops, or probably to a host of RSMs.


----------



## Loachman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> MCG answered the question, and the coloured berets were, I think, a post-Korea thing. Berets except black for the RCAC and maybe maroon for the Airborne School in Rivers went out in the fall of 1958. The three Defence of Canada Force battalions, each of which had 250 airborne positions, plus two riggers, did not wear maroon berets, and took this with less than good grace.



Beret colours explained: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/uniforms/berets.htm

The Hasty Ps and, I believe, the Royal Regiment of Canada, were wearing scarlet berets in the early- to mid-seventies but I do not recall any other Ontario Res F Infantry Regiments doing so. One Hasty P fellow claimed that they were awarded to all units who fought at Dieppe but I never saw any substantiation for that. They were worn by First Special Service Force during WWII.

I hope that no Good Idea Fairies look at that site...


----------



## Old Sweat

Yes, and I was referring to my regular force experience. Berets soldiered on in the reserves, especially as the CDS decreed in '72 or '73 that the regulars except for the RCAC and airborne units would not wear berets, while the militia could not wear the CF service cap. No idea of the rationale behind this divisive idea, but it eventually was rescinded.


----------



## medicineman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> I remember that! In their desire to micromanage what kind of backpack you can carry to work, they managed to come up with a definition that is so restrictive that it makes the issue patrol pack technically in violation of the dress regs. That is, of course, the sort of nonsense that is ignored by everyone, but I still got a chuckle out of it.



I used to love pointing out to the CPO's that would give me grief for using my CADPAT back pack in NCD's that the reg stated clearly "If the backpack is NON ISSUED that it is to be of a colour that is conservative and close to that of the uniform (ie black, dark green or dark blue)."  There was nothing in there that stated you couldn't wear your patrol pack (especially since I was/am Army and had to wear CADPAT epaulettes on my NCD's until I tactically acquired the old green ones with my rank on them  :nod.  It did state that some of the shyte I used to see running around in dockyard (day glow pink wasn't uncommon) were what was to be removed...strangely enough, only Army folks got picked on.  I also basically told them to learn to read and find something actually important to worry about...like the idiot sailor swinging their pink lunch bag around like they were going to a picnic.  They were a sailor though, so rarely got bothered  :.  I on the other hand lost it at that person, since they were a PO2 and should have known better (this was literally my first day at Dockyard in Esquimalt).

Same CPO1 in question got a bug up his anus at me about my lack of "high visibility rank" on my CADPAT (at the time, we didn't wear any)...since I was having a coffee at the time in the cafeteria, I almost spewed it at him laughing - I told him there was no such reg and if he chose to pursue the matter, he could bring it to me at my office and I'd be glad to change to something he could see, but until then...I wandered back to my office and he never showed up with paper.  I was so glad when I got posted to FDU(P) - only BS dress wise I had to worry about was remembering to change out of my coveralls when I went to Base, since per SO's and NAVGEN's, being I wasn't a qualified CD or submariner, I couldn't wear them as walking out dress.  I didn't push the issue, though I'm sure my Cox'n would have gone to bat...then had a little chat with me after.  I don't think I ever went so far as to wear the approved shorts and unit t-shirt as summer dress at the Unit, but could have if I wanted to...struck me as a bit too unmilitary for my Army brain  ;D.  I still to this day miss that place as one of the few sane units I've ever worked in.

MM


----------



## FSTO

medicineman said:
			
		

> I used to love pointing out to the CPO's that would give me grief for using my CADPAT back pack in NCD's that the reg stated clearly "If the backpack is NON ISSUED that it is to be of a colour that is conservative and close to that of the uniform (ie black, dark green or dark blue)."  There was nothing in there that stated you couldn't wear your patrol pack (especially since I was/am Army and had to wear CADPAT epaulettes on my NCD's until I tactically acquired the old green ones with my rank on them  :nod.  It did state that some of the shyte I used to see running around in dockyard (day glow pink wasn't uncommon) were what was to be removed...strangely enough, only Army folks got picked on.  I also basically told them to learn to read and find something actually important to worry about...like the idiot sailor swinging their pink lunch bag around like they were going to a picnic.  They were a sailor though, so rarely got bothered  :.  I on the other hand lost it at that person, since they were a PO2 and should have known better (this was literally my first day at Dockyard in Esquimalt).
> 
> Same CPO1 in question got a bug up his anus at me about my lack of "high visibility rank" on my CADPAT (at the time, we didn't wear any)...since I was having a coffee at the time in the cafeteria, I almost spewed it at him laughing - I told him there was no such reg and if he chose to pursue the matter, he could bring it to me at my office and I'd be glad to change to something he could see, but until then...I wandered back to my office and he never showed up with paper.  I was so glad when I got posted to FDU(P) - only BS dress wise I had to worry about was remembering to change out of my coveralls when I went to Base, since per SO's and NAVGEN's, being I wasn't a qualified CD or submariner, I couldn't wear them as walking out dress.  I didn't push the issue, though I'm sure my Cox'n would have gone to bat...then had a little chat with me after.  I don't think I ever went so far as to wear the approved shorts and unit t-shirt as summer dress at the Unit, but could have if I wanted to...struck me as a bit too unmilitary for my Army brain  ;D.  I still to this day miss that place as one of the few sane units I've ever worked in.
> 
> MM


FDU(P) like FDU(A) are just far enough away from the adults that they can get away with quite a bit, same as with the DC schools.


----------



## Castus

Loachman said:
			
		

> Beret colours explained: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/uniforms/berets.htm
> 
> The Hasty Ps and, I believe, the Royal Regiment of Canada, were wearing scarlet berets in the early- to mid-seventies but I do not recall any other Ontario Res F Infantry Regiments doing so. One Hasty P fellow claimed that they were awarded to all units who fought at Dieppe but I never saw any substantiation for that. They were worn by First Special Service Force during WWII.
> 
> I hope that no Good Idea Fairies look at that site...



Thanks for the link. Some of those look absolutely brutal. Honestly speaking, while I know that infanteers would love that they had a distinct beret, if anyone's listening PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT SCARLET.


----------



## OldSolduer

Castus said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link. Some of those look absolutely brutal. Honestly speaking, while I know that infanteers would love that they had a distinct beret, if anyone's listening PLEASE DON'T MAKE IT SCARLET.



I believe the Winnipeg Grenadiers wore scarlet berets...... >


----------



## vonGarvin

Loachman said:
			
		

> Beret colours explained: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/uniforms/berets.htm
> 
> The Hasty Ps and, I believe, the Royal Regiment of Canada, were wearing scarlet berets in the early- to mid-seventies but I do not recall any other Ontario Res F Infantry Regiments doing so. One Hasty P fellow claimed that they were awarded to all units who fought at Dieppe but I never saw any substantiation for that. They were worn by First Special Service Force during WWII.
> 
> I hope that no Good Idea Fairies look at that site...


As a former Plough Jockey, allow me to chime in re: scarlet berets for the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment.

They were worn up until the mid 1980s.  The practice ceased when MPs started wearing scarlet berets.  The practice was, if I recall properly, rather informal, and dates back to Operation PANDA from the early 1950s.

For context, Operation PANDA (standing for Pacific AND Atlantic) it was Canada's early commitment to NATO's force in the western occupied zone of Germany (I believe it predated the formation of the Federal Republic).  There was a number of battlions, and the Hasty Ps formed a company in a line-infantry battalion.  As part of the British Army of the Rhine, infantry units wore scarlet berets; scarlet being a representative colour of the infantry.

The scarlet beret was retained by the Regiment until the 1980s, as I stated.  

Another tradition in the Regiment is the wearing of a scarlet patch behind the cap badge on the green beret.  This dates back to the Regiment's belonging to the 1st Division in the second World War.  After the war, the Regiment was ordered to remove the divisional patch.  So they did, but on the order of the RSM, Angus Duffy (I believe), the patch was moved to behind the cap badge.


----------



## vincent.escanlar

medicineman said:
			
		

> I was/am Army and had to wear CADPAT epaulettes on my NCD's until I tactically acquired the old green ones with my rank on them  :nod:



Wouldn't CA (and RCAF) pers wear the DEU slip-on on NCDs, as the RCN does?


----------



## cupper

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Wouldn't CA (and RCAF) pers wear the DEU slip-on on NCDs, as the RCN does?



Why must people apply logic to a situation where none is required or desired? >


----------



## medicineman

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Wouldn't CA (and RCAF) pers wear the DEU slip-on on NCDs, as the RCN does?



They do, except the Army did away with DEU rank slip ons in the late 80's/early 90's.  The one's I had were "relieved" from my RSM's office when I was the Acting RSM for a week...

MM


----------



## vincent.escanlar

medicineman said:
			
		

> They do, except the Army did away with DEU rank slip ons in the late 80's/early 90's.



Ah - I forgot that on DEU, the CA NCMs have the "blank" slip-ons and wear rank pins on collars. Thanks.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Why must people apply logic to a situation where none is required or desired? >



My bad! Though if I remember correctly, RCN, CA and RCAF NCMs in the military police black working uniform all wear RCN DEU slip-ons, which seems to work ok. I guess CA and RCAF MP officers still use the old curl-less RCN DEU slip-ons?


----------



## medicineman

Always remember - "If it makes sense, the opposite must be done...and in a more complicated manner than the original, sensible way".

MM


----------



## Tibbson

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Ah - I forgot that on DEU, the CA NCMs have the "blank" slip-ons and wear rank pins on collars. Thanks.
> 
> My bad! Though if I remember correctly, RCN, CA and RCAF NCMs in the military police black working uniform all wear RCN DEU slip-ons, which seems to work ok. I guess CA and RCAF MP officers still use the old curl-less RCN DEU slip-ons?



Yes, that is exactly what is done.  Mind you, not many officers wear DEU, or should I say are supposed to wear DEU, but they manage to source what they need somewhere.


----------



## dimsum

vincent.escanlar said:
			
		

> Ah - I forgot that on DEU, the CA NCMs have the "blank" slip-ons and wear rank pins on collars. Thanks.



Of *course* they have to be different   >


----------



## rnicks

Hello folks, 

I've been reading this topic with interest for some time, and was hoping that I could post my thoughts about it.

I'm the son of Maj. (ret'd) Gerry Nicks, who served for 43 years in the RCAF as a pilot/test pilot/ college professor at RMC.  His dad (my grandpa) also served, during and after WWII.  Anyway, I've always felt strongly about the historical connection when it comes to uniforms and rank insignia as my dad purchased my grandpa's mess kit from him after he (dad) graduated from RMC.  In fact, when he retired at the age of 60 in 2009, I believe he was the last currently serving member of the (then) Canadian Forces Air Command who was still entitled to wear the old RCAF mess kit.  So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that tradition is important to our family.  If historical rank insignia and uniforms were to be restored further than they have been, we would be very much supportive of it.  

Anyway, I hope my opinion is helpful for this conversation.

Cheers,
Robert Nicks


----------



## Brasidas

rnicks said:
			
		

> Hello folks,
> 
> I've been reading this topic with interest for some time, and was hoping that I could post my thoughts about it.
> 
> I'm the son of Maj. (ret'd) Gerry Nicks, who served for 43 years in the RCAF as a pilot/test pilot/ college professor at RMC.  His dad (my grandpa) also served, during and after WWII.  Anyway, I've always felt strongly about the historical connection when it comes to uniforms and rank insignia as my dad purchased my grandpa's mess kit from him after he (dad) graduated from RMC.  In fact, when he retired at the age of 60 in 2009, I believe he was the last currently serving member of the (then) Canadian Forces Air Command who was still entitled to wear the old RCAF mess kit.  So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that tradition is important to our family.  If historical rank insignia and uniforms were to be restored further than they have been, we would be very much supportive of it.
> 
> Anyway, I hope my opinion is helpful for this conversation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Robert Nicks



That's all well and good, except for the facts that:

1) This is a continuing use of money that is ostensibly going to fund DND's priorities, and when buttons and bows are a higher priority than maintaining the ability to do your job, something's wrong with the priorities. For example, two years ago, reservists in Alberta had the vehicles to allow them to provide significant aid to civil power during the floods in Southern Alberta. Now, we don't.

2) CF culture and traditions have changed. Your dad, as the last of the folks who had first-hand experience of these bows and buttons, might care about it. For me, C&E Branch vs RCCS means not a damn thing. Same with a lot of the people a generation older than me.

3) Its a distraction. Signals trades in the army for example, are broken. The culture has significant problems, for fundamental reasons. Changing insignia, changing the names of ranks, and embracing the hot air of HCol's not only doesn't do a damn thing about attrition from unhealthy trades or deeply-flawed trade amalgamations - it helps mask it. 

Imagining myself looking from the outside, if I caught references to this stuff going on through the media, I would have the impression of the CF being in better shape than it really was, if it was spending its efforts on this stuff. The people behind these efforts may have good intentions, but I believe the overall payoff is negative.


----------



## Towards_the_gap

rnicks said:
			
		

> Hello folks,
> 
> I've been reading this topic with interest for some time, and was hoping that I could post my thoughts about it.
> 
> I'm the son of Maj. (ret'd) Gerry Nicks, who served for 43 years in the RCAF as a pilot/test pilot/ college professor at RMC.  His dad (my grandpa) also served, during and after WWII.  Anyway, I've always felt strongly about the historical connection when it comes to uniforms and rank insignia as my dad purchased my grandpa's mess kit from him after he (dad) graduated from RMC.  In fact, when he retired at the age of 60 in 2009, I believe he was the last currently serving member of the (then) Canadian Forces Air Command who was still entitled to wear the old RCAF mess kit.  So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that tradition is important to our family.  If historical rank insignia and uniforms were to be restored further than they have been, we would be very much supportive of it.
> 
> Anyway, I hope my opinion is helpful for this conversation.
> 
> Cheers,
> Robert Nicks



With all due respect, that's an easy position to take when you are not the one who:

Doesn't have mukluks to deploy on winter training;
Doesn't have ammo to properly train for the job at hand;
Flying 30-50 year old planes/helos or seeing your warship spending more time in maintenance than at sea;
Are constantly battling to do more with less..

Yep, those buttons and bows would look real pretty from the outside.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

The uniforms my Father, and the ones I wore, mean less then cock to me as opposed to spending money on the current serving soldiers in regards to training, manpower, and equipment.

I doubt anyone has ever got severely injured thinking at least my clothes looked good at the time..........


----------



## Loachman

Welcome to the Army.ca 187-page-high fire ant hill, Mr Nicks, and thank-you for poking that ginormous stick in and wiggling it around.

I am locking this for a while, as we do not need another 187 pages of re-hashed bitterness.


----------



## rotrhed

Much fanfare a year or so ago with plans for the new look to begin hitting the streets this spring. I've been out for a few years but interact fairly frequently with the crowd at 17 Wing as many of my friends are still in. But I have yet to see anyone sporting new ranks, buttons nor bows. Just wondering if this uniform switch is on schedule...or if it's on 'air force' schedule?


----------



## DrtyBinRat

My supply section just got a couple of boxes from LU today with the new NCM ranks.


----------



## q_1966

Can someone enlighten me as to why the new buttons are silver and not brass, I know it's not real brass now; Is it really because they were polished so much back in the day that they looked silver?


----------



## Stonegeneral

Logistik has been taking "self-identification surveys" to prepare orders for updated kit, with NCM rollout aiming for June-July and officers for August-September.

I still don't understand why buttons are changing since pre-68 RCAF uniforms consisted of brass/gold buttons (a la RAF/RAAF/RNZAF etc).


----------



## Loachman

I still don't inderstand why money is being wasted on any part of this.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We have basically been told that the new slip ons, buttons for wedge and belts will be shipped by Logistik Unicorp but it seems they are behind schedule.  Their website says

_"New Rank Insignia for the RCAF - Silver coloured buttons for the Wedge, a belt with a silver coloured buckle, and new rank slip-ons will be available to RCAF members in the spring of 2015. Distribution details will be provided by the RCAF chain of command in early 2015."
_

Aside from that, we were told at Sqn brief back late Jan/early Feb that once they are ready to start, we will be taking tunics in for tailoring IAW a schedule that will come out.  Last I heard, target timeline was to have most people switched for the Battle of Britain parades.  I'd say put a big "ISH" on any of those timelines.   ;D

At least they've stopped producing the winter/heavy-weight DEU pants and tunic. I don't know anyone who actually wore that.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> At least they've stopped producing the winter/heavy-weight DEU pants and tunic. I don't know anyone who actually wore that.



I did.  Winnipeg is cold.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I found the itchy aspect outweighed the slight increased warmth factor.  

Not likely a factor in your next location.


----------



## CombatDoc

bigzoomie said:
			
		

> Much fanfare a year or so ago with plans for the new look to begin hitting the streets this spring. I've been out for a few years but interact fairly frequently with the crowd at 17 Wing as many of my friends are still in. But I have yet to see anyone sporting new ranks, buttons nor bows. Just wondering if this uniform switch is on schedule...or if it's on 'air force' schedule?


Generals Lawson and Blondin are wearing the new rank. Trickle down will happen real soon now.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I found the itchy aspect outweighed the slight increased warmth factor.
> 
> Not likely a factor in your next location.



True, but I'll be in your neck of the woods for the next Remembrance Day service.  Brrrr.


----------



## geo

If it's anything like the army, things should be done by same time next year.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, FWIW...back in Dec, we were told that the new wedge buttons, belt and 1 x set of slip-ons would be mailed to us via Logistik Unicorp by April, early Mat at the latest.  Nothing yet!


----------



## Loachman

I am in no particular rush.


----------



## rotrhed

Belt buckles? Hmm...opinions on rank changes aside, this one seems a bit unnecessary. 

Are the metal wings changing colour too? I see the Gens and CWO sporting silverish cloth wings; are the metal ones following suit? 

Battle of Britain and Remembrance Day should look good this year...kind of like 10 aircrew pouring out of an airplane wearing flight gear: no two look the same.

It's times like this that I wish I was still in. ;D


----------



## Stonegeneral

bigzoomie said:
			
		

> Belt buckles? Hmm...opinions on rank changes aside, this one seems a bit unnecessary.
> 
> Are the metal wings changing colour too? I see the Gens and CWO sporting silverish cloth wings; are the metal ones following suit?



I can't speak to the metal versions of the wings, but I do know the sewn wings are being recoloured to reflect the new silver/white facings and ranks.

As for the belts, I still argue the change of belt and buttons has no basis in historical fact and is therefore a wasted effort. (Granted changing ranks is similarly a waste, but at least almost had history in mind).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Belt buckles...can't have silver buttons and brass belt buckles.   8)


----------



## armyvern

http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2015/112-15_e.asp



> CANFORGEN 112/15 C AIR FORCE 18/15 *11*1729Z *JUN 15*
> RCAF DEUU ORDERING AND DISTRIBUTION ADVISORY
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFS: 10001-4 (D AIR SP) 13 MARCH 2015 RCAF DISTINCTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIFORM UPDATE (DEUU) MASTER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (MIP)
> 
> AS PART OF THE RESTORATION OF THE RCAF HISTORICAL IDENTITY THE RCAF WILL INTRODUCE UPDATED RANK INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS TO RECOGNIZE AND HONOUR RCAF HISTORY AND HERITAGE TO COINCIDE WITH THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN ANNIVERSARY ON 20 SEPT. MANUFACTURING OF THE DEUU ITEMS HAS COMMENCED AND ORDERING AND DISTRIBUTION WILL OCCUR IN A PHASED MANNER AS PER REF MIP
> 
> *IN MOST CASES AIR FORCE PERS WILL REPORT TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CLOTHING STORES TO RECEIVE THEIR UPDATED RANK INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS. PERS LISTED AT ANNEX A APPENDIX 2 TO REF WILL NEED TO REGISTER WITH LOGISTIK CLOTHING ONLINE TO RECEIVE THEIR ITEMS USING THE REGISTRATION LINK AT WWW.LOGITIKUNICORP.COM
> 
> TO ENSURE ALL AIR FORCE PERS ARE AWARE OF WHEN THE SEQUENCED SHIPMENTS WILL COMMENCE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED:
> 
> RANK INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS FOR NCM S WILL START PHASED DELIVERY COMMENCING WITH CWO S IN EARLY JUN THROUGH TO AVIATOR IN LATE JUN
> 
> RANK BRAID AND ACCOUTREMENTS FOR OFFICERS COMMENCE PHASED DELIVERY WITH COL S THROUGH TO OCDT S IN JUL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DEUU RANK SLIP ONS WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE COMMENCING IN AUG
> 
> DISTRIBUTION TO GENERAL OFFICERS HAS COMMENCED AND RANK BRAID WILL BE AVAILABLE MID JUN
> 
> UPDATED DEU FLYING AND OCCUPATION BADGES WILL BE INTRODUCED IN A PHASED APPROACH WITH FLYING BADGES FIRST FOLLOWED BY GROUPINGS OF OCCUPATION BADGES. UNFORTUNATELY THE FIRST BADGES WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION UNTIL AFTER 20 SEP 15. A FUTURE CANFORGEN WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ONCE THE PRODUCTION SCHEDULE IS KNOWN
> 
> CLOTHING STORES MAY ORDER REPLENISHMENT ITEMS FROM LOGISTIK UNICORP AFTER THE INITIAL QUANTITIES HAVE BEEN SHIPPED. THE QUOTE OUTLINE AGREEMENT UNQUOTE WILL BE UPDATED IN DRMIS WHEN INDIVIDUAL ITEMS BECOME AVAILABLE FOR RE-ORDER. NOTE THAT EXISTING RANK INSIGNIA LEVELS WILL NOT BE RESTOCKED AND THERE MAY BE TEMPORARY STOCKOUTS DURING THE TRANSITION
> 
> MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE UPDATED RANK AND INSIGNIA INCLUDING IMAGERY IS AVAILABLE ON THE CWO RCAF INTRANET SITE *


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Belt buckles...can't have silver buttons and brass belt buckles.   8)



You are assuming that someone's belt buckle is actually visible.    >


----------



## Eye In The Sky

:rofl:


----------



## OldSolduer

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are assuming that someone's belt buckle is actually visible.    >



You, sir, are rogue and scoundrel......that's why we like you!  >


----------



## McG

Looks like everyone is putting out new-rank admin CANFORGENS.  The Army just had one too.



> CANFORGEN 110/15 COMD CA 023/15 101200Z JUN 15
> CA RANKS INSIGNIA DISTRIBUTION
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> 
> 1.  WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CANADIAN ARMY RESTORED RANKS, THE FOLLOWING PROCESS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE DELIVERY OF APPLICABLE DEU AND CADPAT ITEMS TO CAF MEMBERS WEARING THE CA UNIFORM AT ALL RANKS.
> 
> 2.  THE DISTR OF PROMOTION BASED RESTORED RANKS INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS IS TRIGGERED ONLY BY POSTING OR PROMOTION MESSAGES AND IS BASED UPON THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF PERSONNEL:
> 
> A.  CAF BASES, AND
> 
> B.  OUTCAN AND THE NCR.
> 
> 3.  MEMBERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WEARING THE CA UNIFORM STATIONED ON CAF BASES WILL GO TO THEIR LOCAL CLOTHING STORES WITH THEIR POSTING OR PROMOTION MESSAGE IN HAND TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
> 
> A.  OBTAIN APPLICABLE CADPAT SLIP-ONS,
> 
> B.  UPDATE LOGISTIK UNICORP ONLINE CLOTHING PROFILE WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY GENERATE A REQUEST TO SEND THE APPLICABLE DEU ITEMS TO THE MEMBER'S PERSONAL ADDRESS WHICH SHALL BE VERIFIED IN ADVANCE BY THE MEMBER,
> 
> C.  UPON RECEIPT OF THE DEU INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS, MEMBERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ARE TO BRING THE TUNIC TO CLOTHING STORES FOR TAILORING,AND
> 
> D.  PICK UP TUNIC WHEN TAILORING WORK IS COMPLETED.
> 
> 4.  MEMBERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WEARING THE CA UNIFORM STATIONED OUTCAN OR IN THE NCR WILL COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
> 
> A.  SEND AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF POSTING OR PROMOTION MESSAGE TO CFSU(O) CLOTHING STORES AT: PLUS CFSU(O) CLOTHING AT CFSU(O) TECH SVCS AT OTTAWA-HULL TO ENABLE LOGISTIK UNICORP ONLINE CLOTHING PROFILE UPDATE WHICH WILL AUTOMATICALLY GENERATE A REQUEST TO SEND THE APPLICABLE DEU ITEMS TO THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL ADDRESS WHICH SHALL BE VERIFIED IN ADVANCE BY THE MEMBER,
> 
> B.  UPON RECEIPT OF THE DEU INSIGNIA AND ACCOUTREMENTS, MEMBERS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE OBTAIN TAILORING SERVICES AND CADPAT SLIP-ONS ACCORDING TO LOCAL PROCEDURES, AND
> 
> C.  PICK UP TUNIC WHEN TAILORING WORK IS COMPLETED.
> 
> 5.  THIS PROCESS WILL FACILITATE LOGISTIK UNICORP EFFORTS TO MEET THE PROMOTION DEMAND OF MEMBERS WEARING CA UNIFORM.


----------



## McG

It seems DHH has formally sent out for feedback on the idea of reverting to royal blue berets for all those branches which wore the colour 1951 to 1956 (before that time only the Armd wore a distinct beret, and after that time the beret was replaced by forge caps).  It would seem DHH has alternately described the royal blue beret as having being worn by those corps designated as "Royal" or as worn by those occupations that do math.  Neither description is really accurate.  If the Army reverts beret colours as suggested, everyone currently in a green beret (less infantry) should switch to a blue beret.  

It is fortunate that we don't have more important things upon which to spend money and time.

 :facepalm:


----------



## slayer/raptor

Yeah the DArty stated that we (the artillery) would likely be heading back to blue berets last summer. I never really was sure what consisted of a rifle regiment? Is it considered everything light infantry now? So would 1 and 2 Bns of RCR, PPCLI, R22eR be in red berets and 3 Bns would be in rifle green?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Is there no limits to the depths of dress stupidity that can plumbed?


----------



## George Wallace

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Is there no limits to the depths of dress stupidity that can plumbed?



And it isn't anywhere close to end of Fiscal Year.




Is there word out somewhere that one of our woolen mills who produces berets is in dire straits?


----------



## PuckChaser

When you have an entire department designated for this, you get these sorts of "initiatives" on a daily basis.


----------



## Edward Campbell

It's a little hard to figure out just what a significant slice of the HQ is smoking, isn't it?

In our going _back to the future_ or _forward to our past_ exercises we have gone all the way back to First World War for some ranks (in fairness, the rank of BGen disappeared around 1920, replaced, until the late 1960s, by the rank of Brigadier) so why not go back to the period of, say, 1910 until today, in some cases, and bring back the Wolseley helmet or the multi-coloured field service cap which was worn from the late 1930s until 1946 (it was, apparently, taken out of service because no one liked it ~ that seems a very reasonable excuse for the Army G1 to reintroduce it, today). 













After all, everyone is wearing berets these days ... it's so passé ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







               ... surely we can come up with something a bit different ...


----------



## Old Sweat

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Is there no limits to the depths of dress stupidity that can plumbed?



Short answer: no. 

Where is the Ministry of Silly Walks when we really need it?


----------



## Infanteer

:facepalm:


----------



## Blackadder1916

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Where is the Ministry of Silly Walks when we really need it?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8

And then there is an international military silly walk competition.  Spectacular hats, too.
https://youtu.be/ON-6vyQugw4?t=27


----------



## Edward Campbell

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8
> 
> And then there is an international military silly walk competition.  _Spectacular hats, too._
> https://youtu.be/ON-6vyQugw4?t=27




That's the spirit! You're posting message, to the Army G1 shop, will be released very soon. You can work on marrying this:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... with this ...

                         
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                             ... in an effort to get a Canadian Army version of this:


----------



## daftandbarmy

We should issue the cap comforter and a helmet, then eliminate about three dozen other kinds of extraneous head coverings.


----------



## cupper

I think that we need to spend significantly more money to determine exactly what the name of the colour is, and we must ensure that the name is something other than NAVY blue.  :nod:

God knows the Navy doesn't need another reason to lord it over the other services.  >


----------



## Jarnhamar

I'm a size 33/34 waist.

The only ****ing pants I can get from clothing is size 42, and they were a ratty pair. 
I'm going on 2 years waiting to be issued a pair of boots that fit.

Is this a serious concern?? the people who dram of this crap should be slapped in the face with a beret.


----------



## Ostrozac

But where's my shako? I want my shako! 

I'm a firm believer that if we go down the road of silly hats, that we need to completely embrace the silliness. Guards regiments need khaki berets to match British Army Guards? Done. Intelligence Branch wants light green to match the British Int Corps? Done -- coupled with 20 years of intense and painful debate as to whether only army int should wear silly hats, or whether air force int and navy int should also be forced to wear silly hats -- just as the Military Police went through. Public Affairs Branch needs something that looks super snappy on television, maybe a Fez. Legal Branch probably needs lawyer's wigs as their ceremonial headdress.

Should CSS soldiers serving in a field unit wear the same hat as the parent unit, with their own corps cap badge (like Armoured Regiments) or not (like Highland Regiments) -- Army G1 will issue vague direction, but will not actually update the Dress Pam, so there will be no standard, it will be hat anarchy!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm a size 33/34 waist.
> 
> The only ****ing pants I can get from clothing is size 42, and they were a ratty pair.
> I'm going on 2 years waiting to be issued a pair of boots that fit.
> 
> Is this a serious concern?? the people who dram of this crap should be slapped in the face with a beret.


That, and this, going on, and people are working on this?!?!?

As a taxpayer, I'm kinda floored (but not as surprised as I once would have been)  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a little hard to figure out just what a significant slice of the HQ is smoking, isn't it?
> 
> In our going _back to the future_ or _forward to our past_ exercises we have gone all the way back to First World War for some ranks (in fairness, the rank of BGen disappeared around 1920, replaced, until the late 1960s, by the rank of Brigadier) so why not go back to the period of, say, 1910 until today, in some cases, and bring back the Wolseley helmet or the multi-coloured field service cap which was worn from the late 1930s until 1946 (it was, apparently, taken out of service because no one liked it ~ that seems a very reasonable excuse for the Army G1 to reintroduce it, today).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, everyone is wearing berets these days ... it's so passé ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... surely we can come up with something a bit different ...



I'm still plunking for reversion to this uniform - as worn by  The Tangier Regiment (aka Kirke's Lambs) and now continued by the Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment.






Affiliated Canadian regiments include - according to Wiki -

 Canada - The Queen's York Rangers (1st American Regiment)
 Canada - The South Alberta Light Horse
 Canada - 49th (Sault Ste Marie) Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery
 Canada - The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada
 Canada - The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment
 Canada - 1st Battalion, Royal New Brunswick Regiment (Carleton and York)
 Canada - The Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment

I reckon that's enough bows and ruffles for any styling Colonel to debate.

And think of the impact on morale....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rleFAS_B04


----------



## Arty39

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Yeah the DArty stated that we (the artillery) would likely be heading back to blue berets last summer. I never really was sure what consisted of a rifle regiment? Is it considered everything light infantry now? So would 1 and 2 Bns of RCR, PPCLI, R22eR be in red berets and 3 Bns would be in rifle green?


The dark blue beret for artillery was discussed in a meeting at my unit sometime in the spring.


----------



## MARS

cupper said:
			
		

> ...the Navy doesn't need another reason...  >



You're right...we don't need a reason  ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

Arty39 said:
			
		

> The dark blue beret for artillery was discussed in a meeting at my unit sometime in the spring.



If actually enacted this would apply to RCEME, RCCS, RCE for sure as well as RRCA, I'm not enough of a historian to say with Med/Det/Int etc wore in the early 50's...


----------



## my72jeep

Who got the good idea Fairy drunk, then let him send memos?


----------



## McG

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> I never really was sure what consisted of a rifle regiment? Is it considered everything light infantry now? So would 1 and 2 Bns of RCR, PPCLI, R22eR be in red berets and 3 Bns would be in rifle green?


Rifle regiments can be identified by their names which always include the title "Rifels."  All photographic evidence from the period that I have found shows the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR in maroon berets for paratroops.  



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> If actually enacted this would apply to RCEME, RCCS, RCE for sure as well as RRCA, I'm not enough of a historian to say with Med/Det/Int etc wore in the early 50's...


They all wore royal blue.  As stated above: of all the people wearing green berets today, only the infantry did not wear royal blue back then.  Canada never had the spectrum of Rainbow options that presently exist in the UK.


----------



## chrisf

How the hell long do we need to do something to call it a tradition????

Seriously.

This is an absurd idea.

We did it for 7 years, 60 years ago? And someone is seriously wasting time and money to considering reverting to it?

Nothing wrong with what we have no, and no reasonable reason to change it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Yes, well the slight of hand distraction with buttons and bows takes the attention away from who god awful reality of what really should be pressing in today's reality.  The Romans were inspirational with the "bread and circus scam".


----------



## Rifleman62

A tradition is anything done twice.

All I can say there is more to this. Field Service caps may be on the way back to some units that wear them now with certain uniforms.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm a size 33/34 waist.
> 
> The only ****ing pants I can get from clothing is size 42, and they were a ratty pair.
> I'm going on 2 years waiting to be issued a pair of boots that fit.
> 
> _Is this a serious concern?? _the people who dram of this crap should be slapped in the face with a beret.





			
				a Sig Op said:
			
		

> How the hell long do we need to do something to call it a tradition????
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> _This is an absurd idea._
> 
> We did it for 7 years, 60 years ago? And someone is seriously wasting time and money to considering reverting to it?
> 
> Nothing wrong with what we have no, and no reasonable reason to change it.




Of course it's absurd, but, sadly, someone is "serious," and they are using up valuable _senior staff time and space_ that ought to be focused on finding solution to Jarnhamar's trouser problem and the boot problems that seem to plague almost everyone and B vehicle shortages, and, and, and ...


----------



## cupper

It's crap like this that gives the general uneducated public the impression that the Government is spending too much on the military.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'd be happy to be able to get a tactical flashlight, and a white one that is somewhat rugged.  I know this is crazy, but then I wouldn't have to buy my own at the PX.  

But, as that isn't likely, can I get issued a new fancy beret that I can then trade off for a decent flying flashlight?


----------



## daftandbarmy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Is there no limits to the depths of dress stupidity that can plumbed?



Yes. Right at the bottom you will find the bright red beret they made the Infatrh wear in the 60s. 

Anyone have a picture of that beauty?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Does this idea have a name attached to it?


----------



## Tibbson

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> But where's my shako? I want my shako!
> 
> I'm a firm believer that if we go down the road of silly hats, that we need to completely embrace the silliness. Guards regiments need khaki berets to match British Army Guards? Done. Intelligence Branch wants light green to match the British Int Corps? Done -- coupled with 20 years of intense and painful debate as to whether only army int should wear silly hats, or whether air force int and navy int should also be forced to wear silly hats -- just as the Military Police went through. Public Affairs Branch needs something that looks super snappy on television, maybe a Fez. Legal Branch probably needs lawyer's wigs as their ceremonial headdress.



MPs are still going through it.  Last week, for the annual Police Memorial on Parliament Hill, the army MPs wore the only head dress they have, the red beret.  The Air Force allowed their MPs to wear the red beret as well with their DEU but the Navy insisted their pers wear peak cap with the red band.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Sigh.  I give up.  You win Army staff fucktards.  No more worrying about readiness and combat capability.  No more worrying about caring for our ill and injured.  No more worrying about our relations with key allies.  Let's just transfer ourselves to the Frontiersmen and be done with it.

Asshats.

 :whiteflag:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I give up.  You win Army staff fucktards.  No more worrying about readiness and combat capability.  No more worrying about caring for our ill and injured.  No more worrying about our relations with key allies.  Let's just transfer ourselves to the Frontiersmen and be done with it.
> 
> Asshats.
> 
> :whiteflag:



That right there in unedited form would make an excellent email. I'm sure it would surpass the box lunch email fiasco in record time but with more bite.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems DHH has formally sent out for feedback on the idea of reverting to royal blue berets for all those branches which wore the colour 1951 to 1956 (before that time only the Armd wore a distinct beret, and after that time the beret was replaced by forge caps).  It would seem DHH has alternately described the royal blue beret as having being worn by those corps designated as "Royal" or as worn by those occupations that do math.  Neither description is really accurate.  If the Army reverts beret colours as suggested, everyone currently in a green beret (less infantry) should switch to a blue beret.
> 
> It is fortunate that we don't have more important things upon which to spend money and time.
> 
> :facepalm:



Who is DHH?


----------



## dapaterson

Director, History and Heritage.


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Director, History and Heritage.



IIRC is one of the DHH pers one who used to.....or still may.....howl with his brethren?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I don't suppose I can email them as a concerned Joe Civvie could I?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

My "wife" sent them a question, something to the effect that perhaps instead of squandering money and resources on this shit it would be better used on jets, ships, anti air and armour defence, infrastructure etc


----------



## medicineman

If any of you zeroids from DHH are reading this, WAKE THE F&#K UP!!!

All of you seem to have chronic assholia or Cranio-Rectal Insertion Syndrome - remove your heads from your arses and start worrying about really important things, like changing your director to a Cpl/MCpl who has more activated brain cells and common sense than all of you twits have combined.  Better yet, dissolve your directorate, leave the military and allow all the money for your folks and department be used for stuff like, ammo, important uniforms, more real soldiers, etc.

Lastly, if you want to look like British soldiers, join the friggin British Army.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Asshats.



Don't give them any ideas...


----------



## Happy Guy

I had to go digging to found out who DHH is.  It belongs under CMP and it appears to be headed by a civilian with military staff (a couple of Majors).  I don't think that DHH is running around with these outlandish ideas.  Someone with the right connections in the Army is pushing them and the Army Command staff is agreeing with it.  I would suggest a "discussion" with the formation RSM first to express your views.


----------



## Gunplumber

Having worked at DHH for a while I know a bit of how they work. DHH only authorizes things, I seriously doubt they came up with the ideas but they have to see if the idea is a good one and if so they ok it, if not then they disallow it. Someone else brings in the ideas, either the Regiment with a new cap badge design or modifications to uniform or colours etc. DHH will approve things if there is agreement from higher as well (ie Army Commander etc). When I worked there EME changed to RCEME and my boos (a Capt) was on the RCEME committee.  The committee asked about a switch to the blue beret. The Capt and I (a Cpl) worked on it on our own time, we still completed our normal jobs there, so no money is being wasted. It was decided NO and then passed back up to the committee. I have no idea of what they decided.
This is not a case of money being spent on huge groups of people deciding on things so has no effect on the ability of the military to buy boots or uniforms etc. I have no love of bureaucracy and I am waiting for cadpat pants too, but don't blow this out of proportion.


----------



## Pusser

Not that I want to spoil the righteous indignation festival going on here, but the reality is that changing beret colours is hardly the great expense that folks are making it out to be and may very well be cost neutral IF we are sensible about it.  Keep in mind that berets have to be replaced periodically anyway and I would argue far more frequently than currently seems to be the case.  I just love seeing soldiers turn out in their best uniforms topped off with an old faded and stained beret.  In short, by the time everybody gets issued a new beret in a new colour, the old green one will probably need to be replaced anyway.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

But there still is an expense. Not to mention the manpower wasted on such a trivial matter.


----------



## Good2Golf

The issue is that a couple of self-appointed military historians have the ear of the comer office.  That one or two of them wear a skirt kilt with some military bobbles that, to some, reaffirms the 'expertise' only worsens the situation.  We could crowd source some donations to the CPC and front the donation with a snake oil salesman who can out-Harrumph the current 'advisor'...

:2c:

G2G


----------



## PuckChaser

We already bought a new DEU tunic for every CA officer, despite the original plan being one of replacement by attrition. Gotta be more expensive than a $10 beret per troop.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not that I want to spoil the righteous indignation festival going on here, but the reality is that changing beret colours is hardly the great expense that folks are making it out to be and may very well be cost neutral IF we are sensible about it.  Keep in mind that berets have to be replaced periodically anyway and I would argue far more frequently than currently seems to be the case.  I just love seeing soldiers turn out in their best uniforms topped off with an old faded and stained beret.  In short, by the time everybody gets issued a new beret in a new colour, the old green one will probably need to be replaced anyway.




Actually, Pusser, I would agree with you IF common sense prevailed, but ... 

Common sense says that someone, say a major, in the Army staff writes a short brief that concludes by saying that "at very minimal cost (approving colours and manufacturer's samples, etc) the Army could "restore a bit of heritage" by adopting Colour schemes A or B or C ... C is recommended, and the new berets can be issued as soldiers need them." The brief would be recommended by a LCol and it would come back with a minutes saying, "Approved, Option C to be used, costs of colour testing and validation to be borne by the supply branch Quality Assurance staff" signed by an officer no higher in rank than a Col. No general officer would have wasted even a μsecond on this.

But you and I can both very, very safely assume that several very senior officers, including the Army Commander, had to be briefed and re-briefed and serious time and attention was taken away from real problems, like B vehicles and boots, while they dealt with this.


----------



## George Wallace

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I had to go digging to found out who DHH is.  It belongs under CMP and it appears to be headed by a civilian with military staff (a couple of Majors).  I don't think that DHH is running around with these outlandish ideas.  Someone with the right connections in the Army is pushing them and the Army Command staff is agreeing with it.  I would suggest a "discussion" with the formation RSM first to express your views.



I think if you go back to our "Pips and Crowns" discussion you will find references to the guilty parties as being outside of the "serving" CAF circles and in the "civilian, retired part-time soldier circles"; some with vested interests in the militaria business.   :camo:


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd be happy to be able to get a tactical flashlight, and a white one that is somewhat rugged.  I know this is crazy, but then I wouldn't have to buy my own at the PX.
> 
> But, as that isn't likely, can I get issued a new fancy beret that I can then trade off for a decent flying flashlight?



That is where the Multi-national exchanges come in.  Find an American to exchange your beret for a flight suit and flashlight and you are good to go.    >


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not that I want to spoil the righteous indignation festival going on here, but the reality is that changing beret colours is hardly the great expense that folks are making it out to be and may very well be cost neutral IF we are sensible about it.


In a perfect world, yes, but we saw what happened with the "minimal cost" jackets, right?  I don't get a tremendous sense of "sensibility" in the system as an outsider looking in when I see initiatives like this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In a perfect world, yes, but we saw what happened with the "minimal cost" jackets, right?  I don't get a tremendous sense of "sensibility" in the system as an outsider looking in when I see initiatives like this.



Well, we're going to be issuing Blue Patrols jackets now so it makes sense to colour match, right?  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

What about my Square Rig?   >


----------



## ArmyRick

Canadian Army priorities as I see it

1. Pretty neat uniforms as worn fifty years ago
2. Cool rank insignia as worn fifty years ago
3. Keep more older dogs gainfully employed
4. Developing a good idea fairy department
5. recruiting
6. Ammo purchase
7. weapons/kit replacement or modernization
8. Operational readiness

How does that look so far?


----------



## Edward Campbell

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Canadian Army priorities as I see it
> 
> 1. Pretty neat uniforms as worn fifty years ago
> 2. Cool rank insignia as worn _100_ years ago
> 3. Keep more older dogs gainfully employed
> 4. Developing a good idea fairy department
> 5. recruiting
> 6. Ammo purchase
> 7. weapons/kit replacement or modernization
> 8. Operational readiness
> 
> How does that look so far?




Not a bad list, Rick, but I've proposed a minor fix or two, for accuracy ...


----------



## Pusser

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, Pusser, I would agree with you IF common sense prevailed, but ...
> 
> Common sense says that someone, say a major, in the Army staff writes a short brief that concludes by saying that "at very minimal cost (approving colours and manufacturer's samples, etc) the Army could "restore a bit of heritage" by adopting Colour schemes A or B or C ... C is recommended, and the new berets can be issued as soldiers need them." The brief would be recommended by a LCol and it would come back with a minutes saying, "Approved, Option C to be used, costs of colour testing and validation to be borne by the supply branch Quality Assurance staff" signed by an officer no higher in rank than a Col. No general officer would have wasted even a μsecond on this.
> 
> But you and I can both very, very safely assume that several very senior officers, including the Army Commander, had to be briefed and re-briefed and serious time and attention was taken away from real problems, like B vehicles and boots, while they dealt with this.



Alas, I can disagree with nothing that you've said.  As the eternal optimist, I often hope that we can do things sensibly, but far too often, I think we are all disappointed...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Recently I was assisting at The RCR Museum during a city heritage "Doors Open" event and had a discussion with one visitor over the change of rank insignia. He brought it up with the inference that this was a good thing that we must have been happy about. And he was surprised when I explained to him that, as far as the great majority of serving members were concerned, it was a complete non-event. Officers took off the stripes, put up the pips and crown and simply went back to their jobs. No-one has yet mentioned to me that they are either pleased or displeased by the change, it's simply the rank badge they wear.

My concern with all of this is "who, exactly, is the audience being pleased?" There's certainly been no evidence of education to convince the average serving member (who, frankly, isn't that interested in the detailed history of the army's buttons and bows, despite how proud they may be of their own Corps or regiment's history) that these changes are worthy exercises and expenditures. What is the commander's intent? What is his end state?

Shall we watch for Sam Brownes and swagger sticks next?


----------



## Happy Guy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Recently I was assisting at The RCR Museum during a city heritage "Doors Open" event and had a discussion with one visitor over the change of rank insignia. He brought it up with the inference that this was a good thing that we must have been happy about. And he was surprised when I explained to him that, as far as the great majority of serving members were concerned, it was a complete non-event. Officers took off the stripes, put up the pips and crown and simply went back to their jobs. No-one has yet mentioned to me that they are either pleased or displeased by the change, it's simply the rank badge they wear.
> 
> My concern with all of this is "who, exactly, is the audience being pleased?" There's certainly been no evidence of education to convince the average serving member (who, frankly, isn't that interested in the detailed history of the army's buttons and bows, despite how proud they may be of their own Corps or regiment's history) that these changes are worthy exercises and expenditures. What is the commander's intent? What is his end state?
> 
> Shall we watch for Sam Brownes and swagger sticks next?


Stop with these bloody suggestions.  Someone will think that you're serious.  I always thought that the sticks and Sam Browne belts were an anachronism with no practical use unless you wish hope to cut a splendid sartorial figure.


----------



## Privateer

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Shall we watch for Sam Brownes and swagger sticks next?









Field Marshall the Right Honourable Viscount Byng approves.


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Canadian Army priorities as I see it
> 
> 1. Pretty neat uniforms as worn fifty years ago
> 2. Cool rank insignia as worn fifty years ago
> 3. Keep more older dogs gainfully employed
> 4. Developing a good idea fairy department
> 5. recruiting
> 6. Ammo purchase
> 7. weapons/kit replacement or modernization
> 8. Operational readiness
> 
> How does that look so far?



Close. You forgot the point where we have to stamp out sexual harassment where ever we find it.


----------



## cavalryman

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Close. You forgot the point where we have to stamp out sexual harassment where ever we find it.


I'm thinking that the reintroduction of the swagger stick might help in that respect  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

cavalryman said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that the reintroduction of the swagger stick might help in that respect  ;D



Even more for the cavalry who carried riding crops.  ;D


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not that I want to spoil the righteous indignation festival going on here, but the reality is that changing beret colours is hardly the great expense that folks are making it out to be and may very well be cost neutral IF we are sensible about it.  Keep in mind that berets have to be replaced periodically anyway and I would argue far more frequently than currently seems to be the case.  I just love seeing soldiers turn out in their best uniforms topped off with an old faded and stained beret.  In short, by the time everybody gets issued a new beret in a new colour, the old green one will probably need to be replaced anyway.



The costs are not financial - or at least those costs are relatively minimal.  The true costs are substantially higher:

1)  The opportunity cost.  What are we not thinking about because we are looking at baubles?
2)  The external reputational cost.  If you can afford this, why do you need money to buy or do X?
3)  The internal reputational cost.  I know that you have no boots, no MGs, no trucks, and have to rent a resupply ship young man - but look at the shiny stuff!

We look like amateurs.  That costs a lot in the long run.....


----------



## dimsum

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> How the hell long do we need to do something to call it a tradition????
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> This is an absurd idea.
> 
> We did it for 7 years, 60 years ago? And someone is seriously wasting time and money to considering reverting to it?
> 
> Nothing wrong with what we have no, and no reasonable reason to change it.



Exactly.  Reverting back to the past is ridiculous enough (although I have to admit the "new" RCAF ranks and buttons aren't half bad) but changing something the Army has worn for almost 50 years to something they tried for 7?  

And really, does dark blue match with green?   >


----------



## Loachman

Stupidity is still stupidity, even if it is free.

A string of stupid ideas makes people twitchy - "what's next?"

There is no stability. Every day, a new stupid uniform variation is excreted.

Higher leadership credibility is reduced.

If these stupid ideas were put to a vote, or the victims of the stupid uniform ideas were consulted, and the majority were in favour then I'd probably be a little less unenthusiastic. These stupid ideas have generally, especially in the case of reverting to obsolete foreign rank insignia, been imposed from without despite a lack of internal support and blatant lies have told in futile attempts to justify them.

The only beneficiaries are the tailors (presuming that they make overtime) and manufacturers of the buttons and bows, those who write/publish books about military badges and insignia, and the ego-driven/unfulfilled by the lack of real meaning in their lives.


----------



## George Wallace

Makes you wonder if some to the people making these decisions are perhaps "Closet Frontiersmen".


----------



## Michael OLeary

Loachman said:
			
		

> If these stupid ideas were put to a vote, or the victims of the stupid uniform ideas were consulted, and the majority were in favour then I'd probably be a little less unenthusiastic.



This is a key point. If these were the Army's ideas, socialized within and committed to by the Army's leadership, building support from within, then they would be embraced with a sense of ownership. Instead, the Army isn't being led into change (however superficial these may be), but is being driven there by an anonymous cabal.

As part of the proposal for coloured berets, I'd like to see the original case made in the 1950s for the adoption, and those for relinquishing them. Are either of those cases still valid? Or are these ideas simply being pulled out of dead files and wrapped in a "restored heritage" cloak for approval by senior appointments who don't know (and therefore accept at face value the supporting stories woven for them) and don't really care?


----------



## PuckChaser

You mean the tailors that are only open 2 days a week for a total of 10 hours in Pet? Kingston was just as bad. Budget cuts are going to the wrong place, especially if we're changing DEU pieces every 6 months.


----------



## George Wallace

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Even more for the cavalry who carried riding crops.  ;D



Although; we never did away with the Pace Stick or Drill Cane.  Being threatened by a very angry Sergeant Major with said item being rammed up one's derrière, was often enough to have a young troop sort themselves out quickly.    >


----------



## Michael OLeary

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although; we never did away with the Pace Stick or Drill Cane.  Being threatened by a very angry Sergeant Major with said item being rammed up one's derrière, was often enough to have a young troop sort themselves out quickly.    >



And now it would start a sexual harassment charge.   >


----------



## George Wallace

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> This is a key point. If these were the Army's ideas, socialized within and committed to by the Army's leadership, building support from within, then they would be embraced with a sense of ownership. Instead, the Army isn't being led into change (however superficial these may be), but is being driven there by an anonymous cabal.
> 
> As part of the proposal for coloured berets, I'd like to see the original case made in the 1950s for the adoption, and those for relinquishing them. Are either of those cases still valid? Or are these ideas simply being pulled out of dead files and wrapped in a "restored heritage" cloak for approval by senior appointments who don't know (and therefore accept at face value the supporting stories woven for them) and don't really care?


                                              :goodpost:

Common sense.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The costs are not financial - or at least those costs are relatively minimal.  The true costs are substantially higher:
> 
> 1)  The opportunity cost.  *What are we not thinking about because we are looking at baubles?*
> 2)  The external reputational cost.  *If you can afford this, why do you need money to buy or do X?*
> 3)  The internal reputational cost.  *I know that you have no boots, no MGs, no trucks, and have to rent a resupply ship young man - but look at the shiny stuff!*
> We look like amateurs.  That costs a lot in the long run.....


QFTFT


----------



## Old Sweat

At the risk of being considered cynical, one could surmise that the coloured berets were adopted because the Brits had them.


----------



## dapaterson

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> At the risk of being considered cynical, one could surmise that the coloured berets were adopted because the Brits had them.



If we're obsessed with being Britain Jr I guess the Royal Canadian Dental Corps will be disbanded...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And now it would start a sexual harassment charge.   >



...or an exciting new 'relationship'  ;D


----------



## QV

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Canadian Army priorities as I see it
> 
> 1. Pretty neat uniforms as worn fifty years ago
> 2. Cool rank insignia as worn fifty years ago
> 2.5.  Signature blocks
> 3. Keep more older dogs gainfully employed
> 4. Developing a good idea fairy department
> 5. recruiting
> 6. Ammo purchase
> 7. weapons/kit replacement or modernization
> 8. Operational readiness
> 
> How does that look so far?


----------



## cupper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Does this idea have a name attached to it?



It's called Operation Wasted Resources


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

cupper said:
			
		

> It's called Operation Wasted Resources



Sorry. I meant actual person.


----------



## cupper

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Close. You forgot the point where we have to stamp out sexual harassment where ever we find it.





			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that the reintroduction of the swagger stick might help in that respect  ;D





			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Even more for the cavalry who carried riding crops.  ;D



But in some circles the riding crop would be considered a tool of such sexual harassment. >

Particularly worn with riding boots.  ;D


----------



## cupper

From a cost perspective, taken individually each of the changes that have been implemented over the past couple of years may not be much, but in totality it amounts to significant numbers.

It's the drip, drip, drip of the leaky hole in the bucket, if not plugged will eventually drain said bucket.


----------



## medicineman

OK then, so if DHH only propagates suggestions to those upon high that apparently have to approve things, why isn't the common sense fairy looking at these suggestions before they get by the good idea fairy stage?  Does make you wonder what it is blunt end folks aren't worrying about that they really ought to be.

MM


----------



## MilEME09

medicineman said:
			
		

> OK then, so if DHH only propagates suggestions to those upon high that apparently have to approve things, why isn't the common sense fairy looking at these suggestions before they get by the good idea fairy stage?  Does make you wonder what it is blunt end folks aren't worrying about that they really ought to be.
> 
> MM



A bit of my brain makes me want to say all this crap is all DND can get the treasury board to approve lately


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Then we have the wrong people dealing with the TB. 

Pretty sad state when the Kurds have better anti air and armour capabilities then us.


----------



## daftandbarmy

cupper said:
			
		

> But in some circles the riding crop would be considered a tool of such sexual harassment. >
> 
> Particularly worn with riding boots.  ;D



And, of course, a Sam Browne.

I mean, the RCMP have them so they're already in the system so why not?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I don't know if they're still issued today, but I was issued a Sam Browne with holster when I was on my MP QL3 in 89.  I wore it on more than one occasion in my first posting.  It was a pain in the ass too.


----------



## daftandbarmy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't know if they're still issued today, but I was issued a Sam Browne with holster when I was on my MP QL3 in 89.  I wore it on more than one occasion in my first posting.  It was a pain in the *** too.



There is nothing like spit polishing a Sam Browne to make you wish for WW3 to break out.


----------



## jollyjacktar

No, no. Leather Luster.   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> There is nothing like spit polishing a Sam Browne to make you wish for WW3 to break out.




Thankfully _Sam Brownes_ and _batmen_ disappeared, for junior officers, at about the same time.

(I gave a beautifully tended _Sam Browne_, (thank you Pte G_____), which had been given to me in already good condition, to a Brit colleague who paid for my drinks for a very long time after.)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

At least if we salute like the Brits the costs should be minimal.


----------



## dapaterson

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> At least if we salute like the Brits the costs should be minimal.



Says you.  If I require British Salute Training I will need to spend at least three weeks in the UK on TD for familiarization and training.  With ~100K CAF members (Reg and Res), assuming a cost of $5000 per person for TD for the course, and we're up to half a billion dollars!


----------



## Staff Weenie

We will also need extensive language training - like when and where to shout 'Bollocks' or 'Brilliant'.  I believe I may set up a private business and offer services to the CAF as a contractor.  I shall call it 'All Things British', though that sounds a bit dodgy....


----------



## Good2Golf

...on the plus side of things, we could bring our dogs to work, so long as they lay quietly underneath out cubicle desks...  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> We will also need extensive language training - like when and where to shout 'Bollocks' or 'Brilliant'.  I believe I may set up a private business and offer services to the CAF as a contractor.  I shall call it 'All Things British', though that sounds a bit dodgy....



Pfshaw.  Easy peasy, lemon squeezy.  What?

For the RCAF of us out there...  say "air", now "hair" and "lair" ... good.  Now say all three "air hair lair".  You've just completed RAF greetings, part 1.   :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...on the plus side of things, we could bring our dogs to work, so long as they lay quietly underneath out cubicle desks...  :nod:




Thus demonstrating that, like the average Brit, we have more affection for (and in common with?) our (semi) domesticated animals than for (with) our in-laws, neighbours and colleagues.


----------



## George Wallace

Staff Weenie said:
			
		

> ..........  I believe I may set up a private business and offer services to the CAF as a contractor.  I shall call it 'All Things British', though that sounds a bit dodgy....




But.....But......We are "Colonials".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thus demonstrating that, like the average Brit, we have more affection for (and in common with?) our (semi) domesticated animals than for (with) our in-laws, neighbours and colleagues.



Why on earth would you like to keep your in-laws or neighbours laying quietly under your cubicle desk ???


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why on earth would you like to keep your in-laws or neighbours laying quietly under your cubicle desk ???



Because that way they aren't around my house on evenings, weekends and holidays.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why on earth would you like to keep your in-laws or neighbours laying quietly under your cubicle desk ???




Well, it's a bit nicer than the marble slab I have in mind for some of 'em.


----------



## Pencil Tech

cupper said:
			
		

> I think that we need to spend significantly more money to determine exactly what the name of the colour is, and we must ensure that the name is something other than NAVY blue.  :nod:
> 
> God knows the Navy doesn't need another reason to lord it over the other services.  >



Actually it's Midnight Blue.


----------



## Danjanou

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sigh.  I give up.  You win Army staff fucktards.  No more worrying about readiness and combat capability.  No more worrying about caring for our ill and injured.  No more worrying about our relations with key allies.  Let's just transfer ourselves to the Frontiersmen and be done with it.
> 
> Asshats.
> 
> :whiteflag:



Oh sweet baby jesus not that. The sheer scope of trying to interpret their dress regulations would force us to hire Clive Law and the rest of his fashonistas on a full time basis at Disneyland on the Rideau for a decade, making dozens of blackberry Colonels homeless when they had to give up their cubicles. 











However on the plus side we could save a fortune on that whole physical fitness thingy


----------



## George Wallace

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Actually it's Midnight Blue.



Hopefully we don't get embroidered in a discussion of "Salmon" berets.   >


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> OK then, so if DHH only propagates suggestions to those upon high that apparently have to approve things, why isn't the common sense fairy looking at these suggestions before they get by the good idea fairy stage?  Does make you wonder what it is blunt end folks aren't worrying about that they really ought to be.
> 
> MM



Apparently the Good Idea Fairy Killer (GIFK) has retired or been murdered and buried in a shallow grave in the training area.


----------



## The Bread Guy

medicineman said:
			
		

> OK then, so if DHH only propagates suggestions to those upon high that apparently have to approve things, why isn't the common sense fairy looking at these suggestions before they get by the good idea fairy stage?  Does make you wonder what it is blunt end folks aren't worrying about that they really ought to be.


Could it be some folks supporting the decision, quite high up, are some that don't take "no" for an answer?  That the uniformed and civilian staff can't say "no" to?


----------



## cavalryman

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hopefully we don't get embroidered in a discussion of "Salmon" berets.   >


Don't hold your breath.  There's enough fishy stuff coming out of the Puzzle Palace these days  8)


----------



## McG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hopefully we don't get embroidered in a discussion of "Salmon" berets.   >


Freudian?  Embroidery and fashion is the discussion.


----------



## VIChris

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hopefully we don't get embroidered in a discussion of "Salmon" berets.   >



Salmon, no go.
_Aggressive_ salmon, good to go!


----------



## Kirkhill

VIChris said:
			
		

> Salmon, no go.
> _Aggressive_ salmon, good to go!



No, no, no dahlings.  Not salmon. Coral.

http://colors.findthedata.com/compare/644-682/Coral-vs-Salmon


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> No, no, no dahlings.  Not salmon. Coral.
> 
> http://colors.findthedata.com/compare/644-682/Coral-vs-Salmon



'Fawn' is already taken


----------



## medicineman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Fawn' is already taken



Looks awful sandy to me...

MM


----------



## Pusser

Sooooo, what say we now talk about stable belts... >


----------



## cavalryman

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sooooo, what say we now talk about stable belts... >


I'd rather mock unstable staffers who think the good ideas fairy is for real  ;D


----------



## daftandbarmy

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sooooo, what say we now talk about stable belts... >



I still have mine but can tell you they are garbage.... the thing seems to have shrunk considerably!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Huh, I didn't know that the MoD used Logistik as well..   ;D


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Huh, I didn't know that the MoD used Logistik as well..   ;D



They are a UK company.  I think they were supplying the MoD well before they got the contract from DND.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Well, so much for sarcasm.   :facepalm:


----------



## bick

https://www.logistikunicorp.com/en/history.asp

Canadian company.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> https://www.logistikunicorp.com/en/history.asp
> 
> Canadian company.



"Today, Logistik Unicorp is a world leader in the delivery of solutions, services and products that make people in uniform look good."

Obviously, they don't strictly adhere to "truth in advertising".


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> They are a UK company.


You must be thinking of the company that makes it soooooooo smooth, easy and seamless to book and manage travel for government staff ....  >


----------



## cupper

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I still have mine but can tell you they are garbage.... the thing seems to have shrunk considerably!



Just take a long hot bath then throw yourself in the dryer. I'm sure you'll fit after that. >


----------



## medicineman

Pusser said:
			
		

> Sooooo, what say we now talk about stable belts... >



I say "Chuck you Farley".

That is all I have to say about that.

MM


----------



## Old Sweat

And to muddy the waters, we had a young gunner officer we know who is a student on the current AOC up for Thanksgiving Dinner and an overnight. He mentioned there is a rumour making the rounds that there is a move underway to bring the Sam Browne back.

Probably of better reliability is his information that the artillery's Colonel Commandant and the Director are supporting a move to reintroduce the Royal Blue beret.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _rumour_ I heard, but from a pretty junior source to whom I gave little credence, was that some modestly senior folks want to bring back patrol dress ~ the high collared tunic ~ in green. The "hook" for this notion was that the US Army has gone "back" to it's blue uniform, replacing the old "Class A" green uniform, for day-to-day, service dress, with the (historic) "dress blues."


----------



## bLUE fOX

I heard a similar story about the Navy and its high collar whites fairly recently.


----------



## Edward Campbell

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> I heard a similar story about the Navy and its high collar whites fairly recently.




But the RCN already has "high collar whites," doesn't it? Or are they for officers only, or are they just _allowed_ but not _included_?


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the RCN already has "high collar whites," doesn't it? Or are they for officers only, or are they just _allowed_ but not _included_?


https://army.ca/forums/threads/72115.0


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the RCN already has "high collar whites," doesn't it? Or are they for officers only, or are they just _allowed_ but not _included_?



They are optional, private purchase modified from USN whites and are allowed for NCM and Officers.  Not too common, I have only seen them used in weddings etc.


----------



## bLUE fOX

There is a proper Canadian pattern, but i think they start at $400, where as the American ones, before alteration, is $150.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Too much money for that Richard Gere effect.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Allegedly, there's talk of making them an issued item. But that's just wardroom scuttlebutt. Take that for what you will


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _rumour_ I heard, but from a pretty junior source to whom I gave little credence, was that some modestly senior folks want to bring back patrol dress ~ the high collared tunic ~ in green. The "hook" for this notion was that the US Army has gone "back" to it's blue uniform, replacing the old "Class A" green uniform, for day-to-day, service dress, with the (historic) "dress blues."



Was patrol dress ever in green though?  If not, what's the point?  

(I guess we could say the same about any of those rumoured things, but it's especially ridiculous if they're just making up things and calling it "reverting".)


----------



## cupper

You know, it's time to cut through all this BS and finally go ultimately to where this is going and go right back to our true roots.

Loin cloths and wooden clubs.


----------



## cavalryman

cupper said:
			
		

> You know, it's time to cut through all this BS and finally go ultimately to where this is going and go right back to our true roots.
> 
> Loin cloths and wooden clubs.


And then we'd have the argument as to which animal skins are reserved for what ranks & what corps (leopard for officers, tiger for cpls & sgts, etc), and where/how the wooden clubs will be made (will they be from Quebec maple or BC hemlock, etc).  It'll be the same as now, except with a lot more grunting. >


----------



## dapaterson

cupper said:
			
		

> You know, it's time to cut through all this BS and finally go ultimately to where this is going and go right back to our true roots.
> 
> Loin cloths and wooden clubs.



I'll bet you're one of those newfangled "ooh ,fire is so useful" guys, too.

If roaming naked over the plains in pursuit of mastodons was good enough for my multiple great-great ancestors, it's good enough for me.

As long as I can wear pips and crowns or an executive curl while doing it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dimsum said:
			
		

> _Was patrol dress ever in green though?_  If not, what's the point?
> 
> (I guess we could say the same about any of those rumoured things, but it's especially ridiculous if they're just making up things and calling it "reverting".)




Not only was, but still is ...


----------



## Tibbson

cupper said:
			
		

> You know, it's time to cut through all this BS and finally go ultimately to where this is going and go right back to our true roots.
> 
> Loin cloths and wooden clubs.



Well, if we end up with a Liberal government next we may just end up that way sooner then we expect.


----------



## Tibbson

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And then we'd have the argument as to which animal skins are reserved for what ranks & what corps (leopard for officers, tiger for cpls & sgts, etc), and where/how the wooden clubs will be made (will they be from Quebec maple or BC hemlock, etc).  It'll be the same as now, except with a lot more grunting. >



It would have to be fake fur otherwise we'd get the PETA folks protesting at the gates.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I wonder if the Walts are pleased or upset. Upset in that why have to buy new bling. Pleased they can maybe fool people easier


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not only was, but still is ...



Naughty, naughty.   Someone's wearing an ISAF bar...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I'm not tracking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Naughty, naughty.   Someone's wearing an ISAF bar...



Meh, I've still got the ISAF bar on mine. Being retired I don't really care either.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Also, I thought foreign wings weren't authorized unless in the country of issue?


----------



## George Wallace

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> It would have to be fake fur otherwise we'd get the PETA folks protesting at the gates.



Can't have Faux Fur.  It is a petroleum product.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar

recceguy said:
			
		

> Meh, I've still got the ISAF bar on mine. Being retired I don't really care either.



Being retired, you can get away with it.  I was pissed at having to turn mine in, still am.


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Being retired, you can get away with it.  I was pissed at having to turn mine in, still am.



 ???

Why would you have turn yours in?  Am I missing something?


----------



## McG

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> Also, I thought foreign wings weren't authorized unless in the country of issue?


That is the CO is it not?  In a PRes unit with its own unique NPF supplied uniform, doesn't he get to write the rules?


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Being retired, you can get away with it.  I was pissed at having to turn mine in, still am.



I was supposed to turn mine in, never did. I was awarded it, I'll keep it and not wear it. Might go good in a shadow box or something later.

Dimsum: I believe the CANFORGEN that ordered the removal also ordered that they were to be turned in before a rotation bar was issued. I don't think it was highly enforced.


----------



## Ostrozac

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> Also, I thought foreign wings weren't authorized unless in the country of issue?



_Personnel who have been presented equivalent badges of allied countries as a result of qualifications obtained on a course prescribed by the CF, and those who have been presented honorary qualification badges while attached to, or serving with the armed forces of an allied country, may wear the appropriate metal or cloth badge, on the right breast of the service dress and mess dress jacket only while on duty in the specific allied country, when subsequently working with the armed forces of the country or when attending a formal function sponsored by the country concerned._

So it's perfectly legitimate to wear that combination of wings while on a US base in Germany. That must be where the photograph was taken.  :


----------



## jollyjacktar

They were all to be turned in when they came out with the rotation bar.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not only was, but still is ...



Well, in that case then:  







 :stirpot:


----------



## OldSolduer

MCG said:
			
		

> That is the CO is it not?  In a PRes unit with its own unique NPF supplied uniform, doesn't he get to write the rules?



He's the CO of The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada. 

Rifle Regiments are....different. I know, I'm the RSM of one of them. And we do write our own rules....but not when it comes to wearing foreign stuff.

The Queen's Own Rifles are huge for a PRes unit. And they have some powerful friends. And some wealthy friends....from Toronto.


----------



## Privateer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not only was, but still is ...



Is that green? Looks a dusty blue to me.  My cell phone colours must be off.

The only patrols I have seen are blue, but I am in Vancouver.


----------



## OldSolduer

Rifle regiments wear rifle green. He's wearing rifle green patrols.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, in that case then:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :stirpot:



Gieves and Thieves...  overcharging subalterns for their mess kit and service dress since the year dot...


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> That is the CO is it not?  In a PRes unit with its own unique NPF supplied uniform, doesn't he get to write the rules?



Those uniforms would likely be NPP, not NPF.  They would be purchased by the member or bulk by their "Sugar Daddies", not NPF funds.


----------



## McG

With "NPF" and "NPP" we are really saying the same thing (and the system would like the term "NPF" to go away).

If members are buying their own uniforms, that is not NPP; that would make the uniforms property of the member.  If an honorary donates funds for a unit to buy uniforms, then those donated funds are NPF and the uniforms are NPP.


----------



## George Wallace

I am not sure it the uniforms purchased by an unit's Association or Guild would necessarily pass through NPF, but just be purchased by said Association and donated to the unit as NPP.  The Associations would most likely manage their own "Bank Accounts", purchasing items for the unit, administering Bursaries, funding reunions, etc. well removed from any NPF involvement.


----------



## FSTO

It has been recommended by the latest Naval Dress Committee that HCW's become an issue item. 
For the record, I purchased mine way back in 91 from British Tailors in Victoria for about 150 dollars.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am not sure it the uniforms purchased by an unit's Association or Guild would necessarily pass through NPF, but just be purchased by said Association and donated to the unit as NPP.  The Associations would most likely manage their own "Bank Accounts", purchasing items for the unit, administering Bursaries, funding reunions, etc. well removed from any NPF involvement.



That's what we do here. The Association owns the Patrols that the Regiment wears. They also run the reunions, etc. There is no payout from the military or taxpayer, except when the soldiers are part of a scheduled parade, then they get paid as per normal.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> He's the CO of The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada.
> 
> Rifle Regiments are....different. I know, I'm the RSM of one of them. And we do write our own rules....but not when it comes to wearing foreign stuff.
> 
> The Queen's Own Rifles are huge for a PRes unit. And they have some powerful friends. And some wealthy friends....from Toronto.



Regardless of money and friends with power, what about setting the example, following rules and regs, etc or are PRES officers in Upper Canada not required to do any of that?

 ;D


----------



## Tibbson

MCG said:
			
		

> With "NPF" and "NPP" we are really saying the same thing (and the system would like the term "NPF" to go away).
> 
> If members are buying their own uniforms, that is not NPP; that would make the uniforms property of the member.  If an honorary donates funds for a unit to buy uniforms, then those donated funds are NPF and the uniforms are NPP.



Well, call it what you will but my old reserve regt had blue patrols and they were purchased by the Regimental Association, owned by the Regimental Association and leant to the Unit.  The Regimental Association is an entirely private organization, from a CAF or DND perspective, and they are free to do what they want with their money regardless of CAF or DND regulations.  They receive no NPF funds and they pay nothing into NPF.  In fact, much of what is in the three Messes within the Armoury is owned by the Association and is on loan to the Regt.

Now, what bling gets put on the uniforms is admittedly a different matter.


----------



## Happy Guy

All CAF units must comply with the CAF Dress regulations and COs have very limited discretion in this area, but in this day and age it seems that these regulations are only guidelines.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Notwithstanding NPP vs NPF and _bling_ on uniforms, the question was: _did the Army wear green patrols?_ The answer is: _yes_. 

It is somewhat silly that we have anyone (anyone who matters, anyway), above branch/corps/regimental secretary level, worrying about buttons and bows.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Regardless of money and friends with power, what about setting the example, following rules and regs, etc or are PRES officers in Upper Canada not required to do any of that?
> 
> ;D



There maybe exceptions to the rules. I've looked briefly at Dress Instructions but I cannot find anything at this time to see if the wearing of foreign jump wings is prohibited.


----------



## Ostrozac

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There maybe exceptions to the rules. I've looked briefly at Dress Instructions but I cannot find anything at this time to see if the wearing of foreign jump wings is prohibited.



CFP265, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paras 6 and 16. It doesn't say it's forbidden, it sets the rules for where you're allowed to wear them, and the member in question is well within his arcs so long as he was on a US base in Germany (as I tried to imply that he was). Well, I suppose they also could be worn while attending an official function at the German embassy in the US.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Most all units that wear patrols, etc had (have) some leeway in what they want to put on them and where.

However, most of those units have 'closed' their dress book and it now takes an act of God to get any changes done.

There is, however, one Regiment that I'm familiar with, that hasn't 'closed' the book. This allows the RSM to recommend to the CO if something needs to be added, taken away or moved and institute it once it's blessed.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> There maybe exceptions to the rules. I've looked briefly at Dress Instructions but I cannot find anything at this time to see if the wearing of foreign jump wings is prohibited.



I bet he paid a fortune for that uniform out of his own pocket... let him wear what he wants until they issue him something equivalent!  :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62

And it could be soon.


----------



## acen

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I bet he paid a fortune for that uniform out of his own pocket... let him wear what he wants until they issue him something equivalent!  :nod:



The patrols of the QOR are just standard Logistik Unicorps army jackets that are locally modified to the high collar, so in effect, the taxpayer is footing the bill for this.


----------



## Tibbson

acen said:
			
		

> The patrols of the QOR are just standard Logistik Unicorps army jackets that are locally modified to the high collar, so in effect, the taxpayer is footing the bill for this.



No more or less then they are when this army guy was issued an Air Force tunic (shudder) I was to get cut away to wear with the pipe band.  Even the civilian members of the band had one or more available thanks to the extra points of some of the AF types.


----------



## Blackadder1916

acen said:
			
		

> The patrols of the QOR are just standard Logistik Unicorps army jackets that are locally modified to the high collar, so in effect, the taxpayer is footing the bill for this.



Do you have a substantive reference for that?

While some of the semi-ceremonial uniforms (No. 1C - patrols) that the QOR wear may be modified from army DEUs, the description of the item in their Regimental Standing Orders (pdf) as well as the following would lead me to believe that most are tailored from scratch.

CHAPTER 6
REGIMENTAL DRESS INSTRUCTIONS


> 3. Provision of Uniforms and Accoutrements. Most items of standard Canadian
> Forces uniforms, including Regimental specific accoutrements including: cap and collar
> badges, shoulder titles and buttons are provided as an initial issue and are then available
> for cash sale replacement. Other uniforms, including; Numbers 1C, 1D (for Officers), 2
> and 2A including associated accoutrements are to be purchased and maintained at
> members’ expense, . Number 1B – Full Dress is provided to specialists such as
> Bandsmen, Pioneers and Skirmishers will be provided as required and controlled by
> Regimental Ceremonial Stores as per Annex A to this chapter.
> 
> 4. Suppliers. There are few tailors within Canada that produce the standard of
> quality expected for uniforms worn by members of the Regiment. A list of recommended
> tailors to be used when purchasing uniforms is held by the Adjutant.



Their Regimental Dress Instructions are very detailed and indicate (including photos) not only the various orders of dress and regimental peculiarities but also clearly states who supplies and owns "Regimental Ceremonial Stores".

As for the wear of multiple foreign parachute badges on the CO's patrols, even that is explained.



> 631. Badge, Parachutist
> 
> 1. Nos 1, 1A and All Variants of 3 Orders of Dress. As per CFP 265, maple leaf
> in red or white based on individual entitlement in accordance with the requirements set
> out in LFCO 22-2. Canadian Parachutist Badge only, except as per CFP 265, worn on
> left chest.
> 
> 2. Nos 1C, 1D Order of Dress and Frockcoat Order: Canadian Parachutist
> Badge and up to three foreign nations’ parachutist badges based on individual
> entitlement:


----------



## acen

I went straight to the source and asked a few friends in the QOR how they get their patrols, again, at no cost to them, at least for the JR's rank level.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Why not take it all a step further....


The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.

Adopts the traditional ranks of British cavalry.

Their belief is that Sergeant was derived from "Servant" therefore they did not have a rank of sergeant. 

They progressed as Trooper, to Lance Corporal, to Lance Corporal of Horse, Corporal of Horse, Staff Corporal, Squadron Corporal Major, Regimental Quartermaster Corporal, and finally....


Regimental Corporal Major.

Personally, I think it sounds pretty cool.


----------



## medicineman

Or we could go the M*A*S*H* route and have Cpl-Capt's as well...

MM


----------



## Blackadder1916

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Why not take it all a step further....
> 
> 
> The Royal Canadian Armoured Corps.
> 
> Adopts the traditional ranks of British cavalry.
> 
> Their belief is that Sergeant was derived from "Servant" therefore they did not have a rank of sergeant.
> 
> They progressed as Trooper, to Lance Corporal, to Lance Corporal of Horse, Corporal of Horse, Staff Corporal, Squadron Corporal Major, Regimental Quartermaster Corporal, ....



Except that they are not the traditional ranks of the British cavalry; only the "Household Cavalry" follows such practise.  The rest of the British army that continues a cavalry tradition uses "sergeant".  The only Canadian regiment that could make a case for such stupidity would probably be the Governor General's Horse Guards, though their only lineage to the Household Cavalry is by alliance.


----------



## Remius

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And it could be soon.



I've heard the same thing.


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Necrothread Revival (I know sounds like a modern EMO band's name eh ? lol)
> 
> After looking through the Log Branch website dpaterson provided me.  I had to raise this issue again.  I think we, as Loggies, need to make this issue felt up the Log Food chain.
> 
> The MWO/CPO2 and below need a new and better quality capbadge.  This shouldn't take mountains to move...  Any Snr Log pers reading this (Pusser, Armyvern I'm looking at you  ) please push this!



Was done last fall; I wrote same up and submitted to my Commander who presented it to the Logistics Branch Secretariat.  50th is coming ... 2018.  RLS (Royal Logistic Service - as per Strat Retreat this past week).


----------



## Halifax Tar

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Was done last fall; I wrote same up and submitted to my Commander who presented it to the Logistics Branch Secretariat.  50th is coming ... 2018.  RLS (Royal Logistic Service - as per Strat Retreat this past week).



RLS ?  Wow interesting... Royal title but inclusive I would say.  

Whats the new cap badge look like ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Shouldn't that be Royal Canadian Logistic Service.... >


----------



## MJP

Tongue in cheek....mostly



via Imgflip Meme Maker


----------



## Halifax Tar

MJP said:
			
		

> Tongue in cheek....mostly
> 
> 
> 
> via Imgflip Meme Maker



Well played!   

In all seriousness, I don't think a Royal title could have been avoided, no matter how much the Navy Log types tried to dodge and weave around it.  The Log branch is very Army centric and focused, that is meant not as a critique but as a 16 year observation, and i think this was inevitable.  

If we had to go this route this is the least of the evils IMHO.


----------



## Pusser

I think "Royal Canadian Logistic Corps" (RCLC) would be the way to go.  HOWEVER, that designation should ONLY include the Army folks.  The others should be "RCN Logistics" and "RCAF Logistics."  The Logistics BRANCH would then be made up of three sections (RCN Logistics, RCLC and RCAF Logistics), with a common school, systems, etc.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Why not throw on the RCOC as a branch of the RCLC


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Why not throw on the RCOC as a branch of the RCLC



I thought it was.....



> When the Army, Royal Canadian Navy, and Royal Canadian Air Force were merged in 1968 to form the Canadian Forces, the administrative Corps of the Army were deactivated and merged with their Naval and Air Force counterparts to form the Canadian Forces' personnel branches.
> The Royal Canadian Army Service Corps transport and supply elements were combined with the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps to form the Logistics Branch
> The Royal Canadian Postal Corps, Royal Canadian Army Service Corps clerical trades, and Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps were merged to form the Administration Branch (later merged with the Logistics Branch)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Sorry. It is. I meant being called again the RCOC and falling under the re-named RCLC


----------



## Kat Stevens

Because then you'd have a corps within a corps.


----------



## Happy Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think "Royal Canadian Logistic Corps" (RCLC) would be the way to go.  HOWEVER, that designation should ONLY include the Army folks.  The others should be "RCN Logistics" and "RCAF Logistics."  The Logistics BRANCH would then be made up of three sections (RCN Logistics, RCLC and RCAF Logistics), with a common school, systems, etc.


I concur.

Sigh ... I was really hoping that the LOG Branch wouldn't go Royal and if it did, it wouldn't go this way like the Medical Services.

As for the comment that the LOG Branch is Army centric ... The LOG Branch adviser is Air Force as is the LOG Branch CWO:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-branches-logistics/biography.page, however the senior Logistician is MGen Lamarre who is Army. 

Judging from the last survey asking Logisticians if we wanted to Royal, it was a resounding NO from my unit and if we had to, it should only be the Army and not the Air Force or Navy.


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think "Royal Canadian Logistic Corps" (RCLC) would be the way to go.  HOWEVER, that designation should ONLY include the Army folks.  The others should be "RCN Logistics" and "RCAF Logistics."  The Logistics BRANCH would then be made up of three sections (RCN Logistics, RCLC and RCAF Logistics), with a common school, systems, etc.



Because we are ONE service under ONE merit list and career management system; we are purple.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> I think "Royal Canadian Logistic Corps" (RCLC) would be the way to go.  HOWEVER, that designation should ONLY include the Army folks.  The others should be "RCN Logistics" and "RCAF Logistics."  The Logistics BRANCH would then be made up of three sections (RCN Logistics, RCLC and RCAF Logistics), with a common school, systems, etc.



Sort of like how we have a Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (is that right or ?) and regiments with their own identity under it ?  Similar but different ?


----------



## armyvern

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sort of like how we have a Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (is that right or ?) and regiments with their own identity under it ?  Similar but different ?



Different merit lists and career management.


----------



## George Wallace

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Sort of like how we have a Royal Canadian Infantry Corps (is that right or ?) and regiments with their own identity under it ?  Similar but different ?



I suppose.  It is like the RCN having the various HMCS's.


----------



## Pusser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because we are ONE service under ONE merit list and career management system; we are purple.



Not strictly true.  Although there is only one merit list for officers, their career management is separate (with all the problems that this implies).


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> Not strictly true.  Although there is only one merit list for officers, their career management is separate (with all the problems that this implies).



Until their environment decides they are too old for succession planning, then it's back to Branch and Trade.


----------



## McG

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Shouldn't that be Royal Canadian Logistic Service.... >


The "C" is also silent in RCEME.  Tribal identities and loyalties must supersede national ones.   :not-again:

In any case, it is a bit early but are the royal logisticians an April Fools joke?


----------



## Journeyman

MCG said:
			
		

> ....are the royal logisticians an April Fools joke?


I believe the RCAF has exclusive rights to that date.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I believe the RCAF has exclusive rights to that date.



And choice of apparel


----------



## cupper

With all this return to the Royal designations, where will it all end?

Will we ultimately go back to our British roots and become part of the British military? And Canada return to being a colony? [


----------



## cavalryman

cupper said:
			
		

> With all this return to the Royal designations, where will it all end?
> 
> Will we ultimately go back to our British roots and become part of the British military? And Canada return to being a colony? [


As a first step, the Canadian Guards will return to the orbat.  3RCR and 3VP prepare to swap cap badges. [:'(


----------



## dapaterson

cavalryman said:
			
		

> As a first step, the Canadian Guards will return to the orbat.  3RCR and 3VP prepare to swap cap badges. [:'(



Bah, humbug.  Move 2 VP to Gagetown, 1 RCHA to Edmonton, turn Shilo into a training area (not a base), and rebadge 2 VP and 2 RCR as Black Watch!


----------



## cavalryman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Bah, humbug.  Move 2 VP to Gagetown, 1 RCHA to Edmonton, turn Shilo into a training area (not a base), and rebadge 2 VP and 2 RCR as Black Watch!


Sure.  As a bonus we reactivate 3 CIBG, with more HQ jobs, another colonel and the whole shebang  [


----------



## Kat Stevens

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Bah, humbug.  Move 2 VP to Gagetown, 1 RCHA to Edmonton, turn Shilo into a training area (not a base), and rebadge 2 VP and 2 RCR as Black Watch!



And all the skirts, snazzy booties, fuzzy purses and blingy Sgt Pepper jackets that go with it.  Can't get into any punchups then, no money for bullets.


----------



## McG

cupper said:
			
		

> ... where will it all end?


Much of the recent rebranding was forced by the previous government.  One can hope that maybe the new government will put a break on these things and put the closet Frontiersmen back into their closets.


----------



## medicineman

The new gov't will likely rebrand us with blue berets...

MM


----------



## Loachman

Inky said:
			
		

> is the Sam Browne comment a rumour



That will not be confirmed until the official denials begin.


----------



## OldSolduer

And now that it has been seen it cannot be unseen.

The only good thing about it that there is a change of government.....who may not like that idea....



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> That will not be confirmed until the official denials begin.


----------



## George Wallace

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> And now that it has been seen it cannot be unseen.



Not really.

There were a lot of things I saw come out from Trials and Development in Gagetown, that became "unseen".   [


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not really.
> 
> There were a lot of things I saw come out from Trials and Development in Gagetown, that became "unseen".   [



Such as.....


*ready puke bags*


----------



## George Wallace

While doing Trials for SIMFIRE, MILES, SAAB and Talisi weapons effects simulation systems in the mid '80s, we saw the sights for the TOW II.  I am sure that they were never purchased.  

Various turret systems were trialed on M113's as well.  Some early models supporting Chain Guns.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Such as.....
> 
> 
> *ready puke bags*



I remember seeing some of those boots in Valcatraz in 08.  Actually, they weren't that bad looking.


----------



## George Wallace

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I remember seeing some of those boots in Valcatraz in 08.  Actually, they weren't that bad looking.



I think that they were not finally approved because that would have involved issuing all members Dremel Tools with various sizes of polishing attachments, and numerous different colours of polish, to maintain that CADPAT on the boots.   [:-[


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that they were not finally approved because that would have involved issuing all members Dremel Tools with various sizes of polishing attachments, and numerous different colours of polish, to maintain that CADPAT on the boots.   [:-[



Does that qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment" if said Dremels were "forgotten" and one had to use Kiwi cloths instead?


