Medal for the wounded?

[Al R]

.. quoted from ARRSE

Medals can be a hot topic here and some folk really need to take a chill pill. We hear about KIA all the time and but we never really hear the stories of the wounded, and god knows how many have been wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan and wars past. The introduction of the Elizabeth Cross was a good thing in my view. It can't bring back the dead but it gives the relatives something, that on rememberance it highlights that they have lost a loved one in War. I saw this today. They have done their Country proud and for some blokes, they may have been out there less than the requirement to qualify for the OSM (Unless it has changed).

Institute a medal for HM Armed Forces wounded in action. - e-petitions (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/27742)

The Americans have had the purple heart for years (not that we want to be like them and have a medal for everything) and other Armies have a similar thing. It has probably been discussed before and put to bed and the reason I think is probably the wounded 'dont want another f**kin medal!' and living with the wounds and the scars of war is bad enough than having a medal to constantly remind them of the time they lost their legs etc.

It struck me that someone could be shipped back with a Blighty one before earning a Campaign medal, which, with all the Jubilee gongs doing the rounds, and commendations for keeping stationary stores all shiny whilst deployed, seems unfair. Surely, one for the few undergoing months of painful rehab wouldn't go amiss?

[Lima Juliet]

How about award the Campaign medal with a special emblem attached to it for the wounded (rather like they do oak leaves for MiD or QCVS)?

LJ

[Pontius Navigator]

Al R, when we were talking about medals before I think someone said that you would automatically qualify if you were wounded and repatriated.

A clasp however similar to the FI campaign medal might be a way. Then you have the issue of what constitutes a wound medal.

Some criteria would be clear but how about a splintered bum from a bog seat?

[Al R]

PN,

:cool: I didn't read that thread.

Yes, a clasp or oak leaves could do it - we had wound stripes in World War One so this isn't even a new thing, an example of medal dilution or coming over all American. We recognise people for the effort and sacrifice in running the motorbike club, but not for taking some shrapnel.

[TheWizard]

What about non-physical 'wounds' such as PTSD? That can be a career stopper just as easily. Would that qualify?
What would constitute the criteria for such an award?
Do we really need to go down the American route of giving out more medals? :confused:

[SASless]

http://www.janetgliang.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/purple-heart.jpg







We are having similar arguments now about PTSD being a qualifiying "Wound".

I tend to think the Purple Heart should be limited to physical wounds as it has been traditionally.

I got mine in a somewhat conventional manner....got shot and burned. I also have been diagnosed as having PTSD. I do not think woundings like PTSD amount to the kind of "Wound" we wish to "honor"....despite it having long term effects just as some of the physical wounds do.

Our Purple Heart is not a replacement for a service Ribbon or Campaign Medal....it is simply a way of marking a Service Member who was wounded in direct combat against an armed enemy.

Our time limits for Campaign Medals and the like is simple....one day qualifies....so if you get Wounded the day you arrive on-site in the designated "combat area"....you qualify for the Purple Heart and the Campaign Medal.

I do wonder about all the Medals and Ribbons that are being issued these days....as it demeans the "legitimate" awards that are earned by valorous service in actual combat. When have to add the "V" device for Valor to some awards that are now given for mere service and not heroic acts....it really does demean those that were earned under the "old" system.

My Grandfather, as a Private, was nominated for the Medal of Honor and wound up with a DSC....if he had been an Officer, based upon Medal Citations of the time he would have received the Medal. The "politics" of miltary award systems oft times cause more problems than can be acknowledged by those in charge. If they would keep the rules simple, make the system focus upon rewarding those that do extraordinary things, who are wounded, and make the awards standards uniform, we would all be better served.

[NutLoose]

As oak leaves etc are already used, surely a heart shaped Rosette on the ribbon would be the way to do it.

[mad_jock]

Did a double take there on that medal. Thought the second name was Heller and thought that explains a few things.

