# Precedence of Tribal Badges (or “why I want to wear that badge) – split thread



## Halifax Tar (12 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As to your off topic suggestion, if you mean that all officer wearing DEU should wear the current "mars" cap badge, that all C&PO's wear the PO2 and above "hard sea" trade cap badge and all seamen wear the MS and below "hard sea" trade cap badge regardless , and that their trade (cook, log O, admin, storesman, etc.) or occupation be denoted by a good looking and wisely positioned badge of some sort on their DEU's, I fully agree.
> 
> One Navy, always - trade second.



I tend to agree with Pusser and yourself on this one.  Naval Log types should wear the anchor, alas the Log Branch would never allow such a gross show of pride in one element!  My god we are purple after all!   

The cheapie cloth one is garbage and looks terrible.  I would concede it for work dress uniforms but for DEUs it is just plain unacceptable.


----------



## Pusser (12 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I tend to agree with Pusser and yourself on this one.  Naval Log types should wear the anchor, alas the Log Branch would never allow such a gross show of pride in one element!  My god we are purple after all!
> 
> The cheapie cloth one is garbage and looks terrible.  I would concede it for work dress uniforms but for DEUs it is just plain unacceptable.



In my view, trade badges address the Branch identity issue.  Trade badges plus a Branch cap badge are actually redundant.  Unfortunately, the Log Branch apparently doesn't believe one can have pride in both one's branch and one's service.


----------



## Loachman (12 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, the Log Branch apparently doesn't believe one can have pride in both one's branch and one's service _*environmental command*_.



There is still only one _*Service*_, despite the number of confused people around.

We have a Naval-uniform-wearing PO2 here, but he is a member of the R**F, as are those people wearing dark green uniforms.


----------



## Happy Guy (12 Feb 2016)

The Logistics badge denotes that you are a Logistician.  The trade badge tells the viewer that you are a MSE OP or Tfc Tech or Sup Tech or RMS Clk, Fin Clk or an Ammo Tech.


----------



## Pusser (12 Feb 2016)

Happy Guy said:
			
		

> The Logistics badge denotes that you are a Logistician.  The trade badge tells the viewer that you are a MSE OP or Tfc Tech or Sup Tech or RMS Clk, Fin Clk or an Ammo Tech.



Since those are all Logistics trades, the trade badge serves to identify the wearer as both a logistician and a member of a particular trade.  A Logistics cap badge is not required to do that.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (12 Feb 2016)

Ummm, does the whole NCD or DEU or stitching on your name tape/rank insignia show that you are Navy?  The cap badge would be the last indicator method of realizing that.

Any way, we have now identified members of the "Buttons and Bows" Brigade (or should that be Squadron?), please make sure that no operational problems disturb their chatter.


----------



## Pusser (12 Feb 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There is still only one _*Service*_, despite the number of confused people around.
> 
> We have a Naval-uniform-wearing PO2 here, but he is a member of the R**F, as are those people wearing dark green uniforms.



Semantics.  I used the term "service" because "environmental command," besides being a mouthful (and not a pleasant one) is not a complete statement.  The Commander RCN made it very clear when the name was reinstated that *the RCN is NOT just an environmental command*.  He very clearly stated that the RCN includes ALL personnel wearing naval uniforms.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2016)

The NDA disagrees.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Feb 2016)

PART II
The Canadian Forces
Constitution

Marginal note: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.

R.S., c. N-4, s. 14.

Units and Other Elements

Marginal note:Organization

17 (1) The Canadian Forces shall consist of those of the following elements that are from time to time organized by or under the authority of the Minister:

(a) commands, including the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force;

(b) formations;

(c) units; and

(d) other elements.

Marginal note:Components

(2) A unit or other element organized under subsection (1), other than a command or a formation, shall from time to time be embodied in a component of the Canadian Forces as directed by or under the authority of the Minister.

R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 17; 2014, c. 20, s. 168.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-5/FullText.html


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Feb 2016)

The skew of this thread reminded me of this photo I recently came across that had "RCN" logisticians front and centre.  Yup, definitely navy.


----------



## CountDC (12 Feb 2016)

Can I stir some more?

It was once pointed out to me that many members of the "real" navy such as bos'ns were of the opinion that regardless of wearing the salt and pepper you did not and should not have the right to wear the anchor on your cap until you have sailed so switching navy logs over may satisfy some loggies it may P.O. (pun intended) a lot more hard sea trade members.  

My Cap bade tells everyone I am log, my NCDs and beard tells everyone I am navy.  Let's not waste money revamping a badge, give it to me instead.  I promise to find a better use for it.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Feb 2016)

Your beard says that it's a while since you went to sea


----------



## CountDC (12 Feb 2016)

true - and no intention of going.  One part of my posting that I am enjoying, driving the army crazy by wearing NCDs and a beard.

The directions say dress for today is combats ......... I am wearing combats.

This is the army, our dress of the day is CADPAT ............. I am navy, my dress of the day is NCDs.

What if I order you to wear CADPAT .......... email it sir and I will forward to Adm Donaldson to confirm that your order over rules the canforgen he issued.

4 years later and still waiting.   [


----------



## Baz (12 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Semantics.  I used the term "service" because "environmental command," besides being a mouthful (and not a pleasant one) is not a complete statement.  The Commander RCN made it very clear when the name was reinstated that *the RCN is NOT just an environmental command*.  He very clearly stated that the RCN includes ALL personnel wearing naval uniforms.



The CANFORGEN, released by the CAS  (as he is the only one entitled to do so) stated it was just a renaming of the three environmental commands.  That is true unless they change the NBA. 

The MARGEN,  by the Comd RCN, said the RCN is more than an environmental command... it is the institution all member's wearing the Naval uniform belong.  The term institution has no definition or standing in the organizational structure.

The Comd RCN has no legal authority over someone not actually in the RCN... ie in his chain of command, ie what used to be called MARCOM.  The chain of command you work for does.  If they order you to wear CADPAT that is a legal order, full stop.

The only thing the whole thing did was further confuse C2 in an already confused organization.  We had an Air Force LCol at SHAPE that insisted he was in the RCAF...he wasn't, he was in VCDS, and the CO had to explain it to him.

The Comd RCN should have been put back in his box by the CAS, but that would have been contrary to the flavour of the day, and the result is now we have NCMs believing they can challenge their chain of command over uniforms... lovely.  Funny thing is other countries that have legally separate services, and us when we did as well, would never allow that.  If you were in the real RCN and we're attached the the Army you would never have thought it was appropriate to question things like this.  Do you think a USN Corpsman attached to the US Army questions what he's told to wear.

Ironically, I think Naval Air should be just that, Naval... to avoid the situation.  In no way does Canadian Naval Air ever completely belong to the RCN, even when embarked.  Full Command remains back through the Sqn and the RCAF.  Which means there are things they can't be ordered to do, which this same RCN gets all bent out of shape over, even while still trying to influence command in the Army.   FUBAR. 

Make Naval Air belong to the Navy, like everywhere else... but understand if you are not in the RCN they have no legal authority to tell you anything.


----------



## CountDC (17 Feb 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> The Comd RCN has no legal authority over someone not actually in the RCN... ie in his chain of command, ie what used to be called MARCOM.  The chain of command you work for does.  If they order you to wear CADPAT that is a legal order, full stop.
> 
> The Comd RCN should have been put back in his box by the CAS, but that would have been contrary to the flavour of the day, and the result is now we have NCMs believing they can challenge their chain of command over uniforms... lovely.  Funny thing is other countries that have legally separate services, and us when we did as well, would never allow that.  If you were in the real RCN and we're attached the the Army you would never have thought it was appropriate to question things like this.  Do you think a USN Corpsman attached to the US Army questions what he's told to wear.



Adm Donaldson was the VCDS when he signed the CANFORGEN not CMS.  Damn rights I will challenge anyone that wants to issue me an order to wear a uniform contrary to regulations same as I challenged them when they tried to tell me I couldn't wear a beard. I also challenge them over many things as it is part of my responsibility as a SNCM and clerk to challenge them when I see they are ignoring a regulation.  Guess what - I just did it again today.  Guess what else - my chain of command has thanked me several times for doing it as they want to be aware so that they can keep out of trouble for doing something wrong.   If your chain doesn't appreciate being challenged and advised of the regulations then there is something wrong there.

Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> > Your beard says that it's a while since you went to sea
> 
> 
> true - and no intention of going.


So you like dressing up as a sailor but have no intention of being one; you just like focusing on costumes and badges.  Why are you not in NDHQ?

It's a rhetorical question.  <--- that means don't bother responding.




