Talk:Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

I'd love it if someone could fill in the summaries of the individual regiments. I'll do a few if I can find the info, but I'm sure there are folks out there who know more about the subject than I do.

[edit] Good start; keep it up

Greetings:

A warm thank you to all who began and contributed to the development of the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery in Wikipedia. Let's keep this up!

- Captain B.W. Woods, CD, RCA

[edit] Origin

"On 20 October 1871, the Royal Canadian Artillery formed the first regular Canadian army units when they created two batteries of garrison artillery; thus, that date is considered the regiment's birthday."

This sentence seems to say that the regiment founded itself. Shouldn't the reference to Royal Canadian Artillery instead be to the Royal Artillery? I think this is what the earlier version of the sentence was meaning when it said "The Royal Regiment". Cjrother 18:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Could the two batteries have been formed separately of the RA's structure by the Dominion Government? To avoid confusion, maybe it could be rephased as: "On 20 October 1871, the first regular Canadian army units were created, in the form of two batteries of garrison artillery; thus, that date is considered the regiment's birthday." SoLando (Talk) 05:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I've made your suggested change to the article since no one seemed to mind or have any other suggestions. Cjrother 19:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Well done! We're getting some good information on this page. I now encourage all gunners (and other interested people) to develop the articles of their units. Ubique. Brent Woods 01:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence

When listing the order of precedence on parade, it should be done by formations and units in accordance with A-AD-200-000/AG-000 The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces, 1999 para 18. Personnel branches (such as Naval Operations Branch) are a different concept altogether and do not come into play for parade precedence. (One can view this manual online at http://142.59.159.170/pams/cfp200.pdf)

The order or precedence for the commands and major elements of the CF is:

a. officer cadets of the Royal Military College when parading as a unit or detachment representing their college;

b. National Defence Headquarters (NDHQ);

c. Maritime Command;

d. Land Force Command;

e. Air Command;

f. CF Northern Area;

g. CF Recruiting and Education Training System, when not formed as a subordinate formation of the Assistant Deputy Minister (Human Resources - Military) Group as part of a single NDHQ element.

Brent Woods 13:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

CFP 200, Chap 1, Sect 1, para 1: deals with precedence not only on parades, but also at ceremonial functions. Also, para 2:

"Depending on the circumstances, precedence will be determined on an individual basis; by component, formation, or unit; or by branch."

Para 23: "Branches take precedence within the CF …(etc)… The order of precedence for branches is:…" It then lists the Nav Ops branch, followed by Armd & Arty branches, with requisite notes regarding RCHA's right of the line when they have their guns etc etc. It's practically word-for-word the same as CFAO 61-6.

Precedence is more than just who marches behind who on the drill square. When it comes to commands and major elements, yes, MARCOM comes before LFC. But when it comes to the personnel branches, the armd /arty mix is preceded by the Naval Ops branch. SigPig 06:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW...is the "Artillery Branch" the exact same thing as the RCA, and are they the same as the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery? SigPig 06:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The term personnel branch, as I understand it, refers to the classification of the individual service member. For instance, since we always have members of various support trades in an artillery regiment, they march as part of the regiment, and not with their different branches. Conversely, an artillery officer posted to NDHQ still belongs to the artillery branch, but is under command of NDHQ (not LFC). The artillery branch career manager, however, still has a say in which artillery officer gets posted to that position in NDHQ.

An example of where precedence of branches would apply is at a combined mess dinner where different branches are represented, to determine which marches should be played in what order.

Brent Woods 17:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I have given this more thought. Units can also be classified as belonging to branches, which is what dictates that artillery units precede military engineering units both on parade and on a distribution list for a brigade operational order; then, within branches, branch SOPs would rank the regiments. I was thinking that we should rank the commands, then the units within the commands. I think we are in a grey area here. SigPig may be right after all.

Perhaps, we should consult a history buff or the Regimental Major. Feel free to e-mail me on the DIN.

Brent Woods 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

After more consideration, I now concur with SigPig. It would be better to use branch seniority, rather than commands. The reason is that commands can be re-organized. For instance, Canada is now establishing Canada Command, Canadian Expeditionary Force Command, Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, and Canadian Operational Support Command. While commands may change, units can continue to identify with their branches. Thus, I have reverted back to "Naval Operations Branch", rather than "Maritime Command".

Brent Woods 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the RCA BAttle School still in Shilo? If so, should it be included? Motorfix 19:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The RCA Battle School no longer exists as a unit, effective 1997. It is now called Western Area Training Centre Detachment Shilo, under command of WATC (located in Wainwright, AB). It still runs artillery courses, but not exclusively; it now includes infantry and other arms courses for the regular and reserve forces.

Brent Woods 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out for further clarification that the School in Gagetown is officially known as the "Field Artillery School". What happened was that in the '90s when the FAS and ADAS merged the term "Royal Canadian Artillery School" was adopted. However, no one set forth the amendment to the CFOO. In '03 the Armoured School put forth an amendment to the CFOO to have RCAS stand for "Royal Canadian Armoured School", as they had been using that acronym for a few years. In '05, we at the school were directed to cease using RCAS and don the moniker of FAS, much to the chagrin of the Air Defenders and Locators.

UEL 21:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)