Sailors to Wear CADPAT?

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Gino,
Seeing as though I am a MARS officer, a good chastising is like breathing air and walking...it happens so often and regular that indeed it becomes second nature.  I go forward, however, head bowed and chastised.  As for more couth and a higher class of comrades...well, one word, submarines.  I'll let your imagination paint its own sordid picture of the nature of my social circles.   :-\  (And well done FSTO- I am an east coaster..)

Missile man,
I must admit that the fact that you consider a "ball-cap" is more professional and naval than a beret leaves my eye-brows in a rather knit fashion.

A little more on topic, however, I must say that I find it a bit disheartening that the CF is in such a state that such basic things as a different uniform for different services is even a subject for debate due to fiscal constraints....echoes of Hellyer shouting out from the not so distant past.

Yep and Yep. I can't believe that we are even thinking about this but the problem is that Ottawa gets what Ottawa wants.
I was a MARS officer before studying to be a Padre (77-81) and cannot bring myself to wear a beret with my salt and peppers either. I must admit though it is a lot easier to pack for air travel lol
I have a USN exchange officer working for me and he has the new black wedge for their navy....worn with black shirt and pants....looks like Hitler Youth lol.

I hope that someone has the intergrity to stand up and be counted in Ottawa the next time the CF dress committee comes up with this idea. My understanding is that it's on the table....God help us all :rage:

 

[Gino]

Gino,
Seeing as though I am a MARS officer, a good chastising is like breathing air and walking...it happens so often and regular that indeed it becomes second nature.  I go forward, however, head bowed and chastised.  As for more couth and a higher class of comrades...well, one word, submarines.  I'll let your imagination paint its own sordid picture of the nature of my social circles.   :-\  (And well done FSTO- I am an east coaster..)

Missile man,
I must admit that the fact that you consider a "ball-cap" is more professional and naval than a beret leaves my eye-brows in a rather knit fashion.

A little more on topic, however, I must say that I find it a bit disheartening that the CF is in such a state that such basic things as a different uniform for different services is even a subject for debate due to fiscal constraints....echoes of Hellyer shouting out from the not so distant past.

Good to see some penitence when shown the error of your ways.  We could use some more of that around here.  Submarines explains much.  A stalwart lot, but definitely rough around the edges.  In fact, back in the days of the jolly green business suit, submariners only brought their berets when they deployed because there was no room for peaked caps.  Or so it was claimed.  I imagine they still use the same line to this day.

As for ballcaps, they have a certain utilitarian function, but they look far too Yankee and non-naval for my tastes.  We need to leave 'em for seagoing use only where they belong.

Yes, someone should point out to the CF Dress Committee what huge cost savings could be achieved if we all went to common uniforms for all services.  In fact, the whole parallel rank structure is expensive and confusing.  Perhaps we should go to a common one.  Hmm.  It's all sounding vaguely familiar.  God save us from beancounters and pongos.  It brings to mind my favourite Milton quotation:

When we cannot measure the things that are important, we ascribe importance to the things we can measure

 

[childs56]

 Nothing, and I mean nothing looks more unprofessional than the air force version of cadpat - blue undershirt, blue embroidered name tag and rank, with a blue wedge?  I saw a reg force captain wearing this atrocity one day and thought he was in cadets, or a really, really mis-guided reservist.

Was it unprofessional looking because of the person wearing it or because of the way it looks?
I have no problem with the blue shirt or blue tags, the wedge is going a bit far.

 

[Furniture]

I die a little inside when I see people wearing their wedge in CADPAT.

 

[SeaDog]

Gino -and here I was sitting thinking that the Milton quote that would warm you the most was that "the superior man acquaints himself with many sayings of antiquity and many deeds of the past, in order to strengthen his character thereby. "  However I digress. 

As for the wedge/beret issue, I must admit that although it makes me shudder to see a wedge and 'bats...at least you can't screw up a wedge...judging by some of the various and sundry shapes, sizes, proportions and all around manglings of berets I've been priveleged to observe on base...perhaps the wedge is not that bad an idea for one and all!

 

[Phrontis]

When I heard that they were considering putting us Navy types in CADPATs, I almost involuntarily turned my fox hole into a latrine.

Seriously, though, did we learn nothing about the negative effect a single uniform has on esprit de corps after unification?

