Need some aid on US Army Org small units

[lcm1947]

Ok thanks Michael and Dandelion. So if I am understanding this an appointment is not a rank but just a temporary position given to an individual for whatever reason. Now if this is correct I can't imagine why this would take place but if it does I guess it does but I sure don't think it happens in the US army or at less they failed to inform me when I was in 100 years ago.

[Michael Dorosh]

It absolutely does happen in the US Army. Every position in the Army is really an "appointment". Take Company First Sergeant. You don't get promoted to this "rank", you get appointed into the job - your rank is a secondary consideration, really, and you are given just enough to be able to perform your duties effectively. In this case, you would be the highest ranking NCO in the company as befits the duties of the Company First Sergeant. Wish I could give better US examples but I have a feeling they would be false.

In the British/Canadian armies, a Company Quartermaster Sergeant always wore the rank insignia of a Staff Sergeant - three chevrons and a crown. But he was referred to as CQMS, CQ for short, etc. His job was to keep the company supplied, in action and out of action. He was the only man in the company to hold the rank of staff sergeant. No one else would be "promoted" to staff sergeant, they would be promoted to higher rank ONLY if there was a job open for them in that rank - in other words, a vacant appointment.

If you are a platoon sergeant, for example, and the CQMS is killed, you might be selected to replace him. You would be promoted staff sergeant (or made acting staff sergeant) and put in place as the CQMS.

At no time would you ever be a platoon sergeant holding the rank of staff sergeant. They just wouldn't do that. Not for merit, not if you had three VCs. Rank and job went hand in hand.

Likewise, the CQMS would never, ever be anything but a staff sergeant (unless it was a lower rank "acting" as CQMS).

Confused yet?

[YankeeDog]

To expand a bit on what Mr. Dorosh has said -

In WWII, a U.S. infantry officer with the rank of Captain in command of his own unit would typically be a Company Commander.

There are many other positions that might be held by a Captain, though.

For example, a Captain might be attached to Divisional HQ as an aide to the Divisional Commander.

In these two examples, the rank is exactly equal. The "Appointments," though, are different. One Captain is "Commander, X Coy, X Battalion, XXX Regiment, XX Division." The other a member of "Divisional HQ Staff, XX Division," perhaps with a more specific title depending on his responsibilities within the Divisional Staff.

In order to gain breadth of experience and improve their chances of promotion, career military officers generally try to balance appointments to positions that allow them to be Commander of a specific unit (Ex: The Captain commanding a Company), and serving as Assistants or Staff Officers of larger unit HQs. You're unlikely to eventually get the chance to command your own division if you've never served as a member of a divisional staff at some point in your career. Conversely, you've also unlikely to get a divisional command if you've spent all your time in staff appointments and have never commanded a unit of your own. In this way, Appointments and Rank affect each other - if you haven't fulfilled an appropriate variety of Apppointments (and done well in them), you probably won't get promoted. And if you don't have the appropriate rank, you're unlikely to get appointed to a given position, except in emergency situations.

At least, in theory that's how it's supposed to work. There were many exceptions due to necessity, bureaucratic randomness, and occasionally inappropriate favoritism or bias.

Back to the "Class of '28er" issue: I did discover in my research that Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, was a member of West Point class of 1828. It might be possible that "Class of '28er" therefore referrs to an Army officer who is culturally very Southern, or who has strong sympathies towards the antebellum South. If so, this phrase would most likely be used between West Point grads who would have had Academy history drilled into them as cadets. . .

It's a shot in the dark, but it's be best I can do at the moment. Perhaps Dandelion can provide us with some context examples??

Cheers,

YD

[ March 11, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Yankee Dog - thanks for the US examples and the important clarifications you made, well done.

1828...damn, why didn't I think of that?

To further muddy the waters regarding rank and appointment, you mention staff appointments. The German Army also had a class of officer - the General Staff officer, recognized by the suffix "i.G." - that was trained specifically for staff positions even though he held the same rank as his infantry company commander counterpart. He was designated "im. Generalstab" and was generally considered to be on the fast track for higher promotion. I believe he also wore carmine stripes on his trousers. It was an interesting system that other armies haven't been able to emulate.

This "class" of officer was also despised by Hitler.

In the example you give, I think that while the German captain in command of a company was on a career track much different than the General Staff captain who helped administer an entire Division, in the US Army, I get the impression that many officers were expected to "punch tickets" in both combat command and staff jobs, especially in peace time.

