# Canadian Combat Action Badge - Now A Dead Idea (Merged Threads)



## The Six (16 May 2006)

How do we tell whether a CF member spent his/her time in a mess hall at Kandahar, or on recce patrol?

How do we feel about a special badge in the spirit of the Combat Infantry Badge (US) to make it clear who really spent their time in the line of fire?


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

Too much like the Boy Scouts.

I am sure many remember when LFCA came out with the Warrior Badges, which soon spread Army wide.  

You can ususally tell who is who by their Hat Badge and the Gongs they wear on their DEUs.  What more badges do you need?



Out comes that old saying;  "We don't need no stinking Badges!"


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 May 2006)

Yeah, that's what we need - more "us and them"...  We already have Regs vs. Reserves, combat arms vs CSS, French vs English, NDHQ vs everyone else, SOF vs the "wogs", why not add to it?

How do you define "line of fire"?  Does a rocket attack count?  Do only _infantry_ get this shiny badge?  Who tracks who was where? What's the qualifying time?  How are you going to stop people from going down range simply to get this badge?

Frankly, a guy who is working 16 hours trying to get a Nyala back into service is doing as much for the mission as the guy at the "sharp end".  Saying anything else is a disservice to the entire CF and to the team we must be to be successful on operations.

BTW, I would likely "qualify" for one, so don't take this as a "REMF" ranting...

Terrible idea.

Edited to eliminate a run-on sentence


----------



## Trinity (16 May 2006)

The Six said:
			
		

> How do we tell whether a CF member spent his/her time in a mess hall at Kandahar, or on recce patrol?



Are we to discriminate against the cooks because they're not infantry?


As I once heard someone say,  * Quiet Professionalism.  *

We do our jobs, we know we do our jobs, that's all that matters.  Glory hounds need not apply.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Too much like the Boy Scouts.
> 
> I am sure many remember when LFCA came out with the Warrior Badges, which soon spread Army wide.



No one in Calgary wore them, as I recall.  LFWA was always pretty good at dispensing with useless kit; forage caps, Garrison Dress, etc.


----------



## Chimo (16 May 2006)

The Americans actually have two separate awards, the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), awarded to Infantry soldiers involved in hostile fire and the fairly newly created Combat Action Badge (CAB) to recognize non-infantry soldiers involved in hostile fire.

Frankly I see no need for the CF to have any type of badge recognizing this type of service. our CSS pers go full out when deployed as does the rest of the Army team. I feel it drives a further wedge into the Us vs Them game. One Army One Fight.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Chimo said:
			
		

> The Americans actually have two separate awards, the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB), awarded to Infantry soldiers involved in hostile fire and the fairly newly created Combat Action Badge (CAB) to recognize non-infantry soldiers involved in hostile fire.
> 
> Frankly I see no need for the CF to have any type of badge recognizing this type of service. our CSS pers go full out when deployed as does the rest of the Army team. I feel it drives a further wedge into the Us vs Them game. One Army One Fight.



There was a huge fight during WW II when US Army medics were initially denied the CIB despite serving in rifle companies.  The tankers, engineers and artillerymen also wondered why their services were being made secondary - as other posters have indicated, it would open up many cans of worms to introduce such a badge here. There are also a few older discussions in the archives here about it.


----------



## medicineman (16 May 2006)

Chimo - There is also the Combat Medical Badge for medics that have served in combat - used to have to be with infantry units, but that may have changed.

MM


----------



## GO!!! (16 May 2006)

I think it's a great idea.

A lack of pride and esprit de corps is a problem in our army, where commonality of uniforms and decorations does not accurately denote the military "resume" as is the case in other nations. A CIB or equivalent would also be extremely helpful identifying posers - serialise each one and put it in a national database.

I attribute this to the attitude predominant in many of these posts, that "all are soldiers, all are the same". While the mechanics and cooks who support the pointy end undoubtedly do a fine job, there is a huge difference between putting in long hours in the shop or kitchen trailer, and engaging the enemy with your personal weapon and winning. If the support trades are really that broken up about not having the pin, they are always more than welcome to go the OT route, and earn one. Each trade has it's perks, I think a pin recognising infanteers or others in the cbt arms who have seen action is a small one. 

I consider this to be something akin to a wound stripe. Would you deny that this is a valuable decoration? You get injured by the enemy, you get one, it has nothing to do with discriminating or putting any one trade on a pedestal, it is about recognition for service.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pride in your accomplishments, pride in your abilities, and a desire to be recognised for fighting the enemies of your nation.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Read the regs, GO!!!, a wound stripe is NOT a decoration. So yeah, to answer your question, I would deny it. 

And a cook can qualify for one as easy as an infantrymen, depending on where the rocket hits. 

As for resumes - there was a lot of mirth when the cover of the Maple Leaf showed a 98 pound Leading Seaman wearing the newly-minted SW Asia medal, and our CSM at the time said "wow, must have been some job for her carrying a Gustav up and down those mountains." 

But I think the comments on "quiet professionalism" are more on the mark - if you know what you did, what else matters? The rest is just insecurity.


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Each trade has it's perks, I think a pin recognising infanteers or others in the cbt arms who have seen action is a small one.



In today's conflicts, CS/CSS trades have a good chance of getting engaged.  Would EME's, MSE Ops, etc, etc be eligible if their convoy got nailed and they fought off the ambush.

As well, what would qualify as action?   Does the engagement have to be a two-way range (ie: one engaged the enemy with their weapon) or does being in the camp when it got hit with a few rockets/mortar rounds count?

I'm really up in the air over this - I think if implemented correctly this is a nice way of recognizing that someone has "seen the elephant" (I also like service chevrons/wound stripes a la WWI) but I've read plenty of stories on how the issue of the CIB creates alot of resentment in the ranks when they start handing them out for less then conspicuous circumstances; this could be a heartache avoided by simply recognizing the fact that the cap badge should give most a good idea of what a soldier does when he is sent overseas.

Incidentally, the Australian Infantry Corps has a badge similar to this:
http://www.defence.gov.au/Army/RAINF/index


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> In today's conflicts, CS/CSS trades have a good chance of getting engaged.  Would EME's, MSE Ops, etc, etc be eligible if their convoy got nailed and they fought off the ambush.
> 
> As well, what would qualify as action?   Does the engagement have to be a two-way range (ie: one engaged the enemy with their weapon) or does being in the camp when it got hit with a few rockets/mortar rounds count?
> 
> I'm really up in the air over this - I think if implemented correctly this is a nice way of recognizing that someone has "seen the elephant" (I also like service chevrons/wound stripes a la WWI)



Service Chevrons went to base area soldiers also - and IIRC soldiers in the UK were considered "overseas". So it wasn't a combat employment badge. It did serve to identify that you left the country on duty, but that was about it. We do that today with our medals. Wound Stripes are still on the books.



> but I've read plenty of stories on how the issue of the CIB creates alot of resentment in the ranks when they start handing them out for less then conspicuous circumstances; this could be a heartache avoided by simply recognizing the fact that the cap badge should give most a good idea of what a soldier does when he is sent overseas.



A Patricia tasked as a bartender to the officers' mess on Cyprus wears the same cap badge as a Patricia engaged in combat in Afghanistan though, so I don't see how the cap badge will help.  Our RSS warrant wears the same cap badge as guys in firefights overseas.

I will agree with the resentment angle, as indicated earlier - combat medics in WW II saw as much "action" as the riflemen despite not shooting anybody.


----------



## Wookilar (16 May 2006)

GO!!!, you have some good points and I certainly will not argue with you about the role of the CSS. My job, whether my old one or my soon to be new one, is to *support* the pointy end, not *be* the pointy end.
   However, the problem will be where to draw the line once the CIB genie is out of the bottle. Only combat arms? What about the sigs/ medics/various CSS troops that will be right beside an infantier on a LAV battle run? I fix a LAV III under fire and I get squat while the guys standing two feet away, watching my back so I can do my job, get an award? How about if "all you did" was guard the LZ, while everybody else was out on patrol, so the beautiful US Blackhawk could come back and pick up your tired @ss. Oh, and you're a clerk.
   I do not disagree with the idea of somekind of "battle honour" but there is no way that it could be restricted to certain trades/positions. The way you put it, it would be difficult for many Snr NCO's and Officers, that are vital to a units fighting effectiveness, to be eligable for such an award. Their boots just very rarely touch the ground or their fingers the triggers.
   All in all, I think that this is something better left alone. I understand the frustration of people getting the same medal as you while you know for a fact they did not have the same living conditions/threat levels/ etc. That is something that should be looked at and should be relatively easy to fix, but something like a CIB would be very problematic. And you know as well as I, some weiner that doesn't deserve it would get one, and the value of it would only go down till it is just something else to go on the CF's.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 May 2006)

> I consider this to be something akin to a wound stripe. Would you deny that this is a valuable decoration? You get injured by the enemy, you get one, it has nothing to do with discriminating or putting any one trade on a pedestal, it is about recognition for service.



But a CIB (or some such) _is_ putting a certain group on a pedestal.  I go back to my original point:  what's the cut off for the award?  Large numbers of CSS pers have become casualties in Iraq (I've been told, but cannot confirm, that they're 60% of all casualties there), yet don't qualify for such a badge.  Wookilar makes some very good points that hit this right on the head.



> A lack of pride and esprit de corps is a problem in our army, where commonality of uniforms and decorations does not accurately denote the military "resume" as is the case in other nations.



In the US Army (caveat:  unless the "Combat Action Badge" is actually in place), it is impossible to determine - outside the infantry - who has seen action and who has not.  Combat patches are awarded for service throughout the CENTCOM AOR and tankers, engineers, MPs (who do convoy escort in the US Army) don't qualify for the CIB.  How do you tell who's who then?  The Brits have no such badge and they don't seem to have this "issue" with who's service is more valuable than who's.

Again, IMHO, it is divisive and nearly impossible to implement in an equitable manner.  I know a great deal of this bitterness and penchant for badges stems from the decision to award the SWASM for OP APOLLO to all units in theatre (right GO!!?).  However, surely Infanteer has the right of it:  a cap badge _+ a tour medal_ usually gives a pretty good indication of what the individual has done - why do we need yet another badge?


----------



## GO!!! (16 May 2006)

Michael,

Forgive my brief foray into your world of military minutiae. The gist of the question was that if we can have a universal wound stripe, why not a universal cbt badge for ground forces, or people serving with them?

Infanteer,

I would lean towards two badges, as the US has done. The CSS types who fought off/through an ambush or defended their base perimeter deserve recognition, but this is inherently different from being helo'd in as the QRF to perform an attack/counter attack/raid/advance to contact or other aggressive action as members of 1 VP have done numerous times in the recent past. 

The EN contacts that different support trades encounter are usually quite different than the ones that the 031s encounter or in fact, create.

I would say that the Cbt badge could be issued to anyone who has returned fire who is not an infanteer, while the CIB would be reserved for infanteers, to denote an actual enemy engagement. This could also be extended to attachments like, say the coy signaller, who is a sigs MCpl. Since he is doing the same job, he would get one, while the coy clerk who stayed at the base might not, or might get the Cbt badge instead.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The EN contacts that different support trades encounter are usually quite different than the ones that the 031s encounter or in fact, create.



That is not true as we are seeing in Afghanistan today.  The 031s are no different than the other trades when it comes to IED's.  MCpl Franklin was not 031.  Nor were many of the other injured.  

Michael's point about the PPCLI Cpl working in the Officers Mess was out to lunch also.  That Cpl may have worked in the Mess, but if bullets started to fly, he would have a designated position to fill in the Camp Defence, as would any of the Mechanics, Cooks, Sigs, etc.  

If you want to talk Vietnam era and the Combat Infantry Badge, then I ask again along the same lines; were all the personnel in those Fire Bases Infantry only?

You guys are arguing about 'trinkets'.  If I see a soldier in a PPCLI, RCD, RCR, LdSH (RC),  R22R, RCHA, or whatever hatbadge wearing a SWASM, I know who he is and what he has done.  If I see an Log Col in Ottawa with a CD ribbon and nothing else, I know what he has not done.

Do we need tattoos on our foreheads to make some people happy?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Michael,
> 
> Forgive my brief foray into your world of military minutiae. The gist of the question was that if we can have a universal wound stripe, why not a universal cbt badge for ground forces, or people serving with them?



And the gist of the answer has been given multiple times.   Incidentally, if it is just "minutiae" why are you still here discussing it - indeed, proposing it?  Is it important - or isn't it?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 May 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is not true as we are seeing in Afghanistan today.  The 031s are no different than the other trades when it comes to IED's.  MCpl Franklin was not 031.  Nor were many of the other injured.
> 
> Michael's point about the PPCLI Cpl working in the Officers Mess was out to lunch also.  That Cpl may have worked in the Mess, but if bullets started to fly, he would have a designated position to fill in the Camp Defence, as would any of the Mechanics, Cooks, Sigs, etc.



You're not getting the point; I'm not talking about what someone MIGHT have done, we are talking about recognizing what HAS been done. I personally know a fellow who worked the bar in Cyprus. He wore the same badge as the infantrymen.  Are you denying that there is a HUGE variance in combat/operational experience even among personnel in any regular or reserve regiment? The point is that the cap badge is not a valid indicator of that - how is that out to lunch? Even a tour medal doesn't tell you what a person did on tour.

Are we now going to give medals and badges out for what someone is trained to do, as opposed to what they actually have done? 

Out to lunch indeed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 May 2006)

> I would say that the Cbt badge could be issued to anyone who has returned fire who is not an infanteer, while the CIB would be reserved for infanteers, to denote an actual enemy engagement.



.....and how about a CAB (Combat Armoured Badge) which would be reserved for crewmen, to denote an actual enemy engagement. Or would they just get the Combat Badge, even though they also closed with and attacked the enemy, but are not Infantry. If just the Combat Badge, what badge would the 031's get that were crewing the LAV's in the same engagement? Same as the Armoured or the same as the other 031's? Guess it's not so cut and dry.


----------



## GO!!! (16 May 2006)

As for the little bit about badges for what we are trained to do, but never do operationally - we have not performed a parachute op, or ppf ops  since WWII, should we stop awarding wings and torches until those who finished the course actually do it for real?

Of course not. The point is, cap badges, SWASM's, Bronze Stars (eh pbi?  ) mean very little when every swinging dick gets one. In the case of the Bronze Stars, only the snipers earned theirs, the others were given out to the officers and CSMs as additional recognition of their positions.

A CIB/CB would be valuable because there would be no "back door" method of getting it. Either you returned fire or you did'nt. In the Navy? Build loads for shipping in Trenton? Coy CQ? Great, thank you for your service, but you did not shoot anyone (or try to). THAT is what a combat badge is for. It is so that people who have been on an intimate two way range can be recognised for it. It is not to make others feel bad, it is to recognise the guys who actually fought as fighters. 

I see alot of "sour grapes" in this thread - people upset that they may not have the chance to get another pin, and crapping all over the idea. As I said earlier, every trade has it's perks. Why are you so hostile to the idea of recognition for those who actually do the killing?


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

don't need it, don't want it.
The Sapper is out there, opening the way so that the infantry can close with and destroy the ennemy (ie: he goes out 1st)
The sapper is out there, closing the route. ensuring that the ennemy cannot close with and destroy us in out defensive perimeter (ie; he comes in last)

Combat infatry badge?..... bah, humbug!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 May 2006)

At the risk of opening up an old debate, something should be clarified:



> In the case of the Bronze Stars, only the snipers earned theirs, the others were given out to the officers and CSMs as additional recognition of their positions.



This is very misleading.  The snipers received Bronze Stars with "V", denoting a valour award.  The remainder were Bronze Stars for _meritorious service _ (ie:  no "V") and were awarded in accordance with US policy.  They're almost two different medals.



> A CIB/CB would be valuable because there would be no "back door" method of getting it. Either you returned fire or you didn't.



A rhetorical question:  by this definition, how many members of 3 PPCLI on Op APOLLO would have received such a badge?  And there's _always _ a back door.  Soon you'd have (as the US did) a requirement to have a CIB for career progression, then the manoeuvring would begin.  There'd be "us and them" within the combat arms and the badge war would be on.  What about more senior officers and NCOs who don't typically have the opportunity to shove bayonets in people?



> It is not to make others feel bad, it is to recognise the guys who actually fought as fighters.
> 
> I see alot of "sour grapes" in this thread - people upset that they may not have the chance to get another pin, and crapping all over the idea. As I said earlier, every trade has it's perks. Why are you so hostile to the idea of recognition for those who actually do the killing?



It's hardly "sour grapes".  Your definition of "fighters" is so limited that only "the select few" would be eligible and it opens up a huge can of worms for personnel tracking, eligibility, career progression, administration not to mention the cumulative impact on morale Forces-wide.  As Recceguy said, do I qualify as a black hat if I fill an enemy vehicle full of 25mm, or is this not "close enough" for your proposed definition? 

IMHO, we have better things to do than attempt to administer such an unwieldy trinket.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 May 2006)

everyone who returned fire would be eligible: "Act as infantry in the defense".  I get pretty defensive when I'm ambushed. ACT as infantry, REWARDED as infantry, no?     :warstory: >


----------



## Marauder (16 May 2006)

And how does one quantify combat nowadays? It's already been highlighted, but the GWOT has many different circumstances in which a soldier may come under fire. Would guys who fired their weapon in anger while defending a FOB look down on a guy who was in a veh that got hit by an IED? Or who were mortared/rocketed as previously mentioned? What of snipers who are in one way battles, scratching out hostiles from 2 km but who are never themselves fired upon? What about the lads that lit up that axe-using punk that attaked LT Greene? It seems those are all legit examples of combat, IMO, but would everyone who received this Combat badge look equally on the others who recevied it under different circumstances? "Oh, he only got his because he had a single mortar land 100 feet from him while he was in a Hesco"... "Shit, all they did was was fire the 25mm at some poor jerk with an AK a click out..." ... "That Major only got his because he got someone to put in some paper work while his GWagon was coming up to the gate a minute after the rockets hit...

I think it's just one more thing for the gloryhounds to cry into their cereal about when someone else "cheapens" their shiny, and one more thing for people to put the minimal time/effort/danger into before claiming they have been screwed for not being recognized. Unless some sat their ass in Mirage for their tour, I don't think anyone in SWA hasn't "really spent their time in the line of fire". It is all so fluid nowadays. Today isn't throwing a Bn through a cut in the wire in front of the trench line or waiting on the FEBA in the Fulda Gap for Ivan to come crashing into the front lines in the newest War to End All Wars.

Guys who wear an infantry capbadge with the chest hardware saying they were in SWA are probably going to be pretty clearly recognized for what they were expected to contribute while getting dust on their boots. There are always outliers to either side, but I would think that in the close knit nature of an Inf Bn, everyone is going to know who got within punching distance of the elephant, and who saw the elephant as a speck on the horizon. I wouldn't think that anyone outside the community really needed to know unless Bloggins is pushing his own PR machine about how big a hero he is, but posers are easy targets in an Army as small as the CF's.


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

Well said Marauder

Shall we close this now?


----------



## geo (16 May 2006)

Please do George


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

Thanks   The Six

This concertric circle of rage is CLOSED  (Two more Posters coming in....then Locked)


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2006)

I guess the crux of the debate is if being in combat is something that needs special recognition - especially for a combat arms soldier.  Everybody is quite aware of what the pointy-end does and for those happily ensconsed in the Lines of Communication who aren't, I'm sure a shiny "two-way shooting range" badge isn't going to make a difference to them.

Much of the rationale against this proposal is centered around avoiding that silly habit of wanting to strap our UER's to our chests.  Under this rationale, why do we issue:

- Wound Stripes?
- Jump Wings/Pathfinder Torch/Ranger Tab/JTF Assaulter Badge/etc?
- Long Service Awards (the CD or, IMO much classier, a service stripe)?
- Campaign Medals?

What is the determining factor for what needs (or should) be recognized on a uniform and what shouldn't?

Cheers,
Infanteer

PS: One has to wonder if this would make us happy?


----------



## GO!!! (16 May 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> This is very misleading.  The snipers received Bronze Stars with "V", denoting a valour award.  The remainder were Bronze Stars for meritorious service (ie:  no "V") and were awarded in accordance with US policy.  They're almost two different medals.



Almost, but not quite. To the uneducated eye, the sniper with the world's longest kill was decorated with the same medal as the CSS Sergeant Major who never left the camp, and concentrated her efforts on dress and deportment within the perimeter.
  


> What about more senior officers and NCOs who don't typically have the opportunity to shove bayonets in people?



And there is exactly what I'm talking about. What about them? They did'nt do the deed, so they dont get the pin.  Like I said earlier about perks. Those senior officers and NCOs had that opportunity when they were younger, now they will have to content themselves with the high pay, benefits, power and other trappings of military leadership. A pin should not threaten you so.

I still fail to see why it is so ridiculous to ask that the fighting soldier at the bottom of the pyramid be recognised with a pin denoting combat experience. 

It sounds to me that too many people are more concerned with what they may be denied, how they may look somehow as less of a soldier than an infanteer who has actually done some fighting. If you were really that concerned, you could always OT and earn one!


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why are we so hung up on this principal of universal eligibility for everything?



Conversely, why are we hung up on recognizing something an Infantryman is expected to do?


----------



## George Wallace (16 May 2006)

Let's end this nonsense.  We hare going in circles and getting nowhere.  Marauders Post should about sum this up.


----------



## Infanteer (16 May 2006)

Pursuant to the debate on decorations and recognition (I'm sure Michael will correct me with the proper term), I read an interesting book on the administration of the British Army in WWI titled Call to Arms by Charles Messenger.  With the introduction of the Wound Stripe and the Service Chevrons :

_"originally discussed by the Army Council in April 1917, the Adjutant General had commented: 'By the time we had finished [the] only place left for decoration would be the seat of Tommy's trousers.'  Nevertheless, the measure was generally welcomed.  One advantage of the chevrons and wound stripes, according to Charles Carrington, was that one could at a glance take in a soldier's combat record:  'Look at a man you meet on a leave-train: his cap-badge tells you he belongs to a good fighting regiment, but since he has four blue chevrons and no wound-stripe you may be confident he has a safe job down the line.  His neighbour who had one chevron and two wound-stripes has had a very different war."_


Some debates will probably never go away (until we've got the uniform I posted above)?


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

well.... coming to Canadians in the near future:.........

here are the results of discussion on the subject of ''Patches''

In the end, there will be two patches. The combat action patch, in gold and silver.... and the Combat Mission patch.

