[naturalman1975]

The Distinguished Service Order was formed with that in mind in 1866. It is not a Knighthood (its recipients are in full, Companions of the Distinguished Service Order) but is a high honour. It was meant to be awarded only for conduct under fire, although during the early part of the First World War, this was not always adhered to until an order was made that it must be so in 1917. By far, the vast majority have been awarded for conduct under fire. Awarded properly - as it has been for most of its history - the DSO seems to fit much of the criteria you mention.

There is also a specific military division of the Order of the Bath (alongside a civil division). For that matter the Order of Australia has a military division as well (of which I have the honour to be a Member), although in both of those the military service does not have to be combat service, which is, of course, not quite the same thing.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

My point in suggesting this was to restore a Knighthood to “real” Knights. An exclusive fraternity fit for an Arthurian round table, completely distinct from any other group that do not fight.

A martial and militant organization of warriors, honored as warriors, as martial Knights of the Crown.

It can be said that the highest warrior rank is not General, but Colonel, as a General divides their time between strategy and political interface with civilian leaders. Colonels and their subordinates are the highest rank that engages and pursues the enemy.

But a Knighthood of this sort is not based on rank, but extended personal risk during combat. And it is not an award, even a high level award, but a symbol of the realm.