Uniforms/Unification (split from King Charles III)

[dimsum]

Weird how good things can look when its not a mishmash of different uniforms in one group

Hey, how about we go to one uniform. That would be great, right?

Right?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Hey, how about we go to one uniform. That would be great, right?

Right?

I joined in the unification era.

One uniform was my heritage and I had no issue with it…

 

[quadrapiper]

Hey, how about we go to one uniform. That would be great, right?

Right?

Coming at it from another angle: we could have a regiment stationed near Ottawa, positioned to deal with all things capital city and NDHQ! For ceremonial and identity, we could give them highly recognizable uniforms, and a simple, equally recognizable name...

 

[Good2Golf]

I joined in the unification era.

One uniform was my heritage and I had no issue with it…

Would have saved a bit of money when you had you minor bout of Journeyman-itis.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Would have saved a bit of money when you had you minor bout of Journeyman-itis.

Minor bout…

 

[Good2Golf]

Fortunately you recovered and have been normal(ish?) ever since!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Hey, how about we go to one uniform. That would be great, right?

Right?

How about we stop mish-mashing different elements into different formations because theyre "purple" trades? Either assign them to their assigned element or have them wear the uniform of the element of unit they're assigned.

I joined in the unification era.

One uniform was my heritage and I had no issue with it…

You are very much in the minority in this day and age.

Unification has been a cancerous tumour we have slowly been cutting out.

Coming at it from another angle: we could have a regiment stationed near Ottawa, positioned to deal with all things capital city and NDHQ! For ceremonial and identity, we could give them highly recognizable uniforms, and a simple, equally recognizable name...

You mean the Ceremonial Guard? Agreed.

 

[quadrapiper]

You mean the Ceremonial Guard? Agreed.

There's them, but I meant the Canadian Guards.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

There's them, but I meant the Canadian Guards.

That would raise a bunch of hackles from folks across the river.

The CGG/GGFG combo works. Just needs to be a proper Class B task, vice whatever Summer only schmozzle thing it is now.

 

[quadrapiper]

That would raise a bunch of hackles from folks across the river.

I was thinking more that getting rid of such a unit was a bit of an own goal.

Which hackles?

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I was thinking more that getting rid of such a unit was a bit of an own goal.

Which hackles?

Fair point. My knowledge of the history of the Cdn Guards is limited, however, I believe the "Guards" nature of a Canadian unit didn't sit well with a lot of the Québécois in Cabinet... "too British" in name and appearance (forgetting that 2 R 22e R do the same thing, in the same dress, at La Citadelle).

 

[FSTO]

Hey, how about we go to one uniform. That would be great, right?

Right?

Looks pretty good!

 

[dimsum]

How about we stop mish-mashing different elements into different formations because theyre "purple" trades? Either assign them to their assigned element or have them wear the uniform of the element of unit they're assigned.

Option 2 would mean potentially changing uniforms every posting for anyone who is “purple”, which is a not-small percentage of the CAF.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Option 2 would mean potentially changing uniforms every posting for anyone who is “purple”, which is a not-small percentage of the CAF.

I was using that as a throwaway CoA, my mistake for not making that more clear.

IMHO the "purple" issues are the last heaving breaths from Unification and someone eventually needs to pull the plug.

Integration was the goal, and it canbeen achieved without merging Element, branch, or uniform to a hodgepodge.

Unification always was a bridge too far, and now we are righting the ship.

 

[FJAG]

Option 2 would mean potentially changing uniforms every posting for anyone who is “purple”, which is a not-small percentage of the CAF.

I was using that as a throwaway CoA, my mistake for not making that more clear.

IMHO the "purple" issues are the last heaving breaths from Unification and someone eventually needs to pull the plug.

Integration was the goal, and it canbeen achieved without merging Element, branch, or uniform to a hodgepodge.

Unification always was a bridge too far, and now we are righting the ship.

I've always seen integration and unification as a two step process.

Integration came first in Aug 1964 with Bill C-90 which integrated the headquarters under a single CDS. Concurrent with that were a number of steps to integrated certain functions such as the heads of the services and some of their staff being absorbed into divisions of the new headquarters and various administrative functions - such functions like postal, padre and medical had already been moving in that direction.

While integration was based primarily on cost savings, I've never been a big fan of integration. I am of "jointness" but IMHO adding a new super headquarters above an already existing structure of three headquarters which already have just enough staff to manage their business and logistics and administration won't reduce the size of the lower headquarters but will inevitably add further layers and a general inflation of the whole structure. On paper it seems to make sense but in practice it doesn't. It's a different process than an existing headquarters that contracts various subdivisions but let's face it, in a military context you can't get rid of the need for each of the army, navy and air force and the admin and log functions needed to make them work. It's basically an additive and not subtractive process which not only adds a super headquarters but also all those agencies that constitute what would become the "purple" force.

Unification I never understood back in the day. Forget the uniform issue. That was merely an attempt to give a visual confirmation that we had ceased to exist as three services and were now one. (Perhaps it was even an attempt to prevent the skittles parades we see now and to prevent the "purple" trades from seeking their own uniform like the special forces have done)

What didn't make sense was the unified command and element issues that came about. Typical was Mobile Command which not only constituted the three Canada-based brigades (but strangely not 4 CMBG) and not only the army's helicopters, but also its CF-5 fighters (presumably because their sole capability was ground attack) and also the small lift transport buffalos - effectively the army now ran an air force. The navy's air and aviation fleet made much more sense than the army's. Things like Training command made little sense as well and was completely oblivious to the fact that each of the army, navy and air force had very different training requirements. The story goes that the whole unification boondoggle was that Hellyer had been in the air force in WW2 and was remastered to army when there were personnel shortages. He was forced to retake basic training and felt that was an absolute waste of time. The whole concept of unification apparently arose out of that fact (and in the minds of many, his political ambitions to replace Pearson and a that grand gesture with defence would be his gateway)

The fact that the hard elements of unification (as opposed to the soft, uniforms and buttons and bows issues) haven't worked out is, in my mind, borne out by the fact that DND/CAF is spending more and more resources on a constipated central administration system that is delivering ever declining defence outputs. Tactically we talk mission command. Administratively we do anything but by taking many of the necessary powers and enablers away from subordinate commanders on the basis of perceived cost savings through centralization and consolidation. Unfortunately while the CAF has accomplished the roll back on the soft buttons and bows issues it continues to fail to resolve the hard issues of its basic structure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

How about we stop mish-mashing different elements into different formations because theyre "purple" trades? Either assign them to their assigned element or have them wear the uniform of the element of unit they're assigned.

This would make a lot of people, myself included, very happy.

I've always seen integration and unification as a two step process.

Integration came first in Aug 1964 with Bill C-90 which integrated the headquarters under a single CDS. Concurrent with that were a number of steps to integrated certain functions such as the heads of the services and some of their staff being absorbed into divisions of the new headquarters and various administrative functions - such functions like postal, padre and medical had already been moving in that direction.

While integration was based primarily on cost savings, I've never been a big fan of integration. I am of "jointness" but IMHO adding a new super headquarters above an already existing structure of three headquarters which already have just enough staff to manage their business and logistics and administration won't reduce the size of the lower headquarters but will inevitably add further layers and a general inflation of the whole structure. On paper it seems to make sense but in practice it doesn't. It's a different process than an existing headquarters that contracts various subdivisions but let's face it, in a military context you can't get rid of the need for each of the army, navy and air force and the admin and log functions needed to make them work. It's basically an additive and not subtractive process which not only adds a super headquarters but also all those agencies that constitute what would become the "purple" force.

Unification I never understood back in the day. Forget the uniform issue. That was merely an attempt to give a visual confirmation that we had ceased to exist as three services and were now one. (Perhaps it was even an attempt to prevent the skittles parades we see now and to prevent the "purple" trades from seeking their own uniform like the special forces have done)

What didn't make sense was the unified command and element issues that came about. Typical was Mobile Command which not only constituted the three Canada-based brigades (but strangely not 4 CMBG) and not only the army's helicopters, but also its CF-5 fighters (presumably because their sole capability was ground attack) and also the small lift transport buffalos - effectively the army now ran an air force. The navy's air and aviation fleet made much more sense than the army's. Things like Training command made little sense as well and was completely oblivious to the fact that each of the army, navy and air force had very different training requirements. The story goes that the whole unification boondoggle was that Hellyer had been in the air force in WW2 and was remastered to army when there were personnel shortages. He was forced to retake basic training and felt that was an absolute waste of time. The whole concept of unification apparently arose out of that fact (and in the minds of many, his political ambitions to replace Pearson and a that grand gesture with defence would be his gateway)

The fact that the hard elements of unification (as opposed to the soft, uniforms and buttons and bows issues) haven't worked out is, in my mind, borne out by the fact that DND/CAF is spending more and more resources on a constipated central administration system that is delivering ever declining defence outputs. Tactically we talk mission command. Administratively we do anything but by taking many of the necessary powers and enablers away from subordinate commanders on the basis of perceived cost savings through centralization and consolidation. Unfortunately while the CAF has accomplished the roll back on the soft buttons and bows issues it continues to fail to resolve the hard issues of its basic structure.

I love your history lessons. And The integration/unification period is very interesting to me. If you have any leads on books or articles I will gobble them up. Most of the stuff I have read so far is from the RCNs perspective.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think, and I know that many disagree, that we us the terms integration. and unification incorrectly. Both terms originated in the USA in the 1940s and both came into Canadian use from the USA.

In the USA unified means, essentially, joint. The Pentagon, itself, and the major commands (PACOM, CENTCOM, etc) are unified. The US was big on "selling" unification to its allies in the 1950s and '60s.

Integration meant what the Americans called, back in the day, "purple suiting" and they tried bit of it - most notably, in my experience, with the Defense Communications Agency - and pronounced it a bad idea.

I was told, waaaaaay back when, by an officer who was on one of the Canadian teams that accompanied Mr Hellyer on one of his trips to Washington that the Americans gave us a formal presentation on unification vs integration and said: "Unification: Yes! Integration: No!" But some of Mr Hellyer's advisors (serving and retired military, led by Bill Lee a retired RCAF Public Affairs Officer) were, I was told, fascinated by the idea of the USMC as an elite "integrated" force and wanted 'Royal Canadian Marines.'

