The Victoria Cross & the George Cross
Today of all days it is probably appropriate that I got round to answering a question that arose the other week: namely, what is the difference between the Victoria Cross & the George Cross. Aside from the obvious, the VC can only be awarded to military personnel or to civilians acting under military command.
The actual criteria as set out in the Royal Warrant are that it is to be awarded for
most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy
The George Cross was originally intended as a civilian award for
acts of the greatest heroism or of the most conspicuous courage in circumstances of extreme danger
The GC however may be awarded to military personnel for gallant conduct which is not in the face of the enemy. As its Royal Warrant states
The Cross is intended primarily for civilians and award in Our military services is to be confined to actions for which purely military Honours are not normally granted
There, I hope that clears that one up
Comments
Indeed it does. Thank you!
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) | November 11, 2008 1:05 AM
It is not common knowledge that the Congressional Medal of Honor can, in fact, be awarded for conspicuous gallantry not in the face of the enemy; the usual examples involve going back in after engine room explosions on battleships. Not sure whether it ever has been awarded for such acts.
Posted by: D.W. Drang | November 11, 2008 2:23 AM
Thank you!
Posted by: SSG Jeff (USAR) | November 12, 2008 4:09 PM
I am still confused!
The GC seems to be awarded to servicemen for whom, it would appear, the VC is appropriate. For example, a soldier was recently awarded the GC for falling onto a grenade in Afghanistan, saving the lives of his comrades. This was clearly an action in the face of the enemy, so I would have thought he should have got the VC?
Posted by: John K | November 12, 2008 8:14 PM
There were no enemy present...
"During a night raid on a Taliban compound, he stepped on a tripwire triggering a grenade. Instead of fleeing he deliberately smothered the explosion, twisting on to his back to let his rucksack take the full force and thereby prevent all four members of his patrol being killed by the blast"
&
"LCpl Croucher was at the head of the team as they moved silently through the darkened compound when he felt a wire go tight against his legs. This was a trip-wire connected to a grenade booby-trap, positioned to kill or maim intruders in the compound. He heard the fly-off lever eject and the grenade, now armed, fell onto the ground immediately beside him.
He quickly acted on instinct and threw himself beside the grenade, pinning it between his day-sack and the ground to absorb the explosion. Amazingly, he survived virtually unscathed when his body armour and the rucksack on his back absorbed most of the explosion."
Posted by: Mr Free Market | November 12, 2008 9:31 PM
I understand that point, but for me an action involving an enemy booby trap is "in the face of the enemy". He was on active service in a war zone, entering an enemy compound, and the frag was planted by the enemy. For me that's a VC, but clearly the powers that be don't agree. They really ought to ask me my opinion more.
Posted by: John K | November 13, 2008 7:00 PM