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

The Never-ending Roaming of Navy Accoutrements

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,913
Points
1,310
How about the RCN de-toxify their workplaces, fix ships, and create a place where people want to serve, and not where sexually assaulting NWOs become admirals instead?
See my comment about walking and chewing gum above.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,266
Points
1,210
How about the RCN de-toxify their workplaces, fix ships, and create a place where people want to serve, and not where sexually assaulting NWOs become admirals instead?
Geez a ray of sunshine! 😤

This whole thing started as a little pet project about gongs and their placement on a Navy Uniform.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
10,025
Points
1,090
I'd rather ships that meet SOLAS than new trinkets for uniforms, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,001
Points
1,040
To get back on track

I do like the ribbon/medals rack up high on the left shoulder like in the past. What's everyone opinion?

Also it looks like it has moved around a bit. Can an individual GOFO just kind of do what they want?
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,266
Points
1,210
To get back on track

I do like the ribbon/medals rack up high on the left shoulder like in the past. What's everyone opinion?

Also it looks like it has moved around a bit. Can an individual GOFO just kind of do what they want?
I like them there as well.

As for the FOGOs, I'm sure if the Admiral decided to move their ribbons, would there be much of a kerfuffle? Similar to the Rouleau Roll?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,602
Points
1,260
I'd rather ships that meet SOLAS that new trinkets for uniforms, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.

So would everyone else, but that's not the discussion of this thread.

To get back on track

I do like the ribbon/medals rack up high on the left shoulder like in the past. What's everyone opinion?

Also it looks like it has moved around a bit. Can an individual GOFO just kind of do what they want?

I agree. The medals should be move back up on the left shoulder, and qualifications back on the sleeve ?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,602
Points
1,260
I like them there as well.

As for the FOGOs, I'm sure if the Admiral decided to move their ribbons, would there be much of a kerfuffle? Similar to the Rouleau Roll?

Id like to see the services be able to tinker with their uniforms and accoutrements without having to seek approval from some multi service CAF Dress committee.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
5,016
Points
1,160
I remember the dickies/Ascots. As a young recruit our RSM says "You will all wear them" Go to supply, they say "We don't issue them see the RSM". RSM says: "Yes young lad, only $15 out of your pocket" (my pay was $18 a day before tax) Turns out the RSM dictated clothing wear and ran the kit shop.....

Before the coffee kicked in, I thought this thread title said "Naval accountants"
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,500
Points
1,160
To get back on track

I do like the ribbon/medals rack up high on the left shoulder like in the past. What's everyone opinion?

Also it looks like it has moved around a bit. Can an individual GOFO just kind of do what they want?

If I recall back to when the DEUs were being introduced, one of the issues with the Navy uniform and medal ribbons was the inconsistent tailoring of the breast pocket - they had difficulty in having it parallel to the ground; some tilted right, some tilted left. Not a problem when the ribbons were placed higher on the chest (they could be adjusted to suit), but sloppy looking if placed in-line with the top of the pocket (like the other services and what was supposed to be the original common dress instruction).
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,945
Points
1,110
I hated dickies - both Signals and The RCR loved 'em. It was a flippin' nightmare.

Anyway, I really quite liked the olive drab cotton scarf that the Army issued ... fast forward to 1978 ... I am appointed to command 1 CDN Sig Regt which is being reformed into 1st Canadian Division HQ and Signal Regt and, as we continue with a series of exercises* designed to "right-size" (and shape) a Div HQ and practice Bde HQs in working in a Div I am the Commanding Officer of the Div Comd and his staff when they come to the field.

The A/GOC (General Officer Commanding) in my old friend (really) and mentor and former (RCR) CO, BGen Blake Baille. He and the staff officers arrive in the exercise location all sporting brightly coloured dickies. I and my officers and soldiers are all either bare necked or wearing a loose, issued, cotton scarf. BGen Baille is nothing if not observant and perceptive. He calls me aside and says, "I think it's appropriate that I introduce you to the staff and remind them about how a HQ & Sig Regt works ... he does so and includes in his remarks an admonition that the staff must set an example for all the soldiers by adhering to HQ and Sig Regt dress instruction which he say, pulling off his RCR ascot (It was The RCR, for heaven's sake, they wouldn't call it a dickie!), do not include multi-coloured, synthetic dickies!

