Updated Army Service Dress project

[Halifax Tar]

From what I've heard from the older folks, there was a staff course but that was for officers.

Probably not a bad idea to reinstate it, and for SNCOs too.

I can see the value to it. But don't try to call it a leadership course. I do believe most bases offer writing courses as well. At least Halifax does.

Yes, but the MWO should also have some technical writing skills if they're going to be a tech expert. They don't need to write theses, but definitely technical reports.

Technical writing, and the research paper I just had to write are two very different things.

I don't know if the trust erosion happened because SNCOs started writing papers.

That is about the SEM program and the CPO1/CWO Corps. Not about writing papers.

 

[AmmoTech90]

I don't know if the trust erosion happened because SNCOs started writing papers.

It didn't help in stopping it.

 

[WLSC]

Thanks tips.

1) If we need a staff NCO course to teach military writing and/or staff work, then create one. But don't call it a leadership ship course and hinge substantive ranks on it.

2) If you're an MWO, a technical expert in your field, and your leaders won't listen to your input because you didn't go to McGill and get a PHD in English Writing, that's not a you problem. That's a them problem.

3) SEM and the creation of CPO1/CWO corps is, in my opinion, an abject failure. We're being pulled away from our very roots and those we are meant to lead. If you want to be an officer go be one, but that is not the roll of the Snr NCM. And SEM and all of its miserable off shoots has errored our core values and the trust we had with our JRs.

1) Well, tell you CoC, those course are their idea. It’s commun knowledge. All trade are not equals. If you lost your time because you already knew, good for you. You did good PD.

2) Einstein was a very bad teacher. Not because you’re good that everyone will bow to you. As an MWO, you have all the credibility of the word until you open it or write. If you thinks you will listen to because your the master tech, think again.

3) The Chief Corps was and still is an interesting idea but. When it started, it was seen by the many trades with less influences a bit like the revenge of the nerds. Some were ready to move fast and they did. What will decide if it’s a good idea will be decided in the longer run.

No formal education make you an Officer, training and the commission do. They decided 20+ years ago to make the education part parallel to the training. All the armies of at least NATO are going this way, in the south they have to have a degree to become E-8 (USAF) and E-9 for the rest (if I’m not mistaken)

You have to understand that education, formal or not doesn’t make who you are, you are. If some MWO or CPO want to become petite Officer because they go to Osside, the people who put them there should be fire for mismanagement of their career.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

From what I've heard from the older folks, there was a staff course but that was for officers.

Probably not a bad idea to reinstate it, and for SNCOs too.


Yes, but the MWO should also have some technical writing skills if they're going to be a tech expert. They don't need to write theses, but definitely technical reports.


I don't know if the trust erosion happened because SNCOs started writing papers.

* WO/PO1 and above are not Snr NCOs.

 

[Halifax Tar]

1) We’ll, tell you CoC, those course are their idea. It’s commun knowledge. All trade are not equals. If you lost your time because you already knew, good for you. You did good PD.

I have voiced my opinions. And will continue to do so.

2) Einstein was a very bad teacher. Not because your good that everyone will bow to you. As an MWO, you have all the credibility of the word until you open it or write. If you thinks you will listen to because your the master tech, thing again.

I had a look at your profile. You're the RSM of an Inf Reserve unit, congrats BTW that is something very special. You have to remember we do not make policy. Officers do. At best we can advise on best routes forward, this knowledge is generally gained from our years of experience. If your CO or one of your Coy Commanders wont listen to or read what you have to say and take it into consideration, because you cannot write like a university graduate, then they are vastly undervaluing what you bring to the table, and they do this at their own peril.

3) The Chief Corps was and still is an interesting idea but. When it started, it was seen by the many trades with less influences like the revenge of the nerds. Some were ready to move fast and they did. What will decide if it’s a good idea will be decided in the longer run.

Not all ideas should be born into reality. Time is already telling.

No formal education make you an Officer, training and the commission do. They decided 20+ years ago to make the education part parallel to the training. All the armies of at least NATO are going this way, in the south they have to have a degree to become E-8 (USAF) and E-9 for the rest (if I’m not mistaken)

I'm not sure what this about. But the USAF doesn't require a degree for E8 but it does for E9. And I do believe that they are the only service that requires that. Though as normal, having one is a competitive edge.

You have to understand that education, formal or not doesn’t make who you are, you are. If some MWO or CPO want to become petite Officer because they go to Osside, the people who put them there should be fire for mismanagement of their career.

You're going to need to expand on this.

 

[WLSC]

If your CO or one of your Coy Commanders wont listen to or read what you have to say and take it into consideration, because you cannot write like a university graduate, then they are vastly undervaluing what you bring to the table, and they do this at their own peril.

Absolutely and I see you point but if I make my writing at headache level of comprehension, I’m doom to fail.

I'm not sure what this about. But the USAF doesn't require a degree for E8 but it does for E9. And I do believe that they are the only service that requires that. Though as normal, having one is a competitive edge.

All the USAF E-8 I worked with all told me they have to and army and Marine require it also (not 100% sure for USN).

