# War Museum lands two more Victoria Crosses won by Canadians



## 57Chevy (9 Jun 2010)

War Museum lands two more Victoria Crosses won by Canadians
 http://www.montrealgazette.com/travel/Museum+lands+more+Victoria+Crosses+Canadians/3128885/story.html

By Randy Boswell, Canwest News Service June 9, 2010 1:48 AM

A year after a controversial auction that saw the federal government spend almost $300,000 to prevent a historic Victoria Cross from leaving the country, the Canadian War Museum has quietly — and frugally —acquired two more of the coveted medals, including another of the storied "Valour Road" VCs awarded to three First World War soldiers from the same street in Winnipeg.


The museum's military heritage coup, to be officially announced Wednesday, not only preserves two significant pieces of Canadian war history but also saves taxpayers a bundle. Both medals — Cpl. Leo Clarke's VC from the 1916 Battle of the Somme and Lieut. John Mahony's VC from the Italian campaign of 1944 — were secured as donations at a time when such artifacts are in hot demand among international collectors and can sell at auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Clarke's Victoria Cross is a particularly poignant acquisition after the museum's $288,000 purchase last year — with strong backing from the Conservative government — of the VC awarded to his fellow resident of Winnipeg's Pine Street, Lieut. Robert Shankland.


The potential loss of that medal to a foreign buyer had prompted then-Veterans Affairs minister Greg Thompson to vow to do "whatever it takes" to make sure the "powerful and enduring symbol" of Canadian courage remained in the country.


A third resident of Pine Street — later renamed Valour Road to recognize the remarkable coincidence — also won the Victoria Cross during the 1914-18 war. Sgt.-Major Frederick Hall's medal is still in private hands.


With the addition of the medals awarded to Clarke and Mahony — a native of New Westminster, B.C., who died in London, Ont., in 1990 — the museum now holds 32 of the 94 VCs granted to Canadians since the award was instituted in 1856 by Queen Victoria for all Commonwealth countries.


Mahony's VC is also special because it's the first to be acquired by the museum for a hero of the Italian front, one of the three major overseas land campaigns — along with Hong Kong and northwest Europe — fought by the Canadian army in the Second World War.


The two VCs and other medals awarded to Clarke and Mahony "were in the hands of the families, and the families thought the best place to donate them would be the War Museum," Jim Whitham, acting manager of collections, told Canwest News Service. "I like to think it's because of what the museum is and does and how it presents history."


He noted that the donations "didn't just happen" and were the result of years of "cultivating relationships" with the families and discussing how the medals would be protected and exhibited to honour the heroes behind them.


The VC awarded to Clarke is particularly important because it was presented on Canadian soil. Just two months after performing the brave deed that earned him his country's highest military honour — a successful, single-handed assault on 20 German soldiers at the Somme — Clarke was killed by enemy shellfire at age 24.


So it was Clarke's father, at a 1917 ceremony attended by thousands, who accepted the medal from the Governor General of the day, the Duke of Devonshire.


Mahony was awarded his Victoria Cross for leading his men in taking a key enemy position "against overwhelming odds" along Italy's Melfa River in May 1944. Then, in a "particularly heroic move," the museum states, he rescued a trapped group of soldiers "by crawling forward with the aid of smoke grenades and leading the men to safety."


Though Mahony suffered a head injury and two leg wounds in the battle, he survived the war and lived to age 79.


"These medal sets will help the Museum document the country's role in both World Wars and keep alive the remarkable legacy of Canada's veterans," said Mark O'Neill, the museum's director general.


"They will help us convey to a new generation what their forebears endured and achieved in the fight against tyranny."

© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Jun 2010)

Absolutely fantastic to hear!!!.. but (there's always a but!) should the word 'won' in the title of this thread not maybe be changed to 'awarded'. After all, nothing is won by the deeds required to achieve such status.

On a separate note, though no VC, I am still 'negotiating' with my own family to donate my father's medals to either the War Museum or his Regiment's museum: Hastings and Prince Edward. I suspect a few people on these forums in my age group are experiencing a similar dilemma.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Absolutely fantastic to hear!!!.. but (there's always a but!) should the word 'won' in the title of this thread not maybe be changed to 'awarded'. After all, nothing is won by the deeds required to achieve such status.



The use of the word win/won is not out of context with formal definitions, it is our current common usage of putting it in context of competition or races that creates a sense of inappropriateness.



