+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Corps Title

  1. #1

    Sea Corps Title


    I'd like to clear up some minor common mistakes made throughout the Sea cadet program; when refering to your corps you don't need to refer to them with the file number for example RCSCC 224 NAPANEE - you would only use RCSCC NAPANEE. Also following Naval tradition we capitalize the ship's name.


    Jean Luc Blanchard, A de C
    qdjm Second Lieutenant
    Supply O -Standards O - Duke of Edinburgh's Award Coordinator
    RCACC 2806 Pointe-Claire (RMR)

  2. #2

    Operational writing, not naval tradition.

    It is not by naval tradition, but rather by operational writing directives that Canadian warships' names were capitalized. I don't have copies of the original references, but LCdr David J. Freeman, CF (Ret'd), in his excellent book Canadian Warship Names writes:
    The style followed with respect to capitalization of ships' names is that set out in BR 49, The RCN Correspondence Manual, CFAO 36-7 (1998-1995)[sic], and MARCORD 36-07 (1995-1999), all of which state that the names of ships shall be typed in capitals.
    Freeman's book is copyrighted 2000, and I got out in 1998, so between the emasculation of Staff Colleges, the updating or changing of CFAOs &/or DAODs, and whatever the staff weenies have dreamed up since, I would hope this custom has been continued. If not, it should have been, and probably is being kept alive anyway by those such officers as wear the executive curl.
    Don Booker
    Gatineau, Québec
    Canada

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by WrenchBender View Post
    I would hope this custom has been continued. If not, it should have been, and probably is being kept alive anyway by those such officers as wear the executive curl.
    No fear, it has.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by WrenchBender View Post
    It is not by naval tradition

    [...]

    The style followed with respect to capitalization of ships' names is that set out in BR 49, The RCN Correspondence Manual,
    I'd suggest that we're at the point where something that was in an RCN pub (and is still practised) can be called tradition!

  5. The Following User Likes This Post By N. McKay :


  6. #5

    U.S. Naval Correspondence Manual

    The U.S. Naval Correspondence Manual is a good general purpose naval writing guide.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Dieselboats View Post
    The U.S. Naval Correspondence Manual is a good general purpose naval writing guide.
    If you're in the US Navy, I would imagine it is.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by J-P Johnson View Post
    If you're in the US Navy, I would imagine it is.

  9. #8
    I think I'm going to side with dieselboats on this one. He never said it was a be-all-end-all of writing guides for the Canadian navy, but a general purpose document.

    Sometimes the best resources sometimes a) don't come internally and b) aren't always by the book. Especially when our own pride in, what I like to call, the "Canadian process" delays our roll-out process in many federal departments.
    Last edited by Juice; 21st March 2011 at 04:00.
    "Junior officers and NCOs who neglect to guide the thinking of their men are shirking a command responsibility."
    -- February 1955 Combat Forces Journal

  10. #9
    Lt Ferreira is on a distinguished road Lt Ferreira's Avatar
    Join Date
    2008
    Location
    Fort St John, BC, Canada
    Posts
    2,074
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by J-P Johnson View Post
    If you're in the US Navy, I would imagine it is.
    Well seeing as the US Navy among others all take traits after the British Navy, I would consider the manual is a good reference like stated. Not the law but a reference.
    Capt Drew Ferreira
    Commanding Officer
    258 "Little Giant" RCACS - Chetwynd, BC


  11. #10
    I think the point is, (having looked at the manual) it gives some very good advice on general naval writing, and while it lacks some more Canadian traits, it is still looks very helpful.

  12. #11
    I'd like to remind everyone to be respectful and courteous when posting as per the House Rules.

    JB
    Run until you can't. Then run some more

  13. #12
    I'd be the first person to advocate caution in using a USN reference for communications because it's far too easy to adopt their language and terminology, and once you start doing that you may see other influences creeping in.

    There's a great story about a proposal (ca. 1960s) to use the USN code books instead of Canadian ones. "What does it matter which combination of flags we hoist to mean the same thing?", went the argument. The proposal died a sudden death when one officer opened the RCN book to find the code for "enemy sighted; am engaging" and the closest thing that could be found in the USN book was something like "enemy sighted; request permission to engage". Language has a fer more pervasive influence than most people realize at first glance.

    There's likely to be some good reference material in the USN pub but caution is to be exercised in using it.

  14. #13
    Poseidon
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by J.L Blanchard View Post

    I'd like to clear up some minor common mistakes made throughout the Sea cadet program; when refering to your corps you don't need to refer to them with the file number for example RCSCC 224 NAPANEE - you would only use RCSCC NAPANEE. Also following Naval tradition we capitalize the ship's name.


    I am a big proponent that sea cadet units should be identified properly by their full name with the namesake in either captals or italics. However, I think it is okay convention when dealing with air/army people or in administrative correspondance to address or refer to a sea cadet unit by number and element (e.g., 37 Sea). As long as we know and are teaching the difference and the tradition then no harm done.

  15. The Following User Likes This Post By Poseidon :


  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Poseidon View Post
    However, I think it is okay convention when dealing with air/army people or in administrative correspondance to address or refer to a sea cadet unit by number and element (e.g., 37 Sea).
    Yes, and I do that when corresponding with (especially) army units such as the regiment in whose armoury my unit parades, but the number is "37 RCSCC", not "37 Sea".

