Naval Officers Once Again to Wear the Executive Curl

[Lex Parsimoniae]

I don't understand why there is so much speculation on what will happen with the Naval Cadet anyway.  A curl in the thin bar has been authorized for Naval Cadets' mess kit for several years. See page 3A-1-6 in the Dress Manual.

I agree - the simplest approach would be to use the ranks already authorised for mess kit.  In my opinion, there is very little difference between an A/SLt and SLt so I would also be quite happy for them to wear the same rank (as they currently already do on their mess kit, should they own one).

 

[Snakedoc]

Your refreshingly honest statement about a general lack of knowledge of the history of the RCN reveals a problem that should be fixed. 

Not sure if Cheeky Monkey has done his MARS II/NETP-O course yet but this is generally when the 'bulk' of Canadian Naval history is introduced to a MARS Officer (though from what I recall, it was more like 'read this and then you get quized' type of format).  Also, would naval history not be incorporated in the education at RMC in some way?

There is much to learn from our history and I agree that a lack of knowledge is a problem that should be fixed.

 

[Neill McKay]

I agree - the simplest approach would be to use the ranks already authorised for mess kit.  In my opinion, there is very little difference between an A/SLt and SLt so I would also be quite happy for them to wear the same rank (as they currently already do on their mess kit, should they own one).

Fair point, but it would look odd alongside the corresponding army and air force ranks.

 

[willellis]

Fair point, but it would look odd alongside the corresponding army and air force ranks.

That's a good point! Since we are one force essentially, it should be the same rank insignia for everyone. At least I think it should.

 

[hugh19]

But we are not one force. If we were a marine engineer and a combat engineer could switch places. But we do serve the same master. The three services are different for a reason.

 

[1feral1]

That's a good point! Since we are one force essentially, it should be the same rank insignia for everyone. At least I think it should.

Its not the Canadian Armed Force is it.

The one force concept died many years ago ( first appearing in about 1989'ish if I remember right), when air force got its blues, navy its whites and the army kept the garbage hand-me-downs from everyone else.

I think it is a return to individual branch/service pride sadly lost in the Trudeau era.

One thing I like about being down here is that nothing has changed in 70+ years, all three services have their own identity, esprit du corps, and own rank structure/badges of rank.

Its how Canada once was not so long ago. This makes it important to maintain and preserve long standing customs and traditions in which otherwise would be lost.

OWDU

 

[gcclarke]

But we are not one force. If we were a marine engineer and a combat engineer could switch places. But we do serve the same master. The three services are different for a reason.

And that's all well and good for a total of 3 trades: MARS, NCSEO, and MSEO. Every single other naval officer is in a purple trade. So when you have Naval Logistics Officers on course in Borden side by side with their , people should be able to tell, at a glance, that those SLts are equivalent to those Lts. The same goes for our Bioscience Officers, Health Care Admins, IntOs, Military Police Officers, Nurses, Personnel Selection Officers, Pharmacists, Public Affairs Officers, Social Work Officers, and Training Development Officers.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And that's all well and good for a total of 3 trades: MARS, NCSEO, and MSEO. Every single other naval officer is in a purple trade. So when you have Naval Logistics Officers on course in Borden side by side with their , people should be able to tell, at a glance, that those SLts are equivalent to those Lts. The same goes for our Bioscience Officers, Health Care Admins, IntOs, Military Police Officers, Nurses, Personnel Selection Officers, Pharmacists, Public Affairs Officers, Social Work Officers, and Training Development Officers.

Which was my point a few days ago:

I think the executive curl is just another problem unless it is part of a larger, Navy, solution.

Back when the earth was still cooling and I was in the staff college, one of my classmates, who went to achieve very, very high rank in the navy, proposed just such a solution: total Navy identity for all naval personnel - this is before we had "Coates of many colours", i.e. the DEU introduced by then Minister of National Defence Robert Coates to replace the "jolly green jumper" - wherein their status as Navy overrode their status as members of this, that or the other branch.

I can't remember the details but I do recall that it involved the curl for MARS and MARE and straight stripes plus a badge for all others, plus colours between the stripes and so on. I also recall that he had an all ranks solution.

Some years later, when he held flag rank and we were reminiscing over a pint or two, he mentioned that the idea was not dead but it never quite worked its way up anyone's list of priorities. He also reinforced the notion that identity 'solutions' for the Navy and the Air Force, while very highly desirable, were still fraught with difficulties and needed to be comprehensive: all ranks and all branches, in both services, and all at once.

Even if all that is done is to reintroduce the executive curl or Elliott's eye for MARS and MARE officers the effect will still be to sideswipe the 'other' naval officers.

But bringing a coherent naval identity programme to fruition would involve, I suggest, a complete rethink of the CF's identity philosophy, whatever it is, and will involve questions like: what is more important? service (navy, army, air force) or branch? and: is the branch a military organization or a professional association?

I think the reason even small changes to identifiers, like the executive curl, are resisted by so many senior officers is that they have no stomach for the larger questions - not when there are so many other important things on their plates.

I also think the 'identity issue' is important and is something of a festering sore in the CF that ought to be treated sooner rather than later - before it erupts.

My guess is that the Navy can manage the executive curl for MARS and MARE if no other changes, such as inverting the SLt rank stripes, are made but anything beyond that will be deemed to be too complicated. I also guess that individual MARS and MARE officers, themselves, will have to pay for this change, which will be, of necessity, mandatory.

 

[Pusser]

Do not even THINK about limiting this to MARS and MARE officers!!!  ALL officers in the RCN had the curl.  Naval Logistics Officers are just as much a part of the Navy as the others and in fact, some of us have more sea time.  Any kind of differentiation of this sort would create a "we're better than you" mentality that would be devastating to morale.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Do not even THINK about limiting this to MARS and MARE officers!!!  ALL officers in the RCN had the curl.  Naval Logistics Officers are just as much a part of the Navy as the others and in fact, some of us have more sea time.  Any kind of differentiation of this sort would create a "we're better than you" mentality that would be devastating to morale.

OK, so you want the CMS to impose a new Navy thing on the Log Branch, and, by extension, on the whole CF.

What if the Air Force, for example, wants all AF members to wear the Air Ops cap badge? (I know one recently retired very senior AF officer who thinks that's an important, indeed essential step forward for the Air Force - to affirm service loyalty.) Would the Log Branch be OK with that?

Is the Log Branch an important military organization, within the CF, or is it just something akin to a professional association or trade union? What about you, Pusser, are you a Navy logistics officer or a Logistics officer in the navy?

 

[gcclarke]

OK, so you want the CMS to impose a new Navy thing on the Log Branch, and, by extension, on the whole CF.

What if the Air Force, for example, wants all AF members to wear the Air Ops cap badge? (I know one recently retired very senior AF officer who thinks that's an important, indeed essential step forward for the Air Force - to affirm service loyalty.) Would the Log Branch be OK with that?

Is the Log Branch an important military organization, within the CF, or is it just something akin to a professional association or trade union? What about you, Pusser, are you a Navy logistics officer or a Logistics officer in the navy?

I am a NTO, so I may be somewhat biased in this. In this case, it's actually more so Parliament imposing something upon the Canadian Forces. But even if this was a CMS initiated measure then yes, I do not have a problem whatsoever with him enforcing a change to Naval Rank Insignia for all personnel who wear that Naval Rank Insignia. Your point about cap badges is a complete Non Sequitur. Nothing about this change affects anything that is unique to the Logistics Branch.

Now, if the CMS went ahead and unilaterally re-introduced the coloured branch stripes between bars on the rank insignia (Which, by the way, I am in favour of) without consulting the various branches, then perhaps your argument would have merit. If he suddenly decided that all Naval LogOs would we wearing a pink stripe between their yellow bars, then yes, that's an issue. Same if he decided that they weren't allowed to wear their cap badges anymore.

The CMS is not be imposing a new Navy thing on the Log Branch, he'd be imposing it upon all Naval Officers, including those who happen to be LogOs. There is a big difference there.

And regardless of all of that, the CF Dress Instructions are issued under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff, who certainly does have the right to impose his will with regard to this issue upon all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including the Logistics Branch.

 

[FSTO]

Is the Log Branch an important military organization, within the CF, or is it just something akin to a professional association or trade union? What about you, Pusser, are you a Navy logistics officer or a Logistics officer in the navy?

