Doc

I am increasingly sure it is an ROTC Medal awarded by the U.S. Reserve Officer's Association. This is the so-called "old style" award, and is seen with a minuteman on the front, as well as the airplane.Maybe Army ROTC students versus Air Force ROTC Students???? They may have been given in different grades-- though all references I can find right now seem to be in bronze. If you contact the ROA ( http://www.roa.org/site/PageServer), I am sure they could give you more information. Good luck.

Looks a lot like one of the medals given to Junior ROTC Cadets by the U.S. Reserve Officer's Association. On the other hand, at least one toy company believes this is a WW2 toy, probably given out by the Quaker Company in Canada (see: http://www.hakes.com/item.asp?AuctionItemID=17903). I think it is probably one of the Reserve Officer's Association awards, but I don't have a good reference available.

ZIP codes weren't used until 1963, so it has to be after that year.

You might also want to check out the Air Force Historical Agency at Maxwell AFB (http://www.afhra.af.mil)

What I find amusing is the current US Navy Camouflage. It's pretty, and certainly stands out from the other services, but I have to ask "WHAT is it expected to camouflage"? As camouflage, it seems pretty worthless, unless you are in the water, which is exactly the time you want a blaze orange suit, not camouflage. I have been told it will camouflage you against the backdrop of the ship you are on (grey hull, deck, etc.)-- But if the enemy can see the ship, I fail to see how camouflaging the individual sailors on the deck will help. If the enemy can't see the ship, then camouflage is probably unnecessary.......

OK, we will not come to a conclusion on this one. But, "Exceptional Service"--- I'm just waiting for one of the people currently flying the unmanned logistics aircraft in Afghanistan to somehow become aware of an isolated and about to be captured (or wounded and needing immediate evacuation) soldier, who then without orders or authorisation flies the drone in, picks up the individual, and gets them to safety. We can argue about relative priority of medals, etc., but I would suggest that pilot should get one for initiative and accomplishment. Danger to self? Of course not, but definitely a great contribution to the individual rescued. And this is not too far fetched-- a NATO Working Group just produced a 185 page paper analyzing the concept of casualty evacuation by drone, and concluded it is legal, ethical, and most of all practical. The KMAX currently flying for the USMC in Afghanistan is certainly capable of moving an individual, as it was modified from a manned helicopter and still has a pilot's seat. Far-fetched? Nope, there is at least one instance in which an individual was picked up by a drone in Viet-Nam and rescued. This was with the DASH-50 torpedo carrier.

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree on that one, I'm afraid Chris.... Not on the medal creation (which I don't agree with either), but on the issue of stress. It's not more or less, it's simply a different kind, and will have to be dealt with in different ways. Denigrating it is similar to the old conflict (e.g. WWI) between aviators and infantrymen-- The infantry men thought the aviators had it easy, going home each night to warm bunks and hot food-- The aviators realised that their average lifespan in combat was less than 3 weeks-- Both groups had extremely high levels of psychiatric breakdowns. I think it's inappropriate to believe that Drone operators simply are playing video games, without any stress at all. Part of the stress they are undergoing is because they are having the dissonance between what they are doing all day and then trying to go home to "normality". I agree that is very different than the stress suffered by the average warrior on the ground, but that doesn't mean it is any less real. (No, I'm not a Drone pilot; yes, I have military experience, and I dealt with combat stress in combat troops for many years.) On the "exceptional service" question, I agree with you-- I have no idea what it means in the context of Drone piloting, either.

I think these are totally unneeded medals, as existing ones can be effectively used for the drone operators. That aside, I do expect that we will see increased psychiatric illnesses in drone operators during wartime. The cognitive dissonance between combat duty (even at a distance) and "normal" family life is already definitely causing problems. Imagine going home for dinner with your kids after killing people all day with close-up video. "What did you do today, daddy?" It is definitely a different kind of stress than most combat troops face, but it is there, and it is causing problems. I don't think it justifies a new medal, but let's not denigrate it.

