Talk:Canadian Army

The Forces are still unified

Though the naval and air components got back Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEU's) in the 1980s, there is still a single service, the Canadian Forces.--MarshallStack 06:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Rank insignia

Who drew up these rank insignia? A few changes need to be made:

1. There are no more combat epaulettes, they're now all CADPAT.
2. When worn on epaulettes, chevrons have straight arms, not curved.
3. Army NCM rank is only worn on epaulettes on combats, not on any other uniform. On dress uniforms they appear on the sleeve or as metal miniatures on the collar.

I may just do it myself eventually, I now have CorelPaint for Etch-a-Sketch. SigPig 04:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...so please do....

I believe the insignia were stolen from one of the insignia sites on the Internet, they look familiar. Some reserve units still wear olive green rank insignia so "they're now all CADPAT" is not accurate - they are worn on raincoats and Goretex jackets/parka as CADPAT has not made its way down to us - though I agree the images on this page are in bad need of an update. Looking forward to your artwork.Michael Dorosh 04:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying. I tried to make a CADPAT 2Lt slip-on...can you say "dog's breakfast"? But yeah, I found the website where they were gotten from. Also, you are right, there are still some OD ranks out there; as a matter of fact, I still had them on MY raincoat and parks when I turned them in June past. Quick question -- images on Cdn gov't websites have something called "Crown copyright"...can they still be used on Wikipedia under "fair use"? Tks SigPig 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

the different colurs of the rank insignia....could there be an explainatian of why some are dull and others are not?

It might also be worth noting that in artillery regiments Privates, Corporals and Master Corporals are referred to as "Gunner", "Bombadier" and "Master-Bombadier", respectively. Sorry, I don't know remember the French equivalents.

Similarly, Privates in the Armoured Corps are referred to as "Troopers" ("Cavaliers" en français). While not formal, they are widely used within those branches. Esseh 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Base Warrant has changed to Chief Warrant of a Higher Formation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.139.5 (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor technical quibble

I would just like to point out that the link for the Leopard C2 redirects to the Leopard II article. This is wholly incorrect, the Leopard C2 being an upgraded Leopard C1, which I seem to recall as a Leopard 1A3 with local modifications. The Leopard II is an entirely different tank and certainly was not acquired as a replacement for the dated Leopards in the CF inventory.

Americans

Out of curiosity, are Americans allowed to enter the Canadian Army? According the "US Army" article, almost anyone can enter the American army. --Anglius 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• See here -Objectivist-C 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I thank you, sir.--Anglius 23:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

CSOR & JTF2 not LFC

The Canadian Special Forces Regiment (CSOR) and JTF-2 are not part of Land Force Command; both fall under CANSOFCOM (Canadian Special Forces Command. Point for future amendment.

Canadian order of battle in Afghanistan 2008

Greetings. Does anyone have a summary of Canadian units in Afghanistan in 2008. I want to update this section… Coalition_combat_operations_in_Afghanistan_in_2008#Canada Cheers Chwyatt (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PPCLI.JPG

The image Image:PPCLI.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It would be valid for the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry article though, wouldn’t it? Chwyatt (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Equipment dates

Are the dates referred to for the equipment tables service dates or procurement dates? It should be clarified before 'end' dates are added. - Jonathon A H (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Delta and Pdfpdf edit war

you two stop edit warring and come to this talkpage now, before you both get blocked!--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably better to not have the images here, as they are already at Canadian Forces ranks and insignia, which is a more appropriate article for them. - BilCat (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bilcat, but they are edit warring over it, Pdfpdf claims to be in bed now, but the edit war as gone on sice as late as 1 pm today where I am--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 14:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that - I'm just giving my opinion on the issue. - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They clearly violate at least two criteria of NFCC here. Mind you, the ranks and insignia page is not much better, and is actually one of the most unfree pages on Wikipedia. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

so what are we supposed to do with the images? is delta (betacommand) right? by the looks of things both editors are being scolded over at ANI but no one wants to punish them to give either the satisfaction of winning--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Replace with User:Zscout370/gallery#Fri_Jan_07_01:46:03_CST_2011. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Images gallery

I suggest to remove the images gallery, which is unnecessary. De Grasse (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

a) I suggest you leave the image gallery alone, because it adds value to the page.

b) "unnecessary" is simply your opinion. Please read WP:I just don't like it.

c) Please do not impose your opinion on others - gain concensus here first before making changes.

d) You've been around wikipedia long enough to know these things.

