Upcoming Changes to the Dress Manual

[Pusser]

Not quite. There has been several instances where Rifle Regt pers where ordered to remove black web belts, (rifle slings at one time), frogs, and gloves and wear white on National parades in a Guard of Honour.

I would say that is wrong as well.  They should wear the equivalent items of dress, not necessarily the same ones.  If highlanders wear their kilts, then riflemen should wear their black accoutrements.

 

[Remius]

So prove that I'm wrong on this.  I can give you an example.  It's taken us years to get folks to concede that naval officer sword belts are properly worn underneath the jacket.  So, we've seen more than one case recently of naval officers (admittedly, usually junior and still afraid of senior NCOs) wearing a naval sword belt underneath the jacket AND a white belt over top!  WTF?  Upon investigation, this was usually at the insistence of an Army NCO, so that the naval officer would look like everyone else (notwithstanding the different colour of uniform).  What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.

I can give you plenty of examples.

I was at a ceremony (outcan) that had a mixed bag of elements.  I insisted that the ranking Naval Officer on parade not wear a white belt and not wear an infantry sword. He really didn't have a clue about the belt and luckily he had a naval sword.  I'm army and I made it my business to respect what was another elements order of dress. 

In France for a Vimy ceremony a grenadier guard was ordered to remove his Forage cap and put on a beret by an army type. It took a phone call back to Canada to get that remedied.  So yes, the army has done it to itself many times.  Infantry Sash over the belt or under the belt? That argument comes up a lot.

Just to note.  the Army et al is not against you or the Navy.  You might have just met a few individuals that are ill informed.  that does not mean there is a concerted effort to undermine the Navy.

On another note, how many times have the Navy pulled the "We do Navy Drill" when on parade on land?  Just sayin'...

 

[Pusser]

Pusser and OGBD

I'm not sure where you guys are getting any of that info.

The dress regs disagree with both of you.  if the navy has its own internal language that's fine but it doesn't seem legal or approved.

Take a look in Chapter 6.  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/dhh_dress_instr_adh265000_ag001-19Sep16-eng.pdf

There is also a complete run down about who pays for what in there.

Undress is not the same as full dress.

15. Authorized Wear
a. Undress is authorized for wear only by:
A-DH-265-000/AG-001
6-3
(1) RMCC officer cadets as an undress uniform in accordance with college dress instructions;
(2) Navy members as a summer white uniform (optional Orders 1C and 1D – high-collared whites); and
(3) members of the Army Reserve as optional Orders 1C and 1D, e.g., patrol dress.
b. Undress may also be worn without orders, decorations and medals (undress ribbons may be worn in lieu)
on less formal occasions when the wearing of orders, decorations and medals would be considered
inappropriate.
c. Accoutrements may also be worn with No. 1D order of dress.

So they are, according to the rules, the same order of dress.

We're not disputing what the regulations currently say.  We just don't agree that they properly address naval custom and culture.  Just because they are currently classed as "undress," does not mean that this is historically correct.  As an aside, the RMCC undress orders are issued at public expense, so why not the Navy's?

I wonder what would happen if a RCEME officer was posted on exchange to a REME regiment and was expected to wear patrol dress. It's in our dress regulations as optional, but he could be in a situation where it would it be mandatory.  Could he be reimbursed for the expense?

 

[Pusser]

I can give you plenty of examples.

I was at a ceremony (outcan) that had a mixed bag of elements.  I insisted that the ranking Naval Officer on parade not wear a white belt and not wear an infantry sword. He really didn't have a clue about the belt and luckily he had a naval sword.  I'm army and I made it my business to respect what was another elements order of dress. 

In France for a Vimy ceremony a grenadier guard was ordered to remove his Forage cap and put on a beret by an army type. It took a phone call back to Canada to get that remedied.  So yes, the army has done it to itself many times.  Infantry Sash over the belt or under the belt? That argument comes up a lot.

