Poll

The RCN has its old rank titles and executive curl back.  What should be the next step for the CF rank structure?

Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone.
120 (58.5%)
Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
40 (19.5%)
Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.
1 (0.5%)
Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
9 (4.4%)
Copy the UK rank system - it is the prototype anyway.
17 (8.3%)
Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.
2 (1%)
Create a whole new Canadian system.
8 (3.9%)
Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.
7 (3.4%)
Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn
1 (0.5%)

Total Members Voted: 204

Author Topic: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation  (Read 1982438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
I would say that the German wings are actually being worn correctly (right breast of service dress jacket), while the U.S. wings on the left are not.

Gen Natynczyk sometimes wore the U.S. Combat Action Badge over his name tag when in the U.S., or meeting with the CJCS.

The highlighted 265 quote doesn't mention foreign badges being worn on the left pocket flap, nor is the U.S. parachute badge authorized for permanent wear, as there is a Canadian equivalent (which Gen Vance is wearing).

Are ANY badges ever authorized for wear on the LEFT pocket flap?

You're right...I was looking at the US Jump wings as on the right side...which they are in the pic because he is facing me.   :facepalm:
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
  The Air Force and Navy have "summer and winter" or at least lighter weight fabric, yet those wonderful wool dress tunics and pants are plain silly.

The AF no longer issues the HW tunic and pants...you can still wear them if you have them but you can't get them of Logistik anymore.  I never wore mine...too hot and itchy compared to the LW.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,962
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
RCAF Command badge is coming soon, as well.  Saw something about it in the RCAF Clothing / Dress Committee minutes from Nov 2016 (something like that), and is supposed to be issued this spring/summer.

That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
That makes no sense.

So it's entirely consistent with the rest of the recent uniform nonsense.

Offline kev994

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Member
  • *
  • 2,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 128
That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.
You're missing the point, which is that someone is getting a dot for 'leading change' on their PER.

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,415
You're missing the point, which is that someone is getting a dot for 'leading change' on their PER.

Which I believe is one of the big factors towards what the CaF is today
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
If only it would say "Leading Effective Change" and people who came up with stupid ideas got a NI...
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
That makes no sense.  If a member with a light blue uniform isn't wearing a command badge, you'd think one would logically default to "oh, s/he's in the RCAF" instead of CMP, etc.

I suspect the next thing will be the belted tunic and flying scarf!!
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 366,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,639
I suspect the next thing will be the belted tunic and flying scarf!!

Flying scarf for pilots only; half-scarf for other aircrew.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
...and half a belt for the 'new' tunic for us self-loading meat sacks too.   ;D

Double-layered wings for astronauts...just so the drivers have something to whine about.    >:D
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,656
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
On this topic, the Logistics branch had a survey sent out to the officers which had a question asking if a new cap badge and the addition of a royal pre-fix would improve esprit-de-corps.... good lord. Enough already!

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 366,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,639
Are you bad-mouthing the Royal Canadian Logistics Service?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
On this topic, the Logistics branch had a survey sent out to the officers which had a question asking if a new cap badge and the addition of a royal pre-fix would improve esprit-de-corps.... good lord. Enough already!

Hopefully the Naval and Air members of the Log Branch who have no historical connection to a Royal anything service, RCN and RCAF aside, can keep this in check and push it firmly into the dust bin.
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Bird_Gunner45

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 36,656
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 869
Are you bad-mouthing the Royal Canadian Logistics Service?

Not at all... though if they go with that title the acronym would be "RCLS" and might be confused with the Royal Canadian Legion  :panic:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,775
No. He was badmouthing the Royal Canadian Service Corps.  [:D

I can't see why there would be a need to create a Logistics trade "esprit-de-corps" in the Navy, or Air Force for that matter. Our esprit-de-corps is built around the unit onboard which you serve, and the Navy as a whole. We simply don't have large units dedicated to nothing else but logistics, even if the main stores/warehousing facilities on either coasts come close.

