WWII MOH Fighter Pilots - Most were USMC Pilots

[cutiger83]

Last night, I was reading the current issue of Flight Journal. It has an interesting article about Medal of Honor Fighters.

 

I thought the most interesting aspect is that out of 18 WWII MOH fighter pilots, ten of them were USMC pilots.

 

10 - USMC

2 - Navy

6 - AAF

 

It is an interesting article if you want to pick up the current issue.

 

......Kat

[teufelhunde.ret]

Those numbers are very telling, about were the real action was during WW2.

[cutiger83]

Those numbers are very telling, about were the real action was during WW2.

 

Very true....It was an interesting article....

[Jack's Son]

With the sky's filled with Fighter, Dive Bombers and Torpedo Bombers raining down on fleets full of Aircraft Carriers, Battle Ships and the like, it's no wonder the action was pretty hot and heavy!!

[Cobrahistorian]

Great stuff Kat! (thought you didn't like me anymore!)

 

Here's some more related reading on Neel Kearby's Medal of Honor

 

http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/11_kearby.html

 

Honorable mention goes to Major Bill Leverette (a Clemson grad!), who shot down seven Ju87 Stukas (and damaged two more) on a single mission covering a British Navy convoy (and whose uniform is now residing in my museum room). He received the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions. Bill Shomo did the same in the PTO (without the damaged credits) and received the Medal of Honor

Jon

[38Driver]

Sadly it speaks volumes to the politics and needed publicity in the Pacific which struggled to get any headlines from the ETO.

 

One USAAF Fighter pilot in the ETO. One USAAF Fighter Bomber pilot in the MTO. Four awarded to 5th AF PTO USAAF pilots, all 5th AF. 2 to Navy PTO pilots. 10 to Marine PTO pilots.

 

There is no way anyone can tell me that the guy flying ground attack in the ETO had it easier then the guy flying in the PTO.

[hink441]

There is no way anyone can tell me that the guy flying ground attack in the ETO had it easier then the guy flying in the PTO.

 

If your base is in England compared to Guadalcanal, then there is a vast difference.

 

Chris

[teufelhunde.ret]

If your base is in England compared to Guadalcanal, then there is a vast difference.

Indeed!!! and there is nothing like a night trap on an aircraft carrier, in pitching seas

[Fly USMC]

Indeed!!! and there is nothing like a night trap on an aircraft carrier, in pitching seas

 

 

As a Helicopter Bubba, I never did a night "Trap", but I have had several scarry (actually Marines don't get scared) .......lets call them interesting landings on the boat at night. One night I was doing what started out as a normal NVD (Night Vision Device) landing on the USS Tarawa. They "darken ship" so that the bright lights don't wash out your NVGs. Well one young Marine wanted to show home movies to his family wen he got home so he come out of the hatch while we were on short final and turned on his video camera equiped with what else, ......a bright light. This light washed out our NVGs and I was basicly blind for the last 20+ feet of landing which is not much fun in a Shitter (CH-53E Super Stallion). We were landing on one of the middle spots on the ship so we were close to the only permanent structure sticking up above the deck. 53's usually land on one of the two aft spots where there is more room, but for some reason that night we were instructed to land in the middle. We did touch down without any further incident, with the exception of my Crew Chief going over and providing a bit of counseling for the unfortunate Devil Dog.

 

I did not get a MOH but I did have to CMU (Change My Underwear)!

 

Semper Fly

John

[cutiger83]

We did touch down without any further incident, with the exception of my Crew Chief going over and providing a bit of counseling for the unfortunate Devil Dog.

 

I did not get a MOH but I did have to CMU (Change My Underwear)!

 

I am sure that he was chewed out by more than your Crew Chief!

 

I love the CMU comment!

 

...Kat

[Cobrahistorian]

If your base is in England compared to Guadalcanal, then there is a vast difference.

 

Chris

 

True, but there were three other Air Forces operating in the ETO/MTO and they never get the recognition that the England-bound 8th AF gets. The Ninth, Twelfth and Fifteenth air forces endured similar, if not worse conditions than any encountered by the 5th AF/Navy/Marines in the PTO. Malaria was rampant in the MTO, as were several other tropical/desert diseases. For nearly the entire war, aircrews lived in tents in primitive conditions.

 

The difficulty of landing on a carrier has absolutely nothing to do with the Medal of Honor. That's part of your job and has little to do with combat conditions. Also, Marines flying from Guadalcanal shared an airfield with 5th AF fighters and bombers, so it wasn't any more difficult for them than for the Army Air Force.

 

What it does say is that the Marines are much better at recognizing their heroes and telling both the personal and organizational history. That's something that the Army has difficulty with to this day.

 

 

Jon

[CNY Militaria]

Anyone have a list of the 18 Pilots?

