"®i©ardo" wrote in message
.uk...
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,

The manpower credits for tactical helicopters, shipboard helicopters and
maritime patrol aircraft come out of the hides of Land Force Command and
Maritime Command, and the money to procure and to fund them comes from there
as well. Most of the credits to stand up 4 AD Regiment, RCA, came out of Air
Command. It's a complex equation (and the credits come with a history -- I
know, because I was the staff wallah who tracked those of Land Force Command).
With 12 Level 1 business planners (e.g. Assistant Deputy Minister, Finance &
Corporate Services, or ADM Infrastructure and Environment) in the integrated
CF and department, the notion of distinct navy, army and air force doesn't
fit.

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!

Heritage was neither abandoned nor disregarded; it was examined and found
largely irrelevant to late 20th century operations by the Glassco Commission.
As a result, the department recommended a new organizational concept to our
civilian political masters and they bought into it because, with three
services, the military priorities were being elevated to a political level for
resolution. unification meant that such things would be dealt with by
professionals. This was intended to obviate the procurement messes of the
1950s when the Avro Arrow, the Heller anti-tank missile and Bobcat APC
programmes nearly choked the department.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)