Medals on Battledress?

[Sock Monkey VC]

I've come across a mid 1960's photo of a Canadian regiment wearing medals on battledress. Is that not incorrect? I thought they were worn on dress uniforms only.

Thanks,

Sock Monkey VC

[oc14]

No reason why they shouldn't - it was certainly common practice in the British Army

PL

[Sock Monkey VC]

OK, thanks for that. I had just never seen it before.

Monkey

[peter monahan]

Sock Monkey

Regular Forces or Canadian Reserves [Militia]? I have an unkind suspicion that some of the Reserve regiments tried to 'exercise' their medals and other distinctions as often as possible, sometimes in spite of the dress regulations.

[Sock Monkey VC]

Militia but, active militia during the war. Having said that, a confusing article in a 1962 brochure that I am currently selling on ebay mentions the creation of "The 1st Fort Garry Horse, Fourth Armoured Regiment, Canadian Army" on Nov. 19th 1958. This new regiment's list of activities lists the 1960 visit of representatives of The Fort Garry Horse Militia. Two regiments of the same name? Having said that, I can't tell if my photo is of the Militia or the Regulars. I'm confused!

Sock Monkey

[Bill A]

Medals were worn, and required on battldress DEPENDING on the circumstance / parade. For example, annual inspections required medals be worn, whereas regular training parades no medals were to be worn.

[Bill A]

There were two Fort Garry Horse Regiments. The regular force was stood up in 1958, while a reserve regiment continued to be active in the reserves. Initially there was talk of having 1 FGH and 2 FGH but that didn't work, so it was just regular and reserve.
I saw the auction listings and they were for the regular force FGH.

[Sock Monkey VC]

Thanks for that Bill. I really appreciate it though I don't completely understand why they would do that. In my understanding, during the post WW2 years the government was not willing to fund all the regiments that were extant so the army combined some of them with regular regiments just to keep them on the books. Thus, the Loyal Edmonton Regiment became 4th Bn. PPCLI. Some of the Quebec regiments are also Bns of the Van Doos. With this 'combining' of regiments, I am surprised that in 1958 they didn't simply do the reverse and create a Regular unit of FGH as perhaps 2Bn, FGH.

OK, further to that then, did this new regiment, born in 1958 claim all battle honours and antecedents of FGH and when were they stood down if you know?

Thanks Bill.

Monkey

[Bill A]

You are delving into the repeated efforts to keep the Canadian army effective and efficient, and meet the commitments of Canadian foreign policy. There were repeated re-organizations of the army, after the Second World War. The Kennedy reorganization of 1954 recommended the balance of arms be changed. The reserves were too heavy in infantry and needed more armoured regiments. This led to the amalgamation or disbandment of some infantry regiments and the re-tasking of others as armoured. (Armoured regiments took on the anti-tank role previously held by the RCA.) At the same time, Simonds who was CGS, wanted to make reserve units "feeders" for the regulars and rationalize the number of infantry regiments. Note New Brunswick, where all the infantry and some artillery units were amalgamated and became 1 and 2 Royal New Brunswick Regt respectively. In Quebec, R de Chateauguay, and R de St Hyacinthe were re-designated 4e and 6e Bn R 22é R respectively. R du St-Laurent was designated 5e Bn, but refused to be amalgamated. In Ontario, the Canadian Fusiliers and Oxford Rifles became 3 RCR (later 4 RCR), and more amalgamations were initiated across the west. (North Saskatchewan Regt, and of course the Loyal Eddies, who retained their regimental name, though they are still 4 Bn PPCLI). A few examples of regiments converted to armoured included the Grey & Simcoe Foresters, and the Algonquin Regt.
The 1958 changes were another balancing re-organization. The Canadian NATO contingent was not balanced, and had too many infantry battalions and not enough armour. Two regiments were activated for regular force service, the 8 Canadian Hussars and the Fort Garry Horse. But, cavalry regiments (armoured) are not organized on a battalion basis, that is an infantry org. The regular force regiment was reduced to nil strength in 1970. It was not a "new" regiment, but an activated regiment, carrying the history and traditions of the militia regiment.

[Sock Monkey VC]

And that response, Gentlemen, is why I participate in the British Badge Forum.

Kind Regards,

Monkey

[peter monahan]

Yes, Bill has what it takes!

[Mike_2817]

Originally Posted by oc14

No reason why they shouldn't - it was certainly common practice in the British Army

PL

Medal Ribbons were certainly worn on Battle Dress (No5 Dress) in the British Army, and on special occasions the medals themselves would be worn.

Most soldiers were issued 2 pairs of Battle Dress with one pair more or less reserved for best, which included guard duty with best boots!

When I first joined in the early 70's you got 2 pairs of No2 Dress and at Bicester we wore No2 Dress on guard duty, but the wearing of medals was reserved for parades when stated 'to be worn' on Part 1 orders. This was replaced with Combat Dress (No8 Dress) with the rise of security and carrying arms because of the rising terrorist threat. More enlightened units already wore Combat Dress, in particular in BAOR (West Germany)

When I was promoted to sergeant, at first I did not have mess dress so wore No2 Dress with medals at mess functions until I purchased Mess Dress (No10 Dress) and obtained miniatures.