Offline Pusser

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 73,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,537
My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:

RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (with Log cap badge)
RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)

Why different cap badges for each environment?  Simple, separate corps/regimental badges are an Army tradition where first loyalty is to the unit.  First loyalty in the Navy and Air Force, however, tends to be to the service as a whole and prior to unification, all members of those services wore the same badge (with variances for rank).  The current Logistics badge does nothing to identify wearers as being members of the Navy or Air Force.  As for the argument that we need a common badge for the whole Branch in order to promote Branch identity and esprit de corps, I would say that it actually does a pretty poor job of that.  First off, in the Navy's case, without a cap badge, no one knows what branch a naval officer belongs to (we don't actually wear caps that much).  Secondly, if this concept is so important, why does it not apply to GOFOs or Army colonels?  I'm aware that GOFOs are actually a separate Branch/occupation, but they still get channeled into jobs commensurate with their former occupations.   The Army colonel situation is one that really gets me: an Army tradition that was deemed important enough to reinstate, but we can't reinstate those of the Navy or Air Force...

Furthermore, the Log cap badges looks odd on a naval cap (too small).  We could use other identifiers on Navy and Air Force officers (NCMs already have their trade badges).
Sure, apes read Nietzsche.  They just don't understand it.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:

RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (with Log cap badge)
RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)

Why different cap badges for each environment?  Simple, separate corps/regimental badges are an Army tradition where first loyalty is to the unit.  First loyalty in the Navy and Air Force, however, tends to be to the service as a whole and prior to unification, all members of those services wore the same badge (with variances for rank).  The current Logistics badge does nothing to identify wearers as being members of the Navy or Air Force.  As for the argument that we need a common badge for the whole Branch in order to promote Branch identity and esprit de corps, I would say that it actually does a pretty poor job of that.  First off, in the Navy's case, without a cap badge, no one knows what branch a naval officer belongs to (we don't actually wear caps that much).  Secondly, if this concept is so important, why does it not apply to GOFOs or Army colonels?  I'm aware that GOFOs are actually a separate Branch/occupation, but they still get channeled into jobs commensurate with their former occupations.   The Army colonel situation is one that really gets me: an Army tradition that was deemed important enough to reinstate, but we can't reinstate those of the Navy or Air Force...

Furthermore, the Log cap badges looks odd on a naval cap (too small).  We could use other identifiers on Navy and Air Force officers (NCMs already have their trade badges).

I agree with you, we know this.  But to play devils advocate how would we career manage the undying need to be everything to everyone that is required of Log types, regardless of uniform (NCMs especially) ?
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 201,461
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,459
No. He was badmouthing the Royal Canadian Service Corps.  [:D

I can't see why there would be a need to create a Logistics trade "esprit-de-corps" in the Navy, or Air Force for that matter. Our esprit-de-corps is built around the unit onboard which you serve, and the Navy as a whole. We simply don't have large units dedicated to nothing else but logistics, even if the main stores/warehousing facilities on either coasts come close.

Interesting because the question regarding the cap badge is eons old now.

The Logistics Branch will be going to the "Royal Canadian Logistics Service".  We are ONE service, we are not three separate services despite protestations otherwise.  The reason for that is because the LS in the RCN (or the Cpl in the RCAF) can be promoted, packed up and moved into a Cdn Army Unit on 30 days notice ... and likewise.  ONE service serving 3 environments - and many more Commands.  ONE merit list no matter the uniform colour etc etc.

