AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Saturday22February2020

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Don Tate Fraud Liar Wannabe Closet Paedophile and Closet Gay
2,371 Posts in 149 Topics by 217 Members
Latest Member: Sweesiultew
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS
|-+  AUSTRALIAN VETERAN MATTERS FORUM
| |-+  THE MAD GALAHS FORUM--This forum does not necessarily reflect AVMs opinion. CLICK HERE FOR AVMS OPINION
| | |-+  SVN Campaign Medal criteria.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: SVN Campaign Medal criteria.  (Read 16319 times)
William
Guest
« Reply #14 on: Monday11May2009 »

Sydney (I)
Sydney (I) (1913-28) was a Town Class light cruiser built in the United Kingdom. She rendered distinguished service during World War I, commencing with the capture of German possessions in the Pacific.  Operations included the capture of Rabaul and culminated in her famous successful engagement with the German cruiser Emden at Cocos Island on 9 November 1914.  Sydney (I) later served on the North American and West Indies Stations and with the Grand Fleet.  Sydney (I) was present at the surrender of the German High Seas Fleet in November 1918.  Following World War I she served in Australian and regional waters until 1928.  She was flagship of the Australian Squadron from 1924-27.
Sydney (II)
Sydney (II) (1935-41) was a modified Leander Class light cruiser built in the United Kingdom.  Following the outbreak of war in 1939, Sydney (II) served in Australian waters on local patrol duties before proceeding to the Mediterranean in May 1940.  Operations with the Mediterranean fleet included the bombardment of Bardia, convoy escort duties and engagements with the Italian Navy.  In the naval action at Cape Spada on 19 July 1940, Sydney (II) was involved in the sinking of the Italian cruiser Bartolomeo Colleoni.  She returned to Australia in February 1941 and was employed on convoy duties off the Australian coast.  On 19 November 1941 Sydney (II) was lost with all hands following her engagement with the German Armed Merchant Cruiser Kormoran off the Western Australian coast; an engagement that 60 years later continues to be the subject of some controversy.
Sydney (III)
Sydney (III) (1948-73) was the first of two Majestic Class aircraft carriers acquired by the RAN and built in the United Kingdom.  She was the basis of the genesis of the RAN’s post war Fleet Air Arm.  Sydney (III) undertook an operational deployment during the Korean War from 1951-52, being the first Dominion carrier to go into action, her squadrons having flown 2366 sorties.  She undertook a later Korean deployment from 1953-54 after the Armistice.  Between Korean deployments her service included support for the 1952 British atomic tests in the Monte Bello Islands and a deployment to England in 1953 for the Coronation.  Sydney (III) was utilised as a training platform from 1955 until decommissioning in 1958.  In the early 1960s Sydney (III) was converted to a fast troop transport and completed 24 voyages to Vietnam between 1965 and 1972, transported troops and cargo, and affectionately became known as the ‘Vung Tau Ferry’.
Sydney (IV)
Sydney (IV) (1983-?) is the third of the Adelaide Class guided missile frigates to be commissioned.  She was built in the United States and saw active service in the 1991 Gulf War, including two later deployments during sanction operations against Iraq, and recently returned from that region following operations with the International Coalition Against Terrorism.  She has also seen service in East Timor.
Battle Honours:   ‘Emden’ 1914      CALABRIA 1940
         SPADA 1940         MEDITERRANEAN 1940
         ‘Kormoran’ 1941      KOREA 1951-52
         VIETNAM 1965-72      KUWAIT 1991
Logged
PD
Sr. Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #13 on: Monday11May2009 »

DandEGun.   Its not a threat dipstick.  I don't really care about the medal one way or the other.  I don't have one, have never applied for one, and never will.   As far as I am concerned I am not qualified for it until the government comes out and tells me otherwise.   Its people like you who are getting their knickers in a knot about who is entitled.   The people you may have upset with your stupid statement are the RAN people who have been awarded that medal.  Its not the first time I have come across  some army veteran who  thinks that they were the only ones who have a god given right  to wear that medal.   Your idiotic comment confirms to me that you are one of them.   Perhaps you might want to target the several thousand US servicemen who also legally wear the medal and never went anywhere near Vietnam, after all they were supposed to be governed by the same regulations as laid down by the South Vietnamese Government for the award of the medal.   

The denial?  What denial are you talking about?

"I don't know, you will have to ask him."   Did I really state that on this thread.  I am sure that I have made that statement sometime in my life, but I just can't see where I did it in this thread.  Are you sure that someone isn't twisting words here to suit their own diatribe.  Just where did I question your entitlement to the RSVN campaign medal?  I couldn't give a rat's arse if you wear twenty of them.