[Cobrahistorian]

AAF

Bong

Kearby

Knight

Howard

McGuire

Shomo

 

 

Navy

 

O'Hare

McCampbell

 

Marines (need some help here)

 

DeBlanc

Foss

Boyington

Walsh

Smith

Bauer

[hink441]

What it does say is that the Marines are much better at recognizing their heroes and telling both the personal and organizational history. That's something that the Army has difficulty with to this day.

Jon

 

There were 464 Medals of Honor awarded in WW2. The US Army had 324 awarded, the USN had 57, the USMC had 82 awarded, and the USCG had one awarded. It appears the US Army was very efficient and proficient in the awards nomination category. :think:

 

Chris

[Cobrahistorian]

There were 464 Medals of Honor awarded in WW2. The US Army had 324 awarded, the USN had 57, the USMC had 82 awarded, and the USCG had one awarded. It appears the US Army was very efficient and proficient in the awards nomination category. :think:

 

Chris

 

Come on Chris, that's an absurd argument. The Army had 8 million men in uniform and the Marines had 600,000 (rounded numbers for both). Most of the Army MoH nominations were downgraded to DSCs or even Silver Stars. The Army was terrible at maintaining standards for awards and recognizing performance above and beyond the call of duty, whereas the Marines excel at it. Why did shooting down 7 airplanes on one mission rate a Medal of Honor in one theater and not another?

 

Jon

[Fly USMC]

The difficulty of landing on a carrier has absolutely nothing to do with the Medal of Honor. That's part of your job and has little to do with combat conditions.

 

I agree 100%

[TBMflyer]

The other 4 are: Galer, Hanson and Swett. Hank Elrod was a fighter pilot but I presume his award was for ground combat on Wake? Mark

[Cobrahistorian]

The other 4 are: Galer, Hanson and Swett. Hank Elrod was a fighter pilot but I presume his award was for ground combat on Wake? Mark

 

Thanks Mark! I knew Swett, didn't know the others... can't believe I forgot him!

[hink441]

Come on Chris, that's an absurd argument. The Army had 8 million men in uniform and the Marines had 600,000 (rounded numbers for both). Most of the Army MoH nominations were downgraded to DSCs or even Silver Stars. The Army was terrible at maintaining standards for awards and recognizing performance above and beyond the call of duty, whereas the Marines excel at it. Why did shooting down 7 airplanes on one mission rate a Medal of Honor in one theater and not another?

 

Jon

 

I don't think it is an absurd argument. I am merely responding to the implications that the WW2 USMC fighter pilot's were awarded their medals because of politics and/or the Army's inability to nominate an individual for an award. I think the Army nominated many deserving individuals as did the USMC. We can compare each and every citation but I really don't think that would be productive. I would never say an individual did not rate his award, and I would hope everyone on this forum felt the same way.

 

Respectfully,

Chris

[Cobrahistorian]

I don't think it is an absurd argument. I am merely responding to the implications that the WW2 USMC fighter pilot's were awarded their medals because of politics and/or the Army's inability to nominate an individual for an award. I think the Army nominated many deserving individuals as did the USMC. We can compare each and every citation but I really don't think that would be productive. I would never say an individual did not rate his award, and I would hope everyone on this forum felt the same way.

 

Respectfully,

Chris

 

Chris,

 

I don't subscribe to the politics view either. Every one of these pilots earned their Medal. But I think that there were plenty in the ETO/MTO that should have earned them for equivalent actions and they were downgraded because the Army did not have "standard" idea of what above and beyond the call of duty was. Actions in one theater that rated the Medal were not necessarily so in another. The Marines had the benefit of being in one theater and setting a standard early on that a Medal of Honor submission could be measured against.

 

But the implication earlier on in the thread that there's a reason that more Marine fighter pilots earned the Medal of Honor than AAF or Navy pilots because they were involved in more intense combat is simply untrue.

 

Jon

[38Driver]

Chris,

 

I don't subscribe to the politics view either. Every one of these pilots earned their Medal. But I think that there were plenty in the ETO/MTO that should have earned them for equivalent actions and they were downgraded because the Army did not have "standard" idea of what above and beyond the call of duty was. Actions in one theater that rated the Medal were not necessarily so in another. The Marines had the benefit of being in one theater and setting a standard early on that a Medal of Honor submission could be measured against.

 

But the implication earlier on in the thread that there's a reason that more Marine fighter pilots earned the Medal of Honor than AAF or Navy pilots because they were involved in more intense combat is simply untrue.

 

Jon

 

No question that the guys earned their medals. That doesn't kill the notion of Commanders in different theaters having different standards or needing to make sure their particular Air Force is recognized. Leaving aside the Marines and just looking at the USAAF winners that were fighter pilots.