CAP - Gold, for those involved with combat ops, offensive and defensive. So you shoot and the bad guys are shooting back.

CAP - Silver, for those who fire at the bad guys, but the bad guys are not firing back... the gunners for example.

CMP - for those involved in convoy IED strikes, effective enemy indirect fire (mortar/missile) on their base/positions...

The CDS wants these on DEUs, and on combats. So this is an award, not a skill badge. 

EDIT:  fixed the title


----------



## Trinity (6 Dec 2006)

link maybe

sounds interesting..  I'd like to see the source

(not that I distrust you)

But i'm sure there has to be more to it than that.
I like the gritty details


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

being disseminated - following meeting of area head shed at Ottawa puzzle palace.
I was told to disseminate widely................ details and instructions should follow shortly


----------



## Trinity (6 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> being disseminated - following meeting of area head shed at Ottawa puzzle palace.
> I was told to disseminate widely................ details and instructions should follow shortly



rgr that...

fair enough.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2006)

Details would certainly be nice because by the criteria laid out below, someone could actually be awarded each one. 

So one would hope that they would also be authorized to wear each one they've been awarded all at the same time. To do otherwise would imply that one is more important than another.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Dec 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Details would certainly be nice because by the criteria laid out below, someone could actually be awarded each one.
> 
> So one would hope that they would also be authorized to wear each one they've been awarded all at the same time. To do otherwise would imply that one is more important than another.



Here we go again.  BSA getting Polish Titles in the mail.  I used to laugh when I was doing AFV Recognition and had to identify Warsaw Pact uniforms and looked at the crap that they threw on their tunics.  Medals and Badges for everything, including any major exercise..........Will we now get medals/pins/badges backdated to say 1980?  I could collect Reforger '80, Reforge '81, Reforger '82, RV '85, RV '92, Fall Ex '90, BTE 2003,............I'll have to put some on my back as my chest isn't that big.   :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Dec 2006)

Well, I'm on record as disagreeing with the concept, but won't go there.

This will be very difficult to implement...  Who shot who when will be a never ending debate, as will the definition of "shooting"...  As George points out, how will backdating work?  There are certainly Bosnia/Croatia vets who might (depending on the definitions used) qualify for one or more "combat" badges, not to mention Afghanistan...

Can of worms, opened...


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here we go again.  BSA getting Polish Titles in the mail.  I used to laugh when I was doing AFV Recognition and had to identify Warsaw Pact uniforms and looked at the crap that they threw on their tunics.  Medals and Badges for everything, including any major exercise..........Will we now get medals/pins/badges backdated to say 1980?  I could collect Reforger '80, Reforge '81, Reforger '82, RV '85, RV '92, Fall Ex '90, BTE 2003,............I'll have to put some on my back as my chest isn't that big.   :


Which is all true. But in another thread on this subject it was discussed whether differentiating between personnel who had BTDT was really necessary, and did we need to have a badge to show it? So it seems that someone has decided it was necessary, which is all fine and good with me. 

But beyond that, the breaking down of such has been further devolved based on the specifics of an incident. So it will be interesting to see if they will all be worn "as awarded" (therefore obviously as merited). Or, if a member is involved in 3 seperate incidents, that thereby "merit" the awarding of the one applicable to that situation; will the member be told but "Badge X" is the most important so it's the only one you wear?

I would like to think that these would be more likened to wound stripes, you're wounded twice? You wear two stripes. You've earned two of these badges? You wear two.

Indeed, details will be interesting.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Well, I'm on record as disagreeing with the concept, but won't go there.
> 
> This will be very difficult to implement...  Who shot who when will be a never ending debate, as will the definition of "shooting"...  As George points out, how will backdating work?  There are certainly Bosnia/Croatia vets who might (depending on the definitions used) qualify for one or more "combat" badges, not to mention Afghanistan...
> 
> Can of worms, opened...


What about a badge for weapon drawed, readied and aimed, but didn't fire due to compliance of the potential target?  If so, send me one.


You're right, "can of worms".  I don't deserve anything for what I did BUT neither do I feel "right" wearing the ISAF star for my TAT duties in Kabul in 2003 when guys in combat get the same medal and bar.  Sure, it was "dangerous" (for lack of a better term), but it sure as heck wasn't combat.


----------



## El Gerco (6 Dec 2006)

"Here we go again.  BSA getting Polish Titles in the mail.  I used to laugh when I was doing AFV Recognition and had to identify Warsaw Pact uniforms and looked at the crap that they threw on their tunics.  Medals and Badges for everything, including any major exercise..........Will we now get medals/pins/badges backdated to say 1980?  I could collect Reforger '80, Reforge '81, Reforger '82, RV '85, RV '92, Fall Ex '90, BTE 2003,............I'll have to put some on my back as my chest isn't that big".   

Mr Wallace, For you to compare what you did on exercise to what our troops are going through in Afghanistan is an insult to all of them. Everyone over there is fighting a "360 degree counterinsurgency War"    I happen to know sir of a MCpl Engr in theatre right now who has been wounded 4 times!!! I think he and his peers deserve every ribbon badge and parade we give him. 

Thank you.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (6 Dec 2006)

Muddy,

  I think George was being sarcastic, this is a can of worms as Teddy has stated so many times and very well. This award will be very divisive and difficult to sort out. The back date thing is very valid. Many and I mean many soldiers will get these for the fighting in Croatia and Bosnia, if they don't then this would be a farce. I'm with Teddy leave this alone, I see a soldier with a medal and if I follow the news I know what he has done or been prepared to do. Who has actually fired the weapon at an enemy is for many beers in the back room.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> well.... coming to Canadians in the near future:.........
> In the end, there will be two patches. The combat action patch, in gold and silver.... and the Combat Mission patch.


And here I thought I'd been over-freakin'-whelmed by stupid fucking ideas at work today.....

Does no one read history? All the hassles the Americans have with their CIBs....and BS citations? The number of Canadians who've been burned for wearing a white-leaf jump wing they never earned? Anyone not think this is going to be the same - - - worse?

As if the deployed troops aren't pestered enough by Staff Annoyance Assistance Visits. Now every HQ flopper and his dog passing through will need to get out on a patrol, with the desperate hopes of getting shot at.....for a boyscout badge to prove their testosterone level....regardless if the troops take hits babysitting the military tourists.

I have absolute respect for my bretheren in harms way - - but this is such a Pandora's Box.


----------



## gaspasser (6 Dec 2006)

I tend to agree with journey man on this one.  Look at all the Herc pilots who wanted to fly just one mission into Saudi Arabia just so they could qualify for the the Gulf and Kuwait medal? They belittled those of us who were there for the long haul and actually went place and saw things we would never want to see again in our lives. This "CIB" for Canadians is certainly a pandora's box and would seem a headache for some poor RMS clerk who has to keep track not only of who's who in the zoo, but who goes outside the wire and gets shot at / returns fire etc.  Not a good idea, just leave it to bragging rights at the Legion.

_Always a beer on the table for combat troops_

BYT out


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

Funny.... I had pert much all of those thoughts when I got the message.
Asked myself: do we really need this thing?   now?

The US has one combat infantry badge - you get it once and only once.

From my perspective the CAP in gold is on top of the pile. Once you qualify to wear it, that's it - you're on top and don't need to repeat (like the Wwarrior badge")
If you get the CAP in silver you can "upgrade" to gold but you only wear the one.

Then there is the CMP - same thing, you can upgrade to a CAP in silver or gold but you should only wear the one..... 

At least that's the way I see it working - time will tell if I am out to lunch on this one.....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Dec 2006)

BYT and Journeyman are exactly right...  I've said all this before and have been heavily engaged by those who feel that their service is deserving of such a distinction.  However, I suspect that this is an answer that will satisfy no one.  It will be very difficult to determine who gets what badge and for which actions.

For instance, a company goes into the attack in S. Afghanistan.  The OC, CSM, the signallers, and a variety of others _don't_ fire their weapons.  Which badge do they get?  Are they "involved"?  Is that enough?  Where do we draw the line at being "involved"?

Does _everyone_ on the receiving end of rocket fire on camp qualify for the combat mission badge?  Define "effective"...  Do warning shots qualify for the silver badge?  Can you receive more than one?

Even better, how retroactive is this?  Does the mission have be a fully-defined "combat" mission?  Does that eliminate the Balkans as "peacekeeping" missions?  If not, how are we to determine who gets which badge, based on events ten years ago?

They'd better have an airtight implementation plan, as "buttons and bows" are an extremely emotional subject (as other threads will indicate and despite all those who claim not to care about such things) and this will surely lead to an administrative mess of epic proportions.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

I can just imagine the "policing" nightmare of people walking around with the darned things.


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> They'd better have an airtight implementation plan, as "buttons and bows" are an extremely emotional subject (as other threads will indicate and despite all those who claim not to care about such things) and this will surely lead to an administrative mess of epic proportions.


This is exactly it. I had previously stated my opinion that we should not implement this, and why. Now that someone has decided to, I really hope they get it right because I certainly don't forsee any merit to distinguishing between service, whether attacked with an IED or a rifle; it's all service, and voluntary at that, to your Country.


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2006)

Do mine strikes count?


----------



## gaspasser (6 Dec 2006)

As asked previously, would it be retroactive to even a Peacekeeping tour? How about Desert Storm? Scud strikes, round up the spout, etc...the list would be endless  :blotto: and even then, it would be on YOUR honour or those of you comrades.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

No point asking how far back this thing will be applied.  The rules and regs will be published in due time.... and people will have every oportunity to bellyache about it at that time................


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2006)

Will CF-188 sorties over Kosovo count?


----------



## armyvern (6 Dec 2006)

Yep one big old can of worms this is.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

CF 188 sorties?????????/..................Ohhhhhhhhhh my!
Didn't know we had some of those.  Do they have a carrying handle at point of balance   

(JK - Yeah I figured - CF18)


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2006)

The CF-18 is officially designated the “CF-188” (we just don't call it that)


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

Uh huh.... sure we do


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2006)

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/intro_e.asp#1


----------



## Journeyman (7 Dec 2006)

> *"The bravest soldier in Afghanistan is the corporal who drives the tanker truck and she's a woman," a top Canadian general says. *1


What badge does she get?  


1. Paul Koring, "A thin Canadian line holds in Kandahar" _Globe & Mail_, 6 Dec 06
http://www.theglobeandmail.com//servlet/story/RTGAM.20061206.wxafghinsurg06/BNStory/Afghanistan/home


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/cf-18/intro_e.asp#1



Darn..... really?.............. are you "in" with the web meister?............. Cheez 188! who woulda thought.


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Darn..... really?.............. are you "in" with the web meister?............. Cheez 188! who woulda thought.



All canadian Aircraft are 1XX in their designations..

CP-140, CP-107, CP-121, CC-130, CC-144, CC-150, CF-188, CH-124, CH-135, CH-147,CH-148,CH-149, CF-100, CF-101, CF-104, CF-105, CT-114, CT-142, CT-155, CT-156 CC-137, CT-133, CU-161....