One of the CWO Gp recommendations to the Log Branch was that "if you want non-commissioned Logisticians to be proud of the cap-badge they wear, then give them a cap-badge they'd be proud to wear" with comments alluding to the fact that the .02 cent Chinese cheap knock-off that the troops, sailors, airmen & women are currently relegated to wearing sucks.  Proposed that the current Log O cap-badge (larger and more prominent than the troops' current badge) be issued to the troops (IE: presented to them during their QL3 Grad Parade vice handing it to them on day one of their course which seems to be how it now happens) and that Log metal-brass chainlinks (that used to be worn as the collar dogs on the green tri-service dress) be affixed onto the Officer version of said cap-badge over the embroidered links that would serve to differentiate between the two groups.  Cap-badge has to change anyway with our upcoming 50th and re-naming of the Branch.





« Last Edit: May 24, 2017, 14:25:28 by ArmyVern »
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 197,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,429
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
The RCMS would be the obvious comparison.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,775
I was jesting, ArmyVern.

But let's get some vocabulary cleared out: The Logistic branch is a TRADE, not a SERVICE. Before unification, we had three services: The RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF. They were unified into a single SERVICE. Don't believe me? look at the National Defence Act.

This said, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's "purple" trade (my wife was a Log Officer. She is the only one I ever got anything against: my own body  [:)) but as you hinted at, as a trade, you get to serve all three elements. However, the key word here is "serve" the elements. and from a military "esprit-de-corps" point of view, that is where the emphasis belongs while so employed. Which means, for purple trades, it can switch whenever going from one element to the other.

That is why, BTW, and I know many supply tradespeople that wear different uniform than the "army" one tend to see it that way, the Navy has been looking at issuing everyone who wears a Navy blue uniform with the Navy cap badge. The trade, for both NCM's and officers, would be denoted only by collar badges.

Offline ArmyVern

    is awake.

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 201,461
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,459
I was jesting, ArmyVern.

But let's get some vocabulary cleared out: The Logistic branch is a TRADE, not a SERVICE. Before unification, we had three services: The RCN, the Canadian Army and the RCAF. They were unified into a single SERVICE. Don't believe me? look at the National Defence Act.

This said, there is nothing wrong in taking pride in one's "purple" trade (my wife was a Log Officer. She is the only one I ever got anything against: my own body  [:)) but as you hinted at, as a trade, you get to serve all three elements. However, the key word here is "serve" the elements. and from a military "esprit-de-corps" point of view, that is where the emphasis belongs while so employed. Which means, for purple trades, it can switch whenever going from one element to the other.

That is why, BTW, and I know many supply tradespeople that wear different uniform than the "army" one tend to see it that way, the Navy has been looking at issuing everyone who wears a Navy blue uniform with the Navy cap badge. The trade, for both NCM's and officers, would be denoted only by collar badges.

There are many trades that make up the service.

I understand that pre-unification we had three services - which still comprised of numerous trades within each of those services.  These are not those times.  Those big happy budgets were well taken care of by Trudeau 1.0 along with the abundance of personnel who served in the CAF during those times.

I know what the RCN is thinking about doing, BUT just as with the RCAF and the Cdn Army, NO environment "OWNS" their Logisticians.  Logisticians are "owned" and managed by the Branch (soon to be the Service) career-wise outside of those big three environments.  Not so, RCEME etc ... they all wear one uniform and serve in all 3 environments and are career managed by that ONE environment no matter what environment they are serving in - they too are "purple" but owned and managed by ONE environment.

The RCN, the RCAF and the Cdn Army can say no such thing of the Loggies which work within and outside of them.  Even the Cdn Army knows this - their Command Team Course curriculum totally neglects to address the Loggies in Cdn Army uniforms whilst it does address the RCEME and RCCS etc that are purple and "owned" by them.
Hard by MCpl Elton Adams

If you or someone you love is having difficulty & would like to speak to someone who has been through a similar experience, who understands, & will respect your need for privacy and confidentiality, contact OSISS toll-free at 1-800-883-6094. You can locate the peer closest to you by logging on to www.osiss.ca, clicking on “Contact us” link & then choosing the “Peer” or “Family Support Network”. Help IS out there.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 91,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,775
Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:

The Canadian Forces

Constitution

Canadian Forces

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.


