Army.ca Forums

The Parade Square => The Canadian Military => Topic started by: Veteran`s son on April 28, 2003, 21:40:00

Title: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
Post by: Veteran`s son on April 28, 2003, 21:40:00
Should the rank of Lance Corporal be part of the CF rank structure again?

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

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

What is everyone‘s opinion on this question?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Fader on April 28, 2003, 22:02:00
The rank structure isn‘t broke, why fix it?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ~RoKo~ on April 28, 2003, 22:04:00
Wouldn‘t lance corporal just be a pretty name and a lot of paperwork to change?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Ditch on April 28, 2003, 22:09:00
Q: Re-introduce Lance Corporal?

A: No, not required.


If we re-introduced Lance Corporal, wouldn‘t we then have to get rid of Master Corporal?  In the days of Lance Corporals and the like, the Corporal rank was the first leadership rank.  That is why on ceremonial dress MCpl‘s wear two chevrons, indicating the rank of Corporal which is/was the same rank.  Confused yet?  Let‘s just leave the present rank structure the way it is.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on April 28, 2003, 22:50:00
Lance Corporal is not a rank, it is an appointment.

Lance Corporal does NOT equal a Master Corporal!

In the old system, you had

Privates
Corporals
Sergeants

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

A corporal wore two chevrons and was a section commander.

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

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

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

Lance Corporal was a weird in between kind of a thing, and while technically considered a full fledged NCO, I don‘t believe he was all that well respected in actual practice.  The Lance Corporal then and the Corporal now are in effect the same thing - a position with no real command power and little actual authority, though to a new private, today‘s corporal is a bit better at getting attention than the Lance Jack of old.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Jungle on April 28, 2003, 22:57:00
Quote
The rank structure isn‘t broke, why fix it?
Well, maybe it could use a little fixin‘... Mcpl is not a rank, it is an appointment within the rank of Cpl. Strange, considering the rank of Cpl is nothing more than a well-paid Pte, and Mcpl is the first Leadership appointment. The difference in pay is also a joke. We make fun of the number of Sgts in the US Army, but find another Army where a Rifleman (or it‘s equivalent) can be of 3 different ranks (Pte(B), Pte(T) and Cpl).
There was a study about 10 years ago to get rid of the Mcpl appointment. Not a bad idea, today‘s Cpl would be Pte(T) with the Cpl‘s pay, and Cpl would become the first Leadership rank, replacing the Mcpl. Of course it didn‘t come through, as half the Army complained about losing one chevron and being called a Pte again, some for the rest of their career...
Personally, I think we should have done it, and simplify the rank structure.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2003, 23:47:00
Yes,
We should change the titles of all Cpls to LCpl, all MCpls to Cpl, and take thousands of $ from the Sea King replacement to make it possible.  Or . . .

we could stick to priorities.  

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

 
Quote
Did master corporals not originally have section commander duties? When did the change to sergeant section commanders take place?
I thought the change took place when the ranks came into effect after unification.  But, there are a lot of MCpl who are Sect Comds now and Cpl who are Sect 2ic. Perhapse it is a symptom of the CFs ability to retain leaders.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Marauder on April 29, 2003, 00:41:00
As McG pointed out, I have often seen cases where master jacks are sect cmdrs, and a long serving corporal gets informed on the Friday night that he is gonna be 2ic for the weekend. Our last ex, we had one of the longer serving Sgt as our PL OC, another long service Sgt as the PL WO, a Sgt who got promoted last May running one section, two MCpls running sections, and all three section 2ics were Cpls. Weps Det was also run by a Cpl.
Granted, our "usual" OC (it changes for ex to ex) was on a jump crse and we only have 1 WO left in the unit (who is on Roto). This highlights how well adapted we have become, with everyone being able to work one or two up as need be.

While the rank structure may not be the same as it was "back when it was hard", I really don‘t see a need to jumble **** everything AGAIN when, as other pointed out, we have bigger targets to take down first. I think part of the problem is we spend so much time on continual reorg that never focuses on changing the things that NEED to be changed.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: PikaChe on April 29, 2003, 01:39:00
I personally think rank of Corporal as currently used in CF is good, in terms of defining section chain of command.

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

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

I thought Brits had Colours Sergeant, not Staff Sergeant.

Also, Korean army has 3 grades of privates and corporal (or equivalent to). Usually you go up a rank every 6 month of your two year conscription.
And lots of bossing around. But that‘s army.  :D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Spr.Earl on April 29, 2003, 19:21:00
If I remember correctly,the rank of M/Cpl came in about mid 76, not on Unification 67,68.
 I remember all the Cpl.‘s putting up there new hook‘s when the change came in and the discussion‘s about the new rank.As I had just joined the Engineer‘s that April,76.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Jungle on April 29, 2003, 21:22:00
Quote
 The JNCO course they took was actually called "Infantry Section Commander Course" then, which qualified them for Master Corporal
The ISCC was qualifying us 5B and 6A in one 16-week course. So yes, all Infantry Mcpls were qualified as section comds, and up to the rank of Sgt.
McG, I don‘t think they would need to take anything away from the Sea King replacement project (if in fact there is such a project) to make changes to the rank structure. They could take a few million $$$ a year from all those social experiments the govt imposes on the CF...  ;)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veteran`s son on April 29, 2003, 23:28:00
Speaking of the CF rank structure, it is interesting that not many regiments have another rank for Trained Private(Engineers, Armoured and Artillery are a few exceptions). Do I understand this correctly?

In everyone‘s opinion, should all regiments/units have another rank for Trained Private?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: PikaChe on April 30, 2003, 00:30:00
A lot of infantry regiments do have a separate rank for trained privates, depending on regiment.

Like, fusilier, rifleman, etc.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on April 30, 2003, 01:06:00
Guardsman is another rank title for privates in Guards units.  

I‘ve seen Piper and Drummer used also, but only unofficially.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 17, 2004, 01:35:00
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/responsibilities.htm

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

TIA
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on February 17, 2004, 05:25:00
Here in Australia, we have the LCPL and LBDR ranks w/ one hook. Then CPL, SGT, (SSGT was removed about 8 yrs ago), then WO2 and WO1. Officer rank is in pips of the British system.

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

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

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


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

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

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: xFusilier on February 17, 2004, 06:59:00
The problem that was caused by unification was that the Army used rank to recognize leadership responsibilities only, and used pay levels to recognize technical competency.  Thus it was possible to stay a private soldier for your entire career, having your competency as a tradesman recognized through pay levels.  Thus a Craftsman with 21 years service could have a higher technical qualification than the Cpl. he worked for.

Upon unification, the problem came about that the RCAF and the RCN had used thier rank structure to identify technical skill as well as leadership.  A Leading Seaman had a higher trade qualification than an AB, same in the RCAF.  The compromise was to create make the rank of Corporal as a journeyman rank in the CF.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: tmbluesbflat on February 17, 2004, 10:32:00
prior to unification, it was private recruit, private trained higher rate, private, Lcpl, Cpl,Lsgt, Sgt, Ssgt, Wo11, Wo1, Officer cadet etc
Wo1 or rqmsi, RSM is or was a designated appointment
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 17, 2004, 11:59:00
Quote
Originally posted by tmbluesbflat:
[qb] prior to unification, it was private recruit, private trained higher rate, private, Lcpl, Cpl,Lsgt, Sgt, Ssgt, Wo11, Wo1, Officer cadet etc
Wo1 or rqmsi, RSM is or was a designated appointment [/qb]
Is Lance Sergeant also not an appointment held by a corporal, though?  Lance Corporal as well.

Have I not indicated all this on my table?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 17, 2004, 13:30:00
In addition to my general question three posts ago, some specific questions:

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

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

I do have some good info for artillery units‘ officer‘s positions, but if anyone can expand on what a "Tech Able" was and some of the NCO positions in a gun battery or troop, I would appreciate it.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Nerf herder on February 17, 2004, 13:44:00
A Battle Captain in an Armoured Squadron in the attack is in charge of the fire base during the attack phase of an objective. He along with the FOO direct arty, air and armour fire onto the objective whilst the manouevering forces slide in for the final blow.

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

Regards
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 17, 2004, 14:13:00
It certainly does, Franko, thanks.  So is the Battle Captain part of the standard establishment of the squadron?  Is this his only role, or is he a troop commander double-hatted?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Nerf herder on February 17, 2004, 14:17:00
No. The BC‘s job is primarily that. He is not a troop leader(job of a LT). It is standard that every squadron has one. His secondary role is to take command if the OC is nocked out in battle. The 2IC is usually in the rear with the gear so to speak.

Regards
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Nerf herder on February 17, 2004, 17:18:00
The TQMS in the Armoured world is the RSM in waiting...at least in my Regiment

Regards
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on February 17, 2004, 17:42:00
Quote
Originally posted by Franko:
[qb] The TQMS in the Armoured world is the RSM in waiting...at least in my Regiment

Regards [/qb]
Is he a Master Warrant Officer, then?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: tmbluesbflat on February 17, 2004, 23:46:00
RSM WO1
responsible for dress and deportment all ranks etc
 I used to know all this stuff, sometimers I guess
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Spr.Earl on February 18, 2004, 06:05:00
It was a political thing to make it look like we had a Force with qualifaction‘s.
If you go back in time the C.F. promotion‘s were based on a merit system.
Now it‘s time served plus if you have your course.

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

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

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

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

Yes merit counts!

Yes P.C. has done it again  :mad:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Aquilus on June 30, 2003, 04:35:00
According to the opposition white paper "the new north strong and free",

 
Quote
Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
1997, “... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporals”. “Ranks”, he said
“should be rolled back at all levels”.
Wondering if anyone had thoughts on our rank structure. changes, cuts, additions, and all that.  :cdn:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Ruthless4Life on June 30, 2003, 08:11:00
I‘m not sure about losing the past tradition just because of this guy that‘s not even in the military is whining about the infrastucture.

Ruthless
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on June 30, 2003, 10:40:00
Granatstein was actually an officer, or at the least, attended RMC.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on June 30, 2003, 10:47:00
Nonetheless, the idea that there are six too many ranks is ridiculous.  Look at the different levels of command, and you can see the need for them.

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

You thus get

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

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

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

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

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

It used to be a Corporal commanded a section, not a Sergeant.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: rolandstrong on June 30, 2003, 12:39:00
You would know about htis than I Michael, but isn‘t this a return to the older system, with a corporal having more weight, etc.?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on June 30, 2003, 12:58:00
A return to the old system was exactly what Granatstein was asking for in the book.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Aquilus on June 30, 2003, 18:22:00
Yes the quote i put up is a complete quote of the part of recommendation 28 that had concern of ranks. I‘ve also included recommendation 29.
 
Quote
Recommendation 28: The Personnel Evaluation Report (PER) system of
promotion must be simplified, evaluating candidates on merit, valour and
operational effectiveness considerations alone.
Changes are also required to simplify the rank structure. Presently privates total
only about ten percent of the CF. Again as Professor Jack Granatstein said in
1997, “... with eighteen ranks between private and general, there are probably six
to eight ranks too many [with] ... a plethora of master corporals”. “Ranks”, he said
“should be rolled back at all levels”.26
Recommendation 29: The rank structure of the CF should be reviewed.
Enlisted ranks above the rank of private/ordinary seaman should be
designated as leadership positions, promotion to which would be based
on merit, valour and leadership considerations alone.
Experimentation with social engineering over the last decade has severely
undermined morale and operational effectiveness. The Employment Equity Act
of 1995, for instance has led to the establishment of recruiting quotas to increase
representation for so-called “designated groups” in the armed forces. In the
process, training standards have been lowered in order to achieve artificial
objectives (see Appendix).
Due to the inherently discriminatory nature of these various measures, the
Canadian Alliance opposes them on principle. The Alliance policy declaration,
updated and reaffirmed in April 2002, states: “Every [federal government] job
shall go to the most qualified applicant without the use of affirmative action or any
other type of discriminatory quota system”.
One of the great strengths of the Canadian military has always been the high
quality of its training and professionalism. As these are eroded, the value of the
Canadian Forces also declines. It was for these reasons that Professor Jack
Granatstein warned the Prime Minister in 1997: “... training standards must not
be lowered further (the [Canadian] army is already one of the mildest training
armies in the West) to achieve quotas. Otherwise operational effectiveness will
be severely weakened”.27
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: combat_medic on June 30, 2003, 19:44:00
OK, NO ONE had better do ANYTHING to the rank (appointment) of Master Corporal until I get my hands on it... I‘m too bloddy close now!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on June 30, 2003, 20:29:00
Roland, I actually know less about this than some of the other "older" hands - I believe the link provided goes to a great discussion about this.

I still don‘t see how Granatstein can get rid of "six or eight" ranks.  Maybe I should post at his messageboard again!
Title: "Re-Royalization" (RCN, RCAF & RCEME), renaming, CF to CAF, old badges, and "new" Army Divisions
Post by: PikaChe on February 28, 2004, 14:44:00
Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?

Yay or nay?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on February 28, 2004, 14:54:00
I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: NFLD Sapper on February 28, 2004, 15:34:00
Quote
I thought the Navy still did have the royal in it?
I belive they lost it during unification

   
Quote
Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?
Then why not bring it back for the Engineers and the Army as a whole.

Most arms of the CF lost the designation of royal upon unification.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on February 28, 2004, 16:29:00
We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Jason Jarvis on February 28, 2004, 17:09:00
Quote
Originally posted by Ex-Dragoon:
[qb] We haven‘t been the RCN since unification nor has the air force been the RCAF. What would be the point it would only end up diverting funds from areas where we need it. [/qb]
Changing the name -- not the underlying structure -- wouldn‘t necessarily cost very much, especially when phased in over several years.

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

Why would it need to be any different for the CF? I say bring ‘em back -- so long as we‘re not a republic, why shouldn‘t we celebrate this aspect of our military history?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: radiohead on February 28, 2004, 18:50:00
Its history, not reason to go back.  I think The CN and CAF are fine.  And they say we‘re Canadian, but some branch of British Monarhy.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on February 28, 2004, 21:25:00
Quote
Originally posted by RoyalHighlandFusilier:
[qb] Bring back Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force?

Yay or nay? [/qb]
KISS


YAY

GW
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RECON-MAN on February 29, 2004, 15:14:00
I would say NO. That would be a step backwards.It would opened old wounds with Quebec
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: krugan on June 29, 2004, 10:34:23
On the Recruiting site it mentions "many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."

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

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

What would you guys/gals like to see implemented to fill these trades that CF need?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Sundborg on June 29, 2004, 11:42:50
People who get promoted before others deserve it; there is no resentment there.  The one's who get promoted right after basic training are already qualified oin that trade; therefore, they promote them.  I had two on my course get promoed to corporal on the grad parade.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 29, 2004, 12:08:00
It's not really a big deal to have someone get promoted to Cpl once they're trades qualified, because in the CF Cpl is not a command rank.  Ideally, Cpls are a little "older and wiser" than the average Pte, but they're not intended to be in charge of anything, and in practice, there's often little difference between Cpls and Ptes except for how much they get paid.

Reservists get promoted faster than their reg force counterparts because the turnover rate of personnel within the reserves is extremely high. I think it's unfortunate that the reserves do promote so quickly, because the result as I see it is that we end up with a lot of underqualified senior personnel.  That said, I think that the average rate of career progression one finds in the regs is unneccessarily slow.  Our allied militaries all promote much more quickly than we do.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Allan Luomala on June 29, 2004, 20:46:43
Two points, based on my experience: 1) People who get promoted faster than their peers almost always experience some form of resentment, because that is human nature, and many people who do get promoted faster don't always deserve it, but in the cases that you quoted, that would be for people who come in already qualified in the trade (bandsmen, a guy who is a qualified mechanic and wants to go Vehicle Technician) and 2) Not all allied militaries promote faster than we do. I worked with British and Dutch in Bosnia, and I would say they were on par with us, if not a little slower. The Americans seem to have too many ranks, and it seems you can be a "buck" sergeant in no time, which would probably be the equivalent of a Cpl

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

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

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

Al
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: armyguy916 on June 29, 2004, 21:12:36
In reference to what Al said, I do and don't agree with you at all.  I am a reserve Corporal, and I spent the last year at the infantry school.  I worked with Regular Force soldiers and some of them were bags of crap, just like the reserves.  I am a C6 gunner, and I have been told on more than one occasion, by more than one Senior NCO, and high ranking officer that I have had better dress, drill, deportment and professionalisn than my reg force counterparts.  They stated they would rather have me manning their gun than some of the reg force there.  Basically the way I see things with the reserves, there are the ones there that just show for the pay check, and put no effort into things, and there are the one that show up, and take pride in what they do, because wether anyone likes it or not, we are still part of the Canadian Armed Forces.  This is just my own personal opinion, and if someone wants to trash my opinion, send me a msg, don't do the trashing here because it always starts bad forum's and then they get shut down, lets just leave it open and see where this can take us.  Regardless of anything, I love working aside reg force guys, I have learned a lot of things, and I can't wait to be in PPCLI
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Allan Luomala on June 29, 2004, 22:16:46
The point here has little to do with one's professionalism, or lack thereof. I also know of Reservists that are more "professional" than Reg Force soldiers, and I don't neccesarily think that the School's are the best place to be comparing oneself to Reg Force soldiers, if you catch my drift..... Being able to work full time, whether it is with Reg Force, or even full time at a Reserve unit is good, and performance should be what gets your promoted and qualified. Time in (the military) should never be the sole factor in promotions. I think that a soldier could retire after 20 years as a Private, or be a Master Corporal in 5 years. Rewarding people by having them show up for 4 years (or 2 years)  doesn't do much to create good soldiers. It creates automatons who show up, do the bare minimum, and voila! they get promoted because a chart somewhere says they should be X rank afterY years of service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: armyguy916 on June 29, 2004, 22:34:16
Al,
I see your point very cleary now, and I have to say I do agree with you!
 :fifty:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on June 29, 2004, 22:47:06
On the Recruiting site it mentions "many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."
Does this apply to specific MOCs or is it based on something else?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Rider Pride on June 29, 2004, 23:20:10
I agree with Al on this.
It is common for medical trades to be prometed to Cpl on completion of Basic, only because they d not require trades training because they have a civilian qualifications. On the Prev Medicine side, usually these are Med Tech Cpls who are promoted to MCpl upon completion of their first course.

But lack of experience as a Pte and a Cpl is a detriment to any leader because they don't have the examples (good or bad) to follow as the situations they face arise. This is precisely why every promotion after Cpl as a 2 yr wait to enter promotion zone in the Reg force.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on June 29, 2004, 23:50:56
Pertaining to the immediate promotion mentioned at the beginning of the thread, I think it refers to some offers of immediate promotion to Corporal in some of the CSS Trades for people who have significant civilian educations in the corresponding civilian industry.   No big deal to me, since they all seem to end up as Warrant Officers anyways.... ;D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I argue that every promotion should have some form of objective qualification to show for the increase in rank and responsibility.   Time in should provide a rough idea of when to look at promoting a soldier, not what to look for in promoting one.   I think the Army should go back to its pre-Unification system, which can still be found as an authorized system within the QR&Os (I'd have to look for the section).   Private soldiers are precisely that, private soldiers.   Lance Corporal and Corporal are JNCO ranks, providing leadership at the small unit level (section for the infantry).   Sergeant is a platoon/troop level NCO, while Staff Sergeants fill out Staff duties or CQMS.   Warrant Officers are Sergeants Major.   Seems alot more clear cut and simple to me, and ensures that rank is earned rather than given away.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on June 30, 2004, 00:45:02
Do we need to go back to the old rank titles to bring about change?   Looking at the STANAG on rank, it seems countries can refer to ranks by all different names, but as long as we know what it means, is there a purpose in changing rank titles from what they are now?

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

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

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

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


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

Lets take this a step farther.   Our new MCpl rank can be referred to simply as Cpl.   Our Sr Pte appointment could be known as Lance-Cpl (LCpl), PFC, or Master Pte (MPte).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: portcullisguy on June 30, 2004, 02:26:32
I don't think that's anything new .. I could swear I read somewhere on this site a while ago that our system used to be exactly that... Pte, then LCpl, then Cpl (as a leadership rank, not a pay progression rank).

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

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

My main incentive is that I enjoy doing the job I do, both in the military, and outside of it.  And, in my third year as a reservist, I know I still have much to learn at my level before I would feel comfortable with a promotion.  I've already met people I was on course with and who have been promoted, but in whom I haven't seen an equal rise in their skill, ability, or motivation to do the job.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 02:49:37
The two years does indeed start from the day you swear in.  Promotions don't just happen though, there's a lot of paperwork that has to be completed before you get your hooks.  I suspect that your unit is probably on minimum manning for the summer, and that if you are in fact qualified to Cpl, you'll probably get your promotion come September.  It will likely be retroactive to the date you qualified for Cpl, and in that case it will come with back pay as well.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 04:42:06
I have a few other thoughts on this as well, mainly pertaining to what Infanteer posted:

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

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

I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on June 30, 2004, 04:51:02
McG, your comparison list is a bit off.   Most of my examples below will pertain to the infantry, but the general level of responsibility is there.   As you can see, I advocate the current British System because it is the most simple and clear cut and it has some traditional value to our Army, which used it until unification.

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

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

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

Privates:

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

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

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

Corporals:

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

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

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

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

Master Corporal

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

Sergeant

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

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

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

Staff Sergeant

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

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

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

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

Platoon NCO (Canada and US)

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

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

Company NCO

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

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

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

Higher Level NCO's

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

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

In the US, the highest enlisted pay grade of E9 is divided into three ranks: Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and Command Sergeant Major of the Army.   I believe Sergeants Major act at battalion level (Canadian RSM), Command Sergeants Major act at Brigade and Division Levels (our formation and base CWO), while the Command Sergeant Major of the Army is the highest enlisted rank in the Army.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on June 30, 2004, 04:56:53
Quote
I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.

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

I think these problems also exist in the officer corps.  Rank exams were removed and now 2nd Lt - Lt - Captain is a TI thing as well, if I am not mistaken.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 05:48:29
Well, for all ranks after Corporal, I agree with you 100%, but there must be a place for "skilled workers" in the infantry as well, isn't there?  I don't see anything wrong with having a non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ags281 on June 30, 2004, 06:04:04
I also see Cpl as ideally having some command authority. For the "skilled worker" what's wrong with keeping people at single hooks while adding a few IPC's so that a full career as a Pte is financially viable?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 06:26:12
Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".  In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?  Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.  If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.  I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.  I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.  Who wants a career Pte?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ags281 on June 30, 2004, 07:01:18
Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".   In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?   Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.
MCpl would not be a redundant rank as you suggest. Cpl would indicate a leader in training (the 2Lt of NCO's if you will), and MCpls would be appointed to indicate that they are a fully qualified/proven/experienced Cpl.
If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.   I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.   I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.   Who wants a career Pte?
I think you may be getting caught up too much in titles. Single hooks could be called lance corporal like it used to be. I'm talking about redefining the meaning of single hooks. Rather than indicating a trained Pte, they would indicate the skill set that Cpl currently does, thus creating the "non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers" that you desire (obviously making it such that the single hooks are not a gimme, so that there is that feeling of accomplishment and respect and not the current problem that exists with Cpl). It seems strange to me to give a "non-NCO" the rank of Cpl, as a Cpl is an NCO by definition of the word.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Lance Wiebe on June 30, 2004, 08:01:37
Interesting topic of discussion.

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

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

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

Boy, it's a good thing I'm not in charge, isn't it?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 08:29:46
Well, ags, I'm not going to argue with you about it too much, because we seem to be talking about similar things, just using different words.   All I'll say is that Cpls already are the "2Lt of NCO's" to a large extent, and MCpls are already appointed on the basis of their proven qualification.   The thing is that as the "2Lt's of the NCOs", Cpls may be given leadership tasks, but not on a permanent basis (usually).   That's the job of the MCpls.   If you make both MCpls and Cpls true NCO's with full time leadership roles, then you have two supervisor ranks doing exactly the same job, which I don't think makes much sense.   I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Willy on June 30, 2004, 09:00:56
Quote
"PFC" and "Senior Private" ranks abound in the world's armies.   Many do an entire career as PFC, just as we have Corporals today

Actually, the American "Specialist" ranks are the ones directly equivalent to our use of the Cpl rank.  Many in the US Army stay as Specialists for a long time, but I don't think they have many long serving PFC's.  They also have an up or out policy in effect, don't they?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mr. Ted on June 30, 2004, 09:10:03
A couple of comments regarding the last post.

Firstly, however, excellent discussion I have to say.

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

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

Ted
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ags281 on June 30, 2004, 18:18:29
I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.

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

I agree though, we do seem to be getting caught up in details too much, so I'll just leave it at that. Whatever the details, we're in agreement that there needs to be some actual earning of rank here, and that leadership roles should not be given based simply on time in.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Allan Luomala on June 30, 2004, 20:55:52
I would love to see (as mentioned by the many wise men above) a system of: Private, Lance Corporal (a career private with no leadership potential or aspirations.... not everyone is cut out to be a leader, so why try to force it???), Corporal, Sergeant, WO, etc...... There is no real need to have the MCpl rank/appointment/whatever if we followed this scheme, and we would please the PC crowd who don't like calling people Master, as though we are slave owners or something.... tree huggers :crybaby:

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

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

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

Al
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on June 30, 2004, 21:25:28
The Corporal rank as it stands was designed exactly for that reason, to designate "journeyman" level soldiers.  However, I view rank as a symbol of command, not trade competence (which is only one factor) or time in.
Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on June 30, 2004, 21:55:21
Quote
No rank should be automatic, except RSM (retired service member), and that should be like the Brit system: after 22 years (or 25.... close enough) you're done. On to becoming a WalMart "greeter" or a Commisionaire. No point in having 54 year old Corporals (or Sgt's, or WO's for that matter) manning the trenches. Or if the CSS trades don't like that (because they are all so "valuable" that they should be kept in indefinitely.... was my sarcasm very apparent there?) let all the old combat arms types (25 years in) OT over to these invaluable trades. Anyway, that's not gonna happen with this cat, as 25 years (if they give me the option.......) will be plenty for me. I'm starting to think that my BE1 (first 3 year hitch) should have been where I cut the rope, but that's long ago.

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

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

I would be satisfied if a private soldier was precisely that, a Private soldier.   I see no need to create two working ranks based on TI, a soldier can be judged on is abilities alone.   For career troopies, I see no problem with the British system of Classes within the Private rank.   A little different then our IPC codes, these usually come when certain qualifications are met (essential courses and TI) and the CO gives his recommendation.   The idea of promotion to a higher rank to me implies greater increase in command and responsibility.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Sheep Dog AT on June 30, 2004, 22:04:01
its unfortunate these days that it isn't necessarily your abilities that get you ahead rather then having the course and needing a postion filled.   My current Sgt who is acting CQ couldn't lead a one man rush to the whor.e house on pay day.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on July 01, 2004, 01:02:49
Same problem exists in the reserves.   Some NCO friends of mine are a bit disapointed with how leadership nomination is done.  When they were troops, they were recommended for leadership training and offered the course by the CoC.   Now, troops are badgered about going on their leadership course (I refused twice) and anyone who puts in their name can pretty much get a spot.   I had a guy on my basic course that spent one year as a trained private, did his JLC/JNCO the next summer, and was a Master Corporal in the fall; 1 year from private to MCpl blew me away.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ags281 on July 01, 2004, 01:10:48
Settle down Al, you're making too much sense.

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

        Army:                         Air Force:                   Navy:

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

        (line indicates non-NCO/NCO divide)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on July 01, 2004, 01:12:14
Quote
Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?
I would be satisfied if a private soldier was precisely that, a Private soldier.   I see no need to create two working ranks based on TI, a soldier can be judged on is abilities alone.  
Effectivly, this would be the result of making Cpl an appointment.   The next step would be to rename the appointment to PFC, LCpl, MPte, or something of that nature.

McG, your comparison list is a bit off.  
I used an unofficial reproduction of STANAG 2116 (Edition 5) as my reference.   Going to a US source (dated 1999) I find a slightly different result:

Canadian vs US ranks

NATOCanadaUS
OR-9CWOSergeant-Major of the Army & Command Sergeant-Major
OR-8MWOFirst Sergeant & Sergeant-Major
OR-7WOSergeant First Class & Master Sergeant
OR-6*Staff Sergeant
OR-5SgtSergeant
OR-4MCplCorporal
OR-3CplPrivate 1st Class
OR-2Pte(T)Private E.2
OR-1Pte(R) & Pte (B)Private E.1

* Canada is shown to have no equivalent to OR-6

Just based on where this list shows our Sgt compared to one in the US, I tend to be more sceptical of it.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on July 01, 2004, 03:18:33
That STANAG list is wrong too.  I've looked in many US Manuals and I am confident of how the system works on paper.  I think we all have a grasp on how the CF works  ;D.

Well, I think we have all said our piece on this.  I simply can find no reason to make a dual level rank or appointment at the private soldier level.  I feel differences in time in or qualifications can be covered by our IPC system or the British Class rating.  Unless anyone can offer something new to the debate, I am going to pull a fighting withdrawl.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Otto Fest on July 05, 2004, 13:33:17
A bit late, but my two cents...

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

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

As today, Cpl pay was significantly more than Ptes, and soldiers were tired of the navy and airforce members making more simply to do their jobs.  After all, the Army Pte could also fire several different weapons and operate sigs equipment and vehs as well.  So with unification his goal, Hellyer had to meet the Army's demands.  Thus the appointment Master Corporal, for good or bad.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on July 05, 2004, 13:47:25
Granatstein's book "Who killed the Canadian Military" gives a good overview on Hellyer and the single rank structure.  After reading that, I tend to blame him less for screwing up the CF (Although he gets a big thumbs down for throwing tradition on its head).  As suspected, our biggest problems seem to stem from MacDonalds decision under Trudeau to civilianize the senior command and create NDHQ.  I still hold that Trudeau presented the biggest single force in damaging the capabilites of the Canadian Military; what more could you expect from a duty-dodging lawyer.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: CDNsig on July 05, 2004, 14:42:17
In regard to the MCpl being a "defacto" rank, having been promoted about six months ago, I would have to say there is nothing defacto about it. I seem to have acquired a great deal more responsiblility than I ever had as a Cpl (in fact, some of my duties seem to be more commensurate with a Sgt)... This level of responsibility is the one that has to actually get things done, as opposed to merely "passing on". as such it receives the flak from unhappy subordinates, and from higher when the job isn't done right.
 I used to wonder why so many long serving Cpls I knew were uninterested in promotion. Now I think I understand; they felt that the renumeration (both in pay and in respect from higher) wasn't worth the added headaches. While I don't necessarily agree, I do understand... (especially pay wise)
 For example, (1) a Mcpl is immediately at the highest IPC for the rank; the reason being if he was not, he would be making less than the top IPC Cpl... (2) I make less than a spec pay Cpl... (3) You suddenly find yourself buried in paperwork... (4) You are micromanaged and left very little latitude for decision making, but YOU wear it if things go wrong...
 I enjoy my job, but I would like to see a little more from higher to show that I earned this rank and do my best each and every day. If this happened, people might try a little harder for promotion. :salute:
 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on July 05, 2004, 14:53:07
I think you are misunderstanding the term.

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

It is, however, a "de facto" rank.  In reality, a MCpl has different roles and responsibilites than a Cpl, one is seen as higher on the food chain then the other, and it is given out as such on parade (Promotion to MCpl....).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: portcullisguy on July 05, 2004, 19:37:28
Infanteer has eloquently pointed out the definitions quite accurately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: AmmoTech90 on July 05, 2004, 23:29:18
Just a point from real life.  Being a Sgt in the CF entitles you to Staff NCO barracks in the US (those assigned to E6+).  From working with US forces I have noticed that their Sgts (E5) are considered either as a Cpl or as a Sgt, depending on their job.  Sometimes they drive a truck, sometimes they are a section commander or filling a position in a HQ similar to Canadian Ops WO.  It's very difficult to pin down a comparision at any level between us and them, don't even mention WO's its a completely different system.  They are amazed to see 15 year Cpls performing leadership tasks such as packet commander.  These are things that would be assigned to 5 or 8 year Sgts or SSgts in their forces.  At the same time they are surprised by the work that is done by a CA Sgt, especially in support trades.  By the time they reach E6 they are truely a Staff NCO, doing a lot of planning and supervising.  Of course they've got the pers to do that.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Yard Ape on July 14, 2004, 16:51:23
There was a time when you could look at a regular Cpl and know that individual had Basic Winter Warfare, Machine Gunner Crse, and drive wheel or driver track.  The Army did a brief experiment with including the driver wheel course in the SQ, but I hear it was dropped to reduce course length.  As a minimum, the old "unofficial" prerequisits should be brought back as official requirments.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: portcullisguy on July 15, 2004, 02:41:37
Wish I had done a driver course in my SQ, or even shortly after (but, I did get DP2A).

Looks like they're looking for augmentees for Roto 3 on Op Athena, and the preference will be for those with driver or linguist profiles.  I don't speak a word of Pushtun or Urdu, and I don't have my 404's.  I might be SOL.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on December 07, 2004, 00:09:54
A few comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 07, 2004, 01:40:58
We have QMSI in the reserves, at least our unit has had one in the past (come to think of it, though, I have no idea if we have one right now or not).  I've seen it referred to as Quarter Master Senior Instructor rather than Sergeant.   And he has always been the understudy to the RSM as you point out.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: 0tto Destruct on December 07, 2004, 12:15:09
OK, NO ONE had better do ANYTHING to the rank (appointment) of Master Corporal until I get my hands on it... I'm too bloddy close now!

Amen to that, man.  :threat:

 :dontpanic:
T.A.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: 0tto Destruct on December 07, 2004, 12:33:57
Here's a question...if Corporal is supposed to be the 'Journeyman' rank for the CF, then why are there only 4 IPC's vice a Captain's 10 IPC's?

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

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

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

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

My .02

 :dontpanic:
T.A.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 07, 2004, 13:16:44
I may have missed it. But here is the brake down for ranks.
 Cdn            Brit                   US
Pte      =     Pte            =    Pte/L Cpl
Cpl              LCpl                 Cpl
MCpl           Cpl                   Sgt E5
Sgt             Sgt                  Sgt E6
WO             Staff Sgt          Sgt E7
MWO          WO2                Sgt E7/E8
CWO           WO1               Sgt E8

I had this for the rank comparision chart from NATO, Remember these are common ranks. The Brits also have Colour Sgts=WO,MWO, Cpl of the Horse=SSM,CSM. CpL Maj= SSM,MWO,etc depending on Regt. The US have E5s as Tank drivers/gunners for a E6. I know on one SUE, the E5s from the marines were not allowed in the Sgt/Wos mess.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 07, 2004, 13:35:23
I may have missed it. But here is the brake down for ranks.
 Cdn                  Brit                             US
Pte         =        Pte                  =      Pte/L Cpl
Cpl                     LCpl                          Cpl
MCpl                 Cpl                             Sgt E5
Sgt                    Sgt                           Sgt E6
WO                    Staff Sgt               Sgt E7
MWO               WO2                        Sgt E7/E8
CWO                 WO1                       Sgt E8

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

Yeah, but once again, rank comparisons are meaningless without knowing the responsibilities.  A British Corporal is a section commander, whereas we have made sergeant the rank for a section commander (in theory).  So a Master corporal  really doesn't equal a British Sergeant (who is 2 i/c of a platoon, which is what our Warrant Officers do).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ab136 on December 07, 2004, 13:47:36
I'm probably going to stir the s**t now. I am in the process of starting my CF career.....I have 15 years of civvy duty as an electrician, I am a journeyman.  I am told that, pending skills comparison,  I may have the opportunity to be promoted to Cpl after Basic. Unfortunately I have read in other threads that this seem like sort of a slap in the face to some CF members. In this instance the Cpl rank gives someone with skills recognition for these skills.  Conversely if a Elect. Dist. Tech. retires from the army he/she would be recognized in the civvy world with the pay level and respnsibility for his/her experience with in the army. There is life after the army and you should be ready for a civvy point of view. I would hope that the road taken here is not one-way.

I'm not posting this to ruffle feathers; I just want to know how members feel about these kind of appointments.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 07, 2004, 14:09:12
Corporal is the first rank after Private, so....

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ab136 on December 07, 2004, 14:20:38
Thanks Micheal!  I appreciate your reply.  I agree.  The an infantry soldier is a very skilled tradesman.  I can only imagine what an infantry soldier has to do to "earn his hooks".  The backbone of the army.  If I get in.....it would be a pleasure to try and support these guys.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 07, 2004, 16:36:17
The Aussie System as fol:

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

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

The rank of LCPL is NOT an appointment, but is a rank.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 07, 2004, 16:54:20
The Aussie System as fol:

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

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

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

Yeah, Wes, but what do they do?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 07, 2004, 19:26:35
Mike
 The problem is that we are too small. My father was a Staff but retired a WO. MCpls when they first came around, were Sec Com. and Cpl were 2ics. Sgts were the Ptl Sgt?Tp Sgt, and the WO was the CQ/SQ.
 I do understand responsability, but the Armour Corp still had Snr troopers CC vehs until about 93. When I was in England, I as a MCpl ate in the Snr NCOs mess. For to them I was entitled to.
 I wish they would have gotten rid of that damn MCpl rank. It now means F^&* all.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 12, 2004, 11:48:40
The Aussie System as fol:

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

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

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

So this would be the rank structure used by the Canadian Forces(Army) prior to 1968?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Otto Fest on December 12, 2004, 12:34:28
I believe that changing the rank structures from Cpl/MCpl back to LCpl/Cpl is just rearranging the deck chairs.  Although I will concede that the b*stard appointment MCpl should have been legislated as a rank or gotten rid of long ago.  The big problem facing the combat arms (mainly the Infantry) is the ISCC (5B/6A) essentially qualifies the soldier for Sgt as well as MCpl, the SAIC being a relatively minor inconvenience afterwards.  Other trades have a more graduated system, with the Infantry more a 'make or break' method.

The demographic time bomb facing the CF was caused when we downsized from 80,000 to 54,000.  Some trades went 7 years without any new members.  Although the CF is trying to cover up the problem by offering IPS's to everyone, when people hit 20, 22 or 25 years service they will submit their release.  Instead of being able to depend on a MCpl/Cpl with 15 or 18 years corporate memory they will now have only 5 or 6.  "May you live in interesting times".
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Jungle on December 12, 2004, 15:38:49
When I was in England, I as a MCpl ate in the Snr NCOs mess. For to them I was entitled to.
I went to the UK as a Mcpl in 1989, and used the JR quarters and Mess. Like here, only Sgts and above are entitled to the Snr NCOs Mess. They were probably confused about what a Mcpl was when you went, so they played safe and put you in the SNCOs Mess  ;)
Actually, if you look at their rank structure, our Sgts would be in the JRs Mess in the UK. Their section commanders (or equivalent) are Cpls, and belong to the JRs.  ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 12, 2004, 15:53:14
Which is probably one reason why going back to an older system would not simply be "rearranging the deck chairs".....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on December 12, 2004, 15:58:44
Quote
Instead of being able to depend on a MCpl/Cpl with 15 or 18 years corporate memory they will now have only 5 or 6.

Why is having a person at this rank level after 15 years a good thing? Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Otto Fest on December 13, 2004, 01:10:45
It is not a good thing, but is what we have come to depend on.  Wether Infantry, RMS, or air force maintenance.  We have to accept the demographics.  And retention rates...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 14, 2004, 02:37:52
Perhaps we should be considering the fact that the devaluation of the rank of Corporal (and above) came about as an expedient measure to ensure higher rates of pay. I believe it was Hellyer (Boo Hiss  :threat:) who faound that he could not get the treasury board to approve across the board increases in the payscale,. As pay was tied to rank and the Goverment woulden't budge, Hellyer promoted people...or put in a different way, reduced the rank of Corporal to a species of senior private and Senior NCO's from PL 2iC's to section commander; thus ensuring higher pay by increasing the rank required for the position.



SB
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RCA on December 14, 2004, 17:32:01
Just from a gunner perspective.

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

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

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

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

Officers
Lts - CPO/GPO (Snr Lt in charge of the Gun Position)
Capts - BK (Battery Captain) 21c of the Bty and in charge of the Gun Area; FOOs
Maj - BC
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 14, 2004, 17:59:40
Yeah, Wes, but what do they do?

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

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 14, 2004, 18:05:27
Sorry for not responding sooner. I feel its this way here.

LCPL= CF CPL
CPL = CF MCPL
SGT/SSGT = SGT/WO
WO2 = MWO
WO1 = CWO

Cheers,

Wes

mmmm....you're still not telling me what they DO.   A Sergeant in the CF is ostensibly a section commander while a WO is a platoon 2 i/c.  You mean to say that Staff Sergeants are platoon second in command?   It used to be in all the CW armies that a Staff Sergeant was a CQMS, a Sergeant was a platoon 2 i/c and a corporal a section commander.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: JayJay on December 14, 2004, 20:11:29
sorry for jumping in here, just a question about the rank structure you gave, Wes is it?  Anyway, I'm in signals in the CF, and currently we have an australian Sig attached to our unit.....but as you stated a Sig has no chevron, however he does.  Maybe you could clarify that for me, I'm a little confused.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 14, 2004, 20:30:11
How the generic section works here in all arms as fol:

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

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

RAA wise (normally anyways)

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

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

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

Cheers,

Wes


Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: JayJay on December 14, 2004, 20:31:55
Thanks!  I'll have to ask him about that.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Otto Fest on December 15, 2004, 23:16:32
There's nothing wrong with having soldiers with 15 years experience as MCpl or Cpl except when you depend upon it as a steady state.l
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on December 16, 2004, 13:48:46
There's nothing wrong with having soldiers with 15 years experience as MCpl or Cpl except when you depend upon it as a steady state.l

Ok, seen. I agree with that. Otherwise IMHO there is either something wrong with the system or with the person. By 15 years "time in" the individual should be well into the WO rank. As a comparison the British Army limits non-commissioned careers to 20 years. Perhaps this points out something that has been raised here before: that we should decouple rank from technical skills (revert to the old Canadian Army Group system that our current trade badge system partially imitates), such that a person who just wants to be a very good and experienced veh tech Cpl can do that, while the soldier who shows strong leasdership potential can advance in rank more rapidly. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 16, 2004, 14:18:54
Could you expand on this PBI, I am not to familiar with the concept.

Thanks,
Infanteer
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 16, 2004, 14:47:06
I'd like to see Good Conduct Chevrons reintroduced; used to be an inverted chevron was worn on the left sleeve by privates and lance-corporals denoting long service; 1 chevron for 2 years, 2 chevrons for 5 years, etc. up to a maximum of 6 chevrons.  It was a bit of recognition for long service soldiers in non-leadership ranks.

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

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

Besides, who doesn't want more "crap" to put on their uniform?  I would draw the line there, though, and leave off the St. John's Ambulance award and the Warrior badges...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 16, 2004, 16:48:21
I to would like to see "service stripes" for the lower sleeve - although apportioned in a much simpler manner.

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

'nuff said.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 18, 2004, 01:11:00
An interesting pitn about L/CPL is that it could be awarded and withdrawn as required. It was the pervue of the CO as to the awarding and or removal of the stripe.

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

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

A better system would be to:

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

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

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

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




If the pay systemwas
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 18, 2004, 04:35:37
I like that prescription Badger....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on December 18, 2004, 04:42:40
It would be nice if we offered up to 10 IPCs to our Cpls.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 18, 2004, 09:30:10
Thank you for the informative reply, Steel Badger!  :)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 18, 2004, 10:44:51
I want to confirm Steel Badger's information.   Lance Corporal was an appointment, not a rank, per se.   Commanding officers could appoint a percentage* of qualified privates (there was a certain length of service (18 months?) and trade (group 2, if I recall) requirements).   LCpl was a unit appointment â “ the hook came down on posting (but not, if I remember, on course).

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 18, 2004, 11:00:26
Rusty

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

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




Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Kevin_Stevens on December 18, 2004, 17:14:49
Hello, I hope you will not mind me jumping into this thread as an outsider but I am a retired member of the British Army and perhaps I can clarify one or two points on our rank structure which are causing a certain amount of confusion.

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

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

And so on

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

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

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

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

Regards

Kevin Stevens
The Royal Green Jackets Association
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 18, 2004, 17:48:37
Kevin - in Canadian practice, Lance Corporal was an appointment, and this was also true of the British Army during WW II.  It may indeed have changed since then.

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

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

There are always exceptions....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on December 19, 2004, 18:09:35

LCPL is a rank here in Australia.

Leadership for promotion courses are as fol down here:

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Wes

Here abbreviated rank is capitalised.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 20, 2004, 00:35:54
Speaking of ranks in the Canadian Forces, I have heard that there was a rank of Brigadier(an officer).
Was that a rank in both the Canadian and British armies?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 20, 2004, 00:39:38
Brigadier was/is the same rank we call Brigadier-General today.

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

The old rank for Brigadier used to be a Crown and three stars (pips). There is a great picture of John Rockingham, Brigadier 25th CDN INF BDE in Korea with just such on his epaulettes.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 20, 2004, 09:31:34
Brigadier was/is the same rank we call Brigadier-General today.

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

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

Thank you for your reply, Steel Badger!
My father served with the RCE in Korea from 1951-1952 and was part of the 25th CDN Infantry Brigade. :salute:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 20, 2004, 10:24:58
Brigadiers have a bit of a chequered history.   Up to and including World War I they were brigadier-generals in 'our' (British, Canadian, etc) armies.   At the end of World War I there were several parliamentary inquiries in the UK, some focused on the deep line/staff split which emerged, early and infected the imperial armies, top to bottom, not just the British Army; and some more focused on what was perceived to be an overabundance of bands and generals in the British army, both at the expense of combatant officers and soldiers.

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

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

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

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

Brigadier is, in my opinion, an appointment which we â “ the Canadian Army â “ could introduce to differentiate colonels who command brigades â “ only brigades - from all the other colonels.   Once given it would be held until promotion or retirement, even after the officer concerned gave up his command and moved on to another task.   It would need a slightly different rank badge and, of course, a new title.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 20, 2004, 11:21:15
What "other colonels"?  The only other colonels would be the honouraries of the militia units, and staffers at NDHQ, no? 

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

The Americans have regiments commanded by what they call "bird" colonels (indicating the insignia of their rank, an eagle), perhaps that is why we have brigade commanders who are colonels?  The real problem, of course, was that the reserve brigades were until recently called Militia Areas so there was no anomaly of having a colonel command it - a logical step since most area commanders came from the ranks of the battalion (or battalion-sized units of the branches other than infantry) commanders in the area, meaning a rank increase by one step (LCol to Col) rather than two (LCol to Brigadier General).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 20, 2004, 11:40:07
Re: Colonels -

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

Headquarters, most headquarters, are, or appear to be, full of 'em.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 20, 2004, 11:43:59
Re: Colonels -

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

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


Exactly; you said you wanted to differentiate colonels in command positions from "other colonels" - my question was "what other colonels"?  Aren't all the other staff officers in brigades LCol or lower? 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 20, 2004, 12:17:21
I meant all other army colonels.   I would suggest that only a few - 20+/- out of 100+/- (is that a reasonable guesstimate) - are brigade commanders at any one time.   There certainly is no shortage of army colonels at cocktail parties in Ottawa.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 20, 2004, 16:18:41
Jungle
 The Brit knew what a MCpl was. But the House Hold Cav is a lil different. As other Cav Regt.   Just like the E 5s from the Marines could not go to the SgtWOs mess. In Ft Knox, only Cpls and above could the bar on base. And E 6s and up were not allowed in also. In Germany, we ate in the Jr Sgts mess. For they also go by what you do. Only Reg German Sgts and up ate and drank there. Conscipts ate and the other mess.
 There is NATO/UN rank equals. I always thought it was funny seeing a E5 Sgt driving a Tank. But that is the base rank for the US in some trades. Just as our Cpl rank.
 We did it to ourselves. As I stated. The old days LCpl were Jr Recce CCs, Cpls were Ptl Cs and Sgt were TP Sgts, and a Staff Sgt was the SQ. The LSgts were Snr Ptl Commanders. They wore the Sgt rank but were not qqualified The old old 6A you wore the Sgt rank, ate in that mess. Until you finished course. Some old Armour pics have parades, with the Staff where the SQ is and Sgt in the front and Cpls in the serfile. I had a old RCAC book and it gives each job, by rank. I had also seen a rank convertion book from the early 70s. It had the rank you would receive under unification.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on December 20, 2004, 17:09:15
Why not eliminate the LT COL rank and make unit commanders Colonels and change Brigadier general back to brigadier and have them command brigades. Adjust the pay structure to reflect the jobs they are doing.
my two cents (with 3% interest compounded hourly that will be....)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 20, 2004, 17:54:06
Why not eliminate the LT COL rank and make unit commanders Colonels and change Brigadier general back to brigadier and have them command brigades. Adjust the pay structure to reflect the jobs they are doing.
my two cents (with 3% interest compounded hourly that will be....)

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

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

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

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

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

I would also like to win the lottery, if it's not too much trouble ...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: SnowSurfer on December 20, 2004, 19:41:38
Well, maybe it could use a little fixin'



I believe that instead of eliminating ranks, add more IPC levels too them.  The rank of CPL for that matter at least.  Simply because we all know that there are many "career cpl's" that are just happy where they fit in.  And I do believe that at one point in the cdn military this was apadapted ?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 21, 2004, 06:34:32
I agree surfer


Pay troops by leadership level or qual level

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

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

JR NCO CRSE

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

etc etc
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 21, 2004, 11:33:45
Well and good Steel Badger, but what of those "career corporals" who job requires them to have a bit of authority?  If you go back to a trained private being both hookless and the last stop before a leadership rank, then I think it creates a problem.

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

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

EDIT - unless I've read you wrong - are you saying a QL4 course(MG, dvr, Comms, etc.) would be your only requirement for CPL rank?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 21, 2004, 19:08:50
I would argue that a soldier should complete a JR NCO Crse prior to promotion to CPL....

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 21, 2004, 19:23:34
I would argue that a soldier should complete a JR NCO Crse prior to promotion to CPL....



I would then disagree for the reasons stated above.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 21, 2004, 20:10:19
Just to keep the pot well stirred ...

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

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

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

I think we may need something like:

"¢   Private, recruit;

"¢   Private, untrained;

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

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

"¢   Technician (trade group 3);*

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

"¢   Corporal - rifle section commander/tank commander;

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

"¢   Chief Technician - trade group 4;*" 

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

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

"¢   Master Sergeant - company sergeant major;

"¢   Warrant Officer - RSM.

