Talk:Royal Canadian Navy

Headline text

How can Maritime Command be strictly classified as the successor to the RCN as Canada's "senior service," since it is not a separate service but a command within the still-unified Canadian Forces?--MarshallStack 04:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Forces Administrative Orders gave precedence to MARCOM over other commands, and to the Naval Operations Branch over other personnel branches. Thus the Plugs maintain their precedence as Senior Service over the Pongos and Pigeons. --SigPig 11:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Navy is always the "senior service" because army's could be raised and released through conscription, and wars fought with reservists, but the skills sailors (specifically navigators and later gunners), brought to the service were easily lost and not easily imparted. So Navy's were established as professions first, so those skills would not be lost. Within the profession of arms, the first "professionals" were in the Navy and the oldest profession (of arms) were sailors. This is true in the British Empire, the Roman Empire, the Greek Empire, and before it the Assyrian Empire. For example in the British Empire the first full-time service established was the Navy by Alfred the Great, centuries before a full-time army was stood up.

Interestingly within the Army, the oldest professions were established for the same reason (to preserve skills), and often had a Navy connection. For example, the oldest profession in the Army is Artillery followed by Sappers. The Artillery in Britain and Canada were both originally trained by the Navy. Canada's first Artillery school was established on the Royal Navy Base in Kingston Ontario, before Canada existed as a country (for example) because that's where the Navy Artillery experts were.

So to answer your question, the Navy is the senior service because it existed as a profession before any such profession existed in the Army. LinuxDude (talk)

one of the largest naval forces in the world?

Can someone explain the part about MARCOM being "one of the largest naval forces in the world" when it only has 36 ships and submarines?

Well, clearly that's not true. I have removed that statement. --72.136.242.25 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sure to remove the corresponding statement in Canadian Forces#Maritime Command (MARCOM) too. --Spoon! 08:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Colin Kenny quote

I removed the following from the section on the Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships:

The CBC quoted Senator Colin Kenny, Chairman of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence:

"I think they're going to be so light, they'll have trouble breaking the ice in a gin and tonic,"

Ha ha. That's sort of a funny joke, but I don't know if this page is the place for jokes. The quote doesn't provide much insight. Besides, the sentence immediately preceding this already summarizes the opposition to the project, so this is superfluous.

--Aardvark114 04:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The second place that also cites same reference look legitimate, so I re-added the reference itself (without, of course, adding the funny quote). Please be more carefull when removing references that are referenced more then once. — Shinhan < talk > 13:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Canadian Marines

Do we have any marines or army regulars serving on our ships for boardings.

---

No, Our Boarding Teams are manned mostly by Navy, with some Purple (Multi Element) trades allowed to join.

The Boarding Section is open to all trades LS

Actually, the RCN has recently (over 2 years ago) stood up a navy marines unit called the Maritime Tactical Operations Group. It is designed to be full time focused on non-compliant boardings and is attached to deployed ships for appropriate capability during operations. They are currently not under CANSOFCON unlike other Canadian SOF units but they use a similar selection and training programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.30.239 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Info box

This Page does not have on info box similar to pages like the US Navy, Danish Navy or Australian navy, as well as several other navy pages which include size, number of personnel, commander, etc. Could someone please change this to a more proper info box for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.235 (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? 24.68.148.215 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Naval Ensign

Why is only the jack shown, dose Canada not have an ensign (which btw if the case is kind of bizarre)? Or is the ensign the exact same as the national flag like America?Zantorzi (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The national flag is used as the naval ensign. (flag examples here) - Jonathon A H (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The RCN used the White Ensign from 1910 to 1965, as an ensign. have added in in the appropriate spot. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.135.93 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And from 5/5/2013 the RCN has, again, a distinctive ensign: [1][2]. Davidships (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Official name

The official name is just Maritime Command (MARCOM) but due to prevent its ambiguous term, cause it may refer to various topics, only on Wikpedia was add the sentence "Canadian Forces..." [3] (1 result) vs. [4] (307 results).--Nicola Romani (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

We generally use the article title for the Lead and infobox titles. "Canadian Forces Maritime Command" is fairly common, and not just a WP construct. - BilCat (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, [5] (10,600 results). - BilCat (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course "Canadian Navy" is definitely better (and also my favorite name), but in Canada, since 1968, there is just one "directorate" (the Canadian Forces) under wich are placed 7 Commands, and MARCOM or Maritime Command, is just its name. Here on WP you can also move the page to Maritime Command (Canadian Forces) but "graphically" this version is obviously better, no one will use parentheses for the Lead and infobox titles even if article title use it, e.g. Warrant Officer (United States). Anyway the official name is just as stated above on my previous post. --Nicola Romani (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Navy

Canadian Forces Maritime Command is expected to change its name back to Royal Canadian Navy tomorrow, according to the The Chronicle Herald. More information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Back to the roots (RCN / RCAF / Canadian Army). Royal Canadian Navy already exists. Should the two be merged? Cheers, CharlieEchoTango 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed, and the announcement will be made tomorrow.[6] I have no opinion on whether merger would be appropriate, but if it is not, it might make sense to move the article currently at RCN to Royal Canadian Navy (historical) and this article to Royal Canadian Navy. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like what has been done with the two incarnations of the Winnipeg Jets. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There is a centralized discussion here. Cheers - CharlieEchoTango 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. ukexpat (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Canadian Forces Maritime Command → Royal Canadian Navy – See the discussion above and the discussion on the WikiProjet Military history. There is still a debate on how to deal with the old RCN and if we should incorporate all the info on the same article or not, but everybody agree that this should be the main article. Amqui (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Chief of the Maritime Staff

Re [7] this edit and related page move. Previously the commander was Commander Maritime Command and Chief of the Maritime Staff; obviously the former changed to Commander Royal Canadian Navy, but the latter always took precedence over Comd RCN or Comd MARCOM since not all of the maritime staff are from the RCN (and not all RCN staff are maritime staff, eg CANOSCOM, CANSOFCOM) in the post-1968 unified structure. Therefore it doesn't make sense to me to move Chief of the Maritime Staff to Commander Royal Canadian Navy, since as far as I know the commander's position wasn't simplified to just Commander RCN and his primary role is still Chief of the Maritime Staff. Also wrote on the editor's talk page, and will wait a while before reverting. Sorry if unclear. Cheers, — CharlieEchoTango — 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Third-largest navy at the end of WW2?

The article states that at the end of WW2 the RCN was the fifth largest navy in the world with around 300 vessels. But according to Veterans Affairs Canada, it was the third largest navy with 434 vessels: « At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the third-largest navy in the world with 95,000 men and women in uniform, and 434 commissioned vessels including cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes and auxiliaries. » [8] This site also claims it was the third largest Allied Navy. So there seems to be a bit of confusion about the size of the RCN at the end of WW2. Could someone with more experience comfirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReferenceKnight (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy

Should '100th Anniversary of the Canadian Navy' be mentioned in the "Memorials" section? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ordinary Seaman

Where does this notion of "Ordinary Seaman (Basic)" and "Ordinary Seaman (Recruit)" come from? Neither of these terms is in use in the RCN, nor do they appear in the National Defence Act. The rank is simply "Ordinary Seaman", which a sailor has from the moment he or she swears the oath and is enroled in the Canadian Forces until promotion to Able Seaman. Z57N (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Ordinary Seaman (Recruit) [OS(R)] is used at CFLRS.    ¥    Jacky Tar  21:27, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Now that the Navy's switched to Sailor 3rd Cl (S3), Sailor 2nd Cl (S2), and Sailor 1st Cl (S1), I would venture to guess that at CFLRS, recruits are S3(R). Will see if I can find out from some wingers posted there.    ¥    Jacky Tar  04:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Queen's Colour vs King's Colour

Changed the name in the info box back, as the graphic is of the Queen's Colour. There will no doubt be a King's Colour for the RCN, and very likely it will be similar to the Queen's colour. However the one shown is NOT the King's Colour, nor are they generic. Also added a small note referencing this at the end of section 5.1, Colours. More generally, it's entirely possible most of the Canadian Forces' unit insignia will change from the St. Edwards Crown of Her Majesty to the Tudor Crown that Charles III has chosen to use, and that George VI used. This may even wind up affecting any rank insignia that incorporates crowns (RCN PO1, CPO2, possibly CPO1 if Canada's Coat of Arms changes; also Army & RCAF ranks for WO, MWO, possibly CWO; also Maj, LCol, Col.)    ¥    Jacky Tar  04:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

68 Service Ships?

Running through the service ships known to me I counted 50: 12 Halifax Class Frigates 12 Kingston Class MCDVs 4 Victoria Class Subs 3 Dewolf Class APVs (2 in service, 1 delivered) 8 Orca Class Patrol Craft 5 Glen Class Tugs 5 Ville Class Tugs 1 Supply Ship on lease (Asterix)

What are the other 18 vessels being counted? 134.41.122.40 (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Chain of command in infobox

The list of "commanders" in the infoboxes for RCN, CA, and RCAF should structured in parallel, but currently they are all different. Also notable in its omission is the chief of the defence staff in all 3 infoboxes. Currently the RCN lists:

• commander in chief
• prime minister
• minister of national defence
• commander RCN
• deputy commander RCN
• CPO RCN

CA lists:

• commander in chief
• commander CA
• deputy commander CA
• army sgt maj

RCAF lists:

• commander in chief
• minister of national defence
• commander RCAF
• deputy commander RCAF
• CWO of air force

The chief of the defence staff should be added to all three, but I'm wondering if we should cut down the list of commanders to a lower number, and have the three lists structured the same. My suggestion:

• commander in chief
• minister of national defence
• chief of the defence staff
• commander RCN/CA/RCAF

Thoughts? Indefatigable (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I have rethought my proposal. I now recommend we that we remove the chain of commanders above the RCN level, and just have:

• commander RCN/CA/RCAF
• deputy commander RCN/CA/RCAF
• CPO/sgt maj/CWO

This would be analogous to the common practice for brigades, battalions, ships, squadrons, etc. The RCN etc are not military services as in the UK and US armed forces; they are merely major commands within the unified military service called the Canadian Armed Forces. Indefatigable (talk) Indefatigable (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Since there has been no discussion, I'll go ahead with my plan. Indefatigable (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)