CF-5 being a notable exception


----------



## eurowing (7 Dec 2006)

Actually, the CF-5 was a takeoff of the Northrup F5 designation.  The true Canadian designation was CF-116.  I suspect that not calling it the F-16 had something to do with a little known US fighter. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2006)

eurowing said:
			
		

> Actually, the CF-5 was a takeoff of the Northrup F5 designation.  The true Canadian designation was CF-116.  I suspect that not calling it the F-16 had something to do with a little known US fighter. ;D



We numbered the Arrow....CF-105...........the americans had the F-105 Thundercheif......so i dont see that being an issue for the CF-116


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (7 Dec 2006)

x


----------



## regulator12 (7 Dec 2006)

> Although we have not seen the sheer scale and intensity of combat in Afghanistan since Korea, we have had people in many nasty and brutal situations over the years.  I agree that there should be some special recognition for those whose job is done outside the wire; patrolling, in OPs, on gun lines, in FOO parties, doing mobility and counter-mobility, delivering commodities, recovering vehicles or closing with and destroying the enemy, returning to camp to rest, replen and re-bomb before going out again.  However I do not think that someone who spends 6 months writing Emails in Kandahar (as opposed to writing Emails in Valcartier, Ottawa, Gagetown, Edmonton, wherever), sleeps in nice Hesco Bastion every night and gets their 3 squares and midnight snack at the mess after 2 beers and some foosball deserves anything more than the tour medal they receive, even if their camp is rocketed or they go outside once in a while on a milk run as an "air sentry" or to deliver school desks to a CIMIC project.



Well Said, there are a few who go around after spending there time inside the wire that act like big shots but the boys outside the wire working like dogs all the time do need some deserved recognition. I dont know about the combat patch but it would be nice to distinguish between tours outside the wire and inside the wire in other ways. For example, instead of giving a patch of some sorts, give the boys outside the wire extra danger pay for everyday outside the wire they spend. That would be much more appealing in my mind then a patch. Extra money is always nice....


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (7 Dec 2006)

regulator12 said:
			
		

> Well Said, there are a few who go around after spending there time inside the wire that act like big shots but the boys outside the wire working like dogs all the time do need some deserved recognition. I dont know about the combat patch but it would be nice to distinguish between tours outside the wire and inside the wire in other ways. For example, instead of giving a patch of some sorts, give the boys outside the wire extra danger pay for everyday outside the wire they spend. That would be much more appealing in my mind then a patch. Extra money is always nice....



Yeah, but even that is very difficult to define.  You can easily be assigned a position that, in theory, is "inside", yet find your circumstances have changed and that you're "outside" much more than anticipated.  Even staff floppers can find themselves doing things outside the norm.  How do you tell?  Wait until the end of the tour?  Take what members say at face value?  Or have someone track each individual's activities?  A member of the line infantry is simple - others are not.

Like the award of special shinies, this is very - very - difficult to track.  If we think badges are an issue, throw money into the equation...whoa!

Not that it matters - I suspect we're getting badges, with all the headaches they'll bring.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Yeah, but even that is very difficult to define.  You can easily be assigned a position that, in theory, is "inside", yet find your circumstances have changed and that you're "outside" much more than anticipated.  Even staff floppers can find themselves doing things outside the norm.  How do you tell?  Wait until the end of the tour?  Take what members say at face value?  Or have someone track each individual's activities?  A member of the line infantry is simple - others are not.
> 
> Like the award of special shinies, this is very - very - difficult to track.  If we think badges are an issue, throw money into the equation...whoa!
> 
> Not that it matters - I suspect we're getting badges, with all the headaches they'll bring.



And the fact that even those infanteers employed inside the wire, are serving in essential positions so that those who happen to be placed in an outside of the wire position can do their jobs. Why the need to differentiate when each and every postion is essntial to the mission?


----------



## Sig_Des (7 Dec 2006)

I think that just like medals, these patches will have to be taken with a grain of salt when you see them on a members tunic.

On one side, if this thing goes on, you'll see an expansion of the "pointy end vs. WOGs" mentality. On the other side of the spectrum, you'll have people on a TAV, trying to get in a convoy, hoping to qualify. Dumb, but we all know it'll happen.

In the end, it's just more things to sew onto your uniform.

If you've been out the wire, and fought, then you know you've fought. You don't need a patch to give you the confidence that comes with that.

When I go this coming year, I'll be working out of KAF. Yes, we'll be going out to other positions, but why would I want a patch if my vehicle or one of the vehicles around me hits a mine? Just an advertisement for people to start asking you stupid questions.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Dec 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I think that just like medals, these patches will have to be taken with a grain of salt when you see them on a members tunic.
> 
> On one side, if this thing goes on, you'll see an expansion of the "pointy end vs. WOGs" mentality. On the other side of the spectrum, you'll have people on a TAV, trying to get in a convoy, hoping to qualify. Dumb, but we all know it'll happen.
> 
> ...



+1 Des!

We'll know it's really headed south when the issue of minature/metal insignia for DEU 3B comes up...you know, so people can see it on someone's short sleeve shirt while they walk along the mezzanine at 101 to go to the cafeteria...

G2G


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2006)

I cant wait until they make a badge for staying in less than a 3-star !!!!

This whole badge thing  is of the non-heterosexual persuasion


----------



## dapaterson (7 Dec 2006)

Add this to the proposed purple heart (Canadian Edition) and you can hear the gnashing of teeth as the Canadian system of _*Honours*_ and Awards becomes more and more a system of _*Honors*_ and Awards.

I think someone very senior has spent too much time down south...


----------



## PhilB (7 Dec 2006)

I agree this is a huge box being opened! Seriously, just going off the criteria listed above by Geo, basically everyone deployed would be entitled to something. Rockets landed all tour, some far, some extremely close. Like someone mentioned do warning shots count? Where are the badges supposed to go on our combats? 

All problems aside when will some direction on this come out, pictures of the badges etc? Thanks


----------



## boondocksaint (7 Dec 2006)

Deja Vu from another thread, so I wont go on to much of a rant here. maybe

To those who think folks will ' hop ' on a convoy in order to earn an award; not realistic. This isnt the old days where we took our friends from other trades out on day trips to view the lovely countriside. We all did it, it was encouraged. Not in Afghanistan.

To those who feel this will create an ' us or them ' state within the military; that boat sailed, the obese lady sung, Elvis has left the building. We all know it exists, and we all know we deal with those issues on many levels. Many of my best friends are from 'other' trades, we dont begrudge each other our dues.

To those who feel it's 'too Amercian' ; get over it already. When we need a lift, they fly us, when we need anything over there, they give it to us, when our friends are wounded and need evac, THEY fly in and save us. Armies evolve, traditions evolve, dont worry we are still Canadian.

In the end it boils down to personal feelings on recognizing what some people have gone through, suffered through, and achieved under the most demanding circumstances a person can experience, combat. Somehow a badge denoting this does not seem like a bad idea to me.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2006)

Wonder what the turn around time at the Base Tailor shop is going to be?


----------



## silentbutdeadly (7 Dec 2006)

It seems to me this will take yrs to get started. All that paper work to go through and such and who makes the decision to say what batch colour you get? CO or higher? and if higher then we all know it will take a long time to get one.


----------



## Loachman (7 Dec 2006)

Why not just issue everyone with a miniature wearable version of those scrolling electronic signs to list off everywhere where one has been and everything that one has done or had done to one?

They could even be made in blue with blue lights for the a** f**ce.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Why not just issue everyone with a miniature wearable version of those scrolling electronic signs to list off everywhere where one has been and everything that one has done or had done to one?
> 
> They could even be made in blue with blue lights for the a** f**ce.



That is so passe.  Soon everyone will have a PalmPilot, and then we can just download their MPRI, or whatever, to eachother simply by pointing at eachother with our own PalmPilots........isn't 'digitalization' great!


----------



## regulator12 (7 Dec 2006)

There are a lot of war hereos you get who havent been in any combat situation blowing smoke up arses. They talk the talk but never walked the walk. There is believe it or not just a small few out of the battle group who have been in combat. They deserve some recognition. This fight that we got into really started in may 06 when Bravo company got hit hard in afghanistan. It wont last forever but will be remembered in history as the next big thing that canada was involved in. Being in Kabul or even roto 0 did not have the danger that being in the south has now. Its a fact and giving the small few a badge so that maybe down the road people can see who was in the SH** whatever let it be. Its not a bad idea


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2006)

And so it begins. 

Before any details about eligibility/back-dating/anything are known as FACT.

I suggest a lock. Big old can of worms here. Let's wait until the actual fish shows up in the pond.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Dec 2006)

Locked pending availability of a formal message on this issue.


----------



## PB (19 Jan 2008)

Combat Badge.....or no combat badge...
Any recent news / updates on this one?


----------



## Command-Sense-Act 105 (19 Jan 2008)

Oh, let's not start this one again...


----------



## PB (20 Jan 2008)

Thanks for the negative reply, not helpful at all, actually kinda rude. 
I am not trying to open up a "He said, She said"  volley, just wondering if anyone had any recent news/updates. 
I reread Marauder's post, which I'm happy you found someone who share's your thoughts and ideas, they just seem a little narrow, and by the sounds of it, formed "Inside the wire, at best."
*To clarify*, anyone hear anything new on this topic ( Combat Badge ) 2nd half of 2007or 2008?


----------



## Franko (20 Jan 2008)

The final design has not been approved yet. 

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2008)

......And with that answer......LOCKED!


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2009)

Mod squad:  feel free to merge if you see fit.

Remember this debate?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43829.0/all.html

According to CanWest News Service, it's over:


> A coveted military badge that was to have been presented to troops who saw combat in Afghanistan won't be issued after all, the Canadian Forces has decided.
> 
> The combat action badge, promised by former Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, was long awaited by those troops who had been involved in intense fighting in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...



_More on link_


----------



## CadetMez (17 May 2009)

One of the reasons i am on here, is because i don't know much about the military, so i'm just going to ask now, what do the troops get for seeing combat in Afghanistan?


----------



## 392 (17 May 2009)

Hmmmm......interesting....especially considering I recall hearing in multiple O Gp's back in the fall that the Combat Action Insignia was officially dead.....


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2009)

392 said:
			
		

> Hmmmm......interesting....especially considering I recall hearing in multiple O Gp's back in the fall that the Combat Action Insignia was officially dead.....



Interestingly, me too.


----------



## RHFC_piper (17 May 2009)

CadetMez said:
			
		

> One of the reasons i am on here, is because i don't know much about the military, so i'm just going to ask now, what do the troops get for seeing combat in Afghanistan?



Nothing if they're lucky... a wound stripe if they're not.


I have a feeling there are going to be some very upset people over this... especially when the former CDS promised this to troops while visiting them on the battlefield. 

Personally, I don't need a badge to tell me where I've been.


----------



## royalnomad (17 May 2009)

my opinion.  "the whinners win again"


----------



## brihard (17 May 2009)

CadetMez said:
			
		

> One of the reasons i am on here, is because i don't know much about the military, so i'm just going to ask now, what do the troops get for seeing combat in Afghanistan?



For seeing combat specifically, nothing except some stories they may or may not choose to tell after a few drinks. If they're unlucky, they may get a sacrifice medal- the replacement for the wound stripe.

Everyone who serves in Afghanistan for more than 30 days gets the General Campaign Star; a tour medal.

There is no recognition or honour that differentiates those who have served in combat from those who haven't. Besides, in most cases, the majority of people whose opinions matter are going to know anyway.

A combat action badge just would have fostered more bling-hunting. We already had a big problem with 'combat tourism' by people who had no business being outside KAF, yet insisted on sitting in the back of a Bison on a convoy or two just so they can say they went outside the wire. Imagine how bad it would get if you had people hoping they could get a combat badge by being present when another vehicle got IEDed... It's been a big problem for the Americans.

The guys who've been in the real scrapes know it, the rest of us know it, and not device on a uniform can either add to or take away from what they've been through.


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2009)

royalnomad said:
			
		

> my opinion.  "the whinners win again"



Just remember, some of those supposed-"_whiners_" have seen combat.

Do you feel better now that you have your useless comment off your chest? Opinion is one thing, but denigrating those who "earned it, but don't want it" as "whinners [SIC]" is pretty whiney itself no? I'm guessing you wanted one?


----------



## royalnomad (17 May 2009)

me wanting one is irrelevant. and saying that i was denigrating people. i never said that so please dont put words in my mouth.  

and i didnt bash any one specifically as you bashed me personally.


----------



## Jammer (17 May 2009)

Pleeease can we put this to rest finally?
(sent on my new MacBook Pro)


----------



## RCR Grunt (17 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Just remember, some of those supposed-"_whiners_" have seen combat.
> 
> Do you feel better now that you have your useless comment off your chest? Opinion is one thing, but denigrating those who "earned it, but don't want it" as "whinners [SIC]" is pretty whiney itself no? I'm guessing you wanted one?




STOP! STOP! STOP!

Check your fire from both sides, lest this quickly spiral down the crapper.

Royalnomad, be aware that expressing one's opinion, especially with little substantiation, usually results in hurt e-feelings.  Your opinion is valid, however you should have elaborated on why you feel as such.  A short one-liner leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

Vern, just because someone has blamed the death of this "thing" on "whiners" doesn't mean they were pointing at a specific trade or element.

We are all aware that support trades went out and got into the mix just like the infantards and friends.

An ad hominem attack is not required.

As for the death of the combat badge, it never had a chance.  A lot was promised by uncle Rick, like a SWASM to go beside the GCS, but that never materialized either.


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2009)

royalnomad said:
			
		

> me wanting one is irrelevant. and saying that i was denigrating people. i never said that so please dont put words in my mouth.
> 
> and i didnt bash any one specifically as you bashed me personally.



Didn't you post "the whiners win again?"

Read the links provided earlier in the thread ... and a post right before your original ... and you'll find that you've called people who've "earned it, but don't want it" ... "whiners".

There's a couple of groups involved and it all depends what side of the fence you're sitting on ...

1) Those who've earned it, and want it (who will be disappointed with this decision not to issue it); and

2) Those whov'e earned it, but don't want it (who weren't in agreement with the decision to implement it when it was first announced).

I wouldn't classify either group as "whinners".


----------



## GregC (17 May 2009)

Brihard said:
			
		

> A combat action badge just would have fostered more bling-hunting. We already had a big problem with 'combat tourism' by people who had no business being outside KAF, yet insisted on sitting in the back of a Bison on a convoy or two just so they can say they went outside the wire.



Nail hit on head. When I heard about this badge when I was overseas in 2007, I heard about there being 3 levels of the badge (bronze, silver, gold). Immediately you could tell how vague the conditions were for being awarded this kind of thing.... by the definitions I heard 2 years ago the KAF dweller present during a rocket attack somewhere on the airfield would be entitled to the same as an infantryman being mortared in a COP, PSS, or Strongpoint. 

You could quickly see how tough it would be to sort through who truly deserved a combat badge, and who was telling tall tales to get another shiny piece to their DEU's.

I've always liked the fact we don't flood our dress uniforms with qualifications, medals, and ribbons. Brihard has it right, those who walked the walk don't need something to remind everyone of that.


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2009)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> STOP! STOP! STOP!
> 
> Check your fire from both sides, lest this quickly spiral down the crapper.
> 
> ...



Wow. Where are you getting support trades comments from? Not me.

Specificly, RHFC_Piper posted right before he did ... and the link earlier in the thread to the kerfuffle that first came about with this announcement of a CAB on this site clearly shows that there are zero trade troops who've "earned it, but don't want it."

This has SFA to do with support trades - and I never said it did. And, the "ad hominem" attack comment is priceless too ... the guy who just said "the whinners win again" is going to be upset that I pointed out how whiney his own comment was? Ironic that isn't it? Hello pot ... this is kettle over.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

I was instructed when I got into theatre last August to start writing up reports on every action.It was a specific sheet that had to be done on top of field event notes.
Everyone in the unit we were replacing had the Gold standard,and by november everyone in my small group (the drivers received it as part of a crew) had been fired at and returned fire killing the enemy.However at the end of September IIRC they told us to just stop writing up the reports as it was a dead idea.




			
				GregC said:
			
		

> Nail hit on head. When I heard about this badge when I was overseas in 2007, I heard about there being 3 levels of the badge (bronze, silver, gold). Immediately you could tell how vague the conditions were for being awarded this kind of thing.... by the definitions I heard 2 years ago the KAF dweller present during a rocket attack somewhere on the airfield would be entitled to the same as an infantryman being mortared in a COP, PSS, or Strongpoint.
> 
> You could quickly see how tough it would be to sort through who truly deserved a combat badge, and who was telling tall tales to get another shiny piece to their DEU's.



The bronze was a "give me" medal no matter what.It didnt matter if you heard an alarm in KAF or a rocket blew up your bunkspace in a FOB.The silver was for being shot at and not returning fire,and the gold for getting in a TIC type situation.And shooting people.However no matter what trade if they were engaging the EN they would have had the gold.

My guys got the same pay as anyone inside the wire.He wore the same uniform there etc.I sympathized with my guys wishing they had something for the hard work they did.But alas as I said to them our cap badge is enough of a medal.My campaign star with my capbadge says enough.And then we had something made out of our expended ammo that we engaged with for all to wear daily in lieu of a normal piece of army kit.While no one would ever know the difference we know what its made out of.


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2009)

I hope we can get this idea fired up again.

In fact I propose that people start wearing medals on their CADPAT uniforms, when in garrison.  Then get a field version, kinda going along the lines of the name tag.  Where you get a velcro backed styled row of medal bars, to be attached tot he Combats out in the field or when operational.  This would also have to be a set that maintains the colour coding of the actual medal.  Any dumbing down, or subduing the colours would defeat the purpose.

Maybe even a special badge on their headdress, or even a special hat to identifying those that have seen combat.  No sense in wearing a tootie little badge, I say go for the whole hog and really show your sense of pride.  Maybe a pirate type hat.  They were worn by some mean dudes who saw some wicked shit...








That would really get them whiners, I'll say...


dileas

tess


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

Do anyone have anything officially written that it has been canceled?As I said I was instructed to stop writing the reports for it,but never got clarification.


----------



## rampage800 (17 May 2009)

X-Mo

Yea I believe it actually came out in a CANFORGEN was either last week or the week prior.It was obviously on the chopping block awhile ago but has since become official.(that the whole thing is scrubbed)


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> X-Mo
> 
> Yea I believe it actually came out in a CANFORGEN was either last week or the week prior.It was obviously on the chopping block awhile ago but has since become official.(that the whole thing is scrubbed)



Ok thanks.I'll see if I can find it when I get back to work.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

It is too bad that there is a small number of CF members who feel their uniform bling should outline everything they did in their careers.  Most disappointingly is the fact that the apparent motivation for a very small number seems to be less about pride of accomplishment, than it is about setting themselves above those who lack the same trinkets.

I have little doubt that those who take that view are a very small minority.  Most likely, a much larger groups heard about the combat badges (in whatever form), and thought: “OK, that's cool”, but also weren't sorely disappointed when the initiative evaporated.  We are left, however, with the few loud voices who wish us to believe they have now been personally insulted and aggrieved by this badge not coming into use.

Is this a result of this generation of entitlement we are discussing in another thread (which, admittedly, focuses on students)?

Is it another example of some wanting to “Americanize” our uniform accoutrements?  That reflects back on the long and circular arguments over wound stripe vs sacrifice medal, does it not?

And what will it mean in the long term?

How may of us go into a Mess, Legion or other gathering place on Remembrance Day and see veterans there wearing their stars from the Second World War or their UN and war medals from Korea?  And if you do, when was the last time you grilled one of those men on the nature, location, dates and activities of his service – not out of honest curiosity – but to see if he was worthy of your attention as a warrior and not just someone who stayed “inside the wire.”

It is easy to make too much of the bling: medals, ribbons, devices and clasps.  But none of them truly mean a thing when to comes to understanding the character of the man or woman – and their commitment to service as a soldier, sailor or airman.

Claiming insult at not getting a combat badge (or any other bit of bling), the effect of which is solely to set oneself apart from those without, is mean and insulting.  It presumes that every service member chose where they served and it denigrates those who serve honourably without the opportunity to collect such devices. 

Thousands have served wherever the military has sent them, and many haven't seen combat because the timing and postings of their careers precluded such service. Their careers are not measured by the length of their medal rack, but by the quality of their service – and often they are the only ones who know how good that was.  Do any of us, now or in future, really need a complete chest mounted resume?  If your answer to that is “yes”, then perhaps it is your own motivation to serve that requires closer self-examination.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2009)

Michael, incredible post.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How may of us go into a Mess, Legion or other gathering place on Remembrance Day and see veterans there wearing their stars from the Second World War or their UN and war medals from Korea?  And if you do, when was the last time you grilled one of those men on the nature, location, dates and activities of his service – not out of honest curiosity – but to see if he was worthy of your attention as a warrior and not just someone who stayed “inside the wire.”



How true is that.
I can't count how many times I've heard the argument of being inside the wire or outside the wire. Followed by travelling outside the wire or living outside the wire at a fob. Then staying inside the fob (relatively) or not.

It feels like we were 'starved for action' (for lack of a better term) for so long that EVERYTHING now is a big ol pissing contest.


----------



## Infanteer (17 May 2009)

Someone else said it well - the capbadge should say enough.  The "Combat Badge Olympics" with gold medals was friggen silly - I've already heard stories of guys of relatively high rank deliberately hunting for gold badges.  And, Tess wasn't off the mark with the wearing of the badge on the Combats; I heard it from the old CDS.  No thanks.

We are on ROTO 7 now - combat isn't some strange phenomenon for this Army, unlike back in the day when we regarded the odd Medak or Cypress guy who fired a shot in anger as something quite unique.

My :2c:


----------



## the 48th regulator (17 May 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Someone else said it well - the capbadge should say enough.  The "Combat Badge Olympics" with gold medals was friggen silly - I've already heard stories of guys of relatively high rank deliberately hunting for gold badges.  And, Tess wasn't off the mark with the wearing of the badge on the Combats; I heard it from the old CDS.  No thanks.
> 
> We are on ROTO 7 now - combat isn't some strange phenomenon for this Army, unlike back in the day when we regarded the odd Medak or Cypress guy who fired a shot in anger as something quite unique.
> 
> My :2c:




Did he mention anything akin to my Pirate Hat Idea?

dileas

tess


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Someone else said it well - the capbadge should say enough.  We are on ROTO 7 now - combat isn't some strange phenomenon for this Army, unlike back in the day when we regarded the odd Medak or Cypress guy who fired a shot in anger as something quite unique.
> My :2c:






			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> How may of us go into a Mess, Legion or other gathering place on Remembrance Day and see veterans there wearing their stars from the Second World War or their UN and war medals from Korea?  And if you do, when was the last time you grilled one of those men on the nature, location, dates and activities of his service – not out of honest curiosity – but to see if he was worthy of your attention as a warrior and not just someone who stayed “inside the wire.”




