This is likely to get me introuble, but I object to being denied the chance to counter allegations and belittling inuendo posted by another forum member:
Continued from: Military Culture
Now that we are back on track to the original question, I’ll restate my opinion, based on my own experience and observation.
The original question was: “I had heard that the culture in the Army is very different than that of the Air Force, and I was wondering if anyone had any info on this that could help clear that up for me.”
Definition of culture: Those patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population (from answers.com) Basically it refers to the standard of behaviour that a group of people accepts as normal and expects all of its members to behave in accordance with. As a note, behaviors are not 100% set for the entire population of the group. There will always be differences in individual actions and behaviors between group members. We’re not robots.
While there is a cultural difference in behaviour between CF members and the general Canadian population, there are also a number of subcultures present, exhibited by elements, trades, and individual units. Thus, there are significant cultural differences between the Army and Air Force. In general, I believe that Army members operate on a group mentality, while Air Force members operate on an individual mentality.
This is not true 100% of the time. There are times when Army soldiers in the field exercise their initiative on the battlefield or in individual taskings. However, in the remainder of their time they train together, eat together, live together. It also requires strict adherence to rules and regulations, which are essential to battlefield discipline, esprit de corps, and the survival of the unit as a whole.
Is this a bad thing? No, it is a necessity as part of the occupation of being a soldier, and without it there would be a noticeable loss in unit cohesion.
As I also stated, the Air Force members operate more independently. Also not 100% true. There are times during missions and on operations when members act as units and groups but not with the level of unit work and esprit de corps that you see in the infantry. For the most part, members act on individual assignments that help complete the overall objective.
Is this a bad thing? No, it is also a result of occupations related to the Air Force, where different groups often work on different schedules in support of flight crews who complete the missions. They would without a doubt have significant problems if they ever had to do a patrol or conduct a firefight, but then that’s not their job unless the base is attacked.
Here are other observations about how the two arms differ:
Air Force Army
Dress and deportment Good Standard Highest Standard
Adherence to rules Good Standard Highest standard
Use of technology High level Formerly Low level, now Moderate
Technology training High level Formerly Low level, now Moderate
Personal Weapon Skills Low Standard, improving Highest standard
Physical training Low to high (occupation-related) Highest standard
Physical threats Low to high (occupation-related) High since 1992
Accommodations during travel Ranges from tents to hotels Usually tents or barracks
Fieldcraft Low Standard Highest standard
As Loachman pointed out, its not entirely true for the entire air force, in particular Tac Hel which has more similarity to Army standards.
Recon Guardsman, then comments “I guess when I refer to culture, Im more thinking along the lines of... PT (thank you for answering, btw), c*ck level on courses, free time, formality/informality in the work place, etc”
In that regard, the Air Force units are less formal in general, than Army units.
In the Army you salute an officer (in either respect or in recognition of their commission) while there is less saluting in the Air Force (its not accepted as less, I don’t approve of it, it is just not enforced as much so many members are lax about it). At an Army unit you may salute even inside buildings and come to attention and request permission to enter rooms. The Air Force is more casual, frowning on saluting inside buildings, and knocking before asking permission to enter is sufficient. You can even walk around the HQ with a coffee in your hand!
Next as rmacqueen states “there is also a more familial feel to the Air Force. Enforcement of rank after work is less important with officers and NCM's intermingling and first names being used. This is completely understandable as, unlike the army, the aircrew put their lives in the hands of the ground crew. An engine malfunction at 10,000 feet is a lot different than a LAV breaking down. Another side of that is there tends to be a lot more respect amongst the various trades within a squadron right down to the non-air trades like Log and Admin.”
I would agree, but have some reservations. Some units I worked with did this and others did not. Aircrews on Hercs and CP-140s mostly stuck together regardless of rank (especially crews who worked together for long periods), and use of nicknames and even first names was common after hours. Even many groundcrews were relatively informal on the job between cpl’s/mcpl’s and sergeants. Ditto on the respect, each occupation respected the other, both in and out of work. However, just as many units, Tac Hel for example, were more formal in their relations, even off the job.
Cp140 tech presents a great example of a typical unit.
