Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[George Wallace]

George,

I think you are the confused puppy.

This fella died, serving his country, in a combat zone, as a combat soldier, during combat operations.  

Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?

Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting?

We are not talking about a rogue fighter pilot, in colusion with a Canadian soldeir to attack Canadian troops, and he fell victim.

They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify?  Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn ledtter to the tee, for the love of pete.

dileas

tess

Put the drink down.  Step away from the bar.  Now read my response to the twit who is confused and saying that the guy injured/killed in the FOB by a mortar doesn't qualify.  Obviously he has no clue what he is talking about, because he is giving the medal to guys under friendly fire. 

READ THE POST AGAIN!

 

[the 48th regulator]

I should have stayed out of this thread....

The enemy action part was missed by me.

No Tess he wasn't he was on a presence Patrol out of PBW, there was no enemy contact that day in that area


No Tess he doesn't.


There was no enemy to be shot at, they were not under contact when the incident occurred


Again There was no armed enemy at the time of the incident. It was a presence Patrol and an accident happened with a weapon system

Put the drink down.  Step away from the bar.  Now read my response to the twit who is confused and saying that the guy injured/killed in the FOB by a mortar doesn't qualify.  Obviously he has no clue what he is talking about, because he is giving the medal to guys under friendly fire. 

READ THE POST AGAIN!

Hmm,

My bad,

Then I guess his sacrifice, then does not deserve a sacrifice medal.

Pfft, once again I prove my point about this poncy piece of political tin.

And here I was the champion of it, when word came out about it.

Well, as a person who was the first awarded the neat threaded patch, since the Korean war, I guess I am honored.  In fact, I will cut one of mine off, and send it to the Walsh family.  As I recognize the sacrifice of his duty.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

I have one of those fancy gold ribbons too, so don't preach sacrifice to me....

The criteria states ENEMY ACTION.....He died serving his country no one would or will ever take that away from him or his family. The medal they received for his sacrifice was and is the Memorial Cross.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have one of those fancy gold ribbons too, so don't preach sacrifice to me....

The criteria states ENEMY ACTION.....He died serving his country no one would or will ever take that away from him or his family. The medal they received for his sacrifice was and is the Memorial Cross.

I beg your pardon??

Am I talking about a medal for his family, I am talking about a medal for him.

You want to play the criteria game, fill yer boots.   So you feel he does not deserve the medal?  Why, because it was friendly fire?

Explain.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

Well for the record Jeff was my friend....

And Yes I don't think he should get this medal because the criteria states ENEMY ACTION, just like if I was in KAF or on Patrol and there was no contact and there was an accidental weapons malfunction which resulted in my death I do not meet the criteria for thhis medal.

Hell I don't even want this medal now! and I am eligible

 

[Fusaki]

Anything involving hostile action overseas - in my mind - deserves a sacrifice medal or a wound stripe. That includes TICs, mines and IEDs, rocket and mortar attacks, and friendly fire incidents (given that it is still hostile action, albiet misguided). Accidents, on the other hand, are different. One can be killed by an ND, die in a LAV rollover, or fall from a tower anywhere - even in Canada. Tragic? Yes. But it's very different from hostile violence.

The difference between those who should be awarded a wound stripe and those who should not is the hostile intent behind the mechanism of injury. The wound stripe is in recognition of someone who did (or was attempting to do) his job while someone else was trying to kill him.

Imagine a tornado touching down, flattening your home, and killing your family. Now imagine a gang of thugs coming into your home, killing your family, then burning it down. What chills you more? Thats the example Dave Grossman gives in On Killing to describe the difference in psychology between a life-taking tragedy, and lethal aggression. This - in my mind - makes all the difference.

 

[aesop081]

So his sacrifice is differentiated by some beurocrats wording of the medal?

Criteria has been set just like any other award in the Canadian system. You are getting too wrapped up in what the medal is called and what the medal is for.

 

[1feral1]

I signed this, even if I was still a serving CF Mbr, regardless of whatever clause in whatever document, I still would have signed.