 

[SeaDog]

The crux of this subject is that there should not even be a debate.  Individual branches and trades within the CF all have specific roles and responsibilities.  No one would expect an infanteer to deploy in an arid, desert environment in temperate uniforms...when that happened at the commencement of our involvement in Afghanistan even  the media was aghast.  Why then would you expect naval personnel to wear a non-fire retardent uniform in a hazardous, flammable environment? Why do pilots get issued flight suits? Because of the particular demand of their trade.  The examples, CF wide, could go on ad nauseum.  Even though tradition and esprit de corps play major roles here as well, the truth of the matter lies in the fact that different occupations demand different equipment...including uniforms.  As I have said before, the fact that a change for navy pers to combats is even being considered (for fiscal reasons) is evidence of a far deeper, longer running problem in the CF.

 

[warrickdll]

Regarding berets: A true traditionalist would insist on the tricorne?

http://www.defence.gov.au/news/NAVYNEWS/EDITIONS/2001/03_19_01/STORY17.HTM

While the unibag was a bad idea, so was the elephant slipper. Uniforms were never meant to stay static in their appearance; fashion, technology, and practicality are among the reasons that uniforms should (and do) evolve.


Is there any push in the Navy to move away from the workdress style NCD?

Would the style of the Crew Suit or the CADPAT uniform be more utilitarian (ignoring the colour)?

 

[SoF]

Maybe we could start with an NCD shirt of a quality high enough that is was not rendered thread bare after the first few washings? 

Agreed gravyboat; those shirts become rags so fast. As of now I have one huge tear in my shirt on the sleeve and 2 buttons missing.

 

[fctlmn]

Sucks to be at Canada Command then., even though it's 'joint' we all have to wear Cadpat, actually it's 'jarmy' - Joint but mostly Army. The dress gods can't even decided to let us Navy folks wear a different colour t-shirt, if we have to wear the damn stuff at all. At least you can tell an AF type from afar by the t shirt. You have to be 1 pace away to make out the anchor on the name tape.

 

[GO!!!]

The crux of this subject is that there should not even be a debate.  Individual branches and trades within the CF all have specific roles and responsibilities.  No one would expect an infanteer to deploy in an arid, desert environment in temperate uniforms...when that happened at the commencement of our involvement in Afghanistan even  the media was aghast.  Why then would you expect naval personnel to wear a non-fire retardent uniform in a hazardous, flammable environment? Why do pilots get issued flight suits? Because of the particular demand of their trade.  The examples, CF wide, could go on ad nauseum.  Even though tradition and esprit de corps play major roles here as well, the truth of the matter lies in the fact that different occupations demand different equipment...including uniforms.  As I have said before, the fact that a change for navy pers to combats is even being considered (for fiscal reasons) is evidence of a far deeper, longer running problem in the CF.

While you bring up a valid point with reference to fire retardant uniforms, I fail to see why Naval Nomex could not be in CADPAT, given the cost savings and obvious point that while sailors do not require camoflage, soldiers often do.

Also, for the record, I went to Afghanistan in 2002 in green, regardless of the "popular demand" of the thousand or so troops that went. Our "popular demand" for suitable rucksacks, boots, radios and tents also went unheeded, so I am of the opinion that the Directorate of Land Requirements (and the other elemental equivalents) decide what is "best" for us, practicality or demand have little or no impact.

Beyond the stock "resistance to change" argument, is there any quantifiable, fiscally or logistically convincing reason that sailors could not wear CADPAT nomex coveralls on a ship?

 

[hugh19]

Well I have a better idea, since the navy is the senior service. Everyone should wear NCD's. Which of course are much better for wear in the field.

As regards to a quantifiable answer. We are in the NAVY not the F***ing army!!!! So please F*** off with the wearing army S*** for sailors.

 

[Sub_Guy]

It is a silly idea! Cost effective? No.... We need nomex coveralls, and thats it, coveralls are the answer, we wear them on boats (subs), although they are boarding party coveralls but they are a million times more comfortable than NCD's.  I know the USN has a camouflage uniform but can anyone on here confirm that they wear them on ship?  I thought it was a baseside dress only.  And if that's the case then there wouldn't be much of a cost savings would there?  The Air Force and Army operate in a similar environment (Land), where the Navy has its own environment (sea).  For us to end up with Green Cadpat on ships is stupid, but I could see us wearing it on base, but there is no costs saved in that scenario

 

[GO!!!]

GO, why cadpat when Navy blue has worked since we've been navagating by sextant?

Commonality with Air Crew, and Crew of AFVs, who all require Nomex coveralls. If the CF were able to buy XX 000 sets of these, the cost would be lower than if each element continued the protection of dress on little more than principle.

