Downgrading medals received for heroism.

[Cicero]

I think it's interesting that almost 3 times as many Medal of Honors have been awarded as Victoria Crosses, despite the fact that the VC has been given for longer, and many, many more service persons qualify for it.

What's also interesting is that while the MoH is awarded for action "above and beyond the call of duty" the VC is awarded for "extreme devotion to duty".

19 American won two MoH's while a New Zealnder won two VC's (Victoria Cross with bar) for actions during combat and two British doctors also won two VC's for rescuing wounded. I don't know if this reinforces or undermines your notion that it is "easier" for Americans to earn MoH's than it is for military personnel of the British Empire/Commonwealth countries. Maybe it is just your New Zealand pride showing.

3465 MoH's awarded to the 1356 VC's. Both established at about the same time. 1522 of the 3465 total MoH's were awarded during the Civil War.

Does it come down to whether Audie Murphy is more heroic than Charles Upham or vice versa?

Medal inflation was a reality during the Vietnam War.

 

[ravdin]

One instance I know of is on D-Day, a small unit led by Lt. Richard Winters was tasked with destroying four howitzers defended by a much larger enemy force. The attack was depicted in the HBO miniseries Band of Brothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brécourt_Manor_Assault

Winters was recommended for the Medal of Honor, but he received the DSC instead as there was a policy of awarding only one Medal of Honor per division.

 

[Ranb]

So then why is the reason "they took off without orders" used instead of "their actions do not rate the MoH"? It would make perfect sense to just come out and say that their actions rated any other award instead of somehow trying to say they did something wrong when taking off without orders. That is what I am trying to find out here.

Ranb

 

[jeremyp]

His heroic conduct throughout this first eventful engagement of World War II reflects the highest credit upon Lt. Pharris and enhances the finest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

First eventful engagement of WW2?

I think not.

 

[JimBenArm]

First eventful engagement of WW2?

I think not.

Well, it was for the United States. Remember, we were a bit late to the show. You know us. Always have to make an entrance.

 

[Ove]

From this site:

"Amidst the heroes of December 7, 1941, there were also a handful of cowards and martinets. History is replete with accounts of soldiers, sailors and Marines having to break their way into armories to gain access to weapons as the bombing and strafing approached fever pitch. One quartermaster said he could not issue weapons until war had been officially declared. Another said he could not give out a firearm without a chit signed by a superior."

Would certainly like to find other references to this, but I think there are certainly times when it's suitable to say "hell with orders".

Just out of curiosity: Does anybody have any sort of documentation for this? It COULD be that it was shown in "From here to eternity" and then gradually becoming a "true story". I am NOT saying that it didn't happen but it could be an urban legend.

 

[MG1962]

Just out of curiosity: Does anybody have any sort of documentation for this? It COULD be that it was shown in "From here to eternity" and then gradually becoming a "true story". I am NOT saying that it didn't happen but it could be an urban legend.

Well I tried googling the names mentioned in the article and with the exception of historian Stanley Weintraub no one seems to get a mention

This quote - A third soldier joined them until a captain, the local motor pool officer, drove up and ordered them to stop: 'You'll Make the Japs mad and they'll start shooting back at us!' It was an order

Now it could have been a bit of gallows humour - pretty common in these super high stress situations. Or, depending on the behaviour of the Japanese aircraft - good advice. If the Japanese were dropping bombs and not straffing the airfield. To begin to encountering AA fire, they might switch to ground attack operations putting even more personal at risk.

 

[Ove]

Well I tried googling the names mentioned in the article and with the exception of historian Stanley Weintraub no one seems to get a mention

This quote - A third soldier joined them until a captain, the local motor pool officer, drove up and ordered them to stop: 'You'll Make the Japs mad and they'll start shooting back at us!' It was an order

Now it could have been a bit of gallows humour - pretty common in these super high stress situations. Or, depending on the behaviour of the Japanese aircraft - good advice. If the Japanese were dropping bombs and not straffing the airfield. To begin to encountering AA fire, they might switch to ground attack operations putting even more personal at risk.

Yes i agree. The stories about storage officers refusing to issue ammo without a written order could very well come from the fact that theese people normally are seen to be annoying burocrats, insisting on correct paperwork. There are umpteen stories about people trying to cheat such persons.

 

[Metullus]

I don´t know the specific military regulations, but I wouldn´t be surprised if there was an article in there somewhere that "actions consistent with maintaining the integrity of the unit" or something to effect (meaning, fight back when you´re attacked) are always legitimate, unless you have specific orders to the contrary (and I doubt that there were orders saying "if the Japanese come to bomb Pearl Harbour, let them do it") - in fact I expect that not taking these actions would get you into dire trouble.

