RCAF Ball Cap

[Castus]

Military headdress has changed over time. And it needs to continue evolving.

Headdress itself in civilian/private life is now a casual accessory that's not required and purely optional. No one wears a fedora or top hat anymore. On a routine basis.

The RCN has used ball cap since before my 24 year career commenced and the world has kept turning and sailors have kept being sailors.

I'm sure our more junior brethren in the CA and RCAF will be just fine as well.

The same argument that indicates that it needs continue evolving can be used in the reverse, because it is entirely subjective. I am honest that I am subjective. I will add one more thing - modern society has completely lost any sense of aesthetics. Older forms of head dress are more aesthetic. People ought to be wearing fedoras and top hats, at least on formal occasions.

Want to get rid of berets? Fine. Make our uniforms better fitting and better looking, and add a better looking head dress. There are many of them that aren't baseball caps.

Regarding the RCN, their uniform at least looks better with a baseball cap than CADPAT. The aesthetics match with NCDs and a baseball cap, at least tenuously. They do not match with CADPAT.

Lots of militaries use berets, and lots use other forms of headress that are similar to ball caps. Some have both, and use berets for more formal occasions, so that argument doesn't hold much water.

I agree we should have a work/garrison dress, but the CAF dropped work dress because it was too expensive to have each member maintain three sets of uniforms. CADPAT/NCDs are expensive, but issuing everyone CADPAT/NCD and work dress is more expensive.

Since we are mostly wearing practical non-ceremonial uniforms, we should also be wearing practical hats.

Nothing screams competence and professionalism like wearing a dark wool hat and squinting in the sun at 32°C in downtown Ottawa...

I am glad we agree that there ought to be a garrison dress of some sort. Note that I don't believe we need shin high boots which need to be spit polished, which would be a waste of time on a daily basis. We are very capable of having a casual look which is easy to maintain - perhaps a pair of nice Alt-Berg low cut shoes, something that can be easily maintained with brush polish, is military enough with a decent grip that one can do at least some work in them, but that aren't full on boots? Leave those for the field. In any case, allegedly the Kiwis did a study which indicated that wearing full combat boots every day weakened stabiliser muscles in the ankles and around the legs and increased incidence of ankle injury. Such is the rumour, anyways.

What makes you think it’s not being enforced?

Are you certain you know what today’s standard is?

Hint: It’s not Gerard Butler-level Spartan fitness…to attain that would be those very same officers and NCOs Sr. NCMs personally enforcing levels above the institutional standard.

I work at a large HQ with many people and observe the extremely lax fitness standards. I understand that this is different in field units, but for better or worse, the preponderence of the military does not operate in them. Furthermore - it is more difficult to be stringent with subordinates and peers in such an HQ. I don't really wish to silhouette myself any more than I have.

 

[Castus]

See attached.

 

[RangerRay]

Time and place.

Ball caps are probably suitable for the field, the tarmac, the shop, the ship. Probably not for the office, the parade square, in garrison.

 

[Good2Golf]

Time and place.

Ball caps are probably suitable for the field, the tarmac, the shop, the ship. Probably not for the office, the parade square, in garrison.

Except for Rangers…

 

[Good2Golf]

I work at a large HQ with many people and observe the extremely lax fitness standards. I understand that this is different in field units, but for better or worse, the preponderence of the military does not operate in them. Furthermore - it is more difficult to be stringent with subordinates and peers in such an HQ. I don't really wish to silhouette myself any more than I have.

I was differentiating between THE standard and A standard. THE standard is not what it was one or more decades ago. It is what it is, but what it is may be much less than what some, perhaps you as well, believe should (still) be THE standard.

 

[MJP]

I was differentiating between THE standard and A standard. THE standard is not what it was one or more decades ago. It is what it is, but what it is may be much less than what some, perhaps you as well, believe should (still) be THE standard.

What? Not everyone needs to be gold on the Coopers or FORCE test? Are you saying they can do their job(s) based a methodological fitness test based on actual standards and be ok for most tasks given to them across the CAF?

Now @Castus before you think I am tweaking you too much, I agree that some aspects of our forces might need to have better physical fitness standards. The CA has tweaked the BFT of yesteryear to be a 5KM + altered FORCE test which IMHO is a decent measure but not hard at at all. That said any force is free to make the argument they need more stringent physical testing but to date beyond the usual folks there has been no push for anything more

 

[btrudy]

What? Not everyone needs to be gold on the Coopers or FORCE test? Are you saying they can do their job(s) based a methodological fitness test based on actual standards and be ok for most tasks given to them across the CAF?

Now @Castus before you think I am tweaking you too much, I agree that some aspects of our forces might need to have better physical fitness standards. The CA has tweaked the BFT of yesteryear to be a 5KM + altered FORCE test which IMHO is a decent measure but not hard at at all. That said any force is free to make the argument they need more stringent physical testing but to date beyond the usual folks there has been no push for anything more

Let's face it, there's a reason that we diverged, once again, onto fitness, in a thread about ballcaps.

Because the concerns that Castus actually has about fitness levels in the forces has basically nothing to do with the actual ability of people to do their jobs, but has everything to do with not wanting to see people who look unfit.

An obsession with aesthetics over actual bone fide operational requirements is far too common.

And also apparently people should be wearing fedoras. Because those look... sooo good.

Anyways, my vote is "get rid of the requirement to be wearing hats altogether".

 

[Halifax Tar]

The same argument that indicates that it needs continue evolving can be used in the reverse, because it is entirely subjective. I am honest that I am subjective. I will add one more thing - modern society has completely lost any sense of aesthetics. Older forms of head dress are more aesthetic. People ought to be wearing fedoras and top hats, at least on formal occasions.

