Muerrisch Posted 28 January , 2010 Share Posted 28 January , 2010 I note that MM could be awarded 'up' to WO I, and MC to'warrant officers'. Please, what determined who got what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 28 January , 2010 Share Posted 28 January , 2010 Good question i believe i asked a similar question on WO getting a DCM or a MC what decides ,I have never had a group with MM to WO 1 or 2 so will be very interesting as to the replies MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 29 January , 2010 Share Posted 29 January , 2010 The warrant for the MC introduced in 1914 specifies it is for Captains to Warrant Officer, it was amended when Warrant Officers were divided into Class I and II. The warrant for the MM introduced in 1916 specifies it is for non-commissioned officers and men. Warrant Officers do not appear to be the upper limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 30 January , 2010 Share Posted 30 January , 2010 The warrant for the MC introduced in 1914 specifies it is for Captains to Warrant Officer, it was amended when Warrant Officers were divided into Class I and II. The warrant for the MM introduced in 1916 specifies it is for non-commissioned officers and men. Warrant Officers do not appear to be the upper limit. In your last line i assume you mean... Warrant Officers do not appear to be.. IN.. the upper limit ie the word in for included in available to be awarded the MM. MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 30 January , 2010 Author Share Posted 30 January , 2010 so a WO could get an MC up to intro of MM and then only an MM? So how were subsequent bars awarded? heh heh! Very difficult! I dont have sight of the respective Royal Warrants for issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 1 February , 2010 Share Posted 1 February , 2010 Royal Warrant for the Military Cross: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/29024/supplements/7 Royal Warrant clarifying that the Military Cross was open to Warrant Officers Class I and II http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/29618/pages/5736 Royal Warrant for the Military Medal: http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/295...upplements/3647 As the Royal Warrant extending the MC to Warrant Officer Class II came after the institution of the MM it would seem that the MC continued to be awarded to WOs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 2 February , 2010 Author Share Posted 2 February , 2010 thank you for that, thank you much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 3 February , 2010 Share Posted 3 February , 2010 All part of the service. I think it would be a brave officer who recommended a WO for the MM in the interim of the 2 Warrants! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 3 February , 2010 Share Posted 3 February , 2010 There were three MCs awarded to Warrant Officers of the 9th King's Liverpool Regt. gazetted July 1916, January 1917 and November 1917. The one gazetted in July 1916 was preceded by an MID for the same action. The incident occurred in Sept./Oct. 1915. Warrant Officers of the battalion were awarded the MM with Gazette dates of Oct. 1917 and Jan. 1918 (x2). Other than date of award, could the MM/MC decision be based upon the act for which the award was granted? Perhaps the MC was considered the appropriate award for acts which included significant elements of leadership compared to pure bravery/gallantry which may have been thought of as more suitable for the award of an MM. I offer this as a point for discussion rather than an opinion. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeignGong Posted 4 February , 2010 Share Posted 4 February , 2010 There were three MCs awarded to Warrant Officers of the 9th King's Liverpool Regt. gazetted July 1916, January 1917 and November 1917. The one gazetted in July 1916 was preceded by an MID for the same action. The incident occurred in Sept./Oct. 1915. Warrant Officers of the battalion were awarded the MM with Gazette dates of Oct. 1917 and Jan. 1918 (x2). Other than date of award, could the MM/MC decision be based upon the act for which the award was granted? Perhaps the MC was considered the appropriate award for acts which included significant elements of leadership compared to pure bravery/gallantry which may have been thought of as more suitable for the award of an MM. I offer this as a point for discussion rather than an opinion. Ken Hi Ken I was under the impression that the DCM had to have some element of LEADERSHIP, I may be wrong. Both the MC & MM are level three awards & the DCM a level two, yet if a Warrant Officer was awarded both DCM & MC, the precedent would be MC then DCM. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardog Posted 4 February , 2010 Share Posted 4 February , 2010 This is all new to me. Are we sure WOs were awarded the MM for actions that happened after they reached that rank, or could it be the actions happened while they were below that rank, the awards being made to them after promotion? Just trying to get this right in my head! Cheers, Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 4 February , 2010 Share Posted 4 February , 2010 ...Are we sure WOs were awarded the MM for actions that happened after they reached that rank, or could it be the actions happened while they were below that rank, the awards being made to them after promotion? ... I have an example: A Company Sgt Major who was Mentioned in Despatches for an action in Sept.1916 (MID gazetted May 1917 when his citation describes him as CQMS). This was followed by his award of the MM for action in July 1917 (MM gazetted Oct. 1917 when he was shown as CQMS & A/CSM). The other two mentioned in my earlier posts were both Acting WOII. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardog Posted 5 February , 2010 Share Posted 5 February , 2010 I'm not sure on this and will need grumpy to confirm but I think at that time a Colour Sergeant would have been a CQMS, so he was an acting CSM, (acting WOII) so it looks like only substantive WOs could be awarded the MC. I'm ready to be shot down/corrected! Cheers, Paul. PS-Anyone know of examples of an MM being awarded to a substantive WOII? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 6 February , 2010 Author Share Posted 6 February , 2010 fascinating! up to mid1915 [away from my library] a soldier with rank of substantive CSgt would be badged as such, and could occupy at least one of three appointments wearing same badge: CSM with a small extra pay CQMS CSgt Instr Musketry After creation rank WO II, Csgts in CSM posts were promoted to substantive WO II, badged as such, leaving tne others behind. All this is infantry of course. And yes, we need a substantive WO II awarded Either MM or MC for actions IN THAT RANK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyneside Chinaman Posted 6 February , 2010 Share Posted 6 February , 2010 Hi A number of DLI WO's fall into the subject Those awarded the Military Cross 13769 CSM James Donnelly DCM MM 20/DLI awarded MC LG 3 Jun 1919 15084 CSM a/RSM Patrick McEvoy 11/DLI awarded MC LG 3 Jun 1918 21600 CSM Richard Richardson 13/DLI awarded MC LG 1 Jan 1917 6876 CSM a/RSM Matthew A Smith DLI att 8/DCLI awarded MC LG 3 Jun 1918 1106 later 325032 CSM A/RSM Thomas Sordy 6/DLI awarded MC LG 4 Jun 1917 Bar to MC LG 16 Sep 1918 22504 CSM Joseph Summerville 15/DLI awarded MC LG 11 Dec 1916 24258 CSM Charle Wakeham MM 10/DLI awarded MC LG 14 Nov 1916 6402 RSM Joseph Watson 2/DLI awarded MC LG 1 Jan 1918 Those awarded the Military Medal 5825 RQMS E Black 2/DLI 10 May 1919 4844 BQMS a/RSM J Farrell RMLI att 13/DLI 11 Oct 1916 18067 CSM T S Hammond MM 13/DLI bar to MM 20 Aug 1919 1375 CSM H Langford 1/7/DLI MM 27 Oct 1916 200194 CSM W McGee 1/5/DLI MM 13 Mar 1919 277699 CSM F Neesam DCM 2/7/DLI MM 22 Jan 1920 North Russia 26524 CSM J Ramsden 15/DLI MM 28 Sep 1917 20/142 CSM J W Sherriff DCM 20/DLI MM 23 Jul 1919 24258 CSM C Wakeham 10/DLI MM 11/Nov 1916 53205 CSM A J Whetter 9/DLI MM 11 Feb 1919 I have omitted all Sergeants Acting CSM of which there are quite a number regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyneside Chinaman Posted 6 February , 2010 Share Posted 6 February , 2010 In the Tyneside Irish Brigade 27/270 RSM John Thompson was awarded the MC 1/1/18 24/987 CSM George Coleby MM John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 7 February , 2010 Author Share Posted 7 February , 2010 In the Tyneside Irish Brigade 27/270 RSM John Thompson was awarded the MC 1/1/18 24/987 CSM George Coleby MM John thanks; can't see rhyme or reason here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyneside Chinaman Posted 7 February , 2010 Share Posted 7 February , 2010 Hi, of those awaded the MC all but three are Birthday or New Years honours, The three with citations, RSM Sordy Bar to the MC in 1918, CSM Wakeham and CSM Summerville all took command after all the officers were gone, reorganised the coy etc. I have found only one MM citation that of CSM Coleby 24/NF. I think this points to the MC being awarded for Leadership or very good work over a long period. regards John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
27thBN Posted 8 February , 2010 Share Posted 8 February , 2010 John My chap at head of my signature was the same deal with about the same citation ,so in a small way it confirms MC for leadership taking over the company etc MC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 8 February , 2010 Share Posted 8 February , 2010 thanks; can't see rhyme or reason here! It could be that the people at the time were caught by the ambiguity of the MM being for non commissioned officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 8 February , 2010 Author Share Posted 8 February , 2010 I cannot believe we are the first people to be less than clear on this matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 8 February , 2010 Share Posted 8 February , 2010 Another possibility is that the MC originally had a meritous service element, not solely bravery in battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wardog Posted 28 April , 2010 Share Posted 28 April , 2010 Is the picture any clearer yet on this subject? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
per ardua per mare per terram Posted 4 May , 2010 Share Posted 4 May , 2010 No, as it seems that both were awarded to WOs during WWI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 31 March , 2015 Author Share Posted 31 March , 2015 I am bumping this one up after a long interval, being inspired by my new purchase of Abbot and Tamplin "British gallantry medals". The essential unsolved problem may be summarised : given that the MM was instituted 4 April 1916 for non-commissioned officers and men, almost a year after warrant officers class II were added to class I, how is it that so many warrant officers [officially specifically not NCOs] were awarded MMs? And, given that warrant officers were eligible for the MC, what criteria, other than serendipity, decided which of MM or MC they received? The thread above is full of wisdom and good references, but many memebers have joined in the past five years, and much research has been added. Any advance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now