Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"®i©ardo" wrote in message
.uk...
Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"Jacques & Laurie" wrote in message
. ..
Xcuse me! . . .

Did you also know that CFB Bagotville was also referred to as "BAG Town"?
I have come to know it as such because every service man that I knew in
Canada called it as such. Endearing term, if you wish . . .

As far as I was concerned, I served with the "Air Force" in Canada
(1972-1977) even though WE all wore GREEN. Remember those days?

Jacques
(former corporal, CANADIAN AIR FORCE)
I first joined a unit that is widely known in Ottawa and The Royal Regiment
of Canadian Artillery as the "Bytown Gunners," but widespread usage does
not in any way make the name official.

It is fine to use colloquialisms like "Air Force" in places where they will
not confuse. You are, however, posting to an international forum where not
everyone is au fait with the National Defence Re-organization Act, 1967,
its disestablishment of the navy, army and air force as services in Canada,
and its establishment of the single service with "forces" (regular, reserve
and special) as the basis for managing personnel establishments.
I really think that you should loosen up a bit.

It is highly unlikely that anyone, apart from you maybe, has any problems
with those who fly military aircraft in Canada being referred to as "air
force" as a means of identification. Similarly, for those who serve in
ground based, or sea based rôles there is no problem with references to
"army" or "navy" in terms of their particular rôles.

To quote a sombre note from the RCAF website: "The Canadian Forces
Reorganization Act came into effect on 1 February 1968. With that, the
identity of the RCAF, its records and its achievements, were laid to rest in
the pages of Canadian aviation and military history."

The same website, however, also confirms the right to an identity by
stating: "In 1999 the Canadian Air Force celebrated its Diamond Jubilee
after 75 years serving Canadians. With its current unified command
structure, new programs, and new aircraft Canadians can be proud of their
air force and look to the future with much optimism."

Canada's armed services have a proud heritage and have made a
disproportionate contribution to world security over a great many years, and
an act of parliament, passed for whatever reason, seemed an attempt by some,
it has been said, to dilute the spirit that made them great. It's
interesting that this was driven through parliament by Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau and

Trudeau did not become prime minister until April 68, more than two months
after the re-organization. The Act itself passed in the late spring of 67,
AIRI. It was Lester Pearson's cabinet that drove it, and they did it in a
minority Parliament, meaning they had broad support; it wasn't done on a
whipped vote. Trudeau was largely indifferent to the CF (when he wasn't being
mistrustful) and only voted on the changes as a member of cabinet and then in
the House.

Defence Minister Paul Hellyer, both of whom seemed to court controversy.
Indeed, the attempt to abandon service traditions was less than popular in
some quarters as was the concept of one single uniform and rank structure
throughout, hence the fact that it was not fully implemented across the
board - personnel of Maritime Command, for example, maintained their naval
rank designations.

Actually, the single rank structure was implemented across the board. It was
one of the first aspects of unification dropped. The use of naval rank was
tolerated unofficially and then formalized in the late '70s, IIRC. The use of
former army ranks in the artillery, sappers and GGHG is still unofficial but
tolerated.

I have no problem with people referring collectively to Canada's military air
fleet, the air crew, ground crew and support wallahs as "the air force." What
I have a problem with is the turning of this collectivity into something
distinct from the rest of the CF by use of "Air Force" as a proper noun.

You are being rather pedantic about this in that it IS different to the
navy and the army - it flies the aeroplanes, and, as such, is Canada's
Air Force, whilst others drive boats and yet others are land based for
the use of their equipment. O.K. so it's following a lead set by China's
armed forces by lumping them all under one title, but many would not be
too enthusiastic at using that as a rôle model.

As I've said elsewhe We disregard or abandon our heritage at our peril!

--
Moving things in still pictures!