Downgrading medals received for heroism.

[Ranb]

During the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; two pilots named George Welch and Ken Taylor managed to take off and shoot down several Japanese aircraft.

Several sources claim that while they were recommended for the Medal of Honor, this award was downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross. The claim is the Medal of Honor recommendation was turned down because they had taken off without orders. Does this sound very strange to anyone else? Or am I just not understanding how things were back in the 40’s?

I have searched for additional info on reasons why they received the DSC instead of the MoH, but every site I have read has the nearly the same words, it is like it is an urban legend instead of fact. Anyone have additional info on why these pilots were awarded the DSC instead of the MoH? Thanks.

Ranb

[Damien Evans]

I don't know the case, but it's pretty common to get recommended for one medal (VC for example) and get a lower one (Military Medal etc.) instead.

[theprestige]

From what I've experienced and read of the military, acting without orders, and without a clear understanding of the commander's intent, is a pretty good way to cause more problems than you solve.

Now, if their orders had been, "use your own judgement of the situation, and do whatever you think best", then that'd be one thing.

But if their standing orders were "nobody takes off without proper authorization", then that's another thing altogether.

I suspect that "deciding on your own initiative that your orders are no longer valid is not a good way to earn the highest honors" is a sound policy, regardless of what good may come of your insubordination.

I suspect, too that in that situation, the achievement of my goal would matter a lot more to me than the exact nature of the shiny trinket they gave me in recognition of my deeds.

[tsig]

I don't know the case, but it's pretty common to get recommended for one medal (VC for example) and get a lower one (Military Medal etc.) instead.

And many medal recommendations are not acted upon at all.

[Metullus]

I suspect that "deciding on your own initiative that your orders are no longer valid is not a good way to earn the highest honors" is a sound policy, regardless of what good may come of your insubordination.Somehow I doubt that this is the case in this instance (wikipedia notwithstanding), especially given that whatever orders had been given had been issued during peace time and the circumstances had demonstrably changed.

My bet is that the decision to down grade from the MH to the DSC was based upon a judgment that their actions, while highly commendable, simply did not rise to the level of the MH. It is not at all uncommon for higher authority to downgrade medal recommendations, particularly those involving the MH.

[Ferguson]

Many more people are recommended for the MoH than actually receive one (as must be the case to keep it such a high honor).
Most of the MoH recipients I read about do something extraordinarily outside of normal duty to complete their mission and save American lives, with extreme hazard to their own life, i.e. going back 17 times under fire to carry out wounded comrades, or driving your jeep directly into an enemy trench and single handedly gunning down several dozen enemy combatants.

Not being in the position of handing out such honors, I have no idea whether the downgrade is "fair" or not, but I can see the reasoning behind it.

[theprestige]

Somehow I doubt that this is the case in this instance (wikipedia notwithstanding), especially given that whatever orders had been given had been issued during peace time and the circumstances had demonstrably changed.
A demonstrable change in circumstances, necessitating a change in orders, is specifically, explicitly, the commander's responsibility and authority to decide, not the airman's. That's the way the military works, and there are all sorts of good reasons for it.

It''s not enough that the orders need to be changed, there's also the important question of exactly what changes need to be made. The airman's viewpoint and the commander's viewpoint might be very different. The commander may have standing orders of his own, specifying what to do in this situation.

It's never really up to the soldiers on the line to say "well, that was peace and this is war, so I'm just gonna have to make it up as I go along".

And, of course, it's also a sign of the times. Since WWII, a lot more discretion has been given to lower-ranking soldiers. A much higher value has been placed on their ability to exercise their own initiative in a rapidly-changing situation. This has happened in part because of the kinds of problems that arise when troops are neutralized because they are stuck waiting for new orders. And naturally the way orders are crafted and communicated have been changed to reflect these changes in warfighting.

[Metullus]

A demonstrable change in circumstances, necessitating a change in orders, is specifically, explicitly, the commander's responsibility and authority to decide, not the airman's. That's the way the military works, and there are all sorts of good reasons for it.Nope. When attacked it is the soldier's duty to defend, not sit and await orders. In a matter of minutes the situation in Hawaii went from peace time garrison duty to combat. I know of no one who was subjected to court martial for taking arms against the Japanese attackers at Pearl Harbor; I know of no one who was even criticized for doing so.

It''s not enough that the orders need to be changed, there's also the important question of exactly what changes need to be made. The airman's viewpoint and the commander's viewpoint might be very different. The commander may have standing orders of his own, specifying what to do in this situation.I doubt that there were any standing orders from the War Department or the Navy Department that instructed that Pearl Habor was not to be defended.