  17. #15
    Poseidon
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by N. McKay View Post
    Yes, and I do that when corresponding with (especially) army units such as the regiment in whose armoury my unit parades, but the number is "37 RCSCC", not "37 Sea".
    Acknowledged - local flavour, I suppose. Again, not advocating that it take over or replace the correct way but if "unit number element" is the way our Detachment is requesting material and others are understanding then it seems to fit.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by N. McKay View Post
    There's a great story about a proposal (ca. 1960s) to use the USN code books instead of Canadian ones. "What does it matter which combination of flags we hoist to mean the same thing?", went the argument. The proposal died a sudden death when one officer opened the RCN book to find the code for "enemy sighted; am engaging" and the closest thing that could be found in the USN book was something like "enemy sighted; request permission to engage".
    Interesting story - never heard that particular one myself. Leadmark: The Navy’s Strategy for 2020 makes the following reference which leads me to believe your story isn't accurate: "As the first Canada-United States (CANUS) naval cooperation agreements were framed, the Naval Board reached the far-sighted decision that all ships, equipment and communications would be compatible with the USN. These all proved of immense value when the Atlantic fleet sortied during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, in accordance with established plans and procedures, in response to a direct and considerable challenge to continental security."

    You may be interested to know that Leadmark: The Navy’s Strategy for 2020 also notes that "Much of the necessary CF joint capability will evolve from the fact that each of the Canadian services, in response to a fundamental guiding principle of Strategy 2020, will strive to achieve a high degree of interoperability with its US counterpart. The Canadian navy continues to demonstrate substantial progress in this regard with the on-going integration of naval units into US carrier battle groups."

    Given the lack of a Canadian naval correspondence manual, I thought that some of the readers of this thread may be interested in what our closest ally uses. It is certainly better than a 50 year old RCN reference that most of us can't even find. As a serving senior naval officer, I find it a good general purpose naval writing guide. YMMV.

  19. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Poseidon View Post
    I am a big proponent that sea cadet units should be identified properly by their full name with the namesake in either captals or italics. However, I think it is okay convention when dealing with air/army people or in administrative correspondance to address or refer to a sea cadet unit by number and element (e.g., 37 Sea). As long as we know and are teaching the difference and the tradition then no harm done.
    From my experience, although perhaps not all that recent, you would be in the minority. Far too many people seem to think the corps number forms part of its name. <shakes head>
    Gene C. Fedderly, CD, RCN
    Lieutenant-Commander

    qgjmcd2

  20. #18
    quadrapiper is on a distinguished road quadrapiper's Avatar
    Join Date
    2005
    Location
    Shawnigan Lake, BC, Canada
    Posts
    3,290
    Gender
    Quote Originally Posted by LCdr Gene Fedderly View Post
    From my experience, although perhaps not all that recent, you would be in the minority. Far too many people seem to think the corps number forms part of its name. <shakes head>
    Indeed. Up to the point of using it for marchpasts... "Number One Hundred Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps Admiral Mainguy will march past in quick time..."

    Sidebar: could we stop naming corps after admirals, until we've run out of, for example, corvette names to perpetuate?

    I'll use it for low grade correspondence; e-mails and so on; where conformity with what will show up on Fortress has some value: otherwise, it's WALLER. Always surprised when RCACCs identify by number, if they've got an AfU: seems like the file-number nature of the corps number would be felt equally strongly there.

  21. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dieselboats View Post
    Interesting story - never heard that particular one myself. Leadmark: The Navy’s Strategy for 2020 makes the following reference which leads me to believe your story isn't accurate: "As the first Canada-United States (CANUS) naval cooperation agreements were framed, the Naval Board reached the far-sighted decision that all ships, equipment and communications would be compatible with the USN..."
    I may be off on the date. It's in volume two of Jeffrey Brocks's memoirs, my copy of which is currently lent to someone else.

    Details aside, though, my point is that language can have a surprising level of influence on an organization's working culture.

  22. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by N. McKay View Post
    I may be off on the date. It's in volume two of Jeffrey Brocks's memoirs, my copy of which is currently lent to someone else.

    Details aside, though, my point is that language can have a surprising level of influence on an organization's working culture.
    While not military, consider the difference in the use of the word "table" in Canadian and American parliamentary procedure - they have opposite meanings.

    In Canada - to present (a proposal, resolution, etc.) for discussion.

    In the US - to lay aside (a proposal, resolution, etc.) for future discussion, usually with a view to postponing or shelving the matter indefinitely.

    Two steal a line from Churchill: two countries separated by a common language.

    My previous comment was more in the vein of not embracing the US guide simply because there is no Canadian version accessible. To me, it's not much different that grabbing a US drill manual if you can't find the 201. While you might find commonalities between the two, it's not the same.

    If Dieselboats comment had been "MARCOM uses..." or "The NATO standard is..." then I wouldn't have commented but the idea of turning to extra-national resources simply because "local flavour" isn't readily available makes me uncomfortable. "Close enough" is not something I embrace easily.
    Last edited by J-P Johnson; 22nd March 2011 at 03:55.
    gliderwingsJ-P Johnson cd1
    Barrie Ontario
    The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.

  23. The Following 3 Users Like This Post By J-P Johnson :


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts