Sea Service Insignia (SSI) [Merged]

[Pusser]

I have been a few ships now that have altered their operations and tasks for weather.  For example its rough out so we run to Norfolk Va. to seek shelter.  Weather plays a big role in RCN trg and can derail the best laid intentions. 

I have also done Winter Warfare in the field and we most certainly didn't RTU lines because the weather became a trg hindrance. 

The field and sea have their equal number of challenges and demands.  That's why you get SDA and LDA.  IMHO the RCN implementing the SSI was/is just a feel good device devised bye people who felt when they put on their DEUs it wasn't a true reflection of their contributions.  This is fully self inflicted.

Sometimes we do alter course for weather - either to avoid it or aim for it!  I've also seen units pulled out of the field because the weather turned cold.  IIRC Borden Range control will pull in all units if the temperature drops below -40C.  The difference though is that no matter what the weather is in a training area in Canada, warm and dry is never more than a truck ride away if required.  If worse comes to worst, the option to build a fire is always there.  In cases where this is not possible, it is likely the result of poor planning or somebody screwing up.  However, at sea, even if all has been planned correctly (based on hundreds of years of experience) all equipment is functioning properly and no one makes a mistake, the sea can still turn on you and there is no respite for a ship that's dead in the water in rough seas.  Ships can't run away from fires (11 men died in KOOTENAY during a trial) and compartments filling with water is always a bad thing.

I'm not trying to turn this into an Army vs Navy bun fight over who's life is harder (we all make our choices at the recruiting centre - I would still choose my bunk in a hurricane over a foxhole in February), but there are differences and that is what the SSI is designed to recognize.

For the record, I'm not the biggest fan of the SSI, but I do see its utility.  I would have preferred something a little more subtle (e.g. executive curls for sea-going officers only, maybe different coloured trade badges for NCMs with requisite sea experience, naval ops cap badges for personnel with requisite sea-time, etc.)

 

[Pusser]

I have inquired and have an answer, Pusser.  Curses foiled again.

1. DISTINGUISHING INSIGNIA: a. Sea Service Insignia: The Sea Service Insignia is awarded to CAF personnel for recognition of time at sea. The insignia is metal for service dress shirts, high collar whites, mess dress and naval service dress and embroidered on melton cloth for army and airforce service dress jackets. There are four levels of insignia, gun metal, bronze, silver, and gold. The level of insignia that is presented is dependant on the amount of time spent at sea, as determined by RCN. The insignia is illustrated in fig 3-6-3, and eligible personnel shall wear the insignia as detailed at Annex F.

Your quote does not answer the question.  Putting on my grammar Nazi hat:  the quote above does NOT say the SSI shall be worn by eligible personnel.  It says that "eligible personnel shall wear the insignia as detailed at Annex F" (i.e. the manner in which it shall be worn).  This is an instruction on how to wear it, not that it must be worn.  That may not be what the author intended, but that is what it says.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Wow, Pusser.  I brought your comment out and what a shit storm that has brought down.  World War 6 at least.  I agree with your Nazism, apparently I seem to be alone in the office.

 

[NavalMoose]

Pusser, your grammar Nazi hat is on too tight.  Are you an eligible personnel?....if so, wear as shown in the annex...simple really.

 

[Pusser]

Pusser, your grammar Nazi hat is on too tight.  Are you an eligible personnel?....if so, wear as shown in the annex...simple really.

Whether or not I am eligible or whether I wish to wear the SSI is irrelevant to this tangent of the discussion.  My point is that you cannot be forced to acknowledge (i.e. wear) an award that you don't want to.  If some folks choose not to wear the SSI, the choice should be (and in fact is) theirs.  It would make for an interesting court martial should someone be charged for refusing to wear one.

If you can refuse an Honour from the Crown (and people do it all the time), surely you can refuse a badge from the Admiral?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There's a key difference between MAPLE RESOLVE and RIMPAC.  Yes, they are both exercises, but MAPLE RESOLVE takes place in a much more controlled environment.  If things get too dangerous, things can be shut down pretty quickly.  We can't control the sea.  When a storm comes up, we have to ride it out.  There's no seeking shelter.  You can't park the vehicles and wait. 

Everybody is emphasizing the time away from home aspect, but missing the actual hardship, life at sea, which has an inherent danger that doesn't change whether you're sailing into a combat zone or between ports on the cocktail circuit.  The sea is a merciless, unrepentant and indiscriminate mistress.  There is a reason that "the dangers of the sea" comes before "the violence of the enemy" in the Naval Prayer.

I've never sailed so I can't comment on the hardship of it...but I've flown over folks riding out Sea State 5+ and there's no doubt in my mind how much it sucks when you see Group 3s with their whole stern coming up with props hanging in the air. 