Yes, you are right, you are a complete arsehole.  You obviously have a fascination about me if you go to the trouble about looking up and putting my Vietnam service on this thread.  Now I don't really care if you do put up anything about my Service career, as long as you get it right,  unlike your girlfriend Curt who has no idea where I was at various times during my service or when I was promoted.   She just makes it up as she goes along.

Peter Denver
« Last Edit: Tuesday12May2009 by PD » Logged
DandEGun
Guest
« Reply #12 on: Monday11May2009 »

Whoops. I copped something straight out of the “Die ESO Kommandant” handbook section on how to handle and eventually stifle uninvited questions from lesser beings about pet wannabes.
The denial.  Then “I don’t know, you will have to ask him”  Then smarmy condescension.  Then twist words to suit.  Then accuse the enquirer of being the arsehole of the whole piece and not the crooked ESO pet show pony .  Finally offer a mild threat to make sure the subject is closed.
PD Saturday 09 May  “You might want to retract that statement and  apologize to them while you can”
I won’t take that as a threat PD it was too silly for words.
Well done PD.  I’m a veteran fully entitled to the SVN Campaign Medal but a complete arsehole while your wannabe mate is a choir boy.
D&EGUN
Logged
William
Guest
« Reply #11 on: Sunday10May2009 »

I was reading the various wrtings dealing with the award of the VCM to Naval Personnel. An ex-stoker mate of mine, Denis Piper of Port Pirie completed 7 and a half years aboard Sydney and 14 trips which after the granting of port to port coverage more than covers Denis for the award of that medal, especially when in I believe 1997 - 1998 the Sydney was awarded full battle honours for Vietnam and became the only ship in the RAN to complete war-service under both Ensigns. It is now stated "That at all times the HMAS Sydney was in South Vietnamese waters she was in direct combat support of all Allied Forces in South Vietnam". When the CIDA Report into medals was conducted General Gration stated that this was the only acceptable criteria for the award of the VCM.

On the subject of the Gunline ships I believe HMAS Hobart 1st Tour was the only ship to aggregate more than 180 days, although she did go to Subic Bay during this period. You may find in the CIDA Report that it was a decission of the "Sea of Green" that the port to port coverage would not be extended to Navy, only when they arrived on the gunline. I think a lot of people get their allotted time which came under the Defence Act confused with their repatriation time which came under the Repatriation (SOS) Act.

Another bit of info is that back then the Commonwealth Minister Fairbairn stated in Parliament (Hansard) that our criteria for the award of the VCM was the same as the United States. The united States criteria in part stated that if one was a recipient of the American Expedionary Forces Medal and/or the Vietnam Medal (theirs) which was the equivalent of ours, then the time for the award of the VCM is waived. In other words as soon as one had completed 1 day ashore posted to a unit or formation for the award of the Vietnam Medal then one automatically should have been awarded the VCM. It also state that personnel giving direct combat support to the Allied Forces outside of the geographical limits of South Vietnam then their time for the award of the VCM was waived. An example was the Air Ground Crews stationed at Guam. I have a copy of the warrant for the VCM written in Vietnamese and it states one only had to go there to fight against the evils of communism and you had it.

An interesting side to all of this is that in the late 80's a Barrister in Adelaide by the name of Grahame Hemsley did a brief on the legality of the award of the VCM and found that the Australian Government had breached International Law by applying Allotment Time to the criteria for the award of this medal. Apparently no country can change the criteria of the award of a military honour of another country. They can say who gets it the same as they did in Vietnam by not allowing our troops to accept their awards. It was interesting to note that when General Gration in the CIDA Report stated that there will only be one medal per soldier from now on (or words to that effect!) he was in possession of the South Vietnamese Psychological Medal and the South Vietnamese Education Medal. The only reason a writ was not served on the government at that time was lack of funding.

