VC's 'cheapened' by being awarded to SAS bods in Afghanistan.
 

Today's Sunday Express (glimpsed in the garage while buying a real paper) seemed to have a story saying that Blair et al were pushing for VCs to be awarded to some Hereford chaps for their part in the recent Afghan shindig.

I don't know what they did, nor how fearfully brave they had to be (much braver than some fat-arsed civvy journo just to go there, don't get me wrong) so I can't judge whether such an award would be to degrade Britain's premier gallantry award, but it seemed like an interesting story, and I almost wish I'd bought the paper. Anyone know the story?

Did similar thing while in the garage, but I understood it to be that the politicians were blocking the recommendations for the award of VCs,mind you I was a bit distracted by rather fit bird stood in front of me in the queue!!

Whichever way round it was (and no doubt someone will put us straight)if the guys deserve them they should get them.

[ 13 January 2002: Message edited by: Onya Backbitch ]</p>

Managed to view a copy of said rag. It appears that our Dear Leader and some of his acolytes are pushing for the award of the VC to two Hereford types: the chap who lost a leg as a result of one a small fracas in a cave, and the other to an SNCO wounded in the leg (but not as seriously) for possibly the same incident (although hard to tell with the wonderful prose in the Sunday Express these days).

It seems that the fuss is that the political pressure is overlooking some of the criteria for the award of the VC (including the line from one un-named source that you have to stand at least a 90% chance of dying to win the VC - not quite sure I remember that being in the warrant, but...)

The other complaint implied seemed to be that if political pressure leads to the award of the VC to the two chaps in question, it may be that this forces the 'upgrading' of awards that might be made to others: for instance, if someone did something deemed more heroic than either of the chaps being pushed forward by Uncle Tony, they would have to be awarded the VC as well - thus instead of a couple of CGCs and several MCs, you could be in a situation where four or five VCs are awarded.

Of course, since this was in the Sunday Express, this is probably rubbish - but hope it answers the question, Jacko.

That's very interesting. I suppose that on mature reflection, what's really new? There have been VC awards before made on at least partly 'political' grounds - especially when campaigns have been less than successful, and many instances of acts of huge heroism going unrecognised.

It would be nice to think that all of those who have put themselves in harms way on our behalf get the recognition and thanks that they deserve. I in no way meant to 'knock' the heroism of the SAS types involved.

The suggestion by the paper in question, seems to be the award of the VC's might be an attempt by the GL to legitimise and enchance the Afgan hoo-haa in the eyes of the British Public. But then again, said paper is really quite good as toilet paper.

However, I know , I sure as hell, do not ever want to find my self armed only with a Colt or H&K, trying to winkle die hard ratboys out of a cave complex they know better than me. As far as i'm concerned, that was brave enough for the medal

In recent times, there has been some discussion, over the award of the Falklands VC's. It seemed, there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind, that Sgt Mackays VC , was in the finest tradition of the award, cut down going forward, out of ammunition and in with the bayonet. Col. Jones' VC, was I remember, debated in some quarters as more of a political reward. To my mind, he was the boss, who died leading his troops, so that was good enough.

However, there are 2 more VC actions, which have never received the award.

One, from the Falklands, involved an SAS Captain and his signaller. They were cut off , and the argies had every advantage. From what I remember, the Sasser took the spare ammo off the signaller, and then held off the Argentinians long enough to get him away. He was killed in the action. The argentinian commander, made a formal request, that the captain be awarded the VC, but as an enemy commander, his request could not be honoured, because, the award of the VC, is subject to being witnessed by a British, Commonwealth or allied officer.

The second one, was an Australian FAC pilot in Vietnam, Gary Cooper, who currently has a Spitfire under rebuild.

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/GCCongMOH1.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~aircommando1/GCCongMOH1.htm</a>

I would ask you to read the story, it is just incredible, and maybe someone who reads this forum, can explain why he never got the award?

Tony
(sic transit gloria)

Bill Reid VC passed away not long ago. If you want to know what's needed to get a VC you could do worse than read up on what he did. Some might call it "press-on-itis" but as he said, when you've already been shot to pieces, you may as well finish the job you came to do. If you abort, the mission doesn't count towards your tour. That just about sums it up. Real heros just think they're doing their job...

**********************************
Through difficulties to the cinema

"But as an Enemy----)

Not true mate! Fg Officer Trigg, RNZAF, was killed while attacking a U-boat(which he sank) on 11 August 1943, and was awarded a posthumous VC largely on the recommendation of the U-boat Captain.

Courage is courage. Doesn't matter where, when or by whom.

If the action merits it how can suggesting an SAS member be awarded a VC for action in Afghanistan cheapen it.

Pathetic journos who pontificate about real brave people are those who cheapen its' name.

Doc C.

Pathetic people who don't even detail what they do in their profiles then make easy jibes about pontificating journos make me equally angry, old boy.

The question isn't whether or not the SAS are heroes (the answer is as obvious as my opinion of those fine chaps) only whether in this instance there is a suggestion that the award may be being made (or pushed for) politically.

