Muerrisch Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 How about "Warrant Officers outrank all NCOs" Lets not get excited but save our breath to cool our porridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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? 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 More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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? 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Sorry Andrew, I am not meaning to be obtuse/awkward. What's the exact question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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... 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 More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 I believe it was Laurie King who had something to say about insults and arguments... 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 More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 11 August , 2015 Share Posted 11 August , 2015 Intriguing thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 15 August , 2015 Share Posted 15 August , 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkerman Posted 18 August , 2015 Share Posted 18 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Muerrisch Posted 18 August , 2015 Share Posted 18 August , 2015 The lack of Overseas chevrons says no to that attractive proposition. A sports team [XI] Pub quiz victors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgibson150 Posted 18 August , 2015 Share Posted 18 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
ghchurcher Posted 18 August , 2015 Share Posted 18 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Stoppage Drill Posted 19 August , 2015 Share Posted 19 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 19 August , 2015 Share Posted 19 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
Gareth Davies Posted 19 August , 2015 Share Posted 19 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 19 August , 2015 Share Posted 19 August , 2015 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 More sharing options...
PhilB Posted 19 August , 2015 Share Posted 19 August , 2015 The lack of any 14 or 14/15 star ribbons sets a "not after" date? Probably 1920. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now