With the Vietnam Medal and the Vietnam Logistical Support Medal signed by the fat fella (not the Queen) it is a misconception I believe that you can't have both. The warrant for the VLSM states that one cannot have both but the warrant for the Vietnam Medal doe's not. There is apparently legal arguement that under the following scenerio one may have a right to both. If one receives the Vietnam Medal say for gunline tours he comes under that particular warrant. If one is then posted ashore back home then say gets drafted to the Sydney and goes to Vietnam then he is doing such duty under a different warrant which states that if after he receives this medal he can not be awarded the Vietnam Medal. But if one already has it! Food for thought! The only bloke I knew who received the Vietnam Medal onboard Sydney was Major Smith who was incharge of the Army Ship's Crew. He completed the necessary accumulated 28 days back then.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: Monday11May2009 by William » Logged
PD
Sr. Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #10 on: Saturday09May2009 »

DandEGun:  Damn I stuffed that one up.   I thought I was dealing with a person of some intelligence.  But with your comment below, I think you might have just made an enemy of several thousand ex RAN Veterans  who were awarded the RSVN Campaign Medal.     I am sure they will not be impressed by your wannabe reference simply because they were never posted to an onshore unit in Vietnam.

Quote: "All I can say is that when I see it on a man along with the Vietnam Medal it says to me “Six months posted to an onshore unit in Vietnam” The bright ribbon makes it stand out like dogs nuts on a medals bar and I guess that’s why wannabes like it so much. Indicating six months service or a tour cut short by wounding also serves their purposes." Unquote.

You might want to retract that statement and  apologize to them while you can.

Peter Denver
« Last Edit: Saturday09May2009 by PD » Logged
DandEGun
Guest
« Reply #9 on: Saturday09May2009 »

PD
   
(deleted) 
Here are a few more clues for you to check out.

All of the Gunline ships certainly did approximately seven month deployments, but they were never on the gunline for 180 days aggregate during any one deployment.   During the tour of their deployment, the ships went to Subic bay in the Philippines for gun barrel replacement, ship's maintenance/repair and R & R.   They also went to other ports for Goodwill visits and R & R.  Then there was the sailing time to get to the Gunline from Sydney,  and the time taken to get back home to Sydney with various ports of call on the way up and back..   

How long would a gunline ship actually spend on station?  I never thought about all that swanning around outside Vietnam waters. I now understand the “Operational Zone” extended to 100 nautical miles from the coast. So why does the DVA VVNR not show the day out/day in operational zone service periods?  For that matter, why does it show Hammal’s Vietnam service as HMAS Swan 04/10/1971 14/10/1971  HMAS Swan 06/12/1971 11/12/1971 ? Gunline ship’s crews appear to have unbroken seven month “tours” while Hammal’s suggest two “tours”

An Infantryman’s nominal roll entries.
1 Australian Reinforcement Unit 23/12/1968 03/02/1969
4th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment 04/02/1969 13/05/1969
Headquarters, 1st Australian Task Force 14/05/1969 16/06/1969
9th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment 17/06/1969 27/11/1969
1 Australian Reinforcement Unit 28/11/1969 08/12/1969
(out of operational zone)
Headquarters, 1st Australian Task Force 19/01/1970 26/01/1970
8th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment 27/01/1970 23/07/1970
(out of operational zone)
1 Australian Reinforcement Unit 26/08/1971 22/09/1971
4th Battalion, The Royal Australian Regiment 23/09/1971 09/03/1972

If the RAN method of ignoring movement in and out of the operational zone was applied this man’s dates of service could read as an unbroken 3 years and 3 months. 23/12/1968 to 09/03/1972   

I looked up some RAN/Vietnam info.
http://www.gunplot.net/vietnam/vietnamrani.htm
http://www.navy.gov.au/Naval_Operations_in_Vietnam
http://www.navyhistory.org.au/%E2%80%98on-the-gunline%E2%80%99-hmas-perths-3rd-deployment-in-vietnam/2/

So how did the Australian Government decide that the people serving on these ships complied with the South Vietnam Government guidelines for the award of the of the Republic of South Vietnam Campaign Medal?

No idea, maybe you can tell me.

There were Australian regulations put in place that stated if a person had the Australian Vietnam Campaign (Vietnam Medal), they could not be awarded the Vietnam Logistic Support Medal, and vice versa.  
Why would anyone want both? I suppose I can imagine some wanker trying that many years ago. I once met a bloke who said he served two tours, one Navy one Army.

The “Vietnam Medal” was awarded for as little as being posted to a unit for one day.
•   28 days in ships or craft on inland waters or off the coast of Vietnam; (maybe for Army Small Ships)
•   one day or more on the posted strength of a unit or formation on land;
•   one operational sortie over Vietnam or Vietnamese waters by air crew on the posted strength of a unit; or
•   official visits either continuous or aggregate of 30 days.