[YankeeDog]

Dorosh -

Interesting information.

Speaking strictly as an observer, it does seem that the U.S. military places considerable value in an officer having both "Staff" and "Command" experience when considering promotion. At least, the most successful officers of the last 100 years (in terms of rank achieved, anyway) of U.S. military history usually have a balance of both.

Many biographies of Career U.S. military officers also comment on the importance of having a balance of appointments to promotion. Off the top of my head, the biographies of Gens. Westmoreland and Powell come to mind.

You comments about the German General staff system is intersting to me. I've read of the German General Staff system before, and it is certainly responsible for a number of very important advances in military theory and tactics, but I wansn't aware that the differentiation between General Staff and regular officers extended so far down the command chain.

While I don't normally like to identify myself as agreeing with Hitler, in this case, I can see the point. A "Generalstab" officer with no experience actually taking on the responsibility of commanding a platoon or company is less likely to truly appreciate the issues and challenges of command at this level compared to an officer who, at least at some point in his career, has actually commanded a small tactical unit.

Am I correct in assuming, then, that a German Army officer without "Generalstab" stripes is eventually going to hit a ceiling in terms of his potential promotion, as most higher command positions would be reserved for Generalstab officers?

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Dorosh]

YD - I should wait for a true expert to chime in here, but that is my understanding. I would imagine that general staff officers did get field command experience somewhere along the line, but am not clear how common this was or how much was expected. I am wondering, for example, if a typical General Staff officer would ever have commanded a platoon. I'll have to dig out my references and see if I know what I'm talking about.

The Commonwealth did have GSOs (General Staff Officers) on staff at division HQs, for example, and in wartime many of these may have even attended staff college, but I still get the impression that the system was much different in German practice.

[Dandelion]

I can elucidate some on the i.G. officer.

This system was introduced by Fredrick the Great (who else?) and served two purpouses: one was to keep the corps of officers in check, the other was to promote brilliance.

The corps of officers was at the time (and almost to our day) an exclusive and tight-knit club of nobility, especially but not only in Prussia. Loyalty to the King was uncertain, tactical ability was not a prerequisite to become an officer, your pedigree was. And so, the King introduced a Royal corps of Staff officers, consisting largely of talented non-nobility, trained and paid by the King and thus totally dependent on him. Spells: loyal. It also spelled tactically and strategically competent. In military history, this can fairly be called the first academically trained soldier to see light.

Because of the svere academic tests one had to pass, and the Royal status, this corps has had a tremendous prestige from day one. It has thus always attracted nobility to its ranks also.

Every officer held authority far out of proportion of his nominal rank. For example, the Chief of staff of a division would normally be a Major iG (remembering all the above about rank and appointment). In effect, this man had the same authority as his boss, the Generalleutnant, or kdr.-Gen. And the Chief of intelligence could be a Leutnant iG (as he was the most junior of them), in effect wielding authority akin to a Colonel.

The classic study of the "i.G" officers relation to the field officer is that between Ludendorff (who was an officer of the General Staff) and Hindenburg (a field officer). The pair is often called "the firm". Ludi was clearly the introvert brains, Hindi the fatherly, brave and hearty guy in this outfit. Archetypes.

iG officers actually formed a paralell chain of command and answered only to eachother up and down the chain, a chain leading straight up to the General Staff of OKW and then on to Hitler. But in practice of course they worked intimately with the units they served in. iG officers had both their own schools and held separate courses within the ordinary field officer schools. During WWII, admittance to their ranks was still barred by very demanding tests.

They did indeed wear crimson stripes on their pants, regardless of rank. Two such. They were identical to those worn by field Generals, except they were crimson and not the more plain red of the latter. They also wore crimson piping on shoulderstraps, collarpatches and officers cap. One could spot them on a mile, which was the whole idea of course.

In WWII, they served down to divisional level, but not below. They led the staff units of their respective units.

