From CFB Baggotville, Quebec: IMG_0964mod001.jpg (1/1)

[Square Wheels[_4_]]

[Square Wheels[_3_]]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:19:00 +0000, Square Wheels is writing:


Nope, I have no idea what it is, except very, very big!

Hey, I'm just a car dude, lurking and learning!


SW



--
Like cars in amusement parks, our direction is often determined through
collisions.

-Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)

[David Hartung[_4_]]

Square Wheels wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:19:00 +0000, Square Wheels is writing:
>
>
> Nope, I have no idea what it is, except very, very big!

Looks like a USAF C17.

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

Yep! Except that this one belongs to the Canadian Air Force. Check out the
markings . . .

"David Hartung" > wrote in message
. ..
> Square Wheels wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:19:00 +0000, Square Wheels is writing:
>>
>>
>> Nope, I have no idea what it is, except very, very big!
>
> Looks like a USAF C17.

[David Hartung[_4_]]

Jacques & Laurie wrote:
> Yep! Except that this one belongs to the Canadian Air Force. Check out the
> markings . . .

Yeah, I noticed that in a later picture.

[hwerte]

From the Boeing web site:
.... the Canadian government's ordered in 2007 four C-17 Globemaster IIIs,
the first two of which already are in service with Canadian Forces.
"A high-wing, 4-engine, T-tailed military-transport aircraft, the
multi-service C-17 can carry large equipment, supplies and troops directly
to small airfields in harsh terrain anywhere in the world day or night.
The massive, sturdy, long-haul aircraft tackles distance, destination and
heavy, oversized payloads in unpredictable conditions. It has delivered
cargo in every worldwide operation since the 1990s."


On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:59:14 -0500, Jacques & Laurie
> wrote:

> Yep! Except that this one belongs to the Canadian Air Force. Check out
> the
> markings . . .
>
> "David Hartung" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Square Wheels wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:19:00 +0000, Square Wheels is writing:
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, I have no idea what it is, except very, very big!
>>
>> Looks like a USAF C17.
>
>



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Jacques & Laurie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Yep! Except that this one belongs to the Canadian Air Force. Check out the
> markings . . .

Canadian Armed Forces, not "Canadian Air Force."
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/N-5/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II/20080216/en?command=HOME&caller=SI&search_type=all&shorttitle=national%20defence%20act&day=16&month=2&year=2008&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50&page=2&isPrinting=false&noCookie
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

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)



"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "Jacques & Laurie" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Yep! Except that this one belongs to the Canadian Air Force. Check out
>> the markings . . .
>
> Canadian Armed Forces, not "Canadian Air Force."
> http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowDoc/cs/N-5/bo-ga:l_I::bo-ga:l_II/20080216/en?command=HOME&caller=SI&search_type=all&shorttitle=national%20defence%20act&day=16&month=2&year=2008&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50&page=2&isPrinting=false&noCookie
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>

[The Visitor]

Jacques & Laurie wrote:


> Jacques
> (former corporal, CANADIAN AIR FORCE)
>


Yep. My brother inlaw calls it the "Air Force". He is still in.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jacques & Laurie wrote:
>
>
>> Jacques
>> (former corporal, CANADIAN AIR FORCE)
>>
>
>
> Yep. My brother inlaw calls it the "Air Force". He is still in.

It's an "air force" to be sure, just not the "Air Force".
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"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.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[®i©ardo]

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 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.

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

Thank you for that walk in history, sir. That is all true . . . Was under
the flag inthose days too . . .

Jacques


"®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 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.
>
> --
> Moving things in still pictures!

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

Part time soldier, eh? I know of which you speak. 30 Mile snipers, 30th
Field was. What was it you had? 2 batteries? (2 guns), WWII specials at
that . . .

Just teasing . . .

Jacques

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Jacques & Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Jacques
>>> (former corporal, CANADIAN AIR FORCE)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yep. My brother inlaw calls it the "Air Force". He is still in.
>
> It's an "air force" to be sure, just not the "Air Force".
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
>

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Jacques & Laurie" > wrote in message
. ..
> Part time soldier, eh? I know of which you speak. 30 Mile snipers, 30th
> Field was. What was it you had? 2 batteries? (2 guns), WWII specials at
> that . . .
>
> Just teasing . . .

May 73 to Dec 74, Pri Res; Jan 75 to Jan 96, Reg F; Jan 96 to May 2000, Pri
Res.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[®i©ardo]

Jacques & Laurie wrote:
> Thank you for that walk in history, sir. That is all true . . . Was under
> the flag inthose days too . . .
>
> Jacques
>
>
> "®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 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.
>>
>> --
>> Moving things in still pictures!
>
>
Thanks Jacques,

We disregard or abandon our heritage at our peril!

