Updated Army Service Dress project

[FJAG]

It’s not a failed experiment, it’s our daily work environment. An infantry Bn can have Navy Log Os, Air Force clerks and vice versa. There is logic to ensuring they all have similar rank insignia. I don’t think that’s an attack on identity so much as it’s the logical response to the reality.

Their rank insignia is mere fluff. It really doesn't matter. It's not rocket science to learn what a PO is.

The real issue is why have a Navy LogO? There are significant underlying levels of experience that all personnel need to have to do a proper job at the next level. Someone who came in as a Log Lt and worked for a half dozen years in a Navy environment has a distinct disadvantage when posted to a bn as it's QM. The same is true for many of the purple trades.

There are clearly some advantages to elements of common training for the three services (there. I've said it. The "three services." Burn the witch) but there are none in bouncing people around from one environment to the other. The whole scheme behind integration/unification was about cutting costs by eliminating three systems for a common operating one. Costs didn't get cut but ballooned as the central headquarters became a self licking ice cream cone. In 1965 we had some 69 or so GOFOs capable or running around 126,000 personnel. There are now 145 managing a military half that size. And remember almost all of them come with a herd of staff and processes that gum up the works.

Operational jointness is important but it isn't necessary to integrate and unify an organization to achieve that. It is quite likely that Hellyer's remuster from the air force to the artillery in WW2, and having to take a recruit course twice, was the seedling that sprouted the concepts in his head. Fundamentally, the army, air force and navy are different as night and day. They each need their own support structures which are trained and fully experienced in their own fields. Centralization of the management of unlike entities is the enemy of flexibility and the birth place of a bureaucratic rather than an operational culture.

The sad reality is that things like changing rank names and uniforms is merely putting lipstick on the pig. The real rot comes from the massive, constipated, central headquarters bureaucracy that grew out of integration/unification and that has become a sacred cow that one fiddles with at his peril.

 

[MJP]

Their rank insignia is mere fluff. It really doesn't matter. It's not rocket science to learn what a PO is.

The real issue is why have a Navy LogO? There are significant underlying levels of experience that all personnel need to have to do a proper job at the next level. Someone who came in as a Log Lt and worked for a half dozen years in a Navy environment has a distinct disadvantage when posted to a bn as it's QM. The same is true for many of the purple trades.

There are clearly some advantages to elements of common training for the three services (there. I've said it. The "three services." Burn the witch) but there are none in bouncing people around from one environment to the other. The whole scheme behind integration/unification was about cutting costs by eliminating three systems for a common operating one. Costs didn't get cut but ballooned as the central headquarters became a self licking ice cream cone. In 1965 we had some 69 or so GOFOs capable or running around 126,000 personnel. There are now 145 managing a military half that size. And remember almost all of them come with a herd of staff and processes that gum up the works.

Operational jointness is important but it isn't necessary to integrate and unify an organization to achieve that. It is quite likely that Hellyer's remuster from the air force to the artillery in WW2, and having to take a recruit course twice, was the seedling that sprouted the concepts in his head. Fundamentally, the army, air force and navy are different as night and day. They each need their own support structures which are trained and fully experienced in their own fields. Centralization of the management of unlike entities is the enemy of flexibility and the birth place of a bureaucratic rather than an operational culture.

The sad reality is that things like changing rank names and uniforms is merely putting lipstick on the pig. The real rot comes from the massive, constipated, central headquarters bureaucracy that grew out of integration/unification and that has become a sacred cow that one fiddles with at his peril.

You are fiddling to nothing.


No RCN Log O is working in the the CA less a few (mostly purplish) exceptions.
There is larger issue of logistics folks being spread among environments but officers are largely exempt but CA LOgO are CA DEU

 

[FJAG]

You are fiddling to nothing.

The LogO example was only in response to @markppcli's example - and I read your response to him. There's a much wider issue though than the rank thing which is really what my post was about.

 

[MJP]

The LogO example was only in response to @markppcli's example - and I read your response to him. There's a much wider issue though than the rank thing which is really what my post was about.

Yea I saw the whole exchange. It is a nothing burger. Environment doesn't play an issue for LogO we largely stay within environment. Other RCLS trades maybe have different employment patterns but that is usually NCMS but that is a different conversation.

 

[Kilted]

I really wonder sometimes if we need as many Navy and Air Force people in certain purple trades when so many of them seem to end up in Army units. This also seems even more weird when you get Air Force or Navy people in positions that will put them in the field.

I'm wondering if one day we will finally get rid of unification completely. Unification is always talked about like it was the darkest day in Canadian Military history.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You are all missing the biggest advantage of the purple trades. When the casualties start stacking up in war you have places you can pull from who are similarly trained. Considering we lack basically any redundancy in peacetime this will be critical for us in our next serious war.

I have never understood why people believe unification can’t work. I just look as the US and the Navy/Marines and see it can function just fine as they fit all three branches in there why do we believe we are so special that it can’t here?

I think the real issue is we don’t want unification to work and have actively undermined it since day one trying to better the ‘element’ over the CAF in a selfish ego protectionist manner.

 

[Rifleman62]

KevinB on rank badges:

Silver Canadian Goose: Col

Anyone else see the humor in that?

 

[FSTO]

You are all missing the biggest advantage of the purple trades. When the casualties start stacking up in war you have places you can pull from who are similarly trained. Considering we lack basically any redundancy in peacetime this will be critical for us in our next serious war.

I have never understood why people believe unification can’t work. I just look as the US and the Navy/Marines and see it can function just fine as they fit all three branches in there why do we believe we are so special that it can’t here?

I think the real issue is we don’t want unification to work and have actively undermined it since day one trying to better the ‘element’ over the CAF in a selfish ego protectionist manner.

The way Hellyer conducted unification guaranteed that it would be fought tooth and nail and none of the supposed efficiencies were ever realized.

Hellyer used the USMC as the basis of his plan. The fool didn't realize that the Marines/Naval Infantry (not just the US one) worldwide historically are part of a ship's company and whose roles were to enforce discipline, man the sniper positions in the maintops, and be the van of landing and boarding parties.
Over time, the US Marines evolved into just another version of an army that rode on ships from time to time (retaining their discipline role). They should have been disbanded and subsumed into the Army. But the USA with it's size, responsibilities and wealth have decided to retain its maritime army.

Canada does not have the support, money, population and I'd argue need for a substantial standing army. A much better role model for unification would have been the Royal Navy with its Fleet, Fleet Air Arm and Royal Marine Commandoes. If that had happened the CA would have kept its uniforms and green berets, the Air Force doesn't really give a shit what they wear (they could have out Mavericked Maverick!) as long as they could fly, and the Navy would have accepted the world as it should be and carried on with having Stewards making the Captain's bunk .

But, the Pearson/Trudeau liberals were adamant of shredding symbols of colony (funny how the Army kept all its colonial trappings) and Hellyer and Millar (An Air Marshall who was joined at the hip with Hellyer) came up with a hairbrained scheme to make the CAF great again. So here we are today trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube!

 

[boredtoon]

Let’s come at this from another angle. Argue the practical benefit of service / element specific rank insignia.

Practical reason? Doesn't exist. But I am a soldier, and I like the parts of my uniform that tell people I'm a soldier and not a generic CAF member. I would like more aspects of my uniform to tell people I am a soldier. One of the reasons I like the new Service dress is that it is so clearly an army uniform.

For the actual rank insignia, when I joined, we had already been back to pips and crowns for a while. Almost none of my peers ever wore stripes. So you can toss my preference for pips and crowns directly into the biased column.

 

[Furniture]

Let’s come at this from another angle. Argue the practical benefit of service / element specific rank insignia.

Great idea, the CA can switch to RCN names, insignia and uniforms. markppcli can become markcaf or markhmcs, and wear a navy uniform.

Every time the unification thing comes up, its from army types who envision their ranks and symbols as  the standard everybody else has to adopt.

People aren't rational, they attach importance to symbols, which means that symbols matter. Ranks, insignia, etc., are all symbols that matter to people.

Forcing a sailor to feel lesser because their rank is too hard to learn, and their uniform looks different is shit leadership. In the same way forcing a soldier on ship to lose their army identity is.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Forcing a sailor to feel lesser because their rank is too hard to learn, and their uniform looks different is shit leadership. In the same way forcing a soldier on ship to lose their army identity is.

Having been a soldier on a ship my 'identity' was seconded to doing exactly as I was told by even the most junior sailor - especially anywhere near a working helicopter deck or landing craft bay

 

[Kilted]

The way Hellyer conducted unification guaranteed that it would be fought tooth and nail and none of the supposed efficiencies were ever realized.

Hellyer used the USMC as the basis of his plan. The fool didn't realize that the Marines/Naval Infantry (not just the US one) worldwide historically are part of a ship's company and whose roles were to enforce discipline, man the sniper positions in the maintops, and be the van of landing and boarding parties.
Over time, the US Marines evolved into just another version of an army that rode on ships from time to time (retaining their discipline role). They should have been disbanded and subsumed into the Army. But the USA with it's size, responsibilities and wealth have decided to retain its maritime army.

Canada does not have the support, money, population and I'd argue need for a substantial standing army. A much better role model for unification would have been the Royal Navy with its Fleet, Fleet Air Arm and Royal Marine Commandoes. If that had happened the CA would have kept its uniforms and green berets, the Air Force doesn't really give a shit what they wear (they could have out Mavericked Maverick!) as long as they could fly, and the Navy would have accepted the world as it should be and carried on with having Stewards making the Captain's bunk .

But, the Pearson/Trudeau liberals were adamant of shredding symbols of colony (funny how the Army kept all its colonial trappings) and Hellyer and Millar (An Air Marshall who was joined at the hip with Hellyer) came up with a hairbrained scheme to make the CAF great again. So here we are today trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube!

The Army didn't wear green berets before unification, only rifle regiments did.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Every time the unification thing comes up, its from army types who envision their ranks and symbols as  the standard everybody else has to adopt.