			
				AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Any way, we have now identified members of the "Buttons and Bows" Brigade (or should that be Squadron?), please make sure that no operational problems disturb their chatter.


    :nod:


----------



## CountDC (20 Feb 2016)

I will answer anyway.

I was at NDHQ and left.

and the answer is no I don't like dressing up as a sailor, that is the uniform the military gave to me and told me I have to wear.  I also wore green prior and didn't care as a uniform is a uniform and as a purply trade really doesn't matter which I wear.  As I posted earlier I like driving the army here crazy thus the beard.  The truth is I never grew one with the ship, at stad or when at CMSHQ.  I just grew it here.


----------



## Baz (20 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.



This is exactly what a lot of people were worried about when thiswas being pushed for.  At least when Hellyer unified he actually rewrite the only order that really matters, the NDA.   The original direction was clear... this was only supposed to be the renaming of Maritime Command to the RCN , and Air Command to the RCAF.  Then somehow the "Institution" of the RCN was created, whatever that means.

On the Air Force side, it's another issue.  The creeping expansion of 1CdnAirDiv and the "CAOC" into C2 areas they don't belong (like a HelAirDet) at sea is also causing confusion.

I'm quite sure you know the "regulations" better than I; I wouldn't be so proud of it because the are unorganized, often conflicting, and frequently break some of the basic rules of C2.  However, I'm relatively confident I understand C2 sufficiently to know that the situation you are so happy to perpetrate in order to annoy people in your legal formation in the long term will be bad for effective C2 and probably good order and discipline.  I couldn't give a hoot what you wear or whether you shave.  The current situation concerning basic understanding of "Full Command" does concern me.

If what you describe is what the government wants, then let's recreate the RCN and RCAF properly, put everybody in one of the 3 (or more services) with their proper uniform, and get on with it.  Of course, then your trade would split in three, you would have three choices for posting (West, East, and Ottawa), and your career flexibility would be 1/3rd as well.  And your trade would be the first to proclaim bloody murder.

But that's not what will happen... will keep issuing "regulations" and "directives" concerning organizations that don't legally exist, diluting the responsibility of command, and conveniently also diluting the responsibility of commanders to command (so that they don't have to take responsibility for their actions).  And it's quite likely it will never matter because the organization will never be truly tested.  But history shows repeatedly that it never turns ot good if there is any question as to who is actually in charge in times of stress...

Now I need to try to figure out why I give a flying f¥£€.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Feb 2016)

I have to agree with Baz on this one.

When RCN/RCAF/CA were brought back as terminology, they clearly were identified as replacement "labels" for the Maritime Command, Air Command and Land Force Command. Unification was not undone and nothing changed.

When posted to a ship, you are under RCN whilst you train, and if deployed on ops, you then belong to CJOC. This is regardless of the colour of your uniform. Same applies to someone working on an Air Force base or at an Army Camp.

When I first heard of the order indicating that when people wearing the naval DEU were posted to an "Army/Air Force" base and the dress of the day was Combats, they were to wear their NCD, unless warranted by special circumstances (such as being deployed in the field), I too in another thread of these forum questioned the basis for Cmdt RCN to be able to make an order that would override the orders of people outside his chain of command. But then, I was informed that it was a CANFORGEN that ordered it be so, and that made then clear that it is a binding order on all the commands of the CF.

After a fashion, I thought about it and came to the conclusion that it is not only a proper order, but a logical one where the unified CF are concerned. I have two reasons. One is purely practical/economical: It would be very expensive in the end if people had to trade in their NCD or CADPAT every time they get posted back and forth between the RCN or the RCAF/CA. The second reason is actually in keeping with the letter and spirit of unification: If people (and in particular purple trade to whom it applies most often) were "ordered" to turn in their NCD and get into CADPAT whenever posted to a RCAF/CA base (or in reverse to turn in their CADPAT and get into NCD when posted to a RCN base, such as galley duties in Halifax for instance), how would that be different than asking them to change DEU's to correspond to their posting each time they get posted in and out of a given command? THAT would be undoing unification. So in that sense the order is quite comprehensible.


----------



## FSTO (20 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have to agree with Baz on this one.
> 
> When RCN/RCAF/CA were brought back as terminology, they clearly were identified as replacement "labels" for the Maritime Command, Air Command and Land Force Command. Unification was not undone and nothing changed.
> 
> ...



Well if I could be a bit of a wag; That was what the green uniforms were for!!!  >

I believe that Hellyer should have used the RN model for unification (RCN, Naval Aviation and the RCMC) but I know a group on here would really get their shorts in a knot!!!

Oh and Baz? USN Corpsmen work for the Marines not the US Army.

Cheers!!!


----------



## Baz (20 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Oh and Baz? USN Corpsmen work for the Marines not the US Army.



I never said work for, I said attached to... which they do.  I didn't want to use the exams of Corpsman with the Marines because they for all intents and purposes act like Marines.

But as that example is an edge case, I'll use this one.  When the Navy ordered me to wear NCDs on the boat I wore them.  And I never was posted to the boat, I was always attached posted.  So my Full Command chain was NEVER to the ship's CO, and I always had residual command responsibilities back to the Sqn.  If they had ordered my to wear them while flying then I would of refused.  Of course, in the early 90's we did have a detachment ordered to not wear flying jackets because they were only for Sea Training... and that order was enforced until the ship came along side and it hit the fan.

CANFORGEN 198/09, which is the one in question, is valid; pers wearing belonging to the Naval Environment (to be precise, entitled to wear the Naval Distinctive Environmental Uniform) should normally wear NCDs.  And as OGBD driver sind it even makes sense.   But it has nothing to do with the RCN, it pre-dates it by 2 years.  In no way do these pers belong to the RCN; they do have a tie to the institution of the RCN but no legal reporting mechanism.  It also says except for valid operational reason, again which makes sense.

What I have a problem with is the tone displayed... if you are ordered to wear CADPAT or any other dress, unless manifestly wrong, then that is a legal order.  A blanket statement that you are going to EMail the VCDS and then ignore the order until you get a reply is so contrary to proper C2 principals that it is scary.

None of it surprises me... I had a conversation a few years ago with an ORO (the 2nd most senior person on the ship when it comes to employment) about Full Command to the RCN, and latent responsibilities,  when chopped to CEFCOM or Canada COM  (at the time, now CJOC )... he in effect was saying the RCN could retask  him.   It showed a marked misunderstanding of the difference between MARLANT and JTF (A), even though they are Commanded by the same person.

You need to go no further than the JTF (P) website which describes some units, like 443, as units of JTF (P)... it may even say units of MARPAC but I can't be bothered to check... no, they are are.lodger units, not units of.  There was a reason they taught this stuff in OPDP 4 or whichever one it was.

I believe a legal order is just that, an order to be followed, unless it's manifestly illegal(illegal, as in against the law of Canada, primarily the NDA, or international law like the law of armed confict), or unsafe (and that only when you are not in a situation where the Commander has already evaluated safety).  You can advise that you believe it to be contrary to a regulation, but if ordered to do so then you do it; I also fully expect the chain of command to take responsibility for their orders.  So in this case the caveat is valid operational reason... to me that is decision for the chain of command.

There were situations I can thin of that I would have asked for the order in writing and then lock it in a safe (and even then only if time permits), but they weren't something as trivial as what clothes to put on.  Stuff like being ordered to go flying when it normally wouldn't be authorized to do so.  And in extremists I can think of situations I would have disobeyed such an order if given (as an example,  being ordered to launch by a ship's CO to conduct a SAR in unsuitable weather conditions ), but I would also fully expect to be charged with disobedience of an order and have the court martial figure it out.  Obviously I would hope that such an order would never be given.

OK... this certainly no longer belongs in this thread.  But to reiterate, it's not about the buttons and bows, nor the duty of subordinates to inform superiors of regulations they may not be aware of; it's about my perceived understanding of what some think the RCN and RCAF is, and the tone used to describe interaction with a lawful chain of command.

Edited to be a little shorter and a little less confrontational.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Feb 2016)

I'll probably commit an act of sheer heresy here, but might not one of the factors be the titles we now give the heads of the elements, i.e. Commander RCN, Commander CA, Commander RCAF.  The venerable sages of this site may correct (and flog me) at will but in the hoary days before Mr Hellyer, didn't we call them Chief of the Navy Staff, Chief of the General Staff and Chief of the Air Staff?  Much different connotations than calling them 'commanders'.  It might explain some of the confusion, especially since CJOC is actually the commander employing the folks in the war zone.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Feb 2016)

Bravo, Baz.