Yup. Somehow I doubt that submitting to an enemy in a surprise attack could be successfully justified using a "I was never ordered to resist the attack" defense.

I could be wrong, of course.

 

[gumboot]

19 American won two MoH's while a New Zealnder won two VC's (Victoria Cross with bar) for actions during combat and two British doctors also won two VC's for rescuing wounded. I don't know if this reinforces or undermines your notion that it is "easier" for Americans to earn MoH's than it is for military personnel of the British Empire/Commonwealth countries. Maybe it is just your New Zealand pride showing.

I don't see that it's particularly relevant. Double-winning is rare enough for both awards that it's not worth comparing. (I believe the laws for the MoH were also changed in 1919 so that you cannot win two of them)

3465 MoH's awarded to the 1356 VC's. Both established at about the same time. 1522 of the 3465 total MoH's were awarded during the Civil War.

Yes I'm aware of all this. The changing criteria for the MoH certainly plays a role - it used to be the only medal that could be awarded, and until the early 20th Century was awarded for all sorts of less impressive feats.

Having said all of that, it has to be remembered that the VC has been available to more military personnel in more wars than the MoH.

There are a number of factors that could contribute markedly to the difference.

-The VC requires recommendation of a regimental level officer or higher, and the action must be confirmed by three witnesses.
-When entire units are deserving of a VC a ballot is conducted whereby one soldier, sailor or airman at random is given the VC.
-The requirement that action be in the face of the enemy was introduced for the VC about half a century earlier than for the MoH.
-For some time the MoH was the only medal a US soldier could receive, whereas the VC was specifically instituted for acts of extreme bravery.
-American culture places a much higher value on the sacrifice and efforts of their service personnel than English culture traditionally does.

So just to clear up any confusion, no I don't think the difference in numbers is any reflection that British soldiers are more courageous than US soldiers. Such an argument would be wholly without merit. If the above factors don't explain the difference entirely, the obvious conclusion is just that British and Commonwealth authorities are more reluctant to issue a VC than the US Congress is to issue a MoH - perhaps explained by the last point in the list.

 

[Corsair 115]

Given the inferior aircraft they had, they fought heroically while doing their duty.

In fairness, it wasn't so much the aircraft being inferior as it was the tactics used. The A6M Zero, while long-ranged and highly maneuverable, was lightly built and lacked armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. Often, just a few .50-cal bullet hits were sufficient to knock it out of the sky.

Dogfighting with it was a mistake. Using proper tactics against it, however, were usually enough for older U.S. fighters, such as the P-40 or F4F Wildcat, to hold their own against it.

 

[Chaos]

In fairness, it wasn't so much the aircraft being inferior as it was the tactics used. The A6M Zero, while long-ranged and highly maneuverable, was lightly built and lacked armour and self-sealing fuel tanks. Often, just a few .50-cal bullet hits were sufficient to knock it out of the sky.

Dogfighting with it was a mistake. Using proper tactics against it, however, were usually enough for older U.S. fighters, such as the P-40 or F4F Wildcat, to hold their own against it.

Slight nitpick: According to Wikipedia, the planes were introduced:

F4F: December 1940
P-40: sometime during 1941
A6M2: July 1940

So, technically they´re older, but not really significantly so. For really older fighters, you´d have to look at the P-36 or F2A, which got clobbered whenever they encountered the A6M2 - or even the older Ki-27 and A5M.

 

[gumboot]

Slight nitpick: According to Wikipedia, the planes were introduced:

F4F: December 1940
P-40: sometime during 1941
A6M2: July 1940

So, technically they´re older, but not really significantly so. For really older fighters, you´d have to look at the P-36 or F2A, which got clobbered whenever they encountered the A6M2 - or even the older Ki-27 and A5M.

If we want to get really nit-picky the A6M2 Model 21 wasn't introduced until November 1940, and that was the model the US would face in the Pacific.

The P-40 didn't see combat until mid 1941 (with the RAF in North Africa), however the USAAF put in their largest ever single aircraft order in May 1939 (524 aircraft) and almost two hundred aircraft had been delivered by the end of 1940.

 

[Ove]

Slight nitpick: According to Wikipedia, the planes were introduced:

F4F: December 1940
P-40: sometime during 1941
A6M2: July 1940

So, technically they´re older, but not really significantly so. For really older fighters, you´d have to look at the P-36 or F2A, which got clobbered whenever they encountered the A6M2 - or even the older Ki-27 and A5M.

P40's were at Pearl Harbor at the time of the Attack: (FromWiki)In the first major battles, at Pearl Harbor and in the Philippines, USAAF P-40 squadrons suffered crippling losses on the ground and air to Japanese fighters like the "Oscar" and Zero.