WWII Medals

Well the discussion was heated and out of place in the dive bomber thread.

Lets talk about it here where it will in fact be on topic.

Now the point of a system of points was made for the German medals. Yes apparently the lower ones, I didn't know that. And initially the KC was handed out for 100 air victories, but that quickly went away and I believe that Hartmann only got it well beyond 200 victories, but I have a book with his dates of recievement back home so I will get back to this. The point is that the Germans might have had a system for the medals but it was not used that way.

Also, I never meant that KC was an equavalent to a VC or MOH (Congressional is wrong, or so I have read), but that does not mean that Rudel's sole and most impressive award is the same as two VCs. They are not the same. VCs are awarded for single acts, anyone can get them if they are lucky and good enough. Not the same with the KCs, they were awarded for continual superior service and at a steeper and steeper incline. Single acts would perhaps grant the medals as well if you had reached the proper rung, but the emphasis was made to give it to those who was good every day and always.

So it is extremely hard to compare them. It was perhaps technically easierto get the German medals as you 'only' had to be good over time, but the point is you had to be a hero every time, something the Allies 'only' had to be a single time.

And the Germans handed out medals in this order because: The war in the east was so much more intensive and was so long. When the Allies came onto the track the intensity rose again as the odds were now even worse and chances were that Germans would find themselves in impossible situations. Manage that and you deserve your medal.

The German army was larger than the British, it fought longer and much harder (not to say that the British didn't fight hard, but they didn't fight in Russia). If the random event for medals is equal (lets just say that all soldiers were equally good and had an equal chance at being that one special hero), then it is of course clear that the Germans would get that many more medals.
Just like the Russians got lots of medals (I don't know their figures at all, but I believe it was a whole lot), againt because of the scope of the fighting they had.
How many times and for how long did the Allies have millions of troops in their own lines and they faced millions on the other side? None really... There were at most about a million German troops at the West front, so millions (in plural) is out.

And please... Nothing like the political and odd comment last time. It was entirely out of context.

Here is a link to Highest military decoration of Finland.Mannerheim Cross.On the site is also a list of the all 191 knights who were awarded with one.Its another name is the cross of liberty. :bow:

I was wrong that Hartmann only got his KC at 200+ victories, it was in fact 148 (which incidentally is the highest score for a KC). At the other end of the scale we find a KC awarded to Karl-Heinz Leesmann for a 'mere' 22 victories. Both served only with JG52.
Equal diffrences go on to both Oak Leaves (low: 83, high: 200, this was the one that was initially awarded at 100 victories), and OL and Swords (low: 99, high: 239). Hardly the basis for a compelling argument that the awards were pointbased in reality. And lastly the two recipients (of JG52) of the Diamonds got them at 172 and 301 respectively.

Kraxis, I do not the details of the system but for fighter aces there was a bonus by shooting a 4 engine plane and a kind of malus for shots at the eastern front. Maybe there was also some bonus for night fighters.

One key theme here to keep in mind here.

Germany tended to award its highest medals for sustained performance in combat conditions.

The UK and especially the USA tended to make awards for specific instances of unusual valor.

This leads to a different "value" being placed on the medals entirely.



Part of the disparity in medals also reflects the amount of time/#s in combat.

Germany fought from 9/1/39 to 5/7/45, a total of 67 months. There were significant ground combat operations in roughly 60 of those 67 months. Germany also fielded an incredible number of fighting troops (in terms of percentage of available population).

UK & Commonwealth fought from 9/1/39 to 8/9/45, a total of 70 months. Significant ground combat operations were experienced in 50-55 of those months. The UK. despite this sustained effort, never fielded forces as numerous as the Germans.

USA fought from 12/7/41 to 8/9/45, a total of 45 months (Plus 6-7 months if you were an Atlantic Fleet destroyer crew during Roosevelt's illegal and undeclared war against the German U-boats). Significant Ground Combat operations were experienced in 32-34 of those months. In fact, some of the most elite units in the US armed forces had little more than 100 days of actual combat time. Several kraut units had racked that up BEFORE the start of the Russian campaign.


While the exact numbers probably may never be known, I suspect that if you were to divide the number of awards by the number of total sorties/days in combat PER Soldier/Airman, you would find the numbers coming much more into line with one another, especially given the disparity in the type/kind of event used to prompt an award.

Were there more brave Germans per capita than Yanks or Brits or Kiwis -- I doubt it. Did many more Germans have ample opportunity to display consistently effective performance in combat conditions -- bet your bippy.