Sailing would be like flying...danger exists, just more on ops with the added bonus of the other guy shooting at you.  Maybe the Air Force should come up with a new one too.  X amount of missions or X amount of flying hours and you get the DEU bling.  We can call it the FHI (Flying Hours Insignia) and wear it below our Wings on the pocket flap. Or we could call it the PDI (Per Diem Insignia)...X amount of nights in a hotel and you get it.  ;D

Good Idea Fairie...lets get this one on the role to go with our new swanky Command Badge.  >

 

[dimsum]

X amount of missions or X amount of flying hours and you get the DEU bling. 

That's what the USAF does with their Senior and Master/Command *insert trade* wings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Air_Force_aeronautical_rating#USAF_rating_requirements

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Let's do it too.  Gotta catch up to their gorgets n stuff the army went and got!  8)

 

[dapaterson]

Nah. The Flying Unit Command Knowledge Uniform Patch... that gets removed only after meeting certain standards for ability.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Perfect!!  :rofl:

 

[PuckChaser]

There's a key difference between MAPLE RESOLVE and RIMPAC.  Yes, they are both exercises, but MAPLE RESOLVE takes place in a much more controlled environment.  If things get too dangerous, things can be shut down pretty quickly.  We can't control the sea.  When a storm comes up, we have to ride it out.  There's no seeking shelter.  You can't park the vehicles and wait.

Ack, your job is significantly harder than mine. Unfortunately there's a few examples that hit this forum very close to home that MAPLE RESOLVE and inherently army training is not without risk.

Everybody is emphasizing the time away from home aspect, but missing the actual hardship, life at sea, which has an inherent danger that doesn't change whether you're sailing into a combat zone or between ports on the cocktail circuit.  The sea is a merciless, unrepentant and indiscriminate mistress.  There is a reason that "the dangers of the sea" comes before "the violence of the enemy" in the Naval Prayer.

Hardship, time away from home and life at sea is why you get Sea Duty Allowance. Its why aircrew get Air Duty Allowance and why I get Land Duty Allowance. Only one of those 3 elements decided they needed money AND some bling so they can brag to their friends on the cocktail circuit.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've got hundred of jumps with various Airborne units and never saw anyone get killed.

However, every time there was a big armoured corps exercise, like the old Reforgers, at least two or three got crushed to death.

I'm recommending we have an 'I survived the last armoured corps ex' badge of some kind.

But please, could it be in the shape of a zipper?

 

[Rifleman62]

Especially dangerous at night when the tanks, simulating an attack on your position, using white light mounted by the main gun (this was Brit tanks in Germany 1968). Blackout Sherman's driven by Militia drivers in your patrol's path not quite as bad.

 

[Pusser]

Ack, your job is significantly harder than mine. Unfortunately there's a few examples that hit this forum very close to home that MAPLE RESOLVE and inherently army training is not without risk.

Hardship, time away from home and life at sea is why you get Sea Duty Allowance. Its why aircrew get Air Duty Allowance and why I get Land Duty Allowance. Only one of those 3 elements decided they needed money AND some bling so they can brag to their friends on the cocktail circuit.

I never said army or air training exercises were without risk and I acknowledge that people are injured and killed on them.  However, army and air commanders have much more control over what people do in those situations.  They can decide that the terrain is too dangerous and move the troops elsewhere.  Or, if the weather turns foul a commander can simply ground the aircraft.  A ship in the middle of the ocean, 10 days from anywhere, does not have that luxury. they simply have to ride it out.  When the ship is rolling 85 degrees, you really hope everything they taught you in hydrostatic stability class was right.  I have no idea whether anybody thought about this when they came up with the SSI, but it certainly does add to the argument.  By the way, the danger of the sea is not one of the factors for which SDA is paid (hardship and being away from home are though).

 

[Halifax Tar]

I never said army or air training exercises were without risk and I acknowledge that people are injured and killed on them.  However, army and air commanders have much more control over what people do in those situations.  They can decide that the terrain is too dangerous and move the troops elsewhere.  Or, if the weather turns foul a commander can simply ground the aircraft.  A ship in the middle of the ocean, 10 days from anywhere, does not have that luxury. they simply have to ride it out.  When the ship is rolling 85 degrees, you really hope everything they taught you in hydrostatic stability class was right.  I have no idea whether anybody thought about this when they came up with the SSI, but it certainly does add to the argument.  By the way, the danger of the sea is not one of the factors for which SDA is paid (hardship and being away from home are though).

Google search of Canadian Soldiers lost in training accidents:

https://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA758CA758&q=Canadian+Soldiers+lost+in+training+accidents&oq=Canadian+Soldiers+lost+in+training+accidents&gs_l=psy-ab.12..35i39k1j0i22i30k1.13278.13278.0.14173.1.1.0.0.0.0.110.110.0j1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.109.pdCVkyuY5f8

Canadian Sailors lost at sea:

https://www.google.ca/search?q=canadian+sailors+lost+at+sea&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA758CA758&oq=canadian&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j35i39j69i59j69i60j0.1827j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

You find two very different search results. 

