RCAF Ball Cap

[btrudy]

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.

Meh, and if we didn't bother trying to improve quality of life on ships and do little things to raise esprit de corps, we'd be able to bring less violence to the enemy because our staffing situation would be even worse. Our personnel levels are by far the largest threat to our operational readiness.

And keeping people is always cheaper than getting new people in the door and training them up, only to lose them to someone who's going to treat them better.


....

But anyways, back to things, I like the new RCAF ballcaps now that I've actually seen one on a person.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

I wasn't questioning their dedication, just curious from a pattern I have seen across several threads. It just struck me as an unhappy way to spend a career.

I worked with members in the police service who truly wondered why they weren't yet chief/commissioner because all their thoughts were pure gold and all senior staff were idiots and it just struck me as a very unproductive and unhealthy way to go through life.

Also, it seems from the discussion here, matters such as headdress, drill et al and whether or not they are "pointless" seems anything but settled.

 

[Spencer100]

Ok I'm giving up!

Today! My company is looking of production floor supervisors for packaging and logistics ops. So HR is doing a second interview for the job with a candidate and wants me to sit in and give a final yes or no.

Ok so I'm in the boardroom and the girl candidate has got a ballcap. She is 22 and young...but I'm....no words.....for an interview?

I guess the world dies after gen X

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Ok I'm giving up!

Today! My company is looking of production floor supervisors for packaging and logistics ops. So HR is doing a second interview for the job with a candidate and wants me to sit in and give a final yes or no.

Ok so I'm in the boardroom and the girl candidate has got a ballcap. She is 22 and young...but I'm....no words.....for an interview?

I guess the world dies after gen X

Hey, us some of us Millenials are scratching our heads, too.

 

[Blackadder1916]

. . . pointless hats . . .

As compared to a hat with a point?

 

[Castus]

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

I certainly don't think that everyone needs to hit gold. I would simply advocate for chains of command to prioritise fitness more than they currently are. In an office environment, I have discovered that PT is often an afterthought, instead of a core part of the day that everyone does.

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.

I have met many people who do not look like the bronzed gods of yore, but who can succesfully bring violence to the enemy or support such quite well. I will absolutely agree that fitness itself is the key factor here, and that doing their jobs (this includes core soldier skills like fire and manoeuvre, field fortifications, marching etc... for non-combat arms) That doesn't mean that aesthetics aren't important, and that we ought not to look smart.

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.



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.

If you go up to my original post, I noted that baseball caps are fine for work dress. The key was work dress, not garrison dress. But I actually think you and I largely agree on these points, I just quite despise the look of the baseball cap with combats. NCDs is another factor entirely.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

And how much time does the average member 'waste' on that type activity per year? I recognize it might be unanswerable given the wide range of trades. Honest question since I'm an outsider, and am only aware of events like change of command, Remembrance Day, etc. I was with our service's Ceremonial Unit and we (a grade total of 20 or so) practiced once a month or so for about an hour.

 

[dimsum]

I certainly don't think that everyone needs to hit gold. I would simply advocate for chains of command to prioritise fitness more than they currently are. In an office environment, I have discovered that PT is often an afterthought, instead of a core part of the day that everyone does.



I have met many people who do not look like the bronzed gods of yore, but who can succesfully bring violence to the enemy or support such quite well. I will absolutely agree that fitness itself is the key factor here, and that doing their jobs (this includes core soldier skills like fire and manoeuvre, field fortifications, marching etc... for non-combat arms) That doesn't mean that aesthetics aren't important, and that we ought not to look smart.



If you go up to my original post, I noted that baseball caps are fine for work dress. The key was work dress, not garrison dress. But I actually think you and I largely agree on these points, I just quite despise the look of the baseball cap with combats. NCDs is another factor entirely.

I’m confused why you make the distinction between work dress and garrison dress if for most people that is the same clothing.

Ottawa is the only place I know of that people regularly wear DEU to work, and even then it depends by unit/command.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The Army should be sprinting in the opposite direction of this informal rubbish. Undress headress (service / forage caps) for DEU, and re-inforcing of beret as normal working headdress in garrison.

I am, however, also a realist, and I know that the trend is for our military to look ever more slovenly and unprofessional.

You’re 100% correct. Who would want to be associated with slovenly, unprofessional military units that allow ball cap/ball cap type headdress!

 

[Kat Stevens]

You’re 100% correct. Who would want to be associated with slovenly, unprofessional military units that allow ball cap/ball cap type headdress!

View attachment 77926



View attachment 77927

IKR

 

[daftandbarmy]

You’re 100% correct. Who would want to be associated with slovenly, unprofessional military units that allow ball cap/ball cap type headdress!

View attachment 77926



View attachment 77927

Good point

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Pretty much the entire US Army wore ballcaps in the 1980's

Then there is the Iranians

 

[daftandbarmy]

Pretty much the entire US Army wore ballcaps in the 1980's

Then there is the Iranians

 

[dimsum]

Pretty much the entire US Army wore ballcaps in the 1980's military wear them now.

To add: ball caps (USN, USCG, USAF, USSF presumably), and the flat-topped caps (US Army, USMC)

 

[Navy_Pete]

Pretty funny people are more worried about ballcaps looking unprofessional than entire capabilties being INOP or so degraded as to be ineffective in real combat.

 

[Quirky]

Pretty funny people are more worried about ballcaps looking unprofessional than entire capabilties being INOP or so degraded as to be ineffective in real combat.