> *win* - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/win
> –verb (used without object)
> 
> 1. to finish first in a race, contest, or the like.
> ...



To use the word win takes nothing away from the achievement, but the oft repeated opposition to it regularly detracts from discussions about valour medals.  Shall we discuss the man and his bravery, or the semantics of a descriptive word?  Did anyone fail to understand the article because of the use of that word?


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> On a separate note, though no VC, I am still 'negotiating' with my own family to donate my father's medals to either the War Museum or his Regiment's museum: Hastings and Prince Edward. I suspect a few people on these forums in my age group are experiencing a similar dilemma.



I would strongly suggest keeping it away from any private museum.
A military museum of your choice would take the proper care and cataloging.


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2010)

"Donating an Artifact:
Do you have a personal treasure, a family heirloom, or a collection of objects, documents or recordings that you think should be part of the National Collection?":
http://www.warmuseum.ca/cmc/explore/library-archives/donating-an-artifact

"We also look at the condition of the object, whether or not we already have similar artifacts, or whether the object fits into one of the Museum’s fields of research. Therefore, please understand that we cannot accept all offers."


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Jun 2010)

Obvious choice for donation would be first and foremost The Canadian War Museum where they would sit in a humidity controlled back room for all eternity for none to see. On the other hand, the 'private' museum would defiantly put them out for all to see. This is, in essence, my dilemma- my family's decision whenever it happens.

Micheal O'Leary:
True, not worth arguing the semantics of the wording but this has come up before and the deeds required to earn  this covetted award have no equal nor precedence so comparing them (the deeds) to those required for a scholarship as an example, diminishes the worthiness...again, in my VERY humble opinion. I know the use of this word has been the norm for quite some time but I believe it more correct to say that the medal was awarded for the contribution from the individual to win the war. Maybe this is where the wording stems from.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Micheal O'Leary:
> True, not worth arguing the semantics of the wording but this has come up before and the deeds required to earn  this covetted award have no equal nor precedence so comparing them (the deeds) to those required for a scholarship as an example, diminishes the worthiness...again, in my VERY humble opinion. I know the use of this word has been the norm for quite some time but I believe it more correct to say that the medal was awarded for the contribution from the individual to win the war. Maybe this is where the wording stems from.



Can you provide an example where someone has denigrated battlefield acts which led to the receipt of the Victoria Cross, or any other valour award, _because they failed to understand the use of the word win/won_?


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2010)

Veteran's Affairs Canada and the Canadian War Museum both use the word "won" in regards to the Victoria Cross. 

"The 16 Canadians who won the Victoria Cross during the Second World War":
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/remembers/sub.cfm?source=history/secondwar/fact_sheets/vcwinner

Whatever word you prefer, 16 V.C.'s in World War Two shows the value in lives this medal represents to Canada.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2010)

Although the use of the words "awarded", "earned" and "received" are also used, the official history of the Canadian Expeditionary Force includes these passages:

page 167



> His courageous action brought Corporal Clarke the first of two Victoria Crosses to be won by his battalion. He was killed five weeks later, before the award was announced.



page 290



> Private M. J. O'Rourke, whose "most conspicuous bravery and devotion to duty" won him the Victoria Cross.



page 292



> Hobson's heroic action won him a posthumous Victoria Cross.



page 295



> "For most conspicuous bravery and leadership", Konowal was awarded the Victoria Cross, the sixth to be won by Canadians in the Hill 70-Lens fighting.



page 320



> By mid-afternoon the 52nd had captured Bellevue and Laamkeek, thereby taking a firm grasp on the intermediate objective; by 6:20 next morning the 9th Brigade had consolidated its gains and established outposts only 300 yards short of the Red Line. Lieut. Shankland's was the first of three Victoria Crosses won by the 3rd Division that day.



page 322



> When the battalion's left companies were halted in their ascent of the ridge by fire from a machine-gun sited in a pillbox beside the main road, Lieut. Hugh Mackenzie, D.C.M. (a Patricia officer who was serving with the 7th Machine Gun Company) and Sergeant G. H. Mullin, M.M., a regimental sniper, led an attack on the position. Mackenzie was killed while drawing the enemy's fire, but Mullin went on to capture the pillbox single-handed, shooting its two machine-gunners with his revolver, and forcing the garrison of ten to surrender. Both won the Victoria Cross.



