Medal for the wounded?
Orca....as you posted without responding to your crass statement about self inflicted wounds.....I shall consider you to be a coward....perhaps that explains your comment.
Again....either defend your statement or withdraw it....don't slink away from it.
Again....either defend your statement or withdraw it....don't slink away from it.
I disagree with Orca and Easy Street
The British Military have had recognition for the wounded in action in the past - wound stripes, King's Badge, War Service Badge, etc... It only fell out of favour for the Korean War and ever since. Many of our Commonwealth buddies have had similar and the Canadians got rid of the wound stripe for a new medal in 2008 with Her Majesty's head on it:
The Canadian Sacrifice Medal is for those wounded or killed in action.
As for those that think every brave action is rewarded with a gallantry award - think again. Many get wounded doing very brave things and do not get written up - what happens when the Platoon Cdr or NCO cops it? Who does the citation then?
No, I like the idea of an emblem for the campaign medal for those that stay in and a seperate badge for those medically discharged - they have after all, made a significant sacrifice for our country and deserve recognition (more so than some of the strokers that get gongs in the New Year and Queen's Birthday Honours Lists!!!).
SASless - I think you are right to feel insulted, and I, Sir, would like to say how very lucky you are to have a country that recognises the pain and sacrifice you have suffered.
iRaven
The British Military have had recognition for the wounded in action in the past - wound stripes, King's Badge, War Service Badge, etc... It only fell out of favour for the Korean War and ever since. Many of our Commonwealth buddies have had similar and the Canadians got rid of the wound stripe for a new medal in 2008 with Her Majesty's head on it:
The Canadian Sacrifice Medal is for those wounded or killed in action.
As for those that think every brave action is rewarded with a gallantry award - think again. Many get wounded doing very brave things and do not get written up - what happens when the Platoon Cdr or NCO cops it? Who does the citation then?
No, I like the idea of an emblem for the campaign medal for those that stay in and a seperate badge for those medically discharged - they have after all, made a significant sacrifice for our country and deserve recognition (more so than some of the strokers that get gongs in the New Year and Queen's Birthday Honours Lists!!!).
SASless - I think you are right to feel insulted, and I, Sir, would like to say how very lucky you are to have a country that recognises the pain and sacrifice you have suffered.
iRaven
Last edited by iRaven; 26th Aug 2012 at 23:48.
SASLess - self-inflcited wounds:
John Kerry’s ‘self-inflicted’ Purple Heart, Bronze Star
Also:
Recipients don’t have to be recommended for the Purple Heart, as they do for several other military honors. They must be able to document treatment by a medical officer for an injury sustained while attacking or being attacked by hostile forces. Injuries from friendly fire and self-inflicted wounds count, so long as the accident took place while targeting the enemy.
Also:
'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts' - Washington Times
John Kerry’s ‘self-inflicted’ Purple Heart, Bronze Star
Also:
Recipients don’t have to be recommended for the Purple Heart, as they do for several other military honors. They must be able to document treatment by a medical officer for an injury sustained while attacking or being attacked by hostile forces. Injuries from friendly fire and self-inflicted wounds count, so long as the accident took place while targeting the enemy.
Also:
'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts' - Washington Times
"During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small abrasions as “wounds” so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion. Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to become accomplices in these frauds."
Read more: 'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts' - Washington Times
Read more: 'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts' - Washington Times
I was in MB when The Elizabeth Cross was being staffed - about 4 years ago. The RAF took the line that all 'deaths in Service' warranted recognition but this was robustly rebuffed by the Army, in particular, feeling that some 'drunken soldier' killed in a motor bike accident in Hohne has less merit that a guy killed in Helmand/Iraq/*insert campaign. The RAF (and quite rightly in my mind) had a view to formally commemorating those killed in flying accidents, in particular. The staffing looked closely at what was done in WWI and WWII ('Dead Man's Penny, etc) and what our corageous Commonwealth brethren do (ie AUSCANZ)
At the same time, the issue of formal recognition of injuries sustained on operations was discussed, but IIRC there were no formal proposals put forward. It is a bit of a mine-field (if you excuse the analogy) but there is both precedent and need and there was a sense that the discussion was also being conflated with (or at least there was fear of distorting) compensation and litigation issues.
NZWP
At the same time, the issue of formal recognition of injuries sustained on operations was discussed, but IIRC there were no formal proposals put forward. It is a bit of a mine-field (if you excuse the analogy) but there is both precedent and need and there was a sense that the discussion was also being conflated with (or at least there was fear of distorting) compensation and litigation issues.
NZWP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: @exRAF_Al
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That Canadian medal is dignified and sombre, as it should be.
If an award has 'previous' with us anyway, the question then, is not so much should we have such a recognition, but why did we stop having one? Was it because we were war weary, because we didn't want to be reminded of the injured, because they had lost their 'impact', because of the politik of the time?
