Company Sergeant Major, not a rank but a position

[momsirish]

I hope this is the right forum for this question. In the USA a Company " First Sergeant" is an appointed position, not a rank. I presume it requires some form of testing and application for the position and the rank of sergerant must have been achieved first.. I believe it is the equivalent to a Company Sergeant Major.

Has anyone researched the appointment of Company Sergeant Majors, regarding testing for that position during the war? Would a soldier have to leave the field to study or to take the test for that position before

being appointed? How long would the wait generally be between passing the test

and being appointed to the position of a Company Sergeant Major? Can a CSM be appointed to his old company?

[rflory]

According to King's Regulations 1912 (amended to 31 Dec 1917) Battery, Squadron, Troop, or Company Serjeant Majors (except Foot Guards or infantry of the line) and Squadron-corporal major (Household Cavalry) are ranks, not appointments. According to the official US Army website 'First Sergeant' is also a rank, rather than an appointment. Dick Flory

[momsirish]

Hi rflory:

I did not check the US Army website and I thank you for that advice. How I came about this question, is I was wondering if a British Soldier in WW! would be appointed or promoted to the rank of Company Sergeant Major in his own own original company. I called two US Army recruiting stations and asked if they knew if there was any similarity between US and British regulations regarding promoting to the rank of Company Firtst Sergeant, or Sergeant Major. They both said they had no knowledge of British promotioning.

However they both said that the rank of Firtst Sergeant in the US Army is not a rank, but a position, an appointmet that usually lasts for two years, However one said he thought he heard of one lasting almost five and a half years. They stressed that it did not make any difference if the First Sergeant had been in the company just a few days and all other others of the company had been in the company for years. I did not question their comments, but do believe the appointment would not be a political one. Strictly a military one.

momsirish

[rflory]

momsirish: I think you are getting confused between rank, appointment and position. In the US Army first sergeant is both a rank and a position. The rank of first sergeant has three chevrons up and three down with a diamond in the middle. Each company/battery-sized unit has the position of first sergeant, the highest ranking non-commissioned in the unit. In the three years that I commanded an artillery battery I had three NCOs in the position of first sergeant. When I took over command the first sergeant held the rank of first sergeant, but he retired shortly after I arrived and there was no spare NCO in the rank of first sergeant in the divisional artillery so a master sergeant was temporarily appointedto the position of first sergeant (i.e. he held the position but not the rank); a few months later an NCO in the rank of first sergeant took over the position. So there were three men in the position of first sergeant but only two of them held that rank.

As far as the British Army my knowledge is primarily based on the Royal Artillery during the Great War. An artillery battery had a Battery Serjeant Major (BSM) (equal to a Company Serjeant Major in the infantry). During the Great War men were often promoted to Battery Sergeant Major within their battery if a vacancy occurred in the battery. Quite often it was the Battery Quartermaster Sergeant who was promoted. Often men were transferred to other batteries and promoted to BSM when vacancies occurred in those units. As far as I am aware there was no rule that precluded either from happening.

[bill24chev]

In WW1 promotion and appointment to WOII and CSM would normally be within the battalion in the infantry.

For example my grandfather was a Serjeant on arrival in France in 1917 He was then promoted initially as acting Colour Serjeant/CQMS then as CSM and for a short period RSM.

He may never have been substantive WO because the citation scroll for his award of Belgian Croix de Gurre issued in 1919 shows him as Staff Sergeant, the Gazzette entry of Aptril 1918 he is still a Serjeant.

In peace time promotion was within Regiment for regular units, i.e. the RSM of a battalion would have started out as a Private in one of the Regular battalions. The RSM and Colour Sejeants in pre-war TF units where regulars promoted to the rank of WO or C/Sjt and could be from any Regular battalion. often this appointment was their last prior to retirement.

the RA, RE, ASC and AOC would have promoted their WO's from across the Corps and would for technical appointments also depend on the soldiers trade.

I hope this helps.

[momsirish]

Hi: rflory:

I was in a headquarters company our Company First Sergreant had the rank of First Sergeant and had been with the company more than two years, he therefore had both the rank and position at the same time. We had a motorpool Sergeant who also had the rank of a First Sergeant, but not the position as First Sergeant. He was generally referred to as the motorpool sergeant. I believe what the two recruitment officers were referring to is that one has to be appointed to the position, and that person can came from another company or battalion, but not necessarily from the same company.

Now what I would tend to believe there has to be a record of the qualifying (tests etc) for the appointment, and some sort of record of the appointment as First Sergeant of the company besides a record being in the person's military service records. That is a record of the appointment at the source of the appointment. Unfortunately I did not put that question to the recruitment officer.

[momsirish]

Hi: bill24chev:

I had thought that a sergeant in the British Army or any army in the Great War would be promoted to Company Serjeant Major within the same company and battalion as the situation warrented. So it may be permissible to presume that he could have originally enlisted in that regiment, battalion or company. That is if there are no surviving records for that soldier and he were deceased while on duty.. In looking at war diaries we see mention of Officers being promoted, but I have not seen any mention of a Company Sergeant Major getting that rank or position in the few war diaries I've seen

But if the position were attached to the rank I would tend to believe there has to be a record of the qualifying (tests etc) for the appointment, and some sort of record of the appointment as First Sergeant or as Company Serjeant Major besides a record that would have been in the person's military service records. There would be a record of the appointment at the source of the appointment.

What I should be asking is there an Army Personal Office that holds records of promotions and appointments for Regiments, and a set of records at Kew or in the National Archives.

momsirish

[Doc2]

In the US Army (at least in my old branch), there are no tests per se for the assignment to a unit in the duty position of a First Sergeant. There are tests (and other requirements) for promotion to the rank of First Sergeant. But, the two are not connected. You don't need to have the rank of First Sergeant to hold the position of a unit First Sergeant. The position of First Sergeant in a unit is simply a duty position, normally held by the senior NCO assigned to the headquarters unit, ideally a First Sergeant in rank, but not necessarily. Obviously, we want people to have the abilities, background and training to carry out the duties, but there is no duty-position specific testing, and such duties are considered within the capabilities and training of any senior NCO. Training to carry out these tasks is given during the normal NCO Training process, at NCO academies, etc. There is a separate Sergeant's Major Academy which gives training at that level.

You may have gotten different answers from the recruiters based on their own assignment patterns and experience-- not all units have First Sergeants as the duty position for the senior NCO-- for example, at Battalion level, that position is Sergeant-Major (which is also both a duty assignment and a rank, the two of which may not be connected). Assignment as First Sergeant or Sergeant-Major is seen as an important assignment, and people are normally specifically chosen to fill those slots at the Army assignment level. The unit commander may have some input as to who is chosen for the position, especially at the Sergeant Major level. In my units, the Company first sergeant was simply assigned by the Army, without a lot of input by the commander, so a simple assignment. Normally, a Sergeant Major in a unit is assigned to that position by the Army NCO assignment system, without local input-- I understand some branches are managed differently, but I never was asked for input before a new Sergeant Major or First Sergeant was assigned to the unit.

Bottom line-- totally different system.

[bill24chev]

to Momsirish

Hi

For promotion to Sergeant and then to WO in the pre-war regular infantry I believe the only qualifications required was that a soldier had a pass in the education qualification for that rank, basically to be literate & numerate to a standard that they could carry out their duties. They would of course have shown a high degree of ability as an infantry soldier has well.

For the RA, RE etc. skills in gunnery for RA and advanced technical skills such as signaler in the RE would be required for promotion.

In WW1 some SNCO & WO posts would require specialist skills & qualifications gained such as Machine Gun Section Serjeant or the senior scout/sniper. These would have been gained from short courses and experience. Quite often the senior surviving soldier was given the appointment usually with either local or acting rank.

War diaries very rarely give information on other ranks but i would have thought the appointment os a new RSM would have been worth a comment especially if he had some gallantry awards.

in the British army when I served, in the Infantry required passing a JNCO command course for promotion to Corporal and a SNCO command course for promotion to Serjeant. Across the army promotion to Serjeant required a pass in the Military Education Certificate and Trade qualifications and passing leadership/military skills courses in the other arms & corps

Promotion to SSGT, WOII & WOI was by a combination of time served and merit.

[nigelfe]

Given the Brtish regimental system and its application to infantry and cavalry then promotion to SSM/CSM would often be in the same unit - cav regts were always 'one of', pre war inf were basically 2 bns per regt. Given the weeks it took to get to India, then I'd sugges the norm was to promote with the bn. Aimilar arguments can be made for artillery, and while there was much more opportunity for posting on promotion, there was never a bar to a SNCO being promoted to BSM of the same battery.

[Muerrisch]

According to King's Regulations 1912 (amended to 31 Dec 1917) Battery, Squadron, Troop, or Company Serjeant Majors (except Foot Guards or infantry of the line) and Squadron-corporal major (Household Cavalry) are ranks, not appointments. According to the official US Army website 'First Sergeant' is also a rank, rather than an appointment. Dick Flory

Fascinating, and I would love to see a scan, please, of that para/ section of KR as amended.

For completeness, the CSM of infantry was indeed an appointment within the RANK of Colour-Sergeant to begin with, then WO II, as follows

AO 210 July 1914 .........CSM and CQMS shall be appointments ranking as colour-sergeant

KR amended to 1 Aug 1914 para 282 ........... Rank colour-sergeant, appointment CSM and CQMS

AO 70 1915 .............. a new rank of Warrant Officer Class II ............. the following ranks and appointments ............. battery sergeant major .............CSM

This AO 70 cannot seem to make its mind up as to whether we are talking rank AND appointment, or RANK as a class and Appointment as a subset, and I can see why because the overriding principle in KR before and since was that to be appointed was indeed to gain the appropriate rank. However!

AO 174 1915 badges of rank ................ WO II .............. list includes BSM ............CSM crown so clearly the RANK is WO II and the APPOINTMENT within the rank is BSM, CSM etc

AO 309 1918 badges of rank ...............WO II ..................list includes BSM .............CSM crown

KR 1923 para 246 ........... rank .............. WO II ....................appointments include BSM .............CSM

so it would seem that there was a period 1915 to 1917 at least when there was a little confusion over the use of the word "appointment".

To summarise: it was true to say that all CSMs were WO II after AO 70 1915, but not true to say that all WO II were CSMs because many other appointments such as BSM were also WO II.

Or to put it another way, a dog is an animal, a cat is an animal, but a dog is not a cat.

So, I would love to see the 1917 version to fill a gap in the wall.

[rflory]

Attached find Para. 282 of King's Regulations and Orders for the Army 1912 (with amendments published in Army Orders up to 31st December 1917) as it relates to Battery, Squadron, Troop or Company Serjeant Majors. You will notice that under the title "Rank" it states "Squadron-corporal-major (Household Cavalry); or squadron, battery, troop or company-serjeant major (except Foot Guards and infantry of the line); while under appointment it lists those in that rank who are artillery clerks, instructors, photographers or roughriders.

[momsirish]

Given the Brtish regimental system and its application to infantry and cavalry then promotion to SSM/CSM would often be in the same unit - cav regts were always 'one of', pre war inf were basically 2 bns per regt. Given the weeks it took to get to India, then I'd sugges the norm was to promote with the bn. Aimilar arguments can be made for artillery, and while there was much more opportunity for posting on promotion, there was never a bar to a SNCO being promoted to BSM of the same battery.

nigelfe

I had guessed that the pre war situation in India allowed for promotion of ranks within battalions, and possibly the same situation on Gallipoli as well, because of transportation of replacement troops. But as the army grew and the war expanded it seemes that the ablest men might be promoted across battalions in the Western Front. And if a rank was also an appointmet, wouldn't that promotion be aurthorized by Regimental, Division or Corps commands. If that were the case wouldn't there be some record of the promotion in the files of the Regiment, Division or Corps etc that authorised the promotion. That brings up a question of "did Regiment, Division, Corps, Army's records survive better than soldiers service records?

.

[nigelcave]

My grandfather went from private to RQMS, all within 7th Leicesters, during the course of the war. His successor likewise.

[bill24chev]

nigelfe

I had guessed that the pre war situation in India allowed for promotion of ranks within battalions, and possibly the same situation on Gallipoli as well, because of transportation of replacement troops. But as the army grew and the war expanded it seemes that the ablest men might be promoted across battalions in the Western Front. And if a rank was also an appointmet, wouldn't that promotion be aurthorized by Regimental, Division or Corps commands. If that were the case wouldn't there be some record of the promotion in the files of the Regiment, Division or Corps etc that authorised the promotion. That brings up a question of "did Regiment, Division, Corps, Army's records survive better than soldiers service records?

.

nigelfe

I had guessed that the pre war situation in India allowed for promotion of ranks within battalions, and possibly the same situation on Gallipoli as well, because of transportation of replacement troops. But as the army grew and the war expanded it seemes that the ablest men might be promoted across battalions in the Western Front. And if a rank was also an appointmet, wouldn't that promotion be aurthorized by Regimental, Division or Corps commands. If that were the case wouldn't there be some record of the promotion in the files of the Regiment, Division or Corps etc that authorised the promotion. That brings up a question of "did Regiment, Division, Corps, Army's records survive better than soldiers service records?

.

I don't think that promotion and appointments were the responsibility of the operational formations such as Division , Corps( as in ICorps, IICorps etc) etc but of the Regimental/ Corps (as in RE. AOC etc.) Manning & Records Office based in the UK.

With the movement between regiments and corps for manning reinforcement requirements in France & Flanders records may have been a bit confused at times such as in the spring & summer of 1918.

[nigelfe]

Yes, that's my understanding as well, the regimental record offices were the final authority and I don't think the field formation HQs were in the loop. However, I think acting/temp promotion, and in the field that's what would have happened, would have been a decision no higher than the CO, although in the case of artillery and promotion to RSM the CRA may have been involved, because artillery was all one regiment whereas in infantry and cav it would be somewhat unusual for a bde comd to happen to have a bn of his own regt in his bde. Substantitive rank may or may not have followed from the Record Office.

[Muerrisch]

Post #12 may be "wrong" is so far as KR can ever be "wrong".

I have emailed RFlory with some ideas but will wait before I shoot my mouth off.

As an example of "wrong" it has down the page still in group iv) Colour-sergeant and has appointments for that rank as CSM and CQMS, whereas that changed in 1915 with CSM being placed in WO II rank.

More on this after consultation.

[NigelS]

I've posted previously on my grandfather's CSM warrant with the London Rifle Brigade which was issued while he was still serving with the Middlesex Regiment in Egypt, some considerable time before he actually joined the LRB (here & here). His promotion might have come about at a local level, but it seems that his appointment to the LRB must have came from elsewhere

I've wondered whether that this might have been part of a longer term plan to disband the 2/7th Middx on its return to Europe and transfer its members to the LRB rather than just as an 'ad hoc' arrangement brought about by the LRB needing replacements for its 1st Bn Gommecourt losses & the experienced 2/7th Middx men being readily available. (It does make sense - at least to me - to have CSM with a familiar face around when large transfers of men of this type took place). In a letter home my grandfather made these comments:

...the routine of this Battn is different altogether to the Middlesex so it makes things rather awkward for me, I have to be careful how I go about.

...It Comes rather a change doing no instruction for such a long time, still I enjoy it. The handling of rifles, is a drill somewhat different in this rifle regiment to what it is in the infantry, but very easy...

Making a CSM appointment to a different type of regiment (although both TF) - because of, moreso than with officers, the practical hands-on & day to day nature of the CSM role - seem rather strange, although it might be indicative of the need for far greater flexibility (and encouragement of the same) in such matters by that stage in the war.

NigelS

[kevinrowlinson]

With regards posts 12 and 17 it would appear to me that KRs had not been properly amended. The following are those KRs Amendments made before Jan 1918.

Clearly AO 414 of 1916 had made the update.

As regards WO Class II (Grumpy has given the main AO introduction) and the general questions in the thread with regard to promotion to these ranks there are many many AOs and ACIs that would need to be consulted. I posted most for the RA, which include some for the infantry, for promotions and who was responsible, on an earlier thread: http://1914-1918.inv...ic=176097&st=50 . More specifically for the infantry one would have to consult ACIs 288, 1106 and 1592 of 1917, and any earlier ones that may have been published.

For Warrant Officers in AOs (up to Jan 1918) for general interest,

Kevin

[Muerrisch]

I am now sure that I agree with Kevrow that the scan at #12 is wrong, probably the result of clerical error [although, almost by Holy Writ KRs are NEVER wrong!

The mid-and late war RANK structure was , for infantry, at six levels [with other arms in brackets thus, and Household Cavalry excepted]

warrant officer class I RSM, Bandmaster not on active service, Schoolmaster if of sufficient seniority, not on active service.

warrant officer class II RQMS and CSM [and a host of Cavalry, artillery, engineer equivalents, both executive as squadron sergeant-major, battery sergeant-major etc., and many "trades", all badged with a crown as minimum]

colour-sergeant CQMS [and a host of Cavalry, artillery, engineer equivalents, both executive as squadron QMS, battery QMS, staff-sergeant etc,. and many trades, all badged with three chevrons and crown as minimum]

sergeant

corporal corporals could be APPOINTED lance-sergeant [RA had another RANK below corporal level, as did RE]

private privates could be APPOINTED lance-corporal [equivalents to private were: trooper, gunner, driver, sapper, pioneer]

This deliberately avoids complications such as Hse Cavy, and the ramifications of acting-bombardier, but serves, I hope, to show how few RANKS there were in the executive structure.

By 1923 there were:

26 APPOINTMENTS for a WO I

39 for WO II

16 for the colour-sergeant level

all of these with a plethora of "trade" appointments that KR did not reproduce but referred to the Pay warrant.

[kevinrowlinson]

Just out of interest I wonder what AO 279 of 1917 (Warrant Officers; Rank & Status) actually says.

Kevin

[Muerrisch]

I have it and will scan. NOT of consequence to current discussion however.

[Muerrisch]

Herewith

[Ron Clifton]

Hello rflory and Grumpy

Might the "confusion" in post #12 be caused by the fact that the bit starting Squadron Corporal-Major, which clearly has a bracket to the left, is itself a subcategory of the actual "RANK", which would be Staff-Serjeant? There would perhaps also be a RANK of Colour-Serjeant, which would be bracketed to incluide CSM (Foot Guards only)?

Ron

[Muerrisch]

Ron,

RFlory was kind enough to email me the complete page, whereas this thread has only a short part at #12.

The extreme left bracket is the customary over-arching grouping, and prefixed (iv),

whereby the categories i), ii), III, iv) etc are customarily the gradings of NCOs [with a parallel system for the gradings of WO].

This is clearly a wrong grouping index .......... it implies that every RANK in the long bracket [all are at the C-Sgt / staff sgt level] is a lowly fourth in a pecking order, whereas they were first, and indeed this was sorted exactly thus by AO 195/1918.

It would be good to see all of the reference illustrated at #12, which I do not have, the likelihood is that it appeared as item iv) of the WO list, despite being headed NCO and Men.