|
Post by tagg on Dec 3, 2006 20:46:03 GMT -5
I can't seem to find any information in any of my books, nor using any search engines. I've looked at dozens of photos but cannot come up with any conclusive proof either way...
My first question is concerning the rank of Technical Sergeant in the U.S. Army. I was under the impression that the T/Sgt. was a technical grade, and therefore wasn't an NCO. If the T/Sgt. rank doesn't indicate the soldier is an NCO (which I had assumed up till recently), that'd mean that the rank of T/Sgt. would have no rank over privates, corporals, and such (meaning that anyone with the rank of Tsgt. couldn't order anyone around). Can anyone shed some light on this subject?
The second question has to do with the 5 cell 20 round Thompson magazine pouches. We all know that the paratroopers rigged them on their chests in some instances, but I was curious about the infantry. I can't think of any reason why the infantry soldiers (being the resourceful Americans they were) wouldn't have done the same thing that their airborne counterparts did. All the same, I cannot find any photos with an infantry soldier carrying the 5 cells on his chest. Did they prefer attaching them to their pistol belts for some reason?
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by mauser98k on Dec 3, 2006 21:28:56 GMT -5
Technical sergeant isn't a tech 1/2/3 etc. Or at least I thought that. I am pretty sure you are an NCO when you are a technical sergeant.
|
|
|
Post by Gordak on Dec 3, 2006 21:34:57 GMT -5
tech Sgt is a real Sgt.
yeah i noticed also that really only airbone wore the 5 cell sideways on the chest. I think the reason for this is, with their entrenching tool on their belt, airborne guys had no room for a 5 cell. But also Airborne guys were clearly allowed to go outside regulations with how they wore their stuf, (IE extra pockets, rigger made stuff etc)
I would strongly discourage any non airborne impression wearing the 5 cell sideways on the chest, it would look very wrong in my mind, though I cant just outright prove im right.
good question! -Gordak
|
|
|
Post by tagg on Dec 3, 2006 21:38:02 GMT -5
Thanks for the quick responses Mauser and Gordak! They were the answers I was looking for, many thanks!
|
|
|
Post by 101steasykid on Dec 3, 2006 21:38:47 GMT -5
Well the airborne was suspose to be ready to jump and fight. They had many things the normal infantry man didnt have. Riggered pouches for carbines and m1's to carry extra ammo. The were suspose to have more gear, since they were suspose to be surrounded, instead of attack from a certain flank. The normal infantry man didnt have to jump from planes, so they didnt need everything with them. For paratroopers, it just was more convinent.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 4, 2006 0:43:52 GMT -5
The technical rank system of WW2 is confusing but I'll try to clarify it as best I can. A technician 5th grade looked like a corporal with two stripes and a rocker shaded area with a "T" in the center. a Technician 4th Grade looked like a buck Sgt with a dark rocker below and a "T" in the center a technician 3rd Grade looked like a staff sgt (Three up and one down) with a "T" in the center. Their enlisted pay grades were E-3, E-4 and E-5 so they were paid the same as a corporal, buck sgt and staff sgt. Thet did NOT have command authority in accodance to the strictest letter of military intent. Hence a private first class E-2 could give orders to a technician 3rd grade E-5 !
In reality it varied from unit to unit practice somewhat often dependant on the type of unit. An engineer company operated quite differently then an Infantry company for example.
An E-7 which today is called a Sgt 1st Class was called a Technical Sgt in WW2. He was an NCO and did have command authority in fact this was the rank commonly assigned as a Platoon sgt. This rank is completely seperate from the technician GRADE system. The whole intent was to reward a technically competent person with a trade such as a radio man, medical specialist, interpreter, lineman, driver, engineer etc who might be serving direct support or right along with a combat unit. Though higer in pay grade it didn't make them a competent tactician. This was the theory and intent. In practice it really varied. Also technician 3rd grade exersized authority over the technicians 4th and 5th grade whether it was officially granted or not.
Does that clear it up?
|
|
|
Post by tagg on Dec 4, 2006 22:33:59 GMT -5
Quite, thanks very much 101st and 2nd Bat. I guess it was the word technical that screwed up my thought process. I believe I have been set straight now, thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by Guinness on Dec 5, 2006 22:42:40 GMT -5
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 6, 2006 0:14:28 GMT -5
That was the theory during the vietnam war and all the way up to current times when specialist ranks are still part of the force structure. During Vietnam a Sp-4 was an E-4 and supposedly without rank authority. In practice he was higher in grade and authority within the Infantry squad then a PFC (E-3) or a private E-1 or E-2. If however a corporal was assigned (seldom happened) the corporal though an E-4 as well had command authority. usually if you thought a SP-4 deserved a command position and he had decent time in rank you promoted him to Buck Sgt. E-5.
So in Vietnam (I'll bet today as well) the army has the specialist ranks but they really don't mean anything different then the normal enlisted grades. A good concept, executed poorly or not at all. I must say getting back on the original question that going to Platoon Sgt or Sgt 1st Class was a good move on the armies part toward avoiding the confusion.
|
|