Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: how useful is an "integrated" military?
Summary: It has worked fairly well.
Message-ID: <10408@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 89 01:42:05 GMT
References: <10275@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: DI, Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Lines: 26
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec)

In article <10275@cbnews.ATT.COM>, gamiddleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Guy Middleton) writes:
> Several years ago, the Canadian armed forces were merged into a single unit,
> the Canadian Forces.  No more Army, Nave, or Air Force -- a single command
> structure.  At least that is the impression given to the public.
> 
> So, a question:  was the apparent unification of the forces merely a public
> relations exercise, or what?  If not, was there any benefit?

In my experience (14 years as a reserve artillery officer) it has worked
fairly well.  A lot (but not all) of the unneeded duplication (and 
triplication) has been removed.  There was a lot of very valid grumbling
about the loss of traditions, but in my experience, a lot of the little
traditions were kept even if according to the paperwork, they had been lost.
For example - we still called bombadiers, bombadiers except on documents 
where they were called corporals.  With the new uniforms, things are a
even better (I always felt sorry for our sailors who had to go into a
port wearing a green army type uniform when all of the other sailors
get to wear sailors clothes.)

-- 
UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec  James Borynec, Bell Northern Research
Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA        Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7