page 323



> For his gallantry and leadership Major Pearkes, who already wore the M.C. and was later to win the D.S.O., was awarded the Victoria Cross-the third to go to the 3rd Canadian Division that day.



page 385



> To the 2nd Division came the honour of another Victoria Cross, won by Corporal Joseph Kaeble of the 22nd Battalion for repulsing an enemy raid virtually single-handed.




page 401



> It was here that Private J. B. Croak earned the first of two Victoria Crosses won that day by members of the 13th Battalion.



page 412



> During the day's advance the Victoria Cross was won by three gallant non-commissioned officers of the brigade Sergeant R. L. Zengel, M.M., of the 5th Battalion, and Corporal F. C. Coppins and Lance-Corporal Alexander Brereton of the 8th


.

page 437



> Both Metcalf and Peck won the Victoria Cross*-one of the very few occasions in the war when a battalion twice earned the coveted award in a single day."




Foornote -  





> * It is a measure of the bitter fighting on both sides that no less than seven Victoria Crosses were won by Canadians on this day. The others who received this highest award for their courage were Captain B. S. Hutcheson, C.A.M.C. (attached to the 75th Battalion); Sgt. A. G. Knight, 10th Battalion; Pte. C. J. P. Nunney, D.C.M., M.M:, 38th Battalion; Pte. W. L. Rayfield, 7th Battalion; Pte. J. F. Young, 87th Battalion.



page 446



> In the course of the 4th Division's operations on 27 September two subalterns had won the Victoria Cross. Lieutenant G. T. Lyall of the 102nd Battalion, and Lieutenant S. L. Honey, D.C.M., M.M., 78th Battalion, through their skilful leadership and courage in dealing with German strongpoints both significantly contributed to the capture of Bourlon Wood.



page 449



> The R.C.R. action bad been highlighted by the heroism of an officer, Lieutenant M. F. Gregg, M.C., which won him the Victoria Cross.



page 452 (Footnote)



> In the fight for Abancourt Sgt. W. Merrifield of the 4th Battalion wiped out single-handed two enemy machine-gun emplacements, thereby winning the Victoria Cross.



page 509



> The capture owed much to the heroism of seventeen-year-old Private Thomas Ricketts, who with his section commander outflanked the hostile battery, having braved heavy machine-gun fire in order to bring up more ammunition for the Lewis gun which he was manning. He was awarded the Victoria Cross-the youngest winner of the honour from this side of the Atlantic.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2010)

To follow my last post, let me expand one of those excerpts, the one about *Corporal Leo Clarke*, which is one of the Victoria Crosses that started this thread:



> Next day the Canadians slightly improved their positions, when the 2nd Canadian Battalion captured a portion of a German trench about 500 yards long south of the Cambrai road. In gaining and retaining its objective (and thereby earning the congratulations of the Commander-in-Chief) the battalion owed much to the valour of one of its junior N.C.Os.—Corporal Leo Clarke. While clearing a continuation of the newly-captured trench during the construction of a permanent block on the battalion flank, most of the members of his small bombing party were killed or wounded and their supply of grenades was exhausted. Clarke was building a temporary barricade when an enemy party of twenty, led by two officers, counter-attacked down the trench. Coolly the corporal fought them off. Twice he emptied into the Germans his own revolver, and then two abandoned enemy rifles. He shot and killed an officer who had bayoneted him in the leg, and he is credited with having killed or wounded at least sixteen enemy before the rest turned in flight. Then he shot down four more of the fleeing Germans, and captured a fifth-the sole enemy survivor. His courageous action brought Corporal Clarke the first of two Victoria Crosses to be won by his battalion. He was killed five weeks later, before the award was announced.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Jun 2010)

We've gone off topic - You have "won" the battle but remember, a history of doing something one way doesn't make it right.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> We've gone off topic - You have "won" the battle but remember, a history of doing something one way doesn't make it right.



Nor does your not liking it make it "wrong."


----------



## 57Chevy (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Obvious choice for donation would be first and foremost The Canadian War Museum where they would sit in a humidity controlled back room for all eternity for none to see. On the other hand, the 'private' museum would defiantly put them out for all to see. This is, in essence, my dilemma- my family's decision whenever it happens.


