# Warrant Officers in the US and Canadian Armies - confusion re: status?



## ibilola (16 Apr 2005)

Does the use of the Warrant Officer title in the US and Canadian Armies cause confusion when personnel from both armies are working together?


----------



## Haggis (16 Apr 2005)

I have found that occasionally it does, particularly when working with Army Aviation units since many US Army pilots are Warrant Officers.  Unless I have lots of time, it's usually easier to refer to myself as a First Sergeant or "E8" than it is to try and explain what I am.

That being said, most US Army  and USMC NCO's I  have worked with have at least a fair grasp of our NCO ranks from increasingly repeated exposure to us.

Confusion about our ranks doesn't start at our southern border.  A few years ago, when we wore our rank only on the slip ons, I was saluted by two Canadian Air Force captains on the old CFB Uplands.  When I questioned them about this they claimed that since I wore a Highlanders balmoral and crowns on my shoulders that I must have been a British Army Major.  Not being certain, they erred on the side of caution and threw me a high five.


----------



## Armymedic (16 Apr 2005)

If there is any confusion, it is easily recitified as Haggis mentioned by equating the WO rank with the E scale for the US Army.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (16 Apr 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> If there is any confusion, it is easily recitified as Haggis mentioned by equating the WO rank with the E scale for the US Army.



And how easily rectified is it in reverse?     Their WOs seem to be a unique breed that have been discussed here before in the distant past.  They get to wear them purty bars making them look just like the lieutenants.


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2005)

Confusion reigned supreme in the early 70s, when militia units still wore battledress, and there was a shortage of the 'New' slip-ons and sew-on sleeve ranks for all of the combat uniforms.   A Major had a small crown sewn on his shoulder slip-ons for the combat clothing.   A Warrant had a small crown - identical - sewn on the upper sleeves of HIS combat uniforms.   No problem, right?   Sleeves versus shoulders.   No problems, until we put on Parka, Extreme Cold Weather, 1951 (Hey, they were only 20 years old back then!).   Then, the Majors and Warrants wore identical slip-ons.   Hence, the stripes of white bandage tape applied vertical or horizontal to a pocket of the parka to signify Section Commander, Platoon 2i/c, Platoon Commander, etc.   Eventually, larger crowns were ordered for the Warrants, and these are the ones we wear today.

Tom


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Apr 2005)

US warrant officer's really equate to officer ranks. They rate above NCO's and below the officers. They are technicians. A   
W-5 is the equivalent of a Lt Col. Originally they had warrants and could not command. Now W-2's on up are commissioned warrant officers. They have the rights and privilages of officers. They rate a salute and are members of the O club.


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2005)

That makes a lot of sense to me.   Sergeants used to fly four engined bombers in the RCAF and RAF.  They only started to officerize flight crew because the Germans treated the officer POWs better than the NCO POWs.  And since, it could be argued that  LUCKY aircrew eventually became POWs...

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Apr 2005)

Hmm, funny, considering the number of Luftwaffe aces who were sergents.....

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/lwace2.txt


----------



## Michael Dorosh (17 Apr 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hmm, funny, considering the number of Luftwaffe aces who were sergents.....
> 
> http://www.ww2.dk/misc/lwace2.txt



Look how far down you have to scroll until you find one, though. ;D

Fahnenjunker/Oberfeldwebel Heinz  MARQUANDT 

a paltry 121 kills...

I guess once you score 121 aerial victories, they just go ahead and promote you even if you ARE a sergeant...


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2005)

Look what they did to poor Flt Sgt "Screwball" Beurling.   The Malta Spitfire ace.   Ottawa wanted their hero's to wear bars.   Screwball didn't want to be an officer.   He just wanted to fly and kill.   So, they got him to sign the request when he was wounded and doped up.   Then he needed a new nickname, so he became "Buzz" Beurling.   

Died in a Norseman crash in Rome - I think - on his way to fly for a new country (fighting for it's life) called Israel.

Tom

Corrections: He was Buzz before he was Screwball, he didn't crash in Rome, and I can't find anything to back up my impression that he was promoted while doped up.  I have Brian Nolan's book on him somewhere, but I recommend the following link:

http://www.constable.ca/beurling.htm


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Apr 2005)

Well, The chart only shows what rank they ended their careers at. I believe a fair number of the top scores were comissioned from the ranks after the first few hundred kills. \


EDIT: Meh, posted before your edit........


Does anyone know if the Luftwaffe today still uses NCO pilots?




> Died in a Norseman crash in Rome - I think - on his way to fly for a new country (fighting for it's life) called Israel.



I bet they would have given him a BF-109 to fly too.

Getting waay off topic.


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2005)

Flight Lieutenant George "Buzz" Beurling 

Born: December 6, 1921 
Died: May 18, 1948 
Place of Birth: Verdun, Quebec 


Major Notes:
Canada's most famous World War II pilot. 
His record includes shooting down 27 enemy planes in 14 days. 
He served in both the RAF and the RCAF and later was recruited by Israel. 
Beurling was nicknamed the "Falcon of Malta" and the "Knight of Malta". 
As a youth, he worked at nearby Cartierville hangars and made his first solo flight at age 16. 
He later developed a computer-like mind for mathematics and detail. 
Perhaps unusual for a pilot, Beurling never swore and seldom took liquor. 
He had extremely good eyesight aiding his skills as a top marksman in the air. 
His first award was the Distinguished Flying Medal for action on July 6, 1942. 
His awards also included the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Distinguished Service Order. 
Beurling, along with a co-pilot, died when coming in for a landing at the Urbe airfield, Italy. A mysterious fire broke out in the plane which exploded as it touched down. 
His death is still surrounded in mystery because of Israeli-British politics at the time. 
He is buried in Israel and is considered a hero in that country as well as in Italy and Canada. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## TCBF (17 Apr 2005)

The Bundeswehr - I think their Army uses (or used) NCOs to fly their BO-105 Recce Helicopters.   I was in one for a Recce out of Lahr over the Canadian Canter Area when we were training for Boeselager once.   I will have to dig up some old photos, or perhaps again tonight, another kind soul will come and correct my memory.

http://www.constable.ca/beurling.htm

The above Buzz Beurling link is fantastic. The Italians also used Sgt Pilots, apparently.   I made some erors in my initial post on Buzz Beurling, and will now correct them.

Tom


----------



## ibilola (17 Apr 2005)

I'm surprised to hear a WO5 is equivalent to a LtCol. I thought all US WOs were junior to a second lieutenant.  And if the US WO1 (the most junior grade)  is only appointed by Warrant, why do enlisted personnel have to salute him or her?  I thought the commission was saluted, not the person.


----------



## pbi (17 Apr 2005)

I find it's easier to use the Canadian Army WO appointment titles (RSM, CSM, BSM, CQMS, Pl 2IC, etc) and leave the WO rank out of it when talking to US folks. It avoids confusion. The US WO is very similar to the Russian system: a creature between officer and NCO, usually promoted from the ranks for technical ability. Ours, in the Army anyway, is really employed as a higher form of NCO equivalent to the top three or four US E-grades. If we want them to do officer things on a permanent basis, we use CFR or Limited Duty Commissioning to promote them.

Cheers.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Apr 2005)

A Lt Col's base pay is at 20 years of service is $6793. A W-5 is $5548. An E9 at 20 years makes $4575. This doesnt include housing/cola/subsistance.

It is not unusual for a Chief Warrant Officer to fill an officer's billet.


----------



## ibilola (17 Apr 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I find it's easier to use the Canadian Army WO appointment titles (RSM, CSM, BSM, CQMS, Pl 2IC, etc) and leave the WO rank out of it when talking to US folks. It avoids confusion. The US WO is very similar to the Russian system: a creature between officer and NCO, usually promoted from the ranks for technical ability. Ours, in the Army anyway, is really employed as a higher form of NCO equivalent to the top three or four US E-grades. If we want them to do officer things on a permanent basis, we use CFR or Limited Duty Commissioning to promote them.
> 
> Cheers.



This makes sense. Mind you, a Canadian RSM with a sense of humor might want to use his CWO rank when dealing with the Americans!!


----------



## Recce41 (17 Apr 2005)

Folks

I dug up some stuff regarding the use of WO in the Canada/British Army. 
 We had Pte-WO1 rank (7 ranks), The navy OS-CPO (5Ranks),The Airforce AFC-WO1(7Ranks). In WW2 Sec Ic was a Cpl, Plt 2ic was a Sgt, and a Staff was the CQMS,Ops Sgt, WO2s were the RQMS, and nay snr sgt rank. WO 2 was the CSM, RSM WO1. The navy, Sec Ic was a AS, the dept hard was a PO, and the coxan etc was a CPO. The Airforce was the same as the Army for ground crew. For Flight crew a Cpl was a gunner, navigator, bombier, or pilot in training. As (Trained) he was promoted to Sgt. He could then be promoted to a Staff after a time. If he wished or was forced to, he was promoted to Flight LT. 
 Once we unified we had to have a standard rank, for all. So they came up with this.



Army                                           Navy                                             
New         Old                            New          Old
Pte B         Pte                         OS                   OS    
PteT            "                                LS                LS
Cpl             LCpl                           AS                 AS
MCpl          Cpl                            MS                      "                             
Sgt            Sgt                            PO                  PO                                                
WO          SSgt                           PO2               CPO                                                 
MWO       WO2                         PO1                   "                                        
CWO         WO1                        CPO                   "                                                

The Air force was and is the same as the Army. 

 A lil history of the WO Rank. It is stated that the WO rank is a Government General Commissioned Officer, not Queen/King Commissioned.    This is from the old British Army, that states :
A Warrant will be issued to a Soldier promoted from the Sgt rank. He holds this Warrant superior to NCOs but subordinate to Officers. Even though he is an Officer, he will not be saluted.
But today in the Canadian Army only CWOs get a scroll. The first Warrants were in soldiers in Stores and Tpt. First issued in 1879. They are NOT Snr NCOs but WOs. 
 I hope this helps out.
 :evil: :tank:


----------



## ibilola (17 Apr 2005)

The WO2 and WO1 ranks still exist in the British Army (equivalent to MWO and CWO), - addressed as 'Sir' by subordinates but not saluted. Both ranks receive a 'Warrant'.

There was also briefly a WO3 rank in the late 1930s and early 1940s - the 'Platoon Sergeant Major' who was a platoon commander.

Up to 1949, the Royal Navy (and Royal Canadian Navy) had an officer-grade WO, similar to the current US Warrant Officer.  WOs were reintroduced in the RN in 1970 - the current WO1 is equivalent to a Canadian CPO1, the WO2 is equivalent to a CPO2.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Apr 2005)

I know we've discussed this before but "old" LCpl was equivelent (in terms of responsibility) to the "new" MCpl".  Old Cpl was new Sgt.  Old Sgt and SSgt are new Warrant Officer.  The old system (still used by most Commonwealth countries) has two ranks at the Senior NCO level (Sgt/SSgt - in our Army a WO will perform the roles of both these ranks)) whereas our new system has two ranks at the basic soldier level (Pte/Cpl).

Wesley has said that the Aussie Army is phasing out the rank of Staff Sergeant.


----------



## Neill McKay (17 Apr 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Army                                           Navy
> New         Old                            New          Old
> Pte B         Pte                         OS                   OS
> PteT
> ...



The current naval ranks are OS, AB, LS, MS, PO2, PO1, CPO2, CPO1.  Just prior to unification they were the same, except there was no MS.


----------



## Recce41 (18 Apr 2005)

Thanks
 I missed rereading what I   posted. But what I have listed is from The Book of Canadian ranks. They may have been address as PO2/1 or CPO2/1. But under the rank levels. It only has PO the CPO. 
Inf
 The rank table has them listed as is.


----------



## Neill McKay (18 Apr 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Thanks
> I missed rereading what I   posted. But what I have listed in a book of Canadian ranks, I have there is only as I listed under old. They may have been address as PO2/1 or CPO2/1. But under the rank levels. It only has PO the CPO.
> Inf
> The rank table has them listed as is.



Some of the confusion probably comes from the classes of PO and CPO coming and going from time to time.  From what I understand, there were originally just POs and CPOs, then classes were established, then eliminated, then returned in the 'fifties or early'sixties.  Apart from the last, I don't have any idea about the timelines.


----------



## ibilola (18 Apr 2005)

The Canadian PO1 is equivalent to a CPO in the Royal Navy. CPO2 is equivalent to a WO2 in the Royal Navy (rank introduced 2004), and the CPO1 is equivalent to a WO1 (Warrant Officer Class One) in the RN. The senior WO on a RN ship is the Executive Warrant Officer.

RN WOs are addressed as 'Mr' by Officers and 'Sir' by ratings.

The Warrant Officer rank was reintroduced into the RN in 1970 as the 'Fleet Chief Petty Officer' and the name was changed to 'Warrant Officer' in the mid 80s.
There were no WOs in the RN between 1949 and 1970


----------



## ibilola (24 Sep 2005)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I have found that occasionally it does, particularly when working with Army Aviation units since many US Army pilots are Warrant Officers.   Unless I have lots of time, it's usually easier to refer to myself as a First Sergeant or "E8" than it is to try and explain what I am.
> 
> That being said, most US Army   and USMC NCO's I   have worked with have at least a fair grasp of our NCO ranks from increasingly repeated exposure to us.



The Brits don't seem to understand the US WO ranks though as this thread on pprune shows!  http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=f8ceb8b170cb964a26e90c42706c33cd&threadid=189612


----------



## Steel Badger (24 Sep 2005)

A lil history of the WO Rank. It is stated that the WO rank is a Government General Commissioned Officer, not Queen/King Commissioned.    This is from the old British Army, that states :
A Warrant will be issued to a Soldier promoted from the Sgt rank. He holds this Warrant superior to NCOs but subordinate to Officers. Even though he is an Officer, he will not be saluted.
But today in the Canadian Army only CWOs get a scroll. The first Warrants were in soldiers in Stores and Tpt. First issued in 1879. They are NOT Snr NCOs but WOs. 



Thank you for posting that....


I am tired of arguing with people ( usually of the commissioned nature) who insist that WO's are merely Senior NCOs....

Do you have refs for the quote? I would greatly appreciate it....



Cheers


SB


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2005)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I am tired of arguing with people ( usually of the commissioned nature) who insist that WO's are merely Senior NCOs....
> 
> Do you have refs for the quote? I would greatly appreciate it....




I managed to find a quote that says that a WO is indeed considered a Snr NCO in Canada:     ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_officer#Canadian_Forces

But hey, What would this site know?? They still have us under the heading "Canadian Armed Forces"


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Sep 2005)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I am tired of arguing with people ( usually of the commissioned nature) who insist that WO's are merely Senior NCOs....
> 
> Do you have refs for the quote? I would greatly appreciate it....




http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/engraph/faq/index_e.aspx#q16



> Non-commissioned members up to the rank of Sergeant or Petty Officer 2ndClass wear chevrons on the sleeves of the uniform tunic and on the shoulders of other uniform clothing. Warrant Officers and senior Petty Officers wear crowns on their cuffs of the uniform tunic and on the shoulders of other uniform clothing.



King's Regulations and Orders for the Army (1908)



> Precedence of Warranmt Officers and Non-Commisioned Officers and Men
> 
> 284.  The position of warrant officers is inferior to that of all commissioned officers, but superior to that of all N.C.Os.


----------



## Neill McKay (24 Sep 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> But hey, What would this site know?? They still have us under the heading "Canadian Armed Forces"



So does the National Defence Act.


----------



## ibilola (25 Sep 2005)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I am tired of arguing with people ( usually of the commissioned nature) who insist that WO's are merely Senior NCOs....



WOs in the British Army, and to my knowledge in all other Commonwealth Armies, are senior non-commissioned *ranks* who rank between a non-commissioned *officer* and a commissioned officer. The British Army's Queens Regulations lists Warrant Officers as distinct from soldiers, NCOs and Commissioned Officers.  *All*Warrant Officers in the British Army receive a Warrant from the Secretary of State for Defence.

The confusion about *US*Warrant Officers which I mentioned in my previous posting , seems to revolve around the view in many Commonwealth Armies that they are not quite 'real' officers. Hence the lack of clarity and arguments about their mess status and saluting when serving with the British Army. Sometimes they are allowed in Officers Messes but on other occasions they are accommodated in WOs and Sergeants' Messes.

Are Canadian Chief Warrant Officers ever accommodated in US Officers Clubs by mistake?


----------



## EW (25 Sep 2005)

My trade (Comm Rsch) has exchange billets in the US, and I have served extensively with US folks, in the US, Canada, and while deployed.

Many of those I have worked with are U.S. Army Warrant Officers.  I can categorically state that, in my experience, they certainly live up to their reputation of being technical masters within their Branch.  I have not seen any confusion in Canada that they are entitled to use the officers mess.  On several occasions (both operationally and while at static sites) I have seen U.S. Army WOs treat Canadian WOs as peers.  But, this has more to do with having earned (and proven) the ability to work at the same level, than it does with the rank chart.  Under NATO convention there is just no Canadian (or Commonwealth) equivalent to the U.S. Army WO program.  Which is really too bad, as it tends to attract some of their most professional NCOs (again in my opinion).

As for Canadian CWO's being admitted to US Officer Messes - no.  Isn't supposed to happen. However that is not to say that a CWO (or any other NCO) may be invited into the Officers mess on occasion.  I would say that the Officer core (theirs and ours) might be less prone to raise their eyebrows if a CWO is in their mess (as a guest) than a senior or junior NCO.

I am currently working on a Warrant Officer board for my mess (a combined mess).  It has examples of all the CWO ranks from the Commonwealth countries, as well as a few examples of WO ranks from all the countries back to WWI.  Mind you all the ranks badges were pretty much interchangeable between the Commonwealth countries up until the 1950's.  

I had no problem amassing the ranks from each country.  The real problem is finding a suitable quote to include with the display.  I wanted to have a quote on what the Canadian Warrant Officer (WO, MWO, CWO) is, and what he/she represents and is responsible for.  I can find tons of British documentation to give that answer, and lots of Canadian documentation from before the 70's, but I can find precious little in any current Canadian Forces documentation.  Including the large number of documents the Canadian Forces Defence Academy has on their website.  They just released a number of leadership publications in 2005, but not a quote to be found on the Warrant Officer.  That was my experience, but I admit that I haven't done a total search yet.

Anyone out their have a modern quote from an official source, on the role of today's Warrant Officer in the Canadian Forces?

Rgds ...


----------



## Gunner (25 Sep 2005)

Check CFP 300 - Canada's Army. You can access through the DIN at the DAT site.


----------



## EW (25 Sep 2005)

Thanks Gunner, will do....


----------



## ibilola (25 Sep 2005)

EW said:
			
		

> My trade (Comm Rsch) has exchange billets in the US, and I have served extensively with US folks, in the US, Canada, and while deployed.
> 
> Many of those I have worked with are U.S. Army Warrant Officers.   I can categorically state that, in my experience, they certainly live up to their reputation of being technical masters within their Branch.   I have not seen any confusion in Canada that they are entitled to use the officers mess.



Interesting, but one of your Armour Recce WOs stated the following on the 'pprune' website link I gave earlier:

*recce41 wrote:*

_"When we have US soldiers come up and stay, US WOs stay in the WOs/Sgts shacks and eat in mess. 
The Marines try the Officer thing here, the Base Commander and Base RSM refused they stay in the Officers shacks. 

I am a Armour Recce WO regular force, 25 yrs in and still going."_

The exact status of US WOs has led to heated comment, disagreement and insults on various websites.


----------



## EW (25 Sep 2005)

Ibilola

I would suspect that there is likely a pretty big curve in the CF when it comes to the levels of understanding of the US Warrant Officer program, and if there is a grey area than a Base Commander or CO certainly has it within their purview to interpret the situation as best they can.  

Having said that, it shouldn't happen, but surprise surprise - it does.  I would suspect that the US WOs affected probably just grinned and bunked in where they were told, because it wasn't worth rocking the boat.

In my experience, under existing agreements between Canada and the US (not to mention NATO) we have to give the US personnel the same standard of respect/courtesy they are entitled to under their system.  

For an idea of what respect/position US Army WOs are given, one only has to check the US military publication FM 22-100;

"Title 10 USC authorizes the commissioning of warrant officers (WO1) upon promotion to chief warrant officer (CW2). These commissioned warrant officers are direct representatives of the president of the United States. They derive their authority from the same source as commissioned officers but remain specialists, in contrast to commissioned officers, who are generalists. Warrant officers can and do command detachments, units, activities, and vessels as well as lead, coach, train, and counsel subordinates. As leaders and technical experts, they provide valuable skills, guidance, and expertise to commanders and organizations in their particular field."
(Para A-3, Field Manual 22-100)"

Oh well, I suspect that Canadian commanders will continue to interpret their understanding of US Army Warrant Officers, based upon their experience.  Unless of course a US military commander intervenes and asks for his personnel to be treated as the commissioned officers they are.

On a slightly different track, the NATO equivalences chart lists a Canadian MCpl as being equivalent to a British Army Sergeant.  Both are considered E-5s.  Based on this I have seen several MCpls (from different Branches) given SNCO quarters/messing in the UK.  Although, if they are there as part of a Canadian unit, the unit CSM/RSM would generally tell the Brits that the MCpls will remain in JNCO barracks/messing.

Rgds....


----------



## EW (25 Sep 2005)

Another quote from the US Army's Warrant Officer Candidate School website;

http://usawocc.army.mil/whatiswo.htm

"...Candidates who successfully complete Warrant Officer Candidate School are appointed in the grade of Warrant Officer One. When promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two, warrant officers are commissioned by the President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned officer counterparts...."


----------



## ibilola (26 Sep 2005)

EW said:
			
		

> In my experience, under existing agreements between Canada and the US (not to mention NATO) we have to give the US personnel the same standard of respect/courtesy they are entitled to under their system.



That would be the logical argument. However, many in the British Army appear to be arguing that US WOs do not have NATO Officer Status (i.e. OF coding) and that under Queen's Regulations, WOs shouldn't be saluted, especially the US WO1 who is appointed by Warrant. The US WO1 who was asking to be treated as an officer on the website received a hostile reception from the British WOs!!

I can understand why Master Corporals, as equivalents to British Lance-Corporals, are excluded from British WOs and Sergeants Messes though!


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Sep 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> I'm surprised to hear a WO5 is equivalent to a LtCol. I thought all US WOs were junior to a second lieutenant.   And if the US WO1 (the most junior grade)   is only appointed by Warrant, why do enlisted personnel have to salute him or her?   I thought the commission was saluted, not the person.



Sorry to respond late. Pay wise the W-5 is comparable to a LTC [0-5]. Warrant's in the US rate a salute. The commissioned W0 allows the holder to command troops.


----------



## Recce41 (29 Sep 2005)

IB
 A MCpl is not equal to a LCpl. He is equal to a Cpl/Sgt, this depends on his quals. On one tour we MCpls stayed in the Sgts quarters some of our Sgts/WOs didn't like it, but the RSM said too bad. This is a point in reverse. As for my post over on the other one, it is the Base Commanders judgement. We had some US soldiers from Hood come up for winter warfare training. One or two of the Sgts didn't like that we had put Cpls incharge of the tent group. The OC had one point, if some guy from Texas could build a igloo, or snow cave he would accept their point. If not they could just go home.


----------



## ibilola (26 Oct 2005)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> A lil history of the WO Rank. It is stated that the WO rank is a Government General Commissioned Officer, not Queen/King Commissioned.    This is from the old British Army, that states :
> A Warrant will be issued to a Soldier promoted from the Sgt rank. He holds this Warrant superior to NCOs but subordinate to Officers. Even though he is an Officer, he will not be saluted.
> But today in the Canadian Army only CWOs get a scroll. The first Warrants were in soldiers in Stores and Tpt. First issued in 1879. They are NOT Snr NCOs but WOs.
> 
> ...




Interesting that the current QRs don't appear to give a definition of a Warrant Officer merely an NCM.

I accept your comments that WOs are not NCOs, but if the CWO is the only rank to receive a warrant scroll, by what definition are the current WO and MWO 'Warrant' Ranks?  Do they receive a letter of appointment when they become WOs, for example?


----------



## geo (26 Oct 2005)

WOs and MWOs do not get their scroll
CWOs only get their scroll if the CC and the Adjt get their A#$ in gear and look after the paperwork


----------



## baboon6 (27 Oct 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sorry to respond late. Pay wise the W-5 is comparable to a LTC [0-5]. Warrant's in the US rate a salute. The commissioned W0 allows the holder to command troops.



If they are commisioned, why not just give them the equivalent officer rank? Why have a two-tier officer corps?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

As they're technical officers, I'd assume because it would avoid having them do that regular officer stuff (staff school, etc).


----------



## Ex-Pat Army (27 Oct 2005)

I spent some time in the U.S.with an Air national guard unit, and as a Canadian WO they came up with a classification of E8 for me. This was I'm told based on the position not title, and equated via Coast Guard ranks.

 As an Infantry man at an air force base, it did not suprise me they had to use naval systems to come up with the classification (Hic).

Does this make sense to anyone else?


----------



## Infanteer (27 Oct 2005)

Sure - as a Warrant Officer in Canada, you weren't equivlent in position to a US Warrant Officer (which is a commissioned officer), you were equivelent to a E-8, which is a Senior NCO; they're Sergeant (and Petty Officer) levels go much higher than ours (where Warrant Officers come in).

What's in a name, eh?


----------



## geo (27 Oct 2005)

E7 Sgt 1st class
E8 Master Sergeant or 1st Sergeant
At the E-8 level, the Army have two positions at the same pay grade. Whether one is a Master Sergeant or a first sergeant in the Army depends on the person's job. 
A Master Sergeant works in a staff position, whereas a First Sergeant is responsible for a Company of soldiers.

E9 Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, Sergeant Major of the Army
The same is true for the positions at the E-9 level (SGM and CSM), except that they are at a Battalion or higher level. Army Sergeant Majors and Command Sergeant Majors receive the same pay but have different responsibilities. 

per the equvalence cheat sheets I see that they say:
WOs = Sgt 1st class / Master Sgt
MWOs= 1st Sgt Sgt Major
CWOs = Cmd Sgt Major / Sgt Major of the army

what it boils down to is that the WOs straddle the E6/E7 line
the MWOs straddle the E7/E8 line and
the CWOs straddle the E8/E9 line


----------



## ibilola (27 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> WOs = Sgt 1st class / Master Sgt
> MWOs= 1st Sgt Sgt Major
> CWOs = Cmd Sgt Major / Sgt Major of the army
> 
> ...



If those US equivalent ranks are correct,

the WO straddles the E7/E8 line (Sgt 1st class / Master Sgt)
the MWO straddles the E8/E9 line (1st Sgt/Sgt Major)
the CWO is a senior E9 in US terms (Cmd Sgt Major / Sgt Major of the Army)


----------



## Recce41 (27 Oct 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> If those US equivalent ranks are correct,
> 
> the WO straddles the E7/E8 line (Sgt 1st class / Master Sgt)
> the MWO straddles the E8/E9 line (1st Sgt/Sgt Major)
> the CWO is a senior E9 in US terms (Cmd Sgt Major / Sgt Major of the Army)


You are correct, The MCpl rank is E5/E6, Sgt is E6/E7. This is due to what postion thay have. IE a E5 Sgt could only be a driver, due to it is a base rank for most. During one SUE. E5s were not allowed in the WO/Sgt mess vis our MCpl could go to the E5 mess.


----------



## Acorn (28 Oct 2005)

baboon6 said:
			
		

> If they are commisioned, why not just give them the equivalent officer rank? Why have a two-tier officer corps?



US Warrant Officers cannot hold Command. They can serve staff functions (thus equivalents to commissioned officer ranks) or be in charge of small units or detachments.

Acorn


----------



## ibilola (28 Oct 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> US Warrant Officers cannot hold Command. They can serve staff functions (thus equivalents to commissioned officer ranks) or be in charge of small units or detachments.
> 
> Acorn



So they don't have the full range of responsibilities as Commissioned Officers. 

Interestingly the British Army's QRs are quite specific about saluting:

8.057.

a.	Warrant officers, NCOs and soldiers are to salute all *commissioned officers* who they know to be such, whether in uniform or not, including officers of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Air Force, Warrant officers, NCOs and soldiers are to salute with the right hand. Where from physical incapacity a right hand salute is impossible, the salute is to be given with the left hand.

b.	NCOs and soldiers are to address *warrant officers* in the same manner as for officers, but are not to salute them.

The question is whether US WOs are categorised under 'a' or 'b'


----------



## AmmoTech90 (28 Oct 2005)

They fall under A.
Just because they are called Warrant Officers does not mean they are the same as a British Warrant Officer.  Same name, different rank.  The US regulations state that a Warrant Officer is saluted, therefore, common courtesy says that other forces should as well.  If anyone gets their knickers in a knot about saluting US Warrant Officersit they are being childish.


----------



## geo (28 Oct 2005)

Cdn and UK WOs are equal
not equal to the US vatiety

Highly educated, experts in their technical field......


----------



## ibilola (29 Oct 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> Cdn and UK WOs are equal
> not equal to the US vatiety
> 
> Highly educated, experts in their technical field......



As are many Canadian and UK WOs!


----------



## Big Foot (29 Oct 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> Where from physical incapacity a right hand salute is impossible, the salute is to be given with the left hand.


Wow, thats a new one on me... Didn't know anyone could ever salute with their left hand. I suppose this emoticon has the right to salute with its left hand, seeing as how it only has a left arm...


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> As are many Canadian and UK WOs!


yeah... but Cdn & UK WOs have all gone to school of hard knocks U


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Nov 2005)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> Wow, thats a new one on me... Didn't know anyone could ever salute with their left hand. I suppose this emoticon has the right to salute with its left hand, seeing as how it only has a left arm...



ALL Canadian soldiers were expected to salute with the left hand up until 1915 or so.  If the officer being saluted was on your right, you saluted with the left, and vice versa, ie the hand furthest from the person being paid compliments to.  During the First World War, drill underwent a lot of changes, and we adopted British "Guards Drill" which we still do today - all the foot stamping and swinging of arms stuff.  

As for technical aspects of being a warrant officer, consider this - WOs don't wear trades badges because at that rank level, they are expected to interact with soldiers of all trades.  A WO in an infantry unit will be expected, for example, to lead infantry soldiers in action as a platoon WO, as well as be in charge of storesmen as company quartermaster sergeant, deal with drivers and communicators possibly by taking a turn as Transport WO or Signals WO, etc.  The situation is similar for Troop Warrants in the engineers, artillery, armoured, etc.


----------



## Ex-Pat Army (2 Nov 2005)

A note abut saluting with Left hand. QR&O's (QR&R'S can't remember ?) may say something regarding saluting with left however in 15 years I never once came across a reference with exception of saluting with the rifle.

 Funny story.
 Brit Brigadier jacked up one of my troops in Garrison for not saluting him . Young buck had a broken right hand.
 I came along, and thinking He's just another Subaltern (not noticing the lettuce on his shoulder) calmly informed him of Canadian S.o.p's. He looks at me, takes my name, and leaves. Two days later, I'm leaving Gatwick on a flight home.


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2005)

Hmmm..... didn't have a sense of humour did he.
Then again, at least the ticket home wasn't a one way trip to Edmonton's finest accomodations.


----------



## ibilola (7 Dec 2005)

EW said:
			
		

> I am currently working on a Warrant Officer board for my mess (a combined mess).   It has examples of all the CWO ranks from the Commonwealth countries, as well as a few examples of WO ranks from all the countries back to WWI.   Mind you all the ranks badges were pretty much interchangeable between the Commonwealth countries up until the 1950's.
> 
> I had no problem amassing the ranks from each country.   The real problem is finding a suitable quote to include with the display.   I wanted to have a quote on what the Canadian Warrant Officer (WO, MWO, CWO) is, and what he/she represents and is responsible for.   I can find tons of British documentation to give that answer, and lots of Canadian documentation from before the 70's, but I can find precious little in any current Canadian Forces documentation.   Including the large number of documents the Canadian Forces Defence Academy has on their website.   They just released a number of leadership publications in 2005, but not a quote to be found on the Warrant Officer.   That was my experience, but I admit that I haven't done a total search yet.
> 
> ...




Here's the recently updated (October 2005) definitions of the US Warrant Officer for your WO Board:



The Army WO is a selfâ â€œaware and adaptive technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and advisor. Through progressive levels of expertise in assignments, training, and education, the WO administers, manages, maintains, operates, and integrates Army systems and equipment across the full spectrum of Army operations. Warrant Officers are innovative integrators of emerging technologies, dynamic teachers, confident warfighters, and developers of specialized teams of soldiers. They support a wide range of Army missions throughout their career. Warrant officers in the Army are accessed with specific levels of technical ability. They refine their technical expertise and develop their leadership and management skills through tiered progressive assignment and education. The following are specific characteristics and responsibilities of the separate, successive WO grades.



    a. *Warrant officer one.* An officer appointed by warrant with the requisite authority pursuant to assignment level and position given by the Secretary of the Army. WO1s are basic level, technically and tactically focused officers who perform the primary duties of technical leader, trainer, operator, manager, maintainer, sustainer, and advisor. They also perform any other branch-related duties assigned to them. They also provide direction, guidance, resources, assistance, and supervision necessary for subordinates to perform their duties. WO1s have specific responsibility for accomplishing the missions and tasks assigned to them and, if assigned as a commander, the collective or organizational responsibility for how well their command performs its mission. WO1s primarily support levels of operations from team or detachment through battalion, requiring interaction with all soldier cohorts and primary staff. They provide leader development, mentorship, and counsel to enlisted soldiers and NCOs.



    b. *Chief warrant officer two*. CW2s are commissioned officers with the requisite authority pursuant to assignment level and position as given by the President of the U.S.. CW2s are intermediate level technical and tactical experts who perform the primary duties of technical leader, trainer, operator, manager, maintainer, sustainer, and advisor. They also perform any other branch-related duties assigned to them. They provide direction, guidance, resources, assistance, and supervision necessary for subordinates to perform their duties. They have specific responsibility for accomplishing the missions and tasks assigned to them and, if assigned as a commander, the collective or organizational responsibility for how well their command performs its mission. CW2s primarily support levels of operations from team or detachment through battalion, requiring interaction with all soldier cohorts and primary staff. They provide leader development, mentorship, advice, and counsel to NCOs, other WOs and company-grade branch officers.



    c. *Chief warrant officer three*. CW3s are commissioned officers with the requisite authority pursuant to assignment level and position as given by the President of the U.S.. CW3s are advanced-level technical and tactical experts who perform the primary duties of technical leader, trainer, operator, manager, maintainer, sustainer, integrator, and advisor. They also perform any other branch-related duties assigned to them. They provide direction, guidance, resources, assistance, and supervision necessary for subordinates to perform their duties. CW3s have specific responsibility for accomplishing the missions and tasks assigned to them and, if assigned as a commander, the collective or organizational responsibility for how well their command performs its mission. CW3s primarily support levels of operations from team or detachment through brigade, requiring interaction with all soldier cohorts and primary staff. They provide leader development, mentorship, advice, and counsel to NCOs, other WOs and branch officers. CW3s advise commanders on WO issues.



    d. *Chief warrant officer four*. CW4s are commissioned officers with the requisite authority pursuant to assignment level and position as given by the President of the U.S.. CW4s are senior-level technical and tactical experts who perform the primary duties of technical leader, manager, maintainer, sustainer, integrator and advisor. They also perform any other branch-related duties assigned to them. They provide direction, guidance, resources, assistance, and supervision necessary for subordinates to perform their duties. CW4s have specific responsibility for accomplishing the missions and tasks assigned to them and, if assigned as a commander, the collective or organizational responsibility for how well their command performs its mission. They primarily support battalion, brigade, division, corps, and echelons above corps operations. They must interact with NCOs, other officers, primary staff, and special staff. CW4s primarily provide leader development, mentorship, advice, and counsel to NCOs, other WOs and branch officers. They have special mentorship responsibilities for other WOs and provide essential advice to commanders on WO issues.



    e. *Chief warrant officer five*. CW5s are commissioned officers with the requisite authority pursuant to assignment level and position as given by the President of the U.S.. CW5s are master-level technical and tactical experts who perform the primary duties of technical leader, manager, integrator, advisor, or any other particular duty prescribed by branch. They provide direction, guidance, resources, assistance, and supervision necessary for subordinates to perform their duties. CW5s have specific responsibility for accomplishing the missions and tasks assigned to them. CW5s primarily support brigade, division, corps, echelons above corps, and major command operations. They must interact with NCOs, other officers, primary staff and special staff. They provide leader development, mentorship, advice, and counsel to WOs and branch officers. CW5s have special WO leadership and representation responsibilities within their respective commands. They provide essential advice to commanders on WO issues."


----------



## Arctic Acorn (7 Dec 2005)

This doesn't involve WOs specifically, but I just came back from a NATO exercise recently, where I did up a rank comparison chart based on the NATO STANAG. 

One highlight that I found interesting is that Master Corporals are considered E-5s, but so are Sergeants with less than 3 (or 5...can't remember offhand) time in rank. 

Another neat point I discovered is that their NCOs (Germany and the Netherlands, specifically) are selected and trained in much the same way our commissioned officers are. They are either selected from the ranks to be an NCO and go to an NCO academy, or go to the NCO academy directly. As soon as they graduate they become sergeants.  

Apologies for the tangent... :dontpanic:


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2005)

Otto...
the Russians & the Soviets before them did it that way as well
NCO Academies for people right off the street..... 

Canada, what a country!


----------



## ibilola (8 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> WOs and MWOs do not get their scroll



Soldiers should be given a 'Warrant' on promotion to the rank of WO for the 'Warrant' designation to have any meaning. Otherwise how can WOs and MWOs be defined as  'Warrant Officers'?


----------



## geo (9 Dec 2005)

... guess they have to wait to get an office issued to them 1st 

Not arguing with you on that matter ibilola. Was going thru some of my Gramp's papers and thru WW1, Officers would get new commission scrolls as they got promoted.

Someone is being chintzy with the paper I guess.


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> ... guess they have to wait to get an office issued to them 1st
> 
> Not arguing with you on that matter ibilola. Was going thru some of my Gramp's papers and thru WW1, Officers would get new commission scrolls as they got promoted.
> 
> Someone is being chintzy with the paper I guess.



Wouldn't cost much to issue a laser printer generated 'Warrant' with an electronic signature on it. Then all WOs/PO1s would have something to hang on the wall. And CWOs could still be given their scrolls.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> I'm surprised to hear a WO5 is equivalent to a LtCol. I thought all US WOs were junior to a second lieutenant.  And if the US WO1 (the most junior grade)  is only appointed by Warrant, why do enlisted personnel have to salute him or her?  I thought the commission was saluted, not the person.



Tomahawk is right, of course.  Think of US Army Warrant Officers as a "specialist officer" employed in a special, advisory/command and/or specific position within a unit's structure.  The numbers do equate closely between WO and OF positions, i.e.  CW3 is roughly equivalent in a specialist sense to an experienced battle captain (OF3).  In US Army aviation, officers usually only fill the direct line comand positions Lt/CPT - Tps and Pls, Maj - Coys and the LTC is the batallion comd, but you will see, for example CW3's as SPs (standardization plts) or IPs (instructor pilots), or CW4 as unit standards pilots or the Bn flight safety officer.  I think of the CW4 as an "operator senior NCM to the CO" CW5's are quite rare and limited in total numbers that may hold that rank as any given time.  I have also seen non-commissioned WO2'sas well as (but not often) CW2s, so overall, I've flown with WO1, WO2, CW2, CW3, CW4 and worked with CW5 in staff positions.  Not sure if that helps...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

Duey said:
			
		

> I have also seen non-commissioned WO2's as well....



Equivalent to a Master Warrant Officer?


----------



## ghazise (9 Dec 2005)

1.   When comparing ranks in general between any military, a great start is to find out at what rank fills what billet?
2.   The responsibilies that billet has? 

Comparing Ranks only in Name only is futile,

example: A Chief Warrant Officer who fills a billet of Regimental Sergeant Major of a Battalion, would be equivalent to a Sergeant Major who fills a billet of Battalion Sergeant Major: A Battalion Sergeant Major is the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Bn Colonel, and is responsible for the discipline and morale of all enlisted Marines  

From my point of view a CDN WO, CWO, is more comparable to a Gunnery Sergeant, 1st Sergeant/Master Sergeant, Sergeant Major/Master Gunnery Sergeant rather than a Warrant Officer, Chief Warrant Officer in the Marine Corps.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2005)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> example: A Chief Warrant Officer who fills a billet of Regimental Sergeant Major of a Battalion, would be equivalent to a Sergeant Major who fills a billet of Battalion Sergeant Major: A Battalion Sergeant Major is the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Bn Colonel, and is responsible for the discipline and morale of all enlisted Marines
> 
> From my point of view a CDN WO, CWO, is more comparable to a Gunnery Sergeant, 1st Sergeant/Master Sergeant, Sergeant Major/Master Gunnery Sergeant rather than a Warrant Officer, Chief Warrant Officer in the Marine Corps.


Could you have added any more to the confusion?


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> 1.   When comparing ranks in general between any military, a great start is to find out at what rank fills what billet?
> 2.   The responsibilies that billet has?
> 
> Comparing Ranks only in Name only is futile,
> ...



But what about a Section/Squad Commander - in the US Army a Staff Sergeant (E6), in the British Army, a Corporal (E4):

Or a Physician Assistant - in the US Army, a Commissioned Officer, in the Canadian Army, an E7 or E8 equivalent?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (9 Dec 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> Equivalent to a Master Warrant Officer?



ibilola, stop thinking that just because the rank is written the same the positions and responsibilities are the same across countries.

A British WO2 would be equivalent to a MWO, and American is not.  An American WO2 is closed to a 2Lt.

American Warrant Officers are not the same as a Commonwealth Warrant Officers, they are not the same as Commonwealth Officers.  The fall somewhere in between, actually closer to Commonwealth Officers.  They may be direct entries (some pilots) or very experienced NCOs who have gone the Warrant Officer route.  Either way they fulfil a specialist technical position that may be simply flying, or it may be advising a battalion commander on training and weapons.

For the American system, the Warrant Officer is heavy on the officer, the Commonwealth, heavy on the Warrant.


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> ibilola, stop thinking that just because the rank is written the same the positions and responsibilities are the same across countries.
> 
> A British WO2 would be equivalent to a MWO, and American is not.   An American WO2 is closed to a 2Lt.
> 
> ...



AmmoTech90

I understand the difference but you mentioned commissioned CW2s and non-commissioned WO2s in your previous post.  I assumed you were referring to different ranks/ armies.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (9 Dec 2005)

ibilola said:
			
		

> AmmoTech90
> 
> I understand the difference but you mentioned commissioned CW2s and non-commissioned WO2s in your previous post.  I assumed you were referring to different ranks/ armies.



That was actually Duey's post.

One correction.  US WO1 are not commissioned, they are warrented, but they still get saluted.  From what I can tell, there no longer any US WO2s, at least the service websites for Army, Navy, USMC don't list it as a rank anymore.

Here is a nice little summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_Officer#United_States


----------



## ghazise (9 Dec 2005)

I don't think I added to the confusion at all, I'm not confused, and I can only comment on the equivalent in the Marine Corps;   

 "But what about a Section/Squad Commander - in the US Army a Staff Sergeant (E6), in the British Army, a Corporal (E4):"   
A squad being a sub-unit of a platoon, is a sergeant's billet being filled by a Corporal or Sergeant,

Or a Physician Assistant - in the US Army, a Commissioned Officer, in the Canadian Army, an E7 or E8 equivalent?
For the FMF, a Navy Physician is assigned to a Battalion, and his Corpsman Chief is a Chief Petty Officer,


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> That was actually Duey's post.



Apologies in order


----------



## ibilola (9 Dec 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> From what I can tell, there no longer any US WO2s, at least the service websites for Army, Navy, USMC don't list it as a rank anymore.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think WO2 and CW2 in the US Armed Forces are different designations for the same rank.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Dec 2005)

I like 2FtOnion's suggestion to compare billet responsibilities/accountabilities/duties!  That's the best approach...that a similar or exact name is used by many is merely coincidental.  US Army warrant officer aviators are similar in relation to command as are RAF "specialist aircrew", FltLt's or SqnLdr's, whose raison d'etre is to fly and conduct operations using a wealth of experience.  Spec aircrew are considered more valuable for the skills they hold in operations than in streaming up the leadership/command stream...in fact, unless I'm mistaken, I don't think RAF spec aircrew are promotable beyond SqnLdr (O4).

p.s.  I meant to say in my earlier post that I have seen WO2s in the past, but that CW2 is the more common rank one will see.  There is also a level of qualification on a particular aircraft that seems to correlate to warrant officer rank, i.e. WO1 is most often seen in training (as in hundreds of WO1's beetling around Fort Rucker, Alabama.  Once an aviator completes his/her AQC (aircraft qualification course) they are promotable to CW2 and barring any other factor, usually are promoted at the end of their course.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Acorn (9 Dec 2005)

The US Army doesn't have a WO2 rank. They have WO1, and then CW2, CW3 etc to CW5. The CWs are commissioned as has been mentioned before.

Comparing billets works to a point, but it gets more confusing when you go outside the aviation role of US WOs.

Acorn


----------



## ibilola (10 Dec 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The US Army doesn't have a WO2 rank. They have WO1, and then CW2, CW3 etc to CW5. The CWs are commissioned as has been mentioned before.
> 
> Comparing billets works to a point, but it gets more confusing when you go outside the aviation role of US WOs.
> 
> Acorn



I agree this can be confusing.  In relation to British helicopter pilots, an RAF Flight Lieutenant may have exactly the same role as a Sergeant or (enlisted) WO in the British Army Air Corps. And some of the technical roles (e.g. Signals) carried out by a US WO would be held by enlisted personnel in the British Army.


----------



## Recce41 (15 Dec 2005)

I believe this may have been posted. But I add it any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_Armies_Enlisted


----------



## BruceinAlberta (15 Dec 2005)

Not really.  I am former US Army (See my post Introduction to the Forum for my military bio)  I found that UK/Canada/ Aussie forces understood the US use of warrant officer pretty well.


----------



## LieutenantHoward (14 Mar 2008)

WO5 Equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel ? thats not true.

All Warrant Officers are above Enlisted (E1-E9), but below 0-1. Warrant officers all salute 0-1's and up.

WO1's are NOT considered Commissioned officers because they hold a writ not a commission.Meaning until they get their power from the secretary of service, not the president until they reach CW2. Orginally, enlisted was supposed to stand at ease when in the presence of an WO, and was to call them Mr. Or Ms.  ROTC cadets are considered 3LTs (meaning they are considered above enlisted but below warrant officers and Lieutenants. When i was in ROTC we were told to call them Mr. Mrs... Graduated IOBC in november.

2LT John Howard
82nd Airborne Division


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2008)

Like I said before:



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could you have added any more to the confusion?





			
				LieutenantHoward said:
			
		

> WO5 Equivalent to Lieutenant Colonel ? thats not true.



I missed that one.  I have no idea from whense that came.




			
				LieutenantHoward said:
			
		

> ........  ROTC cadets are considered 3LTs (meaning they are considered above enlisted but below warrant officers and Lieutenants. When i was in ROTC we were told to call them Mr. Mrs... Graduated IOBC in november.
> 
> 2LT John Howard
> 82nd Airborne Division



This is a new one for me.  I would have just refered to them as Cadets, or Officer Cadets;  but in all seriousness, not a rank that doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

A CWO 5 is comparable to a LTC,but not pay wise. A CWO4 is comparable to a Major. Cadets that participate in the 3d Lt program in the summer are addressed as Mr, same as WO's.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Mar 2008)

Well I had to go way back a review this topic all over again and can see where there is still room for confusion with a few things.  Here are a few links that can help a bit, or confuse even more, when comparing the ranks in the various militaries.  One has to remember that the persons making some of these charts are as much in the dark as some of us at times.

Here is Wikipedia's chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_armies_officers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_NATO_Armies_Enlisted

Here is a US Navy produced chart:

http://www.nps.navy.mil/Code22/milrank.htm

Another US Military Ranks chart:

http://www.easternct.edu/personal/faculty/pocock/ranks.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/l/blwarrank.htm

From SHAPE:

http://www.nato.int/shape/graphics/logo/nato_ranks.pdf




I find that all these sources have variations of the same themes.  I have noticed in the NATO STANAGs that they have the Warrant Officers ranks as W1 to W4, but some of the US charts go to W5.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Mar 2008)

CWO5 is a relatively new rank,it was created in 04.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/insignias/officers.html


----------



## LieutenantHoward (15 Mar 2008)

3rd LT. is not really a rank, its like a nickname you know? SMP cadets could be called 3rd LTs...its not offical, just tongue in cheek


----------



## geo (15 Mar 2008)

Heh­... I remember when we used to refer to officer cadets as being "bandaids" (from the white bands they used to wear on their battledress.


----------



## LieutenantHoward (15 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Heh­... I remember when we used to refer to officer cadets as being "bandaids" (from the white bands they used to wear on their battledress.




LOL, band-aid.Hope they weren't generic.The CVS brand doesn't work worth a damn


----------



## LieutenantHoward (15 Mar 2008)

But in my opinion the best path to go as  a Cadet is SMP. As a cadet you are still in ROTC, but you serve with either a NG or a RC. You get paid as a E-5 but you wear C/2LT rank. I don't think you hold a MOS tho


----------



## BinRat55 (15 Mar 2008)

LieutenantHoward said:
			
		

> But in my opinion the best path to go as  a Cadet is SMP.



Hmmm... A standard military pattern cadet?  Can we even GET those here in Canada?? Neat... (Sorry guys, I know i'm trolling here, but I couldn't resist...  : i'll leave now...


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Mar 2008)

SMP:
http://www.rotc.usaac.army.mil/command/reserve_smpBnE.html

Cadet Troop Lead Training
http://www-rotc.monroe.army.mil/CTLT.html


----------



## medaid (15 Mar 2008)

I've ref other OCdts as 3Lts before. It was amusing when some of them actually believed that was an alternative title ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Mar 2008)

Ya my biggest regret as an E-4 was not to salute a West Point cadet wearing his "3d Lt" bar.The cadet didnt make an issue of it but it has stayed with me these many years.


----------



## ibilola (4 Jun 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> A CWO 5 is comparable to a LTC,but not pay wise. A CWO4 is comparable to a Major.



Comparable in experience, but both CW4 and CW5 would salute a Second Lieutenant.


----------



## Greymatters (4 Jun 2008)

I found that the Sergeant rank was more confusing to other countries than the Warrent rank, despite the fact that a NATO comparison chart was easily handy...


----------

