# Battle Honours for Afghanistan



## pbi (25 Feb 2005)

So what do folks here think about the US Army (and USMC) system in which each battalion, regardless of Arm/Branch, has a guidon/colour, which IIRC  is paid respects (in some form...) on parade? At present we confine this in our Army to Infantry colours, Armoured guidons, and the guns of the Artillery. Engineers, as far as I know, do not have any similar honour-bearing device beyond the single all-encompassing honour "Ubique".

Should we broaden the use of ceremonial, honour-bearing devices such as colours and guidons?

Cheers.

Mod edit:  fixed spelling of Afghanistan in thread title


----------



## rifleman (25 Feb 2005)

Nope, the cap badge should be enough


----------



## Zipper (27 Feb 2005)

Agreed. 

Tradition you know.

However if we do go to all arms regiments, that may change.


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Should we broaden the use of ceremonial, honour-bearing devices such as colours and guidons?


Do any such devices exist at formation level anywhere in the Army?


----------



## pbi (28 Feb 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> Do any such devices exist at formation level anywhere in the Army?



I don't think so. As far as I know, the Brigade and Area flags that exist are really only what we would call "camp flags": they have no honorific function. I am not confusing these with the Brigade and Area command pennants that signify the presence in garrison of the Commander.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2005)

Just an observation, while doing a recce in Camp Grayling MI for a concentration, absolutly every building had some sort of pennant or device flying in front, many of these were company flags. Rumor has it the Base commander was rather preturbed when he descovered "our" building had no corresponding Canadian device (although I think he was satisfied when a Canadian flag was produced and flown....)

Perhaps we are just at one extreme of the pendulum, and the Americans are at the other.


----------



## Zipper (1 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Perhaps we are just at one extreme of the pendulum, and the Americans are at the other.



Agreed with that. They have a flag for everything. We have a in field flag for our regiment (armoured) that has our colours and that is it. Otherwise our Standard stays home.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Just an observation, while doing a recce in Camp Grayling MI for a concentration, absolutly every building had some sort of pennant or device flying in front, many of these were company flags. Rumor has it the Base commander was rather preturbed when he descovered "our" building had no corresponding Canadian device (although I think he was satisfied when a Canadian flag was produced and flown....)
> 
> Perhaps we are just at one extreme of the pendulum, and the Americans are at the other.



We are not that much different.  Every Unit and Sub-Unit on most of our Bases, fly their Camp Flags.  The Service Bn fly their Camp Flag in front of their Unit Lines, both in Camp and in the Field.  RCEME flags fly beside the RCD flag in front of the RCD Maint Bldg.  Go to Wainwright during a major concentration and you will see all Biv Locations have Camp Flags or signs.

GW


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are not that much different. Every Unit and Sub-Unit on most of our Bases, fly their Camp Flags. The Service Bn fly their Camp Flag in front of their Unit Lines, both in Camp and in the Field. RCEME flags fly beside the RCD flag in front of the RCD Maint Bldg. Go to Wainwright during a major concentration and you will see all Biv Locations have Camp Flags or signs.
> 
> GW



This was even better. Imagine a long road lined with "H" huts. Each battalion has one for the HQ, with an elaborate device (sometimes with battle streamers), and a number of huts for the companies, which also have their own individual devices as well. Repeat for each Battalion (the soldiers themselves were in tentage and giant concreate accomodation buildings elsewhere).  Inside a few buidings which I toured (since we were moving in after the MI National Guard finished their concentration), some talented artists had apparently made unofficial (?) platoon devices as well, which were hung over the Pl Commander or First Sgt's desks....Walking down some lines was a bit like being at a parade.


----------



## Murneydevil6 (29 Mar 2006)

Does anybody know if because of our role in Afganistan the regiments who have been deployed their will obtain  battle honours? Haha as much as the Liberals want it to be its not 100 percent peacekeeping....its battle baby. I know the British added Iraq and Afganistan to the respective units who served there.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Mar 2006)

If you check the forums, you'll find some previous discussions on battle honours, try searching on that term as well as Medak.

For some background reading, this page gives the terms of reference for selection of Second World War Battle Honours, the last time the Canadian Army published them: 

http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/secondworldwar-btlhnrs.htm


----------



## Murneydevil6 (29 Mar 2006)

Yes, I am aware of the rules for battle honours I'm just curious if they will be awarded for Service in Afganistan.


----------



## PNR (29 Mar 2006)

Although our soldiers are participating in "combat operations", I feel that it is a bit premature to begin adding battle honours to our Regiments.


----------



## Franko (29 Mar 2006)

I'll just weigh in here for a sec....

Battle Honours are just that....honours awarded for Battles, not firefights.

Medac was a bit bigger than a firefight.

We haven't, hopefully never, will see a battle in Afghanistan.*


*Sound of Franko beating the hell out of his desk screaming "Knock on wood"  *

Regards


----------



## Long in the tooth (29 Mar 2006)

The Government has set up an alternative to Battle Honours similiar to the US Unit Citation that 2 PPCLI (and 5 RAR and 72 Tk Bn US) won at Kapyong.  The Governor General's Citations is issued permanently to members in the unit at the time of hostilities and temporarily by troops posted into those units who were not there.  This is in line with the 'swimming pool' 2VP wears.

Battle honours have been awarded long after the fact so I would not discount them being issued if a unit had 10 or 12 fatalities on a tour.  Canadian battle honours were awarded in huge numbers to units up to the 60s.  A unit from N.S. made application for a battle honour 4 years ago from WW2.  In my opinion the claim was quite questionable as a platoon found itself 'attatched' to a British unit under German attack.  There were minimal casualties and the operation was never authorized.

A rude and crude calculation from WW2 based on several units' casualties and honours gives a ratio of 10 to 15 dead per honour, with twice as many wounded.

I'm such a pack rat.....


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 Mar 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Battle honours have been awarded long after the fact so I would not discount them being issued if a unit had 10 or 12 fatalities on a tour.  Canadian battle honours were awarded in huge numbers to units up to the 60s.  A unit from N.S. made application for a battle honour 4 years ago from WW2.  In my opinion the claim was quite questionable as a platoon found itself 'attatched' to a British unit under German attack.  There were minimal casualties and the operation was never authorized.



I believe you are talking about the Princess Louise Fusiliers and "Arnhem '45".  The PLF had been pursuing that honour since the issue of battle honours was first raised after the war, and it was disallowed at that time for lack of supporting documenatation.  They repeated the request periodically, and it was not until about 1998 that certain Divisional Orders were opened to public access that they were able to substantiate their claim that a Support Company fielded by the PLF was involved in the operation in question.  The award was then granted based on information that had not been available to NDHQ for the preceding 50 years.  The unit met the criteria at para 14 of the Cdn Army Orders linked above, and was supported in their claim by the specific tasks in those Div Orders.


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Aug 2006)

After reading the very informative letter on the Battle of Panjawai, it got me thinking.  Is it possible for our Regiment's serving in Afghanistan to add laurels to their colours?  If so, what would the criteria be for this to happen?  Just curious.

Regards


----------



## silentbutdeadly (4 Aug 2006)

I just was wondering how Panjawai wasn't a battle but a Firefight compared to Medak, I am not here for a flame, but was wondering! Whats your criteria?


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Aug 2006)

Thanks George, it actually did answer the question I had as well as give me some other useful info I did not know before.

Regards


----------



## reccecrewman (4 Aug 2006)

Actually, I do have a new question that arises from reading this thread front to back............ One of the posters mentioned the "swimming pool" worn by members of 2VP.  Do current serving members of 2PPCLI still wear that US Presidential Citation on their DEU's? 

Regards


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Aug 2006)

Yes we do, although we must take it off once we leave the unit.


----------



## eyre (5 Aug 2006)

We have discussed this issue at length in the PPCLI Regimental Executive Committee with the aim of bringing added relevance to our colours.  How do you recognize a regiment's significant contributions to operations that could not be classified as 'battles' in the traditional sense but presented hazard and sacrifice nonetheless?    A soldier serving in the 1950s could readily relate to many of his battle honours because some, if not many, of those around and above him had actually participated in those battles.  Do those battle honours now, the lastest having occurred over half a century ago, have the same relevance?  Don't get me wrong, they are very important for the regimental system, but so is the ability to relate.  Traditional battles still should remain centrepiece based on our role to apply disciplined violence, but many of our contemporary activities that generate operational effect cannot be classified as battles yet still should be recognized and celebrated.

The ideas of streamers or rings on the pike denoting significant operations (e.g. 'The Balkans, 'Afghanistan,' 'Cyprus') were suggested.  Obviously there is considerable research and staffing required to fully conceptualize and develop options and make this a reality.  In order to consolidate ideas and research the method of doing this one of our Majors has volunteered to take this on and draft a service paper suggesting how to formalize this grassroots idea.  It may be a lengthy process.


----------



## Red 6 (5 Aug 2006)

As many of you know, the US Army awards a streamer to each color bearing unit that participates in a campaign for which a service or campaign medal is authorized. So, an infantry battalion, for instance, would receive a streamer for the battalion colors. Subordinate companies would not display any streamers since the battalion colors wear them. 

A separate streamer is authorized for each campaign. For example, the Southwest Asia Service medal (Desert Storm/Desert Shield) rated three different campaign stars. One was for Desert Shield, the second for Desert Storm and the third for the Cease Fire. If a unit met the criteria for all three, the colors would wear three streamers, each embroidered with the name of the individual campaign. 

The Marine Corps does it a little differently. They wear the same streamers for the most part, but use a combination of campaign stars embroidered on the streamer instead of campaign names. So, for the SWA Medal, a Marine Corps color bearing unit would only wear one streamer with the appropriate number of stars. Marine Corps colors don't have as many streamers. Here's a picture of me back in 93-94 with the Army colors at a Flag Day ceremony:


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (5 Aug 2006)

eyre said:
			
		

> We have discussed this issue at length in the PPCLI Regimental Executive Committee with the aim of bringing added relevance to our colours.  How do you recognize a regiment's significant contributions to operations that could not be classified as 'battles' in the traditional sense but presented hazard and sacrifice nonetheless?    A soldier serving in the 1950s could readily relate to many of his battle honours because some, if not many, of those around and above him had actually participated in those battles.  Do those battle honours now, the lastest having occurred over half a century ago, have the same relevance?  Don't get me wrong, they are very important for the regimental system, but so is the ability to relate.  Traditional battles still should remain centrepiece based on our role to apply disciplined violence, but many of our contemporary activities that generate operational effect cannot be classified as battles yet still should be recognized and celebrated.
> 
> The ideas of streamers or rings on the pike denoting significant operations (e.g. 'The Balkans, 'Afghanistan,' 'Cyprus') were suggested.  Obviously there is considerable research and staffing required to fully conceptualize and develop options and make this a reality.  In order to consolidate ideas and research the method of doing this one of our Majors has volunteered to take this on and draft a service paper suggesting how to formalize this grassroots idea.  It may be a lengthy process.



