• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Logistic Corps?

Back to Basics.

Guest
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Hello all.  My Dad was a member of the RCASC and he and I were talking the other day about how the UK has the RLC and now New Zealand has a RNZ Army Logistic Regiment.  Think Canada should do a re-org and create a Canadian Logistic Corps with Logistic Regiments at brigade level and Logistic Company's within the various ASG's?  New cap-badge and colours too?  Any thoughts?
 
Back to Basics. said:
Hello all.  My Dad was a member of the RCASC and he and I were talking the other day about how the UK has the RLC and now New Zealand has a RNZ Army Logistic Regiment.  Think Canada should do a re-org and create a Canadian Logistic Corps with Logistic Regiments at brigade level and Logistic Company's within the various ASG's?  New cap-badge and colours too?  Any thoughts?

Nope, I don't. Not unless we are going back to individual elements controlling us purple folks and 3 merit lists (by enviornment) instead of the single "purple" way of doing business now (we don't belong to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force). And, that just means "more staff" at various HQs to look after all 3 seperately ... and, quite frankly, I prefer the boots on the ground where we need them instead of more driftwood at HQ levels.
 
Canada actually pioneered the "logistics regiment" in the early 1960s. It was called the, wait for it, Service Battalion. Whatever we call it now, and whatever permutations we go through, we still have that basic structure in mind. We also unified the "logistics" trades way back when, except that the EME functions were kept separate because it really was a unique set of disciplines.

Short answer: BTDT
 
Yes, the Logistics Branch is pretty much our version of the RLC.  The biggest difference is that the RLC now includes what used to be the Royal Corps of Pioneers and finance and administration is covered by the Adjutant General's Corps (AGC).

RLC = Really Large Corps
AGC = All Girls Corps
;D
 
ArmyVern said:
Nope, I don't. Not unless we are going back to individual elements controlling us purple folks and 3 merit lists (by enviornment) instead of the single "purple" way of doing business now (we don't belong to the Army, the Navy or the Air Force). And, that just means "more staff" at various HQs to look after all 3 seperately ... and, quite frankly, I prefer the boots on the ground where we need them instead of more driftwood at HQ levels.

Hear hear Vern, totally agree 110%!
 
I wonder if the British followed our example when they formed the Royal Logistics corps in the 90s (We had Log Branch in the 60s with unification, didn't we?)

I also agree with dividing log support by elements. I have seen how service bn support cbt arms in field units and I can only imagine log support for the air force or navy is much different.

Another pet peeve. I hate the term "Logistician". Read the Borden Citizen and you will know what I am talking about.  How about Logistics Soldiers or Logistics sailors? Sounds much better in my opinion.
 
ArmyRick said:
Another pet peeve. I hate the term "Logistician". Read the Borden Citizen and you will know what I am talking about.  How about Logistics Soldiers or Logistics sailors? Sounds much better in my opinion.

I agree with this one too 110%

 
ArmyRick said:
I wonder if the British followed our example when they formed the Royal Logistics corps in the 90s (We had Log Branch in the 60s with unification, didn't we?)

I also agree with dividing log support by elements. I have seen how service bn support cbt arms in field units and I can only imagine log support for the air force or navy is much different.

Another pet peeve. I hate the term "Logistician". Read the Borden Citizen and you will know what I am talking about.  How about Logistics Soldiers or Logistics sailors? Sounds much better in my opinion.

I can't imagine the look on the faces of the troops in my Bn at being called a Logistic soldier. They all identify pretty fiercely with their individual trades within the batallion rather to the Logistics core
 
ArmyRick said:
I wonder if the British followed our example when they formed the Royal Logistics corps in the 90s (We had Log Branch in the 60s with unification, didn't we?)

I also agree with dividing log support by elements. I have seen how service bn support cbt arms in field units and I can only imagine log support for the air force or navy is much different.

Another pet peeve. I hate the term "Logistician". Read the Borden Citizen and you will know what I am talking about.  How about Logistics Soldiers or Logistics sailors? Sounds much better in my opinion.

I have no dog in this fight over what the Log Branch should or should not be called, all I care about is that they continue to perform as they always have, with all the heart and energy they have always displayed.  What I am curious about is the is the dislike of the term "Logistician".

On the wall of my dad's den is a very large print of a quote about generals and logistictians, (I'll post the text tonight or tomorrow).  It has been a time honoured term that has always been used to denote someone that has mastern all the disciplines of Combat Service Support.  Dad service 4 days shy of 42 years between RCASC and the Logistics branch.  He's quite proud to be called or described as a "Logistician".

Again, just curious, I am after all just a Dumb A** Rad Op.
 
Just curious, how come Log Troops don't have corps prides? I know EME guys have fierce corps pride? Infantry guys tend to be more regimental pride (but some of us are just plain old proud to be ground pounding Infantryman, regardless of regiment). I know armour guys tend to be both regimental and corps pride.
 
ArmyRick said:
Just curious, how come Log Troops don't have corps prides? I know EME guys have fierce corps pride? Infantry guys tend to be more regimental pride (but some of us are just plain old proud to be ground pounding Infantryman, regardless of regiment). I know armour guys tend to be both regimental and corps pride.

My guess is that although the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers ceased to exist with unification, the subsequent branch that followed (under several names before settling on EME) was still pretty much the former RCEME.  The Log Branch, on the other hand, was the amalgamation of three former army corps, with their own corps pride and traditions, along with the equivalent branches of the other two former services.  It 's pretty hard to build corps pride with such a diverse group.
 
Yeah, the lack of Corps or Branch pride may have something to do with the overwhelming diversity.  I remember when the Admin Clerks were absorbed into the Borg Logistics Branch.  I didn't feel good about it.

I understand that there were very good reasons for it, but it nonetheless did kill a certain amount of Esprit des Corps.

I think it's more along the lines of having pride in one's MOC, rather than the entire branch.

Just my 2 kopecks worth, mind you...
 
ArmyRick said:
Just curious, how come Log Troops don't have corps prides? I know EME guys have fierce corps pride? Infantry guys tend to be more regimental pride (but some of us are just plain old proud to be ground pounding Infantryman, regardless of regiment). I know armour guys tend to be both regimental and corps pride.

Pride stems from accomplishment and when your talking military pride your talking accomplishment through hardship and difficulty. Infantry from the get go receive more than a fair share of hardships than do the Logistics branch. This carries throughout their careers and deployments and is similar across all combat arms.

Where ever you find a group of people pushed to their limits there will be a tighter bond between them.
 
ArmyRick said:
Just curious, how come Log Troops don't have corps prides? I know EME guys have fierce corps pride? Infantry guys tend to be more regimental pride (but some of us are just plain old proud to be ground pounding Infantryman, regardless of regiment). I know armour guys tend to be both regimental and corps pride.

Well, it helps that the EME Branch is all Army ... and career managed by the Army - despite where they may serve.

____________________

I personally have no qualms about being called a "Logistician", but some do. I, on the other hand, would object to being called a "Logisitic Sailor", "Logistic Soldier" etc etc. Why?? Because they do not exist. I am a member of the Logistics Branch (& I support the Log Branch Kit Shop), and I am a Supply Tech, and I happen to wear an Army uniform.

BUT, I have served in all three enviornmental capacities (Land, Air and Sea sp) throughout my career. I know Sup techs and Clerks who wear navy uniforms who have never served a single day with the Navy; likewise those in Air or Land uniforms. My uniform colour means nothing --- it is purple.

Our Branch has RMS clerks, musicians, sup techs, tfc techs, truckers etc and although we wear a variety of all three uniform colours, that uniform colour does not mean that I have ever been "a sailor", "a soldier" or an "airman/woman" --- the only common denominator that we have therefore that we are all "Logisticians". Adding something to that ending "assumes" experience and enviornmental employment that should not be presumed.
 
As a Log MWO, do you feel the Log Branch would be better served if it was subdivided by elements (Air, Sea, Land)?

Or do you feel it is fine as is?
 
I don't know if its due to my first failed attempts at hard airforce trades, or that I'm just a bad Logistician, but I've always seen myself as an Airforce guy who happens to be Log. That being said, most of the NCMs I've worked with, have aways identified with their trade first, then it was tied between the Branch and the Element. Take Tfc Techs for instance. They have the blue line, whether some will admit it or not. They argued over being Airforce or Army, not being a Purple trade. Stewards see themselves as Navy personnel (as arguably they should be a hard Navy trade). Most Sup Techs, Cooks, and Posties I know though put the Branch before Element.

I do think it makes a difference as to where the individual has been employed. If you have only ever worked in one element, especially in ones junior years, and either with only your own trade, or your own element, you'll have a harder time identifying with the Branch as a whole.

 
Later than I said it would be but here is:

The Logistician

Logisticians are a sad and embittered race of men who are very much in demand in war, and sink resentfully into obscurity in peace.  They deal only in facts, but must work for men who merchant in theories.  They emerge during war because war is very much a fact.  The disappear in peace because peace is mostly theory.  The people who merchant in theories, and employ logisticians in war and ignore them in peace are generals.

Generals are a happily blessed race who radiate confidence and power.  They feed only on ambrosia and drink only nectar.  In peace, they stride confidently and can invade a world simply by sweeping their hands grandly over the map, pointing their fingers decisively up terrain corridors, and blocking defiles and obstacles with the sides of their hands.  In war, they must stride more slowly because each General has a logistician riding on his back and he knows that at any moment, the logistician may lean forward and whisper: "No you can't do that". Generals fear logisticians in war, in peace, generals try to forget logisticians.


Romping along beside generals are strategists and tacticians.  Logisticians despise strategists and tacticians.  Strategists and tacticians do not know about logiticians until they grow up to be generals - which they usually do.

Sometimes a logistician becomes a general. If he does, he must associate with generals whom he hates, he has a retinue of strategists and tacticians whom he despises; and , on is back ,is logistician whom he fears.  This is why logisticians who become generals always have ulcers and cannot eat their ambrosia.
 
ivan the tolerable said:
Yeah, the lack of Corps or Branch pride may have something to do with the overwhelming diversity.  I remember when the Admin Clerks were absorbed into the Borg Logistics Branch.  I didn't feel good about it.

I'm glad I got out of the military long before they warped the Administration Branch into the Logistics Branch.  While I can understand the idea of streamlining things (in my eyes, Finance Clerks should have been Adm, not Log; after all, Postal Clerks were Adm before they got their own branch [which was good in my eyes]), there was a special branch pride developing in the Adm Branch when I served.

And I have to agree with you on that "Borg" Branch observation, Ivan.  Really sad in my eyes.
 
Back
Top