• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Purple Trades: Definition & Trg Discussion

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
Supply and transport functions should be uniform agnostic.  The employment of that knowledge may take place in environments that require specific skills, but the trade knowledge base is common to all.  The current fetish for dis-unifying the Log branch is not driven by rational, professional analysis, but rather by operator ego and their desire to have uniform uniforms on parade.

Disagree. There are commonalities in what a trucker with a blue vs green beret do in a garrison setting but on operations the army truckers would be expected to conduct DPs, CPs, convoys, and dumping programs. The loss of focus on those skills due to a desire to be common isn't something we should pursue. Even supply, in that the types of supply are different, systems of supply are different, and environment in which supply occurs is different, should be seperated. The common elements could certainly be taught in a common setting (DRMIS, supply management, garrison supply, etc), but the army needs a more "army focus" for field ops to maintain and train skills in that area.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,815
Points
890
The Army's overall lack of field time is the root cause of those problems, and is not unique to CSS.  If Sup Techs and MSE Ops are not conducting proper DPs, convoys etc then we have an Army collective training problem, not a Log occupational training one.

Common occupational training is sensible and resource efficient, coupled with whatever specific environmental IT&E is required.  We require pers who understand the systems, and not only their part of it; otherwise, their advice and recommendations may not be sufficient and may create additional friction.

A wholesale splitting along environmental lines is not in the best interests of the CAF; it only serves the buckles, buttons and bows brigade and assures them of all green or blue or black on parade.  We are too small a military to let each group do their own things for reasons of uniform colour.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
dapaterson said:
The Army's overall lack of field time is the root cause of those problems, and is not unique to CSS.  If Sup Techs and MSE Ops are not conducting proper DPs, convoys etc then we have an Army collective training problem, not a Log occupational training one.

Common occupational training is sensible and resource efficient, coupled with whatever specific environmental IT&E is required.  We require pers who understand the systems, and not only their part of it; otherwise, their advice and recommendations may not be sufficient and may create additional friction.

A wholesale splitting along environmental lines is not in the best interests of the CAF; it only serves the buckles, buttons and bows brigade and assures them of all green or blue or black on parade.  We are too small a military to let each group do their own things for reasons of uniform colour.

I'm not suggesting a whole scale split, but rather suggesting that the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills. Anything common could be taught in a common forum with some field augmentation (such as with the medical pers) for the Army guys. I would also suggest that you're correct about the CT- there's not enough training in field Log skills at the CT level, but I would suggest a large part of this stems from a lack of IT. 

I do agree though that Logistics doesn't need any sort of "buttons and bows" change nor return to the RCOC or RCASC. Training change can be made without that
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maybe I'm missing something here but y'all make it sound like army logisticians will only be posted to army units while air and navy logisticians will only be posted to their elemental units.  Every time I've deployed there has been a good mix of drivers or supply types conducting the DPs and running the roads.  To say, as some have, that "the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills" doesn't make sense to me when I look at the army guy behind the counter or driving trucks here in Halifax.
 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schindler's Lift said:
Maybe I'm missing something here but y'all make it sound like army logisticians will only be posted to army units while air and navy logisticians will only be posted to their elemental units.  Every time I've deployed there has been a good mix of drivers or supply types conducting the DPs and running the roads.  To say, as some have, that "the reality is that army logistics pers require additional skills" doesn't make sense to me when I look at the army guy behind the counter or driving trucks here in Halifax.

In a field/Svc Bn environment. As I said, in a garrison environment there are certainly common skills.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Logistics occupational training should be by all means common to all and conducted in a single school.  However, there are enough differences between how logistics support is delivered in each element, that personnel can have a viable career in a single element.  This idea that logisticians have to have experience in more than one operational environment is absolute nonsense (unless that is what individuals want).  If we must move folks around between operational environments, then change their uniforms.  Different uniforms in HQs are fine, but operational units should be homogenous.  Yes, I admit that this is a buttons and bows issue and some find it trivial, but it drove me nuts everytime I went on parade with my department in the ship and everyone looked uniform accept the hodge podge behind me.  Their professionalism is/was unquestioned, but in my opinion, it LOOKED unprofessinal.  After all, aren't uniforms supposed to be, well, UNIFORM?

It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?
 

Tibbson

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Stove piping the postings by elemental uniforms would be perhaps the easiest however with our recruiting system the way it is I wonder if we'd be able to hire enough "air" logisticians or "sea" logisticians (for example) when we need them.  Its certainly cheaper then changing someone's uniform dependent upon their postings.

On the other hand, and I don't know enough about this as I should, isn't there a quota system used now in determining who goes into what uniform when recruited for one of the so called purple trades?  I know for my own trade, MP, that we have much fewer MPs wearing the RCN uniform (or uniform accoutrements when in OPD) then we have army or air.  And, in the case of my trade, if we restrict their postings dependent upon their elemental affiliation, we restrict both the experience they can gain and therefore the versatility of having them in the trade and using them for deployments and taskings.  It may work fine for some trades but I can see where it could produce a whole host of counter productive changes.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,815
Points
890
Pusser said:
It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?

There is more to the CAF than the RCN, CA and RCAF.  Oddly enough, there are many Log officers in units under CJOC, in units under ADM(Mat), in CMP... And there are severe stresses in certain log specialties due to the failure of the new, environmentally stovepiped model to develop some core competencies required.


