Posted on May 30, 2017
Do combat arms soldiers look down on fellow combat arms brethren if they have deployed and not been awarded a combat badge/medal/ribbon?
159K
920
304
66
66
0
It seems like something so trivial, but is just deploying and doing your job enough to keep the respect of your combat arms peers? Does the fact that you were hit by an IED on a convoy, close enough to a falling mortar round, or engaged by small arms fire really make one a more qualified combat arms soldier? What are thoughts on those who were never in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Awards
Combat Arms
Combat Infantry Badge (CIB)
Badges
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 188
3
3
0
That stuff is so misleading. I got bupkis for an ambush where 8 of the 15 of us got Purple Hearts in OIF1 (everyone lived). I got a combat awareness badge on my next tour, as a fobbit. What I find funny is EIB holders looking down their noses at CIB holders. “I got hazed while proving I’m an expert at my job, you merely got shot at while actually DOING your job!”
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Right or wrong. I don't need no stinking badge. Let me say this. Some wear that badge, (because) someone was looking out for them. These personal are the ones that look down on others without that badge. Not always true. I respect that badge. But not always the person. I thank you for your service. Be proud, be strong. My freedom is because of you. Thank you.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I don’t look down if you don’t have one, but it is my most cherished award/badge
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Honestly about it, I don't Care what badge you wear as long as you do you job to the best of your abilities. If I have to follow someone around and do their job and mine that's what is more frustrating than anything. Plus I've seen the army system of "award those you like and screw the rest" mentality. I personally have watched many people advance past me because they were buddy buddy with the command group and did nothing on a daily basis except meet up at 1700 for a beer from the command fridge. I don't have any combat action badges and i wouldn't wear them if I had them because a badge doesn't show my worth or experience. I pride myself on being a quiet professional and boasting every badge the army had to offer means you have never really done your job, but forced someone else to cover down on you while you spent months at useless schools that have no benefit to your mos.
NSDQ
NSDQ
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I served in the guard and on active duty from 87 to 95 I never felt looked down on by anyone but as an artillery man I felt inferior to those with combat patches that I served with even though I was a better soldier than some of them. Even to this day I have the utmost respect for all our vets especially our combat vets
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I agree with 1lt Rosa about looking up to those that have it vs looking down on those that dont, but at the same time, i see alot of E7s and above that have never deployed, and i ask myself, how is it in in 16 years of war and deployments out the wazoo have some of these people who have been in since before that have never deployed...those are the ones that people tend to look down on
(3)
(0)
SFC Greg Bruorton
SSG (Join to see) , please bear in mind that many E7s, as I, were not entitled to certain badges of honor simply because of occupational MOS i.e., Signal, Intelligence, and other direct-support MOSs, yet we've deployed throughout our careers toward hot spots around the world.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Interesting questions.
I would ask an active duty 82nd soldier if the saying "No war 04" is still being bandied about. If it is take a closer look at 2LT (Join to see)'s, GySgt Bill Smith's, and CPT (Join to see)'s statements. Even if it isn't the three statements referenced are still worth re-reading.
I would ask an active duty 82nd soldier if the saying "No war 04" is still being bandied about. If it is take a closer look at 2LT (Join to see)'s, GySgt Bill Smith's, and CPT (Join to see)'s statements. Even if it isn't the three statements referenced are still worth re-reading.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The better question would be: do combat arms Soldiers look down on non-combat arms Soldiers. If the answer is yes, perhaps some self-reflection is in order.
(3)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
Another discussion altogether. This is dealing with a certain aspect of combat arms culture.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
The terms have changed the term Combat Arms and non-combat Arms have been removed from personnel books. The term is Combat (Direct action types Infantry and SOF) Combat Support (MP'S and Combat Engineers) and then Combat Service Support (Personnel types and Ground support Air wing airfeild like types) The reason for the change is the battlefield of today has changed you have all types of JTF's that work and operate outside the wire and are all armed and trained to defend and engage the enemy if needed. Notice the word Combat is in everyone of those categories, but the likely hood of a Combat Service Support engaging the enemy is less likely than the other two. Should be noted that MP's are Combat support but carry weapons all the time and in todays Battlefield have returned fire and contact many times. What he is talking about how Infantry troops (Blue Cords ) look at like MP's and Artillery type guy's and even Combat Engineers and heavy Engineers who have been at the tip of the spear clearing Routes and building COP's (Combat Out Post) often under fire.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
DA PAM 600-3 is the guide for officer career management. It will break down all branches into those three categories, and provides a one paragraph 'mission statement' for each branch. It's officer specific, but officers fall under a basic branch (that's what you're looking for) while there are multiple enlisted career fields that ultimately fall under one of the basic branches described in that reference.
Combat arms is legacy term and not in the doctrine / regs anymore. The new system (above) should shed some light on why they consider cyber 'operations' in the same category as infantry (they conduct operations against the enemy independently from other branches) while military police as an example, while more 'soldierly' than cyber, aren't really designed to directly operate against the enemy outside of a support role. Force sustainment (finance as an example) don't participate in the fighting, directly or supporting, so they're in a third category
Combat arms is legacy term and not in the doctrine / regs anymore. The new system (above) should shed some light on why they consider cyber 'operations' in the same category as infantry (they conduct operations against the enemy independently from other branches) while military police as an example, while more 'soldierly' than cyber, aren't really designed to directly operate against the enemy outside of a support role. Force sustainment (finance as an example) don't participate in the fighting, directly or supporting, so they're in a third category
(2)
(0)
MSG James Devereaux
I disagree. I never looked down at a soft skill mos. Only soldiers that were doing something stupid received negative attention.
(0)
(0)
I think the answer is yes. I would like to say they don't- but really what I have seen is that they do. It's often this subtle way they talk about things. But it's there in the air. Just my 2 cents. I don't think it's right, but I'm just answering your question.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Just like the hand shake while you are looking for their patches on their left and right side.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
If they look down on them then they are ignorant and just unprofessional. My brother was a 19K with 3ID during the push to Baghdad in 03'. Camr under fire, killed the enemy with his tank, you name it. However, never received a CAB. The CAB was never really a big thing until about 2005 when they started being issued out like candy.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google