Seamus

Germany had something like 4 times as many divisions as USA. The largest US deployment was at the Western front that lasted less than a year compared to the Eastern front that lasted nearly 4 years and involved a majority of the German divisions (150+ through most of the war) Compare that to the 38 Allied division under Eisenhower in September 1944 (20 of them US)

Of course other US divisions was active for a longer time in other theaters but overall there were a lot more German front soldiers fighting for a longer time than the US.

More soldiers + more fighting time should mean more medals given out if we even can compare medals at all. On average the German army lost more than twice the men per month on the Eastern Front than on the Western front and the different ratio between dead and wounded (1:3 and 1:6) also suggests generally more severe fighting on the Eastern front.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

UK & Commonwealth fought from 9/1/39 to 8/9/45, a total of 70 months. Significant ground combat operations were experienced in 50-55 of those months. The UK. despite this sustained effort, never fielded forces as numerous as the Germans.

---

While I agree with you completely, I think you are far too generous to the UK & Commonwealth. Or at least you should upgrade the German to have more than just significant combat from july 41 and onwards.

The African and Italian campaigns were about the only sustained efforts at most of the time (until D-Day), there was some quite intensive fighting against Japan, but that was sidelines by inactivity for rather long periods, meaning over all a less intensive front. By comparison to the numbers on the eastern front they were mere sideshows. In fact when Montgomery bragged about his victory in Africa (but failed to mention the area) to a Russian general the Russian responded: "where did this skirmish take place?" Of course the Russian was taunting him and had perhaps a political agenda ("you sods let us do all the work"), but there is good deal of truth in it.

If we were to make an equation for each contry with 'Combat manhours' (meaning the time one man would have to fight every single fight for his country) I think it would be rather ugly how much more fighting there was in the east.

But CBR, don't forget that American divisions were in general very much overstrength while German divisions on th eastern front were often very much understrength (stupid Hitler wanting more divisions rather than stregthening the existing ones). So you can't compare them 1:1... Perhaps 2:1 would be better, but that still says a whole lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franconicus

Kraxis, I do not the details of the system but for fighter aces there was a bonus by shooting a 4 engine plane and a kind of malus for shots at the eastern front. Maybe there was also some bonus for night fighters.

---

The Russians had few 4-engine bombers, some were used of course (even bombing Berlin shortly after Barbarossa started), but JG52 was a frontline unit solely (one of their gruppen did have a period of protecting Ploesti though). It was not equipped for nightfighting. So it is quite likely that they shot down 1-engine planes most often, with perhaps 2-engine planes at a rate of 1:2-3

In the unit's history I can only find confirmed kills on Liberators (at Ploesti) as 4-engine kills. Of course a few Russian planes here and there is more than likely, but they were few and not likely to make much of an impact.
If we look at the numbers of kills westfront pilots got their KCs and OLs, then it becomes clear that the high command was downplaying the easternfront to make sure the pilots in the west didn't feel neglected (if the eastern pilots hightened the score for a KC and OL then the western pilots would never get them).
Also the extreme divisions of kills makes it clear to me that there was no certain scoreboard used. Often the awards were given at special points (50 for KC, 100 and 120 for OL, 200 and 250 for Swords). Interesting that so many awards were given at those points if a scoreboard was indeed used. It was given to the pilot becasue he crossed a magical mark.

At that time there were about 2 million allied soldiers in France and the Germans had around 700 thousand so yes overall size was different. A US front soldier had around 2 in support while it was only 1:1 for Germans.

But one reason for the understrength German division was the fighting before September. Overall losses were around the same for both sides but the Germans could only replace a few of them compared to the Allies. The Germans had 3-4 million men on the Eastern Front. But IMO losses is a better way to see the difference between the Western and Eastern Front. In both 1942 and 43 most of the fighting was done on the southern part so although lots of divisions were deployed there they did not all engaged in the same intense fight.


CBR

First of all good start Kraxis. A generally good explanation by both yourself and Seamus

Now what one must also look at is the level of award placed upon the valor of the soldier. For instance while there was only 464 Medal of Honor Recieptants in WW2, The Distingush Service Cross, The Silver Star, and the Bronze Star were all Valor awards for the Army. The Distingush Service Cross has a few variants based upon branch of service - but for the most part they are all equal in presedence to the servicemember awarded them,

A fact link on what it took to get the Medals.


http://www2.powercom.net/~rokats/decora.html#MOH

The Army Commendations and Army Achievement Medals were also awarded with the V device - the V being for valor - for actions beyond the call of duty in combat - but not reaching the requirements for the Bronze Star. (Completely Subjective call of the commander at the authorizing level of the award, if I remember correctly.)