®i©ardo

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Andrew Chaplin]

"®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.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[CWO4 Dave Mann]

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.


Ah yes, I remember Bag Town ... when I was with the 10th Mountain
Division (ages ago), we went on maneuvers with some Canadian Army unit
(can't recall but believe they were also mountain, snow troops). They
ran us into the freeking ground on cross country ski exercises. They
all must have been born on skis.

Great bunch of guys, however and the NCO club at Bag Town Base was one
rocking joint just like the one in Baden Baden, GE ...

Oh Canada!

Cheers,
Dave

[Andrew Chaplin]

"CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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.
>
>
> Ah yes, I remember Bag Town ... when I was with the 10th Mountain
> Division (ages ago), we went on maneuvers with some Canadian Army unit
> (can't recall but believe they were also mountain, snow troops). They
> ran us into the freeking ground on cross country ski exercises. They
> all must have been born on skis.
>
> Great bunch of guys, however and the NCO club at Bag Town Base was one
> rocking joint just like the one in Baden Baden, GE ...
>
> Oh Canada!

Are you sure that wasn't Canadian Forces Base Gagetown (AKA "Gag Town,"
"Gage-Nam" and "Camp Swamp-on-the-Hilltops")? There are not many ground
manoeuvre areas around Bagotville, and the Combat Training Centre (our "Centre
of Excrements") is in New Brunswick, along with the tac hel training mob.

By necessity, all Canadian regular units in the field force are "snow troops."
Winter warfare exercises are an annual qualification, usually done in late
January when the weather is dependably cold. While we may train "off the
reservation" in spring, summer and autumn, winter training is almost always
done on DND land because it is too hard to clean up the brass and pyro
afterward.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[CWO4 Dave Mann]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> 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.
>>
>> Ah yes, I remember Bag Town ... when I was with the 10th Mountain
>> Division (ages ago), we went on maneuvers with some Canadian Army unit
>> (can't recall but believe they were also mountain, snow troops). They
>> ran us into the freeking ground on cross country ski exercises. They
>> all must have been born on skis.
>>
>> Great bunch of guys, however and the NCO club at Bag Town Base was one
>> rocking joint just like the one in Baden Baden, GE ...
>>
>> Oh Canada!
>
> Are you sure that wasn't Canadian Forces Base Gagetown (AKA "Gag Town,"
> "Gage-Nam" and "Camp Swamp-on-the-Hilltops")? There are not many ground
> manoeuvre areas around Bagotville, and the Combat Training Centre (our "Centre
> of Excrements") is in New Brunswick, along with the tac hel training mob.
>
> By necessity, all Canadian regular units in the field force are "snow troops."
> Winter warfare exercises are an annual qualification, usually done in late
> January when the weather is dependably cold. While we may train "off the
> reservation" in spring, summer and autumn, winter training is almost always
> done on DND land because it is too hard to clean up the brass and pyro
> afterward.


Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
something like that.

Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!

Cheers,
Dave

[The Visitor]

Sorry, I really don't know what your getting at.

????




Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jacques & Laurie wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Jacques
>>>(former corporal, CANADIAN AIR FORCE)
>>>
>>
>>
>>Yep. My brother inlaw calls it the "Air Force". He is still in.
>
>
> It's an "air force" to be sure, just not the "Air Force".

[The Visitor]

Never mind, I read more and got your number. 0

[®i©ardo]

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, 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 elsewhere: We disregard or abandon our heritage at our peril!

--
Moving things in still pictures!

[Andrew Chaplin]

"CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
. ..
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>> "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, I remember Bag Town ... when I was with the 10th Mountain
>>> Division (ages ago), we went on maneuvers with some Canadian Army unit
>>> (can't recall but believe they were also mountain, snow troops). They
>>> ran us into the freeking ground on cross country ski exercises. They
>>> all must have been born on skis.
>>>
>>> Great bunch of guys, however and the NCO club at Bag Town Base was one
>>> rocking joint just like the one in Baden Baden, GE ...
>>>
>>> Oh Canada!
>>
>> Are you sure that wasn't Canadian Forces Base Gagetown (AKA "Gag Town,"
>> "Gage-Nam" and "Camp Swamp-on-the-Hilltops")? There are not many ground
>> manoeuvre areas around Bagotville, and the Combat Training Centre (our
>> "Centre
>> of Excrements") is in New Brunswick, along with the tac hel training mob.
>>
>> By necessity, all Canadian regular units in the field force are "snow
>> troops."
>> Winter warfare exercises are an annual qualification, usually done in late
>> January when the weather is dependably cold. While we may train "off the
>> reservation" in spring, summer and autumn, winter training is almost always
>> done on DND land because it is too hard to clean up the brass and pyro
>> afterward.
>
>
> Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
> march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
> remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
> something like that.
>
> Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!

