Current Dress Regs

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I see the LRDG / SAS .... I mean the Rat Patrol, has entered the chat.

Well played, Rudburg.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 85607

Yeah and I can tell they never drove in Afghanistan. I played Rat Patrol for a bit - as soon as you hit one of the shit and piss filled run offs in a street, it splashes on your face. When combined with the fuel run off you’re never getting that out of a beard.


So you go from this.

To this as soon as you can get anywhere to wash and shave.

 

[Rudburg]

Yeah and I can tell they never drove in Afghanistan. I played Rat Patrol for a bit - as soon as you hit one of the shit and piss filled run offs in a street, it splashes on your face. When combined with the fuel run off you’re never getting that out of a beard.

Fair point. I recognize that the desert version of the SAS isn't a perfect example of what operational soldiers should look like at all times. But they are operational soldiers, and pretty good ones at that. In another picture taken at the same time, their CO is standing right next to them, so clearly he didn't care what they looked like.

I was making a quick rebuttal to a point that Eaglelord had made and then doubled down on - that literally everyone should shave their entire head and face at all times, "because lessons learned in war." I've read plenty of WW1 and WW2 AARs and I've never seen haircuts being mentioned.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The policy allows commanders to restrict grooming standards for operational reasons.

Did women with long hair perform at lower standards than those other women with short hair in Afghanistan?

Yes, we need a single standard for all. That standard is not short hair for everyone. The environment between WW1 and now are very different and the reason short hair was mandated then may not apply today.

I have seen women struggle with maintaining longer hair in the field, have a tougher time fitting equipment, and all because of a vanity, not a necessity.

Can people do the job with longer hair? Yeah most the time it would be fine. Can people do the job in civvies? Yeah most the time. Is it best practice? No for both.

Fair point. I recognize that the desert version of the SAS isn't a perfect example of what operational soldiers should look like at all times. But they are operational soldiers, and pretty good ones at that. In another picture taken at the same time, their CO is standing right next to them, so clearly he didn't care what they looked like.

I was making a quick rebuttal to a point that Eaglelord had made and then doubled down on - that literally everyone should shave their entire head and face at all times, "because lessons learned in war." I've read plenty of WW1 and WW2 AARs and I've never seen haircuts being mentioned.

You can find examples of exemptions to anything. Special forces aren’t going to be following general policy in equipment, attire, and tactics, they tend to adapt to whatever the specific mission is. Trying to base general policy on them isn’t necessarily the best course of action.

Why would you find examples of haircuts being mentioned in AARs? It was the standard, anything other than that was the deviation.

Short hair was for cleanliness, hygiene, ease of care, and keeping hair out of your eyes well shooting. Clean shaven is directly related to the gas attacks of WWI. Everyone went into that war with long hair and beards. Everyone came out with short hair and clean shaven.

 

[Kilted]

The policy allows commanders to restrict grooming standards for operational reasons.

Did women with long hair perform at lower standards than those other women with short hair in Afghanistan?

Yes, we need a single standard for all. That standard is not short hair for everyone. The environment between WW1 and now are very different and the reason short hair was mandated then may not apply today.

I feel like telling women that they had to shave their head would lead to a lot of VR's and an even bigger shortage of women looking to join the forces.

 

[Rudburg]

You can find examples of exemptions to anything. Special forces aren’t going to be following general policy in equipment, attire, and tactics, they tend to adapt to whatever the specific mission is. Trying to base general policy on them isn’t necessarily the best course of action.

The problem is that no one-size-fits-all policy will work for all circumstances. You gave your preferred policy as everyone shaves their hair, which serves no operational purpose and would aggravate people for no good reason.

Why would you find examples of haircuts being mentioned in AARs? It was the standard, anything other than that was the deviation.

You made the claim that shaved heads - even for women and Sikhs - are justifiable based on wartime lessons learned: "Short hair, natural colour, clean shaven for all. That is a military hair style as learned from lessons in two world wars and Korea. No religious exemptions, no exemptions based off sex, no exemptions based off nationality. One standard for all thats completely justifiable from a health and safety standpoint."

I'm saying that I've seen all sorts of soldier well being and dress matters being discussed in AARs. Compelling soldiers to bathe, foot hygiene procedures, laundry procedures and requirements for spare uniforms, where to carry field dressings, complaints about the shapes of ration cans, reprimands about adequacy of latrines and toilet paper, and so on. Just about any imaginable item that would impact on combat performance or morale - but not haircuts.

Clean shaven is directly related to the gas attacks of WWI. Everyone went into that war with long hair and beards. Everyone came out with short hair and clean shaven.

No disagreement - so when the situation demands it, we can make soldiers shave for their own safety. We don't need to do it all the time.

But most dress regulations have nothing to do with operational effectiveness. Read the dress manual - it's hundreds of pages about where buttons go on dress uniforms and what ties go with your mess kit. Most of our rules regarding haircuts fall into this category, in that they are things that are fundamentally arbitrary.

 

[Blackadder1916]

I was making a quick rebuttal to a point that Eaglelord had made and then doubled down on - that literally everyone should shave their entire head and face at all times, "because lessons learned in war." I've read plenty of WW1 and WW2 AARs and I've never seen haircuts being mentioned.

I was also wondering what those "lessons learned" were. Was the learning restricted solely to the Canadian Army or would due consideration be given to the experience of other major participants, like the (British) Indian Army? For comparison the CEF in WW1 numbered 630,000 (424,000 went overseas); British India's equivalent, the Indian Expeditionary Forces (which saw fighting on the Western Front, in East Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt and Gallipoli) provided nearly 1.5 million Muslim, Sikh and Hindu men for overseas service. The barbering standards of a significant portion of those all volunteer components were quite different than the norm (civilian and military) of the typical Canadian in the first half of the 20th century. A similar comparison can be made for the Second World War.

But does "shaving their entire head and face" actually contribute to military efficiency? My assumption is that the hypothesis is based on two requirements. The first being the importance of maintaining a seal on a respirator which primarily relates to beards. The simple (and absurd) solution would be to not enroll anyone who could grow a beard. The second requirement would be the importance of keeping clean. Not just the social notion of clean so as to not offend those with whom one is in close contact, but personal hygiene so that one doesn't spread disease. That is a military imperative; there were more casualties caused by disease during the world wars than by enemy action. And once hair and cleanliness are mentioned "lice" automatically are assumed to be the culprit. Or to be nitpicking (pun intended), should that be "culprits", since there are three varieties of the critters, each with their own habitat and dangers.

Starting from the top, it's the head louse or Pediculus humanus capitis that finds it home. The one next most probably encountered (in the first world) would be the pubic louse, Pthirus pubis, the friendly neighbourhood crotch critter. And then the one most connected with settings of war, poverty and disaster is the body louse or Pediculus humanus humanus. The first two, head and pubic lice, while uncomfortable, embarrassing and irritating are relatively benign (though if left untreated can develop local secondary skin infections). They are not necessarily associated with uncleanliness and are not usually vectors for disease, though encountering a patient with crabs is an indication to check for sexually transmitted infections. The body louse, however, is a different creature. She doesn't hang out and lay her eggs on the host's hair but in the seams of their clothing. The body louse, in particular, has epidemiological importance because it is a vector of the causative agents of three important human diseases: epidemic typhus, trench fever, and louse-borne relapsing fever. I suppose it could be said that was one of the "lessons learned" in the Great War - it was determined in 1918 that the body louse was responsible for trench fever.

Shaving the head (and crotch) would not have an effect on controlling the transmission of those diseases.

 

[Rudburg]

I was also wondering what those "lessons learned" were. Was the learning restricted solely to the Canadian Army or would due consideration be given to the experience of other major participants, like the (British) Indian Army?

Most of what I have read deals with the Canadian or British formations. The CEF did have a small number of Indian soldiers but only a few dozen or so. Here is an example of one - Buk Am Singh - The Canadian Virtual War Memorial - Veterans Affairs Canada

On the topic of lice - this was a nuisance for soldiers but it never attracted the same level of chain of command attention as trench foot. That said, they were aware of general hygiene requirements and tried to do what they could. If you read through any CEF Infantry Battalion's war diaries from WW1, you will see that they rotated out of the front lines about once a month for a 4-5 day stretch. They had a standard routine for how they filled those days, which was almost always a round-robin of half days doing sports, bayonet practice, zeroing rifles, and compulsory baths and laundry. The latter had quite a few control measures attached to it, and soldiers were required to have a chit signed by the supervising officer proving that they had bathed.

 

[KevinB]

Fair point. I recognize that the desert version of the SAS isn't a perfect example of what operational soldiers should look like at all times. But they are operational soldiers, and pretty good ones at that. In another picture taken at the same time, their CO is standing right next to them, so clearly he didn't care what they looked like.

I was making a quick rebuttal to a point that Eaglelord had made and then doubled down on - that literally everyone should shave their entire head and face at all times, "because lessons learned in war." I've read plenty of WW1 and WW2 AARs and I've never seen haircuts being mentioned.

I was just being a smart ass - and relating one personal experience.
I did the "FULL SEAL" beard thing for a bit even after the poop face drenching (it grew back imaging that )
I've had relatively short hair all of my life - so the Army wasn't a burden on me when I joined in 1987 and I knew that haircuts were a thing. I find long hair annoying as fuck - and still do a 000 on the side and back every week unless I'm lazy or traveling.

I don't enjoy shaving, especially in the field - IMHO it's less hygienic, as you have the nasty shaving water - and folks are going to nick their faces - which in an environment that you can't wash every day - who the fuck cares about shaving...

*Note when asked why you didn't shave in the field, saying "Because I don't want to look like Leatherface and you Sergeant Major" isn't usually a reply that goes over well. I used to use a AA electric that always ended up giving the 5 O'clock shadow look in the field, at 0900...

Personally I find the NBCW argument for masks to be a red herring, as to have any actual chance you need a sealed non permeable suit that has its own air. Obviously those are expensive, and so the respirator is there to lull folks into a sense of security that doesn't exist, kind of like the bayonet to get young troops willing to rush forward into danger --> Rangers Lead the Way - I'm going to sit here and see what happens

 

[CountDC]

ok admitting up front - I am being lazy here.

Can someone advise on the current dress regs in regards to males wearing earrings? I am wondering as I recently saw a couple members wearing what I know was not at standard before and do not recall an amendment sent around to change it. One had black ear expanders, the other had large coloured stones. last I saw we were now allowed to wear to the old standard of small diamond or gold balls centred in the lobe that female members have worn for years. Also wondering if we are still restricted to one earring in each ear.

and before everyone starts - I had earrings before I joined, have worn them out of uniform and have had numerous discussions at different levels on the wearing of them. I also have more than one hole in the ear (and yes I have heard the multiple holes in the head comments). At one point before it all became fashionable I was wearing 5 earrings in a Halifax bar.

 

[Blackadder1916]

On the topic of lice - this was a nuisance for soldiers . . .

The question I raised in my post was rhetorical with a tinge of sarcasm, but thanks for responding. Lice. How can I count the ways it's a nuisance? Actually, I did count them once, back in the 1970s, in Wainwright, when I assisted in checking a company for lice (pubic lice) when several members of its soldiers reported on sick parade at the same time with the same crotch critter complaint. A few of them had been entertained by the same "lady" prior to deploying on ex. Whether it was warranted to check everyone for migratory pests (despite the claim of a couple of the guys that they had nothing do with the girl, you can't get crabs off a toilet seat), when you spend a couple of hours examining other men's nether regions, nuisance is an understatement.

 

[dangerboy]

ok admitting up front - I am being lazy here.

Can someone advise on the current dress regs in regards to males wearing earrings? I am wondering as I recently saw a couple members wearing what I know was not at standard before and do not recall an amendment sent around to change it. One had black ear expanders, the other had large coloured stones. last I saw we were now allowed to wear to the old standard of small diamond or gold balls centred in the lobe that female members have worn for years. Also wondering if we are still restricted to one earring in each ear.

