Who got the medals ?

[corisande]

When going through war diaries on Gallipoli I came across a letter by Brig-General Nicol, commanding 30 Brigade of 10th (Irish) Division at the Suvla landings. He says to Aspinell in replying to the standard questions that Aspinell sent out to COs when writing the Gallipoli history in the 1930

"I did not expect my Brigade would be victimised too, for the responsibility was mine alone: but General Mahon was right. Every one of my recommendations for recommendation in the brigade was quoshed and not one soul was mentioned."

That got me thinking as to whether this was true, then when I did my analysis, I wondered if there was discrimination against New Army battalions as well when it came to awarding medals.

I have the complete list of DCM citations for the Royal Dublin Fusiliers in WW1. That tells me

• 1st Battalion - 35 DCMs (of which 11 in Gallipoli, 24 in France)(regular battalion) note it was in 29th Division in Gallipoli, not 10th
• 2nd Battalion - 24 DCMs (all France, never went to Gallipoli)(regular battalion)
• 5th Battalion - 2 DCMs (both Easter Rising in Dublin)(reserve battalion)
• 6th Battalion - 4 DCMs (2 Salonika, 2 France)(service battalion) 10th Division in Gallipoli
• 7th Battalion- 1 DCM (1 Gallipoli)(service battalion) 10th Division in Gallipoli
• 8th Battalion - 6 DCMs (6 France, never went to Gallipoli)(service battalion)
• 9th Battalion - 6 DCMs (6 France, never went to Gallipoli)(service battalion)
• 10th Battalion - 1 DCM (1 France, never went to Gallipoli) (service battalion)

One could not explain the differences either in length of service in a war zone, nor from the casualties received.

Conclusion seems to be that New Army battalions got less medals and that 10th Irish Division in Gallipoli, as Nichol said, got little recognition.

If we can avoid debating whether Mahon (commanding 10th Division) was right or wrong in resigning,it is a different issue to the medals. Can I pose three questions

1. Were 10th Irish Division discriminated against in medals in Gallipoli. They were certainly in the thick of the fighting. For example D Coy of 7th Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers is well documented in the book "Pals at Suvla Bay", with only 79 of the original 278 men who landed, left standing after the 54 days they were in Gallipoli.
2. Were New Army Battalions as a rule award fewer medals than Regular Battalions. I cannot see any reason why the 2 regular RDF battalions had so many more DCMs
3. To avoid me reinventing the wheel, are there any references on existing works on medal allocation.

[6th Shropshires]

Hi corisande

I have never given it any thorght before but have just had a look at the K.S.L.I. and they seem to show a simular trend. I have 128 men in my database who were awarded the D.C.M. (not all with the K.S.L.I.) but I can not give you full details because there are a small number who I do not yet have there battalion details but going by what I do have at least 44 were 1st Battalion (France/Flanders), 11 were 2nd Battalion (France/Flanders only about 9 months), and the rest scattered between one T.A. four service & the 10th Battalion (ex-Yeomanry) plus a few won with other Regiments.

Annette

[corisande]

Thanks Annette

We will see what others can add on regiment's that they are researching.

I knocked out the RDF figures as there seemed to be something "odd", which to start with I thought was "anti Irish" (we Irish tend to be a bit paranoid!).

But it seems to be anti New Army - which in itself is odd as by half way through the war most of the regular battalions were not regulars any more!

[Chris_Baker]

Could length of service overseas, and the number of times the battalion was seriously engaged, be factors?

[regimentalrogue]

An interesting topic. I conducted a similar examination of the award of medals (MC, DCM, MM) to battalions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The start point for my own purposes were the persistence of long-standing rumours that The Royal Canadian Regiment (Canada's single pre-war Permanent Force infantry battalion) had a history of being stingy in recommending and gaining awards for its soldiers.

Researching The Royal Canadian Regiment - Too Few Honours; Rumours of Historical Parsimony in Regimental Honours and Awards

[Ken Lees]

Would it not be more appropriate to compare the number of DCMs to the battalions that served alongside the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, and indeed, to other Brigades to see if the RDF were hard done by at Gallipoli? That would give more of an indication of whether Nicol was correct in his assertion that those under him were discriminated against.

Ken

[corisande]

Would it not be more appropriate to compare the number of DCMs to the battalions that served alongside the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, and indeed, to other Brigades to see if the RDF were hard done by at Gallipoli? That would give more of an indication of whether Nicol was correct in his assertion that those under him were discriminated against.

I could not agree more, I have started with the RDF figures, and would be interested in seeing if any other forum members have stats for other 10th (Irish) Division battalions. other Gallipoli battalions or Western Front regiments

[corisande]

An interesting topic. I conducted a similar examination of the award of medals (MC, DCM, MM) to battalions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. The start point for my own purposes were the persistence of long-standing rumours that The Royal Canadian Regiment (Canada's single pre-war Permanent Force infantry battalion) had a history of being stingy in recommending and gaining awards for its soldiers.

I have read that through now, as you say

"While the average rates of awards recommended and received by the RCR for the First World War could potentially support the rumour of regimental "stinginess", our results so far are not completely conclusive. Since the origin of the rumour cannot be pin-pointed, it could well have started with the returning soldiers of the Great War. Such a rumour, taking on a life of its own, could have survived well beyond any reasonable period of applicability."

I have no axe to grind about the RDF in particular, or Irish battalions in general. I am interested in trying to coax out stats that people have on other regiments, Irish or otherwise. New Army or Regular Battalions

I had sort of half hoped that someone had a thesis on the subject and that it was well researched already!

[corisande]

Could length of service overseas, and the number of times the battalion was seriously engaged, be factors?

I have been giving some though to this one.

It is difficult to devise a way of measuring the overall "risk" that a Battalion underwent over the course of the war. But one way might be to look at the deaths that a regiment suffered, as a measure of the risk that they were in. You might argue that this does not differentiate between KIA and died from disease, but I think it is a reasonable yardstick to use

So the crude means of deaths shows that the 2 regular battalions suffered 55% of deaths and received 73% of DCMs

[PhilB]

I`ve just had a look at the Lancs Fus. I counted 21 to 1st Bn, 43 to 2nd Bn, 126 to TF Bns & 90 to K Bns. That doesn`t seem unfair, though it`s strange that the 2nd got twice as many as the 1st who were the "6 before breakfast" battalion.

[corisande]

21 to 1st Bn, 43 to 2nd Bn, 126 to TF Bns & 90 to K Bns

Interesting. As you say it does not look unfair!

[themonsstar]

Here are the DCMs for the Manchester Regt 1914-21.

1st Bn France & Belgium upto Dec 1915 (25) then Mesopotamia (24) Egypt (3) Palestine (1).

2nd Bn F&F (21). (9) others after WW1 upto 1921.

1/5th Bn TF Gallipoli (6) Egypt (5) F&F Mar 1917 (17).

1/6th Bn TF Gallipoli (8) Egypt (2) F&F Mar 17 (21).

1/7th Bn TF Gallipoli (3) Egypt (0) F&F Mar 17 (12).

1/8th Bn TF Gallipoli (3) Egypt (3) F&F Mar 17(14).

1/9th Bn TF Gallipoli (6) Egypt (2) F&F Mar 17 (8).

1/10 Bn TF Gallipoli (1) Egypt (1) F&F Mar 17 (18).

2nd Line TF units Did not moved overseas until March 1917.

2/5th Bn TF F&F (1).

2/6th Bn TF F&F (1).

2/7th Bn TF F&F (7).

2/8th BN TF F&F (1).

2/9th Bn TF F&F (6).

2/10th Bn TF F&F (3).

11th, 12th, 13th Bns were K1 regular battalions.

11th Bn Gallipoli (1) Egypt (1) F&F (8).

12th Bn F&F (12).

13th Bn F&F (0) Salonika (2) F&F (0).

16th to 24th Bns were K2 battalions (Pals).

16th Bn F&F (11).

17th Bn F&F (17).

18th Bn F&F (12).

19th Bn F&F (6).

20th Bn F&F (3) Italy (3) F&F (5).

21st Bn F&F (6) Italy (4) F&F (5).

22nd Bn F&F (1) Italy (2) F&F (11).

23rd Bn F&F (4).

24th Bn F&F (2) Italy (3).

Some DCMs were awarded a long time after the action, so you may find Gallipoli DCMs being awarded in Egypt and so on. I could not find some DCMs Battalions, the citation just says Manchester Regt.

[ianw]

I think the attitude of the the battalion commanders to awards had a great deal of influence on the number of awards. Some regular LT-Cols took the view that merely doing the job that they might reasonably be expected to do did not merit special awards or recognition. There was a sort of inverted snobbery in not claiming awards.

I remember reading how an RFA officer was told by his Lt Col in no uncertain terms that he could expect no awards of any sort . He then served with considerable distinction seeing lesser officers in other units picking up MCs for not too much. He was very cross when his Lt Col shamelessly accepted a DSO in late 1918.

Some senior officers took the view that temporary officers should not expect awards as they were reserved for regular officers who could usefully deploy them in their later Army careers.

Interesting to do the same exercise with the MC awards to complement the DCM information.

[corisande]

Re Manchester Regiment

So was the 1st Battalion more "deserving" in terms of combat? They certainly received more DCMs

[corisande]

Some senior officers took the view that temporary officers should not expect awards as they were reserved for regular officers who could usefully deploy them in their later Army careers.

That was my gut feel, but could not find anything to substantiate it.

And certainly as far as 1st and 2nd Battalions RDF were concerned the DCM recipients were disproportionately men who were regulars (from service numbers)

There were disproportionately fewer Privates as well (only about 25% of DCM recipients being Privates)

[ianw]

I presume a Private would typically have received an MM - did a DCM attract an annual gratuity. I suppose it's award to an NCO would have topped up the pension a little.

I think the book detailing the officer being told not to expect any gongs may have been "Field Guns In France".

[themonsstar]

MC's for the Manchester Regt.

1st Bn F&F (7) Mesopotamia (3) Egypt (3) (1) other.

2nd Bn F&F (36).

3rd & 4th Bn att to other Bn of the Manch Regt (34) MC's show up as the 3rd & 4th Bns but the 3rd & 4th did not go overseas.

1/5th Bn Gallipoli (3) Egypt (0) F&F (21).

1/6th Bn G (2) E (2) F&F (29).

1/7th Bn G (2) E (1) F&F (26).

1/8th Bn G (1) E (1) F&F (13).

1/9th Bn G (5) E (4) F&F (15).

1/10th Bn G (1) E (0) F&F (21).

2nd Line TF Bns

2/5th Bn F&F (0).

2/6th Bn F&F (0).

2/7th Bn F&F (0).

2/8th Bn F&F (1).

2/9th Bn F&F (2).

2/10th Bn F&F (0).

11th Bn G (0) E (1) F&F (10).

12th Bn F&F (21).

13th Bn Salonika (4) F&F (2).

16th Bn F&F (10).

17th Bn F&F (16).

18th Bn F&F (15).

19th Bn F&F (8).

20th Bn F&F (9) Italy (7) F&F (13).

21st Bn F&F (10) Italy (2) F&F (17).

22nd Bn F&F (14) Italy (2) F&F (1).

23rd Bn F&F (3).

24th Bn F&F (0) Italy (6).

You can add the 34 MC's that show up with the 3&4th battalions.

[6th Shropshires]

Hi corisande

I had sort of half hoped that someone had a thesis on the subject and that it was well researched already

Don't we all but then again I would have nothing to do if somone had already done a K.S.L.I. database, and I would have to then fil my time with boring house work

Annette

[Steven Broomfield]

did a DCM attract an annual gratuity.

Yes, it did. I can't recall how much, offhand, but I do remember reading that Frank Richards (Old Soldiers Never Die) commented that the old sweats didn't see any value to the MM as it brought no money with it.

Incidentally, awards of the DCM/MM weren't rank-based; a private theoretically had as much chance as a sergeant of winning either. The difference was the level of gallantry (generally, in a fighting award, if you see what I mean), with the DCM potentially being awarded where a VC was recommended but not thought suitable.

Remember, also, that the DCM was a medal for "Distinguished Conduct", so could be awarded for non-gallantry events. There have been threads on this topic before - the famous case of the baker being awarded on crops up.

[squirrel]

The DCM had a gratuity of £20 IIRC - whether this was a one off or an annual payment I am not certain but I am sure that somebody will be along with the answer.