 Before making any decision I would have to suggest you read the following:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/780267--veterans-families-angry-over-bid-to-sell-wartime-artifacts?bn=1

 Furthermore, I think Mike is quite clear on the "won" issue.


----------



## Danjanou (9 Jun 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> On a separate note, though no VC, I am still 'negotiating' with my own family to donate my father's medals to either the War Museum or his Regiment's museum: Hastings and Prince Edward. I suspect a few people on these forums in my age group are experiencing a similar dilemma.



Pat, perhaps the Army Museum in the Citadel would be a fitting place for the medals.


----------



## Pat in Halifax (9 Jun 2010)

Thought of that and actually delivered a 'booklet'  based on articles I did for TRIDENT a few years back discussing the 16 Canadian VCs (ironically) from WW II to their curator last week. The only issue with that is most of their stuff, quite rightly, is Maritime based and the Hasty Ps are an Ontario Reg't. Haven't yet tossed the idea though.

As John Mahoney's was one of the VCs initially discussed, have included the excerpt from the booklet here:

Major John Keefer Mahony

John Keefer Mahony was born in New Westminster, British Columbia, in June of 1911. After receiving his education at Duke of Connaught High School in New Westminster, he entered the world of journalism as a reporter with the Vancouver Province newspaper. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, he was a militia officer with the Westminster Regiment and was among the first in its ranks to volunteer for active service when the Regiment was rolled into the Fifth Canadian Armoured Division.
On May 24, 1944 at the river Melfa in the Liri Valley in eastern central Italy, commanding ‘A’ Company of the Westminster Regiment (Motor), Major John Keefer Mahony was ordered to establish a bridgehead in order to allow reinforcements to be brought up. In full view of German forces and in the lead company, he signalled the commencement of the attack and by 5:00 in the afternoon, a solid bridgehead was established along with three tanks from a reconnaissance troop of the Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians). Though fierce counter attacks continued well into the evening, the remaining companies and support troops and equipment were transported over the river. Amazingly, through all of this, Major Mahony continued to lead ‘from the front’ even after having been wounded several times in the initial attack and subsequent counter attacks.
There is no doubt that this bridgehead provided the suitable launch point for a link up with American Forces who had landed at Anzio, just south of Rome two weeks earlier. By the 31st of May, the Fifth Canadian Armoured Division and the First Canadian Infantry Division had advanced to within forty miles of Rome when they finally received a well-deserved break being pulled back into reserve. By the 4th of June, Rome fell to the American 5th Army.


His citation reads:

"On the 24th May 1944, A Company of the Westminster Regiment (Motor), under the command of Major Mahony, was ordered to establish the initial bridgehead across the River Melfa.
The enemy still had strong forces of tanks, self-propelled guns and infantry holding defensive positions on the east side of the river. Despite this, Major Mahony personally led his company down to and across the river, being with the leading section. Although the crossing was made in full view of and under heavy fire from enemy machine-gun posts on the right rear and left front, he personally directed each section into its proper position on the west bank with the greatest coolness and confidence. The crossing was made and a small bridgehead was established on ground where it was only possible to dig shallow weapon pits. From 1530 hours the company maintained itself in the face of enemy fire and attack until 2030 hours, when the remaining companies and supporting weapons were able to cross the river and reinforce them.
The bridgehead was enclosed on three sides by an 88 mm. Self-propelled gun 450 yards to the right, a battery of four, 2cm. A.A. guns, 100 yards to the left, a Spandau 100 yards to the left of it, to the left of the Spandau a second 88 mm. Self-propelled gun, and approximately a company of infantry with mortars and machine-guns on the left of the 88 mm. gun. From all these weapons, Major Mahony's company was constantly under fire until it eventually succeeded in knocking out the self-propelled equipment and the infantry on the left flank.
Shortly after the bridgehead had been established, the enemy counter-attacked with infantry supported by tanks and self-propelled guns. The counter-attack was beaten off by the company with its P.I.A.T.'s (1), 2" mortars and grenades, due to the skill with which Major Mahony had organized his defences. With absolute fearlessness and disregard for his own safety, Major Mahony personally directed the fire of his P.I.A.T.'s throughout this action, encouraging and exhorting his men. By this time, the company strength had been reduced to 60 men, and all but one of the Platoon Officers had been wounded. Scarcely an hour later, enemy tanks formed up about 500 yards in front of the bridgehead and in company with about a Company of infantry, launched a second counter-attack. Major Mahony, determined to hold the position at all costs, went from section to section with words of encouragement, personally directing fire of mortars and other weapons.
At one stage, a section was pinned down in the open by accurate and intense machine-gun fire. Major Mahony crawled forward to their position, and by throwing smoke grenades, succeeded in extricating the section from its position with the loss of only one man. This counter-attack was finally beaten off with the destruction of three enemy self-propelled guns and one Panther tank.
Early in the action, Major Mahony was wounded in the head and twice in the leg, but he refused medical aid and continued to direct the defence of the bridgehead, despite the fact that movement of any kind caused him extreme pain. It was only when the remaining companies of the regiment had crossed the river to support him that he allowed his wounds to be dressed and even then refused to be evacuated, staying instead with his company.
The forming and holding of a bridgehead across the river was vital to the whole Canadian Corps action, and failure would have meant delay, a repetition of the attack, probably involving heavy losses in men, material and time, and would have given the enemy a breathing space which might have broken the impetus of the Corps' advance.
Major Mahony, knowing this, never allowed the thought of failure or withdrawal to enter his mind, and infused his spirit and determination into all his men. At the first sign of hesitation or faltering, Major Mahony was there to encourage, by his own example, those who were feeling the strain of battle. The enemy perceived that this officer was the soul of the defence and consequently fired at him constantly with all weapons, from rifle to 88 mm. guns. Major Mahony completely ignored the enemy fire and with great courage and absolute disregard for personal danger, commanded his company with such great confidence, energy and skill that the enemy's efforts to destroy the bridgehead were all defeated.
The great courage shown by Major Mahony in this action will forever be an inspiration to his Regiment and to the Canadian Army."


