# Unifarm idears from Back to Basics



## Back to Basics. (14 Nov 2010)

Hello all.  I read somewhere here on the site, that someone propossed the notion of a Danish Army style Army work dress.  Why not adopt such a notion...!  I'd like to think of the economic spin offs that such a dress would bring to the civilian sector, not to mention infusing a sense of pride of dress to the Army.  Maybe even getting the Air Force back into their work dress too.  Thoughts?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Nov 2010)

We have a hard enough time kitting out the whole Forces with rain jackets and tacvests (years after procurement), and you want to introduce a garrison dress?


----------



## Back to Basics. (14 Nov 2010)

Royal Blue berets for the Artillery, Engineers(Army), and Amy Med Techs?
Maple Leaf shaped Pips for Officers too?
Spurs for Armoured NCO's and Officers?
White lanyards for Arty NCO's and Officers?
No....? :yellow:


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Nov 2010)

:rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:

Oh, you were serious?

 :rofl:  :rofl:  :rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (14 Nov 2010)

Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Hello all.  I read somewhere here on the site, that someone propossed the notion of a Danish Army style Army work dress.  Why not adopt such a notion...!  I'd like to think of the economic spin offs that such a dress would bring to the civilian sector, not to mention infusing a sense of pride of dress to the Army.  Maybe even getting the Air Force back into their work dress too.  Thoughts?



You are all over the map with your posts, that it is really making it difficult to take you seriously.  Who are you and why do you want another uniform or bring back something that we finally got rid of?  




			
				Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Hello all.  My Dad was a member of the RCASC and he and I were talking the other day about how the UK has the RLC and now New Zealand has a RNZ Army Logistic Regiment.  Think Canada should do a re-org and create a Canadian Logistic Corps with Logistic Regiments at brigade level and Logistic Company's within the various ASG's?  New cap-badge and colours too?  Any thoughts?





			
				Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Hello.  I was wondering if anyone could answer a question I have regarding the Supply Tech trade.  The question is: Is it possible to be posted to an Infantry Jump Company as a newly trained Bin Rat?  Do you have to be Jump qualified first and if you do service in such a company, do you get to wear a maroon beret?





			
				Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Just wondering if there are any Arty Officers out there who have completed the AJOSQ for Unit Training?  Having a hell of a time.  Can't seem to put it together.  Is there anyone who has completed one and can help?
> 
> Greatly appreciated!!!!!!! :yellow:





			
				Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> RCN Fleet Air Arm, HMNZS Canterbury, A medical frigate.  RCAF;AH.Mk.7 Lynx, SA 330 Puma, Eurocopter Tiger, Pilot Officer, Flight Sergeant.  Nelson Knots for RCN Officers, Forage Caps for the RCAF, so on and so on......!  Service Women wearing skirts again.  Mapleleaf shaped Pips for Army Officers. I believe people will be more inclined to join if uniform, rank and insignia changes were made to better reflect the RCN, Canadian Army and the RCAF!!!!! Some new kit to or at least the notion of having an investigation into the kit suggestions I've made.  I may be no Psychologist, but theses simple Uniform changes may help those suffering from the effects of service in Afghanistan, like my Brother.  Introduce some new uniforms for various purposes would keep the mind busy while the meds and therapy do the rest.  Introduce a "Voluntary Service Medal", much like the one issued to Canadians during WW II!!!!!!!  For sure, having 'AFGHANISTAN' added to Regimental Colours..........1





			
				Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> :cdnsalute:I'd like to talk to all about something that has been bothering me for sometime now and would like very much to hear any feed back.  It is about bloody time the Government reversed that horseshit put in place by the Liberal Government of the late "60"s and brought back the uniforms of the Royal Canadian Navy, The Canadian Army, and The Royal Canadian Air Force.  Let's face it folks, people are crows.  We like shiney things and going back old school will grab the attention of those thinking of joining and it will keep those thinking of leaving from doing so.  Lookinng the part is half the battle.  A web site is soon coming that will show how tings shouls be asweel as petitions.  I have read the CFAO's and the QR&O's and there is nothing about the old uniforms and there wearing, so I went out, took me two months, but I bought the necessast kit for what a soldier of the Canadian Army is supposed to look like.  And what ever happened to the "ROYAL" in the names of the Navy and Airforce?  A change is afoot folks and when the site is up and running the Governement will have no choice but to put things right again.  Never mess with dose not have to be messed with right?  The Governement needs people to join and have those alreay in, to stay.  Make the necessary changes and all will slowly fall into place.  Bring back pre 1968.  I want to wear an Army uniform like my dad did.  If I look it, I'll feel it.


----------



## armyvern (14 Nov 2010)

Mother of gawd - NO!!!!!


----------



## PMedMoe (14 Nov 2010)

What's a *unifarm*?  One big honking farm for everyone?   ???


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> What's a *unifarm*?  One big honking farm for everyone?   ???



Yeah, and if you are part of a Unifarm, do automatically get an idear? are they heavy?  taxable?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Nov 2010)

Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Maybe even getting the Air Force back into their work dress too.