Cheers.
My capbadge is enough.And that's what I told my guys.

I know we had a MAT tech who if he wasn't there doing a fantastic job we wouldn't have rolled at all.He was as much part of our killing as the next guy.

But then again Napoleon recognized the importance for recognition.

The only recognition I really need is the figures getting larger in my bank account.That's the main reason I deploy.Plus I enjoy life out there.

However Mike one question to ponder.Just to play devils advocate (as the weather sucks and I wish I was camping!)
With your statement above how many of those older veterans look at the medals ask what unit they were with and make their judgments from their experience? Ever read the book Beyond Valour?Every journal entry is complaining about "yellow" rear esh pers etc etc.Has the army ever really changed?I don't think so.


----------



## dapaterson (17 May 2009)

Hmm.. if this absurd Hillier-ism is being put to rest, does this mean we can abolish the dot COMs next?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> With your statement above how many of those older veterans look at the medals ask what unit they were with and make their judgments from their experience? Ever read the book Beyond Valour?Every journal entry is complaining about "yellow" rear esh pers etc etc.Has the army ever really changed?I don't think so.



The Army has changed greatly.  Human nature, however, remains a constant factor, for good or ill.  The fact that such comments have always been around does not give any of us grace to sink to the same level.  To do so is a personal choice to devalue the contributions of others.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The Army has changed greatly.  Human nature, however, remains a constant factor, for good or ill.  The fact that such comments have always been around does not give any of us grace to sink to the same level.  To do so is a personal choice to devalue the contributions of others.



Agreed.
Whats your opinions of Per's wearing jump wings on CF's?Isnt that sort of a mundane bragging right much like the combat badge?Crossed rifles etc?


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

Shall we debate every specialist badge?  What, exactly, are you looking for?  "Playing devil's advocate" is a wonderful game, but what is your point?  If you agree with statements made, say so outright, if you disagree, make your point in debate rather than empty challenge.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (17 May 2009)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Shall we debate every specialist badge?  What, exactly, are you looking for?  "Playing devil's advocate" is a wonderful game, but what is your point?  If you agree with statements made, say so outright, if you disagree, make your point in debate rather than empty challenge.



Well you seem to be dead against the combat action badge because it sets people apart.However how do you feel about jump wings red/white crossed rifles etc?As do these not separate soldiers as well?

I believe you said:
It is too bad that there is a small number of CF members who feel their uniform bling should outline everything they did in their careers.  Most disappointingly is the fact that the apparent motivation for a very small number seems to be less about pride of accomplishment, than it is about setting themselves above those who lack the same trinkets.

Don't any specialist badges do the same?

I personally don't want the badge.But I am interested in your argument.


----------



## Michael OLeary (17 May 2009)

Personally, I have nothing against jump wings.

Nor do I have anything against a combat action badge.

My comments were directed at the attitudes of some which were expressed over why they should have it, or why they now take offence that they aren't getting it.  That has nothing to do with the item itself, or its purpose.

I remember enough occasions where people complained over whether they thought someone was deserving of a white leaf on their wings, rather than a red one - the same divisive attitude that had nothing to do with the skill of jumping out of aircraft.

Those attitudes have nothing to do with pride of accomplishment.  The attitudes, not the item, are the divisive and disruptive element.


----------



## Grunt_031 (18 May 2009)

I guess this idea has politically died on the table. 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090518.aspx


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2009)

Grunt_031 said:
			
		

> I guess this idea has politically died on the table.
> 
> http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090518.aspx



 :

Yes, all that from a non-Canadian website ...

Who calls us "The Canadian Defense Department" instead of, properly, the Department of National Defence. They, in fact, are so in-tune with our members wishes that they too comment upon "all the troops who've earned it - wanting it" - ignoring the fact that this very site shows that not to be the case; they too then bleat on about "not informing the troops" when there's comments in this very thread about the fact that it was "dead" being passed in O Gps last fall.

Hell, we even have a member who has posted in this thread about being told last fall in-theatre Afghanistan to discontinue his write-ups on his pers because it (the  CAB) was a dead issue.

Yep, wholey factual. Wonder where their "facts" are coming from? And the Globe and Mails claims to have 'broken' this "secret decision" which no-one knew about.  ...  : Nice spin on the politcal front.


----------



## Michael OLeary (18 May 2009)

> If there's enough public outcry over this, the CAB may be revived and issued.





> *StrategyWorld.com*© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com,* StrategyPage.com*, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com





> StrategyWorld.com
> The very best in *online wargaming* and military news.





> Registrant:
> Strategyworld.com
> 2483 North Canyon Rd.
> Suite 100
> ...



And so nice of them to try and rally the public too.  An online wargaming site trying to direct Canadian military and political decision-making.    :


----------



## Journeyman (18 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hmm.. if this absurd Hillier-ism is being put to rest, does this mean we can abolish the dot COMs next?


Oh stop. 
Next you'll want to take back all that back-pay from that recently-promoted...and immediately retired, BGen


----------



## Journeyman (19 May 2009)

CANFORGEN 15 May 2009

COMBAT ACTION BADGE
UNCLASSIFIED
1.    FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND AIRWOMEN, ARMED FORCES COUNCIL HAS DECIDED NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMBAT ACTION BADGE 
2.    SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS TO RECOGNIZE MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR THEIR DEVOTION TO DUTY, COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE MILITARY PROFESSION. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSIGNIA SIGNIFYING COMBAT INVOLVEMENT 

SIGNED BY W. NATYNCZYK, CDS 

(Mind you, I had to cut & paste this from David ********'s site*).

But since I'd also heard about its cancellation from my chain of command back in the fall, I can probably avoid seeing several posters in the line-up for trauma counselling   



* Mr ********: interesting blog. 
   You may want to back off on using "I" and "me" so often -- you're sounding more and more like Scott Taylor.  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 May 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Thanks for the canforgen Journeyman.
> Dead issue= dead topic?
> Or shall we discuss why we shouldn't have canceled it/ ;D



Go back and read through the thread. The discussion for and against has already taken place, ergo the reason(s) for cancelling. Quit trying to split hairs and make a fuss over a dead issue.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Go back and read through the thread. The discussion for and against has already taken place, ergo the reason(s) for cancelling. Quit trying to split hairs and make a fuss over a dead issue.
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Does this include expanding on my Pirate hat idea?  iper:

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (19 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Does this include expanding on my Pirate hat idea?  iper:
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



I like the pirate hat idea...  I'd wear that... Not to signify anything; just for fun.


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Does this include expanding on my Pirate hat idea?  iper:
> 
> dileas
> 
> tess



Pirates are traditionally associated with the sea; granting our servicemembers the right (and responsibility) to wear pirate hats would be Navy-centric and thus not respond to the need for a CF-common gesture of appreciation.

Similarly, any such recognition would have to be uniquely Canadian in its design and scope.


Therefore, the new recognition should take the form of a small sample of BC Bud, soaked in Quebec maple syrup, and carried in a sealskin pouch.


----------



## Strike (19 May 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Therefore, the new recognition should take the form of a Beavertail, topped with a small sample of BC Bud, soaked in Quebec maple syrup, and carried in a sealskin pouch.


----------



## dapaterson (19 May 2009)

Sequentially, I think it would be BC Bud followed by a Beavertail topped with maple syrup.


----------



## jacksparrow (19 May 2009)

CANFORGEN 092/09 VCDS 010/09 151257Z MAY 09
COMBAT ACTION BADGE
UNCLASSIFIED



FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH SAILORS, SOLDIERS, AIRMEN AND AIRWOMEN, ARMED FORCES COUNCIL HAS DECIDED NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMBAT ACTION BADGE 


SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS TO RECOGNIZE MILITARY PERSONNEL FOR THEIR DEVOTION TO DUTY, COURAGE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE MILITARY PROFESSION. ACCORDINGLY IT HAS BEEN DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSIGNIA SIGNIFYING COMBAT INVOLVEMENT 


SIGNED BY W. NATYNCZYK, CDS


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 May 2009)

Jack, M'Boyo,

Already covered http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/43829/post-842739.html#msg842739

We have moved on to Pirate hats and beaver tails.

dileas

tess


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 May 2009)

.........and the death spiral begins :

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 May 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .........and the death spiral begins :
> 
> Milnet.ca Staff



Geesh,

I know eh,

Next thing you know someone will be giving us the picture and update when Uncle Hillier promised it...

No back to our daily scheduled thread.

But you see folks, with the pirate hat, like the one I had shown, you can actually colour code the feathers to indicate the area of operation, something akin tot he medal's ribbons and stuff.

dileas

tess


----------



## geo (19 May 2009)

Ummm.... so the Indian's feather headdress would suggest / affirm that he is an American Indian - been to a lot of neat interesting places - several times over ???


----------



## Good2Golf (19 May 2009)

...and back on topic, folks...



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ...There is no recognition or honour that differentiates those who have served in combat from those who haven't. Besides, in most cases, the majority of people whose opinions matter are going to know anyway.



Unless their actions were particularly noteworthy and there are various tools to recognize this: MID, MCV, MSM, etc...



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ...The guys who've been in the real scrapes know it, the rest of us know it, and not device on a uniform can either add to or take away from what they've been through.



Agree wholeheartedly.

G2G


----------



## the 48th regulator (19 May 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm.... so the Indian's feather headdress would suggest / affirm that he is an American Indian - been to a lot of neat interesting places - several times over ???



Well actually,

The Apaches wore a headband, as can be seen by Geronimo and his cohorts (WHo definitely saw combat), as some pirates have been known to do...













See folks,

If Geo can get into the swing of things, so can you!!






  


dileas

tess


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 May 2009)

Looking at the criteria for the US CIB, it seems we've just saved our military bureaucracy about a million man days figuring out who would, would not be eligible for one of these things. Lordy....

http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/badges/CombatInfantrymanBadges.htm

COMBAT INFANTRYMAN BADGES 

I. DESCRIPTION: A silver and enamel badge 1 inch in height and 3 inches in width, consisting of an infantry musket on a light blue bar with a silver border, on and over an elliptical oak wreath. Stars are added at the top of the wreath to indicate subsequent awards; one star for the second award, two stars for the third award and three stars for the fourth award.



II. SYMBOLISM: The bar is blue, the color associated with the Infantry branch. The musket is adapted from the Infantry insignia of branch and represents the first official U.S. shoulder arm, the 1795 model Springfield Arsenal musket. It was adopted as the official Infantry branch insignia in 1924. The oak symbolizes steadfastness, strength and loyalty.



III. AWARD ELIGIBILITY:



     a.  There are basically three requirements for award of the CIB.  The Soldier must be an Infantryman satisfactorily performing Infantry duties, must be assigned to an Infantry unit during such time as the unit is engaged in active ground combat, and must actively participate in such ground combat.



     b.  The specific eligibility criteria for the CIB require that:

     (1)  A Soldier must be an Army Infantry or Special Forces officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of Colonel or below, or an Army Enlisted Soldier or Warrant Officer with an Infantry or Special Forces MOS, who subsequent to 6 December 1941 has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an Infantry, Ranger or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat.  Eligibility for Special Forces personnel in Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) 18B, 18E, 18F, and 18Z (less Special Forces Medical Sergeant) accrues from 20 December 1989.  Retroactive awards for Special Forces personnel are not authorized prior to 20 December 1989.  