The chief of staff of any unit was nicknamed Ia (actual title was "Erste Generalstabsoffizier - but nobody used that). For example, von Paulus was the Ia of Reichenau before the latter died and von Paulus became CO of 6th Army. This type of promotion became more common as the war progressed - von Paulus would otherwise be destined to serve in the OKH as next pinhole in his career. The promotion was not a success. He proved archetypal iG - introvert and without real leader ability, fiercely loyal to the central power and determined not to have a political opinion, or just about any opinion on anything aside from tactical or logistical problems. Of course he was very good in his Ia role. He continuously constructed brilliant plans and improvisations. All in all a complete opposite to the charismatic, rash and somewhat ill-tempered Reichenau. Which Paulus kept being told, much to his annoyance ("Reichenau would never have thisandthat").

Anyway, the chief of Quartermasters was nicked Ib, Chief of Intelligence Ic. The German definition of intelligence meant the Ic had many duties alien to western intel officers. Such as responsibility for the fighting morale and moral dedication of the men. He thus was bossing over a bewildering mix of units, ranging from the military police to mobile field movie-theatres. It was the Ic that decided that the soldiers in SS PD12 were not allowed interaction with local women, and absolutely not allowed to visit brothels. They were too young, he thought (himself being around 25 and his men at 18 or 19). On the other hand, they were the only serving soldiers in the German armed forces who were allowed to wear fashionable haircuts (meaning somewhat longer and more similar to many US soldiers). Again a Ic divisional decree. They also had their cigarettes exchanged for candy - but this was a Ib decree.

To their aid, all iG had a number of so called "Ordonnanz Offizieren". These were field officers serving in a staff function. Possibly hoping for promotion to iG status?

I think the US had a system using "G#" which resembles this Ia-Ic system. Right? Please tell me I am right, wouldn't want to have to relearn the whole US Staff system.

The Waffen-SS had a problem, in that it didnt have any Generalstab Schools of its own. It was dependent upon the good will of the Heer to allow a certain number of its officers to pass through the courses. The Heer of course regarded the W-SS with a queer mix of contempt and admiration, so it was not at all without problems. Usually, though, they had enough iG officers to man most of their main field units. They tended to be of too low rank for their assignments, though.

German artillery did not use i.G. officers. (Not W-SS artillery either). Thats because initially, this corps of officers were already very talented, very loyal and unattractive to nobility. They were instead the sons of the bourgouisie, that had attended Fachschulen in the sciences (whereas nobility tended to study humaniora, theology, law at universities instead). The artillery officer enjoyed uch the same prestige as the iG´s did.

Another branch that did not use iG officers were the Engineers. of course, they did not usually form large units, but even when they did, they used no iG officers. The reasons are the same as for the artillerymen.

Overall, the iG officer had his own identity and archetypes separate from the field units he worked within, had also a separate social caste and tradition, and to a large extent was from a separate social background than the field officer (although by 1941, this had become untrue).

Of course, Hitler despised these men too, in spite of their not being dominated by nobility. He rapidly got rid of the Cheif of Staff OKW to replace him with cadavre-loyal men like Jodl. Jodl was also archetypal of the iG officer.

Sincerely

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

....and to answer the actual question, and not merely babble endlessly in my usual manner , the German i.G. officer never had a field command, even that of a platoon. Nor was he ever an NCO (depending upon what one considers cadets to be). He started his post-basic-school career as Leutnant i.G., usually serving as Ic at divisional level. He normally had to pass the Ib position at least once in his career, to gain experience from quartermaster view, before assuming overall Ia responsibilities of any unit. But he could also advance along the Ic axis, becoming Ic of a higher echelon rather than Ic of a lower, and so on.

Unless of course he was promoted to the General Staff from former field army service, but in such a case his field unit command experience would be a bonus, not a prerequisite.

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

...to make a final addition, the i.G. officer was considered to be from a separate branch of service. Thus, he was not an infantry officer and not a panzer officer, even if he served in such divisions. Perhaps this helps understanding why the iG officer was not required to have experience of field command, like infantry officers were, for advancement.

Dandleion

[Dandelion]

I am very impressed by the research- and conclusion efforts on the "class of 28'er" question. I am now encouraged to put up even more obscure questions on US Army issues in this Forum.

