Updated Army Service Dress project

[Haggis]

Nothing will be more enjoyable than watching a decade go by of mismatched uniforms on parade.

You mean something like the NDHQ Standing Guard? Everything from Highlanders to sailors to SOF in that "unit".

 

[Halifax Tar]

The only people I can recall ever having seen advocating for the return of the square rig are retirees, and officers who wouldn't have to wear it anyways.

There is a segment of our officers (Retired and serving) who have a bizarre fetish for getting our NCMs in square rig.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The only people I can recall ever having seen advocating for the return of the square rig are retirees, and officers who wouldn't have to wear it anyways.

There was a good number of us not even 10 years ago, but who knows how many remain in with the attrition we have. I was always a fan of it, it is what the public envisions when they think Navy.

Berets most likely will remain as they are (perhaps the RCMS/RCDC, RCLS, and RCE will finally be forced into line with the rest of us...) for 3B. I can see a "Tunic on, peak caps on" policy for almost everyone... The Armd and Airborne tend to get a pass for that kind of stuff.

Basically no one uses the ‘standard’ army beret. I think at this point there is basically more in black berets (RCEME, Arty, Armoured, etc.) then the standard beret (basically just Log at this point).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Berets most likely will remain as they are (perhaps the RCMS/RCDC, RCLS, and RCE will finally be forced into line with the rest of us...) for 3B. I can see a "Tunic on, peak caps on" policy for almost everyone... The Armd and Airborne tend to get a pass for that kind of stuff.

What line is that ?

 

[dapaterson]

There is a segment of our officers (Retired and serving) who have a bizarre fetish for getting our NCMs in square rig.

Not unique to the RCN...

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Basically no one uses the ‘standard’ army beret. I think at this point there is basically more in black berets (RCEME, Arty, Armoured, etc.) then the standard beret (basically just Log at this point).

You're kind of off the mark. As far as the Army berets are concerned:

Army Blue - RCCS, RCEME, RRCA, C Int C
Khaki - Foot Guards
Black - Armoured/Cav
Rifle Green - RCE, RCLS, RCChS, RCMS, RCDC, Rifle Regts, Infantry, Everyone else that's still "Branched" in a triservice role.
Maroon - Airborne
Scarlett - MPs
Tan - SOF

What line is that ?

Army members of the RCLS still wear the Rifle Green beret. Going back to lineage, the beret colour used for the RCASC and the RCOC were Army Blue (General Service) as were the RCE, RCAMC, RDCD, and everyone else.

Granted when green was the norm with Unification, green berets made sense because it matched. Now that we (Army) are returning to an Army Service Dress, it would make sense to have those in "Purple" branches adopt Army historical accoutrement. This already has been seen in the RCCS and C Int C, sonI hope that RCLS, RCMS, et al are given their marching orders with this change as well.

I also hope this hastens the death of the "Branch" identifiers (note: Identifiers, not structure. Structure makes sense) that is no longer relevant in our current Army imaging and branding.

 

[dapaterson]

Basically no one uses the ‘standard’ army beret. I think at this point there is basically more in black berets (RCEME, Arty, Armoured, etc.) then the standard beret (basically just Log at this point).

RCA and RCEME are blue, not black.

 

[Edward Campbell]

You're kind of off the mark. As far as the Army berets are concerned:

Army Blue - RCCS, RCEME, RRCA, C Int C
Khaki - Foot Guards
Black - Armoured/Cav
Rifle Green - RCE, RCLS, RCChS, RCMS, RCDC, Rifle Regts, Infantry, Everyone else that's still "Branched" in a triservice role.
Maroon - Airborne
Scarlett - MPs
Tan - SOF



Army members of the RCLS still wear the Rifle Green beret. Going back to lineage, the beret colour used for the RCASC and the RCOC were Army Blue (General Service) as were the RCE, RCAMC, RDCD, and everyone else.

Granted when green was the norm with Unification, green berets made sense because it matched. Now that we (Army) are returning to an Army Service Dress, it would make sense to have those in "Purple" branches adopt Army historical accoutrement. This already has been seen in the RCCS and C Int C, sonI hope that RCLS, RCMS, et al are given their marching orders with this change as well.

I also hope this hastens the death of the "Branch" identifiers (note: Identifiers, not structure. Structure makes sense) that is no longer relevant in our current Army imaging and branding.

I suppose I understand the fascination with uniforms from circa 1965 - the year before Paul Heller changed everything - but the beret is a Johnny-come-lately bit of kit from the 1930s and '40s. This is a real Army cap - loads of room for regimental "expressions of identity."

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I suppose I understand the fascination with uniforms from circa 1965 - the year before Paul Heller changed everything - but the beret is a Johnny-come-lately bit of kit from the 1930s and '40s. This is a real Army cap - loads of room for regimental "expressions of identity."

We've talked about this, Ed...

 

[Furniture]

So here we are - a country that prides itself on being "Canadian" (because we modify equipment that doesn't need to be modified to "Canadianize" it) but we slavishly copy the British et al. Then when we do something original (DEU) we slag ourselves for it.

We are our own worst enemy.

I'd say most of the issues with DEU stem from it being ugly. On it's own it's a bad looking uniform, and when there are examples of other Commonwealth armies with much sharper uniforms, it makes sense to follow that pattern.

Also, look at US army uniforms of the period, we didn't create a new colour or style of uniform, we simply aped the US army rather that the British one.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Army members of the RCLS still wear the Rifle Green beret. Going back to lineage, the beret colour used for the RCASC and the RCOC were Army Blue (General Service) as were the RCE, RCAMC, RDCD, and everyone else.

Granted when green was the norm with Unification, green berets made sense because it matched. Now that we (Army) are returning to an Army Service Dress, it would make sense to have those in "Purple" branches adopt Army historical accoutrement. This already has been seen in the RCCS and C Int C, sonI hope that RCLS, RCMS, et al are given their marching orders with this change as well.

I also hope this hastens the death of the "Branch" identifiers (note: Identifiers, not structure. Structure makes sense) that is no longer relevant in our current Army imaging and branding.

Seen. A couple follow on.

I assume you mean just the Army folks in those purple branches ?

What branch identifiers are you talking about ?

Why not keep the branch and get rid of the purple ?

 

[lenaitch]

As an outsider, and one who started out his policing career when the long tunic, with Sam Browne, was normal service dress, I've always felt that an unbelted tunic looks so boring and unfinished. At least the US soldier in this image has his properly tailored. Something that drives me slightly nuts is to see members wearing trousers that are a big puddle of fabric at the feet.

 

[Rifleman62]

You can get Sam Browne belts in black, brown, cow/bison/Asian leather or patent leather for purchase now.

 

[Rifleman62]

Best of luck to the staff who pull together Vol I and II of the CA Dress Manual.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I assume you mean just the Army folks in those purple branches ?

100 percent. I would even go one further and have the RCAF/RCN folks badge under the RCAF/RCN cap badge, while maintaining their trade identifiers. Historically, it was a concession with Unification for the Army when the Regimental/Corps identifiers were in the crosshairs. I would posit that if the Army is back to its old ways, it's redundant for the RCAF/RCN to retain that scar of 1968.

What branch identifiers are you talking about ?

As I alluded to above, I would say the "cap badges" for folks outside the Army that serve no real purpose outside of the Army/JArmy environment.

The RCN have their departments within the ship construct, everyone knows where they are headed to and who to ask for things, even on shore.

The RCAF have their folks to run to when it comes to

Why not keep the branch and get rid of the purple ?

Branches were, originally, supposed to group perceived "common body of work" and were mainly for corporate knowledge/personnel management functions. For example:

• LORE was seen to be flawed because ..well...the RCEME was LORE and why change?
• The Security Branch split along the MP/Int line because there was enough of a differentiation between the two that it no longer made sense.

-The C&E branch is a farce and I have said that to Director's face: its fractured, the "body of work" is far more diverse than it is common, and it has a used more headaches than it's saved.
-I would say the only "Branch" thar continues to make sense is the Engineering Branch, as it truly does have a large commonality and they ha e maintained a solid espirit de corps regardless of trade or environment.

You yourself have said in other threads the Logistics Branch is massively diverse across the CAF and there are far more intricacies doing Navy Log versus Air or Army Log. We have recognized that within the Officer side, but refuse to acknowledge such in the NCM world. Same with the MSE side. HR/Fin should honestly look at being civilianized and made remote, as the "real time" support provided in theatre is mainly to act as a middle man for CJOC J1/J8.

As for the "purple," I think there is an agreement in that force employment should no longer be "purple" but foundational training should remain. If DRMIS is DRMIS on ship, shore, and sky than you have your answers.

When it comes to uniforms, however, have the RCLS folks in the Army side follow the Army and let the RCN/RCAF folks adopt their respective branding. It would do more to bridge the gap between the support arms and the "real" operations arms that exist in practice. All are RCAF/RCN, no longer folks playing pretend.

 

[Furniture]

100 percent. I would even go one further and have the RCAF/RCN folks badge under the RCAF/RCN cap badge, while maintaining their trade identifiers. Historically, it was a concession with Unification for the Army when the Regimental/Corps identifiers were in the crosshairs. I would posit that if the Army is back to its old ways, it's redundant for the RCAF/RCN to retain that scar of 1968.