[Tankertrashnav]

Al R - You are right about WW1 wound stripes, but they also had them in the British army in WW2 (not sure about the other services). They were a short gold stripe worn vertically on the lower sleeve. I'm not sure when their use was discontinued, but I can't see why something of the kind couldn't be re-introduced now. As well as the American Purple Heart already referred to, the Germans had wound badges in 3 classes, depending on the number of wounds, and the French had medals for the wounded, so we would not be exceptional. I think a symbol on the medal ribbon is a better idea than a stripe on the uniform simply because that remains after the individual has left the service, and they could be awarded retrospectively.

Nice to see your medal Sasless - interesting to see it is named. Examples I have seen have been unnamed as far as I recall - did you have that done privately?

[Courtney Mil]

Except (may be wrong) some folks could be injured in their first week of deployment and not qualify for the medal. Or would they make an exception. Just getting the clasp wouldn't be very good. I suppose it simply depends upon writing the criteria correctly.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

During the Great War, personnel dismissed from the military ( it might have just been the Army) received the Silver War Badge. Something like that?

It only wiki but: Silver War Badge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_War_Badge)

Duncs:ok:

[baffman]

Except (may be wrong) some folks could be injured in their first week of deployment and not qualify for the medal. Or would they make an exception. Just getting the clasp wouldn't be very good. I suppose it simply depends upon writing the criteria correctly.

I think the point was covered earlier in the thread, but to confirm, the full qualifying period is not required if the qualifying service is brought to an end by death, wounding or other disability due to operational service.

That's from the criteria for the Iraq Medal (Op TELIC). I think you will find similar criteria for other campaign medals.

[Lima Juliet]

There was this in WWII which was known as the "King's Badge". My grandfather got one for getting smashed up on his dispatch riders bike on D-Day. It is worn in your buttonhole on discharge.

http://derekwright.co.uk/Medals/Kings%20badge.jpg

It came with a nice certificate as well...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/3128180521_54d7ab7a8d_o.jpg

[Courtney Mil]

I think the point was covered earlier in the thread

Sorry. I shall study my PPRuNe more carefully in future.

the full qualifying period is not required if the qualifying service is brought to an end by death, wounding or other disability due to operational service.

Good. I would have hoped so. As long as they write that clause into requirements always.

[Trim Stab]

I think the point was covered earlier in the thread, but to confirm, the full qualifying period is not required if the qualifying service is brought to an end by death, wounding or other disability due to operational service.

That's from the criteria for the Iraq Medal (Op TELIC). I think you will find similar criteria for other campaign medals.


Exactly.

Campaign medals are awarded for contribution to a campaign. Whether an individual is wounded or not during that contribution is rightly not distinguished.

Valour medals are awarded irresespective of whether the individual survived/was injured/died.

What's wrong with that simple and noble system?

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? Who would qualify for one anyway, who didn't justly qualify for a Campaign or Valour medal?

I would, however, support the return of the likes of the WW1 civilian award to those whose military career has been cut short by injuries during their service.

[Sloppy Link]

Also qualify for the full Op bonus along with the gong.

SL

[Tankertrashnav]

Re the King's badge. Leon, it is always nice to see something new. In 30 odd years of dealing in militaria I have seen dozens of those King's badges, and their WW1 equivalent, the War Service Badge (sometimes incorrectly called 'the Wound Badge', but I have never seen a certificate like the one you illustrate. I'm guessing that whereas most of the badges have survived, 95% of the letters have been lost over the years, so I am glad you still have your grandfather's.

[SASless]

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?

What utter and complete Horse ****!

That has got to be the most stupid, insulting, and bogus comment I have yet read here.....and that takes some doing!

Please do explain how the American Purple Heart Award can do that....please do tell us.

You made the statement.....now back it up with some facts.

Unless you do....I will just have to accept the fact that you are witless to the extreme.

Self Inflicted Wounds don't get Purple Hearts.....they do get Court Martials.





Tanker....that is not mine. That is just a photo I pulled off the web.

I was wounded in June '70....a PH was pinned to my pillow while I was in the warm embrace of Madam Demerol and it was put into my Army issue Personal Effects bag. The next day I awoke from another Liasion with Miss Demerol to find another PH pinned to the bed and freaked out....thinking I had been wounded a second time. The explanation was in the hustle/bustle of the Evac Hospital....someone had failed to replace the name card on the end of the bed and a visiting 1st Cav General had mistaken me for a Cav Trooper whose bed I had been placed in as he was sleeping elsewhere. That bag got lost en-route to Japan where I was sent for treatment of my burns. The PH I have now arrived last year when I did the "One Time Replacement" issue of my Awards and Decorations.

[orca]

I would disagree with a recognition of a wound in the form of 'an award'. Without wanting to be inflammatory I think that you already get recognition for 'going' to war and those that merit it get extra awards for their efforts in the form of service or gallantry awards. I personally think that an award for being wounded is almost akin to rewarding the enemy for a good shot.

After all, if you get wounded doing something brave enough to get a gallantry award then hopefully you may get one of those. If you get wounded doing nothing particularly brave then you get the same campaign medal as the (slightly luckier) bloke next to you. Seems fair to me.

As ever, just my opinion.

[SASless]

Orca....so you lay down the base of fire that covers a fellow Squaddie who gets a Gong for taking out the Machine Gun nest....you get wounded or killed....he gets the Gong....you get a body bag.

Now that is a real fair deal.

At least in our system....the grieving family gets a Letter from the KIA's Commanders (Platoon and Company), A pretty Vinyl Folder with a medal, ribbon, and citation citing the circumstances, and a dead child from the government.

Yet you would think that excessive?

I find nothing the government can do will ever replace that loved one.

I firmly believe that if you just show up....you earn recognition...if you fight you deserve more....and if you get wounded or killed....that should be more than a Telegram or Visit from a few Officers detailed the job.

We come from different perspectives and I do not care to criticize your system or how it came to be. I do find it interesting that your system does not have something like the PH.

Wasn't it Napoleon that said something about motivating Soldiers with a some fancy ribbons?

[Easy Street]

The UK now has the Elizabeth Cross for families of the deceased.

[SASless]

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.

[iRaven]

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:

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2008/08/29/sacrifice-gg-medal-584.jpg

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? :ugh:

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. :D

iRaven

[Trim Stab]

SASLess - self-inflcited wounds:

John Kerry’s ‘self-inflicted’ Purple Heart, Bronze Star (http://www.wnd.com/2004/08/26004/)

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 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/25/20040825-085753-2062r/?page=all)

"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 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/25/20040825-085753-2062r/?page=all#ixzz24jW5zgpo)

[Whenurhappy]

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

[Al R]

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.

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

[GreenKnight121]

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.

[Whenurhappy]

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'.

[GreenKnight121]

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

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.

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.

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.

All bolding, underlining, and coloring of text are my editing of the original text which has not been altered in any other way.

[Trim Stab]

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."

[GreenKnight121]

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!

[Trim Stab]

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.

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

The Purple Heart gives 'an incentive' to get wounded. Are you bereft? Never read to much nonsense in my puff!

Duncs:ok:

[Pontius Navigator]

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.

[SASless]

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.

[orca]

SASless,

I didn't mention self-inflicted wounds and agree with you that whoever did was being crass. I think you have two posts or posters muddled up.

[SASless]

Orca....I owe you an apology.

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?

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.

[orca]

No dramas at all and apology accepted. An emotive debate and these things are bound to happen.

Cheers,

Orca.

[ian16th]

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?Wasn't it said of WWII aircrew that Bomber Command crews were given more gallantry medals than Fighter Command, simply because with a crew of 7 there were more witnesses to the deeds than from the single seat fighters?

[Pontius Navigator]

Ian, with over 6,000 airmen on a raid I think the numbers tell their own story.

[ian16th]

Sorry, I should have put the word 'proportionately' in there somewhere.:O

[Danny42C]

My two-cents' worth (in #2908, p. 146) may be of interest (in that it is illustrative of the sort of incident in which it could be awarded).

Never heard a word about it anywhere in India afterwards, nor in UK when I got back in '46, nor in RAF '49 - '72.

But my little gold lace stripe was a fact. Where is it now ? Lord knows !