Just to note.  the Army et al is not against you or the Navy.  You might have just met a few individuals that are ill informed.  that does not mean there is a concerted effort to undermine the Navy.

On another note, how many times have the Navy pulled the "We do Navy Drill" when on parade on land?  Just sayin'...

Fair points, but in each of your examples, things were corrected before they were seen in public.  I don't honestly think the Army is against me or the Navy, but the Green Machine (by which I mean the "joint" CAF culture - not necessarily the Army alone) can be pretty obtuse on things like this.  The Army is not unique in doing it to themselves.  There are a number of senior naval folks who are full members of the Green Machine.  As for the "navy drill" issue, I agree with you (apparently) that it should not be done on land.  It has a practical purpose, but it's not especially sharp and, frankly, I think demanding the "right" to do it anywhere other than a ship, is simply lazy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Pusser and OGBD

I'm not sure where you guys are getting any of that info.

The dress regs disagree with both of you.  if the navy has its own internal language that's fine but it doesn't seem legal or approved.

Take a look in Chapter 6.  http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/pub/ins-265/dhh_dress_instr_adh265000_ag001-19Sep16-eng.pdf

There is also a complete run down about who pays for what in there.

Undress is not the same as full dress.

Sorry Remius, I'll break my own vow of no more posting for just a moment.

You are correct as far as the current regs go. But it is the requested change to those regs which is being discussed here.

And here is where regs and practice collide. Regardless of regs, in practice, the RCN treats the HCW not as "undress" but as full dress. it is used and ordered to be worn as summer full dress and as full dress while in the tropics. It is NEVER ordered to be worn in winter - which patrols can be.

And that is why the Navy want the regs to reflect the way it wishes to use and actually does use the 1C and 1D, as a result of which the Navy wants it issued at the Crown's expense. That's all.

Another example of such collision that has survived the Unification: Drill manual. The drill manual states that parades are carried out band leading. In Naval tradition, the band is closing the March. Regardless of the regs, you will not find a naval base or a naval parade anywhere where we actually let the band lead. I was in Esquimalt when the Parade Chief (a PPCLI CWO) "collided' with the Band Petty Officer over that on in 1978. It went up to the Base Commander - and the navy won - sorry!  ;D

 

[captloadie]

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 . . . .

All the discussion going on brought me back to this comment. If you look at the minutes, there are only 5 voting members on the committee, one of which is the RCN Chief. So it wasn't everyone else in the room ganging up on the RCNI would expect that this committee, like any other joint organization, is just as political as any other. A valuable lesson I have learned is you never put a proposal forward where you really want a specific outcome, unless you have previously socialized it and are fairly certain you have the votes. Has anyone considered that maybe the Naval representative put this forward for a vote, knowing it would be defeated? He can now go back and say we tried, we lost, on to the next good fairy idea?

 

[Remius]

We're not disputing what the regulations currently say.  We just don't agree that they properly address naval custom and culture.  Just because they are currently classed as "undress," does not mean that this is historically correct.  As an aside, the RMCC undress orders are issued at public expense, so why not the Navy's?

I wonder what would happen if a RCEME officer was posted on exchange to a REME regiment and was expected to wear patrol dress. It's in our dress regulations as optional, but he could be in a situation where it would it be mandatory.  Could he be reimbursed for the expense?

Except that you both did:

OGBD: "  Now, to  address the constant return to trying to make the current RCN's 1C and 1D equivalent to Army "patrols". The comparison is incorrect. The idea behind the "patrols" is to give various regiment/organizations the capability to have their own, historical, regimental ceremonial dress to be worn instead of the DEU's number One's. They are an alternate order of ceremonial dress."

Pusser: "Notwithstanding the cut of the collar, HCW is not equivalent to patrol dress for the Army.  Patrol dress has a specific ceremonial function different from that of the regular green service dress.  HCW, however, is simply a summer version of the Navy's blue service dress."

If HCW are not historically accurate as 1 C or D then I would be curious to see that.  As you can see I take an interest in that stuff.  Do you happen to have something to back it up?  I'll look it up if I can find some time.

