VC's 'cheapened' by being awarded to SAS bods in Afghanistan.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Class D airspace
Age: 67
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
O Great Roman one - I did not mean to upset your Sunday - methinks you may misunderstand my point - in the modern war, fewer actions by fewer persons yield greater results [ignore the generalisation for the benefit of this].
My understanding is that it is harder for the horthorities to award the same medal load proportionally [as say the 1940's or 1950's] unless they appropriately modify the qualifying criteria. [methinks VC's, and other individual medals of valour and bravery, the origination of this thread, would be unlikely to be affected greatly]
My concern is that despite a few persons 'winning the war' very few medals of theatre recognition will result.
Only a dumpkopf would argue for 'more wars', and I assume you are not one.
SS - You are correct - Flt Lt Martin Withers was awarded the DFC; the rest of the crew were all MID, including the AAR instructor in the jump seat, a certain Flt Lt Dick Russell. A midnight take off of 11 Victors and 2 Vulcans in a 1 min stream, no nav lights; one crisis was aparently when Withers' Vulcan met the tanker, and fuel leaked over the windscreen, resulting in the Nav Radar having to do a 'talk down' to re-engage the basket through a 2" area at the base of the screen! Heady days! Oh for a range worthy tanker fleet at that time. The incident SS refers to may well be the one where Sqn Ldr Tuxford [Victor] tried to refuel Flt Lt Bigland [Victor] - Biglands' AAR probe snapped in heavy turbulence over CBs etc, the a/c swapped places, Tuxford took back all his fuel, and sent Biglands back to Wideawake. Tuxford refulled the returning Vulcan for the last time [remember this was not his primary brief!] some 3000nm from WAW, but the Victor's fuel useage had been greater than expected so the transfer was cut short, and Tuxford planned a ditching 400nm from WAW, but waited until the completion of the bombing raid signal was heard before calling assistance, at which point further Victors were scrambled to carry him home. Tuxford received the AFC and the crew QCVSAs. Biglands' sortie time was 12hrs 15, while Tuxfords was just over 14 hours.
By and large the tanker captains were recognised, but not their crews.
[Falklands - The Air WarISBN 0 85368 842 7 1986 Arms and Armour Press, London]
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Reheat On ]</p>
My understanding is that it is harder for the horthorities to award the same medal load proportionally [as say the 1940's or 1950's] unless they appropriately modify the qualifying criteria. [methinks VC's, and other individual medals of valour and bravery, the origination of this thread, would be unlikely to be affected greatly]
My concern is that despite a few persons 'winning the war' very few medals of theatre recognition will result.
Only a dumpkopf would argue for 'more wars', and I assume you are not one.
SS - You are correct - Flt Lt Martin Withers was awarded the DFC; the rest of the crew were all MID, including the AAR instructor in the jump seat, a certain Flt Lt Dick Russell. A midnight take off of 11 Victors and 2 Vulcans in a 1 min stream, no nav lights; one crisis was aparently when Withers' Vulcan met the tanker, and fuel leaked over the windscreen, resulting in the Nav Radar having to do a 'talk down' to re-engage the basket through a 2" area at the base of the screen! Heady days! Oh for a range worthy tanker fleet at that time. The incident SS refers to may well be the one where Sqn Ldr Tuxford [Victor] tried to refuel Flt Lt Bigland [Victor] - Biglands' AAR probe snapped in heavy turbulence over CBs etc, the a/c swapped places, Tuxford took back all his fuel, and sent Biglands back to Wideawake. Tuxford refulled the returning Vulcan for the last time [remember this was not his primary brief!] some 3000nm from WAW, but the Victor's fuel useage had been greater than expected so the transfer was cut short, and Tuxford planned a ditching 400nm from WAW, but waited until the completion of the bombing raid signal was heard before calling assistance, at which point further Victors were scrambled to carry him home. Tuxford received the AFC and the crew QCVSAs. Biglands' sortie time was 12hrs 15, while Tuxfords was just over 14 hours.
By and large the tanker captains were recognised, but not their crews.