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think that they were not finally approved because that would have involved issuing all members Dremel Tools with various sizes of polishing attachments, and numerous different colours of polish, to maintain that CADPAT on the boots.   [:-[



That thought more or less crossed my mind as well.  I thought those little squares are going to be a bitch to shine.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That thought more or less crossed my mind as well.  I thought those little squares are going to be a ***** to shine.



A buddy of mine had a pair for work up in Wainistan in 2010. He said they were fine until you scuffed the leather and the CADPAT finish wore off. You were left with big green spolches throughout the boot that you hadn't a hope in hell of polishing. 

I think after another 20 years of R&D they'll figure out how to do Boot Allowances. At least thats the hope  :


----------



## jollyjacktar

It is a shame as I thought they would probably be effective from the viewpoint of complementing the other CADPAT parts of the uniform in appearance.


----------



## PuckChaser

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> A buddy of mine had a pair for work up in Wainistan in 2010. He said they were fine until you scuffed the leather and the CADPAT finish wore off. You were left with big green spolches throughout the boot that you hadn't a hope in hell of polishing.



You mean exactly what happens when you have brown suede boots? It's like we didn't learn something....


----------



## Happy Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because we are ONE service under ONE merit list and career management system; we are purple.


The Communication Branch is made up of the Army and RCAF, yet under the Communications Branch there is the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals.  I am not sure but I believe that they have one merit list and career management system.  They too are purple - well sort of.


----------



## Old Sweat

That reminds me of something a very old and close (deceased) friend (even if he was my serial officer on the jump course) told me circa 1973. He was chatting with someone in the ADM(Mat) world who said something like the complaints about the combat boots leaking were unsubstantiated by testing. Chris asked how did they test the boots? The reply was that he drew some boots from supply, applied the silicone from the blue can (anybody remember them?) and put a few inches of water in his bath tub. He then put the boots in the tub and left them overnight. Voila, dry insides of the boots in the morning. Obvious question came back: did you try wearing them walking in wet grass? The answer, of course, was no, why?


----------



## Ostrozac

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The Communication Branch is made up of the Army and RCAF, yet under the Communications Branch there is the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals.  I am not sure but I believe that they have one merit list and career management system.  They too are purple - well sort of.



There are naval personnel in the Communications and Electronics Branch, too, don't forget about them. As to merit lists and career management, most communications MOSIDs are pure army or pure air force, and so don't have multiple environments in a single merit list or career manager (except for one -- there is one C&E Branch occupation that is multiple environments).

Logistics Branch, on the other hand, has a majority of MOSIDs that are multiple environments, including their single officer occupation (as opposed to two different occupations for C&E officers). It's a very different setup from the C&E Branch.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You mean exactly what happens when you have brown suede boots? It's like we didn't learn something....



I think we need to learn the difference between operational dress and parade dress, but thats not for me to fix.


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think we need to learn the difference between operational dress and parade dress, but thats not for me to fix.



You are very correct in your assessment. When CWOs are telling soldiers they better have a set of "parade CADPAT" or "This issue shirt shall not be worn until everyone has one" then we have a problem. 

And its not with formation HQs.....


----------



## FSTO

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> You are very correct in your assessment. When CWOs are telling soldiers they better have a set of "parade CADPAT" or "This issue shirt shall not be worn until everyone has one" then we have a problem.
> 
> And its not with formation HQs.....



To the old farts who served prior to CADPAT, did you wear the olive drab uniform to the same extent the soldiers wear CADPAT today?

I recall that during my BOTC at Chilliwack in the late 80's that the DS only wore combats when we were in the field. When I joined my first ship you only wore Naval combats when you had secured specials and the watch on deck had closed up!


----------



## cavalryman

FSTO said:
			
		

> To the old farts who served prior to CADPAT, did you wear the olive drab uniform to the same extent the soldiers wear CADPAT today?
> 
> I recall that during my BOTC at Chilliwack in the late 80's that the DS only wore combats when we were in the field. When I joined my first ship you only wore Naval combats when you had secured specials and the watch on deck had closed up!


We wore work dress in garrison (the pre-paint by numbers jacket kind that made us look like gas station attendants), not combats - those were reserved for field exercises, ruck marches, ranges, etc.  Heck, I remember doing civilian area clearance in Eastern Quebec for a bde winter ex and we wore work dress then too, going from farm to farm to charm the land owners into letting us play.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Whoa... Lets reel in the nostalgia....  Work Dress/Garrison dress was and is not what we need in our lives :facepalm:

What we need to get better at, especially at the L3 and below level is figuring out whether a 45 minute parade is justification for us to change our operational dress standards.

If Bloggins showing up in CADPAT is substandard for the level of parade being held, change the dress. If not, who gives a rats *** if his suede boots are scuffed? They got scuffed by Bloggins doing his job. Dirty is one thing, but having "parade sets" and uniformity fits over an operational uniform is just ridiculous. 

A lot of these buttons and bows issues would be fixed if we took a harder look at what we are expecting our troops to do, in what specific uniform, and at what point look outweighs functionality.


----------



## RocketRichard

We wore the camo work dress and garrison boots as well as od combats when in garrison.


----------



## FJAG

FSTO said:
			
		

> To the old farts who served prior to CADPAT, did you wear the olive drab uniform to the same extent the soldiers wear CADPAT today?
> 
> I recall that during my BOTC at Chilliwack in the late 80's that the DS only wore combats when we were in the field. When I joined my first ship you only wore Naval combats when you had secured specials and the watch on deck had closed up!



Yes and No.

There were phases. 

When combats first came out we were still hanging around in Tropical Worsted / Battle Dress / FSOD / coveralls but soon after changed to CF Greens which in those days came in a summer / winter weight.

Combats were always considered a very expensive uniform (as opposed to the rather cheaper earlier FSODs) and since coveralls were just too slovenly the Work Dress (gas station attendant) uniform was quickly introduced for garrison work to save wear and tear on combats. As pretty much everyone who was there remembers that Work Dress was a crappy looking uniform at the best of times so some bright spark decided to upgrade our self esteem by giving us the "paint by numbers" smock and high topped, Corcoran-ish jump boots. 

Units varied but mostly the intent was to keep the combats only for field wear although I (like most I presume) was instructed to ensure I had a set of "parade combats". Garrison was generally (but not exclusively) work dress for ORs and CFs for officers.

 :cheers:


----------



## Pusser

Ascots!  Let's not forget the ascots!  They were SO cool!

So cool that UN forces still use them...


----------



## dangerboy

In the early 90's most people in BN went to surplus stores and bought extra sets of combats, so we always had one good set for inspection and sets permanently in our rucksack and kit bag ready for the bug out/inspection.


----------



## FJAG

Pusser said:
			
		

> Ascots!  Let's not forget the ascots!  They were SO cool!
> 
> So cool that UN forces still use them...



In the army we weren't so sophisticated as to have ascots. We had to do with dickies.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Pusser

FJAG said:
			
		

> In the army we weren't so sophisticated as to have ascots. We had to do with dickies.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



It wasn't enough that they looked stupid.  You had to make them sound stupid as well?

 [


----------



## Loachman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> That reminds me of something a very old and close (deceased) friend (even if he was my serial officer on the jump course) told me circa 1973. He was chatting with someone in the ADM(Mat) world who said something like the complaints about the combat boots leaking were unsubstantiated by testing. Chris asked how did they test the boots? The reply was that he drew some boots from supply, applied the silicone from the blue can (anybody remember them?) and put a few inches of water in his bath tub. He then put the boots in the tub and left them overnight. Voila, dry insides of the boots in the morning. Obvious question came back: did you try wearing them walking in wet grass? The answer, of course, was no, why?



While we were pushing for an olive green flying suit in the late 1980s, the Pilot guy in DCIEM (now DRDC/CFEME Toronto) did a similarly-scientific trial in order to justify the then-new light blue flying crap: He put one of his kids in that, and the other in the olive green combat clothing, and sent them walking out into a field. He declared that, at 200 metres, clothing colour made no difference as a target acquisition factor. He briefed this at the annual Aviation Life Support Equipment Symposium. I asked him if he could guarantee that no enemy person would be allowed to approach within 200 metres of a downed Canadian Aviator (actual function, not junior rank), or use binoculars, telescopic site, or any other visual aid. No coherent response was given. Were it not for our F18 guys going to the Gulf War, for whom about a hundred US flying suits were hastily purchased, we'd likely still be stuck in that garbage.


----------



## Poppa

Just saw this.
I tried googling Vimy Star but no luck.
http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/default-eng.asp?path=/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2016/053-16_e.asp


----------



## armyvern

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In the early 90's most people in BN went to surplus stores and bought extra sets of combats, so we always had one good set for inspection and sets permanently in our rucksack and kit bag ready for the bug out/inspection.



My ex (an Infantry guy) would abscond with all of my kit each time he went on course so that he'd have double kits - one for use and one for inspection purposes.


----------



## daftandbarmy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> My ex (an Infantry guy) would abscond with all of my kit each time he went on course so that he'd have double kits - one for use and one for inspection purposes.



Did he look good in your gear?


----------



## armyvern

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Did he look good in your gear?



Way better than I did/do ...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Take off my skirt.
Now take off my bra and panties...

don't let me catch you wearing them again.


----------



## tomahawk6

I think the Royal American Engineers has a nice ring. ;D


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Poppa said:
			
		

> Just saw this.
> I tried googling Vimy Star but no luck.
> http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/default-eng.asp?path=/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2016/053-16_e.asp



Oh Christ. Not again.  :


----------



## Old EO Tech

Poppa said:
			
		

> Just saw this.
> I tried googling Vimy Star but no luck.
> http://vcds.mil.ca/vcds-exec/pubs/default-eng.asp?path=/vcds-exec/pubs/canforgen/2016/053-16_e.asp



Ya I saw Gen Vance today on Power Play with the maple leafs on his Service Dress, and the old GO gold braid, guess we couldn't have less bling than the RCAF :-/

http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=841082


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Ya I saw Gen Vance today on Power Play with the maple leafs on his Service Dress, and the old GO gold braid, guess we couldn't have less bling than the RCAF :-/


I have heard the Army, which initially asked not to revert from unification to UK ranks, has quietly been pushing for change ever since the last government announced the return of British ranks.  If we needed to change two years ago, we already had the maple leaf as a pip and that would have been a better choice then.  But we did not pick it then, and it seems foolish to be revisiting this now.  It is unfortunate that we cannot just focus energies on the things that matter (like operational equipment, force development, or cleaning away HQ bloat).

To end the focus on buttons & bows, do we need to jump straight to the full stupid:



... or maybe can we just now leave fashion alone for a while and invest in important matters?


----------



## Infanteer

Can you get any more bling on those epaulets?


----------



## dapaterson

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Can you get any more bling on those epaulets?



Probably not.


But there's still lots of space on the sleeves!


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But there's still lots of space on the sleeves!


and across the back!

In other news, it seems former CDS, retired Gen Hillier, is a fan of this latest change.



> Glad to see the Maple Leaf back in Canadian army general officer rank. I always believed any rank that included our national symbol was particularly special and I , for one, was proud and privileged to wear it. Maybe it's time that we , as a nation,  grew up, were comfortable with our own symbols and did not feel obligated to resurrect something long outdated.


https://www.facebook.com/CanadianLeadership/posts/10154117328714612


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Oh, dear how truly sad. Liberal-conservative culture wars are back again, when will it stop.  So are we back to our Loblaws-esque Army rank insignia again? Please someone say April Fool!

Here's a cunning plan, let's split the difference between being overtly and politically Canadian and having a bit of style on our uniforms. We should take the star of the Order of Canada and make it our 'pip'. Classy, stylish and Canadian. Questions? Done.

The point to hammer home is that the pip/crown style of rank, even if not literally consisting of a crown for republics, is by far the most common type of commissioned military rank style in the world. Even many non-Commonwealth country have adopted it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> and across the back!


Not to mention the front, as is done in other militaries ...


----------



## George Wallace

MCG said:
			
		

> ......  If we needed to change two years ago, we already had the maple leaf as a pip and that would have been a better choice then.



Agree 100%.  In fact it would not have required any change at all.............BUT.....Someone would not have had a box checked off on their PER.   >


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Agree 100%.  In fact it would not have required any change at all.............BUT.....Someone would not have had a box checked off on their PER.   >


And this way, either two people get the PER box checked, or the same person gets it checked twice  >


----------



## McG

Army news release: http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1045579


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I guess it was "bling envy".

The Army general officers just didn't look as "blingy" as their other elements brethren, particularly the RCAF.

At least they split the difference (Navy: you wear either the sleeves rings OR the shoulder boards, but not both / Air Force: the generals had to wear both the epaulets and the sleeves rings): They wear only the epaulets and the single old style wide band of general officers (without extra rings a-la-Air Force.


----------



## cavalryman

We can't get boots for the troops sorted, but I'm glad we gave our surfeit of GOs  the  African Dictator look. :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, as I look closer to General Vance's pics, I can see that what they did is remove the pip, move the crossed swords up to its location, then added the four maple leaves. Because the "new" Army ranks for generals only had three elements, the crossed swords and the crowns were made larger than the RCN/RCAF ones for the generals and admirals that retained the maple leaves motif, and made into separate elements. The RCAF and RCN general/admiral officers have the crossed swords and crown embedded together into a single element and made smaller than the separate army ones. As a result, their epaulets don't look as "busy/blinged" as General Vance's ones.

I hope this is temporary, as the change just went into effect, and that they will revert to a top element that is the same size as their RCN/RCAF counterparts as soon as they can procure a combined smaller element. What he is wearing now just looks plain goofy.


----------



## Journeyman

"It is easier for the mediocre intelligence to 
become an authority on buttons than on tactics"

Sir Basil Liddell Hart
_Thoughts on War_
1944


----------



## jollyjacktar

That must be why I've always thought the dress police were morons.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Journeyman: Did you just call me mediocre ?

Them's fighting words. Sir. I will have satisfaction!

 :knights:


----------



## Old Sweat

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "It is easier for the mediocre intelligence to
> become an authority on buttons than on tactics"
> 
> Sir Basil Liddell Hart
> _Thoughts on War_
> 1944



Truthful, but also obvious. Dress is something that can be reduced to absolutes with clear choices, and is easy to check on and criticize. Tactics and all that goes with it requires some discretion, a combination of deductive and subjective reasoning and the strength of character to make a decision without all the facts.


----------



## Kirkhill

Quick question: Are Greatcoats on or off?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Tis summer dress.


----------



## Old Sweat

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Tis summer dress.



That wouldn't have stopped the old army!


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Journeyman: Did you just call me mediocre ?


It was directed towards NDHQ, but who am I to limit it's scope.


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .................................... What he is wearing now just looks plain goofy.



Or looks just plain Third World Military.   [

Right cavalryman?



			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> We can't get boots for the troops sorted, but I'm glad we gave our surfeit of GOs  the  African Dictator look. :facepalm:


----------



## Snakedoc

Just curious but according to this article:


'The Conservatives also ordered the removal of gold braid bands on officers’ tunic cuffs. The army is reversing that decision.
“The sleeve braid will be restored to same braid as before 2013,” Magill said.'

Are they just referring to General officers getting the thick gold braid back on their tunics or all other officers as well? 




[Edit to remove link...see following post.]


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Snakedoc...

Thou shalt not post a link to that reporter on this site....

MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## George Wallace

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Snakedoc...
> 
> Thou shalt not post a link to that reporter on this site....
> 
> MILNET.CA MENTOR



As for the question of the thick braid; look at the photos of the CDS that were provided a few posts earlier.


http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1427426.html#msg1427426


----------



## Snakedoc

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Snakedoc...
> 
> Thou shalt not post a link to that reporter on this site....
> 
> MILNET.CA MENTOR



Oh my apologies, didn't realize.. my mistake!



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As for the question of the thick braid; look at the photos of the CDS that were provided a few posts earlier.
> 
> 
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1427426.html#msg1427426



My question was more directed at whether the braids were returning for junior and senior officers of the CA as well since the quote from the article didn't seem to make it specific to only general officers?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Oh my apologies, didn't realize.. my mistake!



No worries


----------



## Pusser

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> My question was more directed at whether the braids were returning for junior and senior officers of the CA as well since the quote from the article didn't seem to make it specific to only general officers?



My gut feel is that the answer is, no, only general officers will have the braid.  HOWEVER, braid for all would not be unprecedented.  Up to at least WWI, Army officers wore pips, crowns AND braid (the braid went around the cuff and the pips and crowns were on a cuff flap)...


----------



## Loachman

Were in not for that, nobody would have been able to ascertain their rank while the they were on horseback.

Perhaps the CF should just go to reprogrammable LED rank displays. People could be promoted via a few mouse clicks, flavour-of-the month/day/hour/minute insignia changes could be done the same way, and brightness and colour changes could be made according to lighting conditions and to distinguish between field and garrison environments. Integral transponders could also cause the higher of two rank badges within a specified distance to flash, and the lower to vibrate discreetly, so that the lower rank would be prompted to salute as a back-up.

As for suggestions to replace Order of the Bath pips with Order of Canada ones, no thanks. The Order of the Bath is/was a military order. The Order of Canada never was, and people get inducted for all sorts of reasons that are beneath consideration for military purposes.

Replacing the Order of the Bath pips because of religious connotations is ridiculous, if that is an excuse being given. Will we replace the red cross on our ambulances and first aid kits for such a stupid reason? What about medals? The Victoria What?

When will this madness end?

Is there no superhero who can save us?

Why are stupid ideas invariably favoured over good ones?


----------



## Pencil Tech

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Ya I saw Gen Vance today on Power Play with the maple leafs on his Service Dress, and the old GO gold braid, guess we couldn't have less bling than the RCAF :-/
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=841082



Wow he looked pretty blinged out.  :facepalm: I'm sorry, with all due respect, etc., that looks like crap.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> Is there no superhero who can save us?
> 
> Why are stupid ideas invariably favoured over good ones?



Because... Waterloo: http://mashable.com/2014/10/27/napoleonic-wars-veterans/#_n01ZvlSakqa


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Loachman said:
			
		

> Were in not for that, nobody would have been able to ascertain their rank while the they were on horseback.
> 
> Perhaps the CF should just go to reprogrammable LED rank displays. People could be promoted via a few mouse clicks, flavour-of-the month/day/hour/minute insignia changes could be done the same way, and brightness and colour changes could be made according to lighting conditions and to distinguish between field and garrison environments. Integral transponders could also cause the higher of two rank badges within a specified distance to flash, and the lower to vibrate discreetly, so that the lower rank would be prompted to salute as a back-up.
> 
> As for suggestions to replace Order of the Bath pips with Order of Canada ones, no thanks. The Order of the Bath is/was a military order. The Order of Canada never was, and people get inducted for all sorts of reasons that are beneath consideration for military purposes.
> 
> Replacing the Order of the Bath pips because of religious connotations is ridiculous, if that is an excuse being given. Will we replace the red cross on our ambulances and first aid kits for such a stupid reason? What about medals? The Victoria What?
> 
> When will this madness end?
> 
> Is there no superhero who can save us?
> 
> Why are stupid ideas invariably favoured over good ones?



Well it was worth throwing the Order of Canada idea out there as a straw man. I know that the Order of the Bath is a military order and I agree it makes sense. Wait a minute, what about, OMM mounted on 4 pointed star as a pip? Personally, I am happy with the current system. But am thinking of ways to depoliticise the issue.

On another related topic, shouldn't we 'grow up' 'mature as an independent country' (to borrow the neo-nationalist tripe) and stop using 'British-style' pronunciation of lef-tenant? 
I know it's American, but we could rebrand loooooo-tenant as being 'Canadian'?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> On another related topic, shouldn't we 'grow up' 'mature as an independent country' (to borrow the neo-nationalist tripe) and stop using 'British-style' pronunciation of lef-tenant?
> I know it's American, but we could rebrand loooooo-tenant as being 'Canadian'?



How about we don't try to fix what isn't broken and show how mature and independant we are by maintaining international commitments and no longer polarizing defense after every election.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's the Info-machine's explanation (news release also attached if link doesn't work) - highlights mine ...


> Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, Commander of the Canadian Army, and Chief Warrant Officer Alain Guimond, Canadian Army Sergeant Major, announced changes to the General Officer Rank Insignia.
> 
> *The Canadian Army is building on the momentum of the evolution of its insignia to change its General Officer insignia*. This will include maple leaves in recognition of our Canadian identity, while still respecting our military heritage. The General Officers, our most senior officer ranks, will continue to wear the gorget patches, an important symbol of the Canadian Army’s historical identity.
> 
> The transition will bring the Canadian Army General Officers shoulder rank insignia into harmony with the shoulder rank insignia of the Flag Officers of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force and lessen the chance of confusion for Canadians and our international allies.
> 
> *Quotes*
> 
> “I am pleased and proud to be the first Canadian Army General Officer to wear the maple leaf insignia. The adoption of the maple leaf rank insignia aligns Army Generals with the rest of the Canadian Armed Forces.”
> 
> General Jonathan Vance, Chief of the Defence Staff.
> 
> “We are proud to announce this change as the evolution of the historical identity of the Canadian Army reinforces the link between today’s soldiers, the Cold War veterans of the unification period and previous generations of brave war heroes from the First and Second World Wars.”
> 
> Lieutenant-General Marquis Hainse, Commander of the Canadian Army.
> 
> “It is with pride, as the senior soldier of the Canadian Army, and representative of Canada’s soldiers, to associate the Canadian symbol of the maple leaf to the most senior ranks of the Canadian Army.”
> 
> Chief Warrant Officer Alain Guimond, Canadian Army Sergeant Major.
> 
> *Quick Facts*
> 
> This transition is part of the evolution of our Canadian Army ranks which will amplify the symbology of the maple leaf in anticipation of the key anniversaries of Vimy Ridge and Canada’s 150th birthday in 2017.
> This rank insignia change will only affect the most senior Canadian Army leaders, currently numbered at 56.
> The move to a metal pin-on rank insignia on the shoulders of our General Officers eliminates the expense of embroidering the ranks on replacement shoulder straps, creating cost savings ...


Also, here's a link to the brand new poster (PDF) of everybody's rank (also here @ Dropbox.com if previous link doesn't work)

Re:  that bit in orange, wherever have we heard that before?


----------



## Loachman

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> On another related topic, shouldn't we 'grow up' 'mature as an independent country' (to borrow the neo-nationalist tripe) and stop using 'British-style' pronunciation of lef-tenant?
> I know it's American, but we could rebrand loooooo-tenant as being 'Canadian'?



So ... show our independence from Britain and our dependence upon the US?

Why not just stop stupid, wasteful, destabilizing dicking around with what we had/have?


----------



## Snakedoc

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's the Info-machine's explanation (news release also attached if link doesn't work) - highlights mine ...Also, here's a link to the brand new poster (PDF) of everybody's rank (also here @ Dropbox.com if previous link doesn't work)
> 
> Re:  that bit in orange, wherever have we heard that before?



Thanks for the pdf, that answers my question about junior and senior officer ranks which appear to be staying the same (darn.. I do have to memorize the 'new' army rank insignias after all!)

The marketing spin put on all this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.. especially since they're just announcing what was already in place a few years ago and making it seem like a new, proud, all Canadian initiative.


----------



## Kirkhill

Or, Loachman, we could go whole hog and render all of these foreign names back into common English.

To wit:  

Lieutenant becomes "Place Holder"
2nd Lieutenant becomes "Assistant Place Holder"

In the same vein

Captain becomes "Head"
Sergeant becomes "Servant"
Sergeant Major becomes "Senior Servant"

Colonel becomes "Head of the Column"
Lieutenant Colonel becomes "Head of the Column's Place Holder"

The General Ranks then become "General Head" to replace the original Captain-General.
The other General Ranks would be:

"The General Head's Place Holder" (Lieutenant-General)
"The General Head's Senior Servant" (Major-General)
"Head of the Formation" (Brigadier).

And everything is reduced to modern English. Clarity ensues.

Oops! Forgot one.  Corporal becomes Body - as in the body of troops. - Canadianized to Buddy.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Leave it to a Scot to sow confusion amongst the English.   >


----------



## Kirkhill

It's getting easier all the time.   [


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> reinforces the link between today’s soldiers, the Cold War veterans of the unification period and previous generations of brave war heroes from the First and Second World Wars.”



What a load of bullshit bafflegab that was. :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It's getting easier all the time.   [



And no less satisfying, I'm sure.    :nod:


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Oops! Forgot one.  Corporal becomes Body - as in the body of troops. - Canadianized to Buddy.









;D


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Loachman said:
			
		

> So ... show our independence from Britain and our dependence upon the US?
> 
> Why not just stop stupid, wasteful, destabilizing dicking around with what we had/have?



Sorry, my roundabout way of saying, let's not cut off our (British traditions) nose to spite our (Canadian nationalist) face. The Services traditions, all things considered, seem to have reached a decent balance between unification/preunification, etc.

Military procurement, defence & security policy....now those are a shambles and are the real issues...


----------



## Flavus101

Then let's stop suggesting changing how we pronounce ranks and focus on the issues that matter. Who knows what good idea fairies are lurking around...  :dunno:


----------



## Pusser

We could also take a "traditional" page from the WRCNS book and go with "third officer," "second officer," "first officer," etc.   > :stirpot:


----------



## The Bread Guy

So, I guess this guy should save his letter in historic archives now?  >


> Nice letter today [size=8pt](20 Aug 2013) from @pmharper thanking me for my support in gov. restoring Canadian Army traditional rank insignia. HonLCol Vic Fedeli[/size]


----------



## The Bread Guy

recceguy said:
			
		

> What a load of bullshit bafflegab that was. :facepalm:


My fave ...


> ... The transition will bring the Canadian Army General Officers shoulder rank insignia into harmony with the shoulder rank insignia of the Flag Officers of the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force and lessen the chance of confusion for Canadians and our international allies ...


Funny, where have I heard that before, about 440 days ago (also attached if link doesn't work)?


> ... The return to the common use of traditional and internationally recognized Army rank convention of stars and crowns has already received favourable comments from officers serving with NATO, who say that the restored Canadian rank is more easily recognized by our allies ...


I guess there were still "recognition issues" - this change'll REALLY make our officers recognized - a year's a long time for the Directorate of Buttons & Bows (see attached badge), I guess ... :facepalm:


----------



## Loachman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, I guess this guy should save his letter in historic archives now?  >



I hope that somebody tells that idiot what a lot of us think.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Loachman said:
			
		

> I hope that somebody tells that idiot what a lot of us think.



Well colour me guilty


----------



## The Bread Guy

Loachman said:
			
		

> I hope that somebody tells that idiot what a lot of us think.


I wish it would make a difference, but I suspect it won't ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Damage has been done


----------



## Journeyman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> "It is easier for the mediocre intelligence to
> become an authority on buttons than on tactics"
> 
> Sir Basil Liddell Hart
> _Thoughts on War_
> 1944
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthful, but also obvious. Dress is something that can be reduced to absolutes with clear choices, and is easy to check on and criticize. Tactics and all that goes with it requires some discretion, a combination of deductive and subjective reasoning and the strength of character to make a decision without all the facts.
Click to expand...


Yes; Correct.  

The 'so what' comes from taking a look at the ratio of strategic thinking : buttons & bows coming out of NDHQ;  maybe Ottawa has more than its fair share of people needing mandatory IQ tests signing off on this garbage.



I realize that perhaps my one personality flaw is being too subtle.


----------



## Happy Guy

Removed link to he who is to remain absent from this site.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I worked for Gen Vance years ago.  I can honestly state that he remained true to The RCR slogan: "Never pass a fault".  He would have no problem in dealing with rebellious BGens over this button and bow issue.  There is something more to this in my opinion.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Happy Guy...

Thou shalt not post a link to that reporter on this site....

MILNET.CA MENTOR


----------



## medicineman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or, Loachman, we could go whole hog and render all of these foreign names back into common English.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> Lieutenant becomes "Place Holder"
> 2nd Lieutenant becomes "Assistant Place Holder"
> 
> In the same vein
> 
> Captain becomes "Head"
> Sergeant becomes "Servant"
> Sergeant Major becomes "Senior Servant"
> 
> Colonel becomes "Head of the Column"
> Lieutenant Colonel becomes "Head of the Column's Place Holder"
> 
> The General Ranks then become "General Head" to replace the original Captain-General.
> The other General Ranks would be:
> 
> "The General Head's Place Holder" (Lieutenant-General)
> "The General Head's Senior Servant" (Major-General)
> "Head of the Formation" (Brigadier).
> 
> And everything is reduced to modern English. Clarity ensues.
> 
> Oops! Forgot one.  Corporal becomes Body - as in the body of troops. - Canadianized to Buddy.



Makes me think of a very anti OP HONOUR joke...like how do you tell the head nurse on a ward?  By the dirty knees...wonder if the same holds true for the above?

Now back to your regularly scheduled slamming of our "misappropriation of much needed money for important things" brigade.

MM


----------



## jollyjacktar

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I worked for Gen Vance years ago.  I can honestly state that he remained true to The RCR slogan: "Never pass a fault".  He would have no problem in dealing with rebellious BGens over this button and bow issue.  There is something more to this in my opinion.



I worked in the same building as him in KAF when I was inside the wire.  There is not one thing I could say against the man and his ethics,  he has my utmost respect and loyalty.  And you're right, he does not pass a fault.  As I found out during my first ever encounter with him.


----------



## Happy Guy

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Happy Guy...
> 
> Thou shalt not post a link to that reporter on this site....
> 
> MILNET.CA MENTOR


ACK.  My apologizes.


----------



## medicineman

The CDS was my CO when I was first at 2RCR as HQ/Combat Support Coy's medic - we'd had some very interesting chats, plus he wandered in on some classes I was teaching.  He also lit me up on the battalion net once...all while I was getting lit up by two other company commanders at the same time.  He's a very pleasant guy, but can turn on a dime and make you feel very tiny if need be...or wish you were very tiny.

MM


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> ACK.  My apologizes.



No worries...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Thankfully his reaction to me was a "nice" correction on how I phrased my answers to his questions.   The fault was all mine and well deserved.    :-[


----------



## Snakedoc

So I finally had a chance to read the CANFORGEN on the 'evolution of CA officer ranks.'

Anybody know how the inclusion of the Vimy Star and the alteration to the pips for OCdt to Colonel ranks will look like?  Is this a permanent thing or just to recognize the centennial of vimy ridge for the year?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> So I finally had a chance to read the CANFORGEN on the 'evolution of CA officer ranks.'
> 
> Anybody know how the inclusion of the Vimy Star and the alteration to the pips for OCdt to Colonel ranks will look like?  Is this a permanent thing or just to recognize the centennial of vimy ridge for the year?




What's a "Vimy Star?"

My reading of the bits I have seen is that the pip (which is now the star of the Order of the Bath) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... will be replaced by the Vimy Star ... whatever that is. But, what about Guards regiments? Will they change their distinctive pips, too?


----------



## Loachman

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Is this a permanent thing



What we are learning is that nothing is permanent, and that some idiot, somewhere, is constantly redefining what is "traditional".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Jesus, what a gong show.  I think all this rank changing bullshit makes the CAF look  rancing:.


----------



## Rifleman62

Loachman: 





> What we are learning is that nothing is permanent, and that some idiot, somewhere, is constantly redefining what is "traditional".



A tradition is anything done once. ;D

Are we really changing the pips? Five Rifle Regts all wear gunmetal officer badges of rank. We got together and purchased the new badges, cloth and metal, at no expense to the public. Are we going to change, and who will pay for this whim caused by this governments desire to change everything, except the VAC lifetime pension, that the Conservatives did?


----------



## torg003

In response to the question "What is a Vimy Star?", I would assume it's just the name for a Canadianised pip.  My guess would be that it will be a pip like star with a maple leaf in the center.  Calling it a Vimy Star instead of a Canadian Pip gives the gov't an excuse to use the 100 anniversary of Vimy Ridge to change the pips.
Just my  :2c:.
You might think that it would be easier to replace the pips with the metal maple leaves that the generals now use, but that would mean that all the officer cloth slip-on and CADPAT ranks would have to be redone (very expensive).  By just changing the center of the pip, the embroidered versions could still be used as the center has no detail (just a circle).
As I said, this is all speculation, so have no idea what would be done with the guard units or rifle regiments.


----------



## George Wallace

torg003 said:
			
		

> You might think that it would be easier to replace the pips with the metal maple leaves that the generals now use, but that would mean that all the officer cloth slip-on and CADPAT ranks would have to be redone (very expensive).  By just changing the center of the pip, the embroidered versions could still be used as the center has no detail (just a circle).
> As I said, this is all speculation, so have no idea what would be done with the guard units or rifle regiments.



Metal pips for the DEU tunic is a good idea; although with numerous promotions and no increase in girth, that would leave the epaulettes rather worn.   [

There is NO need for metal pips and crowns on cloth slipons for the DEU shirt or CADPAT.


----------



## torg003

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is NO need for metal pips and crowns on cloth slipons for the DEU shirt or CADPAT.



Right.  I was referring to the embroidered pips on cloth slip-ons.  The embroidered ones leave out the detail in the middle, so changing the metal pips (e.g.  a maple leaf in the middle)  wouldn't require redoing the embroidered ones.  That was the point I was trying to make.

Anyway, I could be totally out to lunch, just complete speculation.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... who will pay for this whim caused by this governments desire to change everything, except the VAC lifetime pension, that the Conservatives did?


Likely the same folks as the last round of "revenue neutral" changes (sadly) ...


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Likely the same folks as the last round of "revenue neutral" changes (sadly) ...



That's today's words to live by. If whatever proposal hasn't got "cost-neutral" or PY-neutral attached, toss it to file 13.


----------



## McG

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Are we really changing the pips? Five Rifle Regts all wear gunmetal officer badges of rank. We got together and purchased the new badges, cloth and metal, at no expense to the public. Are we going to change, and who will pay for this whim ... ?


CANARMYGEN 002/16 (from yesterday) announces an approval for Army corps and units to transfer the costs of MND approved corps service dress identifiers, accoutrements, and approved flags and pennants from NPF to public funds.  That would seem to suggest, to me, that this new rank change (and future re-stocking of shelves) will be paid by public funds.  This is a positive announcement.  NPF should be used for soldier morale and welfare.  Neither NPF nor soldiers themselves should be paying for what we order pers to wear as uniforms.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> ... caused by this governments desire to change everything, except the VAC lifetime pension, that the Conservatives did?


I am not so sure this has anything to do with the new government undoing things of the last government.  Unlike every other deliberate reversion of a Conservative initiative, I have not yet seen a government minister attach his face to this … not even a statement from the MND.  I think the Army drove this.

The Army was against the transition to British rank insignia.  There was a letter floating about the internet somewhere 3 – 4 years back listing those elements of historical restoration that the Army supported and opposed – British rank insignia was not supported.  In months before the announcement the then Army Commander, LGen Devlin, was openly opposed the idea when question on the topic in townhalls and then he stuck with the media lines from the time of the announcement with the minister.  Media reports also state those “changes were not universally welcomed by a generation of army officers who proudly served under the Canadian-oriented insignia and designations for almost 50 years.”

I had heard rumours that the Army had been working to develop a counter proposal to either completely return to unification ranks or to introduce a Canadianized alternative to the British star.  Looking at things now, I suspect there must have been some truth to those rumours.

Who is driving things aside, it is still just another round of waste on fashion.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's today's words to live by. If whatever proposal hasn't got "cost-neutral" or PY-neutral attached, toss it to file 13.


But Buttons & Bows 1.0 wasn't supposed to be costing anything/much, either


----------



## armyvern

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But Buttons & Bows 1.0 wasn't supposed to be costing anything/much, either



That's what they said isn't it? It won't cost but a nickle.

I'm sure this site pointed out the fallacy of _that_ point way back before we switched the first time (along with a whole bunch of things our money would be better spent on).  Now that the time has passed, can we officially refer to that as a "myth"??


----------



## Loachman

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's today's words to live by. If whatever proposal hasn't got "cost-neutral" or PY-neutral attached, toss it to file 13.



And if it has, don't believe it.


----------



## Good2Golf

> And if it has, don't believe it.



Loachman wins the Internet for the day!


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's what they said isn't it? It won't cost but a nickle.
> 
> I'm sure this site pointed out the fallacy of _that_ point way back before we switched the first time (along with a whole bunch of things our money would be better spent on).  Now that the time has passed, can we officially refer to that as a "myth"??



Folks, its sh*t like this whole rank revision to "pips and crowns" - which I disagreed with but no one asked me - that makes me truly thankful I have less than a year to CRA. 

We have several generations of the CAF who never even knew "pips and crowns" existed, but are now subjected to the whims of a few who have the ear of the MND. 

When we can find a truck that doesn't burn, boots that don't fall apart etc then we can concentrate on buttons and bows.

Yes I am pi$$ed.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm sure this site pointed out the fallacy of _that_ point way back before we switched the first time (along with a whole bunch of things our money would be better spent on) ...


WELL before the official admissions, indeed.


			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> When we can find a truck that doesn't burn, boots that don't fall apart etc then we can concentrate on buttons and bows.


That.  Right.  There.  Also, a bit of a blast from the past, with the same sentiment ...


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We should change the titles of all Cpls to LCpl, all MCpls to Cpl, and take thousands of $ from the Sea King replacement to make it possible.  Or . . .
> 
> we could stick to priorities.


True then.  True now.


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> What's a "Vimy Star?"


I suspect it is still just in the mind of the person who concieved it, but I was just pointed to a description in post #11 here: http://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52694



> The VIMY star, according to the briefing from DHH this morning, is a pip with the center 3 crowns replaced with a maple leaf, the motto replaced by " WE STAND ON GUARD" in Latin and VIMY. It will only affect metal pips and not DEU or Cadpat slip-ons.



I can't verify the statement, but if it is true it causes me to wonder.  The media coverage mentioned that this new round of changes was because our allies could not recognize us and because the previous change was not welcome by the current serving generation who viewed unification rank as "Canadian-oriented insignia."  So, if the above description of the Vimy Star change is true, then the majority of current generation officers through the vast majority of the days of the year will continue wearing the same insignia that they don't identify with and which apparently cannot be recognized by allies.  

So, we will spend money to look the same?


----------



## kodachromedude

"and which apparently cannot be recognized by allies."

What, they can't see the "Canada" on the shoulder?  Very disingenuous IMHO.  Should Australia start putting a kangaroo in place of their pips?  No wait, let's not give their Liberals any ideas!


----------



## dimsum

kodachromedude said:
			
		

> "and which apparently cannot be recognized by allies."
> 
> What, they can't see the "Canada" on the shoulder?  Very disingenuous IMHO.  Should Australia start putting a kangaroo in place of their pips?  No wait, let's not give their Liberals any ideas!



The Aus Army has a big metal "AUSTRALIA" badge on the shoulder where the unit title goes on the Canadian DEU.  I guess Australians assume people can read English.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The Aus Army has a big metal "AUSTRALIA" badge on the shoulder where the unit title goes on the Canadian DEU.  I guess Australians assume people can read English.



... or the average age is approaching mine


----------



## dapaterson

Perhaps the problem is that the "Canada" name badges are not bilingual.  Shouldn't they be "Canada/Canada", so it's in both official languages?  Of course, for 25% of them, it would have to read "Canada/Canada".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:rofl:

You made my day. Milpoints inbound.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

kodachromedude said:
			
		

> "and which apparently cannot be recognized by allies."



Seeing as how 4 of the 5 eyes allies (who should be our primary concern) use pips in one form or another, I'm guessing we can read that allies=Americans.

Talking to people at work today, we agreed that the change is likely due to a general going down the US and not being instantly recognized by an American soldier as being a general (we used the analogy that he went to the PX and didn't get saluted by a US cpl). He then came back to Canada and told the other NDHQ people that this was reprehensible and had to be fixed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

When my dad came back from overseas in 45, my mum met him in NYC.  One night, he took her out on the town to see Guy Lombardo and his orchestra at one of the clubs.  Dad wore his Artillery mess kit with the three pips of a Captain.  The maître d greeted them both and ushered them to one of the best tables in the house.  Guy Lombardo made a point to come over and meet them as they were fellow Canadians.  It also didn't hurt that the maître d was all aflutter as he thought dad was a Lieutenant General with those three stars.  Dad always loved telling that story.


----------



## Privateer

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Seeing as how 4 of the 5 eyes allies (who should be our primary concern) use pips in one form or another, I'm guessing we can read that allies=Americans.
> 
> Talking to people at work today, we agreed that the change is likely due to a general going down the US and not being instantly recognized by an American soldier as being a general (we used the analogy that he went to the PX and didn't get saluted by a US cpl). He then came back to Canada and told the other NDHQ people that this was reprehensible and had to be fixed.



This was my completely non-evidence-based guess as well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps the problem is that the "Canada" name badges are not bilingual.  Shouldn't they be "Canada/Canada", so it's in both official languages?  Of course, for 25% of them, it would have to read "Canada/Canada".



Well, you've done it now.  I guess we know what the next idea will be WRT uniform changes.   :blotto:


----------



## Harris

Here you go.  Everything you wanted to know about the Vimy Star but were afraid to ask.


----------



## jollyjacktar

File won't open.


----------



## Harris

Works for Mike and I.  User interface error?  ;D

If you PM me your email I can send it to you that way.


----------



## dapaterson

Fine here.


----------



## a_majoor

More time, money and resources that are _not_ being applied to getting trucks, boots, training ammunition, and other things that are important to operational readiness.....


----------



## Edward Campbell

Harris said:
			
		

> Here you go.  Everything you wanted to know about the Vimy Star but were afraid to ask.




Thanks for that.

But, why Vimy? Why not Batoche or Paardeberg or Ortona or Kapyong? or, or, or? Will regiments that don't carry Vimy as a battle honour now want the Hill 70 star?

Why, in fact, anything at all? Couldn't they just make _Vigilamus pro Te_ go all the way 'round?

 :dunno:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> But, why Vimy? Why not Batoche or Paardeberg or Ortona or Kapyong? or, or, or? Will regiments that don't carry Vimy as a battle honour now want the Hill 70 star?
> 
> Why, in fact, anything at all? Couldn't they just make _Vigilamus pro Te_ go all the way 'round?
> 
> :dunno:



I have to agree fully after seeing the new pip. While I agree with them that Vimy was a major battle, I would disagree that winning Vimy was what got us a seat at the peace conference or that Vimy was even the most important battle that Canada fought in WW1 (I would suggest that the 100 days was of more strategic significance). 

Also, as you mentioned, what of the units that already had Vimy as part of their colours? There is something strange about the distinct need to put a single battle onto what is an outward expression of authority.... Perhaps we can throw Dieppe onto the Jr NCO ranks in 2042?


----------



## Snakedoc

Why are we spending money on this again?  The two look exactly the same unless you went right up and looked under a magnifying glass..


----------



## daftandbarmy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> But, why Vimy? Why not Batoche or Paardeberg or Ortona or Kapyong? or, or, or? Will regiments that don't carry Vimy as a battle honour now want the Hill 70 star?
> 
> Why, in fact, anything at all? Couldn't they just make _Vigilamus pro Te_ go all the way 'round?
> 
> :dunno:



We were commanded by a British General at Vimy, maybe that has something to do with it? 

Meanwhile, I've been looking through my old gear box for puttees. At this rate it's not going to be long before they are reintroduced.


----------



## jollyjacktar

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Thanks for that.
> 
> But, why Vimy? Why not Batoche or Paardeberg or Ortona or Kapyong? or, or, or? Will regiments that don't carry Vimy as a battle honour now want the Hill 70 star?
> 
> Why, in fact, anything at all? Couldn't they just make _Vigilamus pro Te_ go all the way 'round?
> 
> :dunno:



Nothing says Canada in the twenty first century like wasting money on Latin from the first century.   rly:


----------



## McG

It feels like the war of 1812 pin but more permanent.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, why Vimy? Why not Batoche or Paardeberg or Ortona or Kapyong? or, or, or? Will regiments that don't carry Vimy as a battle honour now want the Hill 70 star?


Yellow=cultural sensitivities?
Orange = no round-number anniversaries coming up in the immediate future?


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> It feels like the war of 1812 pin but more permanent.


With all the changes over the past 2-3 years, I'd be flexible about what "permanent" means ...


----------



## Hungover_cat

The "change" from the Maltese Cross to the Cross of Military Merit was what really got me:

"General 1: So that Maltese Cross is kind of an issue being associated with the crusades and all. 

General 2: Guy's! This totally looks like our other medal! Let's just call it that! No need to change anything! 

General 1: That's the kind of thinking we need more of these days! Good thinking, General 2!"

To extrapolate: You can't just take a swastika, call it something else, and have everything associated with the symbol just magically disappear. 

SMH. 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hungover_cat

Read: "You can't take the shit-spots off a shit-leopard, Randy" 

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk


----------



## Journeyman

Hungover_cat said:
			
		

> To extrapolate: You can't just take a swastika, call it something else, and have everything associated with the symbol just magically disappear.



True, but if you say "It saves considerable cost as there is no change to CADPAT, DEU slip-ons, or members’ mess dress," and underline it, then everyone will magically believe we're ahead, budget-wise. 


Hey, I've got an idea for some considerable cost savings....  :threat:


----------



## dimsum

:stirpot:

Hey, it's been 6 years or so since the RCN piped up (pun intended) with some form of uniform change.  Why aren't the MAREs/LOG/INT officers not pushing for pre-Unification branch colours between the rank rings to distinguish themselves from the dirty MARS types?  

Yes, I do like to watch the world burn.

 >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dimsum, get the vocab. right: It's not MARS type, it's Executive Branch Type.  ;D


----------



## Lumber

Dimsum said:
			
		

> :stirpot:
> 
> Hey, it's been 6 years or so since the RCN piped up (pun intended) with some form of uniform change.  Why aren't the MAREs/LOG/INT officers not pushing for pre-Unification branch colours between the rank rings to distinguish themselves from the dirty MARS types?
> 
> Yes, I do like to watch the world burn.
> 
> >



Because us MARS officers won't let them.  >

But in all seriousness, why not? As long as it is only for mess dress, go ahead and use distinctive branch colours on your DEUs.

As this is all news to me, what were those colours exactly? Have any recommendations for CSE?


----------



## hugh19

Various shoulder board colours

Light blue Ordnance
White. Paymaster. IE logistics
Orange Dental
Purple Engineering 
Green was worn by electrical officers but also RCN Special branch. Which are the WW 2 radar officers we sent to the UK. So perfect for CSE
Red Medical
That is all I have on the top of my head.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

According to my _Customs and Traditions of the Canadian Navy_, Lt (N) Arbuckle G. (1984, Nimbus Publishing), the final distinction colours of the old RCN, published in 1951, were as follows:

Executive officers: No distinctive cloth (so - black)
Engineering officers: Purple
Medical officers: Scarlet (but not medical admin officers, nursing officers and medical technical officers, who wore the Wardmasters maroon colour)
Dental officers: Orange
Accountant officers (including paymasters): White (actually it was an off-white that was a bit creamy)
Instructor officers: light blue
Shipwright officers (Nav arch.): Silver grey
Wardmasters: Maroon
Electrical officers (CSE's): Dark Green
Ordnance officers: Dark Blue
Special branch (everything, from admin officer, intelligence officers, information [public affairs]: Light green
Civil engineering officers (BCEO): brick red


----------



## Good2Golf

> Special branch  (everything, from admin officer, intelligence officers, information [public affairs]: Light green



Maybe I've read too many spy novels and the like regarding British security, but I have a different image in my mind of 'Special Branch' than this collection...   ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Danjanou

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Maybe I've read too many spy novels and the like regarding British security, but I have a different image in my mind of 'Special Branch' than this collection...   ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Maybe this is more appropriate then


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, the "Special" branch came into being during WWII, when the type of warfare that developed and the rapid expansion of the fleet suddenly required all sorts of small groups of specialized administrative officers or technical officers not otherwise included in the existing categories. The Navy didn't know what to do with all those "misfits" and dumped them all into the "special" branch.

As few people knew what they did, other than seeing them around walking about the base or at the wardroom, they developed a reputation of being layabouts. That led to a popular and quite funny little ditty called "The Wearers of the Green". I have it in one of my books called "Songs from the mess decks", but I don't know where I've put it right now.


----------



## blackberet17

Rank braids to pips and crowns for all officers.

Pips to maple leaves for generals.

Toss back in the rank braid.

New pips for Cols to OCdts, except Majors.

Why do I have a feeling the Majs will get something new at some point in the next year? Maybe a crown with diamonds, to really set them apart from the WOs?

What a waste of money.

Measure twice, cut once, as Mike would say. Why couldn't "they" figure out the whole pips and maple leaves and the latin crusading nonsense BEFORE they spent the money?!

Oh. Wait. Never mind. Because it would make sense. I keep forgetting that.


----------



## George Wallace

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> ...... Why couldn't "they" figure out the whole pips and maple leaves and the latin crusading nonsense BEFORE they spent the money?!



They obviously did not take into account a vocal religious minority on the civilian side being 'offended', or more likely some PC folk being overly 'offended' in the name of said minorities.  The depths to which our society is sinking is astounding.


----------



## OldSolduer

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Maybe this is more appropriate then



I quite agree. This is moronic and some of my inmates in the special needs area are smarter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Maybe this is more appropriate then



Danjanou,

Send me the link for this. I need a couple.


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, the "Special" branch came into being during WWII, when the type of warfare that developed and the rapid expansion of the fleet suddenly required all sorts of small groups of specialized administrative officers or technical officers not otherwise included in the existing categories. The Navy didn't know what to do with all those "misfits" and dumped them all into the "special" branch.
> 
> As few people knew what they did, other than seeing them around walking about the base or at the wardroom, they developed a reputation of being layabouts. That led to a popular and quite funny little ditty called "The Wearers of the Green". I have it in one of my books called "Songs from the mess decks", but I don't know where I've put it right now.



Oh I met with Uncle Percy and I shook him by the hand
I said, "How is our Navy Sir and is it still on land?"
Tis the most distressing situation you have ever seen,
'Cause half of them are pay-bobs and the rest are wearing green.

"Distinction cloth" (as it was officially known) was discontinued (except for medical branch officers) around 1960 (i.e. well before unification) in both the RCN and RN, largely because there were by then, so many different types of officers in the Navy that they had run out of colours.  Simply put, there were so many left wearing light green that it no longer made sense to wear colours at all.

The Canadian Coast Guard still uses distinction cloth, although they have changed the meaning of some of the colours.

An interesting point of this is that that the rank stripes were actually sewn onto a strip of distinction cloth prior to sewing it to the uniform.  Our tailors today could learn from this.  It would seem to me that sewing the braid onto a single piece of cloth that is flat and straight and then sewing the whole ensemble onto the sleeve (i.e. much the same way they sewed the cheap plastic crap onto the sleeve before we re-introduced the curl), would be easier than sewing each stripe on individually.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Given that the government of Canada, of whatever hue, when it comes to defence spending follows that most British of military traditions, parsimony, then here is a few suggestions:

1. The current pip is renamed, when in Canadian service, as the Vimy Star.  (JUst like HM, when she is over here she is the Queen of the UK, etc. and when across the pond Queen of Canada, etc.).

or else

2. Make the new star but only issue on initial enlistment or as replacement for existing pip when 'unserviceable'.

Personally, I am not very good with change, I have only just got used to the new MTP shirts and they have gone and changed them, again.


----------



## RocketRichard

Is this a harbinger of the return of the forage cap to the army? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## daftandbarmy

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Is this a harbinger of the return of the forage cap to the army?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I hope so. As I'm in a Scottish regiment I won't have to wear one!


----------



## pilotman

Am I the only one to see the CDS with a new hat in the states today??

Looks like the return of the peak cap (at least for the Generals...)


----------



## a_majoor

Yeah,  because we are in desperate need of hats to carry our logistics supplies to the field.....

Someone go and give the good idea fairy a smack to the head.


----------



## Ostrozac

Yay! I love silly hat parties!

Will we get pugarees in a regimental colour scheme?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Am I the only one seeing a bit of "who's got the bigger cap badge" action going on here?  Meanwhile, the Marine doesn't need a big cap badge, does he?  ;D


			
				RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Is this a harbinger of the return of the forage cap to the army?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Good2Golf

North Korea still wins!!  ;D


----------



## medicineman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> North Korea still wins!!  ;D



You could probably fit that little dude in toto into that hat if you tried hard enough...

MM


----------



## Journeyman

The French army was pretty fixated on uniforms and badges.... in 1914.  






War-fighting competencies and equipment?  Not so much.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In 1914, I don't think that either us or the Brits were in a position to comment  from a higher moral ground on the French's war fighting competency or equipment.

But the picture does confirm what we already knew, caps, with or without peaks, are best left to the Navy, where we like them anyway  ;D.

BTW, the only reason the Marines general doesn't need a big badge is because  he doesn't need one considering his 76 medals and ribbons on his left breast side of his tunic (which you can't see in the picture - hidden by people in front). This includes, of course his three ribbons for crossing the street without the assistance of his gunnery sergeant (at 3 different camps) and his assistant-deputy-vice-aide-de-camp badge for serving in that role as a 2LT for a two week exercise without spilling the general's coffee even once.  [


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In 1914, I don't think that either us or the Brits were in a position to comment  from a higher moral ground on the French's war fighting competency or equipment.


I guess my point was too obscure.  Reading here, we can't sort out boots, trucks, aircraft, ships..... but there is apparently no limit to the amount of staff work we can dedicate to changing badges and uniforms.

Our military is increasigly a Potemkin village; _much like_  1914, perhaps we are putting more effort into looking pretty than into being effective.


----------



## RocketRichard

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In 1914, I don't think that either us or the Brits were in a position to comment  from a higher moral ground on the French's war fighting competency or equipment.
> 
> But the picture does confirm what we already knew, caps, with or without peaks, are best left to the Navy, where we like them anyway  ;D.
> 
> BTW, the only reason the Marines general doesn't need a big badge is because  he doesn't need one considering his 76 medals and ribbons on his left breast side of his tunic (which you can't see in the picture - hidden by people in front). This includes, of course his three ribbons for crossing the street without the assistance of his gunnery sergeant (at 3 different camps) and his assistant-deputy-vice-aide-de-camp badge for serving in that role as a 2LT for a two week exercise without spilling the general's coffee even once.  [


Just about spewed my morning coffee all over the table. Thanks OGBD


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...BTW, the only reason the Marines general doesn't need a big badge is because  he doesn't need one considering his 76 medals and ribbons on his left breast side of his tunic (which you can't see in the picture - hidden by people in front). This includes, of course his three ribbons for crossing the street without the assistance of his gunnery sergeant (at 3 different camps) and his assistant-deputy-vice-aide-de-camp badge for serving in that role as a 2LT for a two week exercise without spilling the general's coffee even once.  [



Again, NKOR wins!  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's nice that all this stuff is happening now and everyone has for the most part forgotten about the RCAF leather (non-flying) jacket.   8)


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's nice that all this stuff is happening now and everyone has for the most part forgotten about the RCAF leather (non-flying) jacket.   8)



But is it real leather, or just PC "Faux Leather"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've made every and all attempts to not get close enough to one to know that much info!!


----------



## dimsum

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I guess my point was too obscure.  Reading here, we can't sort out boots, trucks, aircraft, ships..... but there is apparently no limit to the amount of staff work we can dedicate to changing badges and uniforms.
> 
> Our military is increasigly a Potemkin village; _much like_  1914, perhaps we are putting more effort into looking pretty than into being effective.



Cue the RCAF getting peaked caps in 3....2....1.....


----------



## RocketRichard

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Cue the RCAF getting peaked caps in 3....2....1.....


Yup officers may want to stand by...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Back in the day, even us proletarians wore the bus driver lid, not just Officers.  I graduated from Cornwallis in '89 in tans and the forge cap, just like the Pte(R)s in the Air Force and Ordinary Seaman in their Navy DEU.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Back in the day, even us proletarians wore the bus driver lid, not just Officers.  I graduated from Cornwallis in '89 in tans and the forge cap, just like the Pte(R)s in the Air Force and Ordinary Seaman in their Navy DEU.



Yes and when the Army went to berets in the early 90's, GO still had the option of keeping their forage caps.  IFAIK, that policy is still in effect.  But up until now the last Gen I remember actually wearing a forage cap was Baril.  I wonder if the new CDS has issued some new direction for Army GO on forage caps, the hat he's wearing does look newly designed and different from the old pre DEU one.  

Personally I don't miss forage caps at all, just headache generators....


----------



## RocketRichard

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Back in the day, even us proletarians wore the bus driver lid, not just Officers.  I graduated from Cornwallis in '89 in tans and the forge cap, just like the Pte(R)s in the Air Force and Ordinary Seaman in their Navy DEU.


Wore tans and cap in Cornwallis in 88'.


----------



## mariomike

I wore a forage cap too, with RCASC battle dress and later with Logistics greens. Perhaps the forage cap is worthy of its own mega-thread?  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++forage&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8XI3V42cJIaN8Qfv1a7QDQ&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## FJAG

We used to have to wear forage caps when prosecuting or defending courts martial until long after everyone else went to berets with CF Greens/DEUs. Damn things were a pain in the butt to pack in a suit case when travelling on TD.

:cheers:


----------



## RocketRichard

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wore a forage cap too, with RCASC battle dress and later with Logistics greens. Perhaps the forage cap is worthy of its own mega-thread?
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca++forage&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=8XI3V42cJIaN8Qfv1a7QDQ&gws_rd=ssl


Methinks it is worthy of its own mega thread, especially with the rumour mill in full gear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

He likely just wore it in deference to his hosts, who were all wearing forage caps. 

This is how idle conversation wakes the good idea faerie and turns rumour to fact, filling multitudes of 'Leading Change' bubbles and making life more difficult for those that need it the least.

It's an ongoing problem. I had four five* types of regular headdress at one time. Green beret and forage cap for CF greens and tans. Black beret for everyday working uniform and a fur cossack type for winter CF greens. 

*Oh, one more. We were issued a green ball cap we were supposed to wear with work dress.   :


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You are short three headdress, Recceguy: The white and the Green wool toques for wear with the winter combats and that stupid little green winter knit cap we had to wear under the old steel helmets.  [


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You are short three headdress, Recceguy: The white and the Green wool toques for wear with the winter combats and that stupid little green winter knit cap we had to wear under the old steel helmets.  [



The skull cap!  I used to laugh when the guys would were that around for a toque (until someone yelled at them to _stop #(@*#@* around_!!!)   ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916

And the "Elmer Fudd" cap, don't forget that.


----------



## OldSolduer

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And the "Elmer Fudd" cap, don't forget that.



We never did go hunting wabbits......

In all seriousness, can we find a pair of boots that will work?


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And the "robin hood cap" too....


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> We never did go hunting wabbits......
> 
> In all seriousness, can we find a pair of boots that will work?



I think we'll be fighting giant space insects before we see the boot issue fixed.

Then we will have some old duffs wanting to harken back to heritage boots to improve the morale and tradition of our forces. To help fight off said space insects. ;D


----------



## OldSolduer

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I think we'll be fighting giant space insects before we see the boot issue fixed.
> 
> Then we will have some old duffs wanting to harken back to heritage boots to improve the morale and tradition of our forces. To help fight off said space insects. ;D



Priceless! 

I've always wanted to fight giant space insects....and zombies....


----------



## jollyjacktar

It's a shame the Army is still having issues with the boots.  Our sea boots have come a long way to where they're comfortable and functional.


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, so the Chief of Staff has a nice, new, gold encrusted forage cap, complete with the traditional general officer's red band ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... while the Commander-in-Chief wanders about in the rain with a grubby old beret ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... which one will run afoul of the fashion police?


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, so the Chief of Staff has a nice, new, gold encrusted forage cap, complete with the traditional general officer's red band ...
> ... while the Commander-in-Chief wanders about in the rain with a grubby old beret ...
> ... which one will run afoul of the fashion police?


Depends on who has the ballsier Sgt-Major  ;D


----------



## RedcapCrusader

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, so the Chief of Staff has a nice, new, gold encrusted forage cap, complete with the traditional general officer's red band ...
> 
> ... while the Commander-in-Chief wanders about in the rain with a grubby old beret ...
> 
> ... which one will run afoul of the fashion police?



I hadn't quite finished my morning coffee,  and was thinking "...but the Governor General isn't a general..."

Then I realized just how stupid that thought was as *General* is right in his title... 

It is quite peculiar that His Excellency has yet to be seen with any of the new accoutrements that GOFOs are now sporting. Has he just not been out in public as Commander-in-Chief since the changes or is His Excellency's uniform an exception to the rule as to make sure he stands out from the rest?


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Maybe his stuff is on backorder with Logistiks......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's a shame the Army is still having issues with the boots.  Our sea boots have come a long way to where they're comfortable and functional.



But that was a case of fixing what they had broken themselves on purpose.

The old sea boots of the 1970's were sturdy, non-slippery, good all around protection and yet comfy as a pair of slippers. Then, some idiot decided we couldn't use them anymore because they did not have steel toes (regardless of the fact that there hadn't been a single accident involving toes with the old ones - ever), and we went to parade boots until  a bunch of iteration of sea boots led to the current ones.

Talk about self inflicted wounds !!!


----------



## dapaterson

In some ways, you have to feel sorry for Canadian General and Flag officers.

After all those years of hard work and effort, they area finally promoted... and revert to wearing a slightly better looking cornflake.

 >


----------



## Furniture

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It's a shame the Army is still having issues with the boots.  Our sea boots have come a long way to where they're comfortable and functional.



Sea boots are comfortable for the walk up to the parking lot, and walking back and forth between the mess and your workspace. If you had to walk long distances and carry a heavy load they would kill your feet. 

The boot problem faced by the army is much more complicated than reducing weight and adding ventilation like they did with sea boots. That said I'm sure glad we got the new sea boots, saves me having to buy my own boots now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, the only reason the Marines general doesn't need a big badge is because  he doesn't need one considering his 76 medals and ribbons on his left breast side of his tunic (which you can't see in the picture - hidden by people in front). This includes, of course his three ribbons for crossing the street without the assistance of his gunnery sergeant (at 3 different camps) and his assistant-deputy-vice-aide-de-camp badge for serving in that role as a 2LT for a two week exercise without spilling the general's coffee even once.  [



Actually, unlike most military uniforms these days - there is a new love for Velcro badges off all sorts stuck all over the friggin' place - the Marines don't do 'badges' very much.  

Embarassingly enough, the new Canadian 'operational' badge that I saw was 'Sentinnel' or whatever the hell it was.  There were the Americans, with RANGER or SAPPER or AIRBORNE.  

Canadians?  _Sentinel_.  

Please baby Jesus, please make it stop...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Sea boots are comfortable for the walk up to the parking lot, and walking back and forth between the mess and your workspace. If you had to walk long distances and carry a heavy load they would kill your feet.
> 
> The boot problem faced by the army is much more complicated than reducing weight and adding ventilation like they did with sea boots. That said I'm sure glad we got the new sea boots, saves me having to buy my own boots now.



Actually, Weatherdog, we were issued the "old" sea boots I am talking about at the beginning of our Basic training at Cornwallis, and for the 9 weeks duration, we ran everywhere we went with those boots on (and rowed - god did we row - a good hour every day at least in the old cutters) as we trainees were not allowed to walk anywhere between wakey-wakey and sunrise. The boot was comfortable enough for that, and I am sure, would have been comfortable enough for heavy loads and long distances - save for the fact that it was ankle high only.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Actually, unlike most military uniforms these days - there is a new love for Velcro badges off all sorts stuck all over the friggin' place - the Marines don't do 'badges' very much.
> 
> Embarassingly enough, the new Canadian 'operational' badge that I saw was 'Sentinnel' or whatever the hell it was.  There were the Americans, with RANGER or SAPPER or AIRBRONE.
> 
> Canadians?  Sentinel.
> 
> Please baby Jesus, please make it stop...



Luckily, if you have a set of the old CADPAT, you won't have to wear them


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I have 1 set of CADPAT issued at this time;  it's an old set with the slip on and room for the (apparently too small) normal size flag.  Thankfully, I only wear them 2ish times a year so they should last me until I am CRA.  

Most days I have 5 Velcro items that have to go in place.  Still beats having to unhook boot bands from my socks every day!


----------



## Ostrozac

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, so the Chief of Staff has a nice, new, gold encrusted forage cap, complete with the traditional general officer's red band ...
> 
> ... while the Commander-in-Chief wanders about in the rain with a grubby old beret ...
> 
> ... which one will run afoul of the fashion police?



Well, the Governor-General wears his uniform in accordance with the latest published version of CFP 265. The CDS does not. Shades of Bradley vs Patton?

But then again, we're all of us mostly all in technical violation of the rules as written. Has there actually been an update of CFP 265 that includes pips and crowns? The latest version I can find is from 2011, and does not. I suspect the rewrite is trapped somewhere behind our rather dated joint combat doctrine, which has just rediscovered the value of the tripod-mounted TOW (someone in doctrineland must have finally read the AAR from the Vietnam War).


----------



## jollyjacktar

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Sea boots are comfortable for the walk up to the parking lot, and walking back and forth between the mess and your workspace. If you had to walk long distances and carry a heavy load they would kill your feet.
> 
> The boot problem faced by the army is much more complicated than reducing weight and adding ventilation like they did with sea boots. That said I'm sure glad we got the new sea boots, saves me having to buy my own boots now.


I am quite sure they have serious problems.  The pieces of garbage I was issued in 09 for the last tour in the sandbox had me torn to ratshit in no time flat.  I went to the NAFFI and purchased an excellent pair of German boots which were light years ahead of our issued boots.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But that was a case of fixing what they had broken themselves on purpose.
> 
> The old sea boots of the 1970's were sturdy, non-slippery, good all around protection and yet comfy as a pair of slippers. Then, some idiot decided we couldn't use them anymore because they did not have steel toes (regardless of the fact that there hadn't been a single accident involving toes with the old ones - ever), and we went to parade boots until  a bunch of iteration of sea boots led to the current ones.
> 
> Talk about self inflicted wounds !!!



I had a pair of those low cut boots too.  The did have steel toes in them, sadly they had all the shock absorption of plate steel as well.  That, wasn't comfortable.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not sure we are talking about the same boot, jjt. 

The one I have in mind was stopped  from being issued in 1978 and it was definitely because it had no steel toe cap, at which point we went to the parade boots until 1981. The new sea boots in 1981 were like the old model, but with the steel toe cap but minus the cushioned bottom: They were terrible and only lasted two or three years IIRC. 

The boot I have in mind was modification (low cut - no steel toe cap) of the then combat boots used by the Army. They were just as comfortable too.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Hmmmm, they "might" be related somehow.  The first sea boots I was issued when I did the deployment as a Meathead were low cut, steel toe, "sea boots".  They had SFA for cushion for the soles and contributed I am told to many guys having foot problems later on in life with stomping around in these boots on steel decks.  I can't honestly see how they could be described comfortable by anyone unless that someone could also describe the sandals I was issued too as chick magnet material.    Related, yes, in that my boots must have been the mentally ill cousins of your boots OGBD.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Jjt: Are you referring to those wonderful brown leather-straps "roman" style sandals we were issued to go with the green CF tropical shorts complete with golf knee-length socks   ? Now there's something for the bows and buttons crowd to bring back!  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Jjt: Are you referring to those wonderful brown leather-straps "roman" style sandals we were issued to go with the green CF tropical shorts complete with golf knee-length socks   ? Now there's something for the bows and buttons crowd to bring back!  ;D ;D ;D



Socks and sandals?   :facepalm:


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Jjt: Are you referring to those wonderful brown leather-straps "roman" style sandals we were issued to go with the green CF tropical shorts complete with golf knee-length socks   ? Now there's something for the bows and buttons crowd to bring back!  ;D ;D ;D



First off, although those sandals were able to repel even the hungriest of starving prostitutes, they were exceptionally comfortable once broken in.  I like the fact that the enclosed toe meant I didn't stub my toes on eyepads (which, despite the name are not at all soft).  The reason we stopped issuing them was a simple procurement problem.  We couldn't find anyone to make them who was willing to re-tool their factory (NO ONE made anything remotely comparable anymore) for a reasonable cost.  That's when we simply put in place rules for anyone wishing to wear their own sandals.  Unfortunately, the issue has since become moot as the modern navy culture has determined that we will all die an instantaneous and fiery death if we are not constantly dressed head to toe in at least two layers of fire retardant materiel and steel-toed boots.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I am sure it was a shock when Shoeus Maximus went out of business of supplying the navy with those sexy sexy sandals. ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yep! It's too bad we couldn't find an order of Christian monks that took vows of poverty so we could pair up for better deals from Shoeus Maximus ... or to buy their overstocks.  [


----------



## mariomike

I enjoyed reading about the old forage caps ( in this thread and others ). It reminded me of Hogan's "50 mission crush" way of wearing one, compared to the regulation way Col. Klink wore his. 
From the point of view of an 11-year boy, I thought the show was pretty funny.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Since this thread is about "everything old is new again", and forage caps, sandals and sea boots have been mentioned, I thought we all might enjoy this flashback to the "All Green" Navy  ;D

This is class of 1979, the year after my class. Some of you may recognize some current or recent admirals in the crowd of trainees, and some will also recognize the late Cdr "Dusty" Miller, great officer and gentleman I had genuine pleasure working with later in my career, and who had the driest sense of humour you ever heard.

Enjoy: It's Full Speed Ahead for the Navy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4l3NVONvP4


----------



## McG

I remember when “CAF” was previously the formally used name of the military before we slid into “CF” … and now we are back to “CAF”.  But, even back in the original days of using “CAF” our bases were all “CFB”

Recently, I have started seeing a lot of internal correspondence with “CAFB” replacing “CFB”.  Is this just too eager junior officers who are too young to remember that there never was such a thing as a “CAFB” or has the CAF decided to make a name change to all bases?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Are those the same eager junior officers sending internal correspondence to Camp Valcartier and HMCS Naden ?  [


----------



## exgunnertdo

: I'm on leave and can't dig up the reference, I think it was a CANFORGEN. But when "CF" changed back to "CAF" the announcement said that organizations that are "Canadian Forces something something" won't be automatically renamed "Canadian Armed Forces something something" just for the sake of renaming them all. CAF was the only thing that changed. Other organizations would stay "CF..."


----------



## McG

I have noted CFSAC also seems to have become CAFSAC, but I think that change was deliberate by the organizers.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Even in the CF days, the legal name according to the NDA has always been CAF, so sounds from the outside looking in like the good idea fairies are at 'er ...


----------



## Pencil Tech

CFB's that are air bases will become RCAF Stations. Heard that from Comd RCAF.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I thought that's what MCG was talking about in the original post (i.e. that CAFB was for Canadian Air Force Base), hence my sarcastic comment about camps and HMCS'. But if Comd RCAF opens that can of worms, why would my comment not become serious?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Break out those HMCS STADACONA cap tallys.  You've been squirrling away.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Sweet! Kingston is already ahead of the game.

Vimy Barracks
McNaughton Barracks
HMCS Cataraqui.....


----------



## PuckChaser

Army likely started that with Garrison Petawawa, Garrison Edmonton, etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> CFB's that are air bases will become RCAF Stations. Heard that from Comd RCAF.



Next, pre-unification rank names.  Meanwhile the entire RCAF is walking around with some 'pearl grey' and some 'gold' badges, ranks and buttons.

To match our uniforms, some of the Wings should be named RCAF Stations, but the only some of the signs and letter head, etc, can be changed now, and not all on the same station/wing/base/'place'.

But we got new parkas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   YFR?  Who needs that?  Parkas!!   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Army likely started that with Garrison Petawawa, Garrison Edmonton, etc.



It was always my understanding that the "garrisons" were simply localized portions of the CFB's. For instance, around here, CFB Montreal has the Longue-Pointe garrison, the Farnham garrison and the St-Jean garrison.

And rmc_wannabe, the Naval Reserve Divisions never stopped being designated HMCS', even after unification. So HMCS CATARAQUI has always been HMCS CATARAQUI and I guess will remain HMCS CATARAQUI until Canada becomes a republic  .


----------



## RocketRichard

And when Calgary hosted the army it was Currie Barracks and Harvey Barracks. At least us troops called them that. I never heard CFB Calgary (which was most likely the official name).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jollyjacktar

It should be "Camp xxx" instead of "Garrison xxx" if they really want to go old school. 

I was posted to Calgary from 90 to 94.  It was referred to as CFB Calgary in general or if one wanted to get specific then it was Harvey or Currie or Lincoln Park.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I thought that's what MCG was talking about in the original post (i.e. that CAFB was for Canadian Air Force Base) ...


Nope.  I have seen CAFB Kingston, CAFB Gagetown and CAFB Wainwright.  

But, you do get to the point of what I believe really caused us to shift from "CAF" to "CF" in the '80s.  Generally, the three or four letter acronym ending in "AF" is the designator of a nation's Air Force.  I think we switched to "CF" so that people external to Canada's military would not think the acronym is about the parts that fly.


----------



## Loachman

"CF" was used in the seventies. I never saw "CAF" used then, except on the wings of some aircraft.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

MCG said:
			
		

> Nope.  I have seen CAFB Kingston, CAFB Gagetown and CAFB Wainwright.
> 
> But, you do get to the point of what I believe really caused us to shift from "CAF" to "CF" in the '80s.  Generally, the three or four letter acronym ending in "AF" is the designator of a nation's Air Force.  I think we switched to "CF" so that people external to Canada's military would not think the acronym is about the parts that fly.



Gagetown was renamed  "5th Canadian Division Support Base Gagetown" a couple years back so that one is for sure a leading change attempt on someones part


----------



## RedcapCrusader

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> And when Calgary hosted the army it was Currie Barracks and Harvey Barracks. At least us troops called them that. I never heard CFB Calgary (which was most likely the official name).
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



CFB Calgary was such a large footprint, that's why. You had Harvey, Currie, Lincoln Park, Mewata Armoury, the Northeast Armoury. 

Other bases have it much easier in that when you say CFB XYZ it was all in one area.


----------



## Pusser

CFBs have NEVER been CAFBs.  Camps, stations and land-based ships all became CFBs around 1964 (i.e. in the first stages of integration, but before the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act of 1968).  Even after the emergence of the CFBs, those bases with large and disparate footprints still retained their more localized names (e.g. signs at CFB Halifax said, "CFB Halifax (Stadacona)," "CFB Halifax (Windsor Park), HMC Dockyard Halifax, etc).

Any move to change CFBs to CAFBs is unnecessary and just plain silly.

This whole CAF vs CF debate is also silly.  The NDA actually uses BOTH terms, so they are both correct.  The Liberal party of the 1970s did NOT linguistically disarm the CF (i.e. no organization had "CAF" in its title) and the Conservatives did NOT linguistically RE-arm the CAF more recently - it was all smoke and mirrors.  It is perhaps fair to say that early 1970s recruiting commercials tended to make more "liberal" use of "Canadian Armed Forces" in their scripts, the fact remains that bases, schools, etc. still only used "CF" in there titles and that internally, "CF" was the common abbreviation.

It is also worth noting that when the original direction came out, "CAF" was really only intended for external use.  The direction specifically said that "CF" would continue to be used internally and that "CF" entities would not be changing their names.

This whole thing is reminiscent of the whole NCM vs NCO debacle, which some people still don't understand (i.e. one term does not replace the other and both are still correct).


----------



## medicineman

Pusser said:
			
		

> Any move to change CFBs to CAFBs is unnecessary and just plain silly.



Using that most primary law of DND "If it makes sense, do the opposite", some twit will make it happen...they'll even get promoted a couple times.

Thanks for putting that kiss of death on the whole scheme dude ;D.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Next, pre-unification rank names.  Meanwhile the entire RCAF is walking around with some 'pearl grey' and some 'gold' badges, ranks and buttons.
> 
> To match our uniforms, some of the Wings should be named RCAF Stations, but the only some of the signs and letter head, etc, can be changed now, and not all on the same station/wing/base/'place'.
> 
> But we got new parkas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   YFR?  Who needs that?  Parkas!!   >



You can drop them on ISIS to end the war, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I thought we 'were not at war with ISIS'.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/23/canada-not-at-war-with-isil-say-trudeau-and-dion-following-brussels-attacks_n_9532648.html


----------



## Ostrozac

Pusser said:
			
		

> This whole CAF vs CF debate is also silly.  The NDA actually uses BOTH terms, so they are both correct.



We are probably lucky that we are still using the names as set out in law. Lots of departments are constantly 're-branding' themselves despite their names being legally enshrined.

The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is most notable at not wanting to use its proper name, but the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development just barely got their new name enshrined in law before they began using a new name.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> ... The NDA actually uses BOTH terms, so they are both correct ...


<geeky pedant alert>
This, from the NDA - highlights, mine:


> ... *The Canadian Forces*
> 
> Constitution
> 
> 14 The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of *one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces* ...


The law says the group of Canada's military is called the Canadian Armed Forces, no matter what the chapter headings say.  Everyday use of "Canadian Forces" is correct by precedent and common usage, but by law, it's not.
</geeky pedant alert>
 ;D


----------



## FJAG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> <geeky pedant alert>
> This, from the NDA - highlights, mine:The law says the group of Canada's military is called the Canadian Armed Forces, no matter what the chapter headings say.  Everyday use of "Canadian Forces" is correct by precedent and common usage, but by law, it's not.
> </geeky pedant alert>
> ;D



It is law although it's somewhat obscure.

If you go back to the National Defence Act as it was before 1968, s 15 stated that "The Canadian Forces are the naval, army and air forces of His Majesty raised by Canada and consist of three Services namely the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force." At the time of unification, the section was changed into what is now s 14 of the Act which states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."

Technically/legally, the armed forces of the country are called the "Canadian Forces" and the service that they are organized into is called the "Canadian Armed Forces". - I know I know, it sounds a bit silly but it made more sense when there were three services.

I do recall that in the late 1960's/early 1970s we referred to ourselves in various documents, recruiting advertisements etc as the "Canadian Armed Forces" but some time in the 1970, the term CAF went out of favour and we started calling ourselves simply the CF. Anecdotally, we considered that the change came about because our hippy dippy government at the time didn't like to see the term "Armed" being thrown about in the public when referring to the military.

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy

FJAG said:
			
		

> It is law although it's somewhat obscure ...  Technically/legally, the armed forces of the country are called the "Canadian Forces" and the service that they are organized into is called the "Canadian Armed Forces". - I know I know, it sounds a bit silly but it made more sense when there were three services ...


Thanks for the legal/historic education, Counsellor


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Of course if we want to start the silliness of changing the bases designations, which have always been CFB's under the unified forces regime, we also have to start doing other silly stuff, such as changing all the identifiers of administrative forms, so that your leave pass (if you still use a paper one) will now be a CAF-98, and our pubs and instructions, so we will now have the Canadian Armed Forces Dress Instructions in our CAFP-265.  [

Can you imagine all the things that would now have to be reprinted, redrafted or re-issued so we can have the silly "A" added to them?


----------



## Journeyman

...and there was much rejoicing amongst the sign-painters and printing offices....


----------



## blackberet17

MCG said:
			
		

> But, you do get to the point of what I believe really caused us to shift from "CAF" to "CF" in the '80s.  Generally, the three or four letter acronym ending in "AF" is the designator of a nation's Air Force.  I think we switched to "CF" so that people external to Canada's military would not think the acronym is about the parts that fly.



We have parts that fly?!?!  >



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I do recall that in the late 1960's/early 1970s we referred to ourselves in various documents, recruiting advertisements etc as the "Canadian Armed Forces" but some time in the 1970, the term CAF went out of favour and we started calling ourselves simply the CF. Anecdotally, we considered that the change came about because our hippy dippy government at the time didn't like to see the term "Armed" being thrown about in the public when referring to the military.



With the latest round of "deferring spending", there won't be much of the "Armed" in the CAF...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

blackberet17 said:
			
		

> We have parts that fly?!?!  >



The RCAF has all kinds of parts that fly... ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'd almost forgotten...  the good idea fairy has been visiting the SF and Logistik.  They had a prototype army uniform on display at CENSEC this week which kind of looked like something from the pre-unification days in colour, or perhaps the US Army of the Pink and Tans time.  Basically a medium weight olive drab tunic with brass buttons, tan shirt and tie and tan trousers, black boots and a tan beret.  I was told it was for the SF community and had come from that region.

They also had a photo of a uniform which was to harken to both world wars, pre and post unification as well as today.  Sort of a blend of all eras to some degree.  When the Logistik guy saw the horrified look on my face when he was describing it he showed me the tunic photo.  It is intended to use a Sam Browne belt as well as part of the get up.  He said this was to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Vimy next year and was just a "good ideas fairy" floated set up, hoping it would take root somewhere.

I said that the noise he's hearing is the screams coming from the multitude of army folks out there.  He seemed hurt by that comment.   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ohhhhhhhh no.  If the army does this, the others will follow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yU94KwDzxw


----------



## Ostrozac

General Amin approves this message!


----------



## medicineman

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> General Amin approves this message!



Hey, get it right:  General, President [and Syphilitic] For Life, El Hajji Idi Amin Dada, VC ;D

MM


----------



## Blackadder1916

Let me fix that for you.



			
				medicineman said:
			
		

> Hey, get it right: His Excellency  General Field Marshal, President [and Syphilitic] For Life, El Hajji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular
> ;D
> 
> MM


----------



## PuckChaser

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'd almost forgotten...  the good idea fairy has been visiting the SF and Logistik.  They had a prototype army uniform on display at CENSEC this week which kind of looked like something from the pre-unification days in colour, or perhaps the US Army of the Pink and Tans time.  Basically a medium weight olive drab tunic with brass buttons, tan shirt and tie and tan trousers, black boots and a tan beret.  I was told it was for the SF community and had come from that region.



SF Op and CBRN Op don't have branch accoutrements or a specific DEU. If you've ever seen those guys on parade, they wear whatever branch they were formerly affiliated with. Makes 0 sense for them to continue to wear RCAF DEU in some cases, when they will never go back to the RCAF without a VOT/COT. If the SF folks are getting their own DEU and branch identity, that's the only buttons and bows I could get behind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Many folks wear a DEU for say, Navy, but will never sail.

I guess I've just had enough of cuts to bullets, beans and gas and new DEU parka's, ranks and buttons.  If anything, give them all a DEU change to Army and that's that.  NO need for a specific set of #1s.

Next, the air force will want to go back to the belted tunics or something...a la pre-unification and all that sort of stuff.

There is a time to say 'enough', and I think it was 2 years ago.   ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

The SF prototype is a belted tunic as well.  Wait for it, EITS.


----------



## Happy Guy

medicineman said:
			
		

> Hey, get it right:  General, President [and Syphilitic] For Life, El Hajji Idi Amin Dada, VC ;D
> 
> MM


I can't believe that you forgot his title (sarcasm).
From wiki.
His official title was: "His Excellency, President for Life, Field Marshal Al Hadji Doctor Idi Amin Dada, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Seas and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular", in addition to his officially-stated claim of being the uncrowned King of Scotland.


----------



## Cloud Cover

About DEU, this whole thread is just a good example of maybe why the single DEU may have been a good idea after all.   I think once the government makes a decision as to whether the the CAF or CF (whatever it is) is either a first responder organization or an instrument of foreign policy this will cause further changes in uniforms of all types. Perhaps combat clothing of all types will be replaced with this stuff:

http://groupebbh.com/brands/holmes-workwear-workwear

and this for a No 1 DEU:


----------



## The Bread Guy

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The SF prototype is a belted tunic as well.  Wait for it, EITS.


Am I the only one finding it ironic that while militaries worry about uniformity down to the threads on one's grey socks (to use an old precedent), they also worry about how "our gang" has to look different from "those other gangs" so we're not associated with that rabble?

Not picking on SF here, but "gangs" of all kinds ...


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Am I the only one finding it ironic that while militaries worry about uniformity down to the threads on one's grey socks (to use an old precedent), they also worry about how "our gang" has to look different from "those other gangs" so we're not associated with that rabble?



Yep.  

Case in point:  The Royal Australian Air Force's General Purpose Uniform (the blue camo).  They got those to distinguish themselves from the Aus Army, except when they deploy to a place that you need to...uh...camouflage themselves.  Then, they have no issues looking like the Army.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Am I the only one finding it ironic that while militaries worry about uniformity down to the threads on one's grey socks (to use an old precedent), they also worry about how "our gang" has to look different from "those other gangs" so we're not associated with that rabble?



Actually, in the naval component (I almost said "service"), we have always seen that as an "Army" thing. We are rather the other way around, with everybody sharing the same looking uniform. In fact, I think that most naval personnel would be very happy to see "trades' cap badges disappear and everybody using the current "hard sea trade" hat badges. For the seaman, we already have trade badges on the sleeves, so who needs a cap to differentiate? For the officers, I would be open to collar badges for the "purple" trade officers only - Though I am not married to the idea. To me an officer in the Navy is an officer in the Navy. If you need to know what he or she does specifically, you can always ask.


----------



## FSTO

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, in the naval component (I almost said "service"), we have always seen that as an "Army" thing. We are rather the other way around, with everybody sharing the same looking uniform. In fact, I think that most naval personnel would be very happy to see "trades' cap badges disappear and everybody using the current "hard sea trade" hat badges. For the seaman, we already have trade badges on the sleeves, so who needs a cap to differentiate? For the officers, I would be open to collar badges for the "purple" trade officers only - Though I am not married to the idea. To me an officer in the Navy is an officer in the Navy. If you need to know what he or she does specifically, you can always ask.



Totally agree OGBD. MARS/MARE/CSE all know who each other are without separate cap badges, not much of a leap for the rest of them to join the collective!  >


----------



## dapaterson

By that logic, a common CAF uniform with no differentiation would be acceptable to the Navy, since everyone would dress the same.


----------



## PuckChaser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By that logic, a common CAF uniform with no differentiation would be acceptable to the Navy, since everyone would dress the same.



Exactly. Don't need executive curl, just ask. Don't need black thread on nametags, just ask if they're Navy.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, in the naval component (I almost said "service"), we have always seen that as an "Army" thing. We are rather the other way around, with everybody sharing the same looking uniform.



Are you certain there are no "Good Idea Fairies" trying to resurrect Square Rig for MS and Below?  

:stirpot:

Why yes, I do like to watch the world burn.


----------



## MARS

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By that logic, a common CAF uniform with no differentiation would be acceptable to the Navy, since everyone would dress the same.



I see what you did there  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SF Op and CBRN Op don't have branch accoutrements or a specific DEU. If you've ever seen those guys on parade, they wear whatever branch they were formerly affiliated with. Makes 0 sense for them to continue to wear RCAF DEU in some cases, when they will never go back to the RCAF without a VOT/COT. If the SF folks are getting their own DEU and branch identity, that's the only buttons and bows I could get behind.