But was there ever any regulation that stated that if you were the holder of the VLSM, you could not be awarded the South Vietnam Government's Campaign medal if your aggregate days came to a total of 180 days or more? 
All I can say is that when I see it on a man along with the Vietnam Medal it says to me “Six months posted to an onshore unit in Vietnam” The bright ribbon makes it stand out like dogs nuts on a medals bar and I guess that’s why wannabes like it so much. Indicating six months service or a tour cut short by wounding also serves their purposes.

My friend does not wear the Australian Vietnam Campaign Medal  (Vietnam Medal), and to the best of my knowledge he has never worn it.   He does wear the VLSM and the Republic of South Vietnam Campaign Medal.
His entitlement to the second one is not even in question now. Nothing he can come up with will convince anyone but you that he's entitled to it.

Keep investigating Sir, and I am sure that you will eventually hit the jackpot, and answer a lot of questions for some other people.
No thanks. I think I’ve seen enough to convince me Hammal is nothing but a posing wannabe. All the other stuff I’ve read and heard about him doesn’t concern me one bit but maybe it would concern former RAN blokes who have a fairdinkum bone in their bodies.

(deleted)

Peter Denver[/i]

D&EGUN
Logged
PD
Sr. Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #8 on: Saturday09May2009 »

Cassius: I am not playing silly mind games.   This is the only way I can get some of the people here to figure it out for themselves.   If I laid it out for you up front for all to read and digest, people like your mate CA would just come back with the typical bull shit response, well it must be forged, or its all lies or it's all made up.   

I tried that on the last thread I was involved in about my mate, when I provided you with some things many of you did not know, and CA and ANZMI were hoping I would never reveal, as they would not put that up on their website, because  it shoots their 30 years Secrecy Act revelations in the arse.   

Have a read through that other thread again, and then tell me who is playing immature teeny bopper games with his stupid statements about  parachuting into North Vietnam to release POWs conspiracy, and having evidence to say that the ANVVWA  "charged or firmly suggested donations" for their services, or Ramboesque secret ops in far away lands.
 
Or even more pathetically trying to come up with some dumb arse "Timeline" crap.   ANZMI must be reeling at the stupidity of this bloke,  I wonder how much longer they will let him ramble on before they tell him to STFU.

Cassius I don't have problem with you being critical about me, but please don't be biased about it.   If you are going to have a go at me about the way I write something, at least be reasonable enough to have a go at your mate for being far worse than me over the same issue.

Peter Denver
« Last Edit: Wednesday13May2009 by PD » Logged
Zion
Administrator
Active Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


« Reply #7 on: Saturday09May2009 »

Peter Denver,

We are not here to play silly mind games. We are here to clearly lay out and provide information and opinion.

So, let's stop this immature teeny bopper game of hide and seek and just privide your information upfront for all to read and digest.
« Last Edit: Saturday09May2009 by Cassius » Logged

PD
Sr. Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #6 on: Saturday09May2009 »

Congratulations DandEGun.   

You are the first person who has done any logical thinking outside the box.   You are definitely on the right track.   Here are a few more clues for you to check out.

All of the Gunline ships certainly did approximately seven month deployments, but they were never on the gunline for 180 days aggregate during any one deployment.   During the tour of their deployment, the ships went to Subic bay in the Philippines for gun barrel replacement, ship's maintenance/repair and R & R.   They also went to other ports for Goodwill visits and R & R.  Then there was the sailing time to get to the Gunline from Sydney,  and the time taken to get back home to Sydney with various ports of call on the way up and back..     So how did the Australian Government decide that the people serving on these ships complied with the South Vietnam Government guidelines for the award of the of the Republic of South Vietnam Campaign Medal?

There were Australian regulations put in place that stated if a person had the Australian Vietnam Campaign Medal, they could not be awarded the Vietnam Logistic Support Medal, and vice versa.   But was there ever any regulation that stated that if you were the holder of the VLSM, you could not be awarded the South Vietnam Government's Campaign medal if your aggregate days came to a total of 180 days or more? 

My friend does not wear the Australian Vietnam Campaign Medal,   and to the best of my knowledge he has never worn it.   He does wear the VLSM and the Republic of South Vietnam Campaign Medal.

Keep investigating Sir, and I am sure that you will eventually hit the jackpot, and answer a lot of questions for some other people.  Its not really that difficult to figure it out, but as I said you are the only person who has done any constructive research and really thought about it.   Well done.   If more people thought like you, a lot of this crap would never have come up in the first place.

I also wear the VLSM  as I did not qualify for the Australian Vietnam Campaign Medal.   I have never applied for, nor have I ever worn the Republic of South Vietnam Campaign medal.