At War’s end, John Mahony remained in the Army retiring as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1962. His post-war career saw him serve as Commandant Cadet Officer of the Western Command, Director of Publications for the Canadian Army and Assistant Adjutant and Quartermaster-General of the Western Ontario Area. In April 1954, he went to Washington, D.C. as Canadian Army Liaison Officer. Upon his retirement, he immersed himself in youth work from his home in London, Ontario. Sadly, he passed on in December of 1990 and at his own request, without military honours at his funeral.

Two photos from the booklet come from (and are credited to) The Royal Westminster Regiment.


----------



## Tank Troll (9 Jun 2010)

This an other acount of the battle from a different perspective. 
 Lt Perkins Was the Troop Leader of the Regimental Recce troop the were in Honey tanks (Stewart Tanks with the turret remove)

http://www.strathconas.ca/bmenu_history_melfa_river.php

The stage was now set for the armoured advance. The 5th Canadian Armoured Brigade's plan to establish the bridgehead was in two phases: 1) VOKES FORCE, based on the British Columbia Dragoons (BCD), named after their CO, was to establish a firm base 2,000 yards beyond the 1st Division's forward line; GRIFFEN FORCE, based on the Strathconas and the Westminister Regiment, a motorized infantry battalion, was to pass through and seize a crossing over the Melfa. H-Hour for Phase 1 was 0800 on 24 May and by 1200 hours VOKES FORCE was firmly established on their objective. Their advance was marked by the first Allied encounter with German Panther tanks, though in general, enemy resistance was strong. GRIFFEN FORCE passed through Phase 1 objective at about 1330 hours and deployed for battle. Leading the Regimental Group was Headquarters and the Reconnaissance Troop plus one section of four tanks, commanded by Lieutenant E.J. Perkins. 'A' Squadron tanks followed, then Regimental HQ, and behind it 'A' Company of the Westministers. 'B' Squadron was well to the right, off the axis of advance and 'C' Squadron well to the left. All ranks of the Lord Strathcona's Horse heard their CO, Lieutenant-Colonel P.G. Griffen, urge them again and again over the radio to "Push on". The Regimental Motto, 'Perseverance' was a further incentive. The attack over the dusty flat plain was made difficult bt the innumerable irrigation ditches, vineyards, lack of roads and the fine powder like dust churned up by the hundreds of vehicles of all types. The dust hung like a pall over the valley. The few meandering farm tracks were frequently below the level of the fields. Here and there were patches of woods, small stone farm houses and numerous outbuildings. 