I hear you Pusser.  The sea has its dangers and complexities.  So does Army and Air Force trg.  And having done both I defiantly felt/feel more at risk in Army trg.  Live ammo and poor driving conditions are dangerous things.

My position is steadfast WRT to the SSI. 

 

[FSTO]

Knock on wood but we have been fairly fortunate in the lack of deadly accidents involving the RCN. But as shown by the accidents involving Fitz and McCain, accidents can hit you at the most inopportune time.

But if we got involved in a shooting war, with today's torpedoes especially, a hit would be catastrophic. Most of the ship's company would be dead almost immediately. But that is the nature of naval warfare today with large casualty lists within minutes or seconds of a strike.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Knock on wood but we have been fairly fortunate in the lack of deadly accidents involving the RCN. But as shown by the accidents involving Fitz and McCain, accidents can hit you at the most inopportune time.

But if we got involved in a shooting war, with today's torpedoes especially, a hit would be catastrophic. Most of the ship's company would be dead almost immediately. But that is the nature of naval warfare today with large casualty lists within minutes or seconds of a strike.

Agreed we, the RCN,  have been very lucky and have learned allot from incidents in the past.  Think Kootenay gear box explosion.  And yes accidents can happen, I never claimed that they didn't.

As for a shooting war you will notice from this website: https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/second-world-war/second-world-war-dead-1939-1947/Pages/files-second-war-dead.aspx
the majority of losses in WW2 were members of the CA.  24,525 served in the Army, 17,397 in the Air Force and 2,168 in the Navy.  Admittedly I don't know if that figure includes the merchant marine.

Look, I don't want this to get into a "who's service has it harder" argument as I think all of the services have their hardships and risks and all had vital roles to play in WW2.  My position is that using the hardship and risks of sea duty to quantify the need for an extra accouterments is fallacious and divisive.  We get medals, ranks and extra allowances for our normal duty and duties that are especially difficult or above what is normally expected of us in our duties.  Giving a badge for our most basic, expected and already remunerated duties cheapens and erodes many facets that we already have and should be proud of in the CAF. 

Perhaps a compromise would be to take away days while on deployment (NATOs, Op Reassurance, Op Apllo ect ect) for your SSI totals as those days are already rewarded for in the way of days towards medals.

 

[FSTO]

Agreed we, the RCN,  have been very lucky and have learned allot from incidents in the past.  Think Kootenay gear box explosion.  And yes accidents can happen, I never claimed that they didn't.

As for a shooting war you will notice from this website: https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/second-world-war/second-world-war-dead-1939-1947/Pages/files-second-war-dead.aspx
the majority of losses in WW2 were members of the CA.  24,525 served in the Army, 17,397 in the Air Force and 2,168 in the Navy.  Admittedly I don't know if that figure includes the merchant marine.

Look, I don't want this to get into a "who's service has it harder" argument as I think all of the services have their hardships and risks and all had vital roles to play in WW2.  My position is that using the hardship and risks of sea duty to quantify the need for an extra accouterments is fallacious and divisive.  We get medals, ranks and extra allowances for our normal duty and that is especially difficult or above what is normally expected of us in our duties.  Giving a badge for our most basic, expected and already remunerated duties cheapens and erodes many facets that we already have and should be proud of in the CAF. 

Perhaps a compromise would be to take away days while on deployment (NATOs, Op Reassurance, Op Apllo ect ect) for your SSI totals as those days are already rewarded for in the way of days towards medals.

Okay before this gets into a pissing match.
When HMS HOOD blew up 1415 men died in an instant, that is a lot within seconds.

Never ever claimed that Army or Air Force deaths are miniscule because they will have high casualty rates over a longer period of time due to the action they are involved in (which maybe over days, hours or minutes) .
The Navy will have fewer deaths overall but they will come in bigger bunches. Get what I mean?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Okay before this gets into a pissing match.
When HMS HOOD blew up 1415 men died in an instant, that is a lot within seconds.

Never ever claimed that Army or Air Force deaths are miniscule because they will have high casualty rates over a longer period of time due to the action they are involved in (which maybe over days, hours or minutes) .
The Navy will have fewer deaths overall but they will come in bigger bunches. Get what I mean?

Sure I see what you are saying.  Can you explain how this should contribute to the SSI earning criteria ?

 

[FSTO]

Sure I see what you are saying.  Can you explain how this should contribute to the SSI earning criteria ?

It doesn't. And I don't care about the SSI. I was commenting on a comment by Pusser about accidents in the field in the air and at sea.

Maybe a separate thread is in order.