Just for info, That 1911 seems to have a "C" prefix serial number. Therefore, it would appear to be a commercial purchase, not military issue.

The Radom is a great pistol, and certainly the equivalent of most in use at the period. I think it is second only to the Colt M1911, of which it is a modification. One of the most accurate of the handguns of the era, reliable, and feels good in the hand. Some of the Nazi modifications are less desirable, but even those versions shoot well.

Additionally, I believe that the CG is involved in a lot of training/support missions to other countries (e.g. in Africa)--If one of those training missions began to take fire during a terrorist attack or a rebel attack on the host nation military, the CG could be eligible for this one. My understanding is that during many of this type of mission, the CG is operating under the control of the US Embassy in country, not under the US Navy.

Actually, Paul, in today's military, it is quite possible for an individual "Coastie" to be assigned to some kind of a joint Headquarters or composite unit, and thus not be operating under the Navy. I suspect, however, that in those situations, other awards would probably be available rather than this CG-specific one. Interestingly, it is not limited to Coast Guard personnel, but to "a person... serving in any capacity with the Coast Guard". Thus, it could theoretically be given to a Coast Guard Auxilliary person, or to a member of another service temporarily serving with (or in support of) the CG--- or maybe even a civilian. Doc

Perhaps because the Army found the Accles Drum less than satisfactory?? Again, not my area, and I am only guessing. Doc

Given the close relationship between the British Gatling Gun Company and the Accles Firm, I wonder if this was really a new weapon, or if it was simply a copy of the original Gatling Gun, fitted with the Accles Cartridge Feed Mechanism. The Gatling Gun Co of Holford Mill, Birmingham was formed in March 1888, and bought the rights to the Gatling Gun from the US Company. Mr. Accles was associated with this company after June 1888, and had been making improvements to the Gatling Gun for many years, while employed at the American company. This same year, the company bought the Holdform Mill after National Arms and Ammunition Company went out of business. During 1889 The Mill was refitted and workers employed; Mr J Accles was constructing engineer-in-charge; Mr Accles had made various improvements to the gun over the years[4]. The gun was manufactured for the company by Messrs Armstrong, Mitchell and Co at Elswick Works. In 1889 the name changed to Gatling Gun and Ammunition Co Ltd, which soon went bankrupt. In 1891 Grenfell and Accles Ltd acquired the company. In 1892 An improved version of the Gatling Gun was displayed at the Birmingham and Midland Institute by Messrs Grenfell and Accles of Perry Barr, but I cannot determine what improvements were included. 1896 New company Accles Ltd was set up as a public company to take over the businesses of Grenfell and Accles Ltd and Accles Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Co and operate them as going concerns; Mr J. G. Accles would join the board. By 1900-1902, the Accles companies had mostly specialised in bicycles and autos, with limited evidence of ongoing fun work (though they did keep making ammunition), and by 1902 they were pretty much taken over by other firms. Glasgow Herald 18 November 1899 apparently has an article on the testing of the guns by the US government. Graces Guide ( http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/J._G._Accles) has lots of information about the intricate web of companies Accles was involved with. Apparently all of the Model 1883 Gatlings were originally produced with the Accles Feed, which is noted to have been " way ahead of its time but proved to be too fragile and jammed easily". I have always been of the impression that it was these 1883s with the Accles Feed which are referred to as Accles Guns (I stand ready to be corrected, as this is not my area of expertise.)

What other group of people fit that description ("all personel directly involved in combat from a distance")? This is being pushed by the Air Force, and has been stated openly to be intended to be presented to the Drone Pilots. Maybe it will apply to others (cyber combat experts or satellite controllers, maybe) , but at the present I can't think who else might be eligible, since the criteria have not yet been officially published. In any case, I think the whole issue should be moot, since there are existing awards very suitable for these people, carrying out this type of mission. This proposed medal simply fills a perceived need which is not very acute, in my opinion. We just need to make better use of the existing awards structure, not expand it. It also seems to be proposed at too high a level-- something the equivalent level of the Bronze Star might be justifiable, but "between the DFC and the Soldier's medal" is ridiculous. Doc

This is a ridiculous concept! There are already lots of medals suitable for recognition of these personnel (and yes, I think they are doing an outstanding job which should be recognized). Within the US Army (I only have Army regulations at hand, but I assume the AF regulations will be very similar-- in fact, knowing the Air Force, I suspect they have even more which could be used), medals which are not specifically restricted to "non-combat" activities which could be used are: Joint Service Commendation Medal, Joint Service Achievement Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal. I think we need to get away from the concept of developing specific medals which are only available to personnel in certain jobs or positions. If we need specific awards which can only be earned by Drone Pilots, how about some for the Medical Personnel at Landstuhl who save lives of the wounded every day (Maybe the "Combat Support Distinguished Medical Medal", or something similar)? How about the "Distinguished Logistics Support Medal"? There is no doubt that the drone pilots are doing a fantastic job, and some of them need to be recognized, but I can't see any justification for creating a new group of medals just for them. I just don't see the point of creating new medals for people who participate in combat from far away. Doc

Yes, this discussion seems to be about the French medal. It was not issued by the United States, though some U.S. Soldiers were awarded it by the French. There is another decoration with the same name from Belgium-- not at all the same medal.

dmiller, I think the right photo is the back side..... Doc

The Korea Defense Service Medal (see post 21) is different from the Republic of Korea War Service Medal. This latter is actually an award created in 1951 by the ROK for presentation to foreign military personnel who served in Korea during the Korean War. It was not approved by the US for acceptance or wear until 1999. Generally, the US has always been slow to accept medals which are not also available to troops from the issuing country, though they have come around in several instances (e.g. Saudi Kuwait Liberation Medal, Kuwait Liberation Medal, ROK War Service Medal). Doc

The medal with the blue and yellow ribbon is the 1898 Spanish Campaign Medal (US Army-- the Navy used a red and yellow ribbon). The one with the yellow and green ribbon is the 1918 Spanish War Service Medal. Interestingly, for the US Army, if you earned the 1898 medal, you were not eligible for the 1918 one-- It was reserved for troops (mostly Army National Guard) who served IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT NOT OVERSEAS during the Spanish-American War. Apparently, it was specifically forbidden to be awarded both.

Paul, definitely not an attributable grouping, unless there is more information than has been presented in this string. Lots of military insignia is made, and not necessarily worn or sold. Technically, I can buy 5-star shoulder boards at the PX, but that doesn't make them attributable, unless someone has documentation that they were actually worn by a specific person. Doc

I am sure he did, but he was aware of appearances, and I am only aware of photos of him at that time in the full Class A uniform with jacket..... Sorry. Doc

Sorry, no knowledge of AF parachutist's badges, but Yes, "surplus" means "excess to requirements".... Therefore, "surplus stores". Doc

Makes you wonder, since Hap Arnold was the only person who ever has been able to wear that insignia. And, he died in 1950, before the uniform which these would have been worn with was adopted (I think). Just for interest, he was the only general to ever wear 5 stars in both the Army and the Air Force uniforms. The insignia manufacturers and sellers are constantly making stuff which nobody can wear-- just in case. I am reminded of a time in Germany, when I saw in the PX about 35 sets of the Army Master Flight Surgeon Wings--- I knew for a fact that I was the ONLY person in Europe authorized to wear that wing (and at that time there were fewer than about ten authorized in the whole Army), and I certainly didn't need 35 sets........ Doc

Hard to say, since I think the only 5-star alive after the 1960s who would have worn that uniform was Omar Bradley. Maybe some company was just trying to get ahead of the curve and the small one was for a female officer :-) . Actually, As I remember, the shoulder boards for use on the Class B shirt came in two sizes, and you were to wear whichever fit your build better. Doc