US Army Warrants
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless
Actually it's "septic" - abbreviated rhyming slang: septic tank = yank.
If Uncle Sam wants to pay hard earned US taxpayer funds for your crew to stay at the local pub, then that's a matter for Uncle Sam.
Not sure about the aircraft though - unless it's the Presidential Suite.
Others may offer a view on the size of everything in Texas: I can't possibly comment.
What you teabags think about "Sceptic" ranks matters not a wit
that if one of my warrants was refused entry to your Officers Mess ... I would take my aircraft and crew and piss off to the nearest pub and let your OC explain to his chain of command why that happened
Not sure about the aircraft though - unless it's the Presidential Suite.
Others may offer a view on the size of everything in Texas: I can't possibly comment.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZH875 - from the same website. It clearly states a U.S. WO2 to WO5 is a commissioned officer while a U.K. Warrant Officer is a senior non-commissioned officer. And for the record, I'm a retired Commander, U.S. Navy - not a Warrant Officer. I just believe it is proper to respect a persons position and rank, regardless if it is different from your services.
A warrant officer (WO) or a chief warrant officer (CWO) is a member of a military organization, with a rank subordinate to other commissioned officers and senior to noncommissioned officers. In some countries, a warrant officer is effectively a senior noncommissioned officer.
--- Let read that again, "subordinate to other commissioned officers." It does say subordinate to commissioned officers, it says subordinate to other commissioned officers. But in the U.K. where a Warrant Officer is a senior non-commissioned officer. Just because your Warrants are not commissioned and deserving of the respect and entitlement does not mean ours are not.
United Kingdom
In the British armed forces, a warrant officer is effectively a senior non-commissioned officer, although he or she holds the Queen's (or King's) warrant. Warrant officers are not saluted, but are usually addressed by their juniors as Sir or Ma'am.
United States
In the United States military, a warrant officer was originally, and strictly, a highly skilled, single-track specialty officer. But as many chief warrant officers assume positions as officer in charge or department head.....
Upon the initial appointment to WO1 a warrant is given by the secretary of the service, and upon promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2 and above) they are commissioned by the President of the United States, take the same oath and receive the same commission and charges as commissioned officers, thus deriving their authority from the same source.
Chief warrant officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. ...
[i]Even when commissioned, they remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers who are generalists, though many chief warrant officers fill lieutenant and lieutenant commander billets throughout the US Navy....
....In the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, CWO's may fill positions normally held by more senior officers as well. ....
Each branch of the military "runs" the "Chief Warrant Officer" program in slightly different ways. Little is known or published concerning the chief warrant officer, and consequently they are often misunderstood by the unindoctrinated.
A chief warrant officer's benefits and privileges are roughly comparable to those of a junior commissioned officer, and should be at or above those of senior enlisted. A WO1 is paid roughly the same as an O-1 (second lieutenant or ensign), a CW2 the roughly same as a 0-2 (first lieutenant), and so forth....
--- If you read the whole web page, you will see that U.K. Warrant Officers are the equivalent of U.S. First Sargents and Sargent Majors. Our Warrant Officers rank above these, and have responsibilities and authority above them.
--- It was also interesting to note that the British Navy used to have Warrant Officers that were considered officers and not senior NCOs, and that these are compared to U. S. Warrant Officers:-
The history of warrant rates in the Royal Navy is complicated, but can be viewed in two parts:
warrant officers who were definitely officers rather than ratings, similar to those in U.S. forces, up to the 1950s;
warrant officers who were senior NCOs, like those in the British Army, from the 1970s on.
A warrant officer (WO) or a chief warrant officer (CWO) is a member of a military organization, with a rank subordinate to other commissioned officers and senior to noncommissioned officers. In some countries, a warrant officer is effectively a senior noncommissioned officer.
--- Let read that again, "subordinate to other commissioned officers." It does say subordinate to commissioned officers, it says subordinate to other commissioned officers. But in the U.K. where a Warrant Officer is a senior non-commissioned officer. Just because your Warrants are not commissioned and deserving of the respect and entitlement does not mean ours are not.