Perkins and his small command raced ahead. their first encounter with the enemy was when the young officer spotted a halftrack parked beside a farmhouse. In his own account of the battle, written after the action, Perkins related: "My troop opened fire and the crew tried to escape. Five enemy soldiers were hit, two got away. Next we encountered a Panther tank, the first that we had seen in Italy. It suddenly appeared on my right about 300 yards away. The crew commander was standing in the turret. I fired at him with the .50 heavy machinegun and saw him slump over the turret. With its commander hit the Panther kept going and made no attempt to retaliate. We kept going as fast as we could". When Perkins' tank broke down he moved to another tank. A sergeant was left with the broken down tank to make repairs. 

As they approached the Melfa River, Perkins saw movement in a farmhouse and his three tanks engaged it. A white flag appeared at a window and eight German soldiers came out to surrender. When an infantry scout car arrived on the scene, Perkins turned the prisoners over to them and continued the advance, reaching the riverbank at about 1500 hours. Perkins' account continued: "I parked the three tanks under cover, dismounted, posted three men with Bren light machine guns to cover us and with Sergeant C.N. Macey, searched for a crossing. About 75 yards to the right was a narrow track leading down to the riverbed. It was steep, and difficult to negotiate, but passable. Sgt Macey and I crossed the river and as we came up the far bank we came under fire from one of 'A' Squadron's tanks that had reached the river. I contacted them by radio and the fire stopped". "I got into cover on the far side and remained there, trying to find a route for the tanks to climb the bank on the enemy side of the river. The enemy was still unaware of our presence. I sent Sgt Macey back to guide the tanks down the track on the opposite side, and cross the river one at a time. Macey and I decided that a track up the enemy side could be made with some explosives charges and some pick and shovel work". 

The charges were blown and all ranks worked feverishly to build a retaining wall from the tree trunks, stones and dirt. Men with Bren guns took up positions at the top of the bank to watch for enemy activity. Two tanks were then moved up into 'hull-down' positions below the top of the bank, their heavy machine guns mounted on top of the hull just clearing the bank. Lieutenant Perkins account comtinued: "About 100 yards to our left was a farmhouse showing signs of enemy occupation. Sgt Macey and I, and three men carrying two .45 Thompson sub-machine guns and a Bren light machine gun, crept down river under cover of the bank and approached the house the house from the rear. When we rushed in I saw eight paratroopers staring through windows and loopholes in the direction of the river where the enemy expected us to make our main crossing. I shouted 'drop it'. They turned around, big well built men armed to the teeth. My trigger finger itched but I did not fire. First one, then all of them dropped their rifles. I sent one man back with the prisoners and also sent Sgt Macey to guide the Sherman tanks of our 'A' Squadron across. That left 13 of us to hold the bridgehead". A sniper in a tree about 150 yards away from the house opened fire. Lieutenant Perkins fired two shots from a Projector Infantry Anti-Tank (PIAT). After the second shot, the sniper's rifle fell to the ground and he slumped across the branch dead. Perkins sized up the situation: "It was 30 minutes since we'd reached the river. We had seized the bridgehead and now expected to be reinforced by the Westminster Regiment's 'A' Company. But the route that our tanks had taken proved impractical for the infantry's halftrack White scout cars. They had to feel their way over difficult ground in the face of artillery and small-arms fire. It was apparent that we would have to hold on until they arrived. "Two Panther tanks and a self-propelled 88 millimeter gun now appeared on my left, the closest about 400 yards away. They began firing at the house that we had captured earlier and were now occupying. The enemy tanks then turned their attention to our 'A' Squadron on the far bank, who soon were suffering heavily from the fire from the Panthers' long barrelled 75mm guns and the 88mm SP gun". 

Perkins turned over command to Corporal F.G. McLean, recrossed the river and relayed the Panthers positions to two of 'A' Squadron's tanks who tried to knock out the enemy tanks but were unsuccessful. He returned to the bridgehead. Sergeant Macey crossed the river with the fourth tank that had been repaired and was now in action again. He reported to Lieutenant Perkins that it appeared that 'A' Squadron would be unable to cross the river to assist them. Perkins then placed the fourth tank below the river as a rallying point and to cover the bridgehead garrison if they were forced to withdraw. "The whole situation was becoming very difficult," Lieutenant Perkins noted in his report. "Heavy machine gun fire was now being directed at us from a farmhouse 150 yards away to our left, where a group of about 20 German infantry were forming up to attack. We kept up a heavy small arms fire to confuse the enemy as to our real strength and we caused a few casualties. I decided not to use our PIAT weapons for anything but a tank attack. I now realized that only with the Westminster's infantrymen could we expand the bridgehead, move 'A' Squadron's tanks across the river and continue the advance. They were heavily engaged and not able to give much support".


