A Canadian White Ensign proposal

[Halifax Tar]

Any way you look it, this particular issue is a Naval issue and that needs to be raised and addressed by Naval personnel

 

[Ex-SHAD]

I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.

I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?

Now admittedly, yes the Army and Militia did lose both the Canadian Guards Regiment and the Black Watch Regiment, which were very politically motivated decisions, and yes officers don’t wear stars and crowns anymore, and have to wear their rank on their sleeve rather than on their shoulders (though if we’re to go back historically, wearing rank on one’s shoulders was only introduced during WWI), but overall the land forces of Canada were not horribly shaken by unification.

If tomorrow however, it were to pass that all regiments across the board were to lose their “Royal prefix”, their scarlet dress uniforms (or blue or green affiliation dependent), their regimental flags/guidons/pennants etc, I highly believe that a majority would cry foul and demand that the destruction of their traditions and their regiments cease.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the discontent of Naval personnel and why they long to have a service of their own, rather than being forced to incorporate Hellyer era follies and failures.

 

[q_1966]

I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.

Im army...what does that tell you, mind you all my time has been with the navy.

Of course I'm for a white ensign but not with a blue cross on it, how about a small border of white so the Canadian flag doesn't touch the cross (If we were to change it).
Though I would be more happy with...
RCN and RCAF name change
A change for the pre-unification (RCMP salute) for the Army and RCAF, that Hellyer must of hated so much
Officers naval uniform should have 8 buttons not 6
The brass rank cuff button for C&PO's uniform *sidenote is wearing a white handkerchief in the pocket (on certain occasions) like the old days still authorized?
but for the most part If they brought back the square rig and called it RCN (as a ceremonial uniform) I would join again as a Rating.
Not that I haven't considered joining the RAF / RN or anything

 

[George Wallace]

I’ve noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.

I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?

I think all Elements suffered, not just the RCN and RCAF.  If you think that they are the only two to have suffered, then you are looking at a false history through rose coloured glasses. 

Now admittedly, yes the Army and Militia did lose both the Canadian Guards Regiment and the Black Watch Regiment, which were very politically motivated decisions, and yes officers don’t wear stars and crowns anymore, and have to wear their rank on their sleeve rather than on their shoulders (though if we’re to go back historically, wearing rank on one’s shoulders was only introduced during WWI), but overall the land forces of Canada were not horribly shaken by unification.

The whole CF was cut back. 

As for uniforms and rank; where do you figure the officers bars came from?  Why yes!  Those were Air Force and Navy ranks; not Army.  Where did the CF (Rifle Green) Uniform come from?  It was a compromise that did away with the uniforms of all three Elements.  Now we see the Air Force and Navy have brought about changes and we now have DEUs which now make all formal parades at most units look like a gaggle of ________.

If tomorrow however, it were to pass that all regiments across the board were to lose their “Royal prefix”, their scarlet dress uniforms (or blue or green affiliation dependent), their regimental flags/guidons/pennants etc, I highly believe that a majority would cry foul and demand that the destruction of their traditions and their regiments cease.

This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered. 

Sorry.  I figured if you want to live in the past, then lets go all the way.

Hopefully this sheds some light on the discontent of Naval personnel and why they long to have a service of their own, rather than being forced to incorporate Hellyer era follies and failures.

Actually it only sheds light on your opinions.  As I said, you are looking through rose coloured glasses at a warped sense of history. 

 

[q_1966]

This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered. 

Well at least we don't have lead paint, like in wartime but unfortunatly the old ships ie: Algonquin and Protector still have asbestos.
maybe we could go with the Esmerelda's design on our new ships
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmeralda_%28BE-43%29

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think all Elements suffered, not just the RCN and RCAF.  If you think that they are the only two to have suffered, then you are looking at a false history through rose coloured glasses.

Support your point don't just say your wrong and run away.

The whole CF was cut back. 

As for uniforms and rank; where do you figure the officers bars came from?  Why yes!  Those were Air Force and Navy ranks; not Army.  Where did the CF (Rifle Green) Uniform come from?  It was a compromise that did away with the uniforms of all three Elements.  Now we see the Air Force and Navy have brought about changes and we now have DEUs which now make all formal parades at most units look like a gaggle of ________.

No they were Air Force ranks not Navy. The RAF adapted the bars on the sleeve and got rid of the E-Curl. I agree it looks like _____ all mashed together on parade square SO lets just separate ? No need to waste money posting people from element to element.

This is not in the spirit of this discussion and a red herring.  We are not talking about getting rid of something, but of reverting back to something we had in a soon to be distant past.  Perhaps we should also be looking at having the Navy revert back to wooden Tall Ships -- a lot cheaper to build that what we have now.  Just think -- a "Green" Navy.  No Diesel engines.  No carcinogenic grey paints.  All wind powered.

