[SprCForr]

Which is why blaming parties for shit like this is a no-win. One's just as self absorbed as the other.

[EyeBrock]

c2shinysea c2shinysea:

Well, the dude part is a slight misnomer but I'll overlook that. It appears that along with the hat makers and souvenir folks are also those who bemoan and wish for days gone by. Sure, I'd love to see the old 'n bolds see the Navy of their days wearing the Royal moniker again but that was their Navy and not the one I belong to today. If the Royal designation fits in with what we need as a maritime force, then it has it's place, if not, then like all things obsolete it has to go the way of the dodo bird. As I said, I like where we've been in the last 20 years and I like where we are going in the transformation. I'm looking forward to seeing out my next 18 years in whatever they want to call us. I joined to defend my country not to get caught up in name that element.

It wasn't 'obsolete', it was a purely political decision. I'm actually surprised to find a fish-head who doesn't value tradition. "Their Navy"? So much for the 100th anniversary.......is your 'navy' only 40 years old?

Even the old Empire countries such as India, South Africa et al have three distinct Services with the links to the founding units celebrated. They even still use the same ranks and same uniforms.

If you look at the Aussies and NZ they still manage to be very Aussie and Kiwi with Royal Navies, the same or very similar uniforms as they have always had.

Even the US Navy celebrates it's Brit heritage.

But Maritime Command chugs on, pretending to be a 'Navy', calling itself that on it's website despite the official fact that it isn't.

In the military there is a lot in a name and history/heritage. It is the tie that binds our bands of brothers.

[Scape]

SprCForr SprCForr:

Which is why blaming parties for shit like this is a no-win. One's just as self absorbed as the other.

BINGO!

Here what the government of the time would have to deal with:

Say for example the government had a $1 million stipend to dole out for the force for the current budget cycle. The forces would be told to present their requests for funding and say that the Army said they needed all of that $1 million the navy would then one up the army and say THEY needed 1.2 Million and then the Air force would demand they needed $1.5 million. These numbers were inflated based on ego, not on need and it was HERESY for any of the forces to work together to divvy up the budget at all. Add to this toxic environment they ALL of the senior brass were staunch conservative supporters and saw the liberal government of the time as the enemy.

It was amazing we had a CF at all after all of that. Now we at least have a CF that at is trained in combined forces doctrine as to do that before you might as well admit to being gay. There were SO MANY spurious and frivolous redundancies created because we had essentially THREE different armed forces each with their own priorities fighting for the same budget. It was like a Siamese triplets sharing the same heart, not the best way to run things.

[Freakinoldguy]

Scape Scape:

Keep livin the dream F old guy. Things were not as rosy under the old standard as you may have been led to believe. Why do you think they called them ivory towers after all? Something HAD to give and the choice presented was the country or the ego's of a few senior bass that though their shit didn't stink and couldn't share between the three branches to save their own skin. But blame Hellyer if it makes you sleep well at night.

Reminds me of the time when the truck drivers tried to form a union under Irving to demand a higher wage of .50 and hours. Irving response? Everyone who wants to work for .40 follow me, the rest... your services are not required.

Oh I agree. We had Admirals who went to sea without the Governments authority, we had Senior Officers who lived a life of luxury and were basically despots but that still doesn't excuse unification.

As the matter of fact if one half of what was written in Tarnished Brass is true then the lifestyle of senior officers of all services, Army included, got even more opulent after unification than before.

I do admit though that the Navy had some problems, but, I can with certainty say that both the Army and the Air Force had these same types of problems, which raises the question why did the Navy and the Air Force suffer the indinities of having their uniforms and rank structure changed to the Army one?

Why were they forced to dress in an Army uniform that they, unlike the regiments they couldn't personalise? The Army used Regimental Flashes and Buttons but the Navy and Air Force were't allowed to. I wonder why? Hell, in 1983 I even had the opportunity to see the General in Charge of Dress and Deportment asked that same question. Guess what, he couldn't give an answer why the Navy and Air Force weren't allowed this luxury.

None of these changes had anything to do with the cost of running three commands like was claimed and everything to do with replacing the Navy as the Senior Service in Canada and removing the Air Force as the darling of the public.

[EyeBrock]

And Scape, you'll see I'm not laying the entire blame at the feet of the Libs on this.

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'm all for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy when it deserves such a name. Until such time, the more appropriate name would be the Royal Canadian Task Force.

Mind you, no offence to anyone.

Of course you're trying to offend. At least man up and admit it.

Because government chronically underfunds it means that the huge efforts by the rank and file that work with sub standard budgets and a huge can-do attitude don't deserve anything?

Nice. You're a class act.

[EyeBrock]

He's just messing Gunnair.

He knows that you guys do a great job. As do I.

[saturn_656]

$1:

Say for example the government had a $1 million stipend to dole out for the force for the current budget cycle. The forces would be told to present their requests for funding and say that the Army said they needed all of that $1 million the navy would then one up the army and say THEY needed 1.2 Million and then the Air force would demand they needed $1.5 million. These numbers were inflated based on ego, not on need and it was HERESY for any of the forces to work together to divvy up the budget at all.

What is so remarkable about this? Limited size money pie, cheapskate government, no wonder the three branches fought to get the best for their service.

$1:

Add to this toxic environment they ALL of the senior brass were staunch conservative supporters and saw the liberal government of the time as the enemy.

Boy did the Liberals prove them wrong!

[Gunnair]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

He's just messing Gunnair.

He knows that you guys do a great job. As do I.

Some shit you don't mess with. Especially not these days...

[EyeBrock]

I never complained when we missed the runway at Port Stanley.
Bloody Rodneys!