A Sea Logistics Officer (in my mind) is part of the Navy. They have to do logistics in a unique environment that their counterparts in the AF and Army do not face.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am a NTO, so I may be somewhat biased in this. In this case, it's actually more so Parliament imposing something upon the Canadian Forces. But even if this was a CMS initiated measure then yes, I do not have a problem whatsoever with him enforcing a change to Naval Rank Insignia for all personnel who wear that Naval Rank Insignia. Your point about cap badges is a complete Non Sequitur. Nothing about this change affects anything that is unique to the Logistics Branch.

Now, if the CMS went ahead and unilaterally re-introduced the coloured branch stripes between bars on the rank insignia (Which, by the way, I am in favour of) without consulting the various branches, then perhaps your argument would have merit. If he suddenly decided that all Naval LogOs would we wearing a pink stripe between their yellow bars, then yes, that's an issue. Same if he decided that they weren't allowed to wear their cap badges anymore.

The CMS is not be imposing a new Navy thing on the Log Branch, he'd be imposing it upon all Naval Officers, including those who happen to be LogOs. There is a big difference there.

And regardless of all of that, the CF Dress Instructions are issued under the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff, who certainly does have the right to impose his will with regard to this issue upon all members of the Canadian Armed Forces, including the Logistics Branch.

First, I'm not sure parliament is trying to or even can impose much of anything on anyone. The private member's motion, as I understand it from the first post on the first page of this thread, will, if it passes at all, simply request the government to do this. The government, advised by the CDS and CMS, might just yawn and carry on as we are today.

Second, I think, as I said earlier, that service vs CF identity is an issue, maybe not a HUGE issue right now but, as evidenced by this thread, one that is festering and I also think that it is one that most senior officers would rather ignore or, at least, towards which they would rather adopt a "wait and see" attitude. But when IF it makes it to the top table then service cap badges for the Navy and Air Force, to cement service loyalty, will, I am certain, be at the top of the agenda.

This issue of the Log Branch vs Naval Logistics Officers is at the heart of the dilemma. I'm not sure that the senior leadership has a common view on that. What comes first: Navy or Logistics? I suspect that most senior officers know there is little common ground amongst their colleagues and that is why they hope the problem will just go away.

By the way, I favour: common service identities for all Navy and Air Force members, officers and NCMs, with branch/occupation/trade  identifiers being secondary. At the top level, (and in addition to a joint planning/operations/support staff) for personnel, doctrine, equipment and similar issues, I favour three professional "heads of service" (CMS, CLS, CAS) and several purple technical chiefs (Communications, Intelligence, Logistics, Medical, etc) advising them on special to branch matters.

So, I hope you fellows, at least the MARS and MARE folks, get your executive curl but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Neill McKay]

An interesting point has been raised here: with what do service members identify most strongly?

It's been formally studied, or course, and the conclusion of one study I read a couple of years ago was that naval personnel tend to identify with the navy as a whole; army personnel tend to identify with their regiment or branch; and air force personnel tend to identify with their trade.

I don't think current attitudes would support restricting the curl to hard-sea officers.  While it originated as a way to set Executive Branch (what we would now call MARS officers) apart from the other branches, it had gone Service-wide a very long time before unification took it away altogether.  I doubt that there is a navy in the world that distinguishes its ship-drivers from other officers in this way anymore.

 

[Timmy!]

Is the Log Branch an important military organization, within the CF, or is it just something akin to a professional association or trade union? What about you, Pusser, are you a Navy logistics officer or a Logistics officer in the navy?

I may be a NCM in MARLANT. But I for sure do not see myself working in the Navy. I am an Army MSE Op posted to the Air Det of the Navy Fleet. Soldier first, tradesmen second.  :nod:

 

[Pusser]

I will be very very clear on this issue.  I am a Naval Officer first, foremost and forever.  Logistics is my specialty.  Every senior leader I have ever heard on the subject was also very clear that it is essential for everyone one to be a sailor (or soldier, etc) first and a tradesman second.  Any Logistics officer who doesn't understand this needs to take off their uniform and go work as a corporate manager somewhere.  They have no business trying to lead people in war.  When the bullets start to fly, there is no escaping the fray at sea.  We're not even "in the rear with the gear."  We're right in the thick of it.  Just as an Army Logistics Officer has to be able to lead soldiers in a firefight, the Naval Logistics Officer also has a role to play in fighting the ship and it isn't auditing claims!  During my last tour at sea, I basically ran a section base for firefighting and damage control and I was in charge of all CBRN monitoring.