     (2)  A recipient must be personally present and under hostile fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit actively engaged in ground combat with the enemy.  The unit in question can be of any size smaller than brigade.  

     (3)  Personnel with other than an Infantry or Special Forces MOS are not eligible, regardless of the circumstances.  The Infantry or Special Forces SSI or MOS does not necessarily have to be the Soldier’s primary specialty, as long as the Soldier has been properly trained in infantry or special forces tactics, possesses the appropriate skill code, and is serving in that specialty when engaged in active ground combat as described above.  Commanders are not authorized to make any exceptions to this policy.

     (4)  Awards will not be made to General Officers or to members of headquarters companies of units larger in size than brigade. 

     (5)  On or after 18 September 2001:
          (a) A Soldier must be an Army Infantry or special forces officer (SSI 11 or 18) in the grade of Colonel or below, or an Army Enlisted Soldier or Warrant Officer with an Infantry or Special Forces MOS, who has satisfactorily performed duty while assigned or attached as a member of an infantry, ranger or special forces unit of brigade, regimental or smaller size during any period such unit was engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.

          (b) A Soldier must be personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned Infantry or Special Forces primary duty, in a unit engaged in active ground combat to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.  Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDS), Vehicle-Borne IEDS (VBIEDS) and the like are direct fire weapons.  While no fixed, qualifying distance from an explosion of these devices can be established, commanders should consider the entirety of the combat situation when considering award of the CIB.

          (c) Soldiers possessing MOS of 18D (Special Forces Medical Sergeant) who satisfactorily perform Special Forces duties while assigned or attached to a Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size during any period such unit is engaged in active ground combat may be awarded the CIB.  These Soldiers must have been personally present and engaged in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.  Retroactive awards under these criteria are not authorized for service prior to 18 September 2001.

          (d) Those Soldiers possessing MOS of 18D who qualify for award of the Combat Medical Badge (CMB) from 18 September 2001 to the 3 June 2005, will remain qualified for the badge.  Upon request any such soldier may be awarded the CIB instead of the CMB.  In such instances, the Soldier must submit a request through the chain of command to the CG, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, ATTN:  AHRC-PDO-PA, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471 for conversion of the CMB to the CIB.

          (e) Service members from the other U.S. Armed Forces and foreign military (Infantry and Special Forces equivalents) assigned or attached as a member of a U.S. Army Infantry or Special Forces unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size may be considered for award of the CIB.  All basic requirements as listed above must be met.  Retroactive awards under these criteria are not authorized for service prior to 18 September 2001.



     c.  The CIB is authorized for award for the following qualifying wars, conflicts, and operations:



            (1) World War II (7 December 1941 to 3 September 1945).

            (2) The Korean War (27 June 1950 to 27 July 1953).

            (3) Republic of Vietnam Conflict (2 March 1961 to 28 March 1973), combined with qualifying service in Laos (19 April 1961 to 6 October 1962).

            (4) Dominican Republic (28 April 1965 to 1 September 1966).

            (5) Korea on the DMZ (4 January 1969 to 31 March 1994).

            (6) El Salvador (1 January 1981 to 1 February 1992).

            (7) Grenada (23 October to 21 November 1983).

            (8) Joint Security Area, Panmunjom, Korea (23 November 1984).

            (9) Panama (20 December 1989 to 31 January 1990).

            (10) Southwest Asia Conflict (17 January to 11 April 1991).

            (11) Somalia (5 June 1992 to 31 March 1994).

            (12) Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom, 5 December 2001 to a date to be determined).

            (13) Iraq (Operation Enduring Freedom, 19 March 2003 to a date to be determined).



     d.  The special provision authorized for the War on Terrorism is listed in this paragraph.  The CIB may be awarded to recognize those U.S. Army Infantry and Special Forces Soldiers embedded in formed Afghan National Army or Iraqi Infantry/Special Force units, or Iraqi specialized Infantry type units, of brigade, regimental or smaller size, or assigned as advisors to a foreign Infantry/Special Forces comparable to the above Infantry units, as tactical advisors, trainers or performing liaison duties, during the time that the supported Infantry/Special Force unit engages in active ground combat, to close with and destroy the enemy with direct fires.  Qualified Soldiers must have been personally present and participated in the combat operations.



     e.  The special provisions authorized for the Vietnam Conflict, Laos, and Korea on the DMZ are outlined below.  



            (1) During the Vietnam Conflict, any officer whose basic branch is other than Infantry who, under appropriate orders, has commanded a line Infantry (other than a headquarters unit) unit of brigade, regimental, or smaller size for at least 30 consecutive days is deemed to have been detailed in Infantry and is eligible for award of the CIB notwithstanding absence of a written directive detailing that Soldier in the Infantry, provided all other requirements for the award have been met.  Orders directing the officer to assume command will be confirmed in writing at the earliest practicable date.  



            (a) In addition, any Officer, Warrant Officer, or Enlisted Soldier whose branch is other than Infantry, who under appropriate orders was assigned to advise a unit listed in (c) and (d) below or was assigned as a member of a White Star Mobile Training Team or a member of MAAG-Laos as indicated in (2)(a) and (b) below will be eligible for award of the CIB provided all other requirements have been met.

            (b) After 1 December 1967, for service in the Republic of Vietnam, Noncommissioned Officers serving as Command Sergeants Major of infantry Battalions and brigades for periods of at least 30 consecutive days in a combat zone are eligible for award of the CIB provided all other requirements have been met.

            (c) Subsequent to 1 March 1961, a Soldier must have been:

            1.  Assigned as advisor to an Infantry unit, Ranger unit, Infantry-type unit of the civil guard of regimental or smaller size, and/or Infantry-type unit of the self-defense corps unit of regimental or smaller size of the Vietnamese government during any period such unit was engaged in actual ground combat.

            2.  Assigned as advisor of an irregular force comparable to the above Infantry units under similar conditions.

            3.  Personally present and under fire while serving in an assigned primary duty as a member of a tactical advisory team while the unit participated in ground combat.

            (d) Subsequent to 24 May 1965, to qualify for the CIB, personnel serving in U.S. units must meet the requirements of b(1), above.  Individuals who performed liaison duties with the Royal Thai Army or the Army of the Republic of Korea combat units in Vietnam are eligible for award of the badge provided they meet all other requirements.



            (2) In Laos from 19 April 1961 to 6 October 1962, a Soldier must have been:

            (a) Assigned as a member of a White Star Mobile Training Team while the team was attached to or working with a unit of regimental (groupment mobile) or smaller size of Forces Armee du Royaume (FAR) , or with irregular type forces of regimental or smaller size.

            (b) A member of MAAG-Laos assigned as an advisor to a region or zone of FAR, or while serving with irregular type forces of regimental or smaller size.

            (c) Personally under hostile fire while assigned as specified in (a) and (b) above.



            (3) In Korea on the DMZ.  The special requirements for award of the CIB for service in the Republic of Korea are rescinded.  Army veterans and service members who served in Korea on or after 28 July 1953 and meet the criteria for award of the CIB outlined in paragraph 8-6c, may submit an application (to include supporting documentation) for award of the CIB to USA HRC, ATTN: AHRC-PDO-PA, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.  Retroactive awards under these criteria are not authorized for service prior to 29 July 1953.



            f.  Second and third awards of the CIB are indicated by superimposing 1 and 2 stars respectively, centered at the top of the badge between the points of the oak wreath.  To date, a separate award of the CIB has been authorized for qualified Soldiers in the following qualifying periods:
            (1) World War II (7 December 1941 to 3 September 1945).

            (2) The Korean Conflict (27 June 1950 to 27 July 1953).

            (3) The Republic of Vietnam Conflict.  Service in the Republic of Vietnam Conflict (2 March 1961 to 28 March 1973) combined with qualifying service in Laos; Dominican Republic; Korea on the DMZ; El Salvador; Grenada; Joint Security Area, Panmunjom, Korea; Panama; Southwest Asia Conflict; and Somalia, regardless of whether a Soldier has served one or multiple tours in any or all of these areas.  The Republic of Vietnam Conflict Era officially terminated on 10 March 1995.

            (4) War on Terrorism (Afghanistan, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM) and (Iraq, Operation IRAQI REEDOM).



            g.  Subsequent awards of the CIB are not authorized for the same qualifying period, as outlined above.  The CIB may be awarded by the following individuals:

            (1) Current awards.  These awards may be awarded by USA HRC, ATTN:  AHRC-PDP-A and Army commanders in the grade of 0-6 and above.

            (2) Retroactive awards of the CIB.  These awards may be awarded by USA HRC, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A to active duty Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers.  Applications for retroactive award will be forwarded through command channels to USA HRC, ATTN: AHRC-PDP-A, Alexandria, VA 22332-0471.  Retirees and veterans should address their application to the National Personnel Records Center, St. Louis, MO 63132-5100.  Retroactive award of the CIB is authorized for time periods specified above to fully qualified individuals.  Such awards will not be made except where evidence of injustice is presented.



IV. DATE APPROVED: The Combat Infantryman Badge was approved by the Secretary of War on 7 October 1943 and announced in War Department Circular 269 dated 27 October 1943. On 8 February 1952, the Chief of Staff, Army, approved a proposal to add stars to the Combat Infantryman Badge to indicate award of the badge in separate wars. Under this change in policy, the badge was no longer limited to a one-time award, but could now be awarded to eligible individuals for each war in which they participated.  The policy was expanded to permit award to Command Sergeants Major of infantry battalions or brigades, effective 1 December 1967.  On 11 February 2005, the Chief of Staff, Army, approved changes to the CIB policy.  Further changes were approved by the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) on 24 June 2008.



V. SUBDUED BADGES: Subdued badges are authorized in metal and cloth. The metal badge has a black finish. The cloth badge has olive green base cloth with the rifle, wreath, stars and border of the bar embroidered in black.



VI. MINIATURE BADGES: A dress miniature badge, 1 1/4 inches in length is authorized for wear on the mess uniforms. A miniature badge, 1 3/4 inches is also authorized in lieu of the regular size badge.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 May 2009)

I'll chime in for a tad.

As a member of the Australian Army, I have an ACB (Army Combat Badge) earned on my tour of Iraq in 2006-2007.

We have two types, the ACB, and ICB (Infantry Combat Badge), both have the same criteria, but one is Corps specific, and the other is for all other Corps. One can google these for the criteria.

Its too bad the CF could not follow the principles of the Australian badge, rather than the three coloured debate for such. Too complicated. Ours go back to cover Viet Nam and all other Ops in warlike conditions, but it may go as far back as Korea. Not an issue ensuring all get their's too, and this is announced through the RSL organisations, and the media. Veterans or their families are encouraged to apply. Currently a new Korea medal has been approved for Korean War Vets, and this is 2009.

Anyways, I am disappointed the CF has ceased the possible implementation of a badge. As for bling, its a tiny insigna worn above your medals, and there is a mini for Mess Kit. I dont even refer to such an award as bling in the first place, however the cultures between our Defence Forces are different.

When I see other Vets who have not earned their badge, yet have operational medals, I feel nothing but admiration for them, for they did their bit in the cogs of an operational environment, wheter it be in the Q Store in Kuwait, or as a RFN in a rifle section in Afghanistan. All equals, thats how I see it.

OWDU

EDITed for stupid spelling mistakes....


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jul 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> Jack Harris, the NDP's defence critic, said the Canadian Forces should proceed with the awarding of the badge and said it is puzzling that the military had proceeded so far along with the insignia, only to cancel it. "Internally, they were satisfied that the award process was straightforward and there"


Just to be clear, is the Honourable Mr. Harris suggeting that the military should go _against_ its own findings, including feedback from the CF itself?  To what purpose would this be done?  Sometimes I wish that politicians would ask the smart questions, and not ask questions that appear to be grandstanding for public attention.


----------



## jacksparrow (3 Jul 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, is the Honourable Mr. Harris suggeting that the military should go _against_ its own findings, including feedback from the CF itself?  To what purpose would this be done?  Sometimes I wish that politicians would ask the smart questions, and not ask questions that appear to be grandstanding for public attention.



I guess you'll have to ask him that one. My post was a quote from a news source


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Jul 2009)

jacksparrow said:
			
		

> I guess you'll have to ask him that one. My post was a quote from a news source


Actually, my question was rhetorical


----------



## c4th (3 Jul 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, is the Honourable Mr. Harris suggesting that the military should go _against_ its own findings, including feedback from the CF itself?



I think he is probably suggesting that all decisions pertaining to the military are wrong despite studies, findings, and logic.  Personally I am surprised that the NDP would support any military accoutrement short of complete disbandment.  The easiest way to be a critic is to adamantly disagree with everything.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Jul 2009)

I thought there was a CANFORGEN which stated that this was dead idea  ???

EDITED TO ADD....


Found the CANFORGEN back on page 8.


----------



## armyvern (4 Jul 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I thought there was a CANFORGEN which stated that this was dead idea  ???



Yes, yes there was - in May. It's cancellation was also passed down via O Gps last fall (although some troops at the bottom level obviously never had it passed down in their O Gps: That's why some troops were apparently "unaware of it's cancellation" & ergo the message being cut in May).

Now, the media is simply digging up the story again because they have realized that the CAB had recd Royal assent, but was cancelled anyway.

Gee: Gen Hillier orders it to be implemented, so they work on it even though the dissention amongst the troops was obvious from the get-go as was the "us vs them" attitude it was creating. "They" follow orders. General Hillier retires ...

Don't believe it was causing dissention? Just witness the continued "I'm am holier than though fobbite vs KAFer" bullshit and dissention occuring (even trade-internally amongst zero-trades). "There but for the grace of God go I into a "Fobbite" posn number vs a "KAF" posn" ... but being slotted into one posn vs another by some third party somehow "proves" a greater "worthiness/ability" to some.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jul 2009)

Really!  Why does someone who has never served a day in their life need to have a say in this?  I really don't care what the Scouting Movement, any of the Emergency Services, the US Military, the Russian Military, or whatever organization, create as criteria for awards.   It is what our organization, the CF determines.

I have no say in the awarding of Exercise Medals or Patches in the Russian Army.  I have no say in the awarding of the Combat Infantry Badge in the US Army.  I have no say in awarding a Sewing Badge to a Boy Scout.  I don't belong to any of those organizations.  Why should some politico or newspaper blogger have a say in what the CF awards?


----------



## PhilB (4 Jul 2009)

I understand why this was scrapped, it makes sense to a certain degree. I understand that there is dissent, but I think it is a little bit of a stretch to intimate that many troops were against this. A lot of troops I have talked to, to be totally frank many of whom would have received the badge, are totally for it.  I agree however that it would cause un-necessary rifts amongst trades.

I would like to see a combat infantry badge. A badge solely for the infantry corp that distinguishes those that have been in combat vice those that have not. It could be very simple, combat means people shooting at you, and you shooting back. You either meet this criteria or you dont. In my opinion, for many trades, particularly purple trades, being "in combat" has very little bearing on their capability to do their job to a very high level of competence. That being said, I think, and others can feel free to disagree, that this cannot be said for the infantry. While I understand that troops dont have a say in what position they fill, and whether or not the enemy decides to engage them, having been engaged in combat does give an infanteer a level of experience that cannot be achieved through any amount of training. I think that an infantry only badge (it could be awared as a ceremonial/"thank you" thing to those trades supporting us comms, medics etc) would be good for the infantry corp. If other corps want to develop their own badges than they can feel free but I think it would be a good distinction/pat on the back for many infanteers. 

Obviously just my two cents.


----------



## 1feral1 (5 Jul 2009)

Phil, the Australian ICB/ACB is not that complicated, and instead of trying to mirror the US system of a red tape nightmare for this type of award, perhaps, the Canadian Forces should have looked to the Australian Army/ADF instead of the US Army.

As for the silly rifts between Corps etc. I have not seen any such childlike behaviour here, and I have seen may who have their campaign medals without the ICB/ACB, and many with. I will say the prototype Canadian design was absolutely hidious, but thats just my opinion.

That being said our military cultures yet parallel, are entirely diffferent.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2009)

PhilB

Perhaps your remember the CF coming up with SHARP training for everyone?  Later they came up with Differential Training.  Remember: "Are you and "X" or a "Y"?"  It should have been training, not to point out our differences, but how we are all the same, but that is a totally different topic.  

We have enough "Us vs Them" as is in the CF.  This badge just adds another "Us vs Them" problem to the basket.


----------



## Franko (5 Jul 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> PhilB
> 
> Perhaps your remember the CF coming up with SHARP training for everyone?  Later they came up with Differential Training.  Remember: "Are you and "X" or a "Y"?"  It should have been training, not to point out our differences, but how we are all the same, but that is a totally different topic.
> 
> We have enough "Us vs Them" as in in the CF.  This badge just adds another "Us vs Them" problem to the basket.



Remember the Warrior Badge?       :

Regards


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Jul 2009)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Remember the Warrior Badge?       :



And remember the standards changing so "certain people" could get a gold one?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And remember the standards changing so "certain people" could get a gold one?


........and how, when it was only an LFCA thing, I was ridiculed and ordered to remove it from my uniform, when I went down east to the 'Centre of Excellence' for course. :


----------



## mariomike (5 Jul 2009)

This is a picture of the Warrior Badge, Canada, for those of us ( myself ) who are unfamiliar with it.
CANADA ARMED FORCES INFANTRY WARRIOR BADGE BRONZE ( as advertised on e-Bay ).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2009)

It's labelled wrong Mike. Every trade wore the same thing. It wasn't exclusive to the Infantry. Everyone just called it 'officially' the Warrior Badge. It came in gold, silver and bronze, depending on your actual test accuem, ............or who was signing your sheet.


----------



## PhilB (5 Jul 2009)

Im not talking about a warrior badge, nor am I talking about a badge that is open to other trades, only within the infantry. Our uniforms already set trades apart (i.e. the sash) I dont think an infantry specific badge that recognizes combat experience will increase animosity between trades. It will seperate people within the trade, but not amongst everyone else. If the badge is only available to the infantry, as it would be an infantry specific badge, then why would there be an issue with other trades not having it? If other trades want a badge they can create one. 

As a side note I really hate how in the CF the seems to be a disinclination to recognize anyone for fear of creating difference and "hurt feelings" amongst those that arent recognized. It is ridiculous in my opinion and panders to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Jul 2009)

Are the infantry the only trade exposed to combat?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Are the infantry the only trade exposed to combat?



.....and we're right back where we started with this discussion. Deja vu all over again.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2009)

And back to vanity, egos, and discrimination within the Infantry Branch.


----------



## PMedMoe (5 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....and we're right back where we started with this discussion. Deja vu all over again.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And back to vanity, egos, and discrimination within the Infantry Branch.



My apologies, but I just don't see how (or why) this badge could/should/would be created for Infantry *only*.


----------



## MikeL (5 Jul 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> My apologies, but I just don't see how (or why) this badge could/should/would be created for Infantry *only*.



I believe Phill is mostly talking about a Combat Infantry Badge because he is an Infantryman. What he is saying is just have a Combat Infantry Badge specific to 031s and the remainder of the trades would have Combat Action Badges and Combat Medic Badges like the US Army. And another point I believe he was making that the CF already has badges, etc that show the persons trade from others in trade badges, capbadges, etc. So another badge that shows who's Infantry an who's not wouldn't/shouldn't be an issue. 


For those that don't like the idea of the badges that show off what trade we are, etc we could just be like the US Marines. No trade badges(just qual badges, ie jump wings, scuba, etc), no capbadges, no seperate combat badges. Just have the Combat Action Ribbon that everyone(Combat Arms/CS/CSS) gets if they have been in combat.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2009)

If you guys go back to the beginning of the thread and read through it, you'll find this same discussion has already taken place. You're just rehashing what has already been said. Same points, same arguments. Pleas don't reinvent the wheel.

It's also likely part of the dissention the Board was talking about.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jul 2009)

mariomike said:
			
		

> This is a picture of the Warrior Badge, Canada, for those of us ( myself ) who are unfamiliar with it.
> CANADA ARMED FORCES INFANTRY WARRIOR BADGE BRONZE ( as advertised on e-Bay ).



In the first year of the warrior program, the badge featured the last 2 digits of the year it was awarded, right below the crossed swords.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Jul 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> .....and we're right back where we started with this discussion. Deja vu all over again.




Does that mean I can talk about the Pirate hat Idea I came up with, again?

Sweet.

dileas

tess


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jul 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Does that mean I can talk about the Pirate hat Idea I came up with, again?
> 
> Sweet.
> 
> ...


Yes, please do!  *grin*

Now, as an aside, for the LFCA Warrior Badge, as I remember it, there were a series of events, all with objective standards.  There was musketry, physical fitness and soldier skills.  To achieve a gold standard, one needed the "gold" standard in all tests, to achieve a silver standard, one needed a minimum of the "silver" standard in all tests and to achieve bronze, one needed to achieve the minimum standard in all tests.  I also understand that because the test seemed too easy to achieve gold for some unit (or units, not really sure), that (or those) units came up with their own standards and tests.  The "us/them" variation in the warrior badge arose as a result of those varying standards for the similar award.  

To illustrate, suppose that The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment decided that to achieve Gold, the soldier needed to raise 4 hogs to a combined mass of 400 kg of edible pork products.  Now, Pte Bloggins only achieved 350 kg, so he gets the silver, even though in all other tests he achieved the gold standard.  Pte Snookums, in 4th Battalion, The Royal Canadian Regiment had no hog raising test, but like Pte Bloggins achieved Gold in all other tests.  Both are just as skilled at the universal objective; however, to an ill-informed outsider, he is "not as good" as Snookums.  That is the "us/them" that came from the Warrior Badge Fiasco.


----------



## the 48th regulator (5 Jul 2009)

If anyone is interested, I have a link where you can print up a pirate hat of your own.

http://www.leehansen.com/printables/masks/images/pirate-hat-craft.gif


I say we perform our own testing, here on HARRRmy Dot Sea eh.   Print the hat, make it wear it, snap a photo with your web cam and upload them here.

We will see if the idea is too goofy to implement.  Therefore we can re-look at the idea of a combat badge or Pirate hat for those that have notches on their belts from fighting bad guys.

dileas

tess


----------



## RHFC_piper (5 Jul 2009)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> If anyone is interested, I have a link where you can print up a pirate hat of your own.
> 
> http://www.leehansen.com/printables/masks/images/pirate-hat-craft.gif
> 
> ...



... I'm printing one off at work tomorrow (possibly more than one) and leaving it on the printer.


----------