----------

* Combat leadership training/qualification not required

"  Members of the Sergeants' Mess - supervisory skills/knowledge are part of trade group 4
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on December 21, 2004, 23:00:53
Rusty Old Joint, well said and I think your idea is absoloutely brillant...
Steel Badger, I also happen to think the rank Corporal is too easily given out (its not really earned).
A senior private can also have power..
Besides the schools (where candidates don't know any better) do you know how many times in a Battalion or Regiment I have seen CPL authority being totaly disregarded?
On the flip side, because we have made CPL such a token time in rank, I have seen numerous times of young CPLs (not knowing any better) abusing or misusuing their authority..
A simple 6-8 week JR leadership course could give them the knowledge of what junior leadership entails..
Come to think of it, I am going to vote Rusty Old Jointasaurus Prime Minister and he can make the changes he suggested...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 21, 2004, 23:17:40
Rusty Old Joint, well said and I think your idea is absoloutely brillant...
Steel Badger, I also happen to think the rank Corporal is too easily given out (its not really earned).
A senior private can also have power..
Besides the schools (where candidates don't know any better) do you know how many times in a Battalion or Regiment I have seen CPL authority being totaly disregarded?
On the flip side, because we have made CPL such a token time in rank, I have seen numerous times of young CPLs (not knowing any better) abusing or misusuing their authority..
A simple 6-8 week JR leadership course could give them the knowledge of what junior leadership entails..
Come to think of it, I am going to vote Rusty Old Jointasaurus Prime Minister and he can make the changes he suggested...

Yours views on the rank of corporal fail to take into account the real problem; not the system, but those giving out the rank.  In our unit, serious consideration is given to promoting young privates, and from what I have gathered, it goes out partially on merit and not as a "gimme".  If other units aren't doing that, it is unfortunate, but blame the lazy ones in charge, not the system or the rank itself.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on December 21, 2004, 23:31:56
Michael, I still stand by what I said. Its up to the OC and the Coy chain of command for promotion to corporal  (MCPL and SGTs are CO decision)...
However Alot of units and I mean alot, hand out the CPL rank rather easily.
I still beleive that the rank CPL should be a leadership rank requiring a JR NCO course IMO.
I was a CPL at one time and I felt proud of getting my rank (in 2VP). True there are alot of good CPLs out there I can give a small party task to and it gets done very well.
However I have also seen many CPLs from from various trades that were promoted basically as a pay incentive and a reward for serving 2-3 years..
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 22, 2004, 05:48:28
Well and good Steel Badger, but what of those "career corporals" who job requires them to have a bit of authority?   If you go back to a trained private being both hookless and the last stop before a leadership rank, then I think it creates a problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just to keep the pot well stirred ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
I think we may need something like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infanteer
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 22, 2004, 08:17:15
NO MORE AMERICAN CRAP! If you want to be American move.
 Inf your off on you ranks.
E4 Cpl
E5 Sgt Basic
E6 Staff Sgt
E7 Sgt First Class
E8 First Sgt/ Master Sgt
E9 Sgt Maj
 Heres a link
 http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/enlisted.html#E5
 We already have Cpls making the same as Sgts, they are called SPEC TRADES! We could go back and have 40 yr old Ptes and troopers. We do have trade badges, and all that other crap. There are Mcpls to WO that cannot lead.
 A MCpl,Sgt, WO, MWO, CWO  promotion is not up to the CO, it is off the merret list.
 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 22, 2004, 10:24:04
We had, back in the '60s, a couple of problems with the rank structure Infanteer offers:

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

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

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

Change of topic ...

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

Another change of topic ...

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

Combat leaders (infantry, armoured, engineers) ought to be well up in the upper half of the trades pay levels - maybe we do have to pay some technicians more but we also need to pay for responsibility which cannot be measured in months of training required or in millions of dollars of hardware, etc ... real responsibility means giving life and death orders.
  
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 22, 2004, 10:36:49
Rusty Old Joint

My father took a Jr. NCO course in the mid-1950s while a member of the Royal Canadian Engineers.
I am wondering for how many weeks would he have taken this course? :)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 22, 2004, 13:52:54
Rusty Old Joint

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps, despite my sieve-like memory.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 22, 2004, 15:46:10
NO MORE AMERICAN CRAP! If you want to be American move.
 Inf your off on you ranks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
I don't much care what we call the ranks,
I like the way I grouped the Ranks because it makes sense to the layman.   Corporals are the junior leaders, Sergeants are the senior leaders, and Warrant Officers are the Sergeants Major.

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

Roger.   How about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
Infanteer
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Bob on December 22, 2004, 15:52:13
In reference to the American E-1 system, we could just use the NATO OR-1 or something like NC(non-commisioned)-1.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Bob on December 22, 2004, 17:06:22
With the N-0 and F-0 ranks, they would have to be M-0 for Maritime/Mer (or Maritime, same word in French) and A-0 for Air/Aire (or Aérienne(means Aerial)). Then Army would have to change too. To what, i have no idea.

Ah, the wonders of bilingualism.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 22, 2004, 17:23:58
With the N-0 and F-0 ranks, they would have to be M-0 for Maritime/Mer (or Maritime, same word in French) and A-0 for Air/Air (or Aérienne(means Aerial)). Then Army would have to change too. To what, i have no idea.

Ah, the wonders of bilingualism.

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

H-0, L-0 and K-0 (for Heer, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine, respectively).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 22, 2004, 18:58:15
Lets just make it simple. You start as a Pte/Tpr/Sig/Sapper/Gunner/etc, after 4 yrs your promoted to what ever we call a Cpl, if your on the ball you get promoted. If not you stay a Cpl, and shut-up and do what your told. No Spec pay, no extras. D*** MPs get Spec pay, to sit in a D*** car. Do we always have to follow? Most NATO countries have different pay, for many reasons. But ie France, Germany, Turkey, etc have conscipts. A volunteers gets payed better. :evil: :tank:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on December 22, 2004, 19:55:06
Rusty Old Joint

Thank you for your helpful and informative reply about the Jr. NCO course. :)
I knew Dad had taken the course but I never knew much about it.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on December 23, 2004, 11:36:58
Lets just make it simple. You start as a Pte/Tpr/Sig/Sapper/Gunner/etc, after 4 yrs your promoted to what ever we call a Cpl, if your on the ball you get promoted. If not you stay a Cpl, and shut-up and do what your told. No Spec pay, no extras. D*** MPs get Spec pay, to sit in a D*** car. Do we always have to follow? Most NATO countries have different pay, for many reasons. But ie France, Germany, Turkey, etc have conscipts. A volunteers gets payed better. :evil: :tank:

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


Task --- Current Rank --- Rusty's Proposed Rank
Recruit -------- Pte, etc --- Pte/Soldat. etc
Soldier* -------- Pte, etc --- Pte/Soldat. etc
Soldier* -------- Cpl, etc --- Pte 1st Class/Pemier soldat
Section 2i/c --- MCpl ------ Lance Corporal/Sous corporal
Sec Comd ------ Sgt ------- Corporal
Rifle Pl 2i/c ---- WO ------- Sgt
Mor Pl 2/ic ----- WO -------- ______ (I think we need a new rank here)**
CQHS ----------- WO -------- ______ (I think we need a new rank here)***
CSM ------------ MWO ------- Master Sergeant/Sergeant maitre
RSM ------------ CWO ------- WO/Adjutant

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


 



 


Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on December 23, 2004, 12:23:03
I like the british style rank structure better
I even tried to post what I think the new system should look like (file was too large). Basically the new rank structure would look like (If I was the grand wizard king emporer of Canada)
Private (Skilled) One shevron
LCpl (Sect 2IC) = one shevron + maple leaf (we keep our canadian touch with the leaf)
CPL (Sec Comd) = same as what MCPL wears now
SGT (PL 2IC) = look the same
WO (CQMS or current senior WO positions)
MWO and CWo same rank and same jobs
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 23, 2004, 17:36:17
Mortar Platoon 2ic needs a special rank of its own?  Bizarre.
I don't think ranks should reflect the job, they should reflect a requisite level of responsibility and authority.

A 2i/c of a Platoon is responsible for drill, dress and deportment among the soldiers, the training of his Junior NCO's, and keeping an eye on his fresh-faced platoon commander.  This doesn't seem to be different whether it is a Rifle Platoon, a Mortar Platoon, a Recce Platoon, an Engineering Troop, a Tank Troop, or a Maintenance Platoon.....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 23, 2004, 19:20:38
I would humbly suggest you still need 2 classes of WO

Class 2 (Crown and Cabbage) for Company Level

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

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


 Sgt   Pl 2ic

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

WO2    CSM / RQMS / DSM

WO1   The rght hand of Allah

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 23, 2004, 19:27:44
If the NATO standard for a section commander (squad leader, gruppenführer, etc.)  is sergeant (unteroffizier, etc.), why change back to corporal just for tradition's sake?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 23, 2004, 21:39:21
Mike

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

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

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

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



SB

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Jungle on December 23, 2004, 22:23:52
Interesting discussion... is our rank structure so deficient that we need to change the whole thing ??
As I stated earlier in this thread, my only problem with our current NCM rank structure is the Mcpl appointment. Scrap the Mcpl, make Cpl the first Leadership rank with the same quals needed for Mcpl. Make Cpls one-hook, they become your experienced "journeymen" like today's Cpls. Call one-hooks what you want: Lcpl, Pte-trained, Master-Pte...  ;)  Makes no difference, they will be better paid Ptes, which is what Cpls are now.
The fact that our Section Cmdrs are Sgts is fine by me. In general, our Section Cmdrs have more background, experience and time-in then their foreign counterparts, and Section Cmdr is the only position NCMs are in the formal C of C.
As far as I'm concerned, work needs to be done in the Officer structure: first, cut back the number of Officers we have; there are tons of Capts out there, do we need them all ?? And what is it with the hierarchy in the Capt rank ? Some Capts sound like they are unionized... I hear it frequently: "This guy can't be (insert posn) before me, I have more time in than him" or "he wasn't in RMC..."  ::) Then they turn around and ask the Troops to demonstrate maturity...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 23, 2004, 22:56:22
If the NATO standard for a section commander (squad leader, gruppenführer, etc.)   is sergeant (unteroffizier, etc.), why change back to corporal just for tradition's sake?

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

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

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

Agree with you here.  I bet we could open another thread and we could chop the Officer rank structure to bits as well....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 23, 2004, 23:02:48
Infanteer...

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on December 23, 2004, 23:34:03
wir wuenschen Euch ein frohes und gesegnetes Weihnachtsfest und ein gutes
Jahr 2005.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 23, 2004, 23:46:56
Happy Hogmanay Georgie


Lang may yer lum reek!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: muddywheels on December 25, 2004, 18:50:09
Alright Lads, it sounds like you all have issues with your rank structure. Here in good old Blighty we really do keep it simple, and this is the normal rank structure:

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

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

"MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU ALL"
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on December 26, 2004, 11:20:35
KISS is a good philosophy, but can you explain to me all those Guards Regt and Household Cav ranks, such as "Cpl of Horse"?

GW
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Recce41 on December 26, 2004, 11:34:44
George
 Didn't you come to Britian with us? I will send a Mail to my cousin. I don't know who he's with now. But he was with the Dragoon Guards with us in Bosnia. He maybe albe to find out.
 Merry Christmas
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on December 26, 2004, 11:57:50
If memory serves, a Cpl of Horse was equivalent to a Sgt.  It was more of an appointment, than a rank, but put the Cpl in the Sgt's Mess.

GW
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on December 26, 2004, 12:17:02
I heard another delightful story about the rank of CPL of HORSE....

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

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

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


Ach weel, whit dae Aye noo; they wear troosers on ra parade dont they? Crazy I tell ye! ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: muddywheels on December 26, 2004, 12:30:16
Your right we do have the odd thing like cpl of the horse, lance sgt, and they do tend to be more with the guards and cavalry, some are appointments and some are actual ranks, but what i mentioned was the norm within the army here. It is always good for a laugh though to call a cpl of the horse just cpl, they can bite, and get wound up to hell.

"HAVE A GOOD FESTIVE SEASON LADS"
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on December 30, 2004, 20:18:45
Just a thought:  I'll use the infantry as a example just to simplify the private/trooper/gunner/sapper thing.

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

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

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

Evolution of the Master Corporal Appointment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The system has been very rapidly changed for the worse.  A better concept would have been "lateral trade progression" - it is possible to give a man status, prestige and more money without promoting him in rank.  Unfortunately, the Canadian Army never went this route.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MoOx on December 30, 2004, 20:58:52
i have yet to hear an excuse for the unification tinkering of our military traditions that holds any water.
how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS. The same would apply to WO/MWO/WO going back to what they originally were: (correct me if i'm mistaken) SSgt, WO1 and WO2.
And don't tell me we don't have the budget to bring back the army salute (ie palm forward). :salute: Or pips for officers, for that matter.
it's all trivial stuff, sure, but the cost of fixing it would also be trivial.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 30, 2004, 21:05:11
i have yet to hear an excuse for the unification tinkering of our military traditions that holds any water.
how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS. The same would apply to WO/MWO/WO going back to what they originally were: (correct me if i'm mistaken) SSgt, WO1 and WO2.
And don't tell me we don't have the budget to bring back the army salute (ie palm forward). :salute: Or pips for officers, for that matter.
it's all trivial stuff, sure, but the cost of fixing it would also be trivial.


if it's not "broken" you can't fix it.  If all that changes are the names, why bother?  I've given sufficient reason in this thread to keep the corporal rank as is, ie a non-leadership rank in the technical sense.  No point saluting like the British either; we changed it 35 years ago, let's be done with it.  Bad enough every other wheel gets reinvented every year, let's not go back in time 35 years and do more of the same.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on December 30, 2004, 23:18:38
When I sat on the Army TASK board back in the 80's, one of the issues we debated was that of changing the NCO rank structure. Of course (the board was made up mostly of Inf RSMs...) we wanted to dump the "pay rank" of Cpl, put back LCpl, and have the Sgt given the same status he had in pre-Unification days: the Pl 2IC. WO would have become S/Sgt. We also advocated (as I mentioned earlier) putting some real meaning into the trade badge system by restoring the old Army "Group 1-4" system in which pay was linked to the Trade Group and signified by a cuff badge (below MWO). It all sounded great.

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

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

I am a great believer that Unification was a terrible mistake: an almost fatal overdose of bean-counting administrative "efficiency" dressed up with other rationalizations.The supposed idea that it was modelled on the USMC,( if it were in fact ever true), has been so utterly diluted and distorted as to be ludicrous.  Its sins, in my opinion, greatly outweigh its imagined virtues. I look forward to the day that the CLS owns outright everything that he needs to carry out his Army-specific missions, including personnel policy and support soldiers, but I am not holding my breath. Jointness not Unification. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on December 30, 2004, 23:32:19
I've given sufficient reason in this thread to keep the corporal rank as is, ie a non-leadership rank in the technical sense.

I think the "LCpl" crowd has also returned fire with a good enough reason to "fix" it (rank should signify authority and responsibility - Cpl is just a pay raise).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on December 30, 2004, 23:36:31
I think the "LCpl" crowd has also returned fire with a good enough reason to "fix" it (rank should signify authority and responsibility - Cpl is just a pay raise).

Depends on the individual corporal, and the support his chain of command gives him to exercise whatever authority he has.  Which will be true no matter how many stripes he wears or what his rank title is.....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on December 30, 2004, 23:39:52
"how much would it cost to return to the pre-unification rank structure by simply changing the name of the mcpl rank back to cpl, and changing cpl back to lance cpl? no pay grades or trng requirements would change. ONLY THE NAMES WE GIVE THESE RANKS."

The problem with this is that a MCpl isn't equal to the old Cpl.   Today's Sgt is equal to the old Cpl, today's MCpl is equal to the old LCpl and today's Cpl is just a higher paid Pte.   I agree things should go back to the old way but there's more to it then a name change.   You have to re-rank everyone.   Sgt to Cpl, MCpl to LCpl and Cpl to Pte.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael O'Leary on December 31, 2004, 00:05:59

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on December 31, 2004, 01:22:55
Quote
If there is a perceived problem with the delegation and exercise of authority among NCOs, then that is what we should be seeking to fix, simply changing their ranks does not also automatically give back what we imagine to be the associated authories of that earlier era.

As much as I despise Unification, I have to be honest and ask myself if, during the 30 years I have served,  I could really prove that our current NCO/WO rank structure has materially prevented our WO/NCOs from being among the finest in the world, or doing a good job under difficult circumstances. I think I would have to say that while I know that our WOs/NCOs have faced difficulties from various quarters, I couldn't say it was because of their rank badges. So we have a Sgt leading a section, and the Brits don't. OK, so what? The real question is what quality of NCOs have we got. And, I believe, as little as we may deserve them and as much as we may frustrate them, we still have very good ones. Changing the badges is  moving the deck chairs. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Radop on December 31, 2004, 11:18:23
Changing a name does nothing.  Saying this name now carries more authority ultimately means nothing if all members don't respect that authority.  The biggest problem I have encountered as a Jr Leader is the lack of authority given to us in my current unit.  In Petawawa, I had 14 subordinates that worked directly for me.  As a MCpl, this is still unusual but 4 MCpls in our unit had this responsability.  In Kingston, I have 1 subordinate and no MCpl has more than 6 subordinates.  Furthermore, I tracked my pers in Pet but in Kingston, I must inform the Sgts before letting someone leave.  MCpls are a Jr Leader but without using the leadership skills that are suppose to be developed, how do they expect to get leaders.  I am aggressive as a leader.  I will do things that need to be done both to develop subordinates and get training that I think needs to be completed.  As far as I have seen, unit to unit changes what each rank is responsible to do.  What we need is a standard that is consistant throughout the forces for trg and advancement.  Simple things like PLQ requirements are even different through the C&E branch.  Some units demand that the Jr Leader requires Mod 6 (CLC) while others only require Mod 5 (JLC).  In Afghanistan, we got hit with a rocket attack.  I saw Leaders that broke down and cried, couldn't get dressed or function as a leader in a demanding circumstance.  The common factor that I found was that all these people had either Mod 5 or JLC leadership levels.  I won't say I never almost crapped my pants but I did get my people togeather and accounted for and reported this up the chain of command. 

So before we change rank structures and the excessive spending that it would cost (which would not be trivial an would run into the milions of dollars), lets get our national rank structures and standards at a "standard" level.
 :cdn:
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on January 01, 2005, 09:50:22
What about the rank of RSM?
Wasn't that one of the ranks prior to unification in 1968?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on January 01, 2005, 10:46:25
RSM isn't really a rank, per se. It's an appoinment, although in most Combat Arms units there is only one CWO, so we sometimes fall into the habit of calling CWO's "RSMs". A Sgt Maj (MWO) can be appointed RSM : I have even seen a WO do it in a Res unit. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on January 01, 2005, 11:29:06
RSM isn't really a rank, per se. It's an appoinment, although in most Combat Arms units there is only one CWO, so we sometimes fall into the habit of calling CWO's "RSMs". A Sgt Maj (MWO) can be appointed RSM : I have even seen a WO do it in a Res unit. Cheers.


Thank you for your reply! :)
The Sgt Major rank was in place prior to 1968, correct?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on January 01, 2005, 12:10:19
Sgt Maj is not really a rank either: it is also an appointment, but again in the Army we can get into the habit of calling them all 'Sgts Maj" .(attached navy CPO2s don't like it much...) Prior to Unification the rank worn by a Sgt Maj was WO2 (we now call it MWO): the crown inside a wreath. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: SHARP WO on January 03, 2005, 11:53:59
Just to reply to this point

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

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

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

Sharp WO
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on January 03, 2005, 13:12:41
Just to reply to this point

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

Sharp WO

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

One of my CSMs explained to me that Warrant Officer is the first rank at which you are no longer expected to be able to command and lead just infantry (or soldiers in your own trade) but soldiers of all trades.  Wouldn't the leap from sergeant in command of a section all the way to company sergeant major be a little long?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 03, 2005, 14:01:56
I agree with making the MCpl the rifle section commander and returning the Sergeant to the Pl 21/c role, but ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ordinary Seaman (recruit)                                           ..... Private (recruit)
Ordinary Seaman (under training)                          .....   Private (under training)
Ordinary Seaman (trained/apprentice)                ..... Private (trained/apprentice)
Able Seaman (trained)                                                      .... Private (trained)
Leading Seaman (journeyman)                                 ..... Corporal (journeyman/junior leader)
Master Seam (team leader)                                        ..... Master Corporal (section commander)
Petty Officer (watch leader several teams)      ..... Sergeant (rifle platoon 2i/c)
__________                                                                          ..... Sergeant 1st Class (CQMS)
Master Petty Officer (department supervisor)   .. Master Sergeant (CSM)
Chief Petty Officer (coxs'n)                                      ..... Warrant Officer (RSM)
 
I am told that the Navy would not mind if the Army wanted to split the PO rank into two â “ they would simply have their people spend longer as POs and, likely, promote to Master PO a bit faster ( to keep the overwhelming majority of the members of ship's crews under the ago of 40).

Edit: spelling eror corrected

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on January 03, 2005, 22:46:21
Quote
â ?Familiarity may breed contempt but, in my experience, without a certain amount of familiarity one cannot breed anythingâ ?,

Excellent. Had not heard that before. Cheers.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: PikaChe on January 04, 2005, 15:00:26
So, should there be some sort of JNCO course to be promoted to a corporal, as some points out that this is one of the weakness in CF?

I'm certainly in favour of it, esp. in reserves corporals tend to get thrown into the meat grinder to be in a leadership role.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 04, 2005, 15:13:51
It seems to me that the system we had in which a junior leader (corporal, of some sort) commanded a rifle section or a tank and was promoted to that rank only after having passed a quite rigorous junior NCO course worked well.

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

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

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

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

"¢   Sergeant - rifle platoon/tank troop 2i/c - selected by regiment or corps/branch from a national list, promoted (by the Army/Ottawa) after passing a senior NCO course.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on January 04, 2005, 15:17:56
ROJ for the navy think of it this way:
PO2nd Class (Sgt) Watch Supervisor
PO1 (WO) as the Section head
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 04, 2005, 15:23:24
ROJ for the navy think of it this way:
PO2nd Class (Sgt) Watch Supervisor
PO1 (WO) as the Section head

That was, roughly, what I was trying to say: PO2 - "watch leader [of] several teams" and a senior POs (between PO2 and CPO1) who is the sectionm head (I said "department supervisor" because the department head is, I think, an officer).   The point - made to me by a sailor - is that they think there are one too many senior NCO ranks, now.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Navalsnipr on January 04, 2005, 15:26:25
Regarding the Apprentice and Journeyman titles.

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

Only after compelting your QL5 Academics and Equipment Phase, are you are then considered a Journeyman Technician.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on January 12, 2005, 17:35:46
I agree with Rusty Old Joint's theory.  That's what I was gettting at.

For those that don't want to see the WO disappear, then use it as the old Staff Sergeant rank or the USMC Gunnery Sergeant.  It would be a step between platoon sergeant and CSM.  CQMS, platoon warrant in combat support platoons and maybe a few key spots in the Ops and Intel sections at BHQ.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on January 15, 2005, 00:02:32
Mountie has the right of it.....

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on January 17, 2005, 06:36:09
And I like Rustys idea as well
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on January 17, 2005, 08:47:39
And now we have gone full circle.....

GW
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on January 17, 2005, 10:00:18
The infomation in this thread is excellent. :salute: :)

I do think that for the Infantry there
should be the following ranks(in my opinion):
Private(Recruit)
Private(Trained) Perhaps a new name for this
rank(eg. the Engineers have the Sapper rank)
Lance Corporal(One Chevron)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: CH1 on January 18, 2005, 17:57:23
The Airborne & PPCLI have a name for private (trained), it used to be called trooper.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on January 18, 2005, 17:58:19
I don't ever recall any PPCLI Privates being called trooper when I was hanging around the lines....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on January 18, 2005, 18:53:35
The airborne called their pte troopers (english) or para (francais 1 cdo)...
In the PPCLI we never used the term Troopers !
Please (CH1, read) get your facts straight before speaking or posting, troops..
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: 2023 on January 20, 2005, 07:26:57
The Ranks structure is fine, the point I have is that while the pay we get is very very good, there has to be a better split.........for example, a Cpl who recieves Para allowance makes more than a Sgt. What this can cause is that the Cpl will not want to advance because he knows that if he gets promoted he may get moved out of his current positions where he may not be recieving jump pay so he would be losing money.

There has to be  more of split that is for sure!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 22, 2005, 05:15:40
Many posts compared Canadian ranks to US ranks.  However, there is a difference between US Army and USMC ranks, or rather what the ranks do.  This is primarily at the fire team leader, squad leader and platoon 2i/c level.

Position                                           US Army                          USMC                           Canadian Army

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


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

I found the career progression for the USMC ranks.  Private in recruit training, promoted PFC upon graduation of recruit training or during MOC training.  PFC or Lance Corporal by the time MOC training is completed and the Marine is transferred to his/her first unit, 30 months to 4 years as a LCpl before being promoted to Corporal (fireteam leader in infantry), 4-6 years as a Cpl before being promoted to Sergeant (squad leader), 4-6 years as a Sgt before being promoted to Staff Sergeant (rifle platoon 2i/c), 4-6 years as a SSgt before being promoted to Gunnery Sergeant (company ops sergeant, weapons platoon 2i/c, staff positions), etc.  The rank of GySgt is a highly respected rank and the first rank of the senior sergeants, on the way to company first sergeant and battalion sergeant major. 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: tomahawk6 on April 22, 2005, 12:21:28
I would like to clarify mountie's comment about the US E-4 rank. In the Marines an E-4 is a corporal with a leadership role. An E-3 L/Cpl has no leadership function. In the Army an E-4 is most often a Specialist with no leadership role - unless there is a vacancy for a Sgt. Then he might be appointed Corporal or Acting Sgt [stripes but not the pay of a Sgt]. Once the man left the unit he would revert back to Specialist rank - unless he passed his Sgt board and was promoted. Specialist's attend a primary leadership development course which used to be a requirement for promotion to Sgt. But with the war soldiers are promoted to Sgt but then after their combat tour they have to attend PLDC. Here is the outline of what a soldier is expected to learn at PLDC [30 day live in course].

are technically and tactically proficient
make sound decisions
plan correctly
practice professional Army ethics
communicate effectively
supervise subordinates
teach and counsel
apply soldier-team development
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael Dorosh on April 22, 2005, 12:30:30
Then he might be appointed Corporal or Acting Sgt [stripes but not the pay of a Sgt].

We used to have Lance Sergeants which were the same thing - three stripes, but corporal's pay.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 22, 2005, 13:52:41
Thanks for the clarification, that's what I was trying to get at.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 22, 2005, 14:03:22
An RCR WO explained to me about 30 years ago that Paul Hellyer, MND, wanted to give the Privates a raise.   At the time, the Service ranks were not tied to the public service pay scales as they allegedly are now - our profession had not yet sold it's soul to the Devil.   Anyway, he had no support in Cabinet to increase service pay, so he did that which WAS within his power,   He promoted all Privates to Corporal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or,

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

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

Tom

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: mhervey on April 22, 2005, 18:26:10
That may make sense from an army point of view since it would give new soldiers a sense of progress and accomplishment.  As a member of the navy, the rank makes no historical sense.  If they did want to change the word "seaman" in all the ranks, great!  That would eliminate unfortunate references to a similar word....
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ibilola on April 23, 2005, 16:37:24
How the generic section works here in all arms as fol:

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

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

RAA wise (normally anyways)

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

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

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

Cheers,

Wes




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

The Aussies have realigned their ranks so that a Navy CPO and an Airforce Flight Sergeant is now equvalent to an army WO2 (MWO equivalent) rather than a Staff Sergeant (which is still the case in the British Army).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Veterans son on April 23, 2005, 18:57:12
With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?

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

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

Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: COBRA-6 on April 23, 2005, 22:23:25
With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?

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

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

Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!

They would be Master Corporal stripes  ;)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 23, 2005, 22:31:20
"With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?"

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


Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: COBRA-6 on April 23, 2005, 22:39:27
I should have read that one more carefully before I posted...  :-[

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 30, 2005, 06:12:54

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




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

Cheers,

Wes
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 30, 2005, 06:16:11
With regard to the CF Green uniform, I did not know that there were two
varieties/types of Cpl stripes?

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

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

Thank you everyone for your replies to this thread!

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

Definatly two different ranks.


Cold beers,

Wes
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: 291er_sigdev on May 02, 2005, 23:52:33
As McG pointed out, I have often seen cases where master jacks are sect cmdrs, and a long serving corporal gets informed on the Friday night that he is gonna be 2ic for the weekend. Our last ex, we had one of the longer serving Sgt as our PL OC, another long service Sgt as the PL WO, a Sgt who got promoted last May running one section, two MCpls running sections, and all three section 2ics were Cpls. Weps Det was also run by a Cpl.
Granted, our "usual" OC (it changes for ex to ex) was on a jump crse and we only have 1 WO left in the unit (who is on Roto). This highlights how well adapted we have become, with everyone being able to work one or two up as need be.

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

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

The only difference in pay for the CPL/MCPL was the command bonus..
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: BobbyC on May 03, 2005, 09:35:44
Since your not in yet, you might not know.

Lance Corporal = Master Corporal
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: CH1 on May 29, 2005, 00:08:15
Hello Every body

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

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

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

Any body that is or was a M/Cpl please do not take offense.  The first generations of M/Cpl created a lot of grief for me at the time, to the point where I lost my 3 hooks for a short time, when I took a round or 2 out of a couple of "demi gods" that irritated me to the Nth degree.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on May 29, 2005, 13:14:02
No offence taken. My dad was in 2 RCHA during unification and he told me some of the heart aches that "brillant civilian minds" caused. However there has been an entire generation of troops who have served just after unification and now retired after long period of service. So we have painfully adjusted to the new rank system.

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

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

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

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

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

 So in short, alot of our dead weight needs to be shaken off.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on May 29, 2005, 17:08:01
ArmyRick

Well put!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Bert on May 29, 2005, 17:41:44
The issue of insta-corporals has been debated before in a number of threads.   You can
argue the practice continues but then you have to address why it happens and what
you'd do to make it better.

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

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

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

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

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


Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on May 29, 2005, 21:07:23
This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.  I have no problem with giving new soldiers who bring unique skill-sets to the Forces extra pay (and possible recognition) but we should not give out rank without the requisite proof of leadership capability.

Anyways, this is just a restatement of something discussed earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on May 29, 2005, 21:21:17
Infanteer, agreed.
IF I could re-assign the rank structure for combat arms i would have it work like this
CPL = Sect 2IC
MCPL = Sect Comd
SGT = PL 2IC
WO = CQMS
MWo and CWO no change
Naturally they would have to revamp what you need to be qualified for what job. I would drastically increase the pay of Pte (T) (IPC 3 and 4) then there would not be this huge rush for promotion to CPLs for $$$
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on May 29, 2005, 22:53:03
This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.   I have no problem with giving new soldiers who bring unique skill-sets to the Forces extra pay (and possible recognition) but we should not give out rank without the requisite proof of leadership capability.
We already have two different levels of "SPEC PAY" to recognize these unique qualifications, why must we further 'dilute' our 'Ranks' to satisfy some 'whim'?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on May 30, 2005, 15:49:49
This is a perfect reason why rank should be separated from technical qualification - leadership potential alone should be involved with promotion in ranks while differing levels of technical specialization (apprentice, journeyman, artificer, whatever) can be meted out as incentives.
What good is an outstanding leader that is not technically competent in his job?  An excellent leader that does not know the inside of a turret could not function as a AFV crew comd.  The engr recce sgt that was not qualified to to BMD would not be able to suppervise a range clearance.  A leader is responsible for developing subordinates.  How would a MCpl in a technical MOS do this if he received his rank while still an apprentice and not yet a journeyman?

Rank does need to be tied to technical qualifications (at least to some extent), but that does not mean that technical qualification alone should determine rank.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: medicineman on May 30, 2005, 16:52:01
I agree with MCG - I seem to remember (one of the times I was awake  ;D) from JLC that the first principle of leadership was achieve proffessional competence.  I have no doubts that we've all seen people who have been promoted 3 levels higher than their highest level of incompetence - problem is of course that they are in charge of young newbies, who in turn learn bad habits or worse, learn things incorrectly from these people and then need to be totally retrained.  Proffessional competence also includes military skills, not just trade skills - how can a brand new trades Cpl be expected to do what a Cpl is expected to do if they've only been in since lunch?  Cpl's are considered to be semi-or de feacto senior tradespersons, and therefore part of their responsibility is some semblance of supervision and development.  Hard to do when the Pte's you supervise have more TI than you wouldn't you say?

MM
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on May 30, 2005, 18:36:09
Rank does need to be tied to technical qualifications (at least to some extent), but that does not mean that technical qualification alone should determine rank.

No, you are right McG, rank does and should include technical expertise - my post was more directed to the converse idea of giving new tradesmen to the army the proper financial incentives and vocational recognition without having to give them instant promotions in rank.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Bert on May 31, 2005, 01:26:09
Both Medicineman and McG bring up good points.  Theres a few other observations
I had.

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

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

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

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

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

From my point of view, I support the notion of Private at spec pay for
new semi-skilled (education equivalency to QL3) members completing BMQ. 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RangerRay on August 07, 2005, 21:12:00
Hi there!

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

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

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

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

I was in the Army long after unification and am still relatively young, but I always felt it a shame that we had to jettison much of our history just to come up with a generic rank structure for services with bland names and no history.  Yes, there are distinct uniforms now, but it still has a generic quality to it, IMHO.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: BITTER PPLCI CPL on August 07, 2005, 22:43:57
I think it is time for change in our military, and going back would be the way to do so. It would allow us to identify more with our element and our recruiting drive could be element specific. When people talk about the sea queen...I mean sea king it's like the population associates us with the Navy.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: GO!!! on August 07, 2005, 23:24:33
The down side of the three distinct services, and the main reason that they were amalgamated in the first place is that each of them requires their own staff and logistics- read - hundreds more generals and colonels, and that the possibility of joint operations becomes even more remote given the layers of tape that must be penetrated in two chains of command as opposed to one.

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

IMHO
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: aesop081 on August 07, 2005, 23:29:53
The down side of the three distinct services, and the main reason that they were amalgamated in the first place is that each of them requires their own staff and logistics- read - hundreds more generals and colonels, and that the possibility of joint operations becomes even more remote given the layers of tape that must be penetrated in two chains of command as opposed to one.

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

IMHO

And that, if i am not mistaken, was the original concept of ops of unification.  Too bad that the execution was not up to par and, IMHO, selection and maintenance of the aim was something the politicians didnt know about.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on August 07, 2005, 23:31:18
I too think we have more things to worry about then going back to the way we were before Unification.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: aesop081 on August 07, 2005, 23:39:15
I too think we have more things to worry about then going back to the way we were before Unification.

Unification is here to stay folks.  Let's talk on how we can make it work as intended.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RangerRay on August 08, 2005, 00:45:24
Actually, I'm not talking about ending unification.  Just renaming the services to their old ones and return to our traditional rank structures.

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

I also think it would help with morale in each of the services in re-claiming their respective histories.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: radiohead on August 08, 2005, 01:20:38
Why go back to something that isn't even Canadian.  The old rank set up is British, and I think as a nation we move past that.  I do think we need some of old traditions back in the Army, but in the last 40 of Unification have built their own traditions that worth keeping.  I know their are toons of monarhist here will disagree, but I see no reason to take two steps back and add Royal. 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RangerRay on August 08, 2005, 02:25:36
Well, Australia and New Zealand have something similar to the old rank structure and service names, yet I think it would be outrageous to accuse them of being "too British".

And your avatar is actually something that was resurrected a few years ago.  It was the badge of the RCEME (yes, the 'R' is for the eeevil "Royal") prior to unification, which then went to a generic badge until the 90's, IIRC.  However, EME branch decided to reclaim some of it's history.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: GO!!! on August 08, 2005, 08:35:01
This would also add several ranks in certain elements (Navy) and remove a couple (army).

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

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

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

If it aint broke - don't fix it.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 08, 2005, 10:18:34
It is pointless to focus on titles or badges.  You need to consider what the army needs.

Consider the infantry, first.  It needs:

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

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

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

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

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

"¢   A company sergeant major - SL3;

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

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

The other ranks' structure is:

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

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

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

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Le Adder Noir on August 08, 2005, 17:01:41
I have to agree with Edward. He has put it a lot more clearly than i.

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

I do not believe this to be the case.

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

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

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


My 2 cents


SB
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: N. McKay on August 08, 2005, 17:27:09
This would also add several ranks in certain elements (Navy) and remove a couple (army).

The navy would lose one rank (Master Seaman, insofar as it is a rank).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on August 08, 2005, 17:32:45
I concur with Edward's post, especially the part with the junior leadership (section) being JNCO's - after all, the Corporal is of the body.

I would be interested in seeing what the Navy and the Air Force needs using a simple JL/SL/JO/SO framework that Edward applied.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on August 08, 2005, 17:47:42
I would like to back up some of what Edward said. I beleive we have way too many ranks in the CF and it slows things down too much.   I am a 32 year old infantry section commander. In most other NATO armies I would be rated as a freakin dinosaur.   In our army, its all too common.
I beleive we can keep our rank structure and re-vamp to something more usefull.
PTE = section troopies
CPL = Sect 2IC (Now require PLQ Mod 6 + 2IC Trg)
MCPL = Sect Comd (DP 3A)
SGT = PL 2IC
WO = CQMS
MWO = CSM
CWO = RSM


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

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

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

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

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

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

It never will happen IMO. Why ? The CF is change resistant. Too many people would whine and cry about having to do another career course (you should be actively trying to advance your career anyways).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RecceDG on August 10, 2005, 13:26:58
On the Recce side, the *rank structure* works out pretty well.Troop WO is a WO. Charlie patrol commander is a Sgt. Echo patrol commander a junior Sgt or MCpl. Troop leader's JAFO the senior MCpl (he's next in line for a patrol commander's job) Crew commanders are senior Cpls or fresh MCpls. All other crew positions Troopers or Corporals.

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

I'd like to see courses work like this:

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

DG

 


   
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Target Up on August 10, 2005, 13:44:12
A Sergeant is far to usefull to be confined to section level, and there is a proverbial "hockey-sock full"of Jr. NCO's who can and do step up to the plate on a regular basis to lead from the front.


My 2 cents


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

CHIMO,  Kat
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on August 10, 2005, 14:06:18
Traditionally, if forty or fifty years count as traditional, sergeants were section commanders in artillery, engineer and signal units; perhaps it is better to say that troop staff sergeants were the norm and the level just below (gun, section, etc) was filled by a sergeant.

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

The infantry and the armoured corps needed (still need, I think) rather younger leaders â “ especially within platoons and tank troops, whereas the supporting arms needed more skill-knowledge and experience.  Within the infantry battalion many of the specialist platoon NCOs were also SSgts (WOs today): Recce Pl, Mortar Pl, ATk and Signal platoons for sure â “ for the same reasons: necessary skill-knowledge and experience.  Within the Recce Pl we had (40+/- years ago) Patrol Dets (three commanded by Lts â “ usually the best in the battalion) and three commanded by Sgts (also up-and-comers) and Surveillance Dets (four) commanded by Cpls â “ these had IR and (1st generation) surveillance radar devices.  Cpls in the infantry in the late '50s and early '60s were as young as 19.  It was possible and reasonably 'normal' for bright youngsters to be appointed Lance Corporal after a mere 18 months of service and sent on the Junior NCO course â “ usually regarded as the toughest course in the army.  Rifle section commanders were, mostly, I think, still in their 20s â “ although there were always a few old timers, in their '30s.  Most platoon sergeants were 30ish and the RSM was, I think, in his not too late '40s.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on August 23, 2005, 01:25:28
"Rifle section commanders were, mostly, I think, still in their 20s â “ although there were always a few old timers, in their '30s.  Most platoon sergeants were 30ish and the RSM was, I think, in his not too late '40s".

-Suddenly, I feel VERY old.

Tom
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: FormerHorseGuard on August 23, 2005, 02:35:55
my  thoughts on ranks and promotions.

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

from what  I remember being told of the MCPL it was like the other person said away  to give the enlisted men a pay raise , created a new rank and that  give everyone up and down the ranks a raise.
 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: GO!!! on August 23, 2005, 21:58:26
Both FHG and TCBF have some good points, but they seem to center on the same problem, that of a very nearly geriatric NCO corps in the army today.

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

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

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

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

In the USMC, even seeing a man (not an officer)older than 40 seems to be rare in the actual fighting units, and as they are a real fighting formation, perhaps we could use them as a model.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on August 23, 2005, 22:06:56
GO!!! I was one of the advocates for bumping responsibility up a notch.

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

I am a very big beleiver od advancing motivation troops that show potential early. Lets get rid of the CF 35 year old sect commander syndrome (I am only three years away but I hope to be a WO by then).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on September 10, 2005, 12:31:05
A useful site for finding the comparisons between different NATO Nations Rank Structures is NATO itself.  Here are some of their sites on Rank Structures for comparisons:

For Officers:

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

For Other/Enlisted ranks:

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

There are links at the bottom of these pages for Naval and Air Force comparisons, also.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: paracowboy on September 10, 2005, 12:37:51
the big drawback I see to GO!!'s plan is that we haven't had time to train the younger generation up to the standard they need to be. We need to start funnelling young Cpls and jacks through the various Adv Crses as much as humanly possible.
Then, we can take us geriatric types, and turn us into a huge soldier-making, mass-production machine. Start turning out recruits by the hundreds and get the CF back into the shape it needs to be, without the huge backlog, and without the watered-down Standards-enforced weakness.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on September 10, 2005, 18:52:01
Right you are.

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

Tom
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: GO!!! on September 10, 2005, 19:56:44
the big drawback I see to GO!!'s plan is that we haven't had time to train the younger generation up to the standard they need to be. We need to start funnelling young Cpls and jacks through the various Adv Crses as much as humanly possible.
Then, we can take us geriatric types, and turn us into a huge soldier-making, mass-production machine. Start turning out recruits by the hundreds and get the CF back into the shape it needs to be, without the huge backlog, and without the watered-down Standards-enforced weakness.


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

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

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

Just think, this could also extend to the pruning of our amply staffed officer corps as well... >:D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on September 10, 2005, 20:18:34
What I think should happen for assessing senior privates and junior CPLs is to take a bunch of them and put them out into the field for a week.  Don't teach them anything just throw them into small tactical scenarios and look for the ones who think on their feet. I mean take all the CPLs or PTEs and have a go at them. A liitle bit of c*ck here and there while your at it is good to.

We used to have Pre-ISCC back in the day (about 3-4 weeks) and this was meant to be sort of an assessing or selection thing to see who had the potential for attending ISCC. The problem with it was it got treated more like a real course and some troopies who had potential, weren't even considered for attending it. I saw some real **** bags go on it because they were so and so drinking buddy  >:(
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: GO!!! on September 11, 2005, 01:14:47
The problem with it was it got treated more like a real course and some troopies who had potential, weren't even considered for attending it. I saw some real **** bags go on it because they were so and so drinking buddy   >:(

Some things never change...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on November 28, 2005, 02:03:53
Just a thought:   I'll use the infantry as a example just to simplify the private/trooper/gunner/sapper thing.
I do think that for the Infantry there should be the following ranks(in my opinion):
It is pointless to focus on titles or badges.   You need to consider what the army needs.

Consider the infantry, first.   It needs:
For my 031 example see below...
I know its an old thread, but I was just reading through & couldn't help but notice that pretty near every proposed rank structure is built on an infantry model.   While it is perfectly obvious that any new rank structure needs to work for the infantry, it must also be compatable with other elements of the Army.

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

A 2i/c of a Platoon is responsible for drill, dress and deportment among the soldiers, the training of his Junior NCO's, and keeping an eye on his fresh-faced platoon commander.
Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on November 28, 2005, 04:48:25
I know its an old thread, but I was just reading through & couldn't help but notice that pretty near every proposed rank structure is built on an infantry model.   While it is perfectly obvious that any new rank structure needs to work for the infantry, it must also be compatable with other elements of the Army.

Consider the Engr Recce Sgt....

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

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

Quote
Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."

Ack - forgot about that one.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on November 28, 2005, 09:08:22
Consider the Engr Recce Sgt.   This is the defacto "3ic" of the engr tp, he is separated from the other sgts in the tp by a significant amount of experience & a 4 month career course (Cbt Engr Recce Ops).   One could make an argument for a rank between Sgt and WO that would be appropriate for the recce sgt (and possibly the sqn ops sgt as well).   Odds are that such a rank would not be compatable with any occupation outside the Engrs.   However, it does illustrate that each branch is likely to have a differnet "ideal" rank structure and each of the proposed structures should reflect how they will fit other occupations.   It is not just for the Air Force & Navy there is that comprimise in rank structure.
Don't forget "Beans & Bullets."
Other Trades and/or Units get around this "Rank" question by the use of 'Appointments'.   Ops WO is a senior WO in that organization and thus has more "Rank" than the rest of the WOs in that unit.   Much the same as the RSM is an Appointment giving him 'more say' than any other CWO in that unit, or as we go higher Bde RSM, Corps RSM, Comd RSM, etc. all have more say than their subordinate CWOs.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on November 28, 2005, 10:37:02
Other Trades and/or Units get around this "Rank" question by the use of 'Appointments'.
Very true, but if one were to "fix" the rank structure, why not align the number of ranks with the levels of seniority that we want?  Alternately, create an "appointment" at each rank level (complete with its unique rank badge) to designate senior appointment (much like the appointments of MCpl, Base CWO, Bde RSM, Area RSM, Land Forces RSM, and CF CWO all have a unique rank badge).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on November 28, 2005, 10:46:23
Not all Appointments fall into one fixed rank.  Same goes for Deligated positions.  One year we have one rank filling a position, the next year we may have a higher or lower rank filling that slot.  It would cause a lot of grief to create new ranks to fill some of these odd ball situations.  Have you experienced the Household Cavalry rank structure, with things like "Corpral of Horse" etc.?  Can become quite confusing, especially when you have a Corpral of Horse sitting in a Snr NCO Mess.   ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: pbi on November 28, 2005, 11:39:21
Many years ago, back in the early 90's, I sat as a member of an Army board that was convened to look at the idea of separating pay and rank as much as was fair and practical. The concept was called "TASK": "Trade Advancement for Skill and Knowledge". We also looked at getting rid of MCpl and reverting to Pte/Cpl/Sgt.

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

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

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

Cheers
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on November 28, 2005, 18:12:44
PBI, I agree 100% with your statement of getting rank because of civie qualifications. Right now there are alot of junk CPLs who had expirience in civie life and joined in the STEP program. VEH TECH and MP trades are the ones that come to mind right off the top.  I beleive we should seperate to some what an extent pay and rank. How about a gradual pay increase for each year of service and include monthly additions for rank, specialist skills (such as VEH TECH or FCS TECH as an example) and other things like TD, FOA, Overseas, Jump, etc ? ideas? Thoughts?

By the way, yeah the ENG RECCE SGT is senior in appointment that the sect comd but I disagree with making seperate ranks for every little unique appointment (WPNS DET COMD, LAV SGT, OPS SGT, SQMS or CQMS, Battle Captains, etc, etc). The appointment system works fine for these situations (i.e. CQ is same rank as PL 2IC but higher appointment and authority).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on November 28, 2005, 18:34:54
pbi

It seems that the "working rank" in the US Army is sometimes a SGT.  Sgts as Drivers.  Sgts as RadOps.  Platoons full of Sgts.  Kind of makes our Cpls look good when they can do everything and more that a Sgt can do in another Army.  Heck I had Tpr/Ptes more qualified and skilled than many of their Sgts.  Rank means nothing in cases like this.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 28, 2005, 18:48:13
I too agree with pbi.  The issue is hideously complex - there is layer upon layer of error, mostly honest well intentioned error.  Unravelling it might be difficult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourth principle: no freebies for senior officers (like $50,000 life insurance which is an Executive perk) and no performance bonus either - in other words decouple senior officers' pay from the civil service.

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

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infantry[banned] on July 04, 2006, 18:57:11
We need to bring back the royal. It make sense seeing as were part of the British commonwealth. All were asking for is the old respected name. Was the RCN in 2 world wars or was Maritime command.  Would you rather join Aircommand or the royal Canadian airforce. See what im saying. Yes theres point to this, why change the name why couldn't they jut leave things the way they were.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 04, 2006, 19:03:02
why waste the money? More cash spent on paint, engraving, re-doing ALL of our paperwork, etc. More time taken away from practical training, with troops doing useless prettification crap.

Never should have been done away with, but we got more pressing matters to attend to now. Little things like fight a war, rebuild the entire military, care for our wounded...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 04, 2006, 19:03:48
Yes theres point to this, why change the name why couldn't they jut leave things the way they were.

Exactly. No need to change it then.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infantry[banned] on July 04, 2006, 19:11:18
I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top. It wouldn't take away from the training and stuff.  I say we start a poll on who thinks we should change our names back or keep them im new so i don't no how to do that but ive seen them on here so someone start a pole and lets see what everyone thinks on army.ca. is the Australian defence force structured like the CF?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2006, 19:14:17
I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top. It wouldn't take away from the training and stuff.  I say we start a poll on who thinks we should change our names back or keep them im new so i don't no how to do that but ive seen them on here so someone start a pole and lets see what everyone thinks on army.ca. is the Australian defence force structured like the CF?

 ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ..... on July 04, 2006, 19:15:58
Here is my two cents:

As a young officer cadet, I disagree with the "Royal" designator for the "RCAF" and "RCN". Some older members or past members of the CF might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 04, 2006, 19:19:41
Here is my two cents:

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

I think most kingdoms in the world are rather discrete - and one would be forgiven for not even knowing they were kingdoms.  Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: TMM on July 04, 2006, 19:22:24
I meant back in the day when they changed them there is a reason to change them back. To get back our traditions and rich history. I'm sure changing the name wouldn't cause that much paracowboy. It would take 2-3 months top.

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

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

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

When I hear Royal I think British not Canadian; I think the CF branches and those serving know the history and are proud of it. Keep it as is.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nemo888 on July 04, 2006, 19:23:38
I'd rather enjoy it. I still talk of joining as, "Taking the Queens shilling," and like to think of my kit as on loan from the Queen. I guess I am a bit romantic. Me mum was a Royalist and passed when I was 18, she never saw me in uniform.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2006, 19:25:39
being sentimetal and nostalgic is one thing, but as mentioned before we have bigger fish to fry.  In cases you missed it, we have a war to fight. The title "Royal" isnt going to motivate me more....a new airplane would.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 04, 2006, 19:44:44
Quote
might like to prove me wrong, but this is my opinion: I am Canadian, not British. I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.

And you swore your oath to whom?

Quote
Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?


