text:
Battle of Queenston Heights

The Battle of Queenston Heights was the first major battle in the War of 1812. Resulting in a British victory, it took place on 13 October 1812 near Queenston, Upper Canada (now Ontario).

The battle was fought between United States regulars with New York militiamen, led by Major General Stephen Van Rensselaer, and British regulars, York and Lincoln militiamen, and Mohawk warriors, led by Major General Sir Isaac Brock and then Major General Roger Hale Sheaffe, who took command after Brock was killed.

The battle was fought as the result of an American attempt to establish a foothold on the Canadian side of the Niagara River before campaigning ended with the onset of winter. The decisive battle was the culmination of a poorly-managed American offensive and may be most historically significant for the loss of the British commander.

Despite their numerical advantage and the wide dispersal of British forces defending against their invasion attempt, the Americans, who were stationed in Lewiston, New York, were unable to get the bulk of their invasion force across the Niagara River because of the work of British artillery and the reluctance on the part of the undertrained and inexperienced American militia. As a result, British reinforcements arrived, defeated the unsupported American forces, and forced them to surrender.

Background
The United States invasion across the Niagara River was originally intended to be part of a four-pronged attack on Upper Canada's border strongpoints. From west to east, Brigadier General William Hull would attack Amherstburg through Detroit, Major General Van Rensselaer would attack across the Niagara River, another diversionary attack would cross the St. Lawrence River to take Kingston, and Major General Henry Dearborn, the commander in chief of the United States Army, would make the major attack via Lake Champlain to capture Montreal in Lower Canada. These attacks were expected to bring the colony to its knees and ensure a quick peace.

However, the four attacks on Upper Canada failed or were not even launched. Hull was besieged in Detroit and, fearing a massacre by Britain's Native American allies, surrendered the town and his entire army following the siege of Detroit. Dearborn and his army remained relatively inactive at Albany, New York and seemed to be in no hurry to attempt an invasion.

Van Rensselaer was also unable to launch any immediate attack on the Niagara Peninsula, lacking troops and supplies. Although he held the rank of Major General in the New York state militia, Van Rensselaer had not commanded troops in battle and was not a warrior, being considered the leading Federalist candidate for the governorship of New York. Possibly hoping to get Van Rensselaer out of the way, New York Governor Daniel Tompkins had put Van Rensselaer's name forward to command the army on the Niagara, and he officially took command on 13 July. Van Rensselaer secured the appointment of his second cousin, Colonel Solomon Van Rensselaer, as his aide-de-camp. Solomon van Rensselaer was an experienced soldier who had been wounded at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794, and a valuable source of advice to the General.

British moves
Major General Isaac Brock was both the civil Administrator of Upper Canada and Commander of the military forces there. He was an aggressive commander, and his successful capture of Detroit had won him praise, the reputation as the "saviour of Upper Canada" and a knighthood, the news of which would only reach Upper Canada after his death. However, his superior at Quebec, Lieutenant General Sir George Prevost, was of a more cautious bent, and the two clashed over strategy. Brock had hastened back from Detroit, intending to cross the Niagara, defeat Van Rensselaer before he could be reinforced and occupy upper New York State. Prevost vetoed this plan, ordering Brock to behave more defensively. Not only was Prevost concerned by Brock's apparently rash actions, but he was aware that the British Government had revoked several Orders in Council which affected American merchant ships, and thus removed some of the stated causes of the war. He believed that peace negotiations might result and did not wish to prejudice any talks by taking offensive action. He opened negotiations with General Dearborn, and arranged local armistices. The United States government rejected Prevost's approach and ordered Dearborn "to proceed with the utmost vigor in your operations", after giving Prevost notice of the resumption of hostilities. However, it took several weeks for this correspondence to travel between Washington and the frontier.

While Brock had been at Detroit, Major General Sheaffe had been in command of the troops on the Niagara. Acting under Prevost's orders, Sheaffe had concluded an armistice with Colonel Van Rensselaer on 20 August and had even gone further than Prevost's orders by voluntarily restricting the movement of British troops and supplies. Brock returned to the Niagara on 22 August, to find the armistice in effect. The terms of the armistice permitted the use of the river by both powers as a common waterway and Brock could only watch as American reinforcements and supplies were moved to Van Rensselaer's army, without being able to take action to prevent it. The armistice ended on 8 September, by which time Van Rensselaer's army was considerably better supplied than it had been before.

American internal quarrels
Even with Hull's failure and Dearborn's inaction, Van Rensselaer's situation appeared strong. On 1 September, he had only 691 unpaid men fit for duty, but the arrival of reinforcements boosted his force considerably. In addition to his own force of around 6,000 regulars, volunteers, and militia, Van Rensselaer had Brigadier General Alexander Smyth's force of 1,700 regular soldiers under his command. However, Smyth, who was a regular officer although a lawyer by trade, steadfastly refused to obey Van Rensselaer's orders or respond to his summons. As soon as his force reached the frontier, Smyth deployed his force near Buffalo, New York, at the head of the Niagara River. Van Rensselaer planned for the main force to cross the Niagara from Lewiston and take the heights near Queenston, while Smyth crossed the river near Fort Niagara and attacked Fort George from the rear. However, Smyth made no reply to Van Rensselaer's plan. When summoned to a council of officers in early October to plan the attack, Smyth did not respond, nor did he reply to a letter sent soon after. A direct order to arrive "with all possible dispatch" was also met with silence. Van Rensselaer, an amiable politician in a hurry to launch his attack, chose to proceed with the attack from Lewiston only, rather than bring Smyth before a court-martial and possibly delay the start of the battle. His aim was to establish a fortified bridgehead around Queenston, where he could maintain his army in winter quarters while planning for a campaign in the spring. Colonel Van Rensselaer had visited the British side under the escort of Brock's aide, Lieutenant Colonel John Macdonell, and had gained a fairly good idea of the lay of the land.

On 9 October, American sailors, artillerymen, and volunteers from the militia, commanded by Lieutenant Jesse Elliot, launched a successful boarding attack on the brigs Caledonia and Detroit, anchored near Fort Erie at the head of the Niagara River. Both brigs were captured, although Detroit subsequently ran aground and was set on fire to prevent it being recaptured. Brock feared this might presage an attack from Buffalo and galloped to Fort Erie. Although he soon realised that there was no immediate danger from Smyth in Buffalo, and returned to his headquarters in Niagara that night, it was mistakenly reported to Van Rensselaer that Brock had left in haste for Detroit, which Major General William Henry Harrison was attempting to retake. Van Rensselaer decided to launch an attack at 3 a.m. on 11 October, even though Colonel Van Rensselaer was ill.

On 10 October, Van Rensselaer sent orders to Smyth to march his brigade to Lewiston in preparation for the attack "with every possible dispatch." Smyth set out upon receipt of the letter. However, in foul weather, he chose a route to Lewiston that was so bad that abandoned wagons could be seen "sticking in the road." The same tempestuous weather drenched Van Rensselaer's troops as they stood and waited to embark. One of the lead boatmen, a Lieutenant Sims, rowed his boat away and deserted the army, taking with him most of the oars. By the time the oars could be replaced, the attack had to be postponed. Colonel Van Rensselaer set the second attempt for 13 October.

Smyth received word the attack had been postponed at 10 a.m. on 11 October. He then turned back to his camp at Black Rock, New York, near Buffalo, rather than press on to Lewiston. He wrote to Van Rensselaer on 12 October that his troops would be in condition to move out again on 14 October, a day after the postponed attack was to be launched.

Brock's preparations

Brock was aware of the failed attempt to cross the river on 11 October but was not certain this was not a mere demonstration to distract him from a major attack elsewhere. On 12 October, Major Thomas Evans (the Brigade Major at Fort George) crossed the Niagara River under a flag of truce to request an immediate exchange of prisoners taken in Elliot's raid on the British brigs three days before. He attempted to see Colonel Solomon Van Rensselaer but was told the Colonel was ill. Instead, he was met by a man who claimed to be General Stephen Van Rensselaer's secretary, Toock. Toock was probably Major John Lovett (Van Rensselaer's private military secretary) in disguise, and he repeatedly stated no exchange could be arranged until "the day after tomorrow."

