Forums

Corrected URL's

 

Robert

Robert,

Although I respect your efforts to honor WWII veterans and to make certain they receive the awards and decorations they earned under Army Regulations I cannot agree with your contention that engineers be retroactively awarded combat infantry badges when they did not meet the contemporaneous official requirements for the award. The requirements for the CIB were rather straight forward, and attempts to revise them some 65 years after the fact do a disservice to those who actually met those requirements.

Here is what Circular 286-1944 says regarding the eligibility requirements for the CIB according to the US Army Board for Corrections of Military Records.

10. War Department Circular 186-1944 provided that the CIB was to be

awarded only to infantrymen serving with infantry units of brigade,

regimental or smaller size. Additionally, World War II holders of the

CIB received a monthly pay supplement known as combat infantry pay and

holders of the EIB were entitled to expert infantry pay. Therefore,

soldiers had economic as well as intangible reasons to ensure that their

records were correct. Thus, pay records are frequently the best

available source to verify entitlement to this award. The Awards

Branch, Total Army Personnel Command, has advised in similar cases that,

during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted

individuals who served in the following positions: Light machine gunner

(604); Heavy machine gunner (605); Platoon sergeant (651); Squad leader

(653); Rifleman (745); Automatic rifleman (746); Heavy weapons NCO

(812); and Gun crewman (864).

This is pretty clear cut. It would, in my opinion, be better to stop trying to bend/stretch the regulations at such a late date, and consider obtaining recognition of the combat engineers in a different and more appropriate manner. Perhaps you might begin a campaign to have the US House of Representatives honor these combat engineer units in a House Resolution. That way the units in question receive the credit they are due without having to "go after" something they were not entitled to 65 years ago.

Best Regards,

Jim

Jim,

"Here is what Circular 286-1944 says regarding the eligibility requirements for the CIB according to the US Army Board for Corrections of Military Records."

This particular action by Company A, 803rd Engineer occurred early in 1942. WD Circular 186 does not apply to the unit. WD Circular 269, dated 27 October 1943 applies.

3. Combat Infantryman badge.---Infantryman, including officers, establish

eligibility to wear the Combat Infantryman badge by ---

a. Exemplary conduct in action against the enemy, or

b. By satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy in a

major operation as determined and announced by the theater commander.

“during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted

individuals who served in the following positions: Light machine gunner

(604); Heavy machine gunner (605); Platoon sergeant (651); Squad leader

(653); Rifleman (745); Automatic rifleman (746); Heavy weapons NCO

(812); and Gun crewman (864).”

Your assumption may be accurate, but the requirement for MOS of an infantryman was not listed until the 1960’s. Records reveal even during the Vietnam War, there were personnel awarded the CIB without the MOS you identified.

The time period of 65 years is irrelevant to WWII veterans that have finally “opened up” to share their hardships to those concerned of the injustice.

Are you saying the Army Board for Correction of Military Record (Sole authority to award the CIB) made a mistake? The presentation described below represents hundreds [if not thousands] of like awards to WWII veterans.

Robert

Yes, people are either on one side of the other, but as you can tell, I amongst a vast majority who are forum members, including many veterans here, still feel that those combat engineers WHO SERVED AS INFANTRY, (and it was stated so in official army documention from the the war), that they should have been awarded the CIB. My father, amongst several other engineers, were awarded the CIB, and I feel they were duly decorated.

But everyone here already knows how I feel, and there is no need to re-hash old threads.

M1

Yes, people are either on one side of the other, but as you can tell, I amongst a vast majority who are forum members, including many veterans here, still feel that those combat engineers WHO SERVED AS INFANTRY, (and it was stated so in official army documention from the the war), that they should have been awarded the CIB. My father, amongst several other engineers, were awarded the CIB, and I feel they were duly decorated.

 

But everyone here already knows how I feel, and there is no need to re-hash old threads.

 

M1

Marion,

As you know I represent veterans who served in engineers, signal, armored, infantry, artillery, supply and so on. This responsibility requires me to take a broader view of things than those who focus on only a single branch or corps or service. This provides me with an entirely different, and more balanced, perspective than might otherwise be the case.

I think it dangerous to attempt to censor legitimate historical discussion on the award of the CIB to engineers, especially since you have "pinned" the thread at the top of the page to call attention to it.

If your father met the requirements for the CIB, then he has a right to wear it. Is it listed on his DD214?

Jim

Jim,

 

"Here is what Circular 286-1944 says regarding the eligibility requirements for the CIB according to the US Army Board for Corrections of Military Records."

 

This particular action by Company A, 803rd Engineer occurred early in 1942. WD Circular 186 does not apply to the unit. WD Circular 269, dated 27 October 1943 applies.

3. Combat Infantryman badge.---Infantryman, including officers, establish

eligibility to wear the Combat Infantryman badge by ---

a. Exemplary conduct in action against the enemy, or

b. By satisfactory performance of duty in action against the enemy in a

major operation as determined and announced by the theater commander.

 

“during World War II, the CIB was normally awarded only to enlisted

individuals who served in the following positions: Light machine gunner

(604); Heavy machine gunner (605); Platoon sergeant (651); Squad leader

(653); Rifleman (745); Automatic rifleman (746); Heavy weapons NCO

(812); and Gun crewman (864).”

 

Your assumption may be accurate, but the requirement for MOS of an infantryman was not listed until the 1960’s. Records reveal even during the Vietnam War, there were personnel awarded the CIB without the MOS you identified.

 

The time period of 65 years is irrelevant to WWII veterans that have finally “opened up” to share their hardships to those concerned of the injustice.

 

Are you saying the Army Board for Correction of Military Record (Sole authority to award the CIB) made a mistake? The presentation described below represents hundreds [if not thousands] of like awards to WWII veterans.

 

 

 

Robert

Robert,

You are mistaken. The requirement for the Infantry MOS listed above was included in Army Circular 186-1944.

Jim

I may not have the same WD Circular 186 as you, because I do not find the requirement for MOS of an infantryman. The requirement to be assigned to an infantry unit is valid, but has been wavered numerous times during WWII.

The 56 officers assigned to 540th Engineer Regiment were awarded by mistake? How was Colonel Marvin able to order the awards with the Adjutant authorizing. Furthermore, the General Order Number 24, dated 13 October 1944 was accepted by the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., Attention: Awards & Decorations Branch; the Commanding General NATOUSA, Personnel branch, AGO Section; and the Commanding General 7th Army, AGO Section. Were they all wrong?

I believe I presented ample evidence that the CIB was awarded to hundreds of WWII combatants in accordance with. I can accept the recommendation by General Truscott. I gather between the lines you do not. Have you ever heard of wavers being applied? According to evidence they were.

Finally, I am waiting patiently for a response to my letter from an authority even you will not deter. It will settle the disagreement one way or another.

Robert

I may not have the same WD Circular 186 as you, because I do not find the requirement for MOS of an infantryman. The requirement to be assigned to an infantry unit is valid, but has been wavered numerous times during WWII.

 

 

 

The 56 officers assigned to 540th Engineer Regiment were awarded by mistake? How was Colonel Marvin able to order the awards with the Adjutant authorizing. Furthermore, the General Order Number 24, dated 13 October 1944 was accepted by the Adjutant General, Washington, D.C., Attention: Awards & Decorations Branch; the Commanding General NATOUSA, Personnel branch, AGO Section; and the Commanding General 7th Army, AGO Section. Were they all wrong?

 

 

 

 

I believe I presented ample evidence that the CIB was awarded to hundreds of WWII combatants in accordance with. I can accept the recommendation by General Truscott. I gather between the lines you do not. Have you ever heard of wavers being applied? According to evidence they were.

 

 

From previous correspondence with you, I only learned it is a waste of time. That was the reason I put a block on your email letters.

 

Finally, I am waiting patiently for a response to my letter from an authority even you will not deter. It will settle the disagreement one way or another.

 

Robert

Robert,

We have always spoken via telephone so I do not understand your reference to blocking my emails. I think you have me confused with someone else.

Please note there is a tremendous difference in being assigned to an infantry unit and being attached to one. They are not the same thing.

Do you not find it odd in the extreme that only the officers of the 540th were awarded the CIB?

Were there not more than a few NCOs and enlisted men enrolled in this regiment? Did they not fight too? Why only the officers? The answer is rather obvious.

