Followup question: Were positions in the military doled out differently based on if someone volunteers or if they were drafted?

What race is the hypothetical 18-year-old in this scenario? The military was heavily segregated at this point, so that'll change the answer.

Hello everyone,

In this thread, there have been a large number of incorrect, speculative, or otherwise disallowed comments - including many asking about the deleted comments, which merely compound the issue - and as such, they were removed by the mod-team. Please, before you attempt answer the question, keep in mind our rules concerning in-depth and comprehensive responses. Answers that do not meet the standards we ask for will be removed.

Additionally, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with off topic conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!

Did they have asvab scores or any other tests to consider ?

what factors determine what unit I end up in?

A battery of aptitude tests that determined one's suitability for particular roles demanded by the military, and the potential to utilize a recruit's pre-existing skills in order to minimize training time and cost.

When a recruit arrived at the Reception Center, they'd sit the Army General Classification Test (AGCT), which measured, in broad terms, your current ability and potential to learn. You'd be quizzed on your grasp of language, arithmetic and spatial awareness. Based on the results of this test you would be graded from I-V, with I being the most capable candidates, III average (median = 100), and V the least. Associations of these results with I.Q., 'intelligence', and 'mental age' were explicitly forbidden, though perhaps, not inappropriate. If you graded I or II, you'd be considered a suitable officer candidate, technicians and specialists would be drawn from the top three grades, with the lower two being regarded as only suitable for semi/un-skilled roles.

The fact that the median grade of the AGCT was determined by studying exclusively white males undoubtedly has some interesting implications for the experience of women, negroes/other non-white Americans in the war, but I'm just not familiar enough with this aspect of it to expand on it.

So, based on the results of this test, and an accounting of one's pre-existing skills and training taken during an interview, a recruit would go on to take follow-up tests that assessed mechanical aptitude, radio/code aptitude, suitability for officer training, clerical ability etc. For some highly specialized roles (i.e. pilot, bombardier, navigator, intelligence officer, etc) specific vocational tests were formulated to further narrow-down the pool of suitable candidates.

One's civilian profession and education could heavily influence their eventual role in the military, but ultimately the needs of the army were the most important factor - if you were ideally qualified for X, the army desperately wanted Y and didn't need any X, and if you had shown aptitude for Y, chances are, you were going to be Y.

From The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops:

For further guidance of the reception centers Army Regulations 615-26, dated 15 September 1942, offered suggestions for assignment. For boilermakers, bricklayers, riveters, and steelworkers, the suggested assignment was the Corps of Engineers. For longshoremen it was the Quartermaster Corps. Detectives were thought to be peculiarly suitable for the Provost Marshal General's Office, and "vice-squad patrolmen" for the Military Police. Miners might fit into either the Engineers or the Infantry. Suited for the Infantry primarily, according to these suggestions, were a few "specialists" of infrequent occurrence in the civilian population, such as parachute jumpers and mountaineers. Bookkeepers, file clerks, piano tuners, shipping clerks, and teachers were recommended "for any arm or service." White-collar workers were not needed by the Army in proportion to their frequency in civilian society. They stood, therefore, a somewhat better chance of being assigned to the Infantry than did boilermakers or longshoremen.

Many MOS's ('military occupational specialties') had corresponding civilian equivalents, like auto mechanic or typist, but others did not, like rifleman and anti-tank gunner. MOS's were provided with serial numbers (SSN, 'specification serial number'), an SSN below 500 indicated a corresponding civilian occupation, numbers over 500 were military-exclusive jobs. A recruit would also receive an SSN following his interview, relating to his previous experiences, where appropriate they would be matched to the equivalent MOS, but in order to fill MOS's over 500, jobs often needed to be clustered in sets of which the required skills could be determined as compatible. For instance, a steward (124) could be recommended as a potential mess sergeant (824). The selection and assignment of MOS's was determined by the tables of organization (T/O's) that specified the jobs existing in each type of unit and how many men were required for each role, from these the Adjutant General's Office computed the quantitative requirements for each type of SSN per 1000 men, and the reception centers would sort and refer their new recruits according to these figures.

Initially the distribution of candidates between the various services was even - so each arm of the military would receive a fair share of the ideal candidates, and also the less than ideal candidates. But according to changing strategic necessities this principle was often ignored - after 1942 the rapidly expanding USAAF (due to its relatively high demand for technicians and specialists) required 75% of its candidates to be class III (average/above average) or over, which naturally left a lopsided proportion of grade IV/V recruits for the ground forces.

Read about the AGCT at:

Walter V. Bingham, 'Personnel Classification Testing in the Army', Science, volume 100, September 29, 1944.

Thomas W. Harrel, 'Some History of the Army General Classification Test', Journal of Applied Psychology, December 1 1992.

(Bingham and Harrel are two of the psychologists responsible for US WWII classification and selection methods)

Robert R. Palmer, Bell I. Wiley and William R. Keast, The Procurement and Training of Ground Combat Troops (link to .pdf)

Today, US army vocational testing is called ASVAB.

Here's a contemporary British movie explaining their selection process, which had much in common with the American system: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060005150