Context for 28'er has been requested. The context is a S/SGgt (though drafted, I have concluded) writing to his mother about his service in an infantry unit, late 42. His unit - the division as a whole or just his unit is not entirely clear - appears to be all Texan. He is certainly Texan. This unit has gotten a new (at least new since last he wrote his mom) officer, rank unclear, who is in a position of command over the S/Sgt. The S/Sgt thinks this guy is hilarious. He understands nothing of what the men say and keeps saying "hunh?" whenever they adress him or answers his questions. The men, this S/Sgt suspects, therefore speaks extra stark and obscure Texan dialect with him, including apparently vocabulary (he makes no examples). Making fun of him. Though he does also comment that the officer is "true" and that he "protects" the men (from what he doesnt say). So the men actually like him, in spite of his linguistic handicap, it appears. This officer is the one he refers to when he writes - to his mother - that he does not understand the dialect of the men "[---]as he's not from around [not from the South was my conclusion]. He's a class of 28'er. He already knew Brett [another officer, rank unclear] before he came here. They stick together real tight now." Then he writes about the men enhancing their dialects as above.

If anyone wonders, he finishes the paragraph on this officer with "he will be fine." He then writes about how he worries about home - I have concluded he is into husbandry of some kind. He assures the mother that he will not end up in combat.

This S/Sgt was KIA, it says in the commentary, so lets hope he was right about the officer at least.

a puzzled

Dandelion

[Michael Dorosh]

Great info on the i.G system. Yes,the Americans had similar designations - G1, G2, G3, G4 etc. They were also designated S1, S2, S3 etc. depending on the level at which they were found - S at battalion level, for example, G at division level. 2 was intelligence, there were also operations, supply, etc. and I believe additional classifications sprang up post war?

The Commonwealth didn't have these designations in WW II (though we use them today). At battalion level, you simply had the IO (Intelligence officer), QM (Quartermaster - also an officer), and at divisional level GSO I, GSO II, but I still haven't figured out what the designations actually referred to or what duties they had.

[lcm1947]

Dandelion could you repeat that. Great post guys very very interesting. Thanks to all for contributing even though I didn't start it. Appointment, huh. You learn something new everyday.

[Dook]

First, a correction to my earlier post. The 42 ID was not a National Guard division in World War II - World War I yes, World War II no.

Second, a possible explanation for Class of 28er. When the National Guard was originally inducted into Federal service in 1940-41, men over 28 years old were released from service as being overage (as were those with dependents). Many of those men rejoined the military after the war began due to the increased need for manpower. My guess is that the officer referred to was an officer in a Guard division who was released from service in 1940-41 because of his age and then rejoined the service and served with a different division.

This was not that unusual. Although the core of the Guard divisions consisted of Guardsmen from specific geographic areas, anywhere from 30 to 50 percent of the strength of the divisions was filled with Selective Service draftees. Guard officers who left in 1940-41 may have joined again later and been placed with another division.

BTW, if the division was from Texas, it was the 36th ID.

[JonS]

Dandelion, from the context, it seems pretty clear that 'class of 28' refers to the year of graduation at West Point.

Incidentally, if you haven't seen it already, this series of linked pages is the best resource I've yet found on the net that shows the organisation, equipment, and manning of a WWII US Inf Div from top to bottom.

Regards

JonS

[Splinty]

To expand a little further on the rank vs. appointment question, a First Sergeant usually held the rank of Master Sergeant, as did a battalion or regimental Sergeant Major.Another type of appointment was the position of platoon sergeant, which was held by a person with the rank of technical sergeant.(although the chronic personell shortages experienced by the U.S. Army often placed the most experienced NCO in the platoon in that job regardless of his rank)Also in the U.S. Army Staff Sergeant IS a rank between Sergeant and Technical Sergeant,(Sergeant First Class in todays Army.)Staff Sergeants were the normal rank for a Squad Leader.

[YankeeDog]

I agree with JonS. From the sounds of the context "Class of '28er" isn't so much a slang term with a specific connotation, but rather just a shorthand way of saying "This officer went to West Point and graduated in 1928."

Cheers,

YD

[Dandelion]

You're right sir, this is an extraordinarily interesting thread and I say it even though I started it I am now crippled with a compulsory need to read it several times a day.

I find all of these explanations for the term class of 28 plausible and what's more, they all teach me something new I didn't know about the US Army

According to my crude OOBs for the US Army, 36 Division fought in ETO. Is this correct? If so, this cannot have been the division, as the S/Sgt served in the Pacific, as did all letter-writers in the book. The unit in question, containg folks from "around", was either not Texan but...(well Icm47, who would a Texan call "from around", except other Texans?), or it was a smaller unit than Division.

