Talk:Military Cross

message: On his page it says he was awarded the military cross posthumeously but here it says it never is, is that a possible error?
124.197.29.201 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above, the situation re posthumous awards is not entirely clear.  David Underdown 13:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've just found http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documentsonline/wo373.asp which states that "Prior to 1979 only the Victoria Cross and George Cross or a Mention in Despatches could be awarded posthumously".  I suspect that in the case of Owen it is more confused wording than anything else.  His MC was for actions in October 1918, however, it may well not have been gazetted until after his death.  This is not strictly a posthumous award, as that would imply he died carrying out the action for which the award was made.  David Underdown 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilfred Owen 

message: Isn't this an oxymoron?  Surely all awards of the MC are notable.  However, as there are many hundreds of them (or thousands) then having a section labelled Notable Awards will only encourage people to keep adding more and more MC citations.  These are better off in individual articles.  I propose to delete this section.  Any thoughts? Gillyweed 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. This could get huge and unmanageable. The ones mentioned currently are of course interesting but should be covered in the relevant persons' articles. As long as those people are in the Receipients of the Military Cross category, there's a simple link here which means we can avoid duplication. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I gave the section its current title, mainly because I thought that the first award to a woman was sufficiently out of the common run to be specifically mentioned. Not all aards of the MC are notable in the Wikiepdia sense of the word, only the award of the VC and GC are held to confer automatic notability, i.e. a person gets an article purely on the basis of that award.  The title can perhaps be re-worked, as I take the point about appearing to be an invitation to add more and more individual cases.  David Underdown 08:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Awards 

message: Gazette search results only turn up an MC and two bars, not three.  This isn't 100% conclusive as the OCR process used on older Gazettes isn't totally accurate, but I suggest we don't let this linger around too long if the original editor doesn't back it up with some references.  David Underdown (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, a google search turned up this http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Uw98jVk5pkoC&pg=PA351&lpg=PA351&dq=%22francis+victor+wallington%22&source=web&ots=uSM5DqFMeQ&sig=fP1sYPfmMjGqA1FYEO37DY7NwJA&hl=en#PPA343,M1 Wallington was one of four officers who received the MC and 3 bars in WWI, the dating of the awards shown in this book doesn't really back up the assetion that they were for actions over just a few months, they were gazetted over a period of almost 21 months (though recommendations do sometimes take a while to work through the system of course).  Based on this, I'm not sure Wallington derseves to be mentioned by himself in this article, but giving the names of all four officers might be reasonable.  David Underdown (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wallington was the first officer awarded a third bar to the Military Cross. His third bar was gazetted on 16 September 1918. The other three third bars were all gazetted on 1 February 1919.--Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now clarified.  David Underdown (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the way Wikipedia works verifiability requires that the information be published in a reliable source, so readers can check it up, any time of day or night, at any point in the future. Arjayay (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallington 

message: Should there be a disambiguation page for MC, considering it stands for Military Cross as well as "Master of Ceremonies"? --Setanta747 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambig page? 

message: The article says the Military Cross is the third level military decoration.  What are the first and second?  I can't find this anywhere easily, despite having clicked on loads of links on this article's page.  86.152.23.225 (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the infobox, or at least the ones either side are, so you can get up to the second level, and from there the first.  David Underdown (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Info please

message: Can you win an MC having already won an MM?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.20.97 (talk) 17:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, though you would have to have been promoted to Warrant officer, or commissioned, or have been awarded the MM prior to 1993 when it was discontinued and the MC is now awarded to all ranks.  I can't immediately think of any examples, but there were certainly RAF pilots in the Second World War who were awarded the DFM as sergeant pilots, and then the DFC after being commissioned which is exactly equivalent.  David Underdown (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MM and MC? 

message: I've amended the figures in the infobox against "Total awarded", which had a spurious appearance of precision: "George V: 40,555, George VI: 11,658". Those numbers were derived from the "Medal Yearbook", which doesn't actually give totals for each king – it gives these numbers:
George V      	George V	George VI  	George VI
1914-20 medals	37,000  	GRI medals 	11,000
1914-20 1 bar 	3,000   	GRI 1 bar  	500
1914-20 2 bars	170     	GVIR medals	158
1914-20 3 bars	4       	           	
1921-36 medals	350     	           	
1921-36 1 bar 	31      	           	
The numbers 37,000, 3,000 and 11,000 are obviously round thousands – approximate – not exact numbers. Some of the other numbers are probably approximate too. So adding up the columns to get 40,555 and 11,658 gives an appearance of precision which simply isn't there in the source. So I've changed the numbers to "George V: over 40,000, George VI: over 11,000".
Even more problematically, the infobox then said "Total: 52,213" obtained by adding the imprecise George V and George VI numbers, and without counting the medals awarded under Elizabeth II, for which the Medal Yearbook gives no number at all. The total MCs awarded is simply unknown – we don't have even an approximate number – unless someone can find a better source. 
I've amended "Distinct recipients" similarly, since the number comes from the same source. Stanning (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number awarded 

