http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Sad...228823755.html

He did his duty well.

RIP

RIP.....great man

wow
*despite the fact that they are both thier respective nations top honors, the VC is a harder medal to earn, isn't it. i do not mean to diminish the feats of anyone its just that fewer of them are awarded, correct?
*is there any more to it than that, or for someone to earn the MOH do they have to die in a combat? cuz the article didn't make it sound like what he did was especially above and beyond the call of duty

he climbed aboard an armoured personnel carrier and manned its .50-calibre machine-gun to give fellow troops covering fire. Smith fired more than 300 rounds and the ceramic breast plate in his flak jacket was shattered as he took return fire from automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

this sounds like standard combat, IMO its not on the same level as other MOH recipients. EG:Randy Shughart or Gary Gordon, who requested to be inserted to rescue a pilot, knowing that they would be overwhelmingly outnumbered and that reinforcements would not arrive for a long time. that is above and beyond.

or is above and beyond classed as dying for your country? no doubt Smith died in action, but what did he do that earned him the MOH, does anyone have more info on this?

ok, this is prolly a better write up of the events:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...ves/001502.php

The Victoria Cross, Locke may only be considered "harder" than the Medal of Honor in one respect. The VC can only be awarded for action in battle with the enemy. The MH can be awarded for gallantry in the face of the enemy but not necessarily requiring you to use a weapon. Under such circumstances the UK and Commonwealth award the George Cross. The MH has been awarded to medical personel who cared for their patients to beyond the call of duty and for POWs who have conducted themselves with honor above and beyond as well. If you want to call that "easier" that's your opinion. I prefer to think of it as more considerate. It can be said that it is the bravest of all who face the enemy armed with nothing other than their honor.

SFC Smith placed himself in the line of fire more so than was demanded of him, but not more so than he was willing to bear the responsibilty for. Those were his men - his responsibility. No price was too high for him to pay to keep them taken care of. That is more than just "standard combat".

Yes, indeed that was a MUCH better article you posted about this. Thank you for passing it on.

The 2nd article was much better... the was either written with a lack of information or was simply a gross understatement of what happened that day.
Where would the the US Army be without sarges like Smith?

now i hope you all understand what i mean about australian media and the lack of accurate information.

thanks heaps for that post charge, it was very informative, i shall take onboard what you have siad

btw, sorry for using the words "harder" and "easier" i meant no disres[ect i just wasnt sure how to word things so i kpet it simple

We getcha.
The first article really made it sound like "no big deal," putting in enough information to make it look like well... most other firefights.
At least with the internet people in Australia can now read the details from elsewhere.

No problem, Locke. That's why we have this site really. To learn things we might never know just from being in our own countries.