I don't remember doing that many trips on the Port Jackson to Vung Tau Ferry, and I don't remember how long each trip took, but then again it was a long time ago.

Peter Denver
Logged
DandEGun
Guest
« Reply #5 on: Friday08May2009 »

Those Vietnam service details belong to Peter Denver.  I really cocked up the number of his days on ships, sorry. I realise now that even if he or someone like him did 200 days on logistic support they wouldn't equate to "Special Service VIETNAM (Southern Zone)" and the campaign medal.
D&EGUN
Logged
grunter
Active Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #4 on: Friday08May2009 »

G'DAY DEG.

Will admit my medal knowledge is not that smick, but can't see anyone being on board the Ferry from 1965 to 1969?
And being there for EVERY listed trip?

I thought that why they created the Logistics Medal?
Also was not the service 'ZONE' so far out from Viet Nam?

For example my records show; EMB 16 Feb 70. 71L = Sydney   71L = HMAS SYDNEY
DISEMB 27 Feb 70. 825F 8A = Vietnam Commenced Southern Zone   

G.
Logged
DandEGun
Guest
« Reply #3 on: Friday08May2009 »

Thanks Dodger, Grunter.
"minimum period of 181 days, either continuous or aggregated" That answers my question.

There were quite a few HMAS Sydney sailors who did many trips to Vung Tau harbour.
For example
HMAS Sydney 27/05/1965 26/06/1965 .....30 days
HMAS Sydney 22/04/1966 18/05/1966 .....16
HMAS Sydney 25/05/1966 11/06/1966 .....28
HMAS Sydney 08/04/1967 22/04/1967 .....34
HMAS Sydney 28/04/1967 12/05/1967 .....14
HMAS Sydney 19/05/1967 14/06/1967 .....26
HMAS Vampire 14/05/1969 25/05/1969....42
                                                      ----------
                                                            190 days port to port.
Would these trips have been regarded as special service southern zone with the aggregate/total days entitling the bloke to the Campaign Medal?  Or was logistic support clearly defined as non-special service?
Gunline ships crews all did approx seven months at a stretch so no problem there.
D&EGUN
Logged
grunter
Active Member


Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


« Reply #2 on: Friday08May2009 »

G'DAY Dig

All you have to do is go to the Government Honours and Awards site and look up the medal concerned.
G.


Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal
VCM VCM

The Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal was issued by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam for service in the prescribed area of operations in Vietnam during the period commencing on 31 July 1962 and ending on 27 January 1973 for Australian personnel.
The Medal

The medal is a gold and white enamelled star with a green, red and gold centre motif.
The Ribbon

The ribbon is green with three white stripes. A ribbon device bearing the inscription ‘1960 – ‘ is worn on the medal ribbon. A smaller device with the inscription ‘60- ‘ is worn on the ribbon bar.
Eligibility

The Australian government maintained the basic qualifying criteria specified by the Republic of Vietnam for allied troops. To be eligible for the medal a person must have completed a minimum period of 181 days, either continuous or aggregated, unless:

    * killed on active service (KIA);
    * wounded in action i.e. classified as a Battle Casualty and evacuated as a result of those wounds; or
    * captured and later released or escaped.

      Note that medical evacuation from the area of operations for any reasons other than wounds received in action does not constitute an exemption from meeting the minimum qualifying period.
Logged
dodger39
Guest
« Reply #1 on: Friday08May2009 »

This is the closest I can come to an answer.

Vietnamese Campaign Medal - South Vietnamese Government Award
This was the hardest Vietnam era medal to earn as it required at least 181 days "special service" in Vietnam, unless terminated by battle casualty. As a Foreign Award it is ranked junior to all Australian Awards.

Name of Award: Vietnamese Campaign Medal
Description of Ribbon: Green with three vertical white stripes. Date cluster "1960-" worn centrally on ribbon with straight sides of scroll perpendicular.
Clasp or Emblem Worn (if Awarded)
Nil

Conditions of Award Awarded by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam. "Special Service" totalling at least 181 days in South Vietnam, unless terminated by a Battle Casualty.
Period: 31 July 1962 to 28 March 1973.
Logged
DandEGun
Guest
« on: Friday08May2009 »

I’ve read what’s here on the forum and searched Googgle looking for any information that says the required six months or 181-2 days of Vietnam service may be aggregated.  Two by three month periods onshore or in ships, for example.
Can someone point me in the right direction to anything that says the number of days served must be continuous?
Thanks in advance.
D&EGUN
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!