Per Ardua ad Astra mate!

[Scape]

Freakinoldguy Freakinoldguy:

Oh I agree. We had Admirals who went to sea without the Governments authority, we had Senior Officers who lived a life of luxury and were basically despots but that still doesn't excuse unification.

The uniform is an issue of pride, to smooth the transition they could have just left it as is but the transition was never done as intended. Hellyer himself said he was only 60-80% done before Trudeau showed him the door. So I think a lot was left on the chopping floor that simply did not make any sense. However, it was shit or get off the pot time so there was cutting to be done as well as getting the CF all working under one command.

Was it botched? Yes. Was it sustainable as it was? No. Something had to change and a peace time army that was a generation out of the last major conflict and in need of a serious retrofit was looking like a lot of money going to something that was not a political pressing need. With all the squabbling by the top brass the onus was on them to present a united front for the sake of the forces to the government and they put their pride before the good of the troops and this was the result. Yes, the government was going to chop but the Brass didn't do themselves any favors either.

[EyeBrock]

It was a bad move, end-ex.

No amount of excuses will change it.

[Freakinoldguy]

Unification was a bad move, but not the combining of the three commands into one central command. Having a military our size with three services fighting over appropriations was ridiculous.

They needed like scape said to get their financial shite together and the only way to do it was under one umbrella. Now that being said didn't mean that they should have cashiered two of the three branches of the military while doing it.

That was a plain mean spirited act by a Defense Minister and Government.

As for the uniform thing. At least the Navy and Air Force have distinct uniforms now, so gone are the days of having old women come up to you in the CN Train Station and ask you to carry their bags for them. A true story.

[c2shinysea]

$1:

In the military there is a lot in a name and history/heritage. It is the tie that binds our bands of brothers.

With all due respect EyeBrock, why don't I pull up a sand bag and light the old lamp and you can regale me with stories of old naval traditions. Or is my having two generations of Air Force, two generations of Horse Artys, four generations of Royal Marines and seven generations of Naval personnel going to cut short your story time? Shall I take note that the histories of my family and those members that find themselves named on memorials in Ypres, Falklands, Singapore, Burma, Hong Kong, Halifax, Ortona, Malta, Korea and Afghanistan aren't the stuff that binds the bands of brothers?

Lecture all you'd like on the traditions and snot rendering cliches, decry all those who fail to comprehend the importance of antiquated terms and please by all means, feel free to gloss over that most folks in the CF don't give a rats ass about what name we operate under as long we have the bodies, equipment and transport to do our jobs. The days of hanging out in the messes are over. Folks nowadays just want to go home at the end of the day whether that day extends to 6-12 month deployments or it's a 7-4 day at the base. My day does not end with sitting around with the boys telling a ditty or two over a tot or seven, but beetling on home to spend what precious time I have left with my family before I dig into my briefcase for the notes I need to prepare for yet another Briefing on what we need to do to make something else better or struggle with tearing apart another fiscal budget because it has to be reduced by another 15% and I have to decide that it's either training or operational money that has to go.

What I find with most of the old 'n bold is that they miss the days of old, God love them for it, but they can't or won't comprehend that things have changed in the CF that they once knew. Sadly, those days of old where Zulu warriors were danced on tables of NAAFI and pub crawls meant days not a few nods at the local are long gone and most of the old 'n bold won't admit it.

So please do tell me what traditions I need to know that are going to make me a better sailor and part of that band of brothers you speak of. Tell me how renaming an element is going to assist units like mine to scrape together funding to keep some of the Class B's employed for another year and how do we keep our valuable pers from jumping ship because they've done more than their share of duty and they are tired, worn out physically and want to know who their kids are before they have grandkids. I'm all ears.

[rickc]

This is an excellent thread!For an American an informational one as well.Not to mention very entertaining.Kind of like watching the WWE.Early on,I found myself rooting for EyeBrock.As a traditionalist {and admitted admirer of the British Empire}I felt that any move to disconnect from the Royal Canadian Navy is a big step back,and a huge loss of prestige.The Royal Navy is one of the greatest navies in world history.To be associated with such a navy is a huge feather in the cap if you will.Then I read c2shineysea's comments.I started to think that mabey I am a fossil,living in the past.I have not been in the military for 23 years now.A lot has changed.The cold war is over.Missions,uniforms,equipment,people,budgets,doctrine,have all changed.Who am I to scold someone who is currently making the sacrafices to defend one's country while I am safe on land contributing nothing but sarcasim? {I am not saying people are not free to rebutt,just that I should not rebutt}

No matter what Canada decides to call its Navy,I think some major upgrades are in order.A lot of countries with regional navies can exist with non-nuclear navies.If Canada wants to keep the Maple leaf planted in the Artic,I see no alternative to a nuclear navy.It is a vast amount of water to patrol.There is no way a non nuclear sub force and its refueling demands can stand up to potential nuclear adversaries.Arm twisting us Americans {while you have a favorable U.S. government in office},buying from France,etc.Canada is going to have to belly up to the bar.Mabey its time for Canada to cut back on "peace keeping" and solving other peoples problems,and start concerning themselves with the upcoming problems of the 21st century.Canada is like the European nuetrals in the 1930's.See the handwriting on the wall.Other countries are wheeling and dealing,making treaties to carve up the Artic.Countries are making treaties with each other,and leaving Canada out of the process.Take some friendly advice from someone who used to live in Canada.Canadians are polite to a fault.Sometimes Canadians would rather lose everything rather than being seen as being rude.The world IS changing.If Canada is serious about keeping the Artic,then Canada is going to have to be taken seriously.No one is going to take a non nuclear navy seriously.