United Kingdom
In the British armed forces, a warrant officer is effectively a senior non-commissioned officer, although he or she holds the Queen's (or King's) warrant. Warrant officers are not saluted, but are usually addressed by their juniors as Sir or Ma'am.
United States
In the United States military, a warrant officer was originally, and strictly, a highly skilled, single-track specialty officer. But as many chief warrant officers assume positions as officer in charge or department head.....
Upon the initial appointment to WO1 a warrant is given by the secretary of the service, and upon promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2 and above) they are commissioned by the President of the United States, take the same oath and receive the same commission and charges as commissioned officers, thus deriving their authority from the same source.
Chief warrant officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. ...
[i]Even when commissioned, they remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers who are generalists, though many chief warrant officers fill lieutenant and lieutenant commander billets throughout the US Navy....
....In the U.S. Army and U.S. Marines, CWO's may fill positions normally held by more senior officers as well. ....
Each branch of the military "runs" the "Chief Warrant Officer" program in slightly different ways. Little is known or published concerning the chief warrant officer, and consequently they are often misunderstood by the unindoctrinated.
A chief warrant officer's benefits and privileges are roughly comparable to those of a junior commissioned officer, and should be at or above those of senior enlisted. A WO1 is paid roughly the same as an O-1 (second lieutenant or ensign), a CW2 the roughly same as a 0-2 (first lieutenant), and so forth....
--- If you read the whole web page, you will see that U.K. Warrant Officers are the equivalent of U.S. First Sargents and Sargent Majors. Our Warrant Officers rank above these, and have responsibilities and authority above them.
--- It was also interesting to note that the British Navy used to have Warrant Officers that were considered officers and not senior NCOs, and that these are compared to U. S. Warrant Officers:-
The history of warrant rates in the Royal Navy is complicated, but can be viewed in two parts:
warrant officers who were definitely officers rather than ratings, similar to those in U.S. forces, up to the 1950s;
warrant officers who were senior NCOs, like those in the British Army, from the 1970s on.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL Pilot
What you say is absolutely correct - in its application within the US.
But, as ORAC ably points out on page 8:
So, with great respect, and with no disrespect to our gallant US allies, when in Rome …
What you say is absolutely correct - in its application within the US.
But, as ORAC ably points out on page 8:
… within NATO, there is an agreement, and this includes the definition of equivalent ranks. Within this agreement, Warrant Officers are ranked below officers and above enlisted servicemen (sic).
The US may have decided to give some of their WOs commissioned officer status, but they have not had an amendment made to the NATO equivalent rank structure and, since NATO only works with unanimous agreement…
The US may have decided to give some of their WOs commissioned officer status, but they have not had an amendment made to the NATO equivalent rank structure and, since NATO only works with unanimous agreement…
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL Pilot
What you say is absolutely correct - in its application within the US.
But, as ORAC ably points out on page 8:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
… within NATO, there is an agreement, and this includes the definition of equivalent ranks. Within this agreement, Warrant Officers are ranked below officers and above enlisted servicemen (sic).
The US may have decided to give some of their WOs commissioned officer status, but they have not had an amendment made to the NATO equivalent rank structure and, since NATO only works with unanimous agreement…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with great respect, and with no disrespect to our gallant US allies, when in Rome …
What you say is absolutely correct - in its application within the US.
But, as ORAC ably points out on page 8:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
… within NATO, there is an agreement, and this includes the definition of equivalent ranks. Within this agreement, Warrant Officers are ranked below officers and above enlisted servicemen (sic).
The US may have decided to give some of their WOs commissioned officer status, but they have not had an amendment made to the NATO equivalent rank structure and, since NATO only works with unanimous agreement…
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, with great respect, and with no disrespect to our gallant US allies, when in Rome …
While on the Joint Staff, I worked with my counterparts at SHAPE frequently. We had a USMC WO5 in my office. He was always treated as an officer on all our TDYs to SHAPE HQ. Never was he not called "Sir", denied officer billeting or mess, and he was always saluted. You can bet your ass (or arse) that he would have corrected any enlisted from any service who did not. That's just the way the USMC is...