Sorry.  I figured if you want to live in the past, then lets go all the way.

Fighting a red herring with a red herring... hmmmmmm

Actually it only sheds light on your opinions.  As I said, you are looking through rose coloured glasses at a warped sense of history.

I think you may be out of touch with how many in the Navy feel GW. But that's just my opinion and I don't wear glasses

 

[q_1966]

SO lets just separate ? No need to waste money posting people from element to element.

I think that's a little extreme, interoperability is a good thing (plus it would cost more to stand up a separate Naval Air Arm).

 

[xFusilier]

I've noticed that whenever the NAVY and its servicemen discuss bringing back some of the old RCN traditions; it seems that the strongest and most vocal opponents tend to be members of the ARMY/MILITIA.

I have to wonder though; would members of the Army/Militia be so quick to criticize if they had suffered as harshly under unification as the RCN & RCAF did?

Unification had a cross board effect, on the three armed services.  To state that the consequences of unification for the army were simply the transfer of the Cdn Guards to the Supplementary Order of Battle, and the striking to nil strength of the two Regular Force Battalions of the Black Watch is a simplification of the effect that unification had on the Army.  Not only did unification have a dramatic effect on the Army, but as a whole the 1960's were a challenging era for the Army.  The Queens Own Rifles and The Fort Garry Horse ceased to exist as Regular Force regiments.  A number of Militia Regiments were either amalgamated or placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle.  And the implementation of National Survival caused severe retention problems for the Militia.  Many Corps, with proud histories, such as the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, the Royal Canadian Engineers, and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps ceased to exist post-unification, and its members dispersed into branches that were an amalgamation on the support functions of the three services.  I will caveat these statement that these are based on my understanding of the history of that time, and will defer to the members of the board that actually lived through unification.

As we look into the more recent past the army has looked to address some of the decisions that were made at that time.  The renaming and rebadging of LORE to EME, the renaming of 2 NSH to the Cape Breton Highlanders among some of the initiatives.  However none of these indicatives involved getting in the way-back machine to the good old days of yore.  LORE became EME, not RCEME.  The Cape Breton Highlanders was a change in name alone, they did not re badge or revert to wearing Argyll kit as they did before. 

It seems that this discussion has once again degenerated to a "bows and buttons" argument.  The reality is that the most important part of any uniform or order of dress is the soldier/sailor/airman wearing it.  The reestablishment of the Ordnance Corps, or the reversion to stars and crowns, or the introduction of khaki uniforms for the Army will have little effect on the ability of the soldier of the day to do his job, and the introduction of a Naval Ensign, or the return to square rig, or eight button tunics will have an equally negligible effect on the Navy of today.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Unification had a cross board effect, on the three armed services.  To state that the consequences of unification for the army were simply the transfer of the Cdn Guards to the Supplementary Order of Battle, and the striking to nil strength of the two Regular Force Battalions of the Black Watch is a simplification of the effect that unification had on the Army.  Not only did unification have a dramatic effect on the Army, but as a whole the 1960's were a challenging era for the Army.  The Queens Own Rifles and The Fort Garry Horse ceased to exist as Regular Force regiments.  A number of Militia Regiments were either amalgamated or placed on the Supplementary Order of Battle.  And the implementation of National Survival caused severe retention problems for the Militia.  Many Corps, with proud histories, such as the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, the Royal Canadian Engineers, and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps ceased to exist post-unification, and its members dispersed into branches that were an amalgamation on the support functions of the three services.  I will caveat these statement that these are based on my understanding of the history of that time, and will defer to the members of the board that actually lived through unification.

As we look into the more recent past the army has looked to address some of the decisions that were made at that time.  The renaming and rebadging of LORE to EME, the renaming of 2 NSH to the Cape Breton Highlanders among some of the initiatives.  However none of these indicatives involved getting in the way-back machine to the good old days of yore.  LORE became EME, not RCEME.  The Cape Breton Highlanders was a change in name alone, they did not re badge or revert to wearing Argyll kit as they did before. 

It seems that this discussion has once again degenerated to a "bows and buttons" argument.  The reality is that the most important part of any uniform or order of dress is the soldier/sailor/airman wearing it.  The reestablishment of the Ordnance Corps, or the reversion to stars and crowns, or the introduction of khaki uniforms for the Army will have little effect on the ability of the soldier of the day to do his job, and the introduction of a Naval Ensign, or the return to square rig, or eight button tunics will have an equally negligible effect on the Navy of today.

Great post xFusilier! Thank you for information, and I mean that honestly. I especially liked the last paragraph! Very true.

