Upcoming Changes to the Dress Manual
- Thread starter Halifax Tar
- Start date
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Once_a_TQ, you left one of the best point out: After all these years with people buying the single most useful piece of gear (the CANEX windbreaker jacket), the CAF is finally waking up to making it an issue item. Only took them 25 years - pretty speedy for the CAF. ;D
There is another point, as far as I am concerned, that arises from those minutes, that I would like to address. Where our interests intersect, there is no reasons not to rely on RCMP research. In my view, however, dress, deportment, grooming standard, etc. are not areas where they do.
The RCMP studies how the public interacts with them and how their appearance affects the public's perception. That's fine but there is a relation with the public that is different from the military ones and I for one don't believe that they intersect.
You see, the RCMP is the police: They are, for the public, the representation in their life of the power of the state over them as enforcers of the law. Military personnel, on the other hand is the representation of the power of the state in their favour, against external enemies - protecting the public from external harm. I suggest in the public's mind, that it is a more positive relationship to start with as result. I therefore suggest that, where appearance is concerned, we should carry out our own research and not rely on the RCMP. We could find some pretty surprising facts. :nod:
There is another point, as far as I am concerned, that arises from those minutes, that I would like to address. Where our interests intersect, there is no reasons not to rely on RCMP research. In my view, however, dress, deportment, grooming standard, etc. are not areas where they do.
The RCMP studies how the public interacts with them and how their appearance affects the public's perception. That's fine but there is a relation with the public that is different from the military ones and I for one don't believe that they intersect.
You see, the RCMP is the police: They are, for the public, the representation in their life of the power of the state over them as enforcers of the law. Military personnel, on the other hand is the representation of the power of the state in their favour, against external enemies - protecting the public from external harm. I suggest in the public's mind, that it is a more positive relationship to start with as result. I therefore suggest that, where appearance is concerned, we should carry out our own research and not rely on the RCMP. We could find some pretty surprising facts. :nod:
Pusser
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 32
- Points
- 530
What I find disturbing in these minutes is that it appears the Dress Committee, which only has ONE naval member, has effectively killed high-collar white uniforms for the Navy. Things that are unique to one element should not need agreement from the Dress Committee as a whole. The Navy would never dream of telling the Army they can't wear red coats, so why should the Army be able to tell the Navy they can't wear white ones?
Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...
Yet, we can find money to outfit special forces personnel with uniforms they will never wear...
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,390
- Points
- 1,260
Pusser said:
You raise solid points Pusser. I am 100% in agreement with you.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Pusser said:
Honestly a good amount of the dress uniforms should just be phased out, in my opinion. I've got a closet full of stuff I "need to have" but rarely wear. Gabradines, DEU rain coats, DEU parade boots, DEU winter boots, Oxfords, parkas, mess dress. They ought to just standardize a single layout for "dress uniforms" (IE DEU 1A) and be done with it. Make the parka the only winter time jacket. Holding onto a giant coat in my closet for the last 18 years when I only have worn it probably 3 times is nonsense. Now that we have the parka it's twice the nonsense. The parka is fairly warm and I've worn it about 10 times as often in the last year than I have the gabradine in my entire career. Holding onto it for parades is kind of nonsense too, since the gabradine looks awful so usually they just do the parade in tunic. If it's absolutely too cold to do a parade in 1As without a coat, then just wear the parka or maybe question whether a parade is really neccesary.
Same with mess dress. It's pretty pointless and the concept of buying a $1200 suit to wear once a year is borderline madness. I get some people like the mess dress or maybe even have a fetish for the gabradine, but compelling 50,000+ people to have these things for the few edge cases is a massive waste. Should just streamline the whole thing.
- Reaction score
- 27,524
- Points
- 1,090
No reason for a second dress uniform at public expense. Optional item? Certainly.
Pusser said:
Killed it? I think it was just opposition to it being considered 1B instead of 1 C or D. High collar whites still exist and are allowed, not unlike patrol dress blues.
What is the reason to move it to 1 B? Sharp looking? Historical precedent? The UK doing it? Does the Navy not have a full dress uniform already?
Honest questions, not trying to stir the pot.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
dapaterson said:
Optional becomes "recommended" which eventually becomes "go talk to the RSM/Adjt and tell them why you think you shouldn't buy one" and eventually becomes accepted as mandatory.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Those last three comments are fully indicative of the lack of understanding of naval matters. I hate to say it that way, but the Army and Air Force (most of it) just don't get it!
Here I go again: The Navies of the world have diplomatic functions - all the time or just about - and wherever they go. This means we have to dress and play the part. And if we cannot dress to play the part - like all other nation's people we meet with - Canadian image abroad is weakened by that much. The functions we carry abroad can range, in civilian equivalent, from sales rep at a trade show to State dinner, passing through business dinner-conference. We have to be able to dress for such part, in all different climates.
Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise.
Well, the Navy is "out to air shows" all the time we are abroad.
Here I go again: The Navies of the world have diplomatic functions - all the time or just about - and wherever they go. This means we have to dress and play the part. And if we cannot dress to play the part - like all other nation's people we meet with - Canadian image abroad is weakened by that much. The functions we carry abroad can range, in civilian equivalent, from sales rep at a trade show to State dinner, passing through business dinner-conference. We have to be able to dress for such part, in all different climates.
Think about the Air Forces that deploy to international air shows and will be in the public eye: They get their best dress and behaviour on, and are well above the level of dress they would wear for deployment to an allied exercise.
Well, the Navy is "out to air shows" all the time we are abroad.
- Reaction score
- 27,524
- Points
- 1,090
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Yes. RCAF wears DEUs. As the RCN can.