Well, I'm opposed to this idea.  We have an excellent system in place for recognizing battle honours and adoping a foreign (in this case American) system on top of our current system breaks all previous tradition.  The US has their own (very worthy) tradition for recognizing battles and we have ours.  If it ain't broke (and it isn't), don't fix it; we're becoming more and more American all the time and adding streamers merely accelerates that process.

In that vein, IMHO, there's no reason that Afghanistan (as a recognized "combat" theatre) couldn't be recognized with a _theatre_ honour, as opposed to a battle honour.  Battle honours ("Liri Valley", "Vimy" for example) are awarded for single actions.  Theatre honours ("France and Flanders", "South Africa", "Gulf and Kuwait" are examples) are awarded for overall efforts in a theatre.  I should think that major units operating in Afghanistan since 2002 should "qualify" for a such theatre honour - all things being equal.  After all, we have Reserve units carrying "South Africa" simply because they contributed to the force Canada dispatched to that theatre at the turn of the last century.

Given the differences in mandates, I wouldn't personally support the addition of "peacekeeping" missions to the honours system.  However, if ships and air force squadrons that participated in the Gulf War were granted honours, it strikes me as a bit bizarre that Afghanistan shouldn't qualify... These things can take _years_ to sort out, as the Arnham story related above illustrates.  However, perhaps with the proper push from the leadership, battle honours could become a reality.

My two cents...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2006)

Participation in Operations
12.     A battle honour will not be awarded merely because a unit was present in an operation. To qualify, the unit must:

(a)     have been committed in the locality and within the time limits laid down for one of the individual operations defined below;

(b)     have been actively engaged with enemy ground troops;

(c)     have taken a creditable part in the" operations;

(d)     be proud of its part in the operation.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2006)

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2224042005

Iraq battle honours for two Scots regiments
GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN

BRITISH regiments which fought in Iraq during the 2003 war have been granted permission by the Queen to display two new battle honours on their colours. 

The units, which include the Black Watch and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (RSDG), can include the battle honour "Al Basrah" and the theatre honour "Iraq 2003", alongside the names of other great battles that already appear on their colours. 

The Black Watch battle honours include such famous names as Waterloo, Balaclava, Sebastopol, the Somme, and El Alamein, while the RSDG, whose predecessors also fought at many of those battles, can count the first Gulf war in 1991. 

The Ministry of Defence said the decision about which regiments should receive battle honours was based on their involvement in operations within the land territory of Iraq during the phase of major combat operations between 20 March and 1 May, 2003. 

A spokeswoman said the combat regiments and corps selected had "contributed significantly to the successful coalition land operations, demon-strating the utmost steadfastness and gallantry in the face of hostile fire". 

Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, praised the units selected. He said: "These honours represent a historic and traditional means of recognising the immense efforts British soldiers have made in bringing democracy to Iraq. 

"Our soldiers and their families can be very proud of the role they have performed and the sacrifices they have made to guarantee a brighter future for the people of Iraq." 

The decision to award the battle honours - a term which is used colloquially to cover both battle and theatre honours - was approved by the Queen in June this year. 

According to the MoD, battle honours serve "as a permanent record of achievement of which past, present and future generations of service personnel can be proud". 

Both the Scottish regiments were involved in the final assault on Basra on 6 April which led to the fall of the city and marked the start of the collapse of the Iraqi regime. 

A spokesman for the Black Watch welcomed the award. 

He said: "The battalion is very pleased to receive the battle honour. It is the first since the Battle of the Hook in 1952 [in Korea] and it is apposite to receive it at this time of the year when we are remembering those of our regiment who have fallen." 

The Irish Guards were granted the same battle honours in June this year to allow them to troop their colour, with the new honours emblazoned on it, at the Queen's birthday parade.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2006)

I included this to show that Battle Honours have been issued recently and we know that 3VP have been awarded the GG's comendation for OP Apollo.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Aug 2006)

> The units, which include the Black Watch and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (RSDG), can include the battle honour "Al Basrah" and the *theatre honour* "Iraq 2003", alongside the names of other great battles that already appear on their colours.



Exactly the concept I was mentioning.  I doubt that we've had any single actions on a scale appropriate for a battle honour, but "Afghanistan" should surely be valid as a theatre honour...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Aug 2006)

So what/who does it take to get the ball rolling?  I assume the Queen still needs to sign off on it?


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Aug 2006)

I expect there wouldn't be anything concrete developed until after the conflict in order to ensure it's not a piecemeal arrangment.  here are the times lines for the First and Second World Wars and Korea.

First World War

Armistice - 1918
Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1928
See http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrs.htm

Second World War

VE-day - 1945
Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1956
See http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/secondworldwar-btlhnrs.htm

Second World War

Ceasefire - 1953
Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1958
See http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/koreanwar-btlhnrs.htm


----------



## Red 6 (6 Aug 2006)

I followed the link about your battle honors to the Regimental Rogue, and it was an outstanding piece of intel. Why does it take so many years to get these awarded? In the 1st Infantry Division after Desert Storm, we received our streamers in July of 91. It was a powerful moment for us to stand there among our buddies as the Secretary of the Army pinned the streamers to our colors. I realize it's two completely different systems, but this kind of stuff fascinates me.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Aug 2006)

Red 6:  part of the problem is a desire to be equitable, as Mike has alluded to.  For Afghanistan, for instance, there will have to be a determination as to what constitutes "combat".  We're on pretty firm ground with the current Op ARCHER and 2002's Op APOLLO, but does ATHENA (our mission in Kabul) count towards a theatre honour?  What about units contributing sub-units?  Generally speaking, units contributing formed sub-units (with HQs) _likely_ qualify for an honour, but the situation is sometimes less than clear.  

In the case of the two world wars, the process was even muddier.  The honours committees had to determine which _specific_ battles were worthy of being considered for honour status, a process that involves much emotion and "political" consideration.  Then they had to determine which units qualified for each honour - a long and drawn-out process as our system recognizes individual battles as well as participation in "campaigns".  This is exacerbated by the fact that only regimental-level units carry battle honours; the system doesn't extend to the brigade or divisional levels, where participation is simpler to determine.

Since the "British" system we follow includes battle honours over 400 years old (the Royal Navy has ships that carry "Spanish Armada 1588", for example), the "system" tends to be a bit sticky when it comes to creating new ones.

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Infanteer (6 Aug 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I doubt that we've had any single actions on a scale appropriate for a battle honour



Perhaps the latest battle (Panjawi, or whatever the transliteration of the day is)?  It certainly meets the criteria for having enough of the unit in theater:



> Percentage of Unit present in an Operation
> *13.     Normally, the rule that will be applied is that headquarters and at least fifty percent of the sub-units of a unit must have been present.*
> 
> 14.     Two particular extensions of this rule will be allowed for as follows:
> ...



I'm not sure if there is any policy on "how big" a battle (ie: amount of enemy present, geographical size) has to be to actually qualify as a battle honour, but I think there is merit to this one when you consider that Regiments carry "Fish Creek" and "Batoche".


----------



## TheHead (6 Feb 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Participation in Operations
> 12.     A battle honour will not be awarded merely because a unit was present in an operation. To qualify, the unit must:
> 
> (a)     have been committed in the locality and within the time limits laid down for one of the individual operations defined below;
> ...




  Funny - 1PPCLI seems to have qualified for all those requirements. The soldiers in 1PPCLI deserve a Battle Honor for Panjawai.  The sad thing I'm seeing in this thread are the pencil pushers here trying to take away from the boys on the ground (Common occurrence in this Army I forgot).  Everyone has to step back and realize these last two tours are not your little vacations in Cyprus or your laughable march up the "whale" , this wasn't your little WOG posting in Camp Mirage, this was war fighting.  In ONE day of fighting in Panjawai my platoon and attachments took 4 killed and 10 wounded.  We were fighting an enemy estimated at numbers reaching 200. This Military needs to get off our high horse and realize our boys are killing and getting killed.

  I also see the same attitude about the Combat Infantry Badge.  I hear the complaining all over base, "Why should they get something that makes them stick out from all the rest of us".  Why? Because we did something this Army hasn't done since the days of Korea. We went out, actively engaged the enemy for 7 months and in laman-terms kicked their ass.  
  
  Saying Panjawai wasn't a battle is laughable and even sadder due to the fact you most likely sat on KAF for 7 months sipping your Tim Hortons. 

/Rant Off


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Funny - 1PPCLI seems to have qualified for all those requirements. The soldiers in 1PPCLI deserve a Battle Honor for Panjawai.  The sad thing I'm seeing in this thread are the pencil pushers here trying to take away from the boys on the ground (Common occurrence in this Army I forgot).  Everyone has to step back and realize these last two tours are not your little vacations in Cyprus or your* laughable march up the "whale" * , this wasn't your* little WOG posting in Camp Mirage*, this was war fighting.  In ONE day of fighting in Panjawai my platoon and attachments took 4 killed and 10 wounded.  We were fighting an enemy estimated at numbers reaching 200. This Military needs to get off our high horse and realize our boys are killing and getting killed.
> 
> I also see the same attitude about the Combat Infantry Badge.  I hear the complaining all over base, "Why should they get something that makes them stick out from all the rest of us".  Why? Because we did something this Army hasn't done since the days of Korea. We went out, actively engaged the enemy for 7 months and in laman-terms kicked their ass.
> 
> ...



TheHead,

Although i understand the point you are trying to make, Insulting other soldier's service, no matter where or what it was is something i will not tolerate. You make another post with the same attitude and i will deal with you IAW the army.ca warning system.

army.ca staff


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Feb 2007)

"Saying Panjawai wasn't a battle is laughable and even sadder due to the fact you most likely sat on KAF for 7 months sipping your Tim Hortons."

Who exactly is directed too?


----------



## TheHead (6 Feb 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> "Saying Panjawai wasn't a battle is laughable and even sadder due to the fact you most likely sat on KAF for 7 months sipping your Tim Hortons."
> 
> Who exactly is directed too?



I never directed any of those jabs at anyone in particular.  I used them in the context that most of the people against the Battle Honor or Combat Infantry badge were NEVER there.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (6 Feb 2007)

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2007)

TheHead

Perhaps you'll have a better picture if you were to hit the History Books.  Go check out your own Regimental history and find out when Battle Honours have been awarded.  I think you will find that they have taken up to twenty years after the Battle for the Documentation and Research to be done and confirmed before awards are presented.  Many Battle Honours for WW I were not presented to units until late in the 1920's and into the 1930's.  The Units have to start the process with deciding what Battle Honour they feel is significant and submit that for approval through the bureaucratic process.  It doesn't happen overnight, just as 'Order' will not be returned to Afghanistan overnight.

You may also find in the little tirade of yours that this comment was totally false and in bad taste:



> ....Everyone has to step back and realize these last two tours are not your little vacations in Cyprus or your laughable march up the "whale" , this wasn't your little WOG posting in Camp Mirage, this was war fighting.  In ONE day of fighting in Panjawai my platoon and attachments took 4 killed and 10 wounded.  We were fighting an enemy estimated at numbers reaching 200. This Military needs to get off our high horse and realize our boys are killing and getting killed.



In 1974, the CAR faced a much larger and better equipped force than your Taliban and suffered two fatalities while FIGHTING in Cyprus.


[Edit to note that several posts have been entered while I was typing.  In the end, better research of our military histories will give one a better perception of what the answers to the question on Battle Honours is all about.  I might add that the Airborne Regiment did not receive a Battle Honour for that Battle either.]


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Feb 2007)

For The Head; if you would like to familiarize yourself with the full text of the parent document of the paragraph you quoted, please see these:

33-1 Battle Honours - The Second World War

Note also that Honours for the Korean War were also based on the terms and condition published for the Second World War:

33-1 Battle Honours - United Nations Operations - Korea 1950-1953

The award of any new honours will require a few introductory steps:

a.   Review and confirmation, or reissuance, of the conditions for selection and award of honours,

b.   Creation of an approved list of operations (see reference to the Battles Nomenclature Committee in the first reference), and

c.   Standing up of the applicable Regimental Committees to draft proposed regimental lists of honours.

These would of course, then be followed by necesary actions by the appropriate authorities.  From past examples (WWI, WWII, Korea), it is highly unlikely that the second step will be executed until after operations cease in order to avoid repetitive processes for selection approval and award of honours to any regiment.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Feb 2007)

...and I as one of those 'old guys' who did 'nothing' we did do one thing exactly like you are doing now................whatever the Govt. of Canada asked of us at a particular time.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Feb 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Funny - 1PPCLI seems to have qualified for all those requirements. The soldiers in 1PPCLI deserve a Battle Honor for Panjawai.  The sad thing I'm seeing in this thread are the pencil pushers here trying to take away from the boys on the ground (Common occurrence in this Army I forgot).  Everyone has to step back and realize these last two tours are not your little vacations in Cyprus or your laughable march up the "whale" , this wasn't your little WOG posting in Camp Mirage, this was war fighting.  In ONE day of fighting in Panjawai my platoon and attachments took 4 killed and 10 wounded.  We were fighting an enemy estimated at numbers reaching 200. This Military needs to get off our high horse and realize our boys are killing and getting killed.
> 
> I also see the same attitude about the Combat Infantry Badge.  I hear the complaining all over base, "Why should they get something that makes them stick out from all the rest of us".  Why? Because we did something this Army hasn't done since the days of Korea. We went out, actively engaged the enemy for 7 months and in laman-terms kicked their ass.
> 
> ...



I'm hoping that TheHead's hyperbole wasn't aimed at me, as he has no idea of what my personal service has entailed. He has, though, intruded upon what was an decent academic discussion with a pointless, arrogant rant.

Which brings me to my first point.  TheHead appears to claim that he's part of some elite, but I can virtually guarantee that he has no - as in zero - idea of what others' service in other operational theatres has entailed.  In fact, he has no - as in zero - idea (aside from that obtained from buddies in theatre) what the _current _rotation is going through, although he's better placed than most to guess.  All missions and all rotations are different, and, as Bruce points out, we all go where we're told.  

TheHead's post illustrates exactly what's wrong with things like combat action patches.  It promotes a false elitism that isn't warranted historically or institutionally and promotes the arrogance that The Head so vividly espouses.  "We're better than you wogs..."  He even uses the word, something that surely merits some sort of response, even if his post wasn't so offensive and condescending.

Yup, you've BTDT, buddy, and good on you.  You have your tour medal(s), and I sincerely hope your battalion merits a battle honour for an outstanding action under unbelievably adverse circumstances.  It isn't for me to decide.  But spare us your attitude and your assumptions, they denigrate your efforts on the battlefield and fly in the face of the concept of quiet professionalism.

Edit:  typo and to repair TheHead's moniker.


----------



## geo (6 Feb 2007)

+1 Teddy.

And for those Combat engineers who served alongside the Infantry and who don't carry battle honours (because we'd have too many to carry) I salute thehead's rant and my sappers .


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Feb 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> +1 Teddy.
> 
> And for those Combat engineers who served alongside the Infantry and who don't carry battle honours (because we'd have too many to carry) I salute thehead's rant and my sappers .


CHIMO!....or is that "UBIQUE", as I understand to stand for all the battles in which the engineers have participated: "Everywhere"

*nb: yes, gunners also have "UBIQUE", but of course, that means "all over the place" in their case 

(j/k)

Hauptmann


----------



## RHFC_piper (7 Feb 2007)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Funny - 1PPCLI seems to have qualified for all those requirements. The soldiers in 1PPCLI deserve a Battle Honor for Panjawai.  The sad thing I'm seeing in this thread are the pencil pushers here trying to take away from the boys on the ground (Common occurrence in this Army I forgot).  Everyone has to step back and realize these last two tours are not your little vacations in Cyprus or your laughable march up the "whale" , this wasn't your little WOG posting in Camp Mirage, this was war fighting.  In ONE day of fighting in Panjawai my platoon and attachments took 4 killed and 10 wounded.  We were fighting an enemy estimated at numbers reaching 200. This Military needs to get off our high horse and realize our boys are killing and getting killed.
> 
> I also see the same attitude about the Combat Infantry Badge.  I hear the complaining all over base, "Why should they get something that makes them stick out from all the rest of us".  Why? Because we did something this Army hasn't done since the days of Korea. We went out, actively engaged the enemy for 7 months and in laman-terms kicked their ***.
> 
> ...




I don't want to pick a fight here but isn't 1 criteria for getting a battle honour for a battle taking and holding the ground?  'cause that being the case; 1 RCR took Panjwayi during Op Medusa, which I believe was the first successfull push into that region.  And although there was a company of PPCLI (A Coy), I'm pretty sure there's some kind of criteria for the amount (Percentage) of a unit which has to be present in the battle to earn an honour... otherwise every reserve unit in LFCA would get one, and I don't think thats right.

Again, I stress the fact that I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to clairify what I'm sure will be a historical event.  The event being the 'Battle of Panjwayi', which, in my understanding, occured on 2 - 5 September, 2006 during Op Medusa, when 1 RCR (Charles Coy) let attacks into Pashmul, and the remainder of TF3-06 battle group (including RCDs and RCHA) took and held the positions around the 'white school' and the 'Mosque'... positions which are still being held to this day.

correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Feb 2007)

I'm going to step in here through the temporary lock to highlight a point.

RHFC_piper raises an intersting point regarding the percentage of a unit involved in an operation to be eligible for a Battle Honour. From the reference noted above:



> Normally, the rule that will be applied is that headquarters and at least fifty percent of the sub-units of a unit must have been present.



However, the following should also be noted:



> There may be exceptional cases where individual squadrons or companies took an important part in certain operations, and in such cases any claims submitted will be treated on their merits.



Notably, it is not exceptional in the current method of Task Force structures for individual subunits to be deployed with Battle Groups built on HQs from other regiments.  These company/squadrons (under command) do not normally deploy and fight by their Corps doctrines at the sub-unit level, nor are they operating independently, so these paragraphs don't quite apply:



> Two particular extensions of this rule will be allowed for as follows:
> 
> (a)     where units such as armoured regiments, armoured car regiments, reconnaissance regiments or machine-gun battalions fought on a squadron or company basis, with squadrons or companies being attached to brigades or battalions for operations, honours may be awarded where fifty percent of the squadrons or companies were engaged without their regimental or battalion headquarters~. Where a unit had sub-units committed simultaneously to different operations only one award covering anyone period of time will be made;
> 
> (b)     where a regiment was represented in a theatre only by a squadron or a company operating independently, such as the independent machine gun company in an armoured division, honours may be awarded on the basis of fifty percent of the troops or platoons being present in battle. Where such troops or platoons were committed simultaneously to different operations, only one award will be made to cover anyone period of time.



This is one of the points that would require further analysis and, possibly, the updating of the terms and conditions for award of Battle Honours.   It is, for reasons described above, and this requirement to redefine conditions for Battle Honours that any expectations that Battle Honours should be awarded in the near term would be premature.


----------



## Shec (3 Sep 2008)

This may be a silly question that shows how out of touch and anachronistic I am but I'm wondering if those Militia units which have deployed contingents to Afghanistan will be awarded battle honours for their contibution to the campaign?  Thanks all !


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Sep 2008)

We have discussed battle honours before in general.

As for your specific question, the numbers involved from any particular Reserve unit will make it very unlikely for battle honours to be awarded unless there is a significant rewrite of the regulations.

Some related material can be found here


----------



## hugh19 (3 Sep 2008)

My guess would be only if the milita unit sent a complete unit. Like a platoon. Then yes. But not if they are attached into another unit.


----------



## Michael OLeary (3 Sep 2008)

sledge said:
			
		

> My guess would be only if the milita unit sent a complete unit. Like a platoon. Then yes. But not if they are attached into another unit.



Start here for a baseline for level of participation required:

*33.1 BATTLE HONOURS—THE SECOND WORLD WAR*
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/secondworldwar-btlhnrs.htm



> *Percentage of Unit present in an Operation*
> 
> 13.     Normally, the rule that will be applied is that headquarters and at least fifty percent of the sub-units of a unit must have been present.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (3 Sep 2008)

Keep in mind we're already streching in giving units any decorations.  Officially, we have not been deploying units.  We task a unit to prepare (with augmentation from various other places).  Then, for the deployment, those personnel are attach-posted from their unit to the Task Force, which is the deployed entity.

Or, in layman's terms, when the soldiers of 2 RCR deployed from LFAA, the legal entity of the 2nd Bn, The Royal Canadian Regiment, was still in Gagetown - though the majority of its personnel had been attach-posted out to Task Force Afghanistan.  To deploy 2 RCR  would have required a ministerial order, cancelling the previous order, and placing 2 RCR under CEFCOM; on their return, another MOO would be required to move them back from CEFCOM to LFAA (or 2 CMBG, depending on the mood of the day, but I digress).


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2008)

Can't they just attach post "2RCR" as a whole to CEFCOM to skip the whole indiv attach post admin hickup?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2008)

But we're not send 2 RCR whole.  We're leaving a company+ behind is rear party, just back etc, and attaching a company from the PPCLI, some Dragoons, some gunners, some sappers... the 2 RCR contingent is probably less than half of the folks deployed.

Mind you, I don't know all the thought process that went into our current way of doing business.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2008)

Many things are GOBIs. Or, in other cases, someone not knowing the impacts of their decisions makes what they see as a time saving decision - not knowing that it will result in much more work for others (or even themselves) down the line.  Or someone makes an offhand comment that's interpreted as an order, vice as a start point for analysis.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jul 2011)

I'm surprised some of you aren't lobbying for a "Hastings 1066" battle honour.

How about you just work on the "Afghanistan" one for us.


----------



## Lowlander (29 Jul 2011)

I'm sure "Afganinstan", "Afganinstan 2002-11" or "Afganinstan 2002-14" which ever they go with will be awarded pretty soon or pretty soon after 2014 to the RCR, PPCLI, R22R, RCD, LdSH, 12RBC.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jul 2011)

Lowlander said:
			
		

> to the RCR, PPCLI, R22R, RCD, LdSH, 12RBC.



Add a few more units to that list.........


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jul 2011)

Lowlander said:
			
		

> I'm sure "Afganinstan", "Afganinstan 2002-11" or "Afganinstan 2002-14" which ever they go with will be awarded pretty soon or pretty soon after 2014 to the RCR, PPCLI, R22R, RCD, LdSH, 12RBC.



That will first require the Directorate History and Heritage to review and possibly revise the conditions for award of battle honours, which is still principally predicated on the employment in battle of complete (i.e., single cap badge and CFOO orbat) units rather than units assembled from multiple regiments with "plug and play" sub-units. It may take longer than people think to complete the necessary administration and review processes.

See A-AD-200-000/AG-000, The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces for the current guidelines. Historical guidelines for comparison can be found here.

This is tangent best dealt with in its own threads:

Battle Honours for Afghanistan
Battle Honours for Afganistan


----------



## Lowlander (29 Jul 2011)

I was only refering to army units.  I'm sure many Air Force Sqn's will also be awarded with it.


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jul 2011)

Lowlander said:
			
		

> will be awarded pretty soon



It took almost 10 years for the Kosovo battle honour to be awarded to 425 and 441 Squadrons.


----------



## Lowlander (29 Jul 2011)

Hopefully it will be awarded much sooner this time arould.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> That will first require the Directorate History and Heritage to review and possibly revise the conditions for award of battle honours, which is still principally predicated on the employment in battle of complete (i.e., single cap badge and CFOO orbat) units rather than units assembled from multiple regiments with "plug and play" sub-units.



Not quite.  From a previous post of mine in the linked thread:




> Percentage of Unit present in an Operation
> *13.     Normally, the rule that will be applied is that headquarters and at least fifty percent of the sub-units of a unit must have been present.*
> 
> 14.     Two particular extensions of this rule will be allowed for as follows:
> ...



The Battle Honour for the Melfa River is a perfect example.

In my opinion, there should be a theater honour "Afghanistan 2006-2011".  As well, "Panjwayi 2006", "Zharei/Panjwayi 2006" or "Medusa 2006" for the RCR and, due to its attached Company, the PPCLI and RCD would likely be appropriate.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jul 2011)

Infanteer, note that the examples given (other than the mentioned "exceptional cases") are specific to types of units that were doctrinally employed as independent sub-unit, not those which normally fought as single units. That approach would at least have to be "widened" to permit the inclusion of those line infantry battalions and armoured regiments that we have not previously employed in that manner. - That, at a minimum, is the specific type of requirement for revision to which I refer.


----------



## BDTyre (29 Jul 2011)

I'm not up on the regulations, but honours have been given to units that did not delpy based on contribution of personnel. My regiment is a perfect example. The Seaforth Highlanders didn't send a battalion overseas until 1916, but due to the number of personnel sent over with the 16th, we received battle honours for engagements the 16th participated in.

It might be a bit of a stretch, but you could apply the same logic to reserve units over the period of 2004 - 2014. I know several units back East have contributed probably at least a company's worth ober that time period. I'm sure the Westies have probably done the same, and I think Seaforth  and C Scot too if you look at total numbers.

I suppose that's where it becomes muddied - do you count total contribution during a time frame and how it compares with overall numbers, or do you take it as percentage of a battle group and not the theatre overall? Would you consider specific actions? Each ROTO individually? In some case, there's not nearly enough of a contribution from individual reserve units, in other cases maybe there is.

As others have pointed out, this is something that will take time.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jul 2011)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> I'm not up on the regulations, but honours have been given to units that did not delpy based on contribution of personnel. My regiment is a perfect example. The Seaforth Highlanders didn't send a battalion overseas until 1916, but due to the number of personnel sent over with the 16th, we received battle honours for engagements the 16th participated in.



Actually, the Seaforth Highlanders didn't "send" any battalions overseas in the First World War, and neither did any other unit of the Canadian Militia. The CEF was organizationally separate from the existing Permanent Force and the Militia (by Sam Hughes' design). CEF battalions did, however, coopt names, badges and local senses of affiliation in order to promote recruiting. In many cases these invented connections then aligned with the rights of perpetuation granted after the war. (Which leads to the confusion over the "sending" of battalions, an interpretation which is not unique to your regiment's understanding.)

Awards of most First World War battle honours are clearly identifiable through granted perpetuations to battlefield actions by the perpetuated units. Others, a minority, show up in later honours lists with no published connections to specific unit battlefield actions. The possible role of politic maneuvering, the seeking of connections to specific honours and the difficulty of tracking the claimed hundreds of soldiers upon which such claims may have been made all allow some suspicion to be cast on some of the claims. It is interesting, however, that very little detailed research has been done to prove that soldiers from specific units were in the right places at the right times. All of this does make the use of any such claims as an example for future awards of battle honours a risky endeavour that may invite close examination of the purported examples.

As you say, it will take time. It will also take a lot of detailed staff work to ensure that each case is well supported by the relevant regulations - even if those need to be rewritten in advance to provide a logical basis for awards in a new era of warfare.


----------



## BDTyre (29 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Actually, the Seaforth Highlanders didn't "send" any battalions overseas in the First World War, and neither did any other unit of the Canadian Militia. The CEF was organizationally separate from the existing Permanent Force and the Militia (by Sam Hughes' design). CEF battalions did, however, coopt names, badges and local senses of affiliation in order to promote recruiting. In many cases these invented connections then aligned with the rights of perpetuation granted after the war. (Which leads to the confusion over the "sending" of battalions, an interpretation which is not unique to your regiment's understanding.)



Very true, and I almost mentioned that in my post but didn't want to go on a long digression and lose my main point. I went for simplicity. For sure, the 72nd Seaforth militia unit contributed to 16th Bn CEF, 29th Bn 'Tobin's Tigers,' 72nd Bn (so we kind of came close  ), and the 231st Bn. Of those, only the 72nd and the 231st used the Seaforth cap badge, and only the 72nd CEF had an unaltered version (if I'm not mistaken, the 231st used the same basic badge, but had '231' on it). Of course, there was also the Pictou Highlanders. And there's part of my digression....


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Jul 2011)

Despite the unneeded bantering and phallic competitions, I actually have found this thread very informative and I thank Michael O'Leary et al that have provided the regs and histories for all to digest. Its interesting viewing this as a spectator and not as one of the parties involoved.


----------



## Infanteer (31 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Infanteer, note that the examples given (other than the mentioned "exceptional cases") are specific to types of units that were doctrinally employed as independent sub-unit, not those which normally fought as single units. That approach would at least have to be "widened" to permit the inclusion of those line infantry battalions and armoured regiments that we have not previously employed in that manner. - That, at a minimum, is the specific type of requirement for revision to which I refer.



Ack and noted.  Although I will argue that the precedence is already there with my previously given example of the Melfa River, where a Company of the Royal Westminster Regiment attached to the Strathcona's earned the battle honour for its Regiment.  This seems very similar to what we've seen in Afghanistan with atts and dets.

As well, Korea also fits the bill, with Armoured Regiments, normally only sending a Squadron with the 25 Canadian Infantry Brigade, being granted the Korea battle honour for their Guidons.


----------



## Michael OLeary (31 Jul 2011)

The point remains that they were the special cases in each of those wars. If the possibility exists that a significant proportion of cases for awards in Afghanistan may require consideration under such conditions, then the regulations should be amended to allow for it to be one of the "normal" conditions of award for the current conflict.


----------



## kratz (2 Aug 2011)

Reading through the discussion, Michael O'Leary sums it up the best that DHH may have to recommend an amendment for the new "normal" means for drawing combat forces for modern conflicts. Again, it will take time to review what has happened and how to align any honours with accepted norms.


----------



## Haggis (27 Feb 2013)

Any chance that this new Regimental Colour will have new Battle Honours on it?

Mod edit:  The "new Regimental Colour" mentioned above refers to 3 RCR's being presented by the Duke of Edinburgh in Toronto in April - more in this thread.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Feb 2013)

No, the Regiment has not yet discussed whether it will emblazon any of the War of 1812 honours.


----------



## bick (28 Feb 2013)

How about the ones that still have the veterans left to see them?  Ex, Afghanistan 2006 etc


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2013)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> How about the ones that still have the veterans left to see them?  Ex, Afghanistan 2006 etc



Michael O'Leary, this was my thought as well - not 1812.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Mar 2013)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> How about the ones that still have the veterans left to see them?  Ex, Afghanistan 2006 etc



I do not know where the CF / Army stands on Afghanistan Battle Honours. I expect that the confirmation of eligibility requirements, etc., will not be made until we are finally (completely) out of theatre and then the stage will be set for regiments to identify which honours they believe the should receive and can justify. Some, like Theatre Honours (e.g., _"THEATRE, START YEAR-END YEAR"_) have historically been straightforward, the year dates indicating continuous service in the theatre, _but we didn't deploy like that._ Others, such as a specific battles, in the past (such as the First and Second World Wars) expected the units HQ plus minimum 50% of that unit's troops involved ... _but we didn't always build battle groups that would meet that type of criteria_ (mixed bags of sub-units don't qualify under the old terms). The bottom line is that the old rules don't apply effectively, and I have no doubt DHH has been working on building new criteria from the ground up to meet the way we force generate and deploy in the modern era. (Like the issue of medals, no plan is going to make everyone happy, and rushing forward with a plan that "looks good" at first glance can cause years of bitterness afterwards.)


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Mar 2013)

You've made a whole bunch of good points which probably should be in a separate thread separate from 3 RCR receiving new colours.

Using the old criteria only the three regular infantry regiments would qualify, but that would be patently unfair to the armoured regiments and CSOR. I have been musing on this from time to time, and feel that DHH will have to come up with a practical solution. It would be a pity, and probably would not happen, but one can only hope DHH does not get in a snit and stick with the old guidelines. It would not end well for the directorate.

Further to the armoured regiments issue, we only had a squadron at a time in Korea, but the Strathconas received the battle (campaign) honour for Korea. There also is the precedent of the Lorne Scots which received honours for Italy and North West Europe, but did not have a unit headquarters deployed as it provided defence and employment platoons at formation headquarters, and the same criteria probably applied to the independent machine gun companies in the two armoured divisions.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Mar 2013)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Further to the armoured regiments issue, we only had a squadron at a time in Korea, but the Strathconas received the battle (campaign) honour for Korea. There also is the precedent of the Lorne Scots which received honours for Italy and North West Europe, but did not have a unit headquarters deployed as it provided defence and employment platoons at formation headquarters, and the same criteria probably applied to the independent machine gun companies in the two armoured divisions.



