Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

What could this Group be?


jim.hood

Recommended Posts

Andrew if you deleted "most" above we could agree.

Other than in Foot Guards [where Colour-sergeants are addressed as "Sir"] the WO II is the lowest rank to attract a sir.

I am sure that you know all this, but there are others who may read this who must not be misinformed.

I am pretty sure that in the QDG SSgts are called Sir by those more junior. And the very same SSgts are called Sgt Major rather than Staff by those more senior. I guess that the tradition came from an antecedent Regiment and probably dates back to before the Great War.

So, in five words or less, what is correct? :whistle:

In five words or fewer I would refer to him and others of his rank as a Warrant Officer or WO (pronounced Wo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew if you deleted "most" above we could agree.

Other than in Foot Guards [where Colour-sergeants are addressed as "Sir"] the WO II is the lowest rank to attract a sir.

I am sure that you know all this, but there are others who may read this who must not be misinformed.

I am confused now - I used "most" precisely because I could see, in true British army tradition, there was bound to be an exception to the rule somewhere. That appears to support that. Is that not therefore the classic definition of most? :huh:

In five words or fewer I would refer to him and others of his rank as a Warrant Officer or WO (pronounced Wo).

But that doesn't answer my question now does it... :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Andrew, I am not meaning to be obtuse/awkward. What's the exact question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but it is still the easiest way to describe it for all practical purposes. Above most true NCO's but still below most ordinary commisioned officers.

The way to describe it is as it is, a WO. "If it walks like a duck", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Andrew, I am not meaning to be obtuse/awkward. What's the exact question?

The way to describe it is as it is, a WO. "If it walks like a duck", etc.

The easiest way to describe it for all practical purposes in the wider scale of British army ranking - simply naming it for what it is does not do that. If someone asks what a Warrant Officer is, saying he is a Warrant Officer doesn't really cut the mustard....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The easiest way to describe it for all practical purposes in the wider scale of British army ranking - simply naming it for what it is does not do that.

You can play semantics all you like, the fact remains that a WO is not a NCO and never has been. Indeed the rank was specifically introduced to elevate the holders above NCO, for which purpose they were awarded a parchment Warrant that explicitly sets them above those below who hold no such document.

If you had ever served in uniform and had to wend your way up the slippery, greasy pole, you might have a better appreciation of the difference. The dressing up box, though commendable for enthusiastic historians, is not at all the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A warrant officer (WO) is an officer in a military organisation who is designated an officer by a warrant, as distinguished from a commissioned officer who is designated an officer by a commission, and a non-commissioned officer who is designated an officer, often by virtue of seniority.

Despite the clear distinction in status the fact remains though, whether WOs like it or not, they are officers who do not hold a commission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can play semantics all you like, the fact remains that a WO is not a NCO and never has been. Indeed the rank was specifically introduced to elevate the holders above NCO, for which purpose they were awarded a parchment Warrant that explicitly sets them above those below who hold no such document.

If you had ever served in uniform and had to wend your way up the slippery, greasy pole, you might have a better appreciation of the difference. The dressing up box, though commendable for enthusiastic historians, is not at all the same thing.

I believe it was Laurie King who had something to say about insults and arguments... :thumbsup:

If there is a suitable shorthand alternative that captures the reality absolutely 100% accurately then I will happily adopt it. As it is I still have not seen one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was Laurie King who had something to say about insults and arguments... :thumbsup:

If there is a suitable shorthand alternative that captures the reality absolutely 100% accurately then I will happily adopt it. As it is I still have not seen one.

How about WO. Isn't that short enough? It is the accurate collective term...... in "shorthand".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoffrey

Amazing to find another photograph of the same officer. Do you know the subject group of the photograph in posts #30 and #31?

David

Hi David I have several hundred photos of TC members but pinning them down to a unit is not easy. I have been working my way through the Bovington battalion boxes trying to allocate them to one battalion or another. He appears on several group photos as he is distinctive - these are I think very late 1918 or even early 1919. This photo was in a directory that contained photos labelled up to 5th and 14th Battalions, but this photo in particular is not marked. The senior officer, and several of the seated officers are however familiar so when I am in the right place to access the info I will try to home in on them first as that is usually the easiest way. Geoffrey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David I have several hundred photos of TC members but pinning them down to a unit is not easy. I have been working my way through the Bovington battalion boxes trying to allocate them to one battalion or another. He appears on several group photos as he is distinctive - these are I think very late 1918 or even early 1919. This photo was in a directory that contained photos labelled up to 5th and 14th Battalions, but this photo in particular is not marked. The senior officer, and several of the seated officers are however familiar so when I am in the right place to access the info I will try to home in on them first as that is usually the easiest way. Geoffrey

Your photo of the WO shows particularly clearly that his cap badge is markedly smaller than the other Tank Corps men who accompany him. Andrew makes a good point about the visible voids or apertures in the lower part of the badge, although I cannot see the tank shape that he mentions, on my small screen.

Looking at TF and specifically yeomanry badges the only contender I can find that matches the apparent overall shape and size and contains voids in approximately the appropriate places, is the Queen's Own Worcestershire Hussars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Geoffrey for the background. I realise how difficult it is.

Would it be possible for you to send me the full photograph of posts #'s 30,31? I could send you a PM with my e-mail address if you agree.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, sure no problem. Frosmile's suggestion is a possibility though an MIC search for men with both TC & QOWH does not throw up and obvious candidates. As he says, the badge is much smaller, and I just do not buy its a bent normal TC badge. If it is a TC badge then it is a collar, though I cannot see the tank profile referred to, and at least we have a clear example on the same photo of an officer wearing a collar as a cap badge - so its not unheard of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ease of refernce I am reposting the photograph in post #1.

George Teece is in the back row third from the left and seems to be wearing a medal ribbon above his left pocket.The serjeant leftmost on the front row seems to be wearing the same ribbon.

Could it be that that these ribbons are a Croix de Guerre (of some sort). This would narrow down the possibilities for identifying the serjeant leftmost in the front row.As far as I know the only medal George Teece was awarded was the Croix de Guerre,

To explain further, I think a croix de guerre ribbon would not show up very well on its own in black and white (being green and red stripes) but I think bright spot in the centre, on the photograph is to do with the related pin, maybe silver gilt or polished bronze, which signifies the level of the award.

David

post-108666-0-79132100-1439669140_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 x WO2, 3 sergeants, 5 Corporals, 2 Privates [one with three wound stripes]. It is an odd grouping, and clearly many have badges that show that they are veterans. Unlike so many group photos, the group is 'top heavy' with NCOs. The composition reminds me of the photo of 2 RWF 'those who landed in France in 1914' taken in 1918. it is a small group.

Might this be the same sort of thing - the old originals who survived?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grumpy

Are we looking at the same photograph?

Isn't Inkerman's "wound stripes" in fact "overseas chevrons"? I can only see maybe two wound stripes, one at either end of the front row. You are right that there are not many overseas chevrons.but, apart from the private, the back row can't be assessed.

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not so sure the overseas chevron point holds though. You can only see the sleeve of the back row left chap, who has overseas chevrons. Not everyone chose to wear them, the front right Corporal has none but sports a wound stripe and either an MM ribbon, or perhaps a CdG ribbon. The guy front left also does not have them but appears to also be sporting a CdG ribbon and a wound stripe. The only guy with no evidence of overseas service is the subject WO seated in the middle !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could this photo be a tank crew plus ?

9 Bn had MkV's at the time, I am pretty certain. How many men were required to crew one ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eight in a Mk V crew.

I know of at least 4 tanks from 9th Bn that were crewed by SNCOs in 1918.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Croix de Guerre recipients in 9th Bn were:

Sergeant S Bonnett

C Chew

G Shearer

B C O’Kelly

Corporals A G Skye

A Pollard

W Stephenson

W Roberts

A Melf (?)

Privates G F Hall

A Philpot

R Wright

A Blurton

F Waston

H Hazelby

J Cowie

C Whittaker

P Boxall

G Leece

Medaille Militaire recipients were:

Sergeants W Clegg

S Marsh

H W Taylor

Corporals C J W Howlett

T Lane

J C Colton

L L Morgan

Privates P B Driffield

J C Spindler

L Ogden

T Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WO2 appears to me to have a 'superior cloth' (of officer quality) 02 SD jacket with neatly 'cut' collar and mitred cuffs, these were sometimes seen on warrant officers 2, but were not obligatory and had to be paid for by the man himself. The photo definitely has celebratory 'thank God we survived' connotations I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...