Army type here. I think Unification was more of a travesty against the RCN than anyone else within the CAF at the time. I think everyone lost something with Unification, but the RCN was actively punished for resisting.

Wrongs are being righted now, and I think those that wax nostaglic for a return to Unification era ranks or uniforms need to invest time in reviewing the history of the time.

People aren't rational, they attach importance to symbols, which means that symbols matter. Ranks, insignia, etc., are all symbols that matter to people.

100 percent agree. The CAF is a series of clans and sub-sects with their own identies, cultures, and values that compliment our core CAF identity, culture, and values.

To think we can homogenize any or all of the three is folly.

Forcing a sailor to feel lesser because their rank is too hard to learn, and their uniform looks different is shit leadership. In the same way forcing a soldier on ship to lose their army identity is.

It's laziness really.

My children growing up have the expectation to play "What's similar" when they are learning something new. It was a really easy argument to win when my 13 year old said he didn't know how to wash dishes; I pointed out he has known how to wash his hands since he was 3, and the steps are similar: "water, soap, scrub, rinse clean...."

I am positive that a recruit in Basic Training can figure out a rank chart and know how to count hooks, stars, crowns, and bars in order to know who they're addressing and how.

If we are going to then teach them how to commit violence on behalf of the King using sophisticated weaponry, a rank equivalency chart is a very low hurdle to jump.

 

[FJAG]

Great idea, the CA can switch to RCN names, insignia and uniforms. markppcli can become markcaf or markhmcs, and wear a navy uniform.

Every time the unification thing comes up, its from some army types who envision their ranks and symbols as  the standard everybody else has to adopt.

FTFY. Not all of us do. I for one am perfectly happy with "squadron commanders" (if only they were) and "petty officers." It strikes me requiring to argue for service specific rank badges misses the point.

People aren't rational, they attach importance to symbols, which means that symbols matter. Ranks, insignia, etc., are all symbols that matter to people.

Forcing a sailor to feel lesser because their rank is too hard to learn, and their uniform looks different is shit leadership. In the same way forcing a soldier on ship to lose their army identity is.

This is exactly the point. It's not just that people attach importance to these things, but it is part of building a military ethos that we stress these things as institutions. We inculcate these very differences to give people the feelings of being part of something special; something worth fighting and, if necessary, dying for. It's how we build the special bond between ourselves.

I'm one of the few left on this forum who went through the unification process and let me tell you that it was demoralizing for everyone. Folks don't challenge change when they can see its benefits. No one at the base could see those benefits. All we could see was the chaos. It didn't help that we were simultaneously hit with massive reductions in numbers. It didn't help either that 3 Bde was thrown out for 5e Bde. It just reinforced the idea that we were being de-Britified on the alter of pan-Canadianism.

The vast majority of us didn't think we needed a new common uniform to feel Canadian. We were quite confident in our Canadian identity. Note that initially we didn't have any arms indicators other than our cap badges. Buttons were common and shoulder flashes (like the air force) merely read "Canada." It took some time for shoulder titles, collar dogs and the like to make their way back - mostly at individual expense at first. I think it was even worse for the air force and navy who were being forced into a "rifle-green" uniform with army ranks.

 

[MacNav63]

In 1965 we had some 69 or so GOFOs capable or running around 126,000 personnel. There are now 145 managing a military half that size.

Curious, what were they counting as GOFOs in 1965? Does that include Brigadiers, Commodores and Air Commodores, none of which I believe were considered to General, Flag, Air Officers at the time? Not mind you that I doubt for a minute that the bloat is real, just wondering how much of it can be attributed to a) counting a 1 star rank that wouldn't have been counted pre-unification and b) and a ramping of the number of billets for 1 star ranks in the ensuing years as opposed to any significant increase in the number of 2 and 3 stars.

 

[dapaterson]

An Army that can field with difficulty a single brigade, a Navy stressed and stretched to put a three ship task group, and an Air Force that finds six fighter jets an adequate combat contribution can probably comfortably be under the overall command of a 3*, with a 2* VCDS, a 2* J3, a 2* J4, and all formations (Navy, Army, Air and SOF) commanded by 1*s.

 

[markppcli]

Great idea, the CA can switch to RCN names, insignia and uniforms. markppcli can become markcaf or markhmcs, and wear a navy uniform.

Every time the unification thing comes up, its from army types who envision their ranks and symbols as  the standard everybody else has to adopt.

People aren't rational, they attach importance to symbols, which means that symbols matter. Ranks, insignia, etc., are all symbols that matter to people.

Forcing a sailor to feel lesser because their rank is too hard to learn, and their uniform looks different is shit leadership. In the same way forcing a soldier on ship to lose their army identity is.

Well that’s an intense reaction to my suggestion that it was more practical when we had a unified set of rank insignia for officers based in the naval rank insignia. Please note I only ever said insignia, and absolutely not point did I suggest the rank themselves should change - or that memorizing them was hard. You put words in my mouth and went on a rant about what you suppose I was getting at.