Evans was struck by the repetition of this phrase and spotted several boats hidden under bushes along the shore. He deduced that a crossing was planned for 13 October, but when he returned to the British lines a council of officers responded to his statement with laughter and mockery. However, Brock took Evans aside and after a meeting was convinced of the possibility. That evening he dispatched several orders for the militia to assemble.

On 13 October, Brock was at his headquarters in Niagara. Major General Sheaffe was at Fort George nearby with the main British force. There were other British detachments at Queenston, Chippawa, and Fort Erie.

British dispositions
The village of Queenston consisted of a stone barracks and twenty houses each surrounded by gardens and peach orchards. Several farmhouses were scattered through the neighbouring fields and pastures. The village lay at the mouth of the gorge of the River Niagara. Immediately south of the village, the ground rose 300 feet (100 m) to Queenston Heights. The slope from the heights to the river bank was very steep but overgrown with shrubs and trees, making it fairly easy to climb. Lewiston was on the American side of the river, with the ground to its south rising to Lewiston Heights. The river was fast-flowing and 200 yards wide but was described as being little trouble to even an indifferent oarsman. In time of peace, there was a regular boat service between Queenston and Lewiston with permanent landing stages in both villages.

The British detachment at Queenston consisted of the grenadier company of the 49th Regiment of Foot (which Brock had formerly commanded) under Captain James Dennis, a flank company of the 2nd Regiment of York Militia (the "York Volunteers") under Captain George Chisholm, and a detachment of the 41st Regiment of Foot with a 3-pounder grasshopper cannon. The light company of the 49th under Captain John Williams was posted in huts on top of the heights. An 18-pounder gun and a mortar were mounted in a redan halfway up the Heights, and a 24-pounder gun and a carronade were sited in a barbette at Vrooman's Point, a mile north of the village, guarded by a company of the 5th Regiment of Lincoln Militia under Captain Samuel Hatt. Two more companies of York Militia under Captains Cameron and Heward were stationed at Brown's Point, three miles to the north. The remaining local militia of the 5th Lincoln Regiment were not on duty but could assemble at very short notice.

First American landing
The American forces involved were the 6th, 13th, and 23rd U.S. Regiments of Infantry, with detachments of U.S. Artillery serving as infantry. There were also the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th Regiments of New York Militia and a volunteer battalion of riflemen, totalling 900 regulars and 2,650 militia. Because the United States Army was being rapidly expanded, most of the regulars at Lewiston were recent recruits, and Van Rensselaer considered the militiamen's drill and discipline superior to that of the regulars. The Americans had twelve boats, each of which could carry thirty men, and two large boats which could carry eighty men and which were fitted with platforms on which field guns or wagons could be carried. A last-minute squabble over seniority and precedence led to the command of the first landing party being split. Colonel Van Rensselaer led the militia contingent and Lieutenant Colonel John Chrystie of the 13th U.S. Infantry led the regulars.

The Americans began crossing the river in thirteen boats at 4 a.m. on 13 October. Three boats, including Chrystie's, were swept downstream by the current. One landed lower down and the other two under Chrystie returned to the American side of the river. Ten minutes after they began the crossing, the remaining ten boats under Colonel van Rensselaer began landing at the village. A sentry noticed them and, rather than fire his musket to raise the alarm and thus warn the American troops that they had been spotted, ran to Dennis' headquarters. After waiting and observing the enemy landing build up for several minutes, Dennis' troops began firing rolling, accurate volleys into the Americans in the midst of their coming ashore, firing low so as to inflict debilitating wounds. Colonel Van Rensselaer was hit in the thigh by a musket ball as soon as he stepped out of his boat on the Canadian shore. As he tried to form up his troops, he was promptly hit five more times in the heel, thighs and calf, and though he survived, he spent most of the battle out of action, weak from loss of blood. Captain John E. Wool of the 13th U.S. Infantry took over and fought to retain the American foothold in Queenston.

Meanwhile, the British guns opened fire in the direction of the American landing stage at Lewiston, and the American guns (two 18-pounder guns in an earthwork named "Fort Gray" on Lewiston Heights, two 6-pounder field guns and two 5.5 in mortars near the landing stage) opened fire on Queenston village. Dennis' troops were driven back into the village but kept firing from the shelter of the houses.

As the light grew, the British guns became more accurate. As a second wave of six American boats began to cross the river, the crews of three of them, including their two largest, one of which was carrying Lieutenant Colonel Chrystie, panicked as they came under fire. Chrystie's pilot turned the boat back for shore, despite Chrystie's efforts to restrain him. This later caused controversy when Captain Lawrence, commanding the next boat following, asserted Chrystie had ordered him to retreat, leading to accusations of cowardice. One of the four remaining boats was sunk by fire from a 3-pound grasshopper cannon and a trio of others, carrying Lieutenant Colonel John Fenwick (formerly the commandant at Fort Niagara) and 80 men, drifted downstream and landed in Hamilton Cove, a hollow about 800 yards downriver, where a detachment of York and Lincoln Militia quickly surrounded Fenwick's men. A blistering fire was opened upon the U.S. infantry; Fenwick was grievously wounded in the face by a pistol shot, also receiving musket balls in his thigh and right side – his cloak was riddled with nine additional balls. Their boats' hulls perforated with musket fire, and most of their comrades killed or wounded within minutes, all the other survivors of Fenwick's party quickly surrendered. Three men managed to escape in one boat, which sank on reaching the American side of the river. The last boat drifted within easy range of the gun at Vrooman's Point and its occupants surrendered.

Death of Isaac Brock
At Fort George, Brock had been awakened by the noise of the artillery at Queenston. As he considered this might only be a diversion, he ordered only a few detachments to move to Queenston but galloped there himself, accompanied by a few aides. He passed through the village as dawn broke, being cheered by the men of the 49th, many of whom knew him well, and moved up to the redan to gain a better view.

The 18-pounder cannon and the howitzer in the redan were causing great carnage amongst the American boats. Since coming ashore an hour-and-a-half earlier, the U.S. forces had been pinned down along the river. Prompted by Lieutenant Gansevoort of the U.S. Artillery, who knew the area well, the wounded Colonel Solomon Van Rensselaer ordered Captains Wool and Ogilvie to take a detachment upstream "and ascend the heights by the point of the rock, and storm the battery." The redan had very few troops guarding it, the light company of the 49th having been ordered from the heights into the town by Brock to join the fighting in the village in support of the grenadier company. Wool's troops attacked just after Brock arrived, forcing his small party and the artillerymen to flee into the village, after quickly spiking the guns. Brock sent a message to Major General Sheaffe at Fort George, ordering him to bring as many troops as possible to Queenston. He then resolved to recapture the redan immediately rather than wait for reinforcements.

Brock's charge was made by Dennis' and Williams' two companies of the 49th and two companies of militia. The assault was halted by heavy fire and as he noticed unwounded men dropping to the rear, Brock shouted angrily that "This is the first time I have ever seen the 49th turn their backs! Surely the heroes of Egmont will not tarnish their record!" At this rebuke, the ranks promptly closed up and were joined by two more companies of militia, those of Cameron and Heward. Brock saw that the militia supports were lagging behind at the foot of the hill and ordered one of his Provincial aides-de-camp, Lieutenant Colonel John Macdonell, to "Push on the York Volunteers" while he led his own party to the right, presumably intending to join his party with that of Williams' detachment who were beginning to make progress on that flank.