If making it into 1B (which is not DEU equivalent btw) which is the request that was denied then why should it be publicly funded?  1 B is not generally funded for anyone.

I can't speak to RMC and why it is funded.  Ceremonial Guard and some units are due to ceremonial mission tasks.  Not sure about RMC if it is the same though.

To your last question; I know a few units that force their officers to get patrol dress or mess kit.  I do not think they get reimbursed.  I'm not sure that they can legally enforce that either but I'm not sure about that either.

 

[captloadie]

The main reason RMC's are funded is likely that they are issued and then returned. They are not owned by the member. In fact, most get turned in at the end of the school year to be tailored for the upcoming year.

 

[Remius]

The main reason RMC's are funded is likely that they are issued and then returned. They are not owned by the member. In fact, most get turned in at the end of the school year to be tailored for the upcoming year.

That does not sound like an accurate reason as to why it is funded.  I could be wrong though but its sounds a little off.

 

[McG]

Wasn't it SCONDVA that concluded that service members found the plethora of uniforms to be a hardship of sort?  I thought that is what put all the summer dress DEUs to death.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So prove that I'm wrong on this.  I can give you an example.  It's taken us years to get folks to concede that naval officer sword belts are properly worn underneath the jacket.  So, we've seen more than one case recently of naval officers (admittedly, usually junior and still afraid of senior NCOs and Warrant Officers) wearing a naval sword belt underneath the jacket AND a white belt over top!  WTF?  Upon investigation, this was usually at the insistence of an Army NCO or Warrant Officer, so that the naval officer would look like everyone else (notwithstanding the different colour of uniform).  What I find most interesting though, is even in a guard made up entirely of soldiers from different corps or regiments, no highlander is ever asked to swap his glengarry for a beret or to wear trousers in order to look everyone else.  No infantry sergeant would ever be asked to remove his red sash because no one else is wearing them.  The list goes on.

I'll go on a limb;  I'm betting you consider everyone from Sgt to CWO a 'NCO'.  WO, MWO and CWOs are not NCOs.  :nod:  That's what its a WOs and Sgts Mess, not a Snr NCO mess.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 "Defintions"

"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal

Can't be a Snr NCO if you're not an NCO in the first place. 

* WOs (who know the difference...some don't) like being thought of as NCOs as much as Majors and LCols like being called Jnr Officers.  8)

 

[Journeyman]

I don't honestly think the Army is against me or the Navy, but the Green Machine (by which I mean the "joint" CAF culture....

There are a number of senior naval folks who are full members of the Green Machine. 

While it's good to know you're blissfully unaware that the Army is  actively behind all of this (although you previously acknowledged an "Army NCO" as one of the linchpins; we'll have to work on that breach), how did your growing paranoia miss the DND Public Servants?  Are you simply not aware of their vendetta against you personally?! 

    op:

 

[Pusser]

I'll go on a limb;  I'm betting you consider everyone from Sgt to CWO a 'NCO'.  WO, MWO and CWOs are not NCOs.  :nod:  That's what its a WOs and Sgts Mess, not a Snr NCO mess.

QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 1, Art 1.02 "Defintions"

"non-commissioned officer" (sous-officier)means a member holding the rank of sergeant or corporal

Can't be a Snr NCO if you're not an NCO in the first place. 

* WOs (who know the difference...some don't) like being thought of as NCOs as much as Majors and LCols like being called Jnr Officers.  8)

I'm fully aware of the difference between NCOs and warrant officers.  A "senior NCO" is simply a sergeant or a PO2 and I was aware of that when I wrote it.  I simply chose to use "senior NCO" instead of "sergeant" (or "PO2" for that matter, because PO2s have been known to make such mistakes).  Since I was citing an example as opposed to a summary of all possibilities, I did not feel it necessary to go into that particular detail.  As an aside, I've also been known to correct people who think that "NCM" replaced "NCO" or that "lieutenant navy" is a rank (it is not).

On another note, in RCN 1.0, C&POs actually were NCOs...

 

[Infanteer]

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

This thread is awesome on so many levels....

 

[daftandbarmy]

:Tin-Foil-Hat:

This thread is awesome on so many levels....

... or 'decks'

 

[Currie14]

Soooooo the question then remains is this actually happening or it just a bunch of this could happen or this might happen

 

[Pusser]

Except that you both did:

OGBD: "  Now, to  address the constant return to trying to make the current RCN's 1C and 1D equivalent to Army "patrols". The comparison is incorrect. The idea behind the "patrols" is to give various regiment/organizations the capability to have their own, historical, regimental ceremonial dress to be worn instead of the DEU's number One's. They are an alternate order of ceremonial dress."

Pusser: "Notwithstanding the cut of the collar, HCW is not equivalent to patrol dress for the Army.  Patrol dress has a specific ceremonial function different from that of the regular green service dress.  HCW, however, is simply a summer version of the Navy's blue service dress."

If HCW are not historically accurate as 1 C or D then I would be curious to see that.  As you can see I take an interest in that stuff.  Do you happen to have something to back it up?  I'll look it up if I can find some time.

If making it into 1B (which is not DEU equivalent btw) which is the request that was denied then why should it be publicly funded?  1 B is not generally funded for anyone.

I can't speak to RMC and why it is funded.  Ceremonial Guard and some units are due to ceremonial mission tasks.  Not sure about RMC if it is the same though.

To your last question; I know a few units that force their officers to get patrol dress or mess kit.  I do not think they get reimbursed.  I'm not sure that they can legally enforce that either but I'm not sure about that either.

The appropriate reference is The RCN Dress Manual (BRCN 108), Art. 2.01 (Dresses and Occasions).  This lists orders of Dress as follows:

Blue Dress:

Day      1  Blue Ceremonial Dress (Jacket and tie with medals)
            2  Not Allocated
            3  Blue Service Dress (jacket and tie with ribbons)
            4  Not allocated
            5  Battle Dress

Evening  6  Not allocated
            7  Mess Dress
            8  Mess Undress
            9  Not allocated

White Dress

Day      11  White Ceremonial Dress (White tunic with medals)
            12  Not Allocated
            13  White Service Dress (White tunic with ribbons)
            14  Not allocated
            15  Not Allocated

Evening  16  Not allocated
            17  White Mess Dress
            18  White Mess Undress
            19  Tropical Mess Undress

Khaki Dress:

Day      21  Not Allocated
            22  Not Allocated
            23  Khaki Service Dress (khaki jacket and tie with ribbons)
            24  Khaki Service Dress (negative jacket)
            25  Khaki Tropical Dress (shorts and open neck shirt)

Included in this article is a table that in addition to describing all of these orders of dress (in greater detail than I've given here), it also shows on what occasions they are to be worn.  Each number within the groups correspond with the equivalent number in the other groups (i.e. No 11 is worn for the same sorts of occasions as No 1 - parades, funerals, etc).  The only differing factor is the climate.  For example, one would wear No1 for Remembrance Day in Canada, but No 13 for Remembrance Day ceremonies in the tropics.  Officers would wear No 3 on a daily basis in Canada in the winter, and No 23 in the summer.

In summary, in RCN 1.0 (and as I think it should be now), the white tunic was equivalent to the blue jacket and only the climate would determine which one was worn.

 

[Cloud Cover]

"Quote from: Once_a_TQ on Yesterday at 08:35:41
... G1 Dress and Ceremonial ...
This is a real position?"

I was thinking the same thing. Does the position come with all the accompanying staff?

 

[McG]

This thread is awesome on so many levels....

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

 

[TQMS]

"Quote from: Once_a_TQ on Yesterday at 08:35:41
... G1 Dress and Ceremonial ...
This is a real position?"

I was thinking the same thing. Does the position come with all the accompanying staff?

Right from the signature block.....



G1 Dress and Ceremonial, CA HQ