He also had the same Geneva Convention category on his ID card as I did. I forget what it was, but I was a Lieutenant Commander at the time.
In my P-3 squadron we also had a TACCO that was a CWO4. He was treated as an officer by the Austrialians at RAAF Pearce and by the Brit Nimrod guys at RAF Kinloss.
So the only "Romans" that I've ever seen have a problem with U.S. Warrant Officers are the British "Romans" on this board.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAL Pilot
Try a Google search. You might be surprised at what you find.
And who, pray are
at RAAF Pearce. Some offshoot from the local populace perchance?
I don't the accuracy of your account of your own experiences. But I suspect the genuflections extended to your WOs were due more to good manners on the part of your hosts, rather than to any formal obligations or requirements.
Try a Google search. You might be surprised at what you find.
And who, pray are
the Austrialians
I don't the accuracy of your account of your own experiences. But I suspect the genuflections extended to your WOs were due more to good manners on the part of your hosts, rather than to any formal obligations or requirements.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
HAL Pilot,
Ad hoc arrangements, pragmatism and curtesy apply in many places, that does not make them mandatory. During the cold war I would have saluted a Russian general, but it would have been as a mark of respect, not because he was entitled. But, as stated here
"The US rank is held by single track career specialists (ranking between Enlisted Ranks and 2nd Lieutenant) and have no NATO equivalent.
There are many individuals whose grade gives them the right to use the officers mess. There are also many who hold positions of authority and have serving personnel on their staff. That does not mean that anyone salutes them. I think what is annoying many here is someone indignantly demanding as a right something extended as a curtesy. What normally happens in such circumstances is the curtesy is withdrawn.
Ad hoc arrangements, pragmatism and curtesy apply in many places, that does not make them mandatory. During the cold war I would have saluted a Russian general, but it would have been as a mark of respect, not because he was entitled. But, as stated here
"The US rank is held by single track career specialists (ranking between Enlisted Ranks and 2nd Lieutenant) and have no NATO equivalent.
There are many individuals whose grade gives them the right to use the officers mess. There are also many who hold positions of authority and have serving personnel on their staff. That does not mean that anyone salutes them. I think what is annoying many here is someone indignantly demanding as a right something extended as a curtesy. What normally happens in such circumstances is the curtesy is withdrawn.
Last edited by ORAC; 18th Sep 2005 at 08:05.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day I would salute anyone holding a commision. I am saluting the commision and not the person, and therefore, I will not be 'throwing one up' for any WO 1.
I would address them as Sir though, thats only if I've recognised their rank insignia, I apologies if I don't.
I would address them as Sir though, thats only if I've recognised their rank insignia, I apologies if I don't.
West Coast
Actually mate in 1982 HRH Prince Andrew was flying Operational sorties in the south Atlantic. Prince Charles was an Operational pilot on Junglie Sea kings for quite a while too.
HAL PILOT
Sadly it was your WO who came on here "fishing" perhaps, having then created this debate he has now vanished after losing his teddy.
Speaking as a non-commissioned chap, I've never been asked to salute any US warrants in over 30 yrs..
As I've said before, royalty is like a placebo pill. Makes you feel good but doesn't do a damn thing for you.
HAL PILOT
Sadly it was your WO who came on here "fishing" perhaps, having then created this debate he has now vanished after losing his teddy.
Speaking as a non-commissioned chap, I've never been asked to salute any US warrants in over 30 yrs..
I dare say they have never met up with a USMC Lance Corporal even....that kind of Espirit starts early with the Marines. I would not wish to be the fool that crosses a USMC CW5...they do not fire single shots across the bow....they go for full broadsides of double shot.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perspective is a wonderful thing:
http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn20...hlight=2,ranks
"Most people think that warrant officers came after regular officers," said Barlow. "That's not true. Back in 13th century England, the British had a need for sea-going officers. They found the men with the most experience in their particular job and gave them a warrant, commissioning them as officers. Regular officers are descended from those beginnings.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah SASless
Reminds me of a bon mot.
US Marine battalion on parade to witness change of CO.
New CO inspects first rank.
Stops in front of a marine. Strikes said marine across top of head with fist.