Brock was struck in the wrist of his sword arm by a musket ball but pressed home the attack he was directing. His height and energetic gestures, together with his officer's uniform and a gaudy sash given to him eight weeks earlier by Tecumseh after the siege of Detroit, made him a conspicuous target. He was shot down by an unknown American who stepped forward from a thicket and fired at a range of barely fifty yards. The ball struck Brock in the chest, killing him almost instantly. His body was carried from the field and secreted in a nearby house at the corner of Queenston Street and Partition Street, diagonally opposite that of Laura Secord.

Despite being a lawyer by trade with little military experience, Lieutenant Colonel Macdonell led a second attempt, together with Williams, to retake the redan. With Williams' men of the 49th starting from brush to the right of the line near the escarpment and Macdonell's anchoring the left, the force of between 70 and 80 men (more than half of whom were militia) advanced toward the redan. Wool had been reinforced by more troops who had just made their way up the path to the top of the Heights, and Macdonell faced some four hundred troops.

Despite the disadvantage in numbers as well as attacking a fixed position, Williams' and Macdonell's small force was driving the opposing force to the edge of the gorge on which the redan was situated, and seemed on the verge of success before the Americans were able to regroup and stand firm. The battle's momentum turned when a musket ball hit Macdonell's mount, causing it to rear and twist around, and another shot hit him in the small of the back, causing him to fall from the horse. He was removed from the battlefield but succumbed to his injuries early the next day. Captain Williams was laid low by a wound to the head, and Dennis by a severe wound to the thigh (although he continued to lead his detachment throughout the action). Carrying Macdonnell and the body of Brock, the British fell back through Queenston to Durham's Farm a mile north near Vrooman's Point.

According to legend, Brock's last words were "Push on, brave York Volunteers", but this is very unlikely, since Brock was not with them when he fell. Moreover, the wound's location (as seen on his coat, which is on display at the Canadian War Museum) suggests Brock died almost instantly, without time to speak. According to historian J. Mackay Hitsman, Brock's earlier command to push on the York Volunteers, who had just arrived from Queenston, was transformed into the later legend.

Movements, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
By 10 a.m., the Americans were opposed only by the 24-pounder at Vrooman's Point which was firing at the American boats at very long range. The Americans were able to push several hundred fresh troops and a 6-pounder field gun across the river. They unspiked the 18-pounder in the redan and used it to fire into Queenston village, but it had a limited field of fire away from the river. Some American soldiers entered Queenston village and looted some houses. They also rescued Lieutenant Colonel Fenwick and other survivors from his party, but did not attempt to drive Dennis from his position near Vrooman's Point.

Lieutenant Colonel Chrystie briefly took charge of the troops on the Canadian side but returned to Lewiston to collect reinforcements and entrenching tools. At about noon, General van Rensselaer and Chrystie crossed to the Canadian side of the river. They ordered the position on Queenston Heights to be fortified. Lieutenant Joseph Gilbert Totten of the U.S. Engineers traced out the position of the proposed fortifications. Van Rensselaer appointed Lieutenant Colonel Winfield Scott of the 2nd U.S. Artillery to take command of the regulars on Queenston Heights. Brigadier General William Wadsworth, who was nominally present as a volunteer and who waived his right to overall command, took charge of the militia. There were few complete formed units; there was only a collection of unorganised detachments, some without their officers. Likewise some officers had crossed but their men had not followed them. Little more than a thousand of General Van Rensselaer's men had crossed the Niagara River.

Meanwhile, British reinforcements had begun to arrive from Fort George. A detachment of the Royal Artillery (a "car brigade", with draught horses and drivers provided by Canadian farmers and militia) under Captain William Holcroft with two 6-pounder guns moved into Queenston village, supported by a company of the 41st under Captain Derenzy. Militia Captain Alexander Hamilton guided them to a firing position in the courtyard of Hamilton's house. When they opened fire at 1 p.m., it once again became hazardous for the American boats to attempt to cross the river. Two American boats and a scow were sunk, and shrapnel fire several times silenced the American batteries in Lewiston.

At the same time, 300 Mohawk warriors under Captains John Norton and John Brant climbed up to the top of the heights and suddenly fell on Scott's outposts. None were killed, and the Mohawk force was driven back into some woods, but the Americans' spirits were badly affected by their fear of the natives. Warcries could be clearly heard in Lewiston, and militia waiting there to cross the river refused to do so.

Sheaffe's attack
Sheaffe arrived at Queenston at 2 p.m. and took charge of the British troops. He ordered yet more reinforcements to join him, and when they had done so, he led his force on a 3 mi detour to the Heights, shielding them from the American artillery. Here, he was joined by another column of reinforcements from Chippawa under Captain Richard Bullock of the 41st. In all, he commanded over 800 men. In addition to the remnants of the force which had been engaged under Brock in the morning, he had five companies of the 41st and seven of militia (including Captain Runchey's Company of Coloured Men), with two 3-pounder guns, belonging to Swayze's Provincial Artillery (a militia unit) but commanded by Lieutenant Crowther of the 41st.

General Van Rensselaer determined at this point to re-cross to Lewiston to push forward reinforcements and munitions. Refugees and stragglers crowded into his boat and nearly capsized it. In Lewiston, he found that the troops had dissolved into a disorderly crowd and was unable to cajole any more of the militia into crossing the river. He then tried to induce the civilian boatmen to cross the river and retrieve his soldiers from Canada, but they refused even that. The General reported the next day that, "...to my utter astonishment, I found that at the very moment when complete victory was in our hands, the ardor of the unengaged troops had entirely subsided. I rode in all directions – urged men by every consideration to pass over – but in vain." He sent a message to Brigadier General Wadsworth which left the decision whether to stand and fight or withdraw across the Niagara to him, promising to send boats if the decision was made to withdraw.

As Sheaffe's force began to advance, Scott and Wadsworth received Van Rensselaer's message. At this point, according to Scott, the effective American force on the heights consisted of 125 regular infantry, 14 artillerymen and 296 militiamen. The Americans decided to abandon their incomplete field works and withdraw. Scott fell back to the top of the heights where he attempted to throw up a barricade of fence rails and brushwood to cover the evacuation with his regulars. He placed the 6-pounder gun in front of the line, and posted some riflemen on the right among the huts formerly occupied by the light company of the 49th.

Sheaffe took his time forming his men up and preparing them for battle and attacked at 4 p.m., twelve hours after Van Rensselaer launched his assault. The first attack was made by the light company of the 41st with 35 militia and some Native Americans against the riflemen on Scott's right. After firing a volley, they charged with the bayonet, forcing the riflemen to give way in confusion. Sheaffe immediately ordered a general advance, and the entire British line fired a volley, raised the Indian war-whoop and charged. The American militia, hearing the Mohawk war-cries and believing themselves doomed, retreated en masse and without orders. Cursing the men who would not cross the river, General Wadsworth surrendered at the edge of the precipice with 300 men. Scott, Totten and some others scrambled down the steep bank to the edge of the river. With no boats arriving to evacuate his men and with the Mohawk warriors furious over the deaths of two chiefs, Scott feared a massacre and surrendered to the British. The first two officers who tried to surrender were killed by Native Americans, and after Scott had personally waved a white flag (actually Totten's white cravat), excited Natives continued to fire from the heights into the crowd of Americans on the river bank below for several minutes.

Once the surrender was made, Scott was shocked to see 500 militiamen, who had been hiding around the heights, emerging to surrender also.

Casualties
The British official casualty return gave 14 killed, 77 wounded, and 21 missing, with the loss of Norton's Native Americans not included. Historian Robert Malcomson has demonstrated this computation to be in error and shows that the British and Canadian losses were 16 killed, 83 wounded, and 21 captured, with a further 5 killed, 2 wounded, and 1 captured among the Native American contingent. This gives a total loss of 21 killed, 85 wounded, and 22 captured. Among the wounded Canadians was James Secord, husband of Laura Secord.

The number of Americans killed in the battle has been variously estimated at 60, 90, and 100. 82 severely wounded Americans were evacuated across the Niagara before the surrender, of whom 2 soon died. 955 Americans were initially captured by the British, including 120 severely wounded officers and men. This was more than the hospital at Niagara could accommodate, so some of them had to be cared for in the court house or in nearby churches. These were only the men who were badly injured enough to require hospitalization: the numbers of the walking wounded, who were seen by the British surgeons and then kept with the other prisoners, have not been recorded. Of the severely wounded prisoners, 30 soon died, so by the time a full report on the prisoners was issued on 15 October, there were 19 officers and 417 enlisted men of the U.S. regulars and 54 officers and 435 other ranks of the New York Militia. The 80 surviving wounded in the American hospital and the 90 surviving wounded prisoners were presumably the basis for General Van Rensselaer's statement, in a letter to Dearborn on 20 October, that "the aggregate" of his information would indicate that 170 Americans had been wounded in the battle. This gives total American casualties of 60–100 killed, 80 wounded, 90 wounded prisoners and 835 other prisoners. 6 officers (4 regular and 2 militia) were among the killed; 11 officers (6 regular and 5 militia) were among the wounded who escaped capture and 8 officers (4 regular and 4 militia) were among the wounded prisoners. Those captured included Brigadier General William Wadsworth of the New York Militia, Lieutenant Colonel Scott and four other lieutenant colonels. A 6-pounder gun and the colours of a New York Militia regiment were also captured.

Aftermath
Sheaffe immediately proposed a temporary truce and invited Van Rensselaer to send surgeons to assist in treating the wounded. Having assented, General Van Rensselaer resigned immediately after the battle and was succeeded as senior officer on the Niagara by Alexander Smyth, the officer whose insolence had badly injured the invasion attempt. Smyth still had his regulars at Buffalo but refused to launch an attack until he had 3,000 men under his command. He launched a successful raid to prepare the ground for a full-scale invasion at the Battle of Frenchman's Creek but then bungled two attempts to cross the river near Fort Erie and drew the loathing of his soldiers. Universally castigated for his refusal to attack and with rumours of mutiny in the air, Smyth slipped away to his home in Virginia rather than remain at his post.

At Albany, the defeat of Van Rensselaer only increased Henry Dearborn's reluctance to act. With two armies already defeated, Dearborn was not keen on leading the third. He led a half-hearted advance as far as Odelltown, where his militia refused to proceed further. After his regulars were easily repulsed by the garrison of an outpost at Lacolle Mills, Dearborn retired to American territory. He would be replaced the following year with only minor successes to his credit.

The question of who was to blame for the defeat was one that was never resolved. Stephen Van Rensselaer's popularity remained high enough that he was able to make an unsuccessful attempt to unseat Daniel Tompkins as Governor of New York, and he later served in the United States House of Representatives. General John Armstrong, Jr., the Secretary of War for much of the war, pinned the blame on General Van Rensselaer in his Notices of the War of 1812, published after the war. This provoked an indignant response from Solomon Van Rensselaer, who compared Armstrong to Benedict Arnold and laid the blame squarely on Lieutenant Colonel Chrystie (who had died of natural causes in July 1813), who he accused of cowardice and said "to his failure may mainly be attributed all our disasters."

The loss of Major General Brock was nevertheless a major blow to the British. Brock had inspired his own troops and the militia and civilian authorities in Upper Canada by his blustering confidence and activity. Sheaffe, his successor, received a baronetcy for his part in the victory but could not command the same respect. He was already known to many of the troops in Upper Canada as a harsh disciplinarian. His success where Brock had rashly sacrificed himself could not help him escape censure for not having followed up the victory at Queenston Heights with an attack on Fort Niagara (which had been left virtually evacuated by its garrison after a bombardment from British batteries that afternoon). The following April, he was defeated by a numerically superior American force at the Battle of York. Although his decision to retreat with his few regulars was accepted by his superiors (and his American opponents) to be correct in military terms, it left the local militia, the Assembly of Upper Canada and the population of York feeling abandoned and aggrieved. He was relieved of his appointments in Upper Canada.

Legacy
A 56-metre (185 ft) column atop Queenston Heights in Queenston, Ontario, Canada, known as Brock's Monument, commemorates the battle as well as the memory of the British General who died there.

The song "MacDonell on the Heights", by Stan Rogers, commemorates the role of John MacDonell in the battle.

The Battle Honour "Queenstown" [sic] was awarded to two British regiments in the aftermath of the war: the 41st Regiment of Foot and 49th Regiment of Foot, whose successor units in the modern British Army are the Royal Welsh and the Rifles Regiments.

In the Canadian Army, the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, the 56th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA, the Queen's York Rangers, the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry, and the Lorne Scots perpetuate the history and heritage of Canadian militia units that took part in the battle. These regiments also carry the QUEENSTON Battle Honour.

The Ontario Highway 405 that connects the Lewiston–Queenston Bridge to the Queen Elizabeth Way is named the General Brock Parkway.

Many songs have been written about the battle. In 1959, as an answer to "The Battle of New Orleans", then a hit record by Johnny Horton, Toronto radio station CHUM recorded "The Battle of Queenston Heights", with DJ Mike Darow on lead vocals. Credited to "Mike Darow and the CHUMS", the number became a regional hit in its own right, reaching #17 on CHUM's own chart.

Multiple streets, avenues, roads, and a university in Ontario are named after Major General Brock, as is the city of Brockville in the province.

title: Battle of Queenston Heights


text:
User:Silver Maple

This username stems from a large silver maple that used to grow in front of my house while I was growing up. The tree was actually illegal according to local bylaws because it grows much faster than other trees in the area, but I really liked it. When I moved, one of the things we needed to do to sell the house was cut the tree down, which was a very sad moment for me because I had grown to really like that tree. As it turned out, the tree's roots had gone underneath the foundation of the house, partially cracking it, and had tapped into the water supply of the house, which in my opinion explained why our water always seemed very sweet and wholesome. Anyway, with 98% or so of our bodies being composed of water, I figure that I have a real connection with that silver maple that grew in my front lawn. Although it is now dry firewood or the burnt remains thereof, that silver maple lives on in my heart, and I have chosen this user name for that reason.

My interests include comparative religion, computer science, technical writing, and international relations.

In the next little while, I'm interested in writing about:

 * The experimental method in the Islamic World (which is up for deletion, but I might resurrect it b/c it looks like an interesting topic).
 * Religious aspects of marriage
 * The Sixth pillar of Islam
 * comparative religion
 * computer science
 * technical writing
 * international relations
 * diplomacy
 * Maddhabs
 * Hanafi Maddhab
 * Shafi'i Maddhab
 * Hanbali Maddhab
 * Maliki Maddhab
 * Fiqh

 * List of Muslims who made important contributions to Western society.
 * Al-Biruni (973 AD)
 * see: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Al-Biruni.html
 * Al-Dinawari (758 AD)
 * Al-Ghazali (1058 AD)
 * Al-Jazari (1206 AD)
 * Al-Khawarizmi (780 AD)
 * Al-Kindi (801 AD)
 * Al-Muqaddasi (946 AD)
 * Al-Zahrawi (936 AD)
 * Ibn Al-Haitham (965 AD)
 * Ibn Al-Naphis (1210 AD)
 * Ibn Al-Thahabi (1033 AD)
 * Ibn Battuta (1305 AD)
 * Ibn Fadlan (921 AD)
 * Ibn Hazm (944 AD)
 * Ibn Jubair (1144 AD)
 * Banu Musa Brothers (800 AD)

 * Muslim philosophy: early, classical, modern
 * Islam and pornography
 * Islam and alcohol
 * Islamic economics
 * Islamic copyright
 * Linux and open source
 * Programming
 * Somalia
 * Somali culture
 * Canadian culture
 * Canada and its trading partners
 * Media and propaganda

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Silver Maple


text: Talk:Darl McBride

title: Talk:Darl McBride


text:
Talk:Citizens band radio

Old Comments
Isn't it strange that it has GMRS, but no FRS? Ilyanep 17:44 19 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and it was not properly characterized (FRS, GMRS, MURS). These services and CB are part fo the FCC's Personal Radio Services (PRS). It use to be Citizens Radio Services since 1957 - BUT the public could not understand or differentiate that title from Class "D" service - so FCC changed the division’s name (reducing ambiguity). http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/index.htm?job=service_home&id=personal_radio

The origianl Class "D" and Class "E" sections had significant errors (not supported by the FCC filing and ruling records). I softened wording - for proper context -- since it comes across to this reader as "anti-amateur radio". Class "E" requirements were actually met in 1980s with 3 new services. The 220 MHz band is not generally available to the public (globally) - so this would have been an economic barrier for affordable radios (global mfg.) to public in 1970s. The UPS allocation (arm twisting in Washington DC) menioned in 1993 did get some 220 MHz bandwdith (as did another service at 218 to 219 MHz. These frquencies are not well utilized (economics again) - and FCC forced UPS to use a narrow bandwidth system (not FM, SSB, or AM) -- much to the embarrassment of UPS. G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but wasn't channel 19 the default channel for most truck communications, not just traffic moving in certain directions?JesseG 03:44, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Back in the 1970s channels 19 and 21 were both trucker's channels. If I recall correctly, 19 was for east/west and 21 was for north/south. When I was truck driving in 1996 and 1997 channel 19 was the trucker's channel thoughout the country. However, I think channel 21 was still popular on Interstate 5, perhaps to avoid interference with State Route 99. Rsduhamel 19:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't channel 3 the main channel for boats equipped with a CB radio?

JesseG 18:47, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * In Australia they have a seperate Marine CB band which is a little higher up the frequency spectrum.  Petedavo talkcontributions  22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see more about CB-like services in other countries. In the UK they have a 446 MHZ service that's unlicenced. And I bet Japan has some interesting radio hobby services, too. I'll have to dig up my old magazines from the period and see if I can identify when 40-channel gear first turned up in quantity. --Wtshymanski 23:32, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somebody needs to verify that Popular CB Channels section. --141.156.47.42 20:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

CB in Movies
I really don't rememeber the use of CB in the movie Die Hard. I thought they were just 2-way FM radios - not CB.

To the best of my knowledge in Die Hard the bad guys use kenwood handy's, as well as in Die Hard 2. Since kenwood only produces for amateur of professional bands it is unlikely that they would have covered CB.

John McClain gets on the radio and says something like "channel 9 channel 9!" Then it cuts to a scene in a police station where the female cop responds to the call. Anymore doubts?

Channel 9 can be an assignment on a 16 position radio for the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) Service - just as it is for a Citizens band radio (27 MHz). Nope, not 27 MHz CB - LOOK at the length (wavelength and frequency have inverse relationship) of the radio's antenna used - physics answers this question - looks like a UHF radio (GMRS service is at 462-467 MHz/UHF). G. Beat 21:56 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In Die Hard, the handhelds are obviously not CBs, but when they show the dispatcher on the other end, she has what looks like a Cobra CB base station.

Channel 9 on CB is typically at the time of the making of Die Hard considered the Emergency Channel for CB, which was monitored by Police stations nationwide (hence the 911 operator responsed to the call). So in effect it could be CB radio even though the equipment used (McClain's hand held) could have been a VHF/UHF transmitter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.42.129 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Channel 9 is still reserved for emergency communications, though even at the time that movie came out it was unlikely the police in a big city would be monitoring it directly. The point is that in the plot of the movie, it's a CB, but in reality the radio doesnt look like a CB and doesn't work like a CB. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Other, derogatory terms
Does it make sense to mention the other terms sometimes applied to CB, such as "children's band" or "chicken band"? N0YKG 21:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would depend on how you present it ;)

I am not very familiar with wiki. With a situation like this cant we just remove it. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't 14 the main calling channel?
Breaker, breaker 1-4; 1 4 for a copy? DavidFarmbrough 13:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, in Britain, on the 27/81 channels. I think that was a USA reference about 11 being the calling channel. While i read long ago in a book on CB that 11 was an unofficial calling channel, i've never seen it used IRL as such. I'd suggest relegating 11=calling to a historical note. -- anon, 07 Jan '05

 * Here's your answer. Way back in the early 1970's when CB was illegal in the UK, British CB'ers used 11 as a calling channel (just like the Americans) but were forced to move to 14 because of interference from legal equipment on the same channel. When CB was "legalized" in 1981 they continued to use 14. Apgeraint 14:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What a Picture...
What a dirty radio, you'd think someone would wipe the dust off of it before taking a picture and putting it in the encyclopedia. Anonym1ty 17:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Because dust is totally uncylopedic?--205.188.117.72 05:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

replace the picture!
If I could, I would take a product shot from some place online and submit it instead of that ugly dusty radio, but I can't, so it's up to the other users to take a freely usable picture of a CLEAN cb radio and replace that dusty POS picture.
 * I'm here to say the same thing. How about a photo of a CB radio in a truck cab, or one of a mint Cobra 148 or President Lincoln. Not a dirty old rig on someone's bed, please! --kingboyk 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

 * it is a horrible picture. i may have a better picture, i will check. if i dont i'm sure someone else looking at this does.  also technically a president lincoln is not an american c radio ;).  A president washington or a cobra 2000 would look great on this page though. 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I have a good photo showing a base station in new condition with a D-104. Many CB'rs have bigtime base set-ups with "extra" stuff if you know what I mean. Should I post it? JungleCat  [[Image:Texasflaginstate.png|20px]] 23:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better picture. Great job! Phauge 04:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * that is a beautiful picture, great looking rig you have there Lenn0r 02:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

huge Australian CB history section?
It's enormous. Why not create a separate "CB Radio in Australia" article? --141.154.25.91 16:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This is a good question. After all, we have a CB radio in the United Kingdom article allready there, and it has its own standing. Yes, shouldn't this be set apart? JungleCat  [[Image:Texasflaginstate.png|20px]] 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. But I looked at doing it and decided it needed a bit more thought and discussion rather than merely cutting out the Australia paragraph, because the whole article could do with deciding whether it's "CB radio" or "CB radio in the United States". And either way, there's a bit of Australian stuff outwith the main paragraph. – Kieran T  ( talk  09:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct. That would take much time and thought to "separate these twins". JungleCat  [[Image:Texasflaginstate.png|20px]] 15:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, and here is a tidbit that can be reworded and added to the new article "Australia can be proud of being the first Country in the world to produce the world's very first UHF CB radio. Phillips' FM320 will be put into production this year and be available early nest year (1978.) Australia's largest manufacturer of mobile two-way radios has unveiled its $112 million UHF CB gamble. A 40 channel, compact and lightweight rig designed and built in Australia. Working prototypes were shown publicly for the first time at the National Citizens Radio Association CB Convention in Canberra early this month. The prototypes, which are worth about $50,000 in design and research, are almost identical to the units that will be available early next year. The company's specially set-up CB research section was still experimenting with modifications to the design. The FM320, which operates on the newly allocated 476 MHz Ultra High Frequency CB Band, is based on the more powerful and more sophisticated FM747 commercial UHF rig. And despite skepticism throughout the CB industry, Philips maintains the price of the FM320 will still be around $300, subject to sales tax increases. Philips entry into the CB market with a UHF unit has been a gamble from the start. It took a punt that the UHF service would be introduced on the CBRS." There's an online version of this on http://www.acbro.org/remember.htm. Good luck with it. Petedavo talkcontributions  22:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

 * "Australia can be proud of being the first Country in the world to produce the world's very first UHF CB radio. Phillips' FM320 will be put into production this year and be available early nest year (1978.)"

They were about 30 years late in making that claim. What about the original Class D UHF sets in the United States? 91.125.210.60 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

CB usage in the United States
I'm going to go for it and split this off to a new article. The main article has gotten too long to manage. Squidfryerchef 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional references
I'm moving some books from the References section to here for the time being. Based on the edit history, I think they were added as sort of a working bibliography. I'm moving their bibliographic information here until someone uses them as a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizens%27_band_radio&diff=63694925&oldid=63524200 Squidfryerchef 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alfred J. Gross
I added a link to Alfred J. Gross in the See also section. Since he was the inventor of the original technology, maybe there should be a bit about him in the History section? --cslarsen 10:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Squidfryerchef 16:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I found this tidbit of info in an old mmagazine

Phineas Thadeus Veeblefetzer who is also known as Al Gross, was never confined by technical limitations as an Electronic Scientist during the 1930's. In 1938 he built a small transceiver with a range of 60 kilometers using the 300 Mhz band. After developing and improving the idea and after discussions with Jack Jet of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided that this would be a good thing to give to the public so that citizens may appreciate the benefits of public radio. In 1944 the FCC issued Al with the experimental CB licences no. WIOXVX and WIOXVY so that Al could continue with the concept of a possible introduction of a Citizen's Band Radio Service. On March 22nd in 1948, in Cleveland, Ohio in the U.S.A., Al succeeded in meeting the FCC specifications which he helped lay down. The FCC gave 460 Mhz to 470 Mhz to the public and within 3 months Al received $5,000,000 worth of orders from the public for his 465 Mhz CB sets. Thus, was born the Citizen's Band Radio Service and the rest is history. The very first “legal callsign” ever issued to a person for use on the Citizen’s Band Radio Service was 19W0001 and in fact, is still current, issued by the FCC. Who was it issued to? Who else? Mr. Al "CB" Gross. I also found the same in an online source here http://www.acbro.org/inventedcb.htm  Petedavo talkcontributions  21:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indonesian UHF CB?
I condensed the material on Indonesia and added a couple sources. However, I removed mention of the UHF band because the other sources I looked at only mentioned a 27 MHz band and a VHF band, no UHF. Squidfryerchef 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

freebanding section
is it US centric in the sense that - aren't those frequencies legally used in areas outside of the US? El hombre de haha 06:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I toned it down a bit. I wouldn't say that the section is US-specific as it is now, because even in countries that allow more frequencies, they still have people who go outside the band. Squidfryerchef 02:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

While finding a cite for it would be difficult, it might bear mentioning the underground semi-industry that served CB radio people who were running illegally. Back in the day, the terms for radio modifications were: "Freaked", "Peaked" and "Slid". "Freaked" referred to fooling the PLL chip responsible for frequency generation into generating channelizations either below channel 1 or above channel 40. "Peaked" referred to making the transmitter finals output at levels above 4 watts AM, or 12 watts PEP (Peak Envelope Power) for single side band. "Slid" referred to a modification where the clarifier, on single sideband radios, was tied into the transmitter and the circuitry modified to increase the sweep of the clarifier- Thus allowing a defacto ability to freely tune from well below the legal CB band to well above the band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.215.224.137 (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

License requirements and effect on radio control modeling
The FCC required a Class C license for CB radio. The cost was $20 for seven years. Also I believe when the CB craze hit, CB was reserved for business use and was illegal for personal use even with a license. Many people were flying radio control airplanes on 27 MHz at the time but were forced to move to the newer 72 MHz band for safety reasons. WAB Houston 17:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Class C was for model control and Class D was for 2-way voice. At the time, yes the FCC didn't allow "ragchewing".  It wasn't exactly business use only but there had to be a purpose for each transmission.  There's more about model aircraft at CB usage in the United States. Squidfryerchef 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Small case for "band"?
Why is the title "Band" in small case? Shouldn't it be in upper case? =Nichalp  «Talk»=  17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Normally on the Wikipedia, only the first word in titles is capitalized. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But "Citizens' Band" is a proper noun. See the google search results =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even then, they still usually only capitalize the first word. Except if it's a person's name.  I know this is not the usual English capitalization, but they usually do this on WP for some reason which escapes me.  ( Perhaps it's in the style guide someplace? ) Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Global tag
I have re-added the global tag. CB may have originated in the US, but a lot of countries have licensed it out. This article lists only four countries, and does not have the global breadth required for it to be neutral and balanced. This article should be about CB across the world. US centric information would be in history. Additional details go in CB usage in the United States. See WikiProject Countering systemic bias. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  13:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The global tag is worthless. If you know enough about the topic to realize it is not covering a world-wide view, then you know enough to add that world-wide view to the article. It's a polite fiction that the Wikipedia can cover the whole world; notice the complete lack of contributors from, oh, say, anywhere in Africa. Don't tag, add content. Tags are a way of saying "I've noticed something wrong with this article but I won't tell you specifically what it is and I'm far too important and busy to fix it myself, but now that I've pointed out what you've missed, I'm sure you will go fix it, now that I've condescended to rub your nose in the problem." If an editor feels moved to add content, he or she will; not all your tagging will add a single line. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. How did you come to the conclusion that the tag is worthless? When you say that wikipedia lacks contributors from Africa, that's exactly the point the global tag is supposed to address: that the article does not cover a global perspective. Why are you afraid to host the tag may I ask? If I know something, I can add content to the article, but that does not necessarily make me the expert in the subject, or that my contributions will give a global perspective. These tags are meant for a purpose, not for individual editors to pull them down on their own whims. I request you to revert your edit. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument about the global tag being worthless can equally be applied to any other tag, from Template:NPOV, to Template:Wikify - if no editor wants to add the content, no tag will do anything. However there really are editors who are interested in "fixing" articles with specific problems. That's what the tags are for, they draw attention from those who are interested in fixing them. "It's a polite fiction that the Wikipedia can cover the whole world; notice the complete lack of contributors from, oh, say, anywhere in Africa." - like all politeness it's a very useful fiction. For example, I'm from nowhere near Africa, and have very little specific knowledge about it, but that didn't stop me from writing short articles about Shoshong or Engaruka, or the Uganda National Rescue Front, or Yoruba literature, just because WikiProject Countering systemic bias asked that these articles be created. Unless you genuinely disagree the article needs globalization, leave the tag up. --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More thoughts on globalize
So, I was the one who originally reverted the globalize tag. Reason being, the article is not perfect but it contains quite a bit of information on CB outside the United States. The "History" section might only have three other countries, but the "Frequencies" section covers the EU, talks about unique bandplans in the UK, Germany, and Poland, then it goes on to Canada, New Zealand, Japan.

So I thought it was pretty well globalized as it is. If someone wants to add information about a specific country we've missed, that's fine. But the globalize tag is usually for articles of global importance that only have information about a single country ( usually the US or UK given the demographics here ).

This article also used to have an external link to a page which covered the personal radio services for various countries around the world, so if someone saw in our article that, say, Germany has some unique frequencies they could go to that site and see an entire table. It also had countries that this article doesn't cover (yet) like India and Brazil. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The globalize tag is not discriminatory. The fact that New Zealand and Japan have a single line mention does not mean that the article has the global depth. The article takes a rather condescending view of countries outside the US. "CB Frequencies Worldwide", In Poland (and probably some other former Warsaw Pact countries)..." This article is very poorly written. It should 1. Talk about what is CB radio 2. CB radio history (origins in US, and spread across the world). CB radio in popular culture across the world. The article should not be colonized by US stuff. The logic you cite in the summary is also perplexing. The internet was "invented" in the US, does that mean it should only cover mostly the US? The tag needs to stay up. Oh and yes, there is information on India. See Citizens Band radio in India, I had written it a few days before, but I was caught up with Amateur radio in India which is on FAC. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I just added frequency info and some questions to Citizens Band radio in India. As far as being global, note that 27 MHz CB was around in North America for about two decades before it started being authorized in Europe and Asia.  The "History" section looks very US-specific at first clance but that's true only up to 1980 or so.  A lot of that information is relevant to the rest of the world because it shows how the bandplan developed which most countries follow.  The odd spacing of some of the channels got that way because of vagaries in the US regulations. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Microphones
I'd like to add something about choices in microphones - some, like a noise-cancelling microphone, legitimately improve the communication effectiveness of a CB radio, others like an echo microphone have purposes which are forever beyond my understanding. I'd like to include something about the varying levels of effectiveness of choices in acessories; really, every CB radio is technically the same so to individualize and personalize, hobbyists seek out "decorations" like more buttons and lights, more meters, and (perhaps ill-chosen) customizations like sound effects. I don't have a good reference for this, and I'm afraid anything I write would sound pretty patronizing. There's got to be something out there written on whatever drives us consumers to buy "power mics", fuzzy dice, chrome muffler tips, and special turntable bricks; our consumer yearnings overwhelm our understanding of electronics. "Fetishization of technology" is probably more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture trivia
The popular culture section is really cluttered up. A lot of those movies and songs just barely reference CB radio, or show it being used once or at best in a way that is incidental to the movie and not a prominent theme. Do we really need to list every film where a CB is used and every song with a reference, no matter how oblique, to CB? For example the Tracy Lawrence, Beck, and Pixies songs should clearly go, and maybe several of the others. Same with most of the movies after 1978 (the last of those films where CB is really central, instead of just incidental, is Convoy). Does anyone else agree that the section should be cleaned up? For a song to be included it should probably both have CB as its central theme, and be sourcable as having charted on either the Billboard pop or country singles chart. As for the films, I would move for deleting everything after 1978's Convoy unless a source can be cited that the film is primarily about CB radio, as opposed to one in which CB merely appears once. Anyone else agree or disagree here? 96.239.145.54 (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Totally agree. I suppose there is some value in referencing popular culture as there was an era when CB was very much part of said culture.  However, the current list is out of control and needs a clean up. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

*-plex not useful
IEEE Std. 100 says simplex operation (1) (radio transmitters) A method of operation in which communication between two stations takes place in one direction at a time. Note: This includes ordinary transmit-receive operation, press-to-talk operation, voice-operated carrier and other forms of manual or automatic switching from transmit to receive. A reader who knows what "simplex" means doesn't benefit from using it in the lead, and someone who doesn't know what "simplex" means will be annoyed. Let's take it out and say what we mean instead of using jargon. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

 * No, the source of the confusion is that in radio, people follow the ITU definition, while in wireline communications, people follow an ANSI or CCITT definition, which originated in telegraphy. Because this is an article about radio, it should follow the radio definition.  It belongs in the lead so it can be contrasted with other types of radio systems that are full-duplex ( mobile telephone ), half-duplex ( taxi ), or repeaterized or trunked ( police, etc ).  The general public should be fine with this; the only reason it's even an issue is because a lot of our editors are computer people and only know the datacom definition. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The word is a bit of technical jargon but may assume too much background knowledge in the reader - explain "simplex" later on and don't snow the reader too much in the lead. If we really unerstand something, we can explain it to our grandmothers. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * "Simplex" or "half-duplex" (whichever you decide is correct) belongs in the lead; the article now lacks any mention of the one-way-at-a-time nature of communication, which is a defining attribute of CB and of several of the regulations such as the maximum time you may key the mike. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a serious omission and I've tried to fix it now. It's a little ponderous giving a secondary definition in the lead but I've put in two more links for the novice. I really don't like articles that start off "An oompa-loompa is a parnisnipple of vendish felding." where I have to look up so many words in the opening. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not interject "half-duplex" in radio contexts; seems the IEEE Std. 100 dictionary defines "half duplex" in connection with wired circuits, and if the usages vary then we shoud respect the way the terms are used. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Better; additional options: (1) the addition would be less "ponderous" if you deleted "Like many other two-way radio radio services," a clause that starts an explanation of the service of interest by reference to services not of interest; and (2) there was a footnote, now deleted, that I had repositioned to the word simplex, which you might consider restoring now: "In wireline communications, where the term 'simplex' is reserved for one-way signaling, this would be considered 'half-duplex' communications." I don't claim the term is correct in the radio context, only that such a footnote might help readers coming from other backgrounds. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That footnote got deleted? That's pretty important.  Actually the equivalent of half-duplex communications in radio would be a taxi radio or marine radio making a ship-to-shore call where there may be two frequencies but the radio is only able to receive or transmit at any one time.  A repeater is another case of half-duplex.  An example of full-duplex would be a cellular phone. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think "half duplex" explains anything and isn't relevant to this article; it's a wire-line telegraph term The original point of mentioning that when one station was talking, everyone else had to listen was valid, but adding a treatise on the differences between ITU and CCITT nomenclature is out of place in this article. The IEEE definition of "simplex" talks about communication - information flow - not about the number of frequencies in use. Everybody agrees on "simplex" and that's the way CB radio works. "Simplex" is push-to-talk (example: CB radio), "duplex" is listening while talking (example: cell phone), I'd appreciate a reference showing any other terminology and how it's used in a radio context. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'd only include a brief footnote like we had before; the treatise would belong under the definition of simplex in communications. ( I noticed the "radio" definition was removed from that article at one point. ) The other question is are we writing from the standpoint of user experience or that of spectrum management?  The end user doesn't care much whether one or two frequencies are used if they have to push to talk ( until they find out that they can't have a roundtable discussion ).  The FCC on the other hand doesn't care who gets to talk but does care whether one or two sets of frequencies are required. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've located and restored the footnote appended to the word "simplex." I don't claim it uses the best wording, but its presence may help you guys devise the best wording. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if you have to use a piece of jargon in the lead paragraph and immediately have to give an explanation of the jargon, then you should just give the explanation and leave the jargon to another place. The jargon isn't communicating anything to the reader. Two-way radio can go on about the different *plexes and explain the differences between wire line and radio jargon, if that seems necessary - but it's just a buzzword in the lead paragraph of this article.
 * What may be missing is a physical description of a pair of CB stations (base and mobile) and just how you use a CB to communicate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What is this about "jargon" and which audience are we writing for? Are we writing for people who are somewhat familiar with radio, or are we writing for Dukes of Hazzard fans?  I doubt we'd have this discussion if this were an article about the Special Emergency Radio Service. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits to US History
Recent anonymous edits to Section 2.1 on US History, as well as introducing spelling errors, ramble and suggest factors in the decline of CB radio that are vague and subjective (the Reagan administration?!), emergence of technology (FRS) that actually emerged long after the decline of CB radio, and an assertion that regulations led to disregard of regulations. Commentary on changes to the American culture doesn't belong in a section on the history of the use of CB radio; if these are intended to make a cosmic point, it is unlikely to be provable by citation. The entire section needs a rewrite. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the changes were controversial and without sources. I have reverted to the earlier version. --Elliskev 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fat Boy is still in business & still selling their linears. I removed the reference to Palomar Engineering as it reports no links to Palomar Engineers, Inc. which manufactured the linears until the 1980s. See http://www.palomar-engineers.com/Palomar/palomar.html for more information --BuffBrahma —Preceding undated comment added 05:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

CB vs pirate radio
Is it meaningful to talk about CB radio without all the mention of "freebanding" and other activities that have nothing to do with the regulation and original intention of the service? Could we spin out all that into the pirate radio article and just make a general observation here along the lines that "CB was intended to be a short-range communciation sservice for business and personal use, then the pirates came in and destroyed the usefulness of the band for everyone" ? At least nominally, weren't very many of the millions of CB users back in the day at least mostly in compliance with the regulations? For every linear in use on the band, there must have been scores of legal 4-watt sets. Is the illicit use of frequencies in and around the CB band over-represented here?