In addition to the requirement for line regiments to have HQ + 50% of the unit involved, for those units that were only deployed at subunit level (such as the brigade support weapon companies in the Second World War), those subunits could earn battle honours for their regiments. I suspect that was applied for the Strathcona's in Korea, but we can't make the assumption that it becomes a blanket policy for Afghanistan. We'll need clear updated guidelines because if anyone doesn't like whatever the published solution turns out to be, that becomes the first thing that has to be challenged, or upheld..


----------



## George Wallace (1 Mar 2013)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> In addition to the requirement for line regiments to have HQ + 50% of the unit involved, for those units that were only deployed at subunit level (such as the brigade support weapon companies in the Second World War), those subunits could earn battle honours for their regiments. I suspect that was applied for the Strathcona's in Korea, but we can't make the assumption that it becomes a blanket policy for Afghanistan. We'll need clear updated guidelines because if anyone doesn't like whatever the published solution turns out to be, that becomes the first thing that has to be challenged, or upheld..



At the same time, although only a small portion of a unit may have been deployed, the remainder of the unit did supply reinforcements and rotated other parts of the unit through the duration of the 'conflict'.  Although the RCD, RCR, Van Doo, PPCLI, LdSH (RC), etc. only provide a portion of their Reg't/Bn to the fight, those were regularly rotated out and replaced by other portions of the Home unit.  If you look at the Regts/Bns today, you will see that most of the members who served during those times, wear the Decoration.  Would this not be enough to constitute the award of a Battle Honour?


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Mar 2013)

At its most basic, eligibility for a battle honour requires that a unit was standing "in the line of battle," not simply a cumulative number of soldiers that went through the area of conflict. There is, of course, the example set for the South African War where a large number of Militia Regiments received the theatre honour for numbers sent with the various front line units of the Canadian contingents. This was also reflected in the award of First World War honours to some Militia regiments who, while not perpetuating combat units of the CEF, demonstrated that at least 250 men (see paras 10 to 13 here) from their perpetuated battalion(s) were present with eligible combat units at specific battles. The key, in both cases, is the expectation that the numbers being examined were in front line units.  Finally, we can look at the current approach to the War of 1812, which seems to have devolved into a simplistic attendance award without concern for detailing specific combat actions for each group of soldiers identified as a "Regiment of Militia." It all comes down to what criteria we develop (that also meet any required political approval), and then how the eligible regiments are determined.


----------



## Wolseleydog (13 Mar 2013)

What about 1 RCR in Op MEDUSA?

I take all of the points up-thread, which might be summarized as (1) a formed unit, with its HQ and maj of sub-units present and active participants; and (2) must be (in classical terms at least), what one might call a "stand-up fight".

Fair enough.  Notwithstanding the debate over whether we want to update the criteria for contemporary ops that don't face a conventional enemy, I still see at least one obvious candidate for a battle honour in Afghanistan: 1 RCR in Op MEDUSA, Sep 2006.

This was not "just some firefights" (or "TICs") and the entire bn maneuvered and fought as bn sized unit, within what (grew to become) a brigade plus sized action, in which specific territorial objectives were captured to a depth of several kms, with 12 Canadian fatalities.  (even an asslt riv xing, for God's sake!)  For any not entirely familiar with the action, see, for instance: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Medusa
http://www.amazon.ca/Clearing-Way-Mark-Gasparotto/dp/1926582594
http://www.amazon.ca/No-Lack-Courage-Operation-Afghanistan/dp/1554887666
http://legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2007/09/operation-medusa-the-battle-for-panjwai/

In fact, I'm rather surprised by the relative lack of mention of MEDUSA in this thread.

My real questions, I suppose, are:

(1) what do commentors there think about an Op MEDUSA battle honour for the RCR (regardless of what they think about any other possible battle honours for Afghanistan); and

(2) has anyone heard any talk about this specific possibility (at DHH, NDHQ, elsewhere)?


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Mar 2013)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> What about 1 RCR in Op MEDUSA?
> 
> I take all of the points up-thread, which might be summarized as (1) a formed unit, with its HQ and maj of sub-units present and active participants; and (2) must be (in classical terms at least), what one might call a "stand-up fight".
> 
> ...



I've never seen an 'Op Anything' on a Battle Honour before. For example, Op Corporate was the Falklands War, but units involved received 'Falkland Islands' on the battle honours.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2013)

Wolseleydog said:
			
		

> My real questions, I suppose, are:
> 
> (1) what do commentors there think about an Op MEDUSA battle honour for the RCR (regardless of what they think about any other possible battle honours for Afghanistan); and
> 
> (2) has anyone heard any talk about this specific possibility (at DHH, NDHQ, elsewhere)?



As you have noted, the main thrust of the conversation here to date has been on the need to redefine the eligibility requirements for battle honours in the modern era. Without that work done first by DND/DHH, then any discussion of individual actions only serves to situate the estimate.


----------



## Infanteer (14 Mar 2013)

In my opinion, due to the number of unit operations and the degree of combat, I think a better battle honour would be Zharei/Panjwayi 2006, which units involved in R1 and 2 would be eligible for.


----------



## fake penguin (14 Mar 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In my opinion, due to the number of unit operations and the degree of combat, I think a better battle honour would be Zharei/Panjwayi 2006, which units involved in R1 and 2 would be eligible for.



So for R1 and R2 would just 1ppcli and 1RCR get the battle honour because it was their tour, or does 2ppcli also get it. Even though R5 was 2ppcli's tour they sent a company to both R1 and R2. Forgive my ignorance but someone mentioned 1RCR getting the  battle honour, i always thought the whole regiment would get it regardless which battalion did the fighting.


----------



## fake penguin (14 Mar 2013)

fake penguin said:
			
		

> So for R1 and R2 would just 1ppcli and 1RCR get the battle honour because it was their tour, or does 2ppcli also get it. Even though R5 was 2ppcli's tour they sent a company to both R1 and R2. Forgive my ignorance but someone mentioned 1RCR getting the  battle honour, i always thought the whole regiment would get it regardless which battalion did the fighting.


 
Never mind was too lazy at first to read whole thread, didn't get on computer till late. Read the whole thread and it looks like you need a certain percentage of troops to qualify for a battle honour.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2013)

fake penguin said:
			
		

> Never mind was too lazy at first to read whole thread, didn't get on computer till late. Read the whole thread and it looks like you need a certain percentage of troops to qualify for a battle honour.



And that, in a nutshell, is the problem between the "old" regulations for battle honours and the new way of generating forces. That is why we need to see how the regulations get re-engineered before regiments can start to look at what actions may or may not fit (or where they may have to make a special case to support nominating an action that falls "outside" the boundaries).


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2013)

Don't worry, though, as recently shown, if you whine for 200 years you'll get a battle honour, deserving or not...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Mar 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't worry, though, as recently shown, if you whine for 200 years you'll get a battle honour, deserving or not...



Backstory?


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Mar 2013)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Backstory?



War of 1812


----------



## Wolseleydog (15 Mar 2013)

@ daftandbarmy: I take your point – I don’t propose that the actual wording of the battle honour be “Op MEDUSA”.  I just mean that they should get one for that action.

@ Michael O’L:  I take your point about DHH rethinking criteria for the modern era – my point is simply that I think the RCR qualify under the existing classic criteria, at least for MEDUSA.  Why not award that one as “concurrent activity” as it were, while pondering how to update the system?  Just a thought.


----------



## brihard (29 Mar 2013)

'Zhari/Panjwayi', or 'Pashmul' or what have you certainly seems merited as a specific battle honour.

A more generally granted theatre honour would probably best serve the (in my mind) legitimate desire for many force generating units (particularly militia) to be recognized. My regiment has South Africa, and at ~90 pers deployed to Afghanistan we've certainly exceeded what we sent there. Many other units are in the same boat. Our history and heritage system can by all means modernize with the rest of the military, as long as it focuses of achieving intent and not simply spinning the wheels of process. It would be a damned shame if our approach to history and heritage were to fossilize.


----------



## GAP (12 Nov 2013)

Harper looks at bestowing Afghan war battle honours on Canadian units
By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press, 11/11/2013 
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/harper-looks-at-bestowing-afghan-war-battle-honours-on-canadian-units-231396151.html

OTTAWA - Canadian units that fought in Afghanistan are being considered for battle honours by the Harper government, which is casting around for ways to commemorate the conflict as it draws to a close after more than a decade.

A memorandum to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information legislation, lays out the options for recognizing individual regiments for specific battles and the overall war itself.

"Battle honours are awarded to provide public recognition to combatant military units for active participation in battle against a formed and armed enemy," says the May 13 note by the country's top public servant, Privy Council clerk Wayne Wouters.

"The awarding of battle honours has deep historical roots and must be done in a thorough manner to ensure units are properly recognized."

The fact most of the fighting was against Taliban militants, who chose hit-and-run attacks and remotely detonated bombs, may complicate the process but ultimately won't stop the acknowledgment, said historian Jack Granatstein.

There is precedent for the honour set by Canadian units that fought in the Boer War between 1899 and 1902, he said.

Different levels of battle honours — from recognizing an entire theatre of operations to specific campaigns, battles and actions — give the government a choice. For example, the disastrous 1942 Dieppe raid was the subject of a separate action honour.

Such recognition allows the regiments involved to display the name of the battle on their flags or colours. It is a British military tradition that dates back to 1760 and is a point of pride within each unit.
more on link


----------



## bick (14 Nov 2013)

Great news. I, for one, look forward to the day when an Afghanistan battle honor is on the colors, right beside the battles we learn about in training


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2014)

Took a while for the bump, but here's the latest ....


> The Conservative government will roll out the red carpet for the Canadian military and their families on Friday by presenting battle honours to the army and air force units that fought in Afghanistan and navy ships that deployed for the war on terrorism, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper will announce on Friday that 63 army regiments, including special forces and the navy’s fleet diving unit, and four squadrons of the air will be bestowed an Afghanistan Theatre Honour and 15 warships will receive the Arabian Sea honour ....


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

Strictly speaking, there's a difference between Theatre and Battle Honours; today's announcement will be solely Theatre Honours, I think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Took a while for the bump, but here's the latest ....




63 army regiments?

According to _Wikipedia_ there are 20 armoured regiments and 50 infantry regiments (70 in all) in the Canadian Army. My question is: which seven regiments will be distinguished by _not_ having _Afghanistan_ as a battle honour?
.
.
.
.
.
I have a supplementary question: Can Michael O‘Leary explain what rules or precedents might have been used to decide this?

Edited to add:

As datpaterson said, and the _Globe and Mail_ confirms, these are _Theatre Honours_ not *Battle Honours*. The difference, as I understand it, is that a theatre honour may be displayed on regimental property (signs, memorials, etc) but not on the colours.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

Off the top of my head, I believe the standard is that a unit that contributed 20 or more personnel over the life of the operation will receive the theatre honour.

Keep in mind, however, that each of the three Reg F and one Res F Bns of The RCR (for example) would receive the honour if they meet the criteria, so we have to count units, not regiments.

As well, the count of 63 may include other units such as the fleet diving units (which provided numerous EOD personnel) and the Tac Hel sqns plus, of course, CANSOF units.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 May 2014)

I heard this was coming down the pike a couple of weeks ago. The criteria *seems* to have been that the regiment provided a significant number of personnel for service in Afghanistan. That gets pretty subjective, so I guess it's best to wait and see.

We did this sort of thing before, first in perpetuating CEF units and then for South Africa.

And as noted, these are theatre honours. Perhaps there will be later awards of battle honours for battles/operations like Panjwai or Medusa.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have a supplementary question: Can Michael O‘Leary explain what rules or precedents might have been used to decide this?



I know that units were asked to provide lists of members who deployed to Afghanistan, establishing only the numerical participation. To the best of my knowledge, no categorization as made to determine how many deployed in "line of battle units" (which, historically are the ones eligible for battle honours) and which people were in support roles (base, HQ, etc.). 

It would appear that we have taken the concept used for South Africa of a minimum contributed number of soldiers (but for which units provided troops to line units, not in large numbers also to huge static establishments), and wedded that idea to the War of 1812 award concept (in which every named units got the same battle honour, no matter how few soldiers might have been there), with the result of maximum awards with minimum critical examination of actual contributions to the battlefield units that deployed.

For the CEF awards of battle honours for regiments that did not perpetuate a fighting unit, they were required to prove that 250 men from units they helped raise were present at a given battle, in line units. ( http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrs.htm )

The CEF awards also distinguished between the theatre level honours "France and Flanders" for units that were in the field and "The Great War" for others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

Thanks, Michael ... at least there was some logic to it, I guess.

I'm not, in any way, opposed to updating or _Canadianizing_ our honours and awards systems, for individuals and for units, but I do _hope_ we will keep high standards for both. (Although I _think_ the standard for  VC has been too high since 1945.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 May 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I heard this was coming down the pike a couple of weeks ago. The criteria *seems* to have been that the regiment provided a significant number of personnel for service in Afghanistan. That gets pretty subjective, so I guess it's best to wait and see.



If the 'quantity' rule is used, I'm sure the units that contributed a relatively small number of troops, yet had people killed or wounded, will understand.  :


----------



## slayer/raptor (9 May 2014)

I am curious to see if out of the 63 Army regiments that are to receive theatre honours, if this includes RCHA and 5e RALC regiments.  If I am not mistaken, Queen Victoria had decided long ago that artillery regiments were to be given the holistic "Ubique" battle honour since they were essentially "everywhere" and were not going to be given theatre or battle honours. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Old Sweat (9 May 2014)

As a gunner, I would be surprised and disappointed if any artillery units, and lets not forget 4 ADR/4 GSR, were included in the units given the theatre honours. Our battle honour is Ubique, and that goes for our friends in the engineers.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

Yes, but there is a difference.  All over the place vs everywhere.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 May 2014)

Ubique 

(Royal Artillery) 


THERE is a word you often see, pronounce it as you may
“You bike,” “you bykwee,” “ubbikwe “—alludin’ to R.A.
It serves ’Orse, Field, an’ Garrison as motto for a crest,
An’ when you’ve found out all it means I’ll tell you ’alf the rest. 

Ubique means the long-range Krupp be’ind the low-range ’ill—
Ubique means you’ll pick it up an’, while you do, stand still.
Ubique means you’ve caught the flash an’ timed it by the sound.
Ubique means five gunners’ ’ash before you’ve loosed a round. 

Ubique means Blue Fuse an’ make the ’ole to sink the trail.
Ubique means stand up an’ take the Mauser’s ’alf-mile ’ail.
Ubique means the crazy team not God nor man can ’old.
Ubique means that ’orse’s scream which turns your innards cold! 

Ubique means “Bank, ’Olborn, Bank—a penny all the way—
The soothin’, jingle-bump-an’-clank from day to peaceful day.
Ubique means “They’ve caught De Wet, an’ now we sha’n t be long.”
Ubique means “I much regret, the beggar’s goin’ strong!” 

Ubique means the tearin’ drift where, breech-blocks jammed with mud,
The khaki muzzles duck an’ lift across the khaki flood.
Ubique means the dancing plain that changes rocks to Boers.
Ubique means the mirage again an’ shellin’ all outdoors. 

Ubique means “Entrain at once for Grootdefeatfontein”!
Ubique means “Off-load your guns”—at midnight in the rain!
Ubique means “More mounted men. Return all guns to store.”
Ubique means the R. A. M. R. Infantillery Corps! 

Ubique means that warnin’ grunt the perished linesman knows,
When o’er ’is strung an’ sufferin’ front the shrapnel sprays ’is foes;
An’ as their firin’ dies away the ’usky whisper runs
From lips that ’ave n’t drunk all day: “The Guns! Thank Gawd, the Guns!” 

Extreme, depressed, point-blank or short, end-first or any’ow,
From Colesberg Kop to Quagga’s Poort—from Ninety-Nine till now—
By what I’ve ’eard the others tell an’ I in spots ’ave seen,
There’s nothin’ this side ’Eaven or ’Ell Ubique does n’t mean!


----------



## Jungle (9 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The difference, as I understand it, is that a theatre honour may be displayed on regimental property (signs, memorials, etc) but not on the colours.



I don't think it makes much difference; we have _France and Flanders 1915-1918_, _Sicily 1943_, _Italy 1943-1945_, _North West Europe 1945_ and_ Korea 1950-1953_ displayed on our colours, which are theater honours, but all are called Battle Honours. It is my guess specific battle honours will follow in the future.


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> I don't think it makes much difference; we have _France and Flanders 1915-1918_, _Sicily 1943_, _Italy 1943-1945_, _North West Europe 1945_ and_ Korea 1950-1953_ displayed on our colours, which are theater honours, but all are called Battle Honours. It is my guess specific battle honours will follow in the future.



Those are actually _campaign_ honours, which are a subset of battle honours (and hence displayed on the Colours).  Not knowing what sorts of Battle Honours will be awarded, it is concievable that the campaign honour of "Afghanistan 2006-2011" would be awarded to Regiments deployed at least a sub-unit or more to that mission with any specific battles also being honoured (Panjwayi?  Medusa?).

A useful read:

http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/grod_btlhnrs.htm


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2014)

I think there should be (a) Battle Honour(s) for Afghanistan, but I'll repeat myself and say that while I do not oppose updating or _Canadianizing_ the system for awarding such honours, I _hope_ we keep the standards high.


----------



## Jungle (9 May 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Those are actually _campaign_ honours,



Your link does not seem to make a distinction between campaign and theater honours; is there an official difference ? I think Afghanistan would qualify as a theater as well as a campaign.


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2014)

Unless I'm mistaken its my understanding that Honours are not granted to Branches within the CAF such as the Log Branch or MP Branch as well as organizations such as the Service Battalions and medical units?   Understanding of course that while these units, and/or persons within those trades/branches, served with distinction they are seen as being "in support" of the others.  Am I assuming correctly?


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

Old Sweat: You're not the only one who can Kipple.

Sappers

When the Waters were dried an' the Earth did appear, 
("It's all one," says the Sapper), 
The Lord He created the Engineer, 
Her Majesty's Royal Engineer, 
With the rank and pay of a Sapper! 

When the Flood come along for an extra monsoon, 
'Twas Noah constructed the first pontoon 
To the plans of Her Majesty's, etc. 

But after fatigue in the wet an' the sun, 
Old Noah got drunk, which he wouldn't ha' done 
If he'd trained with, etc. 

When the Tower o' Babel had mixed up men's bat, 
Some clever civilian was managing that, 
An' none of, etc. 

When the Jews had a fight at the foot of a hill, 
Young Joshua ordered the sun to stand still, 
For he was a Captain of Engineers, etc. 

When the Children of Israel made bricks without straw, 
They were learnin' the regular work of our Corps, 
The work of, etc. 

For ever since then, if a war they would wage, 
Behold us a-shinin' on history's page -- 
First page for, etc. 

We lay down their sidings an' help 'em entrain, 
An' we sweep up their mess through the bloomin' campaign, 
In the style of, etc. 

They send us in front with a fuse an' a mine 
To blow up the gates that are rushed by the Line, 
But bent by, etc. 

They send us behind with a pick an' a spade, 
To dig for the guns of a bullock-brigade 
Which has asked for, etc. 

We work under escort in trousers and shirt, 
An' the heathen they plug us tail-up in the dirt, 
Annoying, etc. 

We blast out the rock an' we shovel the mud, 
We make 'em good roads an' -- they roll down the khud, 
Reporting, etc. 

We make 'em their bridges, their wells, an' their huts, 
An' the telegraph-wire the enemy cuts, 
An' it's blamed on, etc. 

An' when we return, an' from war we would cease, 
They grudge us adornin' the billets of peace, 
Which are kept for, etc. 

We build 'em nice barracks -- they swear they are bad, 
That our Colonels are Methodist, married or mad, 
Insultin', etc. 

They haven't no manners nor gratitude too, 
For the more that we help 'em, the less will they do, 
But mock at, etc. 

Now the Line's but a man with a gun in his hand, 
An' Cavalry's only what horses can stand, 
When helped by, etc. 

Artillery moves by the leave o' the ground, 
But we are the men that do something all round, 
For we are, etc. 

I have stated it plain, an' my argument's thus 
("It's all one," says the Sapper), 
There's only one Corps which is perfect -- that's us; 
An' they call us Her Majesty's Engineers, 
Her Majesty's Royal Engineers, 
With the rank and pay of a Sapper!


----------



## bigcletus (9 May 2014)

Does anyone have info on which units/organizations were awarded Afghanistan Battle Honours today ??  Thanks


----------



## MedCorps (9 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Unless I'm mistaken its my understanding that Honours are not granted to Branches within the CAF such as the Log Branch or MP Branch as well as organizations such as the Service Battalions and medical units?   Understanding of course that while these units, and/or persons within those trades/branches, served with distinction they are seen as being "in support" of the others.  Am I assuming correctly?



You are correct, the RCMS is not granted battle honours.  That being said, we were given a Royal Banner from our Col-in-Chief for our service in Afghanistan this past October.  

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/news/article.page?doc=colonel-in-chief-her-royal-highness-the-princess-royal-visits-the-royal-canadian-medical-service/hn4a3adw

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/2013/10/23/princess-anne-visits-base-borden

MC


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2014)

The following units will be receiving the Theatre Honours (not Battle Honours):

ARABIAN SEA

Royal Canadian Navy Units

HMCS Algonquin

HMCS Calgary

HMCS Charlottetown

HMCS Fredericton

HMCS Halifax

HMCS Iroquois

HMCS Montréal

HMCS Ottawa

HMCS Preserver

HMCS Protecteur

HMCS Regina

HMCS St. John’s

HMCS Toronto

HMCS Vancouver

HMCS Winnipeg

AFGHANISTAN

Royal Canadian Navy Units 

Fleet Diving Unit (Atlantic)

Fleet Diving Unit (Pacific)

Canadian Army Units 

The Royal Canadian Dragoons

Lord Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians)

12e Régiment blindé du Canada 1

The Governor General’s Horse Guards

The Ontario Regiment (RCAC)

The Queen’s York Rangers (1st American Regiment) (RCAC)

8th Canadian Hussars (Princess Louise’s)

1st Hussars

The Prince Edward Island Regiment (RCAC)

The Royal Canadian Hussars (Montreal)

The British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught’s Own)

The South Alberta Light Horse

The Saskatchewan Dragoons

The King’s Own Calgary Regiment (RCAC)

The British Columbia Dragoons

The Fort Garry Horse

Le Régiment de Hull (RCAC)

The Windsor Regiment (RCAC)

The Royal Canadian Regiment 2

Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry

Royal 22e Régiment 3

Governor General’s Foot Guards

The Canadian Grenadier Guards

The Queen’s Own Rifles of Canada

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada

Les Voltigeurs de Québec

The Royal Regiment of Canada

The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth Regiment)

The Princess of Wales’ Own Regiment

The Lincoln and Welland Regiment

The Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada

The Grey and Simcoe Foresters

The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment)

The Brockville Rifles

Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders

Les Fusiliers du St-Laurent

Le Régiment de la Chaudière

Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal

The Princess Louise Fusiliers

The Royal New Brunswick Regiment

The West Nova Scotia Regiment

The Nova Scotia Highlanders

The CapeBreton Highlanders

Le Régiment de Maisonneuve

The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa (Duke of Edinburgh’s Own)

The Royal Winnipeg Rifles

The Essex and Kent Scottish

48th Highlanders of Canada

Le Régiment du Saguenay

The Algonquin Regiment

The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada (Princess Louise’s)

The Lake Superior Scottish Regiment

The North Saskatchewan Regiment

The Royal Regina Rifles

The Rocky Mountain Rangers

The Loyal Edmonton Regiment (4th Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry)

The Queen’s Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada

The Royal Westminster Regiment

The Calgary Highlanders

Les Fusiliers de Sherbrooke

The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada

The Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary’s)

The Royal Montreal Regiment

The Irish Regiment of Canada

The Toronto Scottish Regiment (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother’s Own)

Royal Canadian Air Force Units 

408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron

427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron

430 Tactical Helicopter Squadron

436 Transport Squadron

Special Forces

Canadian Special Operations Regiment

1    As a regimental-level award, the theatre honour “Afghanistan” is awarded to the regiment and shared by its Regular and Reserve Force regiments
2    As a regimental-level award, the theatre honour “Afghanistan” is awarded to the regiment and shared by all of its Regular and Reserve Force battalions
3    As a regimental-level award, the theatre honour “Afghanistan” is awarded to the regiment and shared by all of its Regular and Reserve Force battalions


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> The following units will be receiving the Theatre Honours (not Battle Honours):



Even "Theatre Honours" fall under the general label of *Battle Honours*.

Battle Honours - Theatre, Battle, Action, Engagement


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 May 2014)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Even "Theatre Honours" fall under the general label of *Battle Honours*.
> 
> Battle Honours - Theatre, Battle, Action, Engagement


All Theatre Honours are Battle Honours, but not all Battle Honours are Theatre Honours.

Thanks for this and other honours info you share - Milpoints inbound.


----------



## brihard (9 May 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Those are actually _campaign_ honours, which are a subset of battle honours (and hence displayed on the Colours).  Not knowing what sorts of Battle Honours will be awarded, it is concievable that the campaign honour of "Afghanistan 2006-2011" would be awarded to Regiments deployed at least a sub-unit or more to that mission with any specific battles also being honoured (Panjwayi?  Medusa?).
> 
> A useful read:
> 
> http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/grod_btlhnrs.htm



I would hope that whatever modernizing of our battle honours system occurs allows the Afghanistna theatre honour to be displayed on colours. I can think of no good reason why it ought not, and if tradition precludes it with being so, then make the call that traditions are guidance, not dogma and do it anyway.


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 May 2014)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I would hope that whatever modernizing of our battle honours system occurs allows the Afghanistna theatre honour to be displayed on colours. I can think of no good reason why it ought not, and if tradition precludes it with being so, then make the call that traditions are guidance, not dogma and do it anyway.



There's no "tradition" that says Afghanistan would not be approved for emblazonment, we just need to see the official orders awarding it the units. The only limitation that prevents emblazonment is the restriction to no more than ten emblazoned honours for each of the World Wars.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2014)

The PM also announced that "Afghanistan" and the related dates would be carved into the National War Memorial.


----------



## Tibbson (9 May 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The PM also announced that "Afghanistan" and the related dates would be carved into the National War Memorial.



So with that having been said, what was (or will) our experience in Afghanistan be called?  Is it correct to refer to it as the Afghan War (although we were not at war with Afghanistan) the Afghanistan Conflict (kinda too mild given events that transpired), Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (not very catchy) or what?  Whats the "name" going to be or what is already accepted?


----------



## Haggis (9 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> The following units will be receiving the Theatre Honours (not Battle Honours):



Source, please?


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Source, please?



http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours


----------



## Scoobs (10 May 2014)

Being in the RCAF and being of Tac Hel background, frankly, if the list provided here is accurate, it amazes me that 400 and 438 Sqns are not on that list.  Last time I checked my personnel (and others from both of these Sqns) participated in Afghanistan with either the Sperwer or in support of the JTF-Afg Air Wing.  I usually remain silent, but not for this slight.  This is unsat (if the list is accurate).  Frankly put, without these two "total force" units, 1 Wg and Tac Hel would not have been able to function.  This is further emphasized when one considers what we did domestically when there was no one else left back in Canada to do it.  A little domestic op called Op PODIUM comes to mind, along with the G8 Conference (largest domestic deployments in Cdn history).  And we did this while we had pers over in Afg.

This better be fixed.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2014)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Being in the RCAF and being of Tac Hel background, frankly, if the list provided here is accurate, it amazes me that 400 and 438 Sqns are not on that list.  Last time I checked my personnel (and others from both of these Sqns) participated in Afghanistan with either the Sperwer or in support of the JTF-Afg Air Wing.  I usually remain silent, but not for this slight.  This is unsat (if the list is accurate).  Frankly put, without these two "total force" units, 1 Wg and Tac Hel would not have been able to function.  This goes for what we did domestically when there was no one else left back in Canada to do it.  A little domestic op called Op PODIUM comes to mind, along with the G8 Conference (largest domestic deployments in Cdn history).  And we did this while we had pers over in Afg.
> 
> This better be fixed.



There is a minimum threshold for participation required for the theatre honour.  Depending what O&E games were played along the way, it may be that certain units are not seen has having contributed the requisite minimum number because someone, somewhere, posted Bloggins MMO somewhere else immediately before the deployment, so that other unit is getting credit for his deployment.

Flag the issue through the CoC; if there are mistakes, they will be corrected.  As I recall, a few units were recently granted Boer War honours since, due to historical amalgamations of units, they now cross the thresholds required.  Hopefully, if there's a mistake with 400 and 438 it won't take over a century to correct.


----------



## Tibbson (10 May 2014)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Source, please?



The list I quoted was directly from an email I recieved from the PMs office, not because I'm special but because I signed up for Public Affairs news releases on the Prime Ministers website.


----------



## Haggis (10 May 2014)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours



Thanks.  I hadn't thought to check the PM's info machine.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 May 2014)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Being in the RCAF and being of Tac Hel background, frankly, if the list provided here is accurate, it amazes me that 400 and 438 Sqns are not on that list.  Last time I checked my personnel (and others from both of these Sqns) participated in Afghanistan with either the Sperwer or in support of the JTF-Afg Air Wing.  I usually remain silent, but not for this slight.  This is unsat (if the list is accurate).  Frankly put, without these two "total force" units, 1 Wg and Tac Hel would not have been able to function.  This is further emphasized when one considers what we did domestically when there was no one else left back in Canada to do it.  A little domestic op called Op PODIUM comes to mind, along with the G8 Conference (largest domestic deployments in Cdn history).  And we did this while we had pers over in Afg.
> 
> This better be fixed.



I didn't get a CinC commendation because my unit was not in the battle group UIC. Niether did a couple very large enablers. Was I upset? Yep. Did I get over it? Yep, pretty quickly too. At the end of the day, a theatre honour isn't going to change the hard work you put in.

Think of it this way, we don't get Battle/Theatre honours in Sigs. Took us 100 years to get a Royal Banner. Yet we're on every single operation you can name. We don't even have UBIQUE. Not a hill for me to die on to get that recognition.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 May 2014)

Interesting that neither 423 nor 443 Sqn were granted the Theatre Honour for "Arabian Sea", despite having been nearly continuously deployed in the region for the past 13 years and in the 2001-2003 period, each Sqn deployed more than their posted strength as part of Helairdets. At one point, I recall that 12 Wing had 12 HELAIRDETs, but generated and deployed 15 Helairdets during that period.


----------



## brihard (10 May 2014)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> So with that having been said, what was (or will) our experience in Afghanistan be called?  Is it correct to refer to it as the Afghan War (although we were not at war with Afghanistan) the Afghanistan Conflict (kinda too mild given events that transpired), Canada's Mission in Afghanistan (not very catchy) or what?  Whats the "name" going to be or what is already accepted?



Most of the vets I know call it the 'Afghan war' or 'The war in Afghanistan'. And I suspect most of us don't give a rat's ass if some hand-wringers in Ottawa want to call it something different.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 May 2014)

Kinda related, I've noticed that for the army its all infantry and armoured units, the sub-note explained why the arty and engineers don't get them, what about CSS elements or medic units how come they don't receive battle honours?


----------



## Jungle (10 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Kinda related, I've noticed that for the army its all infantry and armoured units, the sub-note explained why the arty and engineers don't get them, what about CSS elements or medic units how come they don't receive battle honours?



Because they are not combatant units.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Kinda related, I've noticed that for the army its all infantry and armoured units, the sub-note explained why the arty and engineers don't get them, what about CSS elements or medic units how come they don't receive battle honours?



If it's any consolation, I'm pretty sure that the Infantry would be the first to point out that everything they were able to accomplish was enabled by those people.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2014)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Being in the RCAF and being of Tac Hel background, frankly, if the list provided here is accurate, it amazes me that 400 and 438 Sqns are not on that list.  Last time I checked my personnel (and others from both of these Sqns) participated in Afghanistan with either the Sperwer or in support of the JTF-Afg Air Wing.  I usually remain silent, but not for this slight.  This is unsat (if the list is accurate).  Frankly put, without these two "total force" units, 1 Wg and Tac Hel would not have been able to function.  This is further emphasized when one considers what we did domestically when there was no one else left back in Canada to do it.  A little domestic op called Op PODIUM comes to mind, along with the G8 Conference (largest domestic deployments in Cdn history).  And we did this while we had pers over in Afg.
> 
> This better be fixed.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Interesting that neither 423 nor 443 Sqn were granted the Theatre Honour for "Arabian Sea", despite having been nearly continuously deployed in the region for the past 13 years and in the 2001-2003 period, each Sqn deployed more than their posted strength as part of Helairdets. At one point, I recall that 12 Wing had 12 HELAIRDETs, but generated and deployed 15 Helairdets during that period.