At the end of the day, planes still fly and boats still sail, regardless of whatever the crew wears on their backs. The army are the only ones who the enemy actually sees in an environment where he is able to do him harm. In my mind, that would be a pretty good reason!

 

[SeaDog]

Go,
Valid point...fiscally it would be cheaper to have us wear army combats onboard...no doubts there.  But are we THAT short on cash that we're trying to cut corners with distinctive uniforms?  If so we have more serious problems...As for the traditional side of things...what if NDHQ decided to eliminate cap badges and other things regimental - everyone wears the cornflake etc. - to cut down on costs? Army types would lose it spouting out "unit cohesion" "tradition" and "esprit de corps" until everyone had a headache.  And with good reason.  I personally would if I were in the army...just as I am now about this encroachment on naval traditions.  Some things are worth more than budgets.  This is one of them.

 

[Sub_Guy]

True, there is no reason why those who require nomex coveralls should all be wearing the same thing, this is cost effective, but for a sailor to be wearing the same CADPAT as his infanteer brother is a bad idea, as there is no firefighting benefits of the Army Cadpat Combats.  Personally I don't care what I wear, as long as it offers protection against my biggest threats and on ship that is a fire....  As for uniforms all looking the same, we all wear different N1's (for now, who knows what they have planned for that) and that is enough distinction for me, besides, if you took your average Naval fellow and placed him beside your average army fellow, I am willing to bet that the Sh*tlocker is going to give the navy gent away.......

 

[SeaDog]

(looking down at my own sh**locker)  It's not THAT bad...

 

[Phrontis]

SeaDog has hit the nail on the head.  There are other, and potentially more significant, considerations than mere fiscal savings.  Just becuse it might be cheaper to put everyone in one uniform, doesn't mean it's a sound move.

Surely good leadership means knowing how best to motivate your people, and for the Navy I think that includes recognizing our desire to be a distinct force with our separate naval identity.

We'll drive our ships through a s*** storm to get the army to the beach, but let us look like sailors as we do it.

 

[ZipperHead]

Am I the only one (army-type, that is) that sees the irony in the navy people here (on ARMY.CA) being so opposed to wearing CADPAT?!? Dont' worry, when you guys start Navy.ca, I'll pop in to see how the other half lives....  >

I understand that you guys want NOMEX (or acceptable fire retardant clothing). In fact, I want NOMEX CADPAT, as I am a crewman, and I am frequently surrounded by many flammable materials in my tracked-coffin (when on tracks) or my wheeled-coffin (when in Coyote or LAVIII).

I would think that navy pers would WANT to have something that would serve as camouflage if/when their ship is sunk and they have to make it to shore, and then the CADPAT would help them blend in to the local surroundings. I guess that since it hasn't happened to Canadian sailors (in wartime) for about 60 years, little thought goes into that aspect. Maybe it should. Operational clothing should be more about PERFORMANCE and less about FASHION (or history). Remember when the army used to wear red jackets and hats with plumes? Yeah, that was over 100 years ago. We let that one go after we realized that warfare changed. You might want to do the same. Save the snazzy threads for shore leave.

Al

 

[Gino]

Am I the only one (army-type, that is) that sees the irony in the navy people here (on ARMY.CA) being so opposed to wearing CADPAT?!? Dont' worry, when you guys start Navy.ca, I'll pop in to see how the other half lives....  >

I understand that you guys want NOMEX (or acceptable fire retardant clothing). In fact, I want NOMEX CADPAT, as I am a crewman, and I am frequently surrounded by many flammable materials in my tracked-coffin (when on tracks) or my wheeled-coffin (when in Coyote or LAVIII).

I would think that navy pers would WANT to have something that would serve as camouflage if/when their ship is sunk and they have to make it to shore, and then the CADPAT would help them blend in to the local surroundings. I guess that since it hasn't happened to Canadian sailors (in wartime) for about 60 years, little thought goes into that aspect. Maybe it should. Operational clothing should be more about PERFORMANCE and less about FASHION (or history). Remember when the army used to wear red jackets and hats with plumes? Yeah, that was over 100 years ago. We let that one go after we realized that warfare changed. You might want to do the same. Save the snazzy threads for shore leave.

Al

Since you ground pounders were gracious enough to give us a forum, why not use it?

I think though, you might have naive view of naval ops.  If your ship is sunk, hiding out on an island is probably the least of your worries.  I seriously wonder if a Canadian sailor who was sunk has ever been in a position where camouflage might have saved him.  Believe me, naval combats are anything but snazzy, but it's better than lookin' like a pongo.