Want to get rid of berets? Fine. Make our uniforms better fitting and better looking, and add a better looking head dress. There are many of them that aren't baseball caps.

I think your penchant for aesthetics and mine are so different that we wont agree on this. I digress, I simply think a ball cap is a good headdress for work dress.

Again the RCN manages to use ballcaps for work dress and peaked caps for higher orders of dress. I am sure the Army could manage to do the same.

Time and place.

Ball caps are probably suitable for the field, the tarmac, the shop, the ship. Probably not for the office, the parade square, in garrison.

Except the RCN uses ball caps for MS and below in the office, on the parade square for work dress parades and in "garrison" or as we say, ashore.

Let's face it, there's a reason that we diverged, once again, onto fitness, in a thread about ballcaps.

Because the concerns that Castus actually has about fitness levels in the forces has basically nothing to do with the actual ability of people to do their jobs, but has everything to do with not wanting to see people who look unfit.

An obsession with aesthetics over actual bone fide operational requirements is far too common.

And also apparently people should be wearing fedoras. Because those look... sooo good.

Anyways, my vote is "get rid of the requirement to be wearing hats altogether".

Well said, and I would be ok with that too.

 

[dimsum]

Time and place.

Ball caps are probably suitable for the field, the tarmac, the shop, the ship. Probably not for the office, the parade square, in garrison.

To be honest, most people would take them off indoors, like most hats.

 

[dimsum]

Yes, but worn fore/aft or Port/Stbd?

yes.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

yes.

If you read Patrick O’Brian, that was a real debate in RN circles, about 1810…

 

[Quirky]

Because the concerns that Castus actually has about fitness levels in the forces has basically nothing to do with the actual ability of people to do their jobs, but has everything to do with not wanting to see people who look unfit.

Fitness has everything to do with a persons ability to do their job and has an affect on their mental health and resilience to injury. Fat troops is NOT okay, even if you 'meet the standard' on the Force test. We've traded enforcement and accountability in so many areas of the CAF, fitness included, for the sake of retention and recruiting. This only makes the CAF weaker as a whole.

 

[FSTO]

Anyways, my vote is "get rid of the requirement to be wearing hats altogether".

I'm fighting surface skin issues due to sun exposure. The more hats with wider brims the better!

 

[Halifax Tar]

I'm fighting surface skin issues due to sun exposure. The more hats with wider brims the better!

Make them optional ?

 

[dapaterson]

Make them optional ?

Have you never met troops? Tell them one piece of clothing is optional, and they will assume the rest is, too.

 

[Furniture]

I'm fighting surface skin issues due to sun exposure. The more hats with wider brims the better!

Fedoras for work dress!

Proper fedoras though, no silly trilbys.

 

[lenaitch]

Let's face it, there's a reason that we diverged, once again, onto fitness, in a thread about ballcaps.

Because the concerns that Castus actually has about fitness levels in the forces has basically nothing to do with the actual ability of people to do their jobs, but has everything to do with not wanting to see people who look unfit.

An obsession with aesthetics over actual bone fide operational requirements is far too common.

And also apparently people should be wearing fedoras. Because those look... sooo good.

Anyways, my vote is "get rid of the requirement to be wearing hats altogether".

I just finished reading your contributions both here and in the 'rifles-in-drill' thread and have to wonder why in the world are you still in the CAF? You seem to loathe everything it does and stands for. It must be very tiring.

You could get a job on the outside but, then again, some make you wear hats (and care not a whit whether or not you like it)

 

[Furniture]

I just finished reading your contributions both here and in the 'rifles-in-drill' thread and have to wonder why in the world are you still in the CAF? You seem to loathe everything it does and stands for. It must be very tiring.

You could get a job on the outside but, then again, some make you wear hats (and care not a whit whether or not you like it)

View attachment 77914

Questioning the tradition of wearing pointless hats does not make one unfit for CAF service, and questioning why we do some traditional things isn't a loathing for the CAF.


I disagree with @btrudy routinely, but I don't question their dedication to the CAF.

 

[btrudy]

I just finished reading your contributions both here and in the 'rifles-in-drill' thread and have to wonder why in the world are you still in the CAF? You seem to loathe everything it does and stands for.

Despite the protestations of some people on this forum, buttons and bows, pomp and circumstance, shiny boots, silly hats, and marching up and down the parade square aren't actually "everything [the CAF] does and stands for".

We have an actual job; it's about bringing violence to the enemy in the defence of Canada and her allies, and the furtherance of its interests abroad.

I can totally see how you'd make that mistake though, given how much time, effort, and money is wasted on stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with actual operational capability; but no, we're not actually a strictly ceremonial organization to be dusted off any time there's a parade. We have an actual job, and I just dislike quite a lot of the stuff that does nothing but detract from it.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Despite the protestations of some people on this forum, buttons and bows, pomp and circumstance, shiny boots, silly hats, and marching up and down the parade square aren't actually "everything [the CAF] does and stands for".

We have an actual job; it's about bringing violence to the enemy in the defence of Canada and her allies, and the furtherance of its interests abroad.

I can totally see how you'd make that mistake though, given how much time, effort, and money is wasted on stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with actual operational capability; but no, we're not actually a strictly ceremonial organization to be dusted off any time there's a parade. We have an actual job, and I just dislike quite a lot of the stuff that does nothing but detract from it.

I don't think the RCN could bring much real violence to the enemy (and survive to tell the tale), but it's okay we got wifi, morale patches and blue hair.