Sorry for the highjack ...

 

[dapaterson]

Ack. Thank you for the pedantic clarity.

Words have meanings. Authorities are derived from specific words in legislation, regulations and policies.

When people misuse and misunderstand words that can grant significant powers, problems ensue.

...

I think, and I know that many disagree, that we us the terms integration. and unification incorrectly. Both terms originated in the USA in the 1940s and both came into Canadian use from the USA.

In the USA unified means, essentially, joint. The Pentagon, itself, and the major commands (PACOM, CENTCOM, etc) are unified. The US was big on "selling" unification to its allies in the 1950s and '60s.

Integration meant what the Americans called, back in the day, "purple suiting" and they tried bit of it - most notably, in my experience, with the Defense Communications Agency - and pronounced it a bad idea.

I was told, waaaaaay back when, by an officer who was on one of the Canadian teams that accompanied Mr Hellyer on one of his trips to Washington that the Americans gave us a formal presentation on unification vs integration and said: "Unification: Yes! Integration: No!" But some of Mr Hellyer's advisors (serving and retired military, led by Bill Lee a retired RCAF Public Affairs Officer) were, I was told, fascinated by the idea of the USMC as an elite "integrated" force and wanted 'Royal Canadian Marines.'

Sorry for the highjack ...

When it doubt, blame Public Affairs.

 

[FJAG]

And The integration/unification period is very interesting to me. If you have any leads on books or articles I will gobble them up. Most of the stuff I have read so far is from the RCNs perspective.

Hellyer himself wrote a book "Damn the Torpedoes: My Fight to Unify Canada's Armed Forces" which covers the process but most consider very self serving. I don't think it ever left hard cover and might be found at several military libraries. The RCMI in Toronto lists a copy. There's even a bookstore on Amazon.ca selling a used copy - pricey. I was able to get a copy through the interlibrary loan service here. Granatstein's "Who Killed the Canadian Military?" covers that and other periods of problems.

General Gosselin published a two part article in the CMJ looking at in light of the then Hillier reforms. Part 1 Part 2

As you mention, there are numerous articles - many of them navy and some air force oriented. Many viewed them as the big losers as many believed the army came out the big winners with a green suit and army rank structure etc. not to mention it is the bigger subdivision of the CF. A Google search brings those up.

I think, and I know that many disagree, that we us the terms integration. and unification incorrectly. Both terms originated in the USA in the 1940s and both came into Canadian use from the USA.

It' s naturally confusing. When you look for synonyms for "unify" one of them is "integrate." I tend to look at it from the fact that it was two separate pieces of legislation that accomplished it: Bill C-90 in 1964 which aimed to "integrate" the command structure; and Bill C-243 in 1968 which reorganized the Canadian military by unifying the three services into one service.

In the USA unified means, essentially, joint. The Pentagon, itself, and the major commands (PACOM, CENTCOM, etc) are unified. The US was big on "selling" unification to its allies in the 1950s and '60s.

If I understand the pre-integration command structure, we had a level of jointness by way of a Chief's of Staff Committee with a chairman who had authority to coordinate activities of the three services and the formation of subordinate joint committees. Pre integration/unification jointness was an evolutionary process.

Integration meant what the Americans called, back in the day, "purple suiting" and they tried bit of it - most notably, in my experience, with the Defense Communications Agency - and pronounced it a bad idea.

I think it works for minor unimportant elements such as padres and lawyers. It becomes a problem when you look at large components such logistics and even policing, where the uniqueness of the service element supported varies considerably in how those functions operate up and down the structure from individual platoon, ship, aircraft to the top formation and support command.

I was told, waaaaaay back when, by an officer who was on one of the Canadian teams that accompanied Mr Hellyer on one of his trips to Washington that the Americans gave us a formal presentation on unification vs integration and said: "Unification: Yes! Integration: No!" But some of Mr Hellyer's advisors (serving and retired military, led by Bill Lee a retired RCAF Public Affairs Officer) were, I was told, fascinated by the idea of the USMC as an elite "integrated" force and wanted 'Royal Canadian Marines.'

I distinctly recall much of our discussions, back in the day, was whether we were becoming a Marine Corps and was that a good thing etc. Of course, we weren't when you consider that the Marines do not incorporate the navy but are an adjunct of it. To an extent, Mobile Command, was a partial mini Marine Corps (with planes but without any navy relationship)

Sorry for the highjack ...

Meh. I do it all the time.

 

[Castus]

As you mention, there are numerous articles - many of them navy and some air force oriented. Many viewed them as the big losers as many believed the army came out the big winners with a green suit and army rank structure etc. not to mention it is the bigger subdivision of the CF. A Google search brings those up.

A bit of an aside, and I'm not sure that anyone would dispute this - but I believe it is fairly clear that nobody was a big winner, or even a winner in unification. It was universally poorly received and still manages to affect us to the day, nearly sixty years later.