[jambutty]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think that's the crucial point. It doesn't make what he did any less brave and selfless and it really does seem rather foolish that there should be this distinction but that's where the line is drawn. The VC is only awarded to military personnel who are in direct conflict with the enemy (ie as in shooting at each other). The GC is for civilians and military personnel not involved in direct combat and that includes bombs and booby traps. They don't count as the enemy soldier isn't actually there on hand at the time. It does seem rather petty though and what this chap did was incredible.

So the officer killed whilst trying to defuse an UXB during the last war shouldn’t have been awarded the VC? But then he was an officer.

Do some research on the VC (start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Cross) and you will find out that it is down to the award committee (the proper name of which escapes me for the moment) whether an act of bravery is worthy of an award and which.

I did and I was surprised to find out that VC did not command a salute from all ranks but it was only tradition, albeit a tradition that no one objected to and was in fact proud to salute a VC.

It does not mention that the VC can only be awarded to those who are in ‘direct’ action with the enemy.

In any case what is direct action? What do you mean by ‘there on hand’? How far away is ‘on hand’? The modern rifle can kill at over half a mile. That can hardly be called ‘on hand’. A special snipers rifle can double that range. The old Lee Enfield rifle could kill at one mile. Of course you had to be a darned good shot with it. I could hit a three feet square target at one thousand yards so imagine what a real marksman could do. For all the patrol knew the Taliban could have been a few hundred yards away just waiting for them to get closer if the booby traps didn’t work.

The patrol was in a war zone whether bullets were flying or not. Shrapnel from a grenade certainly was.