-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Are individual awards getting watered down (ie a NAM for a Det)?
- Thread starter Alpha_Echo_606
- Start date
Just like the air medal.
I think it's funny to see the this talk of awards getting watered down when last week RLSO posted a logbook entry from the Turkey Shoot. The pilot, LTJG Arthur Hawkins received three navy crosses and three DFCs. David McCambell got a MoH, a navy cross, A silver star, a legion of merit with a combat V, and three DFCs. These guys were only in combat for at most a few years yet they accrued racks that would make jaws drop today. Yet we've been involved in two war over the past ten years and no one has accrued awards like that. Surely in the 10yrs of war there's enough heroism and bravery to at least match the four years of the pacific war, but you'd never know it.
Don't get me wrong but when I made that post it was a PO3 that had been on det to Waco, Texas working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. I was mostly training him on his job and where everything was in the aircraft, maybe some deserve an award, but if he got one it wasn't deserved. He didn't know shit about the airframe or his respective job when he arrived but knew his way around the tube by time he left.Well, ever since I got mine...both of which were RICHLY deserved, as I recollect...the system seems to have gone downhill.
Two mic clicks...
I'll go out on a limb and say that in no point during the past ten years have young pilots faced the conditions, enemy, circumstances, or challenges that gents like Hawkins and McCambell did during the Pacific campaign. Have there been acts of valor and heroism? Sure, but almost exclusively on the ground side of things.
Perhaps the incredible performance of young pilots like these two is why the Pacific campaign lasted only four years...?
There is one possible exception to my assertion, but Brett already told him to STFU
And that is the rub of it, while we have been overly generous with some lower level awards we have been very parsimonious with the higher level ones.
Of note, at the beginning of the war there were only three medals for valor that the Navy could decorate aviators with; the DFC, the Navy Cross and the Medal of Honor. And the DFC was even awarded for a like a strike/flight Air Medal in the southwest Pacific. The Silver Star and Air Medal were not used until later in the war by the Navy and Marines. So even in the 'good 'ol days' things were't all perfect either.
I'm just a trash hauler, so I can't speak from experience, but it seems that there has to have been plenty of times where bombs and strafing runs have been delivered in a heroic fashion to save troops who needed the air support. Is it the same as gunning zeroes from the skies? I don't know. But at some point the "you were just doing your job" line also applies to pilots from WWII. Hawkins, McCampbell, and the others were all "just doing their jobs". They were VF pilots, there job was to engage enemy aircraft. Did they do there job in a heroic and standout fashion? Absolutely. But there have to be guys from the past 10yrs who have done their jobs in stand out fashion and are deserving of DFCs at the least. Or has aerial warfare come to the point that dropping bombs and saving lives on the ground/altering the course of an engagement is "just another day at the office?"I'll go out on a limb and say that in no point during the past ten years have young pilots faced the conditions, enemy, circumstances, or challenges that gents like Hawkins and McCambell did during the Pacific campaign. Have there been acts of valor and heroism? Sure, but almost exclusively on the ground side of things.
Perhaps the incredible performance of young pilots like these two is why the Pacific campaign lasted only four years...?
There is one possible exception to my assertion, but Brett already told him to STFU
There are probably more instances of assault support delivered heroically. Seriously.
It not another "day at the office," but against a force with no air capability and little surface-to-air capability, other than small arms and maybe a few MANPADS, we're not talking WWII levels of danger here for most F/W CAS platforms. A demanding environment? Definitely. Heroic, sometimes, perhaps, but not on the scale seen earlier.
It not another "day at the office," but against a force with no air capability and little surface-to-air capability, other than small arms and maybe a few MANPADS, we're not talking WWII levels of danger here for most F/W CAS platforms. A demanding environment? Definitely. Heroic, sometimes, perhaps, but not on the scale seen earlier.
A quick search of recent DFC recipients showed that a fair number of USMC RW guys rhave earned DFCs. On the assault support side it looks like several phrog drivers earned them early in the iraq war. I was surprised to not see a lot of cobra guys on the list. I know one Marine was awarded the British DFC and another was awarded one for actions while attached to the 160th.
The 1650 says:
" Eligibility Requirements. Awarded to individuals who, while serving in any capacity with the Navy or the Marine Corps, distinguish themselves by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in an aerial flight. To justify this decoration for heroism, an act in the face of danger, well above those actions performed by others engaged in similar
flight operations, is required; for achievement, the results accomplished must be so exceptional as to render them conspicuous among those accomplished by others involved in similar circumstances."
Looks like you're right about the lack of a valid threat to the FW types.
There are some other issues to be considered.
1. While the individual engagements and local fire-fights (TICs) that are being supported are matters of life and death for those Soldiers and Marines involved - the national and strategic implications are not nearly what they were during the Pacific campaign. Quite literally, the future of the nation (and world) were at stake when gentlemen like Hawkins and McCambell were flying.
2. Many of these guys were not career (or even terribly experienced) aviators. Many of them were new to the gig and would soon be back to their real jobs (i.e., Ted Williams et all). We're not talking about an airwing of guys who had the benefit of "workups", extensive time underway during peacetime for the sake of proficiency. Many of these dudes finished flight school and found themselves in the South Pacific quickly afterward.
I intentionally use the word "many" and not "all" .
1. While the individual engagements and local fire-fights (TICs) that are being supported are matters of life and death for those Soldiers and Marines involved - the national and strategic implications are not nearly what they were during the Pacific campaign. Quite literally, the future of the nation (and world) were at stake when gentlemen like Hawkins and McCambell were flying.
2. Many of these guys were not career (or even terribly experienced) aviators. Many of them were new to the gig and would soon be back to their real jobs (i.e., Ted Williams et all). We're not talking about an airwing of guys who had the benefit of "workups", extensive time underway during peacetime for the sake of proficiency. Many of these dudes finished flight school and found themselves in the South Pacific quickly afterward.
I intentionally use the word "many" and not "all" .
Some things to think about. There was no NATOPs, No night carrier landings, No NVDs, No blowing sandstorms, No credible RPG or IR MANPAD threat, No 24/7 Media coverage, No restrictive ROE, No MOUT environment and if there was - leveling the city was a-ok back then. Not to diminish their achievements because what those aviators did was absolutely amazing but we're talking apples to oranges operating environment.
I honestly disagree with your assessment. If Wanat did not get those Apaches overhead and more soldiers died as a result - A political shit storm would have ensued about the future of Afghanistan. There are many instances where air support in all forms could have resulted in a different strategic outcome.
I agree with your assessment regarding Afghanistan's future, however the future of Afghanistan - even through the lens of GWOT - does not compare with the worldwide limbo seen during 1940s.....
Not having NATOPS - was that a good or an other
No night carrier landings, but a truck load of ditching and hoping to get picked up by a sub... Recovering at austere expeditionary fields wasn't a picnic either. No NVDs - sure, but they would've helped, right? The near vertical dive bombing into heavy concentrations of AAA seems quite daunting...agreed. and that was my point in response to:
Absolutely concur...the most underestimated/unappreciated arrow in the CO's quiver.
I agree with your assessment regarding Afghanistan's future, however the future of Afghanistan - even through the lens of GWOT - does not compare with the worldwide limbo seen during 1940s.....
Not having NATOPS - was that a good or an other
agreed. and that was my point in response to:
I'm not going to get into a discussion of what was tougher. We're not 15 years old. My point is that the comparison is somewhat silly.
You have a point about national implications. We don't really have much to lose in Afghanistan right now. Couldn't say the same about WWII.
