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

King's Corporal

Gients thanks for the info.....

But i have met with old army types (pre 1969)  who remember the badge as the badge for Queens Corporal...


Was it so?
 
If that was the designation for Queen's Corporal (and as stated above, I don't think it was), there was one hell of a lot of us Queen's Corporals, though we never met her and were never recognised as such.
 
Here is some info from my website about the Corporal chevrons with the leaf, couresty David Willard.  Perhaps Steel Badger is thinking of the B Corporal rather than the Queen's Corporal.  At that time, before the maple leaf was introduced, they had a small olive green crown (about a quarter of the size of the current WO crown, it was used for officer's slip ons on the Combat uniform)


At the time of Unification, servicemen were given a raise in pay to keep them enrolled.  Signing bonuses of $200.00 were given for each year to a maximum of five that they re-enlisted for.  $1000.00 in 1967 was a life changing amount, possibly worth about ten times as much in 1999 dollars.  Rank was given away next; anyone who had ever had a Junior NCO course was automatically promoted to Corporal. Everyone who had 4 years of service automatically went on a new Junior Leaders Course to get him promoted to Corporal. Corporal was now a giveaway, it meant nothing as far as status was concerned, it was a shoe-in for everyone.

The problem was that at that time, Corporals were then section commanders. The actual commander now was leading a whole section of his rank peers. There was actual fighting in the ranks and discipline was poor.  So another level was instituted - Senior Corporal. But that was not enough, they then introduced the "B" Corporal (indicating he had qualified Part B of the Junior NCO Course). They changed the chevrons to have a little crown sewed on over the hooks.
 
We took turns being B Corporals as there were now so many of us. There was no continuity and of course this was unworkable. Finally instead of putting it back to what everyone knew was workable, they developed a new appointment...Master Corporal. But who would become the Masters? It was decreed that those wearing the B Corporal crown at the time would become the appointee.  New leadership qualities had to established....this took years and years to even get to the point where the right people were  in charge.  In the process, the rank of Corporal was destroyed in the Canadian Army.  Almost the exact same thing happened to the rank of Captain.
 
Mike...

Thankyou for the informative post.....

It hits the effing nail on the head and is very relevant to the discussion ongoing in the "rank re-introduced" post....

A few of our bretheren have posted comments like...wouldn't bringing bacl LCPL be just names and more paperwork....

The answer is NO.....Lets return the rank of Corporal to its proper postion and dignity.......


The entire way the army functioned was changed (for the worse) by integration......Leading to a proliferation in ranks......

The old army rank structure was tried and tested under fire....it worked........and worked well....


The very fact we have these type of discussions indicates the CF rank sructure has serious issues.....but what do you expect when you haphazardly merge three independant (and environmentally) seperate services into a godless stramash that is still ( some 35 years later) feeling the precussions.....


As it stands now, CPLS are just a type of private, UNLESS we the leadership of the army ensure that the holders of the rank exercise the responsibility required of it.

I know in my case i will not recommend a soldier for promotion to Corporal if he cannot or does not exhibit a high standard of ability and responsibility....
And if there is one thing i hate ; it is hearing a soldier whine "But I'm only a Corporal"
Corporals are NCO's.....and our CPLs AND THE CF should remember it.

 
Steel Badger said:
Mike...

Thankyou for the informative post.....

It hits the effing nail on the head and is very relevant to the discussion ongoing in the "rank re-introduced" post....

A few of our bretheren have posted comments like...wouldn't bringing bacl LCPL be just names and more paperwork....

The answer is NO.....Lets return the rank of Corporal to its proper postion and dignity.......


The entire way the army functioned was changed (for the worse) by integration......Leading to a proliferation in ranks......

The old army rank structure was tried and tested under fire....it worked........and worked well....


The very fact we have these type of discussions indicates the CF rank sructure has serious issues.....but what do you expect when you haphazardly merge three independant (and environmentally) seperate services into a godless stramash that is still ( some 35 years later) feeling the precussions.....


As it stands now, CPLS are just a type of private, UNLESS we the leadership of the army ensure that the holders of the rank exercise the responsibility required of it.

I know in my case i will not recommend a soldier for promotion to Corporal if he cannot or does not exhibit a high standard of ability and responsibility....
And if there is one thing i hate ; it is hearing a soldier whine "But I'm only a Corporal"
Corporals are NCO's.....and our CPLs AND THE CF should remember it.

Great post, Steel Badger! :)
 
Steel Badge

In all my time in the Army, I would not truly say that things are as bad as you tend to describe them.  I have seen Cpls and even Tprs perform in situations requiring leadership.  What hooks they wore did not detract from the position or respect they had gained in a "Deligated" position tasked them by their commanders.  I personally see no problems with the current rank structure....adapt to it and overcome your bias. 

Leaders will always rise to the top, no matter what rank they may wear on their sleeves.  There is incompetence at all levels, but restructuring the Rank Structure is not the solution.  That is what happened in the first place and we have worked through it.  Restructuring it again will only cause more incompetence to rise to the top and create more chaos.  Perhaps, what we really need is a war to get rid of the dead wood, as the political situation in the Forces today has the 'Ole Boy' club from organizations such as RMC promoting their friends and colleagues above others of merit.  That is the problem, not what hooks one wears.  Requirements of education and enforced Bilingualism are keeping potential leadership candidates hobbled and lessers are rising too fast.  Merit should be the only reason for advancement.  If a person shows leadership abilities, they should be promoted to do so, not the Francophone with the piece of paper on the wall that says he has successfully completed a PhD, but couldn't lead a drunk to the Pissoir.

More stringent regard to who we promote in rank, or give "Delegate Authority" to, is more important than "reinventing the wheel" IMHO.


GW
 
Well said George.

"Command: The lawfull authority a superior exerts over a subordinate in the forces by virtue of his rank and or appointment."

As a Cpl I was in charge of the TOET stand for a range we were running for an IFOR Deployment. I made one serial go through twice because they screwed it up so much the first time. The lowest rank on that serial was Captain, but I was in charge.

As a MCpl I was acting Troop Warrant during an ATI. My rank did not matter. I made the calls and got the job done. I reported to the SSM and was chewed out by him if anything went wrong.

Rank is not nearly as important as appointment and ANYONE can be appointed to be in charge.

Seems to me that anyone advocating that "X" rank can't do so and so is limiting not only the soldiers at that rank by not giving them the opportunity to prove their worth but limiting their own options in getting the task done.



Groovy Keen, didn't the boys call him Wedge? (ie. the simplest tool known to man)  ;D
 
Gents


I am not saying all is doom and gloom......


I am saying that there is a tendancy to underemploy our CPLS  AND Senior Pyes....
The issue lies not in the capability of the Pte / CPL.......but in the minds of those who lead them.......


For example........Being told that MCPL and above are the only pers capable enough of  be in charge of the Gate for a Coy Camp in Bosnia. A good PL 2IC knowing his men/ women / creatures would disagree..
Suffice to say that the policy was amended (after much arguing) to allow my fully capable CPL's to run the gate .

 
Ref my last..

I as well occupied many "higher level positions" as a CPl.........Sect Comd, acting PL 2ic.....as CQMS as a MCPL.....
 
Back
Top