I never knew MCPL Jeff Walsh, but found his grave by mere coincidence in Regina, and spoke to one of Jeff's Dad's good mates (former Mountie) named Maurice at Regina's (again just by chance) Leg Bldg on a warm Saskatchewan August afternoon.

For those that would like to be reminded of one sacrifice of a way too many already, pics of Jeff's grave marker in the Soldier's Plot area on the cemetery off Assiboine Ave can be found by searching for him on this site.

RIP Jeff.

OWDU

 

[Sito Origami]

Fellow soldiers, serving and like me, out to pasture,

One thought: the wound stripe was abolished some time before I joined the army in 1957. I know this because we had a couple of guys in my battery circa 1958 who were wounded in Korea and did not wear the badge. (One was known as shrapnel *** because he was hit by a mortar splinter while bending over repairing a break in a line.) The badge was not reinstated until the 1990's and many of you wear it with honour.

However, unlike the wound stripe, which is a badge, the medal is something that once gazetted can not be taken away with the stroke of a pen. The intent is not to lessen the signficance of the wound stripe, it is to more formally acknowledge your condition.

I know this is unlikely to change many minds, and I guess I am wasting a post, but I hope some of you will accept the good intenetions behind the institution of the award.

The wound stripe was abolished several times; after the First World War, after the Second World War, etc. During the Second World War, there were many 1914-18 vets who started wearing their old wound stripes again until told to replace them with a single red stripe instead of their gold ones, to distinguish from the freshly wounded of the new war. At some point after 1945, all the wound stripes came down. The wound stripe was apparently never intended as a permanent insignia - given its location on the uniform, and its construction, liken it to the marksmanship badge. If you don't qualify on the range every year, the crossed rifles come down. The wound stripe is in cloth and also easily removed. The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.

 

[armyvern]

The wound stripe was abolished several times; after the First World War, after the Second World War, etc. During the Second World War, there were many 1914-18 vets who started wearing their old wound stripes again until told to replace them with a single red stripe instead of their gold ones, to distinguish from the freshly wounded of the new war. At some point after 1945, all the wound stripes came down. The wound stripe was apparently never intended as a permanent insignia - given its location on the uniform, and its construction, liken it to the marksmanship badge. If you don't qualify on the range every year, the crossed rifles come down. The wound stripe is in cloth and also easily removed. The new medal will remedy that by being a permanent fixture on the uniform.

Interesting statement that it was not intended to be a permanent issue.

The awarding (ie presentation and entitlement to wear) a Wound Stripe is kept on the members pers file, and within the members clothing documents ... to confirm his eligibility to wear it should there ever be a question as to his entitlement.

Once issued it certainly IS an entitlement that DOES NOT cease like an 'annual qualification" ... and further than that, the entitlement to wear the Wound Stripe continues into retirement. I don't know where you got the idea that it's an up&down award like a marksman qualification --- but you're waaaayyyy off target with that statement.

6.1f - Awarding and Recording of Wound Stripes

Following the precedent set in the First and Second World Wars, the Canadian Forces (CF) award 'wound stripes' to battlefield casualties, a dress distinction that recognizes a physical or mental injury received as a result of armed conflict. One narrow gold braid stripe will be worn in respect of each occasion an individual is wounded - but NOT for each separate injury.

This distinction is not to be regarded in the nature of a reward.

6.1f.1 - Eligibility

All ranks of the CF, along with members of foreign military forces on exchange duties with the CF, as well as Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency and contract employees, will be eligible for this distinction.

A wound stripe recognizes injury directly attributable to hostile action received in honourable circumstances in an operational area, and requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid. Individuals who are injured in accidents in a special duty area or while employed on domestic provision of service operations or training exercises do not qualify for a wound stripe. Wound stripes are not issued posthumously.

6.1f.2 - Claims and Entitlements

All CF members who consider that they are entitled to a wound stripe may initiate a claim to their CO. Paragraph 10 of this instruction outlines a list of wounds or injuries that would qualify personnel for an entitlement to a wound stripe.