Yes.

I agree we have more important things to tackle right now.  However, eliminating the original titles was, IMHO, one of the worst excesses of 1960s political correctness - done for entirely the wrong reasons.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ..... on July 04, 2006, 19:49:08
Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2006, 19:50:29
I think most kingdoms in the world are rather discrete - and one would be forgiven for not even knowing they were kingdoms.  Does the Dutch Army have "Royal" in the title?

Yes as do the Dutch Navy and Air Force as well as their Marechaussee constabulary.

The Norwegians have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force.  The Swedes and the Danes still call their ships Their Majesties' Ships.

"Fighting Republicanism, Tooth and Nail"  ;D

I see Teddy beat me to it.  And I agree with him.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GAP on July 04, 2006, 19:53:46
And you swore your oath to whom?
 

Yes.

I agree we have more important things to tackle right now.  However, eliminating the original titles was, IMHO, one of the worst excesses of 1960s political correctness - done for entirely the wrong reasons.

Shhhh...you'll get them all excited, the politicians will get all excited, then everybody will scurry around like they did in the sixties changing everything, they'll forget about buying equipment, 6 month tours will languish about Kandahar, etc., etc...... ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 04, 2006, 20:10:01
Yes as do the Dutch Navy and Air Force as well as their Marechaussee constabulary.

The Norwegians have a Royal Navy and a Royal Air Force.  The Swedes and the Danes still call their ships Their Majesties' Ships.

"Fighting Republicanism, Tooth and Nail"  ;D

I see Teddy beat me to it.  And I agree with him.

Next questions - does anybody but the Dutch or Norwegians use those terms when talking about them? ;D 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 04, 2006, 20:20:51
Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...

Well another Cadet out to leave a mark on the pavement.   ::)

First off:  Many of us are serving, or have served, in a Royal designated Unit.  The Army is full of them.  The Reserves are full of them.  So you defence is very weak.

Second:  Don't try to make a play on words as to who or what you swore your allegiance to. 

Third:  What is your problem with "Quote"?  When someone quotes you, it is not a noun, but a verb.  What are you getting on about?  I am sure that we can go back and review all your past posts for syntax errors and find many.......So what?

This topic has been dead for over two years, until some twit resurrected it today, without reading it.  Now we have you contributing to the fun and games.  I am sure it would be best to let this dead horse lie.........Move along.......Nothing to see here.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ..... on July 04, 2006, 20:45:42
I said that a "quote" is a verb, and I only referred to the Air Force and Navy about the "Royal" title... I don't see why I have to be called a "twit" about it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 04, 2006, 20:59:28
I'm mystified as to what he's on about too, George, as I think it was directed at me.  I mistyped in the [ quote] HTML at the beginning of my post - and later went back and fixed it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 04, 2006, 20:59:51
 :boring:

Is this going anywhere we haven't been before?

Signed, The Roundhead....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 04, 2006, 21:01:44
I'm mystified as to what he's on about too, George, as I think it was directed at me.  I mistyped in the [ quote] HTML at the beginning of my post - and later went back and fixed it.


Leave it to an OCdt to sort you out......   ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CloudCover on July 04, 2006, 21:19:18

Signed, The Roundhead....

ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 04, 2006, 21:29:14
Here is my two cents:

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

As a young officer cadet you've sworn allegiance to the Queen of Canada.  Britain has nothing to do with any of this.  This argument would evaporate if people were better informed about how this country's government works.

I'm all for changing back to RCN and RCAF.  "Maritime Command" didn't win the Battle of the Atlantic or bust any trains in Korea.

The cost, as has been discussed previously, would be minimal, and certainly no more than that arising from the creation of the various regional Joint Task Forces -- nobody has yet come out against those on the grounds of the cost of printing letterhead.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 04, 2006, 21:37:08
The cost, as has been discussed previously, would be minimal, and certainly no more than that arising from the creation of the various regional Joint Task Forces -- nobody has yet come out against those on the grounds of the cost of printing letterhead.

The whole purpose of the JTF title is to highlight the fact that all the services are combining to work together....I think the idea is to emphasize we do have an integrated Canadian Forces rather than a simple collection of individual services.  The use of the Royal designator might, I think, be perceived as putting emphasis in the wrong places. We're supposed to be more than a sum total of our parts.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 04, 2006, 21:39:53
There are "Heraldic" factors that come into the equation.  It would be very time consuming and expensive in labour and money to go about it.  It would take some real dedication on the part of the Government to do so, and we all know that the will is not there.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 04, 2006, 21:40:15
:boring:

Is this going anywhere we haven't been before?

Signed, The Roundhead....

We've discussed your incomplete understanding of geometry before as well, haven't we?  ;D

By the way, where you bin?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 04, 2006, 21:40:37
Royal Joint Task Force Atlantic.

There you go.  Canadian democracy has again been saved by the House of Windsor.  Whew....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CloudCover on July 04, 2006, 22:08:13
Seriously, despite all the current nostalgia, in the early 80's I served with a number of PO's who were in the RCN during the 40's, 50's 60's and I even had a couple of Chiefs* who served in Korea.  They mostly retired in the mid 90's. They will tell you the RCN in the 60's, while historically rich**, was also an organization attempting to propel itself on a theory of self appointed importance while it was becoming irrelevant due to obsolescence, cutbacks and which also embraced, (and arguably imposed) an out of date and harsh class system on the ranks. In the 1960's this had serious social consequences on the members and their immediate family members, especially in the lower ranks. In short there was a lot of resentment towards the RCN as a concept and many in the lower ranks embraced the concept of heaving the concept of the RCN over the side like a can of gash in favour of something more modern and "Canadian", if only to "stick it"  in the face of the officers. Not that the officers gave a crap, apparently they just carried on. Anyway, that's what I remember hearing at the time when a number of officers were attempting to resurrect the RCN title in the 1980's.   Those who experienced the RCN first hand were not so keen to see it come back.

* one of whom retired in 86 and decided to run across Canada with a few other Chiefs.
** Despite the claim of might and prowess of the RCN that persists to this very day, it was also the navy that was not -so - politely told by the British and the Americans to stay in home port and unfuck themselves on a number of occasions during the first few years of the war and once close to the end of the war. This was something that a number of Chiefs and PO's would take the time to remind everyone when people would start comparing the modern CF navy [as it were] to the WW2 RCN navy.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 04, 2006, 22:34:18
Seriously, despite all the current nostalgia, in the early 80's I served with a number of PO's who were in the RCN during the 40's, 50's 60's and I even had a couple of Chiefs* who served in Korea.  They mostly retired in the mid 90's. They will tell you the RCN in the 60's, while historically rich**, was also an organization attempting to propel itself on a theory of self appointed importance while it was becoming irrelevant due to obsolescence, cutbacks and which also embraced, (and arguably imposed) an out of date and harsh class system on the ranks. In the 1960's this had serious social consequences on the members and their immediate family members, especially in the lower ranks. In short there was a lot of resentment towards the RCN as a concept and many in the lower ranks embraced the concept of heaving the concept of the RCN over the side like a can of gash in favour of something more modern and "Canadian", if only to "stick it"  in the face of the officers. Not that the officers gave a crap, apparently they just carried on. Anyway, that's what I remember hearing at the time when a number of officers were attempting to resurrect the RCN title in the 1980's.   Those who experienced the RCN first hand were not so keen to see it come back.

* one of whom retired in 86 and decided to run across Canada with a few other Chiefs.
** Despite the claim of might and prowess of the RCN that persists to this very day, it was also the navy that was not -so - politely told by the British and the Americans to stay in home port and unfuck themselves on a number of occasions during the first few years of the war and once close to the end of the war. This was something that a number of Chiefs and PO's would take the time to remind everyone when people would start comparing the modern CF navy [as it were] to the WW2 RCN navy.

I vote this as a candidate for inclusion in the wiki. ;D  Nicely put.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 04, 2006, 23:01:10
Well said Whiskey
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infantry[banned] on July 05, 2006, 09:23:28
We need to be royal. We swear an oath to the queen. She is the commander and chief of the CF. She is royal. Concluding we are royal as well. Id still be happy even if we changed it to Canadian Navy, Canadian Airforce, and Canadian army,  because maritime command air command and land force command is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 09:40:05
I don't see anything ridiculous in it.  I do see some of the rants here to be ridiculous, in their naivete.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 05, 2006, 11:40:56
everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and dying in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.

Priorities. Look it up.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 05, 2006, 13:11:28
everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and dying in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.

Priorities. Look it up.

I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 13:28:25
I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.

Agreed. We just reorganized the entire command structure, did we not? I disagree we need to change the names, but agree that if we wanted to, we could. CANSOFCOM, CEFCOM et al were major changes. We tend to go through them every 10 years or so. The reserve brigades was another major one in the 1990s, with the Militia Districts going the way of the dodo. That had to cost as much money as renaming the navy would. The Land Force Areas were created in 1991. The militia Districts were created in 1969 after the Suttie Commission's report. Before that were Militia Groups from 1954. Before that Military Districts.  We reinvent the wheel every few years anyway.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Aden_Gatling on July 05, 2006, 13:35:59
I would much rather serve my country than a monarch who has not been to Canada in over four years.

The pictures on the wall here in my office suggest that it's not really a choice that you have ...

RCAF and RCN have greater LCF, selon moi.   :cdn:

(Where's that Red Ensign debate from last year?)   :threat:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 05, 2006, 13:50:43
I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring.  An organization the size of the CF can surely manage to walk and chew gum at the same time.
than you would be wrong. The money that would be pissed away on such a stupid project could be far better spent on beans and bullets. The time spent on such a stupid project could be far better spent on training soldiers, and planning to do same. The NCOs and Officers wasting time and effort on such a stupid project could be far employed in the war effort. we're already over-tasked, under-manned, and under-funded, and people are actually worrying about something this ridiculous? Shake your heads.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 05, 2006, 14:08:10
You're all overlooking one thing.  No matter who in Ottawa proclaims "thou art Royal, go forth and kicketh ***",  The QUEEN bestows this honour.  If it were I, the answer would go something (but only something) like this:
       " We appreciate and understand the desire for a Royal designation.  This honour was already bestowed once, and you chose to discard it to appease a defeated people.  We are sorry, but we are unable to process your request at this time, please call back when another Monarch is crowned.  We appreciate your call."
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 14:26:20
than you would be wrong. The money that would be pissed away on such a stupid project could be far better spent on beans and bullets. The time spent on such a stupid project could be far better spent on training soldiers, and planning to do same. The NCOs and Officers wasting time and effort on such a stupid project could be far employed in the war effort. we're already over-tasked, under-manned, and under-funded, and people are actually worrying about something this ridiculous? Shake your heads.

You sound extremely expert in name changes. How many officers and NCOs do you project such a change would cost - and can you express that in man-days please? Preferably broken up by area of responsibility.  It would certainly focus the discussion more if you shared your obvious expertise in this area with us; your comments have been a bit vague so far.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 05, 2006, 15:07:21
You sound extremely expert in name changes. How many officers and NCOs do you project such a change would cost - and can you express that in man-days please? Preferably broken up by area of responsibility.  It would certainly focus the discussion more if you shared your obvious expertise in this area with us; your comments have been a bit vague so far.
my "expertise" does not extend to something this inane and ridiculous, Michael. I leave that sort of nonsense to those who have nothing better to do with their time. I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things. Surely you've read about them?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 15:11:12
my "expertise" does not extend to something this inane and ridiculous, Michael. I leave that sort of nonsense to those who have nothing better to do with their time. I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things. Surely you've read about them?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this your way of saying you're talking out of your ***, then? No disrespect intended, but you've parroted the same "we're fighting a war" stuff twice now.  I wasn't aware a MCpl in the infantry was involved with procurement for the entire CF - then again, neither is a reservist corporal who gives out socks.  I guess the difference being I'm always willing to admit  when I'm talking out of my ***. :)  I just use fewer words than you to do it. ;D

My point was that we change names of stuff like other armies change their underwear, so what difference would it make what the name is changed to. The point was made by Mr. McKay that the CF can probably walk and chew gum at the same time. Your counter "argument", if that is what it is, makes little sense in that perspective. If you have something substantive to add, I am sure it will carry the same weight most of your normally well thought out and constructed arguments do. In this case, they don't seem to hold much water.  Though invoking Canadian war dead was a nice touch.

Just sayin'.

Quote
I tend to focus more on issues that relate to those who have, or will, spend time on the sharp end. You know, people who deploy to scary places, and do dangerous things.
So why post in this thread at least three times, then? I'm not sure what it is you feel you've added to the discussion. You've expressed your opinion - twice - but not responded to any of the follow up it generated. Seems like a poor use of that time.*shrug*
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 05, 2006, 15:43:01
  I wasn't aware a MCpl in the infantry was involved with procurement for the entire CF - then again, neither is a reservist corporal who gives out socks. 
well, since being brought into the CQMS world a couple years back, then being brought up to BHQ to act as Operations WO, I've become somewhat familiar with the process. And I have come to realize just how much money is pissed away on stupid crap at the expense of warfighters. You odn't details on what I do, or how I do it. When the content and value of our posts are compared, I'm secure that those who count know which to pay attention to.

Quote
I guess the difference being I'm always willing to admit  when I'm talking out of my ***. :)  I just use fewer words than you to do it. ;D
not quite. The difference is that you make it a habit. We can go back through my posts and find any number of times when I've been corrected, and have owned up to it.

Quote
My point was that we change names of stuff like other armies change their underwear, so what difference would it make what the name is changed to.
and my point is that one second, or one penny wasted on this pathetic, surface-over-substance, appearance-over-functionality silliness is one second and one penny better spent elsewhere. Gara-trooper mentality has no place in our military today. We have to re-build a cash-strapped, under-manned, poorly-equipped force, currently at war. It is the height of stupidity to bother with inconsequentials like this under those circumstances.

Quote
Your "argument", if that is what it is, makes little sense in that perspective. If you have something substantive to add, I am sure it will carry the same weight most of your normally well thought out and constructed arguments do. In this case, they don't seem to hold much water.
to you, perhaps. But, to those with time at the pointy-end, I'm confident that it's ringing loudly. And, since our highest leadership has significant time there, I highly doubt that this issue will surface until well after the threat we face has been dealt with and the Chairborne are once more in positions of authority. Then we can disband the CSOR and spend money on make-work projects like the LSVW, Garrison Dress, and changing names again. Until then, the testosterone-challenged will simply have to bide their time. Soon enough, the warriors will work themselves out of a job again.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 05, 2006, 17:15:24
Yes, the Dutch and the Australians have the "Royal" title, but I am still in disagreement with using the designator "Royal" for the Air Force or Navy. I swore my allegiance to the Queen, but that does not mean that I serve in the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Also, a "Quote" is a verb and a "Quotation" is a noun... I wish people on this site could use proper English...

Also, also....English is an adjective, the English language is a modified noun.

I wish that people on this site would use proper grammar.  It seems that while many people could use proper grammar, they choose not to do so.

Duey
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: BulletMagnet on July 05, 2006, 17:30:39
The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.

I for one would much rather do my job then bother with seeing how much money could be flushed down the toilet in a vague attempt to put something back that has already been removed without much consequence. We still have Royal in many places such as Royal Canadian Infantry Corps, Her Majesties Canadian Ship etc etc, why bother with the rest. I mean hey could spend 2 milion dollars on that or we could buy me more bullets and better equipment.

I know the concept of bullets and equipment mean little to you but as Para has pointed out to us that do the job it extremely important.

Can "we walk and chew gun" at the same time, sure we could. But why bother when we can focus on something infinitely more important and with much deeper consequences.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 17:31:33
well, since being brought into the CQMS world a couple years back, then being brought up to BHQ to act as Operations WO, I've become somewhat familiar with the process. And I have come to realize just how much money is pissed away on stupid crap at the expense of warfighters.

Since you insist on sermonizing, I guess I'll reply in kind.

Some of of that is subjective.  I have indeed, though, seen the "Western Challenge Pencils" the Army bought a few years back (they were a scream!) so no one is doubting that priorities aren't always adhered to, nor is anyone arguing that combat capability shouldn't come first. I think the argument here, dead soldiers aside, is that some of that "stupid crap" is unappreciated by soldiers in the field - those pointy-end dudes you presume to speak for - and is in fact necessary in ways that intangible. Just as intangible as, say, the difference between Walmart socks and Gore-tex socks. Can anyone define a "need" for say a better bivvy bag? We won "the big one" without them, after all. It's all a matter of perspective. Anyway, we agree on these points at any rate.

Quote
You odn't details on what I do, or how I do it. When the content and value of our posts are compared, I'm secure that those who count know which to pay attention to.

I'm not sure I understand the first sentence, but think I get the gist of the second one. ;) If your feeling of self-worth is so tied to a message board and the opinions of strangers coupled with a need to cut others down in the process, you have problems. You seem well adjusted so I'll write this off as you simply not having anything else to contribute to the discussion, and thus figure a little ad hominem will do nicely. Given the sheer volume of our posts I'm equally confident we've both contributed to this board in a myriad of positive ways and probably ruffled a lot of feathers in the process, given our similar posting style. I'm not keeping track, though. If you really want to compare, go back 5 years - but check the History forum cause that's where my best work is done. ;)

Quote
not quite. The difference is that you make it a habit. We can go back through my posts and find any number of times when I've been corrected, and have owned up to it.

I don't doubt it; I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

Quote
and my point is that one second, or one penny wasted on this pathetic, surface-over-substance, appearance-over-functionality silliness is one second and one penny better spent elsewhere. Gara-trooper mentality has no place in our military today. We have to re-build a cash-strapped, under-manned, poorly-equipped force, currently at war. It is the height of stupidity to bother with inconsequentials like this under those circumstances.

I disagree; I think Neil said it best when he said we can walk and chew gum at the same time.  You still haven't presented anything other than a visceral reaction to that suggestion.

Quote
to you, perhaps. But, to those with time at the pointy-end, I'm confident that it's ringing loudly. And, since our highest leadership has significant time there, I highly doubt that this issue will surface until well after the threat we face has been dealt with and the Chairborne are once more in positions of authority. Then we can disband the CSOR and spend money on make-work projects like the LSVW, Garrison Dress, and changing names again. Until then, the testosterone-challenged will simply have to bide their time. Soon enough, the warriors will work themselves out of a job again.

if this was a thread about how to kill someone with a toothpick, your response here might bear some intellectual fruit. The constant assertion that those not serving in the combat arms are somehow "testosterone challenged" are firstly, insulting, second, unbecoming of you personally, thirdly, untrue, and fourthly, off-topic.

You mention the CSOR in the same thread as bemoaning name changes and administrative bumph infringing on combat capability, yet they represent a major reorganization in and of themselves.

Anyway, the suggestion has been made that if we did want to change a name or two, it would not harm our combat capability and your suggestion that it would is unproven. I don't think that warrants attacks on either my trade or anyone personally.

So why not use some of that intelligence you regularly display and either respond with something a bit more substantial, or stop trying to overpower the thread based solely on the trades badge you wear?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 17:33:25
The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.

I'm aware of the point, Mr. Miss, and think I effectively covered your points in my last reply to Paracowboy. If I've missed something out, please accept my apologies in advance, and I'll try and address it in detail for you.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: BulletMagnet on July 05, 2006, 17:43:00
I disagree I think it's you who is missing the point.

Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase? why bother with wasting that money and it is well and truly a waste, when we have higher more important priorities.

I agree 100% with Para, there is little to no room for the Garrison mentality that has so permeated the CF for the last decade or so, as to make us almost Combat ineffective. Thankfully due in no small part to the the back bone of the combat arms trade and our sheer ability to carry on despite the garrison attitude being shoved at us, that we did maintain some form of combat capability.

As to your argument for CSOR not only is it a capability we lacked it is also dollars spent on just what we need more pointy end troops doing the nasty work that others would not do.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 17:54:46
I disagree I think it's you who is missing the point.

Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase? why bother with wasting that money and it is well and truly a waste, when we have higher more important priorities.

I agree 100% with Para, there is little to no room for the Garrison mentality that has so permeated the CF for the last decade or so, as to make us almost Combat ineffective. Thankfully due in no small part to the the back bone of the combat arms trade and our sheer ability to carry on despite the garrison attitude being shoved at us, that we did maintain some form of combat capability.

As to your argument for CSOR not only is it a capability we lacked it is also dollars spent on just what we need more pointy end troops doing the nasty work that others would not do.

First of all, I appreciate your point of view and agree that combat capability is the most important priority.

I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the name change to "Royal" is unecessary - I don't think we need the change either. I'm saying we could do it if we wanted to.

Given your outlook, why have cap badges? All that brass could be better used in shell casings, couldn't it?

Why have PT equipment? Properly motivated troops should keep themselves fit.

The fact is - and I don't blame you for not realizing this - is the money comes out of different pots. Different budgets are used for different things. You can't spend your PT grant on bayonets. Right?

All that is being said is that the argument that a name change hampers operational readiness is weak. There are soldiers (testosteronally challenged, I think, is the term) that are paid to worry about such matters.

No one doubts the CSOR was necessary. How much did those tan berets cost? If you're going to make the argument, go all the way with it. You can argue the tan beret is a necessary "intangible" contributing to combat capability. I'd even be inclined to believe you. One might argue the same about name changes.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 05, 2006, 17:59:46
The point Mr Dorosh is that we could spend time arguing about being more "Royal" or we could spend time actually doing our job.

Not to sound like too much of a jerk, but which are you doing when you post in this thread?  If you have time to discuss this, surely those in the Forces whose jobs include issues like identity and unit naming (and who are not at the pointy end) could manage the required time.  In fact, we have a whole directorate to look after issues of history and heritage.

Quote
I mean hey could spend 2 milion dollars on that or we could buy me more bullets and better equipment.

It isn't an either/or situation, no matter how many times anyone says it is.  Budgeting for any government department is much more complicated than that.  DHH doesn't buy the bullets.  I can virtually guarantee that no soldier is going to run out of ammunition because someone changed the names of two commands.  (Didn't happen last time, did it?)

Quote
Can "we walk and chew gun" at the same time, sure we could. But why bother when we can focus on something infinitely more important and with much deeper consequences.

DND is an enormous organization, one of the biggest departments in the Canadian government.  If NDHQ consisted of only one soldier whose job was to buy bullets, and we said to him "please lay off buying bullets for a few weeks and order some stationery and signs instead", I'd be with you all the way.  But that's just not the way it works.

Quote
Which I will reiterate again, money wasted on being more "Royal" is simply that WASTED! it's how many less bullets for us in theater? how many less rounds for the M777? how many less CH47D frames we can purchase?

Until you can answer those questions you're not arguing from a very strong position.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 05, 2006, 18:07:33
The fact is - and I don't blame you for not realizing this - is the money comes out of different pots. Different budgets are used for different things. You can't spend your PT grant on bayonets. Right?

This infers that there is a dedicated "pot" of money waiting for a name change (or other such administration) to occur, which, if it does not occur, cannot be reassigned. This would be a false assumption. 

The question, if a price is to be paid for a name change out of DND funding, is: Which previously allocated pot of money (and manhours) does it come from?  What allocated resources, funded IAW the current business plan, are to be redirected for this effort, however minor a piece of staff work it may appear to be on the surface, to be executed?

Even the cost of something as "simple" as repainting base, unit and installation signage has a real value. We can be confident that most Comds/CPOs/etc. would not wait until their sign is due for regular replacement before making the change.  Where does the money come from for such an "intangible" change; one which only seems to have a few internet denizens banging drums in favour of anyway?

It's a real piece of work (the name change), and real resources, no matter how thinly spread across the administrative staff, would have to be expended.

We seem to have a habit in these forums of alternately bashing the system for wastage, and then bashing the system for not pandering to our individually favourite little projects.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 18:21:42
This infers that there is a dedicated "pot" of money waiting for a name change (or other such administration) to occur, which, if it does not occur, cannot be reassigned. This would be a false assumption. 

The question, if a price is to be paid for a name change out of DND funding, is: Which previously allocated pot of money (and manhours) does it come from?  What allocated resources, funded IAW the current business plan, are to be redirected for this effort, however minor a piece of staff work it may appear to be on the surface, to be executed?.

Where to get the money from? 

*DHH could stop publishing full blown books on 'blacks in the Canadian Forces' or "women in the Canadian Forces' and distributing them for free in published form. Not that I don't appreciate the books, but surely they could be sold for profit rather than just scattered willy nilly through armouries and bases.

*Stop making cap badges no one wears. The Highlanders wear a bronze cap badge, always have, yet the DND issue is gold. We let recruits wear them. But even worse, the DND issued oak leaf shoulder title is not worn by anyone, yet recruits still get the "official" pattern from the ASC and then get told in the unit not to wear them. Don't the Seaforths also purchase badges out of regimental funds because the DND issue is incorrect?

Just two suggestions...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 05, 2006, 18:24:45

Thank you for your succint proof of this point.

We seem to have a habit in these forums of alternately bashing the system for wastage, and then bashing the system for not pandering to our individually favourite little projects.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: BulletMagnet on July 05, 2006, 18:26:18
Seem's MO has answered for me and with more style then I could have mustered.

Not to sound like too much of a jerk, but which are you doing when you post in this thread?

I'm on predeployment leave actually, but thanks for insinuating I don't do my job.
  
If you have time to discuss this, surely those in the Forces whose jobs include issues like identity and unit naming (and who are not at the pointy end) could manage the required time.  In fact, we have a whole directorate to look after issues of history and heritage.

A whole directorate that is a waste of DND time and resources, should be part of Heritage Canada and play in their coffers.

It isn't an either/or situation, no matter how many times anyone says it is.  Budgeting for any government department is much more complicated than that.  DHH doesn't buy the bullets.  I can virtually guarantee that no soldier is going to run out of ammunition because someone changed the names of two commands.  (Didn't happen last time, did it?)

On the contrary happens all the time, you see when we split up our money into separate pots as we do that means less money actually does go from bullets and training. Which means that I have indeed run out of bullets on more then one occasion, In a combat zone no but then again we also didn't have the rounds to keep our skills up in said combat zone.

Until you can answer those questions you're not arguing from a very strong position.

Alright well since we don't know how much this would cost I'll go with my made up figure of 2 Mil.  9 cents or so a round (I could be off on cost of rounds BTW) gives me 2.22 milion rounds. 100k a pop for M777 ( the GPS guided ones) rounds gives me 20 rounds. Oh and 2 CH47D airframes well 1. something or other to be exact.

My case any stronger yet? And I to be honest I'm arguing form experience how about you?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 18:32:15
Thank you for your succint proof of this point.


Now, now, Michael - you have to believe we have been expecting a possible changeover from the Queen's Crown to a King's Crown (which may or may not happen on the ascension of the next Monarch) since 1954 or so - where would that money come from?

Where did the money come from for reserve brigade badges and the change in names that happened there?  It got budgeted for. What got cut? I don't know, you can tell us, I suppose. You don't even have to give your opinion of what it was that got cut.

I'm just saying - there are always ways to find efficiencies. We did away with pipe bands once - ruined the trade, but saved a lot of bucks. Was the pointy end happy with that? How was recruiting effected? Was the cost savings worth it?  Who knows.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 05, 2006, 18:40:51
What do we need a "Royal" for; we don't even need a "Navy" in the traditional sense.  Further movement towards Joint Warfighting capability will hopefully see the complete removal of units from service based commands and put into functional/geographic ones as we are starting to see with the Regional JTFs.  A "Royal Canadian Navy" would be (rightly so) nothing but a fashion office in NDHQ.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 18:42:32
A whole directorate that is a waste of DND time and resources, should be part of Heritage Canada and play in their coffers.


Neil McKay, HitorMiss, Michael Dorosh, and many of you others..

Hate to burst your little bubble of knowledge, but that directorate, known as Directorate of History and Heritage, is like every other DND and Government Department in Canada.  They have people holding down one job title, but filling the tasks and responsibilities of ten.  Tell me how you can cut any more money there.  Tell me how you can task them with yet another task.  Tell me how you can plan on making this system more efficient and then tell me where all this money to do so is going to come from.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 05, 2006, 18:44:25
Now, now, Michael - you have to believe we have been expecting a possible changeover from the Queen's Crown to a King's Crown (which may or may not happen on the ascension of the next Monarch) since 1954 or so - where would that money come from?

Where did the money come from for reserve brigade badges and the change in names that happened there?  It got budgeted for. What got cut? I don't know, you can tell us, I suppose. You don't even have to give your opinion of what it was that got cut.

I'm just saying - there are always ways to find efficiencies. We did away with pipe bands once - ruined the trade, but saved a lot of bucks. Was the pointy end happy with that? How was recruiting effected? Was the cost savings worth it?  Who knows.

Changes of crowns are a red herring playing on those who haven't researched the issue.

There is no such need for a change of crowns, the designations of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are common-use labels which in no way are definitive and binding expressions of the gender of the sovereign.  Properly, as you know, they are the Tudor Crown and the Imperial (or alternatively in use, the St Edward's) Crown.

The point is, as I am sure you realize, that changes such as the Brigade names came with organizational changes meant to improve the command environment - which I would hope it did to some degee across the country (regardless of what some think of any higher headquarters than the office they work in).  I haven't heard anyone suggesting we roll the clock back to the Militia Area period.

What principal organizational change would entail altering every related document, every sign, every website, etc., etc., etc., just to add the "Royal" moniker again?  It would take that type of establishment change requirement to make the change comparable to the situations in which we 'relabeled' the Reserve Brigades, or CEFCOM/CANCOM/CANSOFCOM, etc.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: BulletMagnet on July 05, 2006, 18:45:02
Well at the very least it's one less job for the man tasked with 10.

And of course kill a whole Directorate and the money does have to go somewhere else doesn't it?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GAP on July 05, 2006, 18:52:07
And of course kill a whole Directorate and the money does have to go somewhere else doesn't it?

Actually, most government departments operate on the principle "if you don't use it, you lose it"
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 18:57:35
Changes of crowns are a red herring playing on those who haven't researched the issue.

There is no such need for a change of crowns, the designations of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are common-use labels which in no way are definitive and binding expressions of the gender of the sovereign.  Properly, as you know, they are the Tudor Crown and the Imperial (or alternatively in use, the St Edward's) Crown.

That's exacly what I implied...

Quote
The point is, as I am sure you realize, that changes such as the Brigade names came with organizational changes meant to improve the command environment - which I would hope it did to some degee across the country (regardless of what some think of any higher headquarters than the office they work in).  I haven't heard anyone suggesting we roll the clock back to the Militia Area period.

So why did all the badges change in 1953 then? You don't know that it wouldn't happen again, do you? I suspect your research into that is as extensive as mine - ie no one knows for sure. We changed again in 1968-70 due to operational and command changes.  If someone thought that additional changes were necessary, we'd find the money to do it again - which is my point. The precise name is the red herring.

Quote
What principal organizational change would entail altering every related document, every sign, every website, etc., etc., etc., just to add the "Royal" moniker again?  It would take that type of establishment change requirement to make the change comparable to the situations in which we 'relabeled' the Reserve Brigades, or CEFCOM/CANCOM/CANSOFCOM, etc.

Red herring. My point was, and is, if we thought it desirable, we could do it without impacting operational effectiveness. Unless you can point out inefficiencies which derived directly from changing our badges in 1953, changing our command structure in 1964 (the date CFHQ was created?) or 1968?

I'll put it another way - if the only reason NOT to do it is because we'll have less bullets and beans, that hasn't been demonstrated to have been the case in the past.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 19:00:32
Where to get the money from? 

*DHH could stop publishing full blown books on 'blacks in the Canadian Forces' or "women in the Canadian Forces' and distributing them for free in published form. Not that I don't appreciate the books, but surely they could be sold for profit rather than just scattered willy nilly through armouries and bases.

*Stop making cap badges no one wears. The Highlanders wear a bronze cap badge, always have, yet the DND issue is gold. We let recruits wear them. But even worse, the DND issued oak leaf shoulder title is not worn by anyone, yet recruits still get the "official" pattern from the ASC and then get told in the unit not to wear them. Don't the Seaforths also purchase badges out of regimental funds because the DND issue is incorrect?

Just two suggestions...

So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not?  These people are trying their best to increase the knowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me.  

The Supply System is expected to to have every Hat Badge in inventory to issue to CF members.  If those members prefer to buy a better quality badge or accoutrement, it is their freedom to do so at their own expense.

So what is your point?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 05, 2006, 19:01:18
My point was, and is, if we thought it desirable, we could do it without impacting operational effectiveness.

Can we be sure about that, we are certainly participating in an operational environment that wasn't there during any of the noted changes to badges, names, etc.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 19:02:18
Leave me out of it...I've seen first hand how civilians run things at military museums...

Yes,  I understand you were one.

Besides the point I was making was your ideas of where the money should come from for your pet projects.........at the sacrifice of others already in process. 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 19:07:30
So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not.  These people are trying their best to increase the knowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me.  

The Supply System is expected to to have every Hat Badge in inventory to issue to CF members.  If those members prefer to buy a better quality badge or accoutrement, it is their freedom to do so at their own expense.

So what is your point?

a)It's been a mixed bag.  I think the private sector has done a great job of documenting our history - I'd take a Donald Graves book over most recent DND ones any day. I don't mean to belittle their contributions, but it seems like lately they write for special interest groups rather than the CF as a whole. It may be a mis-formed impression and I don't claim to be privy to a lot of what they've done, though I do visit their site often. The online CMHQ reports are awesome, for example. Look at, say, the boondoggle that was the First World War official history. Stacey had things working much more smoothly and the Second World War histories were great. So was the Korean War one. Lately - I don't know, some pubs seem to be form and not substance. What is your opinion? We agree that the history needs to be documented, but I can't say with certainty who should be doing it.  The best people for the job, naturally, but who is that?

b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway. In our case, the DND oakleaf is way too small and not at all like the established pattern worn since 1938. So we pay for the "correct" pattern and the ASC stocks the "small" ones anyway.

I hope that's clearer?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 19:08:53
Can we be sure about that, we are certainly participating in an operational environment that wasn't there during any of the noted changes to badges, names, etc.


NOOOOO we're NOT sure, Michael - that is why we are discussing it!!  ;D And hoping to do so without visceral gut reactions, mine, yours, and everyone's! I suspect we have failed miserably.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 19:16:46
b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway.

I hope that's clearer?

Sorry.  A Regiment can 'highly suggest' that a member buy a certain item, but it is 'Unlawful' for them to 'dictate' that a member buy non-issue accoutrements.  It is 'not illegal' to wear the CF issued item.  If you do get in sh** from a senior member of the Regiment for doing so, you can of course Redress it and win.  If the CF issues it, it is authorized.  That being said, not too many people do this, as they usually have more pride in themselves, their uniform and their Regiment and do go and purchase, out of their own pockets, the better Regimental accoutrement's and support their Regimental Kit Shops and Regimental Funds.

Does that clear it up for you?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 05, 2006, 19:52:18
your attempts to invalidate my points would be amusing if they weren't so sad. I particularly like you constant use of the word "visceral" as though you are gazing down placidly from some intellectual height. Nice try. Unfortunately, one of the definitions for visceral is "profound". It's one of those words like "cleave" that has two meanings, both of which are seemingly the antithesis of each other.

No matter how finely you choose to cut it, the CF receives "x" amount of dollars every year. That then gets divided up. Much of it goes to stupid, pointless crap (ie non-operational. If it ain't related to training, actual fighting, and to supporting the above in some way, it's wasted). That could, and should, be shunted into the coffers related to practical purposes.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:02:14
Sorry.  A Regiment can 'highly suggest' that a member buy a certain item, but it is 'Unlawful' for them to 'dictate' that a member buy non-issue accoutrements.  It is 'not illegal' to wear the CF issued item.  If you do get in sh** from a senior member of the Regiment for doing so, you can of course Redress it and win.  If the CF issues it, it is authorized.  That being said, not too many people do this, as they usually have more pride in themselves, their uniform and their Regiment and do go and purchase, out of their own pockets, the better Regimental accoutrement's and support their Regimental Kit Shops and Regimental Funds.

Does that clear it up for you?

You're still confused, George. The members pay for nothing. The regiment pays for the correct badges out of NPF and then issues them out on loan cards. The badges break often, however, and so the wastage is high.

Anyway, you brought up the point about how well DHH does its job and the subject of quality of their pubs. I asked your opinion, was wondering if you'd share it? Like I said, I'm on the fence on it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:08:12
your attempts to invalidate my points would be amusing if they weren't so sad. I particularly like you constant use of the word "visceral" as though you are gazing down placidly from some intellectual height.Nice try.

You're hardly in a position to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, given that you invoked your "friends dying" about 3 pages back. And I'm still at a loss to understand your penchant for insults and ad hominem. If you can't discuss the matter on its own merits, what makes you think this approach will bear any fruit? Has it been successful for you in the past?

Quote
No matter how finely you choose to cut it, the CF receives "x" amount of dollars every year. That then gets divided up. Much of it goes to stupid, pointless crap (ie non-operational. If it ain't related to training, actual fighting, and to supporting the above in some way, it's wasted). That could, and should, be shunted into the coffers related to practical purposes.

But doesn't and never will. So why tilt at windmills and continue to insult people about it in the process?  I'll add petulant to visceral. You can post til the cows come home that we don't need clerks or office supplies or cap badges or whatever it is you keep saying we don't need (you never really say, though, do you) and none of it will make it come true.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 05, 2006, 20:11:32
All this talk about the colour of our underwear and the latest paper at the DHH is very nice, but it seems kind of removed from the realities; realities that seem to point to the lack of any need for a "Royal Canadian Navy".  Hats off to Michael Dorosh; he was keen enough to push the point forward about 4 pages ago and nobody picked up on it.

The CF has recently went through with two monumental changes in organization.  The traditional geographic service formations are now being double-hatted as true functional/geographic joint organizations.  These are the new Regional JTFs.  Along with this, the traditional commands of the CF which arose out of the "Strong Service" revival of the counter-unification period in the CF are now matched by four Operational Commands, CEFCOM, CANADACOM, CANSOFCOM and CANOSCOM, which will take primacy due to the inherent nature of their design.  How it will pan out remains to be seen, but "alea jacta est"....

In other words, the pendulum is thankfully swinging away from the strong-service idea and hopefully institutional design can be made strong enough to resist the inevitable push back.

What this should say for the discussion is "what utility would a RCN have?"  Others have expressed their displeasure, but I find much to value in the unique path the modern CF has taken (Whiskey made an excellent post regarding this a bit earlier) and I am willing to settle with the good we can pull from a unified defence force and put the past behind us.  To me, the idea of an RCN is pointless; as the CF moves further down the "Joint" road (bah, I hate buzzwords) reinstating an "RCN" would only be an invitation for service-based empire building that we do not need (much akin to the Airforce's empire building of the 80's with Air Command and 1CAD).  As well, with our current organization, I wonder where a "RCN" would fit in?  Ignoring the fact that a RCN would seem odd within the legal framework of the Canadian Force, what utility would a "RCN" serve in today's environment where Maritime Command will find itself losing more and more importance to the Regional JTF's and the Operational Commands.  If the argument is for a RCN to better fight it out with the Army and the Navy, then forget it.

Other then that, the only real argument being slung around for the "RCN" is one of political nostalgia.  Whee.  No point getting into this one as it is full of opinions (and we all know what those smell like) and really is an argument relevent to Canadian politics and not military organization.

The Navy is an important institution for Canada; the Navy, as an organization within the CF, will continue to play an important role in the maintenance of custom, environment-specific skills, and specific doctrine relating to the unique nature of seapower.  However, it should, like its sister services in the Army and the Air Force, do so as merely one part of the Canadian Forces, a team greater then the sum of its parts that brings together warfighting capabilities to best defend Canada's national interests.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:16:28
All this talk about the colour of our underwear and the latest paper at the DHH is very nice, but it seems kind of removed from the realities; realities that seem to point to the lack of any need for a "Royal Canadian Navy".  Hats off to Michael Dorosh; he was keen enough to push the point forward about 4 pages ago and nobody picked up on it.

The CF has recently went through with two monumental changes in organization.  The traditional geographic service formations are now being double-hatted as true functional/geographic joint organizations.  These are the new Regional JTFs.  Along with this, the traditional commands of the CF which arose out of the "Strong Service" revival of the counter-unification period in the CF are now matched by four Operational Commands, CEFCOM, CANADACOM, CANSOFCOM and CANOSCOM, which will take primacy due to the inherent nature of their design.  How it will pan out remains to be seen, but "alea jacta est"....

In other words, the pendulum is thankfully swinging away from the strong-service idea and hopefully institutional design can be made strong enough to resist the inevitable push back.

Thank you for elaborating on this.  I guess if I wanted to drag it off topic I'd point out we did it while engaged operationally too. ;)

But yes, the trend is towards more integration of the services, not less.  It's a shame Unification left such a bad taste in so many mouths - I wonder if we might not have done this sooner - correctly - otherwise.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 20:22:53
You're still confused, George. The members pay for nothing. The regiment pays for the correct badges out of NPF and then issues them out on loan cards. The badges break often, however, and so the wastage is high.

Anyway, you brought up the point about how well DHH does its job and the subject of quality of their pubs. I asked your opinion, was wondering if you'd share it? Like I said, I'm on the fence on it.

Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.

This is the first you have asked of my opinion on the quality of DHH pubs, and it has nothing to do with the question at hand.  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack though.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:24:32
a)It's been a mixed bag.  I think the private sector has done a great job of documenting our history - I'd take a Donald Graves book over most recent DND ones any day. I don't mean to belittle their contributions, but it seems like lately they write for special interest groups rather than the CF as a whole. It may be a mis-formed impression and I don't claim to be privy to a lot of what they've done, though I do visit their site often. The online CMHQ reports are awesome, for example. Look at, say, the boondoggle that was the First World War official history. Stacey had things working much more smoothly and the Second World War histories were great. So was the Korean War one. Lately - I don't know, some pubs seem to be form and not substance. What is your opinion? We agree that the history needs to be documented, but I can't say with certainty who should be doing it.  The best people for the job, naturally, but who is that?

b) The supply system is wasting money stocking some stuff that no one uses. It is not up to members, it is regimental standards that have units buying better stuff, then issuing it in lieu of DND materials.  It's not a freedom, it's frustration at not getting the 'correct' stuff established by regimental tradition out of a hidebound supply system - from my perspective, anyway. In our case, the DND oakleaf is way too small and not at all like the established pattern worn since 1938. So we pay for the "correct" pattern and the ASC stocks the "small" ones anyway.

I hope that's clearer?

Quoted for George
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:26:45
Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.

NPF = "NON PUBLIC FUNDS". 

Yes, you are correct - the Regiment "wastes its money" because DND won't produce badges up to regimental standard. In other words, we "waste our money" on having the soldier wear high quality insignia. Why have uniforms at all if you can't be proud of them.

Quote
This is the first you have asked of my opinion on the quality of DHH pubs, and it has nothing to do with the question at hand.  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack though.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP! See the last page.

You said specifically

Quote
So are you for or against the promulgation of our Military History or not?  These people are trying their best to increase the nowledge of those in the Forces and on Civie Street.  Now you want them to drop all that.  Seems a bit back asswards to me. 

Why did you ask, if you didn't want an answer?

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 20:30:34
Sorry....I lost your little request in all the Drivel.  So now you agree that it is a waste by the Regiment, Not the CF, nor DND or the Government. 

DHH...I suppose you have looked up what their mandate is.  Then you would know that to promulgate Canada's Military History and Heritage, is one of their mandates; or do you need the direct quote from the DND site to please your little hearts concerns.   ;D  Is that opinion enough for your question as to who should be doing so?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 20:32:23
NPF = "NON PUBLIC FUNDS". 

And NPP = "NON PUBLIC PROPERTY"

Which is what all these items are.

Are you a happy camper yet?

 ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 20:34:21
Is anyone really taking this serious, or are we just having fun with the 'Royal' titles over a few ales?   ;D

Opps!  Almost forgot to post this....... ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:37:59
Sorry....I lost your little request in all the Drivel.  So now you agree that it is a waste by the Regiment, Not the CF, nor DND or the Government. 

If its drivel, why post here?  I never said it was a waste, you did. Why are you being like this?

Do you think it unreasonable for a regiment to retain the same pattern of insignia that was approved by General Order in 1938, or not? Because DND substituted a non-standard, inferior pattern.

What would you suggest we do about it?  If they are not going to improve the standard, my point was, stop making the insignia altogether, as it is a waste of money.
Quote
DHH...I suppose you have looked up what their mandate is.  Then you would know that to promulgate Canada's Military History and Heritage, is one of their mandates; or do you need the direct quote from the DND site to please your little hearts concerns.   ;D  Is that opinion enough for your question as to who should be doing so?

You haven't answered the question. Do you think the standard of their publications is equal to that reached by historians in the private sector like Donald Graves? You brought all this up George, split it off if you want, but don't ask the question and then just call the resultant conversation drivel. Do you have an opinion or not?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: airmich on July 05, 2006, 20:39:03
Is anyone really taking this serious, or are we just having fun with the 'Royal' titles over a few ales?   ;D

You mean getting "royally" blitzed George?   ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 20:45:26
OK

A Dorosh trick:

Just for you Michael Dorosh

Actually, Michael, you will probably find that it is not NPF funds that they are using, but NPP.  That means the Regiment is paying for these items from its own moneys, not Public money.  If the Regiment so wishes to waste "its' own' money in this fashion, it is free to do so.  It is not Public money......not a waste to DND or the CF; but a waste to the Regiment.

At no time have I said that the Regiment is spending Public Funds on these Items.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 20:45:33
I apologize, George, I misread you....but my questions still stand. What is your opinion on DHH and their pubs? And what is the regiment to do about non-standard items being supplied by DND? I don't think it's in our purview to change their dies.

Anyway, I think maybe you've weighed in and only caught the tail end of the conversation in any event. The general thrust of the conversation was about the administrative cost of changing titles. The other discussions are tangential and were brought up as examples of possible cost savings. If you want to split them, fine, but now that you've brought it up, are you serious about wanting to discuss this, or not? If so, then please stop the insults, assassinating my character "ie A Dorosh trick" and try and keep it civil as I've been trying to.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 05, 2006, 20:55:53
Thank you for elaborating on this.  I guess if I wanted to drag it off topic I'd point out we did it while engaged operationally too. ;)

But yes, the trend is towards more integration of the services, not less.  It's a shame Unification left such a bad taste in so many mouths - I wonder if we might not have done this sooner - correctly - otherwise.

It's not really off-topic; the question is on the utility of a "Royal" Canadian Navy and I argued no for organizational reasons.   The argument both for and against based on money seems quite trivial when we consider how much cash the DND shovels down the toilet in a fiscal year.  Sorry to see that a more serious and relevent topic is unwanted in the face of carrying out a sparring patch on Non-Public Funds.

Shall we return to designing boatcloaks and manning the HMS Victory then?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: airmich on July 05, 2006, 21:00:00
Shall we return to designing boatcloaks and manning the HMS Victory then?

Sounds good Infanteer, but then we must also bring back keelhauling and reinstill the tot.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:02:30
Sorry?  You already quoted my opinion:


...........  If you insist on side tracking the topic, I do have an opinion, and I think that they have produced some fine work, not always the best, but still more than what has been done in the past.  Do you personally suggest that we not do anything?  Is that the impression you want to put across?  Are you afraid of something that they may produce?  Don't you agree that this is part of their mandate?  Perhaps you would like to look into that?  Nice Hijack


As I have already said, it is part of their mandate to promulgate our History.  They of course do not always have the best talent to do so, but sometimes they do.  Your favourite Dr Berchison, Sean Maloney, John Marteinson and Michael McNorgan are some of those.  There are lessors.  Then they have been going all out lately to produce posters of all the Branch Hatbadges, Ships Crests, Squadron Crests, Armour Camp Flags, Orders and Decorations, etc.  I am sure you even have one or two up in your shop.  Some of these may seem trivial to you, but may not be so to someone else.  Also remember that DHH is partitioned into different smaller Departments responsible for different aspects of History and Heritage.  They are also responsible for all our Regs on Flags and Colours, Dress and Deportment, Drill and Ceremonial, etc.  They also are responsible for the design and processing of Awards and Decorations.  Several different Departments with in one, all doing different things.  

So yes I do feel that they fill a valuable role.  One that would be deeply involved with any plans to bring back the "Royal", as it would all have to be staffed through them.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 21:06:08
It's not really off-topic; the question is on the utility of a "Royal" Canadian Navy and I argued no for organizational reasons.   The argument both for and against based on money seems quite trivial when we consider how much cash the DND shovels down the toilet in a fiscal year.  Sorry to see that a more serious and relevent topic is unwanted in the face of carrying out a sparring patch on Non-Public Funds.


I'm sorry too.  I agree with you, obviously - DND does shovel money down various holes every year - but you know, the Army needs latrines in addition to beans and bullets. Isn't that the whole argument?

Anyway, the salient point you repeated - that our focus is on joint forces - is apt. Probably a good point to let it lie.



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Digger Hale on July 05, 2006, 21:07:49
All this argument over something Wes and I take for granted. I'm in the Royal Australian Armoured Corp and intensely proud of it. I actually typed up a post before the gloves came out (its got vicious here lately, mostly at M. Dorosh) but then decided that the whole Royal issue was best left to Canadians to decide. I must say i agree with Mr. Dorosh though, what he says makes sense and we should keep in mind that he has stated he see a change as unnecessary. Its just that he's got the conviction to argue what he See's as right and how he see's its achievable. And that's something i respect.
Like someone said earlier, Canada gave up "Royal" titles back in the 60's and there is little chance of every getting them back, all your arguing about is whether it is possible to bring them back. This is the Defence Force remember? Anything is possible, whether its climbing that hill and wading through a pile of bodies 4 foot deep (Oh look, there goes Para) or changing the emblem on a stack of papers, in the military anything can be done, and it isn't simply up to the combat arms to achieve this, just because they don't drive a tank, jump out of plane or fire the big guns doesn't mean they don't matter. Who pays you? Pay Corp. Who feeds you? Cookies. Etc. It seems that so far anything that isnt combat has been put down, i thought most of us here were civil and didnt need cheap tricks or insults to get our opinions across?
That any change would be done at the sacrifice of "beans and bullets" is an attempt at a cheap point that simply is not near the truth, what sort of a military would budget titles over weapons? I'm pretty sure that most of the blokes at the pointy end wouldn't go on strike if they heard that their name was changing.