This is the kind of fallout that happens because the terms of reference for the award of Afghanistan honours was not made clear and distributed to all units which may be eligible. For the First World War, and again for he Second World War and Korea, the terms of reference were published first, and then it was the responsibility of units to demonstrate that they were eligible for the honours they felt were deserving based on their actions and contributions.

Conditions of Award of Battle Honours for The Great War 1914-1919

Second World War Battle Honours (Conditions governing the award of battle honours to regiments of the Canadian Army.)

33-1 Battle Honours - United Nations Operations - Korea 1950-1953


----------



## Strike (10 May 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Interesting that neither 423 nor 443 Sqn were granted the Theatre Honour for "Arabian Sea", despite having been nearly continuously deployed in the region for the past 13 years and in the 2001-2003 period, each Sqn deployed more than their posted strength as part of Helairdets. At one point, I recall that 12 Wing had 12 HELAIRDETs, but generated and deployed 15 Helairdets during that period.



That was the first thing that came to mind for me as well.  Kind of like giving a battle honour to a combat unit but then telling them it doesn't include the recce element.


----------



## medicineman (10 May 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Kinda related, I've noticed that for the army its all infantry and armoured units, the sub-note explained why the arty and engineers don't get them, what about CSS elements or medic units how come they don't receive battle honours?



The Medical Branch, much like other elements, are assumed to be there.  There are no unit/Branch colours for Battle Honours to be attached, but a Royal Banner for the Branch/RCMS as we are now.

MM


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2014)

Here's the 'South West Asia Theatre Honours' list: 

http://pm.gc.ca/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours


----------



## George Wallace (10 May 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Here's the 'South West Asia Theatre Honours' list:
> 
> http://pm.gc.ca/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours



 ;D

Bottom of previous page; « Reply #121 on: Yesterday at 23:08:42 »

Top of this page; « Reply #125 on: Yesterday at 23:26:36 »

Same link.

 ;D


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2014)

From the Infantry Corps, it looks like the Hasty Ps, the Cape Breton Highlanders and the Royal Newfoundland Regiment missed out - what happened there?


----------



## OldTanker (10 May 2014)

Cape Breton Highlanders are listed but don't see the other two.


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 May 2014)

> Units of the Canadian Army will be granted the Theatre Honour “Afghanistan” if their cumulative contribution of personnel reached a minimum level of *20 per cent of the effective strength of the originating unit* in the geographical area of Afghanistan. - See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours#sthash.EtgN8qOj.dpuf



http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours

Note that the terms of reference given in the backgrounder call for a percentage of unit strength, not a numerical head count. They may have had more people deployed than other units, but if they are a large unit they could still miss the percentage requirement. I have no doubt we'll see some of this revisited too.


----------



## brihard (11 May 2014)

If it's just two infantry units excluded, I suspect we'll see that revisited. The Hastys couldn't have been far from the threshold. I can't speak for 1 and 2 Newf, but I'd like to see someone explain the rationale to Brian Pinksen's family. Likewise Mark McLaren's, although he was wearing the Death Star the second time he was hit and ultimately killed. A sound argument can be made for the theatre honour going to all of the infantry units... Particularly given how we're very nearly there anyway.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 May 2014)

As a former Plough Jockey,  this would be a kick in the teeth for The Regiment.  In the Second World War, The Regiment received more battle honour than any other Regiment.  I also remember that some infantry units have greater effective strength than others. So, in a way, one could perhaps say that smaller, less effective units are being rewarded for mediocrity. 
(I know that we had a Hasty P in our BG HQ on 3-08.)


----------



## bick (11 May 2014)

As a  Patricia, I find it humbling to have  participated in a theater that will be listed alongside campaigns my family fought in during the World Wars. 

The soldiers change, but the Regiment marches on.  

VP


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 May 2014)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> As a  Patricia, I find it humbling to have  participated in a theater that will be listed alongside campaigns my family fought in during the World Wars.
> 
> The soldiers change, but the Regiment marches on.
> 
> VP


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 May 2014)

Rhodesian said:
			
		

> As a  Patricia, I find it humbling to have  participated in a theater that will be listed alongside campaigns my family fought in during the World Wars.
> 
> The soldiers change, but the Regiment marches on.
> 
> VP



Very nicely stated


----------



## Good2Golf (11 May 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Interesting that neither 423 nor 443 Sqn were granted the Theatre Honour for "Arabian Sea", despite having been nearly continuously deployed in the region for the past 13 years and in the 2001-2003 period, each Sqn deployed more than their posted strength as part of Helairdets. At one point, I recall that 12 Wing had 12 HELAIRDETs, but generated and deployed 15 Helairdets during that period.



Kind of like when only 433e ETAC received the 'KOSOVO' battle honour for the campaign, but 408 THS and 430e ETAH did not, even though they were armed and actually landed on Kosovar soil? (vice just the Hornet's JDAMs)

Regards
G2G


----------



## Old Sweat (11 May 2014)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As a former Plough Jockey,  this would be a kick in the teeth for The Regiment.  In the Second World War, The Regiment received more battle honour than any other Regiment.  I also remember that some infantry units have greater effective strength than others. So, in a way, one could perhaps say that smaller, less effective units are being rewarded for mediocrity.
> (I know that we had a Hasty P in our BG HQ on 3-08.)



The current list should not be treated as the end of it. The RHLI had to wait from 1920 to 1926 to receive the battle honours of and to perpetuate the 4th Bn CEF, while the request by the Tor Scots for the battle honour "Dieppe" was initially refused because the number from the regiment present were below the approved level. When the regiment noted that may have been true, but all 36 of its Vickers were in action that day, the request was approved.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 May 2014)

Remind me.  Which branch of gov't decides/reviews these decisions?


----------



## MilEME09 (11 May 2014)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Because they are not combatant units.



I realize this but they still took part in the theatre


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 May 2014)

As I have argued here and elsewhere, the first requirement was a need for clear, revised, terms of reference for the award of honours. Those should have been made known to all units, and those terms should have formed the basis of the first round of discussions.

Instead, we have a list based on a generalized (and close held) approach and now we see the questioning about why certain regiments don't appear, and why certain types of units weren't given an opportunity to make the case for their eligibility. So let the public outcry begin, because the show is now over and the painful staffwork can follow, I guess.

This is why the awards of honours for past conflicts took years, because the Army wanted to get the right the first time. (And yes, even then, some follow-up occurred as Regiments waited for information to substantiate new arguments for additions.)


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 May 2014)

I recall a great hue and cry about battle honours following the Falklands War. 

I know it's Wikipedia, but I found this article of interest:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_honour

A battle honour may be granted to infantry/cavalry regiments or battalions, as well as ships (see Naval battle honours below) and squadrons; they are rarely granted to sub-units such as companies, platoons and sections in the army. Battle honours are usually presented in the form of a name of a country, region, or city where the unit's distinguished act took place, usually together with the year when it occurred.

Not every battle fought will automatically result in the granting of a battle honour. Conversely, a regiment or a battalion might obtain more than one battle honour over the course of a larger operation. For example, the 2nd Battalion of the Scots Guards were awarded two battle honours for their role in the Falklands War; "Tumbledown Mountain" specifically for the Battle of Mount Tumbledown, and "Falkland Islands 1982" for the overall conflict. Similarly, while in Korea, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry earned both "Kapyong" (for the Battle of Kapyong) and "Korea 1951–1953" (for the overall war). A unit does not have to successfully defeat their adversary to earn a battle honour: the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps received the battle honour "Hong Kong" despite the defeat and capture of most of the force during the Japanese invasion of Hong Kong, while the cruiser HMAS Sydney was awarded the naval engagement honour "Kormoran 1941" after being sunk with all aboard by the German raider Kormoran.

Supporting corps/branches such as medical, service, ordnance, or transport do not currently receive battle honours. However and uniquely the Royal Logistic Corps has five battle honours inherited from its previous transport elements, such as the Royal Waggon Train. Commonwealth artillery does not maintain battle honours as they carry neither colours nor guidons—though their guns by tradition are afforded many of the same respects and courtesies. However, both the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers were in 1832 granted by King William IV the right to use the Latin "Ubique", meaning everywhere, as a battle honour. This is worn on the cap badge of both the Corps of Royal Engineers and the Royal Regiment of Artillery (but not the Royal Horse Artillery). Likewise the Royal Marines, although a colours-carrying service, was granted, along with the conventional battle honour of "Gibraltar", the "Great Globe itself" by King George IV for its very numerous battle honours around the world.

The practice was later extended to these same regiments and corps in the successor Commonwealth armed forces.


----------



## McG (12 May 2014)

Have brigades or divisions (or maybe a formation HQ) ever been awarded battle honours?


----------



## George Wallace (12 May 2014)

I believe so.  My memory is a little faded, but I believe that when I was at 1 Div, there was mention of Battle Honours.


----------



## x_para76 (12 May 2014)

In regards to the decision to award a theatre honour to units from CANSOFCOM does anyone here know if any of those units currently hold any other honours? Did they inherit any from units such as the Devils Brigade? Just curious and although I read through the entire thread it's possible that it was discussed earlier and I missed it. If this is the case then please accept my apology and direct me to the appropriate thread or page. Many thanks!


----------



## MikeL (12 May 2014)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-special-forces/csor.page


> CSOR proudly carries the Black Devils’ battle honours, and the Devils’ spirit lives on at CSOR.



http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours


> UBIQUE Motto
> 
> The Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery, the Corps of Royal Canadian Engineers and Joint Task Force 2 do not carry individual battle honours, but instead use the motto “UBIQUE,” meaning “everywhere.”



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/427_Special_Operations_Aviation_Squadron#Battle_honours


> 427 Squadron was awarded the following battle honours, which are carried on their standard:[4]
> 
> English Channel and North Sea 1943–1945
> Baltic 1944–1945
> ...


----------



## Michael OLeary (12 May 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Have brigades or divisions (or maybe a formation HQ) ever been awarded battle honours?



None that I have ever discovered. Formations and headquarters are not traditional "line of battle" units.


----------



## x_para76 (12 May 2014)

Hoplite- said:
			
		

> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-special-forces/csor.page
> http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/05/09/south-west-asia-theatre-honours
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/427_Special_Operations_Aviation_Squadron#Battle_honours



 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 May 2014)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> None that I have ever discovered. Formations and headquarters are not traditional "line of battle" units.



The US has the Presidential Unit Citation, awarded to Divs etc. 

Looks like some were well earned in this list!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Unit_Citation_(United_States)


----------



## Journeyman (13 May 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Looks like some were well earned in this list!


Are you referring to 2 PPCLI or JTF-2.....both of which are PUC-holders.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 May 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The US has the Presidential Unit Citation, awarded to Divs etc.



Which are not Battle Honours in the Canadian system. They are a different nation's awards, with their own terms of reference and system of being awarded.


----------

