Combat ACTION Badge may soon be retroactive to Dec 7, 1941

Article from www.military.com, I saw it in an e-mail they sent me. Thought my fellow researchers may be interested in maybe adding something to your family member's shadow box should it be approved, especially those upset that their family member was in combat but did not rate a CIB for one reason or another.

http://m.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/pentagon-could-make-combat-action-badge-retroactive-to-world-war.html?ESRC=dod.nl

 

I agree with Congress all the way. Pearl Harbor is probably one of the most pivotal points in our history. Every service man who helped defend Pearl Harbor should be recognized in some way and this is a big step for that becoming a reality.

 

I always felt that the US Army should have some sort of general assault badge for the non-11B types who got caught up in the fighting from time to time. Also some sort of armored assault badge as well for the tankers who were involved in those nasty slug outs in their "moving foxholes".

 

I disagree. It seems that we are attempting to turn awards (in this case badges) into a system where "everyone gets something." Sure, awards should change with the times to reflect the realities of today's combat, but retroactivily awarding badges back as far as WWII only serves to add a tricket to the collection. Cynically, I suspect most WWII veterans could not care less about a being awarded something that did not exist during their service. In my day, many veterans often just wore the highest medal or award they had recieved. They did not fill their uniforms with badges and ribbons. Their sentiments always stuck with me and as for myself, I am most proud of my campaign ribbons and combat patches, not my individual awards.

Regards,
Marc

 

I'm with Marc on this re. the retrospective awards, but then I find most retrospective awards rather odd.
I might agree with A-58 that the concept of the badge is perhaps a decent enough one (bit like the WW2 Wehrmacht badges...), but I really don't get why it has to be added to previously served chaps' honours.

 

I think there's two issues here. First is the principle of making new awards and medals that may not be "deserved" in many's opinion. Second is the principle of retroactively issuing these.

If I recall correctly there's always been some discourse over the amount of medals awarded in modern times, specifically with regards to the US military. The concensus of the dissenters seems to be that new medals for seemingly minor accomplishments "cheapen" the "value" of existing medals that are awarded for "higher" accomplishments. The USAF in particular seems to get a lot of the attention, and you're essentially guarenteed at least two awards just by completing basic traning (Air Force Training Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, and possibly the Small Arms Marksmanship/Basic Training Honor Graduate Ribbons). Just look at the uniforms of some of the senior officers today -- its not uncommon to see 7 or 8 rows of ribbon bars. Back in WW2, even the highest-decorated soliders had only 3 or 4. While the criteria of the higher medals is unchanged, I can see how soom feel the presense of extra "fruit salad" on one's ribbon bars takes away from these. I'm not an American nor have I served in the military, so I won't weigh in on whether or not this is "right" because its a conversation I don't wish to engage in.

However, this leads to the second issue. IF currently-active servicemembers are recieving these new awards, it should be awarded retroactivily to other veterans who earned it. Whether or not they want it is not the issue in my opinion (although I'm guessing that most would not want it), they should at least be presented with the chance to have it in recognition of the fact that they met the criteria.

The principle of a combat action badge is something that I think is long overdue. There's been attempts to recognize soldiers who have actually seen combat, stretching back to WW2 with (as we all know) the CIB and CMB. There was also a loop that was to be worn on the shoulder boards for a period of time. I forget the exact title, but it was green and was to be worn by those that have actually seen combat. These unfortunetly, although recognizing infantry, did not recognize the armored corps, artillery, combat engineers or those thrown into the fighting. The eligibility also escapes me. Say what you will about the Wehrmacht, but I fully agree with the principle of special badges such as the Panzer Badge and Assault Badge to recognize participation in combat actions.

 

The Navy and Marine Corps has the Combat Action Ribbon. It was created in 1969 to recognize actual participation in ground or surface combat. It was originally retroactive to 1961, then extended back to cover Korea and WWII. It is a very prestegious award within the Marine Corps and when you see someone with one you know they're the real deal. The Marine Corps is much more frugal with passing out awards than the Army or Air Force and has resisted efforts to ease the restrictions involved with being awarded a CAR.
I agree with the sentiment some have suggested that the Army and Air Force has a "system where "everyone gets something." I have to agree with this also. I always thought that the Air Assault, "Dope on a rope" badge was one of these. Created so those soldiers that couldn't get Airborne wings had a badge. This was also the attitude of many soldiers I served with, even those that rated the Air Assault badge. I think it is however, appropriate to extend the CAB to cover retroactively extend combat operations back to WWII. I do disagree with Bobby, something I seldom do, as to an armored assault badge. I think the CIB needs to be retained for traditional reasons, but all others should get the CAB, and not an individual, specialized branch badge, I'd even do away with the CMB.

 

I can see awarding the CAB to all other MOSs when they are engaged in close combat, and maybe including the armored guys too. They are eligible for the CAB now, as long as they are acting in the capacity of an infantry unit. The same with artillerymen too. Maybe an armored identifier or something might work. I stand firm with allowing the continued awarding of the CMB though. They earn that award right up there along side the infantry and their CIBs.

What I'd really like to see is instead of retroactively awarding CABs to eligible veterans all the way back to Pearl Harbor Day, is that the Army do away with at least 95% of the awards and ribbons in the inventory now. Most of those awards can be letters put into the individual's file. If it ain't earned in combat, it don't belong on the uniform I says. When I'm in charge, I'll get it all straight. Re-issue khakis too.

 

I have always admired the "lean and mean" look of the Marine Corp uniform--when there are ribbons they mean something. On the other hand the Army uniform is like a walking personnel file. I can tell how long he was in,what branch, how long overseas in combat, what unit he was with in combat and the one he is currently serving with, how good a shot, how brave, whether he's a kiss-up, etc.etc. I served in the 60's but I'm finding it difficult to keep up with all the new fluff like the "Army Service Ribbon" for making it through basic?-- in the 60's, the guys that didn't make it through basic didn't wear the uniform.

I always thought it was unfair that the armored guys didn't get their own badge like the infantry and the fly-boys. But I'm still undecided about retroactive--the arguments are good for both sides.

 

I pretty much agree with Bobby on this. IMO, the discussion of whether the Army awards too many medals and ribbons for doing little or nothing is a separate issue.

 

Not everybody deserves a trophy....

 

I think we can all agree with this.

 

Come to think of it, troops of all MOSs in the Army rate the Combat Patch after serving in combat. That means they get to wear the unit patch they served in during combat operations on their right sleeve. Not sure how this practice will work out with the new uniforms the Army comes up with from time to time. But in theory, everyone gets something after serving in combat.

 

Not really because the patch is authorized for serving with a unit in a combat zone, even if no actual combat is seen. To clarify, Joe Schmo deploys to the combat zone in a non-combat role with the 1st Battalion X Regiment, 1st logistics brigade. He would rate the patch of the 1st Logistics Brigade, even though it had not deployed, because his battalion had deployed, and even though he or the entire unit never even saw an enemy soldier. The badges are supposedly only issued for participation in actual combat. I have heard rumors that they've gotten fairly lax in enforcing the requirements. I know the Marine Corps has fought tooth and nail to prevent the CAR requirements in place and not to allow a dilution of the award.

 

Well don't that beat all. Seems that the people in the places that makes the rules in the Army are all posers in uniform. They want the trimmings of a combat soldier but none of the experience to validate it.

 

"You sounded taller on the radio"