The German Military also had varying degrees of awards for Valor - however it seems that the Iron Cross was utilized much like the lower valor awards of the United States. The Bronze Star - without V device was also often awarded for actions not in combat during wartime. In other words it was also often used as a Merit Award for actions and activities in support of combat operations. Several other awards were specifically made for that purpose also for the United States Military.

Why thank you... And that was a nice page. But honestly, things like 'gallantry' and 'valour' are extremely hard to determine. I think it is easier to use the 'WOW' factor to determine the medal required.

After 42, I don't think the German army in the east ever managed to cross the 3 million mark again.
And yes, Hitler did prefer new units over repairing old ones (applies to everything, from divisions to trucks, tanks and planes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Why thank you... And that was a nice page. But honestly, things like 'gallantry' and 'valour' are extremely hard to determine. I think it is easier to use the 'WOW' factor to determine the medal required.

---

Well in my opinion the "WOW" factor was what was used - ie the impact of the event. I have read my Grandfather's citation for valor in which he recieved a Bronze Star. Now it was a brave action but it did not have the impact that one gets when reading Audie Murphy's citation for the Medal of Honor.

When discussing Military Medals for Valor - which from your initial post - is indeed the subject that we are discussing - one must look at the awards themselves and discover what the Country which gave the awards expected the requirments to be.

This site discusses the requirments for the German Medals for Valor.

http://www.feldgrau.com/awards.html

If one really looks into the catergories of medals of the German Military of WW2 - and read the citations for what they were awarded for - one can begin to see a correlation of sorts.

The Iron Cross, 2nd Class was a low level valor award that was also used for Merit. If I was to attempt to make a comparison of worth compared to the United States Military - the Iron Cross 2nd Class was award much like the Bronze Star.

And even I understand that its a weak comparision because of the way and why the Iron Cross was awarded.

Quote:

---

After 42, I don't think the German army in the east ever managed to cross the 3 million mark again.
And yes, Hitler did prefer new units over repairing old ones (applies to everything, from divisions to trucks, tanks and planes).

---

I believe you are right - After Stalingrad, Germany also had to relay on the Armies of its allies in the east to maintain the strength required to man the front.

I cant find the statistics of number of men on the eastern front (buried somewhere in my links/books) but I have a few numbers:

Nearly 7 million men in Heer+Waffen SS in 1944.

Eastern front:
July 1 1943 78% of all divisions
June 1 1944 66% of all divisions.

November 1, 1942 – October 31, 1943 German KIA/MIA/WIA was 1.6 million and got about 1.2 million replacements.

November 1 1944 OKW gives total of 2.1 million German soldiers on the Eastern front (and that is after the horrible losses in the July/August fighting and Hitler building up the force that would be involved in the battle of the Bulge)

July/August 1944 was terrible for the Germans as they had a total of 840.000 KIA/MIA (no numbers for WIA except the 400.000 on the Western front from June 6 to Nov 30 but most likely a majority in July/August)

Another figure says 214,000 killed, 626,000 wounded/missing on Eastern front from June to Nov.

I have no idea how accurate these numbers but nonetheless the Germans took a serious drain in manpower in just a couple of months.

http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~akarabal/WW2/WW2.htm


CBR

Couldn't the Knights cross also be awarded to a unit commander for exceptional performance of the unit as a whole? I was looking at a list of Knights cross' awarded at Stalingrad, and was surprised at how many were awarded to commanders at regimental level or higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Couldn't the Knights cross also be awarded to a unit commander for exceptional performance of the unit as a whole? I was looking at a list of Knights cross' awarded at Stalingrad, and was surprised at how many were awarded to commanders at regimental level or higher.

---

Yes... Most often German commanders would indeed get KCs (or higher) if their unit did well as a result of the commander's actions (specific redeployment or maneuvers). It was indeed a combined merit/valour medal, as it seems most german medals were (German Cross was only merit?).

One should remember that the Germans gave other smaller medals (badges really) for various cumulative and valourous actions (assault badges of various kinds for instance). Those were shown always (if the soldier wanted to) and a gold tank assault badge (10 tanks destroyed I believe) generated a whole lot of admiration. In all more than 40.000 individuals got a tank assault badge (some of them several times). That is statistics that are impressive. And such citations are in my mind the best there are. Clear and to the point.



I had long thought that the Bronze and Silver Stars had small gold stars as their indications of more awards. Well you learn something new every day. :book: