Poll

The RCN has its old rank titles and executive curl back.  What should be the next step for the CF rank structure?

Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone.
120 (58.5%)
Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
40 (19.5%)
Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.
1 (0.5%)
Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
9 (4.4%)
Copy the UK rank system - it is the prototype anyway.
17 (8.3%)
Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.
2 (1%)
Create a whole new Canadian system.
8 (3.9%)
Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.
7 (3.4%)
Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn
1 (0.5%)

Total Members Voted: 203

Author Topic: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation  (Read 2530382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5850 on: December 07, 2019, 18:50:03 »
Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit. 
I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 19:30:11 by torg003 »

Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5851 on: December 07, 2019, 19:20:58 »
Forgot to add that the RCN ranks shown here would be worn on the upper left sleeve of the DEU and the traditional anchor ranks would be worn (as an embellishment, on the right sleeve.  That would be a single anchor for LS, 2 crossed anchors for PO2, and adding a crown on top for PO1.  OS and AB2 wouldn't have anything on the right sleeve, but AB1 would have a knotted rope insignia.  MS would have an crown over a single anchor.  Like I said, this would only be on the DEU jacket, obviously cloth slides would only use the chevron ranks.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 231,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,486
  • Living the staff life
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,411
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5853 on: December 08, 2019, 07:31:39 »
Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit. 
I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.

But, at least for the AF ones, isn't any closer to 'traditional' (assuming you mean pre-unification) ranks for NCMS...

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5854 on: December 09, 2019, 09:48:45 »
Here's an idea for more traditional looking ranks, but keeping the current look.  As a note, senior appointment ranks stay the same, but there would be a junior appointment of Master Corporal/Seaman, which would have a crown above 2 chevrons, for the most senior Corporal/Seaman of the unit. 
I think that the rank of Leading Aviator might look better with a 3 bladed prop, but I don't have an image for that.
Forgot to add that the RCN ranks shown here would be worn on the upper left sleeve of the DEU and the traditional anchor ranks would be worn (as an embellishment, on the right sleeve.  That would be a single anchor for LS, 2 crossed anchors for PO2, and adding a crown on top for PO1.  OS and AB2 wouldn't have anything on the right sleeve, but AB1 would have a knotted rope insignia.  MS would have an crown over a single anchor.  Like I said, this would only be on the DEU jacket, obviously cloth slides would only use the chevron ranks.
Why? As an organization that returns $ billions annually because we lack the staff capacity to advance operational and capability building projects, why would we distract command and staff attention for this?

… and I am not sure that this is “more traditional looking ranks”. Putting a crown at the MCpl insignia puts it at a level below anything that has seen a crown before (why is this not in your picture?). And that SSgt/FSgt rank has never existed in a system without the single crown WO above it. This proposal would throw away the insignia with more history to restore the insignia with less. Seems odd. Also, if you want to re-introduce LCpl as a rank, that’s an NDA change. We really don’t need to consume more parliamentary bandwidth on this nonsense.
-Ref1: https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/tableofranksandappointments.htm
-Ref 2: https://i2.wp.com/www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/a22ac932e47273e09d6b4e52f8829858.gif

Let’s recall some of the CDS’s comments justifying a new universal pattern camouflage. He was dismayed seeing troops deploy in worn-out arid uniforms. The only reason troops are deploying in worn out uniforms is because we lack the staff capacity and allocated clothing funds to keep the shelves stocked with serviceable uniforms in reasonable condition. How can we justify any investment DEU fashion when we are investing to find the best compromise to cut-back on operational clothing?


Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5855 on: December 09, 2019, 11:13:45 »
I'm well aware of how the pre-unification rank structure looked like.  I never suggested that the ideas I posted should be adopted by the CAF, so no need for the whole "waste of money" argument.
As the officer ranks were changed to a more "traditional" look, but retained some elements of the post-unification design (i.e. maple leaves for general ranks and the stripe progression used for junior officers), my idea was to see how this would look for the NCM ranks.  That's why I said it was a more "traditional" structure (i.e. addition of Staff/Flight Sgt, LCpl), but keeping the current look, maple leaf over chevrons, etc.
Anyway, it was just a thought experiment originally.  Thought people here might have been interested in seeing it.
I guess I was wrong, no big deal.

Maybe I should ask, are people here content with the current rank structure or would they prefer the pre-unification rank structure?  Just to note, I am not advocating changing the ranks, just wondering what people think (kinda like the original poster of this thread asking if people would prefer the reinstatement of the LCpl rank).
« Last Edit: December 09, 2019, 11:17:05 by torg003 »

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5856 on: December 09, 2019, 11:19:29 »
Why? As an organization that returns $ billions annually because we lack the staff capacity to advance operational and capability building projects, why would we distract command and staff attention for this?

… and I am not sure that this is “more traditional looking ranks”. Putting a crown at the MCpl insignia puts it at a level below anything that has seen a crown before (why is this not in your picture?). And that SSgt/FSgt rank has never existed in a system without the single crown WO above it. This proposal would throw away the insignia with more history to restore the insignia with less. Seems odd. Also, if you want to re-introduce LCpl as a rank, that’s an NDA change. We really don’t need to consume more parliamentary bandwidth on this nonsense.
-Ref1: https://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ranks/tableofranksandappointments.htm
-Ref 2: https://i2.wp.com/www.anglotopia.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/a22ac932e47273e09d6b4e52f8829858.gif

Let’s recall some of the CDS’s comments justifying a new universal pattern camouflage. He was dismayed seeing troops deploy in worn-out arid uniforms. The only reason troops are deploying in worn out uniforms is because we lack the staff capacity and allocated clothing funds to keep the shelves stocked with serviceable uniforms in reasonable condition. How can we justify any investment DEU fashion when we are investing to find the best compromise to cut-back on operational clothing?
Maybe if the keyboard warriors of Carling wore their non combat uniforms there wouldn't be a dearth of combat uniforms for people who actually need them!

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,858
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,127
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5857 on: December 09, 2019, 12:48:59 »
I'm well aware of how the pre-unification rank structure looked like.  I never suggested that the ideas I posted should be adopted by the CAF, so no need for the whole "waste of money" argument.
As the officer ranks were changed to a more "traditional" look, but retained some elements of the post-unification design (i.e. maple leaves for general ranks and the stripe progression used for junior officers), my idea was to see how this would look for the NCM ranks.  That's why I said it was a more "traditional" structure (i.e. addition of Staff/Flight Sgt, LCpl), but keeping the current look, maple leaf over chevrons, etc.
Anyway, it was just a thought experiment originally.  Thought people here might have been interested in seeing it.
I guess I was wrong, no big deal.

Maybe I should ask, are people here content with the current rank structure or would they prefer the pre-unification rank structure?  Just to note, I am not advocating changing the ranks, just wondering what people think (kinda like the original poster of this thread asking if people would prefer the reinstatement of the LCpl rank).

I would like to see the RCN NCM insignia returned to something more attune to RCN 1.0.  But I will admit we have bigger hills to climb at the moment.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5858 on: December 11, 2019, 11:37:05 »
Halifax Tar, I agree with you, would like to see RCN NCM ranks be more "traditional".  I really dislike the way they look now, wearing army style ranks on a navy uniform looks dumb.
I had originally thought of replacing the maple leaves above the chevrons with the traditional style navy ranks, but that would've look basically like the Sea Cadet ranks that were used before the current ones.
I think that the main reason that there has been very few changes to NCM ranks lies in the fact that CAF is still officially a 'unified' force and it provides a look of some uniformity amongst the changes in uniforms, officer ranks, etc. (just my opinion)
It is also my opinion that maybe it's time to drop the 'unified forces' moniker and refer to the CAF as a fully integrated tri-service.  Integration of the separate services was done back in the '60s, before Hellyer came along with his idea of unification, so in a way it could be seen as just going back to the way things were before unification and allow for a little more uniqueness in ranks and other insignia for the different services.  Of course, this would require the gov't to increase spending on the military, so not very likely to happen anyway.

Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5859 on: December 11, 2019, 16:04:38 »
Here's the RCN ranks concept with the anchors and chevrons together (as mentioned previously) for anyone at all interested.  The PO and Seaman ranks shown here would be worn on the left arm with large trade badge on the right.  CPOs continue with trade badges on the collar.  I admit that I'm not that crazy about the CPO buttons being worn under WO's insignia, I would change that to the normal pre-unification CPO ranks (just the buttons for CPO2 and a crown above them for CPO1).  Obviously haven't done that version.
This is just to show how it would look, not advocating for the change to happen.


Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5860 on: December 11, 2019, 16:16:37 »
Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,411
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5861 on: December 11, 2019, 16:29:13 »
we have bigger hills to climb at the moment.

This;  maybe there would be support in the NCM RCAF ranks for pre-unification ranks such as "Flight Sgt" (the RAF still uses it...but they also go from FSgt to MARC...) but for me, I'd rather see people spending their time sorting out operational kit, combat systems support, etc before a single person-hour was invested into a study on NCM rank satisfaction in the RCAF.

 :2c:

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 59,858
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,127
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5862 on: December 12, 2019, 07:13:04 »
Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.

Interesting but I have a couple of points or questions.

1)  In RCN 1.0 chevrons were badges for good conduct; that and the rank symbology were not connected.  I would propose they dont really belong in your mock up.

2) Why is the MS rank so out of order ?

3)  The CPO2 rank, I would leave the crown in the laurels.

Other than that I like it.

This;  maybe there would be support in the NCM RCAF ranks for pre-unification ranks such as "Flight Sgt" (the RAF still uses it...but they also go from FSgt to MARC...) but for me, I'd rather see people spending their time sorting out operational kit, combat systems support, etc before a single person-hour was invested into a study on NCM rank satisfaction in the RCAF.

 :2c:

I dont think you have to worry, there doesnt seem to be a push to change the CAF NCM rank symbology. 
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5863 on: December 12, 2019, 14:20:10 »
I really dislike the way they look now, wearing army style ranks on a navy uniform looks dumb.
That's quite the anglocentric viewpoint. If it's not the RN style, it's not a navy style? What makes a rank insignia "army style" or "navy style"? Sure there is a tendancy for armies to accessories with rifles and/or grenades while navies accessories their ranks with anchors, but Canadian ranks of no such things. And looking more critically ...
For most of NATO navies the use (or not) of chevrons varies in step with the use of chevrons in the nation's army, and the style of a chevrons will vary between countries but is less likely to vary between services within a country.
Every NATO nation has  a rank system that is their own. And right now we have something that is Canadian (though less Canadian that it was a few years ago). So why throw that away just because, when viewed through an exclusively British lens, it doesn't look right?
CountryArmyNavy
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Denmark
Germany
Greece
Italy
Lithuania
Poland
Portugal
Spain
UK
US

Ref 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_navies_enlisted
Ref 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_enlisted

Offline torg003

  • Guest
  • *
  • 3,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5864 on: December 14, 2019, 01:05:40 »
Halifax Tar; 1. Yes, I'm aware the chevrons used by the original RCN were for good conduct, but as the current version of the RCN is part of a unified force, there has to be some relation to the ranks of the other services.
2. I guess I wasn't that clear, sorry about that.  The top row is supposed to show the badges for appointments and MS in this context is supposed to be a junior appointment (for a LS).
3. Fair enough.

Anyway, I do realise that if the NCM ranks were going to be changed, it would've been done before now (such as the change from private to aviator rank in the RCAF).  So I don't think there will be anymore anytime in the near (or far) future.  Doesn't hurt to discuss ideas though.

MCG, I didn't say I objected to chevrons being used, all the rank charts I posted show chevrons being used for the RCN.  I just don't like the curved style used by the army and RCAF used on a naval uniform.  Prefer straight chevrons as seen in my previous posts. 
Doesn't make me anglocentric, as you say.  You like the way the CAF looked before the re-adopting of older style ranks, great, good for you.  I don't mind the mixing of old and new on the current uniforms, that's my opinion, doesn't make me an Anglophile wanting to restore the vestiges of colonialism (or whatever). ::)
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, not going to argue over it.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5865 on: December 14, 2019, 09:39:12 »
I didn't say I objected to chevrons being used, all the rank charts I posted show chevrons being used for the RCN.  I just don't like the curved style used by the army and RCAF used on a naval uniform.  Prefer straight chevrons as seen in my previous posts. 
Doesn't make me anglocentric, as you say.  You like the way the CAF looked before the re-adopting of older style ranks, great, good for you. 
Except, you dismiss the Canadian chevron style as "army".  That is an anglocentric viewpoint.  Take the blinders off and realize that chevron styles very between every country, and within a country chevron styles are very likely uniform across services.


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5866 on: December 14, 2019, 09:56:37 »
Except, you dismiss the Canadian chevron style as "army".  That is an anglocentric viewpoint.  Take the blinders off and realize that chevron styles very between every country, and within a country chevron styles are very likely uniform across services.
Why do you insist on being so combative? The op was being rather respectful and instead of acting in kind you have to get a last shot in.

From a Naval point of view the unification of the armed forces certainly had a very army centric bend to it when it came to the style of jr ranks indicators.

Offline Furniture

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 34,267
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 519
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5867 on: December 14, 2019, 15:45:37 »
Just one last post with a couple of earlier army and navy concepts showing the senior appointments and junior appointment at the top.

While I admit I like the look of the proposed ranks badges, I also have to admit that I like the simplicity of our current system. There is no question where somebody falls in the rank structure even when you aren't used to working with other elements.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,885
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5868 on: December 14, 2019, 16:30:18 »
From a Naval point of view the unification of the armed forces certainly had a very army centric bend to it when it came to the style of jr ranks indicators.
51 years ago a CAF rank system was created that blended features of all the previous services.  The new product was Canadian, and nobody serving today is suffering a hardship because of it.  To declare the current Canadian non-commissioned rank insignia to be "army" requires one first accept that UK rank insignia is the benchmark for measurement, because other countries quite simply are not following the supposed pattern.

We are in Canada.  We are the Canadian Armed Forces.  If anyone is feeling hard done-by over the appearance of rank insignia, why do we need to look to another country as the benchmark? Why can't we look forward and define something Canadian from where we are now?  Or at the very least, why do we have to present an anglocentric bias as a universal truth when in reality it is a nuance of a few?

... and I go back to my first point.  We are a staff constrained force.  We lack the human resources to advance capability building/fixing projects at the pace required.  Any wouldn't it be nice badge tinkering proposal should start with a justification of why it deserves investment of time and a statement of what problems it will solve. 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,411
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5869 on: December 14, 2019, 16:58:35 »
... and I go back to my first point.  We are a staff constrained force.  We lack the human resources to advance capability building/fixing projects at the pace required.  Any wouldn't it be nice badge tinkering proposal should start with a justification of why it deserves investment of time and a statement of what problems it will solve.

Funny the same argument didn't hold much consideration when (1) the Navy Officers got the Executive Curl back (2) the Army Officers got their Pips and Crowns back and (3) the Air Force officers went back to a pre-unification "look" in the not-to-distant past.

Where was the justification of investment of time/statement of what problems those projects solved?   ;D
« Last Edit: December 14, 2019, 17:01:30 by Eye In The Sky »

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 254,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,433
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5870 on: December 14, 2019, 17:07:24 »
Funny the same argument didn't hold much consideration when (1) the Navy Officers got the Executive Curl back (2) the Army Officers got their Pips and Crowns back and (3) the Air Force officers went back to a pre-unification "look" in the not-to-distant past.

Where was the justification of investment of time/statement of what problems those projects solved?   ;D

Politics (and pandering to a constituency) has never required any justification.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,163
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5871 on: December 14, 2019, 17:42:21 »
51 years ago a CAF rank system was created that blended features of all the previous services.  The new product was Canadian, and nobody serving today is suffering a hardship because of it.  To declare the current Canadian non-commissioned rank insignia to be "army" requires one first accept that UK rank insignia is the benchmark for measurement, because other countries quite simply are not following the supposed pattern.

If you read the accounts of the day from serving members of the RCN of all ranks there wasn't much acceptance of Hellyers proposals. I would love to see the reports from all the townhalls and focus groups throughout the Army, RCAF and RCN that were held to gauge the opinion on what the new unified system was to look like. I have a feeling that it would be a futile quest. 

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 231,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,486
  • Living the staff life
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5872 on: December 14, 2019, 17:55:40 »
If you read the accounts of the day from serving members of the RCN of all ranks there wasn't much acceptance of Hellyers proposals. I would love to see the reports from all the townhalls and focus groups throughout the Army, RCAF and RCN that were held to gauge the opinion on what the new unified system was to look like. I have a feeling that it would be a futile quest.

I'd be interested to know what current folks think regarding changing "back" the officers' ranks (curl, pips/crowns, RCAF colour).  I'd suspect that it would work out to a collective "meh".
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,411
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5873 on: December 14, 2019, 17:58:40 »
I'd be interested to know what current folks think regarding changing "back" the officers' ranks (curl, pips/crowns, RCAF colour).  I'd suspect that it would work out to a collective "meh".

I'll be honest;  I think the pearl grey looks more suitable than the gold did with the DEU color. 

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 231,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,486
  • Living the staff life
Re: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation
« Reply #5874 on: December 14, 2019, 18:12:40 »
I'll be honest;  I think the pearl grey looks more suitable than the gold did with the DEU color.

Me too.

Although the GO ranks on both shoulder and sleeve on the tunic are a bit much.  Could have been consistent with the other officers and have ranks on sleeve only, but whatever.
“If you run into an a-hole in the morning, you ran into an a-hole. If you run into a-holes all day, you're the a-hole.”

- Raylan Givens, Justified (cleaned up for content)