No Jon I didn't have that link but I am all over it now. This is exactly what I was looking for. Things all make sense to me now, there's the Mess Sgt, the cook and even the cook helpers listed! MUCH obliged! Sad thing that in the comment, they adress modern US soldiers explaining the differences to their organisations (such as the G4 serving in the Rgt coy). They might have taken the perspective of an alien soldier

Strange denotation btw - "basic soldiers". I'll understand that as Pvt then. Which leads me to another obscure question:

Again in this list, the title "Guide" and "Ldr" respectively appears in the platoons. Just like in my old incomplete list. Who were the "Guides" and what did they do?

Mr Dorosh, thanks for the update on staff. There are a few functions in the German staff I also have not figured out yet. I guess one would have to have been a staff officer to know what to look for. I was recon. Anyway, an assistant function was termed the series IIA-C. If these were i.G. officers or not I do not know. Nor do these names make sense to me really. You see, Ia was actually a unit, namely the unit staff as a whole. Ib was the organisational code for the Qu.-Abt. or quartermaster battalion (or larger). Ic was a department within Ia, thus part of it. But II? Can't find any organisation corresponding to this. My guess is that these people were field officers just like the Ord.Offz. Simply because I have neveer heard of an Gen.-St.-Offz. called anything beginning with "II".

Other notes on the Ic is that he also was responsible for the unit paper (papers were mostly divisional, not higher echelon), as he had all printing press and personell for the job (they normally made maps). He also was responsible for all translations, as he had all interpretors (they normally interrogated POWs and translated captured documents and maps). He was responsible for organisaing all visits from field entertainment units and yes, he was in charge on any brothel activity too, if organised by the army. In addition, he was nominally responsible for divisional traffic - a big issue especially in motorised units. But in fact, the Ia had to plan any movement with traffic in consideration, and the Ib tended to be the guy in actual charge of the MPs used for traffic control (their most frequent task, btw). Any propaganda tasks fell on him too, as he had not only the printing press, but also the cameras and loudspeakers, with accompanying personell, of his unit. He was not in command of any recon units, but of course was a very close affiliate with (of?) this commander (all echelons had a recon unit suited to their needs, except in the Waffen SS where there were no Korps level recon units). His sole "field" command were the "Streifen-Dienst", the "patrol service" consisting of riflemen picked from various units on a rotating schedule, forming patrols for special tasks. These fulfilled all kinds of missions, such as security, counter intelligence, traffic control and the general maintaing of order among the men. This command entailed only the completion of schedules and such I fear. A jack of all trades, the Ic, indeed. Of course, it was the fact that he was the most junior that led to all crappy jobs landing on him.

On the other hand, the Ia, who was responsible for unit overall AA protection (i.e. the planning of the same), was weighed down with command over searchlight units(!) (when available).

Fritz Bayerlein complains of this and several other irrational organisational anomalities in his book. He was the Ia of Rommel in the Desert, before assuming command of the Panzer Lehr Division (another of these sideway promotions, although this one a success). In that same Ia unit, Count von Stauffenberg, who later tried to blow up Hitler, served as Ord.Offz. He lost his eye and arm in an amazingly precise air raid on the HQ, performed by the ever indomitable RAF, as they again tried to knock Rommel out.

The letters, G and S, what did they mean? Abbreviations? Organisational codes? Or just a system?

Splinty - the Technical Sergeant, did this title reveal any special skills learned in the technical department and if so, which?

Yours enthusiastically

Dandelion

[dNorwood]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

but rather just a shorthand way of saying "This officer went to West Point and graduated in 1928."

YD

Hmm. Class of 28 means he's got 13-ish years in when the US enters the war, plus two years of wartime service, and he's still at a rank low enough that:

A) a SSgt has even seen him, and

feels comfortable in ridiculing him (however warmly).

Interesting if true.

How certain are you that the letter actually says 28 and not maybe 38...

In that case, I'd buy it.

[JonS]

dN,

don't forget he has a speech impediment. That, and the small peacetime army, would hold up his progression somewhat.

Jon

[JonS]

Dandelion,

the G and S numbers (sometimes referred to as 'the continental system') refer to staff functions.

This page lists the main ones. The "S" is used to refer to those positions at battalion and brigade(?), "G" refers to the same positions, but at Division and Corps (?), and I think "A" is the same again but at still higher levels.

This site has a short bio- on each of the US divisions, showing very basic info on activation and combat service.

