Infantry Master Gunner

[Wayne McGee]

The Military is chock-a-block overflowing with rumoured, unsubstantiated explanations for every shade of hackle, lanyard wear, choice of Regimental Colours, kilt pattern, on and on and on.
99% of these "Regimental Quiffs" fall in to one of two categories:
a. If the particular "Quiff" is describing the wearer in a positive light then the "history" of that item was invented by his Unit. (in the Mess)
b. If the particular "Quiff" is describing the wearar in a negative light then the "history" of that item was invented by another Unit. (in the Mess)
If the truth was really known, you would probably discover that many of the supposed honours/dishonours eg. white hackles, lanyards, number of flames on a bomb etc, were merely fashion statements concocted by CO's, their RSM's, and the village tailor. (in the Mess)

[rob love]

I finished the last 7 years of my regular force career attached to 1 RCHA. The story about the abandoned guns was always around, but documentation about it isn't quite as common. The story also went that the artillery lost it's colors as a result, and that the guns themselves were now the colors, in the hope that they wouldn't again be abandoned. This rumour always persisted, and the occasional officer had verified it's authenticity, for what that was worth. I would really like to hear the truth behind this story, whatever that might be.

During my few years with A bty, our guns bore the crest of the RCR. This wasn't because of the abandoned gun incident, but rather because of a guarantee by the Artillery that they wouldn't shell the RCR during their time in Korea together. There did end up being a shelling incident, and as a result, A bty guns have the RCR crest on them.

Regarding the colors on the gun, the garter and crown on the barrel is regarded as the unit's colors. As a result, one did not casually sit on the trails of a gun, or lean up against a gun for no reason. On disposal, the crest on the barrel was supposed to be scrubbed, although I have yet to see a barrel with the crest removed.

I am certain Mike Calnan can clarify and elaborate on these anecdotes. And in the case of the abandoned guns, I really would like to hear the factual truth behind this one way or another.


Edited to add: a google search took me to a discussion on the army.ca forum: http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.p...c,21974.0.html
If this is a myth, it certainly is a persistent one which does not want to go away. And if there indeed was a 100 year disgrace there certainly was nothing to commemorate the ending of it while I was in the unit.

[Mike Timoshyk]

The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery carries no colours, in the unsual sense of the word. The guns are its colours. On ceremonial occaisons the guns are accorded the same marks of respect as the standards, guidons and colours of other units. The reason behind this long-held tradition is related to the gunner's motto "ubique", meaning everywhere, this that the artillery hs been present in just about every campaign.

The custom of the guns being colours dates back from the eighteenth century and the Royal Artillery's practice of that time of designating the largest gun of an artillery train as the flag gun, that is, the piece accorded the honour of bearing the equivalant of the soverign's colour. This evolved into the guns being regarded as the colours of the artillery.

E.C. Russell - Customs and Traditions of the Canadian Forces (Deneau Publishers and Co. Ltd in cooperation with the Department of National Defence second printing May 1981)

Mike Timoshyk in Windsor