Besides the fact that it was a terrible uniform, what would be the point ? Aircrews still wont wear it ( not allowed to fly in it) and ground crews are just going to change into coveralls so that they can actually do their jobs.

But hey, we needed another BS uniform discussion right ?

 :


----------



## MJP (14 Nov 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> But hey, we needed another BS uniform discussion right ?
> 
> :



Depends....Can I paint my boots?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Nov 2010)

MJP said:
			
		

> Depends....Can I paint my boots?



Sure. I am ok with that as long as it looks good.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Nov 2010)

SLACKERS!  HERETICS!  WASTERS!  SCUM!


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2010)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> SLACKERS!  HERETICS!  WASTERS!  SCUM!



Oh, the paint job didn't work too well?


----------



## navymich (14 Nov 2010)

MJP said:
			
		

> Depends....Can I paint my boots?



The paint has to match the colour of your beret, and that goes for all trades!  ;D


----------



## GAP (14 Nov 2010)

;D


----------



## medicineman (14 Nov 2010)

Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Royal Blue berets for the Artillery, Engineers(Army), and Amy Med Techs?
> Maple Leaf shaped Pips for Officers too?
> Spurs for Armoured NCO's and Officers?
> White lanyards for Arty NCO's and Officers?
> No....? :yellow:



Why Royal Blue?  It was Midnight Blue before.  Besides, what's wrong with green - makes you more bullet proof.  And learn to spell; Amy is a girl's name, Army is something pretty different.

MM


----------



## LordOsborne (18 Nov 2010)

Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> :cdnsalute:I'd like to talk to all about something that has been bothering me for sometime now and would like very much to hear any feed back.  It is about bloody time the Government reversed that horseshit put in place by the Liberal Government of the late "60"s and brought back the uniforms of the Royal Canadian Navy, The Canadian Army, and The Royal Canadian Air Force.  Let's face it folks, people are crows.  We like shiney things and going back old school will grab the attention of those thinking of joining and it will keep those thinking of leaving from doing so.  *Lookinng the part is half the battle.*  A web site is soon coming that will show how tings shouls be asweel as petitions.  I have read the CFAO's and the QR&O's and there is nothing about the old uniforms and there wearing, so I went out, took me two months, but I bought the necessast kit for what a soldier of the Canadian Army is supposed to look like.  And what ever happened to the "ROYAL" in the names of the Navy and Airforce?  A change is afoot folks and when the site is up and running the Governement will have no choice but to put things right again.  Never mess with dose not have to be messed with right?  The Governement needs people to join and have those alreay in, to stay.  Make the necessary changes and all will slowly fall into place.  Bring back pre 1968.  I want to wear an Army uniform like my dad did.  If I look it, I'll feel it.



Clearly, you don't know about the realities of modern military theory:


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Nov 2010)

Back to Basics. said:
			
		

> Hello all.  I read somewhere here on the site, that someone propossed the notion of a Danish Army style Army work dress.  Why not adopt such a notion...!  I'd like to think of the economic spin offs that such a dress would bring to the civilian sector, not to mention infusing a sense of pride of dress to the Army.  Maybe even getting the Air Force back into their work dress too.  Thoughts?



Here's my answer: NO!!!! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!! :rage:

We had Garrison Dress in the 80's. Never again. Its the 21st Century now. Even I can tell that.


----------



## Shamrock (18 Nov 2010)

Work dress?  Ghastly idear.  Next you'll expect me to work.


----------



## lethalLemon (18 Nov 2010)

:rofl:

My Dad had a heart attack when I let him read this...


----------



## Illegio (18 Nov 2010)

I was amazed at all the different types of dress our hosting unit (4 Rifles) had when I did the Cambrian Patrol this year. Smocks, garrison belts, shirts, sweaters, and all manner of buttons, bells and whistles... I must admit they had some natty dress, but I'd still trade all that for the simplicity we enjoy right now.

...

Except the bush hats. I'd gladly take their bush hats.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Nov 2010)

The idea of re introducing a Garrison/Work Dress is retarded, especially in this climate of fiscal restraint and cutbacks.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The idea of re introducing a Garrison/Work Dress is retarded, especially in this climate of fiscal restraint and cutbacks.



For now, yes.

I am sure Infanteer posted about this on a different thread, he pointed out that future combat uniforms might take the form of a t-shirt with Cadpat sleeves (and appropriate sleeve pokets), since the torso would be covered by armour and some sort of carry rig for ammunition, personal kit etc. It is also very probable that combat uniforms will be made of fairly exotic materials to wick away sweat, provide environmental protection, limited signature control and so on. (taken to the extreme, combat uniforms might have to become as complex as space suits, but that is 20 years down the road).

I have already seen these sorts of clothes being produced on a sort of cottage industry scale, so the first iteration (t-shirt with sleeves) may be just around the corner. I really can't see anyone allowing troops to wander around base or pop into the local Tim Horton's looking like that, regardless of how functional it is.

Given there is also a fashion component (looking "good" to the civis really is important), I can predict that ten years from now (if not sooner) there will be a "workdress" of sorts, although if there is any common sense, it might just take the form of wearing current Cadpat in place of the high tech "combats".


----------



## Journeyman (19 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given there is also a fashion component (looking "good" to the civis really is important), I can predict that ten years from now (if not sooner) there will be a "workdress" of sorts,


Sadly, I have to agree. 

When the "support the troops" pendulum swings back towards "soldiers and dogs keep off the lawn," the public acceptability of CADPAT will become a thing of the past. The NDHQ warriors will once again rather be mistaken for bus-drivers than soldiers. And the "logic" of 101 Col By will be inflicted upon places like Pet and Gagetown where people suspect that we're soldiers regardless of what we're wearing.



> ....although if there is any common sense...


   :rofl:  ...oh sorry, you were serious  :-[


----------



## brihard (19 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For now, yes.
> 
> I am sure Infanteer posted about this on a different thread, he pointed out that future combat uniforms might take the form of a t-shirt with Cadpat sleeves (and appropriate sleeve pokets), since the torso would be covered by armour and some sort of carry rig for ammunition, personal kit etc. It is also very probable that combat uniforms will be made of fairly exotic materials to wick away sweat, provide environmental protection, limited signature control and so on. (taken to the extreme, combat uniforms might have to become as complex as space suits, but that is 20 years down the road).
> 
> ...



Overseas the Brits and the Americans wear these things all the time around camp/FOBs. They're in the system now for Canadians too, if I'm not mistaken. Some of us wore privately purchased ones in arid while deployed, though certainly not on KAF.

But these shirts are for field work. No need for them in garrison. Combat shirts suffice for that.


----------



## Loachman (19 Nov 2010)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Overseas the Brits and the Americans wear these things all the time around camp/FOBs. They're in the system now for Canadians too, if I'm not mistaken. Some of us wore privately purchased ones in arid while deployed, though certainly not on KAF.
> 
> But these shirts are for field work. No need for them in garrison. Combat shirts suffice for that.



All well and good, but what will be acceptable for wearing around the unifarm?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Nov 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> All well and good, but what will be acceptable for wearing around the unifarm?



A unitard.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A unitard.



Frack!   

Thanks for the warning.   :


----------



## Captsapper@gmail.com (19 Nov 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A unitard.



Thanks, I just sprayed coffee on my keyboard. ;D  That successfully got me the stupor caused by a late night at the mess.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2010)

Unitard,...wow.

Getting back to the subject, I cannot foresee the Treasury Board saying "Go ahead, design a garrison uniform" 

We ditched the garrison/work dress for good reasons:

1. Most didn't wear it as a strictly "work" dress - it had to be pressed, etc thus taking time away from other tasks;

2. Cost - a third uniform adds cost, especially one that can only be worn in garrison. That money is better spent on operational dress  - ie winter kit, CADPAT etc;

I really don't think this is a high priority at AFC. They have bigger fish to fry right now.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Unitard,...wow.
> 
> Getting back to the subject, I cannot foresee the Treasury Board saying "Go ahead, design a garrison uniform"
> 
> ...



All of the above strongly indicate that someone, somewhere is working on developing one despite all the good reasons not to stated. After all, why let the reality of creating shortages in the really important stuff like spares or ammunition get in the way of the extraneous crap? All it will take is one really slick Power Point presentation, and away we go!


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> All of the above strongly indicate that someone, somewhere is working on developing one despite all the good reasons not to stated. After all, why let the reality of creating shortages in the really important stuff like spares or ammunition get in the way of the extraneous crap? All it will take is one really slick Power Point presentation, and away we go!



No doubt some bright spark has thought this one up, but I really can't see it going anywhere given the fiscal restraint we are going to endure. I think the CDS and the CFCWO have enough to do


----------



## Danjanou (19 Nov 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Why Royal Blue?  It was Midnight Blue before.  Besides, what's wrong with green - makes you more bullet proof.  And learn to spell; Amy is a girl's name, Army is something pretty different.
> 
> MM



Maybe he wants Amy (whomever she is) to wear the beret?  And that shows how seriously I'm taking this thread.  :


----------



## Newt (19 Nov 2010)

The idea that someone with the user name Back to Basics wants to add more complexity to kit issue is absolutely delicious.

For me simply being a member of the CF instills me with a sufficient amount of pride, having an Army specific business casual uniform isn't going to instill any additional pride. 

Our daily "work dress" should reflect the primary purpose of the CF, to fight wars. In terms of public perception, the uniform needs to convey to the public that we are able to stand to and defend the garrison, ship, hotel lounge at a moments notice, which I think our current uniform does quite well.


----------



## Loachman (19 Nov 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Maybe he wants Amy (whomever she is) to wear the beret?  And that shows how seriously I'm taking this thread.  :



Maybe he wants all Med Techs to undergo gender reassignment.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Nov 2010)

Hey, anyone who wants to look "good" in public (to get chicks???) has an option: It's called the DEU.

WOW !  No need for more uniforms !


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hey, anyone who wants to look "good" in public (to get chicks???) has an option: It's called the DEU.
> 
> WOW !  No need for more uniforms !


And DEU 1A on Remembrance Day works like a charm, especially in a Rifles Crossbelt. They Chicks dig it. ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (19 Nov 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Maybe he wants all Med Techs to undergo gender reassignment.



Whew!  Glad I'm not a Med Tech.   ;D


----------



## GK .Dundas (19 Nov 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> And DEU 1A on Remembrance ay works like a charm, especially in a Rifles Crossbelt. They Chicks dig it. ;D


Then' there's are Patrols .......chicks really, really dig chain mail!  >


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2010)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> Then' there's are Patrols .......chicks really, really dig chain mail!  >


Yes they do indeed, but some prefer the Crossbelt with the Silver chain..... >


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Nov 2010)

Still begs the question what is a unifarm...........

 ;D


----------



## R031button (20 Nov 2010)

The unifarm is where we grow the CADPAT trees.


----------



## PMedMoe (20 Nov 2010)

R031button said:
			
		

> The unifarm is where we grow the CADPAT trees.



 :rofl:


----------



## GAP (20 Nov 2010)

I always wondered where they got that design.....so....................new patterns are from cross-breeding different cadpat trees, with willows, beech, etc.?  :nod:


----------



## eurowing (20 Nov 2010)

How about this then!

Privates start out festooned with ribbons, shoulder boards and dozens of medals.  
As one progresses in rank and time in, ones uniform becomes simplified.  If one makes it to CRA they get to come to work in shorts, tee shirt and sandals. ;D


----------



## medicineman (20 Nov 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Maybe he wants all Med Techs to undergo gender reassignment.



If I was told to wear a Royal Blue beret, I'd almost consider it - to wear the skirt to go with it...oh yeah, I'm off the hook, since the CFHS won't cover the surgery anymore.

MM


----------



## R031button (21 Nov 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> I always wondered where they got that design.....so....................new patterns are from cross-breeding different cadpat trees, with willows, beech, etc.?  :nod:



Exactly, the unifarm is a wonderful whimsical place where CTS is free to skip and frolic to it's hearts content.


----------



## CombatDoc (21 Nov 2010)

eurowing said:
			
		

> How about this then!
> 
> Privates start out festooned with ribbons, shoulder boards and dozens of medals.
> As one progresses in rank and time in, ones uniform becomes simplified.  If one makes it to CRA they get to come to work in shorts, tee shirt and sandals. ;D


I like it, although it is going to give the Sergeants Major fits in determining who is entitled to wear what.  Also, no spandex.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (21 Nov 2010)

Although not having to do really with the uniform I will say maybe the army and AF could use a different term for a 1 hook private like the Navy does in using Ordinary Seaman and Able Seaman.


----------



## dangerboy (21 Nov 2010)

For what possible reason, we have been using Private for a long time.  Most countries use the term.  What would you have us use?


----------



## Journeyman (21 Nov 2010)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> For what possible reason, we have been using Private for a long time.


I think he means to differentiate between a no-hook Pte and one-hook Pte......as though FNG and Numpty aren't good enough   ;D


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (21 Nov 2010)

Journeyman yes I meant to differentiate no hook from 1 hook, I don't see how difficult it would be since the Navy already does it.  A tad bit odd, since we technically have a rank/appointment equivalent for each one in between elements, yet AF and army never bothered to get on same footing.


----------



## acooper (21 Nov 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Maybe he wants Amy (whomever she is) to wear the beret?  And that shows how seriously I'm taking this thread.  :



Why am I getting a beret? I'm just a Army wife, not even a member of the CF....  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Nov 2010)

I could have posted this in the "Funnies" thread, but after this comment:



			
				R031button said:
			
		

> Exactly, the unifarm is a wonderful whimsical place where CTS is free to skip and frolic to it's hearts content.



it just _had_ to go here.    :nod:







 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Although not having to do really with the uniform I will say maybe the army and AF could use a different term for a 1 hook private like the Navy does in using Ordinary Seaman and Able Seaman.



Even more confusing for you poor landlubbers: We used to do the reverse of what you do on land:

You have  no-hookers and  one-hookers sharing the same rank name (private) even though wearing different rank badge.

In the old RCN, we had two rank designations (three before the elimination of Boys Seaman in 1949), Ordinary  Seaman (then referred to as O.D.s ) and Able Seaman (then referred to as A.B.'s) who shared the same uniform that carried no rank identifier at all. So while on land you could tell by looking at the sleeves of the uniforms if you are dealing with a Private (recruit)   or a Private (trained), in the Navy, you could not tell if you were dealing with an O.D. or an A.B., save for the fact that we just knew who was who. 

For personal edification of those who are interested: The abbreviations come from the following: O.D.: Ordinary Duty Seaman; A.B.: Able Bodied Seaman.


----------



## chrisf (22 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Although not having to do really with the uniform I will say maybe the army and AF could use a different term for a 1 hook private like the Navy does in using Ordinary Seaman and Able Seaman.



We have that already. Authorized alternatives, including but not limited to "Sapper" "Gunner" and a few others.

It's typically neglected in favor of clarity. The artillery are the only ones who get uppity about it.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Nov 2010)

The Air Force had LAC (Leading Aircraftsman) and the Army had LCpl (Lance Corporal).  The Army still refers to Lance Jacks as those having one hook.


----------



## Pusser (22 Nov 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Even more confusing for you poor landlubbers: We used to do the reverse of what you do on land:
> 
> You have  no-hookers and  one-hookers sharing the same rank name (private) even though wearing different rank badge.
> 
> ...



To make it even more complicated, the chevrons sailors wore denoted years of good conduct (GC), not rank.  Thus, an RCN  petty officer first class with two chevrons outranked an RCAF sergeant with three, yet the sailors "GCs" were worn on the sleeve in the same location as the sergeant's rank chevrons.  The petty officer's actual badge of rank was the crossed anchors with a crown worn above and in conjunction with the chevrons.  Then there was also the phenomenon of the "three badge AB."  This was an able seaman who had three GCs (i.e. three chevrons), but was at the same rank level as the trained army private and was outranked by an army corporal with two chevrons or by the petty officer with only one or two GCs.

1 GC = at least 3 yrs
2 GC = at least 8 yrs
3 GC = at least 13 yrs

CPOs did not wear GCs

As for what to call the one-hook private, the old Canadian Army called them lance corporals and the RCAF called them leading aircraftsmen (although instead of a chevron, they used a two-bladed propeller).


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Nov 2010)

Actually a lance corporal (LCpl) (or lance bombardier (LBdr)) was different from an AB or the air force LAC. The equivalent to those ranks was the Private, Trained, Higher Rate which did not have a rank badge.

Lance Corporal was an appointment. The CO was authorized to appoint 12.5 % of his privates to LCpl. These troops then wore one hook and joined the corporals mess. There also was a jump in pay. This was used to develop young soldiers and was the first step on the ladder of promotion. As this method was not used by the other services, it did not survive integration.

I believe Edward was a lance corporal, while I was given the choice of putting up a hook or going on officer training.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Nov 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> [...]  Thus, an RCN  petty officer first class with two chevrons outranked an RCAF sergeant with three, [...]



Actually Pusser, you are even confusing yourself: CPOs and  PO1's wore the "fore and aft - three rows" (as opposed to the officers "fore and aft - four rows") and did not as a result wear the GC's (only worn on the "square rig"). This of course only happened after 1949, when the RCN rank structure was brought in line with the army and airforce one. Before that there was only one rank of Petty Officer and one rank of Chief Petty Officer and only the CPO wore the "fore and aft". 

Happy centennial everyone !


----------



## dapaterson (22 Nov 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> We have that already. Authorized alternatives, including but not limited to "Sapper" "Gunner" and a few others.
> 
> It's typically neglected in favor of clarity. The artillery are the only ones who get uppity about it.



They are definitely NOT authorized.  Used everywhere, but, strictly speaking, their use is a contravention of an order.

QR&O 3.01, "Ranks and Designations of Ranks", is clear that that we are only to use Column I of the Schedule to the NDA to designate ranks except for individuals wearing a naval uniform, who are to be referred to using Column II of the Schedule.

Terms such as "Gunner, Sapper, Craftsman" are under Column III and are therefore not authorized or approved, and using them is, in fact, contrary to an order issued by the Governor General in Council.


For fun (and if you're sure you can outrun them) you can raise this issue with the friends of St Barbara.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (22 Nov 2010)

> We have that already. Authorized alternatives, including but not limited to "Sapper" "Gunner" and a few others.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> I actually do want to know why the AF is still using Army ranks. I know they all became the same in 68, and the Navy fought hardest against it... but did the Air Force not go back due to budgetary concerns, or was it being the youngest of three services, or for some other reason?



As Old Sweat posted: the Air Force is not using Army ranks; it is using  CF  ranks.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (23 Nov 2010)

George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.

you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.


----------



## lethalLemon (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.
> 
> you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.



But he's right though.

Did you think that maybe he doesn't know the answer?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.
> 
> you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.



???    Smart-aleck comment?   It isn't smart-aleck at all.  It is a fact.  The Air Force and Army are using the CF rank structure as stated by Old Sweat [Sorry] dapaterson  in his post.  If that offends you then please take a stress tab.  You may notice that the Army is also not using ARMY RANKS, but CF ranks as well.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> George: no offense, but instead of posting a smart-aleck comment, that in no way furthers the discussion, why not make THAT point but also add on to the ACTUAL question.
> 
> you're talking semantics, but you're not answering his question.


A response is not "smart-aleck" simply because it doesn't support your argument. 