message: I suggest dropping the word level and using the word rank instead. The most common use of level I experience in daily life is in buildings where the first level is lowest. It is a word that came into ODM in the 1990s about the time Australia opted to use its own system. Between 1914 and 1993, the MC was the second ranked Army officers gallantry award. The MC was a pure gallantry award (except for a brief period in the First World War). The DSO was an award for distinguished leadership which in a small number of cases was awarded to junior officers for gallantry. By Vietnam the DSO was only awarded to COs or acting COs or advisors to COs.
The term Commonwealth is preferred to Dominions. British awards, such as the Air Force Cross and the appointment as a Member of the Order of the British Empire made to two Australians officers attached to British forces in the Gulf War were regarded as Australian awards. No MC was awarded to a member of the Australian forces for the Gulf War but if one had been awarded after the Australian Gallantry Awards were introduced in 1991, it would still have been an Australian award. I suggest it is unwise comparing ODM systems in detail. When the Australian Star of Gallantry was introduced, the MC and the Star of Gallantry were the same rank and both are worn by Harry Smith for the same action. I applaud Australia for now having its own system, its own awards and being more generous in the number of awards given. However, I wished we followed Britain and not awarded hundreds of late awards going back to the First World War. Australian stopped gazetting most awards after Queen's Birthday 2013. I do not think anything needs to be said about the Commonwealth awards other than the generic statement that after the Second World War, most but not all Commonwealth countries created their own honours systems. I would not go into any details comparing one medal of one system with the medal of another system. Perhaps a footnote that Australians was polarised on British awards from 1918 until 1992 when Australian federal and state governments and oppositions all agreed that in future only Australian awards would be recommended and that British awards to Australians after 5 October 1992 would be treated as foreign awards.
Both the Australian War Memorial (AWM) and the It's an Honour (IAH) have brilliant websites and Clive Johnson's Australian awarded 2nd edition is a great medal reference work. When it comes to figures for MCs to Australian forces all three have some issues. You used to be able to download all MC recommendations and awards but the revised AWM website does not seem to have that facility. IAH does have a download feature which conflicts with its own MC information and both figures are incorrect. The numbers of MCs stated in Australian awarded would seem too high but the number of bars and second bars is correct. I have recently published what I believe are the correct figures for MCs to the Australians forces on the British Medal Forum at https://britishmedalforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=133094
About 20 years ago I did a project for the AWM listing all Australian awards in Honours and Awards (Gazetted). I have compared my database with the downloaded IAH details and found that the difference in numbers were duplicates, unverified awards, and British forces wrongly classified as Australian forces. The number of MCs and bars to Australian forces are:
WW1 2369 MC, 170 MC* and 4 MC**
WW2 507 MC (incl 7 RAAF) and 15*
Korea 26 MC and one MC*
Emergency 2 MC
Confrontation 3 MC
Vietnam 54 MC and one MC*
Total 2961 MC, 187 MC* and 4 MC**
Anthony Staunton (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2018‎ 
Thank you for this. Some thoughts:
*"It is unwise comparing British and Commonwealth ODM systems in detail". Given the points you make, this looks sensible. I will look at similar changes I have made to the article for the CGM, DCM, DSM and MM and will reflect this. Grateful if you could check these.
*"Dropping the word 'level' and using the word 'rank' instead": The UK MOD now categorise gallantry awards from 'level 1' to 'level 4',  (eg see Honours and awards in the armed forces (JSP 761) Annex A to Chapter 1: Awards available to the Armed Forces, page 1A-1), and it would therefore make sense to keep the term in this article. 'Rank' could also be confused with military ranks.
*"Numbers awarded to Australians". The It's an Honour figures are at least an source from a government website - is there another source that can be used if the figures were changed?
Hsq7278 (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2018
:The It's an Honour website even though it's a government website, is unreliable at best. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 14:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Hsq7278 for the support for ‘It is unwise comparing British and Commonwealth ODM systems in detail’. I value your comment on the use of the word ‘level’ but I think I will leave that issue to another day. Both you and Nford24 raised the issue of government websites. Government websites as well as many published reference works are valuable in determining the number of recipients for each award. It’s an Honour lists MC recipients but an examinations of their list of recipients reveals that there are a number of duplicates, a number of unverified awards and they include a few Australians who served with British forces. Similarly, after talking to the AWM Research Centre yesterday, I was advised how to access all MC recipients and like It’s an Honour they include a few Australians who served with British forces. It is reasonable for It’s an Honour and AWM to include Australians who served with British forces but for statistics I think restricting it to awards to Australian forces makes sense. Anthony Staunton (talk) 02:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian MC numbers