----
* Known, officially, as the Rite Simple series of exercises, called by the soldiers, due to their often tedious nature, as 'Rite F'ing Complicated.'
I was on a few of the Rite Simple exercises with 1 CBG HQ and Sig Sqn. As a crayon eating infantry type in the Sqn D & E Platoon it wasn't a bad gig. Not a great one or a jammy one but we were looked on as SMEs on subjects like land nav and winter warfare as well as a few other infantry type things. I had many "Jimmy" friends as well. Not bad fellows at all.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,985
Points
1,110
Id like to see the services be able to tinker with their uniforms and accoutrements without having to seek approval from some multi service CAF Dress committee.
The "services" aren't really "services" though. I wear Navy DEU, but I am not part of the RCN. I belong to a separate branch, and they would not take kindly to being told their people aren't allowed to wear branch insignia because a different branch says so.

Now, I'm sure if the the RCN came up with a system for identifying branches while still having the anchor cap badge, other branches would be more likely to accept the proposal.

Lastly, I finally got my initial issue DEU today... The SS shirts and white pants are horrible. I bet Dickies could whip out a better looking, and higher quality uniform for a lot less money.
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,913
Points
1,310
I was on a few of the Rite Simple exercises with 1 CBG HQ and Sig Sqn. As a crayon eating infantry type in the Sqn D & E Platoon it wasn't a bad gig. Not a great one or a jammy one but we were looked on as SMEs on subjects like land nav and winter warfare as well as a few other infantry type things. I had many "Jimmy" friends as well. Not bad fellows at all.
D&S Pl is truly a lost capability I wish we could bring back.

The Infantry folks loved it because it was relatively routine tasks without a lot of the Coy or Bn heartaches experienced in the line. The HQ Staff loved it because you had a living breathing SME to reference with in the OPP instead of digging into the pubs/doctrine. Us Sigs loved it because we were able to focus on our primary tasks of establishing and maintaining comms without having to scramble to remember defensive siting of crew served weapons
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,654
Points
1,040
Agree. The moustache is growing on me. I’d like the navy to do the right thing a go through the proper heraldic process to get the crown on it though.

Nah, still ugly, but if you want to give the rest of the trades yet another reason to make fun of NWOs it gives an easy target. It's aesthetic poorly done and kind of random criterias. Getting BWK qualified isn't even hitting OFP, and it's not a specialist badge.

All of this is lipstick on pigs; usually when there is something like this that comes out the eye roll from the main cave is enough to get the ship moving.

The current medal placing fits along the pocket, so makes it easy to place things, why complicate it? The folks putting out the PA photos for the moustache could use it as a ruler on a short sleeve, but most people can manage pretty easily when you have a clear reference point.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
5,690
Points
1,260
Now @FSTO how do we get proper naval rank insignia for Naval NCMs
I'll play Devil's Advocate here.

It's 2022, and we've had the current rank insignia since 1968. That's 54 years. If we subtracted 54 years from 1968, that's 1914 - only 4 years away from its founding in 1910. So...the current insignia has been in use for almost (soon to surpass) the "traditional" insignia.

Also, what is "proper"? Some British Commonwealth navies use similar insignia, but there are differences there too. Then there's the French-style insignia used in France, etc. How about the USN style?
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
3,602
Points
1,260
The "services" aren't really "services" though. I wear Navy DEU, but I am not part of the RCN. I belong to a separate branch, and they would not take kindly to being told their people aren't allowed to wear branch insignia because a different branch says so.

Now, I'm sure if the the RCN came up with a system for identifying branches while still having the anchor cap badge, other branches would be more likely to accept the proposal.

Lastly, I finally got my initial issue DEU today... The SS shirts and white pants are horrible. I bet Dickies could whip out a better looking, and higher quality uniform for a lot less money.

Good point. How about offer the option to the member WRT cap badges ?

I'll play Devil's Advocate here.

It's 2022, and we've had the current rank insignia since 1968. That's 54 years. If we subtracted 54 years from 1968, that's 1914 - only 4 years away from its founding in 1910. So...the current insignia has been in use for almost (soon to surpass) the "traditional" insignia.

Also, what is "proper"? Some British Commonwealth navies use similar insignia, but there are differences there too. Then there's the French-style insignia used in France, etc. How about the USN style?