Pdfpdf (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur with it's removal. Commons makes galleries redundant in most cases, and the article is long enough that the more-important images can be moved into the main text. Please note that "because it adds value to the page" is also an opinion, as written. - BilCat (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you spotted my sarcasm, but it did result in someone actually supplying a reason rather than an opinion. (Thanks.) Yes, I agree that "the article is long enough that the more-important images can be moved into the main text". However, I'm not sure why "Commons makes galleries redundant in most cases". Could I bother you to expand on that please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It means a gallery in the article is unnecessary. :) - BilCat (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it got me smiling. Pdfpdf (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The WP:IG guidelines are quite specific about what is or is not allowable, and the gallery in the article to address the specifics of the guidelines:

"However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject."

There is nothing conveyed in the article by including the gallery that is not also conveyed in the Commons gallery. "it adds value to the page" isn't an adequate reason per the guidelines, as it's an "indiscriminate collection of images". - BilCat (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a number of independent threads going here, which is confusing the issue, (or failing that, it's confusing me.)

i) "It adds value" - That wasn't a serious comment; it was in response to the uselessness of "it's unnecessary". Can we ignore it please?

ii) WP:IG guidelines says what I expect. Let's discuss that later.

iii) You say "There is nothing conveyed in the article by including the gallery that is not also conveyed in the Commons gallery." I don't agree. (Or perhaps I'm mis-understanding your intent?) I don't see how having something unspecified unlinked somewhere in Commons conveys anything, whereas having a gallery showing the images on the page certainly conveys information. (Yes, point ii addresses the information it conveys - that's a separate topic.) Hence my question: I'm not sure why "Commons makes galleries redundant in most cases". Could I bother you to expand on that please? i.e. Why does commons make galleries redundant?

iv) Your point. Actually, to be honest, I'm not sure what your point is.

v) "However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate ... " - Perhaps later?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The gallery in the article is just an "indiscriminate collection of images". Commons serves that role quite well, so we don't need that in the article too. Rather than nit-picking my comments, which are just my opinion, you're time might be better spent addressing hte guidelines, which aren't my opinion: How does the gallery in the article "illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images."? That ought to be easily ascertained by just viewing the gallery, but so far 3 fairly experienced editors can figure out what it is, and a fourth can see why it should be ascertained. - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the ""indiscriminate collection of images" to Commons. When you can devise a "discriminate collection of images" that gains consensus here, you can re-add a gallery. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. You still haven't answered my questions. Tell me please: What's the point of me engaging in polite discussion if you are just going to ignore what I say, not answer my questions, and discuss other topics than the ones I raised? At no time have I disagreed with anything you have said about the other topics - in fact, I probably agree with you. But I still can't make any sense of your statements that I have politely asked you to clarify and explain - your responses make statements, but don't explain them. I am not "nit-picking (your) comments" - to do that, I'd have to understand what you were saying, and I don't. Pdfpdf (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the REAL current size of the LFC Regular Forces

As of 2011, regular force of the Canadian forces is over 69 000. Army website says 19 500, Air force says 12 000, Navy says 9 000. For a great total of 40 500...