Orca,
I accept your premise to an extent, but sometimes logic isn't always the most important issue; a bit like knowing the price of something, but not the value of it. If decorations are awarded anyway for various levels of service, endeavour or sacrifice, then would not extra recognition such as a lapel badge or oak leaf cluster be a part of the rehab process for someone grievously injured?
Whenur,
So, an award was not actively discussed because of the fear of litigation? Although I can't see why someone who gets shot and survives for reasons other than Ministry incompetence should have any reason to sue the MoD, it does show how self serving it really is. I wonder if the climate has changed now though.
If an award has 'previous' with us anyway, the question then, is not so much should we have such a recognition, but why did we stop having one? Was it because we were war weary, because we didn't want to be reminded of the injured, because they had lost their 'impact', because of the politik of the time?
Orca,
I accept your premise to an extent, but sometimes logic isn't always the most important issue; a bit like knowing the price of something, but not the value of it. If decorations are awarded anyway for various levels of service, endeavour or sacrifice, then would not extra recognition such as a lapel badge or oak leaf cluster be a part of the rehab process for someone grievously injured?
Whenur,
So, an award was not actively discussed because of the fear of litigation? Although I can't see why someone who gets shot and survives for reasons other than Ministry incompetence should have any reason to sue the MoD, it does show how self serving it really is. I wonder if the climate has changed now though.
Last edited by Al R; 27th Aug 2012 at 08:57. Reason: replying to whenurhappy
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, I think you took a rather extreme view of orca's post and then made an unwarranted assertion. I am not surprised he has said nothing.
I can see your POV that someone keeping their head down giving supporting fire, say a mortar crew, could still get wounded whilst not meeting orca's gallantry criteria.
I can see your POV that someone keeping their head down giving supporting fire, say a mortar crew, could still get wounded whilst not meeting orca's gallantry criteria.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 27th Aug 2012 at 13:08.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trim Stab... your own link to that political article shows that Kerry was denied a PH when it was known that no enemy fire was involved, and that only by going to someone who didn't know the facts and lying to him about the injury was it eventually awarded.
Then the other article you link openly states that classifying an injury not caused by the enemy as being a "combat wound" IS FRAUD. It also states "Purple Hearts are not supposed to be awarded for self-inflicted wounds, nor for wounds too minor to require treatment by a physician."!
These are what you bring up to try to claim that self-inflicted injuries qualify for a PH?
By your own links, your statement is false... please have the moral strength to apologize.
Then the other article you link openly states that classifying an injury not caused by the enemy as being a "combat wound" IS FRAUD. It also states "Purple Hearts are not supposed to be awarded for self-inflicted wounds, nor for wounds too minor to require treatment by a physician."!
These are what you bring up to try to claim that self-inflicted injuries qualify for a PH?
By your own links, your statement is false... please have the moral strength to apologize.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 27th Aug 2012 at 09:48.
AL R
Certainly, with most things that happen in MB (sorry, Defence Head Office) there is a 'political' or presentational element to it. IIRC there was a bit in the media at the time concerning compensation payment for a typist with RSI cf soldiers missing limbs, and any announcement concerning awarding medals or devices to injured SP would have been seen as a weak subsitute to adequate compensation, even thought the two issues were unrelated and the media reporting on the levels of compensation were grossly distorted.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a medal or somesuch in recognition, but often the communications environment just isn't right without intense and generally unjust criticism. It's a case of 'you're damned if you do; damned if you don't'.
Certainly, with most things that happen in MB (sorry, Defence Head Office) there is a 'political' or presentational element to it. IIRC there was a bit in the media at the time concerning compensation payment for a typist with RSI cf soldiers missing limbs, and any announcement concerning awarding medals or devices to injured SP would have been seen as a weak subsitute to adequate compensation, even thought the two issues were unrelated and the media reporting on the levels of compensation were grossly distorted.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a medal or somesuch in recognition, but often the communications environment just isn't right without intense and generally unjust criticism. It's a case of 'you're damned if you do; damned if you don't'.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at the actual regulation governing issuance of the Purple Heart, shall we?
That will dispel the defamatory falsehoods certain posters here are spreading.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf
Army Regulation 600–8–22
Personnel-General Military Awards
Purple Heart • 2–8, page 19-21
All bolding, underlining, and coloring of text are my editing of the original text which has not been altered in any other way.
That will dispel the defamatory falsehoods certain posters here are spreading.
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_8_22.pdf
Army Regulation 600–8–22
Personnel-General Military Awards
Purple Heart • 2–8, page 19-21
Originally Posted by part f
When contemplating an award of this decoration, the key issue that commanders must take into consideration is the degree to which the enemy caused the injury. The fact that the proposed recipient was participating in direct or indirect combat operations is a necessary prerequisite, but is not sole justification for award. The Purple Heart is not awarded for non-combative injuries.
