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

[geo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well said Marauder

Shall we close this now?

 

[geo]

Please do George

 

[George Wallace]

Thanks   The Six

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

 

[Infanteer]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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

 

[Infanteer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.