Danny42C

[Tankertrashnav]

Danny, I was indeed interested in your account of getting your wound stripe. I knew it existed, but it seems to have been issued very sparingly - in 30 odd years of dealing in militaria I am pretty sure I have never come across one. The long service stripes (inverted chevrons) were abolished in 1950 so I wonder if the wound stripe went at the same time.

Ian and P-N - drifting a bit on the subject of aircrew awards, it is surprising that the DFC (officers and warrant officers) was awarded 20,354 times in WW2, whereas the DFM (flight sergeants and below) was awarded only 6,637 times. Given the number of sergeants in Bomber Command crews in particular, this disparity is certainly strange. Since the pilot of a multi-crew aircraft was more likely to be an officer than the other crew members, could this be the reason? Perish the thought that pilots were considered more deserving of medals than the rest ;)

[Fareastdriver]

Perish the thought that pilots were considered more deserving of medals than the rest
Unfortunately the logic is simple. The DFC and DFM are awarded for distinguished flying. The pilots fly the aircraft.

Takes cover behind the settee.

[Pontius Navigator]

FED, take cover indeed you should.

Personally I think the Captain got the credit as the rest of the crew had no choice but to follow. OTOH if the rest of the crew would have pressed on but the pilot chose not to . . .

Undoubtedly where the pilots did deserve the medals was when they brought the kite home safely or kept it up long enough for the crew to bail out and frequently lost their lives in the process.

TTN, you would need to establish the proportion of NCO to Officer pilots. Also don't forget that Master aircrew were drawn from the pool of NCOs which would reduce the number of eligible SNCO Pilots whereas the officer cadre would cover the whole range of ranks.

[SASless]

FED.....not always the case.

Master Sgt. Henry E. "Red" Erwin (http://www.af.mil/information/heritage/person.asp?dec=&pid=123006484)

[fawkes]

I can confirm that those injured in theatre but repatriated continue to receive OA until their tour would have finished if they are still receiving treatment and thus also qualify for the Campaign Medal.

What we need to remember is that "Joint" means "Army": UK doesn't allow folk to qualify for Campaign Medals on day one in Theatre in order to deny it to visitors, and discourage military tourism (of which there is far too much in any case). The Army has to be reminded about the implications for aircrew undergoing greater risks in their frequent flights in and out in order to achieve the qualifying service. All aviation sorties are risky to some extent - the attitude towards air accidents shows a typical Army disregard for this fact.

I suspect that the real difficulty about a UK Purple Heart or similar would go beyond the complexities of qualifying wounds (and don't forget the bizarre suggestion that defusing an IED does not qualify as "in the face of the Enemy" if Terry has already scarpered) but is rather more alarming. To issue such an award would be to run the risk of acknowledging the very high number of wounded - not just the seriously wounded (defined as life-changeing injuries). The current line is that statistics for all wounds cannot be gathered as minor wounds not requiring repatriation are not distinguished from other injuries not attributable to enemy action. (and what about an injury sustained whilst diving for cover from incoming IDF or as a result of an RTA when a vehicle in a convoy hits an IED?) Any sort of wound stripe would blow this obfuscation out of the water.

The US Forces are still sufficiently large that it is possible to spend an entire career entirely honourably never hearing a shot fired in anger. The problem with the UK is that by and large the pressure is on the same supporting units to go again and again. One suspects that the greater the exposure the greater the risk - and the higher numbers of injuries in particular units. This is not a statistic anybody wants advertised either.

I recall being shown in 2009 a statisical analysis of Operational Honours with the question of whether there seemed a disproportionate number of officers. The answer was "of course" and it came down to the quality of the write up.

I recall that the Army have a black economy of visitors; the absolute cap in numbers meant that drivers and ADCs and even majors and Lt Cols were doing short tours and job shares in order to get the Herrick tick in the box. By contrast the RAF and RN simply got on with their jobs and went when sent instead of clamouring to go. There might be a real danger of a wound award being used as a further selection criterion for army promotion. Like other posters I do not suggest that there is any risk of deliberate self harm or of increased carelessness, but I do think that this would be an unhelpful distinction.