You're going to need to expand on this.

Coaching and Mentoring is at leat poor. It getting better but not where it should be. How many people have you seen getting promotion help by a « sponsor « instead of being groomed fairly or because their weaknesses was « covered » by said spacers? It was not the rules but a large enough portion. Grooming is bad, that why you need a Master Sailor to do the CPO’s job.

 

[Kilted]

Honestly, if the CO needs a Mcpl to have the tru pulse of the troops, you have an unit that is not in shape to fight and the grooming of the WO and Sgt is not only deficient but completely junk. It means that there absolutely no trust, no insight no work ethics, and no one listen to nobody. Worst then a Klingon ship.

If, as an RSM, I would learn stuff about the troops by the CO, I would not do my job. Maybe it’s a navy thing, I don’t know but it’s a groing perceptual leadership crisis.

I'm just waiting for the Command Master Sailor to transfer over to the Army and then down to the Battalion....Company level. In good reserve fashion it would probably often end up being a crusty old Cpl because all of the young MCpls get promoted too fast. They could alter the name to Company Corporal Master.

 

[torg003]

This thread on Army uniform changes sure has gone of the rails , not that it's any of my business, I guess. Carry on.

 

[WLSC]

WO/PO1 and above are not Snr NCOs.

And this is not known mostly by the WO’s. There’s a reason we wear cronw,not bars and the ranks are lower on the sleeves and it’s not aesthetic.

 

[dimsum]

And this is not known mostly by the WO’s. There’s a reason we wear cronw,not bars and the ranks are lower on the sleeves and it’s not aesthetic.

The CAF does. That is not uniform (heh) across the Commonwealth

 

[WLSC]

The CAF does. That is not uniform (heh) across the Commonwealth

I had a discussion with a Aussie WO when it happened. They were reaaaaally pissed off. In is view, it was Officer driven to put the WO is they place…

At least, the Aussies know that WO are not NCO’s

 

[mariomike]

the ranks are lower on the sleeves

A guy told us it was because the lower sleeve could be easier concealed ( behind the back ), until they wanted to display it for you to see.

By then, it was too late. ( smile emoji ).

We couldn't look up if that was true or false in the pre-internet era. So, just had to take his word for it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

And this is not known mostly by the WO’s. There’s a reason we wear cronw,not bars and the ranks are lower on the sleeves and it’s not aesthetic.

It seems it’s not known by most of the CAF, unfortunately including WOs as you said. I find it most common with Officers; the Snr NCM terms has probably lead to some of that.

Is it important? Differing opinions on that, is it ok to say a Major is a subordinate officer?

I consider it a professional courtesy…

 

[WLSC]

It seems it’s not known by most of the CAF, unfortunately including WOs as you said. I find it most common with Officers; the Snr NCM terms has probably lead to some of that.

Is it important? Differing opinions on that, is it ok to say a Major is a subordinate officer?

I consider it a professional courtesy…

It is not important until you don’t know who you are and what it means.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Agreed.

Back when I was a Troop WO, I had an open door policy and meant it. I also did a lot of "Management by Walking Around."

I made note of every issue that was brought up to me by a troop. I did whatever I could to assist them, and they always left my office knowing I had their interest at heart.

Once they left though... I made note of which Section they were coming from and had a very direct conversation with their Section Comd to try and find out why they were cut out of the loop. A lot of times, it's wasn't the first time the troop had brought it up. It just died on the cutting room floor after they left the Sect Comd's office. I wrote quite a few 5Bs and recommended ICs for this kind of apathy towards our Jr troop members.

Leadership is almost entirely based in servitude. If you're not working for your people on the issues that matter to them, don't be surprised when they stop working for you on the things that matter to you.

And that - closing the loop with the leadership team - is the key to using MBWA effectively. If one doesn't do that it just becomes a way for soldiers to spout their grievances to the CO (or Troop WO); if one does that then the soldiers learn, very quickly, that Bing the CO (or Troop WO) is a bad idea because (s)he will check with the rest of the leadership chain.

 

[torg003]

So can we assume that the new khaki army DEU will look like (or similar to) the one in the Aussie pic?

 

[WLSC]

So can we assume that the new khaki army DEU will look like (or similar to) the one in the Aussie pic?

Almost, New Zealand Army colour.

 

[McG]

* WO/PO1 and above are not Snr NCOs.

It depends whose terminology bank you are using. The NATO definition of NCO would include our warrant officer and petty officer ranks.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It depends whose terminology bank you are using. The NATO definition of NCO would include our warrant officer and petty officer ranks.

I’d be going off of our (QR & O) definition.

Which could/should be changed to include WO/PO1 +. Warrant is still “without a Commission” in Canada so I’m not sure why we delineated where we did, but we did.

 

[WLSC]

It depends whose terminology bank you are using. The NATO definition of NCO would include our warrant officer and petty officer ranks.

Yep but since it's the NDA that create that, I put that first.

On the OR side of the house, I think that it's only in CANZUK armies have our type of WO. The others are generally speaking more align with the US on that.