Talk:Former ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces

Military history: Culture / Canadian / North America / World War II / Cold War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force
	Canadian military history task force
	North American military history task force
	World War II task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

The Army insignia illustrated here is mostly farcical. General officers and Brigadiers had their own cap badge, not the General Service badge illustrated.

Officer Cadets wore a white stripe behind the single pip.

Warrant Officer II Class wore a crown and wreath.

Lance Corporal was not a private, and it was not a rank, it was an appointment.

This entire page is filled with errors and should be redone. Michael Dorosh 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the air force "Staff SArgeant" be "Flight SErgeant"?

Thank you kindly for the information that you have brought here. I did not have enough information from the former rank system of the Canadian Army before unification, and therefore I used that of the UK.

Therefore I propose this - if you have better images to insert in this page, I would be happy to see them. I do have any problems with anyone placing corrections (as I should not) to this page. Christophe T. Stevenson 16:01, 15 December 2005 (EST)

FORMER RANKS OF THE CDN FORCES

The Able Seaman, Lance Cpl, Leading Aircraftman equal to the CF Cpl.

The L/Seaman, Army Cpl, Air Force Cpl equal to the Master Cpl.

The PO2, Sgt's equal to the CF Sgt.

The PO1, S/Sgt and F/Sgt equal to the CF WO.

Ref: Cdn Army Journal 1965, CF Sentinel and C&E Museum Curator.

The earlier CF rank structure included one stripe without a maple leaf = QL 3. One stripe with maple leaf = QL 4, which was dropped and the QL 3 wore no stripe.

The spelling of the rank of Sergeant has been spelt with the letter "E" since 1957 or possibly earlier. Ref: Cdn Army Manual of Unit Admin and Discipline.

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. --dashiellx (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Changes: Navy

As I recall from when I was an OD (long, long time ago now) we used naval ranks within Maritime Command, but on paper we were designated by the official CF ranks - i.e., my pay statements and my 490 had me listed as a Pte. It wasn't until the introduction of DEUs that the Navy finally got naval ranks brought in on the paperwork. This has irritated the artillery, armoured and engineers no end since then, too. 24.68.148.215 (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NCO table is completely wrong

If you look at contemporary pre-unification rank comparison charts AND the schedule in section 21 of the National Defence Act, none of them remotely look like the NCO/NCM table created here. This is going to require a major re-write. CU L8R AV8R ... J-P (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]