- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Yes we do, although we must take it off once we leave the unit.
Battle Honours for Afghanistan
- Thread starter pbi
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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:
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:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
eyre said:
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
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
So what/who does it take to get the ball rolling? I assume the Queen still needs to sign off on it?
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
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
Second World War
Second World War
First World War
- Armistice - 1918
- Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1928
Second World War
- VE-day - 1945
- Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1956
Second World War
- Ceasefire - 1953
- Army Orders for Battle Honours promulgated - 1958
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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
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
- Reaction score
- 9,179
- Points
- 1,260
Teddy Ruxpin said:
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:
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".
Lone Wolf Quagmire 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.
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
A
aesop081
Guest
TheHead said:
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
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
"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?
Who exactly is directed too?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Thanks for the clarification.
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
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:
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.]
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:
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.]
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
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.
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.
Similar threads