"Leader" and "Guide": The "Plt Ldr" is the officer in charge of the platoon, a 2nd Lieutenant. He's the boss. The "Plt Guide" I am not familiar with in the US context, but in the British context (specifically artillery), the Battery Guide or "BG" is the guy who 'guides' a unit from one place to another during moves. He will go out beforehand (usually with the recce officer) to recce the route, determine RVs, find the destination, etc., then go return and bring the unit back along the route identified.

I suspect it is the same here.

Regards

Jon

[Michael Dorosh]

Technical Sergeant was a specific rank title like, say, Unterfeldwebel. Just a title applied to anyone holding that rank regardless of training.

The US Army also had Techinicians which did have technical training - they had a "T" under their chevrons. A Technician Fifth Grade was equal to a corporal, and wore two chevrons with a T underneath. A Technician Fourth Grade (or T/4) was equal to a sergeant and wore a T underneath 3 chevrons, etc.

In an infantry company, I believe someone trained in radios was a technician, tank crewmen appear to have had technicians also, probably due to training in radios, mechanics, etc. over and above basic infantry or tank crew training.

The US Army replaced the technician ranks with specialist ranks by the time of Vietnam. A rather unique set of rank structures, not unlike, I suppose, the German staff officer/combat officer dichotomy. The main difference being it only applied to NCO ranks.

Don't get me started on US Army warrant officers; another unique situation.

Very eye opening just how different the major armies of the world were/are and how they evolved and continue to evolve - ostensibly to carry out the same functions.

[ March 11, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[dNorwood]

Originally posted by JonS:

dN,

don't forget he has a speech impediment. That, and the small peacetime army, would hold up his progression somewhat.

Jon

I read the "speech impediment" as simply referring to his inability to understand the Texas drawl (particularly when accentuated) although I guess any good Texan WOULD see that as an impediment. As far as slow advancement in peacetime, granted - but those in service (particularly with over 10 years) at the time of mobilization advanced rapidly (I am told).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

lists the main ones. The "S" is used to refer to those positions at battalion and brigade(?),

Regiment you Commonwealth heathen!

[Dandelion]

Well I was writing directly from reading, so to speak. So 28 it is.

13 years from graduating and still a captain or major was nothing irregular in my service. Of course, I know little of US promotion speed. Is it not possible to take a break and pursuit civilian careers for a few years? To join the reserve even though you have graduated? Over here, such a grduation would be the promise of quite a reasonable civilian job. In a slow-moving peacetime army, the civilian break is not an unattractive option if available.

As for the seemingly respectless behaviour, I do not find it strange. It seems to me it would require quite an abnormal personality to destroy an ongoing bonding procedure by authoritarian insistence. His men are quite obviously making place for him. By making forbidden jokes, you display trust. The officer arrived new to an already bonded unit. A unit of draftees, mixed ages and men of whom some had seen many years as civilians, family men. They were neither kids nor professionals. Such men do not shiver and shake simply because you have brass on your collar (or shoulder). I see no problem really.

Of course, I am no expert on US views on discipline either.

And of course, maybe the officer was unaware.

But every US major work on WWII that I can think of (which limits itself to Mailer and Joyce I fear) describes a remarkably lax and friendly tone between officer and men in the US Army. It appears this army turned ferociously authoritarian once it became all professional again. But the latter assumption, I base merely on such meagre foundation as popular culture movies (e.g. Full Metal Jacket).

What puzzles me more about the West Point lead is how his mother could be expected to recognise the term. But then again, who knows what he wrote in his other letters. Maybe she knew all about West Point.

Maybe he wrote it to emphasise how unsuccessful this officer was. Or it may be that in Texas by this time, the term 28'er did indeed refer to 1828'er, an officer with strong confederate sympathies. Or that he was a re-calledup officer as suggested above. Such a re-callup would have had reasonable chances of being familiar to the average civilian too, as it hit the households in the communities. Like the mother.

It does not really matter, the describing of these possibilities teaches more than the mere finding of the right answer. I mean, it may be quite a private remark, undecipherable for anyone except him and his mother, after all.

Dandelion

[Dandelion]

....hey Mr Dorosh, do get started about warrant officers. Let's begin at "What is a warrant Officer"...

Parenthetically, would the term "drawl" be accepted or rejected by a Texan? I mean, can I use it in the future to describe this in one word, without receiving the rage of a large part southern US?

Sincerely

Dandelion