Warrant Officers
Warrant Officers
Posted on Apr 1, 2021
Should the Army rename its Warrant Officer ranks?
11.8K
54
37
3
3
0
Is it just me or are the Army Warrant Ranks the least creative in regard to naming? W....1,2,3,4,5. What are your thoughts on maybe renaming them to show progression? Example: W-1: Warrant Officer, W-2; Warrant Officer First Class, W-3: Chief Warrant Officer, W-4: Senior Chief Warrant Officer, W-5: Master Chief Warrant Officer. That's my rough cut, any Warrants out there with an opinion? Or is the current rank structure good as is? Just curious...
Posted in these groups: 
Warrant Officers
Warrant Officers
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 15
13
13
0
8
8
0
SFC Michael Hasbun
MAJ (Join to see) - that's...not a joke. That really is the WO superhero origin story.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Yea, the whole way the Army incorporates Warrants into the system has been diluted more and more over the years.
They use to wear the Eagle and Wreath on the ASU's, and they simplified the rank insignia as much as they could. The Navy/USMC still separate out WO1-CW2 with GOLD, and CW3-5 with SILVER. Same with the Service Cap. The Navy/USMC Warrants have their own Service Cap, and now Army Warrants use the Company Officer Service Cap.
On the surface it looks like Army warrants are being diluted into the Commission Officer ranks.
Example............
If a Navy Warrant was in full fancy dress white uniform you could tell he was a warrant at 50 yards standing next to an Ensign in the same whites.
Could you tell me you can tell the difference between a Army Warrant standing next to a 2LT in their Blue ASU at 50 yards? They have the same cap, I don't think you can make out the rank on the shoulder boards. Save for the ribbon rack which would be speculation, because the 2LT could still be a mustang.
*****
I get a sense (from being around a lot of warrants, I rated 4 of them at one time) they have their own culture they have been holding onto this whole time, but as the Army dilutes them more and more that sense of exclusivity is being lost to those outside their circle.
A Private will be scared of a SGT much differently than they would be a MSG or higher, and with good reason. That same Private would be scared of a LT differently than they would be a COL for those same good reasons.
I'm not saying Privates are disrespecting Warrants, but when a CW2 steps into the room verses a CW4+, from their perspective (that I've observed) it's not anything more special. They have to salute them all the same like they would an LT, but they aren't shaking in their boots like a CSM just walked in, or hoping the COL returns their snappy salute.
I think this is a byproduct of the Army's institutional dilution of Warrants.
They use to wear the Eagle and Wreath on the ASU's, and they simplified the rank insignia as much as they could. The Navy/USMC still separate out WO1-CW2 with GOLD, and CW3-5 with SILVER. Same with the Service Cap. The Navy/USMC Warrants have their own Service Cap, and now Army Warrants use the Company Officer Service Cap.
On the surface it looks like Army warrants are being diluted into the Commission Officer ranks.
Example............
If a Navy Warrant was in full fancy dress white uniform you could tell he was a warrant at 50 yards standing next to an Ensign in the same whites.
Could you tell me you can tell the difference between a Army Warrant standing next to a 2LT in their Blue ASU at 50 yards? They have the same cap, I don't think you can make out the rank on the shoulder boards. Save for the ribbon rack which would be speculation, because the 2LT could still be a mustang.
*****
I get a sense (from being around a lot of warrants, I rated 4 of them at one time) they have their own culture they have been holding onto this whole time, but as the Army dilutes them more and more that sense of exclusivity is being lost to those outside their circle.
A Private will be scared of a SGT much differently than they would be a MSG or higher, and with good reason. That same Private would be scared of a LT differently than they would be a COL for those same good reasons.
I'm not saying Privates are disrespecting Warrants, but when a CW2 steps into the room verses a CW4+, from their perspective (that I've observed) it's not anything more special. They have to salute them all the same like they would an LT, but they aren't shaking in their boots like a CSM just walked in, or hoping the COL returns their snappy salute.
I think this is a byproduct of the Army's institutional dilution of Warrants.
(5)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Interesting points. Now that CW3-CW5 are considered Field Grade Warrant Officers, there should be a shift in expectations, utilization, and respect. Not just simply a housing upgrade. I know when I'm speaking to a CW4 or CW5, I tend to listen more intently due to their vast experience and the way they tend to communicate when compared to a WO1-CW3.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) It certainly seems to be what you are saying, in regards to the "dilution". WOCS and WOBC "core" training is VERY generic "Officer" stuff (MDMP, working groups, etc) and the "Warrant" stuff (aside from the history of WO lesson) is what you pull from the TAC/ACE in conversation/outside of course material when you are close enough to graduation that they open up.
WOCS was very heavy on the leadership and how Warrant Officers now are true leaders and need to be out front, present, leading the same way as the Commissioned Officers do.
I disagree though (please don't crush me Rallypoint people, keep reading), but not in that WOs aren't leaders, but in the way that we lead. We lead through expertise, the behind the scenes, person that produces results, being the example of innovation, outside the box thinking, not strict on doctrine but using it as left and right limits. That's why we have the WO, to be an expert in a specific field. If we needed just another XX Branch planner then it would be a regular Officer
There is the same type of "slowly forced change" in SOF these days, we call it conventionalization as powers that be try to make the ARSOF MOS' more "conventional" in everything they do.
WOCS was very heavy on the leadership and how Warrant Officers now are true leaders and need to be out front, present, leading the same way as the Commissioned Officers do.
I disagree though (please don't crush me Rallypoint people, keep reading), but not in that WOs aren't leaders, but in the way that we lead. We lead through expertise, the behind the scenes, person that produces results, being the example of innovation, outside the box thinking, not strict on doctrine but using it as left and right limits. That's why we have the WO, to be an expert in a specific field. If we needed just another XX Branch planner then it would be a regular Officer
There is the same type of "slowly forced change" in SOF these days, we call it conventionalization as powers that be try to make the ARSOF MOS' more "conventional" in everything they do.
(4)
(0)
WO1 (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see) - yes it was.... As a W1 i want to a coast Guard Base and my Rank is similar to a subdued CW3. Our Ranks looks more identifiable in subdued
(1)
(0)
MAJ Ronnie Reams
So MacNamara's morons could count on their fingers to figure out the rank. Part of the dumming down of the Army. With comic books for maintenance folks, PM maybe, been a while. FMs, TMs, etc., at 8th grade level. Embarrassing time for the Army.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google