It's never really up to the soldiers on the line to say "well, that was peace and this is war, so I'm just gonna have to make it up as I go along".Of course it is. Obeying standing orders meant that defenders could not access weapons (the case at Pearl Harbor - noncoms had to break into armories to obtain weapons and ammunition), could not move aircraft, and could not discharge what weapons they had. Those orders were universally ignored at the time of the attack. I am not aware that ships officers waited for CinC to authorize them to unlimber guns and defend their ships. I somehow doubt that ships Captains waited for instructions from CinC before casting off and making for sea.

No one, in particular the flag officer in command, has ever suggested that the men & women that took action that day were violating regulations or were acting inappropriately.

[Holler Hoojer]

Indeed, the USS Ward, per standing orders, fired on a submarine shortly before the attack. Everyone believed hostilities were imminent.

[Cicero]

I suspect that "deciding on your own initiative that your orders are no longer valid is not a good way to earn the highest honors" is a sound policy, regardless of what good may come of your insubordination.


Tell that to Raymond G. "Jerry" Murphy.

"Defying direct orders, Lt. Murphy led a small group of men up the hill to assess the situation and found that the assault had stalled and that most of the senior officers and noncommissioned officers had been killed. Instantly, Lt. Murphy took charge, "attacking a cleverly concealed and well-entrenched hostile force occupying commanding ground," his official medal citation said."

His Medal of Honor citation said.

"Shouting encouragement to his platoon, he led it through an intense and withering barrage of mortar and small-arms fire. He and his troops freed comrades who had been trapped in the earlier fighting, and Lt. Murphy made several trips through the heavy fire to carry the wounded to safety."

[patchbunny]

From what I've experienced and read of the military, acting without orders, and without a clear understanding of the commander's intent, is a pretty good way to cause more problems than you solve.

From this site: (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-628_ITM)

"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".

[fezzic]

During the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; two pilots named George Welch and Ken Taylor managed to take off and shoot down several Japanese aircraft.

Several sources claim that while they were recommended for the Medal of Honor, this award was downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross. The claim is the Medal of Honor recommendation was turned down because they had taken off without orders. Does this sound very strange to anyone else? Or am I just not understanding how things were back in the 40’s?

I have searched for additional info on reasons why they received the DSC instead of the MoH, but every site I have read has the nearly the same words, it is like it is an urban legend instead of fact. Anyone have additional info on why these pilots were awarded the DSC instead of the MoH? Thanks.

Ranb


I doubt you'd find anything more substantial. Chances are most of the people who might have been in the chain of command have died (so they can't explain why they made the decision they did, assuming they even remember it) and the process does have a large amount of subjective judgement involved.

I would consider the "no authorization to take off" to be a very flimsy excuse and likely just somebody grabbing (assuming it was a reason given) for anything because why one decides something may be hard to describe, much less defend. "I thought what they did was not sufficient for the MoH" is a perfectly reasonable response but who wants to have to explain their thought processes years after the fact.

I suppose, in defense of awarding a DSC instead of a MoH, that one might say they responded to the attack, engaged the enemy, and proceeded to shoot down several enemy aircraft. All actions that a member of the US military would be expected to do in defense of their country. Given the inferior aircraft they had, they fought heroically while doing their duty. Was that "above and beyond" or "extraordinary heroism"?

[Cicero]

From this site: (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-628_ITM)

"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".

There is a scene in 1953's "From Here To Eternity" where Burt Lancaster, (Sgt. Warden) has to physically remove Mickey Shaughnessy, (Corporal Leva) who is guarding the armory, and citing the standing orders, will not allow removal of weapons to be used to fire back at the Japanese aircraft.

[Ranb]

I am not surprised that any award is downgraded for almost any reason. It is just that any other reason for awarding the DSC instead of the MoH would be better than "they took off without orders".

As far as the actions of Welch and Tayor are concerned, I'm not certain that what they did had any impact on the battle. Now if the rest of the Army Air Corp could have taken to the air it would have been a whle different story.

Ranb

[Chaos]

Nope. When attacked it is the soldier's duty to defend, not sit and await orders. In a matter of minutes the situation in Hawaii went from peace time garrison duty to combat. I know of no one who was subjected to court martial for taking arms against the Japanese attackers at Pearl Harbor; I know of no one who was even criticized for doing so.

I doubt that there were any standing orders from the War Department or the Navy Department that instructed that Pearl Habor was not to be defended.

Of course it is. Obeying standing orders meant that defenders could not access weapons (the case at Pearl Harbor - noncoms had to break into armories to obtain weapons and ammunition), could not move aircraft, and could not discharge what weapons they had. Those orders were universally ignored at the time of the attack. I am not aware that ships officers waited for CinC to authorize them to unlimber guns and defend their ships. I somehow doubt that ships Captains waited for instructions from CinC before casting off and making for sea.