Being combat ineffective is the core issue of recruiting and retention. The ballcaps, purple hair, beards, drill etc are just desperate ideas by desperate leadership.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Being combat ineffective is the core issue of recruiting and retention. The ballcaps, purple hair, beards, drill etc are just desperate ideas by desperate leadership. half-assed ideas from leadership handcuffed by political indifference.

FTFY.

The L0-L1s all know we are Combat Ineffective. They know that we need proper kit to draw in recruitment. They know that our troops are burning out and leaving because the CAF has been doing more with nothing since before Afghanistan.

They sadly also know there is no political appetite to fix any of it. So what are they left with? Quick wins.

Things that cost little to no budget that can be implemented with a blot of ink. That's what we're left with. Do I agree that some will benefit a portion of the CAF? Yes. Will it see the seismic shift they're hoping for? God no.

If you build it, they will come. So far, we are the butt if the joke internationally and online. No one wants to join or stay in an amateur hour organization. Our target recruitment pool, Gen Z, value clout, influence, and being genuine. They are far more media savvy than people give them credit for.

Until we actually build an organization that has teeth that people want to join, they'll walk right past the CFRC.

 

[btrudy]

FTFY.

The L0-L1s all know we are Combat Ineffective. They know that we need proper kit to draw in recruitment. They know that our troops are burning out and leaving because the CAF has been doing more with nothing since before Afghanistan.

They sadly also know there is no political appetite to fix any of it. So what are they left with? Quick wins.

Things that cost little to no budget that can be implemented with a blot of ink. That's what we're left with. Do I agree that some will benefit a portion of the CAF? Yes. Will it see the seismic shift they're hoping for? God no.

If you build it, they will come. So far, we are the butt if the joke internationally and online. No one wants to join or stay in an amateur hour organization. Our target recruitment pool, Gen Z, value clout, influence, and being genuine. They are far more media savvy than people give them credit for.

Until we actually build an organization that has teeth that people want to join, they'll walk right past the CFRC.

Bingo bango bongo. Although I still feel like the bulk of the impact is on retention and not recruitment.

I mean, I'm a pretty cynical guy. But apparently I'm not cynical enough. Because before the announcement of the pay adjustments / PLD/CFHD changes, I was damned sure that the raises that we'd be getting would be inadequate to stem the losses that we're seeing. But never in my wildest dreams did I think that Treasury Board would be stupid enough to come up with a "raise" that resulted in less net income for anyone, let alone something that amounted to a pay cut that basically directly targeted the people in high cost of living areas that are in the rank bands for which we're seeing the worst attrition problems.

I mean, sure, I didn't think they'd actually bandage the wounds properly. But I didn't expect them to "solve things" by rubbings salt in them. Boy did I feel silly.

But here we are. And of course, given that that was the "fix" that they did come up with, it's clear proof that there's no appetite whatsoever to actually solve any of the staffing issues that we have by government. No one's going to devote any resources towards it. The only things that the CAF can do are by doing things that doesn't require any additional money or any substantial changes to what we do, because the government's demands for operational output aren't decreasing at all either.

So of course, as a result, these "minor wins" are unfortunately the only things we have left to do. So I hope the RCAF likes their hats. Because there's not too much left in terms of stuff that we can do.

tl;dr The Navy's fucked, and will be especially fucked in 2030 once the CFHD runs out for those folks, and unfortunately rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic is the only thing we have the authority and resources to do. Likewise the other two elements (although in particular for this change I believe the Navy got hit the hardest).

 

[OldSolduer]

As compared to a hat with a point?

View attachment 77915

There are a number of people in any area that could wear that hat....including yours truly on occasion....and probably a few more in these forums

 

[Castus]

Bingo bango bongo. Although I still feel like the bulk of the impact is on retention and not recruitment.

I mean, I'm a pretty cynical guy. But apparently I'm not cynical enough. Because before the announcement of the pay adjustments / PLD/CFHD changes, I was damned sure that the raises that we'd be getting would be inadequate to stem the losses that we're seeing. But never in my wildest dreams did I think that Treasury Board would be stupid enough to come up with a "raise" that resulted in less net income for anyone, let alone something that amounted to a pay cut that basically directly targeted the people in high cost of living areas that are in the rank bands for which we're seeing the worst attrition problems.

I mean, sure, I didn't think they'd actually bandage the wounds properly. But I didn't expect them to "solve things" by rubbings salt in them. Boy did I feel silly.

But here we are. And of course, given that that was the "fix" that they did come up with, it's clear proof that there's no appetite whatsoever to actually solve any of the staffing issues that we have by government. No one's going to devote any resources towards it. The only things that the CAF can do are by doing things that doesn't require any additional money or any substantial changes to what we do, because the government's demands for operational output aren't decreasing at all either.

So of course, as a result, these "minor wins" are unfortunately the only things we have left to do. So I hope the RCAF likes their hats. Because there's not too much left in terms of stuff that we can do.

tl;dr The Navy's fucked, and will be especially fucked in 2030 once the CFHD runs out for those folks, and unfortunately rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic is the only thing we have the authority and resources to do. Likewise the other two elements (although in particular for this change I believe the Navy got hit the hardest).

I honestly thought we were going to get skewered much harder than we did, but there's no denying that the 'economic increase' and CFHD are policies made by a combination of bureaucrats and politicians who are apathetic, or perhaps mildly hostile to us and our institution but wanted general and flag officers to quit making pleas. The ironic piece is that this affects the core people in the Navy, and 1 CMBG strongly - elements that we need more than anyone else to be happy and want to stay in the military. And so it continues to unravel...