[Falklands - The Air WarISBN 0 85368 842 7 1986 Arms and Armour Press, London]
[ 20 January 2002: Message edited by: Reheat On ]</p>
Thread Starter
Yes, yes, that's the man, Tuxford - now that was real heroism, of the highest order, willingly accepting the prospect of almost certain death (ditching a Victor, or ejecting from one, midlant at that time of year), and all to stay radio silent. Worth more than an AFC, certainly!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: down sarrf
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that was the case the mission planner should have had his nuts bitten off for not forseeing all eventualities!, you don't win wars from ten grand, you do very little to influence them in reality, casualty rates need to be examined to se the proportion of peeps wiped out in proportion to gongs and it's not hard to check out the crab backslapping parties post conflict, I thought every crab in the Falklands got a DFC,afc or MBE/CBE/OBE or thats how it appears to the rest of the armed forces, while no one can question the bravery of the Lads in 1991 flying runway heading at zilch feet to deliver the worlds bigggest blinds on target, we all know it is "just your Job" and you push on and get it done leaving the worrying until after.. .Give the Victor guy the VC, now that would be cheapening the noble Order!
Thread Starter
Rock,
You raise some interesting questions, and lead me to wonder whether you're perhaps a little envious of the RAF..... I wish now that I'd used Major Sam Drennan as my example of someone who perhaps deserved a more prestigious decoration than he got.... Would that have made you happy?
Some questions:
Can you only be brave if you kill lots of the enemy, or if you directly influence the tide of the battle?
Can you only be brave if you suffer huge numbers of casualties?
Can you only be brave if you win the battle? (Take back the VCs from Rorke's Drift, then...)
Is bravery impossible if it results from some-one else's (planning) error?
I wasn't suggesting Tuxford should necessarily have got a VC - a DSO would do!!! But the point is while he may have done nothing to directly influence the fighting on the ground he coolly ignored what must have been real fears and knowingly put himself and his crew in the face of enormous danger in order to ensure the success of the mission. And I thought that the VC was created to recognise exactly that sort of calculated valour....
You raise some interesting questions, and lead me to wonder whether you're perhaps a little envious of the RAF..... I wish now that I'd used Major Sam Drennan as my example of someone who perhaps deserved a more prestigious decoration than he got.... Would that have made you happy?
Some questions:
Can you only be brave if you kill lots of the enemy, or if you directly influence the tide of the battle?
Can you only be brave if you suffer huge numbers of casualties?
Can you only be brave if you win the battle? (Take back the VCs from Rorke's Drift, then...)
Is bravery impossible if it results from some-one else's (planning) error?
I wasn't suggesting Tuxford should necessarily have got a VC - a DSO would do!!! But the point is while he may have done nothing to directly influence the fighting on the ground he coolly ignored what must have been real fears and knowingly put himself and his crew in the face of enormous danger in order to ensure the success of the mission. And I thought that the VC was created to recognise exactly that sort of calculated valour....
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: down sarrf
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VC criteria. ."to place yourself at mortal risk knowingly to save life or to influence directly the outcome of the battle with disregard to your own safety". .not placing your crew in danger with a fuel emergency.. .I don't have envy of the Air force, just anger at the gong rush that accompanies all operations with crab involvement, This is a fair comment and I am sure a widely felt feeling not only in the Army but also in the Navy, so pipe up!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: I see lights bearing 045
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming to this one late, but I clearly remember considerable acrimony over a few of the awards made post Granby, and prior to that, Corporate.
Obviously it would be completely out of order and libellous to discuss their merits here, but I grew up with the WW2 generation of Aircrew who openly talked about "good DSOs" and "bad DSOs", likewise VC's.
It is my experience that Awards for Valour, are essentially for benefit of those, who are not the recipients.
If Tony Blair wants to chuck around a few gongs, to make some guys look good, then so be it. My guess is that the boys who were on the ground at the time, couldn't care less.
BTW, JACKO, didn't we win Rorkes Drift?
Obviously it would be completely out of order and libellous to discuss their merits here, but I grew up with the WW2 generation of Aircrew who openly talked about "good DSOs" and "bad DSOs", likewise VC's.
It is my experience that Awards for Valour, are essentially for benefit of those, who are not the recipients.
If Tony Blair wants to chuck around a few gongs, to make some guys look good, then so be it. My guess is that the boys who were on the ground at the time, couldn't care less.
BTW, JACKO, didn't we win Rorkes Drift?
Thread Starter
At best, at Rorke's Drift, we prevented defeat. Can't spell well enough to draw attention to Isandalwana the day before!
VC criteria. ."to place yourself at mortal risk knowingly to save life or to influence directly the outcome of the battle with disregard to your own safety"
Isn't that Tuxford exactly? And arguably fitting both halves of the statement!
[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]</p>
VC criteria. ."to place yourself at mortal risk knowingly to save life or to influence directly the outcome of the battle with disregard to your own safety"
Isn't that Tuxford exactly? And arguably fitting both halves of the statement!
[ 22 January 2002: Message edited by: Jackonicko ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fairly sure that the official guidance given on the award of Gallantry decorations does include rough assessments of percentage likelihood of loss of life. Its all contained in a publication called something like 'criterion for the award of medals and decorations' or similar which, many years ago, I had the opportunity to peruse.
And my recollection does indeed include a rough stat of 'a 90% chance of loss of life in the action' as guidance for the VC.
I can't comment directly as to what extent the actions of any members of SF in Afghanistan are worthy of any award 'cos i don't know what they actually did. But assuming the 90% chance to be correct (and I actually read it) then it would seem to at least introduce some question given the absence of any UK fatalities in direct combat in the entire campaign thus far.
And while we are on the subject I am extremely pleased for those who are awarded gallantry decorations on modern operations. In my opinion they do - and should - act as both recognition of the individual and unit actions and also as inspiration to others in the future.
Despite all of the above, however, I can't agree that medals are getting harder to win. Just read some of the citations from WW2 stuff etc and compare them to the more recent ones. Concentrate especially on casualty figures. I think it is clear that there were a great deal more people involved in much more risky situations whose actions went less or unrecognised in the past.
Well done to those who do earn decorations. But JN is right that we should at least question (as I'm sure many of those who arses were on the line would) the possibility that their real purpose (as articulated above) might be being subverted by political intent to influence opinion on the good sense or otherwise of engaging in current or future conflict.
Basically we must be sure that they are being awarded for their real purpose and not being undermined by those who just want to gain a cause some cheap glory publicity with whom no-one can easliy argue.
PP
PS Archie nice to see you still here!
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: PoorPongo ]</p>
And my recollection does indeed include a rough stat of 'a 90% chance of loss of life in the action' as guidance for the VC.
I can't comment directly as to what extent the actions of any members of SF in Afghanistan are worthy of any award 'cos i don't know what they actually did. But assuming the 90% chance to be correct (and I actually read it) then it would seem to at least introduce some question given the absence of any UK fatalities in direct combat in the entire campaign thus far.
And while we are on the subject I am extremely pleased for those who are awarded gallantry decorations on modern operations. In my opinion they do - and should - act as both recognition of the individual and unit actions and also as inspiration to others in the future.
Despite all of the above, however, I can't agree that medals are getting harder to win. Just read some of the citations from WW2 stuff etc and compare them to the more recent ones. Concentrate especially on casualty figures. I think it is clear that there were a great deal more people involved in much more risky situations whose actions went less or unrecognised in the past.
Well done to those who do earn decorations. But JN is right that we should at least question (as I'm sure many of those who arses were on the line would) the possibility that their real purpose (as articulated above) might be being subverted by political intent to influence opinion on the good sense or otherwise of engaging in current or future conflict.
Basically we must be sure that they are being awarded for their real purpose and not being undermined by those who just want to gain a cause some cheap glory publicity with whom no-one can easliy argue.
PP
PS Archie nice to see you still here!
[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: PoorPongo ]</p>
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PongoPrivatePilot
reference to Australian FAC pilot in V`Nam recommended Medal of Honour.
May be interested same fellow dead sticked a Mirage into an old abandoned WW2 strip(not made for Liberators either) shortly after t/o out of Williamtown.
Again,confusion over a medal-not sure whether to award a medal or court martial him.Missed powerlines by inches.
Incredibly brave man.
reference to Australian FAC pilot in V`Nam recommended Medal of Honour.
May be interested same fellow dead sticked a Mirage into an old abandoned WW2 strip(not made for Liberators either) shortly after t/o out of Williamtown.
Again,confusion over a medal-not sure whether to award a medal or court martial him.Missed powerlines by inches.
Incredibly brave man.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Good Lord duck,
It sounds like the story of the man's life, his guardian angel certainly earns the overtime. I'm planning a trip down to the Land of Oz, and will certainly buy that man, as much beer as he can consume. Maybe I'll get a letter off to Australia House tonight....
Tony
It sounds like the story of the man's life, his guardian angel certainly earns the overtime. I'm planning a trip down to the Land of Oz, and will certainly buy that man, as much beer as he can consume. Maybe I'll get a letter off to Australia House tonight....
Tony
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any chance that the recent announcement of a Review of the levels of secrecy/lack of PR in the Special Forces may be related to the PM's desire to make awards and publicise the actions of the people concerned?