As I alluded to above, I would say the "cap badges" for folks outside the Army that serve no real purpose outside of the Army/JArmy environment.

I actually think branch cap badges make a lot of sense, even though they weren't part of the RCN and RCAF traditions before unification.

I always found it odd wearing an Air Ops cap badge when my job had very little to do with what most Air Ops folks did. Int makes far more sense, and currently I don't fell lesser than sailors with navy cap badges.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I actually think branch cap badges make a lot of sense, even though they weren't part of the RCN and RCAF traditions before unification.

I always found it odd wearing an Air Ops cap badge when my job had very little to do with what most Air Ops folks did. Int makes far more sense, and currently I don't fell lesser than sailors with navy cap badges.

Legit question, does it usually matter when you're wearing a ball cap or bush cap day to day? How about on parade?

 

[Furniture]

Legit question, does it usually matter when you're wearing a ball cap or bush cap day to day? How about on parade?

That's the thing though, if it doesn't matter, why change it? If it does matter, why should I have to lose my branch identity?

I wear 3B to work every day, and I wear my peak cap rather than a beret. I like that it's clear that I am both a sailor, and Int.

The Int Op trade has essentially gone from "purple" to being element specific, so they have already pretty much gone back to three services with a common baseline and school. They manage this with the Int badge on members hats rather than losing that identity.

 

[FSTO]

I actually think branch cap badges make a lot of sense, even though they weren't part of the RCN and RCAF traditions before unification.

I always found it odd wearing an Air Ops cap badge when my job had very little to do with what most Air Ops folks did. Int makes far more sense, and currently I don't fell lesser than sailors with navy cap badges.

I want the RCAF badge and the RCN badge on the respective caps for purely aesthetic reasons. Same reason that I absolutely hate the coat of many colours parades.

Yes I'm the dinosaur and I don't care.

 

[Halifax Tar]

100 percent. I would even go one further and have the RCAF/RCN folks badge under the RCAF/RCN cap badge, while maintaining their trade identifiers. Historically, it was a concession with Unification for the Army when the Regimental/Corps identifiers were in the crosshairs. I would posit that if the Army is back to its old ways, it's redundant for the RCAF/RCN to retain that scar of 1968.


As I alluded to above, I would say the "cap badges" for folks outside the Army that serve no real purpose outside of the Army/JArmy environment.

The RCN have their departments within the ship construct, everyone knows where they are headed to and who to ask for things, even on shore.

The RCAF have their folks to run to when it comes to


Branches were, originally, supposed to group perceived "common body of work" and were mainly for corporate knowledge/personnel management functions. For example:

• LORE was seen to be flawed because ..well...the RCEME was LORE and why change?
• The Security Branch split along the MP/Int line because there was enough of a differentiation between the two that it no longer made sense.

-The C&E branch is a farce and I have said that to Director's face: its fractured, the "body of work" is far more diverse than it is common, and it has a used more headaches than it's saved.
-I would say the only "Branch" thar continues to make sense is the Engineering Branch, as it truly does have a large commonality and they ha e maintained a solid espirit de corps regardless of trade or environment.

You yourself have said in other threads the Logistics Branch is massively diverse across the CAF and there are far more intricacies doing Navy Log versus Air or Army Log. We have recognized that within the Officer side, but refuse to acknowledge such in the NCM world. Same with the MSE side. HR/Fin should honestly look at being civilianized and made remote, as the "real time" support provided in theatre is mainly to act as a middle man for CJOC J1/J8.

As for the "purple," I think there is an agreement in that force employment should no longer be "purple" but foundational training should remain. If DRMIS is DRMIS on ship, shore, and sky than you have your answers.

When it comes to uniforms, however, have the RCLS folks in the Army side follow the Army and let the RCN/RCAF folks adopt their respective branding. It would do more to bridge the gap between the support arms and the "real" operations arms that exist in practice. All are RCAF/RCN, no longer folks playing pretend.

What capbage would the Army Log folks wear ? On the Army side the Log Br is made up of RCOC, RCASC, RCAPC and I'm sure others.

For the RCN and RCAF it would be easy.

I do think the Log Br should should be "de-purpleized" for the NCMs. But I think the common trades training and systems should be retained.

Interestingly with the MMTs (Sup Techs) taking over a portion of the NPF duties on HMC ships the case continues to grow in support of the differences in the elements. And this gaining of NPF duties is actually another case of whats old is new again, as in RCN 1.0 there were two Storesmen. Victualling Storesman which managed the NPF, commissary, rations, laundry and clothing and; the Naval Storesman which dealt in spare parts and operational logistics. The two streams came together at the CPO, very similar idea to what our WENG techs do now.