The question is exactly as to whether this action does or does not merit the award of Britain's highest decoration for valour.

As far as good reads concerning VC winners, you could do worse than peruse "The Mark of the Lion", a Biography of New Zealander Charles Hazlitt Upham - Twice winner of the VC. Top book.

Oh, and I'm with PPP. You go sticking yourself uninvited into a hole full of unpleasant types like those boys have - you can have a medal too.
[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Stray Fin ]

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: Stray Fin ]</p>

stray -
presumably he was nicknamed "they don't like it..." :)

Stupid boy

Military history is full of the should have's. But those of us who volunteered our lives for the cause, didn't do so just to get a medal. Most who have seen action and survived were grateful to have their lives spared and I know of no British serviceman who has complained about not receiving a medal when he thought he was due one, it's not British. Our colleagues across the water get medals just for eating compo (probably deservedly) We wouldn't want it that way. I'll take my hat off to any man that fought for his country and if most of the British public thought that way; that's got to be worth two VC's
Que Fas et Gloria Du****

Interesting reference site follows:

<a href="http://www.chapter-one.com/vc/default.asp" target="_blank">http://www.chapter-one.com/vc/default.asp</A>

Worth a look, just to see how incredible some of these actions were. Interesting to note that - three men have been awarded it twice, no women have been awarded, and 16 previous awards were made for actions in Afghanistan.

Where a number were deemed to have carried out an herioc action, and no individual could be singled out, then a ballot would be made to see who should get the VC.

One of the statments from the site:

"It is worth remembering that many servicemen who merited the Victoria Cross never received it because their actions went unnoticed, or the witnesses were killed, or whose self-sacrifice resulted in a lonely death in an unmarked grave. This is true no matter what the nationality of the person and is the reason why the tomb of a nation's unknown warrior usually has the highest gallantry decoration bestowed upon it."

This does appear to be a thread started by a Journo looking for copy!, note my profile is filled out matey, you will note that anybod from the army here is 100% behind any award to the men of the hereford gun club, many actions of which have gone unrecognised for a very long time, as had actions of their predecessors, I am only surprised that Crab air hasn'put an E3 driver or 10 Tanker bloke up for one. few people in the Armed forces get down dirty and dangerous with the nasties in the way that the Regiment, Para and Marines and their supporting aircrews from the FAA, SH force and AAC.
I think it would be a top award to our countries finest instead of their having to say "he should of gotten it" or having to accept a lesser award because of Politics.

Journo's.......My A**e!

Thanks for that - it sounds like inside knowledge that what they did was brave enough. I wasn't fishing, just had my curiosity aroused by the story, and I'm sure that you'd acknowledge that 'Trust Me Tone' wouldn't be beyond encouraging awards for his little war in order to get political advantage. V pleased that many in the Army don't think that's the case.

I have often wondered if the extreme selectivity with which the medal is issued, and the way in which the requirements have sometimes seemed to vary, or to be influenced by domestic propaganda/morale needs hasn't led to a problem which could be solved by being just a tiny bit more generous with medals - not like the US, but just more generous. IMHO, many more DFCs should have been awarded in Granby, while that Victor tanker bod in the Falklands surely deserved even more than a DFC for his bit of reasoned heroism?

Again, no disrespect intended (except perhaps to TB the PM and maybe the wizards in Handbrake House).

Hmmmm.

Is not a problem here that medals [ie reward for putting your life on the line for real] are actually held back like hens teeth by the politically influenced Military Management [ie their hairships, hadmorals, and henerals].

T'was a time many a moon back when saving a stricken aircraft in the younger service was recognised with a gtraciously awarded AFC. Be lucky to get a QCVSA nowadays - its all adjudged to part of the job description.

Seems to me that modern warfare is constantly changing, and if only in style, longevity and intensity. The criteria ofr medal awards must, qed, be somewhat a flexible feast as well.

If VCs are in order, fine - but I hope that appropriate recognition is given to the rest of the fire teams - and not just a campaign medal.

What about, for example, all the Tanker guys struttin' their stuff in theatre.

Am i right in thinking all US troops/crews operating in theatre are exempted all Income Tax for the period of service, or did I imagine that?

Mr Re-Heat,
Rarely have I seen so much bollards on the net. By your benchmark we ought to have far more wars just to get the 'chaps' up to medal speed. Your obviously RAF, the type that needs rewarding just for joining, let alone going into combat. From a journo angle this thread has not yielded any potential within the time frame. So now that they've gone lets really have some thought on the awards for gallentry theme!

[ 19 January 2002: Message edited by: I.M. Spartacus ]</p>

Jackonicko

Re 1982

I may be wrong, but I thought that Martin Withers got a DFC for Black Buck and the tanker pilot who stayed on station with insufficient fuel relying on the guys in ASI to work out what he was doing got an AFC and the guy in ASI doing the sums and realising what was happening and getting the extra support in the sky got one of the "non-operational" badges.
Those who know please correct.