Why so few Medals of Honor?

[SeanNewman]

Have we set the bar so artifically high in some mindsets that it will be nigh impossible to grant awards commensurate with the deeds?

In my opinion: Yes, especially since we have our own VC now and don't have to treat it exactly the same as other countries.

There have been probably 25,000 people deployed to Afghanistan, and multiple thousands of incidents involving "enemy contact". 

Each tour you get ~500 people who are exposed to a disproportionate percentage of those contacts.  The poor OMLT guys and C-IED guys probably have it the worst, even more than the BG because since 06-07 they usually scatter and run whenever the BG comes (which is not cowardice on their part but smart).

And as you assume, there have been hundreds of valour demonstrations, with arguably a 10 or so involving jaw-dropping events of heroism (averaging about one per tour of 2,800 soldiers). 

In my opinion, the bar we set for the Star of Valour should have similar to what the VC level should have been.  For example, instead of 9 x SVs, we maybe could have given out 3-5 VCs by now.

The reason why I feel that way is that as you have stated it has become essentially impossible for anyone to get a VC.  If you read the citations for some of those SVs like Sgt Tower's, there is basically nothing else that could have been done.  People dying all around him, charging over a machinegun killzone, taking RPGs that kill more people, everyone going down from heat exhaustion, taking command, and still taking the fight to the enemy.  No VC.

Perhaps they need to be seen as more of a compilation or leadership thing as well the same way some were for in WW2.  Bomber Harris Guy Gibson (corrected) got one for leading an important mission, and some others were given for repeatedly putting oneself at risk.  Is the modern C-IED guy who responds to a QRF call every day all tour any different than a pilot who put himself in danger for 25 missions?

By no means am I saying that we should give medals out like candy, but why have the thing if you're going to take the best acts and give them a SV?  And as mentioned, since the TB rarely masses anymore like they did in 06-07, the odds of doing anything that "tops" what has already been done is nil.

Further, since the Canadian public has tired of combat, once Afghanistan is done the odds of a government putting us anywhere near this kind of danger again make it seem like the chance has passed.

Edit - As pointed out below, I had accidentally entered Arthur Harris instead of Guy Gibson.

 

[mariomike]

"Why so few?"
Regarding the value of a V.C. in Canadian lives:

Of the 10,659 RCAF aircrew KIA in Bomber Command in The Second World War, only one was awarded the Victoria Cross. ( There were no living recipients in RCAF Bomber Command ):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Charles_Mynarski

Those numbers could be tripled today, because the population of Canada has tripled since then.

As for the the question of rank being a deciding factor, I do not know. But, RCAF members of Bomber Command  were Flight Sergeants and above.

 

[jollyjacktar]

In my opinion, the bar we set for the Star of Valour should have similar to what the VC level should have been.  For example, instead of 9 x SVs, we maybe could have given out 3-5 VCs by now.

I could not agree more, bang on.  Those amazing deeds performed are to me equal in scale, accomplishment and self sacrifice to our allies VC awards from Iraq and Afghanistan.  When I read those Allied citations I thought "Why the hell didn't some of our guys get a VC!!??  What they did made my jaw drop just as much."  I am glad our guys were recognised for what they did, but I feel some have been cheated out of what should have been due, a Canadian VC.

 

[Old Sweat]

This may be a blinding flash of the obvious, and some of you may have heard me beat this drum before. To be awarded a decoration, you have to be recommended for it. The war I studied was the Boer War, and half of the VCs were for rescuing wounded comrades under fire. Nest step - a commander has to be willing to recommend troops. In two of our most fiercely fought battles of the war, Canadian troops fought under the command of Major General Horace Smith-Dorrien. During the first of these, Paardeberg, a couple of officers were awarded the Distinguished Service Order (DSO), but nothing for the NCMs in 2 RCR, including Private Richard Thompson. In the second, Leliefontein, the RCD received three VCs and a Distinguished Conduct Medal, while Lieutenant Morrison of D Battery was awarded a DSO. Smith-Dorrien was known to not be adverse to recommending his troops for decorations, and thus his officers and men received a good number of awards, including at least five VCs.

Just a thought, although the case mentioned above had crossed my mind.

 

[HItorMiss]

OS

I know of one soldier who as written up for a VC but in turn ws awarded a SMV, look at the citation for Pte Jessie Larochelle

 

[Old Sweat]

Thanks for that, BM.

Has anyone seen the criteria for the Canadian VC? I once was told the requirements were so stringent, it was unlikely anyone would ever be awarded it.

 

[PuckChaser]

Thanks for that, BM.

Has anyone seen the criteria for the Canadian VC? I once was told the requirements were so stringent, it was unlikely anyone would ever be awarded it.

Apparently the criteria hasn't change from the original British version, according to: http://archive.gg.ca/honours/pdf/Victoria_Cross_e.pdf

 

[Michael OLeary]

The reminder issued to units of the 3rd Division in 1917 highlights the requirements for a VC recommendation during the First World War.  It was not just a responsibility of the chain of command to put forward a recommendation, but also a requirement that all witnesses separately write their supporting statements.

 

[Infanteer]

As to the number (or ratio) of decorations, remember that WWII and Vietnam featured conventional foes that were capable of sustaining extensive offensive/defensive operations.  Except for a few specific instances, the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan are incapable of doing this and the scope and duration of violent action is considerably less.

As for Canadian medals issued, there are a whole array of issues at play here which feed into each successive board (high awards go through multiple awards boards) when they consider a nomination.  Regimental culture to the desire to avoid issuing too many awards (and cheapening the system) to the notion that the soldier was "just doing his job" (remember, taking out trenches and carrying wounded comrades is a soldiers job, too) are all bandied about when discussing nominations.

When you compare some of the SMV citations to VC citations, one can see a lot of similarities - perhaps factors I've mentioned above (and a long absence from serious fighting) has pushed the bar for the VC higher then necessary?

 

[SeanNewman]

...I know of one soldier who as written up for a VC but in turn ws awarded a SMV,...

You can not write anyone up for a specific medal but a category.  The person writing it may have in their mind "I'm aiming for a VC on this one" but that is not how it gets handled.

The person writing it only gets three choices:
1. Valour;
2. Bravery; or
3. Commendation.

If it is decided that it is a valour recommendation, the H&A committee in KAF gets the first filter, then it moves on to subsequent filters from there.  Eventually, sadly, there is very little military (vice civilian) input into whether or not it will be a VC. 

So even though a peer may have every intention on nominating someone for a VCm the really have ho say in the matter whatsoever other than saying it is for valour.  Could be a VC, SV, MV, etc.

 

[dapaterson]

As opposed to years ago, when, after years of service, all you could be sure of getting was VD.














(The Volunteer Decoration - what were you thinking?)