The "Branch" is the Command and they wear the Command badge on their DEU breast pocket, no matter the DEU 'colour'...for the time being, anyway.  I see what you're saying though about a (fourth) "service" DEU, but that would only apply for the SF and CBRN Operators, as everyone else is a prior MOSID, some of which were a single DEU-colour, others could be any DEU-colour.  Not sure if that was what was intended...you could conceivably see four DEU-types on a CANSOF parade.....when their parade isn't in multi-cam...  ;D

Regards
G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The "Branch" is the Command and they wear the Command badge on their DEU breast pocket, no matter the DEU 'colour'...for the time being, anyway.  I see what you're saying though about a (fourth) "service" DEU, but that would only apply for the SF and CBRN Operators, as everyone else is a prior MOSID, some of which were a single DEU-colour, others could be any DEU-colour.  Not sure if that was what was intended...you could conceivably see four DEU-types on a CANSOF parade.....when their parade isn't in multi-cam...  ;D
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Well, not the ones coming from the RCN ... cause there just ain't no breast pocket on that side of the Navy DEU ;D. 

And small supplemental here: Does any one in these fora honestly believe that the SOF would stop wearing that "command" badge if they ever got their own separate DEU?     I rest my case.


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> The "Branch" is the Command and they wear the Command badge on their DEU breast pocket, no matter the DEU 'colour'...for the time being, anyway.  I see what you're saying though about a (fourth) "service" DEU, but that would only apply for the SF and CBRN Operators, as everyone else is a prior MOSID, some of which were a single DEU-colour, others could be any DEU-colour.  Not sure if that was what was intended...you could conceivably see four DEU-types on a CANSOF parade.....when their parade isn't in multi-cam...  ;D
> 
> Regards
> G2G



If they do parades at all....I was getting at a fourth service DEU, although their cap badge might have a barbell and set of Oakley's on it. [emoji2]

OGBD: why would they give up the command badge? That's part of the uniform. They'd be the only trades in the CAF that didn't wear one. Command is not the same as having a branch affiliation, they're 2 completely separate entities.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Incorrect, Puckchaser.

While personnel wearing the Naval DEU wear a "command" badge on their uniforms when posted to another command than the RCN, no one in the RCN wears a command badge (in fact, I don't think there is a RCN command badge to be found in the supply system since the old "Maritime Command" blue badge was retired upon introduction of distinctive DEUs. (But I could be wrong on that last point))


----------



## PuckChaser

Same deal with the RCAF pers? The point still stands that Command and Branch Affiliation for an Army-centric unit (which CANSOF is), are 2 completely different things.I doubt they'll even get DEU unless they're started the process for a cap badge. That'd be a pretty long process in itself.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RCAF, no Command Badge.


----------



## Good2Golf

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Same deal with the RCAF pers? The point still stands that Command and Branch Affiliation for an Army-centric unit (which CANSOF is), are 2 completely different things.I doubt they'll even get DEU unless they're started the process for a cap badge. That'd be a pretty long process in itself.



CANSOFCOM members who wear an RCAF-DEU wear the CANSOF Command badge on their DEUs, as do, last time I saw them, those CANSOFCOM members who share the dark-blue (aka black) double-breasted DEU of the RCN.

So what "branch" do you envision, inside of the Command that would need its own insignia, other than Assaulter, Operator or CBRN Op insignia? ???

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson

Assaulter is not an occupation.  One of the many problems in the current structure.


----------



## medicineman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So what "branch" do you envision, inside of the Command that would need its own insignia, other than Assaulter, Operator or CBRN Op insignia? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Supporters?

MM


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CANSOFCOM members who wear an RCAF-DEU wear the CANSOF Command badge on their DEUs, as do, last time I saw them, those CANSOFCOM members who share the dark-blue (aka black) double-breasted DEU of the RCN.
> 
> So what "branch" do you envision, inside of the Command that would need its own insignia, other than Assaulter, Operator or CBRN Op insignia? ???
> 
> Regards
> G2G



SF Op, CBRN Op, SO Assaulter and SO Coxswain should all get this new DEU with a common cap badge (Assaulter and Coxswain would have to become trades and not managed specialities like DAP brought up). 

Its interesting you brought up RCAF pers. Friend of mine is RCAF and posted to a CANSOF unit as a supporter. When in CADPAT, he can wear the tan beret. When in DEU, the RCAF has decreed that he is not entitled to wear his tan beret, because they own the DEU and don't want it. I've seen RCN pers with a tan stripe on their caps in DEU on Remembrance Day, which I thought was a good compromise. He was told that they used to wear a tan insert in their wedge cap (like MPs with the red one), but RCAF said no. No one knows why, but sounds like a little bit of empire building.

I don't think its cost effective to be kitting out supporters who likely move in for a few years and then move back out, maybe not coming back. However, there's guys in there who will never go back (trades listed above) who shouldn't be tied to an environment's dress standards that they will never work for again.


----------



## Pusser

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> About DEU, this whole thread is just a good example of maybe why the *single DEU* may have been a good idea after all.



You realize that's an oxymoron don't you?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> SF Op, CBRN Op, SO Assaulter and SO Coxswain should all get this new DEU with a common cap badge (Assaulter and Coxswain would have to become trades and not managed specialities like DAP brought up).



Make all of their DEU Army.  Problem solved.  Simple issue of 'issueing' new DEU already in the system. 



> Its interesting you brought up RCAF pers. Friend of mine is RCAF and posted to a CANSOF unit as a supporter. When in CADPAT, he can wear the tan beret. When in DEU, the RCAF has decreed that he is not entitled to wear his tan beret, because they own the DEU and don't want it. I've seen RCN pers with a tan stripe on their caps in DEU on Remembrance Day, which I thought was a good compromise. He was told that they used to wear a tan insert in their wedge cap (like MPs with the red one), but RCAF said no. No one knows why, but sounds like a little bit of empire building.



CFP 265, CH 1, Art 8 of thereabouts states that local commanders are authorized to standardize dress, etc.  

But ya, this dumbass rule happened a while ago;  SAR Techs now are required to wear the wedge.  



> I don't think its cost effective to be kitting out supporters who likely move in for a few years and then move back out, maybe not coming back. However, there's guys in there who will never go back (trades listed above) who shouldn't be tied to an environment's dress standards that they will never work for again.



Change them all to Army DEU.  Problem solved.

Keep in mind, many supply techs etc wear a DEU for an 'environment' they never have, possibly never will work for again/if ever.

I'd rather turn all the money for DEU into gas and spare parts.  I can actually use that stuff.   :2c:


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Assaulter is not an occupation.  One of the many problems in the current structure.



Understand that, but it is a qualification that has a notable insignia for the DEUs, thus my questions to PuckChaser re: what "Branch" does he foresee for the SOF types (vice a Command or MOSID insignia).

Regards
G2G


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> By that logic, a common CAF uniform with no differentiation would be acceptable to the Navy, since everyone would dress the same.



Yes, as long as they looked like this:


----------



## Nfld Sapper

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yes, as long as they looked like this:



And they look dumb in this pic, wearing white belt keepers and no white belts.......


----------



## FSTO

There always has to be a critic.............


----------



## Good2Golf

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And they look dumb in this pic, wearing white belt keepers and no white belts.......



Well, their Commander is likely having an informal chat with the killicks after the parade. Would seem kind of silly to have them pull out the keepers, only to have them put them back in when they belted up after the informal dit.

:dunno:

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Ostrozac

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> While personnel wearing the Naval DEU wear a "command" badge on their uniforms when posted to another command than the RCN, no one in the RCN wears a command badge (in fact, I don't think there is a RCN command badge to be found in the supply system since the old "Maritime Command" blue badge was retired upon introduction of distinctive DEUs. (But I could be wrong on that last point))



As far as I'm tracking, there are three Commands that don't currently use a Command Badge -- the RCN, the RCAF and CFINTCOM -- and four that do -- Canadian Army, CJOC, CANSOFCOM and MILPERSCOM. I think there are also some ADM's that wear a Command Badge... Mat and IM come to mind.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, I would have expected such deportment from CFINTCOM any way. They just don't want people to know who they are ...   [


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> As far as I'm tracking, there are three Commands that don't currently use a Command Badge -- the RCN, the RCAF and CFINTCOM -- and four that do -- Canadian Army, CJOC, CANSOFCOM and MILPERSCOM. I think there are also some ADM's that wear a Command Badge... Mat and IM come to mind.



Yes, I have my "Acme" Willey Coyote command badge on my CFs with ADM(MAT).


----------



## eliminator

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, I have my "Acme" Willey Coyote command badge on my CFs with ADM(MAT).



And then there's the NORAD command badge that's mandatory for some and optional for others. Comes in two sizes; large one for the tunic and small for the short-sleeve shirt. Crazy.


----------



## medicineman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, I would have expected such deportment from CFINTCOM any way. They just don't want people to know who they are ...   [



If my Command Badge were Casper the Ghost, I wouldn't want to wear it either...

MM


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CANSOF already has distinctive work uniforms.
There is no need for special dress uniforms.
We need equipment. Not new "look at me" uniforms.


----------



## Good2Golf

recceguy said:
			
		

> CANSOF already has distinctive work uniforms.
> There is no need for special dress uniforms.
> We need equipment. Not new "look at me" uniforms.



CANSOF has the equipment too....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CANSOF has the equipment too....



Figures :


----------



## Good2Golf

I'd be willing to bet that CANSOF's re-uniforming is still cheaper than even the pips and crowns that the Army is going through...  :nod:


----------



## PuckChaser

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'd be willing to bet that CANSOF's re-uniforming is still cheaper than even the pips and crowns that the Army is going through...  :nod:



2000 people roughly (if the supporters get it too), probably the same cost as getting all the Majors new tunics in NDHQ (including the extra fabric for those HQ ones).  8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

8)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile, many would likely prefer ...


----------



## PuckChaser

(that don't fall apart in 3 weeks or destroy your feet)


----------



## eliminator

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 2000 people roughly (if the supporters get it too), probably the same cost as getting all the Majors new tunics in NDHQ (including the extra fabric for those HQ ones).  8)



But what will the mess kit look like?!


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

>



So why are they all protecting their junk and/or bellies as the Admiral walks by?  
Is this another of those "we've _always_  done this" traditions.... like the 'sailors should wear kilts' thread?    op:


Damn, that pic is big....especially when repeated


----------



## Ostrozac

eliminator said:
			
		

> But what will the mess kit look like?!



This is what CANSOFCOM needs:






And this is what they will actually get:


----------



## PuckChaser

Is the pouch on the bottom for an entire log of dip?


----------



## dapaterson

[off topic]
Don't go dissing OHMSS.  Lazenby's Bond was the only one to show any real character development.


----------



## Pusser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So why are they all protecting their junk and/or bellies as the Admiral walks by?
> Is this another of those "we've _always_  done this" traditions.... like the 'sailors should wear kilts' thread?    op:
> 
> 
> Damn, that pic is big....especially when repeated



What's the issue? That's the proper position for "Stand Easy."


----------



## jollyjacktar

I think they'd look great in Pirate shirts.  Yarrrrr!


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> What's the issue? That's the proper position for "Stand Easy."


You _may_  wish to have a look at A-PD-201-000/PT-000 CF Manual of Drill and Ceremonial, particularly "Figure 2-4 Position of Stand Easy."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

But Journeyman, you are overlooking the last step in the Stand Easy position, which is found at sub-paragraph 3 c. of Chapter 2 of the A-PD-201-000/PT-000: RELAX!!!!

Personally, five seconds after letting my arms dangle down the side of my pants I would be going crazy figuring out what to do with them. When at stand easy for a relatively extended period, the holding of the arms in front - holding hands together - becomes the most natural position. And in more than 24 years in the Navy, that is definitely the position I have seen just about everyone adopt naturally, when weapons are not carried.

Now if relaxing at stand easy stresses out the Army, well ... that's their problem.  [


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But Journeyman, you are overlooking the last step in the Stand Easy position, which is found at sub-paragraph 3 c. of Chapter 2 of the A-PD-201-000/PT-000: RELAX!!!!


I agree whole-heartedly, especially about the hands in front. 

But some folks live & die for regulations.... and two arm positions only are spelled out in the regulations.  


Edited to avoid drama.


----------



## RocketRichard

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I agree whole-heartedly, especially about the hands in front.
> 
> But some folks live & die for regulations.... and two arm positions only are spelled out in the regulations.
> 
> 
> Edited to avoid drama.


We were taught at CFRC Cornwallis and  Battle School as well as BOTC to never cross your arms in front of your uniform. Best of my recollection anyhoo. But I'm sure a few RSM's (present and former) will chime in. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FSTO

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> We were taught at CFRC Cornwallis and  Battle School as well as BOTC to never cross your arms in front of your uniform. Best of my recollection anyhoo. But I'm sure a few RSM's (present and former) will chime in.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Guess its an Army thing.


----------



## George Wallace

Unless carrying arms, we were taught to place arms behind us, in a relaxed manner, ready to respond quickly to the next "Precautionary" and come smartly to "Stand at Ease".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, well in the Navy, we are lazy about drill ... We like to drag our feet  ;D.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes, well in the Navy, we are lazy thankfully relaxed and not analabout drill ... We like to drag our feet  ;D.



FTFY


----------



## George Wallace

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes, well in the Navy, we are lazy about drill ... We like to drag our feet  ;D.



Ah!  Yes!  I remember "Submarine Drill".... [

Heel to Heel....Toe to Toe....Heel to Heel....Toe to Toe......

Interesting March/Roll/Sail Past.   [


----------



## Kirkhill

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> FTFY



Dragging your feet so much that you haven't left the Victorian era.  The Victorian "Stand at ease", as drilled by the Fort Henry Guard, also had the hands clasped in front "left over right, flat palms, elbows locked straight".   But they also came to a halt with a "check, drag, crack".


----------



## Pusser

First off, clasping one's hands together in front is not crossing one's arms and secondly, having the hands in front is very similar to "Stand Easy" with a rifle (i.e. the rifle is brought in front and the hands come together).


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> First off, clasping one's hands together in front is not crossing one's arms      Correct; and if one actually reads the regulations, irrelevant -- it's wrong.





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> .... and secondly, having the hands in front is very similar to "Stand Easy" with a rifle (i.e. the rifle is brought in front and the hands come together).      *WTF??!!*


Awesome logic. :stars:  
Doing rifle drill, or hell, even a bayonet charge, without a rifle is "similar" but would look absolutely retarded; what's your point? *


But then, you've already posted what you believe about regulations that you personally disagree with:


			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Furthermore, why bother trying to outlaw something that folks are going to do anyway?


  :

We get it, you're supposedly a Senior Officer.  Thankfully, you're a Finance Officer and not actually commanding troops where discipline is an important part of our lives.   :not-again:



* It's a rhetorical question.  You're back to <ignore>


----------



## Furniture

Wow... I've never seen such an uproar about stand easy before. In my 15 years I've always seen a mix of hands in front and behind while standing easy on parade, even the times i've been on parade with the army... shocking I know. 

To get back to the recurring theme of the thread, perhaps if people worried less about minor details like where your hands are positioned when in a relaxed position on parade standing in a relaxed informal chat we would have more time to find innovative solutions to budget restrictions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Wow... I've never seen such an uproar about stand easy before. In my 15 years I've always seen a mix of hands in front and behind while standing easy on parade, even the times i've been on parade with the army... shocking I know.
> 
> To get back to the recurring theme of the thread, perhaps if people worried less about minor details like where your hands are positioned when in a relaxed position on parade standing in a relaxed informal chat we would have more time to find innovative solutions to budget restrictions.



While we're at it, I'd like to see a formal recognition of the 'knife hand' in the drill manual. It's done so many different ways it drives me nuts.

We really need to get with the times out there folks


----------



## Journeyman

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> Wow... I've never seen such an uproar about stand easy before.


And as noted in my response to OGBD, I agree completely that it's a mindless tempest in a teapot.  I cited the regulations *only* for those who claim expertise in regulations, and live & die by them -- claiming something was "a fact" when clearly wrong.

I personally care about parade squares only slightly less than about the military's fixation on badges and uniforms to the detriment of operational focus.


And with that I'll opt out, leaving discussion to the feather-boa soldiers  (...and sailors....and hotel-dwellers).


----------



## RocketRichard

What's the latest rumint for Sam Browne belts for army officers?  Still hearing rumblings...


----------



## George Wallace

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> What's the latest rumint for Sam Browne belts for army officers?  Still hearing rumblings...



STOP RUMBLING!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Logistik want to provide them with the Vimy 100th anniversary uniform they're proposing, I mentioned earlier.


----------



## RocketRichard

Thanks for your input GW and JJT   [


----------



## Loachman

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> What's the latest rumint for Sam Browne belts for army officers?  Still hearing rumblings...



As with pips and crowns and similar follies, it's still only a rumour until it's been officially denied, at which point the madness may be considered assured.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Loachman said:
			
		

> As with pips and crowns and similar follies, it's still only a rumour until it's been officially denied, at which point the madness may be considered assured.



In the collective time saved by the Army not having to polish Sam Brownes, you could redeploy to cure cancer.


----------



## Furniture

If the Army gets Sam Brownes then I demand the RCAF gets to place our hands firmly in our pockets(Air Force gloves) and wear the wedge at a jaunty angle on the back of our heads!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

You mean...you don't do that now?   ^-^

sleeves rolled up, zipper half way down, sqn ballcap sticking nearly straight up.  It doesn't get more 'rebel' that that!  Oh, wait...forgot the Oakley HalfJackets stuck on top of the sqn hat.

That way, no one notices your swanky boots!


----------



## Journeyman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If the Army gets Sam Brownes then I demand the RCAF gets to place our hands firmly in our pockets(Air Force gloves) and wear the wedge at a jaunty angle on the back of our heads!
> 
> 
> 
> You mean...you don't do that now?   ^-^
Click to expand...

It raised suspicions that Wx guy isn't _really_  Air Force.  Could be a Wing CWO-bot....  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You mean...you don't do that now?   ^-^
> It raised suspicions that Wx guy isn't _really_  Air Force.  Could be a Wing CWO-bot....  ;D



I try to stay away from the "Air Ops" vice "AF DEU" stuff as it might result in the submission of a Hurt Feelings Report.   ;D

I do kinda get a kick out of things like pictures of "Air Force Day On The Hill" and see mostly non-Air Ops folks in pictures...but who cares what a button-monkey thinks??


----------



## Happy Guy

So people who are LOG, MPs, CELE, Met, CE (purple trades who can wear the AF DEU), Met Techs and AERE who support air ops but who not aircrew are not part of the Air Force.
I know some people who wear the proudly AF DEU and who work very hard to support Air Ops will resent that remark.
Note that I am Army.


----------



## mariomike

Regarding the pic in reply #5195. The seven without head-dress look like an aircrew. I don't care about the 209-page debate, but ( as historical interest ) does the photo identify the crew?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> So people who are LOG, MPs, CELE, Met, CE (purple trades who can wear the AF DEU), Met Techs and AERE who support air ops but who not aircrew are not part of the Air Force.
> I know some people who wear the proudly AF DEU and who work very hard to support Air Ops will resent that remark.
> Note that I am Army.



A supply tech in Army DEU posted to a Wing is "Air Force" then?  Most of them I talk to happily state they are "Army".  There are hard sea, air and army trades.  Always have been and always will be.  Would you consider yourself an Air Force Officer if you were posted to 4 Wing?  If I was ever posted to an army unit, would I be recognized as 'army' because I was standing in the ranks with them, in blue and aircrew wings?

Supporting air ops and conducting air ops aren't the same.  An AVN Tech is hard air force.  So are all aircrew (not all flight crew are though, as they aren`t aircrew.  That isn`t my distinction, its in the CFAOs).  I see the same difference between a Crmn and a Veh tech.  They work side by side, both might be qualified to drive a tank but one has a PCF, the other has tech qual`s to repair tanks.  That's just reality, not something to get a big emotional boo-boo over.  AEREs are actually hard air; we have some posted right into our Sqn and they're extremely important, just like everyone else.  They seem to get it;  they fix 'em, we fly 'em and no one seems to have a bruised ego in the breezeway or MCO.  Its just reality.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I try to stay away from the "Air Ops" vice "AF DEU" stuff as it might result in the submission of a Hurt Feelings Report.   ;D



And thanks for validating this earlier comment I made...


----------



## Loachman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A supply tech in Army DEU posted to a Wing is


 a member of the RCAF, and may never serve in the Canadian Army, regardless of the colour of his or her dress uniform.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There is an Army DEU rigger qual'd one at Supply at homeplate, I doubt he'll say "hell yes" if I ask him if he is "air force" because he is on a Wing.  And, honestly, I'd not insult him by saying that to him either.  I know lots of non-Air Ops people posted to Wings, and the common distinction I see is "posted to a Wing" vice "I am Air force".  

How many people have come onto this forum asking about a purple trade and how they wanted to an "Army/Air Force/Navy...Supply Tech/Med Tech/RMS Clerk, only to be told by people _in_ those trades "there is no such thing as an *air force clerk/supply tech/etc*?  Countless times.  And it's not meant as an offence; there are people who are AF DEU who may never see a Wing.   

Gotta love not having separate services!   8)  Can we cut the  :argument: off now?  I didn't say "_anyone who doesn't wear an Air Ops cap badge is a cotton-headed ninnymuggin_".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yeah! I got posted to a Wing once, but they quickly realized it wasn't my natural position and they moved me back to centre.    Oh! Wait! we're not talking hockey are we.  My apologies.  [:-[


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mariomike said:
			
		

> Regarding the pic in reply #5195. The seven without head-dress look like an aircrew. I don't care about the 209-page debate, but ( as historical interest ) does the photo identify the crew?



It looks like some "pilot" and "aircrew" wings and one chap without anything on his.  I googled "WWII RCAF Aircrew" and looked thru images but didn't see the same pic.  Maybe Weatherdog has the answer where he sourced the pic.


----------



## mariomike

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It looks like some "pilot" and "aircrew" wings and one chap without anything on his.  I googled "WWII RCAF Aircrew" and looked thru images but didn't see the same pic.  Maybe Weatherdog has the answer where he sourced the pic.



The man on the left, in the dress jacket and wedge cap is a Corporal. Aircrew were Sergeants and above. ( Interestingly, he is the only one grinning. ) 

The others - in operational battle-dress look pretty serious. I suspect their flying helmets are on board the aircraft. 

Hard to get a look at the third man in. 

Just curious because it's interesting to follow what operations the crews went on, and if they survived the war. 

“There are no words with which I can do justice to the aircrews who fought under my command. There is no parallel in wartime to such courage and determination in the face of danger over so prolonged a period, of danger which at times was so great that scarcely one man in three could expect to survive.” 

Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mariomike said:
			
		

> The man on the left, in the dress jacket and wedge cap is a Corporal. Aircrew were Sergeants and above. ( Interestingly, he is the only one grinning. )



Probably laughing at the guy who is emptying his deck of smokes out to everyone  ;D

http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/index.html


----------



## Furniture

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You mean...you don't do that now?   ^-^
> It raised suspicions that Wx guy isn't _really_  Air Force.  Could be a Wing CWO-bot....  ;D


I would ditch the blue leisure suit for the dark blue any day but alas, when I joined Met Techs could only be air.

I found the image using a bing search for "RCAF world war two", I haven't the foggiest who they are. It suited my intended purpose in showing one gentleman adopting my preferred pose.


----------



## dimsum

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> I would ditch the blue leisure suit for the dark blue any day but alas, when I joined Met Techs could only be air.



They're a purple trade now?


----------



## Furniture

Apparently, though I've seen nothing but air so far. I imagine army and navy Met Techs are akin to Sasquatch and the Loch Ness monster... much discussed but infrequently seen.


----------



## Lumber

every Met Tech I've ever sailed with has been Air Force. Every Met Tech and the CFB Halifax (Navy base remember) METOC (meteorological operations centre?) was Air Force.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The last Navy Met Techs went out with the retirement of BONAVENTURE. Since Met is related to air operations, when the Navy ceased to be responsible for its own air ops, the whole kit an caboodle was transferred over to Air Command.

As for the ship's weather forecasting requirements, they have always been taken care of by shore services - Metoc - which employs actual civilian meteorologists for the task, only supported by some met techs. Any requirement for local observations, interpretation and briefing of the picture (for ships) is done by the navigator.


----------



## PuckChaser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Any requirement for local observations, interpretation and briefing of the picture (for ships) is done by the navigator.



Or this:


----------



## Furniture

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The last Navy Met Techs went out with the retirement of BONAVENTURE. Since Met is related to air operations, when the Navy ceased to be responsible for its own air ops, the whole kit an caboodle was transferred over to Air Command.



In 2012 Met moved to the Int Branch. In the last couple of years DHH has approved the badges for Met Techs in both Army and Navy DEU, and Met Techs in all three DEUs are starting to enter the system. When the trade reaches the end goal nearly half of all Met Techs will be in Navy DEU.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for the ship's weather forecasting requirements, they have always been taken care of by shore services - Metoc - which employs actual civilian meteorologists for the task, only supported by some met techs. Any requirement for local observations, interpretation and briefing of the picture (for ships) is done by the navigator.



On all ships apart from the MCDVs the ships weather support is provided by the embarked Met Tech forecasters, METOC only provides met to MCDVs.  

That was my last met derailment... back to the previous discussion of Sam Brownes and peaked caps for everyone!


----------



## Old Sweat

Ballistic meteorology for the artillery originally was provided by the Royal Flying Corps dating back to at least 1915. In the pre-unification Canadian Army the field regiments had their own "met sections" of artillery meteorology technicians (I forget the actual trade title) to generate ballistic met messages in the NATO format by radiosonde data. As well the surface-to-surface missile batteries generated their own met and in addition each launcher section had a pair of met techs to measure the low level winds at the launcher position prior to the firing of a rocket.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> In 2012 Met moved to the Int Branch. In the last couple of years DHH has approved the badges for Met Techs in both Army and Navy DEU, and Met Techs in all three DEUs are starting to enter the system. When the trade reaches the end goal nearly half of all Met Techs will be in Navy DEU.
> 
> On all ships apart from the MCDVs the ships weather support is provided by the embarked Met Tech forecasters, METOC only provides met to MCDVs.
> 
> That was my last met derailment... back to the previous discussion of Sam Brownes and peaked caps for everyone!



I won't discuss the rationale for moving meteorology into intelligence, as personally I just don't see it. On the other hand, I think WeatherdoG's observation on only the MCDV having weather support straight from METOC comes from the fact that he is too young to have known the days when we still had ships without Air det - and a whole coast without helicopters (the left coast) and no Pat Bay Air Group. There were no met tech on the IRE's or the Mackenzie's. And even today, unless the crewing has changed, the submarines don't carry met techs.

But personally, considering that just about all surface ships now have an air component, which can only expand with the introduction of more and more UAV's and drones, I wouldn't mind seeing the return of met techs to the naval fold - but not as Int, but back as the hard sea trade of meteorologist mates. The trade badge already exists.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But personally, considering that just about all surface ships now have an air component, which can only expand with the introduction of more and more UAV's and drones, I wouldn't mind seeing the return of met techs to the naval fold - but not as Int, but back as the hard sea trade of meteorologist mates. The trade badge already exists.



Hmmm.. I don't recall seeing a trade badge that depicts a bowl of chicken guts being poked at with a stick by a witch.  Or would it be a witch on a broomstick flying into a thunderstorm?


----------



## dapaterson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hmmm.. I don't recall seeing a trade badge that depicts a bowl of chicken guts being poked at with a stick by a witch.



Already got that one.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Already got that one.



you.take.all.the.fun.out.of.poking.fun.   

So, what's that one?  Wheat after a hail storm?


----------



## dapaterson

Poking chicken guts equals cook.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Ah! Seen.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, It's a weathervane of the same type you would find on a chicken coop.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

Whence they get the chickens from to look at their entrails for a prediction of what's coming.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Whence they get the chickens from to look at their entrails for a prediction of what's coming.



I know they take the chicken bones and give them to the sonar ops!


----------



## Journeyman

It's only a matter of time before someone of The RCR persuasion weighs in on all this chicken talk and "appropriating culture."     op:


----------



## blackberet17

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And even today, unless the crewing has changed, the submarines don't carry met techs.



I can see why...

[inside submerged sub]
Submariner Sailor: What's the weather like out there today?
Submariner Met Tech: Wet.


----------



## PuckChaser

And depending on the depth, a high pressure system is here.


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I won't discuss the rationale for moving meteorology into intelligence, as personally I just don't see it. On the other hand, I think WeatherdoG's observation on only the MCDV having weather support straight from METOC comes from the fact that he is too young to have known the days when we still had ships without Air det - and a whole coast without helicopters (the left coast) and no Pat Bay Air Group. There were no met tech on the IRE's or the Mackenzie's. And even today, unless the crewing has changed, the submarines don't carry met techs.
> 
> But personally, considering that just about all surface ships now have an air component, which can only expand with the introduction of more and more UAV's and drones, I wouldn't mind seeing the return of met techs to the naval fold - but not as Int, but back as the hard sea trade of meteorologist mates. The trade badge already exists.



I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one.  West coast IREs and MACKENZIEs did indeed have Met Techs on board and the minesweepers had them as well.  In my experience, helicopter ships have always had two (one WO and one Cpl) and ships without helicopters have had one (Cpl).  In all cases, the Cpl Met Tech was also the Nav Yeoman.


----------



## Pusser

Journeyman said:
			
		

> * It's a rhetorical question.  You're back to <*ignore*>



Are you sure you know what that word means?  You keep using it in reference to me and you even seem to go to the trouble of searching out my old quotes in order to place them out of context.  I'm just saying that you don't seem to be especially good at this "ignore" thing...


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> you.take.all.the.fun.out.of.poking.fun.
> 
> So, what's that one?  Wheat after a hail storm?



Those are the torches that the villagers use to burn the witch once they realize she can't predict the weather. [


----------



## cupper

Journeyman said:
			
		

> * It's a rhetorical question.  You're back to <ignore>





			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Are you sure you know what that word means?  You keep using it in reference to me and you even seem to go to the trouble of searching out my old quotes in order to place them out of context.  I'm just saying that you don't seem to be especially good at this "ignore" thing...



FTFY


----------



## Calvillo

Question. With the new new rank insignia, does it mean that when in DEU an RCAF flag officer wears the rank on his/her sleeves AND shoulders?


----------



## Loachman

General Officer, as Flag Officers are Navy, and yes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As Loachman has said: Yes.

The Air Force generals couldn't possibly have been caught in a uniform with less bling on them than the Army G.O's or Flag Officers, or even both of these combined.  ;D  It just wouldn't do.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The Air Force generals couldn't possibly have been caught in a uniform with less bling on them than the Army G.O's or Flag Officers, or even both of these combined.  ;D  It just wouldn't do.


There is the problem with the whole fashion transformation - it is all sneetches and peacocks.  Each tribe trying to set itself apart and above the other tribes.  

It is a path of nonsense and squandered efforts.  One day we will find ourselves with this:


----------



## The Bread Guy

... or this (although I wonder why the third guy from the right appears to have a medal on his ... nether regions):





*#blingonpantsrule* *#moreblingfewerboots*


----------



## medicineman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ... or this (although I wonder why the third guy from the right appears to have a medal on his ... nether regions):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *#blingonpantsrule* *#moreblingfewerboots*



It's either his "Manscaping Commendation Medal" or "The Order of Eunuchs" medal.

MM


----------



## The Bread Guy

medicineman said:
			
		

> It's either his "Manscaping Commendation Medal" or *"The Order of Eunuchs"* medal.
> 
> MM


Trading one dongle for another?


----------



## medicineman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Trading one dongle for another?



Technically a two fer one.

MM


----------



## Loachman

We're rapidly approaching the point where we can photoshop Canadian troops on parade, or, worse yet, in the field, like that.


----------



## Remius

Given that that photo is actually photoshopped as well I would agree.


----------



## blackberet17

medicineman said:
			
		

> Technically a two fer one.
> 
> MM



Do your medals hang low?
Do they wobble to and fro?
Can you tie 'em in a knot?
Can you pin 'em with a bow?
Can you throw 'em o'er your shoulder
Like a (North) Korean soldier?


----------



## Loachman

One of the best posts in this tread. Milpoints.


----------



## McG

Sometime last year, several Army Corps were asked if they wanted to return to the navy blue general service beret that Canada briefly wore in the '50s.  Well, it seems some Corps said yes and the other Corps were asked again this week to survey more people and come back with a better answer. 

So, I guess it is only a matter of time before this next fashion adjustment happens.

This time around, the royal blue beret is being described as the headdress of royal designated corps (ignoring that neither RCIC nor RCAC will wear it) and it will be highest in precedence (in contrast to being last in precedence as was the case in the 50s).  I anticipate this causing some consternation amongst the Armd where the integral maintainers and signallers would no longer adopt the unit black beret on posting, and more angst in the maroon beret crowd as Cbt Engr and Sigs would no longer be allowed to "lower themselves" to a maroon beret.


----------



## CCCB

MCG said:
			
		

> I anticipate this causing some consternation amongst the Armd where the integral maintainers and signallers would no longer adopt the unit black beret on posting, and more angst in the maroon beret crowd as Cbt Engr and Sigs would no longer be allowed to "lower themselves" to a maroon beret.



U wot m8?  

I'm currently seconded to the British Army, and they have a very reasonable system of doing things re: headdress, and it is not as you have described above.  

On posting to an airborne forces unit, irrespective of whether one has completed parachute training, the member adopts the maroon beret.  Upon posting out of the airborne forces, you return to the beret of your corps/regiment - UNLESS you have completed parachute training.  Then, if you are sent to a training establishment for a course in the future (e.g. PLQ/AOC/whatever), you are allowed to wear your maroon lid again.  This is true for all army corps/regiments, as far as I am able to discern.  It certainly is with the Royal Engineers (who I am working with).

Of course, Canada would have to commit to something larger than independent jump coys for that to make sense (in terms of having non-qual'd PYs).  I do like the idea of Canadians who have served in an airborne position (e.g. not just done BPara) to be able to put maroon berets on when they attend courses, irrespective of whether they're coming from an airborne position. 

I'm not sure if non-commando trained members attached to the RM follow the same rules, but it is immaterial in the Canadian context, except perhaps those who have "won" the tan beret by doing SOCET (or actually won it via an operator/assaulter/coxswain course).

Point being, returning to blue berets for certain corps - sure.  But your description of Gunners in an airborne mortar battery not "lowering themselves" is pretty bizarre.  I hope you are incorrect.


----------



## medicineman

For.

The.

Love.

Of.

God.

Let me guess - the Army CWO is bored OR some civvy/quasi Reservist tw@t who know's who they are, is trying to relive their lives vicariously by spending government money on something that has little to do with soldiering?  Surprised, I am though, that PET Jr hasn't insisted we have our berets changed to a lovely shade of ligh blue so we don't have multicoloured berets to worry about changing from when we deploy...go back to the metal capbadges and change out branch/Regt to UN.

I need more coffee.

MM


----------



## Journeyman

CCCB said:
			
		

> I do like the idea of Canadians who have served in an airborne position (e.g. not just done BPara) to be able to put maroon berets on when they attend courses, irrespective of whether they're coming from an airborne position.


  ???   What purpose would this serve, except maybe to refresh shallow egos?  
"Yes, I fetch the General's coffee and make PowerPoints for a living, but once upon a time I did some really cool stuff..."

It's probably useful for Legion members, not soldiers  (mind you, I don't need more badges on my CADPAT either)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Sounds to me like some high up in the Army was either touring a warehouse (at Logistiks?) or looking through beret inventory and noticed that there are still royal blue berets in the system - liked the colour and, without finding out why we have them - tried to see what could be done to get more of that "cool" colour out there.

The (limited number of)  royal blue berets in the systems are there for only two purpose right now: to provide berets for the uniforms of the CFAV officers (that is the civilian mariners that operate the Navy support vessels), and for the RCN personnel who are deployed on an operation where their otherwise black beret might lead to confusion, a situation that the RCN has always taken to mean when seamen deploy in the field, wearing cadpat, side by side with the Armour, then the royal blue should be issued to avoid people seeing them from afar thinking they are with the Armour unit.


----------



## Old Sweat

I wore the royal blue beret for about four or five months in 1958 as a recruit in the RCA Depot and then as a gun number in 4 RCHA. As I recall, it went out of service in September and we wore caps, peaked, winter as the dress of the day and a blue forage cap with a red band on parade and for walking out. This step is another bassackwards move by people who prefer concentrating on the trees instead of the forest.

It is my belief that the blue beret came into wear in the artillery circa 1952-1954 and was dropped in 1958. That is a might thin base to justify a change in dress based on tradition.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The (limited number of)  royal blue berets in the systems are there for only two purpose right now: to provide berets for the uniforms of the CFAV officers (that is the civilian mariners that operate the Navy support vessels), and for the RCN personnel who are deployed on an operation where their otherwise black beret might lead to confusion, a situation that the RCN has always taken to mean when seamen deploy in the field, wearing cadpat, side by side with the Armour, then the royal blue should be issued to avoid people seeing them from afar thinking they are with the Armour unit.



I have never seen either of those situations happen, at least not since the early 2000s.  Happy to be corrected though.


----------



## George Wallace

I wore the Royal Blue as a Gunner, with the red felt backing to the hatbadge, in 1970 to 71, when a member of 64 Fd Bty, 10 Fd Regt RCA.  

It would stand to reason that sailors wearing CADPAT and a Royal Blue Beret could easily be mistaken as RCA or RCHA by other Commonwealth nations if the navy capbadge is not clearly recognized.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I wore the royal blue beret for about four or five months in 1958 as a recruit in the RCA Depot and then as a gun number in 4 RCHA. As I recall, it went out of service in September and we wore caps, peaked, winter as the dress of the day and a blue forage cap with a red band on parade and for walking out. This step is another bassackwards move by people who prefer concentrating on the trees instead of the forest.
> 
> It is my belief that the blue beret came into wear in the artillery circa 1952-1954 and was dropped in 1958. That is a might thin base to justify a change in dress based on tradition.



Do IG's still wear the Forage cap as a badge of office?


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It would stand to reason that sailors wearing CADPAT and a Royal Blue Beret could easily be mistaken as RCA or RCHA by other Commonwealth nations if the navy capbadge is not clearly recognized.



Not to be facetious, but badges (MS and below, CPO and POs, and Officers) based around an anchor wouldn't be clearly recognized as having some sort of Naval connotation, especially when the other Commonwealth nations have essentially the same badges (minus maple leaves)?   ???


----------



## FJAG

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wore the Royal Blue as a Gunner, with the red felt backing to the hatbadge, in 1970 to 71, when a member of 64 Fd Bty, 10 Fd Regt RCA.



Same here. I joined the 7th Toronto as a gunner in 1965 and our dress was blue beret, metal badge, and red felt backing with battledress as a recruit and were issued the blue forage cap with red band (and a white lanyard) upon graduating from gun number training. The beret remained available for wear when the forage cap was impractical.

When I went regular in 1969 we still had both the blue beret and the forage cap as officer cadets for both battle dress and TW dress. I was issued greens in the summer of 1970 just before I joined 3 RCHA when it moved from Winnipeg to Shilo. This caused the RSM apoplexy as at our first parade after summer leave the entire regiment paraded in TWs except for one brand new lieutenant in greens and the regimental photographer who  was a young sailor blemishing the ranks in a full navy square rig. Not the last time the RSM and I didn't see eye to eye on dress matters. Good times, good times. Incidentally that was also our last parade with TWs as the regiment was issued greens during the winter of 70/71.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Do IG's still wear the Forage cap as a badge of office?



The khaki forage cap used to be the headdress for all officers in the pre-greens era. The insignia of the Instructor in(of?) Gunnery was to wear the same red band on the forage cap as was worn by the other ranks. No other officers wore this band. When the CF went to green uniforms, the IGs continued to wear the khaki cap with red band with their field and working dress and still do so.

Assistant Instructors in Gunnery (the OR equivalent of the officer IGs) still wear the OR's forage cap with red band and white top cover.

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I have never seen either of those situations happen, at least not since the early 2000s.  Happy to be corrected though.



When you mean "either" situation, do you mean that you have never seen the CFAV officers in their clean uniform (navy blue pants, white shirt and royal blue beret)?

As of the other situation: confusion with Army units, I am quoting from the dress manual (by memory). We did, however, call upon that article of the dress regs once, in 1994 or 95, not absolutely sure now, for a harbour defence exercise where the shoreside defence was assumed by a militia troop of armour with their (what was it then) Bisons? Anyhow, we quoted the reg and asked Navres HQ if this was one such situations covered by the article and if we should have blue berets issued to naval pers. They got cold feet (I guess) and said no - it's in Canada and an exercise so its fine. We took it that if we were deployed in an actual operation outside Canada in a similar scenario, they would have authorized the issue.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Not to be facetious, but badges (MS and below, CPO and POs, and Officers) based around an anchor wouldn't be clearly recognized as having some sort of Naval connotation, especially when the other Commonwealth nations have essentially the same badges (minus maple leaves)?   ???



It's not facetious at all, Dimsum, but in the field, we are not always facing one another, and some times, the distance is quite far apart.

So imagine that some seamen are deployed with a combat group of  artillery, armour and infantry (if you can't think of any reason for that, here are some actual such deployments I have known of: Navy Cl. Divers deployed for IED/Bomb disposal, Navy techs deployed to support new field radar systems (first few years of ADATS), Navy logistics techs deployed with service battalion, etc.) and Cpl XYZ needs to give something personally to Mcpl ABC, of Armour. He has an idea of whereabouts he his, but not precise. In the distance, he sees four people wearing black berets but they have their back to him. Does he run over there and find out they are all Navy?

It's minor, but it's just a convenience to have a different beret.

I grant you it makes SFA difference if we are all wearing our helmets.  [


----------



## Old Sweat

FJAG said:
			
		

> The khaki forage cap used to be the headdress for all officers in the pre-greens era. The insignia of the Instructor in(of?) Gunnery was to wear the same red band on the forage cap as was worn by the other ranks. No other officers wore this band. When the CF went to green uniforms, the IGs continued to wear the khaki cap with red band with their field and working dress and still do so.
> 
> Assistant Instructors in Gunnery (the OR equivalent of the officer IGs) still wear the OR's forage cap with red band and white top cover.
> 
> :cheers:



I believe AIsG wear the navy forage cap with the white top cover, but I am not 100% sure.

I was asked to give a lecture to the RMC third and fourth year gunner officer cadets earlier this year. When I stepped to the lectern, I pulled my khaki cap with red band out of my bag and put it on. This allowed me to claim I was the oldest PIG (Practicing Instructor-in-Gunnery) in the Commonwealth.


----------



## cupper

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Not to be facetious, but badges (MS and below, CPO and POs, and Officers) based around an anchor wouldn't be clearly recognized as having some sort of Naval connotation, especially when the other Commonwealth nations have essentially the same badges (minus maple leaves)?   ???



If you want to be taken seriously, stop trying to inject logic into this discussion. ;D


----------



## dapaterson

As the tale goes, at one point the Artillery was having challenges with recruiting into the Reg F.  Someone actually had the brains to interview applicants who had watched the recruiting videos, where the consensus was that no one understood why people were running around wearing forage caps in the field, and thus folks turned to other in demand trades.  A new video (sans IGs) saw fewer folks being turned off...


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> When you mean "either" situation, do you mean that you have never seen the CFAV officers in their clean uniform (navy blue pants, white shirt and royal blue beret)?



Yes.  Then again I've only seen them at work onboard ship.

Apparently I'm bored, so I Ctrl-F'd through the new 2016 Dress Manual and it doesn't mention anything about RCN folks wearing royal blue berets for the situation you mentioned.  Maybe it got taken out?   :dunno:


----------



## jollyjacktar

I wore the same black beret the armoured wore when doing my work up training for the sandbox at Valcatraz in 08.  What made their heads explode was my wearing a black tee shirt with Cadpat as soon as that authority came out.  I had lots of fun with that and there wasn't a damn thing they could do or say about it.  Fun times, fun times.  ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes.  Then again I've only seen them at work onboard ship.
> 
> Apparently I'm bored, so I Ctrl-F'd through the new 2016 Dress Manual and it doesn't mention anything about RCN folks wearing royal blue berets for the situation you mentioned.  Maybe it got taken out?   :dunno:



Wouldn't surprise me at all if they took it out.

As you pointed out yourself, you seldom see the CFAV guys wearing their "dress" uniform, and as I have mentioned, I only know of one occasion where the rule could have been used in 1994/95. Why keep a whole colour of beret on hand if no one ever needs them?  Perhaps logic prevailed (I know, I am asking a lot here, but there is a cost saving at issue, so ...) and they just let the stock run out and never renewed it - whipping the regs of any reference to it.


----------



## ModlrMike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I wore the same black beret the armoured wore when doing my work up training for the sandbox at Valcatraz in 08.  What made their heads explode was my wearing a black tee shirt with Cadpat as soon as that authority came out.  I had lots of fun with that and there wasn't a damn thing they could do or say about it.  Fun times, fun times.  ;D


Yes... I wore a black beret in the field for almost 20 years, and was only once mistaken for armoured. The medical cap badge may have had something to do with that, much like I presume the anchor cap badges might.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> Sometime last year, several Army Corps were asked if they wanted to return to the navy blue general service beret that Canada briefly wore in the '50s.  Well, it seems some Corps said yes and the other Corps were asked again this week to survey more people and come back with a better answer.
> 
> So, I guess it is only a matter of time before this next fashion adjustment happens.
> 
> This time around, the royal blue beret is being described as the headdress of royal designated corps (ignoring that neither RCIC nor RCAC will wear it) and it will be highest in precedence (in contrast to being last in precedence as was the case in the 50s).  I anticipate this causing some consternation amongst the Armd where the integral maintainers and signallers would no longer adopt the unit black beret on posting, and more angst in the maroon beret crowd as Cbt Engr and Sigs would no longer be allowed to "lower themselves" to a maroon beret.



I'm not sure were the idea that the dark blue beret, was for all the Royal Corps came from, it was simply used in the 50/60s for the "board of ordnance Corps" ie RCEME, RCA, RCE. RCCS, RCASC, RCOC etc, Line Infantry would have worn Scarlet, Rifle regiments wore rifle green, and of course Parachute regiments Maroon and Armoured Black.

I have no issues with going back to a dark blue beret, and I'm sure we can do it just simply when the next beret contract comes due...

As to what to do when posted to a Airborne or Armoured unit, I'd personally be fine with doing what we do now and adopt the berets of the unit we are posted to just wear Blue in any unit wearing the current green berets.


----------



## Kirkhill

Perhaps, just a guess, the Royal Blue association comes from the common origin in Henry VIII's Board of Ordnance?

 "Its primary responsibilities were 'to act as custodian of the lands, depots and forts required for the defence of the realm and its overseas possessions, and as the supplier of munitions and equipment to both the Army and the Navy'.[1]" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Ordnance#Demise_and_Aftermath

Dukes and Earls could have all the swords, lances and longbows they liked - but Henry kept the guns (on shore and afloat) for himself.   His Yeomen Warders of the Tower also wore Royal Blue.


----------



## Journeyman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

>




 For the love of all things holy,   DO NOT LET THE ARMY FASHION FAERIES SEE THAT PICTURE  !!!


----------



## McG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I'm not sure were the idea that the dark blue beret, was for all the Royal Corps came from, it was simply used in the 50/60s for the "board of ordnance Corps" ie RCEME, RCA, RCE. RCCS, RCASC, RCOC etc, Line Infantry would have worn Scarlet, Rifle regiments wore rifle green, and of course Parachute regiments Maroon and Armoured Black.
> 
> ...





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Perhaps, just a guess, the Royal Blue association comes from the common origin in Henry VIII's Board of Ordnance?


I think the associating of the beret with Royal Corps is more a historical revisionism intended to more easily sell the idea today.  The dark blue beret was the general service beret when we briefly wore it ... it was the beret of those who did not have a distinct beret and it was also worn by RCAMC, RCDC, RCAPC, intelligence, provost, etc.  It does not sell to say that "we are tired of the beret that says we are like everyone else today, so we want to go back to the beret that said we were like everyone else in the '50s" and so instead we will declare "this is a Royal beret and it shows to the world that we are better than those non-Royal types over there."



			
				Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> As to what to do when posted to a Airborne or Armoured unit, I'd personally be fine with doing what we do now and adopt the berets of the unit we are posted to just wear Blue in any unit wearing the current green berets.


I agree, but have been told that will not work with the new narrative.  Besides, if one switches to a black beret on joining an armoured unit, then why not switch to green on joining an infantry unit?  Can't have a precedent that might allow the suppression this visible indicator of "I am different and I am special."

An argument in favour was lamenting group photos from Afghanistan where one could not identify engineers from a distance because everyone was in green berets and capbadges were obscured ... except nobody will still have the ability to identify engineers in such pictures because there will be a mixture of corps wearing the dark blue beret.


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> For the love of all things holy,   DO NOT LET THE ARMY FASHION FAERIES SEE THAT PICTURE  !!!



...or go with this, and make pants optional.  :nod:


----------



## Ostrozac

Fashion and silly hats! Yay! Is this the appropriate time to mention that in a few years we will all be back in battle dress? Maybe we could see Arcteryx make battledress out of modern materials. You know, superficially it would look like WWII battle dress, but up close it's all softshell fleecey trousers, moisture wicking shirt (with optional tie made of evaporating cooling material), goretex puttees, etc...

The troops would be confused as to whether this is lame because it's retro, or cool because it's highspeed kit. And isn't confusing the troops the objective of these constant changes?

I have a parade coming up -- I will log on to my Logistik account and see if I should be ordering a Shako, Tam O'Shanter, or Slouch Hat.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...or go with this, and make pants optional.  :nod:



Oh! You want something more like their better known cousins, The Yeomen of the Guard!






Some nice hose and lovely little rosettes - and simply wonderful ruffs!

And McG - I agree on the "justification" thing - I would just point out that in the old army, before the issue of khaki and the abolition of the Board of Ordnance and the Commissary, where soldiers wore scarlet, everyone else - gunners, engineers, commissaries and even the Life Guards, wore blue.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Fashion and silly hats! Yay! . . .
> 
> . . . Shako, Tam O'Shanter, or Slouch Hat.



Or something with a made up local tradition.

Silly hats is not a new phenomenon.  While digging through on-line archival material at MUN, I came across these tidbits that date (I think) from 1961 (or thereabout).  Apparently the Royal Newfoundland Regiment thought it needed a fancy hat.  Maybe it's time to re-try for approval. [


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> I think the associating of the beret with Royal Corps is more a historical revisionism intended to more easily sell the idea today.  The dark blue beret was the general service beret when we briefly wore it ... it was the beret of those who did not have a distinct beret and it was also worn by RCAMC, RCDC, RCAPC, intelligence, provost, etc.  It does not sell to say that "we are tired of the beret that says we are like everyone else today, so we want to go back to the beret that said we were like everyone else in the '50s" and so instead we will declare "this is a Royal beret and it shows to the world that we are better than those non-Royal types over there."
> I agree, but have been told that will not work with the new narrative.  Besides, if one switches to a black beret on joining an armoured unit, then why not switch to green on joining an infantry unit?  Can't have a precedent that might allow the suppression this visible indicator of "I am different and I am special."
> 
> An argument in favour was lamenting group photos from Afghanistan where one could not identify engineers from a distance because everyone was in green berets and capbadges were obscured ... except nobody will still have the ability to identify engineers in such pictures because there will be a mixture of corps wearing the dark blue beret.



Well if identifying an engineer from a Arty type at a distance is the goal, then I guess we will have to bring back the coloured inserts behind the badges then.  Though I personally think that is not all that visually appealing.  If "the narrative" doesn't match our historical traditions then maybe the narrative needs to be changed to say we are simply linking to our honoured history and traditions, and improving the morale for the Corps that don't have "regiments" like the Infantry and Armour Corps do...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, since the RCAF and even the RCN, not to mention the Americans, are now wearing berets, I think it's time to go back to the 2nd World War "fashion" and wear wedge caps again:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                         (I believe one of the authors of this booklet is part of the problem ...)

And think of how many CWOs we could keep out of mischief while they squabble over colour combinations ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Oh, what fun! Leading change, and all that ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones

FJAG said:
			
		

> The khaki forage cap used to be the headdress for all officers in the pre-greens era. The insignia of the Instructor in(of?) Gunnery was to wear the same red band on the forage cap as was worn by the other ranks. No other officers wore this band. When the CF went to green uniforms, the IGs continued to wear the khaki cap with red band with their field and working dress and still do so.
> 
> Assistant Instructors in Gunnery (the OR equivalent of the officer IGs) still wear the OR's forage cap with red band and white top cover.
> 
> :cheers:



Tanks! FJAG. That's what I was looking for.


----------



## George Wallace

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, since the RCAF and even the RCN, not to mention the Americans, are now wearing berets, I think it's time to go back to the 2nd World War "fashion" and wear wedge caps again:
> 
> And think of how many CWOs we could keep out of mischief while they squabble over colour combinations ...
> 
> Oh, what fun! Leading change, and all that ...




Not only squabble over colour, but: how much tilt to the cap; proper spacing over eyebrow; distance above the ear; cold weather use of chin strap; and so much more.


----------



## Old Sweat

My first reaction was to wonder when the Canadian Army Directorate of Silly Hats would be established? Then I reasoned it probably should be upgraded to a Director General of Silly Hats with Directorates for Berets, Wedge Caps, Miscellaneous Headgear and even a Directorate of Environmentally Friendly Silly Hats.

"Ha!" I exclaimed, "Why not a Canadian Army Silly Hat Command?" (CANSHATCOM)


----------



## FJAG

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> My first reaction was to wonder when the Canadian Army Directorate of Silly Hats would be established? Then I reasoned it probably should be upgraded to a Director General of Silly Hats with Directorates for Berets, Wedge Caps, Miscellaneous Headgear and even a Directorate of Environmentally Friendly Silly Hats.
> 
> "Ha!" I exclaimed, "Why not a Canadian Army Silly Hat Command?" (CANSHATCOM)



Wouldn't it be better if it was just CANHATCOM? CANSHATCOM could have a completely different, yet equally useful, connotation.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Old Sweat

FJAG said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be better if it was just CANHATCOM? CANSHATCOM could have a completely different, yet equally useful, connotation.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



You broke the code.  :cheers:


----------



## Jorkapp

This seemed relevant to the thread:


----------



## medicineman

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> My first reaction was to wonder when the Canadian Army Directorate of Silly Hats would be established? Then I reasoned it probably should be upgraded to a Director General of Silly Hats with Directorates for Berets, Wedge Caps, Miscellaneous Headgear and even a Directorate of Environmentally Friendly Silly Hats.
> 
> "Ha!" I exclaimed, "Why not a Canadian Army Silly Hat Command?" (CANSHATCOM)



We don't yet have an ADM (Dumb Ass Ideas) as yet, I'm sure they'd fit in with CANSHYTE, oops, HATCOM.  Maybe the Army CWO can take over when he retires so he can have a pet (rock) project ;D

MM


----------



## jollyjacktar

medicineman said:
			
		

> We don't yet have an ADM (Dumb Ass Ideas) as yet, I'm sure they'd fit in with CANSHYTE, oops, HATCOM.  Maybe the Army CWO can take over when he retires so he can have a pet (rock) project ;D
> 
> MM



Garrison Dress patterned headdress.   :nod:


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, since the RCAF and even the RCN, not to mention the Americans, are now wearing berets, I think it's time to go back to the 2nd World War "fashion" and wear wedge caps again:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I believe one of the authors of this booklet is part of the problem ...)
> 
> And think of how many CWOs we could keep out of mischief while they squabble over colour combinations ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, what fun! Leading change, and all that ...


I understand your bit in yellow to be true.  Were those coloured service caps a unique Canadian thing, or did the UK have them too?



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Garrison Dress patterned headdress.   :nod:


You think you are being funny, but that nonsense has been done in other places already and so it could happen here too ... sadly.


----------



## MilEME09

MCG said:
			
		

> You think you are being funny, but that nonsense has been done in other places already and so it could happen here too ... sadly.



Qould go great with those CADPAT boots >


----------



## Happy Guy

We may all snicker at this, but I bet someone actually thought about having CADPAT pattern berets.

As for the side hats, yep I saw them being worn by both "Army" and "Air Force" personnel when I first joined in 1978 as a very, very young soldier.  I think that they were optional clothing back than and we could buy them at Canex.

Cheers


----------



## jollyjacktar

MCG said:
			
		

> You think you are being funny, but that nonsense has been done in other places already and so it could happen here too ... sadly.



Hell no, I was being half assed serious as the GD was the baby of a demented CWO mind.  And as a sailor,  I'd never have to wear one.   >


----------



## The Bread Guy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> We may all snicker at this, but I bet someone actually thought about having CADPAT pattern berets.


I kinda like the 1/2 leopard skin beret as seen on "Wag The Dog", myself ...


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> I understand your bit in yellow to be true.  Were those coloured service caps a unique Canadian thing, or did the UK have them too?
> ...




The UK had 'em, too, I'm 99.999% certain. In fact I think that after about 1920 we rather too slavishly followed British customs.

     (Take Signals, for example. The Canadian Signalling Corps, later just Canadian Signal Corps) was founded in 1903 with this cap badge ...

                
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



      
      ... which was worn from 1908 until 1922 because, circa 1920 the British finally established their own Signal Corps using this cap badge ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 which _morphed_ into this: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     ... the Brits more or less insisted that other "imperial" armies follow along and Canada did, adapting the British badge into this ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and "_squishing_" the original cap badge down into a collar badge: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     .... and that, eventually evolved into this ...

                                                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     ... now I hear (_mess gossip_) that some people want to return to the 1922-1970_ish_ cap badge. I'm not opposed to people changing badges but if we are serious about our own military history and heritage then we should go
     all the way back to the 1908 badge which was worn by many 1st Division Signal Company officers and soldiers (1 Div Sig Coy was NOT and Engineer unit ~ the only Signal unit in the Imperial armies to not be engineers ~
     in the First World War.)


----------



## mariomike

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Oh, what fun! Leading change, and all that ...


----------



## McG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In fact I think that after about 1920 we rather too slavishly followed British customs.


And yet, that is exactly the point in time that it seems somebody(ies) want us to go back to.


----------



## OldSolduer

And we sometimes slavishly though not as often, try to copy the US as well

Do they have a directorate of silly hats?


----------



## Edward Campbell

MCG said:
			
		

> And yet, that is exactly the point in time that it seems somebody(ies) want us to go back to.




I'm not so sure .. I would have no real problems (other than the waste of money one) if people want to go back to 1873 or 1885 or 1899 or even 1908 or 1918, but it seems to me that the crowd who are leading this fiasco only want to go back to Sep 66, just before Mr Hellyer's massive _buttons and bows_ exercise that saw us all poured into the "jolly green jumper." It's not, it seems to me, about restoring our history or heritage, rather it ius about trying to undo everything Mr Hellyer did, even the parts that actually made good military sense ~ and some of it, rather a lot of it, actually, did make good sense.

There was some pressure, circa 1965 to _un-British_, the Royal Mail symbol, for example, was a prime target of the FLQ bombers in the early and mid 1960s. At least part of Mr Hellyer's "integration" project was to replace three very, very British looking services with one distinctly Canadian one. I think many of the people behind some of the 21st century changes have little or no idea about what life was like in the Canadian Forces in the 1960s, but they want us all to look like that, just to undo everything and anything with Mr Hellyer's name on it.


----------



## FJAG

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> . . . In fact I think that after about 1920 we rather too slavishly followed British customs.



I think that British customs were our customs ever since the 1763 Treaty of Paris that ceded New France to Britain after the Seven Years War. Thereafter, starting in 1867 we started diverging, sometimes in minor ways, sometimes by leaps and bounds.

I've always believed that for every custom or tradition there is a "Day 1" where we decide that for whatever reason (such as to note a military achievement, or to honour to our predecessors, or to instil pride, or create efficiency, or to make a military/political statement) to enshrine a form of dress or procedure. I doubt if there was ever a "Day 1" that received universal acceptance. Only time tells if, in the long term, it turns out, on average, to be a positive one. Sometimes, when the idea was a bad one, we need to roll it back and do a reset. 

Personally, IMHO, wearing berets in the field and wearing field service caps anywhere are silly ideas. (As, again IMHO, was going to a tri-service green uniform but for God sake we've already beaten that topic to death so let's not restart  :clubinhand

For anyone who really cares, the Wikipedia page that lists examples, traditions etc behind what they call side caps (although strangely the German Army's _Schiffchen_ is left out) is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_cap

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hell no, I was being half assed serious as the GD was the baby of a demented CWO mind.  And as a sailor,  I'd never have to wear one.   >



I'm pretty sure the goo idea fairies have already developed a naval version so that you won't feel left out. If the 'murcans can do this, we can too.  [Xp


----------



## Eaglelord17

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the goo idea fairies have already developed a naval version so that you won't feel left out. If the 'murcans can do this, we can too.  [Xp



The Americans are already moving away from that.

http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/5/12385934/us-navy-no-more-blue-sailor-uniforms
Key words from the article
"While it was designed to hide spills and stains, many have commented that its blue-and-gray pattern would be counter-productive if a sailor fell overboard. In 2012, the Navy found that when exposed to fire, it would "‘burn robustly,’ and turn into a ‘sticky molten material.’"

Biggest thing for a naval uniform to be is fire resistant. Beyond that it doesn't matter too much. Personally I was always a fan of coveralls for at sea, but that was also because my uniforms reeked of diesel (even the black shirts I still have, despite being washed many times and being over a year after I left). I also ruined quite a few catching the pockets on all the tight spaces I was forced into.

As a side note since we seem to want to everything British now, we should be stable in the current naval uniform for years
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/81774000/jpg/_81774953_fx150095006.jpg


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> "While it was designed to hide spills and stains ..."


At least _someone_ was honest about the rationale ...  :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser

I don't think they'll get the C&E badge changed back to old RCCS or CSC cap badges, unless they turfed ATIS back to the RCAF, and found a place to hide Comm Rsch. With the return of RCCS, the only thing that holds the branch together across elements is the current cap badge.


----------



## jollyjacktar

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the goo idea fairies have already developed a naval version so that you won't feel left out. If the 'murcans can do this, we can too.  [Xp


While we are changing our NCD, yet again and are using the cut and pattern of the new Cadpat combats we're sticking with the solid midnight blue of the current NCD.  We are ditching the jacket in favour of the shirt top with black t-shirt (and god awful patches...:).


----------



## McG

to :stirpot: some more ... the coloured field service caps had unique general officer headdress and Colonel/Brigadier headdress:






The current Canadian practice is that all Army officers switch to the green "general service" beret and keep with it on promotion to Colonel and higher.  But what happens if we introduce a Royal Blue beret, which was the general service beret in its time but is not being pitched as the senior distinguishing colour?  Do Colonels and above continue to wear green berets, does royal blue become the new standard, or do we switch to the British practice and have these officers retain their corps/regimental beret colour while adopting all the other accoutrements of the rank?

I have heard the push internal to the Army comes from individuals already promoted out of wearing branch accoutrements (Sr Appt CWO, Col, various level of Gen), so it would not surprise me if some individuals are looking for an item of dress to show the corps/regiment that they were promoted out of.

But for me, I am going to propose we take our queue from the brief age of unique headdress for these senior pers.  They need to be seen and stand out.  As the colour red is already taken and dark blue will be taken, we will have no choice but to use yellow berets and call them gold.  I am sure they will do a better job of wearing it than these fellows:


----------



## CCCB

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The UK had 'em, too, I'm 99.999% certain. In fact I think that after about 1920 we rather too slavishly followed British customs.



The British Army still has side hats, as does the Canadian Army (if you check the CFP-265).

Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?  The difference in acknowledgement of the Armed Forces by the public between Canada and the UK is shocking.  The British know and recognize their army, by and large.

Surely, part of the difference is because our bases are so spread out, sure, but it is also in part because we seem to be afraid to be in the public eye/be associated with our profession any more than we need to.....  "No thanks, I'll just wear the smock til I can go home please.  No traditions for me!" is the prevailing theme here.

As Trump would say, "Sad!"


----------



## Kat Stevens

CCCB said:
			
		

> The British Army still has side hats, as does the Canadian Army (if you check the CFP-265).
> 
> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?  The difference in acknowledgement of the Armed Forces by the public between Canada and the UK is shocking.  The British know and recognize their army, by and large.
> 
> Surely, part of the difference is because our bases are so spread out, sure, but it is also in part because we seem to be afraid to be in the public eye/be associated with our profession any more than we need to.....  "No thanks, I'll just wear the smock til I can go home please.  No traditions for me!" is the prevailing theme here.
> 
> As Trump would say, "Sad!"



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/9000-ex-service-personnel-homeless-after-2071049   
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/campaigns/homeless-veterans

Yup, there's some high quality recognition and appreciation, right there.


----------



## Remius

CCCB said:
			
		

> The British Army still has side hats, as does the Canadian Army (if you check the CFP-265).
> 
> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?  The difference in acknowledgement of the Armed Forces by the public between Canada and the UK is shocking.  The British know and recognize their army, by and large.
> 
> Surely, part of the difference is because our bases are so spread out, sure, but it is also in part because we seem to be afraid to be in the public eye/be associated with our profession any more than we need to.....  "No thanks, I'll just wear the smock til I can go home please.  No traditions for me!" is the prevailing theme here.
> 
> As Trump would say, "Sad!"



Ironically many of those who lament the lack of knowledge or interest by Canadians about their CAF are the same ones that oppose and ridicule the various things that can and do link the CAF to the public.


----------



## bLUE fOX

How will going from funny hats to funnier hats make the CF more recognizable to the public? While a small argument could be made for a return to "square rig" to make the navy more recognizable, I think the majority of working uniforms (basically everything excluding NCD's) are easily associated by the public with what we do.

I don't think sillier hats are going to bring pride back to the corps/regiments/units/etc. Being able to perform our rolls proficiently and expertly will.


----------



## dangerboy

CCCB said:
			
		

> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?



I don't think that people are ashamed of showing pride in their Corps and Regiments. I just think that people don't want silly changes that don't really show any pride in their Corps/Regiments. I will use the PPCLI as an example, the majority of people are happy to have the red PPCLI shoulder tab on their DEUs but if you told them to switch to a coloured field service cap I doubt there would be much rejoicing.


----------



## MilEME09

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I don't think that people are ashamed of showing pride in their Corps and Regiments. I just think that people don't want silly changes that don't really show any pride in their Corps/Regiments. I will use the PPCLI as an example, the majority of people are happy to have the red PPCLI shoulder tab on their DEUs but if you told them to switch to a coloured field service cap I doubt there would be much rejoicing.



I agree, if you want some pride in the field get a unit patch, I wear a RCEME one on EX all the time, also avoids people asking if im S&T Coy.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Remius said:
			
		

> Ironically many of those who lament the lack of knowledge or interest by Canadians about their CAF are the same ones that oppose and ridicule the various things that can and do link the CAF to the public.



The uniform that we wear isn't what connects us to the public. Artillery pers wearing a blue beret vice green beret doesn't equate at all to recognition. We gain recognition through our actions and how we interact with the public. These intiatives are military driven by people with nothing better to worry about than hat colours.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CCCB said:
			
		

> ... The difference in acknowledgement of the Armed Forces by the public between Canada and the UK is shocking.  The British know and recognize their army, by and large ...


So you'd be OK with the Canadian military going through as significant a reorg as the U.K.'s military, where entire regiments (sort of) disappeared, replaced by new entities - likely with fewer new accoutrements, too?  How is their military better recognized with _fewer_ buttons & bows than before, while ours needs _more_ buttons & bows to be recognized?



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The uniform that we wear isn't what connects us to the public. Artillery pers wearing a blue beret vice green beret doesn't equate at all to recognition. *We gain recognition through our actions and how we interact with the public.*


And not through ... interesting-looking ... new hats, ribbons and bows ...


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So you'd be OK with the Canadian military going through as significant a reorg as the U.K.'s military, where entire regiments (sort of) disappeared, replaced by new entities - likely with fewer new accoutrements, too?  How is their military better recognized with _fewer_ buttons & bows than before, while ours needs _more_ buttons & bows to be recognized?
> And not through ... interesting-looking ... new hats, ribbons and bows ...



Ahem.... milnews:












Or even






......"Go on.  Knock it off! I dare you!"


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ahem.... milnews:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or even
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ......"Go on.  Knock it off! I dare you!"


In all these cases, though, they didn't go through gut-wrenching, money-wasting, energy-and-priority-diverting multiple iterations of headwear/buttons/bows/what-have-you to get to where they (still) are.

And I'd bet $ that the average Canadian, for as little as they know about the Canadian military, knows a _lot_ more than the average Italian knows about their military, so in that case, the eye-catching headware isn't enough 

Or how about these guys?  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In all these cases, though, they didn't go through gut-wrenching, money-wasting, energy-and-priority-diverting multiple iterations of headwear/buttons/bows/what-have-you to get to where they (still) are.
> 
> And I'd bet $ that the average Canadian, for as little as they know about the Canadian military, knows a _lot_ more than the average Italian knows about their military, so in that case, the eye-catching headware isn't enough
> 
> Or how about these guys?  ;D








Point taken about the waste of effort spent mucking around with this stuff.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

CCCB said:
			
		

> The British Army still has side hats, as does the Canadian Army (if you check the CFP-265).
> 
> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?  The difference in acknowledgement of the Armed Forces by the public between Canada and the UK is shocking.  The British know and recognize their army, by and large.
> 
> Surely, part of the difference is because our bases are so spread out, sure, but it is also in part because we seem to be afraid to be in the public eye/be associated with our profession any more than we need to.....  "No thanks, I'll just wear the smock til I can go home please.  No traditions for me!" is the prevailing theme here.
> 
> As Trump would say, "Sad!"



Because I'd rather be proud of the way I carry myself as an individual and the way I remain a true professional at whatever vocation I follow.

Being proud of yourself just because you have a fancy uniform is just plain stupid in my opinion.   If having fancy duds is even on your radar when we lack money for training, boots, bullets, trucks, ships, planes, etc, then you what the British would call a 'twit".

Get a life in the present.......stop trying to drag professionals back to the "good old days" that in reality were only good for select few.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Point taken about the waste of effort spent mucking around with this stuff.


Well played - let's hope those who need to "get it" do!

One more image to share  ;D


----------



## George Wallace

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Because I'd rather be proud of the way I carry myself as an individual and the way I remain a true professional at whatever vocation I follow.
> 
> Being proud of yourself just because you have a fancy uniform is just plain stupid in my opinion.   If having fancy duds is even on your radar when we lack money for training, boots, bullets, trucks, ships, planes, etc, then you what the British would call a 'twit".
> 
> Get a life in the present.......stop trying to drag professionals back to the "good old days" that in reality were only good for select few.



Why do the Frontiersmen suddenly come to mind?


----------



## OldSolduer

With all due respect to our heritage it's time we became an Army in our own right. Because "the British" or "the Americans" do it that way is pure hogwash and we don't need to copy anyone anymore. 
We're Canadian and yes our regimental system is British in origin BUT to slavishly copy them shows a lack of imagination.


----------



## MilEME09

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> With all due respect to our heritage it's time we became an Army in our own right. Because "the British" or "the Americans" do it that way is pure hogwash and we don't need to copy anyone anymore.
> We're Canadian and yes our regimental system is British in origin BUT to slavishly copy them shows a lack of imagination.



not to mention it doesn't work for an organization of our size


----------



## dimsum

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> With all due respect to our heritage it's time we became an Army in our own right. Because "the British" or "the Americans" do it that way is pure hogwash and we don't need to copy anyone anymore.
> We're Canadian and yes our regimental system is British in origin BUT to slavishly copy them shows a lack of imagination.



Unit ball caps for all working dress (CADPAT, flying suit...)!  The RCN already does it with NCDs.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Unit ball caps for all working dress (CADPAT, flying suit...)!  The RCN already does it with NCDs.



Sacrilege! What would all the Scottish regiments do?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Sacrilege! What would all the Scottish regiments do?



...throw a red pompom on the ball cap?   

Or....tartan ball caps.   >


----------



## Lightguns

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Unit ball caps for all working dress (CADPAT, flying suit...)!  The RCN already does it with NCDs.



Naw, Mountie hats for the horse, fur hats all year round for the foot!  Toques for the navy!  Baseball hats are way tooooo Yank!  Seriously, I like the New Zealanders, they are doing a good job incorporating local native warrior traditions. Perhaps a sun dance and survival on the land exercise in Basic and requirement to count coup before promotion in all ranks.  Make every soldier go through native warrior ceremonies and even teach Okichitaw on Basic (native marital arts with tomahawk and gun stock club).  Maybe put native symbolism on the eagle feather ceremony for a person to take command in a change of command ceremony.  Since we got the rank system, Canadianize it with maple leaves.


----------



## dimsum

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Naw, Mountie hats for the horse, fur hats all year round for the foot!  Toques for the navy!  Baseball hats are way tooooo Yank!  Seriously, I like the New Zealanders, they are doing a good job incorporating local native warrior traditions. *Perhaps a sun dance and survival on the land exercise in Basic and requirement to count coup before promotion in all ranks.  Make every soldier go through native warrior ceremonies and even teach Okichitaw on Basic (native marital arts with tomahawk and gun stock club).  Maybe put native symbolism on the eagle feather ceremony for a person to take command in a change of command ceremony.*  Since we got the rank system, Canadianize it with maple leaves.



[sarcasm]

Which tribe's traditions do we follow?  How about the ones that don't wear eagle feather headdresses or use tomahawks (I'm not sure which ones don't)?  Will they become DNDLearn courses, to be refreshed annually?  

[/sarcasm]


----------



## Lightguns

Dimsum said:
			
		

> [sarcasm]
> 
> Which tribe's traditions do we follow?  How about the ones that don't wear eagle feather headdresses or use tomahawks (I'm not sure which ones don't)?  Will they become DNDLearn courses, to be refreshed annually?
> 
> [/sarcasm]



The feather ceremony is quite universal now, the remainder can be had from the Okichitaw which although based in Plains Cree has nicely incorporated all warrior traditions from most of the leading nations in Canada and is becoming universally accepted amongst many nations (Ojibwa, Cree, Iroquois, Assiniboine, Huron, Maliseet, and at least one West Coast nation who name eludes me) looking for a way to reach their youth.


----------



## Kirkhill

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The feather ceremony is quite universal now, the remainder can be had from the Okichitaw which although based in Plains Cree has nicely incorporated all warrior traditions from most of the leading nations in Canada and is becoming universally accepted amongst many nations (Ojibwa, Cree, Iroquois, Assiniboine, Huron, Maliseet, and at least one West Coast nation who name eludes me) looking for a way to reach their youth.



That is fascinating.   A standardized Canadian Indian.

Tangent on the tangent.

As is now known by many I have a soupcon of Scots heritage.  The problem with the Scots is that they too are a tribal society.  It used to be that villages 5 miles apart spoke different dialects and mocked each other accordingly.  No need to get into the differences  between Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen. Naebuddy cud unnerstaun th'ither at a' at a'.

A couple of years ago I saw an instructional book, supposedly part of the Scots curriculum, on Lallands.  This was the definitive work on how not to speak English in Scotland. I recognized one word in ten.  The SNP's answer to creating the Standard Scot.


----------



## jollyjacktar

CCCB, WO Vincent might have an another view of wearing his uniform in public, if his opinion could be asked.  The UK have recommended their personnel not wear their uniforms in public for the same reasons.  The world has changed drastically since you served with attitudes both in and out of the service.

It was successfully argued against forcing us to wear uniforms back and forth to work as we are deemed "not on duty" and therefore not covered for injury in an accident. 

I choose to wear mine back and forth as it is a pain to do the change parade once at the office.  It's a job now, not a career or a calling.


----------



## George Wallace

In all my days in Service, I never had any problems showing pride in my Corps and Regiment.  I have no idea how CCCB has come to form a conclusion/assumption that any of us who have Served do/did not have pride in our Service; and need to rectify a perceived lack of pride by adopting archaic British symbolism and traditions.   Promoting Change for the sake of Change and a tick in the box on their PER is not progress.  It can often be quite wasteful and destructive.


----------



## Kirkhill

Just a thought on "tradition"



> a way of thinking, behaving, or doing something that has been used by the people in a particular group, family, society, etc., *for a long time*


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition


So the pre-requisite for a tradition is time.

In Canada, as evidenced by constant change, there is no tradition.  Or there is a tradition of constant change.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> CCCB, WO Vincent might have an another view of wearing his uniform in public, if his opinion could be asked.  The UK have recommended their personnel not wear their uniforms in public for the same reasons.  The world has changed drastically since you served with attitudes both in and out of the service.
> 
> It was successfully argued against forcing us to wear uniforms back and forth to work as we are deemed "not on duty" and therefore not covered for injury in an accident.
> 
> *I choose to wear mine back and forth as it is a pain to do the change parade once at the office.  It's a job now, not a career or a calling.
> *



So its a job now eh? And who is to blame for that? Our leadership (political and military) who have tightened the screws on the messes and other ancillary tribal traditions that enhanced the esprit de corps of the various parts of the military? The operational focus that has eschewed all nods to traditions (such as making parade squares into parking lots)? The push by Canadian society to make the military the biggest social experiment since coed universities? Or the general attitude of the officers and ranks who don't give a rats arse about the little things that make this a calling to serve their country? 

But I do believe something has been lost in the Canadian Armed Forces since the day I got off the bus in Chilliwack and I'm kind of sad to see it go.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FTSO, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard it called "just a job" I'd have a very nicely stocked Scotch collection.  I honestly can't remember when I heard some one call it anything but.

Things such as what they're doing to my trade doesn't endear the organization to those of us who remain either.


----------



## blacktriangle

If only the same effort that went into re-royalization was put into improving the force protection posture at bases, wings, stations, buildings, PMQ areas etc

...or improving the fitness, competency, and quality of those that wear the uniform. 

I'm going to take "just a job" for 400, please.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

FSTO said:
			
		

> So its a job now eh?



For me, and as far as I knew for the folks I was in with, it was always a job and I believe I got off of my bus long before you.   I see nothing wrong with that......unless for some strange reason you look down on people with jobs.

My job was to help facilitate rounds over several kms to bring hell to those if the Govt. of the day decided that they needed it. Full stop.

  Most of those "tribal' things you mentioned just took time away from my job and were a pain in the ass.   They only lessoned the joy of my "job". Oh, I'm sure there were a cadre of people who watched us march stupidly around in circles from their air-conditioned offices who THOUGHT they were installing something in us, but it sure wasn't "I need to make this a career".


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The (limited number of)  royal blue berets in the systems are there for only two purpose right now: to provide berets for the uniforms of the CFAV officers (that is the civilian mariners that operate the Navy support vessels), and for *the RCN personnel who are deployed on an operation where their otherwise black beret might lead to confusion, a situation that the RCN has always taken to mean when seamen deploy in the field, wearing cadpat, side by side with the Armour, then the royal blue should be issued to avoid people seeing them from afar thinking they are with the Armour unit.
> *



We actually stopped doing that a long time ago (20 years?).  RCN personnel wear navy blue berets all the time.  We don't switch them out if posted to non-RCN units.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

I accept that it is "just a job" for many, but that is not the case for all.  

Personally, it is not even a career, but rather remains a calling....but one that is under severe pressure from ridiculous things like hats, button, and bows.


----------



## McG

CCCB said:
			
		

> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?


The change of a beret from rifle green to navy blue is sufficiently subtle to the Canadian public as to be invisible.  The various uniform and heritage changes implemented over the last several years have had nothing to do with communicating to the Canadian public; they were all focused on communicating internal - peacocks, sneetches and status.

There should be nothing mutually exclusive about pride in the Corps/branch/Regiment, pride in assigned environment, pride in the CAF, and pride in Canada.  Yet everything we have been doing focuses on the bottom end of that spectrum at the cost of the top end.  We are making changes that not only fail to enhance our visibility to Canadians but go so far as to diminish it.

You want changes to make the service more visible to the public? Then aim those changes at the average Canadian joe who does not know what "PPCLI" means; who sees nothing of significance in executive curls, Bath Stars, or Vimy Stars; who can't identify pear grey on a labeled Rona paint colour pallet; and who would very likely not recognize a CAF uniform if it was worn seated across from him in a Tim Horton's.

... and on that note: to any members of the Patricia mafia that come through here, I know you are never getting rid of the red regimental tab that was temporarily authorized for wear during your centennial.  But can you consider putting "CANADA" back onto your uniforms somewhere?  Either with little brass title pins at the base of the epaulets, or by _going back to your roots_ and putting a second tab below your regimental tab? 






That one thing aside, lets get on with just leaving things as they are now.  No more unnecessary changes.

 :stirpot: except maybe also bright golden berets for visibility of sr apt CWOs, Cols and GOs.   [


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> I understand your bit in yellow to be true.  Were those coloured service caps a unique Canadian thing, or did the UK have them too?



British Army officers still wear them, but they're not popular as they have to be purchased privately and they're expensive.  They're more common in the regiments where officers tend to be independently wealthy.


----------



## mariomike

CCCB said:
			
		

> Why is everyone here so afraid of showing pride in their Corps and Regiment and in turn making themselves more visible to the public?



I wore a uniform in public for many years. 

Be careful what you wish for, because sometimes being the grey wo/man in public isn't so bad.  



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Being proud of yourself just because you have a fancy uniform is just plain stupid in my opinion.



 :goodpost:


Quote: "It's a job now, not a career or a calling."

My favorite was, "It's a career, not a hobby!" Whatever... 




			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> I'm going to take "just a job" for 400, please.



How about, "THE job?"




			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> So its a job now eh?



That's what they call it. Sometimes, a Trade.

"Canadian Armed Forces jobs"
"Browse Jobs"
"Part-time Jobs"
"Each Reserve unit offers a variety of interesting and challenging jobs so explore what each unit in your area has to offer before making a choice. Reserve unit locations and jobs can be found on the Find a Recruiter page of this website."
"CHECK OUT these "in demand" jobs"

etc...
http://www.forces.ca/en/home



			
				CCCB said:
			
		

> it is also in part because we seem to be afraid to be in the public eye /be associated with our profession any more than we need to.....



You don't need a fancy uniform to impress the public. Just do something nice!


----------



## FSTO

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Most of those "tribal' things you mentioned just took time away from my job and were a pain in the ***.



I guess this statement just proves my last point about current officers and ranks not giving a hoot.

I have no idea what life is like in the field but in the Navy there used to be quite the vibrant mess/Wardroom life while at sea. Spiffy dins, red sea rig, sunset cigars and port were regular events to build esprit de corps within the ships company. Hell we even did this while on OP APOLLO as the command ship in ALG. 
Now I fear we are turning into the USN where the Wardroom is to be avoided at all costs, people spending their off watch time in behind the bed curtain watching a movie on their IPad or thinking of how they were going to fill out the four quadrants on the briefing slide for the morning/evening brief. 
My views are likely an anathema to most here but they were the little pain in the *** things that made life on the 500x35ft steel box a little more bearable while at sea. My time with the RCN had been a combo of job/career/calling and although it is tough to describe to friends and family it has worked for me.


----------



## Pusser

FSTO said:
			
		

> I guess this statement just proves my last point about current officers and ranks not giving a hoot.
> 
> I have no idea what life is like in the field but in the Navy there used to be quite the vibrant mess/Wardroom life while at sea. Spiffy dins, red sea rig, sunset cigars and port were regular events to build esprit de corps within the ships company. Hell we even did this while on OP APOLLO as the command ship in ALG.
> Now I fear we are turning into the USN where the Wardroom is to be avoided at all costs, people spending their off watch time in behind the bed curtain watching a movie on their IPad or thinking of how they were going to fill out the four quadrants on the briefing slide for the morning/evening brief.
> My views are likely an anathema to most here but they were the little pain in the *** things that made life on the 500x35ft steel box a little more bearable while at sea. My time with the RCN had been a combo of job/career/calling and although it is tough to describe to friends and family it has worked for me.



I agree.  When I first went to sea, the messes were vibrant places where we socialized, played games, watched movies and got to know our shipmates.  As a result, we formed bonds and a special trust between us.  We then worked hard because if we didn't, we might let down our shipmates - our brothers (and sisters later on).  We didn't have internet or email and the movies came on 16 mm celluloid that had to be manhandled into a projector to work (the real reason we carried pilots and CSEs).  Snail mail showed up sporadically.

When I last went to sea, it was a ship full of individuals who only went to the messes to eat.  I couldn't believe the whinging I would hear when the internet connection was down.  There were bonds, but really only amongst cliques.  We didn't really get to know one another.  There were no more mailbags full of perfumed letters...

Of all my former shipmates, the ones I met in my first ships are still much closer than the ones from the last one.  There's nothing quite like watching the sun set over Monserrat with a glass of sherry.


----------



## dapaterson

There are no glasses like rose coloured glasses.

Keep in mind that you also have changed over time; even if you were to return to that idyllic era, the "today" you is different from the "yesteryear" you, and many things "today" you takes for granted would not be there.

It is a dangerous sort of hubris to assume that only the conditions that created you are acceptable for others, both today and in the future.


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are no glasses like rose coloured glasses.
> 
> Keep in mind that you also have changed over time; even if you were to return to that idyllic era, the "today" you is different from the "yesteryear" you, and many things "today" you takes for granted would not be there.
> 
> It is a dangerous sort of hubris to assume that only the conditions that created you are acceptable for others, both today and in the future.



Fair enough.  Although I lament the loss of many things that I thought were good and made the experience what it was, I can also see that there have been many improvements as well.  I too liked getting email from home while at sea (not so much from HQ), but I had a hard time listening to the complaints when the connection was shut down for COMMSEC or because the satellite connection to a moving metal box in a storm wasn't perfect.

It did boggle my mind when I had to renew a contract for satellite TV in Hawaii, so we could watch the play-offs during RIMPAC.  The sad part is that there is a gap between Hawaiian and mainland satellite coverage that takes about a day to cross when transiting between the two.  The hockey nuts were screaming!  Modern, first-world problems.  In the old days, we had to wake up the CSE to fix the projector.  In the modern navy, we wake him/her up to fix the gyro-stabilized satellite dish.


----------



## mariomike

Pusser said:
			
		

> We didn't have internet or email and the movies came on 16 mm celluloid that had to be manhandled into a projector to work (the real reason we carried pilots and CSEs).



I remember that in Mister Roberts,

"Captain, it is I, Ensign Pulver, and I just threw your stinkin' palm tree overboard! Now what's all this crud about no movie tonight?"


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> There are no glasses like rose coloured glasses.
> 
> Keep in mind that you also have changed over time; even if you were to return to that idyllic era, the "today" you is different from the "yesteryear" you, and many things "today" you takes for granted would not be there.
> 
> It is a dangerous sort of hubris to assume that only the conditions that created you are acceptable for others, both today and in the future.



Totally agree.
But.
The Navy has been going through a period of adjustment regarding unit cohesion, combat effectiveness and the well being of our personnel while ashore in foreign port. Back in the day hardly anyone got a hotel room when in port (mainly because we couldn't afford it) so people would do their run ashore and then return to the ship for the night. There they had the duty watch who would note their arrival, the state of inebriation and the requirement to be checked every so often. As proven by the spat of deaths in foreign ports, we don't seem to have those checks anymore and therefore we are suffering the consequences. I realize that there are far more reasons for this than just the demise of mess life, but when you don't have the "I've got your back messmate" mentality within the ships company, other unintended consequences seem to appear.


----------



## dapaterson

Ack to all that. So what is needed is leadership at all levels to find ways to build that cohesion in the "new world "; a challenge not unique to any one service.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ack to all that. So what is needed is leadership at all levels to find ways to build that cohesion in the "new world "; a challenge not unique to any one service.



Yep.


----------



## cupper

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...throw a red pompom on the ball cap?
> 
> Or....tartan ball caps.   >



Stick a feather in it too.

Then they would all be pastafarians. ;D


----------



## cupper

I've always felt that it is up to you to make of it what you want, and if your attitude is that it's only a job, then it will only ever be a job.If you want it to be a career or a calling, then it's up to you to make it so. 

Yes there are times when the BS and mundane can be a grind and make it feel more job than career. Those are the times that you power through and look for ways to move away from job and get back to career. I've always found that keeping a sense of haha goes along way to doing that. The day you lose your sense of haha, is the day you need to reassess what you want and how to do it.


----------



## mariomike

cupper said:
			
		

> I've always found that keeping a sense of haha goes along way to doing that. The day you lose your sense of haha, is the day you need to reassess what you want and how to do it.


----------



## OldSolduer

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I accept that it is "just a job" for many, but that is not the case for all.
> 
> Personally, it is not even a career, but rather remains a calling....but one that is under severe pressure from ridiculous things like hats, button, and bows.



I quite agree. Good post!!


----------



## mariomike

Then, you guys would have loved the morale boosting posters from HQ they hung in our squad rooms, "More than a job. It's a calling."  Whatever...

Unless under lock and key in the stations, they got ripped down.

Edited.


----------



## cavalryman

mariomike said:
			
		

> Then, you guys would have loved the posters they hung in our squad rooms, "More than a job. It's a calling."  Whatever...


A modest proposal to give this thread a theme song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4QK8RxCAwo  Don't thank me.  I'm just doing my little bit to make everyone's day more surreal.   >


----------



## blacktriangle

I'm fairly certain that I just saw someone with a high-vis OCdt slip on walking down a street in the NCR with no head dress. If he was homeless, it marks the first time I've seen one of them rocking pips (but not the first one to wear CADPAT)

Either way, he sure looked sharp and I'm sure his high vis rank reflected extra credit on the CAF.


----------



## Loachman

Lightguns said:
			
		

> native _*marital*_ arts with tomahawk and gun stock club



Traditional kink...?


----------



## Lightguns

Loachman said:
			
		

> Traditional kink...?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okichitaw

http://www.blackbeltwiki.com/okichitaw

http://www.torontosportscouncil.com/okichitaw/

http://www.academieduello.com/news-blog/okichitaw-canadas-only-aboriginal-martial-art-system/


----------



## McG

I think he was looking at your spelling of "marital arts" vs "martial arts", not so much doubting what you posted.


----------



## Edward Campbell

cavalryman said:
			
		

> A modest proposal to give this thread a theme song https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4QK8RxCAwo  Don't thank me.  I'm just doing my little bit to make everyone's day more surreal.   >




Or, maybe this ... it covers several things including taverns (messes) and being young.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or, maybe this ... it covers several things including taverns (messes) and being young.


Zackly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With an applicable meme ...


----------



## mariomike

MCG said:
			
		

> I think he was looking at your spelling of "marital arts" vs "martial arts", not so much doubting what you posted.



Oh, that explains it. I was hoping to learn the secret of marital arts.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

She is always right: There! Secret's out.

 [


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> She is always right: There! Secret's out.
> 
> [



FTW!   ;D


----------



## mariomike

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> She is always right: There! Secret's out.
> 
> [



Dad used to say the secret of a happy marriage....remains a secret.  

He wasn't kidding either.


----------



## cupper

One of the hosts for NPR' Car Talk when asked to settle disputes between couples over car issues, he would always ask the Husband "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"


----------



## Edward Campbell

OK, just because the pot needs stirring ...  :stirpot:

I spent 35+ years in the "job" "calling" Army and CF wearing battle dress, putts and booties, Sam Browne belts (which look god awful unless they are beautifully polished, which takes f'ing hours) and blue patrol dress uniforms with all manner of funny hats (The RCR even had a brown, fur felt forage cap that was different from those worn by anyone else, anywhere). So, I think I'm qualified to comment on what's silly and what isn't ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... that being asserted, _I think_ that in this photo ...






... the RCN and RCAF folks look properly and "well" dressed for a day at work. 

I think the Navy's work dress is a good mix of utility and safety with just enough attention being paid to a minimal level of "smartness." (My, personal, experience says that sailors and soldiers (and RCAF members) don't especially want to look like bags o' shite but they want the appearance factor to come after safety, utility and ease of care.)

I think that disruptive pattern uniforms at sea speak to something far, far short of common sense. I understand that some, many, navies still wear white shirts at sea ... and I guess RCN officers still dine in _Red Sea rig_ now and again ...  :dunno: ... oh, well, _à chacun son goût._

I think sailors look mildly silly in berets (I think those are RN officers, are they not ... that may explain the silliness) ... ball caps are a good idea for three all services, _in my opinion_.

I still object to seeing people who work 8:00 to 5:00 in offices wearing expensive combat uniforms when sensible, cost effective variants of what those RCN and RCAF members are wearing are available.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Officer in beret on the right is Canadian.  Our NCD will soon cease to look as they appear here and will be a sensible Navy colour FR version of the CADPAT cut and style being issued to the Army folks.  (ergo we will look closer to the RN officer (left beret) here than at present) We will continue to have our salt and pepper dress and I believe a new peaked cap will be coming (a more comfortable one like the RN uses) and the beret would be phased out.  (we presently can use either the peaked cap or beret in our 3's as a rule as the cap is designed by someone who believes the human head is perfectly round in shape like a cylinder)


----------



## Lightguns

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, just because the pot needs stirring ...  :stirpot:
> 
> I spent 35+ years in the "job" "calling" Army and CF wearing battle dress, putts and booties, Sam Browne belts (which look god awful unless they are beautifully polished, which takes f'ing hours) and blue patrol dress uniforms with all manner of funny hats (The RCR even had a brown, fur felt forage cap that was different from those worn by anyone else, anywhere). So, I think I'm qualified to comment on what's silly and what isn't ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... that being asserted, _I think_ that in this photo ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... the RCN and RCAF folks look properly and "well" dressed for a day at work.
> 
> I think the Navy's work dress is a good mix of utility and safety with just enough attention being paid to a minimal level of "smartness." (My, personal, experience says that sailors and soldiers (and RCAF members) don't especially want to look like bags o' shite but they want the appearance factor to come after safety, utility and ease of care.)
> 
> I think that disruptive pattern uniforms at sea speak to something far, far short of common sense. I understand that some, many, navies still wear white shirts at sea ... and I guess RCN officers still dine in _Red Sea rig_ now and again ...  :dunno: ... oh, well, _à chacun son goût._
> 
> I think sailors look mildly silly in berets (I think those are RN officers, are they not ... that may explain the silliness) ... ball caps are a good idea for three all services, _in my opinion_.
> 
> I still object to seeing people who work 8:00 to 5:00 in offices wearing expensive combat uniforms when sensible, cost effective variants of what those RCN and RCAF members are wearing are available.



So, ummm, garrison dress?


----------



## McG

Lightguns said:
			
		

> So, ummm, garrison dress?


No.  3B and 3C.


----------



## Journeyman

You just _know_  the Capt(?) by the podium is thinking "blah, blah, blah...sum the f*ck up!"  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

:goodpost:


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> You just _know_  the Capt(?) by the podium is thinking "blah, blah, blah...sum the **** up!"  ;D



It's okay to say Capt when you are addressing or introducing a Naval Officer of that rank. Most military people with a half a brain will figure it out. When writing correspondence you will use the (N) for Lt or Capt so that there is no confusion.

I was at Language school at St Jean (oh so many years ago) and our reviewing officer was Capt(N) Davey.
The MC insisted on saying "Captain Navy Davey" every time she mentioned his name. It was very annoying and very unnecessary.


----------



## FSTO

The USN is phasing out the blue disruptive pattern uniform and going with what the SEALS wear.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2016/08/the-end-of-blueberry-season.html
http://kitup.military.com/2016/08/the-navy-is-getting-rid-of-its-blueberries-working-uniform.html?ESRC=kitup.sm

The Navy’s most mocked camouflage uniform will soon be a thing of the past, the service announced today.

 The Navy Working Uniform Type I, blue camouflage utilities commonly referred to as “blueberries,” will be replaced everywhere in the service by the forest-green NWU Type III camouflage utilities developed by Naval Special Warfare Command as a tactical uniform.

 According to an announcement today by Naval Personnel Command, sailors will have the option of wearing either the NWU Type I or III beginning Oct. 1 of this year, and will be required to wear the NWU Type III as the primary working uniform ashore and in port by Oct. 1, 2019.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, just because the pot needs stirring ...  :stirpot:



Is it just me or do I not see the pic that ERC is talking about in his post?


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is it just me or do I not see the pic that ERC is talking about in his post?



If you are just reading the "RECENT POSTS" you will not see the picture.  Click on the link for the post which will take you to that Thread and you should see the photo.


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you are just reading the "RECENT POSTS" you will not see the picture.  Click on the link for the post which will take you to that Thread and you should see the photo.



Weird - I did just that and still nothing.  I'm sure I can guess at what it is though.


----------



## Journeyman

FSTO said:
			
		

> Most military people with a half a brain will figure it out.


Concur.


----------



## bLUE fOX

For anyone interested, the new 265 came out:


----------



## OldSolduer

Just running this by you all and I'd appreciate your opinions:

Since we are a sovereign nation, why are we hell bent of being "all things British, Scottish and Irish"?

I'm of Scots heritage and I think its high time we, as Canadians, stopped this nonsense. 

We have how many infantry regiments? And each one has its own dress regs, uniforms etc. And in this era of fiscal prudence, we want to spend cash on buttons and bows vice proper operational kit.

 :facepalm:

Just venting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just running this by you all and I'd appreciate your opinions:
> 
> Since we are a sovereign nation, why are we hell bent of being "all things British, Scottish and Irish"?
> 
> I'm of Scots heritage and I think its high time we, as Canadians, stopped this nonsense.
> 
> We have how many infantry regiments? And each one has its own dress regs, uniforms etc. And in this era of fiscal prudence, we want to spend cash on buttons and bows vice proper operational kit.
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> Just venting.



If you notice, it's not just our military accouterments that are inconsistent, because that's how you run a country under the Magna Carta versus the Declaration of Independence.

I blame King John, of course.


----------



## Kirkhill

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just running this by you all and I'd appreciate your opinions:
> 
> Since we are a sovereign nation, why are we hell bent of being "all things British, Scottish and Irish"?
> 
> I'm of Scots heritage and I think its high time we, as Canadians, stopped this nonsense.
> 
> We have how many infantry regiments? And each one has its own dress regs, uniforms etc. And in this era of fiscal prudence, we want to spend cash on buttons and bows vice proper operational kit.
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> Just venting.




 :goodpost:

Well said, Hamish.

We have never had King John's problem of independent Barons with their own fighting tails.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Just running this by you all and I'd appreciate your opinions:
> 
> Since we are a sovereign nation, why are we hell bent of being "all things British, Scottish and Irish"?
> 
> I'm of Scots heritage and I think its high time we, as Canadians, stopped this nonsense.
> 
> We have how many infantry regiments? And each one has its own dress regs, uniforms etc. And in this era of fiscal prudence, we want to spend cash on buttons and bows vice proper operational kit.
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> Just venting.



This... 100% this. Canadians need Canadian traditions, not British or American ones. The days of British colonialism are well past and our relationship with the motherland isn't particularly strong. Drop the kilts, pips, challenge coins, table to the fallen soldier, and all other British/American traditions we've stolen/appropriated and move on.


----------



## Kirkhill

Nobody "needs" traditions.  You can't create them.  They occur naturally over time.

And some of the common cultural practices are imported and become traditions.  

I think what Hamish is suggesting is that there is no need for 171 separate methods of wearing hats and passing the port.

Personally I wouldn't be bothered if everybody wore a kilt, had a bowl of poutine on their head and carried a ceremonial hockey stick - so long as the carping stopped.


----------



## mariomike

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Personally I wouldn't be bothered if everybody wore a kilt, had a bowl of poutine on their head and carried a ceremonial hockey stick - so long as the carping stopped.



Aww, not until we get this thread up to at least a respectable 300 pages.


----------



## Kirkhill

OK 300 pages.  Not a page more or no more poutine for you!


----------



## cupper

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think what Hamish is suggesting is that there is no need for 171 separate methods of wearing hats and passing the port.



But the bigger point that Mr. Seggie makes is that all of the bows and buttons BS is coming at the same time that there is a lack of necessary personal equipment in the system, such as boots, arctic kit, tentage. The priorities seem to be completely ass backwards.

It's like a glass eye, looks good, but doesn't work worth a damn.


----------



## OldSolduer

cupper said:
			
		

> But the bigger point that Mr. Seggie makes is that all of the bows and buttons BS is coming at the same time that there is a lack of necessary personal equipment in the system, such as boots, arctic kit, tentage. The priorities seem to be completely *** backwards.


Exactly. Our priorities need to be focused towards whatever mission we are assigned. 

Fancy hats etc - unless the aid in killing our enemies - are a distraction and a waste of time.


----------



## Kirkhill

No argument.


----------



## Pusser

I always find it interesting that the Canadian approach to things is often, "one or the other," but seemingly never, "both."  Should we all be a bunch of "garret troopers" (as Barry Sadler described them), concerned only with shiny shoes and sharp creases?  Of course not, but that is not to say that "buttons and bows" are silly, unnecessary or wasteful.

One of the things that many people seem to be forgetting is that military funding in this country is poor because the public as a group has not made it a priority.  The public wants healthcare; therefore, we can't spend on the military (again the "one or the other" philosophy).  In my opinion, we need both, but that's not going to happen if we don't garner public support and in order to do that, we need to engage the public.  Sadly, with base closures and reductions in personnel, the CAF is becoming more and more removed from the Canadian public.   A flashy, colourful image (i.e. buttons and bows) are actually a cheap way of doing that.  When Admiral Hose established the RCNVR in the 1920s, with half-companies across the country, it wasn't because he was concerned about any maritime threat to Saskatchewan.  It was because he wanted to engage the public and build support for the Navy.  This was achieved by showing off sailors in their shiny uniforms (e.g. parades) in order to show wheat farmers in the prairies that our navy was real.  Fancy uniforms and parades have a place that I fear has been forgotten.  The public very much enjoys a parade of soldiers in dress uniforms and a big brass/pipe band.  They're not so thrilled with soldiers in CADPAT looking like they're on patrol, even though soldiers actually do both.  And we need to do both.

Are the Snowbirds operationally necessary for the defence of the nation?  No, but they're PR value is pretty high.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> ... with base closures and reductions in personnel, the CAF is becoming more and more removed from the Canadian public.   A flashy, colourful image (i.e. buttons and bows) are actually a cheap way of doing that ...


If that's _truly_ the case, let me introduce you to some of the most well-supported, high-profile troops in the world ...


			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or how about these guys?  ;D


I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic about cooler-looking gear = more public visibility = more public support.


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or how about these guys?  ;D



Unfortunately, this may also call in the Department of Silly Walks:

https://www.facebook.com/smokesmoked/videos/1329533497087345/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZOb5tqYu-M


----------



## Pusser

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's _truly_ the case, let me introduce you to some of the most well-supported, high-profile troops in the world ...I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic about cooler-looking gear = more public visibility = more public support.



The Indian and Pakistani armies are quite large and well-equipped...


----------



## jollyjacktar

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If that's _truly_ the case, let me introduce you to some of the most well-supported, high-profile troops in the world ...I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic about cooler-looking gear = more public visibility = more public support.



You have of course watched this changing of the guard.  I would say it's very popular with their respective civilian spectators.  I for one would be delighted to watch the various Regiments duded up and having a dance off against each othe like that.  He'll, I'd pay to watch, say the RCR go H2H with the Toronto Scottish.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> The Indian and Pakistani armies are quite large and well-equipped...


And is that because they have cool uniforms, because the public (actively) wants this to be, or other factors?


----------



## McG

CCCB said:
			
		

> The British Army still has side hats, as does the Canadian Army (if you check the CFP-265).


It seems you're right.  Looks like a couple regiments are already back in the coloured field service caps of the 1940's.




















			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> One of the things that many people seem to be forgetting is that military funding in this country is poor because the public as a group has not made it a priority.  The public wants healthcare; therefore, we can't spend on the military (again the "one or the other" philosophy).  In my opinion, we need both, but that's not going to happen if we don't garner public support and in order to do that, we need to engage the public.  Sadly, with base closures and reductions in personnel, the CAF is becoming more and more removed from the Canadian public.   A flashy, colourful image (i.e. buttons and bows) are actually a cheap way of doing that.  When Admiral Hose established the RCNVR in the 1920s, with half-companies across the country, it wasn't because he was concerned about any maritime threat to Saskatchewan.  It was because he wanted to engage the public and build support for the Navy.  This was achieved by showing off sailors in their shiny uniforms (e.g. parades) in order to show wheat farmers in the prairies that our navy was real.  Fancy uniforms and parades have a place that I fear has been forgotten.  The public very much enjoys a parade of soldiers in dress uniforms and a big brass/pipe band.  They're not so thrilled with soldiers in CADPAT looking like they're on patrol, even though soldiers actually do both.  ...


Yet, as recently noted, the current fashion transformation does nothing for increasing our visibility amongst Canadians.  Subtle adjustments to the uniform focused on tribal identities and egos, while maybe very noticeable to service members, are entirely invisible to the public. 


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> You want changes to make the service more visible to the public? Then aim those changes at the average Canadian joe who does not know what "PPCLI" means; who sees nothing of significance in executive curls, Bath Stars, or Vimy Stars; who can't identify pear grey on a labeled Rona paint colour pallet; and who would very likely not recognize a CAF uniform if it was worn seated across from him in a Tim Horton's.


----------



## PuckChaser

Are our dress uniforms solely to identify ourselves to the Canadian public? Do we put "Edmonton Infantry" as the shoulder title for all Edmonton based units? Whatever colour you choose, there will be a large, ignorant majority who will not know what it is. You know what connects Canadians to the military? That average Canadian asking what the items on their uniform mean, and the young soldier being proud to explain each piece and the heritage behind it.

That small conversation is the connection to the Canadian public, not a colour, acronym, funny looking pip or hat.


----------



## Lightguns

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems you're right.  Looks like a couple regiments are already back in the coloured field service caps of the 1940's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, as recently noted, the current fashion transformation does nothing for increasing our visibility amongst Canadians.  Subtle adjustments to the uniform focused on tribal identities and egos, while maybe very noticeable to service members, are entirely invisible to the public.



There is no finer turn out than a rifles regiment.  Black leather on Green Rifle is the finest uniform.  We should have each tradition of the infantry represented in the Regular Force.


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ... You know what connects Canadians to the military? That average Canadian asking what the items on their uniform mean, and the young soldier being proud to explain each piece and the heritage behind it.
> 
> That small conversation is the connection to the Canadian public, not a colour, acronym, funny looking pip or hat.


And you don't need always-changing ribbons & bows to make that happen - and if it's not happening, new ribbons & bows won't make it happen.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

>



To be fair, the QOR has never gotten rid of the side hat, at least for the Band.  So there's that.


----------



## Pusser

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And is that because they have cool uniforms, because the public (actively) wants this to be, or other factors?



I'd say it's a mixture of all of the above.  To be fair, India and Pakistan each have an identifiable and immediate threat (Pakistan and India respectively) and so the public sees a need to provide better funding.  However, that doesn't mean that buttons and bows don't help.  The event pictured is always well attended.  For that matter, I recognized this event and the parties involved from a simple picture - that is the essence of public engagement.  Had they all been in combat clothing and simply locking gates, would it have been so easy to identify?


----------



## Pusser

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And you don't need always-changing ribbons & bows to make that happen - and if it's not happening, new ribbons & bows won't make it happen.



Granted, but if the people who wear the buttons and bows are happier with them, they are more likely to wear them more often and, therefore, more likely to actually engage in such conversations.

I realize that there are many, particularly on this forum, that see the recent changes in uniforms as wasteful.  Yes, there is a cost to such things, but there are other things to keep in mind:

1)  These changes do pay tribute to our history, whether folks agree or not.  Nevertheless, although there are vocal critics of the changes amongst serving members, there are also large numbers of firms supporters, so to say that these changes were universally not wanted is a bit of a stretch.  It wasn't that long ago when these moves would actually have garnered a great deal more support.

2)  We and our allies are constantly changing our uniforms (just look at the Americans).  Why are these recent changes the cause of such great consternation?

3)  I personally see these changes as going part way to right a great historic wrong.  I have no bones with unification, but the universal green uniform was a great mistake.  We still have a few other things to correct (I think the Australian Defence Force model is a better one).

4)  The arguments that having different badges of rank by DEU is confusing is utter nonsense.  Canadians didn't seem to have issues with that prior to 1968 and our allies don't seem to have issues with it now.

5)  I have yet to meet an officer of any colour of uniform who now hates to put on his/her uniform as result of these changes.

6)  None of these changes have slowed or stopped procurement of any operational kit.  The money for these things has largely come from leftover funds that have been identified AFTER the more important operational items have been taken care of.  The money used to buy pips and crowns would not have been diverted to ammunition anyway.

7)  One of the more important things that I think has come out of this is a general improvement in overall quality of the rank badges produced.  In the Navy's case in particular, the executive curl has forced us to use a much higher quality braid and enabled us to stop using the cheap plastic crap that was issued before.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Your point # 6.  I agree, 2000%.  As I am involved in the procurement side of the house, it isn't buttons and bows that make my head explode and equipment not materialize.  That takes the process we need to follow and get PSPC (Pathetically Slow Procurement Canada) involved in the mix to add insult to injury.  There are so many stages, hoops, manning shortages and BS that have to be overcome in the process I am quite frankly amazed we're able to buy anything at all.  Buttons and bows??? Nah... at least they're accomplishing what they've set out to do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And you don't need always-changing ribbons & bows to make that happen - and if it's not happening, new ribbons & bows won't make it happen.



I agree with the part I underlined in Yellow.

However, to be able to "engage" with the public on the already existing ribbons and bows, you need to *wear* the damn things in public. 

Perhaps, if we stopped calling the DEU a "dress" or 'ceremonial" uniform and got back to calling it what it really is: a "service" dress, we might realize that, on any given day, about 40% of serving members don't need to be in combat and can be fully accommodated for their duty by  wearing their service dress. When the GG Foot Guard or the Vandoos wear their scarlets, then they are in dress/ceremonial uniform. The DEU should be for everyday wear when you are not going to get yourself dirty from your work.

When we wear our service dress, the public engages with us - they don't when we are in operational clothing. At least that's my experience.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... to be able to "engage" with the public on the already existing ribbons and bows, you need to *wear* the damn things in public.
> 
> Perhaps, if we stopped calling the DEU a "dress" or 'ceremonial" uniform and got back to calling it what it really is: a "service" dress, we might realize that, on any given day, about 40% of serving members don't need to be in combat and can be fully accommodated for their duty by  wearing their service dress.


That's a slightly different question, though (but one worth asking/debating) than "how often should we change the shiny bits and to what?"


			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> I'd say it's a mixture of all of the above.  To be fair, India and Pakistan each have an identifiable and immediate threat (Pakistan and India respectively) and so the public sees a need to provide better funding.  However, that doesn't mean that buttons and bows don't help.  The event pictured is always well attended.  For that matter, I recognized this event and the parties involved from a simple picture - that is the essence of public engagement.  Had they all been in combat clothing and simply locking gates, would it have been so easy to identify?


Agreed - they DO have a public profile outside the country.  That said, there are Canadian units (Hill guard and/or Vandoos in scarlets & bearskin) that are recognized as Canadian (even if it's "fancy" dress).  Here's an even better example of good marketing & uniform/brand recognition:




I'll agree that part of their brand recognition is because of the uniform, but in this case, the uniforms have *NOT* changed a whoooooooooooole lot in a loooooooongish time, so I'm not clear re:  how changing some details of a uniform once or twice per generation promotes brand recognition.

As for your point-by-point:
1)  a>  Which history do we choose to pay tribute to?  And who decides?  (Well, we know who won THAT question.)  b>By extension, does that mean Canada's military history away from the British model is not worth celebrating or perpetuating?  Again, who decides?
2)  My take:  why spend time/money/energy on changes to uniforms when the system has a hard enough time getting boots to troops who need them to work.
3)  See (1)
4)  See (2)
5)  I stand to be corrected, but haven't seen anyone say they _hate_ putting on the uniform because of the new ribbons & bows.
6)  I might agree re:  the $, but I wonder what the results would have been if the same amount of time, energy, favour-calling, boot-licking, tenacity and stubbornness we saw for ribbon & bows was all applied to, say, boots or other things.
7)  I don't know enough about naval rank badge construction to challenge you on that one  ;D

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, although it's good to do so in a reasonably civil manner


----------



## Jed

Oooh! Oooh! It must be the Sam Browne belt!


----------



## Kirkhill

Might it have anything to do with the fact that there is a single regimental identity in which all 18,000 uniformed members share?


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, there are Canadian units (Hill guard and/or Vandoos in scarlets & bearskin) that are recognized as Canadian (even if it's "fancy" dress).  Here's an even better example of good marketing & uniform/brand recognition:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll agree that part of their brand recognition is because of the uniform, but in this case, the uniforms have *NOT* changed a whoooooooooooole lot in a loooooooongish time, so I'm not clear re:  how changing some details of a uniform once or twice per generation promotes brand recognition.
> 
> As for your point-by-point:
> 1)  a>  Which history do we choose to pay tribute to?  And who decides?  (Well, we know who won THAT question.)  b>By extension, does that mean Canada's military history away from the British model is not worth celebrating or perpetuating?  Again, who decides?
> 2)  My take:  why spend time/money/energy on changes to uniforms when the system has a hard enough time getting boots to troops who need them to work.
> 3)  See (1)
> 4)  See (2)
> 5)  I stand to be corrected, but haven't seen anyone say they _hate_ putting on the uniform because of the new ribbons & bows.
> 6)  I might agree re:  the $, but I wonder what the results would have been if the same amount of time, energy, favour-calling, boot-licking, tenacity and stubbornness we saw for ribbon & bows was all applied to, say, boots or other things.
> 7)  I don't know enough about naval rank badge construction to challenge you on that one  ;D
> 
> I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, although it's good to do so in a reasonably civil manner



Like American Armor Cavalry units wearing their stetsons, perhaps The RCD and Lord Strathcona's Horse (RC) should revert back to their Mountie style stetsons as well....... [


----------



## jollyjacktar

The Frontiersmen would approve.


----------



## mariomike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's an even better example of good marketing & uniform/brand recognition:



Disney knows a good thing when they see it.


----------



## Pusser

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> As for your point-by-point:
> 1)  a>  Which history do we choose to pay tribute to?  And who decides?  (Well, we know who won THAT question.)  b>By extension, does that mean Canada's military history away from the British model is not worth celebrating or perpetuating?  Again, who decides?
> 
> I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, although it's good to do so in a reasonably civil manner



I would argue that there is only one Canadian History - many contributors, but in the end, it all comes together into a single story.  The fact that the British model is the predominant one is entirely logical.  The British were generally better than the French at raising, organizing and equipping their colonial militias.  They also put more effort and money into fortifying their holdings in North America (even la Citadelle in Quebec is a British fortification).  So, naturally, the British roots of the CAF predominate.  However, that is not to say that other historical traditions do not or cannot come into play.  La ceinture fléchée has a prominent place in many French Canadian units and there are several accommodations for native accoutrements on our uniforms.  We have highland regiments in the Army because of strong Scottish roots in Canada, but has anyone ever thought of raising a First Nations regiment?

One of the problems though is that there has been very little effort to actually develop a uniquely Canadian model (if that's even possible).  Most of the efforts aimed at "Canadianizing" the CAF over the last 50 years have actually been more about abolishing everything British in origin and adopting Americanisms.  The CF green uniform is a prime example of that.  Did we simply swap one colonial master for another?-


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pusser said:
			
		

> One of the problems though is that there has been very little effort to actually develop a uniquely Canadian model (if that's even possible).


Another good question -- maybe one that should have been answered before folks went off willy-nilly each wanting their own little shiny thing changed or restored.



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> Most of the efforts aimed at "Canadianizing" the CAF over the last 50 years have actually been more about abolishing everything British in origin and adopting Americanisms.  The CF green uniform is a prime example of that.  Did we simply swap one colonial master for another?


Based on the latest developments I see, we've gone back to "Big Boss 1", without answering the question in orange above first.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Pusser said:
			
		

> I would argue that there is only one Canadian History - many contributors, but in the end, it all comes together into a single story.  The fact that the British model is the predominant one is entirely logical.  The British were generally better than the French at raising, organizing and equipping their colonial militias.  They also put more effort and money into fortifying their holdings in North America (even la Citadelle in Quebec is a British fortification).  So, naturally, the British roots of the CAF predominate.  However, that is not to say that other historical traditions do not or cannot come into play.  La ceinture fléchée has a prominent place in many French Canadian units and there are several accommodations for native accoutrements on our uniforms.  We have highland regiments in the Army because of strong Scottish roots in Canada, but has anyone ever thought of raising a First Nations regiment?
> 
> One of the problems though is that there has been very little effort to actually develop a uniquely Canadian model (if that's even possible).  Most of the efforts aimed at "Canadianizing" the CAF over the last 50 years have actually been more about abolishing everything British in origin and adopting Americanisms.  The CF green uniform is a prime example of that.  Did we simply swap one colonial master for another?-



IMHO the best unifying Canadian military tradition, recognized world wide and perhaps less so at home (unfortunately), is our ferociously effective performance in some of the toughest battles during the most devastating wars in human history. 

That's good enough for me.


----------



## Kirkhill

Actually I always thought the Green came from the Rifle regiments - regiments that were raised largely from German, Swiss and French to serve under the Hanoverian Crown that sat on the throne in London.   Another curious point is that the Rifles were explicitly "untraditional" in their day and were associated with some very "untraditional" and "enlightened" Scots - like Black Bob Craufurd of Ayrshire and John Moore of Glasgow.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Pusser said:
			
		

> I'd say it's a mixture of all of the above.  To be fair, India and Pakistan each have an identifiable and immediate threat (Pakistan and India respectively) and so the public sees a need to provide better funding.  However, that doesn't mean that buttons and bows don't help.  The event pictured is always well attended.  For that matter, I recognized this event and the parties involved from a simple picture - that is the essence of public engagement.  Had they all been in combat clothing and simply locking gates, would it have been so easy to identify?



Yes, it is an easily recognizable and very colourful display.  However, it started off as guys in combat clothing (or whatever they called their normal, everyday working uniform), in their own time, lowering their respective national flags and locking their gates; just as soldiers (or those in other uniformed government departments) are normally apt to do at sunset (i.e. end of the working day), and more so back in the 40s and 50s.  Their timings became coordinated (by agreement one - two three - one) in 1959, though it is unlikely that the ceremony back then was the overly exaggerated, choreographed, comic opera demonstration that it evolved into.  The same as "public duties" in London, what started as a routine military function (guarding a sovereign's residence or closing a border crossing at the end of the day) conducted in a normal military manner (by drills) has morphed over years and decades (century?) into the military, public performance, art piece that it is today.

However, the Wagah ceremony is unusual, not in the attempts to one-up the other (displays of drill one-upmanship is common in militaries world-wide) but in it being a public "dick measuring" contest that has continued uninterrupted between two countries even when they were actively engaged as belligerents.  There was an agreement to discontinue the ceremony several years ago, however neither side would take the first step (or rather, not take any more silly looking steps) in implementing that agreement.  India did stop for one day, at the request of Pakistani to suspend the ceremony following a terrorist bombing nearby on their side of the border; however, the Pakistanis continued their normal routine to packed bleachers while the Indians just had the regular border attendants take down the flag and lock the gate without fanfare or spectators.  Such is the pettiness in relations between the two countries.

The point?  These types of public engaging ceremonies have evolved gradually and organically.  The latest trend in "buttons and bows" bullshit within the CF despite claims of "bringing back tradition" and "honouring history" is just that - bullshit.  As for engaging the public, adding new badges is not going to suddenly make the CF more visible in the community.  Only being visible in the community will do that.  How does a unit (particularly reserve) become more visible?  A suggestion - start small with a routine military function that may gradually be  noticed, such as a regular flag ceremony (raising or lowering, even with only a couple of soldiers or a corporal's guard) outside the armoury.  It doesn't have to be staged as a spectator event; if it has value to the soldiers involved, it will gradually be noticed.  And that is the operative word - "gradually"; far too often the goal is instant results.


----------



## Journeyman

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ....overly exaggerated,  choreographed, comic opera demonstration....


Harrumph....in _my_  cubicle, we call it the "operational planning process;      here, let me show you the powerpoints......"


----------



## Blackadder1916

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Blackadder1916 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... overly exaggerated, choreographed, comic opera demonstration ...
> 
> 
> 
> Harrumph....in _my_  cubicle, we call it the "operational planning process;      here, let me show you the powerpoints......"
Click to expand...


Piffle, real soldiering!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol5Dfs7jqFI


----------



## Loachman

Pusser said:
			
		

> 5)  I have yet to meet an officer of any colour of uniform who now hates to put on his/her uniform as result of these changes.



Well, we haven't actually "met" in the meat world, as far as I know, but:

The first time that I ever looked up the phone number for the release section was the day that I first saw the light blue rag into which I was going to be forced by the Mulroney government. Liking every other aspect of my job, I choked back my never-ending disgust every time that I put it on, and I wore it only when I absolutely had to, and not for one second more. I only had to wear the stupid new rank insignia on it once before I had one too many birthdays. All of that crap went on a bonfire.

I was wandering around the NAAFI at RAF Coltishall in March 1983, happily wearing my CF Green Service Dress while trying to cadge a Jaguar ride from 41 Squadron (in return for flying a bunch of their guys in the Bardufoss area over the preceding few weeks), and overheard one of two wives say to the other: "Look. There's a Canadian. Their uniforms are so much better-looking than ours".

I would really not care what the a** f**ce wears, though, if it did not affect Tac Hel. The blue uniform drove the wedge (that began with the creation of Air Command in 1975) between Tac Hel and the Army wherein we originated and which we exist to support, in further - we went from being part of the happy family to "you a** f**ce guys" very quickly because of that. The new rank insignia added another couple of taps.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I quite agree and sympathize with your predicament Loachman. And I know for fact that many members of the MH world (and even some LRP folks from time to time) also think that they are wearing the wrong hue of blue - the dark one befitting them more than the light.

But you are right on where the schism lies: Unification that created Air Command with its big hands on everything that flies - not the Mulroney change of uniforms by "element".

Even today, I don't see why Tac Hel and MH couldn't be entirely administered by their own real "client": The Army and the Navy, but with common schooling - even if under the Air Force - for all the various tasks that are similar, like basic flight training, various air engineering course, etc.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But you are right on where the schism lies: Unification that created Air Command with its big hands on everything that flies - not the Mulroney change of uniforms by "element".


Unification did not create Air Command.  Air Command was created years later for the ego of the tribe.


----------



## Loachman

Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command continued to exist post-unification. 10 Tactical Air Group (which included CH136 Kiowa, CH135 Twin Huey, CH113A Voyageur, CF116 for CAS, and CC115 for short-range transport) belonged to Mobile Command (Army) and Maritime Air Group belonged to Maritime Command. These were all smunched together to form Air Command in 1975 - the second-worst military decision after unification. One of the lies told in justification was that it would give all "airmen" a common identity. It ignored the fact that 10 TAG and MAG people identified with their original parent Services/Commands and NOT with airforcey people.

If anything does need to be wound back through time, that travesty is begging for it.


----------



## Happy Guy

I remember talking with an Air Force Col as we were both waiting for a shuttle bus at NDHQ.  I remarked that for an Air Force guy he had an impressive row of ribbons to which he retorted he was a very proud Tac Hel pilot, and that he had deployed as much as he could to support CF operations and the Army.  He said that he had slept more often in tents than in the normal five star hotels that the Air Force habitually deploys into. 
He was definitely was wearing the wrong colour uniform.


----------



## FSTO

Loachman said:
			
		

> Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command continued to exist post-unification. 10 Tactical Air Group (which included CH136 Kiowa, CH135 Twin Huey, CH113A Voyageur, CF116 for CAS, and CC115 for short-range transport) belonged to Mobile Command (Army) and Maritime Air Group belonged to Maritime Command. These were all smunched together to form Air Command in 1975 - the second-worst military decision after unification. One of the lies told in justification was that it would give all "airmen" a common identity. It ignored the fact that 10 TAG and MAG people identified with their original parent Services/Commands and NOT with airforcey people.
> 
> If anything does need to be wound back through time, that travesty is begging for it.



I have no documentation to back up this observation but the Maritime and Tactical aviation communities seem to be the Red Headed step children of the RCAF.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> I remember talking with an Air Force Col as we were both waiting for a shuttle bus at NDHQ.  I remarked that for an Air Force guy he had an impressive row of ribbons to which he retorted he was a very proud Tac Hel pilot, and that he had deployed as much as he could to support CF operations and the Army.  He said that he had slept more often in tents than in the normal five star hotels that the Air Force habitually deploys into.
> He was definitely was wearing the wrong colour uniform.



You could argue that he had exactly the right attitude to bring to that colour of uniform, and the challenge is to share that around more.


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Even today, I don't see why Tac Hel and MH couldn't be entirely administered by their own real "client": The Army and the Navy, but with common schooling - even if under the Air Force - for all the various tasks that are similar, like basic flight training, various air engineering course, etc.



So, basically how the Australian Defence Force does it, except even more streamlined because of the common administration, etc.  

It makes too much sense, therefore it would never work.  Also, until recent events (OP MOBILE and IMPACT), I would have thought that LRP should belong to the Navy too, as the global P-3 operators are somewhat evenly split between Air Forces and Naval Aviation.


----------



## Loachman

FSTO said:
			
		

> I have no documentation to back up this observation but the Maritime and Tactical aviation communities seem to be the Red Headed step children of the RCAF.



No, not "step children".

"Forcibly adopted", at best. Kidnapped, more accurately - but now Stockholm Syndrome has kicked in, and too few remember their true parents.


----------



## Loachman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Even today, I don't see why Tac Hel and MH couldn't be entirely administered _*commanded*_ by their own real "client": The Army and the Navy, but with common schooling - even if under the Air Force - for all the various tasks that are similar, like basic flight training, various air engineering course, etc.



Canadian Joint Air Training Centre. Very brief Wikipedia article about Rivers, Manitoba: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_Rivers


----------



## Good2Golf

LM, I hear that the heavy lifters remember their RCASC heritage and at the annual mess dinner will sneak the old RCASC March Past, 'Wait For the Wagons' (also was the RASC and Transport Branch march pasts) into the line up.  That's old school...and there are still a few pre-unification Army Aviators (Tpt) around to help the young kids remember... 

G2G


----------



## Loachman

Good. I wish that more "remembered".


----------



## mariomike

Loachman said:
			
		

> I wish that more "remembered".



Wasn't a Pilot, but I "remember" the March Past.


----------



## Good2Golf

mariomike said:
			
		

> Wasn't a Pilot, but I "remember" the March Past.



 :nod:

Wait for the Wagon


----------



## dimsum

Loachman said:
			
		

> No, not "step children".
> 
> "Forcibly adopted", at best. Kidnapped, more accurately - but now Stockholm Syndrome has kicked in, and too few remember their true parents.


Bit of a ramble, but...

On the other hand, if MH/TH (and LRP maybe) get given back to the Army/Navy, would that actually be better organizationally-speaking (not just uniform/heritage)?  Because the AF has been on the lead for most things airborne (aside from SUAS) for decades, the "Fleet Air Arm" and "Army Aviation" would basically be using the AF model to do things anyway so in the end, it would really just boil down to a "buttons and bows" change.  However, then the same trade across fixed and rotary platforms would stovepipe themselves even more - e.g. an RCN AESOP posted to MH would then have to change services/elements to fly on an Aurora (if the RCAF keeps those).  

Another consideration; the way the ADF does recruiting for Pilot is that the candidate goes through selection, then after their version of ACS, they get told if they're streamed for the RAAF, Aus Army Aviation or RAN Fleet Air Arm.  This assumes that an 17-18 year old knows exactly what they want (TH, MH or the rest) and is willing to choose that as their career.  At least with the way ours works, Pilots/ACSOs theoretically have some time to consider the various airframes (and more importantly, their instructors/the system can stream them to something more suited for them).  Yes, many times it's just pure numbers game and what the squadrons need, but in the ADF it can literally be down to "we need 2 RAN Pilots, 2 Army Pilots and 6 RAAF Pilots this recruiting intake.  If you really want to go RAN, your application is shelved until next year."

The other question (aside from "would the RCAF want a reduction in their fleet") would be "would the RCN and CA really want to take over some airborne things, with the Flight Safety, maintenance and other common aviation requirements"?  I suppose a combined Flight Safety and Maint directorate would work in that regard.

Wait, I might have just argued myself into the same corner as you.   :blotto:


----------



## Good2Golf

...or perhaps something closer to the OPCOM relationship between 427 and CANSOF... :nod:


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Guys, seriously, I just want to wear a Sam Browne.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Guys, seriously, I just want to wear a Sam Browne.



But you don't want to have to polish one, like I had to do for years...


----------



## McG

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Guys, seriously, I just want to wear a Sam Browne.


I saw an army cadet CWO wearing one recently.  You could go join them.


----------



## jollyjacktar

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Guys, seriously, I just want to wear a Sam Browne.



We used to wear one on our DEU when I was current as an MP.  When did that stop?


----------



## mariomike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> We used to wear one on our DEU when I was current as an MP.  When did that stop?



I don't know. 
But, our City police stopped wearing suicide belts Sam Browne belts on Operations around the same time they stopped wearing "widow maker" holsters.
Perps could grab your Sam Browne. Maybe even try to strangle you with it. Likewise the switch from long knitted ties to the polyester clip-ons.
City police still wear the Sam Brown on Ceremonial dress. 

Not sure if a Sam Browne would look good or be comfortable on Operations for female officers?

Maybe switch from leather to a synthetic break away? < Synthetic?! Shame on me for even thinking such a thing!   :tsktsk: >

This was the Transport Operator trade badge we wore.


----------



## McG

As we ponder uniquely coloured hats, I think it is important not to forget the matching trousers.  It will be better for getting the CAF engaged in the minds of Canadians.

























   :stirpot:


----------



## bLUE fOX

MCG said:
			
		

> As we ponder uniquely coloured hats, I think it is important not to forget the matching trousers.  It will be better for getting the CAF engaged in the minds of Canadians.



But do those silly pants have the same historical meaning as these silly pants?


----------



## mariomike

Mix and match?

In both the reddish  and greenish trouser units, a few wore khaki trousers.
Looks like they tried to hide them in the middle. 

That's why I buy my suits with two pairs of matching trousers.


----------



## dapaterson

MCG said:
			
		

> As we ponder uniquely coloured hats, I think it is important not to forget the matching trousers.  It will be better for getting the CAF engaged in the minds of Canadians.



Pants are for infantry not manly enough for kilts.

And one good windstorm, and the CAF will be fully engaged in the minds of Canadians - like the young kilted gentleman I saw once on a windy day in Halifax.  What has been seen cannot be unseen.  And I never knew there were leopardskin thongs for men until that day...


----------



## The Bread Guy

bLUE fOX said:
			
		

> But do those silly pants have the same historical meaning as these silly *golfing* pants?


 >


----------



## OldSolduer

While we're at it lets reintroduce volley firing. We'd have to hire Richard Sharpe to teach us. Three rounds per minute in any kind of weather.....


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pants are for infantry not manly enough for kilts.
> 
> And one good windstorm, and the CAF will be fully engaged in the minds of Canadians - like the young kilted gentleman I saw once on a windy day in Halifax.  What has been seen cannot be unseen.  And I never knew there were leopardskin thongs for men until that day...



My grandfather had to wear a kilt in the trenches in WW1. I think that's the only time I ever heard him use swear words.


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> My grandfather had to wear a kilt in the trenches in WW1. I think that's the only time I ever heard him use swear words.



You are looking good for your age.   [


----------



## jollyjacktar

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You are looking good for your age.   [



Beat me to it  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> While we're at it lets reintroduce volley firing. We'd have to hire Richard Sharpe to teach us. Three rounds per minute in any kind of weather.....



With these?







A platoon of Carl Gustavs firing in volleys and maintaining 3 rounds per minute in any kind of weather.....


----------



## my72jeep

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pants are for infantry not manly enough for kilts.
> 
> And one good windstorm, and the CAF will be fully engaged in the minds of Canadians - like the young kilted gentleman I saw once on a windy day in Halifax.  What has been seen cannot be unseen.  And I never knew there were leopardskin thongs for men until that day...


Are you positive they were men's?


----------



## Happy Guy

MCG said:
			
		

> As we ponder uniquely coloured hats, I think it is important not to forget the matching trousers.  It will be better for getting the CAF engaged in the minds of Canadians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :stirpot:



Yes exactly this. This what some groups in the CA wants us to eventually look like. To remember and celebrate our British military heritage because the Canadian one, in their bias minds, does not exist or is not worthwhile to continue.


----------



## Ostrozac

mariomike said:
			
		

> In both the reddish  and greenish trouser units, a few wore khaki trousers.
> Looks like they tried to hide them in the middle.



There is a silly trouser war within the British Army as to whether attached arms should wear their parent corps silly pants or the silly pants of the regiment they are attached too. 

This is similar to the silly hat war that has been ongoing in Canada for decades, nay centuries -- a Logistician in a armoured unit will wear a black hat but a Logisitician in a military police unit will absolutely not wear a red hat. Why? No reason... it's just the current front line of the silly hat war.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the hat of the month club. Caubeens for everyone in March (because everyone is Irish on Saint Patrick's Day). Russian style fur hats in May (for May Day Parades). Peaked Forage Caps in June (change of command parades and weddings both traditionally happen in June, I'm not sure why). 

I am open to suggestions for the other months! Hat of the month club! Coming soon to a CANLANDGEN near you (or whatever Force Mobile Command is calling themselves this week).


----------



## bLUE fOX

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There is a silly trouser war within the British Army as to whether attached arms should wear their parent corps silly pants or the silly pants of the regiment they are attached too.
> 
> This is similar to the silly hat war that has been ongoing in Canada for decades, nay centuries -- a Logistician in a armoured unit will wear a black hat but a Logisitician in a military police unit will absolutely not wear a red hat. Why? No reason... it's just the current front line of the silly hat war.
> 
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the hat of the month club. Caubeens for everyone in March (because everyone is Irish on Saint Patrick's Day). Russian style fur hats in May (for May Day Parades). Peaked Forage Caps in June (change of command parades and weddings both traditionally happen in June, I'm not sure why).
> 
> I am open to suggestions for the other months! Hat of the month club! Coming soon to a CANLANDGEN near you (or whatever Force Mobile Command is calling themselves this week).



You sir, are exactly the hero we need.


----------



## OldSolduer

We have a fur hat now. For DEU only though. Typical.


----------



## Loachman

We desperately need War Time Epaulettes.

We already have people with matching mentalities.


----------



## medicineman

Man, I seem to remember being on a parade with 2RCR where they wanted a sea of green, so no Navy or Air Force allowed on it...even if our cap badges didn't happen to match and some of us (medical : ) weren't allowed to wear our Brigade patches.  On closer inspection, many of us didn't look the same...similar to the pics above with the Micks.

MM


----------



## jollyjacktar

medicineman said:
			
		

> Man, I seem to remember being on a parade with 2RCR where they wanted a sea of green, so no Navy or Air Force allowed on it...even if our cap badges didn't happen to match and some of us (medical : ) weren't allowed to wear our Brigade patches.  On closer inspection, many of us didn't look the same...similar to the pics above with the Micks.
> 
> MM



Was the same with us MP and other support trades in 1 Brigade.  They said we looked like a box of Smarties (not without reason), for 1 PPCLI "wrong" coloured support personnel were not allowed on some parades as it ruined the effect.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Was the same with us MP in 1 Brigade.  They said we looked like a box of Smarties (not without reason), for 1 PPCLI "wrong" coloured support personnel were allowed on some parades as it ruined the effect.



By those who think uniforms are more important then men. [women]


----------



## mariomike

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They said we looked like a box of Smarties (not without reason), for 1 PPCLI "wrong" coloured support personnel were allowed on some parades as it ruined the effect.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> There is a silly trouser war within the British Army as to whether attached arms should wear their parent corps silly pants or the silly pants of the regiment they are attached too.
> 
> This is similar to the silly hat war that has been ongoing in Canada for decades, nay centuries -- a Logistician in a armoured unit will wear a black hat but a Logisitician in a military police unit will absolutely not wear a red hat. Why? No reason... it's just the current front line of the silly hat war.
> 
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the hat of the month club. Caubeens for everyone in March (because everyone is Irish on Saint Patrick's Day). Russian style fur hats in May (for May Day Parades). Peaked Forage Caps in June (change of command parades and weddings both traditionally happen in June, I'm not sure why).
> 
> I am open to suggestions for the other months! Hat of the month club! Coming soon to a CANLANDGEN near you (or whatever Force Mobile Command is calling themselves this week).



We all have this hat.... a.k.a. the one that matters:


----------



## Loachman

If only it came in dark blue with red piping and a little thingy to hold hackles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Loachman - the fashion-forward Italians, as always, are streets ahead of you.






Although it looks much better than the Israeli practice of wearing their berets on top of their helmets


----------



## George Wallace

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Loachman - the fashion-forward Italians, as always, are streets ahead of you.



Some would just chalk that up as a very poor job at camming their helmet.  Bad choice of scrim.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Loachman - the fashion-forward Italians, as always, are streets ahead of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although it looks much better than the Israeli practice of wearing their berets on top of their helmets



The Israeli helmet cover works very well as intended though, you have to admit.


----------



## quadrapiper

Point has been raised that buttons and bows don't necessarily make a difference in public engagement - will agree, as far as a first order effect. However, might a e.g. rifleman from a unit keen on identity not possibly be more likely to engage positively, or to choose to wear the uniform in transit, say, than someone who feels less identification with the "tribe?"

Entirely agree on small public ceremonial being an ultra-cheap way to draw public attention - no reason not to have the duty bodies (and, if the unit has 'em, a piper or bugler) do something public at close of business, especially at militia units in built up areas. Commissionaire can always put the flag back up the next morning! Ditto seeking out public venues for e.g. promotion or swearing-in events, whether the chosen presented identity is CADPAT and fully tooled up, or brilliant scarlets, or anything in between

Ceremonial sidebar - why not only have flag(s) up at armouries when the resident unit is actually "in?"


----------



## Loachman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Loachman - the fashion-forward Italians, as always, are streets ahead of you.



Yes, I've seen both before.

We can still be the first to have War Time Epaulettes though, but I suppose that having to stick them (it) on with Velcro midway between gonads and chin would somewhat lessen the effect.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I think we should have a "tiger team" in the Army Staff (G1) working on colour coordinating the (proposed) wedge caps (most of which have two colours, some of which can have three or (one can imagine) even four colours) with the funny trouser colours that really, really ought to be considered.

Given that it (funny hats and coloured trousers) might be the only new "stuff" the army gets for a while, (Justin _"Sunny Ways"_ Trudeau is not a big fan of defence spending, I think)  I suggest that the team should be headed by a colonel, thus justifying a "bump" up in rank for the G1, and it should have at least three for four lieutenant colonels, each aided by a major and a couple of CWOs.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think we should have a "tiger team" in the Army Staff (G1) working on colour coordinating the (proposed) wedge caps (most of which have two colours, some of which can have three or (one can imagine) even four colours) with the funny trouser colours that really, really ought to be considered.
> 
> Given that it (funny hats and coloured trousers) might be the only new "stuff" the army gets for a while, (Justin _"Sunny Ways"_ Trudeau is not a big fan of defence spending, I think)  I suggest that the team should be headed by a colonel, thus justifying a "bump" up in rank for the G1, and it should have at least three for four lieutenant colonels, each aided by a major and a couple of CWOs.



Four lieutenant colonels - doesn't that buy at least an independent squadron of coffee-wallahs each?  Good for another thousand bodies at least.


----------



## OldSolduer

Well I'm not doing much. I'd love to sit on a silly hat, silly pants committee


----------



## Old Sweat

Jim,

Silly is a word I don't associate with you.


----------



## OldSolduer

Oh I can be very silly.....when required. [


----------



## my72jeep

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Oh I can be very silly.....when required. [


He lives in Winnipeg after all.


----------



## ArmyRick

No need. I am sure pretty soon that we will all wear UN blue berets and UN blue baseball caps, then when we deploy (hey "Canada is back.." : we simply switch cap badges

Better yet, maybe we can adopt a white-blue cadpat scheme for combats so as to be truly UN-ish, in gender neutral uniforms (sorry zipper has to go, its just for boys) 

I better stop before someone from the Liberal party sees any of this and says "Great idea!"...


----------



## George Wallace

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> No need. I am sure pretty soon that we will all wear UN blue berets and UN blue baseball caps, then when we deploy (hey "Canada is back.." : we simply switch cap badges
> 
> Better yet, maybe we can adopt a white-blue cadpat scheme for combats so as to be truly UN-ish, in gender neutral uniforms (sorry zipper has to go, its just for boys)
> 
> I better stop before someone from the Liberal party sees any of this and says "Great idea!"...



Don't forget to have the embroidery on the cap, or high vis patches: "We are Canadian.  We are here to help."


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't forget to have the embroidery on the cap, or high vis patches: "We are Canadian.  We are here to help."



You forgot "Can we help?" and "Sorry".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> No need. I am sure pretty soon that we will all wear UN blue berets and UN blue baseball caps, then when we deploy (hey "Canada is back.." : we simply switch cap badges
> 
> Better yet, maybe we can adopt a white-blue cadpat scheme for combats so as to be truly UN-ish, in gender neutral uniforms (sorry zipper has to go, its just for boys)
> 
> I better stop before someone from the Liberal party sees any of this and says "Great idea!"...



What a great idea ArmyRick:

If Trump can make a killing selling red ball caps that  read "Make America Great Again", I should be able to make a decent return if I invest in a bunch of powder blue ball caps that read "Canada is Back!" and sell them to Libs and Dippers.


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You forgot "Can we help?" and "Sorry".



I was going for the closing remark at the UN .......which made me gag.



It reminded me so much of the old "I am from Ottawa.  I am here to help."  that struck fear into the souls of so many in the past.


----------



## FSTO

I can only take JT in small snippets but his closing remark reminded me of a High School valedictorian speech.


----------



## Rifleman62

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ....red ball caps that  read "Make America Great Again"....


I just assumed that was a typo for "Make America Grate Again"....


----------



## McG

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> No need. I am sure pretty soon that we will all wear UN blue berets and UN blue baseball caps, then when we deploy (hey "Canada is back.." : we simply switch cap badges
> 
> Better yet, maybe we can adopt a white-blue cadpat scheme for combats so as to be truly UN-ish, in gender neutral uniforms (sorry zipper has to go, its just for boys)


Stop reliving crappy old movies.


----------



## Castus

MCG said:
			
		

> Stop reliving crappy old movies.



The lesson I'm getting from Streetfighter is that as long as promise to stand up to mean people and wear sweet blue uniforms, all evil in the world will collapse into the dustbin of history.

I'm so excited that not only is it 2016 right now, but soon it will be 2017. Who knows what hilarious capers the Canadian Armed Forces will embark on then?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Jesus H _You Know Who_ on a crutch, how do you people even know about this stuff?

I had to do a Google image search and, now, knowing what _Streetfighter_ (1994) was, I'm feeling slightly less "informed" than I was before I knew it ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... did it actually run in theatres? Did people pay to watch it? Really?  :-\


----------



## cavalryman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> did it actually run in theatres? Did people pay to watch it? Really?  :-\


Yes and yes, but you'll not find anyone willing to admit watching it.


----------



## dimsum

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Yes and yes, but you'll not find anyone willing to admit watching it.



:rofl:


----------



## Lightguns

I can say with my hand on my heart that I never watched a "Muscles from Brussels" movie.


----------



## Infanteer

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... did it actually run in theatres? Did people pay to watch it? Really?  :-\



It was a based on a popular video game that I sunk many a quarter into at the 7/11, so it's likely to have had a fair run in theatre.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It was a based on a popular video game that I sunk many a quarter into at the 7/11, so it's likely to have had a fair run in theatre.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Loachman - the fashion-forward Italians, as always, are streets ahead of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although it looks much better than the Israeli practice of wearing their berets on top of their helmets



Neither the Bersaglieri nor the IDF patrol care what you think of their helmets. The Bersaglieri takes an enormous amount of pride in the cockerel feathers on his helmet; although he might ditch them to suit the tactical situation. They are part of their identify with a rich and authentic history. As for the IDF, their dress and equipment has evolved from being on continuous operations for some seventy years.


----------



## Kirkhill

And I understand that, and appreciate that T2B.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> As for the IDF, their dress and equipment has evolved from being on continuous operations for some seventy years.



And also probably a fervent desire to NOT look British!


----------



## cupper

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Neither the Bersaglieri nor the IDF patrol care what you think of their helmets. The Bersaglieri takes an enormous amount of pride in the cockerel feathers on his helmet; although he might ditch them to suit the tactical situation. They are part of their identify with a rich and authentic history. As for the IDF, their dress and equipment has evolved from being on continuous operations for some seventy years.



Would be effective camo if they found themselves holed up in an exotic bird sanctuary. :camo:


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This... 100% this. Canadians need Canadian traditions, not British or American ones. The days of British colonialism are well past and our relationship with the motherland isn't particularly strong. Drop the kilts, pips, challenge coins, table to the fallen soldier, and all other British/American traditions we've stolen/appropriated and move on.



Oh dear, someone been blowing that neo-nationalist dog whistle again???  >

IMO, I might have a peely-wally complexion, a Celtic surname and speak English, but I am Canadian.

Similarly, we can have a ‘House of Commons’, provincial flags with the UJ on them, kilts, pips and zeeds (not zees).  And you know what, we might’ve taken them from the Brits but they are ours now.  100% Canadian.


----------



## McG

MCG said:
			
		

> Sometime last year, several Army Corps were asked if they wanted to return to the navy blue general service beret that Canada briefly wore in the '50s.  Well, it seems some Corps said yes and the other Corps were asked again this week to survey more people and come back with a better answer.
> 
> So, I guess it is only a matter of time before this next fashion adjustment happens.
> 
> This time around, the royal blue beret is being described as the headdress of royal designated corps (ignoring that neither RCIC nor RCAC will wear it) and it will be highest in precedence (in contrast to being last in precedence as was the case in the 50s).  I anticipate this causing some consternation amongst the Armd where the integral maintainers and signallers would no longer adopt the unit black beret on posting, and more angst in the maroon beret crowd as Cbt Engr and Sigs would no longer be allowed to "lower themselves" to a maroon beret.


So I have heard that the RCE has said no twice, the RCA and RCEME have said yes, and I don't know where the RCCS or others stand.

If this moves forward, I wonder if we will follow the UK practice of general officers continuing to wear the beret colour of their former corps/regiment, if they will continue to switch to a general service green, or if they will start switching to the new senior (yet historically general service) dark blue.  I also wonder if this dark blue beret gets into the supply system, how long will it be before the RCN ask to wear it as their historical beret colour.


----------



## Pusser

MCG said:
			
		

> So I have heard that the RCE has said no twice, the RCA and RCEME have said yes, and I don't know where the RCCS or others stand.
> 
> If this moves forward, I wonder if we will follow the UK practice of general officers continuing to wear the beret colour of their former corps/regiment, if they will continue to switch to a general service green, or if they will start switching to the new senior (yet historically general service) dark blue.  I also wonder if this dark blue beret gets into the supply system, how long will it be before the RCN ask to wear it as their historical beret colour.



Well....

The only reason the RCN went with the same shade of navy blue as the Armoured Corps was as a cost-saving measure and to simplify supply management.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> The only reason the RCN went with the same shade of navy blue as the Armoured Corps was as a cost-saving measure and to simplify supply management.


And it will continue the trend of keeping our "leadership" from doing anything substantive.   :brickwall:


----------



## George Wallace

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> The only reason the RCN went with the same shade of navy blue as the Armoured Corps was as a cost-saving measure and to simplify supply management.



Unfortunately the Armour Corps beret is black    >


----------



## Pusser

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the Armour Corps beret is black    >



Of course it is, and your guns are bigger than our guns...


----------



## a_majoor

Why not emulate the "Rangers" of the 1700's, or Tecumseh's scouts and fighters from the war of 1812, or the stripped down look of Canadians in the Veldt in the Boer War. We keep hearing that *we* should look "Canadian" and not emulate Americans, British or whoever else....

And the boot issue would also be solved once and for all when we get issued moccasins.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the boot issue would also be solved once and for all when we get issued moccasins.  ;D


And the system would _STILL_ have trouble getting enough Canadian content ...


----------



## Jed

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why not emulate the "Rangers" of the 1700's, or Tecumseh's scouts and fighters from the war of 1812, or the stripped down look of Canadians in the Veldt in the Boer War. We keep hearing that *we* should look "Canadian" and not emulate Americans, British or whoever else....
> 
> And the boot issue would also be solved once and for all when we get issued moccasins.  ;D



Only if the moccasins are handcrafted by First Nations from hides of animals taken north of 48.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jed said:
			
		

> Only if the moccasins are handcrafted by First Nations from hides of animals taken north of 48.



Ahem... officially bilingual First Nations....


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> The only reason the RCN went with the same shade of navy blue as the Armoured Corps was as a cost-saving measure and to simplify supply management.



You're right when you say the RCN used the Armour Corps beret as a cost saving measure. However, the 'colour' of that beret, that the RCN adopted well after the Corps, is black. It could even be argued that it's not even a colour, but something that completely absorbs light, instead of reflecting it.

Also, IIRC, the 'colour' of the RCN beret, is supposed to be midnight blue not navy blue. Navy Blue sounds like the colour being spoke of for the Units above, in the discussion.


----------



## daftandbarmy

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're right when you say the RCN used the Armour Corps beret as a cost saving measure. However, the 'colour' of that beret, that the RCN adopted well after the Corps, is black. It could even be argued that it's not even a colour, but something that completely absorbs light, instead of reflecting it.
> 
> Also, IIRC, the 'colour' of the RCN beret, is supposed to be midnight blue not navy blue. Navy Blue sounds like the colour being spoke of for the Units above, in the discussion.



Funny, the turret makes sure that I can't see the colour of your beret when I need direct fire onto that f@cking bunker that's cutting up my platoon on the right flank.


----------



## Journeyman

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're right when you say the RCN used the Armour Corps beret as a cost saving measure. However, the 'colour' of that beret, that the RCN adopted well after the Corps, is black.


      *Black Berets Matter!!*    

Don't be oppressing those folks' hats!


----------



## George Wallace

Journeyman said:
			
		

> *Black Berets Matter!!*
> 
> Don't be oppressing those folks' hats!



It has magical properties......Let's not anger the Armour Gods.....You may land up with a Zipper installed and posted to Calgary Edmonton.     :warstory:


----------



## Fishbone Jones

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Funny, the turret makes sure that I can't see the colour of your beret when I need direct fire onto that f@cking bunker that's cutting up my platoon on the right flank.


----------



## McG

recceguy said:
			
		

> Also, IIRC, the 'colour' of the RCN beret, is supposed to be midnight blue not navy blue. Navy Blue sounds like the colour being spoke of for the Units above, in the discussion.


Call it navy blue, royal blue or midnight blue.  The colour being discussed is the colour currently worn by both the RN and as the general service beret of the UK Army.


----------



## Old EO Tech

MCG said:
			
		

> So I have heard that the RCE has said no twice, the RCA and RCEME have said yes, and I don't know where the RCCS or others stand.
> 
> If this moves forward, I wonder if we will follow the UK practice of general officers continuing to wear the beret colour of their former corps/regiment, if they will continue to switch to a general service green, or if they will start switching to the new senior (yet historically general service) dark blue.  I also wonder if this dark blue beret gets into the supply system, how long will it be before the RCN ask to wear it as their historical beret colour.



I heard recently that GO and SA Army CWO will soon be all wearing Forage Caps again, at least in DEU 1A.


----------



## McG

I could believe that.  I have already seen a picture of the CDS in a forge cap.


----------



## PuckChaser

MCG said:
			
		

> I don't know where the RCCS or others stand.



RCCS said they would switch if the majority of the other services wanted to switch, but didn't push one way or the other. The political "we don't care" answer.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why not emulate the "Rangers" of the 1700's, or Tecumseh's scouts and fighters from the war of 1812, or the stripped down look of Canadians in the Veldt in the Boer War. We keep hearing that *we* should look "Canadian" and not emulate Americans, British or whoever else....
> 
> And the boot issue would also be solved once and for all when we get issued moccasins.  ;D









Baseball cap with the brim up......


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Baseball cap with the brim up......



And a Tam O'Shanter.... imagine the howls you'd get from the Regular Force chaps


----------



## Kirkhill

You have to have the toorie on tap.   [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well....
> 
> The only reason the RCN went with the same shade of navy blue as the Armoured Corps was as a cost-saving measure and to simplify supply management.



Perhaps it is time to put this incorrect view to rest once and for all.

The "navy blue" hue selected for the Canadian naval DEU is black, black, black, BLACK!

The label inside my 1985 issued pants is quite clear: "PANTS, MEN, SERVICE DRESS, BLACK"

And we are not the only Navy that used black instead of an actual navy blue hue. So do the Americans. 

It had nothing to do with saving money on the berets (in fact there was a navy blue beret in the system at the time for the CFAV uniform - so no saving). If you want the real reason, you can consider two things:

1) Ask your wives, for the men, or ask yourselves, for the women: How easy is it to find navy blue clothing that matches one another? It's near impossible because replicating navy blue dyes is near impossible. That means that every batch of true navy blue uniforms is ever so slightly different from the other.
2) Navy blue dyes are dyes that fade with every wash - try a nice dark navy pair of blue jeans and wash them five times, then compare to an unwashed pair. It's just the nature of the beast. But the results, if you ever have the chance to see a platoon of British or Australian sailors wearing their "blues", is that you will see that just about no two uniforms have the same colour unless they have just been issued with them.

We wanted to avoid that in Canada, hence we went with the American practice of having a "blues" that is in fact black - and remains consistently so in colour as result.


----------



## Pusser

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I heard recently that GO and SA Army CWO will soon be all wearing Forage Caps again, at least in DEU 1A.



Actually, the forage cap has always remained an optional item for GOs.  

I personally think that reintroducing forage caps is a good thing, especially if it means that soldiers aren't showing up on parade with berets that look like they've washed their cars with them.  If you want to wear berets all the time, fine, but at least keep a good one for parades!

As for the Navy, berets should be reserved for operational/working dress.  Perhaps with the new peaked caps that are apparently on the way (lighter, shaped to fit a human head and not plastic), we will see an end to that abomination of berets with service dress (actually, the practice has already been banned, but that is routinely ignored - saw a LCdr in a beret today).


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is time to put this incorrect view to rest once and for all.
> 
> The "navy blue" hue selected for the Canadian naval DEU is black, black, black, BLACK!
> 
> The label inside my 1985 issued pants is quite clear: "PANTS, MEN, SERVICE DRESS, BLACK"
> 
> And we are not the only Navy that used black instead of an actual navy blue hue. So do the Americans.
> 
> It had nothing to do with saving money on the berets (in fact there was a navy blue beret in the system at the time for the CFAV uniform - so no saving). If you want the real reason, you can consider two things:
> 
> 1) Ask your wives, for the men, or ask yourselves, for the women: How easy is it to find navy blue clothing that matches one another? It's near impossible because replicating navy blue dyes is near impossible. That means that every batch of true navy blue uniforms is ever so slightly different from the other.
> 2) Navy blue dyes are dyes that fade with every wash - try a nice dark navy pair of blue jeans and wash them five times, then compare to an unwashed pair. It's just the nature of the beast. But the results, if you ever have the chance to see a platoon of British or Australian sailors wearing their "blues", is that you will see that just about no two uniforms have the same colour unless they have just been issued with them.
> 
> We wanted to avoid that in Canada, hence we went with the American practice of having a "blues" that is in fact black - and remains consistently so in colour as result.



Actually there was a cost saving to be had by using the same beret as the Armoured Corps.  Notwithstanding that the CFAV beret is also in the system, there are not a lot of them and it is a slightly different design than the CF standard.  Adopting that shade of blue would have involved contracting for a new design or accepting the difference.  Furthermore, we would have ended up with a beret that was not the same colour as the rest of the uniform (a consideration that is apparently no longer an issue in the Army).  The CFAV uniform is actually blue.

I will now admit that Navy uniforms are actually black and have always been thus.  You are correct in the assertion that it has to do with difficulty in matching dyes, but the blackness of our "navy blue" uniform is not a unique RCN or USN solution.  Nor is it a new one.  The RN started it with the introduction of standard naval uniforms circa 1850 and the rest of the world followed suit (literally).  The pre-1968 RCN "blue" uniform in storage in my house is exactly the same colour as the current one hanging in my closet (although it perhaps looks a little richer because it's of a better quality material).  Nevertheless, it has always been referred to as a "navy blue" uniform (says so in my copy of the RCN Dress Manual).  In that regard, I would argue that the label in your trousers is wrong (perhaps it should say, "TROUSERS, MEN, SERVICE DRESS, NAVY").  Of course, it doesn't help that everyone (even in the fashion industry) defines colours in general, but "navy blue" in particular, quite differently.


----------



## dapaterson

For a Navy with a surface fleet of only twelve warfighting ships we certainly seem to have a  great deal of time to discuss the finer points of haberdashery and related fripperies.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Pusser, while there may have been a cost saving in using black berets (but not much - after all the same amount of material is used, and I don't think that making yet another colour batch costs much), since there are a lot more sailors than Armoured soldiers in the CF, I suggest it was probably the other way around: With the re-introduction of different colour service dress, the Armoured got  a black beret (can't recall if they had black ones or not under the unified green) because the Navy had them in the system   .


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For a Navy with a surface fleet of only twelve warfighting ships we certainly seem to have a  great deal of time to discuss the finer points of haberdashery and related fripperies.



Well, if we're not spending time doing pesky, inconvenient tasks like patrolling the oceans...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For a Navy with a surface fleet of only twelve warfighting ships we certainly seem to have a  great deal of time to discuss the finer points of haberdashery and related fripperies.



Twenty-four.

Finding and eliminating sea mines is definitely war fighting. The highest casualty levels per class of ship in WWII were in the minesweepers.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Twenty-four.
> 
> Finding and eliminating sea mines is definitely war fighting. The highest casualty levels per class of ship in WWII were in the minesweepers.



Except that they're fitted for, not with that capability.  And I'm not certain (nor is it something to discuss in an open online forum) how often those skillsets are actively exercised.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, the forage cap has always remained an optional item for GOs.
> 
> I personally think that reintroducing forage caps is a good thing, especially if it means that soldiers aren't showing up on parade with berets that look like they've washed their cars with them.  If you want to wear berets all the time, fine, but at least keep a good one for parades!
> 
> As for the Navy, berets should be reserved for operational/working dress.  Perhaps with the new peaked caps that are apparently on the way (lighter, shaped to fit a human head and not plastic), we will see an end to that abomination of berets with service dress (actually, the practice has already been banned, but that is routinely ignored - saw a LCdr in a beret today).



It must be nice to only have these trivial things to concern yourself with.  Fuck forage caps and *parade berets* until the army and the RCAF have suitable boots for conducting operations with.  You are really out of touch with operational stuff if this is the shit you occupy your time with.   :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar

Pusser said:
			
		

> Actually, the forage cap has always remained an optional item for GOs.
> 
> I personally think that reintroducing forage caps is a good thing, especially if it means that soldiers aren't showing up on parade with berets that look like they've washed their cars with them.  If you want to wear berets all the time, fine, but at least keep a good one for parades!
> 
> As for the Navy, berets should be reserved for operational/working dress.  Perhaps with the new peaked caps that are apparently on the way (lighter, shaped to fit a human head and not plastic), we will see an end to that abomination of berets with service dress (actually, the practice has already been banned, but that is routinely ignored - saw a LCdr in a beret today).



I am quite happy with not having to wear the peaked cap all of the bloody time, thank you very much.  If you Wardroom types want to swan around with them on unless in NCD, then feel free.  I like the beret and will be unhappy to see it withdrawn.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except that they're fitted for, not with that capability.  And I'm not certain (nor is it something to discuss in an open online forum) how often those skillsets are actively exercised.



Actually, we have the various kits and they are exercised with on a regular basis.

In fact, since the ORCA's have taken over most of the officer training duties, the MCDV's have returned to their mine warfare roots and are exercising with the various pieces of gear - and upgrading/updating said gear - on an ongoing basis.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Twenty-four.
> 
> Finding and eliminating sea mines is definitely war fighting. The highest casualty levels per class of ship in WWII were in the minesweepers.



I think the German U Boat service may disagree.


----------



## Pusser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It must be nice to only have these trivial things to concern yourself with.  frig forage caps and *parade berets* until the army and the RCAF have suitable boots for conducting operations with.  You are really out of touch with operational stuff if this is the crap you occupy your time with.   :facepalm:



Why does everything always have to be "this OR that?"  Why not both?  The fact some folks don't have proper boots is unconnected to forage caps and "parade berets."  No one is being deprived of boots because the CDS is wearing a forage cap.  "Parade berets" don't detract from anyone's operational effectiveness, but they do show professionalism.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Pusser, while there may have been a cost saving in using black berets (but not much - after all the same amount of material is used, and I don't think that making yet another colour batch costs much), since there are a lot more sailors than Armoured soldiers in the CF, I suggest it was probably the other way around: With the re-introduction of different colour service dress, the Armoured got  a black beret (can't recall if they had black ones or not under the unified green) because the Navy had them in the system   .



I might certainly be wrong, but I don't believe that the RCN was wearing black berets when the Corps was.



> *History*
> 
> In 1932 the army was reorganized to seven divisions in order to meet the needs of a possible Canadian Expeditionary Force (CEF) if required. This included a major restructuring of the army reserve, then known as the Non-Permanent Active Militia (NPAM). Many regiments where disbanded, amalgamated or re-roled to other arms, but there was finally to be an armoured component by 1936. One of six Infantry Battalions was born in 1936 through General Order (GO) 188/36, the Essex Regiment (Tank) was established in Windsor, Ontario on 15 December 1936. The Regiment achieved the distinction of being the first unit of the Canadian Army to wear the black beret which was associated with armoured soldiers since 1924 in the British Royal Armoured Corps.



That is the CAF history of the Black Beret.

During Unification, the Corps had both rifle green berets, which we wore with CF Greens and our black beret that we wore with combats and work dress.(Along with our fur Russian winter hat and forage cap, both for CF greens.). Someone finally saw the ridiculousness of the whole thing and the Corps chucked the green one.


----------



## Brasidas

Pusser said:
			
		

> Why does everything always have to be "this OR that?"  Why not both?  The fact some folks don't have proper boots is unconnected to forage caps and "parade berets."  No one is being deprived of boots because the CDS is wearing a forage cap.  "Parade berets" don't detract from anyone's operational effectiveness, but they do show professionalism.



Because if buttons and bows are a serious focus of effort, it diverts attention from efforts to achieve operational effectiveness.

When troops I'm teaching on course are getting injured for lack of appropriate footwear, there's a serious problem. When the buck gets passed to G4 Sup, and the problem continues to not be dealt with, there's a serious problem.

When people bring up cutesy pet projects, like the heritage Britification, or changing headdresses and such, I get pissed off. If they manage to engage the powers that be to get traction, as the HCols and whomever else did with the great dress uniform changes, that's influence that could have been spent on something more meaningful. 

If someone thinks they accomplished something important while doing something frilly like adding a headdress or changing the colour of a beret, while placing any sort of burden on a supply system that can't push boots out to troops with months of lead time, I get pissed off. They are a problem, not a source of positive change.


----------



## jollyjacktar

To be fair, some of the issue is the fetters that are binding the procurement process.  I never had an idea of how much resistance there is to getting things done in a timely fashion.  I came here with starry ideals on what I would be able to accomplish for the betterment of the fleet.  Pretty well all of that shits been bashed out since my arrival.  It makes me goggle at how we managed to ramp up in times of need in the past.


----------



## Furniture

I have a novel solution to the situation we are in. We break each month down in the following manner:

Week 1) Boots!! The entire CAF focuses on finding the perfect single boot solution to the 140,000+ feet we have in the CAF. I'm sure that week of focused work each month will provide countless sub par manufactures of footwear plenty of opportunity to trial boots of all shapes/sizes/colours/cam patterns. Alternatively we could accept that maybe the old MKIII was good enough as issued and allow troops to buy what they want after initial issue/BMQ...

Week 2) Hats! Again the whole of the CAF spends the week looking for stylish new ways to show how special/unique/historically connected we are with awesome new hats.

Week 3) PT, we all could likely use some extra PT on the Queen's time.

Week 4) Fighter/Ships/Army cars... I guess we should all spend time in each element looking at new cool toys to get the job done.

For the odd days not covered by on of the themed weeks we can do some actual training to do our real jobs. Should appease the "BOOTS!!!!!! NOW!!!!!!" crowd while also allowing the "Ministry of Silly Hats" crew to indulge in their own flights of fancy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

recceguy said:
			
		

> I might certainly be wrong, but I don't believe that the RCN was wearing black berets when the Corps was.



If you mean during the unified CF green era, you are absolutely right. And I wasn't sure wether or not the Corps was at the time. During the CF single unibag era, we wore the rifle green beret. Before unification, we did not have berets in the Navy: officers and chief petty's wore their "peaked" service cap, and the petty officer and seamen wore the tally caps (when two levels of petty officers were introduced, the petty officers first class wore the same dress as the chiefs. Berets were only introduced at the time of unified CF uniforms.

I was being bit facetious, but my point was that there are many more people wearing naval DEU's than there are Armoured Corps personnel in the Army, so it is bit of a joke to think that we adopted our dress post 1985 on the basis of savings because the Armour already has black berets. My second point was that we got the black beret because we selected black as the actual colour of our DEU's. If the Navy had picked an actual hue of "Navy' blue, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Navy beret would have matched that colour instead.


----------



## quadrapiper

Brasidas said:
			
		

> If someone thinks they accomplished something important while doing something frilly like adding a headdress or changing the colour of a beret, while placing any sort of burden on a supply system that can't push boots out to troops with months of lead time, I get pissed off. They are a problem, not a source of positive change.


If being able to push boots out to the pointy end is the tipping point for whether or not non-op changes can be discussed, then the RCN's in the clear. I have yet to be unable to walk into clothing stores in Esquimalt and exchange a worn- or stretched-out pair of seaboots for new, during a period where the RCN has developed, introduced, and replaced three or four marks of boot.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> . . . Berets were only introduced at the time of unified CF uniforms.



While maybe not commonly worn, they do appear to have been used prior to unification as seen in these photos from 1961 issues of The Crowsnest.


----------



## Brasidas

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> If being able to push boots out to the pointy end is the tipping point for whether or not non-op changes can be discussed, then the RCN's in the clear. I have yet to be unable to walk into clothing stores in Esquimalt and exchange a worn- or stretched-out pair of seaboots for new, during a period where the RCN has developed, introduced, and replaced three or four marks of boot.



When Pandora's box of uniform changes got rolling, we were undergoing massive rustout of the B fleet of vehicles. We had winter recruit serials without mukluks, with accompanying injuries. We have trades courses in which basic trades equipment is severely lacking and where the training areas are completely unavailable after 1700.

My unit is no longer able to fulfill its mission.

When HCol's go patting themselves on the back for changing things around and diverting not just money, but attention and interest, I have a problem with that.

What does it say to politicians or the public when we're playing with buttons and bows? I would think as an observer that we don't have anything more pressing to worry about.


----------



## Furniture

My worry when I see the anger about uniform changes is people seem to link the lack of boots, trucks etc.. with the changes in uniform accoutrements. The people that make contracts for new operational boots aren't the same people looking into DEU changes. Now when the changes to the DEU actually happen I'm sure there is some overlap, but nobody in NDHQ is pushing for shiny new pips and crowns before we deliver the new boots.

I get the lack of operational kit is annoying... but the bosses aren't distracted from buying new operational kit by the silly hats, badges etc... They are hampered by horrible contracting rules and an ineffective PS contracting system.


----------



## McG

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> If being able to push boots out to the pointy end is the tipping point for whether or not non-op changes can be discussed, then the RCN's in the clear.


Your ignorance is showing.  That is not how the system works.  The Navy does not buy its clothing.  DSSPM buys all clothing and pers equipment for the entirety of the CAF.  One environment dicking around with aesthetics can have operational impacts on itself and/or other environments.  Nobody can claim their hands clean if DSSPM resources are pumping out the cosmetic bling while operational clothing is not being addressed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pusser said:
			
		

> Why does everything always have to be "this OR that?"  Why not both?  The fact some folks don't have proper boots is unconnected to forage caps and "parade berets."  No one is being deprived of boots because the CDS is wearing a forage cap.  "Parade berets" don't detract from anyone's operational effectiveness, but they do show professionalism.



The budget is only so big, no?  The problem is, it isn't just forage caps - we don't spend money on priorities (operational capabilities) before buttons and bows.  New ranks, berets from yester-year, etc etc.  It indicates a lack of focus on the real priorities.  Boots.  The best equipment for the people conducting operations in support of government objectives.

I'm an operator;  I don't care about ranks.  I quite happily wear the same wedge on parade that I wear in my flight suit every day, which gets stuck in pockets, helmet bags, ICBs, etc.  I think, myself, the 'worn wedge' is more a mark of professionalism than a brand spankin' new one.  I had one black beret back in the day, that had stains on the inside from sweat and cam paint that I wore in the field and on parade.

I _do_ care about things like boots, which, in the worst case scenario of today, could be the difference between life and death.  I'd rather know Snr Officers and CWOs, and our GOFOs are spending their time solving those solutions, because AKAIK neither the Army or RCAF have boots that truly meet the needs of those who are wearing them when away from their postal code.

There can be a this AND that, but if the 'that' is forage caps, ranks and such then it should be lower on the list of priorities, and delivered after and _ONLY_ after the operational folks have their kit.

As of today, though, that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## George Wallace

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The budget is only so big, no?  The problem is, it isn't just forage caps - we don't spend money on priorities (operational capabilities) before buttons and bows.  New ranks, berets from yester-year, etc etc.  It indicates a lack of focus on the real priorities.  Boots.  The best equipment for the people conducting operations in support of government objectives.



Well.....Trump may fix that.  He may 'strongly push' the Young Dauphin to increase our Defence spending to 2% of our GDP.   >

Senior Potato was similarly 'advised' by the US and NATO in the '70's.   :warstory:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ... The problem is, it isn't just forage caps - we don't spend money *or staff time/energy/problem solving effort* on priorities (operational capabilities) before buttons and bows ...


From what I read around here, that bit in yellow also seems to apply.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

An increase to 2% would likely turn into fatter HQs and more people who want bus driver hats and new DEU ranks...


----------



## The Bread Guy

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....Trump may fix that.  He may 'strongly push' the Young Dauphin to increase our Defence spending to 2% of our GDP.   >
> 
> Senior Potato was similarly 'advised' by the US and NATO in the '70's.   :warstory:


And how close to 2% did we get under the pro-military oil company mailroom guy with the majority government?    This has been an issue with both Teams Red and Blue.


----------



## Kirkhill

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And how close to 2% did we get under the pro-military oil company mailroom guy with the majority government?    This has been an issue with both Teams Red and Blue.



And therein lies the problem.

The country at large has one party that has been consistent in its stated desire to spend more.  It has, however, two other parties adamant that they don't need to spend more.  The country regularly decides to accept the wisdom of the two over the one, to the extent that the one, needs must, conforms to the wishes of the country.

It is the same with every debate on every issue in the country.  Which ultimately leaves Team Red with the opportunity to look "reasonable" and "pragmatic" in the eyes of your average CBC/Globe and Mail/Macleans customer.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The country at large has one party that has been consistent in its stated desire to spend more.  It has, however, two other parties adamant that they don't need to spend more.  The country regularly decides to accept the wisdom of the two over the one, to the extent that the one, needs must, conforms to the wishes of the country.


That, combined with (as others far smarter than me have said) a Canadian public that's not, _in general_, keen on spending on the military, are big factors, indeed.  If more Canadians, _in general_, Team Blue could have used its majority to have Team Red & Team Orange pound salt as it cranked up the defence spending.

Canadian taxpayers' support for the CAF:  Mile wide in heart, inch deep into the pocket ...


----------



## dapaterson

In fact, Defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP fell under team Blue; their rhetoric did not translate into increased budgets.


----------



## jollyjacktar

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In fact, Defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP fell under team Blue; their rhetoric did not translate into increased budgets.



And precisely what I slammed in the face of Pierre Poilievre when he tried on the Decade of Darkness shit and how well they were doing when he came by hustling for votes last year.  All talk, little action.


----------



## George Wallace

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And how close to 2% did we get under the pro-military oil company mailroom guy with the majority government?    This has been an issue with both Teams Red and Blue.



The point that is being missed is NOT that both Parties have failed to meet any semblance of a 2% of GDP, but that PET was 'forced/embarrassed/strongly encouraged/strongly condemned/whatever' by the US and NATO to increase his contribution.  Governments following his were "less strenuously encouraged" to increase their contributions.


----------



## Mick

Rumour regarding forage caps for Army GO and SA CWO is confirmed:

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress/iv9j06gw


----------



## dimsum

mick said:
			
		

> Rumour regarding forage caps for Army GO and SA CWO is confirmed:
> 
> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress/iv9j06gw



Well, if past history is any indication, the RCAF is next, and probably for all ranks.  

*No sarcasm*


----------



## The Bread Guy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, if past history is any indication, the RCAF is next, and probably for all ranks.
> 
> *No sarcasm*


Next on "Canada's Ribbons & Bows":  Welcome back Flight Sergeant - from Extinction (Back) to Distinction!!!!!!!!


----------



## dimsum

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next on "Canada's Ribbons & Bows":  Welcome back Flight Sergeant - from Extinction (Back) to Distinction!!!!!!!!



Or "Captain v. Flight Lieutenant - old school or older school?  Discuss."


----------



## Kirkhill

Yaaaay!!! You're going to have Airborne Units!!!  Wheee!!!    [




> Effective December 1, all General Officers’ shoulder rank insignia will include the maple leaf – one for Brigadier Generals, two for Major-Generals, three for Lieutenant-General, and Generals will wear four. The image of a crown, representing Canada’s ties to the British monarchy and its contributions to the World Wars and the Korean War, will remain part of the insignia.
> “The decision was made to go back to the maple leaf because they make Canadians abroad identifiable,” CWO Guimond said.
> The maple leaf is not the only change afoot: the affected ranks will also be wearing forage caps in place of the more familiar beret. *General Officers and CWO’s in airborne units will keep the beret*.




https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress/1133979236694053

It must be true. Mr. Guinand said it.


----------



## cavalryman

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next on "Canada's Ribbons & Bows":  Welcome back Flight Sergeant - from Extinction (Back) to Distinction!!!!!!!!



To save money, the RCAF can easily source the rank insignia from the Air Cadets  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cavalryman said:
			
		

> To save money, the RCAF can easily source the rank insignia from the Air Cadets  >



Nope. That would be way too easy and make too much sense. Someone, involved with the design, will make some small, insignificant but noticeable change to the design, so it'll require the whole bidding and procurement monster to come out of the cage.

Instead of asking the current supplier to just up the quantity.


----------



## Good2Golf

It may not be the same blue... :not-again:


----------



## McG

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Next on "Canada's Ribbons & Bows":  Welcome back Flight Sergeant - from Extinction (Back) to Distinction!!!!!!!!


We are on a path of nonsense and squandered efforts and peacock fashion.  We may find ourselves with just about anything:


----------



## Ostrozac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yaaaay!!! You're going to have Airborne Units!!!  Wheee!!!    [



That part at least does make sense. We do have a General Officer assigned to an Airborne Unit. Headquarters XVIII Airborne Corps in Fort Bragg.

https://www.bragg.army.mil/index.php/about/leadership/deputy-commanding-general-operations


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Or "Captain v. Flight Lieutenant - old school or older school?  Discuss."



More confusing than pips and crowns would be explaining how the CO is a "Wing Commander", but not _the_ Wing Commander.   ^-^


----------



## daftandbarmy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Yaaaay!!! You're going to have Airborne Units!!!  Wheee!!!    [
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress/1133979236694053
> 
> It must be true. Mr. Guinand said it.



So.... Generals and CWOs will now command airborne rifle companies?


----------



## blacktriangle

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So.... Generals and CWOs will now command airborne rifle companies?



We probably have enough Maj to flush out all the Sect Comd positions... so why not?


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> More confusing than pips and crowns would be explaining how the CO is a "Wing Commander", but not _the_ Wing Commander.   ^-^



Well, then obviously we must return to "RCAF Base XYZ" instead of "XY Wing", so s/he can be "Base Commander"   :nod:

(On a somewhat serious note, the RAAF gets by with that by calling it Officer Commanding XY Wing instead.)


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> More confusing than pips and crowns would be explaining how the CO is a "Wing Commander", but not _the_ Wing Commander.   ^-^



EITS, that was before inflation...  


(although 5 Wing and 9 Wing have it right.  )


----------



## George Wallace

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, then obviously we must return to "RCAF Base XYZ" instead of "XY Wing", so s/he can be "Base Commander"   :nod:
> 
> (On a somewhat serious note, the RAAF gets by with that by calling it Officer Commanding XY Wing instead.)



That sounds so "Star Wars ish"    [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While maybe not commonly worn, they do appear to have been used prior to unification as seen in these photos from 1961 issues of The Crowsnest.



You got me on that Blackadder.

I have access to a 1958 RCN dress manual and went to review it. There are absolutely no mention of berets or any depiction of them anywhere. So I did some digging and here is what I have found out so far.

The starting point is  (of course, to justify being in this thread  ;D) that the RCN followed the RN for its uniforms, with minor Canadian modifications, and the RN did not have a beret as a service headdress except during WWII.

During WWII, many seamen and naval officers had to work with their Army counter parts on raids, demolition parties and beach control parties for landings. As a result, the RN (and thus RCN) adopted the British army battle dress but completely navy blue in colour (for  look, see the great escape, where that battle dress is worn by David McCallum, as aLCDR) and of course, with a navy blue beret to boot. However, this was the only and limited use made of the beret, and it became relegated some time after the war until it came back in service when the Brits decided to introduce "action" clothing to be worn at sea.

Going back to Canada, the RCN would have eliminated it from its service after the war had it not been for simple operational change: After WWII, the RCN began quickly to adopt American practices, as opposed to British ones, for air operations on its aircraft carriers. One such American practice was that absolutely no caps were to be worn on the flight deck or in the hangar - only the safety helmets/coloured bonnets that were to be tied under the chin at all times or nothing at all.

Since the naval air officers and naval trades chiefs were required to move in and out of these two areas frequently and into other areas (bridge, etc.) where headdress was required, carrying a cap, which one would then have to hold in his hand when on flight deck or hangar was highly inconvenient. So it was decided to reintroduce, but only for naval aviators and  senior air tradesmen, a navy blue beret for authorized wear at sea and on carriers only (and the captain of a carrier was a naval aviator, BTW, which explains his wearing the beret for the medal/pin ceremony). This way, the beret could easily be stuffed in one's pocket then zipped shut when entering the headdress restricted area.

I don't know about the Wren officers however, so I'll keep digging. If anyone has other information, feel free to pass it on (this thread or military history one, I guess.)


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> Since the naval air officers and naval trades chiefs were required to move in and out of these two areas frequently and into other areas (bridge, etc.) where headdress was required, carrying a cap, which one would then have to hold in his hand when on flight deck or hangar was highly inconvenient. So it was decided to reintroduce, but *only for naval aviators and  senior air tradesmen*, a navy blue beret for authorized wear at sea and on carriers only (and the captain of a carrier was a naval aviator, BTW, which explains his wearing the beret for the medal/pin ceremony). This way, the beret could easily be stuffed in one's pocket then zipped shut when entering the headdress restricted area.
> . . .



Seen.

A quick look at other photos from other issues of The Crowsnest does seem to generally follow that premise.  However, just to be a contrarian, I've attached a couple of pics of oddities.  The first (though with poor contrast and detail), from 1961, shows what I assume (from the Red Cross brassard) is a Medical Assistant wearing a beret, but then, he is in Bonnie's helicopter and it may have been normal practise on the carrier.  The other, from 1965, is a naval officer in Cyprus wearing a UN beret (I included that just to be an *******).



> I don't know about the Wren officers . . .



As related to me by a "sister" who had previously (before unification) served in the RCN . . . it would be really cheeky if I could say that it was one of the nursing officers in the photo, but I only had a passing acquaintance with "Lt. (MN) Helen Ott" when she was a major in the 1970s . . . according to the "sister" (which would be an incorrect title for a RCN nurse - they used the term "nursing officer") navy nurses were not Wrens.  The WRCNS was a separate branch within the RCN for the administration of all female personnel except for nursing officers (and a few other officers of similar ilk) who were part of the Medical Branch, and by 1961 were also part of the Canadian Forces Medical Service.

(edited to add)

On having another look at the previously posted course picture which included the nursing officers, I noticed that the nurses' uniform jackets were single breasted while the two Wrens' (the female nursing assistant ratings) uniforms were double breasted.  Interesting.  Does your old naval dress regulations provide any answers?


----------



## dimsum

mick said:
			
		

> Rumour regarding forage caps for Army GO and SA CWO is confirmed:
> 
> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress/iv9j06gw



LGen Wynnyk wore one for the London, ON Remembrance Day ceremony.

https://www.facebook.com/HMCSNCSMPrevost/photos/a.1194964283884443.1073741968.326182960762584/1194977930549745/?type=3&theater


----------



## RocketRichard

Dimsum said:
			
		

> LGen Wynnyk wore one for the London, ON Remembrance Day ceremony.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/HMCSNCSMPrevost/photos/a.1194964283884443.1073741968.326182960762584/1194977930549745/?type=3&theater


The rumours have already started that all army officers will wear forage caps with DEU's. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Gunner98

Why doesn't the LCdr (parade commander) carrying a sword have on white gloves?  The other Navy Officers carrying swords and all of the Legion parade appointment holders in the photos have white gloves on?  Is there something I missed in the Dress manual?


----------



## quadrapiper

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Why doesn't the LCdr (parade commander) carrying a sword have on white gloves?  The other Navy Officers carrying swords and all of the Legion parade appointment holders in the photos have white gloves on?  Is there something I missed in the Dress manual?


Better way to look at it is that the LCdr is the only one doing it right: white gloves aren't an RCN tradition. No idea why an NRD would go to the extra effort (expense?) to wear something that isn't even in keeping with Service tradition. Wearing the issue black gloves would be somewhat closer to prior practice: officers wore brown leather gloves as required.


----------



## captloadie

I ran into a few SOFCOM members during the Remembrance Day events, and I noticed some had the old jump boots(?) with their DEU pants bloused at the top. They said it was new, just introduced a few months ago. They were also hearing that they were potentially getting new DEUs, to set themselves apart from the other three elements. The command apparently wants to harken back to the days of the 1st SSF.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I saw the prototype uniform at the Logistik booth at the Defence Exhibition at the EY centre in the Spring.  It looks like a step back in time so to speak.  Not unappealing but...


----------



## George Wallace

captloadie said:
			
		

> I ran into a few SOFCOM members during the Remembrance Day events, and I noticed some had the old jump boots(?) with their DEU pants bloused at the top. They said it was new, just introduced a few months ago. They were also hearing that they were potentially getting new DEUs, to set themselves apart from the other tree elements. The command apparently wants to harken back to the days of the 1st SSF.



What better way to identify those who are supposed to be secretive.


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What better way to identify those who are supposed to be secretive.



Well, they already gave up the game with the tan beret.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, they already gave up the game with the tan beret.



Shhhhhhb!


----------



## FSTO

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Why doesn't the LCdr (parade commander) carrying a sword have on white gloves?  The other Navy Officers carrying swords and all of the Legion parade appointment holders in the photos have white gloves on?  Is there something I missed in the Dress manual?


Because the Navy doesn't wear white gloves, the sword belt goes under the jacket, we use an all-round grasp of the sword hilt and we swing our left arm when marching with the sword drawn.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think the real thing Simian is trying to understand is why the parade commander wears no white gloves while two other officers with drawn swords also in the pics are wearing them.

The answer is very simple, however, and all who mentioned here that in the Navy, we do not usually wear white gloves with drawn swords are correct. In the present case, if you pay attention to the two officers wearing said white glove, you will notice that they are part of the colour party, and the whole party is wearing the gloves. That's the reason they are wearing them: draped colours.


----------



## Sailorwest

more troubling is the holding of the scabbard while marching and saluting with the sword well out to the side while marching.  Shocking


----------



## Monsoon

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> more troubling is the holding of the scabbard while marching and saluting with the sword well out to the side while marching.  Shocking


Looks to me like he just has his left arm checked (not holding the scabbard) and that the photo was taken in the middle of the long salute. I'm sure TEC would do better, however!


----------



## Good2Golf

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> more troubling is the holding of the scabbard while marching and saluting with the sword well out to the side while marching.  Shocking



I've seen both scabbard held and loose during the quick march (although I understand Naval tradition is to leave the scabbard unheld during the march), but the sword on the long salute should indeed be aligned parallel to the direction of march, not out to the side. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Excellent, the Kool-Aid is working; once they're all arguing about gloves and swords, 
they'll forget that they have no boots, trucks, or support weapons......

;D


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Excellent, the Kool-Aid is working; once they're all arguing about gloves and swords,
> they'll forget that they have no boots, trucks, or support weapons......
> 
> ;D


The Navy has lots of boots, no need of special trucks (our "truck" is getting built) and we are fine with our support weapons. Don't know why the Army can't walk and chew gum at the same time. LOL!


----------



## Gunner98

FSTO said:
			
		

> Because the Navy doesn't wear white gloves, the sword belt goes under the jacket, we use an all-round grasp of the sword hilt and we swing our left arm when marching with the sword drawn.



Thanks.  I guess when I was on staff in Cornwallis they did not follow the Dress, and Drill & Ceremonial manuals.


----------



## Swingline1984

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What better way to identify those who are supposed to be secretive.



They are not ALL "supposed" to be a secret, that is simply myth. For those that are, however what better way to blend then among your own kind while enjoying some minimal recognition for what you are?


----------



## Happy Guy

He is being facetious.


----------



## Kirkhill

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Navy has lots of boots, no need of special trucks (our "truck" is getting built) and we are fine with our support weapons. Don't know why the Army can't walk and chew gum at the same time. LOL!



The Navy doesn't have to walk farther than the nearest coffee pot.  And it shows....  [


----------



## Swingline1984

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> He is being facetious.



Granted. However, it propagates a long standing misunderstanding for the uninformed.


----------



## dimsum

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Navy doesn't have to walk farther than the nearest coffee pot.  And it shows....  [



Yes, but unless things have changed, the OOW and lookouts spend a lot of time on their feet, even if they're mostly standing in one place.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yes, but unless things have changed, the OOW and lookouts spend a lot of time on their feet, even if they're mostly standing in one place.



On moving and unsteady platforms lol


----------



## Pusser

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> Thanks.  I guess when I was on staff in Cornwallis they did not follow the Dress, and Drill & Ceremonial manuals.



That actually underlines an interesting situation.  There is no doubt that the good folks in Cornwallis were following the CF drill and ceremonial manuals (unless naval officers were wearing their sword belts over top of their jackets, because that IS mentioned in the Dress Manual).  However, CF dress, drill and ceremonial is overwhelmingly based on common Army practice.  This is sadly ironic in the case of Cornwallis, considering the origins and history of that base.  It is interesting to note that the Navy folks on this forum are routinely shouted down for wanting to promote and practice traditional naval things, yet no one bats an eye over some of the regimental quirks that are also not listed in the drill, dress and ceremonial manuals, but are practiced anyway.  In fact, in my experience, most of those regimental folks are quite proud of the fact that they are different from the mainstream.  All we ask is that the Navy be granted a little leeway as well and that we be allowed to teach it.


----------



## dapaterson

Don't worry.  Some of us oppose the Regimental quirks as well.


----------



## Journeyman

Pusser said:
			
		

> It is interesting to note that the Navy folks on this forum are routinely shouted down for wanting to promote and practice traditional naval things......


      :'(     You feel free to sodomy, rum, and lash to your heart's content.


----------



## George Wallace

Well.  Over the past year, the Liberals have liberalized several sex related Laws.   [


----------



## FSTO

I would argue that if Hellyer had used the model of an actual unified force - USN (Yes I know that the Marines are nominally a separate force, but if there wasn't a Navy there would be no need of a Marine Corps) to unify the military arms of Canada, that we in the Navy would be telling the remnants of the Army (now called Canadian Marines) to shut up and get with the program.


----------



## Journeyman

Wow.  Until the posts by Pusser and FSTO, I never realized how oppressed you sailors were.  I feel really bad now.    







OK..... I'm over it.   _~whew~_


But using your logic, given the current state of the RCN, then there's clearly no need for (or ability to employ) Canadian Marines.  Just as well Hellyer pooched it.  :nod:


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> Because the Navy doesn't wear white gloves, the sword belt goes under the jacket, *we use an all-round grasp *of the sword hilt and we swing our left arm when marching with the sword drawn.



We don't use an all around grasp, we use extended fingers. This is incorrectly taught at Venture by people who are using the RCN drill manual from 1964. However, even using the correct hand-grip, I've seen a lot of pictures of officers with their fingers sticking out of the front the guard.

"...fingers together, extended and slightly cupped so as _to lightly touch the guard_." Meaning they shouldn't stick out past the guard.

The salute is also something that drives me f***ing nuts! Just like in that picture, I've seen too many officers pointing their swords almost 90 degrees out form their bodies. This comes from poor teaching at Venture. There's a two lines in our drill manual that state:

1. "...lowered smartly to the salute with the sword in line with the right foot," and
2. "The right arm is held straight, with the hand just behind the thigh..."

For the first one, people seem to think their foot is sticking out at a 45-60 degree from their body, which it is not. For the second one, they actually teach at Venture that "just behind the thigh" means to actually tuck the sword under your right butt-cheek. Since to do this you have to bring the sword hilt around and behind your body, it forces the sword blades to stick out on an angle.


----------



## FSTO

Lumber said:
			
		

> *We don't use an all around grasp, we use extended fingers. *This is incorrectly taught at Venture by people who are using the RCN drill manual from 1964. However, even using the correct hand-grip, I've seen a lot of pictures of officers with their fingers sticking out of the front the guard.
> 
> "...fingers together, extended and slightly cupped so as _to lightly touch the guard_." Meaning they shouldn't stick out past the guard.
> 
> The salute is also something that drives me f***ing nuts! Just like in that picture, I've seen too many officers pointing their swords almost 90 degrees out form their bodies. This comes from poor teaching at Venture. There's a two lines in our drill manual that state:
> 
> 1. "...lowered smartly to the salute with the sword in line with the right foot," and
> 2. "The right arm is held straight, with the hand just behind the thigh..."
> 
> For the first one, people seem to think their foot is sticking out at a 45-60 degree from their body, which it is not. For the second one, they actually teach at Venture that "just behind the thigh" means to actually tuck the sword under your right butt-cheek. Since to do this you have to bring the sword hilt around and behind your body, it forces the sword blades to stick out on an angle.



Did you go to RMC? Just asking and not picking a fight. I was taught the all round grasp at Venture way back in the last century.


----------



## FSTO

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But using your logic, given the current state of the RCN, then there's clearly no need for (or ability to employ) Canadian Marines.  Just as well Hellyer pooched it.  :nod:



Because, since Hellyer the Army has basically been in control of the CAF. And everything is peachy keen now, isn't it?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Lumber said:
			
		

> . . . to lightly touch . . . . . .
> 
> . . .  with the hand just behind the thigh . . .
> 
> . . .  tuck the ... under your right butt-cheek. . . .





			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> . . . I was taught the *all round grasp* at Venture way back in the last century.



I don't know what the navy taught you guys, but it sure sounds like you got the "reach around" down pat.   [


----------



## FSTO

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I don't know what the navy taught you guys, but it sure sounds like you got the "reach around" down pat.   [



Well in the immortal words of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, its the decent thing to do! I imagine with the army its all grunts and growls and retaking of positions!


----------



## Halifax Tar

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well in the immortal words of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, its the decent thing to do! I imagine with the army its all grunts and growls and retaking of positions!



Isn't it also advancing to contact and deeply penetrating into the enemy's rear positions ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Isn't it also advancing to contact and deeply penetrating into the enemy's rear positions ?



It's a cavalry thing... has something to do with the way you mount your saddle apparently


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did you go to RMC? Just asking and not picking a fight. I was taught the all round grasp at Venture way back in the last century.



Yeah, I'm a ring-knocker. I don't recall what they _tried_ to teach us at Venture, but my division was more than 60% RMC grads so they basically let us teach ourselves. Plus, I'm pretty sure our instructor was the Buffer who had just recently been posted in didn't know squat about sword drill.

Long story short, as soon as us ring-knockers heard they expected us to swing our arms vice holding the scabbard, we immediately pulled out the RCN drill manual and taught ourselves what was in there. Why they were trying to teach an all-around grasp when that's not what's in the manual, I don't know.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm a ring-knocker. I don't recall what they _tried_ to teach us at Venture, but my division was more than 60% RMC grads so they basically let us teach ourselves. Plus, I'm pretty sure our instructor was the Buffer who had just recently been posted in didn't know squat about sword drill.
> 
> Long story short, as soon as us ring-knockers heard they expected us to swing our arms vice holding the scabbard, we immediately pulled out the RCN drill manual and taught ourselves what was in there. Why they were trying to teach an all-around grasp when that's not what's in the manual, I don't know.



Probably because of the number of times officers have dropped swords on parades, especially really long ones where the "C" grip is especially training for those without the developed muscular endurance   ;D

Not sure who came up with NOT having a hold on your scabbard either, but watching that thing bounce around uncontrolled not only looks bad, I imagine it's uncomfortable.

(and I'm not even an officer)


----------



## Lumber

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Probably because of the number of times officers have dropped swords on parades, especially really long ones where the "C" grip is especially training for those without the developed muscular endurance   ;D
> 
> Not sure who came up with NOT having a hold on your scabbard either, but watching that thing bounce around uncontrolled not only looks bad, I imagine it's uncomfortable.
> 
> (and I'm not even an officer)



Yea, I personally don't like it either. If you're  5'4" (or shorter), the scabbard bounces off the ground as you march.


----------



## Pusser

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Not sure who came up with NOT having a hold on your scabbard either, but watching that thing bounce around uncontrolled not only looks bad, I imagine it's uncomfortable.



I would say exactly the opposite.  If the scabbard is allowed to hang freely, then it will swing in unison with everything else.  Furthermore, swinging your arm helps you keep in step.  When did the Canadian Army decide that swinging scabbards are bad?  If you check out footage from years past (e.g. Canadian contingent at the 1953 coronation), Canadian Army officers are swinging their left arms and their scabbards are swinging freely.  I recently saw the Changing of the Guard at Buckingham Palace between one of the Guards regiments and the Van Doos.  The British Guards officers'  scabbards were left to swing (and they swung their left arms while marching), but the Van Doo officers kept a death grip on their scabbards and looked really awkward trying to keep in step.


----------



## FSTO

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> Probably because of the number of times officers have dropped swords on parades, especially really long ones where the "C" grip is especially training for those without the developed muscular endurance   ;D
> 
> Not sure who came up with NOT having a hold on your scabbard either, but watching that thing bounce around uncontrolled not only looks bad, I imagine it's uncomfortable.
> 
> (and I'm not even an officer)



I've been on several parades and I have never had an issue with the scabbard bouncing around. Unless the person in question has a gait that causes the leg to hit the scabbard?


----------



## Lumber

I guess for me (short guy), I had trouble keeping my belt tight, so the scabbard hung low and would smack off the ground... quite annoying.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Don't complain, Lumber.

Your .01% of the time being annoyed as sword carrying officer is compensated by the remaining 99.99% of the time you can get around the ship without bumping your head on everything that hangs down from the deck-heads and finding your bunk to be "quite long enough for comfort, thank you".  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat

As least you are not lashing yourself about the face with the free-range sword knot as we do in the Gunners. In fact, I remember watching a change of command parade and saw an officer whose sword knot had snagged on his metals and he was doing a wonderful impersonation of Igor in "Young Frankenstein."


----------



## the 48th regulator

http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress%2Fiv9j06gw



Maple Leaf is back in new Army dress

Canadian Army General Officers Rank Appointment Insignia

Article / November 10, 2016 / Project number: 16-0070

By Steven Fouchard, Army Public Affairs

Ottawa, Ontario — The Canadian Army (CA)’s Sergeant Major is welcoming new changes to the CA uniform that include one of the country’s most-recognized and beloved symbols.

“Why do we wear a uniform? Because it’s about our history,” said Chief Warrant Officer Alain Guimond, who advises CA Commander Lieutenant-General Paul Wynnyk. “For a Canadian Armed Forces member, the uniform is all about his or her pride.”

The changes affect the CA’s 56 most senior leaders – Generals as well as Chief Warrant Officers who, like CWO Guimond, serve in senior appointments with Generals.

Effective December 1, all General Officers’ shoulder rank insignia will include the maple leaf – one for Brigadier Generals, two for Major-Generals, three for Lieutenant-General, and Generals will wear four. The image of a crown will remain part of the insignia.

“The decision was made to go back to the maple leaf because they make Canadians abroad identifiable,” CWO Guimond said.

The maple leaf is not the only change afoot: the affected ranks will also be wearing forage caps in place of the more familiar beret. General Officers and CWO’s in airborne units will keep the beret.

Forage caps – with their distinctive stiff brims – were replaced by the beret in the CA decades ago. CWO Guimond said their re-introduction is a nod to CA heritage that will also bring the CA more in line with many of its allies.

“The forage cap suggests authority, seniority,” he said. “It means a lot. And when we look at many other countries, the general officers are wearing their forage caps with their element uniforms.”

“With these changes, we are looking forward while keeping in touch with our past,” CWO Guimond added.


----------



## dangerboy

In my experience the average Canadian Forces member could not care that the generals are wearing maple leafs on their uniforms now. They are more concerned with the fact that it is hard to get proper boots and combats that fit properly in order to have pride in their own uniforms.


----------



## Loachman

John Tescione said:
			
		

> "Because it's about our history"



I thought that going back to obsolete foreign rank insignia was "Because it's about our history".

I think that I understand now: pre-1968 history for pre-General Officers, and post-1968 history for post-Colonel officers.

What new madness will the new year bring?


----------



## FSTO

dangerboy said:
			
		

> In my experience the average Canadian Forces member could not care that the generals are wearing maple leafs on their uniforms now. They are more concerned with the fact that it is hard to get proper boots and combats that fit properly in order to have pride in their own uniforms.



Well maybe if the Army took the combats away from all the HQ types whose recent field experience is but a dull memory then there would be a large surplus of combats for the real soldiers who are regularly in the field.


----------



## dapaterson

Heretic!

Next you'll be calling for exams to demonstrate competence before promotion to Capt (in your context, "Hey you" Capt, not "Yes, Sir" Capt).

Keep that up and we'll end up with a combat effective force.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well maybe if the Army took the combats away from all the HQ types whose recent field experience is but a dull memory then there would be a large surplus of combats for the real soldiers who are regularly in the field.



Or 1 CAD, or various Wing/Sqn Ops in positions that are obviously desk-bound...

I know, heretic.   Why the AF uniform isn't yoga gear is beyond me.  >


----------



## PuckChaser

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I know, heretic.   Why the AF uniform isn't yoga gear is beyond me.  >



I would argue that unless PT becomes mandatory, seeing HQ folks in yoga pants would be far offensive than CADPAT with the only field time being a range once a year...


----------



## Journeyman

John Tescione said:
			
		

> .... like CWO Guimond, who....is the Canadian Army's Badge Faerie


    :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Forage caps suggest seniority?  I wore one in Cornwallis...


----------



## OTR1

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I would argue that unless PT becomes mandatory, seeing HQ folks in yoga pants would be far offensive than CADPAT with the only field time being a range once a year...


My closest childhood friend is now an Oz Army Brigadier.

Trust me when I say that not only could do with industrial quantities of PT, but needs the supervision and instruction by the nastiest of nasty SNCOs.

One who knows how to tell a Brigadier he's so fat that pig in that shape would demand liposuction and get away with it. 

 :nod:


----------



## a_majoor

Loachman said:
			
		

> I thought that going back to obsolete foreign rank insignia was "Because it's about our history".
> 
> I think that I understand now: pre-1968 history for pre-General Officers, and post-1968 history for post-Colonel officers.
> 
> What new madness will the new year bring?



Institution of the rank of "Sky Marshal", but no corresponding MI jump troops......


----------



## McG

John Tescione said:
			
		

> http://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=maple-leaf-is-back-in-new-army-dress%2Fiv9j06gw


http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1463280.html#msg1463280



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Forage caps suggest seniority?  I wore one in Cornwallis...


Don't let facts get in the way of revisionist history and puffery.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> What new madness will the new year bring?





			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Institution of the rank of "Sky Marshal", but no corresponding MI jump troops......


Don't hold back.  Let's go full retard:





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> We may find ourselves with just about anything:


----------



## Halifax Tar

MCG said:
			
		

> http://army.ca/forums/threads/16520/post-1463280.html#msg1463280
> Don't let facts get in the way of revisionist history and puffery.
> Don't hold back.  Let's go full retard:



Firstly; did you really put that much effort into this protest ?  What did you have to sacrifice to complete this ? 

Secondly; I like it.  I hope the good idea fairy picks it.


----------



## Kirkhill

With a little more effort I bet you could come up with a unique pattern of braid for each and every individual member of the C(A)F.  Wouldn't that be special?   ;D


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Loachman said:
			
		

> I thought that going back to obsolete foreign rank insignia was "Because it's about our history".
> 
> I think that I understand now: pre-1968 history for pre-General Officers, and post-1968 history for post-Colonel officers.
> 
> What new madness will the new year bring?



So, have we replaced our obsolete pre-1968 rank insignia with the obsolete post-1968 rank insignia??


----------



## Kirkhill

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> With a little more effort I bet you could come up with a unique pattern of braid for each and every individual member of the C(A)F.  Wouldn't that be special?   ;D



Further to the above - The new system of badges.


----------



## vonGarvin

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to the above - The new system of badges.


True Story: I looked into getting a QR Code with the sub unit website as the link for it.  But that was before we were patch crazy.


----------



## PuckChaser

Technoviking said:
			
		

> True Story: I looked into getting a QR Code with the sub unit website as the link for it.  But that was before we were patch crazy.



Instead of unit patches, have a QR code made into a patch with the unit website. Heck, lets make every rank a QR code that links to a Wikipedia entry explaining what each rank is. Then all the troops wandering around with there smartphones can check the link before deciding if they should salute or not.


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to the above - The new system of badges.








Well, the RCAF are half way there, now that we have the 'bar code' back.


----------



## dimsum

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Well, the RCAF are half way there, now that we have the 'bar code' back.



<pedant>

That's RAF rank braid.

</pedant>


----------



## medicineman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to the above - The new system of badges.



Like I dolt, I scanned that, thinking you'd come up with yet again a new badge system for us :facepalm:

MM


----------



## dimsum

Problem solved.






If heritage is the issue, maybe in calligraphy?   >


----------



## dapaterson

But is that a "Yes sir" captain, or a "hey you" captain?  

Or do we need to re-do the Army ranks, since the RCN is the senior service, and come up with new names for Lt and Capt in the Army to avoid joint confusion with the RCN?  (RCAF avoids this problem by using first names...)


----------



## George Wallace

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> Well, the RCAF are half way there, now that we have the 'bar code' back.



Is "Psychedelic" a new officer rank in the air force?


----------



## dimsum

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is "Psychedelic" a new officer rank in the air force?



See why we're down to using first names?  We'd go cross-eyed trying to figure that out  :nod:


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Dimsum said:
			
		

> <pedant>
> 
> That's RAF rank braid.
> 
> </pedant>



 :nod: Rumbled by the pedant police...another try (but you get the gist). Psychedelic bar code-tastic.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Heretic!
> 
> Next you'll be calling for exams to demonstrate competence before promotion to Capt (in your context, "Hey you" Capt, not "Yes, Sir" Capt).
> 
> Keep that up and we'll end up with a combat effective force.



What a capital idea!! ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

medicineman said:
			
		

> Like I dolt, I scanned that, thinking you'd come up with yet again a new badge system for us :facepalm:
> 
> MM



 [  Thanks for my chuckle of the day.   :subbies:


----------



## The Bread Guy

I missed this detail - when did forage caps become de rigeur with arty folk in the field? (source of attached photo)


----------



## dapaterson

IGs wear the caps, for reasons only clear to the Royal Regiment...


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:
			
		

> IGs wear the caps, for reasons only clear to the Royal Regiment...



If it's like RCN Sea Training and their Red Hats, it's so that others can be warned, run away and/or hide.   >


----------



## jollyjacktar

No, no, no.  You misunderstand the role of the red in such hats.  The red immediately upon placing the hat on one's head draws in all the knowledge required for the position and downloads it to their brains, just like the Matrix.  I was instantly more intelligent, suave and debonair the moment I put on the red hat at the DC School as an Instructor.   :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62

I believe it is a safety/visibility issue during training, but there are Gunners here to answer.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If it's like RCN Sea Training and their Red Hats, it's so that others can be warned, run away and/or hide.   >



We're here to help.


----------



## Old Sweat

The red cap band is a safety and control measure that is worn while engaged in instructional duties. And for whatever it is worth, I still have mine. In May of last year I was invited to give a guest lecture to some gunner officer cadets, and I got a laugh when I put my red hat (which I have had since 1968) on for a few seconds to introduce myself as the oldest PIG (Practicing Instructor in Gunnery) in the commonwealth.


----------



## Good2Golf

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I missed this detail - when did forage caps become de rigeur with arty folk in the field? (source of attached photo)



Ironic that off all the people in that photo whom some might accuse of being a LCF*-oriented type, he is the least of the stand outs. :nod:

;D

Regards
G2G

* LCF - look cool factor


----------



## Pusser

I like how the glasses match the cap bands.


----------



## Old Sweat

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ironic that off all the people in that photo whom some might accuse of being a LCF*-oriented type, he is the least of the stand outs. :nod:
> 
> ;D
> 
> Regards
> G2G
> 
> * LCF - look cool factor



Yes, I noticed Mike standing quietly taking it all in.


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Ironic that off all the people in that photo whom some might accuse of being a LCF*-oriented type, he is the least of the stand outs. :nod:


_Only_  because the red hat bands draw the eye away from his red Velcro patch.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Only_  because the red hat bands draw the eye away from his red Velcro patch.


But not _entirely_ ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Someone needs to rethink the white helmet cam in a green OP thing.   ;D

Odd; there are more than one person in the picture but it seem only one person is named.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Yes, I noticed Mike standing quietly taking it all in.



I wonder what he is thinking?


----------



## Halifax Tar

How do we source these hats ?  Are they a nationally stocked item or is the person expected/required to purchase it from the UK ?  Are they issued to clothing docs ? 

Just interested as its a neat quirk.


----------



## Remius

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Someone needs to rethink the white helmet cam in a green OP thing.   ;D
> 
> Odd; there are more than one person in the picture but it seem only one person is named.



Probably because she herself submitted the photo.  Also there might be some people ie the Tan Beret guy who would not want to be named or shown for that matter... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## The Bread Guy

Remius said:
			
		

> Probably because she herself submitted the photo.  Also there might be some people ie the Tan Beret guy who would not want to be named or shown for that matter... :Tin-Foil-Hat:


I'd guess the same thing.


----------



## slayer/raptor

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> How do we source these hats ?  Are they a nationally stocked item or is the person expected/required to purchase it from the UK ?  Are they issued to clothing docs ?
> 
> Just interested as its a neat quirk.



No as students we have to buy them from a UK company Herbert Johnson, runs about 375$ with shipping an customs and all. Although when I did it, we still had to buy the UK cap badge which was 40-50$ itself, they get a canadian one issued to them now though I believe.


----------



## Old Sweat

I noticed the two different cap badges. I got my hat in the Herbie J store in London in 1967 on leave from 1 RCHA in Germany. The course staff collected money for our red cap bands when we started the course and we got them when we signed our course reports, I think as it was a long time ago.


----------



## Halifax Tar

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> No as students we have to buy them from a UK company Herbert Johnson, runs about 375$ with shipping an customs and all. Although when I did it, we still had to buy the UK cap badge which was 40-50$ itself, they get a canadian one issued to them now though I believe.



Thats not chump change.  Looks good though.


----------



## Journeyman

Remius said:
			
		

> Also there might be some people ie the Tan Beret guy who would not want to be named or shown for that matter...


"Tan Beret Guy" has gotten all kinds of media coverage;  I'm pretty sure he's open source.   


And I'm referring to formal interviews, not _just_  his Court Martial.


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And I'm referring to formal interviews, not _just_  his Court Martial.



[tangent]

Which, by the way, was a good example in someone being proactively accountable for their actions.

[/tangent]


----------



## eliminator

What's old is new again? Supposedly the RCAF and RCN to soon receive tribal metal command badges for their DEU jacket pockets. Does anyone have any photos or information?


----------



## Halifax Tar

eliminator said:
			
		

> What's old is new again? Supposedly the RCAF and RCN to soon receive tribal metal command badges for their DEU jacket pockets. Does anyone have any photos or information?



 God make it stop.  Not another anchor.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> God make it stop.  Not another anchor.



 :goodpost:


----------



## Halifax Tar

Really though JJT its getting stupid.  Have you seen the new cub scout styled badges on the NCD jacket... 

When did the RCN become obsessed with velcro badges ? 

P.s. I almost called it flare... But the animals around here would have smelled blood if typed that lol


----------



## Lightguns

Journeyman said:
			
		

> "Tan Beret Guy" has gotten all kinds of media coverage;  I'm pretty sure he's open source.
> 
> 
> And I'm referring to formal interviews, not _just_  his Court Martial.



OK, now I am curious.  Who the heck is "tan Beret guy" that he should be both infamous and famous and that I do not recognize him?


----------



## PuckChaser

They're probably alluding to MGen Mike Rouleau, Comd CANSOFCOM.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Really though JJT its getting stupid.  Have you seen the new cub scout styled badges on the NCD jacket...
> 
> When did the RCN become obsessed with velcro badges ?
> 
> P.s. I almost called it flare... But the animals around here would have smelled blood if typed that lol



You can never have enough flare when you need it!  ;D





(via combat camera, credit  Cpl Michael Bastien)

Fortunately all the parts bins are full, nothing much is going on, so we can focus on the nice to haves, like an array of badges that would shame a girl scout troupe.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're probably alluding to MGen Mike Rouleau, Comd CANSOFCOM.



You mean 'Old NoDuf', right? 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadas-special-forces-commander-faces-court-martial-charges-for-firearm-accident-in-iraq


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Fortunately all the parts bins are full, nothing much is going on, so we can focus on the nice to haves, like an array of badges that would shame a girl scout troupe.



I was going to correct the spelling, but that *was* more appropriate  :nod:


----------



## MilEME09

The good idea fairy strikes again, if you are RCEME, in one years time we will be switching to Navy Blue berets.


----------



## RocketRichard

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The good idea fairy strikes again, if you are RCEME, in one years time we will be switching to Navy Blue berets.


So that's official then? RCCS were contemplating this as well.


----------



## Old Sweat

As was the RCA.


----------



## MilEME09

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> So that's official then? RCCS were contemplating this as well.



As per the RCEME corp teleconference meeting of Jan 28th of this year it is official, over the next year they will select what shade of Navy Blue we will use, and set it up to be on logistik. So probably either for April 1 2018 or for RCEME day 2018 would be my guess for us to start wearing them.


----------



## McG

Interesting that this comes the same day as news stories about DND's inability to find money wastages that can be converted into savings.

I also find it funny that some influentialy placed individuals felt it so important to return to a navy blue beret as a means of restoring some unique identity when the navy blue beret was intact the headdress of everyone not special enough to wear something unique.


----------



## dimsum

MCG said:
			
		

> I also find it funny that some influentialy placed individuals felt it so important to return to a navy blue beret as a means of restoring some unique identity when the navy blue beret was intact the headdress of everyone not special enough to wear something unique.










I await the outrage when some of those people get posted to a Navy base and get mistaken for sailors in CADPAT.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting that this comes the same day as news stories about DND's inability to find money wastages that can be converted into savings.
> 
> I also find it funny that some influentialy placed individuals felt it so important to return to a navy blue beret as a means of restoring some unique identity when the navy blue beret was intact the headdress of everyone not special enough to wear something unique.



All right, for the last time:

(1) Don't get the Navy involved - we would be quite happy with everyone in the Navy wearing exactly the same thing, with the same hat badges regardless of trade, with only collar or sleeve badge indicating trade; and, most important,

(2) for the last time again: The current Navy DEU and its beret are B-L-A-C-K, not friggin Navy blue.


----------



## IceBlue

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> (2) for the last time again: The current Navy DEU and its beret are B-L-A-C-K, not friggin Navy blue.




I've had sailors tell me it isn't black it's "Royal Canadian Navy Blue"


----------



## PuckChaser

There's notes in the National Defense Dress Committee about the Royal Blue beret change, but no timeline was stated nor approval granted for a switch. As long as they don't make it a "senior" beret so those wearing Maroon berets can no longer wear them, I'll chalk this up as another "who cares" dress change.


----------



## Jed

The change of dress that had me choked didn't even cost any money.  When the CDS of the day Gen. Baril changed where we placed our poppies from the logical spot on the head dress to on the breast of the tunic so it could be incessantly ripped off by car seat belts and such.  [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> I've had sailors tell me it isn't black it's "Royal Canadian Navy Blue"



That's because they can't read  ;D: Here is, taken at random, the label inside my DEU trench coat (they are all the same) "Coat, All Weather, Man's S.D., Sea, Black".

 :nod:


----------



## IceBlue

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's because they can't read  ;D: Here is, taken at random, the label inside my DEU trench coat (they are all the same) "Coat, All Weather, Man's S.D., Sea, Black".
> 
> :nod:



All that being said, what do I know? I wear a leather jacket with my uniform, just to annoy people.


----------



## McG

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... for the last time again: The current Navy DEU and its beret are B-L-A-C-K, not friggin Navy blue.


I never suggested otherwise.  Some parts of the Army are adopting a navy blue beret (not a Navy blue beret) which was the general service beret for a brief period in the 1950s.


----------



## dimsum

Jed said:
			
		

> The change of dress that had me choked didn't even cost any money.  When the CDS of the day Gen. Baril changed where we placed our poppies from the logical spot on the head dress to on the breast of the tunic so it could be incessantly ripped off by car seat belts and such.  [



Well, poppy sales were falling and the Legion needed a way to turn it around  >


----------



## FSTO

If they need to save money they can have my beret. Haven't worn it since Chilliwack (BOTC 89) and its pristine!!!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Love my Beret, they can have my Peak Cap.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Tha, jjt, is because you are a seaman. FSTO, as am I, is an officer. We only got (in the "old" days) to wear our berets at sea. Nowadays, between the P-cap with DEU and the baseball cap with NCD, I can see that officers never get to wear their berets. 

Too bad, I used to love the damn thing at sea, and were I still serving probably would still wear it instead of the damn USA ball cap thingy if allowed.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I keep telling you ... you're underestimating the depths to which the drama queens (who invent badges and patches and make everything old (and useless) new again) will dive to make your lives miserable. Think about these ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... or maybe something like this:


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I keep telling you ... you're underestimating the depths to which the drama queens (who invent badges and patches and make everything old (and useless) new again) will dive to make your lives miserable. Think about these ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... or maybe something like this:



A white hat to be used in the field.  That would be cruel and unusual punishment to keep clean, and $ for kit shops.  Genius.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Tha, jjt, is because you are a seaman. FSTO, as am I, is an officer. We only got (in the "old" days) to wear our berets at sea. Nowadays, between the P-cap with DEU and the baseball cap with NCD, I can see that officers never get to wear their berets.
> 
> Too bad, I used to love the damn thing at sea, and were I still serving probably would still wear it instead of the damn USA ball cap thingy if allowed.


I have seen officers wearing berets, not often, but I have.  If the peak cap was, in any way shape or form, comfortable, I wouldn't mind wearing it, but Christ, Logistik seems to think the human head is the shape of a dowel.  I want to stab myself in the eyes with a fid to stop the misery after about 10 minutes.  There used to be such things as hat forms/blocks to mould hats maybe if we had 50 mission hat stomp fests it would help.  At the very least, it would be enjoyable exercise.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> All that being said, what do I know? I wear a leather jacket with my uniform, just to annoy people because I had nothing else better to do with $500.  I still hope the RCAF authorizes a white silk scarf, leather skull cap and googles to complete the ensemble.











 ;D


----------



## IceBlue

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> ;D



OOOOOOOOOOHHHH are we getting those too? That would be great.

 >


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have seen officers wearing berets, not often, but I have.  If the peak cap was, in any way shape or form, comfortable, I wouldn't mind wearing it, but Christ, Logistik seems to think the human head is the shape of a dowel.  I want to stab myself in the eyes with a fid to stop the misery after about 10 minutes.  There used to be such things as hat forms/blocks to mould hats maybe if we had 50 mission hat stomp fests it would help.  At the very least, it would be enjoyable exercise.



Didn't people just take out the stiffener in the cap?  Or was it just me?


----------



## jollyjacktar

It must have been just you, trying to get that U Boat Captain look.   :nod:


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It must have been just you, trying to get that U Boat Captain look.   :nod:



Well, if you can't beat 'em...

wait, wrong reference.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I just want the Navy to get more anchors on our uniforms... I have a fever and the only prescription is not more cow bell, its anchors.  Lots and lots of anchors.  Oh and velcro, love velcro. Its soooooo 2017!


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I just want the Navy to get more anchors on our uniforms... I have a fever and the only prescription is not more cow bell, its anchors.  Lots and lots of anchors.  Oh and velcro, love velcro. Its soooooo 2017!



Weird that of all the things not to add onto the NCDs since they're operational uniform, it would be the trade badges so you can tell if LS XYZ is a NavComm vice a BOSN.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Weird that of all the things not to add onto the NCDs since they're operational uniform, it would be the trade badges so you can tell if LS XYZ is a NavComm vice a BOSN.



Stop talking, they are listening.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Stop talking, they are listening.



I actually wasn't being facetious.  When I was in the Navy, I had to ask some Eng question to 4 different people because I didn't know the ship's company well enough to know who was a MESO or not, and it would have been easily solved if I noticed their trade badge in NCDs.  The RAN have their trade badge on their nametag and I thought it was a good, practical idea.

Now imagine something similar, but in an emergency situation.


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Weird that of all the things not to add onto the NCDs since they're operational uniform, it would be the trade badges so you can tell if LS XYZ is a NavComm vice a BOSN.



If a system of distinguishing occupations could be based upon different numbers and/or patterns of anchors, then you could satisfy this suggestion and Halifax Tar's preceding one simultaneously.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Weird that of all the things not to add onto the NCDs since they're operational uniform, it would be the trade badges so you can tell if LS XYZ is a NavComm vice a BOSN.


That makes sense, stop it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I actually wasn't being facetious.  When I was in the Navy, I had to ask some Eng question to 4 different people because I didn't know the ship's company well enough to know who was a MESO or not, and it would have been easily solved if I noticed their trade badge in NCDs.  The RAN have their trade badge on their nametag and I thought it was a good, practical idea.
> 
> Now imagine something similar, but in an emergency situation.



Easy peasy! The MESO are all reservists and are found on the MCDV's  ;D


----------



## dimsum

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Easy peasy! The MESO are all reservists and are found on the MCDV's  ;D



Goddamn it you found out who was a Shad.  Still got my anchor for the SSI


----------



## Blackadder1916

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> . . .   If the peak cap was, in any way shape or form, comfortable, I wouldn't mind wearing it, but Christ, Logistik seems to think the human head is the shape of a dowel.  I want to stab myself in the eyes with a fid to stop the misery after about 10 minutes.  There used to be such things as hat forms/blocks to mould hats maybe if we had 50 mission hat stomp fests it would help.  At the very least, it would be enjoyable exercise.



There still is.   http://www.popdiatry.com/?p=1099

Or you could get a different sized cap.
http://www.marlowwhite.com/measuring/m-cap-size.html


> Consider the shape of your head.  Service caps are preshaped to an average oval shape.  If you have a more narrow or round head than "average", consider adjusting up to the next higher size.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There still is.   http://www.popdiatry.com/?p=1099
> 
> Or you could get a different sized cap.
> http://www.marlowwhite.com/measuring/m-cap-size.html



Thanks for that, $15 is a reasonable price for a form. :cheers:


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Big Spoon said:
			
		

> I've had sailors tell me it isn't black it's "Royal Canadian Navy Blue"



I have seen American sailors in working rig and their uniforms were definitely black, a strange sight.  Not any shade of blue.  

In my opinion, black military uniforms are generally not a good thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU


----------



## jollyjacktar

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> There still is.   http://www.popdiatry.com/?p=1099
> 
> Or you could get a different sized cap.
> http://www.marlowwhite.com/measuring/m-cap-size.html



Ended up going through EBay.  Amazon was an exercise in total frustration with .com refusing to ship to Canada and ca. wanting damn near triple or more for the same item from the same supplier.  About $25 USD with EBay and no bullshit.


----------



## Blackadder1916

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ended up going through EBay.  Amazon was an exercise in total frustration with .com refusing to ship to Canada and ca. wanting damn near triple or more for the same item from the same supplier.  About $25 USD with EBay and no bullshit.



Sounds like there is a business opportunity for someone in Canada?  Maybe CANEX should put in on their shelves in St Jean and it can be a required item like shoe trees used to be (do recruits still have to have them?).


----------



## dimsum

Canuck_Jock said:
			
		

> In my opinion, black military uniforms are generally not a good thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU



I don't know, these folks pull it off rather well:


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I don't know, these folks pull it off rather well:



The Egg and Beans wear dress Blues... not Blacks


----------



## The Bread Guy

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Egg and Beans wear dress Blues... not Blacks


And technically, Italian Carabinieri are _*para*_-military, even if they dress up military-like sometimes ... ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have seen officers wearing berets, not often, but I have.  If the peak cap was, in any way shape or form, comfortable, I wouldn't mind wearing it, but Christ, Logistik seems to think the human head is the shape of a dowel.  I want to stab myself in the eyes with a fid to stop the misery after about 10 minutes.  There used to be such things as hat forms/blocks to mould hats maybe if we had 50 mission hat stomp fests it would help.  At the very least, it would be enjoyable exercise.



One of the first hats I ordered had a slip in it with instructions to remove the ring from the hat once you get it as it was a packing aid to keep the hat getting mangled during shipping.  Once I did that it was pretty comfortable (but still a plastic white hat, which is generally stupid for ships).  I normally try to hang onto it to throw back in when I need to travel somewhere with the cap in luggage, but have been less successful.  Once that's out though, you can shape the hap to fit your head properly.

I actually think the beret looks better than the peak cap with the short sleeves, so tend to wear it in the summer.  Plus it drives some senior officers up the wall, so the sh*t disturber in me enjoys that.  You can imagine the effect on blood pressure if I was to combine that with parade boots; that might clear out a whole lot of room for promotion!  Fortunately nothing in the fleet needs addressed, so we can spend time worry about stuff like this which would otherwise stop ships from going to sea.... Pieces of flair for everyone! Huzzah!

Something of a non sequitor, but not sure why the parade boots are an NCM thing; day to day the shoes are more comfortable but the boots do look a lot better on parade.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I actually think the beret looks better than the peak cap with the short sleeves, so tend to wear it in the summer.  Plus it drives some senior officers up the wall, so the **** disturber in me enjoys that.  You can imagine the effect on blood pressure if I was to combine that with parade boots; that might clear out a whole lot of room for promotion!



So you're one of those guys.  :rage:
I wore my beret on basic and it hasn't seen the light of day since.

I've taken the ring out my hat since day one. Very comfy (for me at least) and gives a bit of that rumpled look.


----------



## bLUE fOX

Fortunately, all that's in for a major revamp:

Sorry. I didn't realize the actor of article I posted was from a troubled individual. The gist of it is that uniforms, badges, drill and flags are going to be redesigned with GBA+ in mind. You can find it on the National Post website.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And technically, Italian Carabinieri are _*para*_-military, even if they dress up military-like sometimes ... ;D



Nothing "para" about the Carabinieri; they are actually part of the Ministry of Defence.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Nothing "para" about the Carabinieri; they are actually part of the Ministry of Defence.


True, but some consider them _para_military because of all the civilian policing they do.  Italians I know think of Carabineri as civvy cops first (based on their dealings with them, admittedly) who do military tasks.  Even the French name for the RCMP -- "Gendarmerie royale du Canada" -- appears to be based on the Mounties' way more military functions earlier in their history.

All that to say -- black uniforms _can_ look good  ;D


----------



## mariomike

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> All that to say -- black uniforms _can_ look good  ;D



I like very dark blue. Very dark. But, not black.

LAPD has a beautiful uniform, in my opinion. "They're not black. They're very, very, very dark blue." 

The National Assn. of Uniform Manufacturers and Distributors bestowed "Best Dressed Large City Police Department in the United States" honors on the LAPD. 

It also helps if those who wear the uniform maintain high grooming standards, maintain their uniforms ( sharp creases and a shoe shine ) and watch their weight.

I also like that they don't wear shoulder badges or anything on their epaulets. A very simple, clean cut, urban look that hasn't changed much since 1940.


----------



## Quiet~One

So. Kinda like all the socks except for true priest's socks?


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's because they can't read  ;D: Here is, taken at random, the label inside my DEU trench coat (they are all the same) "Coat, All Weather, Man's S.D., Sea, Black".
> 
> :nod:



Hmmm. I would argue that the folks at Logistik who put the uniform together got the labeling wrong.  A lot of people seem to think that current RCN uniforms are black, while conceding that pre-1968 RCN uniforms were navy blue.  In fact, the pre-1968 RCN dress instructions specifically say that the uniform is BLUE.  However, if one were to compare both pre-1968 RCN uniforms to current RCN uniforms, one could plainly see that they are in fact, the same colour (which I will, for all the non-traditionalists's sake, call black).  Nevertheless, notwithstanding the wavelength of the light waves reflected off of the material (the way colour is technically defined), the traditional colour of naval uniforms around the world is "blue," even though to most people it looks like black.  Logistik has no sense of history or tradition.

As for the proposed adoption of navy blue berets by some branches of the Army, the blue they likely have in mind will no doubt be a lighter shade and will most definitely be identifiable as blue.  At least that's the current case in the British Army.


----------



## Pusser

To the best of my knowledge, new caps are coming to the RCN.  They will have removable cloth covers and should be more comfortable (i.e. not round).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Far from me to argue with such an illustrious person as you, Pusser ... but:

My naval uniforms are from a time when Logistiks was not even a gleam in your dad's eyes. They are the original brand new issue of naval DEU from the Mulroney government's decision implementation time. So don't blame things on logistiks. 

And yes, pre-unification uniforms were (royal) navy blue, and after three washes, all of a different colour, which is why, when the uniforms were re-introduced in the 1980's, a decisions made to go to all black, even though we call them navy blue, because it retains its exact hue without differential fading and each batch can be consistent - something near impossible even today with navy blue dyes.

Don't let pictures, taken on black and white film fool you as to what hue of blue existed at the time, and if you have actual colour pics from those pre-unification days of a whole platoon of sailors, then you will notice right away the incredible different colours of their navy blue dress.

In this, we are not alone: The US Navy, the Japanese Maritime self-defence force and the Russian navy all use black, for the very reasons I gave above.


----------



## Pusser

The use of black for navy blue long predates the Mulroney era DEU project.  In fact several folks writing on the subject, even before the green uniform was introduced, pointed out that black was used because it was an easier colour to match than any shade of dark blue they could produce (funny how the air force didn't seem to have this problem).  Nevertheless, they still called it "navy blue."  And no, I have never relied upon B&W or even colour photographs on this one.  A stroll through the Naval Museum of Halifax and confirm it as well as the authentic pre-1968 RCN uniform I have in my basement - dated 1958 and cleaned many times.


----------



## Old Sweat

Battledress also could vary between lots and between products from various manufacturers and also fade as it aged.


----------



## jollyjacktar

The only reason the RAF and later RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF etc, etc have the blue they do today is that there was a cancelled order for uniforms for the Czar's 1917 pre-Revolutionary Calvary.  There was all this damn blue cloth sculling about and it was decided to use it for the new  uniforms of the soon to be created RAF.  As I understand.


----------



## Lightguns

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The only reason the RAF and later RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF etc, etc have the blue they do today is that there was a cancelled order for uniforms for the Czar's 1917 pre-Revolutionary Calvary.  There was all this damn blue cloth sculling about and it was decided to use it for the new  uniforms of the soon to be created RAF.  As I understand.



I had to research that.  You are correct BUT the original blue cloth was pale light blue like the US SKY BLUE but lighter.  An officer, John Slessor who was later promoted to Marshal of the RAF, described it as "a nasty pale blue with a lot of gold over it, which brought irresistibly to mind a vision of the gentlemen who stands outside the cinema".  Somewhere along it became darker and the gold braid was changed to black, gray and blue, which, is likely quite understandable given the English gentlemen officers' propensity to despise display of rank in the field.


----------



## Pencil Tech

So really it might be more accurate to refer to the colour that the upcoming RCEME, RCA, Sigs and RCE berets will be as "midnight blue" which is how the colour of berets that those branches in the British Army wear is referred to (in the British Army), and since that is the model in this case after all. Because in fact, when used in a naval context, navy blue is, and always has been, indistinguishable from black. 

There, I've cleared that up for everybody. You're welcome.


----------



## dimsum

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The only reason the RAF and later RCAF, RAAF, RNZAF etc, etc have the blue they do today is that there was a cancelled order for uniforms for the Czar's 1917 pre-Revolutionary Calvary.  There was all this damn blue cloth sculling about and it was decided to use it for the new  uniforms of the soon to be created RAF.  As I understand.



Actually, the RAAF has varied from the RAF/RCAF/RNZAF blue to midnight blue, and back again.  The current version is the dark blue, like below.


----------



## slayer/raptor

The new blue beret will look terrible with CF Green DEUs.


----------



## rotrhed

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> The new blue beret will look terrible with CF Green DEUs.



Well clearly, the only solution is to change the colour of the green DEUs!

 ;D


----------



## Old EO Tech

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> The new blue beret will look terrible with CF Green DEUs.



Maybe but it will look fine with the dark blue patrol dress


----------



## McG

Because more costume uniforms is where we should be spending money as we cancel training and perma-park equipment due to lack of funds?


----------



## George Wallace

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> The new blue beret will look terrible with CF Green DEUs.



No worse than the Black, Maroon, Tan, Red, Orange and Green ones worn already.


----------



## Ostrozac

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No worse than the Black, Maroon, Tan, Red, Orange and Green ones worn already.



Not to mention the assortment of Scottish (and Irish) headgear also worn in DEU.

Canada has 16 Scottish regiments while Scotland has to make do with only 3 -- I don't know how our ally can make do with so few, perhaps we should export our knowledge of ridiculous hats back to the old country.

As for me, wake me up when I can sign for my shako.


----------



## Lightguns

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Not to mention the assortment of Scottish (and Irish) headgear also worn in DEU.
> 
> Canada has 16 Scottish regiments while Scotland has to make do with only 3 -- I don't know how our ally can make do with so few, perhaps we should export our knowledge of ridiculous hats back to the old country.
> 
> As for me, wake me up when I can sign for my shako.



To be fair The Highlanders perpetuate 3 regiments; The Gordons, The Seaforths, and The Camerons.  Ours are an odd assortment of regionally based units, some have adopted the beret but we could do with a unification and standardization of highland dress in the CF.


----------



## Ostrozac

Lightguns said:
			
		

> To be fair The Highlanders perpetuate 3 regiments; The Gordons, The Seaforths, and The Camerons.



The Highlanders were amalgamated into the Royal Regiment of Scotland over ten years ago, and the whole of the RRS wears the same headdress, although each battalion wears a different coloured hackle. 

During the same time period, Canada has gone from 15 Scottish regiments to 16, with the re-establishment of the Cape Breton Highlanders.


----------



## dapaterson

If by "regiment" you mean "undersyrength company that can, on a good day, field two sections"...


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Actually, the RAAF has varied from the RAF/RCAF/RNZAF blue to midnight blue, and back again.  The current version is the dark blue, like below.



The current RAF uniform of 'Wedgewood Blue' is distinctly more grey than either the Aussie or Canadian equivalent.  Another vowel Carol....






And the air force rank lace, black and light blue, has its origins in the lace worn by Army officers on their sleeves on the original khaki service dress of 1902 (before pips migrated to the shoulders).  I have a cunning plan...


----------



## Happy Guy

Now you've done it.  The Army G1, in order to move the Army back to its historic roots, will place the Officer's ranks on its sleeves.


----------



## Kirkhill

Don't forget the swagger stick.  Nothing quite like it for keeping the rabble in line.


----------



## dimsum

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Now you've done it.  The Army G1, in order to move the Army back to its historic roots, will place the Officer's ranks on its sleeves.








Or, if you prefer Battlestar Galactica, "all of this has happened before, and will happen again."


----------



## daftandbarmy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Now you've done it.  The Army G1, in order to move the Army back to its historic roots, will place the Officer's ranks on its sleeves.



in WW1 they thought that was great too... right up until the German snipers figured out how to easily identify the Officers (by the rank on their sleeve cuffs) and shot them down like rabbits.

Magically, rank rapidly migrated to the shoulders.


----------



## McG

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> Now you've done it.  The Army G1, in order to move the Army back to its historic roots, will place the Officer's ranks on its sleeves.


Be careful with "good ideas"!  The artwork is already out there (even if it was done for satirical purposes):


​


----------



## dimsum

From Reddit, so prepare grains of salt.


----------



## JRBond

I just checked; it's legitimate.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View

I recall the CDS saying we don't need extra money. This clearly shows why  :


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Vimy Star?  Googled it...nothing.  Did I miss something on that earlier in the thread??

Well...frig that!  If the army is getting more bling then the Zoomies should get some too!!


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Vimy Star?  Googled it...nothing.  Did I miss something on that earlier in the thread??
> 
> Well...frig that!  If the army is getting more bling then the Zoomies should get some too!!



Is that an "I caught the Snitch" badge for Quidditch? #PotterNerd


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not quite?   8)

In the event this isn't a commonly known badge...ref the link, the 3rd row on the far right side.  I believe a WW2 operational tour of duty was 30 missions.  Quite a feat, honestly.  Lots of the boys didn't make it back 30 times.  

http://www.thememoryproject.com/image-gallery/royal-canadian-air-force-rcaf

Maybe that's too much bling.  How about a No. 6 Group badge or something?

http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/contribution.html


----------



## dapaterson

Had a (now deceased) family friend who received one of these:





As a direct result, he was also involved with RAFES.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

That wouldn't be a bad one to receive at all (except the reason you had to earn it...).


----------



## Rifleman62

I agree with you re "Operations Badge". Why not? My wife's Uncle was the only surviving member of his WAG Course at Lethbridge. He went on to be a Navigator Sqn Sigs Ldr. Probably the only reason he survived was that he went from a Bomber OTU in the UK to 436 Sqn in Burma as crew in C-47's rather than Bomber Command.

This badge was not restricted to Bomber Command (see above) and I have seen photos of fighter pilots and Coastal Command crew with the badge.

Although a qualification badge some pers wear both jump wings and pathfinder badge.

IMHO I think the RCAF should bring back Operations Badge worn on the left breast pocket. 

The Caterpillar Club badge is still given out, but I could be wrong. Awarded for safely using a parachute to save your life. Caterpillar - silk worm- parachute.


----------



## Ostrozac

Reference the "Vimy Star" -- any news on whether non-standard pips/stars are being supported from public funds this time around? All those rifles, int and guards officers had to buy their own DEU rank insignia when we last changed rank insignia three years ago -- are they required to buy new ones again?


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> in WW1 they thought that was great too... right up until the German snipers figured out how to easily identify the Officers (by the rank on their sleeve cuffs) and shot them down like rabbits.
> 
> Magically, rank rapidly migrated to the shoulders.









I wonder if the sword and pistol and all that bright, shiny leather might have been clues as well?  That and the well-bred tendency to stand up straight.   [


----------



## Rifleman62

1914 possibly, but not thereafter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> This badge was not restricted to Bomber Command (see above) and I have seen photos of fighter pilots and Coastal Command crew with the badge.



Sorry, the link to the Bomber Command museum website was in ref to the No.6 Group HQ badge.  The WWII operational wings werent restricted to certain *types*, unlike the Pathfinder Force badge.  No 8 Group was the Pathfinders, with No. 405 Sqn being the only RCAF Sqn in the Pathfinder Force.  http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/pathfind.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> 1914 possibly, but not thereafter.



True enough.  Their brother's and cousins took the hint by 1915.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Sorry, the link to the Bomber Command museum website was in ref to the No.6 Group HQ badge.  The WWII operational wings werent restricted to certain *types*, unlike the Pathfinder Force badge.  No 8 Group was the Pathfinders, with No. 405 Sqn being the only RCAF Sqn in the Pathfinder Force.  http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/pathfind.html



Yes, my family friend was with 405.  A navigator.


----------



## Rifleman62

DFC and a rare Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying). Interesting.

Searched and found it: Flight Sergeant, Robert Maxwell

 MAXWELL, FS Robert Burton (R165426) - Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) - No.428 Squadron - Award effective 24 October 1944 as per London Gazette of that date and AFRO 239/45 dated 9 February 1945. Born 1924 in Toronto; home there' enlisted there 12 May 1942. Trained at No.1 ITS, No.12 EFTS and No.5 SFTS (graduated 11 June 1943). Commissioned August 1944. Incident described was 25 August 1944 (target, Russelshein). Medal sent by registered mail 10 June 1948. DFC was sent by registered mail, 28 June 1949.

        In August 1944 Flight Sergeant Maxwell was detailed to attack a target in Germany. When nearing the objective, his aircraft was struck by anti-aircraft fire, disabling an engine and damaging the electrical system. Despite loss of height and a wound in the leg, this airman pressed on to the target where the bombs had to be released manually. Flight Sergeant Maxwell then flew his aircraft back to England and effected a safe landing. His coolness, courage and determination to achieve success have been of a high order.

MAXWELL, F/O Robert Burton, CGM (J89628) - Distinguished Flying Cross - No.405 Squadron - Award effective 8 September 1945 as per London Gazette dated 25 September 1945 and AFRO 1768/45 dated 23 November 1945.

        Since the award of the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal this officer has flown on a large number of operational sorties. He has taken part in attacks against such heavily defended targets as Kiel, Chemnitz, Merseburg and Berlin. Flying Officer Maxwell is an outstanding leader who has invariably displayed courage and devotion to duty of a high order.


----------



## dimsum

428's Sqn crest and motto, "to the very end", were bad-ass.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes, my family friend was with 405.  A navigator.



I had the honour and privilege of meeting a WW2 405 Pathfinder pilot at Camp Hill several years ago.  Humbling.

A recent article about 405 Sqn and the Pathfinder Force.  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=longest-three-minutes-of-your-life-405-squadron-relives-past-with-former-lancaster-airman/iyg2f4h7

_405 Squadron Pathfinder Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Hubley is in his 96th year, but you’d never know it by his appearance. Wearing an old CANEX jacket plastered with RCAF badges, with a rack of miniature medals extending across the full breadth of his chest, he is beyond proud to be affiliated with the RCAF.

Though he earned many honours, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, and received the French Légion d'honneur, presented to him on June 20, 2014, at 12 Wing Shearwater, Nova Scotia, his most prized possession is his Pathfinder Wings badge, which, he explains, was hard to earn and easy to lose. To retain Pathfinder Wings, you were required to complete an entire tour comprising 45 sorties over Europe. Given that the life expectancy of bomber aircrew was notoriously short, completing 45 was a significant achievement. Lieutenant-Colonel Hubley and his crew completed 60.
_

 to them all.



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> 428's Sqn crest and motto, "to the very end", were bad-ass.



There is a lot of history in the units of the RCAF (including the ones no longer on our Order of Battle), 428 included.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I had the honour and privilege of meeting a WW2 405 Pathfinder pilot at Camp Hill several years ago.  Humbling.
> 
> A recent article about 405 Sqn and the Pathfinder Force.  http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=longest-three-minutes-of-your-life-405-squadron-relives-past-with-former-lancaster-airman/iyg2f4h7
> 
> _405 Squadron Pathfinder Lieutenant-Colonel (retired) Hubley is in his 96th year, but you’d never know it by his appearance. Wearing an old CANEX jacket plastered with RCAF badges, with a rack of miniature medals extending across the full breadth of his chest, he is beyond proud to be affiliated with the RCAF.
> 
> Though he earned many honours, including the Distinguished Flying Cross, and received the French Légion d'honneur, presented to him on June 20, 2014, at 12 Wing Shearwater, Nova Scotia, his most prized possession is his Pathfinder Wings badge, which, he explains, was hard to earn and easy to lose. To retain Pathfinder Wings, you were required to complete an entire tour comprising 45 sorties over Europe. Given that the life expectancy of bomber aircrew was notoriously short, completing 45 was a significant achievement. Lieutenant-Colonel Hubley and his crew completed 60.
> _
> 
> to them all.
> 
> There is a lot of history in the units of the RCAF (including the ones no longer on our Order of Battle), 428 included.



One of my Dad's childhood buddies was Reg Lane, who I met several times when I was a kid. 

I had no idea what he had done as a Pathfinder until I read his Obit: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1448243/Lieutenant-General-Reg-Lane.html


----------



## Eye In The Sky

A little more for you, if you've not seen it before.  A great picture of the crew of KB700 included before leaving for Europe.

http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/s,reglane.html


Hopefully these gents, as they rest, take some pride that 405 has still taken the lead in some operations, still being the *_first in_* in the long-range community as it exists today.

*Ducimus*


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> A little more for you, if you've not seen it before.  A great picture of the crew of KB700 included before leaving for Europe.
> 
> http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/s,reglane.html
> 
> 
> Hopefully these gents, as they rest, take some pride that 405 has still taken the lead in some operations, still being the *_first in_* in the long-range community as it exists today.
> 
> *Ducimus*



I saw one of those photos of him in the air museum in Nanton.


----------



## McG

The fashion projects continue to progress with the newer new rank for Army officers & new wings for the RCAF.



> CANFORGEN 089/17 COMD CA 001/17 111400Z MAY 17
> 
> VIMY STAR DISTRIBUTION
> 
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REFERENCE: CANFORGEN 053/16 EVOLUTION OF CA OFFICER RANK
> 
> 1. THIS MSG APPLIES TO ALL CAF OFFICERS, REG AND RES, WHO WEAR THE ARMY UNIFORM
> 
> 2. AS PART OF PHASE THREE OF THE REFERENCED CANFORGEN, A NEW METAL RANK STAR FOR CA OFFICERS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN APR 17 ON OFFICER SVC DRESS TUNICS.
> 
> 3. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE CROWN METAL RANK BADGE OR THE STAR OF THE ORDER OF THE GARTER RANK BADGE CURRENTLY WORN BY OFFICERS. THIS CHANGE TO SVC DRESS TUNIC RANK BADGES WILL NOT AFFECT CADPAT OR ECU CLOTH SLIP-ONS/PATCHES, SVC DRESS CLOTH SLIP-ONS, OR MESS DRESS RANK BADGES, WHICH REMAIN THE SAME
> 
> 4. STARTING 01 APR 17, CA OFFICERS ARE TO LOG IN TO THEIR LOGISTIK UNICORP CLOTHING ON-LINE ACCOUNT TO ORDER THE VIMY STAR. UPON LOGGING IN, THE SYSTEM WILL DETECT THAT AN ENTITLED OFFICER NEEDS TO ORDER THE NEW VIMY STAR AND WILL AUTOMATICALLY ADD THEM TO THEIR CART BASED ON THE PRE-DETERMINED SCALE OF ISSUE. THE MBR THEN NEEDS TO COMPLETE THE CHECKOUT PROCESS TO HAVE THEM SHIPPED TO THEIR DESIRED ADDRESS. IF A MBR HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED AN ORDER THROUGH LOGISTIK UNICORP FOR THE VIMY STAR, THE ORDERS WILL SHIP 01 APR 17. THE CURRENT METAL RANK STAR WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE THROUGH CLOTHING ONLINE AS OF 01 APR 17
> 
> 5.AT THE CURRENT TIME, ONLY GOLD VIMY STARS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH LOGISTIK UNICORP. FOR CORPS AND REGTS WHO WEAR SILVER, BLACK OR GUN-METAL RANK AND ACCOUTREMENTS, VIMY STARS IN THESE COLOURS WILL BE PROVIDED BY LOGISTIK UNICORP IN THE COMING MONTHS. INDIVS IN THESE REGTS AND CORPS ARE TO CONTINUE WEARING THEIR CURRENTLY HELD ACCOUTREMENTS UNTIL VIMY STARS OF THE CORRECT COLOUR AND QUALITY ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SUP SYSTEM. DIST DETAILS WILL BE PROVIDED IN A SUBSEQUENT CANFORGEN
> 
> 6.CA OFFICERS MAY COMMENCE WEARING THE VIMY STAR AS SOON AS IT IS RECEIVED. ALL CA OFFICERS WHO WEAR GOLD ACCOUTREMENTS ARE EXPECTED TO WEAR THE VIMY STAR NLT 01 SEP 17





> FLYING AND OCCUPATION BADGE UPDT PROJECT DISTRIBUTION UPDATE
> 
> UNCLASSIFIED
> 
> REF: CANFORGEN 035/17 C AIR FORCE 11/17 131500Z FEB 17
> 
> 1. THIS MESSAGE IS AN UPDATE TO REF. THE SECOND TRANCHE OF BADGES WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR BASE/WING CLOTHING STORES TO ORDER FROM THE DEPOTS STARTING 1 MAY 17. THE EXPECTED RELEASE OF FUTURE TRANCHES IS UPDATED AS PER BELOW
> 
> 2. TRANCHE 2 COMPRISES THE FOLLOWING CLOTH TRADE BADGES AND WILL AVAILABLE AS OF 1 MAY 17: AERE, AM SUP, AVS TECH, AVN TECH, AWS TECH, NDT TECH, AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION, AIRBORNE WARNING AND CONTROL, FLIGHT CREW, FLIGHT SURGEON, FLIGHT TEST ENGINEER, TACTICAL HELICOPTER OBSERVER. FINALLY, THE ACS TECH BADGE WILL BE AVAILABLE BY 30 JUNE 2017
> 
> 3. NEXT TRANCHE RELEASES ARE UPDATED AS FOL:
> 
> a. METAL MEDICAL BRANCH PIN - JULY 2017
> 
> b. LOG BRANCH (INC FSA AND HRA VICE RMS) - NOVEMBER 2017
> 
> c. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING BRANCH - DECEMBER 2017
> 
> d. MPS, INT, MUSIC, MET TECH - NOVEMBER 2017
> 
> e. COMMUNICATIONS BRANCH, PA AND PERSONNEL BRANCHES - DECEMBER 2017
> 
> f. METAL FULL WING FLYING BADGES - DECEMBER 2017
> 
> g. METAL UPSWEPT WING FLYING BADGES - JANUARY 2018
> 
> h. MESS DRESS MINIATURE DESIGNS - FEBRUARY 2018
> 
> 4. BASE/WING CLOTHING STORES ARE REMINDED TO ORDER ONLY BADGES THAT ARE REQUIRED AS INITIAL ISSUE IN ORDER TO AVOID STOCKOUTS. ORDERING FOR STOCK WILL BE PERMITTED ONCE INITIAL ISSUE OF BADGES IS COMPLETE
> 
> 5. MEMBERS ARE ADVISED THAT AS PER 3 H. ABOVE FOBUP IS UPDATING MESS DRESS MINIATURES. THE THREAD COLOUR WILL REMAIN GOLD IN ORDER TO MATCH WITH THE MESS DRESS


----------



## PuckChaser

> CANFORGEN 089/17 COMD CA 001/17 *111400Z MAY 17*
> 4. STARTING *01 APR 17*, CA OFFICERS ARE TO LOG IN TO THEIR LOGISTIK UNICORP CLOTHING ON-LINE ACCOUNT TO ORDER THE VIMY STAR. UPON LOGGING IN, THE SYSTEM WILL DETECT THAT AN ENTITLED OFFICER NEEDS TO ORDER THE NEW VIMY STAR AND WILL AUTOMATICALLY ADD THEM TO THEIR CART BASED ON THE PRE-DETERMINED SCALE OF ISSUE. THE MBR THEN NEEDS TO COMPLETE THE CHECKOUT PROCESS TO HAVE THEM SHIPPED TO THEIR DESIRED ADDRESS. IF A MBR HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED AN ORDER THROUGH LOGISTIK UNICORP FOR THE VIMY STAR, THE ORDERS WILL SHIP *01 APR 17*. THE CURRENT METAL RANK STAR WILL NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE THROUGH CLOTHING ONLINE AS OF *01 APR 17*



Man, now that we've got timely passage of information down to a science, we can focus on metal stars.  :facepalm:


----------



## RedcapCrusader

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Man, now that we've got timely passage of information down to a science, we can focus on metal stars.  :facepalm:



Is the Vimy Star now permanent or will it be only for 2017-2018? The reason I ask is, with LogistikUnicorp's notoriously unpredictable supply and shipping, by the time most officers will receive their Vimy Stars, it'll be time to turn them in for the originals anyway.....


----------



## PuckChaser

RUMINT is permanent. I wanted a Vimy Ridge pin though, could have gone beside my Year of the Veteran pin.


----------



## daftandbarmy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> RUMINT is permanent. I wanted a Vimy Ridge pin though, could have gone beside my Year of the Veteran pin.



And then we can draw a sash, upon which we may affix the War of 1812 pin, and all these other bits and pieces that descend upon us these days


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And then we can draw a sash, upon which we may affix the War of 1812 pin, and all these other bits and pieces that descend upon us these days



Is it sad I feel like all the uniform crap we are wasting money on makes me feel like our uniforms will look like the north koreans sooner then later?


----------



## Mick

CDS sporting new command badge at NATO summit this week:

http://nato.int/cps/en/natohq/photos_143755.htm


----------



## Mick

^ image 7 of 7


----------



## daftandbarmy

mick said:
			
		

> CDS sporting new command badge at NATO summit this week:
> 
> http://nato.int/cps/en/natohq/photos_143755.htm



As well as all the jump wings


----------



## medicineman

Just had my neck hair stand up seeing that Croat flag in that pic...I wonder if the two ran into each other in the 90's  ;D.

MM


----------



## MilEME09

medicineman said:
			
		

> Just had my neck hair stand up seeing that Croat flag in that pic...I wonder if the two ran into each other in the 90's  ;D.
> 
> MM



"Just remember, we kicked your ass at Medak"


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As well as all the jump wings



Whats that thing...lead by example or something or other...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> The fashion projects continue to progress with the newer new rank for Army officers & new wings for the RCAF.



RCAF Command badge is coming soon, as well.  Saw something about it in the RCAF Clothing / Dress Committee minutes from Nov 2016 (something like that), and is supposed to be issued this spring/summer.

At least they could have waited and changed it *all at once* once all the bits and pieces were in the system.


----------



## Old EO Tech

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> As well as all the jump wings



Regs do allow you to wear your foreign jump wings when at events hosted by those countries...so being a NATO event that pretty much allows you to wear any NATO wings you have earned.  So nothing amiss here at all.


----------



## medicineman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Whats that thing...lead by example or something or other...



You mean "When in Rome, do like the Romans"?

 ;D

MM


----------



## Eye In The Sky

From CFP 265, Ch 3, Sect 3

6. Personnel that have been issued two or more flying and specialist skill badges for permanent retention, including authorized foreign insignia, may wear the badges as for and in conjunction with commendations to a maximum number of badges where by the badges of lower precedence, in miniature metal format, will fit in a line vertically centered on the left pocket or position of the left pocket
beginning 3 cm below the bottom of the pocket flap or 9 cm below the pocket opening (navy tunics) and do not go further than 15cm from the top of the pocket flap or opening (navy tunics); The top badge will begin just below the row of medals when wearing medals.

FOREIGN FLYING AND SPECIALIST SKILL BADGES
12. Personnel who have been presented foreign Flying and Specialist Skill badges from allied countries as a result of qualifications obtained on a course prescribed by the CAF, shall wear the applicable CAF badge in accordance with wear instructions above.

13. Where an equivalent CAF badge has not been designed or approved for wear, the foreign badge presented for the prescribed qualification shall be worn like a CAF badge in accordance with wear instructions above. If wearing both a CAF badge and a foreign badge, the CAF badge shall take precedence.

14. The following prescribed foreign qualification badges are authorized for wear on
the CAF uniform:
a. United States Army Ranger Badge (a cloth sleeve badge);
b. United States Army Special Forces Badge (a cloth sleeve badge);
c. United States Sapper Badge (a cloth sleeve badge);
d. United States Army Ranger Badge (metal pocket badge);
e. United States Army Special Forces Badge (metal pocket badge);
f. United States Air Assault Badge (a metal pocket badge);
g. Colombian Lancero Badge (a metal pocket badge); and
h. Brazilian Jungle Warfare Badge (a metal pocket badge).

15. Personnel who have been presented equivalent badges of allied countries as a result of qualifications obtained on a course prescribed by the CAF, and those who have been presented honorary qualification badges while attached to, or serving with the armed forces of an allied country, may wear the appropriate metal or cloth badge, on the right breast of the service dress and mess dress
jacket only while on duty in the specific allied country, when subsequently working with the armed forces of the country or when attending a formal function sponsored by the country concerned.

Unless I am reading wrong, the only thing possibly contrary to 265 are the (german?) Jump Wings over the name tag.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

medicineman said:
			
		

> You mean "When in Rome, do like the Romans"?
> 
> ;D
> 
> MM



There's that too!

Hard to follow the dress manual 100% when there's mistakes in it;  Loadmasters are flight crew, not aircrew *specialization vice a trade* (not by my word, but by the CFAOs) and the new 265 has that incorrect (Pg3-3-5).


----------



## Mick

I would say that the German wings are actually being worn correctly (right breast of service dress jacket), while the U.S. wings on the left are not.

Gen Natynczyk sometimes wore the U.S. Combat Action Badge over his name tag when in the U.S., or meeting with the CJCS.

The highlighted 265 quote doesn't mention foreign badges being worn on the left pocket flap, nor is the U.S. parachute badge authorized for permanent wear, as there is a Canadian equivalent (which Gen Vance is wearing).

Are ANY badges ever authorized for wear on the LEFT pocket flap?


----------



## eliminator

mick said:
			
		

> Are ANY badges ever authorized for wear on the LEFT pocket flap?



I believe female members have the option of wearing their lower left pocket insignia on the flap, such as commendations.


----------



## Jed

eliminator said:
			
		

> I believe female members have the option of wearing their lower left pocket insignia on the flap, such as commendations.



What about those troops that identify as 'female'?  8)


----------



## Gunner98

The thing that makes me smile the most (especially now that I am retired and with summer-like weather approaching)  is that the CAF continues to find pretty buttons and bows to pin on an Army DEU that is so 1980-ish out of date.  The Air Force and Navy have "summer and winter" or at least lighter weight fabric, yet those wonderful wool dress tunics and pants are plain silly.  How many forms of dress have evolved - forage caps, berets, CADPAT versions and yet no one has made an effort to improve the appearance of the primary dress uniform that 50% of the CAF wear.  (Latest CAF Total Force breakdown that I saw - Army -50%, Air Force - 32% and Navy- 18%).   :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

Jed said:
			
		

> What about those troops that identify as 'female'?  8)



I choose to identify as Air Force Navy, so I can wear my fleece as an outer layer and a ballcap everywhere. I call it "Joint-Gendered".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

mick said:
			
		

> I would say that the German wings are actually being worn correctly (right breast of service dress jacket), while the U.S. wings on the left are not.
> 
> Gen Natynczyk sometimes wore the U.S. Combat Action Badge over his name tag when in the U.S., or meeting with the CJCS.
> 
> The highlighted 265 quote doesn't mention foreign badges being worn on the left pocket flap, nor is the U.S. parachute badge authorized for permanent wear, as there is a Canadian equivalent (which Gen Vance is wearing).
> 
> Are ANY badges ever authorized for wear on the LEFT pocket flap?



You're right...I was looking at the US Jump wings as on the right side...which they are in the pic because he is facing me.   :facepalm:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> The Air Force and Navy have "summer and winter" or at least lighter weight fabric, yet those wonderful wool dress tunics and pants are plain silly.


 
The AF no longer issues the HW tunic and pants...you can still wear them if you have them but you can't get them of Logistik anymore.  I never wore mine...too hot and itchy compared to the LW.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> RCAF Command badge is coming soon, as well.  Saw something about it in the RCAF Clothing / Dress Committee minutes from Nov 2016 (something like that), and is supposed to be issued this spring/summer.



That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.


----------



## Loachman

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.



So it's entirely consistent with the rest of the recent uniform nonsense.


----------



## kev994

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.


You're missing the point, which is that someone is getting a dot for 'leading change' on their PER.


----------



## MilEME09

kev994 said:
			
		

> You're missing the point, which is that someone is getting a dot for 'leading change' on their PER.



Which I believe is one of the big factors towards what the CaF is today


----------



## Eye In The Sky

If only it would say "Leading Effective Change" and people who came up with stupid ideas got a NI...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.



I suspect the next thing will be the belted tunic and flying scarf!!


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I suspect the next thing will be the belted tunic and flying scarf!!



Flying scarf for pilots only; half-scarf for other aircrew.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

...and half a belt for the 'new' tunic for us self-loading meat sacks too.   ;D

Double-layered wings for astronauts...just so the drivers have something to whine about.    >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

On this topic, the Logistics branch had a survey sent out to the officers which had a question asking if a new cap badge and the addition of a royal pre-fix would improve esprit-de-corps.... good lord. Enough already!


----------



## dapaterson

Are you bad-mouthing the Royal Canadian Logistics Service?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> On this topic, the Logistics branch had a survey sent out to the officers which had a question asking if a new cap badge and the addition of a royal pre-fix would improve esprit-de-corps.... good lord. Enough already!



Hopefully the Naval and Air members of the Log Branch who have no historical connection to a Royal anything service, RCN and RCAF aside, can keep this in check and push it firmly into the dust bin.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Are you bad-mouthing the Royal Canadian Logistics Service?



Not at all... though if they go with that title the acronym would be "RCLS" and might be confused with the Royal Canadian Legion  anic:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No. He was badmouthing the Royal Canadian Service Corps.  [

I can't see why there would be a need to create a Logistics trade "esprit-de-corps" in the Navy, or Air Force for that matter. Our esprit-de-corps is built around the unit onboard which you serve, and the Navy as a whole. We simply don't have large units dedicated to nothing else but logistics, even if the main stores/warehousing facilities on either coasts come close.


----------



## Pusser

My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:

RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
Royal Canadian Logistics *Corps* (with Log cap badge)
RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)

Why different cap badges for each environment?  Simple, separate corps/regimental badges are an Army tradition where first loyalty is to the unit.  First loyalty in the Navy and Air Force, however, tends to be to the service as a whole and prior to unification, all members of those services wore the same badge (with variances for rank).  The current Logistics badge does nothing to identify wearers as being members of the Navy or Air Force.  As for the argument that we need a common badge for the whole Branch in order to promote Branch identity and esprit de corps, I would say that it actually does a pretty poor job of that.  First off, in the Navy's case, without a cap badge, no one knows what branch a naval officer belongs to (we don't actually wear caps that much).  Secondly, if this concept is so important, why does it not apply to GOFOs or Army colonels?  I'm aware that GOFOs are actually a separate Branch/occupation, but they still get channeled into jobs commensurate with their former occupations.   The Army colonel situation is one that really gets me: an Army tradition that was deemed important enough to reinstate, but we can't reinstate those of the Navy or Air Force...

Furthermore, the Log cap badges looks odd on a naval cap (too small).  We could use other identifiers on Navy and Air Force officers (NCMs already have their trade badges).


----------



## Halifax Tar

Pusser said:
			
		

> My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:
> 
> RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
> Royal Canadian Logistics *Corps* (with Log cap badge)
> RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)
> 
> Why different cap badges for each environment?  Simple, separate corps/regimental badges are an Army tradition where first loyalty is to the unit.  First loyalty in the Navy and Air Force, however, tends to be to the service as a whole and prior to unification, all members of those services wore the same badge (with variances for rank).  The current Logistics badge does nothing to identify wearers as being members of the Navy or Air Force.  As for the argument that we need a common badge for the whole Branch in order to promote Branch identity and esprit de corps, I would say that it actually does a pretty poor job of that.  First off, in the Navy's case, without a cap badge, no one knows what branch a naval officer belongs to (we don't actually wear caps that much).  Secondly, if this concept is so important, why does it not apply to GOFOs or Army colonels?  I'm aware that GOFOs are actually a separate Branch/occupation, but they still get channeled into jobs commensurate with their former occupations.   The Army colonel situation is one that really gets me: an Army tradition that was deemed important enough to reinstate, but we can't reinstate those of the Navy or Air Force...
> 
> Furthermore, the Log cap badges looks odd on a naval cap (too small).  We could use other identifiers on Navy and Air Force officers (NCMs already have their trade badges).



I agree with you, we know this.  But to play devils advocate how would we career manage the undying need to be everything to everyone that is required of Log types, regardless of uniform (NCMs especially) ?


----------



## armyvern

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. He was badmouthing the Royal Canadian Service Corps.  [
> 
> I can't see why there would be a need to create a Logistics trade "esprit-de-corps" in the Navy, or Air Force for that matter. Our esprit-de-corps is built around the unit onboard which you serve, and the Navy as a whole. We simply don't have large units dedicated to nothing else but logistics, even if the main stores/warehousing facilities on either coasts come close.



Interesting because the question regarding the cap badge is eons old now.

The Logistics Branch will be going to the "Royal Canadian Logistics Service".  We are ONE service, we are not three separate services despite protestations otherwise.  The reason for that is because the LS in the RCN (or the Cpl in the RCAF) can be promoted, packed up and moved into a Cdn Army Unit on 30 days notice ... and likewise.  ONE service serving 3 environments - and many more Commands.  ONE merit list no matter the uniform colour etc etc.

One of the CWO Gp recommendations to the Log Branch was that "if you want non-commissioned Logisticians to be proud of the cap-badge they wear, then give them a cap-badge they'd be proud to wear" with comments alluding to the fact that the .02 cent Chinese cheap knock-off that the troops, sailors, airmen & women are currently relegated to wearing sucks.  Proposed that the current Log O cap-badge (larger and more prominent than the troops' current badge) be issued to the troops (IE: presented to them during their QL3 Grad Parade vice handing it to them on day one of their course which seems to be how it now happens) and that Log metal-brass chainlinks (that used to be worn as the collar dogs on the green tri-service dress) be affixed onto the Officer version of said cap-badge over the embroidered links that would serve to differentiate between the two groups.  Cap-badge has to change anyway with our upcoming 50th and re-naming of the Branch.


----------



## ModlrMike

The RCMS would be the obvious comparison.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I was jesting, ArmyVern.

But let's get some vocabulary cleared out: The Logistic branch is a TRADE, not a SERVICE. Before unification, we had three services: The RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF. They were unified into a single SERVICE. Don't believe me? look at the National Defence Act.

This said, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's "purple" trade (my wife was a Log Officer. She is the only one I ever got anything against: my own body  [) but as you hinted at, as a trade, you get to serve all three elements. However, the key word here is "serve" the elements. and from a military "esprit-de-corps" point of view, that is where the emphasis belongs while so employed. Which means, for purple trades, it can switch whenever going from one element to the other.

That is why, BTW, and I know many supply tradespeople that wear different uniform than the "army" one tend to see it that way, the Navy has been looking at issuing everyone who wears a Navy blue uniform with the Navy cap badge. The trade, for both NCM's and officers, would be denoted only by collar badges.


----------



## armyvern

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I was jesting, ArmyVern.
> 
> But let's get some vocabulary cleared out: The Logistic branch is a TRADE, not a SERVICE. Before unification, we had three services: The RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF. They were unified into a single SERVICE. Don't believe me? look at the National Defence Act.
> 
> This said, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's "purple" trade (my wife was a Log Officer. She is the only one I ever got anything against: my own body  [) but as you hinted at, as a trade, you get to serve all three elements. However, the key word here is "serve" the elements. and from a military "esprit-de-corps" point of view, that is where the emphasis belongs while so employed. Which means, for purple trades, it can switch whenever going from one element to the other.
> 
> That is why, BTW, and I know many supply tradespeople that wear different uniform than the "army" one tend to see it that way, the Navy has been looking at issuing everyone who wears a Navy blue uniform with the Navy cap badge. The trade, for both NCM's and officers, would be denoted only by collar badges.



There are many trades that make up the service.

I understand that pre-unification we had three services - which still comprised of numerous trades within each of those services.  These are not those times.  Those big happy budgets were well taken care of by Trudeau 1.0 along with the abundance of personnel who served in the CAF during those times.

I know what the RCN is thinking about doing, BUT just as with the RCAF and the Cdn Army, NO environment "OWNS" their Logisticians.  Logisticians are "owned" and managed by the Branch (soon to be the Service) career-wise outside of those big three environments.  Not so, RCEME etc ... they all wear one uniform and serve in all 3 environments and are career managed by that ONE environment no matter what environment they are serving in - they too are "purple" but owned and managed by ONE environment.

The RCN, the RCAF and the Cdn Army can say no such thing of the Loggies which work within and outside of them.  Even the Cdn Army knows this - their Command Team Course curriculum totally neglects to address the Loggies in Cdn Army uniforms whilst it does address the RCEME and RCCS etc that are purple and "owned" by them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:

_*The Canadian Forces

Constitution

Canadian Forces

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.*_

This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.

And quite frankly, I don't care that someone wants to manage a "support" function through a single centralized system. Maybe I am behind the times, and maybe I am a dinosaur (scratch that, I know I am a dinosaur) but while the logistics functions have been "unified", so that there is a single set of supply codes, and accounting is done the same way everywhere, etc., they are not and have never been executed in the same  way in all three elements (something I know the army logisticians have a hard time grasping, even today). To my mind, it means that the actual trades or officer occupations cannot be centrally career managed and still work out.

Don't believe me? Here are a few examples: (1) Let's look at Log Officers. A Log Offcr who has graduated in an army uniform and was then sent to an army base as the transport officer, then, after a fashion became the food services officer cannot, and will just not do as my LogO on a ship just because he happens to have been promoted to Captain (or LT, for us sailors). So if the navy is to have enough properly qualified SeaLog officers, it must have some control on the number and promotion of same. (2) "Local" knowledge matters even if in a single supply system: When an item is out of stock, an equivalent is some times provided. What happens when some one out of element is not knowledgeable enough to know what an "equivalent" is? Simple example: I ordered many years ago some polypropylene "two-inch" rope. It was out of stock and the idiot non-Navy supply person at the other end did not understand that in the (all the world's actually) Navy, rope is described by circumference. Apparently, the army does it wrong by using diameter. Guess what happened!!!

In reverse, how on earth do you expect a naval supply tech that's gone all the way to MS (that's MCpl for you landlubbers) onboard ships and working at the Dockyard in Halifax to just be thrown into a Service battalion and shipped in the desert without even knowing how to put on the web gear and body armour required for that duty?

And, BTW, while I have no idea what is taught to  army officers attending the Command Team Course,  I can tell you that ALL aspects of logistics (finance, admin, NPF, supply, transport, food services, etc.) are part of the Navy command development and I have to prove myself competent in all of those aspects before a board to be able to obtain my command certificate. There is a simple reason for that: regardless of the existence of a "logistics branch" and the service on my ship of personnel from the various logistics trades and officer designations, I, solely, am fully responsible for all of these activities onboard my ship, and no "branch (or future "service") can take that responsibility away from me. 

/RANT OFF.

Sorry about that ArmyVern. I have developed great respect for you from your posts, but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [).


----------



## Blackadder1916

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:
> 
> _*The Canadian Forces
> 
> Constitution
> 
> Canadian Forces
> 
> 14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.*_
> 
> This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.



Well, tell that to the Commander-in-Chief

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-30/html/gh-rg-eng.html


> The Governor General, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, is pleased to advise, as Commander-in-Chief of Canada, that the blazons (technical descriptions) of the badges of the following units have been confirmed, as entered in the Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada (Volume, page):
> 
> *Canadian Forces Medical Service*, Ottawa, Ontario, December 20, 2012 (Vol. VI, p. 199).
> 
> *Canadian Forces Dental Services*, Ottawa, Ontario, February 15, 2013 (Vol. VI, p. 210).



The CFMS (an entity that had existed within the Canadian Forces since 1959) has since been re-titled as the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the CFDS (which was so named following unification) has reverted back to the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, but it would not be either unique or "cockamamie" to title the Logistics Branch as the RCLS.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Pusser said:
			
		

> My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:
> 
> RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
> Royal Canadian Logistics *Corps* (with Log cap badge)
> RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)



Now someone in the Army will read this and demand that the buttons and bows elves make an _Cdn Army Ops _capbadge...


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:
> 
> _*The Canadian Forces
> 
> Constitution
> 
> Canadian Forces
> 
> 14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.*_
> 
> This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.
> 
> And quite frankly, I don't care that someone wants to manage a "support" function through a single centralized system. Maybe I am behind the times, and maybe I am a dinosaur (scratch that, I know I am a dinosaur) but while the logistics functions have been "unified", so that there is a single set of supply codes, and accounting is done the same way everywhere, etc., they are not and have never been executed in the same  way in all three elements (something I know the army logisticians have a hard time grasping, even today). To my mind, it means that the actual trades or officer occupations cannot be centrally career managed and still work out.
> 
> Don't believe me? Here are a few examples: (1) Let's look at Log Officers. A Log Offcr who has graduated in an army uniform and was then sent to an army base as the transport officer, then, after a fashion became the food services officer cannot, and will just not do as my LogO on a ship just because he happens to have been promoted to Captain (or LT, for us sailors). So if the navy is to have enough properly qualified SeaLog officers, it must have some control on the number and promotion of same. (2) "Local" knowledge matters even if in a single supply system: When an item is out of stock, an equivalent is some times provided. What happens when some one out of element is not knowledgeable enough to know what an "equivalent" is? Simple example: I ordered many years ago some polypropylene "two-inch" rope. It was out of stock and the idiot non-Navy supply person at the other end did not understand that in the (all the world's actually) Navy, rope is described by circumference. Apparently, the army does it wrong by using diameter. Guess what happened!!!
> 
> In reverse, how on earth do you expect a naval supply tech that's gone all the way to MS (that's MCpl for you landlubbers) onboard ships and working at the Dockyard in Halifax to just be thrown into a Service battalion and shipped in the desert without even knowing how to put on the web gear and body armour required for that duty?
> 
> And, BTW, while I have no idea what is taught to  army officers attending the Command Team Course,  I can tell you that ALL aspects of logistics (finance, admin, NPF, supply, transport, food services, etc.) are part of the Navy command development and I have to prove myself competent in all of those aspects before a board to be able to obtain my command certificate. There is a simple reason for that: regardless of the existence of a "logistics branch" and the service on my ship of personnel from the various logistics trades and officer designations, I, solely, am fully responsible for all of these activities onboard my ship, and no "branch (or future "service") can take that responsibility away from me.
> 
> /RANT OFF.
> 
> Sorry about that ArmyVern. I have developed great respect for you from your posts, but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [).



OGBD, 

I want to preface with the statement that I share your beliefs in the way we would like to see things run in the log world. 

BUT 

I was that MS Sup Tech you talk about; who after only serving with the RCN (Minus some time in AFG) was posted to a field unit (CFJSR).  Actually, Vern was my RQ.  I think I did ok.  I managed to get promoted to PO2 and posted back to the RCN in 4 years minus 8 or 9 months of paternity leave.  I actually liked the Army, and I think it taught me allot about leadership that, IMHO, the RCN is neither prepared nor capable to teach. 

Lastly I wouldn't over inflate the RCN's grasp of logistics, if I were you.  I cant speak for others but I don't hold the understanding or appreciation of Logistics by MARS O's in great esteem.  The Army, while as difficult as it can be, at least understands it needs beans and bullets to fight and win, the RCN seems to see it as some dark voodoo magic that isn't worth the time in understanding or respecting, until it all goes to shite and the Log Dept is left to pick up the pieces again. 

Again I agree with you, in premise, but that's not the way it is, and the RCN will not heavy hand the Log Branch or Service or what ever so we are all going to have to live with it. 

Can you further explain this statement:


> but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [).


----------



## Pusser

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Now someone in the Army will read this and demand that the buttons and bows elves make an _Cdn Army Ops _capbadge...



Except, they already have one, that they make the rest of us wear...


----------



## Pusser

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> OGBD,
> 
> I want to preface with the statement that I share your beliefs in the way we would like to see things run in the log world.
> 
> BUT
> 
> I was that MS Sup Tech you talk about; who after only serving with the RCN (Minus some time in AFG) was posted to a field unit (CFJSR).  Actually, Vern was my RQ.  I think I did ok.  I managed to get promoted to PO2 and posted back to the RCN in 4 years minus 8 or 9 months of paternity leave.  I actually liked the Army, and I think it taught me allot about leadership that, IMHO, the RCN is neither prepared nor capable to teach.
> 
> Lastly I wouldn't over inflate the RCN's grasp of logistics, if I were you.  I cant speak for others but I don't hold the understanding or appreciation of Logistics by MARS O's in great esteem.  The Army, while as difficult as it can be, at least understands it needs beans and bullets to fight and win, the RCN seems to see it as some dark voodoo magic that isn't worth the time in understanding or respecting, until it all goes to shite and the Log Dept is left to pick up the pieces again.
> 
> Again I agree with you, in premise, but that's not the way it is, and the RCN will not heavy hand the Log Branch or Service or what ever so we are all going to have to live with it.



I think OGBD oversimplified things a bit too much.  Yes, in order to obtain a Command Qualification (which is only required by the CO and XO) a MARS officer is required to pass a Command Exam on Logistics.  It's a self-study program, however, and the knowledge gained is cursory at best.  What it really does is enable the CO/XO to have an intelligent conversation with the SYO and understand what the SYO is telling them.  It certainly does not qualify the CO/XO to take over the SYO's job!  More to the point, however, is that naval logistics is much more holistic than what we see in the Army.  Whereas an army unit may have a variety of sections that handle various aspects of logistics, each with their own OiC, the ship has only one department dedicated to that and only one officer in charge of all logistics.  Therefore, a naval logistics officer is expected to have a much broader knowledge of all things logistical at a much earlier career stage than his/her army/air force counterparts.  They also have to have a different understanding of logistics support in general - ships are different than tanks and require a very different kind of support.  Having said all of this, naval logistics is actually much simpler than army logistics, which is one of the reasons we don't need as many people to do it, but that doesn't mean it's easier or that an army and naval logisticians are interchangeable!

The reason most naval officers have little understanding or knowledge of logistics is largely due to the much smaller amount of logistics planning that they are exposed to.  For the most part, naval logistics planning is done by the folks who design the ship - they decide what systems are on board (therefore, the spare parts lists) and they also decide how much storage space is available.  Even from a naval logisticians point of view, our job is pretty simple: fill the storerooms - when they're full, you're done.  I never had to worry about what I had to bring (because it rarely changes), how many trucks I needed to carry it, how much fuel I needed for those trucks, or how many additional trucks I needed to carry the fuel for the trucks I needed to carry the gear...

All of this to say that although there is certainly a lot of common ground amongst all logisticians, there are also some significant differences.  In fact, I would say that there are enough differences to enable the log trades to have separate promotion lists by environment and to allow personnel to concentrate on only one environment for their careers.  Trades not big enough?  Nonsense!  The Navy already has separate promotion lists by Home Port Division for most hard sea trades and the log trades are bigger than those.   Should folks want to move around, fine, but don't require it.  Furthermore, if someone does change environment, they should also change uniform to match.


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The Logistics Branch will be going to the "Royal Canadian Logistics Service".


Ugggg cue puke emoji.   :boke:    More deck chairs being rearranged on the Titanic



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> One of the CWO Gp recommendations to the Log Branch was that "if you want non-commissioned Logisticians to be proud of the cap-badge they wear, then give them a cap-badge they'd be proud to wear" with comments alluding to the fact that the .02 cent Chinese cheap knock-off that the troops, sailors, airmen & women are currently relegated to wearing sucks.  Proposed that the current Log O cap-badge (larger and more prominent than the troops' current badge) be issued to the troops



This I totally agree with.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The reason for that is because the LS in the RCN (or the Cpl in the RCAF) can be promoted, packed up and moved into a Cdn Army Unit on 30 days notice ... and likewise.  ONE service serving 3 environments - and many more Commands.  ONE merit list no matter the uniform colour etc etc.



That whole premise is ridiculous and results in a number of people being re-trained to be able to function in a new environment.

The better solution is that I wish we would pursue is:



			
				Pusser said:
			
		

> In fact, I would say that there are enough differences to enable the log trades to have separate promotion lists by environment and to allow personnel to concentrate on only one environment for their careers.  Trades not big enough?  Nonsense!  The Navy already has separate promotion lists by Home Port Division for most hard sea trades and the log trades are bigger than those.   Should folks want to move around, fine, but don't require it.  Furthermore, if someone does change environment, they should also change uniform to match.



Staying within environmental lines makes much more sense rather than posting people willy nilly all over the place just to fill holes.  There will still be purple jobs that can be filled by any DEU at the institutional level to ensure that there is a good mixture of cross thought/pollination but the focus for a young soldier from Pte-MCpl should be predominately within their environmental lines.  I don’t need a Navy PO2 that has grown up in the Navy in a field unit any more than HMCS Winnipeg needs an Army Sgt that has developed in a CMBG.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Whoa whoa whoa.....

I sense heresy. You mean that Helleyer was wrong when he MBA'd all Log functions into one, regardless of the specific needs of the elements they served?

Shocked I am.


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Whoa whoa whoa.....
> 
> I sense heresy. You mean that Helleyer was wrong when he MBA'd all Log functions into one, regardless of the specific needs of the elements they served?
> 
> Shocked I am.




Actually he wasn't totally wrong ...

Many people, in the mid 1960s, were looking, hard, at what the Americans and brits were doing: the US and the UK were both, for example  pioneering "joint" and "integrated" units and formations for support services ~ the two defence communications systems, for example, were the models for out (mid to late 1960s) CF Communications System and, a bit later, CF Communications Command. Handling dat-t0-day strategic communications in underground bunkers is a skill that Navy, Army and RCAF communications specialists shared, equally. Who cared what colour of suit the person handling your message wore?


But life got more complicated when you took a sailor from that underground bunker and said: "Hi, there, this is 1st Div Sig Regt ... do your work in that back of that truck after you have stood sentry and so on." The skill sets for soldiers and sailors were different and there was never enough time and money to make the "all singing - all dancing" creature that Mr Hellyer may have envisioned. It was, I think, worse for the Log Branch, but some of my best cooks in an Army fiend unit were navy types and one of my sergeant clerks, 20+ years solid air base experience, adapted quickly, easily, enthusiastically and well to working in the field.

-----

By the way, I know for a fact that back about the time the executive curl was being re-introduced a proposal was made to put ALL naval personnel into naval ops cap badges and use branch identifiers above officers' stripes and on NCMs' collars. I know that at least a couple of retired and one serving admiral supported the idea. Some RCAF colonels also proposed something similar ... both proposals went nowhere.


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> By the way, I know for a fact that back about the time the executive curl was being re-introduced a proposal was made to put ALL naval personnel into naval ops cap badges and use branch identifiers above officers' stripes and on NCMs' collars.



Now *that* would be truly "re-Britified".


----------



## PuckChaser

How would 291ers know who's who on ships when they can't see colours?  ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How would 291ers know who's who on ships when they can't see colours?  ;D



We lock them in a dark closet, away from everyone else, and only let them out to eat, so it wouldn't be an issue lol


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> That whole premise is ridiculous and results in a number of people being re-trained to be able to function in a new environment.
> 
> The better solution is that I wish we would pursue is:
> 
> Staying within environmental lines makes much more sense rather than posting people willy nilly all over the place just to fill holes.  There will still be purple jobs that can be filled by any DEU at the institutional level to ensure that there is a good mixture of cross thought/pollination but the focus for a young soldier from Pte-MCpl should be predominately within their environmental lines.  *I don’t need a Navy PO2 that has grown up in the Navy in a field unit any more than HMCS Winnipeg needs an Army Sgt that has developed in a CMBG.
> *



I've said many times that this would be acceptable ... provided that we go to THREE separate merit lists as well.  What would not be acceptable is staying with the one merit list and bypassing the 15 or so RCAF or RCN suppies to get to the highest listed Cdn Army MCpl because the available position is with the Army.

I've served in every environment - the learning curve between the three is nothing difficult - no more so than changing sections or Coys and overcoming that curve. 

If you want to get right down to it, the last thing the Cdn Army needs is an Logistics Army Sgt that's developed in a single CMBG; and there's way too much of that crap going on these days.  I have a much harder time snapping these guys & gals out of there "this IS the way it is" mindset and often erroneous/ill-trained procedures/requirements than those I get in from other environments.  They obviously have no damn clue at this location what a properly filled out 942 tag looks like, pretty basic stuff, right up to big stuff - shipping bolts with weapons etc.   :facepalm:


----------



## armyvern

Pusser said:
			
		

> ...
> Whereas an army unit may have a variety of sections that handle various aspects of logistics, each with their own OiC, the ship has only one department dedicated to that and only one officer in charge of all logistics.  *Therefore, a naval logistics officer is expected to have a much broader knowledge of all things logistical at a much earlier career stage than his/her army/air force counterparts.*  They also have to have a different understanding of logistics support in general - ships are different than tanks and require a very different kind of support.  ...



Hmmm, that ship sounds eerily like a Cdn Army 1st line unit.  So, much like the QM (Quartermaster) in a Cdn Army Unit oversees the Logistics and has to have a broader knowledge of all things Logistical much earlier in their career (and QM shops within 1st Line Army Units providing their integral support aren't that big either).  Likewise the Log Flight O or Sp Flight O within the RCAF.  Yep, a ship is different from a plane, is different from a tank, or even a deployed MT out of the signals world ... they all require support, parts, maintenance, procurement and contracting support often while deployed outside of their home location etc etc.

Different - yes; special - no.

You had a point until you started talking OiCs etc and comparing Army 2nd Line with RCN 1st line Ships (Units).  The Army has those 1st Line Units too just as the RCN also has 2nd line.


----------



## MJP

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've said many times that this would be acceptable ... provided that we go to THREE separate merit lists as well.  What would not be acceptable is staying with the one merit list and bypassing the 15 or so RCAF or RCN suppies to get to the highest listed Cdn Army MCpl because the available position is with the Army.
> 
> I've served in every environment - the learning curve between the three is nothing difficult - no more so than changing sections or Coys and overcoming that curve.
> 
> If you want to get right down to it, the last thing the Cdn Army needs is an Logistics Army Sgt that's developed in a single CMBG; and there's way too much of that crap going on these days.  I have a much harder time snapping these guys & gals out of there "this IS the way it is" mindset and often erroneous/ill-trained procedures/requirements than those I get in from other environments.  They obviously have no damn clue at this location what a properly filled out 942 tag looks like, pretty basic stuff, right up to big stuff - shipping mags with weapons etc.   :facepalm:



Absolutely 3 merit lists and absolutely not sitting in a single CMBG.  To much of that already I agree.

As for not knowing the trade, I blame the trade for continuing to promote people too fast.  Shitty people with rank don't help the trade and the soldiers.  We also have inconsistent QL4 requirements and oversight  from CFLTC with every base doing it different.  Add in the fact that we still don't treat DRMIS trg as a high priority make a recipe for disaster.

I have seen what great leadership and technical trg can do to a previously weak section.   We simply do not have the expertise across the breath of the trade to make it happen everywhere IMHO.  E need to take a breath and revitalize technical and leadership trg in the trade.


----------



## armyvern

MJP said:
			
		

> Absolutely 3 merit lists and absolutely not sitting in a single CMBG.  To much of that already I agree.
> 
> As for not knowing the trade, I blame the trade for continuing to promote people too fast.  Shitty people with rank don't help the trade and the soldiers.  We also have inconsistent QL4 requirements and oversight  from CFLTC with every base doing it different.  Add in the fact that we still don't treat DRMIS trg as a high priority make a recipe for disaster.
> 
> I have seen what great leadership and technical trg can do to a previously weak section.   We simply do not have the expertise across the breath of the trade to make it happen everywhere IMHO.  E need to take a breath and revitalize technical and leadership trg in the trade.



I've edited my original to read "bolts with weapons" vice "mags with weapons".     That was fun.

Agreed on the promotions.  Many Log trades in the same boat- that's what tends to happen when we grow the CAF but not the supporters.  Cutting the "Tail" is NOT supposed to include the actual boots on the ground supporters.

As for DRMIS, it is important.  Problem is that the QL courses are 'all-DRMIS all the time' and troops have no concept, knowledge of, or inherent ability any more to know what the no-longer-taught basics are.  I'm pretty certain that the QL6 which used to be Warehouse, hazmat, management and building is now all-DRMIS too.  That isn't helping.


----------



## Pusser

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Different - yes; special - no.
> 
> You had a point until you started talking OiCs etc and comparing Army 2nd Line with RCN 1st line Ships (Units).  The Army has those 1st Line Units too just as the RCN also has 2nd line.



I never said special (well, OK, perhaps I did, but I didn't mean it like that).  First and 2nd line get blurred in ships as the Logistics Department in a single ship does both.  An AOR is not really a 2nd line unit supporting ships, although it kind of does that sort of thing sometimes (it also provides an occasional 3rd line function if you really want to get into it).  When an AOR provides support to another ship (with the exception of fuel), it's more along the lines of one QM (i.e. the SYO) helping out another QM.  With the exception of fuel, AORs do not really carry stock for other ships unless it has been specifically pre-arranged and even then, they're really only providing deck space.


----------



## Cloud Cover

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/queen-canadian-secretary-royal-visits-heritage-1.4295322

Interesting how the Liberals are, to an extent, "de-royalizing".   I have a feeling that if it wasn't for the cost, they would indeed reset things back to 1968, however as the article points out they have left the military out of the latest reformation, for now.


----------



## Pencil Tech

My goodness, what is this I wonder?  :nod:


----------



## Ostrozac

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> My goodness, what is this I wonder?



Most likely? Rank insignia for new CANSOF DEU and/or Mess Dress.
Most crazy? Army's going to trash rifle green DEU and go to khaki.
Most boring? It's for a police force that has a khaki dress uniform.


----------



## dimsum

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> Most likely? Rank insignia for new CANSOF DEU and/or Mess Dress.
> Most crazy? Army's going to trash rifle green DEU and go to khaki.
> Most boring? It's for a police force that has a khaki dress uniform.



Likely not Mess Dress unless their MD is also khaki.  

At least they can scavenge WWII collections for their ranks  :nod:


----------



## Indefatigable

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> My goodness, what is this I wonder?  :nod:



Note the file name "hodden1". The backing on these badges is hodden grey, not khaki. These badges must be for the Toronto Scottish Regiment's hodden grey ceremonial uniforms.


----------



## Pencil Tech

Indefatigable said:
			
		

> Note the file name "hodden1". The backing on these badges is hodden grey, not khaki. These badges must be for the Toronto Scottish Regiment's hodden grey ceremonial uniforms.



Ah, well spotted.


----------



## garb811

While not strictly a "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" or a Heritage Transformation, it does fall into the buttons and bows...

I give to you, without further ado, the VCDS Command Badge, only a decade or so in the making.


----------



## jollyjacktar

He has that many minions that they need a Command badge to identify them?  What is this, Despicable Me?


----------



## daftandbarmy

garb811 said:
			
		

> While not strictly a "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" or a Heritage Transformation, it does fall into the buttons and bows...
> 
> I give to you, without further ado, the VCDS Command Badge, only a decade or so in the making.



They forgot to add bars


----------



## garb811

Yep, he has a fair number of minions in the VCDS Gp, the entire CF MP Gp for one, CFSU(O) for another...

To be fair, I point the finger at the RCN putting ship and unit crests on the NCD jackets.  At that point, someone must have complained the RCN pers in the VCDS Group couldn't sport a spiffy badge on their NCD jacket, so they rolled that out around 2011 or so I think, which is just basically the CAF tri-service badge on an embroidered badge.  That's around when our RCN uniformed MP started having them handed out to them anyway and the first I started hearing anyone mentioning they also had the DEU command badge in development.  Not sure what took so long, not like they re-invented the wheel with it...  

The good news is, with this rolling out, the CF MP Gp has no reason to invent one.  Given the atrocity that is the CP Badge, I'm sure it would have been similarly gaudy and oversized.


----------



## jollyjacktar

You could have had the cat in the hat (C PRO C), we had that as our unofficial thing when l was in 1 MPPL, back when.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

;D


----------



## jollyjacktar

:rofl:


----------



## Poppa

garb811 said:
			
		

> The good news is, with this rolling out, the CF MP Gp has no reason to invent one.  Given the atrocity that is the CP Badge, I'm sure it would have been similarly gaudy and oversized.



 Hearsay! It's in the group orders that CP is not to be mocked!


----------



## Edward Campbell

Well, it's not just us ...
.
.
.
.
... now the US Army is going squirrelly over berets ... which makes me wonder if it isn't time for the numpties in charge of the Canadian Army's dress and ceremonial dithering to try and get their "leading change" score a bit higher and get rid of the berets for everyone except the RCAC and parachute units and bring back the World War II field service caps which came in a dazzling variety of colour schemes.


----------



## medicineman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, it's not just us ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... now the US Army is going squirrelly over berets ... which makes me wonder if it isn't time for the numpties in charge of the Canadian Army's dress and ceremonial dithering to try and get their "leading change" score a bit higher and get rid of the berets for everyone except the RCAC and parachute units and bring back the World War II field service caps which came in a dazzling variety of colour schemes.





MM


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, it's not just us ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... now the US Army is going squirrelly over berets ... which makes me wonder if it isn't time for the numpties in charge of the Canadian Army's dress and ceremonial dithering to try and get their "leading change" score a bit higher and get rid of the berets for everyone except the RCAC and parachute units and bring back the World War II field service caps which came in a dazzling variety of colour schemes.



Don't give them ideas.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, it's not just us ...
> .
> .
> .
> .
> ... now the US Army is going squirrelly over berets ... which makes me wonder if it isn't time for the numpties in charge of the Canadian Army's dress and ceremonial dithering to try and get their "leading change" score a bit higher and get rid of the berets for everyone except the RCAC and parachute units and bring back the World War II field service caps which came in a dazzling variety of colour schemes.



The Cap, Peaked, Winter - aka C.nt Cap - would dazzle in green.


----------



## medicineman

Let's just go to Russian style forage caps if we're just trying to look silly.

MM


----------



## Edward Campbell

medicineman said:
			
		

> Let's just go to Russian style forage caps if we're just trying to look silly.
> 
> MM




Or the North Korean ones ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 ... just imagine your favourite general wearing that!


----------



## Edward Campbell

But just imagine the fun we could have when every regiment and corps and branch had its own (often multi-coloured) cap with additional bits of coloured braid for warrant officers and colonels and generals ...






... imagine RSMs having brain seizures in units with Signals and Medical and Log and RCEME and god alone knows what else soldiers!


----------



## medicineman

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But just imagine the fun we could have when every regiment and corps and branch had its own (often multi-coloured) cap with additional bits of coloured braid for warrant officers and colonels and generals ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... imagine RSMs having brain seizures in units with Signals and Medical and Log and RCEME and god alone knows what else soldiers!



They'd be having more than just seizures I think - they would be need implanted defibrillators...reminds me of when I first got to 2RCR and we had to Troop the Colours - no RCAF/RCN folks allowed, JV wanted a sea of green folks (or red if you ended up in the Escort/Grenadier guard).  Myself and another medic ended up in India Coy's guard - we had a third one from the UMS, but he got tossed when the CSM noted a blue beret.  I ended up dead centre of the parade frontage with Jon Vance staring/glaring at the throwing star on my rack instead of my head.  Don't get me going about the silliness that ensued the day of the dress rehearsal when people saw my medals - the Order of St John was throwing a few of them off for some reason.

MM


----------



## jollyjacktar

But Logistiks would be over the moon supplying all the required colours, variations and sizes.  A virtual gold mine for them.


----------



## pbi

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or the North Korean ones ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... just imagine your favourite general wearing that!



Ahh, but so useful! You could keep your lunch in it, or your shopping. If your troop transport overturns on the way to invade Japan or South Korea, you have a life preserver! Use it as a washbasin! Or, considering NK's new role as Everybody's Winter Olympics Friend, use it for downhill snow-tubing!!

Ohh, those North Koreans! What will they think of next?


----------



## Remius

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But Logistiks would be over the moon supplying all the required colours, variations and sizes.  A virtual gold mine for them.



Wait for it...


----------



## Happy Guy

The next generation is here! One of my newly posted in HRA clerks from the school saw a picture of me in my Pers file.  It was an old picture with me wearing the old cbts and the rank stripes for Officers. He asked when did I change from the RCAF to the Army. I said that I have always been in the Army. He had a confused look on his face and then he showed me the picture.  I spent a couple of minutes explaining the old rank structure to him, telling him how all Officers, regardless of environment, wore the same rank insignia. He found the old Officer's rank insignia unusual.  I am getting used to it now, although I still find it jarring to belong to the RCLS instead of the Log Branch.  I guess that too shall past.


----------



## dimsum

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The next generation is here! One of my newly posted in HRA clerks from the school saw a picture of me in my Pers file.  It was an old picture with me wearing the old cbts and the rank stripes for Officers. He asked when did I change from the RCAF to the Army. I said that I have always been in the Army. He had a confused look on his face and then he showed me the picture.  I spent a couple of minutes explaining the old rank structure to him, telling him how all Officers, regardless of environment, wore the same rank insignia. He found the old Officer's rank insignia unusual.  I am getting used to it now, although I still find it jarring to belong to the RCLS instead of the Log Branch.  I guess that too shall past.



Just wait until people forget that the AF had "Private" as a rank with one chevron.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The next generation is here! One of my newly posted in HRA clerks from the school saw a picture of me in my Pers file.  It was an old picture with me wearing the old cbts and the rank stripes for Officers. He asked when did I change from the RCAF to the Army. I said that I have always been in the Army. He had a confused look on his face and then he showed me the picture.  I spent a couple of minutes explaining the old rank structure to him, telling him how all Officers, regardless of environment, wore the same rank insignia. He found the old Officer's rank insignia unusual.  I am getting used to it now, although I still find it jarring to belong to the RCLS instead of the Log Branch.  I guess that too shall past.



Kind of like the looks I get when wearing highly polished Mk3 combat boots then...


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Kind of like the looks I get when wearing highly polished Mk3 combat boots then...



Pshaw.  I have a pair of Mk3 boots with the last 3 of my SIN written in them.


----------



## Good2Golf

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Kind of like the looks I get when wearing highly polished Mk3 combat boots then...



Mk3s w Vibram sole were my best boot (with my SIN written inside, just like grandpa dapaterson). ;D


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mk3s w Vibram sole were my best boot (with my *SIN* written inside, just like grandpa dapaterson). ;D


Explanation for the youngin's***…. that's Social Insurance Number, which was used before Service Numbers came around.


*** In case anyone thought people would actually write "greed," "sloth," "bestiality" in their boots.


----------



## Good2Golf

You forgot “stuck in dark corner of the Internet...” ;D


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You forgot “stuck in dark corner of the Internet...” ;D


We _both_  know we had Mk 3's well before the internet, so it wouldn't have been included amongst our potential "sins"


Aside:  thinking about this today, how many younger/civie people even know about their SIN.... let alone could recite it without pause?
[You old folks are doing it in your head right now, aren't you?    :nod:  ]


----------



## Blackadder1916

Journeyman said:
			
		

> . . .  "bestiality" in their boots.



I heard you needed special boots for that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Journeyman said:
			
		

> We _both_  know we had Mk 3's well before the internet, so it wouldn't have been included amongst our potential "sins"
> 
> 
> Aside:  thinking about this today, how many younger/civie people even know about their SIN.... let alone could recite it without pause?
> [You old folks are doing it in your head right now, aren't you?    :nod:  ] *OR ELSE!!!*



FTFY... Gagetown style


----------



## Good2Golf

My SIN and my first C1A1...6L1776

[/derailing behaviour]


----------



## my72jeep

I still have a new unused pair of Mk3’s


----------



## torg003

Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit.  
I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.


----------



## torg003

Forgot to add that the RCN ranks shown here would be worn on the upper left sleeve of the DEU and the traditional anchor ranks would be worn (as an embellishment, on the right sleeve.  That would be a single anchor for LS, 2 crossed anchors for PO2, and adding a crown on top for PO1.  OS and AB2 wouldn't have anything on the right sleeve, but AB1 would have a knotted rope insignia.  MS would have an crown over a single anchor.  Like I said, this would only be on the DEU jacket, obviously cloth slides would only use the chevron ranks.


----------



## dimsum

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z9yK3sMDUU

 ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:
			
		

> Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit.
> I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.



But, at least for the AF ones, isn't any closer to 'traditional' (assuming you mean pre-unification) ranks for NCMS...


----------



## McG

torg003 said:
			
		

> Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit.
> I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.





			
				torg003 said:
			
		

> Forgot to add that the RCN ranks shown here would be worn on the upper left sleeve of the DEU and the traditional anchor ranks would be worn (as an embellishment, on the right sleeve.  That would be a single anchor for LS, 2 crossed anchors for PO2, and adding a crown on top for PO1.  OS and AB2 wouldn't have anything on the right sleeve, but AB1 would have a knotted rope insignia.  MS would have an crown over a single anchor.  Like I said, this would only be on the DEU jacket, obviously cloth slides would only use the chevron ranks.


Why? As an organization that returns $ billions annually because we lack the staff capacity to advance operational and capability building projects, why would we distract command and staff attention for this?

… and I am not sure that this is “more traditional looking ranks”. Putting a crown at the MCpl insignia puts it at a level below anything that has seen a crown before (why is this not in your picture?). And that SSgt/FSgt rank has never existed in a system without the single crown WO above it. This proposal would throw away the insignia with more history to restore the insignia with less. Seems odd. Also, if you want to re-introduce LCpl as a rank, that’s an NDA change. We really don’t need to consume more parliamentary bandwidth on this nonsense.
-Ref1: https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/tableofranksandappointments.htm
-Ref 2: https://i2.wp.com/www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/a22ac932e47273e09d6b4e52f8829858.gif 

Let’s recall some of the CDS’s comments justifying a new universal pattern camouflage. He was dismayed seeing troops deploy in worn-out arid uniforms. The only reason troops are deploying in worn out uniforms is because we lack the staff capacity and allocated clothing funds to keep the shelves stocked with serviceable uniforms in reasonable condition. How can we justify any investment DEU fashion when we are investing to find the best compromise to cut-back on operational clothing?


----------



## torg003

I'm well aware of how the pre-unification rank structure looked like.  I never suggested that the ideas I posted should be adopted by the CAF, so no need for the whole "waste of money" argument. 
As the officer ranks were changed to a more "traditional" look, but retained some elements of the post-unification design (i.e. maple leaves for general ranks and the stripe progression used for junior officers), my idea was to see how this would look for the NCM ranks.  That's why I said it was a more "traditional" structure (i.e. addition of Staff/Flight Sgt, LCpl), but keeping the current look, maple leaf over chevrons, etc.
Anyway, it was just a thought experiment originally.  Thought people here might have been interested in seeing it.
I guess I was wrong, no big deal.

Maybe I should ask, are people here content with the current rank structure or would they prefer the pre-unification rank structure?  Just to note, I am not advocating changing the ranks, just wondering what people think (kinda like the original poster of this thread asking if people would prefer the reinstatement of the LCpl rank).


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Why? As an organization that returns $ billions annually because we lack the staff capacity to advance operational and capability building projects, why would we distract command and staff attention for this?
> 
> … and I am not sure that this is “more traditional looking ranks”. Putting a crown at the MCpl insignia puts it at a level below anything that has seen a crown before (why is this not in your picture?). And that SSgt/FSgt rank has never existed in a system without the single crown WO above it. This proposal would throw away the insignia with more history to restore the insignia with less. Seems odd. Also, if you want to re-introduce LCpl as a rank, that’s an NDA change. We really don’t need to consume more parliamentary bandwidth on this nonsense.
> -Ref1: https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/tableofranksandappointments.htm
> -Ref 2: https://i2.wp.com/www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/a22ac932e47273e09d6b4e52f8829858.gif
> 
> Let’s recall some of the CDS’s comments justifying a new universal pattern camouflage. He was dismayed seeing troops deploy in worn-out arid uniforms. The only reason troops are deploying in worn out uniforms is because we lack the staff capacity and allocated clothing funds to keep the shelves stocked with serviceable uniforms in reasonable condition. How can we justify any investment DEU fashion when we are investing to find the best compromise to cut-back on operational clothing?


Maybe if the keyboard warriors of Carling wore their non combat uniforms there wouldn't be a dearth of combat uniforms for people who actually need them!


----------



## Halifax Tar

torg003 said:
			
		

> I'm well aware of how the pre-unification rank structure looked like.  I never suggested that the ideas I posted should be adopted by the CAF, so no need for the whole "waste of money" argument.
> As the officer ranks were changed to a more "traditional" look, but retained some elements of the post-unification design (i.e. maple leaves for general ranks and the stripe progression used for junior officers), my idea was to see how this would look for the NCM ranks.  That's why I said it was a more "traditional" structure (i.e. addition of Staff/Flight Sgt, LCpl), but keeping the current look, maple leaf over chevrons, etc.
> Anyway, it was just a thought experiment originally.  Thought people here might have been interested in seeing it.
> I guess I was wrong, no big deal.
> 
> Maybe I should ask, are people here content with the current rank structure or would they prefer the pre-unification rank structure?  Just to note, I am not advocating changing the ranks, just wondering what people think (kinda like the original poster of this thread asking if people would prefer the reinstatement of the LCpl rank).



I would like to see the RCN NCM insignia returned to something more attune to RCN 1.0.  But I will admit we have bigger hills to climb at the moment.


----------



## torg003

Halifax Tar, I agree with you, would like to see RCN NCM ranks be more "traditional".  I really dislike the way they look now, wearing army style ranks on a navy uniform looks dumb.
I had originally thought of replacing the maple leaves above the chevrons with the traditional style navy ranks, but that would've look basically like the Sea Cadet ranks that were used before the current ones.
I think that the main reason that there has been very few changes to NCM ranks lies in the fact that CAF is still officially a 'unified' force and it provides a look of some uniformity amongst the changes in uniforms, officer ranks, etc. (just my opinion)
It is also my opinion that maybe it's time to drop the 'unified forces' moniker and refer to the CAF as a fully integrated tri-service.  Integration of the separate services was done back in the '60s, before Hellyer came along with his idea of unification, so in a way it could be seen as just going back to the way things were before unification and allow for a little more uniqueness in ranks and other insignia for the different services.  Of course, this would require the gov't to increase spending on the military, so not very likely to happen anyway.


----------



## torg003

Here's the RCN ranks concept with the anchors and chevrons together (as mentioned previously) for anyone at all interested.  The PO and Seaman ranks shown here would be worn on the left arm with large trade badge on the right.  CPOs continue with trade badges on the collar.  I admit that I'm not that crazy about the CPO buttons being worn under WO's insignia, I would change that to the normal pre-unification CPO ranks (just the buttons for CPO2 and a crown above them for CPO1).  Obviously haven't done that version.
This is just to show how it would look, not advocating for the change to happen.


----------



## torg003

Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> we have bigger hills to climb at the moment.



This;  maybe there would be support in the NCM RCAF ranks for pre-unification ranks such as "Flight Sgt" (the RAF still uses it...but they also go from FSgt to MARC...) but for me, I'd rather see people spending their time sorting out operational kit, combat systems support, etc before a single person-hour was invested into a study on NCM rank satisfaction in the RCAF.

 :2c:


----------



## Halifax Tar

torg003 said:
			
		

> Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.



Interesting but I have a couple of points or questions. 

1)  In RCN 1.0 chevrons were badges for good conduct; that and the rank symbology were not connected.  I would propose they dont really belong in your mock up. 

2) Why is the MS rank so out of order ? 

3)  The CPO2 rank, I would leave the crown in the laurels. 

Other than that I like it. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This;  maybe there would be support in the NCM RCAF ranks for pre-unification ranks such as "Flight Sgt" (the RAF still uses it...but they also go from FSgt to MARC...) but for me, I'd rather see people spending their time sorting out operational kit, combat systems support, etc before a single person-hour was invested into a study on NCM rank satisfaction in the RCAF.
> 
> :2c:



I dont think you have to worry, there doesnt seem to be a push to change the CAF NCM rank symbology.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:
			
		

> I really dislike the way they look now, wearing army style ranks on a navy uniform looks dumb.


That's quite the anglocentric viewpoint. If it's not the RN style, it's not a navy style? What makes a rank insignia "army style" or "navy style"? Sure there is a tendancy for armies to accessories with rifles and/or grenades while navies accessories their ranks with anchors, but Canadian ranks of no such things. And looking more critically ... 
For most of NATO navies the use (or not) of chevrons varies in step with the use of chevrons in the nation's army, and the style of a chevrons will vary between countries but is less likely to vary between services within a country. 
Every NATO nation has  a rank system that is their own. And right now we have something that is Canadian (though less Canadian that it was a few years ago). So why throw that away just because, when viewed through an exclusively British lens, it doesn't look right? 

CountryArmyNavyAlbania








Belgium







Bulgaria







Canada







 Denmark 







Germany







Greece







Italy







Lithuania







Poland







Portugal







Spain







UK







US









Ref 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_navies_enlisted
Ref 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_enlisted


----------



## torg003

Halifax Tar; 1. Yes, I'm aware the chevrons used by the original RCN were for good conduct, but as the current version of the RCN is part of a unified force, there has to be some relation to the ranks of the other services.
2. I guess I wasn't that clear, sorry about that.  The top row is supposed to show the badges for appointments and MS in this context is supposed to be a junior appointment (for a LS).
3. Fair enough.

Anyway, I do realise that if the NCM ranks were going to be changed, it would've been done before now (such as the change from private to aviator rank in the RCAF).  So I don't think there will be anymore anytime in the near (or far) future.  Doesn't hurt to discuss ideas though.

MCG, I didn't say I objected to chevrons being used, all the rank charts I posted show chevrons being used for the RCN.  I just don't like the curved style used by the army and RCAF used on a naval uniform.  Prefer straight chevrons as seen in my previous posts.  
Doesn't make me anglocentric, as you say.  You like the way the CAF looked before the re-adopting of older style ranks, great, good for you.  I don't mind the mixing of old and new on the current uniforms, that's my opinion, doesn't make me an Anglophile wanting to restore the vestiges of colonialism (or whatever). :
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not going to argue over it.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:
			
		

> I didn't say I objected to chevrons being used, all the rank charts I posted show chevrons being used for the RCN.  I just don't like the curved style used by the army and RCAF used on a naval uniform.  Prefer straight chevrons as seen in my previous posts.
> Doesn't make me anglocentric, as you say.  You like the way the CAF looked before the re-adopting of older style ranks, great, good for you.


Except, you dismiss the Canadian chevron style as "army".  That is an anglocentric viewpoint.  Take the blinders off and realize that chevron styles very between every country, and within a country chevron styles are very likely uniform across services.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> Except, you dismiss the Canadian chevron style as "army".  That is an anglocentric viewpoint.  Take the blinders off and realize that chevron styles very between every country, and within a country chevron styles are very likely uniform across services.


Why do you insist on being so combative? The op was being rather respectful and instead of acting in kind you have to get a last shot in. 

From a Naval point of view the unification of the armed forces certainly had a very army centric bend to it when it came to the style of jr ranks indicators.


----------



## Furniture

torg003 said:
			
		

> Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.



While I admit I like the look of the proposed ranks badges, I also have to admit that I like the simplicity of our current system. There is no question where somebody falls in the rank structure even when you aren't used to working with other elements.


----------



## McG

FSTO said:
			
		

> From a Naval point of view the unification of the armed forces certainly had a very army centric bend to it when it came to the style of jr ranks indicators.


51 years ago a CAF rank system was created that blended features of all the previous services.  The new product was Canadian, and nobody serving today is suffering a hardship because of it.  To declare the current Canadian non-commissioned rank insignia to be "army" requires one first accept that UK rank insignia is the benchmark for measurement, because other countries quite simply are not following the supposed pattern.

We are in Canada.  We are the Canadian Armed Forces.  If anyone is feeling hard done-by over the appearance of rank insignia, why do we need to look to another country as the benchmark? Why can't we look forward and define something Canadian from where we are now?  Or at the very least, why do we have to present an anglocentric bias as a universal truth when in reality it is a nuance of a few?

... and I go back to my first point.  We are a staff constrained force.  We lack the human resources to advance capability building/fixing projects at the pace required.  Any wouldn't it be nice badge tinkering proposal should start with a justification of why it deserves investment of time and a statement of what problems it will solve.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and I go back to my first point.  We are a staff constrained force.  We lack the human resources to advance capability building/fixing projects at the pace required.  Any wouldn't it be nice badge tinkering proposal should start with a justification of why it deserves investment of time and a statement of what problems it will solve.



Funny the same argument didn't hold much consideration when (1) the Navy Officers got the Executive Curl back (2) the Army Officers got their Pips and Crowns back and (3) the Air Force officers went back to a pre-unification "look" in the not-to-distant past.

Where was the justification of investment of time/statement of what problems _those_ projects solved?   ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Funny the same argument didn't hold much consideration when (1) the Navy Officers got the Executive Curl back (2) the Army Officers got their Pips and Crowns back and (3) the Air Force officers went back to a pre-unification "look" in the not-to-distant past.
> 
> Where was the justification of investment of time/statement of what problems _those_ projects solved?   ;D



Politics (and pandering to a constituency) has never required any justification.


----------



## FSTO

MCG said:
			
		

> 51 years ago a CAF rank system was created that blended features of all the previous services.  The new product was Canadian, and nobody serving today is suffering a hardship because of it.  To declare the current Canadian non-commissioned rank insignia to be "army" requires one first accept that UK rank insignia is the benchmark for measurement, because other countries quite simply are not following the supposed pattern.



If you read the accounts of the day from serving members of the RCN of all ranks there wasn't much acceptance of Hellyers proposals. I would love to see the reports from all the townhalls and focus groups throughout the Army, RCAF and RCN that were held to gauge the opinion on what the new unified system was to look like. I have a feeling that it would be a futile quest.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:
			
		

> If you read the accounts of the day from serving members of the RCN of all ranks there wasn't much acceptance of Hellyers proposals. I would love to see the reports from all the townhalls and focus groups throughout the Army, RCAF and RCN that were held to gauge the opinion on what the new unified system was to look like. I have a feeling that it would be a futile quest.



I'd be interested to know what current folks think regarding changing "back" the officers' ranks (curl, pips/crowns, RCAF colour).  I'd suspect that it would work out to a collective "meh".


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know what current folks think regarding changing "back" the officers' ranks (curl, pips/crowns, RCAF colour).  I'd suspect that it would work out to a collective "meh".



I'll be honest;  I think the pearl grey looks more suitable than the gold did with the DEU color.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll be honest;  I think the pearl grey looks more suitable than the gold did with the DEU color.



Me too.

Although the GO ranks on both shoulder and sleeve on the tunic are a bit much.  Could have been consistent with the other officers and have ranks on sleeve only, but whatever.


----------



## Old EO Tech

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd be interested to know what current folks think regarding changing "back" the officers' ranks (curl, pips/crowns, RCAF colour).  I'd suspect that it would work out to a collective "meh".



I can only speak for myself, but I very much prefer pips to the old generic "merchant marine" rank.  Now if the CA could only get a real Army looking uniform...even bringing back the Tan DEU would be a massive improvement.


----------



## FJAG

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> I can only speak for myself, but I very much prefer pips to the old generic "merchant marine" rank.  Now if the CA could only get a real Army looking uniform...even bringing back the Tan DEU would be a massive improvement.



That's pretty much is my attitude.

 :cheers:


----------



## torg003

Maybe the CA should just make the SOF uniform the standard for the whole army. Then they'd look like The US Army from the '40s and '50s instead of the US Army from the '60s and '70s. :nana:
Just joking of course.


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll be honest;  I think the pearl grey looks more suitable than the gold did with the DEU color.



I agree, the uniform looked cheap with the "gold" badges. The new badges look both Air force, and cool.


----------



## Good2Golf

torg003 said:
			
		

> Maybe the CA should just make the SOF uniform the standard for the whole army. Then they'd look like The US Army from the '40s and '50s instead of the US Army from the '60s and '70s. :nana:
> Just joking of course.



And CANSOFCOM could change to the Tan (in both light and heavyweight) to keep being different than the Army.  (also joking...kinda, knowing it would probably happen were the Army to go pink’n’greens).


----------



## Edward Campbell

<sarcasm>

Since we are back in the fashion police mode, is it fair to point out that that khaki and brown and "pinks and greens" are all a bit "Johnny-come-lately" while rifle green has its origins in North America, including in Canada, in the 1760s?

A few regiments, the RCD and The RCR being the only to that remain on the regular force order of battle, worse scarlets on active service, having Battle Honours of NorthWest Canada and Saskatchewan to prove it. Several Canadian regiments, including e.g. the Queen's Own Rifles wore green into battle:













Maybe we should be exploiting rather than ignoring our own light infantry heritage ~ less scarlet and khaki (with its attendant focus on the 1930s and 1950s) and more on our "green" roots.

Oh, and multi-coloured field service caps, too, of course, which we wore into battle in South Africa in 1900:





</sarcasm>


----------



## dimsum

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> <sarcasm>
> 
> Oh, and multi-coloured field service caps, too, of course, which we wore into battle in South Africa in 1900:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </sarcasm>



That cap has the same colour as my dog's #2s after she gets chicken.  She's allergic to chicken.

No thanks.


----------



## Old Sweat

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> <sarcasm>
> Oh, and multi-coloured field service caps, too, of course, which we wore into battle in South Africa in 1900:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> </sarcasm>



Or we could bring back the peaked Stetson, which combines price, impracticability, and high maintenance. That certainly is in the finest traditions of the Canadian Army.


----------



## quadrapiper

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or we could bring back the peaked Stetson, which combines price, impracticability, and high maintenance. That certainly is in the finest traditions of the Canadian Army.


It does however offer some shade.

Might I suggest shakos for everyone?


----------



## dimsum

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Or we could bring back the peaked Stetson, which combines price, impracticability, and high maintenance. That certainly is in the finest traditions of the Canadian Army.



I was going to say - do you work for DLR?   :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That cap has the same colour as my dog's #2s after she gets chicken.  She's allergic to chicken.
> 
> No thanks.



And yet the RCAF is quite proud of its pilfered and re-branded field service cap wedge. :nod:


----------



## Canuck_Jock

Overall, the new old rank looks pretty smart. I never saw the point in having a No Name Brand-style triservice uniform. Our Services and Units have such rich histories that preservation of key traditional attire and distinctions should be the default. Sorry, but I really don't rate the US Army's new look, more costume looking than uniform.

However, the late Tans were smart, and it would be good at some point to get khaki back (with Sam Browne). Decent quality material goes a long way.

The Australian Army has recently re-adopted a darker khaki shade for their Service Dress.


----------



## FSTO

Some folks here won't be happy until we all wear this all the time!


----------



## Kilted

To me, our Green DEU's look way too American, especially with the gold colour ranks.


----------



## torg003

Sorry for the necro-posting, but decided this would be the best place to post this instead of starting a new thread.
Though we all know it would never happen, I would like to see a return to the original CAF Non Commissioned ranks as they were very unique and I like they way they looked.  Speaking specifically of the original CPL and PTE 4A ranks (though the PTE 4A becomes PTE Trained).  This leaves the single chevron PTE rank as PTE B.  Yes that's a bit more Americanization of the ranks, but returning to these unique original CAF ranks is worth it IMO.  The only reason the ranks were changed was because it was hard to tell the difference between MCPL and CPL metal rank pins on the collar.  Save money and get rid of the collar rank pins and have the army do like the rest of the CAF does and were cloth rank slides on the shirt epaulets.  I also did a version with the WO being replaced by Staff Sergeant (with a crown over the 3 chevrons) and the MWO being called WO.


----------



## Furniture

torg003 said:


> Sorry for the necro-posting, but decided this would be the best place to post this instead of starting a new thread.
> Though we all know it would never happen, I would like to see a return to the original CAF Non Commissioned ranks as they were very unique and I like they way they looked.  Speaking specifically of the original CPL and PTE 4A ranks (though the PTE 4A becomes PTE Trained).  This leaves the single chevron PTE rank as PTE B.  Yes that's a bit more Americanization of the ranks, but returning to these unique original CAF ranks is worth it IMO.  The only reason the ranks were changed was because it was hard to tell the difference between MCPL and CPL metal rank pins on the collar.  Save money and get rid of the collar rank pins and have the army do like the rest of the CAF does and were cloth rank slides on the shirt epaulets.  I also did a version with the WO being replaced by Staff Sergeant (with a crown over the 3 chevrons) and the MWO being called WO.
> 
> View attachment 70071


While that pic is cool, I don't see how it better reflects the ranks, or the history accrued under the current rank structure. 

Frankly, I find the excessive use of maple leaves is already a bit much, we don't need to add to it. Nobody who works with us thinks we are American or British.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My quick thoughts for the MCpl and below ranks;  I’m likely to look for the trade badge and level to get a quick summary of “where they’re at”.  Back when I was a young Tpr/Cpl, that seemed to be a “thing”;  had to have laurels for street cred;  Pte (B) had no trade badge, Pte (T) had Lvl 1 trade badge…


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:


> My quick thoughts for the MCpl and below ranks;  I’m likely to look for the trade badge and level to get a quick summary of “where they’re at”.  Back when I was a young Tpr/Cpl, that seemed to be a “thing”;  had to have laurels for street cred;  Pte (B) had no trade badge, Pte (T) had Lvl 1 trade badge…


Except in the air force, where my QL6B is the same badge as the QL3... I assume you, I can out "weather" the new Pte.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I was thinking the stuff above was suggested for the Army only, really, as only Army ranks were mentioned despite saying CAF.  There’s no Privates in the RCAF , or the RCN, and the Avr ranks badge isn’t a chevron.  WOs and above in Army DEU don’t have a trade badge…

Should the RCAF spruce up our trade badges with QL (DP?) levels or does the rank convey that?


----------



## Furniture

Eye In The Sky said:


> I was thinking the stuff above was suggested for the Army only, really, as only Army ranks were mentioned despite saying CAF.  There’s no Privates in the RCAF , or the RCN, and the Avr ranks badge isn’t a chevron.  WOs and above in Army DEU don’t have a trade badge…
> 
> Should the RCAF spruce up our trade badges with QL (DP?) levels or does the rank convey that?


In fairness, I'm no longer RCAF, so I don't care what the bus drivers do... In God's branch I don't even had a set of DEU yet, so trade badges are very much a "we don't need no stinkin badges" thing to me. 

Fair point about the post though, I'm so old that I sometimes forget the Pte is now Avr in the RCAF. I've called a few of the new Avrs Pte, and they look at me like I have Alzheimer's.


----------



## dangerboy

Eye In The Sky said:


> WOs and above in Army DEU don’t have a trade badge…


Just to clarify, some WO's and above do, there are Army Master Occupational Badges. Admittedly not worn by a lot of people but there are a few.


----------



## dapaterson

Would an AIG Master Gunner wear both?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> . I've called a few of the new Avrs Pte, and they look at me like I have Alzheimer's.



Especially when you do it to the same one 3 times in 4 weeks…😄


----------



## Fishbone Jones

torg003 said:


> Sorry for the necro-posting, but decided this would be the best place to post this instead of starting a new thread.
> Though we all know it would never happen, I would like to see a return to the original CAF Non Commissioned ranks as they were very unique and I like they way they looked.  Speaking specifically of the original CPL and PTE 4A ranks (though the PTE 4A becomes PTE Trained).  This leaves the single chevron PTE rank as PTE B.  Yes that's a bit more Americanization of the ranks, but returning to these unique original CAF ranks is worth it IMO.  The only reason the ranks were changed was because it was hard to tell the difference between MCPL and CPL metal rank pins on the collar.  Save money and get rid of the collar rank pins and have the army do like the rest of the CAF does and were cloth rank slides on the shirt epaulets.  I also did a version with the WO being replaced by Staff Sergeant (with a crown over the 3 chevrons) and the MWO being called WO.
> 
> View attachment 70071


If there is no change in duties and responibilities of the actual positions, then changing ranks is a costly, confusing excersize in futility. Why upset the apple cart with an expensive vanity project.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Fishbone Jones said:


> If there is no change in duties and responibilities of the actual positions, then changing ranks is a costly, confusing excersize in futility. Why upset the apple cart with an expensive vanity project.



But there's a precedent 



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-return-to-old-style-ranks-insignia-costs-millions-1.2679716


----------



## Kat Stevens

How retro do we want to get?

'From the right, number!"
"I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X...."
"Odd letters forward, even letters one pace step back, march!"
"Ranks, right and left, turn! Reform IIIs, quick march!"


----------



## FSTO

Should have left things well alone in 1966-67. Canada made this bold move and then have waffled with half assed attempt to kinda sorta fix the mess made. It's like those heritage homes with the posts missing on the widow's walk and sagging soffits on the roof-line and nobody wants to climb up and fix them.


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> Save money and get rid of the collar rank pins and have the army do like the rest of the CAF does and were cloth rank slides on the shirt epaulets.


I've always wondered why the Army didn't do already.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> Should have left things well alone in 1966-67. Canada made this bold move and then have waffled with half assed attempt to kinda sorta fix the mess made. It's like those heritage homes with the posts missing on the widow's walk and sagging soffits on the roof-line and nobody wants to climb up and fix them.


I think we need more gold, that'll put the issue to bed 😁


----------



## torg003

I guess it doesn't matter now, but I forgot to mention something in the post with the ranks table.  PTE Trained wouldn't be known by that name, but would be the traditional rank name, such as; gunner, trooper, rifleman, sapper, craftsman, etc.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> I've always wondered why the Army didn't do already.


The Regimental Kit Shops would stage a coup. It's not the rank collar dogs that make them money... it's the slip ons 😉


----------



## torg003

Edited.


----------



## torg003

FSTO said:


> Should have left things well alone in 1966-67. Canada made this bold move and then have waffled with half assed attempt to kinda sorta fix the mess made. It's like those heritage homes with the posts missing on the widow's walk and sagging soffits on the roof-line and nobody wants to climb up and fix them.


Totally agree actually. Should've stayed with the integrated Armed Forces instead of going to the fully unified CAF. The Aussies and Kiwis basically copied the integrated Armed Forces idea for their militaries.


----------



## torg003

Sorry for the double post.  The quote function didn't work in the top one and I don't know how to delete that post so I just edited it.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> The Regimental Kit Shops would stage a coup. It's not the rank collar dogs that make them money... it's the slip ons 😉


So, wouldn't they make more money with different rank slip-ons then?  Or am I missing sarcasm somewhere?

Also, going with the "we should issue everything" line of thought, does that mean Army NCMs can choose not to wear the rank collar dogs?   



torg003 said:


> Totally agree actually. Should've stayed with the integrated Armed Forces instead of going to the fully unified CAF. The Aussies and Kiwis basically copied the integrated Armed Forces idea for their militaries.


Except that the Aussies (not sure about the Kiwis) don't have a combined Basic Training or trades training for common trades like clerks, and switching between elements is harder than in the CAF.



torg003 said:


> I guess it doesn't matter now, but I forgot to mention something in the post with the ranks table.  PTE Trained wouldn't be known by that name, but would be the traditional rank name, such as; gunner, trooper, rifleman, sapper, craftsman, etc.


Isn't that pretty much how it is now?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> So, wouldn't they make more money with different rank slip-ons then?  Or am I missing sarcasm somewhere?
> 
> Also, going with the "we should issue everything" line of thought, does that mean Army NCMs can choose not to wear the rank collar dogs?



I never paid for collar dog rank pins.  They were issued.   Regimental slip on were optional to the generic Canada ones and were out of pocket if you wanted them;  same as belt buckles with cap badge, etc.

Re: the use of Spr, Gnr, Tpr, Cfn etc, there are used but aren’t an official rank.  I think the idea is to make them official.


----------



## dapaterson

Eye In The Sky said:


> I never paid for collar dog rank pins.  They were issued.   Regimental slip on were optional to the generic Canada ones and were out of pocket if you wanted them;  same as belt buckles with cap badge, etc.
> 
> Re: the use of Spr, Gnr, Tpr, Cfn etc, there are used but aren’t an official rank.  I think the idea is to make them official.



They are official designations of rank, per 21(2) of the NDA, approved by GiC through regulation (QR&O volume 1, chapter 3, article 3.01 and its accompanying table).

So, for example, Craftsman is a legal designation of rank.  Sailor First Class, however, is not, as it does not appear in either the schedule to the NDA or the Regulations made by the GiC.  "CRCN says so" does not replace the National Defence Act.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well, there you go!   It’s been…30 years since I was a Tpr - clearing in for a course in Gagetown around 90-91 and asked my rank, I said “Tpr”.  I was told there is no such official rank, it is Pte(T) since the late 60s.

Hope I bump into that Clerk Sgt so I can correct her!!  🤔

And now I feel old…


----------



## dapaterson

So at the time, that Sgt probably was correct.  The NDA and related regulations were amended in the 2015 timeframe.  Prior to that, all ranks were in the schedule to the NDA, requiring NDA amendment to make changes (including authority to use certain ranks present in the NDA); the amendments to the NDA simplified the amendment processes by moving it from NDA to GiC regulation.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I’ll stand down my Facebook and twitter search then…nap time!


----------



## markppcli

All I can say is that at some point can we stop the absurdity of saying that MCpl is an appointment and not a rank? MCpl is a position within a hierarchy with its own symbol, pay scale, and  style of address. The CAF itself defines a rank as such “ Ranks in the Canadian Forces mark a person's position in its hierarchical structure. As people gain more responsibility and authority, they earn promotions in rank.” By what logic is MCpl (or Master Sailor) exclusive of this?


----------



## dapaterson

By the NDA which includes no such rank.  By QR&O which states that it's an appointment, not a rank.

Are you arguing that the various species of CWOs are therefore also in need of being described as ranks vs appointments?


----------



## torg003

Hellyer's original concept for the CAF was only 6 ranks; the 3 WO ranks (CWO, MWO, WO), and 3 non-WO ranks (SGT, CPL, PTE).  During the integration period before unification, L CPL rank was abolished and they became CPLs, PTE got the single chevron rank insignia.  As most here know, the promoting of L CPLs to CPLs (without junior leadership course) caused a lot of problems.  As stated above, when unification happened, there were only 3 official non-WO ranks and the government didn't want to have to amend the NDA, so just made a new appointment M CPL for those who had the leadership course qualification.  No government since then bothered to amend the NDA to make it a substantive rank, so remains officially an appointment that functions like a substantive rank.


----------



## markppcli

dapaterson said:


> By the NDA which includes no such rank.  By QR&O which states that it's an appointment, not a rank.
> 
> Are you arguing that the various species of CWOs are therefore also in need of being described as ranks vs



Logic and the NDA isn’t the same thing. CWO appointments are positions that are filled; MCpl is something you are promoted to, merit for, and is actively described as a rank by the CF. The only time it is not treated as such is a) when the member is being charged, and b) when some one wants to remind said MCpl of that fact. I under the history of where it comes from, but once again what is the logic.


----------



## FJAG

torg003 said:


> Hellyer's original concept for the CAF was only 6 ranks; the 3 WO ranks (CWO, MWO, WO), and 3 non-WO ranks (SGT, CPL, PTE).  During the integration period before unification, L CPL rank was abolished and they became CPLs, PTE got the single chevron rank insignia.  As most here know, the promoting of L CPLs to CPLs (without junior leadership course) caused a lot of problems.  As stated above, when unification happened, there were only 3 official non-WO ranks and the government didn't want to have to amend the NDA, so just made a new appointment M CPL for those who had the leadership course qualification.  No government since then bothered to amend the NDA to make it a substantive rank, so remains officially an appointment that functions like a substantive rank.


I was in when we started the whole everyone becomes a corporal and ... Oh! now we need a real corporal so lets create Master Corporal appointments went through. Still recall sitting on the tailgate of a deuce and a half with a beer in hand talking to my best detachment commander, a Master Bombardier, whose sergeant had been languishing as the hockey rink manager for the past year excused field duties. The issue was that as a Master Bombardier he made exactly $5.00 per month more than anyone else in his detachment. 

It was stupid then and the fact that after fifty years and the hundreds of NDA amendments that have happened since then we haven't fixed this god-awful idiocy says a lot about the CAF.

🍻


----------



## Edward Campbell

One of several problems that Paul Hellyer was trying to solve in the 1960s was remuneration. There had been blue-ribbon study after blue-ribbon study, each of which had told the governments of the days (Con and Lib) that a modern, high-tech military needed a lot of skilled people who would need better pay and benefits to attract and retain them. The governments of the day also heard from folks like you and me and our parents that they had other priorities for the public purse and better pay for soldiers wasn't amongst them.

But, it was a BIG problem and everyone inside DND knew it.

Hellyer solved it.

He "promoted" most of the privates to corporal ~ voila a welcome and needed pay raise. Ditto for the lieutenants. Corporals' jobs were upgraded to sergeant and so on. Some fiddling with the trades pay schemes ensued and the pay problem was on its way to being resolved. I can. tell you that my friends and I and the soldiers who served with us were grateful ... even as we worried about the damage being done to military operational effectiveness because leading a section of six to ten soldiers or commanding tank is a job for a young fellow with, say, 3 to 7 years of experience while being a troop or platoon 2IC and mentoring a young officer is a job for an NCO with, say, 10 to 15 years of experience, but still under 35 years old, with 20 years left before CRA and we were now giving those jobs to older people who, many experienced, combat-proven leaders felt, were less able to withstand the shocks of sustained combat à la 1st Canadian Division in 1943-45.

But, Mr Hellyer solved a big but rarely discussed problem.


----------



## torg003

Would the way to "fix" the MCPL rank being an appointment, to do a Hellyer and promote them all to the substantive rank of SGT (with 3 chevrons), and then create a new rank for the actual SGTs with the maple leaf above 3 hooks (Staff SGT?  Or maybe Americanize the ranks even more by making them Master SGT)?  Obviously not being completely serious but that might be more along the lines DND might do (if they did anything at all, which isn't likely).


----------



## dapaterson

Or dump the pay scale, give a $250 monthly premium for the appointment, and increase the number of IPCs for Cpl to 6 or 7.


----------



## Furniture

dapaterson said:


> Or dump the pay scale, give a $250 monthly premium for the appointment, and increase the number of IPCs for Cpl to 6 or 7.


I like the idea, but I'd make the premium higher, there needs to be incentive to deal with the extra admin. 

I'd also like to see it treated as an appointment more than a rank, so if you're doing poorly it's a simple case of the local CoC removing the appointment, and the member just switching slip-ons.


----------



## torg003

dapaterson said:


> Or dump the pay scale, give a $250 monthly premium for the appointment, and increase the number of IPCs for Cpl to 6 or 7.



So would you do the same for a Master (or Staff/Colour) SGT appointment (if there was a need)?  That would mean regular SGT would lose the maple leaf (that would only be used for appointment ranks MCPL and MSGT/SSGT).


----------



## Furniture

torg003 said:


> So would you do the same for a Master (or Staff/Colour) SGT appointment (if there was a need)?  That would mean regular SGT would lose the maple leaf (that would only be used for appointment ranks MCPL and MSGT/SSGT).


No need for a position like that, the WO/PO1 rank cover that responsibility. 

Take at look at the NATO equivalencies charts for ORs, if you're not familiar with them it might help to clarify what Canada does compared to the UK, USA, and others.


----------



## torg003

Yes, I am familiar.  I wasn't being completely serious.  I guess I should've used a smiley.

A serious question in regards to the WO ranks.   There were 2 WO ranks (WO I and WO II) and 2 SGT ranks (Staff SGT and SGT) before unification.  That was changed to what we have now, 3 WOs and only one SGT rank.  Was the elimination of  S SGT and replacement with WO rank really needed, or was promoting all S SGTs (and equivalents) to WO just a way Hellyer thought would keep these people from leaving the CF during unification?  Just a thought.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:


> Was the elimination of S SGT and replacement with WO rank really needed …


Were ranks replaced or renamed? If it’s all cosmetic tinkering, why is it worth expending effort now to retinker?


----------



## Halifax Tar

You have to remember they had to take all the existing rank systems from the RCN, CA and RCAF and meld them together.  

Is imagine this in part responsible for confusion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Cpl/ MCpl should have the same incentives as a Captain. Not everyone is a leader. Not everyone wants to be a leader. We need Cpls/MCpls that know their job, inside out and backwards, can act independently and be effective in minor leadership roles. They are extremely valuable in this capacity for things like a SSM's running replen, range and ammo parties, small party tasks, etc. I see no reason why there can't be ten incentives for Cpl/MCpl.


----------



## Weinie

Fishbone Jones said:


> Cpl/ MCpl should have the same incentives as a Captain. Not everyone is a leader. Not everyone wants to be a leader. We need Cpls/MCpls that know their job, inside out and backwards, can act independently and be effective in minor leadership roles. They are extremely valuable in this capacity for things like a SSM's running replen, range and ammo parties, small party tasks, etc. I see no reason why there can't be ten incentives for Cpl/MCpl.


It was looked at back in the mid-80's when I was a Tech. The problem was that we rewarded people for skills and competence by promoting them, thus ensuring that some would become more and more remote from their competencies/desires. One possible solution was called "lateral trade progression" where people would be incentivized by time in rank and quals. It would have seen a Cpl with extensive experience and courses paid more than the Sgt that s/he reported to. Sadly, it was discarded.


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> It was looked at back in the mid-80's when I was a Tech. The problem was that we rewarded people for skills and competence by promoting them, thus ensuring that some would become more and more remote from their competencies/desires. One possible solution was called "lateral trade progression" where people would be incentivized by time in rank and quals. It would have seen a Cpl with extensive experience and courses paid more than the Sgt that s/he reported to. Sadly, it was discarded.


Trade Advancement through Skills and Knowledge (TASK) failed as there was no new funding, and no one was willing to bite the bullet and impose a pay freeze for a year or two to generate the spare pay dollars to make it happen.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Better off cutting ranks than adding them. Why bother making MCpl a rank when we can cut it out, put Cpl back to leadership rank and move everyone who is a Cpl now back down to Pte 1 hook, or whatever you wish to call it (LCpl etc.). Simply pay them the current Cpl rate and have the new ‘Cpl’ be paid MCpl rate.

There is some advantages to having MCpl being a appointment though, biggest being if they screw up or a Sgt screws up big enough to warrant a demotion they get brought down to Cpl or Pte 1 hook respectively.


----------



## Furniture

Eaglelord17 said:


> Better off cutting ranks than adding them. Why bother making MCpl a rank when we can cut it out, put Cpl back to leadership rank and move everyone who is a Cpl now back down to Pte 1 hook, or whatever you wish to call it (LCpl etc.). Simply pay them the current Cpl rate and have the new ‘Cpl’ be paid MCpl rate.
> 
> There is some advantages to having MCpl being a appointment though, biggest being if they screw up or a Sgt screws up big enough to warrant a demotion they get brought down to Cpl or Pte 1 hook respectively.


The only big issue with that approach is it makes working with NATO allies harder. I was on a course recently in Belgium, and after chatting with a German counterpart I was surprised to learn that up to OR-6 (Sgt in Canada) is a time-in based promotion in the German air force.

While it's unlikely a Cpl will be working alone in a NATO organization, it isn't impossible, and it makes working alongside our allies harder when the ranks are horribly imbalanced. As an example, in my occupation we make weather forecasters at the MCpl level, in Germany, Belgium, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc., forecaster is an officer job. That means we miss out on opportunities to do real value added work with NATO because we are on the wrong side of the OF/OR divide. It's getting better, and there are efforts to make it less about rank, and more about qualifications, but it's a reality we need to deal with.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Furniture said:


> The only big issue with that approach is it makes working with NATO allies harder. I was on a course recently in Belgium, and after chatting with a German counterpart I was surprised to learn that up to OR-6 (Sgt in Canada) is a time-in based promotion in the German air force.
> 
> While it's unlikely a Cpl will be working alone in a NATO organization, it isn't impossible, and it makes working alongside our allies harder whent he ranks are horribly imbalanced. As an example, in my occupation we make weather forecasters at the MCpl level, in Germany, Belgium, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc., forecaster is an officer job. That means we miss out on opportunities to do real value added work with NATO because we are on the wrong side of the OF/OR divide. It's getting better, and there are efforts to make it less about rank, and more about qualifications, but it's a reality we need to deal with.


Saw this first hand working with the MFO in Egypt. Being an E-5 and running the Contingent J6 is confusing and annoying to a lot of our colleagues. Going to a planning conference and being told "when your Officer gets back, we can finalize some things.." Unfortunately, I don't have an Officer, I'm it. Unless a Sig O went out for milk and a pack of smokes and never came back, you're going to have to talk to me....


----------



## Furniture

rmc_wannabe said:


> Saw this first hand working with the MFO in Egypt. Being an E-5 and running the Contingent J6 is confusing and annoying to a lot of our colleagues. Going to a planning conference and being told "when your Officer gets back, we can finalize some things.." Unfortunately, I don't have an Officer, I'm it. Unless a Sig O went out for milk and a pack of smokes and never came back, you're going to have to talk to me....


It was amusing talking to OF 2-3 folks about forecasting, and being the guy who goes around inspecting stations to ensure they are meeting the standards as an OR-7. The RN recently introduced PO/CPO forecasters, so they are in a weird way kind of imitating the RCN/CAF.


----------



## Kat Stevens

dapaterson said:


> Trade Advancement through Skills and Knowledge (TASK) failed as there was no new funding, and no one was willing to bite the bullet and impose a pay freeze for a year or two to generate the spare pay dollars to make it happen.


I was around for this, and as a Cpl with damn near every Gucci qual a 041 Cpl could have I was all for it, understandably. The only problem is we end up with another DAPS sort of situation; people with no idea of the skills and knowledge involved to do the job and minimal TI but a bunch of leadership theory put in charge of guys making more money and far more job savy.


----------



## dapaterson

If we're going to make your life miserable regardless, we should at least give you some more money to make up for it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Furniture said:


> The only big issue with that approach is it makes working with NATO allies harder. I was on a course recently in Belgium, and after chatting with a German counterpart I was surprised to learn that up to OR-6 (Sgt in Canada) is a time-in based promotion in the German air force.
> 
> While it's unlikely a Cpl will be working alone in a NATO organization, it isn't impossible, and it makes working alongside our allies harder when the ranks are horribly imbalanced. As an example, in my occupation we make weather forecasters at the MCpl level, in Germany, Belgium, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary, etc., forecaster is an officer job. That means we miss out on opportunities to do real value added work with NATO because we are on the wrong side of the OF/OR divide. It's getting better, and there are efforts to make it less about rank, and more about qualifications, but it's a reality we need to deal with.


It was back in the 1980s but we (AFCENT, then ~ now Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum) had several Canadian Cpls (all Rad Techs) working 100% alone as "mobile repair teams" on the (then new) NATO Integrated Communication System. Each had a small sedan, a tool kit and a boss ~ a Canadian MWO ~ who had his own boss, a German Maj and a USAF LCol. Most NATO techs were Sgts or higher, except ours. The USAF LCol consistently rated the Canadians as his best and most reliable techs.


----------



## Furniture

Edward Campbell said:


> It was back in the 1980s but we (AFCENT, then ~ now Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum) had several Canadian Cpls (all Rad Techs) working 100% alone as "mobile repair teams" on the (then new) NATO Integrated Communication System. Each had a small sedan, a tool kit and a boss ~ a Canadian MWO ~ who had his own boss, a German Maj and a USAF LCol. Most NATO techs were Sgts or higher, except ours. The USAF LCol consistently rated the Canadians as his best and most reliable techs.


We sent forecasters to work with the Germans in Mali, tit was what opened the doors to more work with NATO. The Germans actually were willing to give our WO/Sgt/MCpl forecasters the "NATO" qual to forecast when Canada itself at the time wouldn't. We now even have a position in Germany at the MN MSG, and multinational met forecast centre. 

In Canada ECCC is deeply rooted in the Canadian Forces Weather and Oceanographic service, and they have an interest in keeping Met Techs out of forecasting jobs. The Germans didn't have the same job security concerns and were more than happy to recognize our forecaster's skills.


----------



## markppcli

Furniture said:


> No need for a position like that, the WO/PO1 rank cover that responsibility.
> 
> Take at look at the NATO equivalencies charts for ORs, if you're not familiar with them it might help to clarify what Canada does compared to the UK, USA, and others.


We are a little unique in terms of essentially having a “free” rank in the Canadian Cpl. In Latvia it was difficult to explain but everyone just goes by their OR code anyways. 


A thought on the “benefit” of a punishment being more severe because you skip MCpl if demoted. If the chief advantage of something is you punitive power because of it, I’d argue it holds no value at all.


----------



## FJAG

torg003 said:


> Would the way to "fix" the MCPL rank being an appointment, to do a Hellyer and promote them all to the substantive rank of SGT (with 3 chevrons), and then create a new rank for the actual SGTs with the maple leaf above 3 hooks (Staff SGT?  Or maybe Americanize the ranks even more by making them Master SGT)?  Obviously not being completely serious but that might be more along the lines DND might do (if they did anything at all, which isn't likely).


Naw. That would have been a hell of an unnecessary cascade.

I was in the artillery where the primary entry level job for a sergeant is gun detachment commander. Previously the detachment second in command was a bombardier and the rest of the detachment were gunners. After the change over, the sergeant was still the detachment commander and the second in command now a master bombardier while the rest of the detachment were gunners or bombardiers depending on their time in the Army.

We actually did have Staff Sergeant back then and I remember that my troop sergeant major back in 1970/71 was one. I'm not to sure exactly when that rank converted to warrant officer but it was around that time. It was essentially just a name change although there might have been a small pay issue with it.

🍻


----------



## torg003

Interesting historical note; in the first couple of years of WWII, the Brits had the rank of WO 3rd Class which had the rank insignia of a single crown on the lower sleeve.  WO 3's served as platoon SMs although they still had S SGTs in the unit.  The Brits eventually realized the rank was redundant and deleted it (WO 3's were promoted to LT and given command of a platoon).  It's strange/interesting that Hellyer chose to use this failed WW II era rank in the unified CAF.  But, to be fair, he did delete the rank of S SGT, so I guess the single crown WO rank fills that roll.  I also think the change to bring in a WO rank to replace S SGT might have been to encourage S SGTs and SGTs to stay in the military during the unification process.
Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Halifax Tar

torg003 said:


> Interesting historical note; in the first couple of years of WWII, the Brits had the rank of WO 3rd Class which had the rank insignia of a single crown on the lower sleeve.  WO 3's served as platoon SMs although they still had S SGTs in the unit.  The Brits eventually realized the rank was redundant and deleted it (WO 3's were promoted to LT and given command of a platoon).  It's strange/interesting that Hellyer chose to use this failed WW II era rank in the unified CAF.  But, to be fair, he did delete the rank of S SGT, so I guess the single crown WO rank fills that roll.



I think you are giving Hellyer a lot more credit than he deserves.


----------



## torg003

You're probably right.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Furniture said:


> We sent forecasters to work with the Germans in Mali, tit was what opened the doors to more work with NATO. The Germans actually were willing to give our WO/Sgt/MCpl forecasters the "NATO" qual to forecast when Canada itself at the time wouldn't. We now even have a position in Germany at the MN MSG, and multinational met forecast centre.
> 
> In Canada ECCC is deeply rooted in the Canadian Forces Weather and Oceanographic service, and they have an interest in keeping Met Techs out of forecasting jobs. The Germans didn't have the same job security concerns and were more than happy to recognize our forecaster's skills.



I met and briefly chatted with a CF meteorology officer once.  It was over thirty years ago in Lahr.  I had just been posted in and was living in while looking for a place and the meteorologist (a captain) was on his last couple of days in Germany before returning to Canada.  We chatted during dinner one evening (there weren't a lot of officers who lived in, even temporarily).  He had been filling the one and only position for a (commissioned) meteorologist in the CF.  The position was filled by Environment Canada meteorologists who volunteered to serve as a Class C Reservist in Germany for three years.   If I remember our chat correctly, the main reason for the position was to have someone with "formal credentials" when dealing with senior weather types at higher headquarters or the German Weather Service.


----------



## Furniture

Blackadder1916 said:


> I met and briefly chatted with a CF meteorology officer once.  It was over thirty years ago in Lahr.  I had just been posted in and was living in while looking for a place and the meteorologist (a captain) was on his last couple of days in Germany before returning to Canada.  We chatted during dinner one evening (there weren't a lot of officers who lived in, even temporarily).  He had been filling the one and only position for a (commissioned) meteorologist in the CF.  The position was filled by Environment Canada meteorologists who volunteered to serve as a Class C Reservist in Germany for three years.   If I remember our chat correctly, the main reason for the position was to have someone with "formal credentials" when dealing with senior weather types at higher headquarters or the German Weather Service.


That system ended in the 90s, I believe shortly after bases over there were closed. Though some of the older meteorologists used to still think they were officers when I joined, and didn't adjust well to the reality that they had no authority over Met Techs. 

The Danes use a system like the one we had, when deployed their civilian meteorologists become Captains for the duration of the deployment. 

Back to the rank thing in general, I think we need to be mindful of how our ranks align with allies/partners, as militaries are very hierarchical, and the embroidery on your slip-on does matter until you become a known quantity.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Furniture said:


> That system ended in the 90s, I believe shortly after bases over there were closed.  . . .



I know.  I closed both bases . . . well not the entire bases personally, just the medical units.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fishbone Jones said:


> Cpl/ MCpl should have the same incentives as a Captain. Not everyone is a leader. Not everyone wants to be a leader. We need Cpls/MCpls that know their job, inside out and backwards, can act independently and be effective in minor leadership roles. They are extremely valuable in this capacity for things like a SSM's running replen, range and ammo parties, small party tasks, etc. I see no reason why there can't be ten incentives for Cpl/MCpl.



That on its own would only give them smaller raises;  their high and low pay would not change.

If you raise their pay, then you be looking at a Pay review for all Sgt and WOs/POs pay as well.  I don’t think the govt / TB would be overly excited about that.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> That on its own would only give them smaller raises;  their high and low pay would not change.
> 
> If you raise their pay, then you be looking at a Pay review for all Sgt and WOs/POs pay as well.  I don’t think the govt / TB would be overly excited about that.


That happened for SAR techs and is about to happen for air techs as well (and more to come)


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> That happened for SAR techs and is about to happen for air techs as well (and more to come)



Some one told me recently that a Sgt SAR Tech now has the potential to make more than the CAF CWO.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Some one told me recently that a Sgt SAR Tech now has the potential to make more than the CAF CWO.


Pay scale for Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO SAR Tech below.  Up to 14 PI.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> Pay scale for Sgt/WO/MWO/CWO SAR Tech below.  Up to 14 PI.
> 
> View attachment 70173



Good lord!


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Good lord!


Anyone who is willing to jump out of a Herc into an Arctic Blizzard to rescue somebody can have the money…


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Anyone who is willing to jump out of a Herc into an Arctic Blizzard to rescue somebody can have the money…



Most NCMs in combat don't/didnt make that much, and if they did it came from years of FSP build up.

You'll get no argument from me that those in the jumping out of planes positions should make that, but I can't justify that rate of pay for those who aren't.  I don't know how their trade is established and their position allotments.  But I have to imagine the entire trade up to CWO isn't jumping into blizzards anymore.

@SeaKingTacco you're closer to that community than I am so I stand by to be educated.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Most NCMs in combat don't/didnt make that much, and if they did it came from years of FSP build up.
> 
> You'll get no argument from me that those in the jumping out of planes positions should make that, but I can't justify that rate of pay for those who aren't.  I don't know how their trade is established and their position allotments.  But I have to imagine they entire trade upto CWO isn't jumping into blizzards anymore.
> 
> @SeaKingTacco you're closer to that community than I am so I stand by to be educated.


That’s a means to retain experience and encourage progression within the trade.  When people were posted out of a flying unit, they would have a substantial pay cut which led to many CTing to the reserves.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SupersonicMax said:


> That’s a means to retain experience and encourage progression within the trade.  When people were posted out of a flying unit, they would have a substantial pay cut which led to many CTing to the reserves.



Man, you RCAF guys have the best union.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Halifax Tar said:


> Man, you RCAF guys have the best union.


That pay scale is identical to that of SOF Operators.  There is a CAF-Wide push to change how compensation is structured.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SupersonicMax said:


> That happened for SAR techs and is about to happen for air techs as well (and more to come)



Yup.  I don’t see the same pay levels for a cbt arms Cpl/MCpl being adopted however. The skill sets aren’t remotely comparable.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yup.  I don’t see the same pay levels for a cbt arms Cpl/MCpl being adopted however. The skill sets aren’t remotely comparable.


Pay levels no, but I could see a restructure that recognize skills, regardless of rank while still encouraging career progression.


----------



## Furniture

Halifax Tar said:


> Man, you RCAF guys have the best union.


Ping bosn's make spec pay... I'd say the RCN has a decent union too.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Furniture said:


> Ping bosn's make spec pay... I'd say the RCN has a decent union too.



Point taken.


----------



## dimsum

SupersonicMax said:


> That happened for SAR techs and is about to happen for air techs as well (and more to come)


To add, from the AMA with DComd RCAF a few months ago, the intent is for all RCAF-managed trades to go through that pay review.




Halifax Tar said:


> Man, you RCAF guys have the best union.


Lots of people VOT _to_ the RCAF.  Not many people VOT _from_ the RCAF


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> Ping bosn's make spec pay... I'd say the RCN has a decent union too.



Ya there’s some RCN folks that are Spec 2 category as well (stokers is one IIRC).


----------



## dapaterson

A not-completely-up-to-date of Spec pay trades: Pay rates for Specialist Non-Commissioned Member - Regular Force and Class C Reserve Service - Canada.ca

(Still lists SAR Techs, and there may be other discrepancies as well)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Halifax Tar said:


> Man, you RCAF guys have the best union.



Just to add;  the last pay review only included 2 aircrew trades; pilot and SAR Tech. There are 9 (maybe 10 now, I heard FE was added) more trades being looked at for the next pay review.  One of the things they did was grant a pay raise that included their aircrew allowance;  they will have that money added to pensionable earnings. 

The way the RCAF is doing this isn’t leaving everyone happy.  I have heard from a few different people in other aircrew trades (ACSO/FE/AES Op) some dissatisfaction in that the RCAF could have at least given us our aircrew allowance as part of our base pay;  for the same reasons they did it for the first 2 - people don’t loose money by leaving a flying position, and the money has the added value of being pensionable earring vice taxable allowance.

As of the last info that was officially put out (internally), none of the other aircrew trades are part of the next review;  so the Union is all that popular in som circles.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I can understand the dissatisfaction.


----------



## torg003

OK, sorry to resurrect this thread, but I had an idea and I wanted to share it.  The General rank insignia (or should I say, rank insignia for Generals) was changed from the British style (pips/crowns, crossed sword and baton) back to the Unification era (basically Navy flag officer ranks with maple leaves instead of stars), but with pin-on metal insignia instead of sewn on cloth.  I'm sure this change was likely due to American pressure, as they don't really like the British General ranks insignia (doesn't seem to make sense to them) and preferred the old Unification style where all they had to do was count the number of maple leaves to know what the US equivalent would be (i.e. four leaves = four star general).
So I thought why not sort of combine the two - with the crossed sword and baton of the traditional General's ranks with the 1 - 4 maple leaves (indicating level of General) of the Unification era (I guess you could say contemporary era as well).  So after all that, here's what I came up with;


----------



## Furniture

torg003 said:


> OK, sorry to resurrect this thread, but I had an idea and I wanted to share it.  The General rank insignia (or should I say, rank insignia for Generals) was changed from the British style (pips/crowns, crossed sword and baton) back to the Unification era (basically Navy flag officer ranks with maple leaves instead of stars), but with pin-on metal insignia instead of sewn on cloth.  I'm sure this change was likely due to American pressure, as they don't really like the British General ranks insignia (doesn't seem to make sense to them) and preferred the old Unification style where all they had to do was count the number of maple leaves to know what the US equivalent would be (i.e. four leaves = four star general).
> So I thought why not sort of combine the two - with the crossed sword and baton of the traditional General's ranks with the 1 - 4 maple leaves (indicating level of General) of the Unification era (I guess you could say contemporary era as well).  So after all that, here's what I came up with;
> 
> View attachment 72833


Not to be picky, but all you did was move the sword and baton to below the leaves, and remove the crown. How is this "more British", or "less American" than what we currently have?

Our current GOFO rank insignia are clearly neither American nor British, making them very distinctly Canadian.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Furniture said:


> Not to be picky, but all you did was move the sword and baton to below the leaves, and remove the crown. How is this "more British", or "less American" than what we currently have?
> 
> Our current GOFO rank insignia are clearly neither American nor British, making them very distinctly Canadian.


Agreed. Additionally, the Yanks had nothing to do with the return to Unification style GO ranks for the Army. Like most things, the change to Pips and Crowns wasn't communicated properly to all ranks and GOFOs were being confused for NCMs. A return to the maple leaves and Lasagna Braid were self imposed, not due to external pressure.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thankfully, all our equipment, training and tactics stuff is sorted out across the CAF so we can focus on moving swords n stuff on ranks badges.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:


> Thankfully, all our equipment, training and tactics stuff is sorted out across the CAF so we can focus on moving swords n stuff on ranks badges.



You forgot the 'inclusive language' part of that, which I must have missed: a real game changer on the battlefield apparently 

The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French​*February 3, 2022 - Defence Stories*

The option to feminize your rank in French, as well as apply changes such as modifying the article or adjective, will be available to all CAF members, ensuring each has the opportunity to choose the version that they feel best represents who they are and how they are recognized.

Modernizing the ranks in French is one of a number of initiatives being undertaken by the Defence Team in order to help us achieve an environment in which all members see and experience the respect they deserve.






						The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French - Canada.ca
					

Beginning this month, members can be addressed by the French version of the rank that they feel best represents their gender identity.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## torg003

Furniture said:


> Not to be picky, but all you did was move the sword and baton to below the leaves, and remove the crown.


Yes, that's right.  That's exactly what I did.


Furniture said:


> How is this "more British", or "less American" than what we currently have?


Never said that it was more British or less American.  The more British part was talking about the re-adoption of the pre-unification British ranks (pips and crowns). See below.
The current General ranks are basically the return to Unification General ranks which were based on the old RCN Admiral shoulder board ranks with the stars being replaced with the maple leaves (so not really an Army rank).
The picture I posted was basically a combo of both.
Was just an idea, not advocating that things be changed (I know they won't).


----------



## RedFive

daftandbarmy said:


> You forgot the 'inclusive language' part of that, which I must have missed: a real game changer on the battlefield apparently
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French​*February 3, 2022 - Defence Stories*
> 
> The option to feminize your rank in French, as well as apply changes such as modifying the article or adjective, will be available to all CAF members, ensuring each has the opportunity to choose the version that they feel best represents who they are and how they are recognized.
> 
> Modernizing the ranks in French is one of a number of initiatives being undertaken by the Defence Team in order to help us achieve an environment in which all members see and experience the respect they deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Beginning this month, members can be addressed by the French version of the rank that they feel best represents their gender identity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca


I thought using gendered language was not on these days? I'm so confused...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RedFive said:


> I thought using gendered language was not on these days? I'm so confused...



Then welcome to the CAF!  😝


----------



## Eye In The Sky

daftandbarmy said:


> You forgot the 'inclusive language' part of that, which I must have missed: a real game changer on the battlefield apparently
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French​*February 3, 2022 - Defence Stories*
> 
> The option to feminize your rank in French, as well as apply changes such as modifying the article or adjective, will be available to all CAF members, ensuring each has the opportunity to choose the version that they feel best represents who they are and how they are recognized.
> 
> Modernizing the ranks in French is one of a number of initiatives being undertaken by the Defence Team in order to help us achieve an environment in which all members see and experience the respect they deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces modernizes military ranks in French - Canada.ca
> 
> 
> Beginning this month, members can be addressed by the French version of the rank that they feel best represents their gender identity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.canada.ca








I think?  Isn’t everyone a they or them?  Baby-self…I dunno. I can’t keep up anymore.


----------



## dapaterson

RedFive said:


> I thought using gendered language was not on these days? I'm so confused...


English - no

French - toujours


----------



## dimsum

Oh hey, is this the thread where we talk about peaked caps for everyone, Square Rig, and Sam Browne belts?


----------



## dapaterson

We need Canadian Marines who, in a typical Canadian compromise, would wear square rig with a Sam Browne belt, and only be employed in an airborne role.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dimsum said:


> Oh hey, is this the thread where we talk about peaked caps for everyone, Square Rig, and Sam Browne belts?


Because there's just nothing like an unpolished Sam Browne belt worn over an un-tailored or ill-tailored uniform to make an officer look smart ...


----------



## ArmyRick

SeaKingTacco said:


> Anyone who is willing to jump out of a Herc into an Arctic Blizzard to rescue somebody can have the money…


Its the going on a sinking ship in the ocean in terrible weather to rescue people that scares the beef tacos right out of me (SAR Tech huge respect, I could never do that)


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> We need Canadian Marines who, in a typical Canadian compromise, would wear square rig with a Sam Browne belt, and only be employed in an airborne role.



But, to be consistent, the Army shouldn't tell the Navy or the Air Force that they've sold this idea to the politicians already


----------



## Weinie

RedFive said:


> I thought using gendered language was not on these days? I'm so confused...


I'm/him/she/gender-diffuse/Indifferent/ even more confused. But then I stopped caring.


----------



## torg003

Anyway, getting back on topic.  , when the idea of changing the Army officer ranks back to the British pips (Order of the Bath Star), I thought that they should've tried something to make these older style ranks more Canadian.  Here is an altered version of a rank insignia poster from that time period:


----------



## OldSolduer

ArmyRick said:


> Its the going on a sinking ship in the ocean in terrible weather to rescue people that scares the beef tacos right out of me (SAR Tech huge respect, I could never do that)


I met the pair that did this. One had a broken leg. The other well it was his second time - a bar for his MB - amazing


----------



## torg003

So obviously just replacing the Bath stars with maple leaves, but definitely would've made it more Canadian.  Obviously the gov't was criticized for just re-adopting British ranks and not trying to make them Canadian.  Of course that led to the development of the "Vimy Star" , because we didn't have a Star of the Order of Military Merit.  Just as an historical aside, the original design for the OMM had 5 levels (and a medal), the top 2 levels having breast stars.  The Liberal gov't of the time (PM PET) wanted it to have only 3 levels to match the newly expanded Order of Canada.   So I was kind of surprised that the Harper Cons didn't try to bring back the idea of expanding the OMM to 5 levels so that they could have a legitimate Canadian Pip.  I guess when it came down to it, they didn't really care.  
Anyway, just for shits and giggles, here is another idea for the "pips and crowns" insignia.  I thought that use of the British general officer garget should've been changed to a more Canadian design using maple leaves instead of oak leaves.  Here is a mock up that increases the number of maple leaves on the garget as the rank goes up.  This would've been to help non-commonwealth military members more easily identify the general's rank.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> Anyway, getting back on topic.



I vote we table the "Officer army rank" crap and continue to develop the stuff about Vikings, add Pirates and make our own version of Army.ca Deadliest Warrior...


----------



## torg003

Hopefully no one gets an aneurism from me posting these ideas in this thread.  It's strange that some people seem to think that discussing or posting ideas on rank changes will somehow make the CAF not be able to buy boots or other need equipment, but that seems to be the typical reaction.  
All in good fun.


----------



## torg003

> I vote we table the "Officer army rank" crap and continue to develop the stuff about Vikings, add Pirates and make our own version of Army.ca Deadliest Warrior...


OK, so we're talking Navy ranks then.  
What do you envision for this Viking-Pirate Navy ranks-wise??


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> OK, so we're talking Navy ranks then.
> What do you envision for this Viking-Pirate Navy ranks-wise??


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> OK, so we're talking Navy ranks then.
> What do you envision for this Viking-Pirate Navy ranks-wise??


I, for one, think "First Sea Lord" is better than "CRCN"


----------



## dapaterson

I, for one, think a Navy of 12K Reg and Res, and Army of 45K, Reg and Res, and an Air Force of 12K, Reg and Res, could and should each be commanded by RAdm / MGen, with the related downranking of the CDS to VAdm / LGen.

With subsequent reductions all the way down.

And, since the NDA clearly stipulates that commissions for officers are granted during pleasure (NDA 20(1)) it should be much easier to kick officers out of the CAF for misconduct.


----------



## Eaglelord17

I still think the old officer ranks, simple bars, was the best system. Simple and effective, what more can you want.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> I, for one, think a Navy of 12K Reg and Res, and Army of 45K, Reg and Res, and an Air Force of 12K, Reg and Res, could and should each be commanded by RAdm / MGen, with the related downranking of the CDS to VAdm / LGen.
> 
> With subsequent reductions all the way down.
> 
> And, since the NDA clearly stipulates that commissions for officers are granted during pleasure (NDA 20(1)) it should be much easier to kick officers out of the CAF for misconduct.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> I, for one, think a Navy of 12K Reg and Res, and Army of 45K, Reg and Res, and an Air Force of 12K, Reg and Res, could and should each be commanded by RAdm / MGen, with the related downranking of the CDS to VAdm / LGen.
> 
> With subsequent reductions all the way down.
> 
> And, since the NDA clearly stipulates that commissions for officers are granted during pleasure (NDA 20(1)) it should be much easier to kick officers out of the CAF for misconduct.


If that concurrently includes downranking of all EX positions - count me in.

I just looked at the growth of the civil service and the two Trudeau eras are noticeable (sorry - I can't control the colours)



How many EXs do we have for how many civil servants?


----------



## daftandbarmy

FJAG said:


> If that concurrently includes downranking of all EX positions - count me in.
> 
> I just looked at the growth of the civil service and the two Trudeau eras are noticeable (sorry - I can't control the colours)
> 
> View attachment 72891
> 
> How many EXs do we have for how many civil servants?



I'm guessing 99% of those positions are in Ottawa.

I've got some Federal government contacts out this way who are 'dying on the vine' due to a lack of staff. Especially when people must go back to Ottawa so they can get promoted.


----------



## torg003

Eaglelord17 said:


> I still think the old officer ranks, simple bars, was the best system. Simple and effective, what more can you want.


So you're talking about going back to original unification ranks I assume, gold rank lace on the cuff for all officers.  Does that include a single uniform for all as well?  I wonder if unification would've been more acceptable to the AF and navy types if green wasn't the chosen colour of the uniform?  The army used to have a dress blue uniform (with the standing collar), so if dark blue had been the colour choice, it might've been more acceptable all around.  Though, the army types didn't care for the navy style rank on the cuffs, but they may not have minded as much if they were allowed to have worn them on shoulder boards instead.
If today, the uniform was changed to a neutral colour, such as a dark grey and the NCM rank insignia was Corps colour, with the officer ranks keeping the gold rank lace with corps colour 'lights" in between, would that be a better compromise?
Is there more people in the CAF now that favour the simplicity of the original unification system and would like to go back one uniform and rank system?  It certainly would be more cost effective, but would that actually result in savings that would be able to be used for needed equipment?  Or is the military so over managed that it still keep having problems getting needed equipment in a timely manner?


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> So you're talking about going back to original unification ranks I assume, gold rank lace on the cuff for all officers.  Does that include a single uniform for all as well?  I wonder if unification would've been more acceptable to the AF and navy types if green wasn't the chosen colour of the uniform?  The army used to have a dress blue uniform (with the standing collar), so if dark blue had been the colour choice, it might've been more acceptable all around.  Though, the army types didn't care for the navy style rank on the cuffs, but they may not have minded as much if they were allowed to have worn them on shoulder boards instead.


Frankly, it wouldn't have mattered.  Whatever colour would have pissed off at least 1, maybe 2 elements at the time.  You're talking about an incredibly conservative (not political, just "resistant to change") organization where every little thing has some sort of symbolism.  Just look at how the return of the Executive Curl (Elliott's Eye) for RCN officers became this big thing.  

Even if it went to Navy Blue, the RCN would complain that it was single breasted rather than double-breasted.  I'm only half-joking.



torg003 said:


> If today, the uniform was changed to a neutral colour, such as a dark grey and the NCM rank insignia was Corps colour, with the officer ranks keeping the gold rank lace with corps colour 'lights" in between, would that be a better compromise?


I don't know about others, but the gold on green (or gold on blue) really irked me for some reason.  If we had kept bars, I would have gone with silver (or whatever Corps thing) for the green uniform.  The current RCAF colour ranks (pearl grey) looks a lot less jarring against the blue DEU.  



torg003 said:


> Is there more people in the CAF now that favour the simplicity of the original unification system and would like to go back one uniform and rank system?  It certainly would be more cost effective, but would that actually result in savings that would be able to be used for needed equipment?


No.  I don't think "let's go back to bars for Army officers" is even on the top 1000 of priorities for 99% of currently serving personnel.


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> So you're talking about going back to original unification


Unification could have been so easy if we just followed most of the world with a navy by having Naval Air, Fleet and Marines.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> No.  I don't think "let's go back to bars for Army officers" is even on the top 1000 of priorities for 99% of currently serving personnel.



As with the introduction of pips, which no one except the government wanted, this means that it will go straight to the top of the priority list.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> As with the introduction of pips, which no one except the government wanted, this means that it will go straight to the top of the priority list.


I  honestly glad for the stars and crowns. Especially when working with Commonwealth or European Armies. They follow a similar protocol and it's easy to be recognized/recognize who's who in the zoo.


----------



## dapaterson

daftandbarmy said:


> As with the introduction of pips, which no one except the government wanted, this means that it will go straight to the top of the priority list.


The government didn't care.  A small cabal of officers in Ottawa undermined the Commander of the Army to get their colonial wish fulfilled.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> The government didn't care.  A small cabal of officers in Ottawa undermined the Commander of the Army to get their colonial wish fulfilled.


So they were just jealous of the Navy getting a gold ring on their sleeve? How petty!


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> The government didn't care.  A small cabal of officers in Ottawa undermined the Commander of the Army to get their colonial wish fulfilled.



Which reminds me of some unfinished business


----------



## Eaglelord17

I would argue the simple gold rings was the most Canadian system ever adopted. Everything else being a British tradition.

For those saying it doesn’t work well with foreign militaries, it was very simple to understand. Bars are officers, the more bars the higher the rank. You can explain that effectively to anyone in about 1-2 sentences. Not so much for pips and crowns or any other officer rank variation I have seen.

Either way it doesn’t matter much, we spend so much time arguing about ranks and elements when in reality we have not much of anything, and our manning looks alot like a Russian division.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> So they were just jealous of the Navy getting a gold ring on their sleeve? How petty!


Military? 

Petty? 

Never.


----------



## McG

We lack modern light & heavy trucks. We lack antitank and air defence systems. We routinely stock-out of operational clothing and equipment. We fail to spend our budget every year, and the point of failure has been a lack of people to execute projects.  We do not need another project to tinker with uniform aesthetics until we have sorted all those real problems. Leave the procurement staff to focus on the important things.


----------



## torg003

dimsum said:


> Military?
> 
> Petty?
> 
> Never.


Maybe he was a Petty Officer.


----------



## dapaterson

McG said:


> We lack modern light & heavy trucks. We lack antitank and air defence systems. We routinely stock-out of operational clothing and equipment. We fail to spend our budget every year, and the point of failure has been a lack of people to execute projects.  We do not need another project to tinker with uniform aesthetics until we have sorted all those real problems. Leave the procurement staff to focus on the important things.


I'd add that military career management, flipping people around every 2-3 years, also serves to delay and impair delivery of projects.  In some respects, the CAF is its own worst enemy.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dapaterson said:


> I'd add that military career management, flipping people around every 2-3 years, also serves to delay and impair delivery of projects.  In some respects, the CAF is its own worst enemy.


Agreed. The phrase "breadth of experience" has cost the CAF more in money, time, attrition, and capability loss than any rank change ever could.


----------



## dapaterson

"But he/she could be a future CDS / CAFCWO, so letting them stay long enough to complete the task / get it past the next milestone might mean they'll top out at a lower rank!" is and always has been BS.


----------



## Kilted

Eaglelord17 said:


> I would argue the simple gold rings was the most Canadian system ever adopted. Everything else being a British tradition.
> 
> For those saying it doesn’t work well with foreign militaries, it was very simple to understand. Bars are officers, the more bars the higher the rank. You can explain that effectively to anyone in about 1-2 sentences. Not so much for pips and crowns or any other officer rank variation I have seen.
> 
> Either way it doesn’t matter much, we spend so much time arguing about ranks and elements when in reality we have not much of anything, and our manning looks alot like a Russian division.


The ars are a Navy rank, army officers looked out of place when compared to other armies.  Now, if we could only get rid of the navel salute.


----------



## dimsum

Kilted said:


> The ars are a Navy rank, army officers looked out of place when compared to other armies.  Now, if we could only get rid of the navel salute.


It's not just a Naval salute.  

But regardless, it's been since 1968 which makes it 54 years old.  At what point is something done long enough that it's considered "the traditional way"?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> It's not just a Naval salute.
> 
> But regardless, it's been since 1968 which makes it 54 years old.  At what point is something done long enough that it's considered "the traditional way"?


About 200 odd years of tradition and culture that developed organically, I'd say. 

Consolidation and commonalities needed to happen in 1968; Heyler was right in that regard. Unification was a solution to a problem that existed solely in his mind due to his own Sour Grapes.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> About 200 odd years of tradition and culture that developed organically, I'd say.


How about a new force - do they not get to create traditions?  

e.g. US Space Force now, or the USAF in 1947, or the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/etc in the 1918-1920s?  

Are those traditions less valid?  I know the Navy says "the Air Force has habits" but really, aren't traditions just codified habits?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> How about a new force - do they not get to create traditions?
> 
> e.g. US Space Force now, or the USAF in 1947, or the RAF/RCAF/RAAF/etc in the 1918-1920s?
> 
> Are those traditions less valid?  I know the Navy says "the Air Force has habits" but really, aren't traditions just codified habits?


If the Canadian Marines were to stand up today, we might be having a different conversation. That's a new requirement with a new force generated to suit that need. They may borrow or develop their own traditions, but that is something that occurs organically.

CAF Unification took 3 standing forces, stripped them to the bare metal, foisted an image and branding no one wanted, and threw the rest in the bin. 

For example, my Corps outdates both the RCN and the RCAF, however our "Branch" emblem was forced to encorporate the Naval and Air Force elements in iut branding because "there is only one Comms Branch" as per 1971 edict.

 Within the C&E Branch now, ATIS/CELE are chomping at the bit to go back to being under the Air Ops umbrella, Sig Int Spec/Cyber Ops are more involved with CFIOG than anyone else, the RCN held firm with their communicators from day one, and the RCCS trades are pretty much managed and overseen by DLCI. So... why retain the Branch, the manufactured identity, etc? 

I might be assuming or generalizing at someone who spent most of their career as a hard Navy trade might not see the same kind of slight (as the RCN pushed back harder than the other 2 services in 1968... and maybe got a few more concessions...who knows), but I welcomed the return of element specific rank structure and was a touch disappointed when the NCM ranks didn't. The RCAF made the right call moving back to the prop for Avr and the pearl grey, but I think if would make sense to see the RCN and CA move back at some point. If the ADF and NZDF haven't collapsed in disarray because of it (I have worked closely with both) I think we can manage.


----------



## FSTO

rmc_wannabe said:


> as the RCN pushed back harder than the other 2 services in 1968.


They pushed back, were ignored and in the end did what they pleased by retaining the name of the Navy Ranks. Sound familiar?


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> I might be assuming or generalizing at someone who spent most of their career as a hard Navy trade might not see the same kind of slight


Despite my profile pic, I've been out of the RCN longer than I've been in.  The light blue is a clue.

But, fair points and great context.  I will also add that I've worked with the ADF and NZDF, and at least for aircrew, they think that our "everything that flies is Air Force" isn't the worst idea.  The NZDF pretty much does that anyway.


----------



## torg003

The (original) RCAF was formed along the same lines as the RAF by combining naval air and army air assets.  We really don't have enough air assets to justify a separate Air Force identity.  I say this with no malice, I do have a great fondness for the RCAF (my father was in it).   The whole unification experiment should be scrapped and it would make more sense to have a Ministry of National Defense, with a separate Department of the Army and Department of the Navy, each with their own air assets.   The Air Force would basically be split back into a Naval Air Service (RCNAS) and an Air Corps (RCAirC).  The single prop insignia and Aviator rank title could still be used by the Air Corps as the Army does allow for Regimental and Corps variations in insignia and rank titles.
Yes, we know it won't happen, but it makes more sense.


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> The (original) RCAF was formed along the same lines as the RAF by combining naval air and army air assets.  We really don't have enough air assets to justify a separate Air Force identity.  I say this with no malice, I do have a great fondness for the RCAF (my father was in it).   The whole unification experiment should be scrapped and it would make more sense to have a Ministry of National Defense, with a separate Department of the Army and Department of the Navy, each with their own air assets.   The Air Force would basically be split back into a Naval Air Service (RCNAS) and an Air Corps (RCAirC).  The single prop insignia and Aviator rank title could still be used by the Air Corps as the Army does allow for Regimental and Corps variations in insignia and rank titles.
> Yes, we know it won't happen, but it makes more sense.


Except that like in other threads discussing returning TAC Hel to the CA and Mar Hel (and LRP?) to the RCN, it just ends up with them being the forgotten ones in green/navy blue instead of light blue.  

I’ve advocated for that in those threads before but we run into wrinkles.  Recruiting for example - it’s much easier to recruit for Pilot rather than RCAF/RCN/CA pilot.  If an 18-year old just wants to fly and doesn’t know whether they want to fly helos off ships or transport, how do they pick?  

Also, separating them from the outset means that you can’t select for certain airframes after Moose Jaw (or equiv).  RCAF won’t have helicopters, for example, so do those folks have to change uniforms?


----------



## Edward Campbell

rmc_wannabe said:


> About 200 odd years of tradition and culture that developed organically, I'd say.
> 
> Consolidation and commonalities needed to happen in 1968; Heyler was right in that regard. _Unification was a solution to a problem that existed solely in his mind _due to his own Sour Grapes.



Although there's a wording dispute, I was told, back in the late 60s by someone who was very close to the HQ "action," that Team Hellyer went to the Pentagon in 1963/64 and told the Americans about their (not just his) ideas - which were blessed, in advance, by Lester B Pearson because a) the Glassco Commission and b) the unrelenting public (and Liberal Party) pressure to spend more on social programmes (entitlements) and less on defence. The Americans listened with interest and said, using their terms, that:

_*Unification*_: fully joint commands overseen, nationally and regionally, by joint staffs is a good thing. Unification can include some support service - they used their Defense Communications Agency (now DISA) as an example; but​​_*Integration*_: what our American cousins called "purple suiting" was likely to fail because the core functions of Navies, Armies and Air Forces argued for distinctions, not commonality. The savings, they suggested, that _might_ be made would not be worth the trouble.​​Forming joint "functional" commands like MARCOM, MOBCOM and so on did not, I was told, have enough political sex appeal for Group Captain (ret'd) Bill Lee, a former RCAF public relations officer who was Mr Hellyer's principle advisor. He was after something "big" to capture the public's  attention and move Mr Hellyer up the Liberal Party food chain. Thus the team ignored US (and UK) advice and went with both a fully joint force - our Material Command, for example, was studies (I know with 100% certainty) by high-priced teams from America, Australia, Britain, Germany and others - and a single force, outfitted in the "jolly green jumper" as we called it in the late 1960s.


----------



## SupersonicMax

torg003 said:


> The Air Force would basically be split back into a Naval Air Service (RCNAS) and an Air Corps (RCAirC).
> Yes, we know it won't happen, but it makes more sense.


It doesn’t make more sense.  Where do you put fighters, transport/AAR aircraft and SAR aircraft?  Aircraft exist not only to support Land and Naval forces. They bring an effect of their own, most of the time at the strategic level.


----------



## Ostrozac

dimsum said:


> Except that like in other threads discussing returning TAC Hel to the CA and Mar Hel (and LRP?) to the RCN, it just ends up with them being the forgotten ones in green/navy blue instead of light blue.


So the Army and RCN would neglect aircrew and ground crew training and retention, do a slow and poor job of procuring new aircraft, and not have a clue where to start for new capabilities like long range UAS? Sounds a lot like the RCAF, to be honest.


----------



## dimsum

Ostrozac said:


> So the Army and RCN would neglect aircrew and ground crew training and retention, do a slow and poor job of procuring new aircraft, and not have a clue where to start for new capabilities like long range UAS? Sounds a lot like the RCAF, to be honest.


Yes.  Even more so than the RCAF.

The Army is interested in tanks, LAVs, etc.  The Navy is interested in ships.  Neither are particularly interested in aircraft.  If/when budgets shrink, guess what will be divested first?  It won't be LAVs or ships.

Not to mention the whole idea of "crew rest" for aircrew and groundcrew is not only a foreign concept but actively looked-down upon in the RCN (can't speak about the CA).  There would be 100% more fatigue-driven accidents/incidents with that shift in culture.

I'm not sure what your latest info was regarding the RPAS (UAS) stuff.  Things have progressed a lot in the past 2 or so years - just not really talked about in media because _ahem_ other headlines are dominating the media landscape regarding all things CAF.

...but this is once again turning into another thread.  Back to uniforms and bling.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Ostrozac said:


> So *the Army and RCN would neglect aircrew and ground crew training and retention, do a slow and poor job of procuring new aircraft*, and not have a clue where to start for new capabilities like long range UAS? Sounds a lot like the RCAF, to be honest.


That was almost the same argument that people like LGen Chester Hull used, with considerable merit I hasten to add, circa 1970 to wrest the Maritime Air Group and 10 Tactical Ir Group away from Maritimer and Mobile Commands, respectively, and form Air Command. Hull didn't care much about either maritime or army-tactical aviation but he was upset that, in the mid-1960s, Mr Hellyer had created large, *unified*, Maritime and Land/Air (Mobile) commands but had not grouped Air Defence and Air Transport (and Air Training) commands into one, big, Air command.


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> Forming joint "functional" commands like MARCOM, MOBCOM and so on did not, I was told, have enough political sex appeal for Group Captain (ret'd) Bill Lee, a former RCAF public relations officer who was Mr Hellyer's principle advisor. He was after something "big" to capture the public's attention and move Mr Hellyer up the Liberal Party food chain.


F*****ing Bill Lee. Did those two clowns (Hellyer and Lee) not realize that Trudeau Père was going to wipe the floor  with them at the Liberal convention? I still shake my head at the whole sorry affair.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> The (original) RCAF was formed along the same lines as the RAF by combining naval air and army air assets.  We really don't have enough air assets to justify a separate Air Force identity.  I say this with no malice, I do have a great fondness for the RCAF (my father was in it).   The whole unification experiment should be scrapped and it would make more sense to have a Ministry of National Defense, with a separate Department of the Army and Department of the Navy, each with their own air assets.   The Air Force would basically be split back into a Naval Air Service (RCNAS) and an Air Corps (RCAirC).  The single prop insignia and Aviator rank title could still be used by the Air Corps as the Army does allow for Regimental and Corps variations in insignia and rank titles.
> Yes, we know it won't happen, but it makes more sense.



By the standard of “assets”, we haven’t enough army or navy “assets” to justify their separate identities either.   We have more planes and helos then we do tanks, ships and subs combined.  

The RCAF is arguably more operational day to day than the other environments.


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> By the standard of “assets”, we haven’t enough army or navy “assets” to justify their separate identities either.   We have more planes and helos then we do tanks, ships and subs combined.
> 
> The RCAF is arguably more operational day to day than the other environments.


The tribalism within the CAF is as strong today as it was in 1968. It’s like the forlorn hope of the Napoleonic Wars except we keep feeding troops into the breach hoping that we’ll eventually learn to play nice with each other.


----------



## torg003

Eye in the Sky - The point of having 2 separate departments (Dept of Army, Dept or Navy) instead of one (DND(), to force the govt to spend more money on defense with 2 separate budgets instead of one.   Navy would buy more ships, maritime helicopters and patrol aircraft, and the Army would be able to buy more tanks, guns, etc., as well as helos and planes.
Yes, it's a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen, but something needs to be done to get more spending on Defense.  The big reason for  Unification was spending less on the military - one budget compared to 3 separate ones.


----------



## McG

If you split CAF & DND into separate services within separate departments each with separate budgets, you don’t magically get a net increase in dollars. You get three organizations with fragments of the previous budget and bloated institutional overhead.


----------



## torg003

Obviously if the govt isn't going to increase the defense budget to run 2 separate departments, then it wouldn't make sense to do it and they wouldn't do it in the first place.  The 2 defense departments idea is dependent on a govt that gives a shit about the military and is willing to spend more money on it.  So, yes, probably just fantasy but you never know, someday we might elect a govt that does give a shit about the defense of Canada and will increase military spending.


----------



## dapaterson

By law, DND and the CAF are separate entities.

They don't understand that.

They try to do each other's jobs.

They have CAF members performing DND functions (and some vice versa).


----------



## torg003

Right, DND is the bureaucrats and the CAF is the military.  If they're both trying to do each other's job, then that's part of the problem that needs to be fixed (not saying it will, just that it should).


----------



## McG

dapaterson said:


> By law, DND and the CAF are separate entities.


That should go without saying … but you did make me notice that I did not finish one of my sentences to the effect that it left that reality ambiguous. So, I fixed it.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> F*****ing Bill Lee. Did those two clowns (Hellyer and Lee) not realize that Trudeau Père was going to wipe the floor  with them at the Liberal convention? I still shake my head at the whole sorry affair.


At the time, _I think_ that Hellyer and Lee, like many, many others - me included - _thought _that Jean Marchand was going to succeed Mike Pearson and that he would be a one or two term PM and then it would be Hellyer's turn.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> The tribalism within the CAF is as strong today as it was in 1968.


Well yeah - regardless of organization, people will be closer to folks who are similar.

Even within the USMC, the "holy grail" of one-force-ness, the Air Wing is looked upon as different than the ground folks, for example.



torg003 said:


> So, yes, probably just fantasy but you never know, someday we might elect a govt that does give a shit about the defense of Canada and will increase military spending.


Probably after a big "holy shit" moment like, I don't know, an invasion or 9/11 or something.  Maybe.


----------



## torg003

Hopefully it doesn't take something that drastic.  You mention invasion; if the govt waits until something like that happens before they increase military spending - it's already too late then.
I don't think politicians think about things like that (it will never happen here syndrome).  They need to realize the CAF is primarily for the DEFENSE of Canada, and not just for sending some troops on UN or NATO missions.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> Eye in the Sky - The point of having 2 separate departments (Dept of Army, Dept or Navy) instead of one (DND(), to force the govt to spend more money on defense with 2 separate budgets instead of one.   Navy would buy more ships, maritime helicopters and patrol aircraft, and the Army would be able to buy more tanks, guns, etc., as well as helos and planes.
> Yes, it's a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen, but something needs to be done to get more spending on Defense.  The big reason for  Unification was spending less on the military - one budget compared to 3 separate ones.



You’re suggesting the budget would be increased.   I don’t think that would be the case. It’s a shell game debate IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:


> The tribalism within the CAF is as strong today as it was in 1968. It’s like the forlorn hope of the Napoleonic Wars except we keep feeding troops into the breach hoping that we’ll eventually learn to play nice with each other.



It’s sad, actually, because we could be so much more than we are today and will be tomorrow.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Even within the USMC, the "holy grail" of one-force-ness, the Air Wing is looked upon as different than the ground folks, for example.


Being a bit Pedantic here but even the USMC needs the USN to get them in position to hit the beach.


----------



## McG

dimsum said:


> Well yeah - regardless of organization, people will be closer to folks who are similar.
> 
> Even within the USMC, the "holy grail" of one-force-ness, the Air Wing is looked upon as different than the ground folks, for example.


There are ways to increase cooperation between identity based groups but we always choose the path that increases competition between identity based groups.


----------



## Happy Guy

Interesting discussion with regards to the organization of the Air Force and which service / environment is more operational.

Some people have alluded to that the RCN and CA didn't or would not care about air assets and all of its accompanying facilities, personnel and other requirements.  I would countered that nothing could be further from the truth.  For the CA having Tac Hel / Tpt is an enormous valuable asset to help the Comd on the ground.  One just have to look at our American counterparts in how well their Army aviation assets are imbeded in their doctrine and is at the forefront of their fighting and logistical forces.  The same goes the RCN who once had Aircraft carriers and used them to great effect. The Griffons and Chinooks enabled the CA to do their job more effectively in Afg.

I am not suggesting that Tac Hel/Tpt be given to the Army or the current air dets on ships and Maritime Surveillance Aircraft be given back to the RCN for the simple reason that the CAF is too small to do this. It makes sense, in Canada, to have one organization - the RCAF, to be responsible for all military aircraft as the RCN is responsible for all military ships; although I would like to point out that the US Army does have a small fleet of ships/boats.  My former US boss, a Col, once commanded this small fleet of logistical ships/boats.

As for saying that the RCAF is more operational I would say yes only in terms of high readiness meaning that they are obligated to have fighters and SAR aircraft ready to fly within minutes within Canada; however their on station time is relatively low.  The RCN can make ready a ship / sub (?) within a few days and have it sail anywhere in the world and its on station time is relatively high.  The CA is obligated to have IRG for deployment, at short notice, in Canada, and this would also depend on the RCAF to get them there if needed.  The DART can be spun up to deploy within a short time period also.

What I do strongly agree is that Tribalism is great for the individual services / environments' moral and cohesion but at the same time can be destructive to the CAF.  I still naively believe that once the Admiral / General is appointed CDS, their former service / environment biases and prejudices are put aside in order to better serve the government.  Unification has helped with regards to allowing our Sr Offrs and Sr NCMS (those selected for command and higher rank) to be educated in the same schools so they can learn from each other and their unique operational capabilities and challenges.  I am not saying that this will eliminate Tribalism, but I believe that this has mitigated the negative affects to a large degree.  I am at heart an optimist.

The trade/rank/employment issue has been around since the CAF was formed and has been mentioned in this discussion thread.  There has been numerous studies but no final resolution.  On a personal note I only made up to the rank of Cpl when I was an NCM so I don't know what it was like to be a MCpl.

I don't think the CDS and the Armed Forces Council would want the NDA amended unless there was a great urgent need to do so - rank nomenclature is considered minor and not worth the effort.


----------



## torg003

You make some interesting points about tribalism.  That seems to be the driving force behind unification, eliminate the tribalism by having one force with one uniform and one rank structure.  Everyone even wore the same hat badge (at first), the CAF emblem.  The CAF was organized into functional commands to deter tribalism, though that was slowly eroded.  It didn't take long before specific hat badge were reintroduced and the command structure started to be tinkered with.  Maritime command was basically the navy and was pretty much the only original "tribal" command.  I was in Cold Lake in '75 when Air command was formed and saw the old RCAF ensign be brought out as the command flag.  Mobile command was originally (form what I could gather) more of a fast reaction strike force with various elemental assets.  It didn't seem to take long after Air command was formed that Mobile command started to be identified with the Army (and of course the name was eventually changed to Land Forces command).  The single uniform was replaced by DEU in the '80s and later on came the demands to change the unified rank insignia to better reflect the elemental commands.
Unification can be seen as a failure as it never did eliminate the tribalism in the military.  That's not a bad thing IMO, healthy competition between the various elements/corps/regiments is okay as long as it isn't allowed to go to far.  It would be nice IMO if things were put back closer to they way they used to be before Unification (but with less inter-service rivalry), but nobody wants to have to rewrite the NDA.  I think eventually we will reach a point when it would need to be done (rewrite the NDA).  Right now, I think the biggest thing to accomplish is to get the govt to see the advantages of increasing the defense budget to the NATO requirement of 2% of GDP and to spend the money on needed equipment and upgrades to infrastructure.
One can only dream.


----------



## Eaglelord17

It wasn’t just about tribalism, it was also largely about removing our British heritage. Disbanded the Canadian Guards, and the Black Watch from the regs, promoted units with more distinctly Canadian appearances (RCR, Vandoos, PPCLI), changed our rank structure to move away from British ranks (LCpl, changing to bars for officers, etc.). 

Honestly we should be able to work as one organization effectively, we are barely 60k divided into all sorts of seperate little entities. The USMC and Navy is a excellent example of how these relationships can work. 

The reason unification hasn’t worked is because we don’t want it to. A refusal to actually state what our priorities are as well doesn’t help either.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eaglelord17 said:


> It wasn’t just about tribalism, it was also largely about removing our British heritage. Disbanded the Canadian Guards, and the Black Watch from the regs, promoted units with more distinctly Canadian appearances (RCR, Vandoos, PPCLI), changed our rank structure to move away from British ranks (LCpl, changing to bars for officers, etc.).


That was Pearson's hang up after what happened in the Suez. Note how the ADF and NZDF didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater when they reorganized post WWII. 


Eaglelord17 said:


> Honestly we should be able to work as one organization effectively, we are barely 60k divided into all sorts of seperate little entities. The USMC and Navy is a excellent example of how these relationships can work.


As @Edward Campbell  mentioned, you can have integration happen without making Unification happen. The CAF structure we have today (minus the multiple HQs we have because .... reasons?) is much closer to what we needed in 1968 that what we got. 



Eaglelord17 said:


> The reason unification hasn’t worked is because we don’t want it to.


Again, Unification has worked; only the parts of it that needed to work. Centralized Command, combined training at all rank levels, unified supply systems, unified HR and Admin processes. Who cares if we want to have tribal emblems? The single rifle green uniform and rank structure wasnt the goal, but merely and unfortunate outcome.


Eaglelord17 said:


> A refusal to actually state what our priorities are as well doesn’t help either.


This has been an issue within the Defence of Canada since at least 1763. No direction in peace time, no capability development, reactionary efforts when we are thrown into the breech, and then massive divestment when the battles over. Wash rinse repeat.  

Until we are invaded by Russians, Chinese, or Aliens; I have no faith that the GoC of any political colour will change that mentality within Canadian society.


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> Everyone even wore the same hat badge (at first), the CAF emblem.


Being the pedantic arse that I am, this line made me go look at picture from back in the day.
This is from Sentinel in 1967.
From left to right - Air Force? Sgt?, Maritime Command Leading Seaman and an Mobile Command? Captain.



Edit to add:
This little tidbit in the article speaks volumes;
The cut of the jacket and trousers was similar to that of a business suit of the period and as issued, it was rather shapeless and needed to be tailored to present a proper appearance. It served a very important political purpose however, that in colour, cut and insignia, it was *distinctly Canadian, an important factor in Peacekeeping, *where any association with "colonial" troops, especially in former British colonies, could be a disadvantage.

My opinion - The government of the day was of the mind that Canada will be the leader in Peacekeeping around the world and that would be our reason for having a military. All other aspects of having a military would be secondary to Peacekeeping. Therefore get the lads and lassies into entirely new looking outfits to make sure nobody mistakes you for a fighting force.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> Being the pedantic arse that I am, this line made me go look at picture from back in the day.
> This is from Sentinel in 1967.
> From left to right - Air Force? Sgt?, Maritime Command Leading Seaman and an Mobile Command? Captain.
> 
> View attachment 73309


Yes, that's an RCAF (well, Air element) Sgt.

As an aside, having worked in other countries, I find that in general, North America is really weird about uniforms.  If you go to Europe, Australia, Asia, etc and go into a bank, they will wear some sort of uniform - the ties and suits are the same colour, nametags, etc.  Same with any customer-facing business.  Most, if not all, schools have school uniforms.  

It's interesting that cultures that are seen as more laid-back, like Australia or NZ, actually are more "formal" in this regard than us.


----------



## torg003

This is a pic of the prototypes.  Notice they haven't added the maple leaf over the SGT stripes. (original prototype rank had just one, two, and three hooks, no leaf ).  Also, the final uniform design didn't have the pleats on the breast pockets.  Unification officially happened in 1968 and by then, they had gotten rid of the separate hat badges.  As I said before, members wore a brass CAF emblem hat badge  (Officers might have worn something slightly different, can't remember).  Separate hat badges came back in after Hellyer left in '72.


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> This is a pic of the prototypes.  Notice they haven't added the maple leaf over the SGT stripes.  Also, the final uniform design didn't have the pleats on the breast pockets.  Unification officially happened in 1968 and by then, they had gotten rid of the separate hat badges.  As I said before, members wore a brass CAF emblem hat badge  (Officers might have worn something slightly different, can't remember).  Separate hat badges came back in after Hellyer left in '72.


Take a look at my thread. It may not be completely accurate but there is a picture of a general officer with a kind of GG inspired cap badge.








						The Never-ending Roaming of Navy Accoutrements
					

Man everything seems to come back to Army Res and Reg F relationship and structuring, or lack there of eh ?   I had no idea Naval dress ideas were part of the problem.  Of course the navy would say that...




					army.ca


----------



## torg003

That could've been an early prototype, though I remember seeing a pic of General Allard wearing something similar.  Probably was only for Generals.  Notice the other officers are wearing a CAF emblem cap badge (though a better quality than the NCM version).


----------



## Good2Golf

torg003 said:


> and the Army would be able to buy more tanks, guns, etc., as well as helos and planes.



FTFY 😉 



Happy Guy said:


> Some people have alluded to that the RCN and CA didn't or would not care about air assets and all of its accompanying facilities, personnel and other requirements. I would countered that nothing could be further from the truth. For the CA having Tac Hel / Tpt is an enormous valuable asset to help the Comd on the ground.


Alluded?  FMC (while it had funding responsibility for aviation) in 1990 deliberately chose to divest ‘its’ (associated) capability in the form of the Chinook to save/redirect the required $0.4B needed to upgrade then to D-model standard.  Two years later in 1992, it (FMC) shrugged its shoulders and rolled over when the government of the day (Mulroney) told FMC (which still had funding responsibility for Tac Avn) and AIRCOM that it was overhauling the CFUTTH op reqr away from UH-60 (previously 53 = 50 (for Army) + 3 (for RCMP SERT)) and place a directed order of 100 modified Bell 412s to replace the Twin Hueys.

So I would posit that your “nothing could be further from the truth,” while perhaps well intentioned to believe that the ‘Army’ actually cared demonstrably about its assigned aviation capability, gives the Army of the day far more credit than it deserves.


----------



## FJAG

torg003 said:


> As I said before, members wore a brass CAF emblem hat badge (Officers might have worn something slightly different, can't remember). Separate hat badges came back in after Hellyer left in '72.


Pretty sure that is not correct. I served from 65 on as a gunner and gunner officer and always wore a gunner cap badge. The only people that wore the CAF cornflake where recruits until they graduated the TQ3 training and became fully trained gun numbers and were awarded their gunner cap badges.

I've looked at photos in both the Canadian Gunner and the Patrician from 1970 (when the green uniform was making the transition from TW in the Army of the West) and all are wearing regimental cap badges with Greens.

🍻


----------



## torg003

OK.  I only could see what was happening with the former RCAF, I assumed it was similar across the CAF.  I wasn't totally sure when cap badges started coming back, knew it was early '70s, just assumed it started after Hellyer left.  The navy never gave up using their traditional rank titles, from what I was told, they continued using them (informally) onboard ship (probably at naval bases too).  Basically unification was never really totally accepted (I sure there were some Generals who went along with it to please the political masters).  Officially no one wants to have to rewrite the NDA, but unofficially the CAF seems to function as an integrated tri-service.  It only seems like the Libs keep trying to keep the illusion of a unified service.  The Cons (if elected) should officially pass a resolution stating the CAF is officially an integrated service of the CA, RCAF, and RCN (and bypass rewriting the NDA).  Not that they will, but one can dream.


----------



## daftandbarmy

torg003 said:


> OK.  I only could see what was happening with the former RCAF, I assumed it was similar across the CAF.  I wasn't totally sure when cap badges started coming back, knew it was early '70s, just assumed it started after Hellyer left.  The navy never gave up using their traditional rank titles, from what I was told, they continued using them (informally) onboard ship (probably at naval bases too).  Basically unification was never really totally accepted (I sure there were some Generals who went along with it to please the political masters).  Officially no one wants to have to rewrite the NDA, but unofficially the CAF seems to function as an integrated tri-service.  It only seems like the Libs keep trying to keep the illusion of a unified service.  The Cons (if elected) should officially pass a resolution stating the CAF is officially an integrated service of the CA, RCAF, and RCN (and bypass rewriting the NDA).  Not that they will, but one can dream.



Scottish/ Highland Regiments be like...


----------



## McG

torg003 said:


> The Cons (if elected) should officially pass a resolution stating the CAF is officially an integrated service of the CA, RCAF, and RCN (and bypass rewriting the NDA).


Why?


----------



## Eaglelord17

torg003 said:


> OK.  I only could see what was happening with the former RCAF, I assumed it was similar across the CAF.  I wasn't totally sure when cap badges started coming back, knew it was early '70s, just assumed it started after Hellyer left.  The navy never gave up using their traditional rank titles, from what I was told, they continued using them (informally) onboard ship (probably at naval bases too).  Basically unification was never really totally accepted (I sure there were some Generals who went along with it to please the political masters).  Officially no one wants to have to rewrite the NDA, but unofficially the CAF seems to function as an integrated tri-service.  It only seems like the Libs keep trying to keep the illusion of a unified service.  The Cons (if elected) should officially pass a resolution stating the CAF is officially an integrated service of the CA, RCAF, and RCN (and bypass rewriting the NDA).  Not that they will, but one can dream.


The Navy wasn’t the only ones still using no longer valid ranks. Gunner and Bdr, Trooper, etc. were not official ranks until recently. Mind you the Navy has continued that tradition recently with the whole ‘Sailor’ nonsense which is not their official ranks as much as they may wish it was.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

McG said:


> Why?



I’m also curious as to why; would the change really only add the word unified?


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> It only seems like the Libs keep trying to keep the illusion of a unified service.  The Cons (if elected) should officially pass a resolution stating the CAF is officially an integrated service of the CA, RCAF, and RCN (and bypass rewriting the NDA).  Not that they will, but one can dream.


They've become the govt since Unification.  They had ample opportunities to do so and haven't - I'm sure folks have brought that up before.

That should say something.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> Being the pedantic arse that I am, this line made me go look at picture from back in the day.
> This is from Sentinel in 1967.
> From left to right - Air Force? Sgt?, Maritime Command Leading Seaman and an Mobile Command? Captain.
> 
> View attachment 73309
> 
> Edit to add:
> This little tidbit in the article speaks volumes;
> The cut of the jacket and trousers was similar to that of a business suit of the period and as issued, it was rather shapeless and needed to be tailored to present a proper appearance. It served a very important political purpose however, that in colour, cut and insignia, it was *distinctly Canadian, an important factor in Peacekeeping, *where any association with "colonial" troops, especially in former British colonies, could be a disadvantage.
> 
> My opinion - The government of the day was of the mind that Canada will be the leader in Peacekeeping around the world and that would be our reason for having a military. All other aspects of having a military would be secondary to Peacekeeping. Therefore get the lads and lassies into entirely new looking outfits to make sure nobody mistakes you for a fighting force.


The issue of Canadians being "colonials' was used by Egyptian President Nasser in 1956 when, for some purely local, political reasons, he rejected the first proposed Canadian contingent to the original UNEF which was based on a battalion of the Queens Own Rifles (the regiment to which the officer in the photograph belongs - the QOR have a quite distinctive silver maple leaf cap badge. The QOR were a good regiment, there were two battalions on the Regular Army ORBAT and one, in reserve, in Toronto, in the Militia).

Anyway, it - colonialism - was a two day political story and AHQ hastily reshaped the first Canadian contingent of a modern "peacekeeping" force to consist of (much needed) "housekeeping" units - that's how both the government-of-the-day and the media described it, which didn't exactly please the Reece and Signal Squadrons that were selected to deploy.


----------



## Edward Campbell

torg003 said:


> This is a pic of the prototypes.  Notice they haven't added the maple leaf over the SGT stripes. (original prototype rank had just one, two, and three hooks, no leaf ).  Also, the final uniform design didn't have the pleats on the breast pockets.  Unification officially happened in 1968 and by then, they had gotten rid of the separate hat badges.  As I said before, members wore a brass CAF emblem hat badge  (Officers might have worn something slightly different, can't remember).  Separate hat badges came back in after Hellyer left in '72.


The Army *never* got rid of separate regimental and corps cap badges. As someone else has already pointed out the "snowflake" was worn only for recruit training. The officer in that photo was serving in the Queens Own Rifles of Canada; he was a wearing what was, and still is, that distinguished regiment's badge.


----------



## torg003

Okay, as I said before, the CF removed the RCAF cap badge and replaced it with brass CF emblem badge (this was during original Unification period late '60s).  Wasn't sure what was happening with the Army and Navy, just assumed it was the same.  I know that things started to get reorganized and new cap badges issued in the early '70s.  My father was a plumber/pipefitter by trade (maintaining the plumbing infrastructure on base) and wound up being grouped in with the Canadian Military Engineers and wore that badge in the  '70s (up until he retired).


----------



## torg003

dimsum said:


> They've become the govt since Unification.  They had ample opportunities to do so and haven't - I'm sure folks have brought that up before.
> 
> That should say something.


Yes, I realize that.  Just was saying that I was hoping that some day they might do it, though I know it's not likely (hence, the "one can dream" comment).


----------



## torg003

Here's a simple idea for a return of traditional NCM Navy ranks (basically traditional ranks used as embellishments on DEU ).  Changed the top two ranks to WO ranks and put the CPO rank in the OR7 position to reflect changes in commonwealth navies.  Done awhile ago so has old designation of  "seaman" instead of sailor.


----------



## SupersonicMax

torg003 said:


> Eye in the Sky - The point of having 2 separate departments (Dept of Army, Dept or Navy) instead of one (DND(), to force the govt to spend more money on defense with 2 separate budgets instead of one.   Navy would buy more ships, maritime helicopters and patrol aircraft, and the Army would be able to buy more tanks, guns, etc., as well as helos and planes.
> Yes, it's a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen, but something needs to be done to get more spending on Defense.  The big reason for  Unification was spending less on the military - one budget compared to 3 separate ones.


It has less to do with having 3 separate budgets and more about reducing overhead (1 vs 3 4-Leafs HQ, for example).  Because we split into 2 or 3 departments won’t give more money overall.  The money we have allocated now would be split across the departments.  Given there is more overhead, less would be used towards what truly matters. 

Besides, we’re not capable of spending our allocations on a yearly basis


torg003 said:


> Here's a simple idea for a return of traditional NCM Navy ranks (basically traditional ranks used as embellishments on DEU ).  Changed the top two ranks to WO ranks and put the CPO rank in the OR7 position to reflect changes in commonwealth navies.  Done awhile ago so has old designation of  "seaman" instead of sailor.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 73341


What does it bring in practice?  Is that one of those solutions looking for a problem?


----------



## dapaterson

SupersonicMax said:


> It has less to do with having 3 separate budgets and more about reducing overhead (1 vs 3 4-Leafs HQ, for example).  Because we split into 2 or 3 departments won’t give more money overall.  The money we have allocated now would be split across the departments.  Given there is more overhead, less would be used towards what truly matters.
> 
> Besides, we’re not capable of spending our allocations on a yearly basis
> 
> What does it bring in practice?  Is that one of those solutions looking for a problem?


It permits the ongoing failure of the Navy's leadership to address that naval recruiting falls short continually, by providing a handful of photo ops as distraction.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile India is dropping the George Cross from it's Naval Ensign









						Indian Navy to drop St George's Cross from its ensign
					

The new version is to be unveiled on Friday, as the new domestically-built aircraft carrier Vikrant is commissioned.




					www.forces.net


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile India is dropping the George Cross from it's Naval Ensign
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indian Navy to drop St George's Cross from its ensign
> 
> 
> The new version is to be unveiled on Friday, as the new domestically-built aircraft carrier Vikrant is commissioned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forces.net


The Anglo-Indian relationship is far more strained than Canada's ever will be with Britain. I dont blame them at all.

You want to talk about the brutal face of British Colonialism, read about what happened in Burma, The Raj and Ceylon.


----------



## Blackadder1916

torg003 said:


> Eye in the Sky - *The point of having 2 separate departments (Dept of Army, Dept or Navy) instead of one (DND(), to force the govt to spend more money on defense with 2 separate budgets instead of one.*   Navy would buy more ships, maritime helicopters and patrol aircraft, and the Army would be able to buy more tanks, guns, etc., as well as helos and planes.
> Yes, it's a pie in the sky pipe dream that will never happen, but something needs to be done to get more spending on Defense.  The big reason for  Unification was spending less on the military - *one budget compared to 3 separate ones*.



Yes, it is "pipe dream*", but not one that died with the Canadian Forces Reorganization Act in 1968.  The single Department of National Defence (DND) with a Minister of National Defence (MND) was legally constituted in *1922* with the passage of the National Defence Act.  At that time the ministries/departments of Militia and Defence, Naval Services (the Minister of Marine and Fisheries held the duties and functions for that ministry), and the Air Board were consolidated under a single minister.  While there remained separate administrative functions for the individual services, the overall defence budget was the responsibility of a single ministry.

There was an amendment in 1940 that permitted up to three associate MND or additional MND (for Air and Naval Service etc) during periods of declared emergency (like the war).  During the war there was an Associate MND as well as an MND for Air and an MND for Naval Service, however, much like associate ministers today, they are subordinate to the minister and usually do not (and didn't back then) sit at the adults' table when the cash is being divvied up.


----------



## Halifax Tar

torg003 said:


> Here's a simple idea for a return of traditional NCM Navy ranks (basically traditional ranks used as embellishments on DEU ).  Changed the top two ranks to WO ranks and put the CPO rank in the OR7 position to reflect changes in commonwealth navies.  Done awhile ago so has old designation of  "seaman" instead of sailor.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 73341



I like this, but I am biased towards a return to a more RCN 1.0 rank symbology for us.  

I would ditch the left sleeve ranks altogether and use the chevrons to denote time and good  service under the rank insignia.


----------



## torg003

I agree it would be nice to see the RCN to be able to return to traditional NCM ranks, but the reality is that unless the NDA is completely rewritten, there has to be some correlation between NCM ranks of each element.  The navy got screwed the most IMO by unification.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> I like this, but I am biased towards a return to a more RCN 1.0 rank symbology for us.
> 
> I would ditch the left sleeve ranks altogether and use the chevrons to denote time and good  service under the rank insignia.


I vote for this instead.  No doubt how much time they've had in the service 



_Yes, I am joking.  _



torg003 said:


> I agree it would be nice to see the RCN to be able to return to traditional NCM ranks, but the reality is that unless the NDA is completely rewritten, there has to be some correlation between NCM ranks of each element.  The navy got screwed the most IMO by unification.


As I've said, the current CAF ranks have been used for 54 years - that's almost as long as the RCN was formed (1910) to Unification. 

Not to sound too much like a spoil-sport, but the reality is that the vast majority of RCN mbrs aren't fondly wishing for a return to pre-1968 RCN dress and ranks.  If, for whatever reason, someone actually manages to convince CRCN or MND or whoever to change it, I'm willing to bet real money that the response will be...less than stellar from serving RCN members.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> , I'm willing to bet real money that the response will be...less than stellar from serving RCN members.


Like the rest of Canadian society, there is an almost total lack of knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of not only our naval history, but the history of our entire nation as a whole. 

But then again, I’m a history nerd and thus is not talked to at parties.


----------



## torg003

Totally true statement (unfortunately), very few Canadians know or care much about our military history.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> I vote for this instead.  No doubt how much time they've had in the service
> 
> View attachment 73346
> 
> _Yes, I am joking.  _
> 
> 
> As I've said, the current CAF ranks have been used for 54 years - that's almost as long as the RCN was formed (1910) to Unification.
> 
> Not to sound too much like a spoil-sport, but the reality is that the vast majority of RCN mbrs aren't fondly wishing for a return to pre-1968 RCN dress and ranks.  If, for whatever reason, someone actually manages to convince CRCN or MND or whoever to change it, I'm willing to bet real money that the response will be...less than stellar from serving RCN members.



I know you're posting in jest but prior to unification the RCN used chevrons to denote good conduct; see para 2.1.2 of the link below. 






						Former ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




While I think most of us know there are bigger fish to fry ATM.  Its still an interesting topic and a hobby for some.


----------



## dapaterson

Did we abolish chevrons for good conduct, or abolish good conduct for sailors?


----------



## OldSolduer

FSTO said:


> But then again, I’m a history nerd and thus is not talked to at parties.


You and I can chat. I love history but I am unfocused. Certain segments of history are more interesting than others. 

BTW Marco Polo was an interesting guy. ANd the Mongols were an interesting lot. The Spartans too.


----------



## Eaglelord17

Honestly it doesn’t really matter what ranks the Navy has, the actual traditions which made it unique have been more or less killed over the last couple decades by policies made by the Navy itself. At this point it is basically the Army on a ship, pretending it isn’t.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eaglelord17 said:


> Honestly it doesn’t really matter what ranks the Navy has, the actual traditions which made it unique have been more or less killed over the last couple decades by policies made by the Navy itself. At this point it is basically the Army on a ship, pretending it isn’t.



Interesting.  Care to expand ?  I am genuinely interested to her more on your position.


----------



## dimsum

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting.  Care to expand ?  I am genuinely interested to her more on your position.


Rum, Sodomy, and the lash. 

Without rum or sodomy, and maybe verbal lashing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dimsum said:


> Rum, Sodomy, and the lash.
> 
> Without rum or sodomy, and maybe verbal lashing.



Fair lol


----------



## Weinie

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting.  Care to expand ?  I am genuinely interested to her more on your position.


Freudian slip perhaps.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Weinie said:


> Freudian slip perhaps.



I was still not in physical possession of a coffee yet.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eaglelord17 said:


> Honestly it doesn’t really matter what ranks the Navy has, the actual traditions which made it unique have been more or less killed over the last couple decades by policies made by the Navy itself. At this point it is basically the Army on a ship, pretending it isn’t.



The Royal Navy enter the chat


----------



## Eaglelord17

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting.  Care to expand ?  I am genuinely interested to her more on your position.


Sliders, 7 days at sea, drinking on ship, drinking in port, living on ship, AAMR parties, etc. all gone. The Navy of today is a long way off the Navy of even the 90s in terms of keeping with traditions.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eaglelord17 said:


> Sliders, 7 days at sea, drinking on ship, drinking in port, living on ship, AAMR parties, etc. all gone. The Navy of today is a long way off the Navy of even the 90s in terms of keeping with traditions.



Interesting.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Interesting.



Mostly because alot of those things relate to drinking and partying, IMHO


----------



## Blackadder1916

Eaglelord17 said:


> . . .  AAMR parties . . .



The others were self-explanatory, but this one has me stumped.  I somehow think it is "not" related to the gov't (UK) related abbreviation "AAMR" that came up via google - "*A*lcohol *A*bstinence *M*onitoring *R*equirement".


----------



## dimsum

Eaglelord17 said:


> Sliders, 7 days at sea, drinking on ship, drinking in port, living on ship, AAMR parties, etc. all gone. The Navy of today is a long way off the Navy of even the 90s in terms of keeping with traditions.


You can totally drink in port, as the pics I see from my RCN friends show.

I’m not sure if I’d consider the ones listed to be “traditions”.  Maybe sliders, and that’s a bit of a stretch.  

I also prob wouldn’t want to be living on ship at home port as well, but that’s just me.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> You can totally drink in port, as the pics I see from my RCN friends show.
> 
> I’m not sure if I’d consider the ones listed to be “traditions”.  Maybe sliders, and that’s a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I also prob wouldn’t want to be living on ship at home port as well, but that’s just me.


Back in the 90's there were a fair number of OS-AB's and a few subbies would live on board at least for a couple of months until they could find roomates to get an apartment. Especially before the big wage increase it was the only way some folks could afford to live.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Blackadder1916 said:


> The others were self-explanatory, but this one has me stumped.  I somehow think it is "not" related to the gov't (UK) related abbreviation "AAMR" that came up via google - "*A*lcohol *A*bstinence *M*onitoring *R*equirement".


'After Auxiliary Machinery Room' - it's just one of the machinery spaces on a CPF that the MSED would have a beer call in. On the 280s it was a 'heavy workshop' party, and the other classes had similar. Other departments did the same thing in their own spaces, but doing it in a machinery space is a bit of a long standing MSE tradition going back to at least the steamers.

Basically just a departmental get together where the senior folks would chip in and provide some food and beverages for the department as thanks for a job well done, so you'd do it at the end of a particular bag drive (work ups etc). Usually also had pop as well so anyone on duty (or otherwise didn't want to drink) could have something cold to wash down some wings etc.

They used to be pretty nuts, but then scaled back to one or two drinks per. Usually at some point the senior people would head out as well. Doing it in home port is harder but sometimes you'd do it on completion of fueling or something in a foreign port when most of the ship aside from the duty watch has already left or something similar when it was just easier to stay onboard than go ashore. If someone had too much there were lots of people their to look after them and get them to their bunk, so was generally pretty safe.

Generally a really good way to build departmental esprit du corps, but have done a few other things departmentally that got Command support where no drinking was involved (like a departmental breakfast somewhere off the ship, adventure days etc). 

With the crew shortages though I think it's probably a casualty as you spend enough time after hours working with people so you need a break from the group. People still go off with small groups and get hotels or whatever, and still seems to split broadly along section lines, but I think the days of 60-80 pers departments are largely gone, as the MSED on the 280s was about 50% bigger than the entire AOPS crew.


----------



## Eaglelord17

dimsum said:


> You can totally drink in port, as the pics I see from my RCN friends show.
> 
> I’m not sure if I’d consider the ones listed to be “traditions”.  Maybe sliders, and that’s a bit of a stretch.
> 
> I also prob wouldn’t want to be living on ship at home port as well, but that’s just me.


For a while they limited it to 2 beers a day, hopefully they have removed that restriction.


----------



## OldSolduer

What are "sliders"? I am sure I have asked this before but....


----------



## dapaterson

"It's 1300.  If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here."


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> What are "sliders"? I am sure I have asked this before but....



My wife calls them “the afternoon”.  In the Air Force, we call it PT;  Personal time 😆.

Not sure about everywhere else, but they are common (I’d go as far as to say “expected”) on the day before a long weekend, the day before Xmas Leave starts, etc.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eaglelord17 said:


> For a while they limited it to 2 beers a day, hopefully they have removed that restriction.


That was actually a CEFCOM restriction, not an RCN one. It was a blanket restriction that covered us as soon as we chopped in and disappeared when we chopped out (which for us was somewhere in the North Atlantic off Nfld on the way back to Halifax). I think it lasted for two or three ship cycles, so maybe was just for someone's posting.

It was more or less respected, but slid a little for things like the visit to deployed troops by the CDS and guests around Xmas. Did make sense though when we were around Turkey when they had the attempted coup, or near the corridor with all the refuge boats, but less so when they sent us to do dog and pony cocktail parties in the UK.

It was funny because CEFCOM was treating it like we were at war, the folks back at MARLANT were talking like it's a booze cruise, and the reality was somewhere closer to real operations with a bit of socializing with friendly Navies (including the Romanians, who were great, and nervous for a very good reason as Russia had just invaded Crimea). Was incredibly frustrating asking for parts to maintain capabilities and being told we didn't need it, by people who didn't seem to be paying any attention to our daily SITREPs as to what we were actually doing.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> That was actually a CEFCOM restriction, not an RCN one. It was a blanket restriction that covered us as soon as we chopped in and disappeared when we chopped out (which for us was somewhere in the North Atlantic off Nfld on the way back to Halifax). I think it lasted for two or three ship cycles, so maybe was just for someone's posting.
> 
> It was more or less respected, but slid a little for things like the visit to deployed troops by the CDS and guests around Xmas. Did make sense though when we were around Turkey when they had the attempted coup, or near the corridor with all the refuge boats, but less so when they sent us to do dog and pony cocktail parties in the UK.
> 
> It was funny because CEFCOM was treating it like we were at war, the folks back at MARLANT were talking like it's a booze cruise, and the reality was somewhere closer to real operations with a bit of socializing with friendly Navies (including the Romanians, who were great, and nervous for a very good reason as Russia had just invaded Crimea). Was incredibly frustrating asking for parts to maintain capabilities and being told we didn't need it, by people who didn't seem to be paying any attention to our daily SITREPs as to what we were actually doing.



CEFCOM/CJOC... they made me pull my hair out. 

They want to "own/impose themselves" on naval deployments but they don't want to administer or support them.  A useless organization who simply added layers of mundane and useless bureaucracy with no positive effect. 

Thank god MARLANT kept the deployed Log and Eng support cells running. 

Anyway, back updated RCN NCM rank insignia  

Yes please.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

C (Silent J)  JOC.   Everything they touched became unnecessary complicated that I was involved in.  Know some people that suffered thru Trident Junction in Norway.  Norway should be a good go.  It wasn’t.  

Silent J.


----------



## childs56

Navy_Pete said:


> 'After Auxiliary Machinery Room' - it's just one of the machinery spaces on a CPF that the MSED would have a beer call in. On the 280s it was a 'heavy workshop' party, and the other classes had similar. Other departments did the same thing in their own spaces, but doing it in a machinery space is a bit of a long standing MSE tradition going back to at least the steamers.
> 
> Basically just a departmental get together where the senior folks would chip in and provide some food and beverages for the department as thanks for a job well done, so you'd do it at the end of a particular bag drive (work ups etc). Usually also had pop as well so anyone on duty (or otherwise didn't want to drink) could have something cold to wash down some wings etc.
> 
> They used to be pretty nuts, but then scaled back to one or two drinks per. Usually at some point the senior people would head out as well. Doing it in home port is harder but sometimes you'd do it on completion of fueling or something in a foreign port when most of the ship aside from the duty watch has already left or something similar when it was just easier to stay onboard than go ashore. If someone had too much there were lots of people their to look after them and get them to their bunk, so was generally pretty safe.
> 
> Generally a really good way to build departmental esprit du corps, but have done a few other things departmentally that got Command support where no drinking was involved (like a departmental breakfast somewhere off the ship, adventure days etc).
> 
> With the crew shortages though I think it's probably a casualty as you spend enough time after hours working with people so you need a break from the group. People still go off with small groups and get hotels or whatever, and still seems to split broadly along section lines, but I think the days of 60-80 pers departments are largely gone, as the MSED on the 280s was about 50% bigger than the entire AOPS crew.


I miss the days when Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen looked after each other from the top down.  That is what built a fighting force and kept unit cohesion together. To many now adays do not understand that.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Eye In The Sky said:


> C (Silent J)  JOC.   Everything they touched became unnecessary complicated that I was involved in.  Know some people that suffered thru Trident Junction in Norway.  Norway should be a good go.  It wasn’t.
> 
> Silent J.



I remember once getting a visit to the ship from some CJOC/CEFCOM GO/FO and his minion CWO while we were deployed on TOR.  

The GO/FO walked into the main cave and said _"I don't know what you guys are doing but if you have any questions about Afghanistan let me know" _


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> I miss the days when Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen looked after each other from the top down.  That is what built a fighting force and kept unit cohesion together. To many now adays do not understand that.


For sure, on one hand could be frustrating to cut your night short to take care of a shipmate that drank too much, or otherwise having their back but was always good to see people making sure everyone made it back safe (even if they don't actually like the person). From that respect the AAMR parties were good because you didn't have far to go, and the folks on duty didn't have to worry about it because it was fairly self contained and regulated.

Probably healthier ways to do it then get drunk together, and was always a weird balance as a supervisor on keeping a bit of separation when you needed it, but as long as everyone understands that role it works out okay.

For sliders, that became a running joke when we kept finding ourselves working late and eating supper on board. Usually too much work on the go to support it for large parts of the crew, especially with the shortage of people and ships running with half crews. I like the army approach of just giving short days, which you are now allowed to do in half day increments. That way if some people need to stay back to work, you can still officially give it to them later on, so doesn't cause the same resentment as some people never able to take it.


----------



## Kirkhill

> @Brad Sallows Not sure how worked up anyone should get about this. I suppose if a mixed contingent couldn't be distinguished from the Legion of Frontiersmen, we'd have to admit there's a problem.


This is a button and bows "problem" without doubt - and should be given the due attention.  



> @Good2Golf  If the Queen had passed between 68 and 88, we would have looked consistently….green. Alas, ‘‘twas not to be.





> @RangerRay Then we would have just looked fugly…but the same!





> @RangerRay But we also don’t have distinctive bits of uniforms like lemon squeezers and slouch hats to distinguish ourselves. But unless we want to go all Yukon Force and bring back Stetsons and muskrat fur hats, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.





> @FJAG I personally do not like the standard green army uniform. I started in brown and think that's what a soldier should be wearing, but it doesn't offend me to see the green, or red, or blue.





You don't have distinctive headdress but you do have distinctive uniforms.  Personally I do not find them fugly.  And I do find them Canadian and British and very soldierly.

Here is my personal archetypical Canadian soldier

Charles de Salaberry, wearing the uniform of the 60th (Royal American) Regiment of Foot, his parent regiment, while in command of the Canadian Voltigeurs.  His troops wore grey (also known as natural, homespun or hodden grey).



That green explicitly ties the Canadian Army to the Rangers, including Roberts, Simcoe's and the Queen's York Rangers, the Kings Royal Rifle Corps, the 60th, the 95th and the modern Rifles.  It ties the Canadian Army to Howe, and Gage and Rottenbury and Moore and the Prevosts.
And even Sharpe.



I happen to find these guys look both soldierly and Canadian.


----------



## Remius

It’s a matter of taste.  They look pretty soldierly and Canadian here as well.


----------



## Kirkhill

Remius said:


> It’s a matter of taste.  They look pretty soldierly and Canadian here as well.
> 
> View attachment 73694


Agreed entirely.  And the entire PA apparatus let the Brits know that they were Canadians.

One body of troops.  One uniform.


----------



## RangerRay

Kirkhill said:


> Agreed entirely.  And the entire PA apparatus let the Brits know that they were Canadians.
> 
> One body of troops.  One uniform.


I guess my “beef” if you can call it that, wasn’t so much the differences in regimental/branch bling and other uniform accoutrements, but the mixture of DEU 1A, patrols and full ceremonial dress.  If everyone was in 1A (I am guessing most units don’t have patrols or full ceremonial) including highlanders in kilts and glengarries, it wouldn’t have looked so…odd?

I also note the RCAF were the only Air Force contingent wearing wedges.  Good on them!  I also noticed that Prince William had a well formed 50 mission cap. He broke it in to look like that…


----------



## daftandbarmy

RangerRay said:


> I guess my “beef” if you can call it that, wasn’t so much the differences in regimental/branch bling and other uniform accoutrements, but the mixture of DEU 1A, patrols and full ceremonial dress.  If everyone was in 1A (I am guessing most units don’t have patrols or full ceremonial) including highlanders in kilts and glengarries, it wouldn’t have looked so…odd?
> 
> I also note the RCAF were the only Air Force contingent wearing wedges.  Good on them!  I also noticed that Prince William had a well formed 50 mission cap. He broke it in to look like that…



The Reserves, especially the Combat Arms, are amazingly diverse in more ways than one. 

And we show it don't we?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

RangerRay said:


> I guess my “beef” if you can call it that, wasn’t so much the differences in regimental/branch bling and other uniform accoutrements, but the mixture of DEU 1A, patrols and full ceremonial dress.  If everyone was in 1A (I am guessing most units don’t have patrols or full ceremonial) including highlanders in kilts and glengarries, it wouldn’t have looked so…odd?
> 
> I also note the RCAF were the only Air Force contingent wearing wedges.  Good on them!  I also noticed that Prince William had a well formed 50 mission cap. He broke it in to look like that…


Agreed. It's kind of like seeing dudes show up in 2B for a mess dinner, when everyone else took the time and effort to get a proper kit for the occasion. 

DEU 1s are fugly enough as is, moreover when you're standing beside someone wearing a proper parade uniform.


----------



## FSTO

Lawyers....


----------



## Blackadder1916

FSTO said:


> Lawyers....
> 
> View attachment 73699



I guess the Navy lawyer doesn't follow the letter of . . .

"The sword belt is worn under the navy jacket at all times, . . . "


----------



## Remius

Blackadder1916 said:


> I guess the Navy lawyer doesn't follow the letter of . . .
> 
> "The sword belt is worn under the navy jacket at all times, . . . "


Looks like an infantry pattern sword as well…


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Blackadder1916 said:


> I guess the Navy lawyer doesn't follow the letter of . . .
> 
> "The sword belt is worn under the navy jacket at all times, . . . "


If the belt don't fit, you must acquit.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

FSTO said:


> Lawyers....
> 
> View attachment 73699



I'm not a "sword drill details" dude.

What is the malfunction on demonstration in the pic?


----------



## FSTO

The proper way for an RCN Officer (Except for the white gloves)


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm not a "sword drill details" dude.
> 
> What is the malfunction on demonstration in the pic?


White gloves, not wearing an RCN pattern sword, and wearing it outside of the jacket.

I have a feeling that the fella in the picture was never in the sea going navy and therefore had no clue he was doing it wrong. I did catch a glimpse of the Naval Attache to the UK Capt Peshke who was wearing his sword in the correct manner.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Isn't the Officer in the 2nd pic wearing white gloves?

I've never noticed the "under the jacket" part of Navy DEU; tks!


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> Isn't the Officer in the 2nd pic wearing white gloves?
> 
> I've never noticed the "under the jacket" part of Navy DEU; tks!


Yes she is. I’ve advised the folks in Ottawa not to do that but have been ignored. The parade in Victoria was correct but I could not find good enough pictures online.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

check...tks!

* edit...question now.   From 265, Ch 5, Annex A Ceremonial Dress - No. 1   Dress instructions | Annex A Ceremonial dress - No. 1 - Canada.ca

5.
*Clothing Items*

A. Optional white gloves may be worn by:

Navy and Air Force members with No. 1 Orders of dress

🤷‍♂️


​


----------



## FSTO

Eye In The Sky said:


> check...tks!
> 
> * edit...question now.   From 265, Ch 5, Annex A Ceremonial Dress - No. 1   Dress instructions | Annex A Ceremonial dress - No. 1 - Canada.ca
> 
> 5.
> *Clothing Items*
> 
> A. Optional white gloves may be worn by:
> 
> Navy and Air Force members with No. 1 Orders of dress
> 
> 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> Yep optional. Traditionally the Navy didn’t or don’t wear white gloves.​


Yep optional. Traditionally the Navy didn’t or don’t wear white gloves.​


----------



## quadrapiper

Eye In The Sky said:


> check...tks!
> 
> * edit...question now.   From 265, Ch 5, Annex A Ceremonial Dress - No. 1   Dress instructions | Annex A Ceremonial dress - No. 1 - Canada.ca
> 
> 5.
> *Clothing Items*
> 
> A. Optional white gloves may be worn by:
> 
> Navy and Air Force members with No. 1 Orders of dress
> 
> 🤷‍♂️
> 
> 
> ​


For the sake of picking nits, it's not terribly clear _why_ that's authorized for the Navy: in pre-unification practice, white gloves were, as far as I'm aware, worn only worn by by RCN officers (maybe theoretically by noncommissioned pers as well?) at Court, and then only in certain orders of dress.

Brown leather gloves were the naval officer's standard wear; not sure whether seamen and C&POs wore the same or black: either way, white gloves weren't an RCN thing.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe it was ordered by the Op LB Comd?  🤷‍♂️


----------



## dimsum

RangerRay said:


> I also note the RCAF were the only Air Force contingent wearing wedges. Good on them!


That's because it's the only approved headdress (aside from turbans for Sikhs) in RCAF DEU 1A.  RCAF peaked caps haven't been a thing for about 7-8 years.


----------



## RangerRay

dimsum said:


> That's because it's the only approved headdress (aside from turbans for Sikhs) in RCAF DEU 1A.  RCAF peaked caps haven't been a thing for about 7-8 years.


No more 50 mission caps?  Bummer!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I find my wedge easier to put in my left leg pocket than a forge cap...


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Eye In The Sky said:


> I find my wedge easier to put in my left leg pocket than a forge cap...


I would hope you wouldn't be shoving your wedge into a leg pocket in No 1s; then again, nothing in regards to dress and deportment surprises me anymore


----------



## Eye In The Sky

rmc_wannabe said:


> I would hope you wouldn't be shoving your wedge into a leg pocket in No 1s; then again, nothing in regards to dress and deportment surprises me anymore



No but...good point...we SHOULD have leg pockets on AF DEU pants.


----------



## dapaterson

rmc_wannabe said:


> I would hope you wouldn't be shoving your wedge into a leg pocket in No 1s; then again, nothing in regards to dress and deportment surprises me anymore


That's ridiculous.

Everyone in the RCAF knows that the pants pockets on DEUs are for your hands.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> That's ridiculous.
> 
> Everyone in the RCAF knows that the pants pockets on DEUs are for your hands.


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> That's ridiculous.
> 
> Everyone in the RCAF knows that the pants pockets on DEUs are for your hands.


We can all do it now!

#HANDSFORGEN


----------



## FSTO




----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> That's because it's the only approved headdress (aside from turbans for Sikhs) in RCAF DEU 1A.  RCAF peaked caps haven't been a thing for about 7-8 years.



Which is why you should start wearing one, as soon as possible, to stand out as a traditionalist to those in power as a great career move


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Which is why you should start wearing one, as soon as possible, to stand out as a traditionalist to those in power as a great career move


As evidenced by the anchor in my profile pic, I've worn them before.

No thanks.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> As evidenced by the anchor in my profile pic, I've worn them before.
> 
> No thanks.


The new ones are very comfortable.


----------



## Kilted

I've noticed that the Royal Regiment of Canada now wear peaked caps now. How long has that been going on?


----------



## dimsum

Kilted said:


> I've noticed that the Royal Regiment of Canada now wear peaked caps now. How long has that been going on?


Probably depends on the dress.  Were they in DEU?


----------



## dapaterson

dimsum said:


> Probably depends on the dress.  Were they in DEU?


To my knowledge only the RCA are peculiar enough to wear forage caps with CADPAT.

"We may not have guns, but we have bizarre traditions at the school!"


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> To my knowledge only the RCA are peculiar enough to wear forage caps with CADPAT.
> 
> "We may not have guns, but we have bizarre traditions at the school!"


If there was an enterprising ball cap manufacturer that would have different coloured ball caps made...


----------



## dapaterson

No!  Tradition!


----------



## Spencer100

dimsum said:


> If there was an enterprising ball cap manufacturer that would have different coloured ball caps made...



I have thought though the years who is going to be first to have the ball cap as the formal dress uniform headdress? 

It's coming....


----------



## Kirkhill

Spencer100 said:


> I have thought though the years who is going to be first to have the ball cap as the formal dress uniform headdress?
> 
> It's coming....



It was here....

Revolutionary War Light Infantry cap.



It even has a bow...


----------



## Maxman1

Kilted said:


> I've noticed that the Royal Regiment of Canada now wear peaked caps now. How long has that been going on?





dimsum said:


> Probably depends on the dress.  Were they in DEU?



I noticed that too on Tuesday at the parade for the Queen.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:


> I have thought though the years who is going to be first to have the ball cap as the formal dress uniform headdress?
> 
> It's coming....


You mean these guys?


----------



## Kilted

dapaterson said:


> To my knowledge only the RCA are peculiar enough to wear forage caps with CADPAT.
> 
> "We may not have guns, but we have bizarre traditions at the school!"


Is that actually part of their dress instructions, or was that just for a photo op?


----------



## dimsum

Kilted said:


> Is that actually part of their dress instructions, or was that just for a photo op?


There's an actual book on it.  

Just when I thought that one couldn't go any further in "buttons and bows" discussion... 









						Instructor in Gunnery and Assistant Instructor in Gunnery Forage Caps of the Royal Regiment of Cana...
					

Buy the Paperback Book Instructor in Gunnery and Assistant Instructor in Gunnery Forage Caps of the Royal Regiment of Cana... by J. B. Dick at Indigo.ca, Canada's largest bookstore. Free shipping and pickup in store on eligible orders.




					www.chapters.indigo.ca


----------



## dapaterson

I have learned many, many times not to say "There's no way that the RCA could be _that_ strange" because, no matter how odd and bizarre something may sound, it will inevitably be a proud tradition of the RCA.


----------



## RangerRay

Does one still have to iron creases in their CADPATs in the RCA?


----------



## OldSolduer

Kilted said:


> Is that actually part of their dress instructions, or was that just for a photo op?


They actually do wear them with CADPAT. Is it weird? Hell yes.
But most traditions are a bit strange.


----------



## Kilted

OldSolduer said:


> They actually do wear them with CADPAT. Is it weird? Hell yes.
> But most traditions are a bit strange.


Is it only at specific times?


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> I have learned many, many times not to say "There's no way that the RCA could be _that_ strange" because, no matter how odd and bizarre something may sound, it will inevitably be a proud tradition of the RCA.





OldSolduer said:


> They actually do wear them with CADPAT. Is it weird? Hell yes.
> But most traditions are a bit strange.





Kilted said:


> Is it only at specific times?


It only has a small traditional aspect to them. The forage caps worn by IGs and AIGs are worn with CADPAT for the same practical reason that US Army and USMC etc drill instructors wear Stetsons (Mountie hats) - to quickly identify them as instructors amongst and to the candidates in the field and in the school environment. They also wear them when attending artillery regimental training where they help the CO assess and train his unit. Again the idea is rapid identification in the field.



They're not worn with service dress







IGs and AIGs generally return to regimental duties as senior captains/majors and as senior WOs/MWOs. They only wear the caps while serving as instructors in the schools.

To be a bit snarky, if the infantry and armoured corps gave the same high degree of technical training that the artillery gives its IGs and AIGs before appointing them instructors at the school, then they'd probably be deserving of a level of distinction as well.

Full disclosure - I was never an IG but I've always valued what they and AIGs bring to the table.

🍻


----------



## dimsum

FJAG said:


> It only has a small traditional aspect to them. The forage caps worn by IGs and AIGs are worn with CADPAT for the same practical reason that US Army and USMC etc drill instructors wear Stetsons (Mountie hats) - to quickly identify them as instructors amongst and to the candidates in the field and in the school environment. They also wear them when attending artillery regimental training where they help the CO assess and train his unit. Again the idea is rapid identification in the field.
> 
> View attachment 73725
> 
> They're not worn with service dress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IGs and AIGs generally return to regimental duties as senior captains/majors and as senior WOs/MWOs. They only wear the caps while serving as instructors in the schools.
> 
> To be a bit snarky, if the infantry and armoured corps gave the same high degree of technical training that the artillery gives its IGs and AIGs before appointing them instructors at the school, then they'd probably be deserving of a level of distinction as well.
> 
> Full disclosure - I was never an IG but I've always valued what they and AIGs bring to the table.
> 
> 🍻


Hey, the RCAF does something similar too


----------



## Halifax Tar

FJAG said:


> It only has a small traditional aspect to them. The forage caps worn by IGs and AIGs are worn with CADPAT for the same practical reason that US Army and USMC etc drill instructors wear Stetsons (Mountie hats) - to quickly identify them as instructors amongst and to the candidates in the field and in the school environment. They also wear them when attending artillery regimental training where they help the CO assess and train his unit. Again the idea is rapid identification in the field.
> 
> View attachment 73725
> 
> They're not worn with service dress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IGs and AIGs generally return to regimental duties as senior captains/majors and as senior WOs/MWOs. They only wear the caps while serving as instructors in the schools.
> 
> To be a bit snarky, if the infantry and armoured corps gave the same high degree of technical training that the artillery gives its IGs and AIGs before appointing them instructors at the school, then they'd probably be deserving of a level of distinction as well.
> 
> Full disclosure - I was never an IG but I've always valued what they and AIGs bring to the table.
> 
> 🍻



Where does the Master Gunner thingy course fit into all of this ?


----------



## McG

The master gunner program is the WO’s equivalent to tech staff. It has nothing to do with artillery instruction and it is open to most (if not all) army non-commissioned occupations.


----------



## Halifax Tar

McG said:


> The master gunner program is the WO’s equivalent to tech staff. It has nothing to do with artillery instruction and it is open to most (if not all) army non-commissioned occupations.



Has it been replaced by the, and I only think I am getting the right, Army Technical WOs Course ?


----------



## dangerboy

Halifax Tar said:


> Has it been replaced by the, and I only think I am getting the right, Army Technical WOs Course ?


The title Master Gunner is given to soldiers (NCMs) that have completed the Army Technical Warrant Officers (ATWO) course. It is run alongside the Army Technical Staff Officers (ATSO) course. The two courses are very similar but have different QS/TPs. As McG stated it has nothing to do with Artillery instruction and is more geared to procurement. The Master Gunner course used to be all about Artillery but it has evolved from that and just retains it historical linkage.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Kilted said:


> Is that actually part of their dress instructions, or was that just for a photo op?


I remember seeing them wearing them with combats back in late '70s-early '80s.


----------



## dimsum

dangerboy said:


> The Master Gunner course used to be all about Artillery but it has evolved from that and just retains it historical linkage.


I'd ask why they don't rename it to keep up with the times, but then we have the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FJAG said:


> It only has a small traditional aspect to them. The forage caps worn by IGs and AIGs are worn with CADPAT for the same practical reason that US Army and USMC etc drill instructors wear Stetsons (Mountie hats) - to quickly identify them as instructors amongst and to the candidates in the field and in the school environment. They also wear them when attending artillery regimental training where they help the CO assess and train his unit. Again the idea is rapid identification in the field.
> 
> View attachment 73725
> 
> They're not worn with service dress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IGs and AIGs generally return to regimental duties as senior captains/majors and as senior WOs/MWOs. They only wear the caps while serving as instructors in the schools.
> 
> To be a bit snarky, if the infantry and armoured corps gave the same high degree of technical training that the artillery gives its IGs and AIGs before appointing them instructors at the school, then they'd probably be deserving of a level of distinction as well.
> 
> Full disclosure - I was never an IG but I've always valued what they and AIGs bring to the table.
> 
> 🍻


You are welcome! 

The IG and AIG courses are extremely demanding year long courses. It is probably the only thing that has preserved any semblance of professional gunnery in Canada over these past dark two decades…


----------



## dapaterson

New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.



I already have a beret, what do I get for my French course ?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> I already have a beret, what do I get for my French course ?











						International Hats - Unisex French Beret - NOVELTY HATS WITCH HATS
					





					www.actonecostumes.net


----------



## Halifax Tar

Can I get this ?  I like the pom pom.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> Can I get this ?  I like the pom pom.
> 
> View attachment 73736


Sure. You do you…


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> Sure. You do you…


----------



## dimsum

dapaterson said:


> New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.


Aerospace Studies Course and Army Tech Staff Officer course:


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.



Phase training hat be like:


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Phase training hat be like:


I actually suggested a "cone of confusion" patch for my wings course.  



> A zone of indeterminism over a navigation beacon (such as a VOR), where the direction-finding ability of the receiver outputs a random direction as flying over the beacon results in no direction to the beacon, giving a spinning direction indicator display. Also refers to flying over a magnetic pole, and its effects on a magnetic compass.


----------



## FJAG

SeaKingTacco said:


> You are welcome!
> 
> The IG and AIG courses are extremely demanding year long courses. It is probably the only thing that has preserved any semblance of professional gunnery in Canada over these past dark two decades…


It's one of the very strong lessons learned that came out of Afghanistan as the artillery had to adapt to rapidly absorb new equipment (M777s, counter mortar radars and UAVs to name a few) and new organizations and doctrine (OP batteries, FSCCs, ASCCs, STACCs, JTACs). Both DLR and the RCAS did yeoman service in those days (not to mention the folks in the regiments (both RegF and ResF)

IGs and AIGs in the school, as well as those who had left the school and were serving in regiments, led the way.

They are needed again to unlearn all the bad lessons the Army foisted on them in those days vis a vis 8-gun regiments and regiments as force employers rather than just force generators.

🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Aerospace Studies Course and Army Tech Staff Officer course:
> 
> View attachment 73737


----------



## dimsum

Good2Golf said:


> View attachment 73740


It's not called the "Nerd Diamond" for nothing


----------



## daftandbarmy

Luckily 'I'm a paratrooper' was always easier to explain


----------



## MilEME09

In another what's old is new again, I have heard a rumor that RCEME is getting it's 1950s style patrol dress back and stable belts. Possibly replacing the DEU, anyone hear anything about this?


----------



## WLSC

I heard of a new army DEU.  Who else heard that?


----------



## daftandbarmy

WLSC said:


> I heard of a new army DEU.  Who else heard that?


----------



## Halifax Tar




----------



## SeaKingTacco

WLSC said:


> I heard of a new army DEU.  Who else heard that?


Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck……………………..


----------



## dapaterson

"Tell me again what you did in the Army, grandpa."

"I moved three buttons by two centimeters!"


----------



## OldSolduer

MilEME09 said:


> In another what's old is new again, I have heard a rumor that RCEME is getting it's 1950s style patrol dress back and stable belts. Possibly replacing the DEU, anyone hear anything about this?


Face palm time.


----------



## Kilted

WLSC said:


> I heard of a new army DEU.  Who else heard that?


Sources?


----------



## quadrapiper

dimsum said:


> I'd ask why they don't rename it to keep up with the times, but then we have the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery.


Which could, if any of the Army's unit names matched or even approximated a current role (see: PPCLI, (some?) rifle regiments), be a home for tracked guns that can keep up with the "cavalry."

Imagine a universe in which modern usage aligned with historical roles: CANSOF-as-Rifles, rather than a N. Am. WWII pastiche...

_Not_ suggesting any money be spent on this sort of thing, but would definitely align with the whole unit lineage concept.


----------



## quadrapiper

OldSolduer said:


> Face palm time.


Maybe _modernized _stable belts... CANEX can sell unit-coloured Velcro No. 5 belts. Must ensure traditions (troops being _encouraged_ to, expensively, demonstrate unit identity) keep pace with current practice.


----------



## daftandbarmy

quadrapiper said:


> Maybe _modernized _stable belts... CANEX can sell unit-coloured Velcro No. 5 belts. Must ensure traditions (troops being _encouraged_ to, expensively, demonstrate unit identity) keep pace with current practice.



I wore a stable belt for years in the British Army.

It was about as practical as the Sam Browne belt, I would say, and a big step back should we try to adopt it.

Also, it isn't actually all that flattering for the 'BMI Challenged'.





Just sayin'


----------



## Ostrozac

The stable belt really only works with a two pocket combat shirt/tunic —like the British Army has and the CF trialled in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s (the old Mark 3 Combat Shirt). A four pocket untucked shirt is pretty incompatible with a garishly coloured belt.

Unless it’s supposed to be worn with 3B — but I don’t get the sense that thousands of cubicle dwellers are clamouring to show off their regimental/corps colour schemes.


----------



## dimsum

Ostrozac said:


> The stable belt really only works with a two pocket combat shirt/tunic —like the British Army has and the CF trialled in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s (the old Mark 3 Combat Shirt). A four pocket untucked shirt is pretty incompatible with a garishly coloured belt.
> 
> Unless it’s supposed to be worn with 3B — but I don’t get the sense that thousands of cubicle dwellers are clamouring to show off their regimental/corps colour schemes.


Or....

_and no, this would happen because Aircrew would laugh out loud_


----------



## dimsum

WLSC said:


> I heard of a new army DEU.  Who else heard that?


I heard we're getting Jalapeno Poppers at the mess


----------



## Maxman1

Kilted said:


> Sources?


A drunk guy in the mess (probably).


----------



## WLSC

Nop.  Someone near the project comity.  Will it go thru? 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## lenaitch

daftandbarmy said:


> I wore a stable belt for years in the British Army.
> 
> It was about as practical as the Sam Browne belt, I would say, and a big step back should we try to adopt it.
> 
> Also, it isn't actually all that flattering for the 'BMI Challenged'.
> 
> 
> View attachment 73748
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


Many (many, it appears) would breathe a sigh of relief.

Try doing police work in a Sam Browne and long tunic.


----------



## dimsum

WLSC said:


> Nop.  Someone near the project comity.  Will it go thru? 🤷🏼‍♂️


Depends who's driving the change.  

If CCA thinks it's important enough, it's one of those things that won't be as expensive as buying more vehicles, etc so it may fall under "minor cap project" (I have no idea - I'm just guessing) and could be pushed along faster.


----------



## eliminator

I have heard that the 'sizing cut' of the DEUs has been adjusted slightly? That is, if you ordered a new replacement tunic (of the exact same size), it might not fit the same. Can anyone confirm this? All jokes about COVID weight gain/loss aside!


----------



## dimsum

eliminator said:


> I have heard that the 'sizing cut' of the DEUs has been adjusted slightly? That is, if you ordered a new replacement tunic (of the exact same size), it might not fit the same. Can anyone confirm this? All jokes about COVID weight gain/loss aside!


I hope so.  Either way, tunics/pants/shirts should be tailored anyway.  

Also, I'm surprised not more people know about stirrup-style shirt stays.  I've been trying to convert as many people as possible to wearing them for DEU and Mess Kit shirts.


----------



## Remius

dimsum said:


> I hope so.  Either way, tunics/pants/shirts should be tailored anyway.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised not more people know about stirrup-style shirt stays.  I've been trying to convert as many people as possible to wearing them for DEU and Mess Kit shirts.
> 
> View attachment 73757


I want.


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:


> I want.





			https://www.amazon.ca/Stirrup-Style-Loop-Shirt-Stays/dp/B0731VDBL1
		


They work well.


----------



## eliminator

dimsum said:


> https://www.amazon.ca/Stirrup-Style-Loop-Shirt-Stays/dp/B0731VDBL1
> 
> 
> 
> They work well.


Indeed. I've been using them in mess kit for years! Introduced to me by a USAF colleague.


----------



## Remius

I’m getting them.


----------



## Good2Golf

eliminator said:


> Indeed. I've been using them in mess kit for years! Introduced to me by a USAF colleague.


Mess kit for sure and often 3s, used them for 3B once, but I preferred a slight blouse of the short-sleeve shirt, so not with 3B after that.


----------



## RangerRay

dimsum said:


> I hope so.  Either way, tunics/pants/shirts should be tailored anyway.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised not more people know about stirrup-style shirt stays.  I've been trying to convert as many people as possible to wearing them for DEU and Mess Kit shirts.
> 
> View attachment 73757


How does that work for a uniform that you need to be a little more active in?


----------



## RedFive

RangerRay said:


> How does that work for a uniform that you need to be a little more active in?


I wear similar shirt stays in my Police uniform to keep my shirts tucked in, no issue. Has never come undone.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dimsum said:


> I hope so.  Either way, tunics/pants/shirts should be tailored anyway.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised not more people know about stirrup-style shirt stays.  I've been trying to convert as many people as possible to wearing them for DEU and Mess Kit shirts.
> 
> View attachment 73757





RangerRay said:


> How does that work for a uniform that you need to be a little more active in?



Wearing "garters" in a "working uniform" can be problematic.  Way back in the last century when I was at the NDHQ MIR we would occasionally get Marines from the US Embassy.  They were always impeccably turned out; never wrinkled, rumpled and the uniforms were tailored to fit form.  On one occasion, a couple of them were in and they needed blood work taken.  I asked them to roll up a sleeve so I could do the stab, but when one started to untie his shoes and the other unbuckle his belt, I naturally asked them "WTF ya doing".  Their response was that their sleeves were too tight to roll up and they had to take their trousers off in order to take off the shirt.  As they continued their impromptu strip (I closed the door to the lab), it revealed them both wearing garters that were attached to their shirts and socks (kept one down and the other up).  They said that they usually got ready (dressed) for duty in pairs, not because they were "friendly" (_not that there's anything wrong with that_) but because their Gunny was very particular about uniforms.


----------



## dimsum

RangerRay said:


> How does that work for a uniform that you need to be a little more active in?


I personally wouldn’t wear them with operational dress, if that’s what you’re asking.


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:


> New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.


----------



## dimsum

Edward Campbell said:


> View attachment 73760


It's a big call to say that people would wear them properly.

Also, the RCAF would propose switching headdress so they didn't look like the Army.  

...when are we doing this again?  Tomorrow?


----------



## Edward Campbell

dimsum said:


> It's a big call to say that people would wear them properly.
> 
> Also, the RCAF would propose switching headdress so they didn't look like the Army.
> 
> ...when are we doing this again?  Tomorrow?


Tomorrow's too soon ... we'll need a few meetings of old farts and honorary colonels and so in the main bar of the officers' mess to decide who gets what colour of cap, what colours of flaps and inserts and piping and so on ... it's all very important, morale boosting stuff. 

As to the RCAF ... ... these were flippin' pilots! Look at those crushed caps.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Edward Campbell said:


> Tomorrow's too soon ... we'll need a few meetings of old farts and honorary colonels and so in the main bar of the officers' mess to decide who gets what colour of cap, what colours of flaps and inserts and piping and so on ... it's all very important, morale boosting stuff.
> 
> As to the RCAF ... View attachment 73761... these were flippin' pilots! Look at those crushed caps.



Ruthlessly efficient killers (like Beurling) can wear whatever the heck they want IMHO


----------



## OldSolduer

Edward Campbell said:


> Tomorrow's too soon ... we'll need a few meetings of old farts and honorary colonels and so in the main bar of the officers' mess to decide who gets what colour of cap, what colours of flaps and inserts and piping and so on ... it's all very important, morale boosting stuff.
> 
> As to the RCAF ... View attachment 73761... these were flippin' pilots! Look at those crushed caps.


If I’m not mistaken that’s Buzz Beurling. 

Was he not RAF because the RCAF didn’t want him?

He had the best eyes on the planet - like a hawk after prey.


----------



## Edward Campbell

OldSolduer said:


> If I’m not mistaken that’s Buzz Beurling.
> 
> Was he not RAF because the RCAF didn’t want him?


The RCAF wanted him *after* he became famous as that "ruthlessly efficient killer" that Richard described.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Edward Campbell said:


> The RCAF wanted him *after* he became famous as that "ruthlessly efficient killer" that Richard described.



More examples of recruiting problems in the CAF 


Refused enlistment in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) at the outbreak of World War II, he sought, and was refused, enlistment in the Chinese Air Force and the Air Force of Finland. Beurling again attempted to join the RCAF as a pilot and again was rejected. This refusal caused him to join the crew of a merchant ship and cross the submarine-infested Atlantic in order to enlist in the Royal Air Force (RAF) in England. Again he was refused, this time for lack of proper documents. He promptly returned to Canada, secured the required papers, and within a week sailed back to England, where he was finally accepted for pilot training by the RAF.









						George Frederick Beurling - Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame
					

Nickname: Buzz Birth Date: December 6, 1921 Birth Place: Verdun, Quebec Death Date: May 20, 1948 Year Inducted: 1974 Awards: DSO; DFC; DFM* The brilliance of his air-fighting tactics, performed in a self-imposed arena of loneliness within a structured, military command, recall earlier wartime...




					cahf.ca


----------



## Blackadder1916

"it's about time that each regiment had a distinctive cap"

It's not as if there hasn't been efforts by certain regiments to manufacture "tradition" and distinctiveness with a special hat.  I came across these clippings in a scrapbook in the Memorial University of Newfoundland digital collection.


			https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/archives/id/4255
		



			https://collections.mun.ca/digital/collection/archives/id/4264
		


While undated, they likely were from the early 1960s based on other items in the scrapbook.  Obviously, it didn't get past the proposal stage.  I did like the distinctly Newfie touch of a sealskin hat band, though (if it had been adopted) it would have been a later target of the "don't club baby seals" advocates.


----------



## dimsum

"...resembles the hats of NZ and SA...difference is the brim, upturned to the left..."

So, uh, it more closely resembles the Australian Army slouch hats?


----------



## FSTO

daftandbarmy said:


> More examples of recruiting problems in the CAF
> 
> 
> Refused enlistment in the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) at the outbreak of World War II, he sought, and was refused, enlistment in the Chinese Air Force and the Air Force of Finland. Beurling again attempted to join the RCAF as a pilot and again was rejected. This refusal caused him to join the crew of a merchant ship and cross the submarine-infested Atlantic in order to enlist in the Royal Air Force (RAF) in England. Again he was refused, this time for lack of proper documents. He promptly returned to Canada, secured the required papers, and within a week sailed back to England, where he was finally accepted for pilot training by the RAF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Frederick Beurling - Canada's Aviation Hall of Fame
> 
> 
> Nickname: Buzz Birth Date: December 6, 1921 Birth Place: Verdun, Quebec Death Date: May 20, 1948 Year Inducted: 1974 Awards: DSO; DFC; DFM* The brilliance of his air-fighting tactics, performed in a self-imposed arena of loneliness within a structured, military command, recall earlier wartime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cahf.ca


That’s the type of person we need to navigate the current CFRG minefield.


----------



## McG

dimsum said:


> If CCA thinks it's important enough, it's one of those things that won't be as expensive as buying more vehicles, etc so it may fall under "minor cap project" (I have no idea - I'm just guessing) and could be pushed along faster.


It is the same pool of people who form the PD & PM staffs for minor and major capital projects. What operational capability are we ready to delay in order to have a uniform that most people wear 1 to 3 times a year?


----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> It is the same pool of people who form the PD & PM staffs for minor and major capital projects. What operational capability are we ready to delay in order to have a uniform that most people wear 1 to 3 times a year?


The ones we have been told are awaiting a new Defence White Paper for or the ones we are waiting for the Procurement system to be resolved first? 

PBO/PMO/TBS hell even the MND have been clear that the new capabilities can has been booted down the road. At least for most Army projects. 

If we're within our Arcs to unfuck dress uniforms, so be it.


----------



## dapaterson

When I attend SRBs it is very rarely outside actors that delay procurements.

In house incompetence is the primary mechanism of failure.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> The ones we have been told are awaiting a new Defence White Paper for or the ones we are waiting for the Procurement system to be resolved first?
> 
> PBO/PMO/TBS hell even the MND have been clear that the new capabilities can has been booted down the road. At least for most Army projects.
> 
> If we're within our Arcs to unfuck dress uniforms, so be it.


Most SSE promises are only reaching definition. We don’t need make work projects to keep PM and PD staffs busy while we wait for an SSE update. We need those people to work on and deliver the rather substantial investments that are already authorized.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Ah I see now. Thanks for clarifying @McG and @dapaterson  . 

Perhaps it's the "easy win" some are looking for in procurement? Buttons and Bows are easier to deliver on than a GBAD or ATGM project? Like firing through DLN courses the last 2 months before PER season starts?


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> Like firing through DLN courses the last 2 months before PER season starts?


Who would do such a thing?


----------



## WLSC

dimsum said:


> Depends who's driving the change.
> 
> If CCA thinks it's important enough, it's one of those things that won't be as expensive as buying more vehicles, etc so it may fall under "minor cap project" (I have no idea - I'm just guessing) and could be pushed along faster.


From what I heart, colour will be like the NZ army and yes, Sam Brown 🫣😁!


----------



## FSTO

WLSC said:


> From what I heart, colour will be like the NZ army and yes, Sam Brown 🫣😁!


Isn’t SB’s only for officers?


----------



## Kilted

dimsum said:


> I hope so.  Either way, tunics/pants/shirts should be tailored anyway.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised not more people know about stirrup-style shirt stays.  I've been trying to convert as many people as possible to wearing them for DEU and Mess Kit shirts.
> 
> View attachment 73757


Wouldn't work for me.


----------



## Kilted

Blackadder1916 said:


> Wearing "garters" in a "working uniform" can be problematic.  Way back in the last century when I was at the NDHQ MIR we would occasionally get Marines from the US Embassy.  They were always impeccably turned out; never wrinkled, rumpled and the uniforms were tailored to fit form.  On one occasion, a couple of them were in and they needed blood work taken.  I asked them to roll up a sleeve so I could do the stab, but when one started to untie his shoes and the other unbuckle his belt, I naturally asked them "WTF ya doing".  Their response was that their sleeves were too tight to roll up and they had to take their trousers off in order to take off the shirt.  As they continued their impromptu strip (I closed the door to the lab), it revealed them both wearing garters that were attached to their shirts and socks (kept one down and the other up).  They said that they usually got ready (dressed) for duty in pairs, not because they were "friendly" (_not that there's anything wrong with that_) but because their Gunny was very particular about uniforms.


I'm not sure those qualify as garters, at least not compared to the ones I'm issued.


----------



## WLSC

FSTO said:


> Isn’t SB’s only for officers?


And CWO.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> "...resembles the hats of NZ and SA...difference is the brim, upturned to the left..."
> 
> So, uh, it more closely resembles the Australian Army slouch hats?
> 
> 
> View attachment 73766



This one's more comfortable... and historic


----------



## Maxman1

Or there's this one:


----------



## FJAG

dimsum said:


> "...resembles the hats of NZ and SA...difference is the brim, upturned to the left..."
> 
> So, uh, it more closely resembles the Australian Army slouch hats?
> 
> 
> View attachment 73766


Had a hat like that once. Forgot it in a bar in Chicago on the road from Shilo to Toronto.

😭


----------



## Maxman1

daftandbarmy said:


> This one's more comfortable... and historic
> 
> View attachment 73775


Where was that taken, Alert? Otherwise I can't think of an occasion where someone would be presented an SSM in combats.


----------



## Furniture

Maxman1 said:


> Where was that taken, Alert? Otherwise I can't think of an occasion where someone would be presented an SSM in combats.


Latvia, or other NATO missions would also be possible.


----------



## torg003

What about the EXPEDITION SSM?


----------



## Furniture

torg003 said:


> What about the EXPEDITION SSM?


I suspect most Expedition SSMs are given to the navy, and they tend to do medal presentations in NCDs or 3Bs when deployed.

Edit: I got my SSM and second bar in the mail years after my deployments. If the cost of getting people their medals in a timely manner is presenting them in CADPAT, then present them. Nobody should have to wait months/years for a medal, just so it works out well with the command team to put on DEUs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Hey, the RCAF does something similar too
> 
> View attachment 73730
> 
> View attachment 73731


 

And this one…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:


> New CAF policy proposal: every year long course must grant both a qualification and a hat.



…which will be available for purchase on CANEX.ca; but the hat you will get from your local kit shop.  

😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Furniture said:


> I suspect most Expedition SSMs are given to the navy, and they tend to do medal presentations in NCDs or 3Bs when deployed.
> 
> Edit: I got my SSM and second bar in the mail years after my deployments. If the cost of getting people their medals in a timely manner is presenting them in CADPAT, then present them. Nobody should have to wait months/years for a medal, just so it works out well with the command team to put on DEUs.



In the LRP community, you never get a gong until well after returning for the deployment.  Even ones that aren’t linked to flying days.

My CD2 was due in 2021, shows on my MonMass MPRR with an obtention date of July 2022 and I’ve not seen it as the Sqn is waiting for a H and A day as you describe.


----------



## eliminator

SSM-NATO and SSM-Expedition are dished out regularly on deployed ops, as they now only need 45 days deployed are not engraved with the recipiants details. Lots of folks on Op UNIFIER and Op REASSURANCE were receiving them at the end of their tours, before returning home. 

Most, if not all, SSM-Alert medals are issued upon return to the home unit as members still require 180 days to qualify...and most of the tours are in the 185ish day range.

Side note, the CA is still looking for a mechanism to indicate multiple-rotations on the SSM....similar to the rotation bars on the GCS/GSM/OSM. But that's going to be complicated without something drastic, such as new ribbons. Guess they should have gone with mission specific bars ('OP UNIFIER 2019' or 'UKRAINE 20XX') vice the easy button EXPEDITION. I suppose they could also go with different coloured SSM bars, like the SSI. I'll stop there.


----------



## torg003

I personally think the SSM is outdated and should be dropped. There is also the fact that the medallion part looks basically the same as the MB and kind of cheapens the MB (IMO).  Why not create an OSM NATO and a Canadian Arctic Service Medal that would be used to recognize all service in the arctic (not just Alert and Ranger).  I know it will never happen.


----------



## NavalMoose

torg003 said:


> I personally think the SSM is outdated and should be dropped. There is also the fact that the medallion part looks basically the same as the MB and kind of cheapens the MB (IMO).  Why not create an OSM NATO and a Canadian Arctic Service Medal that would be used to recognize all service in the arctic (not just Alert and Ranger).  I know it will never happen.


Using that logic, how many medals that have The Queen on the medallion need to be replaced or dropped?  Maybe there is a reason for the unique colourful ribbon that goes with each gong.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Just noting that a photo about 'silly hats' has now devolved into a passionate discussion about H & A issues...


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> I personally think the SSM is outdated and should be dropped. There is also the fact that the medallion part looks basically the same as the MB and kind of cheapens the MB (IMO).


I don't know about you, but the main way of recognizing a medal is the ribbon, not the medallion itself. 



torg003 said:


> Why not create an OSM NATO and a Canadian Arctic Service Medal that would be used to recognize all service in the arctic (not just Alert and Ranger).  I know it will never happen.


An OSM NATO is redundant, no?  NATO already issues a medal for their operations - the reason why Canada didn't award them for OP ATHENA (other countries did for their equivalent missions) is because of our policy of not awarding multiple medals for the same operation.


----------



## torg003

The point I was trying to make about the SSM was that the medal uses the same design as the Medal for Bravery and that it should never had been done that way, mainly out of respect for those people who performed braved deeds and got the MB.  It's not like they couldn't have come up with a different design if they weren't keen on putting the monarch on the front.  Just off the top of my head, they could've put the royal cypher inside a maple leaf on the front and "FOR BRAVERY" (in English and French) inside a wreath on the back.
Anyway, this is taking the discussion off the original topic considering this started out discussing ranks and uniforms, not service medals.


----------



## Edward Campbell

daftandbarmy said:


> Just noting that a photo about 'silly hats' has now devolved into a passionate discussion about H & A issues...


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Just noting that a photo about 'silly hats' has now devolved into a passionate discussion about H & A issues...


Kinda makes the whole argument of "no one cares about buttons and bows (and medals)" a little bit mistaken, no? 

People, both in and formerly-in uniform, definitely do. 

When people say that only "Boomers" care about dress regs issues, I mention the Rouleau Roll and the excitement on CAF Reddit.


----------



## eliminator

dimsum said:


> I don't know about you, but the main way of recognizing a medal is the ribbon, not the medallion itself.
> 
> 
> An OSM NATO is redundant, no?  NATO already issues a medal for their operations - the reason why Canada didn't award them for OP ATHENA (other countries did for their equivalent missions) is because of our policy of not awarding multiple medals for the same operation.



Perhaps Canada needs to stop formally accepting NATO and UN medals and create an actual Canadian honour. Just look at what happened in Mali (as noted in the post-mission AAR): discontent with honours as some members received the OSM-HUMANITAS while others received the UN MINUSMA medal based solely on CFTPO and UN politics. (note: Both groups qualified for CPSM)

That is, one group received a high-quality Canadian honour with their name and SN engraved on the edge, bearing the Sovereign of Canada...while the other recieved a cheap UN medal that can be found on ebay for $10. 

UN and NATO medals should become 'keepsakes', not for wear... or we just go wild like Australia and NZLD with double-medal'ing. 

Moreover, we tend to break our own rules: _Issue an OSM when no NATO or UN medal is available_...yet look at Afghanistan: troops didnt want the NATO-ISAF medal because it was thought, "._..NATO medals being mostly associated, in their view, with peacekeeping service in the Balkans and not a combat mission._" Why did Canada refuse NATO’s Afghanistan medal for its troops?

And then look at the Libya mission. We accepted the NATO medal. No consideration for a Libya GCS/GSM or OSM.

Sorry, rabbit-hole. Back to hats! RCAF/Air DEU members should be able to buy their new ball caps from Canex in the coming months to wear in combats and flights suits. New 'hi-vis' silver ranks and nametags coming too! 

RCAF 100th in 2024. Peaked caps coming back?

What a time to be alive!


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> Kinda makes the whole argument of "no one cares about buttons and bows (and medals)" a little bit mistaken, no?
> 
> People, both in and formerly-in uniform, definitely do.
> 
> When people say that only "Boomers" care about dress regs issues, I mention the Rouleau Roll and the excitement on CAF Reddit.


It's honestly the only part of our image/branding we as individuals have a solid grasp on and see meaningful change in during a 5-10 year career path . 

No one but those high in the food chain of government/NDHQ can see what vehicle I will be rolling around in 10 years from now, what weapon I will be firing after the C7/8ABC123, or which aircraft or ship will replace the museum pieces we have in our recruitment posters. 

What we do see are small changes to appearance/dress over the course of time. It's been 16 years and I have seen changes in Beret colour, rank structure, uniform cut and appearance, dress and grooming standards, and much more. All while still using the TCCCS comms suite in my LSVW CP variant that entered service when I started 1st Grade. 

Much like orders; most folks are going to brush over the higher level intent stuff, head straight to Groupings and Tasks, and try to figure out how the thing affects them personally. Dress, pay, and personal well being top theblist compared to National Procurement in most folks brains.


----------



## FSTO

eliminator said:


> Sorry, rabbit-hole. Back to hats! RCAF/Air DEU members should be able to buy their new ball caps from Canex in the coming months to wear in combats and flights suits. New 'hi-vis' silver ranks and nametags coming too!
> 
> RCAF 100th in 2024. Peaked caps coming back?
> 
> What a time to be alive!


Does that mean that the invisible RCAF rank on the CADPAT will go the way of the buggy whip?


----------



## eliminator

FSTO said:


> Does that mean that the invisible RCAF rank on the CADPAT will go the way of the buggy whip?


I do believe so. Unless they decide to retain the current stuff for possible tactical situations. But I think we are beyond that now. 

I'm sure it will all be sorted out just in time for the new pattern of combats to arrive! Unless the air force decides to continue with CADPAT to be distinct from the army?


----------



## dimsum

eliminator said:


> Sorry, rabbit-hole. Back to hats! RCAF/Air DEU members should be able to buy their new ball caps from Canex in the coming months to wear in combats and flights suits. New 'hi-vis' silver ranks and nametags coming too!


How's silver rank/name going to look different than the Army white rank/name?  

And unless the propeller is really obviously a prop and not anything resembling a bar, I bet $ that Avrs are still going to get saluted by accident.



eliminator said:


> RCAF 100th in 2024. Peaked caps coming back?


----------



## eliminator

dimsum said:


> How's silver rank/name going to look different than the Army white rank/name?
> 
> And unless the propeller is really obviously a prop and not anything resembling a bar, I bet $ that Avrs are still going to get saluted by accident.


The same, but different. Because.

I think they are going to be on a blue background, similar to the DEU slip ons. In fact, I think for jackets and flightsuits, the current DEU slip ons will be used? Not sure.


----------



## Kilted

eliminator said:


> The same, but different. Because.
> 
> I think they are going to be on a blue background, similar to the DEU slip ons. In fact, I think for jackets and flightsuits, the current DEU slip ons will be used? Not sure.


Why can't the Air Force just go ahead and get their own uniform?


----------



## RedFive

Kilted said:


> Why can't the Air Force just go ahead and get their own uniform?


I would die a little inside if they did that and ended up with Multicam or a derivative like just about every one of our allies has done just to be subject to the thirsty eyes of literally the entire Canadian Army


----------



## Furniture

Kilted said:


> Why can't the Air Force just go ahead and get their own uniform?


It makes little sense for the air force to wear a different working uniform than the army, particularly if they are wearing blue t-shirts, blue patches/slip-ons, and ball caps. 

I don't understand why the air force and navy have persisted with subdued rank insignia so long after the army switched to high visibility ranks.


----------



## Kilted

RedFive said:


> I would die a little inside if they did that and ended up with Multicam or a derivative like just about every one of our allies has done just to be subject to the thirsty eyes of literally the entire Canadian Army


Just colour the uniform Celeste Bleu and be done with it. The majority of air force personnel have no need for camouflage.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kilted said:


> Just colour the uniform Celeste Bleu and be done with it. The majority of air force personnel have no need for camouflage.



But we need to close the dangerous 'me too' gap with the USAF, which is issuing a very stylish outfit in the near future apparently 











						Air Force unveils new uniform plan
					

Air Force officials announced Aug. 6 plans for the wear test of a new utility uniform to possibly replace the current battle dress uniform.The blue, gray and green tiger-stripe camouflage ensemble is



					www.af.mil


----------



## FSTO

Furniture said:


> It makes little sense for the air force to wear a different working uniform than the army, particularly if they are wearing blue t-shirts, blue patches/slip-ons, and ball caps.
> 
> I don't understand why the air force and navy have persisted with subdued rank insignia so long after the army switched to high visibility ranks.


This is low vis?


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> But we need to close the dangerous 'me too' gap with the USAF, which is issuing a very stylish outfit in the near future apparently
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force unveils new uniform plan
> 
> 
> Air Force officials announced Aug. 6 plans for the wear test of a new utility uniform to possibly replace the current battle dress uniform.The blue, gray and green tiger-stripe camouflage ensemble is
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil


That article is so old it could almost retire!  

(I'm not joking - check out the publication date)

Interestingly, the USAF _did_ end up adopting Multicam...in 2018.  So even then, it was 15 years after that article was written.



Kilted said:


> Just colour the uniform Celeste Bleu and be done with it. The majority of air force personnel have no need for camouflage.


Please no.  Then you'll end up with the Royal Australian Air Force's uniform.


----------



## Furniture

FSTO said:


> This is low vis?
> View attachment 73807


I was referring to CADPAT, not NCDs. I assumed people would understand that...


----------



## FSTO

Furniture said:


> I was referring to CADPAT, not NCDs. I assumed people would understand that...


Okay, I just remembered in Bahrain that our ranks were arid coloured instead of black.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Furniture said:


> It makes little sense for the air force to wear a different working uniform than the army, particularly if they are wearing blue t-shirts, blue patches/slip-ons, and ball caps.
> 
> I don't understand why the air force and navy have persisted with subdued rank insignia so long after the army switched to high visibility ranks.



The Army reissued lower vis rank badges years ago... they're pretty useless actually, IMHO, but whatev


----------



## Furniture

FSTO said:


> Okay, I just remembered in Bahrain that our ranks were arid coloured instead of black.


When we wear CADPAT(TW) it's green with black embroidery, which always gets confused with the blue air force ranks.


----------



## FSTO

Furniture said:


> When we wear CADPAT(TW) it's green with black embroidery, which always gets confused with the blue air force ranks.


Yea, I’ve never worn the relish so I wouldn’t know.


----------



## dimsum

FSTO said:


> Okay, I just remembered in Bahrain that our ranks were arid coloured instead of black.


At some point that changed to black lettering for names and ranks.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> At some point that changed to black lettering for names and ranks.
> 
> View attachment 73811


I think folks bought their own. Because I asked for the black ones in Ottawa and was told there was none in the system.


----------



## Halifax Tar

I wear cadpat every day.  My rank velcro thingy is olive drab with black stitching like my name tag. 

I like it.  But then I'm also still partial to our old olive drab combats.


----------



## Maxman1

How about a khaki or olive drab version of NCDs? Call it Aircrew Dress - Combat, just so it can be abbreviated "ACDC"


----------



## dimsum

Maxman1 said:


> How about a khaki or olive drab version of NCDs? Call it Aircrew Dress - Combat, just so it can be abbreviated "ACDC"


A shirt that doesn't need to be tucked in?


----------



## Maxman1

daftandbarmy said:


> But we need to close the dangerous 'me too' gap with the USAF, which is issuing a very stylish outfit in the near future apparently
> 
> View attachment 73809
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air Force unveils new uniform plan
> 
> 
> Air Force officials announced Aug. 6 plans for the wear test of a new utility uniform to possibly replace the current battle dress uniform.The blue, gray and green tiger-stripe camouflage ensemble is
> 
> 
> 
> www.af.mil



I have two Hawaiian shirts that look a lot like that.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Maxman1 said:


> How about a khaki or olive drab version of NCDs? Call it Aircrew Dress - Combat, just so it can be abbreviated "ACDC"



This looks like a good deal, and aligns with our tendency to constantly regress in terms of our dress...









						WW1 British Royal Flying Corps uniform - 1st world war army uniforms
					

WW1 British Royal Flying Corps uniformGabardine Maternity smock with RFC wingsside capKhaki Drill breechesBoots and belt not included




					thehistorybunker.co.uk


----------



## OldSolduer

How about riding breeches for officers?


----------



## Furniture

Maxman1 said:


> How about a khaki or olive drab version of NCDs? Call it Aircrew Dress - Combat, just so it can be abbreviated "ACDC"


Let's get real crazy, and make a tan version of the new model NCDs, that both the air force and navy wear in hot climates.


----------



## OldSolduer

OldSolduer said:


> How about riding breeches for officers?


And funny hats....


----------



## dangerboy

His Majesty, King Charles III has picked his new Royal Cypher. Let the theories about cap and rank badges begin  

King Charles: New royal cypher revealed


----------



## torg003

So he did decide to go with the Tutor crown.  I think the Monarchy of Canada should stick with the current one (St. Edward's Crown) just because it looks better.  Or maybe we could adopt the Scottish crown (you know.....Nova Scotia - wink, wink).


----------



## rmc_wannabe

torg003 said:


> So he did decide to go with the Tutor crown.  I think the Monarchy of Canada should stick with the current one (St. Edward's Crown) just because it looks better.  Or maybe we could adopt the Scottish crown (you know.....Nova Scotia - wink, wink).


I think that until the Chief Herald of Canada tells us what we're doing, suggested changes are speculative and will be an annoyance for many a CWO during the various Town Halls where nothing actually gets answered properly.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> I think that until the Chief Herald of Canada tells us what we're doing, suggested changes are speculative and will be an annoyance for many a CWO during the various Town Halls where nothing actually gets answered properly.



Don't worry... the standard will be accidentally set by the CDS and CCWO turning up at a press conference wearing a new tacti-cool velcro patch of some kind with the 'subdued pattern' version


----------



## rmc_wannabe

daftandbarmy said:


> Don't worry... the standard will be accidentally set by the CDS and CCWO turning up at a press conference wearing a new tacti-cool velcro patch of some kind with the 'subdued pattern' version
> 
> View attachment 73846


I know you say this in jest... but I somehow believe you may be right.


----------



## daftandbarmy

rmc_wannabe said:


> I know you say this in jest... but I somehow believe you may be right.



Oh hell yeah


----------



## dapaterson

torg003 said:


> So he did decide to go with the Tutor crown.  I think the Monarchy of Canada should stick with the current one (St. Edward's Crown) just because it looks better.  Or maybe we could adopt the Scottish crown (you know.....Nova Scotia - wink, wink).


Tudor.

Tutor are obsolete aircraft the RCAF loves.


----------



## eliminator

Scottish version of the cypher to be used by King Charles


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Don't worry... the standard will be accidentally set by the CDS and CCWO turning up at a press conference wearing a new tacti-cool velcro patch of some kind with the 'subdued pattern' version
> 
> View attachment 73846


Don't give people ideas.


----------



## dapaterson

Clearly, we need a Canadian crown.



			https://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/71/36/cartoon-a-cool-beaver-smoking-a-joint-vector-29587136.webp


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> Don't give people ideas.



You mean like this?


----------



## Kirkhill

George V, George VI, Elizabeth II



Charles III of England and Wales, Charles III of Scots.


----------



## Kirkhill

dapaterson said:


> Clearly, we need a Canadian crown.
> 
> 
> 
> https://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/1000x1000/71/36/cartoon-a-cool-beaver-smoking-a-joint-vector-29587136.webp



And a Guardian


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> And a Guardian
> 
> View attachment 73857


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> I personally think the SSM is outdated and should be dropped. There is also the fact that the medallion part looks basically the same as the MB and kind of cheapens the MB (IMO).  Why not create an OSM NATO and a Canadian Arctic Service Medal that would be used to recognize all service in the arctic (not just Alert and Ranger).  I know it will never happen.



My SSM has nothing to do with either NATO, or Alert….


----------



## Eye In The Sky

eliminator said:


> The same, but different. Because.
> 
> I think they are going to be on a blue background, similar to the DEU slip ons. In fact, I think for jackets and flightsuits, the current DEU slip ons will be used? Not sure.



the only thing changing is the thread colour on the CAG slip on. Pearl grey instead of blue.  The RCAF CWO EA had one on when they were at our Wing recently.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


>


Is his name Dennis? The peasant that is…


----------



## Kat Stevens

OldSolduer said:


> Is his name Dennis? The peasant that is…


Nope, it's Patsy.


----------



## OldSolduer

Kat Stevens said:


> Nope, it's Patsy.


Right!!! Dennis is the old woman


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> the only thing changing is the thread colour on the CAG slip on. Pearl grey instead of blue.  The RCAF CWO EA had one on when they were at our Wing recently.


I'm just wondering how different it looks than the Army high-vis one, aside from being on olive green rather than CADPAT background.


----------



## Maxman1

torg003 said:


> So he did decide to go with the Tutor crown.  I think the Monarchy of Canada should stick with the current one (St. Edward's Crown) just because it looks better.  Or maybe we could adopt the Scottish crown (you know.....Nova Scotia - wink, wink).



Which is funny, because the current St. Edward's Crown was made for Charles II.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I'm just wondering how different it looks than the Army high-vis one, aside from being on olive green rather than CADPAT background.



From a distance, it looked the exact same.  I was about 70’ away or so.


----------



## torg003

Maxman1 said:


> Which is funny, because the current St. Edward's Crown was made for Charles II.


Yes, it seems strange that Charles would change the crown, you'd think he'd want to continue his mother's legacy.  I suppose he's trying to show his reign is a continuation of his grandfather's (and grandfather's grandfather, etc.).
I think the economic aspect of changing the design of the crown is the most important thing right now to Canada.  We should keep the current design because we really don't need the considerable expense to change over to the new (old) one.  People will argue that we have to change the royal cypher anyway, so what's the problem?  Of course, most people don't think about (or even care) about the effect on the military.  It would mean we'd have to redo all the crests/emblems (CAF, element., corps, regiment, as well as the army officer ranks.
Maybe everyone here should contact the GG and the PM to share the opinion that we don't need to waste money changing the crown here in Canada.  The Monarchy of Canada can have its own identity separate from the British monarchy.


----------



## daftandbarmy

torg003 said:


> Maybe everyone here should contact the GG and the PM to share the opinion that we don't need to waste money changing the crown here in Canada.  *The Monarchy of Canada *can have its own identity separate from the British monarchy.


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> Yes, it seems strange that Charles would change the crown, you'd think he'd want to continue his mother's legacy.  I suppose he's trying to show his reign is a continuation of his grandfather's (and grandfather's grandfather, etc.).
> I think the economic aspect of changing the design of the crown is the most important thing right now to Canada.  We should keep the current design because we really don't need the considerable expense to change over to the new (old) one.  People will argue that we have to change the royal cypher anyway, so what's the problem?  Of course, most people don't think about (or even care) about the effect on the military.  It would mean we'd have to redo all the crests/emblems (CAF, element., corps, regiment, as well as the army officer ranks.
> Maybe everyone here should contact the GG and the PM to share the opinion that we don't need to waste money changing the crown here in Canada.  The Monarchy of Canada can have its own identity separate from the British monarchy.


I read that in the UK there are many Mail Boxes (for example) that still have George V on it. So they update the boxes with the new crowns as they need replacing.

I can see the potentially the same thing here. As things wear out or if you are promoted you get the new crown. Just spitballing.


----------



## dapaterson

Are you trying to give every CPO1 / CWO an aneurysm?


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Are you trying to give every CPO1 / CWO an aneurysm?


----------



## torg003

> I read that in the UK there are many Mail Boxes (for example) that still have George V on it. So they update the boxes with the new crowns as they need replacing.
> 
> I can see the potentially the same thing here. As things wear out or if you are promoted you get the new crown. Just spitballing.


Yes, but many government agencies use the crown in their emblem (not to forget the actual coat of arms of Canada and the provinces).  These all would have to be updated as well.  The military and police forces would be affected the most, having not only to change a crest, but rank insignia and hat badges as well.  I doubt that the crown will only get replaced when people get promoted.  It may not happen overnight, and not everything at the same time, but there has to be consistency to doing it, not a half-assed approach.


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> Are you trying to give every CPO1 / CWO an aneurysm?


Maybe...................but realistically there isn't that much of a difference between the crowns that folks will notice.


----------



## tomydoom

dapaterson said:


> Are you trying to give every CPO1 / CWO an aneurysm?


I have no doubt someone will have dug up his/her grandfathers capbadge and worn it to work, just to be “like that”.


----------



## Blackadder1916

torg003 said:


> Yes, but many government agencies use the crown in their emblem (not to forget the actual coat of arms of Canada and the provinces).  These all would have to be updated as well.  . . .



The Canadian Heraldic Authority (CHA) is the government service that creates coats of arms, flags and badges.  Many of the symbols of the military and other government organizations were created (sometimes haphazardly) prior to 1988 when the CHA was established following the Letters Patent granting the Governor General authorization to exercise the Sovereign's power related to heraldry, however, since then there has been a Canadian based mechanism to determine what our symbols should be.  In simple terms, it's the GG who decides what a Canadian badge looks like.  Well, maybe not so simple, but the "Royal Crown proper"* has already been defined in Canada.  Canada is in a different situation than Scotland (Charles has a separate and distinct cypher for Scotland using the Scottish Crown) in that there is no unique "Canadian Crown" (i.e., a physical item not the constitutional concept) upon which to model a crown as an heraldic element.  But, that does preclude the King's Privy Council for Canada from advising him that he should prefer the continued use of the St. Edward's crown in Canada.  Even so, it should be noted that the Canadian Coat of Arms was not changed to incorporate the St. Edward's crown until 1957, five years after Her late Majesty's accession to the throne.


*   The description according to A-AD-200-000/AG-000 The Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces  - Royal crown. Heraldic emblem based on the St. Edward’s (coronation) Crown. It is a symbol of sovereignty, authority and prestige. Permission to use the Royal crown, on its own or as part of another emblem, is the sole prerogative of the Sovereign. Permission is sought through the Canadian Heraldic Authority (couronne royale).


----------



## torg003

Yes, I'm well aware of the Canadian Heraldic Authority.  Canda can just do nothing and keep using the crown design we have now (which is a good idea).  I'm just worried about the people that don't know shit about the monarchy here in Canada (thinking it's the "British" monarchy) and start asking the gov't when they're going to change over the crown to the "new" one.   Politicians may decide that it's what the public wants and go ahead with the change.


----------



## torg003

Yes, I'm well aware of the Canadian Heraldic Authority.  Canda can just do nothing and keep using the crown design we have now (which is a good idea).  I'm just worried about the people that don't know shit about the monarchy here in Canada (thinking it's the "British" monarchy) and start asking the gov't when they're going to change over the crown to the "new" one.   Politicians may decide that it's what the public wants and go ahead with the change.


----------



## FJAG

tomydoom said:


> I have no doubt someone will have dug up his/her grandfathers capbadge and worn it to work, just to be “like that”.


I never liked that crown on the old cap badge.  Luckily they'd all been relegated to museums by the time I joined.

😟


----------



## tomydoom

FJAG said:


> I never liked that crown on the old cap badge.  Luckily they'd all been relegated to museums by the time I joined.
> 
> 😟


According to the heritage section of the RCA website, the capbadge wasn’t changed until 1960 last time. So, the current pattern may outlive the current monarch.


----------



## torg003

As far as the type of crown goes, that's up to the Gov't of Canada to decide.
I'll just throw something else out there.  I wonder if the CAF should bring back the ranks of Field Marshal, Marshal of the RCAF, and Admiral of the Fleet.  I remember that former Prince Charles at times used to wear a CF uniform with the rank of LtGen/VAdm (depending on uniform) at Remembrance Day ceremonies (in Canada).  I think that King Charles III in his role as head of the CAF might want to wear a military uniform on certain occasions and it would seem fitting that he would use those former ceremonial ranks I mentioned above.  He may not decide to wear a uniform during his role as King of Canada, but the ceremonial ranks should be reinstated just in case he decides to do so.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:


> I wonder if the CAF should bring back the ranks of Field Marshal, Marshal of the RCAF, and Admiral of the Fleet.


No.


----------



## torg003

If the King is to be in Canada in the future to participate in a military ceremony and he wishes to wear one of his Canadian military uniforms (which he already has), it would be proper for the King to wear one of the above-mentioned ceremonial ranks.  It won't break the bank to change the rank on his uniforms, so cost factor isn't something that could complained about (though some here will anyway).
In the situation mentioned above, wearing an actual substantive rank such as General or Admiral, wouldn't be proper, as that rank is for the CDS and the King doesn't serve as CDS.  He is the ceremonial head of the armed forces, so a ceremonial rank is correct.


----------



## dimsum

torg003 said:


> If the King is to be in Canada in the future to participate in a military ceremony and he wishes to wear one of his Canadian military uniforms (which he already has), it would be proper for the King to wear one of the above-mentioned ceremonial ranks.  It won't break the bank to change the rank on his uniforms, so cost factor isn't something that could complained about (though some here will anyway).


It's not the cost.  

To add another rank requires amending the National Defence Act, I believe.


----------



## torg003

I think that would only apply to a change in substantive rank.  We are talking about a ceremonial rank, so I doubt the NDA would have to be amended.
Even if it did (which I doubt), it would be an amendment just like was done for "aviator" and "sailor" ranks., not a big deal.

Maybe it's the perceived notion that these ceremonial ranks are "British" and not Canadian (which I don't agree with).  Do people think it would be better that the King wear some made up ceremonial rank (like the GG) when in uniform?


----------



## McG

Let him wear the rank of general or admiral.  Those are the highest ranks that we have, and it would be somewhat self-disrespecting to create a new rank that no Canadian will ever wear.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> It's not the cost.
> 
> To add another rank requires amending the National Defence Act, I believe.



Which would get an ambitious Staff Officer a glowing 'leading change' PER


----------



## tomydoom

torg003 said:


> .  Do people think it would be better that the King wear some made up ceremonial rank (like the GG) when in uniform?


In fairness, that IS the Dutch solution. Willem Alexander wears a ”royal insignia” rather than rank, as seen below.


----------



## Furniture

tomydoom said:


> In fairness, that IS the Dutch solution. Willem Alexander wears a ”royal insignia” rather than rank, as seen below.
> 
> View attachment 73957


I think a rank like the GG wears is the perfect solution. 

It allows the King, or his representative to wear the uniform, but still show they aren't "in" the military.


----------



## Blackadder1916

torg003 said:


> . . . I wonder if the CAF should bring back the ranks of Field Marshal, Marshal of the RCAF, and Admiral of the Fleet . . .



How do you "bring back" a rank that has never existed in the Canadian military or naval services (either in actuality or legality).  No Canadian has ever been promoted to that rank and even of the former Governors General only two wore that rank while in office (Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Viscount Alexander) and they had been promoted during service in the British Army prior to appointment as GG (there was another GG, Byng, who was promoted FM after his time in Canada, but that was more in recognition of his post-GG service as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police).

Any of the other GGs who had military service and (following the rules of court dress) wore the uniform and rank of their former service if they had attained at least MGen (or navy/AF equivalent); those who hadn't been generals (Brigadier/Commodore is not a GOFO in Brit services) would only be allowed to wear a military uniform (when appropriate) of any honorary colonelcy that they held.  The GG wear of a military uniform (distinct from a court uniform) as "Commander in Chief" is a modern fashion that began after Georges Vanier's time as GG.

And yes, it would require amending the NDA.  Even honorary ranks are governed by law.


----------



## Ostrozac

torg003 said:


> In the situation mentioned above, wearing an actual substantive rank such as General or Admiral, wouldn't be proper, as that rank is for the CDS and the King doesn't serve as CDS.


The substantive rank of General is not reserved for the CDS. We’ve had multiple serving full Generals before — most recently when Ray Henault was chairman of NATO’s military committee while Rick Hillier was CDS.

In 1945 we had 4 officers of that rank — there was no CDS, but one of them was the Minster of Defence.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

I am certain DHH, The Privy Council, various Aides de Camp, etc have a plan in place for this eventuality. 

HM the King is extremely well versed in ceremony and protocol; it has been a thing for the majority of his adult life to be wearing the right thing, at the right time, in the right manner. 

If only our political class in Canada could be so astute...


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> The Equerry for HM the King is extremely well versed in ceremony and protocol


----------



## Kilted

Furniture said:


> I think a rank like the GG wears is the perfect solution.
> 
> It allows the King, or his representative to wear the uniform, but still show they aren't "in" the military.


That's not actually true. The GG and members of the Royal Family serving as Colonel-in-Chief are essitialy members of the CAF, maybe not in the same way as your average member, but the Royal Family (and probably the GG as well) are given Canadian service numbers. Most of the Colonel-in-Chiefs will normally wear the Colonel Rank. I'm sure the King could wear the Five Star rank on whichever uniform without updating the NDA.


----------



## dangerboy

Kilted said:


> Most of the Colonel-in-Chiefs will normally wear the Colonel Rank.


When the Colonel-in-Chief of the PPCLI, The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson wears a uniform she has a specially designed rank slip-on.  (Please ignore the beret  ).


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dangerboy said:


> When the Colonel-in-Chief of the PPCLI, The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson wears a uniform she has a specially designed rank slip-on.  (Please ignore the beret  ).
> 
> View attachment 73959


Our C-in-C no longer holds a military or viceregal rank? No rank slip on/capbadge available? Lets just invent one! Typical cowboy behaviour.

With respect to Her Excellency, her A-de- C needs extras and remedial inspections if that was the standard they let pass. If you're going to do it, do it right and not half-assed


----------



## daftandbarmy

dangerboy said:


> When the Colonel-in-Chief of the PPCLI, The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson wears a uniform she has a specially designed rank slip-on.  (Please ignore the beret  ).
> 
> View attachment 73959



OK, that's an awesome slip on


----------



## Blackadder1916

Pedantic alert.



rmc_wannabe said:


> Our C-in-C no longer holds a military or viceregal rank? No rank slip on/capbadge available? Lets just invent one! Typical cowboy behaviour.
> 
> With respect to *Her Excellency*, her A-de- C needs extras and remedial inspections if that was the standard they let pass. If you're going to do it, do it right and not half-assed



As a former Governor General, Madame Clarkson is entitled (according to Canadian protocol) to the title of "Right Honourable" for life, however, the courtesy title of "Her/His Excellency" is used by GGs and their spouses only while in office.


----------



## dapaterson

Blackadder1916 said:


> Pedantic alert.
> 
> 
> As a former Governor General, Madame Clarkson is entitled (according to Canadian protocol) to the title of "Right Honourable" for life, however, the courtesy title of "Her/His Excellency" is used by GGs and their spouses only while in office.



Except, remember, she's Adrienne Clarkson, and you're not.


----------



## Blackadder1916

dapaterson said:


> Except, remember, she's Adrienne Clarkson, and you're not.



Seen.

However, as per the Regimental Manual

Annex B
Chapter 2
PPCLI Regimental Manual
30 Jan 18

28.      In writing, members of the Regiment will generally use the 'social' form of address:

a.   Envelope. The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, PC, CC, CMM, COM, CD (Address as provided by RHQ);
b.   Salutation. “Dear Madame Clarkson,” and
c.   Closing. “Yours sincerely.”

30.     When speaking to the Colonel-in-Chief, she is firstly addressed as “Madame Clarkson,” thereafter as “Madame Adrienne” or “Ma’am.” When being referred to either in writing or verbally the appropriate form is “Madame Clarkson” not “Madame Adrienne.” John Ralston Saul is to be addressed as “Mr. Saul” or “Sir.”


----------



## dapaterson

Which only serves to reinforce my point


----------



## Furniture

Kilted said:


> That's not actually true. The GG and members of the Royal Family serving as Colonel-in-Chief are essitialy members of the CAF, maybe not in the same way as your average member, but the Royal Family (and probably the GG as well) are given Canadian service numbers. Most of the Colonel-in-Chiefs will normally wear the Colonel Rank. I'm sure the King could wear the Five Star rank on whichever uniform without updating the NDA.


The GG has distinct insignia to wear in uniform while acting as the GG.

Developing a distinct insignia for the King, or his delegates would not be a stretch.

Colonel-in-Chief is a position, tied specifically to a branch/unit. What I am suggesting is more akin to the GG insignia for more "generic" ceremonial/PR use.


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> OK, that's an awesome slip on


Forget that - that's an awesome beret badge!


----------



## torg003

Though I wouldn't mind seeing the King use the ceremonial ranks as the head of the Armed Forces, but since it would require amending the NDA, not likely to happen.  I could probably see the King in uniform wearing a slip-on with the Royal Cypher on it (which wouldn't require any amendment).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dangerboy said:


> the beret
> 
> View attachment 73959



Come to an Air Force Wing.  That beret wouldn’t stand out much…or the salute.  😄


----------



## Eaglelord17

The King is the Commander in Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, literally the head of it. That IS his rank/title. He chooses to deligate that position to the Governor General but hypothetically he could take it up at his own discretion. He also has the power to wear either a Naval Flag officers uniform, Army Generals or Airforce Generals uniform with the royal crest of Canada as his insignia.

The power to command is represented in the Commissioning Scroll, literally saying that they have his permission to use his authority to follow and issue lawful orders. We don’t need to create some made made up rank for him, all our ranks are made up for him and all are beneath his title. When your already the top position why create a title below it?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Blackadder1916 said:


> Seen.
> 
> However, as per the Regimental Manual
> 
> Annex B
> Chapter 2
> PPCLI Regimental Manual
> 30 Jan 18
> 
> 28.      In writing, members of the Regiment will generally use the 'social' form of address:
> 
> a.   Envelope. The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, PC, CC, CMM, COM, CD (Address as provided by RHQ);
> b.   Salutation. “Dear Madame Clarkson,” and
> c.   Closing. “Yours sincerely.”
> 
> 30.     When speaking to the Colonel-in-Chief, she is firstly addressed as “Madame Clarkson,” thereafter as “Madame Adrienne” or “Ma’am.” When being referred to either in writing or verbally the appropriate form is “Madame Clarkson” not “Madame Adrienne.” John Ralston Saul is to be addressed as “Mr. Saul” or “Sir.”



Now that's some important staff work


----------



## SupersonicMax

torg003 said:


> If the King is to be in Canada in the future to participate in a military ceremony and he wishes to wear one of his Canadian military uniforms (which he already has), it would be proper for the King to wear one of the above-mentioned ceremonial ranks.  It won't break the bank to change the rank on his uniforms, so cost factor isn't something that could complained about (though some here will anyway).
> In the situation mentioned above, wearing an actual substantive rank such as General or Admiral, wouldn't be proper, as that rank is for the CDS and the King doesn't serve as CDS.  He is the ceremonial head of the armed forces, so a ceremonial rank is correct.


Ah yes.  Solutions to problems that don’t exists.  It may not « cost » anything but let’s please not waste staff time (which is a cost in of itself) on things that don’t have an effect on our operational effectiveness.  We don’t have the people to do those pet projects…


----------



## Remius

SupersonicMax said:


> Ah yes.  Solutions to problems that don’t exists.  It may not « cost » anything but let’s please not waste staff time (which is a cost in of itself) on things that don’t have an effect on our operational effectiveness.  We don’t have the people to do those pet projects…


It’s not like we don’t have a large amount of staff officers…


----------



## dimsum

Remius said:


> It’s not like we don’t have a large amount of staff officers…


It'd be nice if those staff officers were put into high-priority projects then.

DLR, DNR, and DAR are not staffed to 100%.  Hell, where I was at (which was pretty high priority...) was maybe at 60% staffing.


----------



## daftandbarmy

SupersonicMax said:


> Ah yes.  Solutions to problems that don’t exists.  It may not « cost » anything but let’s *please not waste staff time (which is a cost in of itself) on things that don’t have an effect on our operational effectiveness*.  We don’t have the people to do those pet projects…



Like changing our badges of rank to be British, again?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly I liked the old systems of gold stripes for officers, way easier to see what's coming towards you.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Colin Parkinson said:


> Frankly I liked the old systems of gold stripes for officers, way easier to see what's coming towards you.


You can see what's coming toward you well enough in hi-vis. Even before then, I was a capbadge watcher more than trying to squint out if they're wearing bars or hooks.

That said, I am glad we're back to pips and crowns.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Frankly I liked the old systems of gold stripes for officers, way easier to see what's coming towards you.


Completely minor, but I just think gold bars or chevrons on green (or blue) seems to clash.  When the Army changed it’s officer rank to pips and crowns, I was surprised they didn’t change the NCM rank colour to silver.

People like to hate on the RCAF colour change to Pearl grey in 2015 or so, but I think it looks a lot nicer than the gold.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> Completely minor, but I just think gold bars or chevrons on green (or blue) seems to clash.  When the Army changed it’s officer rank to pips and crowns, I was surprised they didn’t change the NCM rank colour to silver.
> 
> People like to hate on the RCAF colour change to Pearl grey in 2015 or so, but I think it looks a lot nicer than the gold.


There is a long and storied history into which colour of ranks folks wear, for what reason,  and which uninform within the Canadian Army. Gold on red backing, black on red, white on red , gold on blue...

The orange "gold" worn in DEU was definitely not a colour that holds any significance with Army folks. Hopefully that will be resolved sometime in the future.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> Hopefully that will be resolved sometime in the future.


Anyone who thinks that should be anywhere in the project queue should go join the frontiersmen. The Army has more on its plate than it can handle in just sorting out operational capability.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> There is a long and storied history into which colour of ranks folks wear, for what reason,  and which uninform within the Canadian Army. Gold on red backing, black on red, white on red , gold on blue...
> 
> The orange "gold" worn in DEU was definitely not a colour that holds any significance with Army folks. Hopefully that will be resolved sometime in the future.


Isn't that already done?  I see those on my Army colleagues' slip-ons.  Or were you talking about NCM ranks as well?

Speaking of which, why do Army NCMs not wear ranks on their slip-ons, and have the metal ranks on their collar?


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## rmc_wannabe

McG said:


> Anyone who thinks that should be anywhere in the project queue should go join the frontiersmen. The Army has more on its plate than it can handle in just sorting out operational capability.


I didn't say it should be top of the pile. Nor do I think dress should trump operational capability. You've been singing off that sheet of music since this thread was started years ago. We get it and we are all in firm agreement with you.

That said.

DSSPM is a segment within DLR. It's not the sole PM or PS entity within the CA. We have multiple divisions within the Army G4 to deal with everything from Ammo, Vehicles, Weapons, Operational Dress, and yes, Non-Operational dress.

They all move at extremely different rates of advance. So does it look like we are prioritizing Buttons and Bows? Hell yes. Does it take less time to send an amendment to a vendor as to what color to make rank patched from now on, vice selecting, trialing, and fielding a G AD platform? You're damn right. One takes less time, but one can be a higher priority and take more time to see the end result. That's not new and is not going g to change in the near future. 



dimsum said:


> Isn't that already done?  I see those on my Army colleagues' slip-ons.  Or were you talking about NCM ranks as well?


Yes. Prior to Unification, it was a thing with Staff Dress to denote where you were coming from by use of the coloured embellishments on the rank, much like now with the 3ABC slip ons. This included NCMs as well. During Full Dress, regimental and corps embellishments were also used to define differences in dress. I was the "it's 1968 and you all need to look the same" introduction of CF Greens that torpedoed a lot of those traditional identifiers.



dimsum said:


> Speaking of which, why do Army NCMs not wear ranks on their slip-ons, and have the metal ranks on their collar?


It was a thing that came in the 1980s with the new DEU uniforms from what I can read into. I cannot find reference of that being a thing prior to Unification, however, it might be a "we're not like you guys..." thing that came with the Unification hangover. Feel free to c9rrect me if I'm wrong.


----------



## torg003

The metal rank pins on the collar came in with unification and the green uniform for everyone.  At that time, there were no epaulettes on the jacket or the shirt of the service dress.  The rank slip-ons were worn on the work dress, which had epaulettes on the jacket and shirt. 
When DEUs were introduced in the '80s, the Army keep the CF green uniform with the metal ranks worn on the shirt collar.
That is my recollection.  Not sure when epaulettes were added to the Army uniform, probably when they changed the colour from CF Green to Rifle Green.


----------



## FJAG

rmc_wannabe said:


> It was a thing that came in the 1980s with the new DEU uniforms from what I can read into. I cannot find reference of that being a thing prior to Unification, however, it might be a "we're not like you guys..." thing that came with the Unification hangover. Feel free to c9rrect me if I'm wrong.


I don't recall any wearing of ranks on collars in the pre-1968 army. NCO ranks were essentially sewn on the sleeves of patrols, TWs, battledress and combats. For FSOD we wore armlets with the rank sewn on.

🍻


----------



## Eye In The Sky

torg003 said:


> The metal rank pins on the collar came in with unification and the green uniform for everyone.  At that time, there were no epaulettes on the jacket or the shirt of the service dress.  The rank slip-ons were worn on the work dress, which had epaulettes on the jacket and shirt.
> When DEUs were introduced in the '80s, the Army keep the CF green uniform with the metal ranks worn on the shirt collar.
> That is my recollection.  Not sure when epaulettes were added to the Army uniform, probably when they changed the colour from CF Green to Rifle Green.



My dad retired from the RCAF as a WO in ‘81.  Definitely was wearing CFs with light green shirt, ranks on collars, forge cap and AF cap badge back then…he got in before unification and the pre/post dress uniform makes me glad we went back to DEU.


----------



## McG

rmc_wannabe said:


> DSSPM is a segment within DLR. It's not the sole PM or PS entity within the CA. We have multiple divisions within the Army G4 to deal with everything from Ammo, Vehicles, Weapons, Operational Dress, and yes, Non-Operational dress.


DSSPM is not a part of DLR nor even CA. It is part of ADM(Mat).  Neither DLR nor CA G4 do the PM function; that is also an ADM(Mat) thing. Yes projects move at different speeds. But every PY committed to advancing British buttons is a PY not advancing real, necessary capability. Every GOFO level briefing on British buttons is GOFO time not spent on deficient, necessary capabilities.  It has been over a decade of pouring the efforts of “just a few people” into the constant implementation of UK military fashion (including some things with no prior history in Canada). There is a real opportunity cost to that, and there are projects that could have been delivered if we were not so invested in these side shows.

We are the Canadian Army. If some fragile identities need to look British to feel Army, then maybe they need to look in the mirror to find the real problem.


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> DSSPM is not a part of DLR nor even CA. It is part of ADM(Mat).  Neither DLR nor CA G4 do the PM function; that is also an ADM(Mat) thing. Yes projects move at different speeds. But every PY committed to advancing British buttons is a PY not advancing real, necessary capability. Every GOFO level briefing on British buttons is GOFO time not spent on deficient, necessary capabilities.  It has been over a decade of pouring the efforts of “just a few people” into the constant implementation of UK military fashion (including some things with no prior history in Canada). There is a real opportunity cost to that, and there are projects that could have been delivered if we were not so invested in these side shows.
> 
> We are the Canadian Army. If some fragile identities need to look British to feel Army, then maybe they need to look in the mirror to find the real problem.



Unless you're 'special' of course, then you copy the Yanks


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> People like to hate on the RCAF colour change to Pearl grey in 2015 or so, but I think it looks a lot nicer than the gold.


The Pearl Grey looks so much better than the old yellar. Anyone who thought those stripes were gold in colour were either blind, drunk, or both!


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Unless you're 'special' of course, then you copy the Yanks
> 
> View attachment 73977


Isn't that the same jacket cut though?  Tailored and a different colour, but I don't think it's actually any different than the others.


----------



## Halifax Tar

FJAG said:


> I don't recall any wearing of ranks on collars in the pre-1968 army. NCO ranks were essentially sewn on the sleeves of patrols, TWs, battledress and combats. For FSOD we wore armlets with the rank sewn on.
> 
> 🍻



The RCN had a khaki uniform that had collar ranks.

An example of the ranks pins is found here.



			Canadian Military Police Virtual Museum
		


According to the above website it was dress no. 22 and 23.


----------



## btrudy

daftandbarmy said:


> Unless you're 'special' of course, then you copy the Yanks
> 
> View attachment 73977


I can never get past how absurd blousing of dress pants looks, especially so now that it's no longer required for CADPAT.



Halifax Tar said:


> The RCN had a khaki uniform that had collar ranks.
> 
> An example of the ranks pins is found here.
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Military Police Virtual Museum
> 
> 
> 
> According to the above website it was dress no. 22 and 23.


I really wish that we'd gone with Khaki for the NCD replacement. Something like this IMHO looks a lot better than, and of course will be far more comfortable in hotter climates, than the all-black we settled upon.


----------



## Halifax Tar

btrudy said:


> I can never get past how absurd blousing of dress pants looks, especially so now that it's no longer required for CADPAT.
> 
> 
> I really wish that we'd gone with Khaki for the NCD replacement. Something like this IMHO looks a lot better than, and of course will be far more comfortable in hotter climates, than the all-black we settled upon.
> 
> View attachment 73980



That actually looks a lot better than our submission.


----------



## Furniture

btrudy said:


> I can never get past how absurd blousing of dress pants looks, especially so now that it's no longer required for CADPAT.
> 
> 
> I really wish that we'd gone with Khaki for the NCD replacement. Something like this IMHO looks a lot better than, and of course will be far more comfortable in hotter climates, than the all-black we settled upon.
> 
> View attachment 73980


Too much common sense there, we can't go around having appropriate uniform for the conditions we work in. 

Also, note that the USN (much fitter overall) didn't include a stupid elastic in their shirt either.


----------



## daftandbarmy

btrudy said:


> I can never get past how absurd blousing of dress pants looks, especially so now that it's no longer required for CADPAT.
> 
> 
> I really wish that we'd gone with Khaki for the NCD replacement. Something like this IMHO looks a lot better than, and of course will be far more comfortable in hotter climates, than the all-black we settled upon.
> 
> View attachment 73980




And they've even thought of having different uniforms for inmates... because you might get confused about who's in more trouble when you're all 'in the Brig' 




Navy Adds Color Coding to Prisoner Uniforms to Avoid Brig Mix-Ups​





Yeoman 2nd Class John LeBaron, corrections specialist, Naval Consolidated Brig Chesapeake, models the new post-trial standardized prisoner uniform (left), while Master-at-Arms 2nd Class Neah Rau, corrections specialist, Naval Consolidated Brig Chesapeake models the new pre-trial standardized prisoner uniform. (U.S. Navy photos)


Navy Personnel Command has a new uniform for prisoners at all ashore correctional facilities, and it's uni-service.
Wearing of the new uniform will be mandatory starting May 1 for all prisoners in pre-trial and post-trial confinement at Military Correctional Facilities (MCFs) run by the Navy, regardless of the prisoner's service affiliation, the Navy said in a news release last week.
Advertisement

The new standardized prison uniform (SPU) also will likely save the Navy money, the release states. The costs associated with buying and maintaining service uniforms for a prisoner become a tremendous and unnecessary fiscal burden to the Navy and the taxpayer, the service said.
The new uniform will come in two colors, dependent on the prisoner's legal status, the release states. Those in pre-trial confinement will get a chocolate-brown uniform, and those in post-trial confinement will get a tan uniform.

Currently, prisoners at Navy MCFs wear their service utility uniforms, in line with the Navy's theory that doing so helps maintain discipline and aids in rehabilitation.











						Navy Adds Color Coding to Prisoner Uniforms to Avoid Brig Mix-Ups
					

The Navy has a new uniform for pre- and post-trial wear in the brig.




					www.military.com


----------



## dimsum

btrudy said:


> I can never get past how absurd blousing of dress pants looks, especially so now that it's no longer required for CADPAT.
> 
> 
> I really wish that we'd gone with Khaki for the NCD replacement. Something like this IMHO looks a lot better than, and of course will be far more comfortable in hotter climates, than the all-black we settled upon.
> 
> View attachment 73980


Call me crazy, but besides the colour and the different pockets, what is drastically different than our new NCD?


----------



## Furniture

dimsum said:


> Call me crazy, but besides the colour and the different pockets, what is drastically different than our new NCD?


The cut is different as well, but the idea is generally the same. 

Colour matters when you're standing around on the non-skid in the sun with an ambient air temp of 30+.


----------



## btrudy

Furniture said:


> The cut is different as well, but the idea is generally the same.
> 
> Colour matters when you're standing around on the non-skid in the sun with an ambient air temp of 30+.



Exactly. I don't really have any major opinions on the cut or the pockets; those are all small potatoes. I've spent enough time sailing around on or near the equator however to know that the new design will be just terrible for hot weather. 

Or hell, just Halifax in summer. 

If you're going to have only one design, lightweight and cool is the way to go. You can always add layers, but you generally can't take your pants off.


----------



## dapaterson

btrudy said:


> If you're going to have only one design, lightweight and cool is the way to go. You can always add layers, but *you generally can't take your pants off.*


#KiltedNavy


----------



## btrudy

dapaterson said:


> #KiltedNavy


Or just bring back uniform shorts.


----------



## daftandbarmy

btrudy said:


> Or just bring back uniform shorts.



These shorts would look good ... on some people 






			https://www.bicyclebooth.com/en-ca/products/royal-canadian-navy-bib-shorts


----------



## FSTO

I wore the shorts down in the Caribbean during the Haitian Vacation 91. We had pants with us at all times but it was sure nice and comfy on the pilotage.


----------



## Kilted

dimsum said:


> Isn't that the same jacket cut though?  Tailored and a different colour, but I don't think it's actually any different than the others.


So when they finally switch the Army DEU from Rifle Green to khaki, it will be as simple as that.


----------



## dimsum

Kilted said:


> So when they finally switch the Army DEU from Rifle Green to khaki, it will be as simple as that.


Except that CANSOF will raise a stink that it looks too close to theirs.  

Or something like that.


----------



## Maxman1

The black NCDs look like 1980s action movie henchmen.


----------



## torg003

> Except that CANSOF will raise a stink that it looks too close to theirs.


So why does Special Forces need a separate uniform, isn't a tan beret enough??
Hate to say this, but maybe the CAF should go back to a single uniform again (though not the green one, try a different colour).


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> So why does Special Forces need a separate uniform, isn't a tan beret enough??
> Hate to say this, but maybe the CAF should go back to a single uniform again (though not the green one, try a different colour).


Army pattern of course?


----------



## torg003

Well, probably.  Maybe we should split the Army and Navy into separate entities with their own air corps.  Let's face it we don't have enough air assets to justify a separate air force.


----------



## Halifax Tar

torg003 said:


> Well, probably.  Maybe we should split the Army and Navy into separate entities with their own air corps.  Let's face it we don't have enough air assets to justify a separate air force.









I would argue we'd be better off getting rid of the Army.  We have no need for expeditionary land forces.  We have no threat of physical invasion and anyone who could get here we couldn't stop.  So lets strengthen our RCAF and RCN organizations and use them as our contributions to our international obligations.


----------



## FSTO

torg003 said:


> Well, probably.  Maybe we should split the Army and Navy into separate entities with their own air corps.  Let's face it we don't have enough air assets to justify a separate air force.


Hmm, you know originally back in the 60's when the unification debate was all the rage, there wasn't much of case to roll the whole thing into the RCN with a FAA and Marines (just like the RN, Spanish Navy, French Navy, etc etc) because of the Army and Air Force presence in Europe and that we were at 120,000 military pers (I think it was that amount). 

But now that were down to less than 60K this makes more sense.


Waiting for the howls of rage from the green meanies!


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> I would argue we'd be better off getting rid of the Army.  We have no need for expeditionary land forces.  We have no threat of physical invasion and anyone who could get here we couldn't stop.  So lets strengthen our RCAF and RCN organizations and use them as our contributions to our international obligations.



They tried that once, I believe, largely becasue the huge Army casualties of WW1 were so politically risky.

Then WW2 broke out....


----------



## GK .Dundas

I


torg003 said:


> Well, probably.  Maybe we should split the Army and Navy into separate entities with their own air corps.  Let's face it we don't have enough air assets to justify a separate air force.


You can almost see mob in AF Blue drawing their torches and pitch forks. That and getting their firewood supply.
All while muttering back and forth between these of the need for an independent Airforce. Well that and the Bomber will always get through 
" Afterall it's how we won the last war!" *


_I used to work at and around a bar near the Airbase  during the late 70's . I got to hear variants of the above from both ( then) current members and retired._


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> They tried that once, I believe, largely becasue the huge Army casualties of WW1 were so politically risky.
> 
> Then WW2 broke out....



Mmmmm nope, I don't think so.  I don't think any of the services received much attention during the interwar period.

Besides if we really need knuckle draggers again you lads are quick to train.  Point the rifle and walk towards the enemy.  There, done.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Halifax Tar said:


> Mmmmm nope, I don't think so.  I don't think any of the services received much attention during the interwar period.
> 
> Besides if we really need knuckle draggers again you lads are quick to train.  Point the rifle and walk towards the enemy.  There, done.


Ahh the Russian leadership school of thought.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Halifax Tar said:


> Mmmmm nope, I don't think so.  I don't think any of the services received much attention during the interwar period.
> 
> Besides if we really need knuckle draggers again you lads are quick to train.  Point the rifle and walk towards the enemy.  There, done.



Kind of like nowadays then? 

And we're seeing the Russians demonstrating what poor quality Infantry can do well: fill up refrigerated railway cars and force national conscription


----------



## Halifax Tar

daftandbarmy said:


> Kind of like nowadays then?
> 
> And we're seeing the Russians demonstrating what poor quality Infantry can do well: fill up refrigerated railway cars and force national conscription



Once I am not in my current position I will say more about nowadays lol

If we don't have have an Army then we don't need infantry  

See, you bring problems, I bring solutions


----------



## dimsum

GK .Dundas said:


> I
> 
> You can almost see mob in AF Blue drawing their torches and pitch forks. That and getting their firewood supply.
> All while muttering back and forth between these of the need for an independent Airforce. Well that and the Bomber will always get through
> " Afterall it's how we won the last war!" *
> 
> 
> _I used to work at and around a bar near the Airbase  during the late 70's . I got to hear variants of the above from both ( then) current members and retired._


I’m sure the CA and RCN would love the extra competition due to the influx of the formerly Blue folks in their senior ranks selection.  

However, the way I see the split is that TAC Hel goes to the Army, and everything else goes to the Navy.  You can argue maybe short range tactical transports can be Army too, but we don’t really have any of them.  Space becomes a Navy concern.

NORAD becomes, at least in the Canadian sense, an RCN mission.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> I’m sure the CA and RCN would love the extra competition due to the influx of the formerly Blue folks in their senior ranks selection.


Competition brings out the best I’ve heard.


----------



## Ostrozac

dimsum said:


> You can argue maybe short range tactical transports can be Army too, but we don’t really have any of them.


Unless you count the CC-295 Kingfisher as a light battlefield transport aircraft, because it doesn’t seem very suitable for Search and Rescue.


----------



## McG

torg003 said:


> So why does Special Forces need a separate uniform, isn't a tan beret enough??
> Hate to say this, but maybe the CAF should go back to a single uniform again (though not the green one, try a different colour).


So, battleship grey or royal blue?


----------



## daftandbarmy

McG said:


> So, battleship grey or royal blue?



Well, if we want to be properly traditional....


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:


> Well, if we want to be properly traditional....
> 
> 
> View attachment 74029


I can hear the sharpening of pitchforks in the RCN lines already.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> I can hear the sharpening of pitchforks *painting of rocks *in the RCN lines already.



There, FTFY


----------



## PuckChaser

torg003 said:


> So why does Special Forces need a separate uniform, isn't a tan beret enough??
> Hate to say this, but maybe the CAF should go back to a single uniform again (though not the green one, try a different colour).


Probably because we have DEU assigned by element, and they now have 3 trades that belong to SOF element not Air/Land/Sea?


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:


> Probably because we have DEU assigned by element, and they now have 3 trades that belong to SOF element not Air/Land/Sea?


And to confuse things further, are RCAF DEU SOF folks allowed to wear the tan beret in DEU 1 now?  

It used to be that they had to wear a tan backing on the wedge.


----------



## PuckChaser

dimsum said:


> And to confuse things further, are RCAF DEU SOF folks allowed to wear the tan beret in DEU 1 now?
> 
> It used to be that they had to wear a tan backing on the wedge.


I'd ask the RCAF CWO. A few years ago they weren't even allowed the tan backing in the wedge.


----------



## Edward Campbell

PuckChaser said:


> I'd ask the RCAF CWO. A few years ago they weren't even allowed the tan backing in the wedge.


Speaking of wedge caps ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:


> I'd ask the RCAF CWO. A few years ago they weren't even allowed the tan backing in the wedge.



Not sure CANSOF cares much what he thinks…


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:


> Not sure CANSOF cares much what he thinks…


RCAF controls the DEU, so they control the hats. I heard there was a short lived proposal that all members of CANSOF be issued the SOF DEU, to remove the silly little bun fights over berets, but obviously that's cost prohibitive for folks with only 2-3 service times in CANSOFCOM.


----------



## dimsum

PuckChaser said:


> I'd ask the RCAF CWO. A few years ago they weren't even allowed the tan backing in the wedge.


Which is weird because aren’t SAR folks allowed to wear the wedge in DEU 1?


----------



## dapaterson

SAR should have bright orange DEU.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

PuckChaser said:


> RCAF controls the DEU, so they control the hats. I heard there was a short lived proposal that all members of CANSOF be issued the SOF DEU, to remove the silly little bun fights over berets, but obviously that's cost prohibitive for folks with only 2-3 service times in CANSOFCOM.


 
RCAF Comd advises on AF DEU vice controls…


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Which is weird because aren’t SAR folks allowed to wear the wedge in DEU 1?



 They were forced to wear the wedge a few years back, and not happily if what I heard was accurate.  SAR Techs only wore their beret up until that point for as long I can remember, including in No 1 and 3.


----------



## PuckChaser

Eye In The Sky said:


> RCAF Comd advises on AF DEU vice controls…


You're a smart enough person to realize nobody is going to go against the advice of RCAF Comd on who can wear what with their DEU, but thanks for the Google picture.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I’m smart enough to know the decision isn’t Comd RCAFs to make.  Like my advice/opinion to my Officers, it’s taken into consideration but not necessarily adopted.   If it is adopted, it’s not “my” policy.  

The fact stands; the RCAF Comd doesn’t control air DEU policy.  They are the biggest influencer, but it would be interesting to see what side the coin would fall on if Comd SOF pushed hard for the change to tan beret.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here’s the latest/greatest on Air DEU posted to SOF…my personal opinion is the tan beret should be allowed in all orders.  They earn it.  I also didn’t agree with the change that made SAR Techs have to wear the head wallet either.


----------



## WLSC

daftandbarmy said:


> They tried that once, I believe, largely becasue the huge Army casualties of WW1 were so politically risky.
> 
> Then WW2 broke out....


I was going to write that.  The idea sur  turn out well!


----------