(And if you want uniformity, we can return to the 1970s single DEU  >:D)
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
388
Points
880
Pusser said:
Logistics occupational training should be by all means common to all and conducted in a single school.  However, there are enough differences between how logistics support is delivered in each element, that personnel can have a viable career in a single element.  This idea that logisticians have to have experience in more than one operational environment is absolute nonsense (unless that is what individuals want).  If we must move folks around between operational environments, then change their uniforms.  Different uniforms in HQs are fine, but operational units should be homogenous.  Yes, I admit that this is a buttons and bows issue and some find it trivial, but it drove me nuts everytime I went on parade with my department in the ship and everyone looked uniform accept the hodge podge behind me.  Their professionalism is/was unquestioned, but in my opinion, it LOOKED unprofessinal.  After all, aren't uniforms supposed to be, well, UNIFORM?

It's worth noting that we don't post Logistics officers outside of their elements (other than HQs - sometimes), so why do we insist on doing it to the NCMs?

Well said. 

Your last line needs to be addressed from outside the Log Br by the heads of the RCN, CA and RCAF.  They need to hold the Log Br to task on their insistence for this dire need to have experience in more than one element.  The RCN paid allot of money and spent allot of time training me to be ship qualified, QM qualified, NBP qualified, HAZMAT Response Team Qualified, CCT qualified and payed me 9 years of sea pay to foster and grow the knowledge required to run a supply dept on a ship.  Then a CM in Ottawa says I need more "elemental diversity" so they posted me to the Army.  :facepalm:

*Anecdotal point.  They posted to me to the CA claiming I needed Army time while on my 3 half days reintegration having just returned from my second tour in Afg.  Which I spent 8 months before hand in Petawawa doing... Army training.*  :facepalm: X 2

 

Bird_Gunner45

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Halifax Tar said:
Well said. 

Your last line needs to be addressed from outside the Log Br by the heads of the RCN, CA and RCAF.  They need to hold the Log Br to task on their insistence for this dire need to have experience in more than one element.  The RCN paid allot of money and spent allot of time training me to be ship qualified, QM qualified, NBP qualified, HAZMAT Response Team Qualified, CCT qualified and payed me 9 years of sea pay to foster and grow the knowledge required to run a supply dept on a ship.  Then a CM in Ottawa says I need more "elemental diversity" so they posted me to the Army.  :facepalm:

*Anecdotal point.  They posted to me to the CA claiming I needed Army time while on my 3 half days reintegration having just returned from my second tour in Afg.  Which I spent 8 months before hand in Petawawa doing... Army training.*  :facepalm: X 2

I agree with this point. My old MCS was an Air Force Sup Tech but had spent the majority of his time in the naval environment and the army environment. He told me a story about showing up in the Svc Bn, going out to the field, and being told to establish an OP, than being treated like a fool when he didn't know how to do it. He also, desperately, wanted to go to the air environment again, which was what he thought he was joining for many years ago.

The reality is that pers going on a naval ship, pers going on an airfield, and pers operating in a tactical field environment require different skill sets. I dont see my suggestion that training be provided at CFLTC to train the NCM side of the house in operational matters (as the officers do on LOCL, LOCS, and LOCA) as being a "buttons and bows" issue but rather a way to improve the ability for NCMs to function better within their environments. More field training for the officers might help rid the trade of the "businessmen in uniforms" mentality....

I also disagree with the postings of purple trade pers to different environments for the sake of doing it. While it's a "purple trade" its' really not... people do different jobs (with some commonality which could certainly be trained in a common setting) and they joined a specific element to be within it. Naval Log joined to be on a ship, army log joined to be in the field... how does it help anyone to post the navy guy into the field with no training and the army guy onto a ship with no naval training? THAT is a waste of money far surpassing any request to properly train individuals....
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
242
Points
710
Model log try for NCMs on their initial occ trg along the lines Int Ops do.  They all do a common phase then go onto environmental specific trg based on the environment they are going.  My buddy OTd air Int Op from the guns, did the air Int Op trg after common phase and was posted to Cold Lake doing RCAF type int op stuff.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
dapaterson said:
There is more to the CAF than the RCN, CA and RCAF.  Oddly enough, there are many Log officers in units under CJOC, in units under ADM(Mat), in CMP... And there are severe stresses in certain log specialties due to the failure of the new, environmentally stovepiped model to develop some core competencies required.


(And if you want uniformity, we can return to the 1970s single DEU  >:D)

Understood and agreed.  Note that I said a mix of uniforms in HQs is not a bad thing.  I was referring only to reglar front line units (Special Ops are a special case) which are, RCN, CA and RCAF specific.

As for your last point, may I ask that you now stick out your tongue and bit down on it VERY VERY hard?  I want to see blood.  It is believed that even Hellyer now thinks that perhaps he went a bridge too far with uniforms (mind you, he also believes aliens walk among us ...).
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
388
Points
880
Pusser said:
As for your last point, may I ask that you now stick out your tongue and bit down on it VERY VERY hard?  I want to see blood.  It is believed that even Hellyer now thinks that perhaps he went a bridge too far with uniforms (mind you, he also believes aliens walk among us ...).

I put the motion forward that we make his (Paul Hellyer's) name a swear word on this site,  or perhaps just the "Name we shall not mention".
 

medicineman

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
182
Points
680
Halifax Tar said:
I put the motion forward that we make his (Paul Hellyer's) name a swear word on this site,  or perhaps just the "Name we shall not mention".

Sorry, Voldemort is already code for someone else here.

MM
 
Top