In 27 years I have never met anyone who has described themselves as "a member of the Logistics Branch of the Canadian Forces."  To a man/woman they have all said, "I'm in the Navy," "I'm in the Air Force," or "I'm in the Army."  So, yes people tend to identify with their element.

As an aside, I am in favour of having all personnel in naval uniform wearing a Naval Ops cap badge (same for all air force folks and the Air Ops badge).  This was the case in both the RCN and the RCAF.  The current concept of separate branch badges came from the Army who had individual corps or regimental badges (and arguably still do).  I also think the re-introduction of distinction cloth (the colour between the stripes) would be pretty cool.  Incidentally, the colour for the Supply and Secretariat Branch of the RCN was white, not pink!

Finally, I think the reintroduction of the curl is a lot closer to reality than some may believe.  Notwithstanding that this thread started because of a Private Member's Bill, the issue has been simmering for years and prototypes and cost analyses have been conducted.  There has been much discussion at various levels and a fair bit of staff work has been going on.  The rumours I've heard have also been coming from some fairly credible sources.  I won't bet the farm on it quite yet, but I won't be surprised if this happens soon.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

I doubt that there is a navy in the world that distinguishes its ship-drivers from other officers in this way anymore.

FYI - the United States Navy does.  Their Navy Officers serve either as a line officer (MARS equivalent but with NTO subsumed) and wear a star above their stripes or in one of the staff corps (Supply, Medical, Dental, Chaplain, etc) which have their own Officer Designators.  However, I haven't heard anybody suggest this for Canada nor would I personally support it.  I believe that all naval officers should wear the curl.  I'd support the coloured cloth between the bars (like medical already wear) but I haven't heard that was in the works with this proposal.

I believe that we should use the ranks already authorised for mess kit.  The only area that would be unclear would be the SLt rank but there is very little difference between an A/SLt and SLt in training, level of responsibility, and prestige (completion of MARS IV as an example).  Many SLt are only in that rank for <1 year as they move through the training system.  As a sailor I am happy with any of the possible solutions already discussed: wearing one stripe (as currently done for mess kit), having the curl on the skinny stripe, or inverting the skinny and thick stripes. 

 

[Neill McKay]

FYI - the United States Navy does.  Their Navy Officers serve either as a line officer (MARS equivalent but with NTO subsumed) and wear a star above their stripes or in one of the staff corps (Supply, Medical, Dental, Chaplain, etc) which have their own Officer Designators.

You're correct.  I was thinking in terms of the curl specifically, rather than other branch identifiers.

Arguably the USN does the same thing we do, with hard sea officers wearing the star and other officers wearing their own branch identifiers.  (Of course, the concept of "hard sea" is slightly different in the USN, where the colour purple doesn't exist.)

 

[cobbler]

And that's all well and good for a total of 3 trades: MARS, NCSEO, and MSEO. Every single other naval officer is in a purple trade. So when you have Naval Logistics Officers on course in Borden side by side with their , people should be able to tell, at a glance, that those SLts are equivalent to those Lts. The same goes for our Bioscience Officers, Health Care Admins, IntOs, Military Police Officers, Nurses, Personnel Selection Officers, Pharmacists, Public Affairs Officers, Social Work Officers, and Training Development Officers.

They should, but that can and should come from professional knowledge.

In the ADF the three services have different ranks and different rank insignia, but if I come across an Army guy I am expected to be able to identify his rank, if not I would be a fairly poor excuse for an officer.

You cant tell me that with all the knowledge required in a military career you cannot memorise another few ranks.

Just my two Australian Cents worth.

 

[30 for 30]

I want the Curl, but if the Curl becomes reality it should be popped on top of the current ranks exactly as they look now. A skinny curl for SLts might look odd but any new naval rank shouldn't be too different from the current CF structure. We're still the post-unification CF, not the RCN. Having army and AF ranks identical and then navy ASlts and Slts walking around with the same slide is a bizarre and confusing (to outsiders) deviation. If we want 1950s navy identity then bring on the pips and blue stripes.