WW1 Stars

[Cheshire22]

We have the 1914 Star, 14/15 Star 

why wasn’t there stars to cover 1916 onwards 

it was a question I was asked 

[ForeignGong]

My understanding is that the 14 star covered those involved in F & F in 1914 but then you have the other conflicts and I can only talk about the Aussie & NZ troops taking German islands in the pacific in 1914 so they were not eligible for the 14 star then the 14-15 star covered them.

As to why no 1916, 17 or 18 star, I will leave that up to someone with more knowledge than me.

Peter

[RussT]

I would suggest that the 1914 and 1914/1915 Stars covered those who volunteered.

Conscription was introduced in 1916 and although you could still volunteer throughout this cut-off date was the simplest differentiator coupled with the fact that the VM/BWM covered the post 1915 enlistments.

Regards

Russ

[Chris_Baker]

Does not answer the question, but even so an interesting letter: from the Hull Daily Mail of Wednesday 7 May 1919 (British Newspaper Archive). Perhaps there is more in Hansard?

[PhilB]

I seem to recall an interesting thread from the distant past in which members discuss the medals and bars they would like to have seen. A medal for each year and associated bars (from a long list) IIRC.

Edited 14 December , 2023 by PhilB

[RussT]

A couple of views from both sides ....

 

[Gardenerbill]

What about those who were 18 after 1916 and who had no opportunity to volunteer?

[Andrew Upton]

7 hours ago, Cheshire22 said:

We have the 1914 Star, 14/15 Star 

why wasn’t there stars to cover 1916 onwards 

it was a question I was asked 

Something else worth remembering is the original idea was for the BWM to be issued with clasps much like the QSA and KSA had been for the Boer War, which would have filled in a lot of the gaps so to speak. Essentially it would eventually be abandoned due to cost and complexity issues:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/272503-miniature-clasps-to-british-war-medal/

[Keith_history_buff]

I have cursed myself for not making a note of where I saw it, but I did read an account of the ribbon for the 1914 Star being issued during the conflict, and for those men who arrived in late Nov and Dec 1914, there was bitterness on their part that their efforts had been slighted. I wish that I had saved that eyewitness account for future posterity.

[4thGordons]

1 hour ago, Andrew Upton said:

Something else worth remembering is the original idea was for the BWM to be issued with clasps much like the QSA and KSA had been for the Boer War, which would have filled in a lot of the gaps so to speak. Essentially it would eventually be abandoned due to cost and complexity issues:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/272503-miniature-clasps-to-british-war-medal/

The US did issue numerous "battle bars"  for the Victory medal (illustrated nicely HERE)

[RussT]

The deliberations concerning the WW2 decorations/medals with some general remarks/referrals to the WW1 period.

WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS (Hansard, 22 March 1944) (parliament.uk)

[RussT]

The question was asked in the House - I'm still looking for the publication mentioned by Churchill and whether the question was answered directly (by saying why not) or indirectly (by simply stating the conditions for eligibility of those medals that were to be issued).

Russ

 

[Cheshire22]

Thank you for all your replies, it does make some interesting readings. 
 

there is a point somewhere that a soldier who joined up in 1914, went overseas in 1915 and finally came home in 1919 only has 3 medals to show for it.  
where someone who joined up in 1917, went overseas in 1918 and came home in 1919 got two medals

I wonder, if these had an impact on WW2 and the stars being issued for campaign areas in stead of years

[horatio2]

5 hours ago, Cheshire22 said:

only has 3 medals to show for it

I had not realised that it was sheer the number of medals that counted (like a North Korean General!) rather than the reason for their awarding.

[BillyH]

27 minutes ago, horatio2 said:

I had not realised that it was sheer the number of medals that counted (like a North Korean General!) rather than the reason for their awarding.

and (dare I say it) like some members of our royal family?

BillyH.

[PhilB]

However, horatio, if you`d volunteered in 1914, been sent to France in early 1916, served there through 1916, 1917 and 1918, wouldn`t you appreciate more than a pair (as happened to the Accrington Pals et al, via Egypt)? Bearing in mind that a man going out to F&F in late 1918 also got the pair.

[horatio2]

So it is just a matter of numbers - "wouldn`t you appreciate more than a pair?" I consider that, in some measure, the award of overseeas service chevrons recognised such 'hard cases'. Why does it have to be yet another medal/star? And why stop at issuing  star for each year? A nice North Korean display could be more quickly attained by issuing a star every 3/4/5/6 months.

At the end of the day, we are where we are.

[PhilB]

Well, yes, we are where we are! Of course, nobody is suggesting North Korean or even US style medal accumulations but surely there should ideally be some relation between medals awarded and hardship and danger endured?

[tullybrone]

On 14/12/2023 at 13:12, RussT said:

I would suggest that the 1914 and 1914/1915 Stars covered those who volunteered.

Conscription was introduced in 1916 and although you could still volunteer throughout this cut-off date was the simplest differentiator coupled with the fact that the VM/BWM covered the post 1915 enlistments.

Regards

Russ

Many 1914 volunteers didn’t go overseas until 1916 - for instance Tyneside Scottish & Tyneside Irish narrowly missed out on 14/15 Stars by going overseas 9th January 1916. 
 

Steve