This would certainly not be the only time that someone managed to slip one over on the guys in the War Department, now would it. And this is a pretty clear instance in which the officers managed to get some extra points on their service records while giving the enlisted men and NCOs the shaft. Please check the "Ethics Papers" at the CGSC Library for some insight regarding the ongoing problems with unethical recommendations and awards of military decorations.

As to the Truscott letter,... he may very well have had good reason to request an exemption in the case of the 36th Engineers. However, the very fact that he is requesting such an exemption is proof that non- infantrymen were prohibited by the existing regulations from receiving the CIB, and that such an award to non-infantrymen required said exemption, and was probably quite rare.

I look forward to seeing the contents of the reply you are expecting to receive from what I assume is an authoritative source.

Jim

Robert,

After some reflection on this matter of awarding the CIB to engineers, I came up with a few questions for you.

Both Infantry and Armored divisions routinely created Task Forces to meet the changing demands of the battlefield. Often these task forces were built around an infantry battalion or infantry regiment, and were under the control of the battalion or regimental commanding officer. These task forces frequently included armor and engineers (organic and otherwise). These units supported the infantry's advances by direct fire. In other instances, the infantry might cross a waterway with tanks and engineers providing direct fire support and even crossing the waterway in the company of the infantry.

According to your interpretation of the criteria for the CIB, the members of each of these supporting units, including the engineers, would be eligible for the award. So here is the question.

Would the CIB be recommended only for the officers of the supporting units?

Would it be necessary for a senior officer like Truscott to recommend the CIB before it could be awarded?

Or would the members of each of these supporting units automatically be eligible for the CIB because they were engaged in combat alongside of and while attached to an infantry unit?

If this is the case, in part or in full, then every soldier (assuming that you are wrong about the officers being eligible when the NCOs and enlisted men are not) who engaged in combat while in direct support of an infantry unit to which they were attached at the time in question, would be eligible for the CIB.

Would you limit the CIB to just engineers or would the artillery FO be eligible? What about the tankers whose tank was knocked out and were forced to take refuge with (and fight alongside) the infantry they were supporting? Would the Forward Air Liaison be eligible if he opened fire on the enemy with his personal weapon? Once you start handing out the CIB to men in non-infantry units, where does it stop? In other words, what is the cut-off point, assuming there is one to be found within the model you have constructed?

I look forward to reading your answers to these perfectly legitimate questions.

Jim

Two other badges should be made that wold settle this confusion. C.E.B,(Engineers), C.T.B, (Tankers) that would leave the C.I.B.,(INFANTRY) ALONE. OH YEAH, I GOT ONE... Got it where Engineers or tanks could not go. Mountains of Italy. (justanoledogfacetalkin') Rocky

Two other badges should be made that wold settle this confusion. C.E.B,(Engineers), C.T.B, (Tankers) that would leave the C.I.B.,(INFANTRY) ALONE. OH YEAH, I GOT ONE... Got it where Engineers or tanks could not go. Mountains of Italy. (justanoledogfacetalkin') Rocky

Rocky,

You bet. It is a shame the powers that be (were?) did not come up with the CEB and CTB as you suggest. That way everybody who saw combat could have had their own badge, although the War Department would have had to add a Combat Artillery Badge (CAB) and probably some others I can't think of at the moment. Oh, .... a Combat Signals Badge (CSB) for those poor linemen who were always out fixing the broken lines to the front lines. I've yet to talk with one of these guys who wasn't out under enemy artillery fire splicing wires so the guys up front (not too far away I'm sure) could call back and get the artillery on target or ask where the he?? the tanks were.

Speaking of infantry in the mountains. General Devers, short on infantry, ordered a couple of battalions of armored infantry into mountain top positions in the French Alps, and when SHAEF found out what he had done he had to write a justification for his decision. According to my sources the real fun began when these "mechanized" armored infantrymen had to pack their mules, and lead them into the mountains. Apparently the mules caused more damage and injuries than the Germans. (Maybe they were secret weapon German mules specially bred by Adolph himself just for this purpose?)

On a more serious and less generous note, I have to wonder if the CIB would be less attractive to the non-infantry types if it did not carry the BSM with it.

Jim