Talk:Warrant officer

Military history: Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / European / North America / Southeast Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force
	British military history task force
	Canadian military history task force
	European military history task force
	North American military history task force
	Southeast Asian military history task force

Good article! :)) F. Lee Horn

Picture need an update

The US Army CW5 ranks have recently been updated. The rank in the picture is the old Master Warrent Officer 4 rank that the Army was using until the supply ran out and issuing of the current CW5 rank began, which occured withen the last several months (I believe as of june or july, 2004). The new CW5 rank has a solid stripe down the center of the silver bar, much like the picture of the Marine Corps rank.

This discussion topic has been incorporated into the article.

Detachment

The link to detachment takes the reader to a page about Zen Buddhist philosophy. Something tells me that is not what the author had in mind, and a disambiguation is in order. --69.245.192.52 05:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

US enlisted ranks

Why is there a U.S. enlisted military rank chart on the Warrant Officer article? Any objections to me removing it? --Easter Monkey 09:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the hope that one day the Air Force will come back with the program and pay the Airman who fill "specialized"careerfields what they are actually worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.92.79 (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Armed Forces Warrant Ranks

The Australian Army has three Warrant Ranks - see the article 'The Three Warrants' at http://www.defence.gov.au/news/armynews/editions/1087/topstories/story16.htm. I have edited the Australian Army entry to reflect this.

Although the Chief Petty Officer and Flight Sergeant ranks equate to the army rank of Warrant Officer Class Two (WO2) in the Australian Armed Forces, CPO and FSgt are classified as non-commissioned officers rather than warrant officers[User: LONDON 19.05.06]

Navy Pictures

The obsolete US Navy WO-1 rank was a quarter-inch stripe with three blue tabs, while the WO-2 rank is a half-inch stripe with three blue tabs. On this page, the two are reversed.

Air Force Warrant Officer?

I remember reading once that there is a provision in regs that allows a CO to Brevent a Senior enlistedman to the rank WO1. Is there any merit to this? Keeperoftheseal 22:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean U.S., U.K., Aus? --Easter Monkey 11:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keeperoftheseal (talk • contribs) 22:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The US Air Force did away with the pre-Army split Warrant Officer program with the promotion of Chuck YEAGER to Captain. They do not now have a Warrant Officer program.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON[reply]

ADF WO

I concur with the statement that the RAN and RAAF each have only 1 WO rank other than WO-N and WOFF-AF. That they are now equal in pay grade and seniority to WO2 in the Army, does NOT mean that CPO and FSGT are WO ranks - there are many differences in their rights and privileges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief of the Naval Stuff (talk • contribs)

British Warrant Officers

Although WOs are the senior non-commissioned ranks in the British Armed Forces, they are not Senior NCOs. I have therefore changed 'NCO' to 'non-commissioned rank'.--LONDON 18:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terms of address:

Aren't British warrant officers addressed as 'Staff' by subordinates? i.e "Yes Staff!" -- maxrspct ping me 23:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, British Warrant Officers (OR8 and OR9) are addressed as 'Sir' by subordinates. Staff Sergeants (OR7)are addressed as 'Staff'--81.145.240.233 16:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United States

This portion of the article is very disjointed and sounds very Navy-centric. I will try and come back to make a coherent history and description of Warrant Officers in the United States. (Born2flie 01:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

CWO program

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the article was not merged. --Born2flie 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the wikilink to Chief Warrant Officer because the link leads to the Canadian rank. In the US Armed Forces, the term "Chief Warrant Officer" applies to any warrant officer W-2 and above. Since the US Navy (unlike the other forces) has no W-1 grade, all Navy Warrant Officers are Chief Warrant Officers. Thus, the program leading to becoming a NAvy Warrant Officer is the Chief Warrant Officer Program. In conclusion, no wikilink is available or needed in this instance. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question is mirrored within this document. The term Chief Warrant Officer is not exclusive to Canadian services and really doesn't deserve special treatment of having its own article. The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard use the term exclusively to refer to their Warrants, and while the Canadian CWO is an NCO, the Warrant Officer article should serve as enough disambiguation. I am recommending that the CWO article be merged into the Warrant Officer article until a better, more fair solution can be found. (Born2flie 05:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I created the Chief Warrant Officer, Master Warrant Officer, and Warrant Officer (rank) articles because I wanted to differentiate the specific ranks of CWO, MWO, and WO from the group of ranks called "Warrant Officer" in Canada (it's an unfortunate ambiguity in Canada that, for example, while all Chief Warrant Officers are Warrant Officers, not all Warrant Officers are Chief Warrant Officers).

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make WRT USN and USCG: Canadian Warrant Officers are not NCOs; only sergeants and corporals are. Canadian Warrant Officers hold a warrant, altho' they usually do not get awarded their particular Warrant Scrip until they get promoted to CWO.

I would respectfully oppose a merge back into "warrant officer"; the article (IMO) is getting too big and unwieldy as it is. I would prefer to pare the Canada entry down even futher, just listing the ranks and insignia, all other details to be indicated with the particular rank. The reason there is some duplication here is because someone already tried to merge Warrant Officer (rank) here, and has now caused some confusion between the WO (as a rank) and WO (as a rank grouping). I would have no opposition to expanding the CWO and MWO articles to include identically-titled ranks in other countries (e.g. isn't a US Army CWO5 called an MWO?). We have separate article pages on the multi-national Staff Sergeant, for example — I don't think that article should be merged back into Sergeant; nor do I think that the Sergeant and Corporal articles should all be merged back into Non-commissioned officer. --SigPig 11:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider moving all the ranks into a new page, such as Warrant Officer (Canadian Forces), then adding a {{main|Warrant Officer (Canadian Forces)}} in the Warrant Officer page? This has a benefit of grouping similar ideas which ordinarily be short articles by themselves. The duplicated information can be taken out and grouped together to get a tighter, more concise single article. --Rifleman 82 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SigPig, I agree that the article is overly lengthy in its attempt to cover all Warrant Officer ranks. I don't think that accomodating all CWO ranks in the same article will be any less clumsy or confusing than the current article. I'm inclined to agree with Rifleman that, a page title that distinguishes the Canadian Forces' CWO from any other CWO without monopolizing the actual CWO term, seems like it would be the most fair option.

Ultimately, I think that CWO, Chief Warrant Officer, WO, Warrant Officer should all link to the generic, unwieldy, one-size doesn't quite fit all article that we currently have and that we should then break off each specific country's treatment of the ranks with Rifleman's recommendation ("Chief Warrant Officer (Country)") for naming of the specific articles. I agree that the CF CWO deserves special treatment as a rank apart from CWO as a group of ranks, but like I said, I think it should do so without monopolizing the CWO designation for Wikipedia purposes.

CW5 is not an MWO. Prior to the establishment of the CW5 rank, certain CWOs were selected as Master Warrant Officers and referred to as MW4 to distinguish the rank and its positions and responsibilities from the CW4 rank, but "MWO" was never used as a designation. It was a shortcut and precursor to the actual CW5 rank. All MW4s were promoted to CW5 upon creation of the rank, IIRC.

WRT CF CWOs vs. USA CWOs; USA CWOs are officers, junior in rank but usually with more experience than the officers they work for. In the USN/USCG, the CWO messes with the officers. This seemed significantly different from your description of the CF CWO who messes with other Warrants and the NCOs. Hope I haven't continued to confuse the differences. (Born2flie 09:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

No response? (Born2flie 00:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I agree that the generic Warrant Officer article should remain but with cross-references to specific WO ranks and country i.e. Warrant Officer (UK), Warrant Officer (US) etc. And yes, Canadian CWOs are senior non-commissioned ranks who mess with more junior WO ranks and Sergeants. --LONDON 15:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long to reply. I have no problem "sharing" the CWO article. In the CF, CWO is a specific rank, in the US CWO is a group; the similarity is the (abiguous) Canadian WO, which is both a group of NCM ranks (between NCO and Officer), as well as a constituent rank thereof. Warrant Officer (rank), the article about the single rank, can be shared with any other force that has an identically named rank -- like Australia, f'rinstance, or the singular WO rank in the Warrant Officer should deal with Warrant Officers as a group, analogous to flag officer or non-commissioned officer.

I believe each rank should have its own article. There is no reason why the Warrant Officer (rank) and Chief Warrant Officer articles cannot have additional non-Cdn info added -- just as I have added Canadian content to other rank articles: sometimes as a sentence or two, or sometimes as its own section. Then I can add the "Ranks of the CF" category at the bottom.

Basically, I'm saying share the articles. Heck, if any other country is silly enough to create a rank of Master Corporal, they should add the info to the Master Corporal page. --SigPig 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm being obtuse in explaining how the title of the article, "Chief Warrant Officer", intended to apply solely to one rank from the military service of a single country is misleading for anyone who is searching for anything other than the Canadian Forces rank of Chief Warrant Officer. As opposed to a specific title that is unambiguous and unable to be confused with anything else, such as "Chief Warrant Officer (CF)" or "Chief Warrant Officer (rank)". Why should people have to "share" the article when we already have a confusing article just pertaining to the term Warrant Officer based on "sharing"? I recommend that the page "Chief Warrant Officer" be moved to "Chief Warrant Officer (rank)" and the former be redirected to the general Warrant Officer page. If the solution worked for "Warrant Officer (rank)", I don't understand why you won't follow the same logic for "Chief Warrant Officer"? (Born2flie 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was the section was split out. --Born2flie 19:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split

I have recommended that the entire United States section be split into a new article titled Warrant Officer (United States). My reasons for suggesting this is that there are a number of edits in the history which suggest that people do not understand the difference between the rank as established in the United States military and the militaries of the other countries which utilize similarly named ranks. Separating the section to its own article with {{For|Warrant Officers in the United States military|Warrant Officer (United States)}} at the beginning of the article to serve as disambiguation. --Born2flie 05:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully concur. Our Warrant Officers fill a vastly different role than the "Warrant's" of other militaries. I think after a split, there should still be a section that summarizes, and links to the new Warrant Officer (United States) article. I'd do it, but don't know how...I say Born2 be BOLD. —Andrew 05:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. I recently had occasion to speak to an Australian WO in Afghanistan, and the concept of a Warrant Officer as used in the United States, is completely alien to them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.208.182.210 (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

However British Warrant Officers often have a role which is similar to that of a WO in the US Army and broader than that of a US Senior NCO - e.g pilot, senior ammunition technician, Foreman of Signals (communications expert), Bandmaster, Special Investigation Branch WO (i.e. military police). British WOs holding these appointments will be technical experts in their field.

Interesting also to note the Australian WO2 (same rank as in the British Army) who served with the US Marines in Iraq in the role of 'Gunner' (US Chief Warrant Officer):

(link to article below:)

http://members.tripod.com/sitrep1/cav28h.htm --LONDON 07:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I'm not sure about the statement that a ship's sailing master outranked a lieutenant, especially since there were usually a number of lieutenants of differing seniority on board an English ship, say in the napoleonic era. The sailing master would, surely, have had more weight in areas relating to navigation, but in most other areas of the ship, a lieutenant, especially a first lieutenant, would have been greatly senior. A sailing master could be commanded by a lieutenant certainly, but the other way around would not have been allowed. If anyone had any comments on this I will refrain from editing the passage for a while but if not I'll re-do it shortly. InconX 13:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about Warrant Officer Status

Warrant Officers are NOT "essentially very senior enlisted", they are a special rank structure unto themselves; They were enlisted, but by skill, knowledge, and exprience are promoted to limited duty officers. Repeating this ancient prejudice that they're "not really o's" is both disrespectfull and detrimental to their service.Andering J. REDDSON (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON (who has served under, but never been, a Warrant Officer)[reply]

In the British and Commonwealth Armies, Warrant Officers are senior enlisted ranks. The US Warrant Officer rank is covered in a separate article. --92.16.21.42 (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WO (ATC)

Is the bit about the coat of arms only able to be re-introduced if WOs became VR(T) both (a) True and (b) actually correct? I've never heard from any official source that the coat of arms can never again be allowed to be held by WOs (ATC), although of course it isn't at the moment, or that the coat of arms would be worn by VR(T) Warrant Officers. Can anyone suggest a good reason not to delete this bit?Jellyfish dave (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CWO (CCF)

Can someone provide evidence that CWOs are addressed as Sir/Ma'am by subordinates? I was always under the impression that CCF CWOs are adressed in the same manner as ATC CWOs.Jellyfish dave (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Having done a bit of research, ACP 31/5 states that CCF CWOs are adressed as Warrant Officer in the same way as ATC ones. Jellyfish dave (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom section split tag

(No rational given for split-section tag. - BillCJ (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose - I don't believe that splitting off the UK section from the rest of this article is a good idea. From the Lead: This article has a focus on Warrant Officers in the United Kingdom (and in nations whose military tradition derives from it) This includes not just the UK setion that has been tagged, but the Hisotry section that details the use of WOs in the RN, with brief coverage of historical WOs in other British services. Separating the current usage section from the Historical would distrub the relationship between the two sections, even though they are separated. Because of this, it might be better to move the current UK section to come right after the History, and place the other nations listed under a "Commonwealth" section. All the Commonwealth nations listed have WOs based on the same histroical tradition as the UK, and so I don't think splitting these nations out would be workable either. Each section is too short to make a good article, and putting them in one article really doesn't help either, as it separates them from the shared history of the RN. Finally, at 37kb, the article is not that long. - BillCJ (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New South African Warrant Officer Ranks

The level 1 - 4 appointments for Warrant Officers were replaced by new substantive ranks on 1st June 2008:

Master Chief Warrant Officer (formerly level 1)
Senior Chief Warrant Officer (formerly level 2)
Chief Warrant Officer (formerly level 3)
Master Warrant Officer (formerly level 4A)
Senior Warrant Officer (formerly level 4)

The WO1 and WO2 ranks remain as before.

http://www.dcc.mil.za/bulletins/Files/2008/61bulletin2008.pdf

See also 'South African Soldier, September 2008, page 17 http://www.dcc.mil.za/sasoldier/2008/Sep2008.pdf --92.8.106.152 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]