Where's the rest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.135.95 (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Article was moved to Canadian Army

on 15 August 2011 per WT:MILHIST. New name, see The Chronicle Herald. CharlieEchoTango 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Army Badge

This version of the badge seems more official than the current one: http://www.thehuntingbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/land_force_command_badge_n111781.jpg . If anybody could change the current one to this, it would be much nicer. I would like to, but frankly, I don't know how to. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk • contribs) 02:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC) yes yes it is

Rifles1 (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC) For the owner of this page, you may wish to look at a couple of items. Firstly, for some reason, you keep deleting my entries in the Major Battles of the Canadian Army section. If you were truly a historian, you would know that the major battles, which I have listed in WW1 are the major battles in accordance with my citing (an official source). Secondly, your list for WW2 is also incorrect, but I will not waste my time editing it, only to have you delete it, too. Thirdly, the Canadian Army is organized into 5 Divisions and the Regular and Reserve Brigades are both part of these division; and not separate. Finally, your officer rank insignias are wrong. As of 8 Jul 2013, the Canadian Army reverted to its pre-1968 rank isignias for officers. If you need a new rank insignia chart, I can give you a link.

Engagements in the info box

I am WP:BOLDly removing several items from the list of engagements in the info box.

• American Indian Wars - simply weird that this is here. Vandalism?
• Russian Civil War - although a notable force was deployed, it did not "engage" the enemy.
• October Crisis - no "engagement" with the enemy
• Gulf War - although navy and air force units were involved, army contribution was negligible
• INTERFET - I am less sure about this one, but it appears to have been mostly navy and air force, with little army involvement
• 2014 intervention in Iraq - army contribution consists of advisers only and has not "engaged" the enemy

Engagements in the info box 2

I disagree with these being in the “Engagements” section of the info box:

• American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present)
• Operation Impact

The Canadian involvement in the conflict has so far been only air and special forces, and under the Canadian Forces organization, neither of these are part of “Canadian Army.” In fact to be even more technical, the RCAF has not engaged in the conflict: the aerial operations are under Canadian Joint Operations Command using equipment and personnel borrowed from the RCAF. Canadian Special Operations Forces Command and Canadian Joint Operations Command are not part of RCN, Canadian Army or RCAF, but distinct organizations within the Canadian Forces.

I would like to hear the views of other editors. Indefatigable (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are 600 Canadian military personnel engaged in Operation Impact only 69 of which are Special Operations Force members. Many of the rest are army support personnel (cooks, technicians, medics, etc.) While their role is not combat they are still army personnel deployed to a combat zone. Incidentally many of the members of CANSOFCOM are army personnel, including their commander Brigadier-General Michael Rouleau. On another point, it is a redundancy to list Operation Impact alongside the Intervention in Iraq, the two are the same thing as far as Canadian forces are concerned. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100115015948/http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html to http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/controversies/unification.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027053642/http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/ to http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/caj/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Quick-draw

The page mentions the Army currently using the GP35. What were the previous standard sidearms? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Canadian Amy has been using the the Browning HP since World War II; In World War I they were issued the British Webley, or the Smith & Wesson Model 2. In the Boer War era Canadian Militia officers and RCMP used the Colt Model 1878. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Canadian Military Journal into Canadian Army

Doesn't seem to meet NJOURNAL and would seem to fall just below the bar of GNG, though there's been a bit of coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good ...not much there.--Moxy 🍁 16:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you're going to merge it, it should be merged with Canadian Armed Forces as the CMJ is the CAF's journal, not the Canadian Army's. The Canadian Army Journal is the CA equivalent. trackratte (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Structural changes

G'day, I am the Australian who's taken an interest in this fair article. It has come to my attention... well for a long while, that the page is less than ideal. Therefore I'd like to propose a rework to help better this page. The objectives for the rework is an expanded summary of the history, structure rationalisation, and standardisation. My intention is to bring it in line with other like articles, and akin to the Australian Army page. Full disclosure, I was the one who expanded the history section and reworked the intro and references of the linked page, and would use it for inspiration in the restructuring of the article. All input is welcome... especially since I'm a natural outsider to all of this history. Cheers, IronBattalion (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC).

Chain of command in infobox

A discussion has been started at Talk:Royal Canadian Navy § Chain of command in infobox. Please contribute there. Indefatigable (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)