Gongs or ribbons are worn with Mess Dress and Polyesters (pollies), which is ceremonial or UK 'barrack dress' equivalent.Why? what dress do the Aussies wear their gongs with?
Aha so when wearing 'Pollies' you wear the ribbons on the shirt...like the yanks do?Gongs or ribbons are worn with Mess Dress and Polyesters (pollies), which is ceremonial or UK 'barrack dress' equivalent.
Dress of the day is DPCU (Cams), so gongs are not worn on a daily basis by most of the army. Soldiers on guard sometimes wear pollies - depending on the unit.
That article did not receive a huge amount of approval from the military types I was talking to. Not least also, there's no reason that both things could happen at the same time. Take, for example, Sgt Smith, the first MoH from Iraq. Yes, he was awarded the MoH for saving many members of his company, but he did it by manning a .50Cal and killing a boatload of the enemy until he went down. On the other hand, if you charge into machinegun fire a la Ian McKay, are you not saving your buddies lives by destroying the MG nest and allowing them to get to where you're going?I read an article recently in which a US preacher castigated that country's army for a bias in the awarding of Medals of Honor to those soldiers whose acts had saved lives, rather than taken them.
Dear TalaveraTomAs an aside to this excellent topic, can i quote the tale of a recipient from the 1st Battalion The Manchester Regiment
Issy Smith an Aussy cockney is a fine example of someone who deservedly earned the VC. His actions whilst serving with the 1st Btn Manchester Regiment during the second battle of Ypres, exemplify why the honour is bestowed so rarely. But also they highlight the crass way that politicians used the awardees. After the VC was awarded, and he had recovered his health in Dublin, he was almost immediately sent on a recruitment drive by the war office. This meant that he was paraded the length and breadth of the country as an example to potential recruits. He was lorded by the King and civic leaders everywhere, yet still couldn't dine at the Grand Restaurant in Leeds. The proprietor refused to serve him because he was Jewish, yet was happy to allow others in his party to dine. Non of those dignatries present stood up for him, which says a lot about the political situation at the time, VC or not. The award of Smiths VC was more than merited, and he handled all the prestige well, eventually settling back in his native Australia. But i wonder if the transient fame was also a price too high to pay for some of the other recipients who found life a struggle after the war, in the land fit for heroes. When the war ended there were a few cases where recipients found themselves destitute, and gongs were pawned or sold for a measley few quid...So to answer the question "Should we award the VC more often?" I would say NO because those gallantry awards are given as examples of an individuals courage in the face of the enemy, which bring deserved kudos on both the recipient and their units involved in the action. It would take a pretty mealymouthed twat to deny the award to a deserving mucker, just because they were there too but didn't get one aswell. The bar is set so high for a reason, so i don't see why we should lower it? We currently know what general criteria merits a VC. It would demean it's value and belittle the efforts of those past recipents, if we arbitrerily move those criteria. Which in turn, may cast doubt on the validity of some future VC winners right to the award...If it ain't broke etc!