By contrast, I think it's interesting that FRS hasn't been destroyed by illegal operations (in my limited observation). There seems to be a real bias against "mods" in FRS news groups, and I've never even heard of a "linear" being used on FRS. It can't be technically that much more difficult to get an amplifier these days, and I suspect very many ham radio 440 transcievers can be "opened up" to talk on 465 MHZ; but UHF piracy seems not to happen.No skip to shoot; E-layer scattering is so much more "technical" than waiting for the sunspot maximum. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 * I think "freebanding" has been part of the CB culture since before the boom in the 1970s. It definitely fits in here better than it does in the pirate radio article, which is mostly about pirate broadcasting and last I looked was a mess.
 * There's several reasons why "bootleg" operation happens more around the CB frequencies than for instance on UHF. The temptation to shoot skip is one reason.  Another was that in the days when a license was required, it was hard to actually have a conversation and comply with all the rules.  There were rules about what you may talk about, some channels were reserved for communications only among units of the same license, and so on.
 * It's true that many on the FRS groups don't like to discuss "mods". Part of the reason is that just above the 462 FRS range is a set of channels used by ambulances to talk to hospitals.  As opposed to the area just above the CB frequencies, which may be allocated to different agencies but is rarely used.
 * And another aspect is that there probably is a lot of "bootleg" operation on FRS, just that it isn't as noticeable. Plenty of people are using GMRS radios without a license, using modified ham radios, or are using powerful commercial radios with the FRS channels programmed in. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased unverifiable article
I would like to clean this article up if I had the time. This article is in some serious need of a makeover. I believe it was written from a British stand point which is not a problem but CB radio in the U.S and CB in England differ. There should be two sub categories from CB. Besides that, the article is biased and is opinionated. --Rek4385 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

CB radio's Channel 19 in the United States
Channel 19 is a phenomena that should have its own article. Its is the unofficial travelers channel in the united states yet it has a taste of pirate radio due to its completely unregulated type behavior. I dont have the time to find sources for an article like this but somebody should create an article for channel 19 27.185mhz. --Mobilewifi (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree..I have been a CB Radio operator for many years and I`m also a Ham Radio operator..the fact of the matter is channel 19 is not only the travel channel but the truth is it`s by far the most used channel on the radio overall in the US..if you scan the entire band it`s pretty much the only channel even used domestically..about all I ever hear on other channels is skip...personal I never understood why they ever went from 23 channels to 40 since virtually everyone is on 19.
 * There should probably be some kind of list of what other channels may be used for although I don`t hear much on them..there is a motorcycle channel from what I`ve been told but I don`t know what it is..different highways supposedly use different channels but who knows what they are..in the old days truckers used channel 10 and were asked to use 19 to minimalize bleed onto 9 which is the emergency channel..14 is the kids channel...4 is the closest to a standard international frequency 27.005mhz. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

 * something here about channel 11 being a calling frequency ? Is this a mistake ?2600:1702:2340:9470:41EA:1765:351:3880 (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting frequency listings
According to the table on shortwave bands, as well as the table on the instruction manual for my S350DL Grundig radio, 27 MHz is in the 10 meter band. I am new to shortwave.50.103.226.135 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC) Also, correct, if needed, the 10 meter band article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.226.135 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don`t know the math..CB has always been referred to as the 11 meter band which is more or less internationally assigned as uncontrolled i.e. no one needs a license which is why you hear so much crap on CB..that`s all I know.Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want the precise conversions, the lower end of the C.B. allocation at 26.96 MHz is 11.12m and the upper limit of 27.41MHz is 10.94m.  So yes, 11 meters describes it quite accurately.

 * For conversions, use 300,000,000 divided by frequency in Hertz to get the wavelength in meters, or the same constant divided by the wavelength to get the frequency. You can also simplify it to 300,000 with the frequency in kilohertz or 300 in conjunction with megahertz.  The exact figure for the speed of radio waves is actually a little less than 300,000,000 meters/sec., but the round figure is generally close enough for most purposes. 87.114.74.243 (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Hands free laws
So with new laws banning the use of cellphones in cars do they affect the use of car mounted CB radio? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.117.68 (talk) 13:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Technically, No. The mobile phone legislation specifies the frequency bands of equipment affected (or exempt - can't remeber which).  UK CB equipment falls in one of those bands in which you can hold the microphone (or radio if small enough) while driving.

 * HOWEVER: you can still be prosecuted for not being in proper control of your vehicle (if you have only one hand on the steering wheel for example). The main point here is: that back in 1981, and indeed right up to the appearance of the mobile phone, no one flagged CB use as a problem while driving a vehicle.  109.145.21.107 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 * The U.K. legislation which came into force on December 1, 2003, specifically bans only the use of handheld equipment operating in the frequency ranges of 880-915, 925-960, 1710-1785, 1805-1880 MHz, 1900-1980, and 2110-2170 MHz (i.e. it was specifically targetted at the cellular telephone ranges). The statute is here:
 * http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2695/made
 * 46.208.48.115 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to Citizens' Band
Citizens' needs an apostrophe! Any reason why the article hasn't already been moved?

Awien (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Citizens Band" doesn't have an apostrophe in the FCC regulations. Many of the apostrophes in this article are unnecessary. --65.101.133.143 (talk) 13:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, the article should be consistent: apostrophes present or absent throughout. 86.184.161.129 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Inter- vs. intra-station channels
The article currently references Chilton's CB Handbook of 1977 as showing ch. 9 - 15 plus ch. 23 being assigned for both inter- and intra-station use, with other channels for intra-station only.

Howard W. Sams Citizens Band Radio Handbook, 2nd edition of 1964 reproduces the FCC Part 95 rules, which indicate that at that time it was only ch. 9 - 14 plus ch. 23 on which inter-station operation was permitted. Presumably then, ch. 15 was a later addition - When?

I'm not conversant enough with Wikipedia's syntax of adding references etc. to modify, but maybe somebody would like to modify this and add a note with the Sams reference? 12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.30.223 (talk)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Citizens Band radio → Citizens band radio – The citizens band is commonly referred to as a generic noun, not proper, so per MOS:CAPS we should move to fix the over-capitalization. Someone mentioned above that evidence for it being a proper name is a google search, but better google evidence says not (the top hits tend to be titles, which are typically caps), but further investigation shows mostly lowercase in text. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Support as nom – books n-gram evidence shows that it was more commonly capitalized during the CB boom of the 1970s, but not since then. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak support - in "Citizens B/band radio was" books without the cap tend to be more serious. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Should it be CB?
Should this article be at CB radio as the WP:COMMONNAME? I'd wager most people don't even know what "CB" stands for. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=135
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060917214644/http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/acrm/histpref.html to http://users.bigpond.net.au/acrm/histpref.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens band radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=135&tn=472290
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706203636/http://www.spectralumni.ca/Brochures/TRC-40.pdf to http://www.spectralumni.ca/Brochures/TRC-40.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120224026/http://www.postel.go.id/content/ID/regulasi/frekuensi/kepmen/km%20nomor%2077-2003%20krap.pdf to http://www.postel.go.id/content/ID/regulasi%5Cfrekuensi%5Ckepmen%5Ckm%20nomor%2077-2003%20krap.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Who said hallo to the moon?
Dear readers, in my time as amateur, about 23-25 years ago, I heard of an (English?) radio amateur who sent his signal to the moon and after good 2 seconds heard his voice back again. He called ,,hallooo!" and heard it back. It was in the news then, (and I heard the record of it on tape). Does anyone remember where and who he was? Greets to all, Gerard Rorik, Netherlands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.162.178.42 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Amateurs have been using "Moon Bounce" communications for many years.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%E2%80%93Moon%E2%80%93Earth_communication

(2) There is an old myth about "Long Delayed Echos" which has generated much controversy over the years.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_delayed_echo

Gutta Percha (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

laura
planet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.24.29 (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Citizens band radio