6.1f.3 - Awarding Authority

The authority to wear a wound stripe is granted by the casualty's unit Commanding Officer (CO). The CO shall verify eligibility, referring doubtful cases directly, by message, to National Defence Headquarters, attention: Director Casualty Support and Administration (NDHQ/DCSA).

Wound stripes will be worn on CF uniforms in accordance with A-AD-265-000/AG-001 'Canadian Forces Dress Instructions'. Personnel, who by reason of their service have become entitled to wear a wound stripe, may, at their own option, continue to wear them on civilian clothes after cessation of military service.

6.1f.4 - Presentation

On verification of eligibility, and as soon as practicable after the injury has been incurred, the casualty's CO, or representative, will formally present the wound stripe to the member. Based on the discretion of the member, the presentation may be done in public or in private. A DND 5266 (01-03) 'Certificate of the Award of Wound Stripe' will also be awarded and given to the individual.

Qualification for Wound Stripes: Wounds or injuries requiring medical treatment beyond local first aid (i.e., treatment at a medical facility of more than 5 days duration, not necessarily consecutive) that are due to hostile actions and would be a qualification for a wound stripe include, but are not limited to:
Injuries due to blast;
Injuries due to rescue work in bombed buildings or defences;
Injuries due to collision of a vessel or a vehicle with a mine;
Injuries sustained by aircrew or passengers as a result of an aircraft crash, or aircraft damage, or fire in an aircraft, provided that these are due to hostile actions or take place during an operational sortie. Injuries sustained by eligible personnel who rescue, or attempt to rescue, aircrew and passengers in such circumstances would qualify for the wound stripe;
Injuries due to mine or bomb disposal duties;
Injuries due to terrorist attack (attempted assassinations, car bombs, etc) by hostile forces when Canadian military forces are the targets. Incidents such as these do not necessarily need to take place in an operational area;
Wounds or injuries inflicted by our own, allied or coalition forces' projectiles (or parts of them) when these have been fired at real or perceived hostile forces;
Injuries that require not less than one week's treatment in hospital (or equivalent) as a consequence of:
exposure at sea in open boats and life rafts directly due to hostile action;
exposure in the air following attacks on aircraft by hostile forces;
inadequate or harsh treatment by hostile forces as a result of being captured or detained; or
the employment of nuclear, biological or chemical agents by hostile forces.
Operational stress injuries may qualify for a wound stripe if treatment of not less than one week in hospital (or equivalent) is the direct result of a traumatic incident caused by hostile forces in a combat zone.
Injuries, although not directly due to hostile force actions, if sustained in the combat zone by personnel in direct contact with a hostile force, would also qualify for a wound stripe. For example, injuries sustained as a result of a vehicle accident directly attributable to terrain that needed to be followed due to the tactical situation would qualify for the wound stripe if they required medical treatment beyond local first aid.
Injuries due to accidents arising out of employment in an operational area, but not directly due to hostile action, e.g. due to collisions between ships at sea, vehicle accidents, flying accidents, handling of lethal weapons, gun explosions, etc, do not qualify for the wound stripe.
Wounds and/or injuries that are self-inflicted do not qualify for the wound stripe.

 

[Franky]

As a proud Canadian I can only say thank you to all who have fallen in my and my daugher's name...Hunter...

As I tell my daughter every day or so, your freedom came at a cost..never forget..

She may be 11 but she knows..and she and I thank every soldier regardless of rank or position..

thank you all who serve ( or who has)..from a proud mother =)

 

[Infanteer]

Anything involving hostile action overseas - in my mind - deserves a sacrifice medal or a wound stripe. That includes TICs, mines and IEDs, rocket and mortar attacks, and friendly fire incidents (given that it is still hostile action, albiet misguided). Accidents, on the other hand, are different. One can be killed by an ND, die in a LAV rollover, or fall from a tower anywhere - even in Canada. Tragic? Yes. But it's very different from hostile violence.

The difference between those who should be awarded a wound stripe and those who should not is the hostile intent behind the mechanism of injury. The wound stripe is in recognition of someone who did (or was attempting to do) his job while someone else was trying to kill him.