I can see the attraction of using these titles get more in touch with the (very) proud history the Canadian Navy, Army and Airforce but i think it can only be that, an attraction. That link was lost back in the 60's and it must be said that while not as catchy title wise the CF has done a lot since that name change to earn respect and admiration with its new title.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, but you should feel free to talk about how it could be fixed if it was needed.
Just wish i was as eloquent as all you...my 5 cents (We got to round up in Australia and we aint got 2 cent bits)
+1 M.Dorosh
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 05, 2006, 21:09:22
Sorry?  You already quoted my opinion:



As I have already said, it is part of their mandate to promulgate our History.  They of course do not always have the best talent to do so, but sometimes they do.  Your favourite Dr Berchison, Sean Maloney, John Marteinson and Michael McNorgan are some of those.  There are lessors.  Then they have been going all out lately to produce posters of all the Branch Hatbadges, Ships Crests, Squadron Crests, Armour Camp Flags, Orders and Decorations, etc.  I am sure you even have one or two up in your shop.  Some of these may seem trivial to you, but may not be so to someone else.  Also remember that DHH is partitioned into different smaller Departments responsible for different aspects of History and Heritage.  They are also responsible for all our Regs on Flags and Colours, Dress and Deportment, Drill and Ceremonial, etc.  They also are responsible for the design and processing of Awards and Decorations.  Several different Departments with in one, all doing different things. 

So yes I do feel that they fill a valuable role.

I'm aware of most of this George, but it was useful to hear it from you, thanks.  But my concern was more over some of the publications they have been putting out - I think there is a very real interest lately in the role of women, ethnic minorities, etc., but wonder about the wisdom of using DHH money to not only study it (and it is worthy of study I think), but in producing museum quality books and then distributing them free of charge to those that have not specifically requested them. I found two such volumes just floating through unit lines, along with the other tons of stuff we get gratis ie the Maple Leaf, etc. 

I'm not talking about jettisoning DHH, but wondering if some of those funds couldn't be spent more wisely - the online publications are a great idea, for example. Perhaps they have already even gone that direction, you seem to be more up to speed than me. Are my concerns unfounded?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:15:45
You concerns are not unfounded.  Especially if we want to argue now that we bring back the "Royal" in the RCAF and RCN and start to look at the Staffing that will have to take place.  It would tie up countless man hours in the Air and Naval Commands, and then have to take up more man hours in Ottawa as a whole section of DHH is tied up or perhaps complete created from thin air to Staff its' progress through to London and Royal approval.  Needless to say, the Cdn Government and GG would probably have to be involved also; my oversight......Man hours, wages, office expenses, TD,.........God only knows how expensive it would become.......maybe another 'Gun Registry'.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:27:32
Trooper Hale 
 
The fact is that many of us would like to still see RCAF and RCN as the proper titles.  Unfortunately, it is easy for our government to take the "Royal" out of the title, but not so easy to replace it.  "Royal" in the title is given to that Unit/Branch by the Sovereign, not the Government in power.  Either the Government will have to draw up a convincing enough 'argument' to get the "Royal" back in those titles and present it to the Queen, or the Queen, herself, must find it in herself, as sovereigns have in the past, and award that 'Honour' to those Units/Branches.  The "Royal" after all is an "Honour" bestowed on a Unit or Branch by the Monarch.

Think of it this way:  Could the 1/11 Cav in the USA ask the Congress of the US of A for the right to attach "Royal" to the front of their Unit Title?  Same thing goes for the Canadian Government to do the same.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 05, 2006, 21:32:57
Perhaps we could replace the Canadian flag by the British flag with a little maple leaf in the middle ... but wait ... are we British or Canadians? I taught we were Canadians. Canadians. That's it? Canadians from Canada? Correct me if I'm wrong. :-\

(I think) we should get rid of those "royal" adjectives, those crowns on top of our each and every symbol just like if we were controlled by this fake British monarchy, those "queen of Canada" (no, let's keep that one, it's too funny :-X) and especially those "HMCS" that drives me crazy every time I read/hear it. (I think) it's time for Canada to stop playing the gentle ex-colony and really assume ourselves as what we are, Canadians. We oye nothing to the British. We should advance forward, we just can't stick to this nonexistent empire for ever. But there would be some exceptions (like PPCLI).

And I'm not being anti-British here, I would think the exact the exact same thing if I was a young British guy (i-e: get rid of this royalty and fake monarchy).

Of course this post would be incomplete without  :cdn:

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:38:31
I suppose you would like us all to become a Republic, too; and make 'Merican our Official Language?   ;D

That would effectively end any arguments for "Royal".
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Digger Hale on July 05, 2006, 21:44:23
I understand all that and thats what i said when i wrote that the chance to have it was gone. I didnt want to use the word honour or privilage because i thought it would be taken the wrong way, but seeing as you have i completely agree. It is an honour or privilage and due to your government in the 60's its something that has been lost to you, more then likely forever. All that was brought up earlier.
Thats a terrible thing to have lost and i completely understand that many would love to see it come back. I'd feel exactly the same way i think. The history surrounding it etc is not something that i'd like to see lost back home.

I dont see the connection with the US though, Canada is still part of the commonwealth, Her Majesty is still your head of State (as i understand it). An American unit asking for Royal in their title? Could have sworn they fought a war a few years ago to get rid of that? Canada at least still has a connection to it.
I'm a proud Queen lover too Clément Barbeau Vermet, and i know a great many young British guys who disagree with what you say. Its your opinion though and i'm guessing through your name you've got a right to it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:48:17
I dont see the connection with the US though, Canada is still part of the commonwealth, Her Majesty is still your head of State (as i understand it). An American unit asking for Royal in their title? Could have sworn they fought a war a few years ago to get rid of that? Canada at least still has a connection to it.

What I'm saying is; the Canadian Government 'Granting' the "Royal" preffix to the title is comparable, at this stage of history, to the American Government 'Granting' the "Royal" preffix to one of its Units.  It just isn't right.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Digger Hale on July 05, 2006, 21:53:52
But why? I mean, your a Commonwealth country. It should be possible shouldnt it? Canada and the UK are still close.
I'm genuinely puzzled, especially about the US/Canada comparison. I mean, all you did was do away with the name (as i understand it), you didnt start a war to do it.
Keep teaching George, its grand.
And for Clément Barbeau Vermet, i can launch into a bit of God Save The Queen if you like, we are all part of the very existant Commonwealth brotherhood.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 05, 2006, 21:57:56
Use any country other than the US of A and a Commonwealth Nation if you want.  The thing is, it is not the Government of the Day that makes that decision, but the Crown.  It is the Crown who awards the "Royal" for some significant reason, not the Government of the Day on a whim.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 05, 2006, 22:08:15
I tried earlier but apparently failed.  The sovereign granted the Royal honorific, the Canadian government discarded it.  The Governor General, on behalf of the Canadian Forces, could petition Her Majesty to bestow it again.  I'd say the odds are pretty slim....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 06, 2006, 17:27:55
I suppose you would like us all to become a Republic
Absolutely!

Quote
and make 'Merican our Official Language?
No, keep French. ;)

I just don't understand what is all about this rich person which ONLY difference is that it comes from a very rich family and that the family in question has something that supposedly makes it "royal". Not only that, but it costs tones of money and causes tones of trouble. I can understand that people love some persons that worked hard to become a PM or whatever and does/did many good things for his/her contry, but I don't understand why people would love a "king" or a "queen" that does absolutely nothing else than being a "king"/"queen". Like if that "royalty" was over everything, not having to do anything but yet be considered almost like superhumans. Heck, they are just people like you and me, but were lucky (or unlucky, depends how you view this) enough to born in the so-called "royalty".

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 06, 2006, 18:46:40
Clement -

Meme si la Reine n'avait absolument rien des pouvoirs, rien de richesse et elle etait completement sans scruples, elle seraient de plus en plus ma Reine.  C'est la meme chose pour ses Fils et Filles.  Pour moi-meme elle est une symbole de ma nation.  Ca veut dire un nation dans la sens que les Quebecois comprends une nation.  J'etais ne en Ecosse et je suis assez fiere d'etre Ecossais, comme je suis fiere d'etre un Anglais comme ma pere, comme je suis fiere d'etre un citoyen du Canada. La Reine et son sang c'est le meme sang, pour moi, comme toutes les autre Brits.  L'histoire de sa famille c'est l'histoire de tous nos autres.   Pour moi elle a de la value.

Ayant dit cela, je comprends que beaucoup personne par ici, surtout des Quebecois, ne la voit dans la meme esprit.  Pour ils, elle est non seulement une Reine (avec pensees de Marie Antoinette et les trois Louis peut-etre) mais elle est une reine etrange, une reine d'un nation etrange.  Elle n'est pas une partie de vous autre et votre nation Quebecois meme si elle a beaucoup de sang Francais.

Il est malheureuse pour moi que tous les Canadiens ne peuvent pas apprecie la monarchie dans la meme sens que je la vois - probablement c'est une perspective unique a moi-meme - je ne sais pas.  Je crois que c'est un vue pas completement extraordinaire entre quelques "Brits" est des citoyens d'autres monarchies.  La monarche est famille.

Pour moi, est moi seulement, c'est la connection la plus forte avec la Reine.

Ca, auparavant, n'est pas un raison pour retenir la monarchie au Canada.  C'est seulement mon essaie a explique a toi-meme comment des personne peuvent avoir des sentiments forts a la Reine.

Si la Reine, est sa famille aura une role dans l'avenir du Canada - cela est pour tu et toutes les autres Canadiens, moi meme inclu j'espere, a determine.


Laissant le discussion des choses de l'esprit - notre gouvernement est basee sur le concept d'ayant un person qui n'est pas partie des parties politiques dans un position d'arbitration, representing La Nation en tous (meme Quebecois est non-Anglos).  Si on n'avait pas un monarche, on aura besoin d'un autre personne - peut etre comme le Gouverneur-General, ou peut etre comme le President des Etats Unis ou de la France.  Peut tu dire que tu pense que President Bush ou President Chirac fait leurs travails meilleur que la Reine?





Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 06, 2006, 20:43:19
Perhaps we could replace the Canadian flag by the British flag with a little maple leaf in the middle ... but wait ... are we British or Canadians?

Canadians.  And Canada is a monarchy with no constitutional ties to the UK.

You're pulling out all of the usual tired old republican arguments, and if you do a bit of research you'll find that they've been thoroughly debunked.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 06, 2006, 20:46:16
Use any country other than the US of A and a Commonwealth Nation if you want.  The thing is, it is not the Government of the Day that makes that decision, but the Crown.  It is the Crown who awards the "Royal" for some significant reason, not the Government of the Day on a whim.

That's correct, but the Crown acts on the recommendation of the government.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 06, 2006, 20:53:33
That's correct, but the Crown acts on the recommendation of the government.

Not always.  Most of the current Regiments in the Army did not get their designations from the Government, nor the recommendation of the Government, but, as been pointed out already, by honourific from the Sovereign.

But in today's situation, it would probably have to be on the Government's recommendation, after being Staffed through several levels of DND, and as I already said.....The Government probably doesn't have the will to do so.  http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,16520.msg407013.html#msg407013  Then in the end the Crown will decide.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 06, 2006, 20:59:00
Ah yes, the requirement to actually staff the proposal, rather than pontificate over it.  I knew we'd been there before.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39670.msg348808.html#msg348808
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 06, 2006, 21:05:03
Ah yes, the requirement to actually staff the proposal, rather than pontificate over it.  I knew we'd been there before.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39670.msg348808.html#msg348808

Ah, yet another attempt to ground the discussion within reality!!!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 06, 2006, 22:06:45
Not always.  Most of the current Regiments in the Army did not get their designations from the Government, nor the recommendation of the Government, but, as been pointed out already, by honourific from the Sovereign.

Quite right, hence my use of the present tense. ;)

Quote
But in today's situation, it would probably have to be on the Government's recommendation, after being Staffed through several levels of DND, and as I already said.....The Government probably doesn't have the will to do so.

Also entirely correct.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 06, 2006, 22:15:06
But......You left out the last sentence.......In the end the Crown decides/Approves.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 06, 2006, 23:29:46
Pour moi-meme elle est une symbole de ma nation. La Reine et son sang c'est le meme sang, pour moi, comme toutes les autre Brits.  L'histoire de sa famille c'est l'histoire de tous nos autres. [...] La monarche est famille
So if I understand correctly the queen and her family have represented the average British throughout history and still does today? I don't expect a "yes" here.

Quote
notre gouvernement est basee sur le concept d'ayant un person qui n'est pas partie des parties politiques dans un position d'arbitration, representing La Nation en tous. Si on n'avait pas un monarche, on aura besoin d'un autre personne - peut etre comme le Gouverneur-General, ou peut etre comme le President des Etats Unis ou de la France. Peut tu dire que tu pense que President Bush ou President Chirac fait leurs travails meilleur que la Reine?
I don't understand here. First, you compare the queen to a president/PM. Second, what is the purpose of having a neutral representer of a country if this representer has no power at all? Isn't the President/PM supposed to represent the country as well as govern it? It seems like most of the countries on this planet manage to survive without a queen, a governor general et compagnie. Lets say we absolutely need a neutral representant for Canada, does it absolutely needs to be the queen? What about a Canadian neutral representant of Canada?

Canada is a monarchy with no constitutional ties to the UK.
Yes I know, that is the hole issue! It does not make sense for a sovereign, fully independent and democratic country to by a "monarchy", but not just a monarchy, a monarchy that comes from an other country on another continent! Heck, we are in the 21st century and we still call our ships "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" Those ships were made in Canada by Canadians with Canadian funds to protect Canada and are served by Canadians! What the heck "the majesty" has to do with all this! ??? It's senseless! To me - I don't want to insult anyone here - doing that is just anti-Canadian.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 07, 2006, 00:30:14
So if I understand correctly the queen and her family have represented the average British throughout history and still does today? I don't expect a "yes" here.

I'll try again as I have so obviously butchered the attempt. I am going to give you a qualified "yes".  We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I have also had difficulties with my sister over the years.  My sister is still my sister.  The Queen is still my queen.  That is just me speaking, as someone that was born in Britain and is also a citizen of Canada.  And happy to be both.

What I was trying to get at, at least as I see it, is that the Queen is more than just an authority figure.  Even if she had no authority she would still have relevance for me. 

As I was also trying to explain - I don't expect others to see things this way, I know that a lot of Brits don't think this way and can easily understand that Canadians don't feel this way, much less Quebecois.

I hope that helps clear that bit up. That's the personal bit.  Now on to the role of the Monarch.

Quote
I don't understand here. First, you compare the queen to a president/PM. Second, what is the purpose of having a neutral representer of a country if this representer has no power at all? Isn't the President/PM supposed to represent the country as well as govern it? It seems like most of the countries on this planet manage to survive without a queen, a governor general et compagnie. Lets say we absolutely need a neutral representant for Canada, does it absolutely needs to be the queen? What about a Canadian neutral representant of Canada?

I said that IF the Queen had no powers then she would still be relevant to me at a personal level.  However, in our Government the Queen and her representative the Governor-General DO have power and they have the legal authority to use it. 

As head of state, not head of government - that is the Prime Minister's job - she and her representative generally can't act on their own.  They can only veto actions of the Prime Minister and the Government or approve them.  The Queen would have an easier job doing that in Britain than the Governor-General would have in Canada but neither of them can do it easily because it would likely cause a major political storm.  But -that power is there and it is separate from the power of the Prime Minister and therefore is a check on the Prime Minister.

In the US and in France the President is both King and Prime Minister (yes I know France has a separate Prime Minister but he generally seems to be a creature of the President).  In both countries the President can decide to act and act on his own.  The elected representatives get a voice later and that is often a weak voice if they are from the same party as the President.   The Queen belongs to nobody's party.  If we were to replace her we would have to find somebody both trustworthy, trusted by everyone, you and me both, and completely apolitical, without politics.

There was a Greek whose name escapes me, I am sure Arthur or Infanteer can assist, who spent a lifetime looking for an honest man - don't think he ever found him.  We would need to conduct a similar search for a replacement for the Queen and then repeat the procedure every few years or so.

Quote
Yes I know, that is the hole issue! It does not make sense for a sovereign, fully independent and democratic country to by a "monarchy", but not just a monarchy, a monarchy that comes from an other country on another continent! Heck, we are in the 21st century and we still call our ships "Her Majesty's Canadian Ship" Those ships were made in Canada by Canadians with Canadian funds to protect Canada and are served by Canadians! What the heck "the majesty" has to do with all this! ??? It's senseless! To me - I don't want to insult anyone here - doing that is just anti-Canadian.

That is the whole issue. I don't find it senseless.  I also consider myself a Canadian.  I don't take your position as insulting but I don't find the monarchy Anti-Canadian.  It is very much part of Canada.  Because of the Constitutional Monarchy that Brits fought and died for in Britain, fighting each other, not to mention fighting various other Absolute Monarchs from the Continent as well as the home-grown variety, we (Brits in Britain and Canadians, not to mention Aussies, Kiwis and Indians - who have a President) ended up with a system of government that allowed Canada to develop relatively peacefully.

Even the Yanks owe something to the various wars fought with the Crown in Britain by Brits.    Curiously not all of the Battles were fought just by Brits.  Were you aware that at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland, when our last British Absolute Monarch, James Stewart, was defeated that a major part of both Armies were French?   The winning side was made up of some English, some Dutch and Danes and a lot of French Huguenots as well as some Irish.  The losing side was made up of Irish, English, Scots and French, all nominally Catholics. Curiously the Pope of the day supported the winning side.  The Protestant side. The Anti-Absolutist side if you like.

If it hadn't been for those French Huguenots, supporting the fight against Absolute Monarchy and helping to establish Constitutional limits on Kings and Governments in general then Canada wouldn't have evolved the way it did.

The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 07, 2006, 01:16:04
The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.

...was...  ;)

Okay, maybe is, but how many people realize it? I don't suppose that is the litmus test, eh?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 07, 2006, 02:55:33
...was...  ;)

Okay, maybe is, but how many people realize it?

And that is the shame of it - and the result of a generation of indifferent education.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 07, 2006, 23:34:21
I am going to give you a qualified "yes".
:o 

Quote
We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I have also had difficulties with my sister over the years.  My sister is still my sister.  The Queen is still my queen.
I don't think this comparison is good, I would rather say: We have had our differences with the Royals over the centuries but I (me, a slave) have also had difficulties with my master (the :king: ) over the years. I rebelled myself and my master totally lost control over me. My master is still my master [ :brickwall: ]. The queen is still the queen [ :brickwall: ].
 
Quote
the Queen is more than just an authority figure.
Yup, it's a symbol. Just like the beaver. But the beaver is Canadian, the queen is British. And the beaver is cool two :P

Quote
Even if she had no authority she would still have relevance for me.
Just like the beaver has no autorithy, but as I said, the beaver is Canadian.
 
Quote
However, in our Government the Queen and her representative the Governor-General DO have power and they have the legal authority to use it. They can only veto actions of the Prime Minister and the Government or approve them. [...] that power [...] is separate from the power of the Prime Minister and therefore is a check on the Prime Minister.
I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848. Anyways, the monarchy didn't stop the massacre's at Batoche and in the case of St.-Charles, St.-Eustache, St.-Benoît, Lacolle, Odeltown, etc. the massacre's were rather caused by the monarchy.

Quote
In the US and in France the President is both King and Prime Minister.  In both countries the President can decide to act and act on his own.  The elected representatives get a voice later and that is often a weak voice if they are from the same party as the President.   The Queen belongs to nobody's party.  If we were to replace her we would have to find somebody both trustworthy, trusted by everyone, you and me both, and completely apolitical, without politics.
The monarchy didn't save the Arrow, the monarchy didn't stop Québec from almost separating in 1995, the monarchy didn't help win both WW, the Korean War, the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, and does nothing in the war on terror, the monarchy didn't...

Quote
I don't find the monarchy Anti-Canadian.
It's not really the fact that it's a monarchy, it's the fact that the monarchy comes from another country on another continent which did nothing good than oppress us for a few centuries. And also the fact that it's a waste of money.

Quote
It is very much part of Canada.
I totally disagree.

Quote
Because of the Constitutional Monarchy that Brits fought and died for in Britain, fighting each other, we ended up with a system of government that allowed Canada to develop relatively peacefully.
I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there.

Quote
The Monarchy is intimately wrapped up in the development of Canada.
I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 07, 2006, 23:39:45
And that is the shame of it - and the result of a generation of indifferent education.
I agree, well... not exactly. Our education is too indifferent, but makaing it pro-royalty and pro-British won't make the next generation of canadians better canadians.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 07, 2006, 23:59:50

I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848.

I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.


So, which is it?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 08, 2006, 00:19:40
"I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there."

  Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.  At one point Oliver Cromwell was offered the crown.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 08, 2006, 00:33:18
"I don't know much about the history of G.-B., but when the parlemantarians won the civil war, why the heck did they but back the royalty on the trone? What did the royalty contributed to do during all those centuries? It would have changed nothing if it had not been there."

  Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.  At one point Oliver Cromwell was offered the crown.


Agreed; and compare and contrast to the alternative, ie the US Presidential system and look at the current incumbent's personal popularity among the people. A bad situation, I think.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on July 08, 2006, 01:44:40
For me, I say NAY!

I am in the CANADIAN Forces... And damn proud of it.

I like that it's all about Canada now, not just the monarchy. Sure we swear allegience to the Queen and all too, good and dandy, but we're still Canada, and still our own nation and this is OUR military.

That's just my take. I was born, raised, educated and have lived in Canada all my life.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 08, 2006, 01:49:09
Well, thank God THAT'S been decided.  Can we put it to bed now (again)?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael Dorosh on July 08, 2006, 01:54:22
Well, thank God THAT'S been decided.  Can we put it to bed now (again)?


May as well. Til the argument about the Red Ensign resurfaces. ;) I suspect  I'm with Joe on that one, I think, too. I was born under the maple leaf flag and am also proud to be a Canadian.

I think we all agree, even if we don't agree on the best way of expressing our Canadian-ness.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 08, 2006, 11:47:53
I am in the CANADIAN Forces... And damn proud of it.

I like that it's all about Canada now, not just the monarchy. Sure we swear allegience to the Queen and all too, good and dandy, but we're still Canada, and still our own nation and this is OUR military.

And our Queen.

This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 08, 2006, 12:00:38
And our Queen.

This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.

Yessss!  I have to agree with you 100+%.  She is Queen of Canada.  It seems that point is not covered very often in our School System's teachings of the various levels of our Government.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 08, 2006, 13:11:50
I am curious though how members of the military would feel if the Queen (although not likely) would come out opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan) would you put in your VR because HRH was opposed? Has the supporters of the Queen and the monarchy ever considered this> If so where do your loyalties lie then?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Teddy Ruxpin on July 08, 2006, 13:29:47
Constitutionally, she can't (the constitution includes more than the written 1982 document, by the way).

Government policy is in the hands of the government, period.  The Queen (and by extension the GG) is limited to (and I might have the phraseology wrong here) "the right to be consulted, to encourage, to advise, and to warn"...all in private and has no executive authority to comment on policy decisions of the government of the day.  The Crown's role is to ensure we always have a government, not to direct its day to day policies.

Another "what if" argument that isn't going to happen.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 08, 2006, 14:27:02
Meh, I thought I'd throw some pictures of royalty up since this thread is a beaten horse, along with the ubiquitous bunny with a pancake on its head....

Have a good one,
Infanteer

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IT_Dude_Joeschmo on July 08, 2006, 14:28:31
And our Queen.

This thread is an incredible illustration of the utter failure of the Canadian education system to educate people on the very basics of our system of government.

On the contrary, in highschool history they did very well to educate us on the fact of the monarchy and how our government is organized. I know how it works, I'm just saying I don't much care for us being called "Royal"...

So... It's mainly a failure of the individual to want to be a part of the monarchy or agree with it. That's a generalization because if I chose not to be apart of the monarchy or any of that I certainly wouldn't have joined up!

I'm just stating I love Canada, nothing else and I find I love working for the Canadian Forces better than the Royal Canadian Forces, or whatever they'd name it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 08, 2006, 14:48:51
Thanks TR I did not know that, but what I was going for is how the supporters of the Queen would feel if she came out pubkically against an operation.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 08, 2006, 14:51:41
Thanks TR I did not know that, but what I was going for is how the supporters of the Queen would feel if she came out pubkically against an operation.

Being as how it would be her opinion, not the will of the government, I, as a Loyalist Royalist, would go and do my duty.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: BYT Driver on July 08, 2006, 15:42:12
everybody should suck back, reload, and THINK. We have more important things to worry about than stupid titles and name changes. My friends are fighting, killing, and dying in faraway places. Let's focus on giving them the equipment they need. Let's focus on training their replacements to such a standard as to ensure that those replacements will be able to carry on the misson successfully, and survive it.  Let's focus on rebuilding our military after 30 years of deliberate neglect and abuse.

Priorities. Look it up.


If you ever run for parliament, I would vote for you!  Well said  :cdn: Let's put the priorities on our soldiers, sailors and airmen.  The equipment they need and thier families. 
All that aside, has anyone noticed that over time, The Canadian Armed Forces has been reduced to something less aggressively sounding?  I was once a liberal voting citizen/soldier.  I applaud our new government for thier quick and decisive actions with our military. Yes, I also swore an oath to the Queen (btw, I was born and raised in the UK) but to go back to anything "royal" would take time, money and effort that should be directed towards our troops.

my $0.02 worth
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 08, 2006, 18:55:16
So, which is it?
Hein?

Because even the Parliamentarians came to realize that a king provided stability and a rallying point for the British people.
Ah, OK. And the king provided stability in Canada during the great depression. And the king also provided stability in the 1770's, that's why the USA didn't become independent. Excuse me, I just don't get it.

compare to the alternative, ie the US Presidential system and look at the current incumbent's personal popularity among the people. A bad situation.
And the monarchy helps to make the situation in Canada better? The monarchy didn't stop the CAR from being disbanded, the monarchy didn't stop the liberals from stealing our money, the monarchy didn't stop the liberals from ...

Government policy is in the hands of the government, period. The Crown's role is to ensure we always have a government, not to direct its day to day policies.
Wow, now I understand. The queen's role it to ensure we have a government! But wait... the only time the crown had to put it's role into action is in 1838-1840, but it's because the crown itself disbanded the government we had so it could govern instead of it. Well... we never know what might happend, our entire government might disappear tomorrow morning and if it does, the queen will govern Canada. I feel more secure now that I know that.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Gunner on July 08, 2006, 19:21:19
The King!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 08, 2006, 19:32:39
OK Clément Barbeau Vermet, now you are getting "Right out to Lunch".  Either get into the books and study our Parliamentary System, or pay more attention to detail; because right now you are not contributing anything to this.  You have no idea at all what you are talking about.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 08, 2006, 20:33:41
While we're on the topic, Mr. Vermet, please explain something to me.  The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 08, 2006, 20:43:29
The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: hiv on July 08, 2006, 22:18:14
Interesting choice...

The King!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 08, 2006, 22:27:52
The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.

This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 08, 2006, 22:29:18
This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?
no. She'll just call me up again. Wanna come along this time?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 08, 2006, 22:42:26

So, which is it?
Hein?

You stated:

I thought the governor-general lost his veto right in 1848.

Which inferred that you thought that the Crown has had no controlling influence over the Government since 1848.

Then in the same post you stated:

I agree, it's because of the monarchy if it took so long for Canada to become a democracy.

In which you claimed that the Mornarchy had prevented Canada from becoming a democracy until, I assume you mean, the patriation of the Coonstitution in 1982?

So, I ask again, which is it, were we being controlled by the Monarchy or not?  You can't have it both ways as you twist your argument to suit your answer of the moment.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Yrys on July 08, 2006, 23:04:31
Quote from Kat Stevens


Quote
The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?


The website of the prime minister of Québec says that the white cross on the blue is from the french marine,
that has arrive here at the beginning of the colony. As for the flowers, they are to remember a flag that may
 have been with Montclam when he won against the British army in 1758...

http://www.premier.gouv.qc.ca/secteur/bienvenue_quebec/symboles_emblemes.htm

Drapeau du Québec

Le 21 janvier 1948, à 15 heures, le fleurdelisé remplaçait l'Union Jack sur la tour de l'Hôtel du Parlement, à Québec, et devenait ainsi le drapeau officiel du Québec.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GO!!! on July 08, 2006, 23:15:09
The Queen is the fire extinguisher of the constitution.  We all have fire extinguishers in our workplaces, and we hope that we'll never need them.  But we don't get rid of them because they haven't been used recently.

I assume you are speaking to the power of the Queen (or her representative, the Governor General) to dismiss parliament at will.

There is some precedence for this, the GG of Australia, Sir John Kerr dismissed that parliament (the Whitlam government) in 1975, although, the circumstances were indeed extraordinary.

It should also be noted that Kerr himself was replaced by the Monarch soon after as he may have "overstepped his generally accepted bounds", although he was within his authority.

Is that what you meant?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 08, 2006, 23:16:31
"That the French kings long used the fleur-de-lis as an emblem of their sovereignty is indisputable. On his seal of 1060, before heraldry became formalized, Philip I sits on his throne holding a short staff that terminates in a fleur-de-lis. A similar staff appears in the Great Seal of Louis VII (1120–1180), whose signet ring was charged with a single fleur-de-lis. Louis VII is believed to have been the first to use azure semé of fleurs-de-lis or (the blazon, or heraldic description, now abbreviated azure semé-de-lis or and designated France Ancient) on his shield, but its use on a banner, and especially on the French royal standard, the Oriflamme, may have been earlier. The reduction to three fleurs-de-lis, today designated as France Modern, was commanded by Charles V in 1376, reportedly in honour of the Holy Trinity."

found here:  http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9034562
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 09, 2006, 08:21:09
This is one of my favorites.  Please explain how the monarch is the "Fire Extinguisher"?  Will she summon up an Army and march on Parliament should things get unruly?  Or will we simply go to Buckingham Palace with our hats in our hand asking for a new government?

As an example, if a Prime Minister were to refuse to call an election at the end of his mandate the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen, could dismiss the government and order an election herself.  Another: if the government were to deviate from the correct process for passing legislation, and Crown could withhold Royal Assent and prevent the last step in the bill becoming a law.

None of the various scenarios is especially palatable, but neither is a fire in my kitchen.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 09, 2006, 13:25:19
As an example, if a Prime Minister were to refuse to call an election at the end of his mandate the Governor General, acting on behalf of the Queen, could dismiss the government and order an election herself.  Another: if the government were to deviate from the correct process for passing legislation, and Crown could withhold Royal Assent and prevent the last step in the bill becoming a law.

Pretty weak examples.  The fire extinguishers in these cases would be the courts and the police as both are unconstitutional; I can't see the Queen or a GG who has been defanged since 1929 becoming political.

Besides, using the "fire extinguisher" argument does nothing to uphold the notion of a monarch as essential to Canadian politics; if we wanted someone with a reserve of special executive powers there is nothing to say that we can't elect a Canadian to occupy such position based upon merit rather than genelogy (as in the monarch) or political palatability (as in our current stock of appointed GG's).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 09, 2006, 13:27:56
Pretty weak examples.  The fire extinguishers in these cases would be the courts and the police as both are unconstitutional; I can't see the Queen or a GG who has been defanged since 1929 becoming political.

Besides, using the "fire extinguisher" argument does nothing to uphold the notion of a monarch as essential to Canadian politics; if we wanted someone with a reserve of special executive powers there is nothing to say that we can't elect a Canadian to occupy such position based upon merit rather than genelogy (as in the monarch) or political palatability (as in our current stock of GG's).

But ELECTED officials ALWAYS have a political agenda of their own to promote.  A sovereign is above and beyond party affiliation.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on July 09, 2006, 13:35:40
But ELECTED officials ALWAYS have a political agenda of their own to promote.

Only if you give them power and authority to handle day-to-day affairs.  Whether a person is elected or appointed makes no difference in how they choose to execute their office; are you trying to tell me that the Senate is less of a politically motivated body than the House of Commons because they are not elected?  Politicized stems from the way an office is designed to interact with others within the political landscape.

Quote
A sovereign is above and beyond party affiliation.

There is nothing to say that a monarch is above politics too (or the Representative in Canada; we all know of the current GG's past politics, no?).  They are, after all, human as well.  As said above, it is the design of the office and the nature of the powers accorded to it that will affect how personal biases come into play.

If we are going to have a "fire extinguisher" on the wall, I want it to be one that, if the time comes, will be fully justified in the eyes of the average Canadian in executing those powers.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: paracowboy on July 09, 2006, 17:35:19
how 'bout this? She's the damn Queen, we're a Constitutional Monarchy and always have been. It ain't broke. It ain't costing that much, and it gives us an eccentric charm.

And all the discussion on here as to keeping her, or throwing off the shackles of a tyrannical monarch ain't goin' do anything except burn up bandwidth?

As for me, I say she takes the reins back, starts lopping off heads and staking them on the Tower again! Some good ol' fashioned beheadings and conquest! That's the ticket. Letters of marque, forced colonization, bowing and scraping, serfdom! Damn country's gone to the dogs in the past 200 years....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 09, 2006, 17:37:32
Is that "pradacowboy" or "pravdacowboy"?   ;D

Time for a Stalinist Purge?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 20:10:02
get into the books and study our Parliamentary System.
I did that already. Learned nothing about the royalty (apart the fact that it serves as a symbol, but that wasn't in the book). I made my own conclusions as why we keep it, it turned out that the conclusions I came too myself is the exact same thing that I was later taught at school (and it is not the symbol).

BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government". :blotto:

And the fire extinguisher thing is not too convincing.

The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise.  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?
Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.

you claimed that the Mornarchy had prevented Canada from becoming a democracy until, I assume you mean, the patriation of the Coonstitution in 1982?
No, I mean until 1848, which is late if you compare with the countries you guys make comparisons (France and USA).

Quote
You can't have it both ways as you twist your argument to suit your answer of the moment.
You simply misunderstood.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 09, 2006, 20:20:09
I did that already. Learned nothing about the royalty (apart the fact that it serves as a symbol, but that wasn't in the book). I made my own conclusions as why we keep it, it turned out that the conclusions I came too myself is the exact same thing that I was later taught at school (and it is not the symbol).

BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government". :blotto:


Having been educated in Quebec myself, let me tell you that i am not surprised by your statement.  You can write a small encyclopedia with whats missing about Canadian history in Quebec textbooks so dont kid yourself.  You are being taught from a severly biased viewpoint.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 09, 2006, 20:30:31
Clement - Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada -1919-1944".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.  Trudeau's classmates were your teachers. They learned well how to tell a story.

Cheers and I hope you find the book enlightening.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 09, 2006, 20:52:44
BTW, the 500+ pages of my secondaire 4 history book says absolutely NOTHING about the queen's role. The only thing it says is: "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982". Before that is says: "King - British government".
Are you ever confused.  The Constitution was repatriated in 1982.  Prior to that the Constitution rested in England.  That put our heads of Government in the Sovereign and the British Government up until that time.  So your book did not update that the King died and Queen Elizabeth II came to be the sovereign in 1952, a mistake, one of many, in your Education System.  Since 1982, the Sovereign has been the Queen of Canada, and her elected Government has been the Government of Canada.
The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?
Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.
Funny how you can so simply gloss over this tradition and accept it, but you can not accept the traditional Head of State for Canada for what she is.
 
:blotto:
Does this mean that you are blotto?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 21:18:53
You can write a small encyclopedia with whats missing about Canadian history in Quebec textbooks so dont kid yourself.  You are being taught from a severly biased viewpoint.
Maybe. This is was I was taught (and it is also, like I said, what I concluded myself, please don't jump on me):

The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.

But their are some few exceptions:
1- The beer i am canadian
2- Shanaya Twain
3- We are (supposedly) gentle peacekeepers and not mean policemakers, but that is not true anymore because we have dropped on the dark Yankee side.
4- We live in an extremely cold and rugged country, but that is not true anymore because of of the global warming.
5- We have a PM, not a President.

Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.
OK.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 09, 2006, 21:28:53
Maybe. This is was I was taught (and it is also, like I said, what I concluded myself, please don't jump on me):

The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.

You obviously dont know enough to tell the difference.  Give yourself another 15 years and move travel abroad.

Quote
1- The beer i am canadian

The beer is "Canadian", not "i am canadian"...get you facts straight
Quote
2- Shanaya Twain
What the heck does that have to do with anything.  Thats how i know your argument is running thin...when you start pulling irrelevant crap out of your ***.
Quote
3- We are (supposedly) gentle peacekeepers and not mean policemakers, but that is not true anymore because we have dropped on the dark Yankee side.
The "dark Yankee side".....WTF are you on......
Quote
4- We live in an extremely cold and rugged country, but that is not true anymore because of of the global warming.
Again...what does this have to do with the subject at hand.........
Quote
5- We have a PM, not a President.
We also have vastly different political systems. I can go into it in excruciating details if you wish, after all this is what my high-priced education is in.....but i dont want to confuse you, I know what you are taught in school.

You are vastly running out of material and knowledge so dont make an *** of yourself.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 09, 2006, 21:29:39
The reason why the Anglo-Canadians don't want to give up the royalty is because it IS their culture. It is their culture in the sense that the only thing that differentiates them with the Americans is their attachment to the queen. Apart from that, their culture is basically the same than the Americans, or rather their culture is the American culture. That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.
Funny you should say this.  It was the British Sovereign who allowed the French Canadians to keep:
1) The French Language;
2) The Catholic Religion;
3) Their Land; and
4) Their Legal System.

That's gratitude for you.   ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 09, 2006, 21:31:12
5) and their symbols, from the French Monarchist regime
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 09, 2006, 21:59:10
Quote
Quote from: Kirkhill on Today at 16:30:31
Find yourself a book by Max and Monique Nemni "Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada".  Read it. It will go a long way to clearing up your confusion.
OK.

All mucking around aside I think you will find the book an interesting read.  Good on you for keeping an open mind.

Cheers.

PS

Interesting aside - perhaps you can confirm - Quebec appears to have adopted the Code Civil in 1865, based on the Napoleonic Code of 1804 -  last I recall Napoleon and the British Monarchy were not on the best of terms having agreed to settle differences in Belgium in 1815, some 52 years after "The Conquest".    And yet that same British Monarchy doesn't appear to have had a problem with Quebec adopting a Code of Laws based on Napoleon's advice 50 years after Waterloo and 100 years after "The Conquest".  Peculiar behaviour for a Tyranny I might have thought.

Another anachronism that similarly confuses me is the use of the Tricouleur and Star by the Acadians.  The Acadians were no longer attached to France (having been signed over in 1713 with the transaction reconfirmed in 1763) when France rejected the Royal Standards with the Fleur de Lys and adopted the Revolutionary Tricouleur in 1789.

But perhaps you are right and symbols are over-rated.  ;)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 22:03:43
Are you ever confused.
Négatif.

Quote
The Constitution was repatriated in 1982.  Prior to that the Constitution rested in England.  That put our heads of Government in the Sovereign and the British Government up until that time.
Yeah I know that.

Quote
So your book did not update that the King died and Queen Elizabeth II came to be the sovereign in 1952.
My book says nothing at all than: "King - British government" (from 1763 to 1867) and "British crown, sovereign of Canada since 1982" (from 1867 too the present). My book says nothing about when Mr. became king and Mrs. died and etc. It's not that it didn't update, it's that it doesn't talk about it.

Quote
Funny how you can so simply gloss over this tradition and accept it, but you can not accept the traditional Head of State for Canada for what she is.
You can be sure that if it would be only to me the flag of Québec would not be what it is. But over the time the fleur de lis became to represent Québec and not the French monarchy.

Actually, the Maple leaf DID figure on the flag of Québec from 1924 to 1948 and WAS a French-Canadian symbol from 1834 to 1964. 

Quote
Does this mean that you are blotto?
What is 'blotto'?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 09, 2006, 22:14:14

While we're on the topic, Mr. Vermet, please explain something to me.  The flag of your home province bears 4 Fleur de Lise (excuse the spelling).  These were a symbol of the French Monarchy, and ceased to be relevant the very second that the last Louis' head landed in the peach basket.  Why do you insist on keeping them?

Probably because we don't have any other symbols to replace it. Well we do, but these symbols are also Canadian symbols (maple leaf, beaver...). And also because no one here considers it as a monarchic symbol, just as a Québec symbol.

If "no one [in Quebec] considers it as a monarchic symbol" (at least as far as you know), does that not indicate a general (or specific to you) ignorance of your own history and symbology?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleur-de-lis

Fleur-de-lis

Quote
The fleur-de-lis (also spelled fleur-de-lys; plural fleurs-de-lis or -lys; an archaic spelling is fleur-de-luce) is used in heraldry, where it is particularly associated with the French (see King of France) and Spanish monarchy. The fleur-de-lis remains an unofficial symbol of France...

Quote
The French monarchy first adopted the fleur-de-lis as a baptismal symbol of purity on the conversion of the Frankish King Clovis I to the Christian religion in 493.

Quote
By the 13th and 14th centuries, the three petals of the lily of France were being described by writers as symbols of faith, wisdom and chivalry. As in Ireland, they also came to be seen as symbols of the Holy Trinity. By the 14th century, the fleur-de-lis had become so closely associated with the rule of France that the English king Edward III quartered his coat of arms with France Ancient in order to emphasise his claim on the French crown. This quartering was changed to France Modern in the early 1400s. The fleur-de-lis was not removed until 1801, when George III gave up his formal claim to the French throne.


Perhaps you're simply ignoring the fact that this particular symbol ties the English and French regimes together ... for it was a symbol that the french were owned (http://www.answers.com/topic/owned-computer-jargon-1) by Edward III and his successors.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 22:28:16
Give yourself another 15 years and move travel abroad.
OK, I will do that.

Quote
The beer is "Canadian", not "i am canadian"
OK, every commercial I ever saw was "i am canadian", but it seem like it is "Canadian". Big deal.

Quote
The "dark Yankee side".....WTF are you on......
I taught you would realise I wasn't serious. I was laghing at this primary anti-Americanism.

Quote
what does this have to do with the subject at hand.........We also have vastly different political systems.
Yep, political system, pretty much what we are discussing.

Here I didn't wanted too prove that Canadians have no culture, just explain what Qébéquois are taught and explain why it make sense to us. That's all. I Didn't want to insult anyone. And I quote myself:

Quote
please don't jump on me



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 22:34:58
does that not indicate a general ignorance of your own history and symbology?
Yes, it does.

Quote
Perhaps you're simply ignoring the fact that this particular symbol ties the English and French regimes together ... for it was a symbol that the french were owned by Edward III and his successors.
I know that, the British started to use French symbols long ago.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 09, 2006, 22:36:51
I know that, the British started to use French symbols long ago.

What a delightfully soft way to say "conquered".
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 09, 2006, 23:02:40
It was the British Sovereign who allowed the French Canadians to keep:
1) The French Language;
2) The Catholic Religion;
3) Their Land; and
4) Their Legal System.
Yup, and because of that, there is a thing called Province of Quebec (later Bas-Canada) that did not ally with the US "rebels" and become an independent state / part of USA centuries ago. And lets just says it was impossible for the 1% British to impose their language, religion, etc. to the 99% French.

Quote
That's gratitude for you.
Humm... I wonder what Canada would look like if the British had not bought the French in 1774 so they don't ally themselves with the Americans and I also wonder if those French would of stopped those same Americans at Châteaugay in 1813 if they had not been bought. Would Canada even exist? Probably not.

That's gratitude for you.

Edited for correcting a year (1974 to 1774)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2006, 00:11:37
Michael do you suppose our friend Clement is familiar with the concept of "1066 and all that...."? 

Or does that not get taught in Quebec schools either Clement?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 10, 2006, 00:25:05
I would say that the point which notre ami is choosing to miss, either though stubbornness or educational ignorance, is that we all live in a glass house.  One cannot challenge the purpose and existence of symbols and heritage that have come from British-Canadian precedents without equally challenging those which come from our French-Canadian precedents. Would stripping away all of this make is more Canadian ... I doubt it ..... or less Canadian .... I doubt that as well.  We are what a unique blend of values, history, heritage and cultural evolution - based on too many factors to list - has made us.  We are not Americans (evil or otherwise, as each may choose to believe), nor are we British, nor are we French.  No group of Canadians can disappear seamlessly into Washington, London or Paris without being identified as foreigners.  We are Canadians (and that's not just a beer label), we stand apart, and if there is any doubt of a Canadian culture or image, it is one of individual doubt.  Personally, I am happy to belong to a nation so diverse in natural wonders and variety of people that it cannot be encapsulated, packaged, and sold to tourist in a single phrase or image.  From Jelly Bean Row (http://www.pbase.com/kodachrome/image/47419619) to Clayoquot Sound (http://www.vancouverisland.com/Regions/towns/?townID=3935), Canada is what we choose, each of us and all of us, to make it.  Some see it as a grand sum, greater than its parts, others choose to pick away at the parts they don't understand, and undermine their own sense of being Canadian.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GO!!! on July 10, 2006, 00:48:08
Humm... I wonder what Canada would look like if the British had not bought the French in 1974 so they don't ally themselves with the Americans ...

Maybe I'm not as up on my Canadian history as I think I am, but what are you talking about?

I was under the impression that the conflict that mattered ended on the Plains of Abraham...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 10, 2006, 00:55:25
You are not the only one, GO!!

I have no idea of the relevance of several of the dates (s)he has given.  As they seem so out of whack with anything in history, I have just ignored them.  Clément Barbeau Vermet has definitely studied/been taught a different history than the rest of us.  That, or is from a parallel dimension.   ;D  I wonder if Clément Barbeau Vermet has made a trip to France, to really get an 'eye-opener'?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2006, 02:15:07
Quote
I would say that the point which notre ami is choosing to miss, either though stubbornness or educational ignorance, is that we all live in a glass house.

And that's a fact......History is long enough that everybody has done it to everybody else three times over and had it done to them in equal measure.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 10, 2006, 03:18:01


Here I didn't wanted too prove that Canadians have no culture, just explain what Qébéquois are taught and explain why it make sense to us. That's all. I Didn't want to insult anyone. And I quote myself:

...and i told you before that i was educated in Quebec myself so i know what you are taught and unlike you i have the benefit of having know the world ouside "la belle province" and i know what gets left out of you classrooms.  It makes sense to you because you dont get the full story as it usualy conflicts with the "we are a nation " ideal that must , for some reason, be promoted in Quebec.  Dont think for a second that you can pull the wool over my eyes.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Good2Golf on July 10, 2006, 13:37:01

...That make sense to me because the only thing that used to differentiate an American from a loyalist was the attachment of the second to the royalty. From the trips I made in Canada and in the US, seriously, I didn't see any difference at all.


...could it be that the only difference between les Québecois(es) and les Français(es) is...?  ;)

Québec (http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/TAE1186.php) 

(http://images.worldofstock.com/thumbs/TAE1186.jpg)


v.  France (http://www.worldofstock.com/closeups/MES1730.php)

(http://www.worldofstock.com/thumbs/MES1730.jpg)

Images courtesy of http://www.worldofstock.com (http://www.worldofstock.com)


Back on topic, I personally do not link anything more than the knowledge of history of the RCAF with the use of the adjective "Royal".  As well, if someone thought the idea had merit, should there not be the re-establishment of the "Royal Canadian Army" -- and what would the Guns do for their acronymized name?

Cheers,
Duey
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 10, 2006, 19:09:43
As well, if someone thought the idea had merit, should there not be the re-establishment of the "Royal Canadian Army" -- and what would the Guns do for their acronymized name?

The army, as a whole, was never Royal.  Individual regments and such were (and many still are).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 10, 2006, 19:11:26
the concept of "1066 and all that...."? 

Or does that not get taught in Quebec schools either Clement?
The concept of "1066 and all that", nope, not taught in schools.

Maybe I'm not as up on my Canadian history as I think I am, but what are you talking about?
Typing mystake. I meant 1774 not 1974. L'Acte de Québec.

Americans (evil or otherwise, as each may choose to believe)
I repeat: I was not serious.

Quote
others choose to pick away at the parts they don't understand, and undermine their own sense of being Canadian.
So not being a queen lover undermines my own sense of being Canadian? Wow, my teacher was faaaaar away! (sic!)

(s)he
Clément is a male name. ;D 

Quote
I wonder if Clément Barbeau Vermet has made a trip to France, to really get an 'eye-opener'?
Clément will start to visit his own country before going to France, and he might not go to France at all because France does not interests him.


Québec 

(http://images.worldofstock.com/thumbs/TAE1186.jpg)

France

(http://www.worldofstock.com/thumbs/MES1730.jpg)
Yes, 'stop' is a French noun (according to my French teacher that comes from France). I guess than this is what happens when we do everything in English for too long and then we switch back to French, we lose a few things in the process.

Dont think for a second that you can pull the wool over my eyes.
Pull the wool... seems like my English courses were also faulty, but at least I do get some second language courses, unlike many provinces of this country.

Now I will put my country modernisation dreams away. :(
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GO!!! on July 10, 2006, 20:16:11
Now I will put my country modernisation dreams away. :(

They can go in the same box as my "equality for all" dreams, which were crushed after witnessing a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect as a matter of law.

What would Canada look like if every province had an Assemblee Nationale focussed on misplaced nationalism? We would be a disparate mess of narrow minded interest groups, each clamoring for special treatment, with none caring or protecting the interests of the collective nation.

Modern indeed, how many times do you need to hear NON?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chris Pook on July 10, 2006, 20:49:11
Just in case you weren't aware 1066 was the year that a large number of Frenchmen showed up in England and kicked the incumbent off the throne and then declared it to be theirs.  They then spent the next 400 years variously putting down insurrections in England, conquering Wales, doing their best to do the same in Scotland and Ireland and filling in their spare time fighting with their relatives back in France over who owned the French throne.  That issue was just about completely resolved with the end of the Hundred Years war in 1453. 

The Brits were taxed and conscripted by Frenchmen to fight Frenchmen.  Coupled with the insurrectionist tendencies at home we just kind of got in the habit of fighting the French.  It took until 1905 to completely break the habit.  ;D 

The matter was prolonged because of the French King's continuing tendency to involve himself in British politics and support various nasty people, most of them Stewarts, in an ongoing attempts to make England just like France.  That little Corsican Corporal didn't help matters any either.

Desolee mais ils n'avaient pas reussi.  >:D ;)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Yrys on July 11, 2006, 00:13:08
Excuse me GO!!, but you are referring to what in that part of you're thread?

I'm puzzled on 2 facts:

1) what are you talking about (as of situations, etc).
2) I presume that you are speaking of something in Québec. Well, there is no dialect here,
just a lot of languages (french for 81%, english for 13%, and something else for 6% of the people)
with  accents depending of the area of the globe someone come from.

They can go... after witnessing a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect as a matter of law.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Have Computer Problem on July 12, 2006, 13:57:53
a provincial government office that prosecutes  those who do not speak the local dialect.
Oh yeah I know, unbelievable this Québec apartheid! That sounds like a lady I know... "It's segregation!" ;D ;D ;D

Quote
We would be a disparate mess of narrow minded interest groups, each clamoring for special treatment, with none caring or protecting the interests of the collective nation.
That sounds like the separatist party of Alberta, doesn't it? ;)

Quote
Modern indeed, how many times do you need to hear NON?
Because their were many referendums that took place in the past to decide if Canada should become a republic? Heck, my history course fooled me once again!

1066 was the year that a large number of Frenchmen showed up in England [...] 400 years [...] the end of the Hundred Years war in 1453.
Yes I know about that (even if it is not taught in schools, why would it be?). Simply I didn't remember the exact years. But what's the point?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: redsquadone on July 12, 2006, 14:04:27
Why? Do you want to Kabosh the Maple Leaf flag too, and go back to the Union Jack?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 12, 2006, 22:18:53
No, the Red Ensign will do just fine.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Trunk Monkey on July 13, 2006, 11:37:01
Ya know............if you want to go back to the "Royal" designation, may as well bring back the rank structures that we had in the RCAF days...then of course dump the Cadpat for another blue uniform....will this ever end? We are what we are, no need to bring back the old days, except for the odd honarary Colonel and odd officer, no one was even around for the "Royal" years....why do this? Right...we have money to waste.............
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 25, 2007, 17:26:09
link: http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/04/petition-to-parliament-to-reinstate.html

We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN? The army has their RCR, R22R, RCD, etc.

Discuss pros and cons.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: hoist-monkey on April 25, 2007, 17:44:02
I am all for tradition, we call our ships HMCS (Her Majesty's Canadian Ship).
Officers hold a commission from Queen Elizabeth.
The Army has the RCD, RCR, 22eR, plus all the reserve units with "Royal" in their names.

I don't think I would like to sail on a ship called CSS Halifax or whatever, just doesn't sound right.

I don't see it happening though, just the cost of changing the infrastructure, letterhead and everything else that goes with it.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 25, 2007, 17:45:15
Poll added
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Freddy G on April 25, 2007, 17:50:54
link: http://themonarchist.blogspot.com/2007/04/petition-to-parliament-to-reinstate.html

We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN? The army has their RCR, R22R, RCD, etc.

Discuss pros and cons.

Those are two different things. The Army isn't the Royal Canadian Army, either. Why would we need to be the Royal Canadian Navy?

Our ships are all, as was pointed out, Her Majesty's Canadian Ships, which is basically the same as being "Royal." As for the Air Force, I don't recall hearing their units being called anything but 88th Squadron or the like.

Sure, it'd be nice to be the Royal Canadian Navy, but it really doesn't change all that much. We got unified forty years ago and we're still going strong; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: SweetNavyJustice on April 25, 2007, 18:23:28
For me, I enjoy the mix of the two. 

By calling ourselves the Canadian Navy, Army, Airforce we show our distinctness as Canadians whereas having our ships called HMCS, and batallions like the RCR reminds us of our roots. 

I wouldn't like to see the names change back. 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Loachman on April 25, 2007, 18:29:38
There is no "th" at the end of our Squadron designations. Historically, the correct designation would be "No. 400 Squadron", but we've long dropped the "No."

Unit designations and ships' names have nothing to do with the service title anyway.

The Army was always just the "Canadian Army", just as the British Army is the British Army. Neither ever had the Royal designation, unlike their respective navies and air forces.

An Act of Parliament would be required to change this, as there is only one service under the NDA, and I don't see that occurring.

I'd vote "yes" ONLY if Tac Hel were split off from the RCAF and put back into the Army from whence it came and where it naturally and rightfully belongs.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: sledge on April 25, 2007, 18:43:56
I like the idea personally. Maritime Command just does not have the same feel as RCN.  I do think you would have to change the NDA as the army was originally called Mobile command after unification, and I have not seen that term used in years.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Thorvald on April 25, 2007, 19:17:39
Those are two different things. The Army isn't the Royal Canadian Army, either. Why would we need to be the Royal Canadian Navy?

Well at least we still have the Royal Canadian Armoured Corps :-)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on April 25, 2007, 19:34:06
... their RCR....

The Army has the RCD, RCR, 22eR, ....

... like the RCR ....

Since the subject of the thread is organization titles, I would be remiss not to point out that the correct short title for The Royal Canadian Regiment is "The RCR".

http://thercr.ca/customs_traditions/the_definitive_article.htm

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 25, 2007, 19:43:53
I like the idea personally. Maritime Command just does not have the same feel as RCN.  I do think you would have to change the NDA as the army was originally called Mobile command after unification, and I have not seen that term used in years.

If I was in charge of the Navy I would just start calling my command the Royal Canadian Navy and dare the politico's (if they even noticed) to force me to change. Obviously the Army did the same thing once the higher ups decided that Mobile Command sounded incredibly stupid.
FYI, I was recently on a course in San Diego and my certificate stated that I was from the RCN, evidently the Americans (and many others) still regard us as the Royal Canadian Navy. :salute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: warspite on April 25, 2007, 20:42:33
Although still a civilian, I say Royal Canadian Navy for the following reasons:
1. Sounds professional
2. Sounds better than maritime command
3. Respects our country's heritage
Although in a practical sense it would make no difference. And it would cost money to redo letterheadds etc, ( but how much money does the government spend on nothing anyway's?). Personally I would rather like to say I serve in the Royal Canadian Navy, but asll in all its a matter of preference when you get down to it.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CloudCover on April 25, 2007, 20:49:18
I voted "no". The RCN is "dead" to the younger sailors in the fleet, who happen to also be the future of the fleet. I would not for one minute accept that reverting back to that tri-service force structure would somehow be good for morale in the Navy. Only more money, better sea-shore ratio's and modern equipment will do that.

There was much discontent in the RCN prior to unification that was partly based on the attitude from the senior ranks and officers which developed from the aura of the RCN. In the 1980's, many of the most backwards and dim witted dinosaurs in the Navy were PO's and CPO's who were LS and AB's when the RCN existed. Don't get me wrong, the RCN had its good features as well, but IMO it would not be worth reverting back to.    
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RangerRay on April 25, 2007, 22:02:15
Dang straights we should!  :)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Chubbard on April 25, 2007, 22:21:05
If the Canadian navy were to start using that term as its legal name, replacing MARCOM, then the Royal designation would return with it.
 
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Since the Royal designation of the Canadian Navy was executed by a Royal Proclamation which has never been revoked, the Canadian Government and the Canadian Forces will be required to resume usage of the expression “Royal Canadian Navy”, if the expression “Canadian Navy” is used in any official capacity,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 25, 2007, 23:16:19
I voted "no". The RCN is "dead" to the younger sailors in the fleet, who happen to also be the future of the fleet. I would not for one minute accept that reverting back to that tri-service force structure would somehow be good for morale in the Navy. Only more money, better sea-shore ratio's and modern equipment will do that.

There was much discontent in the RCN prior to unification that was partly based on the attitude from the senior ranks and officers which developed from the aura of the RCN. In the 1980's, many of the most backwards and dim witted dinosaurs in the Navy were PO's and CPO's who were LS and AB's when the RCN existed. Don't get me wrong, the RCN had its good features as well, but IMO it would not be worth reverting back to.    
Woa there buddy. The petition is not to return to the tri-service, it is only to change the name. Nothing structural would change.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on April 26, 2007, 00:21:23
I voted "yes".  In particular, it always seem inconsistant to me to have "Her Magesty's Canadian Ship _____" not be part of the Royal Canadian Navy. 

Besides, much like the regimental system, I think the tradition is important....


Matthew.   :salute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: radiohead on April 26, 2007, 00:51:06
I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay inthe past that Royal term is one of them. 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MrBlue on April 26, 2007, 01:24:43
Im voting no because we are canadian and many of us wonder what the queen has anything to do with us anyways...just some kind of figure head, and to be honest, how many people nowadays identify themselves with anything british or royal (i mean in canada besides the RCMP).

Lets face facts the main reason the Navy is the one bucking for this is because historically the Navy is british, and still is in large capacity english in nature.

Also i have to point out that if were going to go back to being called the RCN and RCAF and what not, then why not scrap our maple leaf and bring back that ugly Red Ensign we fought so hard to get rid of and get something that represents us.

That is the issue, respecting history and tradition, but also moving forward and standing up and embracing our "canadian-ness" and our national identity, in that i find we should be more like the americans they are incredibly proud to be yanks...and i find we lack that as a ppl, certain groups in canada i find are prouder then others, but not proud of their Canadian image but more so...oh ya im Native-canadian, and im a Quebecois (not a quebeker...) and you know what thats fine, but i would really love my country and its ppl to be proud of itself more, and to be more canadian without wondering who we will offend next.

and you know what this whole debate brings up another issue...why arent we the Canadian Armed Forces??

as for ships i would rather they be named  C.F.S Halifax or something of that sort (Canadian Forces Ship) not just because im French, therefore i dont identify with british, im also part native, so the whole french and brit thing is the base of this...but rather that i find we should have our own image.

i consider myself patriotic, and you know we fought this hard to get our flag and our 2 official languages (which i know doesnt mean much to a lot of ppl) and many other purely CANADIAN things, but i find we have stalled in our forward movement in that area.  I respect the fact that we are tied to the brits and royalty but i dont think we should let that define us.

But i dont think we should alter the regimental names of the RCR, RCD, and etc

By the way its R22eR...since everyone corrected you on the other names but not this one...the 'e' is there because its a french pronunciation...and is always written that way no matter what
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Technoviking on April 26, 2007, 09:20:01
I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay in the past that Royal term is one of them
Royal Canadian Mint
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Royal Canadian Legion
Royal Canadian Golf Association
Royal Canadian Geographical Society
Royal Military College
Royal Canadian College of Organists
Royal Canadian Sea Cadets
Royal Canadian Air Cadets
Royal Canadian Army Cadets
Royal Winnipeg Ballet
Royal Montreal Golf Club

anyway, the list goes on.  These are all institutions in Canada that exist TODAY and NOT in the past as you suggest.  By the way, in case you missed it, at the Vimy ceremony in France earlier this month, HM Elizabeth the Second was announced as "The Queen of Canada".
As for Biggoals2bdone, remember, in english, you are indeed a Quebecker.  After all, when we refer to people from Munich, we don't call them Bayrisch, we call them Bavarians, or Germans, not Deutsch.  And we ARE the Canadian Armed Forces.

(See the National Defence Act, Part II, article 14, which states: "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces")


Cheers!

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Baden Guy on April 26, 2007, 09:43:17
I think the term "Canadian Air Force" is a title looking for a home. Sounds generic unlike a proper title or it is just an extention of Canadian Armed Forces.

So now the air force is getting around it by bringing forward more emphasis on the Squadron title, Cold Lake 1AMS for maintenance and then the various squadrons.

Something unfinished here. ???
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: volition on April 26, 2007, 10:53:01
Our Navy does not have any Aircrafts, our army does not have any aircraft...If your a pilot, your in the airforce. It should be like the good old days, or like the rest of the world. Vote Yes on renaming!!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on April 26, 2007, 15:07:11
Personally I am proud of my naval service and Its the great people you work with everyday that makes it a great organization having or not having the Royal designation does not make one iota of difference in that pride.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr.Newf on April 26, 2007, 15:11:50
Although still a civilian, I say Royal Canadian Navy for the following reasons:
1. Sounds professional
2. Sounds better than maritime command
3. Respects our country's heritage
Although in a practical sense it would make no difference. And it would cost money to redo letterheadds etc, ( but how much money does the government spend on nothing anyway's?). Personally I would rather like to say I serve in the Royal Canadian Navy, but asll in all its a matter of preference when you get down to it.


+1, even though I want to be Army  :D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MrBlue on April 26, 2007, 15:43:51
Captain Sensible many if not all of the establishments you said were setup back when the british ruled what was to become our nation...the canadian forces or Canadian Armed Forces, or Canadian Defence forces, which ever you chose to use, were dominated by brits for years...but in the last 50 or so years we as in CANADIANS have tried to assume our own identity on many things, in my opinion going back to to naming the Canadian Navy the RCN and the Canadian Air Force the RCAF...is like saying well lets get rid of our flag, and and the prime minister and just get called England II or West England and have the monarchy run our country.

I have nothing against the monarchy per se, and like i said i respect our past and history but we must also forge on ahead as CANADIANS, and govern ourselves, and have our own identity, which isnt to say we cant be friendly with the british.

On a side note i find that with our military the way it is (aka not enough funds...BIG TIME, and undermanned) i would say we need to get back up to 80 000 minimum for  combined services, and we need to do this As Quickly As Possible, but i dont foresee it happening soon enough the man-power or the huge increase in budget that we need...that we're almost better off forming a partnership of some sorts with the americans or the brits or aussies or something and form a kind of coalition, where we would all be united under 1 banner or something of the sort, not necessarily being amalgamated with the other force to the degree of losing our own identity but lets say for example: we would call it the Commonwealth Defence Forces, which could include the aussies, new zealanders and possibly the brits themselves, as well as us.

we would keep the Army, Navy, Air Force and throw in the Marines from the brits, where we would have a standardized training for the whole entire force throughout all the nations, and service to any country or any force would be offered.  As in a canadian could be part of the Commonwealth Marine Corps just like a brit or an aussie etc..., and bases would be distributed fairly so that you could serve in any branch on any of the nations.  Obviously we would keep members on their respective nations unless they requested to serve elsewhere.

so under the Umbrella of Commonwealth Defence Forces we would have:
The Commonwealth army
The Commonwealth Navy
The Commonwealth Air Force
The Commonwealth Marine Corps

Obviously any special forces like CANSOFCOM, JTF2, SAS, and etc, would be modified somewhat or we would need a totally new branch added Commonwealth Special Forces Branch, where all of these units would be under.

where we would most like keep regimental names for the army and etc.

Like i said its an idea, one which i find would probably be difficult to put into action but could be very useful, because as individuals for armed forces Canada, UK, New Zealand and Aussie for example are not huge, Canada has 65 000 reg force member (59th worldwide), UK has 195 000 (ranked 28th worldwide), Aussie has 51 000 (ranked 68th world wide), New Zealand 9 000 (ranked 129th worldwide).  Put that together with combined spending and training and what not and you would have a kick *** force that could really throw some weight around and do a lot of good in this world.  I picked these other countries, because a) we're all in the Commonwealth b) we all have a unified service design for our militaries and c) we all bring something special to the table, in terms of perspective, tradition, settings/environment for training, specialties, etc.

Obviously we could also phase into the US military being that their borders touch ours, but they are all individual services, and i doubt they would likely want to accomodate our traditions and what not, rather we would be thrown in the mix and expected to de-canadian-nize ourselves and become more american...and besides they have a huge military organisation as it is

Like i said its a thought
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: fbr2o75 on April 26, 2007, 15:46:33
I'm for just calling them what they are the Navy and the Air Force.  Their is no need to go back some tilte that isn't even canadian, its british, and moved moved past that.  Some traditions should stay inthe past that Royal term is one of them. 

Would you say the same if it was the horse on your cap badge they were talking about? when i first joined we wore the horse, and I for one was very proud when issued the horse again.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Technoviking on April 26, 2007, 15:57:37
Biggoals2bdone:
In one sentence you state that we want to identify as Canadians, and in so doing, we dropped "Royal" from the Navy and the Air Force.  If that were true, why is the RCMP not the "Canadian Mounted Police"?  Why not simply the "Winnipeg Ballet"?  In spite of your histrionics as to why the monikers of "Royal" were dropped (alone with the monikers "Navy" and "Air Force" for that matter), having things "Royal" here in Canada (or, perhaps more accurately, "Royal Canadian") is as Canadian as Tim Hortons, Poutine, Butter Tarts and Maple Syrup.

Then, after our collective identity as Canadians is established, you ignore the fact that Canada has NEVER fought a war overseas on its own: it has ALWAYS been part of a coalition.  Boer War.  World Wars One and Two.  Korea.  Kosovo.  Etc and so forth.  You also wish to ignore our "new found" Canadian identity and form with other nations a "Commonwealth" of nations.

Whether or not HM Elizabeth II is our monarch has nothing to do with our relations with the UK.  As I've stated, she has several titles, one of which is "Queen of Canada".  Also note that HRH The Prince Phillip wore the uniform of The Royal Canadian Regiment at the Vimy commemoration.  It was not, as one member of the media suggested, to show solidarity with the members of The RCR who were killed in action in Afghanistan a few days previous.  Rather, as it was an official function, he wore it as was his duty as the Colonel in Chief of Canada's Senior Infantry Regiment.  Were he Colonel in Chief of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, he would have worn that uniform, given their seniority over the infantry.

We have Canadian traditions, which INCLUDES the Royal Family.  To eliminate that link in the name of progress is, well, un-Canadian in my opinion.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 26, 2007, 15:57:56
I think the term "Canadian Air Force" is a title looking for a home. Sounds generic unlike a proper title or it is just an extention of Canadian Armed Forces.

So now the air force is getting around it by bringing forward more emphasis on the Squadron title, Cold Lake 1AMS for maintenance and then the various squadrons.

Something unfinished here. ???

I always wondered where the Air Force attained the authority to rename their bases Wings? Another case of the Chief of Air Staff just going ahead and doing it?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 26, 2007, 16:17:52
Would you say the same if it was the horse on your cap badge they were talking about? when i first joined we wore the horse, and I for one was very proud when issued the horse again.

Excuse me but, horse? What horse?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MrBlue on April 26, 2007, 17:18:04
Capt Sensible well a) i dunno why you chose that name... but on to the meat and potatoes

I said we should embrace our image and what not because we should, my suggestion about the commonwealth coalition force like i said was an EXAMPLE....let me say that again an EXAMPLE...of what Canada might or could do to have a "greater presence" in terms of men, materials, equipment and what not, since 1) our country doesnt spend nearly enough on the military and its needs 2) our military is under-manned.

I strongly disagree that Royal is in effect canadian...they are remnants of things that the british have established here in canada, and no longer are the people who take care of it.  example: the RCMP, a british para-military constabulary force conceived in the late 1800's when britain did not let us rule ourselves, as we do now, so as you can see, saying that Royal or Royal Canadian is therefore the most Canadian is false really.

But also my point is that just like during the Flag debate in 65' you have people who identify with the old and some people who dont identify with that and wish to move on respectuflly.  Like i said this was the case with our flag, the people who fough in WW1 and WW2 identified with the Red Ensign, they had served for country and king (well some...some were just forced) but the generation or 2 after them were purely canadian, in that they were born here, and grew up here and so had their fathers and mothers, and they saw no personal link to the Queen, does it make us less respectful to have changed our flag to something which i find defines us much better then the Red Ensign, not in my eyes.  you also think for some weird reason that i suggest abolishing the use of royal in any title for anything canadian which is not the case.

Im guessing that natives or first generation canadians (through immigration) or what not do not identify with royal, or british.
Like i said you seem to think that what i am saying is blasphemy and the most insulting thing ever, im being very respectful in my point of view and how i broach.
On the other hand i dont think we will ever see eye to eye about this considering im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english...which is an opinion many people feel, i just hope it never comes to pass.

Like i said the Commonwealth force thing was an IDEA/EXAMPLE of what we might have to do to be more effective, have access to more resources/equipment and resulting in a greater presence/importancy in the grander scheme.

and i must say that your point about the wars is very moot...WW1 and Boer War Canada wasnt truly even a country yet, Britain said get your butts over here now and we followed, WW2 canada was standing on its own 2 feet, and was becoming more but we were still greatly under british influence/rule, they said jump we said how high, and Korea and Kosovo well that was a joint effort aka common goals and morals to defend/reach, for Kosovo we honestly couldnt have done it by ourselves...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 26, 2007, 17:33:13
"But i dont think we should alter the regimental names of the RCR, RCD, and etc"
Quote from Biggoals2bdone

It always makes me laugh when people say there is no way we should put back the "R" in the Canadian Navy but then in the same breath say "But don't you dare touch the R in our regimental names"
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: uncle-midget-Oddball on April 26, 2007, 18:21:46
Quote
im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english

Biggoals2bdone... Why not stop the personal attacks right there? This thread isn't about whether or not someone is a native/black/yellow/white, jew/hindu/pastafanariist etc etc... It's clear you've got a lot of passion when it comes to this, but personal attacks isn't a very productive way to go about a useful thread.

As for my opinion, I think Ex-Dragoon said it the best. It isn't whether or not there is a "Royal" designated into the names, it is the people who serve. The ones actually doing the job. If it ain't broke.. don't fix it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MrBlue on April 26, 2007, 18:33:17
Midget : saying you are white or english is not a personal attack...im merely stating in a very level headed fashion that i think his point of view is more along those lines (possibly biased) because of these circumstances...

I in no way attacked him personally i said he might be the type to wonder why there are 2 languages in canada i didnt tell him that was his opinion...read what i write...not what you think i write
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 26, 2007, 19:01:20

Midget : saying you are white or english is not a personal attack...
but it is racist and it can stop now.

Cheers,
The staff

We already call ourselves the Canadian Navy, why not return to RCN?
Seeing as Army, Navy, and Air Force do not exist as seperate services, should it not be Royal Canadian Armed Forces?

Obviously the Army did the same thing once the higher ups decided that Mobile Command sounded incredibly stupid.
While momentum for the name change likely was built in FMC, it is still not the "Canadian Army;"  it is "Land Force Command."
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 26, 2007, 19:59:31
Cheers,
The staff
Seeing as Army, Navy, and Air Force do not exist as seperate services, should it not be Royal Canadian Armed Forces?
While momentum for the name change likely was built in FMC, it is still not the "Canadian Army;"  it is "Land Force Command."

Well I hate to be a poo poo but................. (I know...officially its LFC  ;D)
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1.asp
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_home/home_e.asp
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/index_e.asp

So why don't we go all the way, and make it offical?

I know that in our advertising that we use Army, Navy and Air Force because joe target doesn't know what Land Force Command or Maritime Command are. They may know what Air Command is but they sure as heck know what an Army and a Navy are.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on April 26, 2007, 21:19:14
I think the Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force would be an easy thing for us to switch too without a lot of expense but it would add a certain distinctiveness to our individual services just like the Regiments have.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RangerRay on April 26, 2007, 22:01:38
I believe it was Mark Steyn who said "Canada is the only country in the world to celebrate its heritage by destroying it".
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: warspite on April 26, 2007, 22:14:48
I believe it was Mark Steyn who said "Canada is the only country in the world to celebrate its heritage by destroying it".
Sadly it's true...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr.Newf on April 26, 2007, 22:15:55
Sadly it's true...
Yeah it is, sadly enough.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 26, 2007, 23:00:51
If they bring back the RCN and RCAF, then they should also bring back the "Royal" corps of the Army that were dropped, i.e RCAMC, RCDC.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: van Gemeren on April 27, 2007, 04:03:55
I was looking at photos of CF-18s and I noticed RCAF was painted on the bottoms of the wings in some:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18break-away.jpg
http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/towedtgt.jpg

but not this one:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/ckc96-6002-5.jpg

What's the reason behind this?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Baden Guy on April 27, 2007, 08:59:03
Boy I want to hear the answer to this one. I am amazed to see RCAF on a CF-18.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr.Newf on April 27, 2007, 09:01:00
Boy I want to hear the answer to this one. I am amazed to see RCAF on a CF-18.


+1, don't tell me that the Air Force made a boo boo  :D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 27, 2007, 09:02:34
I was looking at photos of CF-18s and I noticed RCAF was painted on the bottoms of the wings in some:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/CF-18break-away.jpg
http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/historic_gallery/wallpaper/towedtgt.jpg

but not this one:

http://www.airforce.forces.ca/equip/grfx/equip_gallery/hornet_cf18/wallpaper/ckc96-6002-5.jpg

What's the reason behind this?

Your first picture is the only one with RCAF on the wing.  I suspect it was an anniversary bird, just like Comox has RCAF painted on the ramp ( comemorating the 75th). Second picture only has CAF under the wings, which , IIRCwas the comon marking for some time.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr.Newf on April 27, 2007, 09:04:07
Makes sense now, thanks.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Technoviking on April 27, 2007, 09:34:19
"On the other hand i dont think we will ever see eye to eye about this considering im guessing you are 1) english 2) white 3)male and possibly or british descent...so you completely identify with royal and queen, and probably think to yourself why bother with 2 official languages, way to much paper...lets just use english...which is an opinion many people feel, i just hope it never comes to pass."


Well, first, I am not "english", although I do speak that language (and a few others).  I am "white" (I prefer Caucasian, thank you).  I am indeed male.  As for "descent", I am of Irish Catholic heritage, a group not normally associated with being loyal to the Crown.  But I am NOT Irish Catholic, I am a Roman Catholic Canadian. 
As for asking whether or not to bother with 2 official languages, well, again, you're wrong.  Having two languages is one of many things that identify us as Canadian.  As does the Queen of Canada.  Lobster traps in the Northumberland Strait.  Maple Bush in Ontario.  Tar Sands in Alberta.  Three Down football.

So, whether or not we use the term "Royal" in reference to the Navy or the Air Force is not for you or me to judge or decide.  As for throwing away the Queen as the head of state, what else should we throw away?  The mounties because they are a throwback to our oppression under England?  Forget for a moment that many loyal subjects fought against the Americans in their war of independance, and then came to the colonies that did not rebel when the Americans were successful.  I say toss all that into the bin of histrionics, forget our past, our raison d'etre, and just, well, fade into a bland future with no reference to our past, our heritage and our future.  Forget it all and go to Krispy Kreme and get ourselves another slice of another nation's culture, and don't forget to add a down to our Football!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on April 27, 2007, 11:02:55
I always wondered where the Air Force attained the authority to rename their bases Wings? Another case of the Chief of Air Staff just going ahead and doing it?

I'm not clear on the distinction myself, but my understanding is that Wing and Base are not quite synonymous, e.g. there is still a CFB Greenwood, in addition to the Wing located there.  I believe the Wing is a formation consisting of most of the units on the base.  I hope an air force type comes along to explain the difference.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on April 27, 2007, 11:10:24
Most of the usual arguments have been made already, but my two cents' worth is:

1. It's a fallacy to equate Royal and British.  Canada has been an independent constitutional monarchy for many years and has done very well as one, with no hint of oppression or even undue influence from the UK.

2. History and heritage are important elements in a military force.  The Royal Canadian Navy fought the Battle of the Atlantic and the Korean War, got itself ready to fight World War III when it looked as if the Cuban Missile Crisis might go pear-shaped, and was a bang-up little (sometimes big) fleet of ships for decades.  The name Maritime Command does nothing to evoke any of this heritage.

3. The cost of changing the name of a military formation, or even creating a new one, is obviously achievable; it's been done several times in the last few years without terrible consequences.

4. Every adult and school kid knows what a navy is.  How many can explain what Maritime Command is?  (Something to do with three small provinces on the east coast, perhaps...?)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 27, 2007, 11:38:15
I'm not clear on the distinction myself, but my understanding is that Wing and Base are not quite synonymous, e.g. there is still a CFB Greenwood, in addition to the Wing located there.  I believe the Wing is a formation consisting of most of the units on the base.  I hope an air force type comes along to explain the difference.

Wing and base are not seperate entities, they are basicaly the same thing......The Wing commander is the "base" comander and the Wing CWO is the "base" CWO. Base operations is called Wing operations as with all other base functions ( Wing supply, wing transport, wing OR.......)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 27, 2007, 14:46:42
Wing and base are not separate entities, they are basically the same thing......The Wing commander is the "base" commander and the Wing CWO is the "base" CWO. Base operations is called Wing operations as with all other base functions ( Wing supply, wing transport, wing OR.......)
So the sky did not fall when this name change came. The question I have is that is this an order that the Chief of the Air Staff made without going to Parliament? Because we could probably just start calling ourselves the RCN and I would bet dollars to donuts that NOBODY in Parliament would notice. And if they did, there response would be "Were they not always called that?"
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 27, 2007, 18:40:44
However, an act of Parliament abolished the RCN, RCAF, and Canadian Army.  It was not an act of Parliament that labelled all bases as “CFB.”  Additionally, calling airbases “wings” does not attach the label “Royal.”  Using “Royal” requires royal permission. 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on April 27, 2007, 19:02:39
Royal permission was already granted for the RCN and RCAF by Royal Proclamations that were never revoked. In fact, the Canadian Government and Canadian Forces are bound to use the Royal designation if the "Canadian Navy" and "Canadian Air Force" are ever used in an official capacity.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on April 27, 2007, 19:09:54
There has been the inevitable service creep back into the lexicon of the CF. This is a key whereas on the draft petition:

AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the fact that the National Defence Act states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces;

...

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be facilitated without replacing Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command, which would continue to be directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively;

If there is a will in the Government, this could easily get done without ruffling too many feathers. I've sent the draft petition to MP Laurie Hawn for his consideration. If you go to his website, he has Royal Canadian Air Force right on there. He's already using the RCAF and he's a member on the Government side!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 27, 2007, 19:44:17
There has been the inevitable service creep back into the lexicon of the CF. This is a key whereas on the draft petition:

AND WHEREAS notwithstanding the fact that the National Defence Act states that "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces", separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces;

...

AND WHEREAS resuming usage of such Royal designations could be facilitated without replacing Canadian Forces Maritime Command and Canadian Forces Air Command, which would continue to be directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively;

If there is a will in the Government, this could easily get done without ruffling too many feathers. I've sent the draft petition to MP Laurie Hawn  for his consideration. If you go to his website, he has Royal Canadian Air Force right on there. He's already using the RCAF and he's a member on the Government side!

On a completely unrelated topic (maybe) now that it seems that Mr O'Connor is on his way out (if you believe the press  ::) could we see Mr Hawn as the new defence minister? Or has the military had its kick at the can?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on April 27, 2007, 22:34:25
However, an act of Parliament abolished the RCN, RCAF, and Canadian Army.  It was not an act of Parliament that labelled all bases as “CFB.”  Additionally, calling airbases “wings” does not attach the label “Royal.”  Using “Royal” requires royal permission. 

It's important to remember that what's beeing discussed here is not a legal change to the structure of the Forces, but a change in name for Maritime Command and Air Command.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 27, 2007, 23:00:17
Royal permission was already granted for the RCN and RCAF by Royal Proclamations that were never revoked.
It's important to remember that what's beeing discussed here is not a legal change to the structure of the Forces, but a change in name for Maritime Command and Air Command.
So here is the sticking point, royal permission was given for the two services (the Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Navy) to use the title "Royal."  Those services no longer exist.  An act of Parliament would be required to recreate those services.

There are two commands which perpetuate the functions of the former RCAF and RCN.  However, royal consent has not been given for these commands (not services) to use the title "Royal."

As I see it, the government must restructure the forces or the monarch must grant permission to the new entities.  Either way, Maritime Command and Air Command cannot suddenly start calling themselves "Royal" (as some here have suggested).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on April 28, 2007, 11:55:01
You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2007, 12:49:47
The old services do not exist; there is only the Canadian Armed Forces.  What are you planning to call RCAF and RCN if not Air Command and Maritime Command?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 28, 2007, 12:52:40
You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.

Just what we need...another layer of command
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 28, 2007, 12:58:43
Maybe the mods should lock this one.
There is a group who think that this idea is tantamount to splitting the CF into separate services and an opposite group who think that this is just a name change that reflects the reality of the situation (see my post of how LFC, MC and AC identify themselves to the public).

The two groups are like the two groups debating our involvement in A-stan, they are entrenched and will never change their opinion.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2007, 13:10:07
Maybe the mods should lock this one.
There is no need to lock threads every time there are different opinions.

I'm confused on the position of those that want to bring back RCN and RCAF.  It seems to me that half want to rename Air Command and Maritime Command (this would require royal permission as no previous permission has been given for these commands to use the title "Royal") and another half wants to rename some other intangible.  For this second pro-renaming group, what is it you are re-naming?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 28, 2007, 13:13:41
Maybe the mods should lock this one.

i disagree

Quote
There is a group who think that this idea is tantamount to splitting the CF into separate services



Thats not going to happen.  Some people want to return to the old names, thats fine but i still havent heard what it would accomplish.

Quote
and an opposite group who think that this is just a name change that reflects the reality of the situation (see my post of how LFC, MC and AC identify themselves to the public).

Yes, that is how each element portays itself.

Quote
The two groups are like the two groups debating our involvement in A-stan, they are entrenched and will never change their opinion.

So , as a mod, i should shut down that one too ?

The post in this that realy got me is this one :
You need to separate out the command structure from the branch of service. We are not asking to get rid of MARCOM and AIRCOM, which would continue as the command structures directly responsible for the navy and air force respectively, just as the new Special Services Operations Command is directly responsible for the Special Services Operations Regiment. Similarly, MARCOM would command a reinstated RCN as well as elements of a reinstated RCAF, which of course are the delapidated Sea Kings. The RCN and RCAF would not take over the functional command system; they would be subordinate to it.

So, in addition to the expense and trouble of bringing back old titles...that add nothing to operational effectiveness.....This guy wants to add another layer to command the already existing structure ? Please explain to me why that's helpful ?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: time expired on April 28, 2007, 14:10:21
My two cents (euro cents in my case) worth,Unification was an unmitigated disaster! forced upon
the military by politicians bent on saving more money supported by some very ambitious senior
officers and every step away from it is a step in the right direction.
                                            Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2007, 14:24:22
Unification was an unmitigated disaster! forced upon the military by politicians bent on saving more money supported by some very ambitious senior officers and every step away from it is a step in the right direction.
I understand it was actually an attempt to make the Canadian military into a more agile & expeditionary fighting force; very much the same thing that the CDS is still moving us toward today.  Institutional inertia cause unification to be a disaster.  While not popular when it happend, reversing unification would not be good for the military today.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Loachman on April 28, 2007, 15:32:26
I understand it was actually an attempt to make the Canadian military into a more agile & expeditionary fighting force;
No, it wasn't. It was merely another Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) scheme to destroy a proud national and military history amd identity and replace it with something bland and meaningless. Destruction of regimental identities was to be part of this - we were supposed to adopt numbered battalions instead.

I think that the Canadian people had a much better understanding of who they were and where they stood in the world before then. I've seen a lot of handwringing and moaning about lack of national identity in the press since then, and such claims as Canadians defining themselves by what they are not (such as Americans) rather than by what they are, because so many no longer know what they are or never new in the first place.

I would place Biggoals2bdone (who I wish would write in proper proper English rather than annoying chatroom abbreviations) in the latter category, as he/she seems to be rather ignorant and dismissive of things that had and have deep and significant meaning and importance to Canadians who, I am quite certain, have spent much more time in this country and contributed much more to it than him/her. He/she seems to be another victim of the cancerous revisionist history that plagues us. Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) would be proud.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: time expired on April 28, 2007, 15:35:55
MCG
    I was fortunate enough to serve in both the pre intergrated and the post intergrated army, and if
what you claim is true then it was an even bigger disaster than I first claimed.In the Combat Arms the
units lost their Regt. depots training and esprit de corps suffered greatly.Regt. were disbanded and
jammed into the remaining Regiments damaging the integrity of these units.In Combat support
units the Corps were effectively destroyed,ask anyone from RC Sigs or RCEME,and a one fits all
training system installed which degraded training to a very low level.Morale dipped to level I had not
experienced before and retention levels dropped to new lows. I have not even mentioned the hugely
negative effect the new rank structure had on morale.Only a politician or a senior officer banking on his
next promotion could in anyway sell this as increasing our effectiveness, but it did save a little money,at
least until the new intergrated formation HQs bloated till they were bigger than the separate HQs
they were supposed to replace.
  In retrospect ,I suppose it could have worked if the people at the top had really had some ideas how
to establish something new and uniquely Canadian, but the ideas were not there as the motivation was
as I mentioned above, and a great chance was lost.
  Sorry about the rant , but you asked.
                                            Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2007, 15:42:34
No, it wasn't. It was merely another Trudeau (torment and misery be upon him) scheme to destroy a proud national and military history amd identity
This is most certainly untrue as the Canadian Forces Reorganization Bill was passed in Apr '67 under Pearson (and Defence Minister Hellyer).  Truedeau did not rise to the top of the Liberal party until a full year later.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on April 28, 2007, 16:43:27
Just to clear up any confusion, we the petitioners are not asking for yet another layer of command, far from it. The fact of the matter is the three services having being making a comeback as of late, all without interrupting the current structures that are in place. Let me remind you that separate service uniforms were reintroduced in 1986, the separate service chiefs were reinstated and returned to National Defence Headquarters in 1997, separate service websites were officially established and references to the separate services are now commonplace throughout the Canadian Forces, all of which have been accommodated without in any way compromising the unified command structure, integrated nature or corporate unity of the Canadian Forces.

For all who think we are trying to replace MARCOM and AIRCOM or introduce yet another command structure, let me ask the question: Who are the current nominal commanders of the army, air force and navy today? The Commanders of LANDCOM, AIRCOM and MARCOM, that's who. That would not change. If the only way to formalize the navy and air force as RCN and RCAF was through reincorporation of the services, then we would certainly insist that said services would remain subsidiary branches of a tri-service Canadian Forces, and their nominal (or honourary) commanders remain who they are now. So not necessarily reincorporation, but reincorporation if necessary. The bottom line is that the army, navy and air force already de facto exist.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 28, 2007, 18:05:32
I have a novel idea............lets take all the energy, time and money that has been, and will be, wasted on friggin' names, initials and acronyms and use it to make the Forces we have RIGHT NOW [names and all] the [one]most effective fighting force we can.

I'll take training and bullets, please.......
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RangerRay on April 28, 2007, 20:27:40
My observations:

I've been to Australia and New Zealand.  Both countries have their respective "royal" navies (RAN, RNZN) and air forces (RAAF, RNZAF), as well as retaining the old "British" rank structures and uniforms (with unique national identifiers).  One thing that I've noticed is that in both countries, there is no hand-wringing and whinging about "national identity" or what is and isn't Australian or Kiwi "culture".  Peoples in both countries have a self-assured national awareness.  At most, Kiwis get upset for being confused with Aussies, but they sure don't whinge about "what it means to be Kiwi" or "what makes us different from the Aussies" like we do.

I'm not sure if they are integrated as much as the CF is, but their armed forces are integrated into "defence forces" (ADF, NZDF).  Maybe someone with more knowledge of this can enlighten me as to whether their command and logistical structures are as integrated as ours.

Although Australia came close to adopting their own head-of-state, I think only those on the very fringe-left advocate removing the term "Royal" from the RAAF and RAN, or changing their blue ensign.

Both the Aussies and the Kiwis are very proud of the contributions of their armed services in the past and the present, and are very proud of the royal patronage of their navies and air forces.  ANZAC Day, commemorating the landings in Galipoli, is a larger holiday in both countries than Australia Day and Waitangi Day.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Aussies and Kiwis flock to Turkey every year to pay tribute to those who have fallen.

As well, despite what many may think, populations of both countries are far from being homogenously of "British" decent.  Aside from their respective native communities, both countries have large Eastern European, Pacific Islander and Asian communities.

I suppose the point of this rambling post is just to say that in my opinion, dumping the the "royal" symbols and heritage from our military to be more "Canadian" is a croc.  They were Canadian before, and should the names be re-instated, they will remain Canadian and not be "subserviant" to Britain as some suggest.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 28, 2007, 21:21:29
LANDCOM, AIRCOM and MARCOM
More background study is required.


The bottom line is that the army, navy and air force already de facto exist.
But in reality the old services do not exist.  It is the newer environmental commands using popular language to describe themselves.  Recreating the old services (including the Army) would be neither productive nor helpful (in fact, it would likely problematic and degrade the capabilities of the military). 

It seems you have created a petition to bring back a name, but you cannot even clearly define what will carry that name.  Is it the new environmental command or the old service?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: stealthylizard on April 28, 2007, 21:24:24
We also have to be sensitive to the french part of the country as well.  I don't know about the ones serving in the military, but the civilian sector of French Quebec want nothing to do with Royal part of our history, even going as far as saying that the Queen is not welcome for the 400th anniversary of the found of Quebec.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Freddy G on April 28, 2007, 23:44:16
We also have to be sensitive to the french part of the country as well.  I don't know about the ones serving in the military, but the civilian sector of French Quebec want nothing to do with Royal part of our history, even going as far as saying that the Queen is not welcome for the 400th anniversary of the found of Quebec.

That's pure unadultered BS. Just because a minority of whiny Frenchies on welfare are saying that doesn't mean the majority of Quebecois believe it. Most just don't care either way; she can come if she wants, doesn't mean they'll be terribly excited about it. If she decides not to come, eh, that's fine, too. Thing is, if HM the Queen didn't come, those same whiny Frenchies who say she's not welcome, would start whining and saying "oh we're not good enough for the queen, uh?" Catch-22.

More to the point: most Quebecois don't really feel that strongly about the military, either way. Sure, a majority don't like wars, but not all of them are ultra-pacifists bent on defanging democracies so tyrannies can take over. Even some of the more anti-war are still proud of what our forces (and mostly, the little Quebecois boys that went overseas) have done in the past, particularly in the World Wars and in Korea. And those protests some groups organize? Most Quebecois care more about the fact that traffic is disturbed than what the protest is about.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 29, 2007, 01:12:40
Frederik G,
Be more selective in your choice of words.  From the site guidelines:
You will not post any information that is offensive . . .
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 29, 2007, 10:26:19
As I ponder the debate in this forum, I am reminded of Admiral Andrew Cunningham’s famous remark near Crete, 1941, when he said:  ‘It takes 3 days to build a ship; 300 years to build a tradition’.

It is not surprising to me that there remains a yearning, even after forty years, for a restoration of our country’s service ‘traditions’.  It’s only natural.  Some of what I have to say has been alluded to elsewhere, but I lived through the change and taught Canadian history so this is a bit of an amalgam of thought.

The identity, tradition, history and honours of the RCN, the Canadian Army or RCAF were of absolutely no concern to Paul Hellyer, the Defence Minister, and the minority Liberal government of the time, who set in motion the events that would prove to be near disastrous for our armed forces in the succeeding decades.  Although the recent funding and support afforded the CF is a welcome relief to those of us who care and/or are serving, it would be a mistake to view the whole identity and tradition of the forces that this petition, in part, represents, through the temporary euphoria of new Leopards and public attention, &c.

To put this issue in context, it should be remembered that the initiative by the Liberal government for ‘unification’ was in tandem with the deeply divisive movement in 1964 to adopt a Canadian flag to replace the Canadian Red Ensign.  This was rapidly followed by a number of substantial changes to Canada’s ‘federal’ face revealing the underlying purpose of gradually euthanizing most of Canada’s British associations and historical identity.  The Liberals called it ‘New Canada’ a notion that has its roots in the lingering, simmering, anti-British, anti-monarchy and certainly anti-military sentiment within that party, including the early Reformers like William Lyon MacKenzie; and that had existed in a variety forms before and since confederation.  Whilst the pretense for ‘unification’ was, as others have noted, to permit a more ‘efficient’ and ‘mobile’ force (much as we still hear advocated by NDHQ today) it was really just a part (albeit a huge one) of the larger plan.

Mr. Hellyer, a corporal in the Army during the war, with unfulfilled aspirations to a commission, didn’t like the Royal Canadian Navy at all; especially Admirals whose bearing and manner bore a strong resemblance to those of the Royal Navy from which the RCN was a direct descendant. With the sometimes annoying competition for money and appropriations between the services, Navy, Army and Air Force, the Liberal government of the time saw this as an example of the ‘inefficiency’ and ‘obstruction’ by the military that would be a thorn in the implementation of their ‘defence policy’.

In one fell swoop it was all gone; the admirals and the air marshals became ‘generals’ and they, all the sailors, soldiers and airmen, were put in an ‘off-the-rack’ rifle green uniform with an American pattern.  When the Trudeau government took over, the ‘nail-in-the-coffin occurred when the newly created Canadian Armed Forces was merged in 1974 with the Department of National Defence; thus creating NDHQ (defying the principle of the separation of the command of the armed forces from their political masters) and essentially ‘civilianising’ them. 

The generals thereafter became bureaucrats in the Canadian government creating a top-heavy bloat of ‘paper generals’ and other officers working in a civilian environment. Because the Liberal philosophy was to transform Canada’s military from a ‘fighting force’(whose history in the wars was naturally attached to mother Britain), into a ‘peacekeeping’ force consistent with its ‘defence’ policy, i.e., leftist preferences, the withering of the forces themselves in equipment, personnel and in practically every aspect of military necessity was ignored, neglected and starved. 

The Royal Highland Regiment of Canada (The Black Watch), a unit of seniority, was removed from the regular battalion list.  It took a lot of nerve, considering the profound presence of Highland Scots and their battalions in Canada since the 18th c, but that’s the point: Shovel them into an armoury in Montreal and essentially out of sight of the New image.  This should have been and, indeed ought to be corrected at this time of transformation but they’re not ‘Van Doos’.  You may recall the Chretien government flying in the Van Doos in their scarlets and bearskins for a G-8 conference in Vancouver replacing the planned guard and band of the Seaforth Highlanders (the regiment of Smokey Smith, VC) because, ‘they were not ‘Canadian’ enough.  Read between the lines and you will see the answer, not only to the petition, but to the culture in Ottawa that oversees the CF.
.
In spite of this, it should be noted that the reserve regiments of the former Canadian Army and their strong, loyal veteran’s associations, kept many of their traditions alive and their identities largely intact.  This mattered little to the government because the reserves themselves were so small and ‘insignificant’ that their visibility in terms of the New Canada identity was practically ‘nil’.  Ships, short of sailors, sat in drydock and the CF-18s, bought mainly for NATO ‘show’, deteriorated; even to the extent that in Gulf War I, because their equipment was inadequate, the planes were not able to fully engage the enemy for fear of being too easy a target.

While we lost some of the finest of officers and men because of the devastation, it goes without saying that many of those who subsequently served, particularly in the junior and lower ranks, through these years showed their individual competence and endurance in the field and in the few missions they were permitted to undertake and ought to be credited for contributing to the survival of at least some of the legacy of their forebears in the RCN, the Army and the RCAF.  Certainly, under the command of Generals like Lewis MacKenzie (who was in the Canadian Army) and the current CDS, Rick Hillier, there has been a remarkable, if not, ‘in-your-face’ assertiveness and pride, that resembles that of the armed forces of Canada that they once were.

What emerged, however, was a civilianised, politically-disturbed military organisation and culture. This was reflected not only in lack of recruitment, manpower and equipment but in drill, deportment and discipline; particularly within the ‘chain of command’ bearing no resemblance to the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF.

The sad stories of the ‘Airborne’ as well as of ‘Somalia’ made the headlines, but there was evidence of this on every ship, on every base, in every armoury and in every squadron.  The transformation of the armed services from the crackerjack standards and identity that showed after two world wars, into this new entity, the CF, seems estranged from its past and it shows even in the little things.  Having had their ‘traditions’ stripped from them, the sailors, soldiers and air personnel of the CF appear to have improvised their own; not to be found in the RCN, Army or RCAF but, unfortunately and sadly, in American popular culture.

A simple example of this are the types of ‘salutes’ made by all ranks in the CF that seem fashioned after the model shown in the last American war movie they’ve seen; some are up, some are down, some are flat, some are stiff, some are soft, some have fingers curled and some look like those done by America’s school marching bands but none of them are Navy, Army or Air Force.  While the official Hellyer-ordered unified salute is practically and physiologically impossible to easily execute, the result has degenerated into a ‘make up your own’ style.  Those of the RCN (palms down), the Army and the RCAF (palms up) are simple, dignified and demonstrably uniform throughout the Commonwealth.  Each service asserted itself with its particular salutes and manners, among other things, and, if you didn’t do it properly, you paid for it.  The RCN naturally inherited its salute from the RN that, according to tradition, was established after Queen Victoria, upon reviewing a ship’s crew, thought the sight of the blackened palm facing out quite unsightly so she gently turned the sailor’s hand down. (See Admiral Cunningham, above).  Salutes are expressions, not of personal ‘feelings’, but a part of the discipline and identity of the service; symbols.

Similarly, I have cringed when having heard young Canadian soldiers yell out the American ‘Hoooah’ just like in the movies like ‘Black Hawk Down’. Like the habit of placing helmets on rifles for the fallen, in imitation of our American friends, it seems that the men and women of our forces, by all accounts, and including the poll here at Army.ca, are thirsty for a tradition with which to identify.  Yet, whilst it is clearly permissible for CF personnel to adopt customs that are not of our tradition, even in popular culture from the USA, it seems ridiculous that it is not allowed to restore the naval, military and air traditions of our own country. 

I returned to my regiment as a chaplain some twenty years ago, having previously served in the battle dress and puttees of the infantry in the pre-unified era.  One day, as I approached the office of the adjutant, to my utter amazement, I saw an unnamed corporal standing inside the parade square, cap off and smoking a cigarette; each of which, to my memory, was an infraction and subject to being put on charge.  When I enquired about this chap, I was told that he was a regular force liaison.  ‘Why isn’t he being disciplined?’ I asked.  ‘Things are different now Padre, he replied. ‘It’s not like it used to be.  We’re more relaxed about that sort of thing’.   I therefore wasn’t surprised some time later when the same fellow, having enjoyed himself too much at an event, was simply ignored after assaulting an officer whilst raving on that the Lieutenant was merely a ‘reserve officer’ and that he, as a Corporal, outranked the officer because he was in the ‘Regs’.  He was not disciplined. That would have gone over big with General Currie.

This phony division between ‘regulars’ and ‘reserves’ that is, or at least was until very recently, a part of CF culture, was something new to me as well.  Certainly I don’t recall it when I was a private in the Canadian Army reserve.  Perhaps it’s because the memory of the war was still fresh and the Canadian Army that fought the battle consisted mostly of citizen soldiers who kept a strong association with their battalions.  Besides, in this country, the ‘Militia’ has long been particularly regarded as the ‘norm’, from the time that we were colony and as the chief support to the small ‘Regular Army’. 

When the DEU was instituted in the Mulroney era, in response to the same desire that this thread is discussing, it was difficult to watch as someone, somewhere at NDHQ, played a kind of amateurish ‘shell game’.  Instead of restoring updated uniforms of the RCN, the Army and the RCAF, the geniuses at NDHQ came up with stand pat Hellyers and Hellyers in a ‘kind of Air Force blue’ and Navy blue.  In addition, the Land Forces were issued with an unattractive ‘summer’ beige, patterned it seems after that of the U.S. Navy.  Since then, with the odd change here or there, it has remained the same.
Of course, in an attempt to save embarrassment among those serving in Maritime Command, Naval ranks were re-introduced but officers denied, even though some pleaded, the honour of traditional ‘Eliot’s curl’; a feature of the RCN and navies of the Commonwealth.  It was an obvious slur to Air Command that their ranks were not restored to the Canadian and Commonwealth tradition but then they are still largely ignored.  They were tossed the bone of a ‘wedge cap’; not in addition to, but replacing the officers’ cap.  It all brought new meaning to the old phrase paraphrased:
‘There’s something about a man in DEU!’  Good grief.

There have been other ad hoc changes that have virtually restored something of an identity for a Navy, Army and Air Force but they do not rely upon the Canadian tradition and heraldic principles from whence they were supposedly derived. The ‘naval ensign’ and ‘new crest’ appear to be more like that of a Canadian Yacht Club than the fighting naval force of what once was the third largest navy in the world, the RCN.  My brother, a former pilot on HMCS Bonaventure, our last aircraft carrier, continues to shake his head in disbelief.   Well, at least they got the white part right.  I note that the new CF Army crest, clearly not quite as dignified as the Canadian Army crest with three maple leaves surmounted by the Crown, has one huge leaf and the Crown is gone. (although the sticker I received from Army.ca when I subscribed shows the Crown, you won’t find it on a CF site). 

To those who suggest that this is all piffle, I would ask:
Why then bother making any changes, such as those above, if it is so unimportant?
For those who don’t want the restoration of the names, what harm could it possibly do for sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to be able to instantly identify with their forebears whose achievements in war in each service afford them their true legacy…not to mention that of their country?

To underscore the point somewhat, yesterday the Sea Cadets were out fundraising in our area and they looked very smart in their uniforms with their chevrons and the like.  They were all quite enthusiastic about being Cadets and said that they had learned a lot.  I asked them if they knew their official march, the march of the ‘Navy’, i.e., Maritime C.
They just stared.  Thought they knew it but couldn’t remember.  When I mentioned to their relief that it is ‘Heart of Oak’, they responded, ‘Oh, yeah, I think we’ve heard of that’.  Then I asked them if they knew why their uniforms were different from those of the Army and Air Cadets.  Their eyes went blank.  Didn’t know.  At that point, a young lady told me, ‘Sir, we just do things we don’t need to know why we do them’.

In a way, that sums up the culture that underlies the issue: the estrangement and gradual indifference towards the intentional erasure or historical revision of Canadian service symbols and tradition and replaced by the minds of politically-motivated bureaucrats.

I cannot think of any other country that would abide the outright, public denial of a commission oath by an officer in its armed services.  Yet, in Canada, the country that Mark Steyn once noted is ‘the only country in the world that celebrates its heritage by abolishing it,’ an officer who teaches at the Royal Military College is permitted to defy the Sovereign authority from whom his commission is given.  Why this man has not been cashiered is very telling and speaks directly to the lack of seriousness with which Canada takes its actual (as opposed to invented) heritage and symbols of authority.

If DND and the brass were to proudly restore the names, ranks and discipline of the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF, it would be something close to a miracle; although I don't doubt at all that there are senior officers and perhaps others who have enormous respect for those traditions and would delight in the gesture.  There was a time when I thought it was realistically possible and that the horrors of the political culture of the CF could be put behind us.  It is, however, very powerful and deeply entrenched within the Federal bureaucracy.

Such a restoration would not affect, in any way whatsoever, the unified command structure of the CF which would remain the same; just as getting the sailors out of Hellyer green didn’t re-write QR&O.  Certainly, it would be a logical step to much of what has been done already and there is absolutely no practical reason or principle not to do it. 

Perhaps, if the government introduced legislation to revoke the disastrous 1974 amalgamation of the Ministry of Defence with the Armed Forces and eliminate the political and civilianised culture that prevails, the breath of fresh air that would result might afford all ranks the benefit of re-discovering their service identities and act as a catalyst both for morale and the increasing needs of recruitment.

How ironic it is for a country that perpetuates the mythology of ‘the birth of a nation’ from the instance of one battle could in the same breath turn so readily away from the tradition that event so dramatically produced in establishing an independent Royal Canadian Navy, a Canadian Army with its own regiments and corps, and the Royal Canadian Air Force that acquitted itself so magnificently in the second world war.  How much easier it is, now that the generations that brilliantly showed the world their services and traditions are passing, to dismiss their heritage.  Surely, the distinction that each of these traditions established deserves its place in the CF.

With apologies for the length:  3 days, and 300 years, indeed.


 



















 






 



 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 29, 2007, 10:51:52
Good post, however,
you say "forefathers", well to me at least two generations [career years] have served under the present system.......................are they not the "forefathers" to someone joining today?

Or is "forefather" only appropriate when discussing the British roots?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 29, 2007, 11:34:44
Bruce:

The term I used was 'forebears' and your reply underscores the issue of identity that this debate addresses which is to restore something of the continuity of the contemporary forces with those of their foundation.
Of course those who served in the '70's and onwards are forebearers of the generation serving today but the implication of the cultural revolution was to cut off those who went before them.  That's not only intellectually dishonest, it is a disservice to those who continue to serve whose legacy, so devastatingly stripped from them by some of their more immediate forebears they have a right to celebrate and inherit.

The 'present system' to which you refer has already undergone a number of changes since unification; most of which point to the distinction of services and euphamistically called 'elements'.  The restoration of some titles and ranks have already established a pattern that points to a logical conclusion.

As for the 'British' side of things, well, that ought to be something to be proud of given that a large part of what we are today is because of what we were as a Dominion, culturally and militarily.  I would suggest that General Georges P. Vanier is a forebear who demonstrates the authenticity of that.  To embrace one's heritage, legacy, tradition and foundation oughtn't to imply a denial of the virtues of those who follow.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 29, 2007, 12:00:05
Of course those who served in the '70's and onwards are forebearers of the generation serving today but the implication of the cultural revolution was to cut off those who went before them.  That's not only intellectually dishonest, it is a disservice to those who continue to serve whose legacy, so devastatingly stripped from them by some of their more immediate forebears they have a right to celebrate and inherit.

Well, to use your template, since I only served under unification, to make it something else could be concieved as
 " devastatingly stripped" from myself and those in my place.

You don't like that it happened to you, but to make it happen to me somehow seems OK to you?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: time expired on April 29, 2007, 12:06:22
PIDD
       Great post ,in a nutshell.Bruce your missing the point,its not British roots they are CANADIAN
roots, maybe soon of the symbols derived from the Imperial Army but everyone who served under
stood what made us distinctive from the Brits., the Brits.certainly did. When I enlisted in 1958 we
were introduced to traditions that connected us directly to those CANADIAN soldiers who covered themselves
in glory on Vimy Ridge.After Unification my Corp was destroyed to be replaced by a "branch" I was given
a hatbadge that meant nothing and was uniformed in the grand tradition of the Texaco gas jockey.
Only the fact that I was being posted back to Germany kept me from chucking the whole thing,plenty
of my friends did,.One had to have experience these traumatic events to realize what was lost.
                             Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 29, 2007, 12:26:56
After Unification my Corp was destroyed to be replaced by a "branch" I was given
a hatbadge that meant nothing and was uniformed in the grand tradition of the Texaco gas jockey.
Only the fact that I was being posted back to Germany kept me from chucking the whole thing,plenty
of my friends did,.One had to have experience these traumatic events to realize what was lost.                       

...and now that at least two cycles have served and gone under the hat badge "that meant nothing" to you but maybe everything to them, again I must ask, it seems OK to you to do the same thing too them that disgusted you so much before?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 29, 2007, 12:47:01
Well, to use your template, since I only served under unification, to make it something else could be concieved as
 " devastatingly stripped" from myself and those in my place.

You don't like that it happened to you, but to make it happen to me somehow seems OK to you?

I'm sorry that you seem to be taking my analysis personally; no offence intended.
I don't understand you're complaint.  I'll try to clarify my point.
That the services were devastatingly stripped from top to bottom, in support, equipment, identity, the whole nine yards, for all ranks, in every 'element' and in every place, is a blaring historical fact attested to by many of those who have served, like you, in the four decades since unification.
You seem to infer that because one didn't know or experience the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF, somehow they are irrelevant to those now serving in the CF when, obviously, all the interest, searching, and recently 'restored' titles, ranks, and uniforms demonstrate the opposite.
Of course there are some who believe that the CF as it was constituted, or is constituted, or as it is in process, should not restore the traditions or titles of the services that preceded them but then, that's the issue and has been the issue for many who've worn the Hellyer Green.
Of course one takes pride in the service one has had attached to the symbols, badges, etc. that were worn.
Restoring some of what was lost doesn't take away from what was added.  It needn't be exclusive. 
I once had a conversation with a 'General' in Ottawa back in the 80's who remarked:  'We don't have to undo the good things we've accomplished but I wish we could have our bloody identities back and I'm not a General!'  Another officer piped in: 'They won't allow it'.
I have wondered who 'they' were....and why they were 'they'.



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RangerRay on April 29, 2007, 12:57:50
+10 Pidd.  Excellent post.

As one who has known and served only in the post-unification order, I wholeheartedly agree with you.  When I was in, I felt that there was a disconnect between ourselves in the present, and our past.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 29, 2007, 13:27:04
I note that the new CF Army crest, clearly not quite as dignified as the Canadian Army crest with three maple leaves surmounted by the Crown, has one huge leaf and the Crown is gone.
That is not the LFC crest.  What you have seen is a “logo.” It is used by people that want the Canadian public to some how identify with the image.  While I suspect you and I both disagree with the use of this unofficial logo, you are in fact a support of the people who choose to use this image.  It is the people that use the logo that also use the term “Army” on official websites in order to make those sites more identifiable to average Canadians.  The catalyst that has brought “Navy” back into popular usage is the same that is pushing away references to “Royal.”  Here is the real LFC crest:

(http://milnet.ca/wiki/images/4/47/LFC_Badge.jpg)

what harm could it possibly do for sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to be able to instantly identify with their forebears whose achievements in war in each service afford them their true legacy…not to mention that of their country?
Sailors, soldiers and airmen/women are able to instantly identify with their forebears.  An organization does not need to perpetually maintain the same name for this.  Consider the NWMP to the RCMP of today.

it would be a mistake to view the whole identity and tradition of the forces that this petition, in part, represents, through the temporary euphoria of new Leopards and public attention, &c.
This is a bit of a red herring as I’ve seen no post suggesting that new leopards are a factor in devining the identity of the Canadian military.

The identity, tradition, history and honours of the RCN, the Canadian Army or RCAF were of absolutely no concern to Paul Hellyer, the Defence Minister, and the minority Liberal government of the time, who set in motion the events that would prove to be near disastrous for our armed forces in the succeeding decades. 
Your article goes on to mix integration, unification and civilianization into one homogeneous disaster.  Civilianization was bad for the forces and it still is not doing us any good.  However, the unification (as it has evolved today) is good for our military.  In fact one lost element of unification that we should consider brining back is the establishment of helicopter units within Maritime Command and Land Force Command (Mobile Command back then) – let Air Command keep the schools and management of the occupations though.  There is no reason to go back to the old services.

Such a restoration would not affect, in any way whatsoever, the unified command structure of the CF which would remain the same
So, going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 29, 2007, 16:09:20
Not taking it personally at all. I just find it rather sad that you cry about what was "lost" and yet seem to have no problem doing it to others. What about the Navy guy right now whom likes being called "General"?   Maybe that's not important though.......


Since I've became a Correctional Officer the name of whom we work for has changed several times,[ actually just opened another window to get our present 'handle'] and I feel no "disconnect" with past CO's.
Spend the money on training and bullets........




Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 29, 2007, 19:47:47
Not taking it personally at all. I just find it rather sad that you cry about what was "lost" and yet seem to have no problem doing it to others. What about the Navy guy right now whom likes being called "General"?    Maybe that's not important though.......


Since I've became a Correctional Officer the name of whom we work for has changed several times,[ actually just opened another window to get our present 'handle'] and I feel no "disconnect" with past CO's.
Spend the money on training and bullets........

The Unification rank names had a very short shelf life for the Navy. It wasn't long after Hellyer left the Ministry that the Naval rank names returned.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: time expired on April 29, 2007, 20:12:15
MCG
      Unification,integration and civilianization are tied to each other and all happened as a direct result
of the P. Hellyer unification plan.Incidentally the army had its AOP and Recce Flts.with fixed wing A/C
and latter helicopters before unification and only lost them after unification took effect.
                                        Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 29, 2007, 20:44:33
Unification, integration and civilianization are tied to each other and all happened as a direct result of the P. Hellyer unification plan.
Civilianization (1972) was Trudeau’s work.  Unification (1967) and Integration (1964) were Hellyer & Pearson.  These are not the same thing.

However, you are correct that it was integration (not unification) that brought air assets into Mobile Command.  It was the creation of Air Command (1975) that took that away.
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php/topic,57811.msg531802.html#msg531802
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: time expired on April 30, 2007, 08:48:15
MCG
      I humbly suggest to you that all these "ations" were interconnected and that one would
have not happened without the other,given the mind set of the Liberal gov. of the time.This
mind set was eloquently laid out in PIDD`s post.I arrived in Germany in 1963 and I am sure
that the L19s of the AOP and the Bell Nomad helicopters of Recce Sqn.,flown incidentally by Army
pilots,were not a figure of my imagination.This was well before integration.
     Bruce M. this hatbadge that meant nothing to me meant nothing to anyone else either,as
immediately after it was introduced a battle started to" bring back the horse" RCEME,this was finally
accomplished in the late 70s.The fight to retrieve the Corps from the branch was less successfully
however and,at least until I left in 1983 not much of the RCEME tradition had been retained.Also I
would like to bring your attention to the results of the poll,either the majority of the pollists are all
dinosaurs like me or some of the younger members feel there is something to be said for the
traditional formations.
                            Regards 
     
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 30, 2007, 09:03:12
..and whereas I would say,[ and of course, just my opinion] that the "younger members" have more important things to worry about than wasting more of their too precious time with resewing, repainting, or rewhatevering some old initials that they haven't served under anyways.
..and a very quick beruse of this thread seems to bear that out, it would appear most of the presentally serving members are of that opinion also.

Personally I am proud of my naval service and Its the great people you work with everyday that makes it a great organization having or not having the Royal designation does not make one iota of difference in that pride.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 30, 2007, 09:41:40
That is not the LFC crest.  What you have seen is a “logo.” It is used by people that want the Canadian public to some how identify with the image.  While I suspect you and I both disagree with the use of this unofficial logo, you are in fact a support of the people who choose to use this image.  It is the people that use the logo that also use the term “Army” on official websites in order to make those sites more identifiable to average Canadians.  The catalyst that has brought “Navy” back into popular usage is the same that is pushing away references to “Royal.”  Here is the real LFC crest:

Thanks for the clarification.  It's unfortunate that a portion of the crest is used as a 'logo' and so contributes to the confusion.

Sailors, soldiers and airmen/women are able to instantly identify with their forebears.  An organization does not need to perpetually maintain the same name for this.  Consider the NWMP to the RCMP of today.
This is a bit of a red herring as I’ve seen no post suggesting that new leopards are a factor in devining the identity of the Canadian military.


I have to disagree.  For a long time now, there are many who 'feel' that the Forces are reduced to 'choosing' between 'bullets & bolts' and tradition.  Now that the Forces are finally beginning to be shown some respect by the government in terms of equipment and recruitment, it is very easy for one to then disregard the stuff in the military that has been equally dismissed or ignored.  As for the NWMP, then RoyalNWMP, then RoyalCMP...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.

Your article goes on to mix integration, unification and civilianization into one homogeneous disaster.  Civilianization was bad for the forces and it still is not doing us any good.  However, the unification (as it has evolved today) is good for our military.  In fact one lost element of unification that we should consider brining back is the establishment of helicopter units within Maritime Command and Land Force Command (Mobile Command back then) – let Air Command keep the schools and management of the occupations though.  There is no reason to go back to the old services.

Yes, there is a direct connection between the stages of the dismantling and isolation of the Canadian Armed Forces from unification through to civilianisation that occurred under Defence Minister Donald MacDonald in 1974.  The notion of a 'unified command' structure with interchangable units is not unique to Canada.  This was being explored and reviewed with some intensity by the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF in the fifties.  It was largely a product of the 'wisdom' learned from the strategies employed during the second world war since the disastrous raid on Dieppe sent everyone back to the drawing board.  Unification of command and control is a 'no-brainer' and is largely embraced by the militaries of most of our allies.  The abolishing of the services themselves, however, is a corollary decision whose motives had absolutely nothing to do with unification per se.  It was politically driven.  Even Hellyer, a few years ago, acknowledged that it was a mistake to change the identities of the Navy, Army and Air Force and that if he had to do it over again he would not have 'changed the uniforms'.  He acknowledged that the results were disastrous for morale.
The civilianisation, i.e., politicisation of the Canadian military, continues to plague the ability of the Armed Forces to govern themselves through the confusion of roles that the brass are required to play. 
I have not suggested anywhere that we 'go back' to the old service structure.  Rather, I do support the restoration of the identities of the RCN, Canadian Army and the RCAF within the unified forces that, as I have indicated, even Hellyer admits was a blunder.  Indeed, for the most part over the past few years, this has been done in all but name.

So, going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?

The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
There is pride in a name as you well know and, just as that pride is ever-present with the name of the RCR and other units of the 'Army', so it should be for our sailors and air crews.  It would not alter the mobility or command of the CF one iota but it might, I suggest, enhance morale and provide an impetus in recruiting.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 30, 2007, 10:04:31
..and whereas I would say,[ and of course, just my opinion] that the "younger members" have more important things to worry about than wasting more of their too precious time with resewing, repainting, or rewhatevering some old initials that they haven't served under anyways.
..and a very quick beruse of this thread seems to bear that out, it would appear most of the presentally serving members are of that opinion also.


Are these the same 'younger members' who complain about the waste of time in sewing on their patches and chevrons that they've earned?  In addition, why bother with fiddling with all those ribbons and medals for useless parades when there are so many more important things to do.  And what do those guys lying in the ground have to do with me?  They weren't CF.  We should just move on. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the 'Horse' in the RCHA...the CF doesn't use horses.  It should be just GunsCanada.  All that old stuff just distracts us from doing our jobs.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 30, 2007, 11:30:09
There appears to be a disconnect with some in understanding the importance of symbols, titles, and the like in the military that are built over time and made hallow by those whose service created them; commonly called 'Tradition'.

By way of illustration, I thought of a contemporary ficticious scenario that might assist in appreciating why there is such depth of loyalty, feeling and even resentment among many for what has occurred with our armed forces.
It has been suggested that those who serve with the CF identify only with those symbols, etc. that are in current use.  Imagine the following:

The new government announced today that the identity and role of the CF as it has been is not in keeping with the philosophy and defence policy that it wants to project to the world.  Committed to disarmement, re-construction of the Third World, and World Peace, it has decided that the CF should reflect the values it embraces.

Henceforth, all regiments and corps of the Land Forces will be amalgamated into one to be called, 'SoldiersCanada'.  There will be no more distinctions between branches or functions.  All will be one.
All the Colours, Queen's and Regimental, will be replaced with one flag to be carried by SoldiersCanada on parade.  This flag, made of green, bio-degradable hemp, reflects the identity and principles of Canada's peacekeepers.  Emblazoned in the centre is the symbol of peace in the colours of the rainbow to reflect Canada's commitment to diversity, tolerance, affirmative action and gender indifference.
The new motto for SoldiersCanada is, 'Forget. Forgive. Social Justice'.

(http://www.piddingworth.com/soldiers_canada_colour.gif)  The New Colour

(http://www.piddingworth.com/rrofc_colour.gif) A traditional Regimental Colour with battle honours.

All soldiers will wear the new cap badge with the symbol of peace and maple leaf.

Betty LeMay, the newly-appointed Minister of National Peace, stated that there will no longer be 'Defence' forces but 'Peace Forces'.  'It is time to turn our backs on the war-mongering years in which the Canadian Forces were used as imperial oppressors against humanity.

It has been reported that upon this announcement, General Kitchener Byng, the Chief of the Defence Staff, a veteran of many campaigns, has submitted his resignation along with most of the members of his staff.  Other senior officers, including those currently engaged in combat, have also indicated that they will resign.
Sources have learned that upon being told of the changes, General Byng went into a rage and blasted the government for 'betraying everything that the CF has stood for and paid with their blood!'

It has also been revealed that, in addition to the changes within the soon-to-be former army, the navy will be identified as 'SeaCanada' and the air force as 'FlightCanada' whose crests will also be changed from their ensigns to the new Peace Forces flag.

'Because military uniforms are intimidating and carry with them the baggage of imperialism and war, all Peace Force personnel will be issued new DCD, i.e., Designated Civilian Dress, with trousers and shirts in rainbow colours and consisting primarily of natural fibres.

There are indications that other changes will come as the story develops.


As preposterous as this scenario might seem, the abolishing of the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, with their uniforms, traditions and esprit de corps was as devastating to most of those serving at the time as I suggest the above would be to those who serve now...if one can possible appreciate the signficance of 'just a name'.
 



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on April 30, 2007, 12:26:55
As for the NWMP, then RoyalNWMP, then RoyalCMP...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.
You’ve fully ignored my point.  If different name prevents one from identifying with one’s past, then the RCMP cannot possibly identify with the RNWMP.  I think you know this is simply not true, and I think just about every Canadian is aware of this link.

… there is a direct connection between the stages of the dismantling and isolation of the Canadian Armed Forces from unification through to civilianisation that occurred under Defence Minister Donald MacDonald in 1974. 
It was different governments implementing different things.  You are not asking to undo civilianization so lamenting its horrors is really a red herring in your argument.  You are just asking to throw a couple of old names back into the still civilianized CF.

I have not suggested anywhere that we 'go back' to the old service structure
Iknow, but . . .
Quote
.. going back to my repeated question, if you don’t want to recreate the old services then what do you want to carry the old names?
The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
Could you just answer the question Mr Politician?  You don’t want to bring back the old service and call it RCN.  You don’t want to rename Maritime Command to RCN.  You want the name.  What entity will have that name?

You keep referring to the RCR.  Well, even the RCR have a regimental headquarters.


It would not alter the mobility or command of the CF one iota but it might, I suggest, enhance morale and provide an impetus in recruiting.
It will do nothing for recruiting.  The CF is already using the logo-name “Navy” for Maritime Command, and it is hiding the crown in other graphic logos.  Anyone that would be drawn by the name change is already being drawn by the “logo-name.”
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on April 30, 2007, 14:13:33
Thank you, Pidd, for making the case, and for making it brilliantly! Your work is done here, sir. If you can't convince the minority now, convince the minority you will not. But a splendid effort indeed in attempting the impossible.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 30, 2007, 16:25:02

Iknow, but . . . The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.Could you just answer the question Mr Politician?  You don’t want to bring back the old service and call it RCN.  You don’t want to rename Maritime Command to RCN.   You want the name.  What entity will have that name?

You keep referring to the RCR.  Well, even the RCR have a regimental headquarters.

It will do nothing for recruiting.  The CF is already using the logo-name “Navy” for Maritime Command, and it is hiding the crown in other graphic logos.  Anyone that would be drawn by the name change is already being drawn by the “logo-name.”


I want to rename Maritime Command with Royal Canadian Navy. And while we are at it I'll take the Cyclones and their personnel as well. I'll paint Navy on the Stbd side and Marine on the port.

In addition, the Ensign of the Indian Navy which hasn't lost its national character with the retention of its historical roots.

(http://)

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on April 30, 2007, 16:27:51
I have a novel idea............lets take all the energy, time and money that has been, and will be, wasted on friggin' names, initials and acronyms and use it to make the Forces we have RIGHT NOW [names and all] the [one]most effective fighting force we can.

I'll take training and bullets, please.......

The thing is, we're not talking about very much energy, time, or money.  For the trade-off you mightn't get any more than an extra five minutes of classroom time and half a magazine of C-7 ammunition.

But, besides that, it interests me that people who complain about the time involved in these discussions still manage to find the time to be involved in these discussions... ;)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Blackadder1916 on April 30, 2007, 17:18:00
Quote
I was recently on a course in San Diego and my certificate stated that I was from the RCN, evidently the Americans (and many others) still regard us as the Royal Canadian Navy.

I would take what a foreign military calls us with a grain of salt.  I was once introduced at a conference by a USAF BGen as being a member of (despite what it clearly stated in my bio) Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Forces Medical Corps.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 30, 2007, 17:28:24
I would take what a foreign military calls us with a grain of salt.  I was once introduced at a conference by a USAF BGen as being a member of (despite what it clearly stated in my bio) Her Majesty's Royal Canadian Forces Medical Corps.

Oh I know that what they say carries little weight. It's just interesting to note that we have been called the CF internally for over 40 years and our allies still call us by our old names.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on April 30, 2007, 17:34:21
. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the 'Horse' in the RCHA...the CF doesn't use horses.  It should be just GunsCanada.  All that old stuff just distracts us from doing our jobs.

Did that [got rid of the Horse] when I went to 'W' Bty for my last two years..........big hairy deal.  Call us WTF you want, just keep us trained enough to excel and, God willing, survive the next encounter.........everything else is ego stroking or some strange thinking that if we call everything "Royal" we may yet see Britannica rule the world again. ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on April 30, 2007, 18:05:41
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Freddy G on April 30, 2007, 18:11:59
we may yet see Britannica rule the world again.

Will we go back to being an Empire, too? If so, why don't we get the Imperial Navy instead of the RCN? The former would sound so much scarier than the latter!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 30, 2007, 19:08:50
And while we are at it I'll take the Cyclones and their personnel as well. I'll paint Navy on the Stbd side and Marine on the port.



Oh yeah...one of my favorite all-time ideas...let people who do have a clue how to employ aviation asset ( read canadian navy) control either the Cyclones or the Aurora  ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on April 30, 2007, 19:15:07
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare. (http://www.musesrealm.net/rome/quoteoftheday.html)

So, does this mean we should, or shouldn't, repeat the "mistake" of a name change to please a few?

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 30, 2007, 19:19:42
Oh I know that what they say carries little weight. It's just interesting to note that we have been called the CF internally for over 40 years and our allies still call us by our old names.

And even though i have a Canadian Flag clearly afixed to my uniform, i still get asked what country i am from when i'm in the US.  I dont see how your observation is relevant.

Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.

Ooooooh.....latin.......thats it, i'm convinced  ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on April 30, 2007, 20:39:18
Oh yeah...one of my favorite all-time ideas...let people who do have a clue how to employ aviation asset ( read canadian navy) control either the Cyclones or the Aurora  ::)

I take from the tone that you ment to say do not have a clue?

Also I never said the Aurora, only the rotor heads since it appears that the folks at CAS couldn't care less about the Sea King squardrons.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on April 30, 2007, 20:42:27
I take from the tone that you ment to say do not have a clue?

Good catch...guess the Brain-finger interface was out of sync......again !!

Quote
Also I never said the Aurora, only the rotor heads since it appears that the folks at CAS couldn't care less about the Sea King squardrons.

How so ?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Iterator on May 01, 2007, 02:42:08
I know I’m being selective in my quotes, but.

...
What emerged, however, was a civilianised, politically-disturbed military organisation and culture. This was reflected not only in lack of recruitment, manpower and equipment but in drill, deportment and discipline; particularly within the ‘chain of command’ bearing no resemblance to the RCN, the Canadian Army or the RCAF.
...
Having had their ‘traditions’ stripped from them, the sailors, soldiers and air personnel of the CF appear to have improvised their own; not to be found in the RCN, Army or RCAF but, unfortunately and sadly, in American popular culture.
...
Like the habit of placing helmets on rifles for the fallen, in imitation of our American friends, it seems that the men and women of our forces, by all accounts, and including the poll here at Army.ca, are thirsty for a tradition with which to identify.  Yet, whilst it is clearly permissible for CF personnel to adopt customs that are not of our tradition, even in popular culture from the USA, it seems ridiculous that it is not allowed to restore the naval, military and air traditions of our own country. 
...
I returned to my regiment as a chaplain some twenty years ago, having previously served in the battle dress and puttees of the infantry in the pre-unified era.  One day, as I approached the office of the adjutant, to my utter amazement, I saw an unnamed corporal standing inside the parade square, cap off and smoking a cigarette; each of which, to my memory, was an infraction and subject to being put on charge.  When I enquired about this chap, I was told that he was a regular force liaison.  ‘Why isn’t he being disciplined?’ I asked.  ‘Things are different now Padre, he replied. ‘It’s not like it used to be.  We’re more relaxed about that sort of thing’.   I therefore wasn’t surprised some time later when the same fellow, having enjoyed himself too much at an event, was simply ignored after assaulting an officer whilst raving on that the Lieutenant was merely a ‘reserve officer’ and that he, as a Corporal, outranked the officer because he was in the ‘Regs’.  He was not disciplined. That would have gone over big with General Currie.
...
If DND and the brass were to proudly restore the names, ranks and discipline of the RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF, it would be something close to a miracle; although I don't doubt at all that there are senior officers and perhaps others who have enormous respect for those traditions and would delight in the gesture.  There was a time when I thought it was realistically possible and that the horrors of the political culture of the CF could be put behind us.  It is, however, very powerful and deeply entrenched within the Federal bureaucracy.


...
...the attribution of the prefix 'Royal' was/is an honour granted in recognition of the force's reputation and standing.  Similarly, in the years following the Great War, many regiments from the numbered battalions, were also recognised as worthy of the stature of being 'Royal'.  It's one thing to give it...and another thing to have it taken away after it has been earned.
...
The Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen who earned the awarding of the honour of being 'Royal' in battle deserve their 'name'.  The titles were not removed for legitimate reasons but for cynical political purposes.
...



And now, to quote myself from a similar thread (that went somewhat off-topic).

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39670.msg347006.html#msg347006
Quote from: Iterator link=topic=39670.msg347006#msg347006
...
The problem is the history isn't long enough to see how things are allowed to change - and you take the traditions and customs that make sense. The RN has a long history, so it is apparent that they didn't stick with bare-feet, straw hats, tarred pigtails, men-only dancing, sails, the list is extensive on what the RN does not do that at one time it did. Our navy only sees 100 years, and all of it in the 20th or 21st centuries, so it has a hard time conceiving of the fact that things do change. Time and circumstances have made the RCN an anachronism - not a tradition.

If you feel there is something wrong with the navy it won’t be something wearing wide-legged pants is going to solve.
...

http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,39670.75.html
Quote from: Iterator link=topic=39670.msg347026#msg347026
...
The army is the army with Royal branches, but not all branches, and Royal regiments, but not all regiments. The army is not less than a Royal navy, and neither are the non-Royal branches or regiments lesser than their Royal compatriots. The Royal does not seem to add anything. At all.
...



The Navy was "Royal" for only about 60% of its existence, and the Air Force - about 50%. The depth of this particular tradition is a little shallow compared to the extent of our common history.

The names of organizations and ranks, the colours and styles of uniforms and flags, have all changed over time because of fashion, fad, and fickleness. Today's popular military trends should not be dismissed just because they are different from the earlier popular trends of the "Victorian Dandy" or "Boy's Own" type.

As for the "Royal" part of regimental/branch/element names - those that are "Royal" are no more prestigious than those that are not.

The point being that "Royal" will not solve any of the problems that are being suggested.






...
In addition, the Ensign of the Indian Navy which hasn't lost its national character with the retention of its historical roots.
...


Just a small point but, whatever the non-Royal Indian Navy does or doesn't do will probably sway no one (and combining an English flag with a Canadian flag to represent the Navy is just an ugly idea).



The thing is, we're not talking about very much energy, time, or money.  For the trade-off you mightn't get any more than an extra five minutes of classroom time and half a magazine of C-7 ammunition.
...

I agree - there is nothing prohibitive about the cost. I just think that the concept of one service was a brilliant idea (if poorly enacted), and that the current situation of the less-than-substantive Army, Navy, and Air Force, is the correct nod to the past services.

What I would prefer to see would be more continuation of lineages for ships, squadrons, and regiments beyond the inception dates of the Army, RCN, and RCAF, and of the Canadian personnel who served directly in the British services.


Edit: Fixed Links
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on May 01, 2007, 10:11:02
The Navy was "Royal" for only about 60% of its existence, and the Air Force - about 50%. The depth of this particular tradition is a little shallow compared to the extent of our common history.

Fair comment -- but, in the case of the navy, it was the 60 per cent in which it made its name.  Nothing since 1968 compares to the Battle of the Atlantic, e.g.

But to really understand naval tradition, you can't start the clock in 1910.  You have to look back much farther, because the heritage of the Royal Navy is also the heritage of the Canadian navy.  For a very small example, if I drink to "absent friends" on Sunday that's not a 90-year-old tradition; it's something much older.  The real poke in the eye when the navy ceased to be Royal was as much about a mean-spirited throwing away of heritage simply for the sake of throwing away heritage (coupled with a large dose of Anglophobia).  Just as a teenager tries to reject as much of what his parents stand for as he can, Canada played the part of the petulant teenager.  We're still doing it now, with things like the abandonment of the centuries-old system of Commonwealth battle honours and a change to many of the similarly venerable toasts of the day.

Quote
Just a small point but, whatever the non-Royal Indian Navy does or doesn't do will probably sway no one (and combining an English flag with a Canadian flag to represent the Navy is just an ugly idea).

What they've done (and other countries have done the same thing) is to take the naval ensign under which their ships sailed and replace the Union Jack therein with their own country's flag.  It's not a matter of combining an English symbol with one of their own, but of taking the flag they'd been using for decades and making it more of their own while keeping a tie to the past.  I think it's a decent compromise that respects their heritage while preventing their being mistaken for the British.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Iterator on May 01, 2007, 11:40:50
...
What they've done (and other countries have done the same thing) is to take the naval ensign under which their ships sailed and replace the Union Jack therein with their own country's flag.  It's not a matter of combining an English symbol with one of their own, but of taking the flag they'd been using for decades and making it more of their own while keeping a tie to the past.  I think it's a decent compromise that respects their heritage while preventing their being mistaken for the British.

While I can agree (and clearly the Indian Navy does) that the "English" portion can be viewed strictly a "Royal fill-in-the-blank Navy" standard, I actually think the red Canadian flag would look ugly in the canton.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Freddy G on May 04, 2007, 16:05:35
Just as a teenager tries to reject as much of what his parents stand for as he can, Canada played the part of the petulant teenager.  We're still doing it now, with things like the abandonment of the centuries-old system of Commonwealth battle honours and a change to many of the similarly venerable toasts of the day.

I think the change in toasts of the day isn't so much that we want to throw away all that is British, but rather goes with the flow of overly politically correct speech pervasive in the government today, much like the change from fireman to fireperson, for example.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Infanteer on May 05, 2007, 01:49:42
I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: NFLD Sapper on May 05, 2007, 12:03:04
I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?

How about giving us back our Royal title  ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: RangerRay on May 06, 2007, 01:49:27
I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?

Sounds like a hell of a deal!  :cheers:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on May 06, 2007, 18:23:18
I'll give you guys the "RCN" if I can have a Sam Browne belt and a decent looking Dress Uniform back....deal?

I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course you should be in scarlets for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: The Monarchist on May 18, 2007, 11:04:50
SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!

Go to the Petition Blog and follow the link to the online petition. Spread the word; tell all your friends and family.

http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com (http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com)

Is there a way to put this message at the top?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Aden_Gatling on May 18, 2007, 17:33:50
I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course you should be in scarlets for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....

+1!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on May 18, 2007, 18:08:10
I'd like to see you back in a decent Khaki coloured uniform...not wool but some of the new materials like the Aussies wear...and a sam brown belt for sure. Of course you should be in scarlets for ceremonial uniforms and not just a hand full on the honour guard.....

I don't suppose you'd throw in public money for those scarlets, would you?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on May 19, 2007, 11:40:59
SIGN THE PETITION TODAY!

Go to the Petition Blog and follow the link to the online petition. Spread the word; tell all your friends and family.

http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com (http://rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com)

Is there a way to put this message at the top?


Done and sent to some buddies to sign too.... :cdn:

for Michael...absolutely should be at public expense for the dress scarlets for initial issue....then same as the other uniforms replaced through point system when in need.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Center_Right_newfie on July 16, 2007, 18:53:52
As many of you allready know there is a petition to rename Air Command and Maritime Command the RCAF and RCN.For those who aren't aware of it, the petition is at gopetition.com. Just type in RCAF or RCN. You can also go to http://www.rcn-rcaf.blogspot.com , and work your way from there. Remember to tell others of this too.

The main reason I've posted this is to get more members in my "reinstate the RCN and RCAF" group on facebook. I've made this facebook group in support of the petition. If you have facebook , please join, and/or if you can, tell others of the facebook group..

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Center_Right_newfie on July 16, 2007, 21:34:29
Damn straight it should be changed back. It's all good that the forces were unified, as they should work together, but everything else they did was wrong, including dropping "royal" from the names. Re-adding "royal" would give back the reminder of tradition and pride to the navy and airforce. It was pointless in the first place to take royal out, and it was, quite frankly, a pointless and stupid endevaur
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 16, 2007, 23:20:32
It looks fairly simple to me.

Current NDA:

14.  The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.

New NDA:

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force.

Done! From my perspective, a dirt simple amendment to the NDA. We don't have to reinstate these services, just reintroduce the traditional names. No changes to the CF structure, operations, management, etc needs to change. In essence, we set the clock back to where it should have been in 1968 when Mr Hellyer should have stopped. IMHO, from reading the history of the time, was that the main dis-satisfaction with unification was not the unification itself, but rather the lack of distinct identities of the three services.

I find this quote from the blogspot instructive:

"I am an active member of the federal Conservative Party. At our 2005 policy conference my defence policy resolution made it to the floor. It included the return of the RCN/RCAF titles of the element commands. It was defeated with the help of the current MND. Good luck though!"

There aren't many low cost, essentially free methods to instill esprit-de-corps, and this is one we should embrace.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: East coast on July 17, 2007, 00:15:12
If the names were to come back would the commands be reconized as the RCN/RCAF, like they used to because i only hear the military being refeared to as the canadian forces. Would they say like  the royal canadian navy is being sent to the gulf on operations, or would it be like the CAnadian forces are sending there ships to the gulf for operations.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 17, 2007, 00:18:58
If the names were to come back would the commands be reconized as the RCN/RCAF, like they used to because i only hear the military being refeared to as the canadian forces. Would they say like  the royal canadian navy is being sent to the gulf on operations, or would it be like the CAnadian forces are sending there ships to the gulf for operations.

You'd have to ask the media that question.  Lately, almost every reference to a member of the service is of a "soldier" and the "Army" is often referred to in the broader context when a mix of elements are involved.  Changing the names would not equal immediate public awareness and fully appropriate usage, even by those news outlets who might report on the name change (if there was no higher priority story involving Black, Hilton, murder or cute animals).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: East coast on July 17, 2007, 00:22:34
Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 17, 2007, 00:23:40
Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.

It can be anything you want it to be, this is all about a hypothetical situation.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 17, 2007, 00:31:50
Would this be just a name change or would uniforms and traditions come back.  Why not bring back "canadian army" as well.

Are we not already there with the DEUs?

Lately, almost every reference to a member of the service is of a "soldier" and the "Army" is often referred to in the broader context when a mix of elements are involved.  Changing the names would not equal immediate public awareness and fully appropriate usage, even by those news outlets who might report on the name change (if there was no higher priority story involving Black, Hilton, murder or cute animals).

True, and perhaps that is one of the subconscious reasons to bring back the Royal designations. The current unified force perspective makes it seem that only "soldiers" are engaged in ops, when we all know that not to be true. Educating the press and the public is a much bigger proposition, but with time, they would learn the difference.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 17, 2007, 04:24:12
From my perspective, a dirt simple amendment to the NDA. We don't have to reinstate these services, just reintroduce the traditional names.
However, your suggested change to the NDA would reinstate the old services.  And, while just reintroducing old names, what entity gets the name?  Do the enviromental commands get the old names?  So, a ship would be part of the RCN until it sails on Ops as a part of CEFCOM?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 17, 2007, 08:47:51
However, your suggested change to the NDA would reinstate the old services.  And, while just reintroducing old names, what entity gets the name?  Do the enviromental commands get the old names?  So, a ship would be part of the RCN until it sails on Ops as a part of CEFCOM?

I'm not sure that I understand the difficulty.  The CF already distinguishes between 'Navy', 'Army' & 'Air Force' and the support service branches that are assigned to each are accomodated with the uniform and identity of the particular 'Command' in which they serve, e.g., the Chaplains Branch remains just that but the Chaplain can move from Navy to Air Force with a mere change of uniform and still belonging to 'Chaplains Branch'.  The same pattern is applied to 'Engineers', formerly Royal Canadian Engineers in the Army, and 'Communications' formerly Royal Canadian Signal Corps in the Army.

It only makes sense that a 'ship' be identified with 'Navy' and a tank be identified with 'Army' in whatever operation the CF undertakes.  The restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is really a symbol for the identity that is already in place and partially restored and not a return to 'separate, self-administering' services.

Prior to unification and the subsquent institutional change, the RCN, Army, and RCAF participated in the assault on Juno Beach, Normandy, under a 'unified Command' that didn't require the removal of any of the service identities names, traditions, ranks or discipline.  Of course, there was a war on and petty jealousies between services had to be put on hold.  Affixing the honour 'Royal' to the identities of the Navy and the Air Force within the existing command structure would not affect the 'unified' policy already in place.  It would, as it already seems apparent by some of the comments from currently serving 'sailors' and 'air personnel' contribute to esprits de corps; a factor that we all know is vital to the lifeblood of the military.  One feels particularly for the Air Force whose abolished ranks and neglect in materiel await the same kind of unified support and restoration as was given the 'Navy' some years ago and where the officers still quietly long for their beloved 'Eliot's curl'.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 17, 2007, 09:13:15
I'm not sure that I understand the difficulty. 
Well then, please define the entity upon which you want the title "Royal" bestowed.  Do you want to rename the enviromental commands?  There is nothing else out there that embodies the lineage of the old services unless your intent is to give the title "Royal" to an emotion.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 17, 2007, 10:14:53
Well then, please define the entity upon which you want the title "Royal" bestowed.  Do you want to rename the enviromental commands?  There is nothing else out there that embodies the lineage of the old services unless your intent is to give the title "Royal" to an emotion.

There's no need to impugn or belittle my personal intent.  The petition as written conveys the substance of the purpose for the restoration within the context of the existing structure of the forces.

The 'environmental commands' have already been renamed...and some time ago. 
They are called 'Navy, Army and Air Force' but, unlike in the olden days, they are within the unified structure of the Canadian Forces.  The petition simply appeals for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' to 'Navy' and 'Air Force' to underscore the very lineage to which you refer and in which those so-called 'environments' already perpetuate their ships, squadrons, et al. 

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_images/common/navylogo.jpg

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/common/images/lffl.gif
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 17, 2007, 11:24:04
The 'environmental commands' have already been renamed...and some time ago.
Not officially.  However, thank you for finally making clear that you feel the environmental commands are the entities which should be renamed.  I will now reiterate my previous observation that it was the old services that were granted the title "Royal" and therefore the monarchy would have to be petitioned to bestow this title upon our modern commands.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 17, 2007, 11:49:11
Not officially.  However, thank you for finally making clear that you feel the environmental commands are the entities which should be renamed.  I will now reiterate my previous observation that it was the old services that were granted the title "Royal" and therefore the monarchy would have to be petitioned to bestow this title upon our modern commands.

I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services. The NDA merely states that the three are combined. I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them. Constitutionally, the government is not supposed to interfere with issues of Royal prerogative. Not that it hasn't stopped them in the past... just that they're not supposed to.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 17, 2007, 12:31:36
I'm not sure that is necessarily the case. There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services. The NDA merely states that the three are combined. I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them. Constitutionally, the government is not supposed to interfere with issues of Royal prerogative. Not that it hasn't stopped them in the past... just that they're not supposed to.

You may well be right.  Whatever the case, there is no doubt that should it be necessary to make a request of the Queen, it would be granted.  The relationship between the Royal Family and the military is especially deep.
The petition itself is written with a view to the restoration of the prefix without prejudice to the machinations,legal, bureaucratic, or otherwise euphemistic, that may be required to fulfil the task.
The changes, administrative and 'popular', that have been made at DND, including the matters related to ensigns, symbols and identity, have tended to be made 'on the fly' without deference to severe 'official' constitutional or parliamentary authority.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Greymatters on July 17, 2007, 13:40:01
New NDA:
14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and Royal Canadian Air Force.

Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 17, 2007, 13:42:08
Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...

There never was a Royal Canadian Army.  Each Regiment or Corps had it's own Royal Cypher, or not.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 17, 2007, 13:42:55
There was no act or decree that legally abolished the previous services.
The old services do not exist.  You are lying to yourself if you think that the legislation left room for the previous services to still be in existance when it unified all the three services & clearly states that only one service exists.  Maybe you could argue that the Canadian Forces should have inherited the title "Royal" from its predecesors.  However, the current commands are not the old independant services.  Keep in mind the differences.  The old services were both force generators & force employers.  This is not the case with current enviromental commands.

I would suggest that as the distinctions were granted as a Royal prerogative, they still exist as HM did not specifically withdraw them.
Then the distinctions exist for services which do not exist today.  As you have pointed out, the both government & military do not have perogative over the royal designation.  Therefore, neither can create an organization and give it the royal designation simply by claiming that it is the same as something that used to exist.  
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ModlrMike on July 17, 2007, 13:44:11
Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...

There was no Royal Canadian Army per se. Units and corps themselves had the Royal accolade ie: RCR, R22eR, RCAMC, RCEME etc, so there is no precedent to have the Army as a whole, Royal. If you look at the British Forces, their army is just the "Army", with "Royal" units and corps within.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 17, 2007, 13:45:01
I thought I just said that.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Aden_Gatling on July 17, 2007, 13:53:41
There never was a Royal Canadian Army.  Each Regiment or Corps had it's own Royal Cypher, or not.
You did!

Hey, hang on a second - how come the Army doesnt get a 'Royal' along with the Navy and Air Force?  If your going to put the 'Royal' back in the titles, you might as well do it for everybody...

But didn't these Regiments/Corps retain their titles ?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 17, 2007, 13:55:30
I'm not really adding much to the discussion but I'm grateful for the chance to say that I support this petition 100%. I see it as a simple name change which doesn't even affect CF command: Land Force Command which oversees the Canadian Army, Maritime Command which overseas the RCN, and Air Command which oversees the RCAF (instead of 1 CAD). Maybe the best way for this to happen is for the navy and air force to just start using those names, as the Navy did with naval ranks after unification (and don't forget they still don't exist in QR & O's), and they way Lord Strathcona's Horse did with black berets after unification. Or for that matter the way the Mulroney government did with DEU.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Blackadder1916 on July 17, 2007, 14:21:05
But didn't these Regiments/Corps retain their titles ?

Which of these Corps retained their titles?

Royal Canadian Engineers
Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
Royal Canadian Dental Corps
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps
Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 17, 2007, 14:22:11
Pencil Tech.... the Naval Rank Structure exists in the National Defence Act which is referred to in the QR&Os as Schedule 2 of the NDA

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Aden_Gatling on July 17, 2007, 14:29:36
Blackadder,

I thinking more along lines of the Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22e Regiment, various Militia regiments, etc. ...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Greymatters on July 17, 2007, 14:37:58
In other words, youre suggesting just to rename things back the way they were. 

What would be the point? - I havent seen this clearly demonstrated.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: AJFitzpatrick on July 17, 2007, 14:40:18
There was no Royal Canadian Army per se. Units and corps themselves had the Royal accolade ie: RCR, R22eR, RCAMC, RCEME etc, so there is no precedent to have the Army as a whole, Royal. If you look at the British Forces, their army is just the "Army", with "Royal" units and corps within.

One could argue that it had to do with the fact that the Coldstream Guards had originally fought against the King (Charles I).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 17, 2007, 14:41:51
Pencil Tech.... the Naval Rank Structure exists in the National Defence Act which is referred to in the QR&Os as Schedule 2 of the NDA



I stand corrected, but it only happened because the naval officers of the time refused to use army ranks on their ships.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 17, 2007, 14:46:33
From the way I understand it naval ranks were grandfathered through Unification.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 17, 2007, 15:01:43
From the way I understand it naval ranks were grandfathered through Unification.

No, there was a time at the beginning of unification when you had Corporals and Majors on H.M. Canadian ships. It's well documented, you could look it up. In any case, I'm old enough to remember it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 17, 2007, 15:04:38
Blackadder,

I thinking more along lines of the Royal Canadian Regiment, Royal 22e Regiment, various Militia regiments, etc. ...

Please, the proper regimental title is The Royal Canadian Regiment.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 17, 2007, 15:20:13
Please, the proper regimental title is The Royal Canadian Regiment.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.

Easy mistake to make, especially when it's at odds with the usual practice in English, isn't it?

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 17, 2007, 15:24:25
Which of these Corps retained their titles?

Royal Canadian Engineers
Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
Royal Canadian Dental Corps
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps
Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps

That's a good point that I haven't seen brought up in these discussions before.  Some of those corps/branches simply don't exist anymore, but the Engineers do exist in substantially the same form as they did then, with a name change that I can't see any reason for other than a love of bureaucratic-sounding names rather than colourful and historic ones.  It appears that the regiments were the only ones to make it through the 'sixties with their Royals intact.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 17, 2007, 16:00:01
Which of these Corps retained their titles?
All of these corps were merged with thier counterparts from the other two services.  Why should the Army tradition automatically have taken precedence over the other services?

Royal Canadian Engineers
The RCE were merged with the Engr of the RCAF & the RCN.

Royal Canadian Corps of Signals
Again, merged with the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.

Royal Canadian Army Service Corps
Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps
These were merged with eachother & the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.  The Logistics Branch is not "Army", it is unified.

Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps
Royal Canadian Dental Corps
The Dental & Medical Branches are merged into one.  Medical is not just "Army" it is unified.

Royal Canadian Electrical & Mechanical Engineers
Again, merged with the counter-parts of the RCAF & the RCN.  You will note the sky blue patch on the EME flag which is specific reference to the Air Force maintainers that were part of the branch.

Royal Canadian Army Pay Corps
Does not exist (See Logistic Branch).
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Aden_Gatling on July 17, 2007, 16:38:29
Please, the proper regimental title is The Royal Canadian Regiment.  If you are debating in favour of a return to pre-unification "Royal" titles, is it too much to ask that you use existing ones correctly.

Sorry 'bout that ... I suppose I wouldn't want to be known as a pilot Officer  :-[
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: East coast on July 17, 2007, 16:39:44
Translation???
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on July 17, 2007, 16:45:53
I didn't think I typed that in Esperanto, but okay.  There are many, many, MANY people on here who share the opinion that all of our British heritage should be done away with, in deference to our non-Anglo citizens.  Your remark will undoubtedly draw their attention, to your detriment.  Snide is self explanatory: In reply to my good natured warning, I got your flippant little jab about your rights.  As for "pratt", it's a British thing, ask your mother. "Hoisted on your own petard"  means that you would meet your doom from a device of your own design.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 17, 2007, 16:49:36
Sorry 'bout that ... I suppose I wouldn't want to be known as a pilot Officer  :-[

Now Air Commodore, Group Captain, Squadron Leader - those were nice sounding RCAF ranks!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: East coast on July 17, 2007, 16:52:27
I didn't think I typed that in Esperanto, but okay.  There are many, many, MANY people on here who share the opinion that all of our British heritage should be done away with, in deference to our non-Anglo citizens.  Your remark will undoubtedly draw their attention, to your detriment.  Snide is self explanatory: In reply to my good natured warning, I got your flippant little jab about your rights.  As for "pratt", it's a British thing, ask your mother. "Hoisted on your own petard"  means that you would meet your doom from a device of your own design.
I have British backround. Im pissed on modern Canadian traditions, and how its destroyed a hundred years of heritage to happy immigrants. Its BS every country should have a national identity, if you dont like it dont move to Canada. Also it wasnt a jab i new you were warning me but i was just mentioning it so that the mods cant threaten me.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 17, 2007, 16:53:52
Ontario, we don't threaten....we action.

This thread is now open for business. Back on topic troops.




The Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr. Bumpy on July 17, 2007, 20:40:41
Thank you Recce By Death,
                                         I missed this topic for some reason. I know I am late in the game here.


Now if RCN and RCAF, and let's say the old Army to be built up again. This project would be less cost effective, I believe.

I remember reading about the creation RCOC, RCASC and pay corps. Now I am studying about them, their size, cost, admin nightmares, and the funcation of it during WW1, WW2 and post war. And now if Canada wanted to swing that way. There would be a lot of unhappy voter around, wonder why money is being thrown around. My trade now use to be cover by RCOC and the RCASC. Now we are just one big bunch of happy cost effective family in the Log Branch. Still do the same work. Just for a new era. We still deliever the beans, bullets and bodies to the front. Now do you really want to destroy my family?  ;D


As for traditions, they are always carried on. Doesn't matter how many times a unit has been reformed. From depots to Field Parks, Service Battalions, General Service Battalions, to TEME... whatever it may be it. The traditions are still the same.


Thank you for your time,
Regards,
TN2IC





Link to a tad history of RCOC and RCASC. Also reading "To Thunder his Arms", available at the Log Kitshop in CFSAL Borden is a great read.

History of Supply http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/logbranch/handbook/Volume7/chap2_e.htm (http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/logbranch/handbook/Volume7/chap2_e.htm)

Lay out of RCOC http://canorbat.freehosting.net/rcocorbat.htm (http://canorbat.freehosting.net/rcocorbat.htm)

RCACS http://www.rcasc.org/rcasc_hist_breif.html (http://www.rcasc.org/rcasc_hist_breif.html)



"Honi soit qui mal y pense"

No 6 Ordnance Depot rules! hehe..



(http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/logbranch/handbook/Volume1/images/badge-rcasc.jpg)       (http://www.dnd.ca/admmat/logbranch/handbook/Volume1/images/badge-rcoc.jpg)




Foot note: RCOC means Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps and RCASC means Royal Canadian Army Service Corps.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Yrys on July 18, 2007, 09:08:01
i was just mentioning it so that the mods cant threaten me.

Sheez, you're talking about mods, not thugs ! Maybe you need to work on definition of moderators ?!?

ADD: and sorry for the comment (as I may be feeding someone here), couldn't resist it
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on July 18, 2007, 11:02:14
I have British backround.

Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.

If you love England so much, go back.

Wes
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 18, 2007, 17:37:04
Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.

If you love England so much, go back.

Wes

Wes:  As much as 'Ontario's' reference to having a 'British' background is irrelevant to the issue, throwing insults at the English doesn't really add much to the conversation.  Besides, Canada's experience as part of the British Empire, whilst it shares much in common with our Aussie cousins, differs in the degree of affinity with the 'Motherland' perhaps mostly because of the enormous migration here from England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales pre and post world war one.  In fact, a half to two-thirds of the Canadian Corps that volunteered to fought in the trenches were 'Poms' whose Mums and Dads and kin were just across the channel (and who resented the 'high command' as much as those at Galipoli)...and it was their sons and daughters who volunteered in the majority (the highest percentage of any of the allies) for world war two. 

That being said, the petition for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' has absolutely nothing to do particularly with one's ethnic origin or politics.  It's a matter of military tradition in a country that remains a constitutional monarchy and has been so for centuries.  Whilst there may well be a disconnect between this younger current generation and the institution of the monarchy, my experience is that the Queen and especially certain members of the Royal Family who serve as Colonel-in-Chief et al are very well regarded by the rank and file.

Upon the return of a group of Canadian students to Vimy in April for the re-dedication of the memorial, I was told by their teachers that the greatest ovation and cheer they and the crowd gave was for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh...and not the politicians.

The Canadian Navy and Air Force were 'Royal' during the period of their most outstanding achievements in which they established their tradition.  The desgnation was removed from them unnecessarily whilst myriad other military units retained it.  It's conferral, and therefore it's restoration, is unrelated to one's 'family' heritage (of which there are many in the Canadian Forces) but it is an integral part, since 1867, of Canada's heritage...as well as that of Australia...New Zealand..and other of the diaspora of Westminster and the UK.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 18, 2007, 18:01:19
Pidd, I would have been proud to serve under you.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on July 18, 2007, 18:07:29
Wes:  As much as 'Ontario's' reference to having a 'British' background is irrelevant to the issue, throwing insults at the English doesn't really add much to the conversation. 


Oops, how Australian of me....   :o

I just hate attitudes, and I don't think I am alone on here. So, Mr 24 posts, before you 'bark' at me, read the context of this member's previous posts.

After over 31 years in two armies of the Commonwealth, I know all about our roots, and Gallipoli is spelled with two l's.

Like I said, I hate attitudes.


Wes
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Greymatters on July 18, 2007, 18:16:48
I just hate attitudes,... 

Sorry mate, but that is the pot calling the kettle black...   ;D

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 18, 2007, 18:20:49

Like I said, I hate




attitudes.


Wes


I apologise for the typo.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 18, 2007, 18:28:29
Pidd, I would have been proud to serve under you.

When I was a Private, I expect that I would have happily served under you!
When I became a Padre I would have happily served with you!

Thanks.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: niceasdrhuxtable on July 18, 2007, 19:34:26
If they did delineate the military back into the original Army, Navy and Air Force, I'd be a little concerned about how they'd divide the air assets. Would all the Griffons belong to the Army? Would the Sea Kings belong to the Navy? From the Air Force perspective, I kind of like the way things are now in that our responsibility is to operate and maintain the aircraft without too much interference from the other elements that utilise our services.

Food for thought.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 18, 2007, 21:31:48
That being said, the petition for the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' has absolutely nothing to do particularly with one's ethnic origin or politics.  It's a matter of military tradition in a country that remains a constitutional monarchy and has been so for centuries.  Whilst there may well be a disconnect between this younger current generation and the institution of the monarchy, my experience is that the Queen and especially certain members of the Royal Family who serve as Colonel-in-Chief et al are very well regarded by the rank and file.

Upon the return of a group of Canadian students to Vimy in April for the re-dedication of the memorial, I was told by their teachers that the greatest ovation and cheer they and the crowd gave was for the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh...and not the politicians.

The Canadian Navy and Air Force were 'Royal' during the period of their most outstanding achievements in which they established their tradition.  The desgnation was removed from them unnecessarily whilst myriad other military units retained it.  It's conferral, and therefore it's restoration, is unrelated to one's 'family' heritage (of which there are many in the Canadian Forces) but it is an integral part, since 1867, of Canada's heritage...as well as that of Australia...New Zealand..and other of the diaspora of Westminster and the UK.

Best post ever on this topic.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Privateer on July 19, 2007, 15:56:54
It seems like many people believe that reintroducing RCN/RCAF would necessitate a return to a past organisational structure.  But my understanding is that what is being proposed is essentially a name change, MARCOM to RCN, AIRCOM to RCAF.  You could make this a letterhead change without changing the organisation, and without changing the fact that we all belong to one "service" (Candian Armed Forces).  So you may or may not like the name change, but I think that fears of structural change need not be a concern. 

For what it's worth, I favour a return to the RCN name.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 19, 2007, 22:09:55
Yes this is my understanding too. We are not asking for separate services just a return to the name for what is now a Command(s). It would be like restoring the Royal to the EME branch for instance....and make it RCEME again....boy that would make some old maintainers pretty happy. It would not involve dividing up assets or restructuring the navy.....just getting back our proud name.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Roy Harding on July 19, 2007, 22:17:30

... and Gallipoli is spelled with two l's.

...

Three, actually.  Sorry, Wes - couldn't resist.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on July 19, 2007, 23:23:14
Should have preesnted the LL I guess, ha!

Cold beers,

Wes
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr. Bumpy on July 20, 2007, 15:29:47
Yes this is my understanding too. We are not asking for separate services just a return to the name for what is now a Command(s). It would be like restoring the Royal to the EME branch for instance....and make it RCEME again....boy that would make some old maintainers pretty happy. It would not involve dividing up assets or restructuring the navy.....just getting back our proud name.


Ah... now old formations here. What about TEME? What about me? The T in TEME is TRANSPORT.  :cdnsalute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: blasty_bough on July 23, 2007, 23:59:36
Great topic with lots of good points-of-view. Pidd: especially impressed with your post but I gotta say Wes' s posts are pretty awesome...love watchin the Brits and Aussies  having a go at each other. Keep the posts coming you two.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Get Nautical on July 24, 2007, 00:16:17
I really do hope they re-instate RCAF and RCN, so much history,
I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 24, 2007, 07:17:21
I really do hope they re-instate RCAF and RCN, so much history,
I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log

That would be the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps - which was, after 1942, responsible for cooking the troops' food as well as delivering (transporting) it, unless you would like to go all the way back to the semi-military Army Commissariat which was reformed into a military corps in the late 19th century.



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: AJFitzpatrick on July 24, 2007, 10:50:44
I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log

Is it wrong that I read that as food service cabbage.

For what it is worth, put me down in the" nice idea but not worth a whole of effort" camp.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: East coast on July 24, 2007, 13:15:30
Goes to show ya that whinging Poms are even in Canada.

If you love England so much, go back.

Wes
Wes you dont have a clue do you. Im not even english, im scottish. I cant go back to a place im not from either, i said i have british backround. Also mods i love how others get away with disrespecting peoples ethnicity, but i dont.

P.S my last post on this topic so if you want me to respond PM me.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 24, 2007, 14:23:40
Back on topic.

The Milnet.ca Staff
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 24, 2007, 14:25:28
Taking a shot st Wes and the Mods will not help with you staying here Ontario....East Coast. You have not learned anything have you?

Milnet.Ca Staff

Sorry Recce
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 24, 2007, 16:10:00
Actually, I find this a very interesting discussion and I certainly hope it won't get locked down by the actions of one poster.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr. Bumpy on July 24, 2007, 16:15:39
I would also much prefer to wear a food service capbadge than logistics, im not a Log

Now Brazil,
                 take this as my two cents. I'm not trying to bash you. But your statement seems to be a tad.... whatever. It says on your profile you have one year in the Log branch. Your feet are not even wet yet. Having an opinion about the Log branch without "understanding it" doesn't add up to me. I share the same cap badge as you, brother. Some folks mistake me as a Clerk or a Supply Tech..big woop.. that is okay. It's when that detail I've done for them, they are thankful for. Which in return makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Want a hug?

SERVITIUM NULLI SECUNDUS!

On other note... I was thinking of a cap badge for us trucker.... Going to be a Big Yellow Tonka truck with the crown on top.... What do you folks think? Or something like the Hot Wheel symbol?  ;D


Regards,
TN2IC
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Get Nautical on July 24, 2007, 23:34:21
this was the capbadge, If its even a capbadge?   I was talking about (the first picture)
and i was way out of my lane with the Log comment and im deeply sorry. I am dissing fellow logisticians

and even if the badge is a no go, the postal clerks have there own special eppilate titles, as well as dentists...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: KevinB on July 25, 2007, 03:08:22
 ::)

You know I'd favour bringing back the Canadian Guards, and other stuff -- but really bringing back bloated bureacracy, and changes to uniforms etc that it would create -- really - I think a little better use of the limited military budget could be better spent rather than some aging vision of King and Country.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Get Nautical on July 25, 2007, 03:13:33
It may display an image of king, or in this case queen and country, but its tradition.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: KevinB on July 25, 2007, 03:23:11
Still the point remains (and keep in mind I dont care about morale etc. for non combat arms people) you will add TONS of new uniform accutrements etc.
  WHO is paying?

I'm a small m monarchist - but I'm a realist first and foremost - and I see this as a HUGE waste of assets.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Get Nautical on July 25, 2007, 03:25:28
rather to waste it on this then some other (probably more useless thing) because traditions are all you have, or we could do away with Ceremonial Drill, Colour Party, and take all the crowns off the capbadges
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: KevinB on July 25, 2007, 03:29:59
Of course bullets and training -- useless  ::)

  Lets all take a look back to the old (unification) green -- then we got summer tans - and winter greens -- then just the winter greens for all wear...
  Now maybe the Navy and AirForce are not quite as bad with unform crap as the Army - but I doubt it...  Why add more crap to a system that already has problems?

  Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 25, 2007, 07:00:05
Of course bullets and training -- useless  ::)

  Lets all take a look back to the old (unification) green -- then we got summer tans - and winter greens -- then just the winter greens for all wear...
  Now maybe the Navy and AirForce are not quite as bad with unform crap as the Army - but I doubt it...  Why add more crap to a system that already has problems?

  Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.

So let's just go to baggy cargo pants and t-shirts eh? what does it matter how we dress and what we call ourselves? Of course uniforms, "buttons and bows" add to morale. they are not the "be all end all" but they are an ingredient in the mix. Better equipment, public support and missions that have purpose and add to national objectives are another part of the mix.....fortunately we're getting more of that now. If we can pee away millions on government bureaucracy and stupid crap that never benefits anyone, why can't we spend a few bucks on our Forces and their proud traditions?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 25, 2007, 08:55:53
Frankly if your getting morale issues out of a hat or capbadge you really need to re-think your priorities.

Cap badges are all about morale.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on July 25, 2007, 08:59:18
Cap badges are all about morale.

Perhaps, but morale isn't only about cap badges.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: KevinB on July 25, 2007, 13:15:44
So let's just go to baggy cargo pants and t-shirts eh? what does it matter how we dress and what we call ourselves? Of course uniforms, "buttons and bows" add to morale. they are not the "be all end all" but they are an ingredient in the mix. Better equipment, public support and missions that have purpose and add to national objectives are another part of the mix.....fortunately we're getting more of that now. If we can pee away millions on government bureaucracy and stupid crap that never benefits anyone, why can't we spend a few bucks on our Forces and their proud traditions?

Actually I tend to like 5.11 pants - and T's  ;)

 I agree that image is important, but I would focus on preserving what we have currently that try to reach back thru the Trudeau fog.  Times change, I mean I don't think anyone wants to go back to RedCoats, muskets and the leather/wood neck braces they used to make people march in.  As for morale inspired by a Cap Bagde, uhm okay whatever.  Morale for me is inspired by skills and my teammates skills, going into harms way with a shiny badge just does not do it for me.  Okay I am also the guy who wants to bin the bayonet.  Don't get me wrong I really enjoyed getting badged, drinking rum with the BSL RSM and entering the regimental family, but realistically I've learned a hell of a lot since then.


Lastly I think it is important for Canada, and Canadians, that we not necessarily be hidebound to the Empire for traditions.


 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 25, 2007, 16:02:13
It may display an image of king, or in this case queen and country, but its tradition.
What is?  A cooks capbadge?
There never was such a thing worn on a beret in Canada.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Mr. Bumpy on July 25, 2007, 16:33:48

and even if the badge is a no go, the postal clerks have there own special eppilate titles, as well as dentists...

The postal clerks didn't follow the integration to form the Logistics Branch, in 01 February 1968.


Now dentists? They are no way related to this field. Same if you say medics, too.


Regards,
TN2IC
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Old Sweat on July 25, 2007, 16:41:55
Interesting comment about postal clerks and dentists. As I recall, by some sort of odd coincidence, the army provided postal and dental support to all three services. 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 25, 2007, 18:08:20

Lastly I think it is important for Canada, and Canadians, that we not necessarily be hidebound to the Empire for traditions.


I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

Tradition is something that cannot be invented or appropriated on a whim.  It grows within the collective experience of a people or institution. It is not a tradition if it is not rooted in a de facto, if not de jure, foundation.  Certainly for the military of Canada, that foundation was British before and since 1867 and it flourished within that historical context and through the gradual development of the country even to today. 
It is simply false to separate 'Canada' and 'Canadians' from the glorious history that sewed their identity as 'Canada' as 'Canadians'. 

The Maple Leaf is a traditional symbol of Canada since pre-Confederation but it's presence on the flag is not meant to be a symbol of revolution (which it was and is not); even as some might interpret it that way.  It, along with the Beaver, found their place within the military symbols of this country as they adorn many a badge and crest and all within the on-going tradition that followed the British style and precedent but were uniquely Canadian nonetheless.

The petition for the restoration of 'Royal' to the Navy and Air Force is not a request for them to become British
services.  Indeed, that is the oft misunderstood point:  the Canadian military is no longer a part of the British military but it remains 'Royal' because the country, once British, has remained 'Royal' where the significant part of it's identity and tradition developed from that family and from which we have retained alliances within the Commonwealth.

We've grown up and are no longer living in 'Mummy's house' but that doesn't mean that we no longer belong to Mummy's family.  Even though we might do some things differently from our past doesn't mean that we turn our backs on or disown our own heritage.





   
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 25, 2007, 18:20:20
Ever since this topic has started I have asked some air det types and other sailors if they want to become the RCN and RCAF again and with the exception of a few "I don't give a f*cks" and a couple of Yes most are more then happy with the status quo. Food for thought.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 25, 2007, 18:23:40
Ever since this topic has started I have asked some air det types and other sailors if they want to become the RCN and RCAF again and with the exception of a few "I don't give a f*cks" and a couple of Yes most are more then happy with the status quo. Food for thought.

Exactly.....

You want to do something for my morale ?

How about a new aircraft.....or at least new wings for the one i have now

Being "Royal" doesnt help one bit
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 25, 2007, 18:46:56
Sure it does,.....it helps those who no longer have anything to do with it feel better about themselves.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 25, 2007, 18:52:43
Just as Cdn Aviator says when new ships are being delivered my morale will improve substanially. Going through briefs regarding changes by adding Royal, changes in doctrine, changes in uniform is just a pain.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 25, 2007, 23:05:09
So why can't we do both? Be Royal and get good kit.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 25, 2007, 23:12:55
So why can't we do both? Be Royal and get good kit.

Why cant we have our priorities straight ?

We can deal with the "royal" stuff when we have decent kit , sorted out or manpower shortages and the war is over
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 25, 2007, 23:15:36
Why cant we have our priorities straight ?

We can deal with the "royal" stuff when we have decent kit , sorted out or manpower shortages and the war is over

Well I don't think it's even on the radar as a priority so no worries. Just because a petition has started doesn't mean the Department is taking notice.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 25, 2007, 23:17:47
doesn't mean the Department is taking notice.

rightfully so.......
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 25, 2007, 23:38:08
Just as Cdn Aviator says when new ships are being delivered my morale will improve substanially. Going through briefs regarding changes by adding Royal, changes in doctrine, changes in uniform is just a pain.

If that is true, then everyone has been suffering a lot of pain these past few decades where the tampering with long-established military discipline, esprit de corps, and identity has been the single-most cause of low morale in the Canadian Forces.  One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences' for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes. 

Yes, it is true, of course, that equipment for serving personnel is adding much to the overall morale of the forces along with a more robust and traditional policy that would permit them to 'show their stuff' and make a difference.  Yet, it is not the 'ship' nor the 'rifle' that brings honour to the Corps or Regiment or Squadron, but the legacy, not only of those who have gone before, but whose good purpose is to pass on, for the sake of
the country, it's sovereign and virtues in this generation.

The measure of reverence shown to a regiment's colours or a corps' guidon demonstrates a quality within the serving soldier that runs much deeper than the satisfaction of having equipment.  Indeed, during our leanest years, I recall a visiting US Marine praising the enormous spirit and improvisational skills of our army whose accomplishments were achieved without the benefit of that which the Americans possessed.

In this country, as it is, and as it has been since it's foundation, there is no greater honour than that which is bestowed by the Sovereign herself without deference to politics and that is the case with respect to our military forces and the designation of 'Royal' applied to them.  It is given, not only for the morale of this generation but for the country itself; bestowed to our posterity.  This is something that those who view the military as mere 'mercenaries 'r us' cannot possibly understand.  The contract between a serving sailor, soldier or airman and the Sovereign is easily dismissed by some but history has demonstrably shown that it's symbolism is underscored at a depth that is treasured in succeeding generations long after that 'ship' has been mothballed.

This petition, as I understand it, is not to regard the prefix 'Royal' as some kind of option in a cafeteria of military choices, but as an appeal for the restoration of a dignity granted that, having been cast aside for the sake of other, less honourable interests, is in fact a right that belongs to those institutions that have now been somewhat re-awakened.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ejames on July 25, 2007, 23:42:34
Bring back the RCN!

I also want my Executive curl and rum rations!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 25, 2007, 23:42:44
I think if one does not have pride being in the current organization then they are in the wrong line. I also get tired of the implication by others that us current members in the CF do not have a sense of pride or loyalty whay have you because we are not jumping all over the Royal bandwagon. Frankly its insulting to imply we don't have it.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 25, 2007, 23:43:07
Bring back the RCN!

I also want my Executive curl and rum rations!

::)

While we are at it lets reintroduce the old RN custom of flogging.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on July 25, 2007, 23:43:55
  One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences' for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes.   

*tap tap*  Hmmm....., is this thing on??...................am I on Candid Camera or something?? ???
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: GAP on July 25, 2007, 23:48:09
Question....why is this thread still going? Pretty much everybody and their brother has said yay/nay and their reasoning why...but everybody knows it isn't going to change....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 25, 2007, 23:50:07
Pidd.....

Are familiar with the hiarchy or needs ?


When i fell like i have the proper kit, the proper training and properly employed, then i will have time to worry about how "royal" i'm feeling

I dont show up to work every day because of the honours emblazoned on the Sqn colours or what my cap badge says.....i show up because of the people i fly with, because there is a job to be done and someone has to do it.

When all my legit needs are met, i will have time for the frivolous stuff ( stuff that doesnt keep me alive and combat effective)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ejames on July 25, 2007, 23:50:59
::)

While we are at it lets reintroduce the old RN custom of flogging.

No that would be illegal. There is nothing illegal about honouring recognition from the Queen and sharing a drink with your fellow mates.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 25, 2007, 23:54:54
But its a time honoured tradition one of many that gets stuffed down our throats...as for a rum issue the last time I saw one of those was back in the late 90s.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 26, 2007, 00:29:11
We still have Rum rations....albeit you have to jump through the paperwork hoops to get it.

This coming from an Armour guy....         ;)

Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 00:31:11
B@st@rd!!! :D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 26, 2007, 00:42:51
Meh....you should have stayed in the Regiment.       ;D

Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 00:46:48
lol Some days I wonder
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 26, 2007, 01:09:45
At least you could say that there is still Royal in your unit's title.       ;)

Meh...can't see what the big deal is about it.

It's cost prohibitive (think renaming every ship, all letter heads, correspondence, insignias, uniforms, plaques, etc)

It's manpower intensive (think implementing it, pers would have to be delegated in completing this task...wasted manpower IMHO)

I still have my old uniforms:

- DEU Tans
- Workdress (sweater, blue lagoon shirt, bus driver jacket)
- Garrison Dress

What a pain in the butt that crap was. It was past uniforms, why not bring them back while we're at it?

How about the Warrior program? I still have my gold leafs w/ crossed swords. We just have to bring back the program of shooting and the webbing run. Uniform salad as far as I'm concerned.

See what I'm getting at?

We've left alot of things behind to improve the effectiveness of the CF.

Why shunt monies and manpower to something that will not add to the effectiveness of the Navy or Air Force? It makes no sense at all.

I'd rather see the monies and manpower be put towards ships and aircraft and the maintenance of those things.

Besides, this petition is going to fall on the deaf ears of bureaucrats in Ottawa who don't give a sweet shyte about such trivial things.

We're fighting a war...and they should be concentrating their efforts on that and nothing else.

Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: mudrecceman on July 26, 2007, 01:22:32

How about the Warrior program? I still have my gold leafs w/ crossed swords. We just have to bring back the program of shooting and the webbing run. Uniform salad as far as I'm concerned.



You painted over the bronze?? 

 :P

(sorry...had to when I seen that one!)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Nerf herder on July 26, 2007, 01:41:23
You painted over the bronze?? 

 :P

(sorry...had to when I seen that one!)

There were lots of pissed off NCOs, that couldn't shoot worth a damn, when they saw me with that piece of junk on. Not the fastest guy, but I guess I can shoot.         ;D

Regards
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 26, 2007, 09:23:06
Pidd.....

Are familiar with the hiarchy or needs ?


When i fell like i have the proper kit, the proper training and properly employed, then i will have time to worry about how "royal" i'm feeling

I dont show up to work every day because of the honours emblazoned on the Sqn colours or what my cap badge says.....i show up because of the people i fly with, because there is a job to be done and someone has to do it.

When all my legit needs are met, i will have time for the frivolous stuff ( stuff that doesnt keep me alive and combat effective)

Having proper kit, training and showing up for work is every man's duty in the forces and has absolutely nothing to do with the symbols of the institution for which one works.  There is nothing in the petition
that refers to any sailor or airman 'needing' their particular force to be re-identified with the title 'Royal'.
It was not conferred by the King because any of the serving men 'needed' it to do their job.
Indeed, no one 'needs' a cap badge, particular uniform, or the like in order to fulfill the requirements of flying an aircraft or making a ship float. 

There is, however, a difference between mercenaries, e.g., the French Foreign Legion, and a 'soldier of the Queen'.  The mercenary, contracted by a country to fight, and given whatever he 'needs' to fight, has no particular loyalty to his contractual 'boss'.  He just does his job.   A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers. 

There seems to be a tendency in thought that the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is somehow a threat to the well-being and effectiveness of the daily life of a sailor or airman as if it would compete with the policy of the government to re-supply the Canadian Forces.  Restoring the 'name' to the 'Navy' and 'Air Force' requires little more than changes to letterhead and other papers; changes that have been made in other ways several times in the past thirty years or so. 

It is sad if one considers national or military symbols to be frivolous.  There is a reason why the military, and the country generally, preserves and cherishes and salutes them. Symbols have a power that transcends one's kit.  They represent the collective spirit of institutions and people, as well as deeds, that have brought honour to a unit or the country as a whole.

When that kid urinated on the National War Memorial in Ottawa, people were disgusted, not because somehow the concrete was being stained and would require cleaning...it was because that Memorial is a symbol that stands in place for the war dead.  Similarly, I am certain that most servicemen and women who witnessed the defacation of their country's flag, their unit's colours, et al, would respond with more than just a little indignation.  It's one thing to 'spit' on one's boots in the course of doing one's job, and another to 'spit' on a symbol that represents why those boots are being worn.

The removal of the title 'Royal' was a political decision that, surprise, surprise, coincidentally occurred with the explicit de-funding and isolation of the Canadian Forces; a pattern that has only recently been reversed.  It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.



Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Pencil Tech on July 26, 2007, 11:14:26
Wow. Amen. +1.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 11:31:53
Pidd...you do realize that the FFL is a unit of the French Army so cannot be considered mercenaries....
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 26, 2007, 11:47:55
Having proper kit, training and showing up for work is every man's duty in the forces and has absolutely nothing to do with the symbols of the institution for which one works. 

Thanks for clearing that one up  ::)

Quote
There is nothing in the petition
that refers to any sailor or airman 'needing' their particular force to be re-identified with the title 'Royal'.

Re=read the 15 pages of this thread, please. Alot of the posters seem to beleive that their moral is low and that somehow, titles and accoutrements will solve that.

Quote
Indeed, no one 'needs' a cap badge, particular uniform, or the like in order to fulfill the requirements of flying an aircraft or making a ship float. 

Quite right. Those things enhance pride in the service.  My question is, why can we not be proud in what we have now rather than constantly wishing for something that is no longer ?

Quote
There is, however, a difference between mercenaries, e.g., the French Foreign Legion, and a 'soldier of the Queen'.  The mercenary, contracted by a country to fight, and given whatever he 'needs' to fight, has no particular loyalty to his contractual 'boss'.  He just does his job.   A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers. 

You keep geting back to this point. I dont beleive i required a civics lesson or are you insinuating that i am some kind of mercenary ?

Quote
There seems to be a tendency in thought that the restoration of the prefix 'Royal' is somehow a threat to the well-being and effectiveness of the daily life of a sailor or airman as if it would compete with the policy of the government to re-supply the Canadian Forces. 

My god man, are you mad ?  Anything the government does always ends up beyond simply changing letterhead.  But you never answered my question.  Do we not have more important things to worry about ?

Quote
It is sad if one considers national or military symbols to be frivolous. 

Frivolous was the wrong word for what i was trying to say, i will admit that. My point remains that we should be devoting our attention to things that allow us to do what Canadians ask us to do.  The title of "Royal" or a new cap badge does not make me feel better about flying a 27 year old aircraft thats showing its age.  It doesnt change the fact that my flying hours have been cut, thus reducing my proficiency. It does not change the fact that i have to do the work of 3 people because we are extremly low on numbers..........Titles, accoutrements and uniforms are nice, but lets keep our eye on the ball here.

Quote
When that kid urinated on the National War Memorial in Ottawa, people were disgusted, not because somehow the concrete was being stained and would require cleaning...it was because that Memorial is a symbol that stands in place for the war dead.  Similarly, I am certain that most servicemen and women who witnessed the defacation of their country's flag, their unit's colours, et al, would respond with more than just a little indignation.  It's one thing to 'spit' on one's boots in the course of doing one's job, and another to 'spit' on a symbol that represents why those boots are being worn.

Cant argue with your logic there.  But let me ask you one thing.  Would we have been even more disgusted if the name of the memorial was "The Royal national War Memorial" ?

Quote
de-funding and isolation of the Canadian Forces; a pattern that has only recently been reversed.

Don't count your chickens just yet


Quote
  It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.

Right ?  Where is it written that we have this "right" ?  I'm almost certain that at some point in my career i was told that we follow the direction of the Canadian Government.



One final word from me on this , as i feel this is going in circles.

If the Canadian Forces were well equiped, sufficiently manned and supported......and not fighting a war, i would be all for tackling this type of issue. Bu the fact is that we are not in that situation and , IMHO, our efforts should be kept where it matters at this time.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 11:52:13
+1 Aviator
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 26, 2007, 12:52:22
Pidd...you do realize that the FFL is a unit of the French Army so cannot be considered mercenaries....

Yes, of course, you are right.  I suppose they came to mind because most of the enlistees have
no particular loyalty either to France or the place from which they come, but to the Legion itself, and, indeed, can have false identities even while fighting for the FFL.  In this sense, they are 'mercenaries' of a kind...but
I'm happy acknowledging the differences between them and other types of mercenaries.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 26, 2007, 16:47:35
This is an interesting argument about "we have better things to do right now and spend our money on." I've heard it for the entire time I've been in and it's a poor excuse. In the late seventies and early eighties in Esquimalt we needed a new Officers Mess (the Fleet Club had just been newly built in 1976) and the excuse then was that we needed money for other things rather than an Officer's Mess. Same argument in Halifax for years. With Fleets rusting out and sailors "poorly paid" they told us there were higher priorities. It was 1999 till we finally got a decent Mess in Esquimalt and 2005 in Halifax and only came about because some very determined Admirals and Base Commanders made loud and sustained noises.

My point is that you can always make the excuse that there are higher priorities than stuff that serves human needs. Tradition and pride in our service does serve a human need....the need for recognition and the need to feel part of something special and pride in the outfit that one belongs to. Of course,new equipment and relevant missions are important and will always be the core of our morale, but uniforms, rank designations, ribbons, medals and what we call ourselves will always play a large part in how we see ourselves and the value of our service....would the Royal Canadian Dragoons be upset if they had their Royal Designation taken away? Would their association be fighting to have it restored? You bet they would....it is part of who they are. when they don their scarlets and bronze helmets and march on Lillifontein day and remember the glory of the regiment in winning three VCs in one action they hold their heads up higher.

I agree with all those who have said that morale and pride comes from who we work with and how well we do our job when the shyte hits the fan but it also comes from when we gather in our finery and hear the anthems played and we march past to the Regimental/Navy/Air Force march past. I'm probably a sentimental fool but the first time I stood to attention with my comrades on the Parade Square and saluted the National Flag being raised in the morning while O Canada played, goose bumps ran up and down my spine and a feeling of pride and honour ran through me from stem to stern. Everytime we do that I get the same feeling. Every Remembrance Day I feel the same pride and sorrow in the sacrifices that were made and for those who went before me. The carrying on of tradition is a sacred trust and one which we must take more seriously than  just saying "Oh well....they don't' pay me to make decisions about buttons and bows..." or "...this is just a job...whatever."

With regard to the "we are at war and have better things to do" argument, I do agree that we have our plate full, however, i recall that most of our traditions of value were born in the crucible of war....perhaps while we have the attention of a fickle public the time is ripe for a relatively inexpensive  restoration of tradition....It doesn't seem like a lot to ask when we proudly retain the Royal in our national police force, many of our proud army regiments and many of our national institutions (Mint, etc)....It's not a turning back of the clock but the restoration of that which should never have been taken away. :salute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 26, 2007, 16:51:53
Question....why is this thread still going? Pretty much everybody and their brother has said yay/nay and their reasoning why...but everybody knows it isn't going to change....

I think because the purpose of the forum is to discuss things of interest to us. there are obviously people who are interested, so it lives. It hasn't become silly or disrespectful so it will live or die based on interest in the topic. my two farthings worth.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 26, 2007, 17:43:14
I voted no and then promised myself to stay out of this, but ...

With specific respect to the “Royal this an' Royal that an' Royal go away” debate I think Canada was pretty much settled on a non-Royal course before Mr. Hellyer's little organizational experiments.  It wasn't just French Canadians who chafed – and still chafe – at the rather retarded nature of our Constitution.  Many, many Canadians, in the '50s and '60s were already self-identifying as ”unhyphenated Canadians” – they didn't need to be too closely tied to Britain or the Royal family.

I have a mostly British heritage – of which I'm quite fond.  I regard Britain and the British as one of the most successful civilizations in world history and I regard it as quite distinct from the continental European civilization or, perhaps, culture.  I regard Canada as being one of the inheritors of and improvers on that culture – we bring our own unique flavour to the common Anglo socio-political and/or socio-economic culture we share with Australia, Britain, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Singapore and the USA and, to a lesser degree with e.g. Fiji, India, Malaysia and South Africa, too.  That culture, in its political and economic aspects, is quite different from French or even Scandinavian cultures.  It is remarkably liberal – far more so than any of the Romanesque or even the Scandi-Germanic cultures which exist so close by.  That being said, and all the implications being acknowledged, we are not and we do not want to be British.

For many Canadians, not just French Canadians, our pre-1960s adherence to British norms and forms was a problem – Navy ships mutinied and the Mainguy Commission concluded that Anglophilic officers and too much Britishness was part of the problem because the rank and file, the ships' companies, were resoundingly, proudly Canadian.

We, Canadians, are now pretty much accustomed to the Canadian Forces – the non-Royal Canadian Navy and the non-Royal Canadian Air Force and the Logistics Branch performs yeoman services without being the Royal Canadian Logistics Corps.  Going backwards would create divisions where none exist now.  It would be an act of quite monumental political stupidity.

----------

On the matter of buttons and bows:

Canadians (and British) soldiers dressed in their 'battle dress' uniforms, day-in and day-out for centuries.  It wasn't until about 1890 that someone decided that we should wear utilitarian khaki uniforms in battle and in the office and barracks and, over and above that, keep obsolete uniforms for ceremonial purposes.  If we ignore the past century or so we should be happy to Troop the Colour in CADPAT battledress uniforms.

I suspect that most sailors, soldiers and aviators want three things from their uniforms:

1.  utility – the uniform ought to do the job intended without too much wear and tear and, especially, care;

2.  comfort; and

3.  a measure of pride.

We can and have done a pretty good job at 1 and 2, I think.  We could work on 3.  I, personally, would favour a ceremonial uniform which – for the army – reflected our Canadian heritage.  For a start and only as an example:

1.  Rifle green rather than scarlet is the 'right' colour for Canadians – we, North American loyalists started the rangers and rifles and light infantry with their trade-mark green jackets and subdued badges;

2.  1885 to 1915 is the right 'period' for ceremonial uniform design.

Maybe we could strive for something akin to a dark green high collared jacket with black leather bandoleers and cross belts and the like and, for many, the late Victorian helmet (think Zulu!).

We could 'dress up' the army, without reverting to distinctly British tradition – at some considerable cost.  We spent tens of millions of dollars on what we called back in '85 ”Coates of many colours” (after Defence Minister Robert Coates who reintroduced the current Distinctive Environmental Uniforms).  Providing the 75,000 regulars and however many thousand reservists with new, high quality ceremonial uniforms will cost much more, probably the equivalent of several, even several dozens of LAV IIIs.  Is it worth it?  Is Elliot's eye really that important?  I think not.




Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on July 26, 2007, 18:02:41
 A serviceman of the Queen, on the other hand, is one who has made an oath of allegiance to serve Sovereign and Country with whatever kit and weapons are provided...and to obey the commands of superior officers. 


Sorry, but what a load of crap!  All that sovereign crap goes out the window on a two-way rifle range, its about being there for one another.

Any professional army uses its country's kit and weapons provided by their government, and utilises a chain of command, and has discipline.

We are not 'colonials', and you posts tend to make us that way, appearing as puppets of the long dead empire - no thanks. You sound like the poster child of Victorian propaganda for the movie 'The Man who Would Be King'. 'Royal' was lost almost 40 yrs ago courtesty of P.E.T. with his unification. RCN/RCAF etc are long gone, they are not coming back, time to get over it and move on. Each element has its own distinct uniforms, and they still carry traditon deep to the bone, you don't need Royal for that.

Money can be spent elsewhere on procuring better eqpt, afterall there is a war. I remember the tans, the garrison dress with fantasy indoor camouflage, and those fantasy paratrooper boots, and belt. What a waste of how many millions of dollars that was, all because of some staff weenie at NDHQ wanted to look cool behind his desk, and in the Mess???

As much as we should never forget our roots, its time to grow up and be independant, afterall the apronstrings have long been since cut with Mother England. As a military force, we grew up on the 9th of April 1917. We don't need our hand held to cross the street no longer.

Give it a rest.


My 2 bob,

Wes
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 26, 2007, 18:16:05


My point is that you can always make the excuse that there are higher priorities than stuff that serves human needs. Tradition and pride in our service does serve a human need....the need for recognition and the need to feel part of something special and pride in the outfit that one belongs to.

I put forward to you sir that devoting time, effort and money into replacing the airplane i currently fly so that i dont have to worry about becoming a giant ball of burning "Royal pride" 1500 miles from the shores of this great country......serves a pretty damned important human need. I think my comment can apply to any trade / ellement in the CF as well

Think about that
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: pidd on July 26, 2007, 18:26:54
Sigh. ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on July 26, 2007, 18:53:28
Sigh. ::)

Its obviously not you a** on the line i guess

I'm done with this
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 19:05:41
I am all for units with Royal in their title retaining them, but I think what the pro types can't get is those that most that are in the CF now have accepted the fact that the Royal from our names is gone, unlikely to come back. We can have pride and esprit de corps in our units without the Royal. Are the units without a Royal regarded as less because they have never been awared the title? I think not.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on July 26, 2007, 19:38:18
We spent tens of millions of dollars on what we called back in '85 ”Coates of many colours” (after Defence Minister Robert Coates who reintroduced the current Distinctive Environmental Uniforms).  Providing the 75,000 regulars and however many thousand reservists with new, high quality ceremonial uniforms will cost much more, probably the equivalent of several, even several dozens of LAV IIIs.  Is it worth it?  Is Elliot's eye really that important?  I think not.


Well we just spent 45 million out here in MARPAC for a flood that never happened so whats the big deal? We spend that amount every year on salaries for people like me to do all of the f*****ing paperwork to get rid of people who shouldn't be in the military in the first place. We have spent billions over the years to implement all sorts of crappy and stupid policies to please the human rights crowd that continue to wag their finger at us but would gladly fall in front of a biodiesel bus before joining us.
So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it! Compared to the money spent on policies and procurements that make no sense at all it is a small price to pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :salute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 26, 2007, 19:51:20
Sigh. ::)

Don't feel so bad, pidd.

Many Canadians, including a lot in uniform, have, simply, 'moved on.'  Some, even me, would not object if someone waved a magic wand and said, "OK - the RCN and RCAF exist again.  If you wear a dark blue suit you can say, 'I'm in the RCN' and if you wear a light ..." well you get the idea.

But, pidd, and it's a big BUT, some would object.  "Why," they would ask, "do we have to do this?  Why do we have to slink back into colonial status?"  They, a minority, probably, but a large one, are the reason it's not going to happen and they are one of the reasons it should not happen.

We should be moving to strengthen the pride which all Canadians ought to be able to take in the accomplishments of their armed forces.  We have traditions - going from North West Canada through the Nile Expedition and the Boer War all the way to Afghanistan, today.  Our soldiers are, quickly and bravery, adding lustre to our military traditions - some as members of Royal regiments, other as members of 'new,' more distinctively modern Canadian organizations.  All are, equally, Canada's soldiers.  Some regard themselves as the Queen's soldiers, others prefer to consider themselves as just Canadian soldiers - one is not better or braver than the other.

Maybe we can, maybe we should revitalize our traditions but let's do so to strengthen the Canadian nature of the Canadian Forces.

I, personally, am comfortable with my British roots and with the very, very British military I joined going on a half century ago.  But it wasn't then and isn't now everyone's cup of tea.  What we can all agree on is that the men and women serving today are making us proud to be Canadians.


Edit: punctuation
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 26, 2007, 19:57:15
A Big Bolded +1 for Edward
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 26, 2007, 20:07:51
Well we just spent 45 million out here in MARPAC for a flood that never happened so whats the big deal? We spend that amount every year on salaries for people like me to do all of the f*****ing paperwork to get rid of people who shouldn't be in the military in the first place. We have spent billions over the years to implement all sorts of crappy and stupid policies to please the human rights crowd that continue to wag their finger at us but would gladly fall in front of a biodiesel bus before joining us.
So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it! Compared to the money spent on policies and procurements that make no sense at all it is a small price to pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :salute:

But see this Ruxted article (http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/72-A-continuing-failure-to-communicate.html).  In the Grey Lecture St. Laurent put national unity at the top of his foreign policy considerations.  Whatever policy we adopted, he taught, must not jeopardize national unity.  That has been pretty consistent Canadian policy since we hung Louis Riel and it remains so today.  The RCN/RCAF issue is divisive and is, therefire, a nonstarter.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 26, 2007, 20:47:06
How about we take baby steps? I'd be satisfied if we just started calling it the 'Canadian Armed Forces' again.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Technoviking on July 26, 2007, 21:11:38
How about we take baby steps? I'd be satisfied if we just started calling it the 'Canadian Armed Forces' again.
NDA, Part II, article 14 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/N-5/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_14//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_14)   states:  "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Fishbone Jones on July 26, 2007, 22:04:35
NDA, Part II, article 14 (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/N-5/bo-ga:l_II-gb:s_14//en#anchorbo-ga:l_II-gb:s_14)   states:  "The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces."


Semantics. Especially when no one uses the term anymore. Hence CF vice CAF
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on July 26, 2007, 22:09:30
I thought we had to remove the word "Armed" from the title, because it was too 'offensive' or 'aggressive' for our Public.   ;D

We just can't have that now, could we?   ;D
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: IN HOC SIGNO on July 26, 2007, 22:16:08
Probably the same ones that take offense to Royal.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Old Sweat on July 26, 2007, 22:22:57
As I recall at the time, CAF was not used as it could be read as "Canadian Air Force."
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 27, 2007, 02:20:14
I recall much excitement several years back about the costs related to the GG modifying her emblem by putting the lions tongue back in its mouth & removing the claws.  I don't know what that cost was, but renaming Maritime Command would certainly cost more.

Tradition is something that cannot be invented or appropriated on a whim.  It grows within the collective experience of a people or institution.
So, in the half century that Maritime Command has existed, you are saying there has been no collective experience on which modern more relevant traditions may have been established?  Or should we forsake modern tradition for something that current serving members never knew?

One doesn't simply make 'changes' to deeply embedded national institutions on the basis of 'personal preferences' for those who happen to 'be there' for the time being. Yet, that has been the policy in Ottawa with regard to our military forces where, in some respects, it has been 'amateur hour' for neophyte 'generals' who, not having the men and materiel to advance their forces, have tinkered with the existing structures and emblems to suit personal tastes.
So, why would we tinker with the Navy that has evolved since unification just to suite you preference to bring back the military of most serving personnel's grandfathers?

The removal of the title 'Royal' was a political decision that, . . .
What?  I thought you just blamed tinkering generals?

It is not surprising that, with the gradual restoration of an identity of 'Navy' and 'Air Force' within the unified CF, that many voices would call for the restoration of title, by right, not by preference, and certainly not according to a consensus of 'feelings'.
Debate with you is like talking to a wall.  You want to give the title 'Royal' to Maritime Command and to Air Command.  Neither of these commands has a 'right' to any title.  Only the old services (which do not exist) had a 'right' to use the title.

So if I and a bunch of us other Naval Officers want to have the executive curl back on our uniforms so we can look like a goddamn navy and not some paperpushing bureaucrat who sometimes gets to go to sea then so be it!
Well, this is irrelevant.  Are you arguing for a curl on your rank, or are you arguing to rename Maritime Command?  These two issues are separable.

I feel there is a certain amount of dishonesty in the arguments that we must fervently hold on to all traditions in their fullness because anything less is like completely destroying tradition.  This is a logical fallacy.  Pidd, please be so kind as to stop insulting the Canadian Armed Forces as being devoid of tradition.  We are full of tradition, and even without the title 'Royal' the Navy has managed to hold on to many of its own traditions.  So you can stop your poo-poo of the collective experience of the CF over the last several years as in adequate for the development of tradition.  Even traditions can evolve & transform.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on July 27, 2007, 10:09:31
MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms? I wasn't there at the time, but many of my CTO's were and they were damn glad to be rid of them, and they joined when the Navy was green.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: E.R. Campbell on July 27, 2007, 10:38:18
MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms? I wasn't there at the time, but many of my CTO's were and they were damn glad to be rid of them, and they joined when the Navy was green.

I don't think much of anyone, anyone beyond the Hellyer/Lee inner circle, anyway, thought the jolly green jumper was a good idea.

The rationale was that the USMC is a fully integrated armed service in a single uniform with considerable pride, internal cohesion, etc.  But we were not attempting to build a Marine Corps, so a single uniform was a waste of money and an unnecessary aggravation added to an already difficult and poorly managed/led process.

Most of the people I knew, even those who 'joined green' were pleased to see the tri-service DEUs; many of us were dismayed at the costs - especially given the quality of kit issued.  Some of my colleagues, and I, rather wished that the Navy, for example, might have gone a bit farther with rank badges - style and quality - and that the Army might have adopted something more akin to 'real' army ranks (not necessarily pips and crowns).

Buttons and bows remains a contentious issue.  It is one which I think is best approached slowly and by each service and part of service (regiment/branch). 

Slightly off topic, but: Part of the problem might be that, traditionally, and for good operational reasons, the Navy and Air Force have stressed service loyalty above ship/unit cohesion while the Army has valued the unit over the service.  Thus, I have no problems with rather major distinctions in dress regulations/buttons and bows between, say, The RCR and the Army's 'share' of the Logistics Branch, while some of my Air Force friends find the mix of cap badges amongst light blue people to be a problem.  They (mostly people who 'joined green') would like one common Air Force identity with minimal attention being paid to branch/trade.  My Navy friends are a little less dogmatic - in fact, unless I'm mistaken, the MARS people want 'Elliot's eye' reserved for them (and MARE?) - keeping clear the distinction between 'real sailors' and supporters.

One size does not fit all and it need not fit all.  But that's buttons and bows, not Royal and we need to keep the two issues quite separate.

I repeat: I am not opposed to changing uniforms to better reflect all of our traditions - including those which are were developed after 1967.  I am opposed to the RCN/RCAF idea because I think it is divisive.

And that's it for me on this topic.  I've said far more than enough.

Edit: typo: "... attempting to build a Marine Corps, so a single uniform was a waste of money and an unnecessary aggravation added to an already difficult ..."
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 27, 2007, 15:47:27
MCG, one question about returning to "old" traditions; did anyone in the Navy in 1985 complain when they turned in their green uniforms?
Now you are making one of those dishonest arguments that I've pointed out.  The black uniform & the Royal designation are not inseparable.  We can have some old traditions without needing all of them, and the appropriateness (right or wrong) of distinct uniforms does not prove the appropriateness (right or wrong) of old names.

Can you make an argument for the designation "Royal" without calling on a desire to wear a black uniform or have a curl on your rank?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on July 27, 2007, 19:53:54
Well we can go back and forth on this forever. You made an argument that returning to RCN/RCAF would be divisive, cost too much and serve a questionable need. I feel that it would help esprit de corp, not cost too much and right a past wrong. Without knowing you at all I would assume that you would be okay with the erasure of all things Royal (RCMP, RBC of Canada, Royal Mint etc.). I think that we can be Canadian with RCN as much as the Aussies and Kiwi's are unique even with the RAN and RNZN.

But in the end I would be shocked to the core if this ever happened. We had the opportunity in 1985 to go farther than we did. But the real killer is that the Navy didn't get the job done in 1965.

The end.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ejames on July 27, 2007, 20:20:45
If we change the name back to the Royal Canadian Navy then the uniforms would have to be changed. The Executive curl is a symbol of the royal designation and once we acknowledge it being present (which today with the Canadian Forces - not so much Armed anymore) we don't.

So this argument about the Executive curl and the RCN not being linked together is false...they are linked strongly together.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 27, 2007, 20:24:35
And who does it benefit the most by becoming the RCN and RCAF....surely not the ncms and ncos. Sounds like the only reason some want the Royal back is for the Curl alone.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ejames on July 27, 2007, 20:31:43
And who does it benefit the most by becoming the RCN and RCAF....surely not the ncms and ncos. Sounds like the only reason some want the Royal back is for the Curl alone.

I wouldn't say that is the case at all. The Navy is full of traditions and we take pride in our own rich history. It is a minor part of NETP-O but learning about our role in the Battle of the Atlantic and our growth in numbers and expertise during both World Wars amazed me and made me proud. My grandfather was a member of the RCN...he fought under the Royal title in a Navy that was formed from a mold of the RN.

I think that a lot of us can not help but feel that by being Maritime Command under the Canadian Forces simply strips us of our rich history.

Does it effect the performance of the Forces as a whole? Probably not. Would changing everything back cost a few dollars? For sure. But that still does not mean that I can not be done. And even more so it does not mean that it should not be done.

Sorry for the lack of Air Force information on the matter...I am a sailor through and through.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: kratz on July 27, 2007, 20:45:17
I have bit my tongue long enough, reading this discussion. Modern day lower decker's are 'enjoying' the privileges of tradition.  While an army SME is respected because they have proven their knowledge, a lower decker is ignored based on rank alone. If we retreat to the old RCN method, then the officer is always right, the NCO and NCM would hardly have a voice, let alone an objection. While there is pride in the past and in some traditions, there is a purpose in moving forward with modern times.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 27, 2007, 20:47:57
So you feel we don't honour our past? You haven't been to a Battle of Atlantic service here in Halifax then if you believe that.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: kratz on July 27, 2007, 20:53:53
In all respect, I attend and in the past have been part of the Base Chief's work party for the BOA in Halifax. Some traditions are inviolate.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 27, 2007, 21:08:53
Kratz the comment was directed at ejames more so...not at you at all
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on July 27, 2007, 21:28:55
The Executive curl is a symbol of the royal designation

I've never heard anything like that before.  Where did you hear it?

A quick flip through the rank insignia pages of Jane's Fighting Ships shows that something like a third of the navies in the world use the executive curl, and that certainly includes many non-Commonwealth navies, and navies from countries without a monarchy.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on July 27, 2007, 21:32:54
Good point Neill
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: MCG on July 28, 2007, 06:23:24
Well we can go back and forth on this forever. You made an argument that returning to RCN/RCAF would be divisive,
I have not suggested it would be divisive. Others may have, but you have gotten confused.

We Without knowing you at all I would assume that you would be okay with the erasure of all things Royal (RCMP, RBC of Canada, Royal Mint etc.).
Canadian institutions have evolved to where they are today & I see no need to add "Royal" for the sake of adding "Royal" and I do not see a need to remove "Royal" for the sake of removing it.

I think that we can be Canadian with RCN as much as the Aussies and Kiwi's are unique even with the RAN and RNZN.
I have not suggested that we could not be Canadian with the distinction "Royal"

FSTO,
I don't think you are reading my posts.  Your entire reply is irrelevant to the points I have raised.  Thanks for not trying though.

So this argument about the Executive curl and the RCN not being linked together is false...they are linked strongly together.
I don't see this link:  http://www.readyayeready.com/tradition/customs-of-the-navy/3-uniforms.htm
But if there were a link, are you suggesting we should re-name Maritime Command just for you to add a curl to your rank?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FSTO on July 28, 2007, 12:17:01
I have not suggested it would be divisive. Others may have, but you have gotten confused.
Canadian institutions have evolved to where they are today & I see no need to add "Royal" for the sake of adding "Royal" and I do not see a need to remove "Royal" for the sake of removing it.
I have not suggested that we could not be Canadian with the distinction "Royal"

FSTO,
I don't think you are reading my posts.  Your entire reply is irrelevant to the points I have raised.  Thanks for not trying though.

Well that was quite a slam! :salute:

I guess I have erred somewhat towards the authors of the anti crowd. In the end, if you read my post, I said that I would be shocked if this happened now because we had the opportunity to retain more of our outdated, irrelevant and silly traditions in 1985 and didn't do it then.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: KevinB on July 31, 2007, 01:47:21
'85 is a bit more of a paper date FWIW -- I joined in 1987 and the tan's did not come for me (and winter greens) until fall 1988.
 I recall service flights could be taken in either uniform...

I don't see the Royal's or Patricia's bitching at the hatchet jobs done to their uniforms (the red and white from the PPCLI - and IIRC the Royals had the Blue and Gold blurb too)  ::)
  Maybe we just accepted that the uniform does not make the man...

 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Not_So_Arty_Newbie on August 01, 2007, 05:14:55
I think the Royal designation is lost on many. I doubt it will come back for units/branches that lost, I doubt the units that have it will lose it, they were the ones who fought to keep it in the first place (i.e. The Royal Regiment of Candian Artillery, The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery School (as it is still called eventhough a part of CTC) But low and behold we look to our cap badges, they hold the crown of the Queen, our reigning Monarch. Adding the royal back in to the Navy and Airforce would make what changes again (executive curl aside) The shoulder tabs all say Canada, in different colours mind you, the ships are already named Her Majesty's Canadian Ship, and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on August 01, 2007, 08:20:55
. . . . and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.

No they won't, that's been discussed before.  The concepts of "Queen's" and "King's" crowns are collectors' colloquialisms used to distinguish pre and post 1953 badges.  The crowns themselves are not gender specific.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Greymatters on August 03, 2007, 17:22:07
I don't see the Royal's or Patricia's bitching at the hatchet jobs done to their uniforms (the red and white from the PPCLI - and IIRC the Royals had the Blue and Gold blurb too)  ::)
  Maybe we just accepted that the uniform does not make the man... 

Maybe not but I was pretty peeved when we got rid of the tans in 1997... especially since I had just finished buying a brand new tunic...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: ModlrMike on August 03, 2007, 18:09:07
... and for those concerned about money issues, what's going to happen when the Queen (God Bless Her) passes, every badge in the CAF will have to be re-done with a kings crown. Food for thought.

I'm sure this is posted elsewhere, but here's a link to an explanation of the various crowns:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-crown.html#tudor (http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/gb-crown.html#tudor)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: volition on September 28, 2007, 09:39:52
Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??

http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Spencer100 on September 28, 2007, 13:19:48
Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??

http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html

Just signed it
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on September 29, 2007, 01:00:41
Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??

http://www.gopetition.com/online/12281.html

Because maybe many are happy with the status quo...
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: N. McKay on September 30, 2007, 23:58:05
Sorry if this has been posted before....I came accross this petition the other day, and I'm wondering how came not more people have taken an intrest in it??

Petitions are frowned upon (and, in many cases, illegal to sign) in the Forces.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Roy Harding on October 01, 2007, 01:56:43
Petitions are frowned upon (and, in many cases, illegal to sign) in the Forces.

They are?

Got a regulation stating that?  QR&O, CFAO, DAOD, CANFORGEN, whatever?

Sure you're not thinking of the bad old days when we weren't allowed, BY LAW, to participate in political campaigns (along with the Public Service)?  I don't recall off hand when that particular law was changed - I think late 80's, but I stand ready for correction.

Roy
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FinClk on October 01, 2007, 10:07:01
Got a regulation stating that?  QR&O, CFAO, DAOD, CANFORGEN, whatever?
QR&0 19.10
Quote
No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
(a) combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
(b) sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
(c) obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Roy Harding on October 01, 2007, 11:04:24
Well done, PO2FinClk!

Thank you - I stand corrected, but will attempt to save some dignity by noting that the regulations apply only to petitions, etcetera, related to the CF - not petitions in general.  A weak attempt at face saving, I agree.

This begs the question, though - how vigorously is this QR&O enforced?  It would seem that Neil MacKay is, indeed, correct - and folks shouldn't be soliciting signatures for petitions aimed at changing the uniform of the CF.  Is this thread in contravention of that QR&O (not that the forum itself is subject to QR&O, but some members here ARE)?

Thanks again, PO2FinClk - when I'm wrong, I like to be corrected.


Roy

Edit:  to correct typo in first sentence (original had the word "only" twice)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: FinClk on October 01, 2007, 11:10:34
No worries Roy, that is how knowledge is passed - through sharing.

I would not say this thread is in contravention of the QR&O as techinically it is an anonymous Poll, where you must denote your true identity for the purposes of a Petition. I agree that any general peition completly removed from the CF would qualify under this article.

How vigourously is that article enforced - can't say I have ever seen it but summise that if one was raised high enough in public awareness that it would then likely be applied.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 05, 2008, 16:24:11
Well, maybe it could use a little fixin‘... Mcpl is not a rank, it is an appointment within the rank of Cpl. Strange, considering the rank of Cpl is nothing more than a well-paid Pte, and Mcpl is the first Leadership appointment. The difference in pay is also a joke. We make fun of the number of Sgts in the US Army, but find another Army where a Rifleman (or it‘s equivalent) can be of 3 different ranks (Pte(B), Pte(T) and Cpl).
There was a study about 10 years ago to get rid of the Mcpl appointment. Not a bad idea, today‘s Cpl would be Pte(T) with the Cpl‘s pay, and Cpl would become the first Leadership rank, replacing the Mcpl. Of course it didn‘t come through, as half the Army complained about losing one chevron and being called a Pte again, some for the rest of their career...
Personally, I think we should have done it, and simplify the rank structure.

Without getting into the financial and administrative burden of changing the rank system, I agree with the above statement.  Eliminate the MCpl appointment/rank and make the Corporal the first leadership rank.  You could also introduce the lance corporal and lance sergeant appointments.  But that's what they should be, not a common rank like the MCpl became.  Rather they would be temporary acting ranks. 

Pte(T) - One chevron
Senior Pte/Former Cpl - One chevron & maple leaf
Lance Corporal (Acting Corporal appointment only) - Two chevrons
Corporal - Two chevrons & maple leaf (first NCO/leadership rank)
Lance Sergeant (Acting Sergeant appointment only) - Three chevrons
Sergeant - Three chevrons & maple leaf
WO
MWO
CWO

In the infantry this would be a very effective system if we adopted the US system of fire teams.  Currently the rifle section has a 3-member LAV-III crew and 7 dismounts.  The section 2i/c is the crew commander and the senior corporal is the 3i/c or dismounted 2i/c.  One group within the dismounted section is short a member.  The section could be organized on the fire team basis.  The new corporal would be somewhere in the middle of the former Cpl & MCpl.  There would be three new corporals in the section, each in command of only two privates.  Surely this is within the scope of a more highly trained corporal.  Any private filling the role of a team leader/crew commander or corporal filling the role of section commander would temporarily be appointed lance corporal/lance sergeant and where the appropriate rank insignia to be distinguished as such.
Section Commander - Sergeant
2 x Fire Team Leader - Corporal
2 x C9A2 Gunner - Private
2 x Rifleman - Private
LAV-III Crew Commander - Corporal
LAV-III Gunner - Private
LAV-III Driver - Private

In a fully manned infantry battalion with combat support platoons (maybe a dream, but this is just a fun discussion) there could be more use of lance sergeant like in the WW2 infantry battalions.  A reformed mortar platoon could be organized with three 2-tube sections like today's British platoons.  Each detachment could be led by a lance sergeant with a sergeant as section commander or one detachment led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.  Similarly, a 6-vehicle anti-armour platoon with three 2-vehicle sections could have one vehicle commanded by a sergeant and one by a lance sergeant.  This is how the WW2 mortar and anti-tank platoons were organized (www.canadiansoldier.com).  Same thing in the recce platoon. 

In armoured reconnaissance troops the same thing is possible.  Within a two-vehicle patrol one vehicle could be led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.

If the Army was to expand to bring its units up to full strength there wouldn't need to be a huge number of corporals reduced to private.  For example, within the newly organized infantry section the old MCpl maintains his rank and position (just gets renamed to corporal, but keeps his rank insignia) and the two most senior corporals become the team leaders if they pass the required courses.    Other qualified corporals will be used to re-create the combat support platoons, be used as instructors within the training system, etc.  So in the end only unqualified/incapable corporals would be reduced to senior privates.   




Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 05, 2008, 16:28:05
Wow, 3 years dead and it came back to life!!

Mountie, you do realie the post you quoted is..almost 5 years old?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 05, 2008, 16:44:03
Yes I realize that.  Just looking at old posts and came across this one.  Thought I'd add a comment.  Sick and stuck in bed with nothing better to do.  lol   It just sparked a thought that was similar to a discussion about the fire team organization and rank that is going on in a different forum.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 05, 2008, 18:41:09
Yes I realize that.  Just looking at old posts and came across this one.  Thought I'd add a comment.  Sick and stuck in bed with nothing better to do.  lol   It just sparked a thought that was similar to a discussion about the fire team organization and rank that is going on in a different forum.

- Truly, an idle mind is the devil's workshop!

 >:D

1. Grandfather all Corporals/MCpls.
2. After 1 Apr 09, pers joining will be under the new structure.
3. Keep the pay increments the same (but...).
4. Lance Cpl: Is a Pte who has passed JNCO Mod 6 and meets trade specs/crses.  Gets a hook.
5. Cpl: Is a Pte who has passed JNCO Mod 6, all trade specs/crses and who has four years of service. Gets two hooks.
6. MCpl: Is a Cpl qual Sgt in all aspects/courses and is awaiting a vacancy to be promoted into.

Base pay of what is now a Cpl will still extend to those who have four years in, they just won't get any hooks.  No
 ldsp crses - no hooks.



Note: this assumes agreement that stripes represent leadership and trade badges represent specialist quals.  We won't give stripes just to give techs the pay they deserve. That's what spec pay is for.

Spec/trades pay: should refect tech quals - rank pay refects leadership quals.

Note that with this new system, one could conceivably retire at twenty five years with NO stripes, but a very impressive trade badge!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Infanteer on April 05, 2008, 18:53:51
Ugg...so complicated.  How about Private, with a hook coming later, followed by Corporal, the first level of leadership?  Sounds pretty simple.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 05, 2008, 18:57:05
- With the Public Service system flattening our pay arcs, we have to encourage people to go for leadership positions even though the pay scale is not that different.  This way, ya want a stripe, take the course and the responsibility.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 05, 2008, 19:30:46
I cannot resist.

Don't worry about the "hooks" etc. Just get the levels right: fighters, junior leaders and senior leaders. See my comments from Aug 05 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24425.msg249879.html#msg249879). Get it right for the Armoured Corps and the Infantry first – then it will be fairly easy to “fix” the other arms and services and the Navy and Air Force, too.

I remain convinced that the keys are: levels and pay scales that reward leadership and technical skills and provide a real, measurable pay raise with each promotion and trade course.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 05, 2008, 22:58:55
I cannot resist.

Don't worry about the "hooks" etc. Just get the levels right: fighters, junior leaders and senior leaders. See my comments from Aug 05 (http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,24425.msg249879.html#msg249879). Get it right for the Armoured Corps and the Infantry first – then it will be fairly easy to “fix” the other arms and services and the Navy and Air Force, too.

I remain convinced that the keys are: levels and pay scales that reward leadership and technical skills and provide a real, measurable pay raise with each promotion and trade course.

- Having re-read your Aug 05 comments, I agree.

- Now, as to those hooks...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 06, 2008, 00:44:43
Another point I have to ask about in reference to the appointment of Mcpl.
I HEARD (note I do not know this as fact, I am asking about it) that Mcpl's have their own rest area's/canteen at the LDSH(RC).
If this is true,Is this the only regiment that does this?And why make the separation for the one appointment?

Seem's as if the line is blurred as to whom the Mcpl's belong to.They do not fit the junior NCM,however they can't be in the company of Senior NCO's.

And if they are really just an appointment (I know it is written as just that) why would they need to be separated from other Cpl's?


I don't want to get into my feelings on the matter,but just to add this to the discussion.As it does present some valid points to both sides of the discussion.

And finally is this indeed true?Any other units do this?

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 06, 2008, 04:41:33
Good discussion, since I was critized for restarting an old thread.  I like the idea of spec pay and trade badges rather than automatic promotions to corporal.  That was sort of my point.  Thanks for explaining it better.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 06, 2008, 05:02:38
Oh I wasn't criticizing...I should have used a  ;D

 ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: TCBF on April 06, 2008, 06:20:04
- Canadian regiments rotated through the Ledra Palace Hotel in Cyprus - each six month tour came complete with a MCpl's club.

- Whatever Armoured Regt was occupying the North Marg at Lahr had an MCpl's Rest Area just outside the gate.

- It often happens.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 06, 2008, 10:23:46
TCBF.Thanks for the info.
In Canada now are trhe LDSh(RC) the last regiment to do this here at home?

I heard it was a Hussar tradition?Any truth to that?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: geo on April 06, 2008, 11:35:14
Another point I have to ask about in reference to the appointment of Mcpl.
I HEARD (note I do not know this as fact, I am asking about it) that Mcpl's have their own rest area's/canteen at the LDSH(RC).
If this is true,Is this the only regiment that does this?And why make the separation for the one appointment?
There is a separate mess in Valcatraz for the MCpls... applied to the whole of 5 CMBG
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on April 06, 2008, 16:22:45
Just going back to Mountie's resurrection of this topic.  I may point out, and I think many haven't noticed, that the Maple Leaf in the worn rank signifies the first levels of supervisory/leadership positions in the CF.

The ideas put forward by Mountie, with the Maple Leaf on again, off again, as you progress through the ranks would throw that concept out the window.

As for MCpl's having their own Mess; that dates back into the early 1980's, in both Germany and Valcartier, with the RCD('s) having it well before the Hussars did.



[Edit:  The RCD in Germany had a MCpl Rest Area/Mess.  The Independent RCD Tank Sqn in Gagetown (C Sqn RCD) MCpl's voted down the idea.]
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 06, 2008, 16:30:15
Interesting point.  I didn't realize the maple leaf significant supervisor position.  I was thinking of it more in the context of a maple leaf signified a fully trained member.  If there was no maple leaf its just an acting rank.  I just saw that in a local police service hear and liked the idea.  A sergeant had three chevrons and a crown and when a constable was acting sergeant for either one shift or a long period of time they wore three chevrons without a crown.  This the public and other members new he was an NCO but the other members also new it was just an acting rank.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 06, 2008, 17:33:00
As for MCpl's having their own Mess; that dates back into the early 1980's, in both Germany and Valcartier, with the RCD('s) having it well before the Hussars did.
[Edit:  The RCD in Germany had a MCpl Rest Area/Mess.  The Independent RCD Tank Sqn in Gagetown (C Sqn RCD) MCpl's voted down the idea.]

Interesting.
So prior to unification did Cpl's have their own mess?
Also with the stratcona Mcpl canteen,can the Mcpl's enter the Jnr NCO's canteen as that is what they are as well?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on April 06, 2008, 17:35:43
My father was in the RCAF, and a member of the Cpl's Club in 1 (F) Wing.  Was it the same for the Army, and the Navy, I don't know.  Nor am I sure that it was the same on all Bases.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Old Sweat on April 06, 2008, 17:45:28
In my experience in the pre-integration army, junior NCOs had their own separate mess in the junior ranks club, but ate in the same dining hall as the privates. I am not sure if this was the case in smaller units or camps, as my experience was strictly in the artillery world of Shilo, Petawawa, Gagetown and Deilinghofen.

Logic suggrests that if one was posted to a place like the ordnance depot in Cobourg, Ont, then numbers would dictate a combined mess, but I don't know. I do recall a small number of gunners and bombardiers on one occasion drinking together in the Petawawa headquarters units' wet canteen, but as we were in civvies I am not sure if we were legal or not.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 06, 2008, 17:51:26
I know Base Accommodations in Gagetown likes to keep the Pte/Cpl's separate from the MCpl's.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Target Up on April 06, 2008, 17:52:49
There was a M/Cpl mess in Chilliwack in the 80s.  It had the unique distinction of getting it's funding from the JRC (the only self sustaining mess on the base), without having to give up any of their mess dues for the JRC operations.  It was a titanic waste of money.  Any M/Cpl that showed his face in the JRC, other than on duty, was directed back across the street to his own mess, often vigorously.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 06, 2008, 18:00:06
I know Base Accommodations in Gagetown likes to keep the Pte/Cpl's separate from the MCpl's.

Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Target Up on April 06, 2008, 18:03:21
Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D

Really?  So you still swamp pots and pans, peel spuds, and pull 0200-0400 fire picquet?  Good on ya, ever think of remustering to engineer?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 06, 2008, 18:14:02
Really?  So you still swamp pots and pans, peel spuds, and pull 0200-0400 fire picquet?  Good on ya, ever think of remustering to engineer?
LOL
Chain trains deploy advance party with the troopers,extra duties,like being course senior lol.
It is seriously the most confusing rank ever.All the B/S of the trooper's,and none of the benefits of leadership. ;D

However I do get yelled at for working too much,when I thought it was a working rank...

I see why people told me it was the hardest rank,as you have to adjust to each person's idea of what a Mcpl does...depending on who's around. ;D


Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: HFXCrow on April 06, 2008, 21:54:02
Master Seaman (MS) is the hardest rank in the Navy as you to be a hardass on watch then eat and sleep in the same mess.

No place to decompress.

I found it hard especially as a MS in the PO2 position of EWS (Electronic Warfare Supervisor).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: E.R. Campbell on April 07, 2008, 00:33:43
Master Seaman (MS) is the hardest rank in the Navy as you to be a hardass on watch then eat and sleep in the same mess.

No place to decompress.

I found it hard especially as a MS in the PO2 position of EWS (Electronic Warfare Supervisor).

That was the arm system pre-1966. The infantry section commander and tank commander were corporals. They lived, worked and suffered right with he "squaddies" and were expected to command, lead, maintain good order and discipline, etc, etc, etc.

When the system changed there was much angst and many, very many good, combat seasoned leaders were firmly against it.

It doesn't make much difference in the field, obviously, and now that we have (essentially) a married army it makes less difference in barracks, I guess.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on April 07, 2008, 01:18:15
Without getting into the financial and administrative burden of changing the rank system, I agree with the above statement.  Eliminate the MCpl appointment/rank and make the Corporal the first leadership rank.  You could also introduce the lance corporal and lance sergeant appointments.  But that's what they should be, not a common rank like the MCpl became.  Rather they would be temporary acting ranks. 

Pte(T) - One chevron
Senior Pte/Former Cpl - One chevron & maple leaf
Lance Corporal (Acting Corporal appointment only) - Two chevrons
Corporal - Two chevrons & maple leaf (first NCO/leadership rank)
Lance Sergeant (Acting Sergeant appointment only) - Three chevrons
Sergeant - Three chevrons & maple leaf
WO
MWO
CWO

In the infantry this would be a very effective system if we adopted the US system of fire teams.  Currently the rifle section has a 3-member LAV-III crew and 7 dismounts.  The section 2i/c is the crew commander and the senior corporal is the 3i/c or dismounted 2i/c.  One group within the dismounted section is short a member.  The section could be organized on the fire team basis.  The new corporal would be somewhere in the middle of the former Cpl & MCpl.  There would be three new corporals in the section, each in command of only two privates.  Surely this is within the scope of a more highly trained corporal.  Any private filling the role of a team leader/crew commander or corporal filling the role of section commander would temporarily be appointed lance corporal/lance sergeant and where the appropriate rank insignia to be distinguished as such.
Section Commander - Sergeant
2 x Fire Team Leader - Corporal
2 x C9A2 Gunner - Private
2 x Rifleman - Private
LAV-III Crew Commander - Corporal
LAV-III Gunner - Private
LAV-III Driver - Private

In a fully manned infantry battalion with combat support platoons (maybe a dream, but this is just a fun discussion) there could be more use of lance sergeant like in the WW2 infantry battalions.  A reformed mortar platoon could be organized with three 2-tube sections like today's British platoons.  Each detachment could be led by a lance sergeant with a sergeant as section commander or one detachment led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.  Similarly, a 6-vehicle anti-armour platoon with three 2-vehicle sections could have one vehicle commanded by a sergeant and one by a lance sergeant.  This is how the WW2 mortar and anti-tank platoons were organized (www.canadiansoldier.com).  Same thing in the recce platoon. 

In armoured reconnaissance troops the same thing is possible.  Within a two-vehicle patrol one vehicle could be led by a sergeant and the other by a lance sergeant.

If the Army was to expand to bring its units up to full strength there wouldn't need to be a huge number of corporals reduced to private.  For example, within the newly organized infantry section the old MCpl maintains his rank and position (just gets renamed to corporal, but keeps his rank insignia) and the two most senior corporals become the team leaders if they pass the required courses.    Other qualified corporals will be used to re-create the combat support platoons, be used as instructors within the training system, etc.  So in the end only unqualified/incapable corporals would be reduced to senior privates.   






To avoid confusion why not go back to the pre-1968 rank, it still works in most commonwealth countries, including Australia.

PTE/GNR/SPR/SIG/RFN/TPR
LCPL/LBDR
CPL/BDR
SGT
SSGT (still exists mainly in RAAOC trades)
WO2
WO1
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 07, 2008, 01:41:14
Funny.I plan on sleeping in a basement with my troop's.I only ever seen segregation between snr NCO's and NCM's.
Be kind of nice to have some perks to Mcpl,but alas I have found none. ;D

Do you mean between WOs, Snr NCOs and Jnr Ranks?  'Cause a Snr NCO is a NCM...
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: X-mo-1979 on April 07, 2008, 01:44:31
Why are we tring to change the rank system anyway...I'm not following.

Changing rank's just means more freaking courses,more DEU alterations and having to procure new DEU rank slip-on's.

Can we atleast agree to wait until I reach WO so I can Grandfather into not having to do some 3 month away from family course in between tours.

Or at least until I get demoted to Cpl,seem's like a steady rank in everyones arguments. ;D

Do you mean between WOs, Snr NCOs and Jnr Ranks?  'Cause a Snr NCO is a NCM...

Wordology.You knew.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 07, 2008, 02:10:08
 ;)
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Mountie on April 07, 2008, 02:29:14
To avoid confusion why not go back to the pre-1968 rank, it still works in most commonwealth countries, including Australia.

PTE/GNR/SPR/SIG/RFN/TPR
LCPL/LBDR
CPL/BDR
SGT
SSGT (still exists mainly in RAAOC trades)
WO2
WO1

Sounds good.  Just thought we could Canadianize it a little without straying to far from the old Commonwealth System.   Its just that the old Commonwealth system had permanent lance corporal positions.  I was trying to use the lance corporal/lance sergeant as acting or temporary assignments rather than a LCpl as a section 2i/c.  But I'd go for your idea.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on April 07, 2008, 13:51:58
My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)

Pte
Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
WO Crown (Example CQMS)
MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
CWO same-same

I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on April 07, 2008, 14:08:18
My take would be this (very british but a touch canadian)

Pte
Pte (trained QL4/5) Shevron
LCPL Shevron plus leaf (Example Inf Sect 2IC)
CPL 2 x shevrons plus leaf (Example Sect Comd)
SGT 3 x Shevrons plus leaf (Example PL 2IC)
WO Crown (Example CQMS)
MWO Same as now (Example CSM)
CWO same-same

I find the british style rank structure made sense before we butchered it. Now we have 4 rank structures to work through just to command a section. I am noticing our section commanders are probably the oldest ones in NATO (Compared to UK, USA, ect, etc).

 ;D  I was just looking at a Shevrolet this weekend.

Chevrons.   ;D
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: MCG on April 07, 2008, 18:52:51
Just going back to Mountie's resurrection of this topic.  I may point out, and I think many haven't noticed, that the Maple Leaf in the worn rank signifies the first levels of supervisory/leadership positions in the CF.
Are you certain this was intentional?  I seem to recall a Cpl for life badge, which existed only briefly, that had a maple leaf lowered & recessed into the chevrons.  This would not seem to fit with the leadership indicator concept.

Why are we tring to change the rank system anyway...I'm not following.
Yes, it is always good to confirm there is a problem before attempting to fix it.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: George Wallace on April 07, 2008, 18:58:46
If I remember correctly, that was the original Cpl rank, or MCpl rank, and it was changed for the reasons stated earlier; to make the "supervisory" ranks all the same, and remove any room for error. 

That particular rank insignia was around for only one year, before it was removed/changed.  I have no recollection of it being called "Cpl for Life".  It does bring up the question again of the "Queen's/King's Cpl" which we had a long discussion about in another thread.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Technoviking on April 07, 2008, 19:12:20
If I remember correctly, that was the original Cpl rank, or MCpl rank, and it was changed for the reasons stated earlier; to make the "supervisory" ranks all the same, and remove any room for error. 

That particular rank insignia was around for only one year, before it was removed/changed.  I have no recollection of it being called "Cpl for Life".  It does bring up the question again of the "Queen's/King's Cpl" which we had a long discussion about in another thread.
That rank was the "Trade  Corporal".  Very confusing time.
The only problem with our rank structure is that very odd "appointment": Master Corporal.
A brief history (as I understand it).
The MND wanted a broad based pay raise in the late 60's/early 70's.  Treasury board said "no".  So, the MND changed the prerequisites for promotion from Pte to Cpl.  Next thing you know, at four years, you automatically became a corporal.  Now, the knock off effect is that there already were a bunk of NCO Corporals (yes, Corporals are still Jr NCOs: I mean NCO-trained).  So, Cpl Bloggins, who completed NCO training, wore the same rank as a four year wonder corporal.  How to differentiate?  I believe that that Trade Corporal was a first attempt, if not an attempt cocncurrent to the introduction of the Master Corporal appointment.
This brings me to the point about The RCR and the lanyard we used to wear (OD Combats).  There were rumours that it was a battle honour, etc, but truth be told, it was the Regiment's attempt (initially) to identify NCO-trained Cpls from four year Cpls.  Of course, Sgts, WOs and Offrs all wore the lanyard as well (until 2001 or so when we all got CADPAT).
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: ArmyRick on April 07, 2008, 20:32:19
Seems like a logical explanation once you understand how things work in the CF.

I don't agree with how our CPL rank is treated.

On one end, you get a PTE who is really switched on and worked very hard to get it, he definately deserves it.

On the other hand, you got the minimal standard dirt bag that got it because "his time was due".

I don't beleive any rank should be a "give me".
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: geo on April 07, 2008, 22:22:16
The Maple leaf on the MCpl & Sgt rank badges is the symbol of leadership...

The rank of Cpl used to mean something.... many moons ago, I had to take my Jr NCO course prior to being promoted to Cpl.... then again, A Sgt was the Platoon Sgt / 2IC and the WO was the CQMS.  (the Lance Cpl rank was just dissapearing when I came in... Lance Sgt had dissapeared)

Is there a need for both the MCPL and CPL ranks? 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Technoviking on April 07, 2008, 22:26:30
Is there a need for both the MCPL and CPL ranks?  
Since Master Corporal isn't a rank, you'll have to rephrase the question thus: Is there a need for the MCpl appointment?
Interesting.  We could cloud the matter more, and invent a "Specialist" rank, equal in pay/benefits to Corporal, but Corporal would be a leadership rank, whilst Specialist would be what it implies: a highly trained soldier who specialises in "something".
Or we could keep MCpl.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: geo on April 07, 2008, 22:29:14
Specialists could be identified by the old traditional method.... bigger & better trade badges.

WRT the MCPL being an appointment..... if we dump the Cpl freebie the MCPL becomes redundant and Corporals would be Leaders again..... which sorta goes against the US Rank structure - which is prolly one of the reasons we did what we did.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Technoviking on April 07, 2008, 22:38:28
Specialists could be identified by the old traditional method.... bigger & better trade badges.

WRT the MCPL being an appointment..... if we dump the Cpl freebie the MCPL becomes redundant and Corporals would be Leaders again..... which sorta goes against the US Rank structure - which is prolly one of the reasons we did what we did.
Actually, our rank structure (at least the insignia) was re-designed (for officers, anyway) to make it more easily recognised by our US allies.
Dump MCpl, make all quals now required for MCpl to Cpl.  Fine.  Then what of the Cpls out there now?  Reduction in rank? 
I say "Leave well enough alone".  No need for trade badges.  Where would we put them on our uniforms?  I mean combats and the like, not DEU.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Michael O'Leary on April 07, 2008, 23:03:36
.... if we dump the Cpl freebie

I agree, if there are any Hellyer Corporals still serving they should be immediately reverted to the rank of Private.  Then can we move on and solve today's problems, instead of 1968's?

Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: RangerRay on April 07, 2008, 23:09:54
Ugh...should never have changed it in the first place!
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: reveng on April 07, 2008, 23:12:57
Great, I really am going to be a private forever.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: eugenetswong on April 08, 2008, 00:24:23
I tried to read this entire thread, but I just don't have the time or heart for it. I read from page 1 to 11, then 22 to about 19.

I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.

I suggest the following, up to the 1st hook Private. I don't care about the rest, as long as the pay reflects trade skill, and rank reflects leadership. My suggestions are also more applicable to the reserves, where people can attend BMQ, but not SQ for quite an extended period of time.

Rank NameResponsibility {or lack thereof :)}
Recruitjust show up for training; only authorized to practise drills and learn; not allowed to wear uniforms outside of training, not allowed to wear cap badge; no slip-on to wear
Soldier/Sailor/Airmenqualified to do general duties; qualified to be canon fodder; can wear uniform in public; wear triservice cap badge; considered purple trade; wears slip-on with no hook
Private/Trooper/Sapper/etc.performs trade duties; considered an apprentice; wears appropriate cap badge; wears a 1-hook slip-on

When the recruit finishes BMQ, he'll get a cap badge, as his reward, and be promoted to Soldier or whatever. When he finishes SQ or the equivalent, he then gets promoted to the Private, etc., and then get a new cap badge.

What do you all think?
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 08, 2008, 00:35:18
Personally, I think there is not enough broken with the way things currently are to warrant fixing it.

Cpls are Cpls.  Jnr NCOs.  Same as they would be if we got ride of the MCpl appointment.  They still perform Jnr leadership roles. 

My 2 cents.
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: Eye In The Sky on April 08, 2008, 01:12:08
I tried to read this entire thread, but I just don't have the time or heart for it. I read from page 1 to 11, then 22 to about 19.

I hate to keep introducing myself, but just in case: I'm a SQ qualified private. I hate walking around my unit dressed like the new recruits. Most people know what situation I'm in, but I want it to be more obvious for when I interact with those outside of my unit.

I suggest the following, up to the 1st hook Private. I don't care about the rest, as long as the pay reflects trade skill, and rank reflects leadership. My suggestions are also more applicable to the reserves, where people can attend BMQ, but not SQ for quite an extended period of time.

Rank NameResponsibility {or lack thereof :)}
Recruitjust show up for training; only authorized to practise drills and learn; not allowed to wear uniforms outside of training, not allowed to wear cap badge; no slip-on to wear
Soldier/Sailor/Airmenqualified to do general duties; qualified to be canon fodder; can wear uniform in public; wear triservice cap badge; considered purple trade; wears slip-on with no hook
Private/Trooper/Sapper/etc.performs trade duties; considered an apprentice; wears appropriate cap badge; wears a 1-hook slip-on

When the recruit finishes BMQ, he'll get a cap badge, as his reward, and be promoted to Soldier or whatever. When he finishes SQ or the equivalent, he then gets promoted to the Private, etc., and then get a new cap badge.

What do you all think?

Not to be rude but it sounds alitle bit like Beavers, to Cubs, to Boy Scouts to me...remember, you DID ask what people think.  Thats what I think. 
Title: Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
Post by: eugenetswong on April 08, 2008, 14:08:43
Not to be rude but it sounds alitle bit like Beavers, to Cubs, to Boy Scouts to me...remember, you DID ask what people think.  Thats what I think. 
I don't think that you sound rude. Why do think that it sounds a bit like those organizations?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CalgarySailor on October 23, 2008, 02:23:20
The RCN and RCAF should be reinstated in advance of the 100th anniversary of the RCN (May, 2010).  And for those too young to appreciate the abomination which Cpl. Hellyer (Pearsons Defence Minister) established in 1968 and don't know any better, the RCN and RCAF more than did their part to shape our national identity in most 20th Century conflicts.  The abdication of these traditions was nothing more than the appeasement of a political elite who neither paid the price nor earned the right to do so!  Confused?  Consicentious objectors ring a bell?  Oh yes it is broke and does need fixin'!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on October 23, 2008, 03:01:13
 :boring:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Gasplug on October 23, 2008, 03:12:46
Why would we do such a thing? ???

Unification in 1967 (when Bil C-243 was passed) was a bad idea because the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson refused to change the Canadian commitments to NATO and NORAD.  With stovepiped commitments for all three Services, they were bound to remain the "three" solitudes.  The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Warsaw Pact, 9/11 and the most recent transformation of the CF have generated a new reality for the CF.  The three Services are not warfighters anymore but force generators much more akin to the Title 10 responsibilities of the US Armed Forces. When the CF deploys nowadays, it is an integrated force, not stovepipes.

If the Services are not individually going to be called to fight WW3, we do not need to bring back entities that were employed that way in the past.  All we will be creating is the old stovepipes all over again. The RCN and the RCAF were indeed instrumental in making the CF what it is now, but that does mean we need them for the future.

My two cents...

Gasplug  :salute: 

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Carcharodon Carcharias on October 23, 2008, 04:56:58
Mike Pearson

I thought it was Lester B Pearson.

Where did Mike come from?

I think Gasplug is set to 'grenade'  ;D

Regards,

OWDU
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Gasplug on October 23, 2008, 08:55:18
Quote
I thought it was Lester B Pearson.

Where did Mike come from?

OD from OZ!

Mike was actually LBP's nickname. I don't remember why or where he got it? But I can look it up in his bio at home when I get there later today.

4.5 seconds later    :skull:

Gasplug  :salute:
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: cheeky_monkey on October 23, 2008, 09:10:28
If the RCN and RCAF were to be brought back (and I strongly believe they should), it would be in name only. And thats all it needs to be, the renaming of Maritime Cmd to RCN and Air Cmd to RCAF.

Simple change to perpetuate the memories of those that went before us.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on October 23, 2008, 09:20:35
Simple change to perpetuate the memories of those that went before us.

...so, using your anology we just ignore those whom have gone since then?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CalgarySailor on October 23, 2008, 09:30:32
Your reply is absurd!  Of course NO; much has been sacrificed by CF members.  As we well know but the fact remains the Army has borne the brunt but they have also done so under their regimental names and in most cases tthat is/has been with a  Royal designation............  Those that forget their history are destined to repeat its mistakes.  The discontinuance of the RCN and RCAF was a huge mistake and its an even larger one that it remains uncorrected.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: cheeky_monkey on October 23, 2008, 09:31:49
...so, using your anology we just ignore those whom have gone since then?

Thats not what I said. And I don't understand how you got that from my post. We all know that those people will never be forgotten, however that name change will not only continue that, it will remind Canadians that we do infact have a Navy and Air Force.

When I told people from my highschool that I was joining the Navy as an officer, I was always met by 2 questions. "Why?" and "We have a navy?"

If you don't like the idea, just state it, don't dance around...  ::)
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CalgarySailor on October 23, 2008, 09:40:04
It was about political expediency then as it is today.  Ask yourself why the Conservatives won't even touch the issue.  I have requested this through the PM and the former Defense Minister O'Connor and none would entertain it.  Why?  Why did the Liberals dispose of it?  Look at your history and figure it our teacher.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: CountDC on October 23, 2008, 11:16:18
WOW!! 

Can't believe such a simple thing as a slight name change would stir up so much argument.  People going on about "huge" cost, change of command structure, etc. 

It is a simple addition of one word - Royal.

Huge cost?  I look at my shoulder ranks - guess what - says CANADA.  No cost there.  Ships are already named HMCS - no cost again.  Letterhead?  Most is printed as needed so no huge cost there either. A few signs changed - not a huge cost there either.  Just can't find these huge costs anywhere I look.

Change to command structure - where does that come from??  Already have seperate commands that fall under the CDS so no change there.

Just can't find the main issues that most have argued about.  There is no huge cost and there is no change to command structure simply by a slight name change.

Myself - couldn't care less whether they change it or not other than typing it will take a split second longer. Whoopee. Not like anyone other than the media uses it very often.  Don't see me saying "I am in the Royal Canadian Navy" - will stick to what I say now if asked - I'm in the navy. Pretty sure that most give the same answer.

Oops - how silly of me - almost forgot the traditions argument- changing the name will not automatically bring back the old traditions (good or bad) same as it did not automatically kill them. Traditions are carried on and killed off by people not names.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: alfie on October 23, 2008, 12:42:04
While we are at it bring back the Royal to all the units and forget Trudeau ever happened .
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: bartbandyrfc on October 23, 2008, 12:43:31
Why would we do such a thing? ???

Unification in 1967 (when Bil C-243 was passed) was a bad idea because the Liberal Government of Mike Pearson refused to change the Canadian commitments to NATO and NORAD.  With stovepiped commitments for all three Services, they were bound to remain the "three" solitudes.  The fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Warsaw Pact, 9/11 and the most recent transformation of the CF have generated a new reality for the CF.  The three Services are not warfighters anymore but force generators much more akin to the Title 10 responsibilities of the US Armed Forces. When the CF deploys nowadays, it is an integrated force, not stovepipes.

If the Services are not individually going to be called to fight WW3, we do not need to bring back entities that were employed that way in the past.  All we will be creating is the old stovepipes all over again. The RCN and the RCAF were indeed instrumental in making the CF what it is now, but that does mean we need them for the future.

My two cents...

Gasplug  :salute: 



Gasplug,

You are confusing two different issues.  The issues that you confuse are the concepts of Unification versus Integration.

In your argument, you are saying that the petition advocates the abolition of "Integration". This is not true, and if you read the petition it is very clear on this point.  Integration is concept of a joint and unified command structure, and seeking common logistics arrangements and other efficiencies wherever and whenever it is possible. In point of fact, the concept of integration was an extremely successful initiative and no one is advocating a reversal of this concept. The latest transformation initiatives actually takes the integration concept one step further, making the unified command concept and joint outlook that was envisaged in 1966 very much a reality. All three "services" were actually nearly 100% behind this when the first step was taken with the establishment of CFHQ during, I believe, 1964.  CF Materiel Command was also established around that time, with the mandate to rationalize and make more efficient the CF procurement efforts and logistics services.  These are very good things, and we all agree that this should continue.

The petition actually seeks to reverse the concept of unification, which neutered the historical traditions of two of the three elements with no concern for the very real contributiion that this has on esprit de corps.  Imagine if the MND had numbered all of the Canadian Regiiments along the lines of US Army and Marine units.  No RCD, no RCR, no RWR, no RNR, no 8CH no PPCLI, no R22eR.... The army would have had its proud lineage eliminated.  Just imagine the army with a 1 CF Regiment, 2 CF Regiment, etc.  

This is what we proponents seek to reverse for the air force and the navy. It actually recognizes the reality of what is happening in the Air Force.  We celebrate the establishment of the RCAF every year, we parade on Battle of Britain Sunday, we stand on tables during mess dinners when the RCAF Marchpast is played by the band.  Let us recognize who we are.

BB
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Michael O'Leary on October 23, 2008, 13:08:44
The petition actually seeks to reverse the concept of unification, which neutered the historical traditions of two of the three elements with no concern for the very real contributiion that this has on esprit de corps.  Imagine if the MND had numbered all of the Canadian Regiiments along the lines of US Army and Marine units.  No RCD, no RCR, no RWR, no RNR, no 8CH no PPCLI, no R22eR.... The army would have had its proud lineage eliminated.  Just imagine the army with a 1 CF Regiment, 2 CF Regiment, etc.  

BB,

and you are confusing the concepts of unit/regimental naming and lineage.  Renaming units does not strike out all connections which go before, unless it is accompanying by the disbanding of all units and the creation of completely new ones.  To make such a comparison valid, it would have to be argued that the current Navy and Air Force were only created in 1970 and have no entitlement to claim any history, heritage or lineage that occurred before that time - which we all know is untrue.

The only major break with previous heritage (as far as official lineage is concerned) that occurred in the army was Confederation, when newly authorized units were created under the new national authority.  Changes of naming since then, whether through amalgamations of units or not, has happened repeatedly in the army over the course of its history.  At no time did such renaming of existing units "eliminate proud heritage."  To infer that happened in 1970 is an exaggeration that undermines the argument to revert to the "Royal" service names. 

Mike
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Gasplug on October 23, 2008, 13:13:32
Quote
In your argument, you are saying that the petition advocates the abolition of "Integration".  This is not true, and if you read the petition it is very clear on this point.  Integration is concept of a joint and unified command structure, and seeking common logistics arrangements and other efficiencies wherever and whenever it is possible.  In point of fact, the concept of integration was an extremely successful initiative and no one is advocating a reversal of this concept. The latest transformation initiatives actually takes the integration concept one step further, making the unified command concept and joint outlook that was envisaged in 1966 very much a reality. All three "services" were actually nearly 100% behind this when the first step was taken with the establishment of CFHQ during, I believe, 1964.  CF Materiel Command was also established around that time, with the mandate to rationalize and make more efficient the CF procurement efforts and logistics services.  These are very good things, and we all agree that this should continue.

BB

If my argument comes out as being against integration, that is far from my intent.  Believe me that I know the difference between the two of them since that is the topic of master's dissertation with the RMC War Studies program.  What I want is to keep the good parts of both Integration and Unification (Yes there were good bits within Unification, although the green uniform wasn't it! The CF high command would have been hard to manage if the three services had kept their Chiefs of Staff, for example) while we rectify the bad parts.  If bringing back the monikers "Royal" to the Navy and Air Force while maintaining the current force generation role of Maritime Command and Air Command, that would be acceptable to me.  I would hate to see us go back to the 70s and 80s and lose the "jointness" we have gained in the 90s and 00s. I guess this is a case of "don't throw out the baby with the bath water".

BTW, there was also some talk about getting rid of all the regimental names for the Army also.  That one did fly very high since there was still way too many WW2 Army vets, with a lot of votes! ;)

Gasplug  :salute:

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on October 23, 2008, 13:26:13
It was about political expediency then as it is today.  Ask yourself why the Conservatives won't even touch the issue.  I have requested this through the PM and the former Defense Minister O'Connor and none would entertain it.  Why? 

I would hope because they had issues that actually mattered to deal with......

For Pete's sake, calling the Artillery  1 Big Gun Regt, 2 Big Gun Regt and 5iem Regt. de Gros Fusil wouldn't change anything that I care about, like the traditions, the people, my service, nada......I guess I just think worrying, and doing something about, a better future honours our past fallen more than someones favourite pet names.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Snakedoc on October 23, 2008, 14:47:49
QR&0 19.10

No officer or non-commissioned member shall without authority:
(a) combine with other members for the purpose of bringing about alterations in existing regulations for the Canadian Forces;
(b) sign with other members memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces; or
(c) obtain or solicit signatures for memorials, petitions or applications relating to the Canadian Forces.

Despite this, change can still occur by writing letters individually as Canadian Citizens to MP's expressing your opinions.  This is something that is much more effective than signing a petition, especially after an election as that is when government's have the most political will to make policy changes.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on October 23, 2008, 14:54:00
Will changing to "Royal" get me a replacement for my 28 year old airplane ?

Will changing to "Royal" give me people to put in those vacant positions we have at the unit ?

Will changing to "Royal" provide us with more money for training ?

If you answer is "no", then explain to me why this is more important the the other issues i have to deal with every day.

If your answer is "yes" then i would realy, realy like for you to prove it.

We have much more important things to worry about don't we ?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Rodahn on October 23, 2008, 15:02:06
Will changing to "Royal" get me a replacement for my 28 year old airplane ?

Will changing to "Royal" give me people to put in those vacant positions we have at the unit ?

Will changing to "Royal" provide us with more money for training ?

If you answer is "no", then explain to me why this is more important the the other issues i have to deal with every day.

If your answer is "yes" then i would realy, realy like for you to prove it.

We have much more important things to worry about don't we ?

Add to the above, that I rather doubt that there is possibly ten or less serving members who were in prior to integration. I would even guess that the number might be 0.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: George Wallace on October 23, 2008, 16:34:38
It is a simple addition of one word - Royal.

WRONG!  It is not a "Simple addition of one word".  It is a very intricate set of rules and customs that will bring about the Sovereign's presenting the title "Royal" to both the Navy and the Air Force.  This all requires the motion to be made in the government and the motion to be passed, etc.  It requires the design of the new crest and hatbadges, following the standards set out in heraldry, and then the sending of the requests through the bureaucracy to eventually get the approving signature of the Monarch. 

Or so I have the impression.

Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: dapaterson on October 23, 2008, 16:40:05
George:  Good reminder of key points - you can't just call something "Royal" - that requires the action of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

There would be significant staff effort required to make all the necessary changes (to regulations, publications, signage, badges, accouterments etc) after the receipt of Royal Assent - all to what end?


Besides, were we to re-name the dedicated, intelligent. hard-working, motivated and responsible sailors to "The Royal Canadian Navy", what would we call MARPAC?  >:D 
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 23, 2008, 16:50:56
As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Target Up on October 23, 2008, 17:45:10
There is also the very real possibility that HRM may just say "We (the Royal "We") bestowed the honorific on both services once, it was returned to us in 1968.  Why would We bestow them again?  Now piss off and reap what ye have sown."  Or something like that.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Yrys on October 23, 2008, 18:05:54
HRM may just say "We (the Royal "We") bestowed the honorific on both services once, it was returned to us in 1968. 
Why would We bestow them again?  Now piss off and reap what ye have sown."  Or something like that.

I'm more then highly doubtful that Her Majesty has ever express herself like that even in private, even maybe to herself  :D ...
It would probably be stopped by some of her staff long before  reaching her ears ... I'm sure they don't like playing yoyo
(is that a French expression only?) !

I'm not aware of Elizabeth II ever refusing a request, but I'm not following what she's doing in England .
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Occam on October 23, 2008, 18:59:19
As Cdn Aviator put it I think we have more pressing needs then to have Royal added back into our respective elements.

Like making sure our e-mail signature blocks all have the same appearance? 

The uselessness of the action has never been an impediment to implementation in this outfit.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: dapaterson on October 23, 2008, 19:06:58
Maybe this request isn't useless enough to implement?
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Occam on October 23, 2008, 19:17:56
Maybe this request isn't useless enough to implement?

By Jove, I think you're onto something!
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 23, 2008, 19:31:08
Well our first designation was the Naval Service of Canada, should we not go back to that if we are getting nostalgic? Do not our first sailors deserve to be recognized then because without them we would not have had our Navy. Why does it have to be RCN, lets bring back the NSC if we truly want to honour our roots.
Title: Re: "Royalizing" Canada's Navy, Army & Air Force Names (merged)
Post by: aesop081 on October 23, 2008, 19:57:09
Like making sure our e-mail signature blocks all have the same appearance? 



A decision that was not made by DND btw.........

Was it necessary ? No it wasnt. It didnt add anything to operational effectiveness.

Is