I recently had an enlightening conversation with some folks from the Air Warfare Centre that made it crystal clear that the RCAF is more interested in making its Sqns fit a very USAF centric C2 model (that arguable does not fit Canada, given that our Air Force does Maritime functions that the USAF does not do) then they are in understand both the doctrine and C2 structure of the Army and Navy that they support, so that they can tailor the delivery of aerial effects to meet the needs of those services.

Instead, you see the RCAF antagonize both the Army and Navy with its cookie cutter ATF structure, which do not fit inside the doctrine of those services.

It is to weep.

Again, de-unification by stealth without the apparent knowledge of the CDS or MND.


----------



## Baz (21 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Instead, you see the RCAF antagonize both the Army and Navy with its cookie cutter ATF structure, which do not fit inside the doctrine of those services.



Yep, had the same conversations, including wrote a letter to their Journal (which is available on the internet).  The Navy (and Army?) sometimes don't seem to understand the Full Command and residual implications, but worse the Air Force doesn't get that they don't need the USAF structure to exercise those responsibilities, as they do in fact retain full Command.

What is interesting is that the highest level regulations don't necessarily belong to the Air Force: flying orders belong to the CDS and technical airworthiness to ADM (Mat) for instance.  You could keep the Comd RCAF the advisor to the CDS on flight matters and retain responsibility for the maintenance of airworthiness, and move Naval and Tac Aviation back to the Navy and Army, and it would still work.   Attached units would still be that, attached, but the squadron full Command would be to a different environment, the primary Airworthiness authorities would also still be in place  The question is: would it make the situation any better, or worse?

Going farther, you could then re-encapsulate the Aviation communities (ie limit movement of hard air trades, aircrew and techs, in and out) and get back the sense of specialness they had.  At that point their home environment is no longer the Air Force.  Again, would that help?

But these are actual real questions of C2, not minor issues of buttons and bows.  Which uniform they wear is a by-product of where their home is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Bravo, Baz.
> 
> I recently had an enlightening conversation with some folks from the Air Warfare Centre that made it crystal clear that the RCAF is more interested in making its Sqns fit a very USAF centric C2 model (that arguable does not fit Canada, given that our Air Force does Maritime functions that the USAF does not do) then they are in understand both the doctrine and C2 structure of the Army and Navy that they support, so that they can tailor the delivery of aerial effects to meet the needs of those services.
> 
> ...




I agree _most of your first point_, but I'm not sure about the second.

The formation of Air Command in 1975 is the "root cause" of the problem and I am 100% sure that the CDS, Gen Jacques Dextraze at the time, knew what (air force) Gens Carr and Hull were doing, and why ...

I'm not sure that the MND of the day, James Richardson, understood the implications or that even cared all that much.

More important, I think, is why it was allowed to happen.

As others have explained, many (most? almost all?) Navy admirals and Army generals were (intellectually) aware of the absolute need for *joint* forces, which we had in Maritime Command and Mobile Command, but they seemed unwilling or unable to make the hard organizational and priority setting choices needed to maintain joint forces when resources were tight ... tribalism and parochialism, I guess.

Meanwhile, from the very start, the "old" RCAF had felt short changed by Minister Hellyer: Maritime and Mobile Commands were big, joint commands, clearly the "top tier" but the air force only had a couple of smaller, single role commands: Air Defence Command and Air Transport Command. The solution, it always seemed to me, was simple, way back circa 1965: three big commands: Maritime, Mobile *and Air*. Air Command to have both air defence and air transport and, indeed, an air training (flying training) group. But, that never happened ... I was told it was discussed, every now and again, but nothing happened and the air force generals stewed and the anger festered and ... 1975 and Air Command and the biggest, dumbest "silo" in all, of human history was created, tossing everything we had learned about the value of joint operations (and organizations) on to the bonfire of logic so that a few enormous light blue egos could be satisfied.

Who to blame? Carr and Hull, obviously, but also Hellyer, himself, and Miller, the first CDS who, I think, understood the flaw in Hellyer's plan and other chiefs, like Allard and Sharp (although I heard _rumours_ that Sharp was part of the problem and actually drove the process), who could have recommended changes. Oh, and every CDS since, some of whom, I know, understood that Air Command was a useless, even destructive monster but did nothing to make changes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> Yep, had the same conversations, including wrote a letter to their Journal (which is available on the internet).  The Navy (and Army?) sometimes don't seem to understand the Full Command and residual implications, but worse the Air Force doesn't get that they don't need the USAF structure to exercise those responsibilities, as they do in fact retain full Command.
> 
> What is interesting is that the highest level regulations don't necessarily belong to the Air Force: flying orders belong to the CDS and technical airworthiness to ADM (Mat) for instance.  You could keep the Comd RCAF the advisor to the CDS on flight matters and retain responsibility for the maintenance of airworthiness, and move Naval and Tac Aviation back to the Navy and Army, and it would still work.   Attached units would still be that, attached, but the squadron full Command would be to a different environment, the primary Airworthiness authorities would also still be in place  The question is: would it make the situation any better, or worse?
> 
> ...




I know I'm repeating myself, but the service chiefs should be just that: Chief of the Naval _Staff_, Chief of the General _Staff_ and Chief of the Air _Staff_, professional heads of service, not commanders, with responsibilities for, _inter alia_, doctrine, individual training, and requirements but no, not even one iota of command authority over anyone but their own HQ clerks and staff officers. Oh, and they should be two stars appointments, too ... to keep the chain of command clear.


----------



## Baz (21 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know I'm repeating myself, but the service chiefs should be just that: Chief of the Naval _Staff_, Chief of the General _Staff_ and Chief of the Air _Staff_, professional heads of service, not commanders, with responsibilities for, _inter alia_, doctrine, individual training, and requirements but no, not even one iota of command authority over anyone but their own HQ clerks and staff officers. Oh, and they should be two stars appointments, too ... to keep the chain of command clear.



I can get onside for that, but I have a question.  Even though they would not be Commanders (of operations) should they not retain full Command of their environmental pers?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> I can get onside for that, but I have a question.  Even though they would not be Commanders (of operations) should they not retain full Command of their environmental pers?



No,not in my opinion. They should be staff leaders. Command should rest, in a very clear chain of command, with the CDS, through commanders of joint or single service operational commands, formation commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings) and captains/COs of ships and units.


----------



## Baz (21 Feb 2016)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No,not in my opinion. They should be staff leaders. Command should rest, in a very clear chain of command, with the CDS, through commanders of joint or single service operational commands, formation commanders (MOGs, brigades, wings) and captains/COs of ships and units.



Now you gave me something useful to think about..

In the US system the forces are generated by the environment chiefs  (of staff), but what level of authority does the environment retain once chopped to the CO COM?   Not saying the US system is "right," but it is probably the best developed joint system.


----------



## McG (21 Feb 2016)

The unified commands (as opposed to joint) have seen detailed discussion before.  Aside from buttons and bows threads, it has been covered in the thread on HQ restructure.

To save your digging though 34 pages, it seems to start here:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/97262/post-1068689.html#msg1068689


----------



## CountDC (21 Feb 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> What I have a problem with is the tone displayed... if you are ordered to wear CADPAT or any other dress, unless manifestly wrong, then that is a legal order.  A blanket statement that you are going to EMail the VCDS and then ignore the order until you get a reply is so contrary to proper C2 principals that it is scary.
> 
> None of



Seems you have read something that I never said - at no point did I state or indicate I would not follow the order, merely that I requested it in writing when asked "what if I ordered you to wear it" so I could send it up as the order went against regulations of the CF as issued in the CANFORGEN and the order was never issued.   


Just as a point for those that seem to misunderstand the process of kit issue (or maybe I am reading it wrong) - when I draw green stuff I do not have to hand in my NCDs.  I do have all the green for when we go on field ex which amounts to once a year for one day for me.  Personally I think it is a waste to issue me all this green stuff to do a range shoot I am not required to have (only need PWT2 which is done on the SAT but they insist on PWT3), throw 2 grenades and a gas hut all of which could be done in NCDs (and yes I have done them in it).  I was ordered to draw the kit and to wear it for the ex so I do despite thinking it is stupid because it was an order that was actually issued and it does fit within the regulation.

Buttons and bows is an issue because the army insists on wanting to control every little detail of mbrs right down to the uniform they wear.  If it wasn't for the army mentality of everyone must wear green then the CANFORGEN would not have been needed in the first place.  Why does it matter to the army what I wear as a uniform to sit an office, do the SAT or gas hut.  In fact they should be happy to let me stay in my NCDs so they can issue the cadpat to an army member that actually needs it as there seems to be a shortage to go around. Instead I have the entire green issue that Cpl Army would receive sitting in my office locker and battle box not being used.  

i agree with the view that your command is the element you are posted to and not the element you are affiliated with. I am posted to the army thus I deal with army orders rather than marcords when elemental policies apply.  In some ways I agree with the desire to totally seperate the elements of army, navy and air force with anyone posted to them falling completely under their command.  I would feel sorry though for my army counterparts as I have no doubt they would be cut to even more barebones than we already have been and still expected to keep up with all the work.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Buttons and bows is an issue because the army insists on wanting to control every little detail of mbrs right down to the uniform they wear.  If it wasn't for the army mentality of everyone must wear green then the CANFORGEN would not have been needed in the first place.  Why does it matter to the army what I wear as a uniform to sit an office, do the SAT or gas hut.  In fact they should be happy to let me stay in my NCDs so they can issue the cadpat to an army member that actually needs it as there seems to be a shortage to go around. Instead I have the entire green issue that Cpl Army would receive sitting in my office locker and battle box not being used.



We get it, you hate the Army. You also work for the Army, and they can tell you to wear whatever they want. Just like if I worked for the Navy, I'd wear ballcaps and coveralls because that's a lawful order. This buttons and bows crap is not solely an Army problem. It was the Navy that issued a CANFORGEN overstepping its bounds (IMHO). You also don't sail, so why are you wearing a Naval work dress? You're not using the uniform for its intended purpose, so throw on your DEU and wear that. How much money is wasted by you wearing the seat of your NCD pants out every year, when actual sailors could use it for actually sailing? You trying to start a bunfight over uniforms is exactly why we have problems with empire building in the CAF. Members of CANSOF in RCAF DEU cannot wear a tan beret, or even a tan insert (similar to MPs), all because Comd RCAF controls their DEU and said no (for what reason, someone in the Comd would have to outline). If I'm posted to an armored unit, they'd want me to wear a black beret with my jimmy. Do I get all up in arms about it, because I'm not armored? No. They do it because they want their support elements to feel like they're a part of the team, a part of the family, and an easy way to do that is have everyone in the same headdress. 

At the end of the day, ordering Naval DEU pers to wear NCDs all the time was an absolutely stupid idea, out of someone's idea that no one knew the Navy existed. As if the anchor, black beret, and black thread on slipons/nametags wasn't enough. Look at the new NCDs: How many freaking times do you need your uniform to say "NAVY"?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Just as a point for those that seem to misunderstand the process of kit issue (or maybe I am reading it wrong) - when I draw green stuff I do not have to hand in my NCDs.  I do have all the green for when we go on field ex which amounts to once a year for one day for me.  Personally I think it is a waste to issue me all this green stuff to do a range shoot I am not required to have (only need PWT2 which is done on the SAT but they insist on PWT3), throw 2 grenades and a gas hut all of which could be done in NCDs (and yes I have done them in it).  I was ordered to draw the kit and to wear it for the ex so I do despite thinking it is stupid because it was an order that was actually issued and it does fit within



There's your first problem.... PWT 2 is only done in the SAT if you are required to do PWT 3 live. You have to complete your highest level PWT live.

Other than that, just wear the uniform you're required to wear. If you're in an army HQ and they want you in CADPAT just wear CADPAT


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Adm Donaldson was the VCDS when he signed the CANFORGEN not CMS.  Damn rights I will challenge anyone that wants to issue me an order to wear a uniform contrary to regulations same as I challenged them when they tried to tell me I couldn't wear a beard. I also challenge them over many things as it is part of my responsibility as a SNCM and clerk to challenge them when I see they are ignoring a regulation.  Guess what - I just did it again today.  Guess what else - my chain of command has thanked me several times for doing it as they want to be aware so that they can keep out of trouble for doing something wrong.   If your chain doesn't appreciate being challenged and advised of the regulations then there is something wrong there.
> 
> Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.





			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Adm Donaldson was the VCDS when he signed the CANFORGEN not CMS.  Damn rights I will challenge anyone that wants to issue me an order to wear a uniform contrary to regulations same as I challenged them when they tried to tell me I couldn't wear a beard. I also challenge them over many things as it is part of my responsibility as a SNCM and clerk to challenge them when I see they are ignoring a regulation.
> Last time I checked we are the REAL RCN, I am posted to the army and yes I not only think it is approriate to question, it is expected when you are aware of the regulations.



You might want to familiarize yourself with the contents of CFP 265 then WRT being ordered to wear CADPAT.   First, Order of Precedence WRT CFP 265 [A-DH-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff].  Does your Adm's CANFORGEN say it supersedes CFP 265?  Likely not, however...

From CFP 265, Ch 1, Art 8.

CONTROL

8. Control is exercised by local commanders
who may standardize the dress of subordinates on
any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements
and alternative or optional items, subject to overall
command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1,
paragraph 44.

If I was your Sgt-Major, I would give you 2 choices (1) get issued and wear CADPAT IAW Art 8 above or (2) be prepared for a charge which may be successful, and a RW that would be successful.

If you are a PO2, you are a Senior NCO, not a Senior NCM.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank.page

_*Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers*_  Notice, there is no term SNCM present.

:2c:   I saw lots of NAval DEU folks on my last deployment, oddly enough they were all in Arid CADPAT, and not one of them in NCDs.

Being a clerk gives you no more 'right' or 'duty' to challenge lawful commands than anyone else.   :  No offense to clerks, but you're not exactly on the spear, let alone the tip of it.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Feb 2016)

Oh look, a mic drop.


----------



## SupersonicMax (21 Feb 2016)

I take no issue in someone being proud of the traditions by wearing their environmental dress in such a way.  I do take offense though in an individual that does so only because he gets a kick out of the reaction of his CoC and because he can "show them" he knows better.  This is unacceptable and should be corrected.

Having said that, I also take offence in an organization that imposes things on their members "just because".  In the end, we should all be adults, and the CoC should not impose more restrictions than necessary without meaningful reason and members should not conduct themselves in ways that provoke the CoC solely because they get a kick out of it.  This is, IMHO, the only way to encourage flexibility in the organization:  by treating them as adults and trusting them they can make the right decisions, even when there is no cut & dry orders that go with it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2016)

Everyone gets to pick the hill they die on/sword they fall on.  Example, while at my Sqn, I can wear a beret, wedge, or toque with my operational dress (green flight suit) and, in certain locations, a ball hat.  I also wear my approved Sqn patches, and would be considered out of dress without them.

If I was deployed to the current theatre my types are going to lately, my single choice in operational dress (flight suit, but arid pattern/colour), I would be limited to the arid bushhat.  My Sqn patches are not authorized in that location.

When in Rome...


----------



## Halifax Tar (22 Feb 2016)

Call me crazy but all this who wares what, when; could all be avoided and done away with if regained some common sense and posted soldiers to the field, sailors to sea and airmen to a hotel.  

I know right!  Its nuts for a sailor to expect to go to sea, isnt it ?

But wait!  My goodness what would happen too our purple (read Logistic) empires ?


----------



## Happy Guy (22 Feb 2016)

The only answer to the "Logistics Empire" is that each individual environment / service does not have sufficient numbers of logisticians to support it.  The increasing complexity of weapons, the situation in theatre dictates how we fight battles and the troops own perceived expectations tells the GO/FOs how many logisticians are required. Having worked this side before I can honestly tell you that there is no fat anywhere in operational units (HQs are another matter).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Call me crazy but all this who wares what, when; could all be avoided and done away with if regained some common sense and posted soldiers to the field, sailors to sea and airmen to a hotel.
> 
> I know right!  Its nuts for a sailor to expect to go to sea, isnt it ?
> 
> But wait!  My goodness what would happen too our purple (read Logistic) empires ?



True but that would require complete de-unification...not likely to happen and likely very expensive for 0 gain in 'operational capability' (which, personally, is what I really care about;  I don`t care for the Game of Thrones BS that IMO is rampant in our SMALL armed forces (if you can fit the entire Reg Force, with room to spare, in Fort Knox and everyone is in a hard building...you have a small Armed Forces.  Knox can house up to 70,000 troops in building, or could when I was there last).

On the "..but I am RCN, I don't HAVE to wear CADAP!" debate.  The RCN certainly expects Army DEU pers posted to their HMCSs to wear NCD with CADPAT slip-ons regardless of how &^(@#@@ stupid it looks.

Gotta love the double standard deal!


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2016)

Our good friend, The Regimental Rogue posted this ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





... which is, pretty much, why we have fairly senior people who, supposedly, ought to have something useful to do, harping about their "_*right*_" to wear this or that, while other people, the ones who really are useful, are trying to get boots out to the field ... after they fix the B vehicle fleet that we need to carry the boots (and bullets and beans). The Canadian Armed Forces is a far less than perfect "military machine," and it is made less and less perfect by the "'polish and pipeclay' school," as Liddell-Hart so aptly described the people who wasted staff time, efforts and focus on restoring pips and crowns when there are real, serious, deficiencies with which our admirals and generals ought to be concerned.


----------



## CountDC (23 Feb 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We get it, you hate the Army.


Don' recall saying that.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You also work for the Army, and they can tell you to wear whatever they want. Just like if I worked for the Navy, I'd wear ballcaps and coveralls because that's a lawful order. This buttons and bows crap is not solely an Army problem. It was the Navy that issued a CANFORGEN overstepping its bounds (IMHO).


It was the VCDS who had the auth to do so that issued the CANFORGEN which I am sure he discussed with the CDS prior. The Navy cannot issue them, they issue MARGENS.  Agree though that it is certainly not just an army problem - navy curl comes to mind.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You also don't sail, so why are you wearing a Naval work dress? You're not using the uniform for its intended purpose, so throw on your DEU and wear that.


Because the regulations say I am to wear NCDs.  I would have no problem with just wearing DEU.  In fact I think they should have a seperate uniform for purple trades which consists solely of DEU or a suitable work dress for those needing it ie veh techs.  Then when we are posted to whichever element and need the environmental kit they could issue it rather than wasting it on us all the time. I have two pages of army kit that I am sure could be used by others instead of sitting in my office.  Other option would be to totally seperate us all again so that navy logs are posted to navy, army to army and air to air but I think Baz is right on that one.  



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You trying to start a bunfight over uniforms is exactly why we have problems with empire building in the CAF.


Didn't start or try to start this.  I posted about one part of my posting that I am enjoying (see post 13) then others did the traditional read what they want to, assume what wasnt said and pile on.  



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, ordering Naval DEU pers to wear NCDs all the time was an absolutely stupid idea, out of someone's idea that no one knew the Navy existed. As if the anchor, black beret, and black thread on slipons/nametags wasn't enough. Look at the new NCDs: How many freaking times do you need your uniform to say "NAVY"?


I agree but it was ordered in the CANFORGEN and until it is changed as many have liked to point out - it is an order so we are to obey it.  Although it was aimed at the public which most likely wouldn't understand the items you mentioned even wearing the NCDs they still don't get it and think army unless you are on the coast.  if the order was given to save money or keep the green available for members that actually needed it or as OGBD mentioned it would make sense. 



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> There's your first problem.... PWT 2 is only done in the SAT if you are required to do PWT 3 live. You have to complete your highest level PWT live.


Thank you, wasn't aware of that as they have told me every year it could be done on the SAT. 



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> You might want to familiarize yourself with the contents of CFP 265 then WRT being ordered to wear CADPAT.   First, Order of Precedence WRT CFP 265 [A-DH-265-000/AG-001, Canadian Forces Dress Instructions, is issued on authority of the Chief of Defence Staff].  Does your Adm's CANFORGEN say it supersedes CFP 265?  Likely not, however...


Not my Adm - the VCDS and the CANFORGEN does supersede the CFP and I think fits into the "subject to overall command direction" part of your quote.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If I was your Sgt-Major, I would give you 2 choices (1) get issued and wear CADPAT IAW Art 8 above or (2) be prepared for a charge which may be successful, and a RW that would be successful.


and as it was an order i would then wear it (already have it issued) and submit my grievance that would be successful to have the order over ruled by a higher level as it is against regulations.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> If you are a PO2, you are a Senior NCO, not a Senior NCM.  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/honours-history-badges-insignia/rank.page
> 
> _*Warrant Officers, Petty Officers and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers*_  Notice, there is no term SNCM present.


actually I am both.  SNCO is someone of Sgt rank level, SNCM covers all from Sgt to CWO level. 

QR&O Definitions:  
"non-commissioned member" (militaire du rang)means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; * 
"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal;



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> :2c:   I saw lots of NAval DEU folks on my last deployment, oddly enough they were all in Arid CADPAT, and not one of them in NCDs.


because they were deployed and not in garrison. I would certainly do the same.  It also fits within the regulations



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Being a clerk gives you no more 'right' or 'duty' to challenge lawful commands than anyone else.   :  No offense to clerks, but you're not exactly on the spear, let alone the tip of it.


No it doesn't nor did I state it did, it gives me the same right and duty though to challenge commands that are against regulations and may not be lawful, we even have a grievance process in place for such things if needed.    Any clerk taking offense should shake their head although I am sure some would argue about not being on the spear - it seems that often clerks are on the tip of the spear getting skewered everytime we point out a regulation that someone doesn't like even though it is part of our job.  Of course when we pull out a regulation that they like we are suddenly their best buddy.

So to try to be more clear and hopefully not have anyone continue to read things that are not there.  I didn't say anything about hating the army nor did I refuse to obey an order (after all one was never given) nor did I indicate that I would refuse.  I stated in post 13 that one part of my posting that I am enjoying is driving the army crazy by wearing my NCDs... which is in accordance with current regulations issued on behalf of the CDS in a CANFORGEN signed by the VCDS who does have the auth to do so.  I posted comments made, a question asked and my answers none of which involved refusing an order despite what some seemed to have read.  I also didn't state that the only reason I wear my NCDs is to bug them, I wear them because that is my dress of the day, driving them crazy just happens to be a fun side effect for me.   Interesting though how so many feel that I should just obey an order without questions even though that command is given by someone that is disobeying an order.


----------



## McG (23 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> One part of my posting that I am enjoying, driving the army crazy by wearing NCDs and a beard.


Okay, so you wear the uniform that you understand yourself to have been ordered to wear.  Your chain of command has not told you to do otherwise, but there are other people in the workspace who get a little poopy-pants about it.  We have now spent a page exploring the idea.  Here is the important part of your message that was missed:


			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> Let's not waste money revamping a badge,...


Yes.  Let's not waste money on aesthetic tinkering of badges and buttons for egos.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Not my Adm - the VCDS and the CANFORGEN does supersede the CFP and I think fits into the "subject to overall command direction" part of your quote.



Ok.  Then I ask you to support the claim/idea that something the CDS has authorized has been superseded by a lower rank.  Go to the actual CANFORGEN you are referring to please, and copy the relevant part of it where it says "this CANFORGEN supersedes Ch1, Art 8 of CFP 265.  If it does, then there should be an amendment to CFP 265 forthcoming, no?



> submit my grievance that would be successful to have the order over ruled by a higher level as it is against regulations.



The highest reference we have in the CAF for dress is CFP 265.  Issued under authority of the CDS.  Usually, the higher orders are the more 'open' and amplifying orders from lower level HQs, etc may be more restrictive, but not more permissive.  In my case, I have CFP 265, 1 Cdn Div Orders, Wing and then Sqn Dress Instructions that I follow.  They become more restrictive, not permissive.  It only makes sense.

If you know at all how file reviews are conducted at DGCFGA or the MEGRC, you know that they look at orders in their order of precedence, etc.  I would not be so confident in a grievance being accepted, let alone successful.  

However, please identify the actual CANFORGEN.  I  bet a box of donuts it doesn't say "CFP 265 no longer matters" but would be more than willing to say "Okay, I was wrong" if it does.



> actually I am both.  SNCO is someone of Sgt rank level, SNCM covers all from Sgt to CWO level.



The term Snr NCM, while commonly used/abused in the CAF of the last decade or so, is not defined in actual CAF policy.  Your own ref's to QR & O, Vol 1, Art 1.02 "definitions" below doesn't mention and/or define a Snr NCM.  So where is this definition of Snr NCM?  



> QR&O Definitions:
> "non-commissioned member" (militaire du rang)means any person, other than an officer, who is enrolled in, or who pursuant to law is attached or seconded otherwise than as an officer to, the Canadian Forces; *
> "non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal;



Art 1.02doesn't mention 'Snr NCM', so not sure why you referred to it.   ???


> it gives me the same right and duty though to challenge commands that are against regulations and may not be lawful, we even have a grievance process in place for such things if needed.



A clerk has the same obligations as any other NCM.  Please note the absence of the words/phrases "_right and duty to challenge commands_", etc.

5.01- GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS

A non-commissioned member shall:
a.become acquainted with, observe and enforce i.the National Defence Act,
ii.the Security of Information Act, (5 June 2008)
iii.QR&O, and
iv.all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties;

(See articles 1.22 – Accessibility of Regulations, Orders and Instructions and 4.26 – Publicity of Regulations, Orders, Instructions, Correspondence and Publications.)

b.afford to all persons employed in the public service such assistance in the performance of their duties as is practical;
c.promote the welfare, efficiency and good discipline of all who are subordinate to the member;
d.ensure the proper care and maintenance and prevent the waste of all public and non-public property within the member's control; and
e.report to the proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline.