George was simply being factual in stating that they are CF ranks, vice Army ranks. The Army no longer uses it's former "Lance-Corporal"; the Air Force does not use "LAC."* 

Does it harm Canadian Airforce identity to no longer have an aircraft in the inventory called a "Canuck"? Perhaps the Chief of the Air Staff realized that, and so "didn't fight as hard as the Navy" to bring back pre-1968 ranks, which, by the way, may prove difficult to align with 2010 pay grades.

Sorry, but his point was obvious to readers _not_ clutching at straws to support a proposition which apparently has so little utility or support. 


* Not using LAC is just as well, because with the current awkwardness of discussing "soldiers, sailors, and airmen, uh airwomen...airpersons" it would be Leading Air Craftsman oh damn, uh  Craftswomen  ...Craftspeople." For a logically-similar discussion, read through the 28 pages (so far) here regarding bringing back "RCN" and "RCAF." (The discussion morphed into changing "Maritime Command" to "Navy," which I would concede may be more valid, but still a low priority).


----------



## Pusser (23 Nov 2010)

The matter of Air Force personnel using traditional air force ranks *has* been discussed.  The gist of the discussion was that because the Canadian Air Force now works more closely with the USAF than the RAF, it causes less confusion for Canada to continue with the CF rank structure for it's Air Force personnel.


----------



## Neill McKay (23 Nov 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> George was simply being factual in stating that they are CF ranks, vice Army ranks. The Army no longer uses it's former "Lance-Corporal"; the Air Force does not use "LAC."*



True, but the CF rank structure is minimal adaptation of the Canadian Army rank structure in use immediately before unification so it's not much of a stretch to think of it as an "army" rank structure.



> * [size=8pt]Not using LAC is just as well, because with the current awkwardness of discussing "soldiers, sailors, and airmen, uh airwomen...airpersons" it would be Leading Air Craftsman oh damn, uh  Craftswomen  ...Craftspeople."



Leading Aircraftsman, cf. Leading Seaman.  (But I do see a distinction between the centuries-old "seaman" ranks and a newly introduced rank; the latter might be an uphill battle and could even sink "seaman" with it.)


----------



## Pusser (23 Nov 2010)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually Pusser, you are even confusing yourself: CPOs and  PO1's wore the "fore and aft - three rows" (as opposed to the officers "fore and aft - four rows") and did not as a result wear the GC's (only worn on the "square rig"). This of course only happened after 1949, when the RCN rank structure was brought in line with the army and airforce one. Before that there was only one rank of Petty Officer and one rank of Chief Petty Officer and only the CPO wore the "fore and aft".
> 
> Happy centennial everyone !



I think your memory is a bit foggy.  GCs were most definitely worn on the Class I (fore and aft rig) by petty officers *and* lower ranks who did not wear Class II (square rig) uniform.  Only CPOs did not wear GCs.  I've got pictures to prove it. 

On another note, petty officers in the RCN prior to 1949 wore the Class I uniform.  When the RCN introduced the PO2 and CPO2  (in a move to align the pay structure with the other services), they assigned the Class II uniform to PO2s and Class I to PO1s.  It's also worth noting that PO2s were initially treated as junior ranks and did cleaning stations.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> True, but the CF rank structure is minimal adaptation of the Canadian Army rank structure in use immediately before unification so it's not much of a stretch to think of it as an "army" rank structure.



No it is not.  Both the Air Force and the Army had to compromise on the CF ranks.  Both had Staff Sergeant, WO 1 and WO 2 ranks.  These no longer exist in the new CF rank structure.  Both had Cpls and Sgts, and those did not see any change, until the creation of the CF MCpl.  As mentioned, both had different levels of Pte/AC depending on what training and qualifications one had completed, of which none exist officially in the CF rank structure of today.


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2010)

The RCAF had Flight Sergeants vice Staff Sergeants, actually.

But that's only half of the rank structure anyway - the entire RCAF Officer ranks disappeared, which was a good thing too as they made little no sense. If we regressed to those now, we would have Group Captains commanding Wings, Wing Commanders commanding Squadrons, Squadron Leaders commanding Flights, and Flight Lieutenants commanding themselves, and occasionally other crewmembers.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (23 Nov 2010)

We can argue smart-aleck comment or not all day. 

but fact of the matter is that you didn't answer the question posed...which was why aren't more air force themed ranks used a la Navy...you just point blank said they are not Army or AF ranks...they are CF ranks...which wasn't the question posed...nor did it further the intended discussion.


----------



## Neill McKay (23 Nov 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> No it is not.  Both the Air Force and the Army had to compromise on the CF ranks.  Both had Staff Sergeant, WO 1 and WO 2 ranks.  These no longer exist in the new CF rank structure.  Both had Cpls and Sgts, and those did not see any change, until the creation of the CF MCpl.  As mentioned, both had different levels of Pte/AC depending on what training and qualifications one had completed, of which none exist officially in the CF rank structure of today.



Only the army had privates (of any variety), second lieutenants, lieutenants (as subalterns), captains, majors, colonels, and generals (of any variety) -- all of them in the same places as they are in the CF rank structure.  It looks very green, with at most a vague hint of blue.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> We can argue smart-aleck comment or not all day.
> 
> but fact of the matter is that you didn't answer the question posed...which was why aren't more air force themed ranks used a la Navy...you just point blank said they are not Army or AF ranks...they are CF ranks...which wasn't the question posed...nor did it further the intended discussion.



Reply # 60



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> They are definitely NOT authorized.  Used everywhere, but, strictly speaking, their use is a contravention of an order.
> 
> QR&O 3.01, "Ranks and Designations of Ranks", is clear that that we are only to use Column I of the Schedule to the NDA to designate ranks except for individuals wearing a naval uniform, who are to be referred to using Column II of the Schedule.
> 
> ...



Asking a question as to why something is not done, after an answer has been posted already explaining why it is done, is insulting.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> Only the army had privates (of any variety), second lieutenants, lieutenants (as subalterns), captains, majors, colonels, and generals (of any variety) -- all of them in the same places as they are in the CF rank structure.  It looks very green, with at most a vague hint of blue.




 :

You left out Brigadiers and Field Marshalls.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (23 Nov 2010)

If you go by that list in the QR&O's, the Naval ranks are not to be used (because they do not appear), so it must be outdated or erroneous.

You may think it rude/insulting that someone ask for an answer when YOU consider it answered already...but I consider it just as rude when someone answers what I consider to be a different question then the one I ask.

I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Nov 2010)

:

OK.  I'll bow down to your superior effluence.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> .....why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.


Apparently the Commanders of the Army and Airforce don't consider it nearly as earth-shatteringly important as you do.

I can't imagine what your small goals must be.   :


----------



## Loachman (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.



As I said, the RCAF Officer ranks make no sense. In addition to my earlier response, few "Pilot Officers" today would be Pilots, and few "Flying Officers" would fly.

I have seen a lot of stupid ideas getting much more support than they should (which is none), so I am rather surprised that returning to a ridiculous rank structure hasn't found a champion yet.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> We can argue smart-aleck comment or not all day.
> 
> but fact of the matter is that you didn't answer the question posed...which was why aren't more air force themed ranks used a la Navy...you just point blank said they are not Army or AF ranks...they are CF ranks...which wasn't the question posed...nor did it further the intended discussion.



Read the Columns to the schedule to the NDA, then read QR&O chapter 3.

Or go on ranting on the internet.


----------



## Pusser (24 Nov 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The RCAF had Flight Sergeants vice Staff Sergeants, actually.
> 
> But that's only half of the rank structure anyway - the entire RCAF Officer ranks disappeared, which was a good thing too as they made little no sense. If we regressed to those now, we would have Group Captains commanding Wings, Wing Commanders commanding Squadrons, Squadron Leaders commanding Flights, and Flight Lieutenants commanding themselves, and occasionally other crewmembers.



As I understand it, that's pretty much the situation with the RAF today (i.e. wing commanders commanding squadrons, etc).


----------



## dapaterson (24 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> If you go by that list in the QR&O's, the Naval ranks are not to be used (because they do not appear), so it must be outdated or erroneous.
> 
> You may think it rude/insulting that someone ask for an answer when YOU consider it answered already...but I consider it just as rude when someone answers what I consider to be a different question then the one I ask.
> 
> I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.



Have you read QR&O chapter 3 yet?  Apparently not, or you'd have seen note 2 to QR&O 3.01:




> (2) An officer or non-commissioned member who, on or after the date this article comes into force (18 September 1986), holds a rank in the Canadian Forces set out in paragraph (1) and who, in accordance with orders and instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff wears a naval uniform, shall use and be referred to by the designation of rank set out in Column II of the Schedule to the National Defence Act having the same serial number as that of his rank in paragraph (1), and reference in this paragraph to the rank held by an officer or non-commissioned member includes any rank to which the member may be promoted, reduced or reverted from time to time.



Any further spoon-feeding required?


----------



## Pusser (24 Nov 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> If you go by that list in the QR&O's, the Naval ranks are not to be used (because they do not appear), so it must be outdated or erroneous.
> 
> You may think it rude/insulting that someone ask for an answer when YOU consider it answered already...but I consider it just as rude when someone answers what I consider to be a different question then the one I ask.
> 
> I'm not asking why don't we use colloquial names for ranks (i.e Sapper, Gunner, etc)...but why the Navy has its own element specific ranks while the other 2 elements do not.



Please re-read QR&O 3.01.  Para 2 explains quite clearly that naval ranks shall be used by personnel who wear the naval uniform.  Admittedly, it shouldn't have been too difficult to include those ranks at Para 1, but whoever wrote it didn't seem to feel the need.  Nevertheless, the reader is still directed to the Schedule, where it's all laid out.

As to why naval ranks survived and the more traditional army and air force ones did not can be explained simply by the fact that the naval leadership felt this was more important an issue than the army or air force leadership did.  When the CF was first reorganized in 1968, the direction was that there would only be one rank structure, the CF one.  Whereas this was not a huge departure for either the army or the air force (many other air forces use a similar rank structure) it was astronomical for the navy.  Simply put, hardly any navy in the world uses anything similar to the CF rank structure (the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy - yes, that's officially what it's called - being a notable exception).  The thought of lieutenant-colonels commanding HMC Ships was just too much to bear and so naval personnel resisted.  It wasn't easy though.  The CDS at teh time was adamant that only CF ranks be used and I remember seeing old photographs with pictures of sailors with their ranks listed as,"Cpl(S), LCol (S), etc.  The situation was constantly debated for a few years when the Minister finally came down and said that naval ranks (Column II of the Schedule) could be used for internal correspondence in Maritime Command as forms of address.  All official CF correspondence and forms still had to use CF rank.  I distinctly remember seeing my name listed as "Cpl" on a flight manifest.  In 1986, it all changed again and naval ranks were recognized across the board.  As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the idea was discussed in the air force, but never gained much momentum as most of the air force seems content with the status quo.

On another note with regard to the "ridiculous" (as described by another poster) traditional air force ranks (flight lieutenant, squadron leader, etc), somebody didn't seem to think that was a problem when rendering Canadian naval ranks in French.  Apparently, an official languages complaint years ago accused the French ranks we were then using (commandeur, capitaine (M), etc.) of being aglicisms and, therefore, unacceptable.  As a result, somebody decided to borrow titles from the *French Navy* and we were saddled with capitaine de corvette, capitaine de frégate, etc.  This follows the old RCAF pattern and interestingly, the German pattern of naming the rank for the level at which the hlder is expected to command.  This might work better if we still had corvettes in service ....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Nov 2010)

Additional on Pusser's post above: Even more than Lcol's commanding ship, we feared the explaining we would have to do with our NATO allies  (with whom we worked on a daily basis) as to why our ships had 9 to 10 captains.

In a different thread, http://Forums.Milnet.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-955235.html#msg955235 , I've explained the "french" thing for our naval ranks, which really has to do with the LCDR'a and CDR's only. I'd like to point out that, while there was a debate over use of "French" equivalent terminology for the two officer ranks just mentioned, no such debate occurred for the C&PO's even though we used the very same type of "equivalent" as opposed to "direct translation" for  the ranks of Petty Officers and Chiefs.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Nov 2010)

Oh! I forgot Pusser: It still works, sort of...

Flower class corvette: 940 t. / 62 meters : Commanded by a LCDR (Capitaine de "Corvette")
Kingston class MCDV: 970 t. / 56 meters : Commanded by a LCDR 

Our Frigates are commanded by CDR's (Capitaine de frégates)

The Destroyers (surely our "ships of the line - so to speak) : Commanded by Captains (Capitaines de vaisseau).


----------



## hugh19 (24 Nov 2010)

Destroyers are now commanded by Commanders.    iper:


----------



## aesop081 (24 Nov 2010)

Arguing over air force rank......wow  :

I'll continue to call people James, Mike, Pete, etc... no matter what the ranks are called. Why we haven't gone back to something more "traditional" is beyond me but i dont realy care. I know and understand what we have now and its just fine.


----------



## Pusser (24 Nov 2010)

sledge said:
			
		

> Destroyers are now commanded by Commanders.    iper:



True.  I also remember when supply ships were commanded by captains(N), who acted like they were commanding capital ships!

Oldgateboatdriver is right on the French titles for chiefs and petty officers.  We really don't notice.  I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that we never use them?  I have NEVER heard anyone in the Canadian Navy address a PO as "Maitre" in any language, but I've heard many a "Peeyo" in a very thick French accent. ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Nov 2010)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'll continue to call people James, Mike, Pete, etc... no matter what the ranks are called.



Definitely in line with the "by-the-book" approach to military discipline in the Air Force we have come to love and respect   

Otherwise, I am glad to hear that we are back to  CDR's driving the Destroyers, IMHO, unless they were simultaneously acting as TG Commanders, it was overkill when they started putting Captains in there.

As regards French rank titles for  PO's and CPO's, I surmise they are fairly strictly followed in the five Quebec Reserve units and at St-Jean during basic, but I agree we seldom use them on the coast or at sea - even on Franco units. Many years ago, I had a Franco PO1 as Chief Boatswain Mate so I took to calling him by the proper French job title of  "Bosco" - That just drove him up the mast everytime: "C'est Buffer, monsieur". Good thing he knew I was kidding as we had a long friendly relationship between us.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Nov 2010)

Pusser said:
			
		

> I've heard many a "Peeyo" in a very thick French accent. ;D



Sort of like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DA8yjNbcKkNY&sa=X&ei=to7uTPSlFMP7lweh86zXDA&ved=0CBoQuAIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE289WL_FbT_ePOYhSSZ8Pbj3vtLA


----------