Imagine a tornado touching down, flattening your home, and killing your family. Now imagine a gang of thugs coming into your home, killing your family, then burning it down. What chills you more? Thats the example Dave Grossman gives in On Killing to describe the difference in psychology between a life-taking tragedy, and lethal aggression. This - in my mind - makes all the difference.

Agreed.

The medal was put into place to recognize wounds (mortal or not) taken against hostile action.  Canada has ways of recognizing those that were killed in the line of duty due to other circumstances - notably the memorial cross.

I think we need to agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere lest the clerk in Ottawa put in for a Sacrifice Medal because of a workplace accident like falling from a ladder or something....

 

[George Wallace]

I think we need to agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere lest the clerk in Ottawa put in for a Sacrifice Medal because of a workplace accident like falling from a ladder or something....

.....paper cut.

 

[armyvern]

.....paper cut.

That's an open wound with the possibility of gangrene setting in which would require 7 days or more hospitalization ...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

From Day 1, I personally thought the choice of the word "Sacrifice" Medal was not the best one possible. 

I think the issue is centric to the naming of this medal, the use of the word sacrifice.

In the case of MCpl Walsh and others who have died on operations who don't meet the criteria for this medal in its present form, they did indeed sacrifice as much as those who will receive the medal. Personally, I don't think anyone is arguing that sacrifice MCpl Walsh made.  I say this because, as I read thru the thread, it might be easy for the OP and those who support his cause to misinterpret that as people present their points.  

IMO, whoever approved the word Sacrifice really, really, really f**ked up.  I can see from the family and loved ones perspective that being told "your son/daughter/husband/wife/brother/sister doesn't meet the eligibility for the Sacrifice Medal" is easily taken as Canada, our Government, or whoever saying "they didn't sacrifice". Because in fact, WE as the military community in this country, know they did. The circumstances were different, but not the sacrifice.  

Whats the point?  Simple.  As everyone picks their teams and starts firing shots, remember some of the folks posting here are close to the family of MCpl Walsh; they are the ones caught in the middle.  IMO.

While I understand that some people have some strong views on this, perhaps remembering we are discussing a case of a Canadian soldier who died serving Canada before hitting the "post" button is a prudent thing to do...

 

[George Wallace]

Eye in The Sky

I have to agree with you that the persons who decided the 'name' of this medal have created an awful lot of angst due to the name and the criteria they placed on the medal.  You have very good points in the respect to the use of the word "Sacrifice".  The name should better reflect the criteria of the medal than the current name does, and perhaps there would not be the controversy we are seeing with people who have "sacrificed" but don't meet the current criteria for this award.

 

[Fusaki]

Maybe then the term "Wound Stripe" or even a "Wound Medal" is better.

To say that one was "Wounded In Afghanistan" is much different then to say that one was "Injured in Afghanistan". While both are are considred to be sacrifices, the word "wounded" implies hostile intent behind the injury.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe then the term "Wound Stripe" or even a "Wound Medal" is better.

To say that one was "Wounded In Afghanistan" is much different then to say that one was "Injured in Afghanistan". While both are are considred to be sacrifices, the word "wounded" implies hostile intent behind the injury.

But, would that cover those that were killed? 

 

[Infanteer]

I think the issue is centric the the naming of this medal, the use of the word sacrifice.Whats the point?  Simple.  As everyone picks their teams and starts firing shots, remember some of the folks posting here are close to the family of MCpl Walsh; they are the ones caught in the middle.  IMO.

While I understand that some people have some strong views on this, perhaps remembering we are discussing a case of a Canadian soldier who died serving Canada before hitting the "post" button is a prudent thing to do...

Excellent point EITS - I also agree with you on the poor choice in names for the medal.

But, would that cover those that were killed? 

They were mortally wounded, no.  I believe the Purple Heart works the same.

 

[tomahawk6]

US practice is to award the Purple Heart posthumously to soldiers killed in action. So your suggestion of awarding a Wound Stripe posthumously should be a big GO in my book.

The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force who, while serving with the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded;