Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
- Thread starter ArmaHeavy
- Start date
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
I am honored to see him get this.
So that said, I think there have been a HECK of a lot of people that have done equal or more - and have not been recognized.
I am honored to see him get this.
So that said, I think there have been a HECK of a lot of people that have done equal or more - and have not been recognized.
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am honored to see him get this.
So that said, I think there have been a HECK of a lot of people that have done equal or more - and have not been recognized.
</div></div>
Agree
Here is an article about the very few Medal of honors given today, compared to Vietnam and before. One of the few editorials I actually like in the NY times LOL
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/longer-wars-fewer-medals-of-honor/
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ArcticLight</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am honored to see him get this.
So that said, I think there have been a HECK of a lot of people that have done equal or more - and have not been recognized.
</div></div>
Agree
Here is an article about the very few Medal of honors given today, compared to Vietnam and before. One of the few editorials I actually like in the NY times LOL
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/longer-wars-fewer-medals-of-honor/
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
The criteria for the medal has changed. during the Civil War large numbers of men were awarded them for ......reenlisting! at places like Vera Cruz it is amazing how many were given out for small actions. Even in Ww ii they were given out oddly. usually officers were given them as "testimonial" to the actions of thier ships or commands. Men were given them for things early in the war that didn't come close later.Different sevices, and even arms, pushed for someone to get them in their specialty, preferably somebody who lived and could give interviews and go on Bond Tours.
A great many of those given before the First World War, especially during the Civil War, were disallowed later. There were no other decorations for valor at the time, so all they could give out, for anything, was the MOH.
Commanders looked at it as a feather in their own caps if a subordinate got one. And some were bullshit.
I knew a Gunny with a Navy Cross from 1965, in the 3rd Recon Bn, USMC. His Company CO, a 1st LT, openly stated he was going to get a MOH, and went out on patrols with subordinate units where he had no business. They walked into a NVA Company (steel helmets, boots, SKS's and uniforms) and the Gunny (then a Cpl) was on point. He killed 3 and dropped back, finding most of the rest of the team wounded. The CO attempted to get the wounded radio Operator out of the open, and got killed after about 4 steps. the Gunny/Cpl used his M14 and then a M79, killing a bunch of the enemy, and knocking out a enemy MG that he then picked up and turned on them. He dragged out the wounded Radio Operator into cover, provided fire to keep the enemy down while the other (all wounded like him) moved back to the main body of the patrol, and then carried out the dead LT while firing his rifle with one hand.
He got the Navy Cross, but the glory seeking dead LT got the MOH for attempting to do what the Gunny/CPL actually did after the LT got shot. When they told him, later the LT was getting the MOH and offered him the chance to go to the White House for the ceremony, he declined, in no uncertain terms. They named a ship after the LT, launched only 5 years after he died.
Clinton was handing them out for WW II and Korea to "underrepresented" groups, like Blacks, 50 years after the war ended. Reparations or something.
The criteria, until recently, was always sketchy. Even now I kinda wonder about some of the few from the last 10 years. Were they really up to the highest standard, or making a political point?
Wearing that thing is like catching a world record fish, or shooting a world record animal, or hitting the most home runs. Too much controversy. I am sure there are a few recipients who were good with getting it, and unquestionably deserve it, but I would never want one. I would prefer the Navy Cross, and a degree of anonymity (if i lived to get it).
The criteria for the medal has changed. during the Civil War large numbers of men were awarded them for ......reenlisting! at places like Vera Cruz it is amazing how many were given out for small actions. Even in Ww ii they were given out oddly. usually officers were given them as "testimonial" to the actions of thier ships or commands. Men were given them for things early in the war that didn't come close later.Different sevices, and even arms, pushed for someone to get them in their specialty, preferably somebody who lived and could give interviews and go on Bond Tours.
A great many of those given before the First World War, especially during the Civil War, were disallowed later. There were no other decorations for valor at the time, so all they could give out, for anything, was the MOH.
Commanders looked at it as a feather in their own caps if a subordinate got one. And some were bullshit.
I knew a Gunny with a Navy Cross from 1965, in the 3rd Recon Bn, USMC. His Company CO, a 1st LT, openly stated he was going to get a MOH, and went out on patrols with subordinate units where he had no business. They walked into a NVA Company (steel helmets, boots, SKS's and uniforms) and the Gunny (then a Cpl) was on point. He killed 3 and dropped back, finding most of the rest of the team wounded. The CO attempted to get the wounded radio Operator out of the open, and got killed after about 4 steps. the Gunny/Cpl used his M14 and then a M79, killing a bunch of the enemy, and knocking out a enemy MG that he then picked up and turned on them. He dragged out the wounded Radio Operator into cover, provided fire to keep the enemy down while the other (all wounded like him) moved back to the main body of the patrol, and then carried out the dead LT while firing his rifle with one hand.
He got the Navy Cross, but the glory seeking dead LT got the MOH for attempting to do what the Gunny/CPL actually did after the LT got shot. When they told him, later the LT was getting the MOH and offered him the chance to go to the White House for the ceremony, he declined, in no uncertain terms. They named a ship after the LT, launched only 5 years after he died.
Clinton was handing them out for WW II and Korea to "underrepresented" groups, like Blacks, 50 years after the war ended. Reparations or something.
The criteria, until recently, was always sketchy. Even now I kinda wonder about some of the few from the last 10 years. Were they really up to the highest standard, or making a political point?
Wearing that thing is like catching a world record fish, or shooting a world record animal, or hitting the most home runs. Too much controversy. I am sure there are a few recipients who were good with getting it, and unquestionably deserve it, but I would never want one. I would prefer the Navy Cross, and a degree of anonymity (if i lived to get it).
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
Funny, I took part in a DOD survey about awards. The survey gave 7 different scenerios of troops in contact with the enemy, their actions, and then asked me what award (medal) that I thought was appropriate. After that, all of the complex words that are requirements in the write up for medals were defined for me. Then, I read 7 more scenerios from previous conflicts/wars, of which the actual award given was also included.
The conclusion was that I was awarding medals way too low for the actions taken by people. Partly due to the actions that I saw everyday in Iraq and the awards given and my own thoughts of awards. I wrote several awards for people working for me while I was in Iraq and I feel like my thoughts are similar to other COs out there. It is a mindset of senior officers that is holding back high awards and not the lack of bravery or actions by troops in Afgan/Iraq.
The survey opened my eyes.
Funny, I took part in a DOD survey about awards. The survey gave 7 different scenerios of troops in contact with the enemy, their actions, and then asked me what award (medal) that I thought was appropriate. After that, all of the complex words that are requirements in the write up for medals were defined for me. Then, I read 7 more scenerios from previous conflicts/wars, of which the actual award given was also included.
The conclusion was that I was awarding medals way too low for the actions taken by people. Partly due to the actions that I saw everyday in Iraq and the awards given and my own thoughts of awards. I wrote several awards for people working for me while I was in Iraq and I feel like my thoughts are similar to other COs out there. It is a mindset of senior officers that is holding back high awards and not the lack of bravery or actions by troops in Afgan/Iraq.
The survey opened my eyes.
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
Criteria for the CMH
The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in the name of Congress, to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.
Criteria for the CMH
The Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in the name of Congress, to a person who, while a member of the Army, distinguishes himself or herself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his or her life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in action against an enemy of the United States; while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The deed performed must have been one of personal bravery or self-sacrifice so conspicuous as to clearly distinguish the individual above his or her comrades and must have involved risk of life. Incontestable proof of the performance of the service will be exacted and each recommendation for the award of this decoration will be considered on the standard of extraordinary merit.
Re: Army Ranger awarded Medal of Honor
That is one definition of the award. Obviously, other services also can get the CMH. The difficult part is: can you define "gallantry, intrepidity, and conspiciously" as part of actions that you see people do?
That is one definition of the award. Obviously, other services also can get the CMH. The difficult part is: can you define "gallantry, intrepidity, and conspiciously" as part of actions that you see people do?
Similar threads