We are a commonwealth nation and our navy has a direct lineage from the RN. Our ranks, as the are, should be drawn from there.

Anchors! We need more anchors! ;)

Lots of examples here:

Some reasonable

hh-ranks-non-commissioned-members-3.pnghh-ranks-navy-alt.png
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
10,651
Points
1,360
I'd rather ships that meet SOLAS than new trinkets for uniforms, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
…because the Army is much more effective and not divisional patch/qualification/oversized maple leaves/Noriega Hat happy and can fire logistically optimized Brigade Groups out the door all day long…
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
2,231
Points
1,160
D&S Pl is truly a lost capability I wish we could bring back.

The Infantry folks loved it because it was relatively routine tasks without a lot of the Coy or Bn heartaches experienced in the line. The HQ Staff loved it because you had a living breathing SME to reference with in the OPP instead of digging into the pubs/doctrine. Us Sigs loved it because we were able to focus on our primary tasks of establishing and maintaining comms without having to scramble to remember defensive siting of crew served weapons
I fought hard to keep an assault pioneer section in 1 CDN Sig Regt; they provided a an enormously valuable capability and, most importantly, an instructional cadre for my other arms and services soldiers.

There was a huge fear in some militia units (hello, PWOR) that I wanted them to provide a full time D&S company (pioneer pl, Comd/Tac HQ security pl, and two or three HQ D&E pls. Actually, there only really useful support I could provide to the local militia unit (PWOR) was some infantry training in assault pioneer skills.

I believed then (40 years ago) and still suspect now that IF we ever form a Div for war the Div HQ will have a D&S Coy. It isn't that Signals want or need to be too busy to site crew served weapons it is simply that there will not be enough of them (RCCS soldiers) - IF/when we go to war 1 and 2 person teams (detachments) will be the norm because the personnel demands will be too great to allow anything more.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,065
Points
1,040
I fought hard to keep an assault pioneer section in 1 CDN Sig Regt; they provided a an enormously valuable capability and, most importantly, an instructional cadre for my other arms and services soldiers.

There was a huge fear in some militia units (hello, PWOR) that I wanted them to provide a full time D&S company (pioneer pl, Comd/Tac HQ security pl, and two or three HQ D&E pls. Actually, there only really useful support I could provide to the local militia unit (PWOR) was some infantry training in assault pioneer skills.

I believed then (40 years ago) and still suspect now that IF we ever form a Div for war the Div HQ will have a D&S Coy. It isn't that Signals want or need to be too busy to site crew served weapons it is simply that there will not be enough of them (RCCS soldiers) - IF/when we go to war 1 and 2 person teams (detachments) will be the norm because the personnel demands will be too great to allow anything more.
There are two issues in this post: the first is the concern certain RegF units have as to how they will augment RegF and the second is the fact that the RegF by and of itself does not have enough PYs to cover war-time establishments and need a system of augmentation.

I've long ago expressed my concerns that our system of force generation for force employment, both within the RegF and as between the RegF and ResF, is dysfunctional. While it may be adequate for peacetime service with long lead times it is entirely incapable of generating a proper force structure (both personnel and equipment) for any large scale operations. We are lacking a mobilization capability. In fact, our administrative processes for augmentation are counterproductive for mobilization purposes.

IMHO, every army needs to be capable of, and proficient in, mobilizing its resources in their totality.

The more that I put my mind to this, the more I believe the problem lies in the almost total separation as between the RegF and ResF and the fact that almost all ResF personnel (except that little aberration, the professional Class B corps) are hived away in little discrete organizations that have no operational purpose but are mere administrative and individual training entities (neither of which they are particularly good at)

There is a need for a wholesale reorganization of the Army's structure. One where units and formations are organized in such a way that their normal day-to-day peacetime functions are performed by their organic RegF PYs and their wartime establishment is bolstered by ResF personnel that are organic to the unit and who are trained and administered by the unit. If a signals regiment requires a D&S company, a pioneer platoon and additional signallers in a fully established regiment but not day-to-day then recruit reservists into those positions and make the administration and training of those people the responsibility of the RegF CO and staff of that signals regiment within an appropriate national framework of ResF administrative and training policies.

Once again we're slipping off the thread's rails but the concept is also very relevant to the Navy which also has problems in getting the properly trained person into the slot where he/she is needed.

🍻
 
Top