Originally Posted by part h
Injuries or wounds which do not qualify for award of the Purple Heart include frostbite or trench foot injuries; heat stroke; food poisoning not caused by enemy agents; chemical, biological, or nuclear agents not released by the enemy; battle fatigue; disease not directly caused by enemy agents; accidents, to include explosive, aircraft, vehicular, and other accidental wounding not related to or caused by enemy action; self-inflicted wounds (e.g., a soldier accidentally fires their own gun and the bullet strikes his or her leg), except when in the heat of battle, and not involving gross negligence; post-traumatic distress disorders; and jump injuries not caused by enemy action.
Originally Posted by part i2
Individuals injured as a result of their own negligence; for example, driving or walking through an unauthorized area known to have been mined or placed off limits or searching for or picking up unexploded munitions as war souvenirs, will not be awarded the Purple Heart as they clearly were not injured as a result of enemy action, but rather by their own negligence.
Last edited by GreenKnight121; 27th Aug 2012 at 10:03.
Greenknight, what about the statement in Washington Post article made by a former combat medic?
"During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small abrasions as “wounds” so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion. Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to become accomplices in these frauds."
"During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small abrasions as “wounds” so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion. Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to become accomplices in these frauds."
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And again, that statement clearly shows that such would be fraud!
Are you having problems reading your own quotes?
And are you incapable of reading the regulation I linked?
Just because a few manage to succeed in fraudulently obtaining a PH does not mean that their actions were in accordance with regulations!
Are you having problems reading your own quotes?
And are you incapable of reading the regulation I linked?
Just because a few manage to succeed in fraudulently obtaining a PH does not mean that their actions were in accordance with regulations!
Greenknight - calm down! All I am pointing out is that a medal like the Purple Heart gives troops an "incentive" to get wounded which is not very sensible. And, as you now accept, some recipients cheat to get the medal.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GK, it was an accepted fact in the First World War, and I suspect many other, that people shot themselves not to get medals or wound stripes but to get sent home or discharged.
It was often impossible to claim self-harm with the amount of bullets flying around in the front line. It is highly unlikely that they were motivated to seek a medal.
Similarly, as implied, US Servicemen were probably not after a PH or 3 to win medals but to work their ticket home. Any self-harm, to be accepted, would have had to occur where "except when in the heat of battle" could be deemed to apply, ie in the front line only.
It was often impossible to claim self-harm with the amount of bullets flying around in the front line. It is highly unlikely that they were motivated to seek a medal.
Similarly, as implied, US Servicemen were probably not after a PH or 3 to win medals but to work their ticket home. Any self-harm, to be accepted, would have had to occur where "except when in the heat of battle" could be deemed to apply, ie in the front line only.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Duncan, that might be one interpretation. OTOH had the incentive is to get a minor injury written up so as to qualify as a medal. Then a possible incentive is to get 3 and get a getome ticket.
PN....you know as well as i do that ORCA made a incredibly stupid thing about self inflicted wounds and doesn't have the balls to defend that statement. He would rather try to ignore his blunder and make like it never happened.
His is a Self Inflicted Wound. The only Court he can be referred to is the Court of Public Opinion.
I have called him out....either he comes forth and either defends his statement or he should be Man enough to admit he was wrong in what he said.
Note: I do believe the Navy and Marines have the Three PH and out of combat rule. I sure never heard of it in the Army and we had plenty of guys that earned three.
If you recall John Kerry got called out both in service and afterwards on his bogus claims for his PH's....and even 30 years later his shipmates held him in disdain for that conduct.
His is a Self Inflicted Wound. The only Court he can be referred to is the Court of Public Opinion.
I have called him out....either he comes forth and either defends his statement or he should be Man enough to admit he was wrong in what he said.
Note: I do believe the Navy and Marines have the Three PH and out of combat rule. I sure never heard of it in the Army and we had plenty of guys that earned three.
If you recall John Kerry got called out both in service and afterwards on his bogus claims for his PH's....and even 30 years later his shipmates held him in disdain for that conduct.
Last edited by SASless; 27th Aug 2012 at 12:52.
Orca....I owe you an apology.
It is Trimstab that posted this......and I falsely accused you having done so.
I do sincerely apologize for wrongly accusing you of making that post.....I was wrong in doing so.
Now as to Trimstab.....what I said to Orca applies to you.
An award like the US Purple Heart would blur that distinction and would give an incentive to those who self-injure themselves to avoid front-line service - why would the UK wish to copy that?
I do sincerely apologize for wrongly accusing you of making that post.....I was wrong in doing so.
Now as to Trimstab.....what I said to Orca applies to you.