This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.

And quite frankly, I don't care that someone wants to manage a "support" function through a single centralized system. Maybe I am behind the times, and maybe I am a dinosaur (scratch that, I know I am a dinosaur) but while the logistics functions have been "unified", so that there is a single set of supply codes, and accounting is done the same way everywhere, etc., they are not and have never been executed in the same  way in all three elements (something I know the army logisticians have a hard time grasping, even today). To my mind, it means that the actual trades or officer occupations cannot be centrally career managed and still work out.

Don't believe me? Here are a few examples: (1) Let's look at Log Officers. A Log Offcr who has graduated in an army uniform and was then sent to an army base as the transport officer, then, after a fashion became the food services officer cannot, and will just not do as my LogO on a ship just because he happens to have been promoted to Captain (or LT, for us sailors). So if the navy is to have enough properly qualified SeaLog officers, it must have some control on the number and promotion of same. (2) "Local" knowledge matters even if in a single supply system: When an item is out of stock, an equivalent is some times provided. What happens when some one out of element is not knowledgeable enough to know what an "equivalent" is? Simple example: I ordered many years ago some polypropylene "two-inch" rope. It was out of stock and the idiot non-Navy supply person at the other end did not understand that in the (all the world's actually) Navy, rope is described by circumference. Apparently, the army does it wrong by using diameter. Guess what happened!!!

In reverse, how on earth do you expect a naval supply tech that's gone all the way to MS (that's MCpl for you landlubbers) onboard ships and working at the Dockyard in Halifax to just be thrown into a Service battalion and shipped in the desert without even knowing how to put on the web gear and body armour required for that duty?

And, BTW, while I have no idea what is taught to  army officers attending the Command Team Course,  I can tell you that ALL aspects of logistics (finance, admin, NPF, supply, transport, food services, etc.) are part of the Navy command development and I have to prove myself competent in all of those aspects before a board to be able to obtain my command certificate. There is a simple reason for that: regardless of the existence of a "logistics branch" and the service on my ship of personnel from the various logistics trades and officer designations, I, solely, am fully responsible for all of these activities onboard my ship, and no "branch (or future "service") can take that responsibility away from me.

/RANT OFF.

Sorry about that ArmyVern. I have developed great respect for you from your posts, but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [:D).
   

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,451
Re: "Re
« Reply #5797 on: May 24, 2017, 16:58:04 »
Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:

The Canadian Forces

Constitution

Canadian Forces

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.


This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.
 

Well, tell that to the Commander-in-Chief

http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2013/2013-11-30/html/gh-rg-eng.html
Quote
The Governor General, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston, is pleased to advise, as Commander-in-Chief of Canada, that the blazons (technical descriptions) of the badges of the following units have been confirmed, as entered in the Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada (Volume, page):

Canadian Forces Medical Service, Ottawa, Ontario, December 20, 2012 (Vol. VI, p. 199).

Canadian Forces Dental Services, Ottawa, Ontario, February 15, 2013 (Vol. VI, p. 210).

The CFMS (an entity that had existed within the Canadian Forces since 1959) has since been re-titled as the Royal Canadian Medical Service and the CFDS (which was so named following unification) has reverted back to the Royal Canadian Dental Corps, but it would not be either unique or "cockamamie" to title the Logistics Branch as the RCLS.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,419
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
My personal preference would be to see a Logistics Branch made up of three sub-branches:

RCN Logistics (wearing Naval Ops cap badge)
Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (with Log cap badge)
RCAF Logistics (with Air Ops cap badge)


Now someone in the Army will read this and demand that the buttons and bows elves make an Cdn Army Ops capbadge...
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 33,618
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,422
  • Ready Aye Ready
Call it what they may, ArmyVern, but whoever's cockamamie idea it is, you can't use the word "service". It is a specific, reserved term, and unless someone is planning on amending the N.D.A., here is what article 14 says:

The Canadian Forces

Constitution

Canadian Forces

14. The Canadian Forces are the armed forces of Her Majesty raised by Canada and consist of one Service called the Canadian Armed Forces.