“Does that hurt”? asks the CO.
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
“Cos I’m a US marine suh”.
Goddam.
CO continues inspection – stops in front of a marine in the second rank. Strikes said marine across the chest with open hand.
“Does that hurt”? asks the CO.
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
“Cos I’m a US marine suh”.
Goddam and holy snapping ducksh*t.
CO continues inspection – stops in front of a marine in the rear rank. Observes erect male member emanating from between said marine’s legs. Strikes said erect member and says:
“Does that hurt”?
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
Cos it’s the WOs behind me suh”.
USMC CW5s ... go for full broadsides with double shots
US Marine battalion on parade to witness change of CO.
New CO inspects first rank.
Stops in front of a marine. Strikes said marine across top of head with fist.
“Does that hurt”? asks the CO.
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
“Cos I’m a US marine suh”.
Goddam.
CO continues inspection – stops in front of a marine in the second rank. Strikes said marine across the chest with open hand.
“Does that hurt”? asks the CO.
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
“Cos I’m a US marine suh”.
Goddam and holy snapping ducksh*t.
CO continues inspection – stops in front of a marine in the rear rank. Observes erect male member emanating from between said marine’s legs. Strikes said erect member and says:
“Does that hurt”?
“No suh,” replies the Marine.
“Why not”? asks the CO.
Cos it’s the WOs behind me suh”.
"I dare say they have never met up with a USMC Lance Corporal even....that kind of Espirit starts early with the Marines. I would not wish to be the fool that crosses a USMC CW5...they do not fire single shots across the bow....they go for full broadsides of double shot."
SASless, notwithstanding the undoubted USMC esprit de corps, portraying you brother Jugheads as the stereotypical John Wayne type of marine of gung-ho movie notoriety is surely doing them a disservice in today's military environment.
The need is now for intelligent, disciplined troops rather than 'six-gun heroes'.
Hoo-ah? Or whatever that odd noise is that you lot make.
PS - Royal (not 'British') Navy Warrant Officers were indeed accorded compliments:
SASless, notwithstanding the undoubted USMC esprit de corps, portraying you brother Jugheads as the stereotypical John Wayne type of marine of gung-ho movie notoriety is surely doing them a disservice in today's military environment.
The need is now for intelligent, disciplined troops rather than 'six-gun heroes'.
Hoo-ah? Or whatever that odd noise is that you lot make.
PS - Royal (not 'British') Navy Warrant Officers were indeed accorded compliments:
Beags,
The correct term is "Jar Head"...not jug head....we are talking US Marines here...kinda like the term "Bootneck" used for the Royal Marines....another take charge group of gentlemen.
....and Beags...you definitely do not understand the fighting spirit of the US Marines if you confuse it with John Wayne Hollywood film characters. But then....unless you have had the good fortune to be around those troops...one does not have the basis to comment I would suggest.
I would suggest you read up on the military campaign in Iraq...and you will no doubt take on a better appreciation for all the young men and women that fought in that...US and British. We should take our hats off to them...they all did us old farts proud and are still doing so.
Beags...don't waver now...if it was good enough for Wellington and Nelson...it must still be good.
The correct term is "Jar Head"...not jug head....we are talking US Marines here...kinda like the term "Bootneck" used for the Royal Marines....another take charge group of gentlemen.
....and Beags...you definitely do not understand the fighting spirit of the US Marines if you confuse it with John Wayne Hollywood film characters. But then....unless you have had the good fortune to be around those troops...one does not have the basis to comment I would suggest.
I would suggest you read up on the military campaign in Iraq...and you will no doubt take on a better appreciation for all the young men and women that fought in that...US and British. We should take our hats off to them...they all did us old farts proud and are still doing so.
Beags...don't waver now...if it was good enough for Wellington and Nelson...it must still be good.
Jug- and Jarhead are both nicknames which have been used throughout history, although Jarhead is perhaps more common nowadays if you say so. For recalcitrant mules and stubborn Marines. But not a term of derision, more one of affection - for something/someone which digs in and won't be shifted!
It is not me who confuses the stereotypical USMC Hollywood image with reality; however, your posts may lead others to believe that the Republic movie company's portrait of your Corps is perhaps correct.
We had a USMC back-seater on the F4 training staff when I did the course. One day there was some formal inspection due and his colleagues asked him "Are you going to be turning up in that khaki outfit with all the medals and the Boy Scout hat - or that Glenn Miller $hit?" Brave words, but Ed took it in good humour! The 'Glenn Miller $hit' (Officer's Dress Uniform) won the day.
And the USMC folk who invited us to the embassy in Dakar were nothing like G/Sgt Thomas Highway or his movie clones, I'm glad to say!
It is not me who confuses the stereotypical USMC Hollywood image with reality; however, your posts may lead others to believe that the Republic movie company's portrait of your Corps is perhaps correct.
We had a USMC back-seater on the F4 training staff when I did the course. One day there was some formal inspection due and his colleagues asked him "Are you going to be turning up in that khaki outfit with all the medals and the Boy Scout hat - or that Glenn Miller $hit?" Brave words, but Ed took it in good humour! The 'Glenn Miller $hit' (Officer's Dress Uniform) won the day.
And the USMC folk who invited us to the embassy in Dakar were nothing like G/Sgt Thomas Highway or his movie clones, I'm glad to say!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arriving late on this thread my first feeeling is that I should avoid any kind of US Warrant Officer in case either of us cause the other great offence by an incorrect exchange of compliments.
On reflection, I shall leave the rest of you to this fascinating debate and continue to use common sense in dealing with my allies. I would like to say that all the CW5s I have met around the US Army helo force have been charming gemtlemen and completely free of any inferiority complex brought on by encounters with confused Brits!
On reflection, I shall leave the rest of you to this fascinating debate and continue to use common sense in dealing with my allies. I would like to say that all the CW5s I have met around the US Army helo force have been charming gemtlemen and completely free of any inferiority complex brought on by encounters with confused Brits!
Still trying to work out the purpose of the CW, is it because most enlisted men is a sergeant of some discription, and the officers are no good, they have to bring in a demigod to control everything.
If most armed forces do not need them, then please explain why the US army needs them.
If most armed forces do not need them, then please explain why the US army needs them.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,026
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jug- and Jarhead are both nicknames which have been used throughout history
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argus wrote:
I did. In fact I looked on the NATO website itself. Every website quoted in this thread is from a non-NATO or non-official source.
ORAC wrote:
Again, a non-official source. Of course you left out the beginning of the sentence in the paragraph you quoted from: "A Warrant Officer in UK service is a senior non-commissioned rank not comparable to the various grades of Warrant Officer in the US,..."
Again, my contention is that a commissioned officer is a commissioned officer and deserves the respect of that appointment even if your service has no equivalent. Having similiar names does not make U.S. and U.K. Warrant Officers equivalent. Giving respect where it is due and acknowledging differences in service regulations, customs and cultures is a sign of professionalism. Burying your head in the sand because something is different from your own is not.
HAL Pilot ,
Try a Google search. You might be surprised at what you find.
Try a Google search. You might be surprised at what you find.
ORAC wrote:
HAL Pilot,
Ad hoc arrangements, pragmatism and curtesy apply in many places, that does not make them mandatory. During the cold war I would have saluted a Russian general, but it would have been as a mark of respect, not because he was entitled. But, as stated here
"The US rank is held by single track career specialists (ranking between Enlisted Ranks and 2nd Lieutenant) and have no NATO equivalent.
Ad hoc arrangements, pragmatism and curtesy apply in many places, that does not make them mandatory. During the cold war I would have saluted a Russian general, but it would have been as a mark of respect, not because he was entitled. But, as stated here
"The US rank is held by single track career specialists (ranking between Enlisted Ranks and 2nd Lieutenant) and have no NATO equivalent.
Again, my contention is that a commissioned officer is a commissioned officer and deserves the respect of that appointment even if your service has no equivalent. Having similiar names does not make U.S. and U.K. Warrant Officers equivalent. Giving respect where it is due and acknowledging differences in service regulations, customs and cultures is a sign of professionalism. Burying your head in the sand because something is different from your own is not.