 

You have four of the 6 MOH coming out of the 5th Air Force. Bong, McGuire, Kearby and Shomo. Then there is Knight in the MTO a Fighter Bomber Pilot from the 350th FG and James Howard of the 354th FG, 9th AF. Not a single MOH out of the 15th or 8th AF Fighter pilots.

 

I'm hard pressed to figure out how Blakeslee for example didn't earn one. More fighter hours then anyone else in the ETO. Lead the first Mustangs into combat, first 51s over Berlin. Lead the first Russian Shuttle run, one of the most outstanding fighter leaders of the war. What about Zemke and what he did.

 

I see lots of guys got MOH for high number kill missions. Seems to me George Preddy did ok in the regard. A number of those Marine MOH were for high single mission kill totals, as was Kearby and Shomo's. Lots of guys did that in the ETO and MTO too.

 

I'm sure Cobrahistorian can come up with all kinds of mission reports on the experiences of ground attack guys whether it be 12th or 9th AF. Some of those read like fiction they are so beyond amazing. Why not them?

 

Wouldn't you think that John Mitchell of the 339th would have been a shoe in for an MOH for leading the successful Yamamoto raid?

 

I'm not begrudging anyone their MOH, just suggesting that it depended a lot on where, when, and who was signing off on them. And in terms of getting the focus somewhere, the higher number of MOH to Marine and 5th AF fighter pilots pointed the attention at a theater where getting equipment and men was secondary to the ETO.

[Too Much WW1 Militaria]

And, who you gotta thank for that tunic huh? LOL

 

 

Great stuff Kat! (thought you didn't like me anymore!)

 

Here's some more related reading on Neel Kearby's Medal of Honor

 

http://www.homeofheroes.com/wings/part2/11_kearby.html

 

Honorable mention goes to Major Bill Leverette (a Clemson grad!), who shot down seven Ju87 Stukas (and damaged two more) on a single mission covering a British Navy convoy (and whose uniform is now residing in my museum room). He received the Distinguished Service Cross for his actions. Bill Shomo did the same in the PTO (without the damaged credits) and received the Medal of Honor

Jon

[Too Much WW1 Militaria]

Having spent 27 1/2 years in the Army, we still do a horrible job with our own history, and awards, well let's just say the criteria vary wildly from command to command. Figure with any award, regardless of level you have several factors:

 

1. Who is doing the writeup, how well do they write, and how much effort is put into it.

2. The award board itself. I've dealt with some that were beyond easy, and some that handed out anything like they were throwing around manhole covers. And, honestly, the Navy and USMC are a lot tighter on awards than the Army. Then again, at least with those two, there seems to be some standard criteria. I know in Vietnam, I saw guys that did stuff that would of rated a DSC, but they went unrecognized. Jon's point holds true in my book, standards varied wildly back in the day, and in a lot of cases, still do.

 

John

 

 

Come on Chris, that's an absurd argument. The Army had 8 million men in uniform and the Marines had 600,000 (rounded numbers for both). Most of the Army MoH nominations were downgraded to DSCs or even Silver Stars. The Army was terrible at maintaining standards for awards and recognizing performance above and beyond the call of duty, whereas the Marines excel at it. Why did shooting down 7 airplanes on one mission rate a Medal of Honor in one theater and not another?

 

Jon

[Cobrahistorian]

I'll further echo 38 Driver's sentiments. Why did guys like Boyington, Bong and McGuire receive the medal simply for their high kill numbers, while Preddy, Gabreski, Johnson, Meyer et al, didn't? Furthermore, why was the Medal awarded to some pilots for making "ace in a day" while it wasn't to the majority of others who did it? What makes Oscar Perdomo's actions any less valorous than those of DeBlanc or Swett?

 

Heck, talking about ground attack, how about a P-47 driver who rolls in on a German armored column, takes severe 20mm fire that badly damages his airplane, yet he stays on course and drops two 500lb bombs right between a pair of Panther tanks, knocking them both out? Then he limps his badly damaged airplane back to his forward airfield because the unit can't afford to lose an airplane. Is that not worthy of the Medal? Henry Pax did it in July 1944. I've got the mission reports that recount it. He received a DFC.

[Too Much WW1 Militaria]

You can make the argument that the "ace in a day" guys were doing their jobs, in other words doing what they were trained to do. Take Leverette for example...... He shot down seven Stukas in one mission, figure by then it was an aircraft that without heavy escort was a sitting duck for the most part. A lot of the scores in the PTO were racked up later in the war by men with both superior training and superior equipment. To me the ground attack on the Panthers rated higher than someone shooting down several aircraft. Just some more food for thought. And, if you've ever sat on an awards board, this is the sort of stuff that makes it tough! Impact, etc. I just know that I'm glad I don't deal with that anymore! LOL

 

John