This is not mere semantics. The word service has meaning in the military, in all military forces in the world. And yes, everyone's "services" are made up of multiple trade.

And quite frankly, I don't care that someone wants to manage a "support" function through a single centralized system. Maybe I am behind the times, and maybe I am a dinosaur (scratch that, I know I am a dinosaur) but while the logistics functions have been "unified", so that there is a single set of supply codes, and accounting is done the same way everywhere, etc., they are not and have never been executed in the same  way in all three elements (something I know the army logisticians have a hard time grasping, even today). To my mind, it means that the actual trades or officer occupations cannot be centrally career managed and still work out.

Don't believe me? Here are a few examples: (1) Let's look at Log Officers. A Log Offcr who has graduated in an army uniform and was then sent to an army base as the transport officer, then, after a fashion became the food services officer cannot, and will just not do as my LogO on a ship just because he happens to have been promoted to Captain (or LT, for us sailors). So if the navy is to have enough properly qualified SeaLog officers, it must have some control on the number and promotion of same. (2) "Local" knowledge matters even if in a single supply system: When an item is out of stock, an equivalent is some times provided. What happens when some one out of element is not knowledgeable enough to know what an "equivalent" is? Simple example: I ordered many years ago some polypropylene "two-inch" rope. It was out of stock and the idiot non-Navy supply person at the other end did not understand that in the (all the world's actually) Navy, rope is described by circumference. Apparently, the army does it wrong by using diameter. Guess what happened!!!

In reverse, how on earth do you expect a naval supply tech that's gone all the way to MS (that's MCpl for you landlubbers) onboard ships and working at the Dockyard in Halifax to just be thrown into a Service battalion and shipped in the desert without even knowing how to put on the web gear and body armour required for that duty?

And, BTW, while I have no idea what is taught to  army officers attending the Command Team Course,  I can tell you that ALL aspects of logistics (finance, admin, NPF, supply, transport, food services, etc.) are part of the Navy command development and I have to prove myself competent in all of those aspects before a board to be able to obtain my command certificate. There is a simple reason for that: regardless of the existence of a "logistics branch" and the service on my ship of personnel from the various logistics trades and officer designations, I, solely, am fully responsible for all of these activities onboard my ship, and no "branch (or future "service") can take that responsibility away from me.

/RANT OFF.

Sorry about that ArmyVern. I have developed great respect for you from your posts, but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [:D).
 

OGBD,

I want to preface with the statement that I share your beliefs in the way we would like to see things run in the log world.

BUT

I was that MS Sup Tech you talk about; who after only serving with the RCN (Minus some time in AFG) was posted to a field unit (CFJSR).  Actually, Vern was my RQ.  I think I did ok.  I managed to get promoted to PO2 and posted back to the RCN in 4 years minus 8 or 9 months of paternity leave.  I actually liked the Army, and I think it taught me allot about leadership that, IMHO, the RCN is neither prepared nor capable to teach.

Lastly I wouldn't over inflate the RCN's grasp of logistics, if I were you.  I cant speak for others but I don't hold the understanding or appreciation of Logistics by MARS O's in great esteem.  The Army, while as difficult as it can be, at least understands it needs beans and bullets to fight and win, the RCN seems to see it as some dark voodoo magic that isn't worth the time in understanding or respecting, until it all goes to shite and the Log Dept is left to pick up the pieces again.

Again I agree with you, in premise, but that's not the way it is, and the RCN will not heavy hand the Log Branch or Service or what ever so we are all going to have to live with it.

Can you further explain this statement:
Quote
but it really gets me going when "support" functions start to think of themselves as more than they are and show signs they want to start running their own show (like that worked out well with the MP's who now think they are real police officers  [:D).

Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way