Skipping down, Journeyman presents a brilliant piece of rebuttal to my previous comments. I didn’t realize he was a master of rhetoric, obfuscation and innuendo.
But this is an excellent example of the difference between an Army and Air Force mentality. Representing the viewpoint of a soldier who spent a lot of time serving with Air Force units, I presented some personal observations and conclusions I made based on years of service. Journeyman, representing the Army mentality perceives that his arm of service has been maligned. Instead of asking for clarification or countering with an opposing viewpoint, he prefers to take the role of direct attack, dismantling general principles and comments into small easy to attack pieces and attempting to assassinate credibility. His post is littered with veiled references to implications and accusations of lack of knowledge, lack of inexperience, incompetent compilation of information, and even a bit of Latin and French for that professional ‘piece de resistance’.
Most of his comments are based on his claim that I have posted no information on my past units, deployment areas and times, or operations conducted. This is true. I don’t need to stroke my ego and a lot of that information is not for public knowledge, plus it would also act to identify myself to persons who I would prefer not to be personally identified to. What he declines to mention is that during a previous ‘disagreement’ we had, he also demanded this information and when I offered to provide it, he blow me off and stated he had no interest in what my experience was. I do not intend to offer a second opportunity. I will only state that, no, I have not led troops in Afghanistan, but this does not mean I don’t know what culture means and how it effects groups of soldiers and airmen.
At the same time, implying that I know nothing on the subject, implies that he does know about the subject. However, although he quotes a couple of research references, he does not state why is he more of a subject matter expert. If I am wrong, what makes him right?
We disagree over whether “army leaders are isolated lest they lose the respect of their subordinates”. This is my opinion. He has his.
He also states that “Infantry leaders spend a significant amount of time with their troops”. Excellent, I commend them. Its a rehash. Except the focus on spending time with troops and living with troops during deployments does not negate the fact that once they are back in Canada they fall back into the pattern of ‘separated classes of employees’. As a result, this is not a ‘standard of culture’ but an exception caused by environmental and occupational circumstances. Its not about whether they want to or not, its about adapting back to the culture they came from. I personally hope that the trends identified by Journeyman from our men and women in Afghanistan would become the new standard, but as of 2003, it was not (the last time I worked with an army unit).
There is a reference to two Defence scientists. I’m sure their work is informative. However, the original poster did not ask what research is available; the poster could have done their own research on the net. ReconGuardsman asked for the opinions of Army.ca members on this forum. However, if you want to put out information on specific SMEs, then I would recommend reading up on Douglas McGregor and his X and Y Manager theory. Other notable authors would include, Eli Cohen (The Leadership Engine), Stephen R. Covey (Principle-Centered leadership) and Jim Clemmer (The Leaders Digest) all of whom are internationally reknowned experts on leadership, organizational behaviour, and cultural behaviour, and whose concepts are the basis for almost every modern course on leadership and behaviour.
The point was brought up about messes only to counter your point about officers living and eating with their troops. It demonstrates that although leaders at platoon houses do eat with their troops, they generally do not once they are at a mess in Canada. Even in places where messes are combined, due to logistic and administrative reductions and consolidation of resources, the area for officers is still segregated from the rest of the CF members. As of 2004, while they were free to eat with the troops, it was frowned upon if they were in uniform. True, this trend is changing, but separation is still the standard of CF culture.
In reference to aircrews, of course there is coordination and standards of operation. We couldn’t conduct missions without them. However, we are talking about general culture here. Of course there are exceptions to every generalization, no rule is 100% true. For example, back to the Army, there is always room for individuality when the conditions require it. But once the firefight is over, the group reforms, they do a re-org, there is a head count; options are discussed not for the actions of individuals but what the entire group will do next. Pilots on the other hand, will gather together from many different areas into attack packages, but once the attack is done, they separate and make their own way home in 2 and 4s back to their home bases using separate routes and timings.
Finally, his last comment demonstrates another example of the cultural differences we represent. I don’t claim to be speaking for, or on behalf of, anyone. The preceding are my words, my thoughts, my interpretations. His on the other hand appears is a defense of the Army in general, even though none is required. He sees this as an attack on the Army when its not, its only an observation that the culture of the Air Force is more individual-orientated while the culture of the Army is more group-orientated.
