OT - Royal Restoring RCAF and RCN

[rcaf_777]

Great day for the Canadian Forces, could'nt be more happy

CANFORGEN 147/11 VCDS 021/11 151502Z AUG 11
RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY, THE CANADIAN ARMY AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE.
UNCLASSIFIED



THE CDS IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RESTORING THE HISTORIC NAMES OF THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY (RCN), THE CANADIAN ARMY (CA), AND THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE (RCAF)


THE INITIATIVE TO RESTORE THE HISTORIC NAMES OF CANADA’S THREE FORMER SERVICES IS AIMED AT RESTORING AN IMPORTANT AND RECOGNIZABLE PART OF CANADA S MILITARY HERITAGE. THESE WERE THE SERVICES THAT FOUGHT AND EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND KOREA AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEFENCE OF EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA FROM THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLD WAR. THESE WERE ALSO THE SERVICES THAT PAVED THE WAY IN TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS


THE CHANGE WILL BE IMPLEMENTED BY RENAMING THE THREE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMANDS. MARITIME COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY LAND FORCE COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE CANADIAN ARMY AND AIR COMMAND WILL BE NAMED THE ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE. IN THIS WAY WE WILL REGAIN AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COLLECTIVE HERITAGE WITHIN A UNIFIED EFFECTIVE CANADIAN FORCES COMMAND STRUCTURE


MORE DETAILED INFORMATION WILL BE PROMULGATED BY YOUR RESPECTIVE CHAINS OF COMMAND AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE


FOR GREATER CERTAINTY, ALL CURRENT RESPECTIVE COMMAND ORDERS, RULES, DIRECTIVES, INSTRUCTIONS OR SIMILAR INSTRUMENTS REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL AMENDED TO REFLECT THE NAME CHANGE OF THE COMMAND

The Big question now is will the Royal Canadian Airforce ask for their Old Ranks back?

[95th Rifleman]

God save the Queen!

[HorseSoldier]

Seems like a very cool development. My understanding was that the amalgamation into Canadian Forces didn't even deliver any real cost savings in terms of streamlining logistics and admin, which was the (if I'm not mistaken) logic for kicking esprit de corps in the crotch when the decision was made way back when.

[Webstral]

Good for our northern cousins! An army deserves to be called such.

Why doesn't the Canadian Army get a "Royal" moniker? Are the Canadians suffering from the betrayal by the British Army all those years ago? Talk about sins of the father!

[Legbreaker]

Possibly because unlike the "rebel scum" most of those who were a part of the British Empire respect our history.

[Cdnwolf]

So instead of using the money to get new equipment and improve or pay out the pension plans for retired vets, millions of dollars will now be spent repainting and changing all the official paperwork from HMCS to RCN etc.

[HorseSoldier]

Commonwealth armies don't get "Royal" tacked onto the overall organization's name, rather it is assigned to individual regiments or corps that warrant it for one reason or another. For the Royal Navy I think this is because that organization traditionally belonged to the crown, rather than being raised by nobles or officers who had a warrant to recruit a regiment. Same for some army specialist/technical fields and (much later) the air forces.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

So instead of using the money to get new equipment and improve or pay out the pension plans for retired vets, millions of dollars will now be spent repainting and changing all the official paperwork from HMCS to RCN etc.

Could be worse -- at least they're not spending a billion dollars on uniforms and equipment sporting a camouflage pattern that works *nowhere* on the planet earth a la the US Army.

The longer I serve the more I think they should do some extensive testing and just shoot the dumbest general or admiral in the force in the face once a year to encourage the rest to try as hard ad they can to be smarter than a developmentally disabled redneck banjo player.

[natehale1971]

I think that I read somewhere that some units had earn the term 'Royal' for heroism ad loyality on the battlefield. Like the Aussies and New Zealanders having earning the Royal title for their armed forces after WW1 & WW2 and the losses they suffered fighting the Japanese and Germans.

in my 2300ad campaign the British Army had earned the title Royal British Army due to the pacification/reunification campaigns that restored His Majesties Government of King Harry.

[HorseSoldier]

Makes sense to me -- circa 2000 to 2030 or so, the UK (and plenty of other places) will live or die based on how their ground forces manage to work miracles with just about nothing to work with and what not. If that doesn't earn a "Royal" then I don't know what would.

[Canadian Army]

The reason why the the British, Canadian, Australia, and New Zealand Armies do not have Royal in their titles, is because they are all descended from "New Model Army", which was formed by the Parliamentarians in the English Civil War, hence no royal in it's title.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

I think that I read somewhere that some units had earn the term 'Royal' for heroism ad loyality on the battlefield. Like the Aussies and New Zealanders having earning the Royal title for their armed forces after WW1 & WW2 and the losses they suffered fighting the Japanese and Germans.

in my 2300ad campaign the British Army had earned the title Royal British Army due to the pacification/reunification campaigns that restored His Majesties Government of King Harry.

I am not sure on that part but it sounds like how the Russian bestowed the honorific title of "Guards" on the units that performed well during World War II.

[95th Rifleman]

Because British and Commonwealth armies use the regimental system as opposed to the divisional, indivdual naming conventions can be complicated.

We have some "royal" regiments and some non-royal. Two examples are the Royal Tank regiments and Royal Dragoon guards while two non-roya regiments are the Rifles and the 9th/12th lancers.

[dude_uk]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

The longer I serve the more I think they should do some extensive testing and just shoot the dumbest general or admiral in the force in the face once a year to encourage the rest to try as hard ad they can to be smarter than a developmentally disabled redneck banjo player.

"Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres"

"It is good to kill, from time to time, an admiral to encourage the others"-Voltaire

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I am not sure on that part but it sounds like how the Russian bestowed the honorific title of "Guards" on the units that performed well during World War II.

In some cases it's not too dissimilar, though not a one for one -- the transition of the Tank Corps to Royal Tank Corps (and later Royal Tank Regiment) for instance.

In other cases, it has to do with the traditional ownership of a given asset by the crown, versus foot and cavalry regiments raised by guys given commissions to do so. The Royal Artillery, for instance, is because people besides the Crown having access to cannon was discouraged quite a ways back, historically. I think other Corps, like the Royal Engineers acquired the Royal title to recognize or indicate that their skills were such that you couldn't trust the Honorable Lord Chumbly-Bumbly to scare up some of them in time of war and that they needed to be managed and administered much more like a centralized bureaucracy and military force than the infantry and cavalry did at the same point in history.