Here is the regulations

BODY ADORNMENT​

1. Jewellery. The wearing of jewellery is permitted in uniform however members must not:
   1. Wear jewellery over uniform items;
   2. While in uniform, have ear piercings and ear gauges/spacers of more than 2.5 cm diameter or diagonal measurement;
   3. Have piercings above the shoulders except on the ears;
   4. Wear jewellery in piercings which are normally covered by uniforms if they pose a risk of injury;
   5. Wear jewellery that impairs the members’ safety or ability to perform their duties;
   6. Wear jewellery that a CAF member knows, or ought reasonably to know, are connected with criminal activities (e.g., criminal gangs), that promote and/or express, on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination as defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), the following: hatred, violence, discrimination, or harassment; or
   7. Wear jewellery that a CAF member knows, or ought to know, promote and/ or express: racism, sexism, misogyny, misandry, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or sexually explicit material.

 

[dangerboy]

To add when wearing number 1 order of dress there are further restrictions:

1. Piercings: the only jewellery authorized in piercings are single or single set of stud or single stone ear rings (one in each ear) in the ear lobe(s). Earrings shall not exceed one centimetre square or diameter. Gauges/spacers shall not exceed 2.5 cm in diameter; and

 

[Rudburg]

Personally I find the NBCW argument for masks to be a red herring, as to have any actual chance you need a sealed non permeable suit that has its own air. Obviously those are expensive, and so the respirator is there to lull folks into a sense of security that doesn't exist, kind of like the bayonet to get young troops willing to rush forward into danger --> Rangers Lead the Way - I'm going to sit here and see what happens

I agree. If the mask is properly maintained and has actually been fit tested, it should have an excellent seal. Unfortunately, most people have whatever mask they were given and there is no guarantee that it fits properly.

For CS gas, no big deal, but serious nerve agents are another story.

 

[Rudburg]

The question I raised in my post was rhetorical with a tinge of sarcasm, but thanks for responding. Lice. How can I count the ways it's a nuisance? Actually, I did count them once, back in the 1970s, in Wainwright, when I assisted in checking a company for lice (pubic lice) when several members of its soldiers reported on sick parade at the same time with the same crotch critter complaint. A few of them had been entertained by the same "lady" prior to deploying on ex. Whether it was warranted to check everyone for migratory pests (despite the claim of a couple of the guys that they had nothing do with the girl, you can't get crabs off a toilet seat), when you spend a couple of hours examining other men's nether regions, nuisance is an understatement.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Personally I find the NBCW argument for masks to be a red herring, as to have any actual chance you need a sealed non permeable suit that has its own air.

I'm sorry Kevin, but that is absolutely untrue.

 

[KevinB]

I'm sorry Kevin, but that is absolutely untrue.

Well ever wonder why SOF (inc CANSOF) don’t go poking around nasty places in standard gear?

Sure if you are static and not under fire a non positive pressure suit can work - but do you think the hood seal on a standard CF suit is viable when shooting, moving and otherwise doing the business? But if you in a gaseous environment, it and the old US Army hood setup will fail brutally.

I know you worked at DRES and have live agent experience— but just like USAMRID, ever wonder why the folks in the lab have different stuff? Or why when doing LA stuff there was folks in the full meal deal?


I’m sorry in that sort of situation a 60% pass rate doesn’t appeal to me.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I'm not going to talk about (CAN)SOF operational procedures.

I know you worked at DRES and have live agent experience— but just like USAMRID, ever wonder why the folks in the lab have different stuff?

They don't. They will wear BA/SA and imperm if the threat calls for it. Usually bio.

Or why when doing LA stuff there was folks in the full meal deal?

Full perm suit, imperm boots/gloves and air purifying respirator, unless the threat calls for more. I know the US live agent training is much more restrictive than ours. We have had foreign nationals walk out of scenarios because they aren't used to realistic training.

Edit: when we are digging up a nerve round in Suffield we are wearing CAF issued PPE and are certainly not static digging a six foot long trench by hand. PPE works.

 

[KevinB]

PM sent I think you’ll understand my point in that.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I have seen women struggle with maintaining longer hair in the field, have a tougher time fitting equipment, and all because of a vanity, not a necessity.

Can people do the job with longer hair? Yeah most the time it would be fine. Can people do the job in civvies? Yeah most the time. Is it best practice? No for both.

That wasn’t the question. Did they perform to a lower standard? It has nothing to do with the maintenance of the hair.