MCG said:
I have no time for the small segment of the CA that aspires to outfit the collection of rum platoons scattered across the nation, claiming to be regiments, each with different regimental quiffs.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Wasn't there a recent diplomatic fashion show in Bollywood?Oldgateboatdriver said:
:stirpot:
I don't have a dog anywhere near this fight, but I actually think the RCN should have their high-collar whites.
- Reaction score
- 27,524
- Points
- 1,090
kratz said:
What, precisely, is wrong with the uniform?
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Well given that I was one of those last three comments and I explicitly stated I was asking questions that felt were legitimate because I certainly don't have a full grasp of the Navy which is why I was asking in the first place.
I also think that some people have a lack of understanding about the orders of dress. All of those functions you listed are all appropriate for 1 C or 1 D (which is what high collared whites are). The proposal to the committee was designated the high collared whites into 1 B. it is likely that the 1 Navy guy at the board didn't have sufficient justification for the change.
No one is removing the High Collared Whites. they are 1 C and 1 D just like the army has 1 C and D patrols for similar functions. The army does not wear ceremonial full dress to diplomatic functions at home or abroad unless part of a ceremony of some sort, on parade and filling a ceremonial function. by making HCW into 1 B it would be inappropriate to wear that order of dress for the very functions you are listing above because full dress is not appropriate for those types of functions.
I'm actually all for ceremonial dress and tradition. I also think the WHC uniforms are the best looking ones the Navy has. But I'm asking what the justification is. is their a ceremonial dress capability gap that the current uniform isn't serving? ie 1s? With the exception of a few units that have regimental full dress and can kit out enough troops, the whole of the CAF uses 1s for all sorts of parades and ceremonial functions.
The uniform looks sharp. Sure. But so do patrols and mess kit but neither are 1 B nor should they be.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
Nothing wrong with those uniforms, DP.
But that's taken in Canada, indoor and likely in winter.
You want to attend three hours long lunch function on an opened terrace in Bahrain in summer in those black, wool uniforms? BE MY GUEST, but I ain't going under any circumstances unless I am wearing white cotton or breathable material!
Also consider that we would then look (in black DEU's) totally goofy standing besides every single other nation's sailors wearing their high-end whites.
I am going to go one better: We can probably use a naval khaki for summer undress.
I know the army has hives every time you propose a new uniform. In the Navy we believe in dressing properly for all occasions. It means options.
I understand where the Army comes from: You have to carry your stuff on your backs. We don't - we have lockers (albeit small - but still).
Anyway - we are never going to resolve these issues here. The only thing to be said is that the choices and numbers of different dress of a given element should be left to that element, not the whims of the other ones.
And, Remius: State dinner, official dinners, evening cocktail/reception with foreign member of government level or high military command level guests are 1A or 1C functions. In tropical climes, that's the high collar white, with medals. All the Navy is asking is making it an issued piece of gear, and change designation from 1D to 1B for the version with ribbons. You could keep the numbering (1C and 1D respectively), and as long as issued - would have no problems.
But that's taken in Canada, indoor and likely in winter.
You want to attend three hours long lunch function on an opened terrace in Bahrain in summer in those black, wool uniforms? BE MY GUEST, but I ain't going under any circumstances unless I am wearing white cotton or breathable material!
Also consider that we would then look (in black DEU's) totally goofy standing besides every single other nation's sailors wearing their high-end whites.
I am going to go one better: We can probably use a naval khaki for summer undress.
I know the army has hives every time you propose a new uniform. In the Navy we believe in dressing properly for all occasions. It means options.
I understand where the Army comes from: You have to carry your stuff on your backs. We don't - we have lockers (albeit small - but still).
Anyway - we are never going to resolve these issues here. The only thing to be said is that the choices and numbers of different dress of a given element should be left to that element, not the whims of the other ones.
And, Remius: State dinner, official dinners, evening cocktail/reception with foreign member of government level or high military command level guests are 1A or 1C functions. In tropical climes, that's the high collar white, with medals. All the Navy is asking is making it an issued piece of gear, and change designation from 1D to 1B for the version with ribbons. You could keep the numbering (1C and 1D respectively), and as long as issued - would have no problems.
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Again, I don't know why they want the designation to 1B. It seems like they want the public purse to pay for 1C&D which is already being worn by the Navy for all the functions you listed so why make it 1B when those functions do not require 1B. So the rule is that you can wear it for those occasions, you just have to pay for it because we already pay for a suitable acceptable alternative. Like the three hour lunch function you mentioned, 1B is inappropriate, 1 c or 1D depending is or you wear what you are issued. I suspect army would be in dark green DEU jacket or high collared wool patrols. Unfortunately we did away with TAN DEUs a while ago. I would have preferred keeping that instead.
No one has removed any of the current choices the Navy has. They basically told them that your 1 C&D are not appropriate for 1B. The same thing would have happened if you asked for 3B to be 1B or your mess kit to be the new 1B.
I just get the feeling that it's more about the LCF than any real practical or justified reason to make it 1B.
I like your summer khaki for summer undress idea.
Except for a few units with actual ceremonial mission tasks, every unit has to pay for their 1C/D, mess kit and regimental full dress using non public funds or at member's expense. if the Navy has good reason to have Navy White HC paid for at public expense then I have no issues but so far I haven't seen it provided. If it's because it is too hot in summer then that is a CAF issue as I'm sure the air force and army have the same issues. Maybe use a thinner more lightweight material?
- Reaction score
- 4,709
- Points
- 1,160
Pusser said:
Pretty certain they used their own money to buy those uniforms, for people who are no longer CA/RCAF/RCN but had to wear that DEU anyway. If the RCN wants to make whites an issued item, pony up the cash and make it happen. I'm also fairly certain that the RCN isn't hemorrhaging people (as indicated on multiple occasions on this forum) because your MS/PO2 have to buy high collar whites. :facepalm:
Similar threads
