Battle Honours and Colours question
- Thread starter vangemeren
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Navy remains seated .... One of the royal princes was on an HMS for a mess dinner. Bashed his head on one of the wooden beams (low cieling)..... he decreed that thereafter, Navy would remain seated for their toasts.
WRT Drummy's comment..... I know what you're saying but, I have a feeling that the CGG have adopted traditions of their Imperial brothers..... which is how they ended up using the guards brigade patch as a background for their cap badge.
WRT Drummy's comment..... I know what you're saying but, I have a feeling that the CGG have adopted traditions of their Imperial brothers..... which is how they ended up using the guards brigade patch as a background for their cap badge.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
HighlandIslander said:
Yes. Tradition due to low ceilings in old sailing ships and rough seas.
- Reaction score
- 28,542
- Points
- 1,090
George Wallace said:
... and one too many splices of the main brace >
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Does anyone have a quick link for battle honours in the DIN?
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Another Recce Guy said:
What are you looking for?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I guess this is whee my thoughts were taking me (from a related post from February 2007);
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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:
Quote
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.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
You'll find the Army Orders on battle honours for the First and Second World Wars and Korea here:
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm
And this is my post you were referencing:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27435/post-524427.html#msg524427
See also Chapter 3 of THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE
CANADIAN FORCES (A-AD-200-000/AG-000)
http://regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm
And this is my post you were referencing:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27435/post-524427.html#msg524427
See also Chapter 3 of THE HONOURS, FLAGS AND HERITAGE STRUCTURE OF THE
CANADIAN FORCES (A-AD-200-000/AG-000)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Battle honours seem to be rife with inconsistancy based on political expediency and the stubbornness or personal views of the committee of the day making the decision. One only battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment generated the battle honour "South Africa, 1899-1900" for themselves and 17 militia regiments. About 22 regiments received the battle honour "Northwest Canada, 1885" even though most of them were hundreds of kilometres from any battle. In WWI militia regiments were awarded battle honours both by directly perpetuating fighting units and by contributing troops to particular battles using a formula.
Then came WWII. Battle honours were only awarded by direct participation of the named unit in battle or in a couple cases of a unit organized overseas but fighting under the name of a militia unit. For the first time provision of troops to a fighting unit earned no battle honours. Then came Korea with the ultimate chintziness in battle honours. There were 6 to 8 serious battles but only one individual battle was honoured in addition to the campaign. I suspect the committee selecting the Korean War battle honours was using the big war/big casualty WWII criteria as opposed to even a middle ground.
Then came WWII. Battle honours were only awarded by direct participation of the named unit in battle or in a couple cases of a unit organized overseas but fighting under the name of a militia unit. For the first time provision of troops to a fighting unit earned no battle honours. Then came Korea with the ultimate chintziness in battle honours. There were 6 to 8 serious battles but only one individual battle was honoured in addition to the campaign. I suspect the committee selecting the Korean War battle honours was using the big war/big casualty WWII criteria as opposed to even a middle ground.
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Kilted said:
Canadian Army Battle Honours
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/battle_honours.htm
The indivudual unit pages identify the referenced General Orders for perpetuated Honours in the "Remarks" column.
G.O. 6 / 1928 - CONDITIONS OF AWARD OF BATTLE HONOURS FOR THE GREAT WAR 1914-1919
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrs.htm
CAMPAIGNS, BATTLES AND OTHER ENGAGEMENTS IN WHICH CANADIAN TROOPS PARTICIPATED IN THE GREAT WAR 1914-1919
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/firstworldwar-btlhnrslist2.htm
Perpetuation of the Units of the Canadian Expeditionary Force (C.E.F.), 1914-1919
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/cef_perpetuation/cef_perpetuation.htm
Canada Gazette
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/canada-gazette/index-e.html
Here are the three main General Order lists for CEF Battle Honours, I have uplaoded scans to my website stotage:
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/GO-110-1929_Battle_Honours_List_No_1.pdf
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/GO-123-1929_Battle_Honours_List_No_2.pdf
http://www.regimentalrogue.com/battlehonours/GO-71-1930_Battle_Honours_List_No_3.pdf
The reason I am looking into this is because my units battle honours from WWI come from a battalion we do not perpetuate, 4th Battalion, CEF. However, we received the battle honours because if the number of men we contributed to the Battalion. However, we only received 9 out of 21 battle honours, which almost seem to have been picked at random because they occur throughout the whole war, but battle honours from in-between some of the ones we have are missing.
Similar threads
