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

Artillery Ranks

Observer23 said:
The National Defence Act (NDA) is the document of authority http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/ShowFullDoc/cs/N-5///en .  The QR&Os are regulations driven by the NDA.  You referred to QR&O 3.01, which shows only one of the four columns.

Look at SCHEDULE (Section 21) of the NDA in Column III (Which is the land column).  It is just pass article 306.  You’ll find a pile of titles for each serial number.  Have fun.

Please read the whole NDA, followed by QR&O.  Then we can have an intelligent conversation.  As it is, you have failed to read the full context of the NDA and are thus making an error.

NDA section 21:

Ranks of officers and non-commissioned members

21. (1) For the purposes of this Act, the ranks of the officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces shall be as set out in Column I of the schedule.

Use of other designations

(2) The Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a person holding a rank set out in Column I of the schedule shall use, or be referred to by, a designation of rank set out in Column II, III or IV of the schedule opposite the rank held by that person.
R.S., 1985, c. N-5, s. 21; R.S., 1985, c. 31 (1st Supp.), s. 60.

QR&O 3.01, a regulation issued by the Governor in Council IAW the authority granted under NDA section 21:

3.01 – RANKS AND DESIGNATIONS OF RANK

(1) The ranks of officers and non-commissioned members shall be as set out in Column I of the Schedule to the National Defence Act, which provides:

...(ranks omitted for brevity) ...

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member who, on or after the date this article comes into force (18 September 1986), holds a rank in the Canadian Forces set out in paragraph (1) and who, in accordance with orders and instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff wears a naval uniform, shall use and be referred to by the designation of rank set out in Column II of the Schedule to the National Defence Act having the same serial number as that of his rank in paragraph (1), and reference in this paragraph to the rank held by an officer or non-commissioned member includes any rank to which the member may be promoted, reduced or reverted from time to time.

(3) Except in accordance with paragraph (2), no officer or non-commissioned member shall, after the coming into force of this article, use or be referred to by a designation of rank other than as set out in Column I of the Schedule to the National Defence Act.

(4) The ranks set out in paragraph (1) shall be used in all official communications within the Canadian Forces, except with respect to officers and non-commissioned members referred to in paragraph (2) for whom the rank designations set out in Column II of the Schedule to the National Defence Act shall be used.

(G)

So, in plain English:  the NDA includes columns of ranks.  Per section 21 of the NDA, only column I of those ranks may be used, unless otherwise authorised by the Governor in Council.

In the Q&RO, the Governor in Council has authorised personnel wearing Naval uniforms to be referred to using the ranks in column 2.  Column 3 and column 4 are not authorised to be used.  That the QR&O is flouted daily within many Army units is not the point being discussed.  At the present time, under the National Defence Act and its related regulations, terms such as "Sapper", "Gunner" and "Trooper" are not authorised ranks.

Perhpas reading the full NDA (or at least conducting a key word search on an electronic copy) might be in order before posting...


(***Edit to change "table" to "Column" for consistency and accuracy ***)
 
The black beret comes from the Royal Tank Regiment of the British Army, the only armoured unit that is not considered a calvary regiment.
 
Pencil Tech said:
The black beret comes from the Royal Tank Regiment of the British Army, the only armoured unit that is not considered a calvary regiment.

Bear in mind that the above comment has nothing to do with the Artillery.

Way back when, when I was a young Gunner, I wore a "Royal" Blue Beret, with a red felt backing behind my RCA Hatbadge.  It definitely was not Black.  A couple years later, everyone was to wear Green berets.......but the Armour Corps and Airborne held out and did not in the Field.  Those were the days of the Forage Cap.  Those days have also passed.
 
OFF TOPIC WARNING!!!!!!!!!


Here's a link to one of many articles on the history of tanks: http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/tanks.htm

It would seem that tankers owe their very existence to the Navy. Championed, developed and introduced by the Admiralty. Commissioned into service as HM Landships. Crewed by naval gunners...
 
While answering another thread I came across my copy of the message that authorized the change of the rank structure from the previous three services into the unified CF system.  DPLS 287 was issued on 30 Jan 1968 (the day before unification) and was an explanation of CFAO 3-2 "Rank Titles".

On page 3 of the 10 page message it states that QUOTE A man below the rank of Sergeant who is assigned to a field unit or other field element which, prior to 1 February 1968, was or would have been a unit of or element of the Canadian Army, shall, while on duty, use the appropriate designation of rank set out in Column III of Annex A UNQUOTE.

