Author Topic: Battle Honours for Afghanistan  (Read 64781 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,744
Re: Battle Honours for Afghanistan
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2008, 14:24:01 »
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).


This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Battle Honours for Afghanistan
« Reply #51 on: September 10, 2008, 18:24:03 »
Can't they just attach post "2RCR" as a whole to CEFCOM to skip the whole indiv attach post admin hickup?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,744
Re: Battle Honours for Afghanistan
« Reply #52 on: September 10, 2008, 18:48:33 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,744
Re: Battle Honours for Afghanistan
« Reply #53 on: September 10, 2008, 20:10:50 »
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Lowlander

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
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

  • Guest
to the RCR, PPCLI, R22R, RCD, LdSH, 12RBC.

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

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
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
« Last Edit: July 28, 2011, 23:32:15 by Michael O'Leary »

Offline Lowlander

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
I was only refering to army units.  I'm sure many Air Force Sqn's will also be awarded with it.

aesop081

  • Guest
will be awarded pretty soon 

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

Offline Lowlander

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
Hopefully it will be awarded much sooner this time arould.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
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:


Quote
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #62 on: July 29, 2011, 08:06:53 »
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.

Offline CanadianTire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #63 on: July 29, 2011, 10:02:31 »
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.
"Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do and die." - Tennyson

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #64 on: July 29, 2011, 10:53:52 »
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.

Offline CanadianTire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #65 on: July 29, 2011, 22:37:21 »
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....
"Theirs not to reason why/Theirs but to do and die." - Tennyson

Offline rmc_wannabe

  • CADPAT Computer Nerd
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 431
  • NTLDR is missing, PRESS Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #66 on: July 30, 2011, 05:15:46 »
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.
"One of the most feared expressions in modern times is 'The computer is down.'"
 -Norman Ralph Augustine

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 119,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,398
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #67 on: July 31, 2011, 22:18:58 »
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.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #68 on: July 31, 2011, 22:26:37 »
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.

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 223,228
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Battle Honours for Afganistan
« Reply #69 on: August 02, 2011, 09:37:57 »
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.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,441
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Prince Phillip presenting new 3 RCR colours in Toronto 27 Apr 13
« Reply #70 on: February 27, 2013, 12:23:43 »
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2013, 11:37:33 by milnews.ca »
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Re: Prince Phillip presenting new 3 RCR colours in Toronto 27 Apr 13
« Reply #71 on: February 27, 2013, 13:43:20 »
No, the Regiment has not yet discussed whether it will emblazon any of the War of 1812 honours.

Offline Rhodesian

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 157
Re: Re: Prince Phillip presenting new 3 RCR colours in Toronto 27 Apr 13
« Reply #72 on: February 28, 2013, 17:03:23 »
How about the ones that still have the veterans left to see them?  Ex, Afghanistan 2006 etc

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,441
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Re: Prince Phillip presenting new 3 RCR colours in Toronto 27 Apr 13
« Reply #73 on: February 28, 2013, 22:07:25 »
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.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 302,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,636
    • The Regimental Rogue
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.)