 

[Scott]

So someone Army made this make sense to you?

Here I thought it should be left to Navy pers...

Bows, buttons, beards...*sigh*

 

[Halifax Tar]

So someone Army made this make sense to you?

Here I thought it should be left to Navy pers...

Bows, buttons, beards...*sigh*

No being Army or not has nothing to do with his post. He formulated and articulated a solid view point in a debate without being condescending or rude, a rarity on these forums at times. I appreciate this.

I stand where I did, its a Navy issue and should left for Navy folks, xfusilier simply provided some examples of how the Army suffered during and after unification, I can appreciate this to.

 

[57Chevy]

What some people seem to miss is that if we did something wrong in the past, sometimes what need to be changed the most is the way we change things.

Taking from or bringing forward things from the past has a way of taking away some dignity to those of which it applied.
As an example,
Look at the little Silver Maple Leaf pin worn over the red para wings on dress uniforms. It represents and pertains only to a specific time period of service. Some members continue to wear it even though there exists a new pattern. Does that not express a significant amount of dignity to the wearer and also to those who previously wore it ? Even though there was only a slight change to it, it becomes a token of remembrance shared by all those to which it applied.

I can remember as a young soldier seeing members wearing their old hat badges. They were given the choice to either adapt the new badge or not. Many continued to wear the older style until completion of their service, and would not have it any other way. It would have been an insult to the older members for any new member to wear "their" hat badge because it does not reflect their place in history.

 

[Scott]

No being Army or not has nothing to do with his post. He formulated and articulated a solid view point in a debate without being condescending or rude, a rarity on these forums at times. I appreciate this.

I stand where I did, its a Navy issue and should left for Navy folks, xfusilier simply provided some examples of how the Army suffered during and after unification, I can appreciate this to.

Fair enough

 

[FSTO]

To O'Leary - no insult intended, just trying to point out an example of changing a proud organization into something else just for the sake of change.

 

[McG]

... this particular issue is a Naval issue and that needs to be raised and addressed by Naval personnel

Not entirely.  Implementing this issue would require CF resources.  All the environments have input into the approval of eachother's big projects. 

The benefits of change for the sake of change feel-good initiatives will be negligable and short lived.  The spent resources will be gone forever.  In most of these cases, the consumption of staff hours will be more significant than the money - but in many major projects it is staff capacity that is the limiting resource.  This really is a question of prioreties - capabilities or symbols.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Not entirely.  Implementing this issue would require CF resources.  All the environments have input into the approval of eachother's big projects. 

The benefits of change for the sake of change feel-good initiatives will be negligable and short lived.  The spent resources will be gone forever.  In most of these cases, the consumption of staff hours will be more significant than the money - but in many major projects it is staff capacity that is the limiting resource.  This really is a question of prioreties - capabilities or symbols.

How is the change of a flag a "big project" and I would be interested to see how it would impact the Army or AF ?

 

[Journeyman]

How is the change of a flag a "big project" and I would be interested to see how it would impact the Army or AF ?

I've got nothing to say in the "flag change" hand-wringing; I'm not Navy. The topic, however, morphed into a "return to Royal Canadian Navy because the Navy's been screwed over all these years" thread.

So while I've got absolutely no dog in the flag discussions, I can't help but think that returning to RCN/RCAF for whatever reason, implies a strong streak of Monarchism in the CF -- which I am not, and I do not believe is a widely held view. While not necessarily a "big project," it may effect perceptions of all CF members, even us lowly Army types. 



That being said, I'll go back to the spectator mode.  op:

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we should get rid of all the royal titles in the CF that includes the naming of our ship HMCS _____  :alarm: :alarm: :alarm:

;D ;D :blotto: :blotto:

 

[Michael OLeary]

To O'Leary - no insult intended, just trying to point out an example of changing a proud organization into something else just for the sake of change.

And the point I have been trying to get across, which some have wildly chosen to ignore, is that simply changing the flag (or anything else) based on some antecedent that hardly any serving member remembers firsthand may equally be seen by newer members as "change for the sake of change." They need to be sold on the idea in a current context - not because it "fixes" a tiny piece of something that happened before most of them were born.

Change isn't bad. But change which doesn't make sense to those who experience it can turn into a bitter experience - exactly like that which so many are still rending their clothes over every time something like this comes up. It's not a Navy thing - it's an establishment thing, and if we can't break the pattern of how we engineer change, then we're not fixing anything, we're just creating the potential for a new festering problem for the next generation to fight over.

 

[medicineman]

I think that Her Majesty might want to wait until after the election before deciding if she'll re-bestow those honourifics...they may get removed again.

MM