Column III of Annex A shows that Corporal and Bombardier are authorized, as are Private along with his 8 brothers; Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman and Craftsman.

Notice the use of the word 'shall' rather than 'may'.  My interpretation, which is strictly that of an observer and not that of an expert by any means, is that soldiers within a field unit will use these designations while so employed.  An NCM may be paid as a private but he or she will (shall) be known in the unit as a Gunner.

Of course, all of this may have been superseded in the intervening 39 years.
 
exspy said:
On page 3 of the 10 page message it states that QUOTE A man below the rank of Sergeant who is assigned to a field unit or other field element which, prior to 1 February 1968, was or would have been a unit of or element of the Canadian Army, shall, while on duty, use the appropriate designation of rank set out in Column III of Annex A UNQUOTE.

Column III of Annex A shows that Corporal and Bombardier are authorized, as are Private along with his 8 brothers; Trooper, Gunner, Sapper, Signalman, Guardsman, Fusilier, Rifleman and Craftsman.

Notice the use of the word 'shall' rather than 'may'.  My interpretation, which is strictly that of an observer and not that of an expert by any means, is that soldiers within a field unit will use these designations while so employed.  An NCM may be paid as a private but he or she will (shall) be known in the unit as a Gunner.

Of course, all of this may have been superseded in the intervening 39 years.

My reading of that regulation is that it is a grandfather clause:

A man (meeting the qualifications outlined) shall, while on duty, use the appropriate designation of rank set out in column III od Annex A

I suspect there are few (if any) folks remaining in the CF who were serving with the pre-1968 Canadian Army, still holding ranks below Sgt.

In addition, orders issued by the Governor in Council take precedence over staff instructions such as DPLS 287.  CFAO 3-2 has not been in force for nearly 20 years (repealed 13-11-1987); its associated instruments are equally spent.
 
I hope that puts an end to this pedantic waste of time
BTW dataperson you best be careful about references to the director, or you may discover why he is also known by the title "Rocky".
You have wasted enough space on these titles and ranks, but implying the director does not command anything tells me you know jack and nothing about that position.
As that title implies he is responsible for making sure Artillery units are lined up and operating in the same way, yeah not the "as per dataperson" definition of what a commander is, but it far from just an advisory position
 
Petard:

Look up the definition of "Line".  Then look up the definition of "Staff".  The look up the definition of "Command".

Then read the CFAO on Branch Advisers (CFAO 4-11, online at http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/admfincs/subjects/cfao/004-11_e.asp).

Commanding officers command.  The CO of 2 RCHA commands that unit.  He is commanded by the CO of the formation, 2 CMBG, who is in turn commanded by the CO of the formation, Land Forces Central Area, who is turn in commanded by the Commander of Land Force Command.

D Arty is nowhere in that chain.  As D Arty, he reports to the Commander LFC and advises him ("2 RCHA has abandoned indirect fire for Nerf Rockets"), but it is commanders throughout the chain of command who are responsible to ensure the readiness of units and their compliance with orders - orders isued under the authority of the commander of the command.

Line = command

Staff = advise


Staff do not command.


 
Like I said, it wouldn't fit under your definition of "command" which not surprisingly is quoted verbatim ala staff duties.

You're missing the point that positions such as the director of artillery influence the way those commanders command, no, the director is not in direct command of a unit by vitue of that position, but his decisions certainly affect those that do command them.

Enough on this clagg already, it has nothing to do with the original topic anyway

If you're trying to make a point please get to it
 
Gentlemen,

DCE001 ... Arghhhh. I'm almost done it now, stop giving me the answers!!  ;)  (Actually this assignment is long done now!!  ;D )

With all that being said ...

Is saying what you said plus ...

"Staff can be delegated authority to issue orders by the line; but this does not absolve the line from their responsibilty for decisions made and orders issued" 

acceptable?? >:D

I can think of another way to put it here (and actually wrote it up another more user-friendly way once) but figured I've been in enough crapola in my career, that I didn't need to wreak more havoc.
 
Just an Observation here on the original topic.


On my Pres BMQ  we had a Master-Bombardier who was instructing us and, if we did the mistake of calling him Mcpl, well, we did pushups, and if we made that mistake more then once, (And he had great memory) we did even more pushups...(105 to be exact its his canon or something alike)

So don't try to call a master-bombardier a Mcpl, otherwise...you wont be on his good side.  ;D
 
Back
Top