Medal for the wounded?

[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.