 |
Recent Books by Forum Members |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#4
20-04-13, 05:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
It was only a matter of time before this happened, after the RCN and RCAF. What about other units? Any news on when or if they will follow suit?
David PS: See you at the Ottawa show next Saturday, Ed and Bill - not to mention any other forum members from the area. 
|
|
#5
20-04-13, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Regained title.....
Since the old RCPC, RCASC, RCOC, were rolled into the Logistics branch, I wonder if there might be a Royal Canadian Logistics Corps on the horizon, much like the Brits have their Royal Logistics Corps, or perhaps those people don`t have the pull to make this happen?
Cheers, John S.
|
|
#6
20-04-13, 07:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
John, I heard the branches were polled and given the option of re-designation. Some immediately requested the return to their predecessor "Royal" , while others declined. In my understanding, those branches felt they were not the perpetuation of the earlier corps. Your suggestion may be the route those branches take.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
#7
20-04-13, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
John and Bill; The problem with the CF Log Br is that they are tri -service.
The RLC is army only. As much as I personally would like to see it happen; it will not. You are quite right Bill; branches were 'polled' last year and the LOG BR Senate elected to remain the CF LOG Br. Cheers Al
|
|
#8
20-04-13, 10:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The Communications and Electronics Branch is presently tri-service. I am curious what the powers will do with the RCAF and RCN personnel who are presently part of the branch. When I filled out my questionnaire, I specifically mentioned that a change to Royal Canadian Signals will have to be accompanied by splitting the none-army people and possibly rebadging them as Air Operations and Sea Operations.
I'm curious to see what happens. Phil
__________________
Courtesy of The Canadian Forces: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-.../lineages.html Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
#10
20-04-13, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Tks for that Phillip. I was not aware. The results of your BR/Corps may well have an impact upon other 'Branches" although I'm not holding my breath wrt the LOG BR. I don't think a survey was given to LOG BR pers; but I could be wrong. Colin; I saw a message from Peter Holt/RCEME Assn saying that new badges etc would be forthcoming etc. Did I read it wrong? Cheers Al
|
|
#11
20-04-13, 11:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Some interesting considerations here.
First, why would the Royal Canadian Signals be considered only army? If it was Royal Canadian Army Signal Corps...yes there is a problem. But the other services could fit under the new designation, with "sub" (no navy pun intended) branches of the corps. Al, in reference to the RLC in the Brit army, that is their interpretation. A Royal Canadian Logistics Corps (or what ever name is chosen) could be defined/identified as multi-service as well.
__________________
Res ipsa loquitur
|
|
#12
21-04-13, 12:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I am curious why the Dental Branch has not been renamed as the branch is strictly army. Phil
__________________
Courtesy of The Canadian Forces: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-.../lineages.html Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
#13
21-04-13, 12:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
There is a bit more to this rebranding. Operational requirements are driving changes within the CF. At one time, all of the training schools came under CF Training System. With the war in Afghanistan, the Army realised that it needed more control over what was being taught as well as making changes to the curriculum. A number of schools were put under the command of Combat Training Centre. These were - CF School of Military Engineering (CFSME), CF School of Communications and Electronics (CFSCE) and the CF School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (CFSEME).
I will use the case of CFSCE as it was my last posting before retirement. I am also one of the C & E Branch members who wore both Air and Army uniforms while doing essentially the same job within the branch. CFSCE came under Army control even though it employs Army, Navy and Air Force Personnel. Imagine the delight of an avionics technician (RCAF - works on aircraft electronics) who has been posted to CFSCE and finds out that he/she will be doing rucksack marches and digging trenches. I didn't like it and I was Army! There is still interservice rivalry and it does not make for good morale. As a radar technician (many years ago) I felt that "The Branch" was very much dominated by the Army and the Air Force were just tolerated. When posted to 2 Service Battalion and 1st Canadian Div Hq and Signals Regiment I still wore a blue uniform even though these were Army units. If the goal is cohesion and good morale, you need to feel like you belong to the same team. It helps if everybody in the unit wears the same uniform. With the Royal designations being reinstated, I believe that the Army will dominate the Signals element, so it is necessary to separate the Air Force and Navy personnel -for both operational requirements and morale. Phil
__________________
Courtesy of The Canadian Forces: https://www.canada.ca/en/department-.../lineages.html Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
|
|
#14
21-04-13, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
RCEME
Al,
I am helping the guy who is doing all the work on the badges and he said that the cap badge would stay the same. Wether that will change later is unknown? The collar badges will stay the same but we will have new shoulder titles which are being worked on right now. Colin
|
|
| Tags |
| canadian signals |
|
|
 |
Linear Mode
