What are/were the requirements for Artillerymen to receive their CAB? Does firing a round constitute "actively engaging the enemy?"

SGM, as shown, it states Actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy. This one looks to me to be up to commander's discretion as the CAB being awarded for engaging the enemy with arty fires. The way it reads is that you do not have to be engaged by enemy fires in addition to engaging.

Same as rocket or mortar fires. Our command staff set a distance from the incoming detonation site to the SM. If they were outside the kill/injury radius, the award was denied or not written to begin with.

Just my 2cents.

I just don't see why Vietnam Soldiers that were engaged with the enemy are left out. I know during my tour I endured Mortar Attacks, Rocket attacks and Ground assaults firing direct fire of Beehive as they stormed the wire. We lost men in my Battery KIA and a lot WIA. Artillerymen in Vietnam had to fight as Infantrymen on many occasions. I think limiting to everyone after 2001, is nothing but a slap in the face for the Gun Bunnies of Vietnam,who I would say ,saw for more close up enemy action, than the Infantry in Iraq or Afghanistan. Oh well we are use to getting the shaft.

Hell I was a REMF in RVN we got rocket attack every week or two. screwed again, but I understand the new Army is give me give me, military now.

I was in a 8" sp battalion attached to 1st Cav in 1965/66, never had infantry support. A battery at times would go out alone, pull our own perimeter defense, and had a fire fight while providing artillery support. No firebase for us, spent 100% or our time in the field. We also, as a part of 1st Cav, won a Presidential Unit Citation. We deserve a "CAB", that's what we did, and other than having the wrong "MOS" we should of had a "CIB". In 1965 and 66 it was a different war, we didn't have TV, or able to call home, or have mama sons to take care of out needs.

If they carry out a fire mission against the enemy, they deserve award of the CAB. They don’t have to be under fire or anything like that. They are carrying out an actual mission against the enemy and that is all that matters. I have my CIB and it is NOT the business of infantrymen to worry about the CAB or CMB. The individual soldier has to find the value in the badge for their actions and that is all that matters.

SGT Rob Saylor - Um, engaging the enemy is NOT a job that only the infantry does. If they do a fire mission against the enemy, they deserve their CABs. It is the very definition of COMBAT ACTION. They are sending rounds down range to kill the enemy in support of infantry and other forces. That’s all that matters.

SGM Erik Marquez - I disagree. I feel that any action (direct or indirect) against the enemy warrants a CAB. Hell, I would go so far as to say that even soldiers (infantry or non-infantry) carrying out raids against enemy personnel should receive their combat badges, whether they fire a shot or not. Catching the enemy by surprise and capturing them shouldn’t be held against troops carrying out dangerous operations against the enemy. I don’t care if a gun team is over 20 miles away, did they engage the enemy or not? Did a drone operator hundreds of miles away track a HVT and fire a hellfire missile into his vehicle removing him from the battlefield? If so, I would 100% give those troops the CAB or CIB.

I’m a former infantryman and I got my CIB, so I don’t get all hung up about combat badges for other combat jobs that may not be out front like my job. If troops engaged the enemy in an actual combat mission, they deserve their awards. Getting shot at or getting indirect fire shouldn’t be the focus. Did you take the fight to the enemy or not? That is what should matter above all else, whether a shot is fired or not in some cases.

I only agree if their lives are at risk as well. That danger is why those combat badges exist in the first place. I am hoping it is just the way you worded it, but it sounds like you are saying that anyone taking action against the enemy--regardless of location and therefore personal danger--deserves a combat badge. By that logic, a drone operator engaging enemy targets from a basement in Washington D.C. would also deserve a combat badge. Sorry, if that is how you feel, I disagree. Its different when you are "boots on ground" and could possibly be killed by the enemy while you are engaging.