(M) (9 May 2008 effective 5 June 2008)

NOTE

Article 19.15 (Prohibition of Reprisals) prohibits the taking of reprisals, or directing that any be taken, against any person who has, in good faith, reported to a proper authority any infringement of the pertinent statutes, regulations, rules, orders and instructions governing the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline, made a disclosure of wrongdoing or cooperated in an investigation carried out in respect of such a report or disclosure.

(C) (23 April 2009)


*You referred to 'unlawful commands'.  What is the official CAF policy on this subj?  
*
19.015 - LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS

Every officer and non-commissioned member shall obey lawful commands and orders of a superior officer.

(M)

NOTES

(A) The expression "superior officer" includes a non-commissioned member. (See article 1.02 - Definitions.)

(B) Usually there will be no doubt as to whether a command or order is lawful or unlawful. In a situation, however, where the subordinate does not know the law or is uncertain of it he shall, even though he doubts the lawfulness of the command, obey unless the command is manifestly unlawful.

(C) An officer or non-commissioned member is not justified in obeying a command or order that is manifestly unlawful. In other words, if a subordinate commits a crime in complying with a command that is manifestly unlawful, he is liable to be punished for the crime by a civil or military court. A manifestly unlawful command or order is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal; for example, a command by an officer or non-commissioned member to shoot a member for only having used disrespectful words or a command to shoot an unarmed child.

(D) With respect to riots, subsection 32(2) of the Criminal Code (Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, Chapter C-46) states:


"32. (2) Every one who is bound by military law to obey the command of his superior officer is justified in obeying any command given by his superior officer for the suppression of a riot unless the order is manifestly unlawful."

(C)

19.02 - CONFLICTING LAWFUL COMMANDS AND ORDERS

(1) If an officer or non-commissioned member receives a lawful command or order that he considers to be in conflict with a previous lawful command or order received by him, he shall orally point out the conflict to the superior officer who gave the later command or order.

(2) If the superior officer still directs the officer or non-commissioned member to obey the later command or order, he shall do so.

(M)

My final  :2c:, pending the actual CANFORGEN.


----------



## Happy Guy (24 Feb 2016)

I think that the whole of NCDs everywhere by pers who wear the RCN uniform started with a Adm who took command of CANADA COM from an army Gen sometime about 2010.  The army Gen had made cbts the dress of the day for all.  When the Adm came in he refused to wear the cbts and wore salt and peppers.  He eventually ordered all pers, who wore the RCN uniform, to wear the NCDs.  Shortly afterwards the CANFORGEN came out about wearing NCDs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ok.  Then I ask you to support the claim/idea that something the CDS has authorized has been superseded by a lower rank.  Go to the actual CANFORGEN you are referring to please, and copy the relevant part of it where it says "this CANFORGEN supersedes Ch1, Art 8 of CFP 265.  If it does, then there should be an amendment to CFP 265 forthcoming, no?
> 
> The highest reference we have in the CAF for dress is CFP 265.  Issued under authority of the CDS.  Usually, the higher orders are the more 'open' and amplifying orders from lower level HQs, etc may be more restrictive, but not more permissive.  In my case, I have CFP 265, 1 Cdn Div Orders, Wing and then Sqn Dress Instructions that I follow.  They become more restrictive, not permissive.  It only makes sense.



Let's dispel some myths here, if we could. 

First, the CFP's (Canadian Forces Publications), while issued under the authority of the CDS, are NOT orders. In the Navy we have the CFP 152 - seaman's Manual. It teaches how to tie the most important knots and the situation where they are to be used. If I use the wrong knots, (other than marking me as an engineer) I did not disobey an order. The CFP are guidance provided for all to follow, but not orders. You Quote the QR&O's and think of the CFAO's: Those are orders. CANFORGENS and can be orders or informative, depending on the situation. The one mentioned was an order.

Second: Article 8 of Chapter one of CFP 265 does NOT entitle any local commander to change or depart from the guidance of CFP 265 to the extent of ordering someone to change his or her environmental dress. That section can no more be used by a local commander to order his Air or Naval DEU personnel to all get and wear an Army DEU for a parade than it permits him to order them to change their environmental "combat" dress. It lets him vary things like the dates for wearing summer or winter uniforms, or deciding what the "order" of dress is for a given situation (no. 1 or No. 3 or no 5 etc.) or to specify, amongst a given variety, the head dress (so that in the Navy, for instance, we will specify  beret or cap).


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Let's not waste money on aesthetic tinkering of badges and buttons for egos.



This didnt start out trying to get a whole new badge.  Just a better made badge for Log.  I understand you have no interest in anything besides your own narrow interests but the Log cloth cap badge is a disgrace in its current state and should be updated and made with better quality.


----------



## McG (24 Feb 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> This didnt start out trying to get a whole new badge.


You are right.  This thread started with a few individuals apparently pining to wear the Naval Ops badge.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/122065.0.html



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I understand you have no interest in anything besides your own narrow interests but ...


Never mind.  I see you just want to turn the argument personal.  Have fun with that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Let's dispel some myths here, if we could.
> 
> First, the CFP's (Canadian Forces Publications), while issued under the authority of the CDS, are NOT orders.



Great, seeing as it is not an order, each and every one of us can disregard it.  This will make life so much easier.  I guess we can all disregard every printed word of CFP 201 as well then?  

If only the QR & O didn't say "_an officer/non-commissioned member shall: a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce iv. all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties_; 

Balderdash!!  CFP 265 is the Canadian Forces Dress _Instructions_.



> Second: Article 8 of Chapter one of CFP 265 does NOT entitle any local commander to change or depart from the guidance of CFP 265 to the extent of ordering someone to change his or her environmental dress. That section can no more be used by a local commander to order his Air or Naval DEU personnel to all get and wear an Army DEU for a parade than it permits him to order them to change their environmental "combat" dress. It lets him vary things like the dates for wearing summer or winter uniforms, or deciding what the "order" of dress is for a given situation (no. 1 or No. 3 or no 5 etc.) or to specify, amongst a given variety, the head dress (so that in the Navy, for instance, we will specify  beret or cap).



CADPAT and NCDs are not DEU, or necessarily DEU related.  CADPAT, flight suits, NCDs are _operational dress_.  I worked in an Army HQ before, and I assure you the Navy DEU people wore CADPAT, with the CAG slip-ons and name tapes with black thread when operational dress was dress of the day, and they wore their Navy DEU when we wore # 1 / 2 / 3 orders of dress.

In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?

Operational dress, DEU are not the same.  There is no official term 'environmental combat dress' to my knowledge.

We've established that CFP 265 is an Instruction, and that QR & O, Vol 1, Chap's 4 and 5 say all CAF Officers and NCMs *SHALL* _become acquainted with, observe and enforce _all instructions.

The wording of 265, Ch 1 Art 8 is what it is.  Nothing anyone says can change it, it is clear and concise.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2016)

I'm going to have to ask everyone in this thread to give me their lunch money.


----------



## Halifax Tar (24 Feb 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> You are right.  This thread started with a few individuals apparently pining to wear the Naval Ops badge.
> http://army.ca/forums/threads/122065.0.html
> Never mind.  I see you just want to turn the argument personal.  Have fun with that.



Did you read the whole quote ?  Or just the part that suited your stance ?  

You will also notice that while I conceded I would love to see Naval Log types wear the anchor I don't see that happening.  Having said as much I also said and still think the Log beret cap badge needs to be made of better quality.  My originating post had nothing to do with the Anchor and was simply about getting a better made Log Cap badge.  

(I dont know how to insert a quote from another thread, search Log Cap Badge)


> 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!





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?



Because that was a warzone,  and it had a practicality about it ?  Same reason the RCN Commandos war Army Battle Dress in WW2, it was practical. 

Army/Air trades in HMC Ships wear their environmental flashes because they are Cpls and Sgts and Capts ect; not LS, POs and LT(N) and should be addressed appropriately. 

They are only issued NCDs while posted to HMC Ships and are required wear their environmental uniforms when posted ashore.  The Army could do this too.  While in garrison you wear NCDs when you go to the field you weare CADPAT.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Great, seeing as it is not an order, each and every one of us can disregard it.  This will make life so much easier.  I guess we can all disregard every printed word of CFP 201 as well then?
> 
> If only the QR & O didn't say "_an officer/non-commissioned member shall: a. become acquainted with, observe and enforce iv. all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the member's duties_;
> 
> ...



Yes, the wording is what it is:

8. Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 44.

You got your overall command direction: A CANFORGEN that tells you don't do this. And it's an order that is issued by a lawful authority. 

Let's also deal with your view that "operational dress are not necessarily DEU related": Let's see what CFP 265, Article 6 has to say:

6. In accordance with these instructions the Commanders of Commands are delegated authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress. See Chapter 5, Annex D, paragraph 2.

And finally, I'd like to deal with the constant rebuke brought in these forums that the RCN requires army personnel to wear NCD's onboard ships.

Let's start with the fact that, funny enough, nobody ever mentions that the same RCN does not require the RCAF personnel onboard ship to wear the NCDs. We do however require ALL RCAF (not just the pilots) personnel to wear the Flight suits instead. Why would that be? Simple: Take a blow torch to a CADPAT for a few second and you'll know - Similarly, rip a velcro badge quickly from a CADPAT in an environment with volatile fuels and see what happens. The NCD and Flight suits are at the proper fire/flash resistance level and have the non sparking velcro, the CADPAT,does not.

But let's deal instead with the proper comparison here:

I would think that Esquimalt and Halifax are clearly bases under the control of the RCN. Yet, you will find that, even though operational clothing is the dress of the day, army DEU'd personnel working on the base, be it the dockyard, the main base or the various schools and lodger units wear their CADPAT and nobody requires them to wear the NCD. 

And it is this equivalent situation that the CANFORGEN is aimed at: Not that when seaman deploy in the field (and that includes oversee deployments to the middle east) they have to wear CADPAT - that's fine - but that when they are just working around the base or in lodger units their local commanding officers would require them to switch to CADPAT. In other words, not a change required by operational reasons, but just a change to make the "army" base look more "army" in their mind. And that, as I have said before, is what is contrary to the very concept of the purple trades employment under the unified CF's.


----------



## Baz (24 Feb 2016)

My understanding is the situation has gotten much better; however in the '90's Air Dets were in fact required to get the equivalent of NCDs.   I was also required to wear them once just so we were all dressed the same.  Of course , we were still forced to wear Red Sea Rig to a stupid extent.  I think the RCN has become more pragmatic, but sounds like the Army may not be...

I do have to say that my main concern with the thread was the tone of the statement, and upon further explanation I don't think the tone matched the intent, so I'll admit I over-reacted to the statement.

I remain concerned about how C2 is evolving in the CF, but it is what it is...


----------



## Pusser (24 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In this situation, we are referring to operational dress, not DEU.  If this was the case, however, why do deployed Navy DEU folks wear arid CADPAT when deployed to the ME?  Why do Army DEU medics, or clerks, have to wear NCDs with Army DEU slip-ons when posted to a HMCS?



And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2016)

If someone had developped a proper set of Naval Combats, this wouldn't be an issue...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

And what, pray tell is a proper naval combat? One that is green and camouflages you in the woods?


----------



## FSTO (24 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...



Shush! They may have to assault an entrenched Bureaucrat, fight a fire in the broom closet or fly a paper airplane memo!


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...



My dress of the day is NCD, however, I choose to wear S&P.  I don't get the points to support it, but meh....  besides, it's too hot here in the summer to want to wear NCD.


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And what, pray tell is a proper naval combat? One that is green and camouflages you in the woods?



More along these lines. 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8iKvG7ZDLAhXJcj4KHfyYBX0QjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnamu.wiki%2Fw%2FNWU&psig=AFQjCNGbIpnhCHSxePVB4K2cESKifAyXWw&ust=1456418646738021


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Feb 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> More along these lines.
> 
> https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8iKvG7ZDLAhXJcj4KHfyYBX0QjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fnamu.wiki%2Fw%2FNWU&psig=AFQjCNGbIpnhCHSxePVB4K2cESKifAyXWw&ust=1456418646738021



Slap youself repeatidly, until these thoughts go away...


----------



## Remius (24 Feb 2016)

Meh, I don't really care one way or the other.  The Navy have weird names for their ranks, think that armouries are ships and if they want weird looking outfits I'm not going to argue.    ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

The only "camouflage" pattern I would accept for a naval combat is one that would let me do the equivalent of this in my bunk:  :nod:


----------



## Pusser (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The only "camouflage" pattern I would accept for a naval combat is one that would let me do the equivalent of this in my bunk:  :nod:



Wouldn't it be more appropriate then to have something to blend with the Wardroom carpet - complete with beer stains and cigarette burns?


----------



## FSTO (24 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My dress of the day is NCD, however, I choose to wear S&P.  I don't get the points to support it, but meh....  besides, it's too hot here in the summer to want to wear NCD.



What do you mean? I replace my SS shirts (3) and white pants (2) in the spring and LS shirts (3) and black pants (2) in the fall every year and I had enough points left over to get the muskrat hat and snow boots. In fact I still have over 300 pts left.
I'm Tier 2 OPs.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> And why are people working in climate controlled HQs in Canada wearing operational dress?  Just saying...



Heretic!  How dare you question why people wear the most expensive uniform for purposes it's not intended for instead of a uniform that looks more professional and is cheaper to boot?

(Perhaps because it doesn't need an iron or spit-shining?  Just throwing that out there...)


----------



## FSTO (24 Feb 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Wouldn't it be more appropriate then to have something to blend with the Wardroom carpet - complete with beer stains and _*cigarette burns*_?



You are really dating yourself there Pusser!!


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Feb 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> What do you mean? I replace my SS shirts (3) and white pants (2) in the spring and LS shirts (3) and black pants (2) in the fall every year and I had enough points left over to get the muskrat hat and snow boots. In fact I still have over 300 pts left.
> I'm Tier 2 OPs.



I don't get the full points that the S&P folks get, is what I mean.  I do find that on the whole, I am able to change out things as needed too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yes, the wording is what it is:
> 
> 8. Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction. See also Chapter 2, Section 1, paragraph 44.
> 
> You got your overall command direction: A CANFORGEN that tells you don't do this. And it's an order that is issued by a lawful authority.



But, in the case of a Navy DEU purple trade, posted to a Cdn Army unit...would the command direction they fall under not be that of the Cdn Army, vice RCN?  A purple trade mbr is only "Navy" when they are posted to a RCN unit, no? 



> Let's also deal with your view that "operational dress are not necessarily DEU related": Let's see what CFP 265, Article 6 has to say:
> 
> 6. In accordance with these instructions the Commanders of Commands are delegated authority to establish rules for the design and wear of their respective operational orders of dress. See Chapter 5, Annex D, paragraph 2.



Of course this makes sense.  However, see my above comment. 



> And finally, I'd like to deal with the constant rebuke brought in these forums that the RCN requires army personnel to wear NCD's onboard ships.
> 
> Let's start with the fact that, funny enough, nobody ever mentions that the same RCN does not require the RCAF personnel onboard ship to wear the NCDs. We do however require ALL RCAF (not just the pilots) personnel to wear the Flight suits instead. Why would that be? Simple: Take a blow torch to a CADPAT for a few second and you'll know - Similarly, rip a velcro badge quickly from a CADPAT in an environment with volatile fuels and see what happens. The NCD and Flight suits are at the proper fire/flash resistance level and have the non sparking velcro, the CADPAT,does not.



Makes complete sense.  But, I think the point I was attempting to make was 'how would the RCN view it if a Army DEU purple trade person challenged the requirement to wear NCD 'because they are Army'.  Wouldn't go over so well, I am guessing.   8)



> But let's deal instead with the proper comparison here:
> 
> I would think that Esquimalt and Halifax are clearly bases under the control of the RCN. Yet, you will find that, even though operational clothing is the dress of the day, army DEU'd personnel working on the base, be it the dockyard, the main base or the various schools and lodger units wear their CADPAT and nobody requires them to wear the NCD.
> 
> And it is this equivalent situation that the CANFORGEN is aimed at: Not that when seaman deploy in the field (and that includes oversee deployments to the middle east) they have to wear CADPAT - that's fine - but that when they are just working around the base or in lodger units their local commanding officers would require them to switch to CADPAT. In other words, not a change required by operational reasons, but just a change to make the "army" base look more "army" in their mind. And that, as I have said before, is what is contrary to the very concept of the purple trades employment under the unified CF's.



A very good point that never crossed my mind.  I think you can call 'checkmate' on that one;  I can see the reasoning behind that.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, in the case of a Navy DEU purple trade, posted to a Cdn Army unit...would the command direction they fall under not be that of the Cdn Army, vice RCN?



Yes it would.

And you may recall that, the first time I heard of this order, it was presented to us as originating from Commander RCN in a MARGEN. At that point I, myself, questioned the basis on which he/she could make such an order.

It was then pointed out that the order was actually from the VCDS and issued as a CANFORGEN. As command direction goes, I would like to think that the VCDS, acting through CANFORGEN's, is a superior command to all three environmental ones, which must be obeyed by all three. That the VCDS at the time happened to be from one environment instead of another is irrelevant here. The very same CANFORGEN could have been issued by a VCDS wearing the light blue, even though it appeared to address a problem that involved the Army and the RCN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Feb 2016)

copy


----------



## Baz (24 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As command direction goes, I would like to think that the VCDS, acting through CANFORGEN's, is a superior command to all three environmental ones, which must be obeyed by all three.



Somebody explained to me (a full Col, WComd at the time), that the term Vice is very specific, and distinct from Deputy.  It is also more than a COS.  Paraphrasing it means he can act with the authority of the Commander for all intents except Commanding actual operations or as restricted by the Commander... or something similar to that.  So yes, a CANFORGEN from the VCDS is exactly as if it came from the CDS, as I understand it.

One of the purposes of a CANFORGEN is to issue an order or amendment to an order while waiting for the actual orders to be amended; routine orders and aircrew orders can do the same thing.  

However, am I the only one concerned that far too many things get issued as CANFORGENs, DAODs, etc, and the real order never get changed?  And, as a recent example I heard of, that leads to people thinking that they can in effect amend things like the QROs and NDA in the same way?


----------



## CountDC (2 Mar 2016)

Baz said:
			
		

> However, am I the only one concerned that far too many things get issued as CANFORGENs, DAODs, etc, and the real order never get changed?  And, as a recent example I heard of, that leads to people thinking that they can in effect amend things like the QROs and NDA in the same way?



No - more and more people are concerned about the different gens issued without the actual amendment happening.  DAODs are not a concern as they are the replacements for CFAOs so are the new "amended" order.  I just don't like them as they tend not to provide the same amount of information as the CFAOs did and often leave things too vague or open to interpretation (yes worse than the CFAOs).  I was also told the intent is to fully replace the QR&Os eventually too.  In a recent conversation with a a couple other clerks we all agreed we liked it much better when the first you heard officially about a change was receiving the amendments to the QR&O or CFAO with an effective date in the future (although admittedly it wasn't uncommon to get them after the date).


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2016)

FSTO said:
			
		

> You are really dating yourself there Pusser!!



Sometimes, memories are all we have left.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2016)

Wow. and I thought the Army were the only ones all messed up about these kinds of things. Thanks Navy for making us feel part of the team!


----------



## Pusser (2 Mar 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Wow. and I thought the Army were the only ones all messed up about these kinds of things. Thanks Navy for making us feel part of the team!



Well actually...

Our wants and desires are really quite simple.  If we were allowed to have the navy things we want, then all would be good.  Unfortunately, we seem to always be saddled with army things and the army way...


----------



## Furniture (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well actually...
> 
> Our wants and desires are really quite simple.  If we were allowed to have the navy things we want, then all would be good.  Unfortunately, we seem to always be saddled with army things and the army way...



When Officers and NCOs eat last, live in the same conditions as their men, and believe leadership is more than administrivia (thanks ERC) the Navy will have things the Army way. Until then the Navy will continue with occasional changes in their clothing and combined kitchens on land...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2016)

:goodpost:

The Navy will be equal when they give up rum, sodomy and the lash


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> The Navy will be equal when they give up rum, sodomy and the lash



I do beg your pardon!!  They took away our rum   :'(


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> If we were allowed to have the navy things we want, then all would be good.  Unfortunately, we seem to always be saddled with army things and the army way...



Great.  Just when I was coming to terms with all the world's problems being because I'm a white, Anglo, male, I now have to add _Army_  to the list of things for 'the oppressed' to whine about.  
         :


----------



## Baz (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Well actually...
> 
> Our wants and desires are really quite simple.  If we were allowed to have the navy things we want, then all would be good.  Unfortunately, we seem to always be saddled with army things and the army way...



The only thing the Navy is saddled with is 200 years of tradition unimpeded by progress...

Of course, it could be worse; it could be the RCAF.  Works on the personal level (ie everyone gets what they want), but unable to understand anything other than turning jet fuel into smoke and noise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Navy will be equal when they give up rum, sodomy and the lash





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I do beg your pardon!!  They took away our rum   :'(



Quite right. So Recceguy, why would you want to take away from us the last two things that make life worth living.  ;D


----------



## Pusser (3 Mar 2016)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When Officers and NCOs eat last, live in the same conditions as their men, and believe leadership is more than administrivia (thanks ERC) the Navy will have things the Army way. Until then the Navy will continue with occasional changes in their clothing and combined kitchens on land...



Where does this idea that officers and C&POs eat before the sailors come from?  It's patently false.  Everyone on board eats according to their watch schedules, not their rank.  We all sleep on the same rocking platform and although officers and C&POs perhaps have more personal space on board, I don't think Army officers are sharing sleeping bags with corporals (at least not legally).  Finally, the most egregious violations with respect to looking after the troops, especially with respect to the distribution of "welfare," that I have ever seen, have been by Army officers when I was on land-based operations.  Apparently, our experiences are different.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where does this idea that officers and C&POs eat before the sailors come from?  It's patently false.  Everyone on board eats according to their watch schedules, not their rank.  We all sleep on the same rocking platform and although officers and C&POs perhaps have more personal space on board, I don't think Army officers are sharing sleeping bags with corporals (at least not legally).  Finally, the most egregious violations with respect to looking after the troops, especially with respect to the distribution of "welfare" I have ever seen have been by Army officers when I was on land-based operations.  Apparently, our experiences are different.



I would echo a similar sentiment. One of my significant challenges as a SgtMaj overseas was to reel in some officers' sense of entitlement. 

I will say though that since I've become an officer, I actually have somewhat more success in that regard. Granted I'm at a small unit.


----------



## CountDC (12 Mar 2016)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When Officers and NCOs eat last, live in the same conditions as their men, and believe leadership is more than administrivia (thanks ERC) the Navy will have things the Army way. Until then the Navy will continue with occasional changes in their clothing and combined kitchens on land...



Interesting - I recall in the field going to an RSM and asking him why the breakfast line had Officers, SNCOs and MCpls mixed in with Pte/Cpls instead of behind them.  Happy to say he did quickly fix it.

In the early 90's on Ex in Gagetown a CWO gave flack because MCpls were not supposed to help with the work, they were supposed to stand back and supervise.

last Ex I actually went out overnight for I didn't see any officers or other SNCOs pitching in to help secure the mods or unloading stores.  They were all too busy having coffee, discussing the weather and hoping the mods wouldn't leak.  (Eventually a new 2Lt showed up and pitched in to help as she believes everyone should do their part)

With the ship when we shipped stores everyone was in line including the old man.

Seems in these matters it is not simply army/navy/air force but who is running the show at the time and individual mentality combining to determine how it actually goes.  All 3 get it right and wrong at different times.


----------



## Stoker (12 Mar 2016)

Pusser said:
			
		

> Where does this idea that officers and C&POs eat before the sailors come from?  It's patently false.  Everyone on board eats according to their watch schedules, not their rank.  We all sleep on the same rocking platform and although officers and C&POs perhaps have more personal space on board, I don't think Army officers are sharing sleeping bags with corporals (at least not legally).  Finally, the most egregious violations with respect to looking after the troops, especially with respect to the distribution of "welfare," that I have ever seen, have been by Army officers when I was on land-based operations.  Apparently, our experiences are different.



Actually on my ship the ranks eat before the C & PO's and officers as we have only have one galley.


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Mar 2016)

WeatherdoG said:
			
		

> When Officers and NCOs eat last, live in the same conditions as their men, and believe leadership is more than administrivia (thanks ERC) the Navy will have things the Army way. Until then the Navy will continue with occasional changes in their clothing and combined kitchens on land...



Ahh the great Navy leadership myth.  

I have served 10 years under the RCN and another 6 under the Army/CJOC/NSE.  If I have learned one thing about leadership it is that shitty leadership does not belong to one service or organization alone.  And neither one is better at it than the other.  

I could regale you for hours about my experience with CFJSR, NSE, 2 Svc and CFB Kingston leadership.  At the same time I could bend your ear for just as long about my experience with the "Mad Hatter", HMCS Toronto (post Africa deployment) and CFB Halifax leadership. 

There are examples of piss poor leaders at every rank and in every uniform.  Its not a RCN problem and its not an Army problem its a CAF problem.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Mar 2016)

Well said, HT, well said.


----------



## kratz (13 Mar 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> There are examples of piss poor leaders at every rank and in every uniform.  Its not a RCN problem and its not an Army problem its a CAF problem.



 :goodpost:


----------

