Battle Honours for Afghanistan

[Lowlander]

Hopefully it will be awarded much sooner this time arould.

 

[Infanteer]

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:

(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.

15.    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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bick]

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

 

[Haggis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)?