No one, in particular the flag officer in command, has ever suggested that the men & women that took action that day were violating regulations or were acting inappropriately.

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.

[Cainkane1]

And many medal recommendations are not acted upon at all.
When my friend came back from Vietnam he told me this story. Two soldiers were badly wounded. One was crying and one was not. The one who wasn't crying got recommended for the purple and the one crying was not. The one who didn't cry refused the purple heart when it was offered to him for this reason.

[gumboot]

When my friend came back from Vietnam he told me this story. Two soldiers were badly wounded. One was crying and one was not. The one who wasn't crying got recommended for the purple and the one crying was not. The one who didn't cry refused the purple heart when it was offered to him for this reason.

This story sounds like garbage. You don't get recommended for the Purple Heart. It's unique in that any soldier who is wounded or killed automatically qualifies for it. As soldiers say, Purple Heart ceremonies are the one ceremony where they're not jealous of the recipients!

The only reason you wouldn't qualify is if you weren't deployed for combat operations at the time.

[gumboot]

During the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941; two pilots named George Welch and Ken Taylor managed to take off and shoot down several Japanese aircraft.

Several sources claim that while they were recommended for the Medal of Honor, this award was downgraded to the Distinguished Service Cross. The claim is the Medal of Honor recommendation was turned down because they had taken off without orders. Does this sound very strange to anyone else? Or am I just not understanding how things were back in the 40’s?

I have searched for additional info on reasons why they received the DSC instead of the MoH, but every site I have read has the nearly the same words, it is like it is an urban legend instead of fact. Anyone have additional info on why these pilots were awarded the DSC instead of the MoH? Thanks.

Ranb



I would imagine that the reason they didn't get a MoH (assuming anyone actually did recommended one) is that their actions didn't qualify them for one. If you think about it they did nothing other than exactly what they were supposed to do. A MoH requires a service person to act "above and beyond the call of duty".

Bear in mind WW2 started during a time at which the military were trying to toughen the criteria for winning the award, as until that time there had been numerous questionable awards given, for example Richard Byrd and Floyd Bennett received their MoH for exploring the North Pole (after WWI).

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".

[patchbunny]

I suppose, in defense of awarding a DSC instead of a MoH, that one might say they responded to the attack, engaged the enemy, and proceeded to shoot down several enemy aircraft. All actions that a member of the US military would be expected to do in defense of their country. Given the inferior aircraft they had, they fought heroically while doing their duty. Was that "above and beyond" or "extraordinary heroism"?

It's also entirely possible that their acts of heroism, when compared to so many others that morning may have paled in comparison. Medals could have been downgraded for that reason.

[MG1962]

It's also entirely possible that their acts of heroism, when compared to so many others that morning may have paled in comparison. Medals could have been downgraded for that reason.

You can see a list of Dec 7th awarded medals here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_World_War_II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_World_War_II )

One stood out for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_C._Pharris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_C._Pharris)

Medal of Honor citation:For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while attached to the U.S.S. California during the surprise enemy Japanese aerial attack on Pearl Harbor, Territory of Hawaii, December 7, 1941. In charge of the ordnance repair party on the third deck when the first Japanese torpedo struck almost directly under his station, Lt. (then Gunner) Pharris was stunned and severely injured by the concussion which hurled him to the overhead and back to the deck. Quickly recovering, he acted on his own initiative to set up a hand-supply ammunition train for the antiaircraft guns. With water and oil rushing in where the port bulkhead had been torn up from the deck, with many of the remaining crewmembers overcome by oil fumes, and the ship without power and listing heavily to port as a result of a second torpedo hit, Lt. Pharris ordered the shipfitters to counterflood. Twice rendered unconscious by the nauseous fumes and handicapped by his painful injuries, he persisted in his desperate efforts to speed up the supply of ammunition and at the same time repeatedly risked his life to enter flooding compartments and drag to safety unconscious shipmates who were gradually being submerged in oil. By his inspiring leadership, his valiant efforts and his extreme loyalty to his ship and her crew, he saved many of his shipmates from death and was largely responsible for keeping the California in action during the attack. 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.
I believe those two pilots would freely admit their actions were not even in the same class as this chaps. And it must be remembered these pilots won the highest Airforce medal available, so it is not as though they were not acknowledged in their deeds and heroism

There again, I would suggest the furthest thing from their minds when they took off into a cloud of invading Japanese was winning any medals.

[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/Br%C3%A9court_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: (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-628_ITM)

"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.