----------



## crooks.a (31 Oct 2010)

I was thinking about this today after looking at the Milnet calender. Is "winning" really an appropriate term for medals like the VC, Sacrifice Medal, etc? It makes it look more like a contest or a game than an honour.

Winning is commonly conceived as a good thing -- something to aim for -- but I wouldn't consider getting a Sacrifice Medal a positive achievement. I doubt that "win a VC" or "win a Sacrifice Medal" is something on a soldiers list of goals.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. What do you guys think about this?


----------



## NavyShooter (31 Oct 2010)

There is only one (1) medal in the CF that is "WON".  That is the Queen's Medal for Champion Shot.

All other medals are awarded.

NS


----------



## Navalsnpr (13 Nov 2010)

/\
Agreed!!


----------



## Pat in Halifax (13 Nov 2010)

Where were you guys at the beginning of this forum when I suggested that exact thought and got 'pounced'!


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Nov 2010)

> Sgt.-Major Frederick Hall's medal is still in private hands.



It is held by the Regimental Senate.

How about the term: Gazetted. i.e. ORMM, Bravery  announcements appear in the Canada Gazette.


----------



## Navalsnpr (19 Nov 2010)

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Where were you guys at the beginning of this forum when I suggested that exact thought and got 'pounced'!



/\ - Spending 8 months of my life in Afghanistan with very little access to fast internet.  Just got back.

The Queens Medal for Champion Shot is, to the best of my knowledge, the only medal permitted to be worn by CF members that is won by the Top Regular Force and Reserve Force member at the Canadian Forces Small Arms Competition by achieving the highest aggregate of Stage one and two.  The dictionary definition of 'Win" mainly implies to finish first in a competition. The term 'Awarded' I believe is better suited for all other medals.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2010)

The definition you choose to apply does not cover all usages of the word, and its more common application primarily in that sense is a modern evolution.  The use of the word "win" with regard to other contexts is neither wrong in a dictionary sense, nor in usage among those who choose to understand its broader contexts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/win



> *win*
> 
> –verb (used without object)
> 
> ...


----------



## Navalsnpr (19 Nov 2010)

I don't dispute the Dictionary definition of the word 'Win',  however the correct usage of the word or other words should also be looked at.

The GG site lists QM for Champion Shot as "who obtain the highest aggregate score in stages one and two of the Queen's Medal Competition."  The person who receives the medal wins it through achieving the top aggregate score, which is a mathematical calculation that is done right there on the spot after stage two and the medal is issued a couple of hours later.

As for the all of the Military Valour Decorations & Decorations for Bravery the GG description "recognizes an act of _______".  The person who receives these medals does so through the paperwork and committee(s) of his/her Unit/HQ/NDHQ, therefore due to his/her actions, he/she is awarded the medal.

It is my opinion that all CF Medals are awarded, with the exception of the QM of Champion Shot which is won.


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2010)

And you are welcome to your opinion, it doesn't make the use of the word incorrect or disrespectful.


----------



## Navalsnpr (19 Nov 2010)

So, if you were writing someone up for a Valour or Bravery medal, in the supporting documentation that you would prepare and submit, would the last line of your recommendation be:

a. Recommend Cpl A win the Valour/Bravery medal
b. Recommend Cpl B be awarded the Valour/Bravery medal

Which sounds more correct?


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Nov 2010)

Award recommendations for the world wars (which is the period of the medals this thread was about) that I have seen did not _recommend_ that soldiers "win" medals either, you're stretching to find a semantic argument where there is none.


----------



## 57Chevy (20 Nov 2010)

*A person or soldier can be recommended to be awarded a medal
but that person would have won it. And it would go down into history
that he won The Bla Bla Medal or he won The Medal of Bla Bla.

*An 'institution' awards someone something, which could be just about anything
and that person or those persons would have won it.  ( She won "The Little Miss Beautiful" award )

*Hey ! Someone should win an award for that ! ! !

*I won an award  ;D

*An award is created to be won where the criteria of that particular award are met 

My :2c:


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Nov 2010)

See attached.


----------