The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Fort+Drum,+NY&daddr=44.855869,-76.300049+to:Canadian+Forces+Base+Petawawa&mra=dpe&mrcr=0&mrsp=1&sz=7&via=1&sll=44.98258,-76.40134&sspn=3.737679,7.404785&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=7

From 1977 to 1996 or so, it was home to the Canadian Airborne Regiment, which
had an intervention task in the event of encroachments in the Arctic
Archipelago and which was trained in mountain warfare. Since that regiment's
disbandment, 1st and 3rd Battalions, The Royal Canadian Regiment, are
stationed there. Right now, however, they are making free on McGregor Range
north of Fort Bliss: http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_8276618.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"®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 elsewhere: 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.)

[Jacques & Laurie[_2_]]

That's OK . . .

It's a "Canadian thing . . ." Even I don't understand it any more. Sort of
Regimental Rivalries, ya know . . .

At any rate, it's ancient history now.

I don't live in the "Great White North" any longer anyway . . .

There is no snow and ice where I now live . . . just tropical mayhem for
six months of the year

Jacques
"The Visitor" > wrote in message
...
> Never mind, I read more and got your number. 0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Rob McCleave]

In article >,
"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:

> "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >
> > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
> > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
> > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
> > something like that.
> >
> > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
>
> The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.

The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.

Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Rob McCleave" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>
>> "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >
>> >
>> > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
>> > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
>> > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
>> > something like that.
>> >
>> > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
>>
>> The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
>
> The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
> Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.
>
> Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
> nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
> stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.

Right. I was thinking of a base with a manoeuvre training area.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew[_8_]]

Dang news group didn't carry the pic - can someone repost it? thanks


"Rob McCleave" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>
> > "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > >
> > > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
> > > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
> > > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
> > > something like that.
> > >
> > > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
> >
> > The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
>
> The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
> Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.
>
> Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
> nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
> stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.

[Peter Hucker[_2_]]

Attached.

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:37:58 -0500, "Andrew"
> wrote:

>Dang news group didn't carry the pic - can someone repost it? thanks
>
>
>"Rob McCleave" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>
>> > "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
>> > > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
>> > > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
>> > > something like that.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
>> >
>> > The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
>>
>> The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
>> Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.
>>
>> Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
>> nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
>> stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.
>
--
This message has been brought to you by solar and wind power. Who needs the national grid?
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

I got the strangest recording when I called the phone company the other day.
It said, "You have been connected to the correct department on the first try. This is against company policy. Please hang up and redial."

[Square Wheels[_3_]]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:37:58 -0500, Andrew wrote:

> Dang news group didn't carry the pic - can someone repost it? thanks


Did you get the others?


SW

>
>
> "Rob McCleave" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
>>
>> > "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
>> > . ..
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a road
>> > > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
>> > > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
>> > > something like that.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
>> >
>> > The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
>>
>> The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
>> Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.
>>
>> Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
>> nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
>> stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.

--
Like cars in amusement parks, our direction is often determined through
collisions.

-Yahia Lababidi, writer (b. 1973)

[Andrew[_8_]]

thanks..I kow you can actually go into the tip of the tail. How - probably a
ladder. A friend has a pic of him at the top..so its probably some avionics
maybe.

ANdrew
"Andrew" > wrote in message
...
> Dang news group didn't carry the pic - can someone repost it? thanks
>
>
> "Rob McCleave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
> >
> > > "CWO4 Dave Mann" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well which base is right north of Fort Drum. seems to me we did a
road
> > > > march with vehicles and the border inspectors on the Canadian side
> > > > remarked that the last time this has happened was the war of 1812 or
> > > > something like that.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, a great time was had by all, to be sure!
> > >
> > > The base north of Fort Drum is Petawawa.
> >
> > The closest base to Fort Drum is CFB Kingston, a much shorter hike than
> > Petawawa. You have to hang a left once you cross the border, though.
> >
> > Further west is CFB Trenton, which is where the new C-17s live. It's
> > nice to have the heavy lift capability. We used to rent Antonovs to haul
> > stuff around. That's just plain embarrassing.
>
>