NEWS Seahawks Sink Houthi Boats

[Bad_Karma_1310]

Flash, Okay. First the CAR is an individual award and outright awarding an entire unit is absurd (Awards manual states as such). It always has been… Secondly, using the “that’s how we’ve always done it” excuse is intellectually lazy. We can disagree, but you gotta have better material than that brother.

To your last point, I have yet to see a Marine awarded that ribbon who wasn’t at least directly engaged in a combat scenario. We can debate impact and effectiveness. Yes, I understand there is a difference between conducting a breach through a door in urban combat or complex IED ambush vice simply returning fire against a lone shoot and run marksmen. That has always been the case, but it doesn’t make awarding the N1 personnel on a ship with a CAR any less ridiculous. Both can be true at the same time. I understand your (and others) point of view, but I simply disagree.

HSM getting DFCs for a HF strike? Those boys and gals deserve recognition, I’m just not sure it’s DFC-level material. I could probably go either way on that one, but more context on the situation is needed.

This is stupid. If a tank of LAV gets in a fight the entire crew gets a CAR not just the person actually shooting back, the same logic applies for a ship.

The gate keeping over awards is dumb.

 

[HuggyU2]

I recall reading somewhere on here that the DFC was a typical award for an air to air kill.

A good friend of mine got a Silver Star for an air-to-air kill, but that's probably the exception, not the rule.

Rico Rodriguez had three A2A kills, but the highest he got was a DFC.

I recall that MOB Tremel got a DFC for his Super Hornet kill.

 

[IKE]

Ward says the shots were fired from a single HSM-74 Romeo. A Sierra from HSC-7 was dispatched but didn’t arrive on time to join the fight.

Do you think he pays people to leak to him?
I don't even want to add to his click count, let alone feed him CUI-ish (or higher) info.

 

[IRfly]

I recall reading somewhere on here that the DFC was a typical award for an air to air kill.

I agree on the AM, but since this was the first ever actual hellfire engagement (I think), I could see someone arguing for the DFC.




You wanna see awards inflation, come take a look at Air Force awards. My first award I wrote I recommended an AF achievement medal for a first tour O-3 about to PCS. The squadron commander came and gave me a long talk about it.

No exaggeration, the size of my ribbon rack doubled when I swapped over just because I existed and therefore qualified for a bunch of AF awards.

AF LtCol I worked with had a Bronze Star. Good dude, but total desk jockey. I never asked how he got it because I suspected the answer would piss me off too badly

 

[ChuckMK23]

Do you think he pays people to leak to him?
I don't even want to add to his click count, let alone feed him CUI-ish (or higher) info.

318k views - pretty impressive. Good journalism doesn't happen for free. They need to eat, pay the rent, etc. Ward's numbers enable what I predict is a decent living through the ad-revenue engine that YouTube provides.

YouTube is the new TV watching - I watch a solid 2 hours per night sitting on the couch watching YT on my big screen. Its a growing trend. My kids and their friends watch less and less streaming service content and and more YouTube.

 

[JTS11]

AF LtCol I worked with had a Bronze Star. Good dude, but total desk jockey. I never asked how he got it because I suspected the answer would piss me off too badly

A Bronze Star without a "V' could mean you did a 6-month tour as a Field Grade officer on a staff in a 'combat zone'. I believe that is a standard end of tour type of award. Others can correct, if that's off-base.

 

[IRfly]

A Bronze Star without a "V' could mean you did a 6-month tour as a Field Grade officer on a staff in a 'combat zone'. I believe that is a standard end of tour type of award. Others can correct, if that's off-base.

I know, and that’s why I never asked

 

[mad dog]

…pretty impressive…

Also pretty impressive is my self-awarded iPhone NAM for chugging Dunkin’…

 

[JTS11]

I know, and that’s why I never asked

I live in a state that allow veterans to get specialized license plates that display a medal/ribbon from their DD-214 on their tags. They don't have an option for the National Defense Service Medal, but if ever they do, I'm going to rock it. 😄

 

[IRfly]

I live in a state that allow veterans to get specialized license plates that display a medal/ribbon from their DD-214 on their tags. They don't have an option for the National Defense Service Medal, but if ever they do, I'm going to rock it. 😄

I swear I've seen those, don't remember which state. How about a Battle "E"?

 

[Brett327]

First the CAR is an individual award and outright awarding an entire unit is absurd

Honest question... if an APC/Bradley/Stryker gets engaged by enemy fire, do all the occupants of that vehicle rate a CAR?

One of the challenges in making these kinds of comparisons is that the Navy is fundamentally a platform-centric service, while ground forces are individual-centric. You can't take a smaller subset of a ship's crew, detach them from the platform, then have a smaller version of the ship's capability distinct from the platform.

 

[Hotdogs]

This is stupid. If a tank of LAV gets in a fight the entire crew gets a CAR not just the person actually shooting back, the same logic applies for a ship.

The gate keeping over awards is dumb.

Honest question... if an APC/Bradley/Stryker gets engaged by enemy fire, do all the occupants of that vehicle rate a CAR?

One of the challenges in making these kinds of comparisons is that the Navy is fundamentally a platform-centric service, while ground forces are individual-centric. You can't take a smaller subset of a ship's crew, detach them from the platform, then have a smaller version of the ship's capability distinct from the platform.

If a Tank or AAV crewman fails to do his job then the tank is combat ineffective. I.e. The tank doesn’t return fire or engage appropriately - You can’t say the same in combat for a ships crew. Active participation is the criteria. Also the vast majority of mechanized crew members operate secondary weapons systems anyways.

We created air medals for aviators because we realized there was a distinction between aerial and ground combat. It’s a silly notion to not recognize surface combat is any different.

There is a fine line between appropriate recognition and looking like a Mexican mariachi band member/general.

 

[insanebikerboy]

If a Tank or AAV crewman fails to do his job then the tank is combat ineffective. I.e. The tank doesn’t return fire or engage appropriately - You can’t say the same in combat for a ships crew. Active participation is the criteria. Also the vast majority of mechanized crew members operate secondary weapons systems anyways.

We created air medals for aviators because we realized there was a distinction between aerial and ground combat. It’s a silly notion to not recognize surface combat is any different.

There is a fine line between appropriate recognition and looking like a Mexican mariachi band member/general.

I get what you're saying, my question is how do you differentiate on a ship who is actively participating and who isn't?

By training, every sailor learns damage control, so can one say that by having a ASCM shot at a boat means all crew are actively participating by being ready to man a repair locker?

Or, do we say that only those on watch qualify? Sorry to the kid asleep in his rack because he worked mids, but just because he got fragged when the missile hits, he doesn't qualify?

I know I'm being somewhat pedantic, but as Brett alluded to, where do you draw the line on what group qualifies on the boat, and which ones don't?

 

[BigRed389]

I get what you're saying, my question is how do you differentiate on a ship who is actively participating and who isn't?

By training, every sailor learns damage control, so can one say that by having a ASCM shot at a boat means all crew are actively participating by being ready to man a repair locker?

Or, do we say that only those on watch qualify? Sorry to the kid asleep in his rack because he worked mids, but just because he got fragged when the missile hits, he doesn't qualify?

I know I'm being somewhat pedantic, but as Brett alluded to, where do you draw the line on what group qualifies on the boat, and which ones don't?

You don’t.

Original history of the CAR:

Contact, Brawls, and Chambering: The Combat Action Ribbon

Today’s post comes from Thomas Richardson, an expert archives technician at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri. Not all service members in the United States A…

prologue.blogs.archives.gov

As per the original issuance and retroactive intent, it’s not fucking awards inflation, unless we want to bitch that it was inflated when originally established in 1969.

Relevant parts:

The Secretary of the Navy established the Combat Action Ribbon (CAR) on February 17, 1969. The criteria set by the Department of the Navy requires bona fide evidence that the member was engaged in direct combat with an enemy. Not only does a person need to be in combat, but they must have acted satisfactorily, i.e., did not surrender or disobey orders from commanding officers.

The CAR is not limited to only those with a combat military occupational specialty; any personnel serving in a hostile area that engages with the enemy may receive the CAR.

In October 1999, Public Law 105-65 shifted the retroactive date to December 7, 1941. This allowed for World War II and Korean War veterans to apply for and wear the CAR.

If they were attached to a unit or ship that saw combat in their time frame, they are eligible for the CAR. If a veteran receives a service star on their campaign ribbon, they are eligible for the CAR. Since over four million sailors and Marines served in World War II and Korea, applications for the CAR are some of the most common requests among Navy and Marine Corps awards.

 

[Brett327]

You can’t say the same in combat for a ships crew.

Of course you can. This hair splitting is a bit bizarre. Your opinion is noted.