What the frick even is an NCO? Why are they better than commissioned officers? Why does China seek an NCO system? I searched this shit up and all I see Is that NCOs train other guys, which I don't see why that differs from regular commissioned officers jobs.
Commissioned officers join the military with a high rank already. It's a formal process that is different from enlistment. An NCO has to earn their rank the hard way after normal enlistment. Would you rather serve under a fresh, green officer straight out of college or an experience, seasoned NCO who has risked their neck on the front lines already. Which is a more competent officer?
> Would you rather serve under a fresh, green officer straight out of college or an experience, seasoned NCO who has risked their neck on the front lines already. Which is a more competent officer?
Yes, but it's a kind of a false comparison too. Would you rather serve under a brand new private or a salty colonel?
The officers are just on the non-tactical-level track. NCOs can manage companies. They've gone on to manage battalions in the past. But the brigade and up level takes a different set of skills than the platoon and down.
Utterly moronic, thankfully the East thinks like this too so everything will be ok
What is moronic about that? And how does the East think like that? Russia doesn’t use NCOs and their military is a disaster. Ukraine switched to NCOs like 6 years ago and their military is way more competent than anyone anticipated
If you’re so blind to the entire thread that you had to ask that you’re too stupid to understand
You made a false comparison moron. The LT is not the equivalent of a pvt. At best worst is the equivalent of an e7, which is between 12-16 years of experience. Those two ranks usually jointly run platoons. Officers gain a few ranks and are gone so far from the front they can no longer affect platoon level details. An NCO, on the other hand, could theoretically stay in the exact same company or even platoon for 16 years and company for 20 ending as company Sgt major. They are the memory, and the heart, of the entire military. Russia's lack of NCO is after putins moronation the second most important part of the Russian army's failure. They have no independent low level leadership with any experience. They have no group to maintain an unbroken line of quality and experience. They have no one to shield their enlisted from moronation. And any good Russian officers are either promoted out of the company level, or killed for being too good. NCO and officers don't compete, it is a different career.
Fun fact, russia does not have a concept of NCOs
The situation described here
Is literally how the russian army functions
NCOs are in essence the glue between the soldier on the field and the brass in more "management" positions. Since they came from lower positions they understand the common soldier, while they are in high enough position to speak their mind relatively freely to a superior.
Not really anon. In lots of countries around the world NCO schools are something that exist.
>Which is a more competent officer?
In a support unit, Officer, too many moronic NCOs who can’t get a job outside of the military. But in combat unit oblivious the NCO. Served in both units of them (Yuro)
A designated crayon eater gives the other crayon eaters someone to look up to.
Because you need someone between your decision makers and your morons to keep the morons from dying stupidly.
>eat your food
>drink your water
>clean your gun
>keep your head down
>don't eat that
>don't frick that
>drink your water
>eat your food
You would think that this shit wouldn't be necessary but if you ever lead any group of people through anything strenuous/difficult physical activity that lasts longer than a day, stupid bullshit like that is critical to their effectiveness.
especially when you're dealing with privates that wouldn't pack water and would forget their weapon and NODs if they didn't have a babysitter
The importance of tard wranglers probably cannot be overstated. It's a subset of logistics and general organization. All your morons need to get to the same place at the same time with all their moronic shit to make a proper fighting force.
This man NCOs
Please stop with the hilarious reddit meemees.
Is Reddit in the room right now? Kys
This you are in Essence the kiddy day care officer or if you want gaymer l33tsp34k scrum master.
Are you dry? Fed? Charged? Loaded? Informed? Cleaned? Grumpy?
Your jobs is to keep others At 100% so they can do their jobs. And do the basic. Dude says mission is to drive to X and frick shit up. You check fuel other shit so you actually get there.
A dirty gun can frick you. A empty stomach can slow you. Wet feet can give even a tanker trench foot. Etc. You do this so the other can fight.
>TPBP
An average private with under fire would squat in a trench doing replacement tasks until a nade enters a hole and they're all dead.
Now when a sergeant is yelling at said private to get his ass on the firing step and shoot the c**ts until said c**t stops moving is a much more effective use of his time.
You need NCOs and people with actual combatexperience, because for every 100 moron squatting in a trench you get ONE competent person who knows which way to point the boomstick and knows how to tell other to do the same.
Most soldiers do not soldier unless yelled at.
>An average private with under fire would squat in a trench doing replacement tasks until a nade enters a hole and they're all dead.
>Now when a sergeant is yelling at said private to get his ass on the firing step and shoot the c**ts until said c**t stops moving is a much more effective use of his time
that recent ukie trench video perfectly encapsulates this
Wtf is a replacement task?
Fiddling on useless shit during life or death situations, it's a common psychological event that occurs for people that are inexperienced in high stress situations, like getting shot, basically a coping mechanism to make the brain feel like it's working it's way out of the situation without actually forcing yourself to fire back, when in reality you're rearranging ammo boxes and digging random holes as the enemy is right on top of you. That's why having an experienced person to yell at you to get your brain out of that cycle is important
>don't frick that
Kek. Tell us about a time you had to tell privates to not stick their privates in something anon
isnt that the job of a sergeant though
What do you think an NCO is?
The Russian shill seems to think that NCOs and commissioned officers are the same thing, the idea of enlisted men who are competent leaders is literally alien to them.
If you really want to blow their minds try explaining that company sized US units don't actually need Officers to function.
>What military experience does North Korean troops have? Seriously, I'm curious.
They participated in almost every cold war conflict; Vietnam, Angola, Africa in general, ect.
They actually trained the buttholes fighting in Sudan right now, they sent combat engineers (tunneling specialists) to Syria, helped with specialists in the Iran/Iraq war, the Blue house incident and are a major supplier of arms and training to Ethiopia. They discreetly poke their noses into any conflict they can to get experience, influence and arms sales.
They are very good at covert stuff although heavy handed at it. They will deliberately fan conflicts just to get experience and sell stuff.
They also have almost supernatural abilities to steal tech which they need to go overseas to get, as an example i suspect NATO asked GM some rather pointed questions after this parade:
>They participated in almost every cold war conflict; Vietnam, Angola, Africa in general, ect.
>They actually trained the buttholes fighting in Sudan right now, they sent combat engineers (tunneling specialists) to Syria, helped with specialists in the Iran/Iraq war, the Blue house incident and are a major supplier of arms and training to Ethiopia. They discreetly poke their noses into any conflict they can to get experience, influence and arms sales.
>They are very good at covert stuff although heavy handed at it. They will deliberately fan conflicts just to get experience and sell stuff.
interesting, links?
Well shit, that makes enough sense I was almost expecting it. Any norks in Latin America? I know their rifles would show up in El Salvador and decades later their first commie president gave our first commie president a North Korean made AK as a gift to celebrate his crucial support in his political campaign victory, even though full automatic rifles were never legal for people to own in Brazil and Lula obviously never had a gun license.
This sounds suspiciously apt for /k/'sbautism discussions where it turns out there's this binary between highly technical specialists not at all at the front but in signals, intelligence and the like, and frontline dorks who can be depended on to mow down any number of motherfrickers as long as someone is telling them they'll get discharged if they don't brush their fricking teeth.
NCO are like NGO you have to eliminate them
It's a comraderie and squad foundation type thing. NCO's are viewed as bros. Down in the dirt with the pogs and grunts getting shit done and embracing the suck. CO's comparatively seem more like outsiders. The origin point from which shit rolls down hill.
Are you moronic? Have you ever played team sports?
NCOs are the "backbone" of the military because they're, in theory, supposed to be better at their specific jobs than officers and can understand their troops better or some dumb shit. This is sometimes true, but more often than not they're just as lazy and can do their jobs about the same. Honestly, they only exist to make sure information is distilled well because there are more NCOs than COs, and NCOs being everywhere makes it so everyone can have a kind of general sense of what they're supposed to be doing. Outside of that, there's really nothing special about NCOs.
There has always been this class distinction in the military, historically. Officers make good money and live like white collar workers in a lot of ways, while the enlistees and grunts mostly do the blue collar work and the actual fighting. Special forces do a lot of actual fighting as well, but are paid like officers and have fancy gear. An exception is fighter pilots, where officers are sent into danger as pilots and the grunts work on the aircraft on base.
The old joke:
For an enlisted Army man, when shit hits the fan he jumps out of his FBO bunk, rushes to his fighting position, sustained on an MRE. Over the radio, his commanding officer says "Give them hell men!"
For an enlisted Marine, it's much the same, except there is no MRE and he slept in a ditch.
For an enlisted Navy sailor, when shit hits the fan he rolls out of his bunk, grabs a muffin from the cafeteria and takes his battle station, trapped in an aluminum box with no ability to change the outcome of the battle. Over the ship's PA system, his captain says "We'll give them hell men!"
For the enlisted Air Force, when shit hits the fan he leaves his apartment, drives to his position (grabbing McDonalds on his way), and begins preparing the aircraft. His commanding officer arrives, climbs into the plane and the enlisted man says "Give them hell sir!"
>Special forces do a lot of actual fighting as well, but are paid like officers
homie what? Everyone in the military is on the same pay scale. There's incentive pay, but it's never anything to write home about. SF get paid like their rank.
Yes, but SDAP or AIP or whatever it's called now will be a thing for a those guys. Note that it is not part of your standard pay, and so does factor into percentage totals when computing retirement or disability. That's how a lot of guys who did crazy shit got fricked when they got out. They expected 50% of their salary, but a good chunk of thatbwas SDAP, so they should have computed way less for retirement.
In the Navy in general officers and senior NCOs do most of the actual trigger pulling since the systems are massive and complex. Similar to aviation in that way. But unlike aviation all the enlisted men have their necks on the line too if the officers and chiefs frick up and missiles get into your floaty box.
NCOs are there for better organization and discipline
>Why does China seek an NCO system
Because lack of NCOs is one reason the Russian military was/is so incompetent. Not only will NCOs aid in combat and operations, but will help the corruption problem too
Commissioned officers don't train other guys.
NCOs lead the tactical level. Commissioned officers are supposed to lead the operational level (and then promote a few to strategic level). Due to human lifespans, starting out your strategic level guys at enlisted rank is too slow, so instead they do an apprenticeship as lt's and captains and (in theory) the smart ones are supposed to fast track through the traditional officer levels into a general staff type rank.
An NCO should know the soldiers under him more intimately and know who to put where in order to best accomplish the orders given from an officer.
And officer should know the general plans better and be able to focus on what general orders HE needs to give to the unit or units under him in order to make the bigger picture work.
An officer is gonna focus on shit like
"when should we attack?"
"what point to we need to take?"
"where should our forces be concentrated?"
"what should we plan to do in order to make the HIGHER OFFICER's plan work?
An NCO is going to hear EACH of those decisions, and think
"which guys are best to have on watch the night before?"
"which guys are getting close to cracking and need some lighter duty?"
"which guys are problematic and need to have an eye kept on them... and who should I have do that?"
"who should I have on point? Is the guy I WANT to have on point fresh enough to still be doing that?"
"what direct orders do I need to give to WHICH people/teams in order to get X done?"
To use inaccurate medical comparisons...
The NCO is closer to the reflexes of your body, acting as the spine and moving with experience and knowledge of your body to enact the directions your more distant brain is trying plan and pull off.
and like this guy said, NCOs allow you to keep EXPERIENCED VETERANS who in THEORY have proven to be competent enough to stick around and rise up the ranks, who then can work with junior officers and give THEM the benefit of their experience to adjust to the situation and better know the capabilities of the people they are in command of.
And best of all, as many anons have mentioned: All tard wrangling and discipline can in theory be handled by the NCO's so the officers can frick around trying to plan things out.
The comparison of NCOs and commissioned to the autonomic and voluntary nervous systems is a good one, I'm going to remember that.
Commissioned officers are book smart, NCOs are experienced. An NCO is respected. If some butterbar shows up after you've been shot at for 4 months and starts trying to tell you how to do your job, you would hate his fricking guts for being a tard. If the guy who has been getting shot at since you were eating glue in middle school shows up and tells you how to do your job, you shut the frick up and listen.
I had trouble articulating it but this is the easiest way to approximate it. Officer is book smart, NCO is street smart.
kek
NCOs are tard wranglers that have been around the block before and seen some shit.
>Military without NCO's
>Officer: Hey you, go take this town
>Guy In Charge Of Tards: Um, OK...
>They all die
>Military with NCO's
>Officer: Hey you, go take this town
>Guy In Charge Of Tards: Okay, so the way we're going to do this is....
The officer is there to do general big picture shit. The NCO is there to decide how to do that job. If you're told to take the town at 6:00am using X Y Z, the NCO's of X Y Z are going to do the fine details. They're gonna make sure Corporal gayit who is going to break any second is kept together, they're gonna make sure Private Foogit who hasn't shot in anger before not shit his pants so much that he can't move from cover to cover.
I never get why they call it shooting in anger. What if you’re enjoying it?
Anger means with hostile intent not angrily in that phrase.
Meanwhile, in reality:
>battalion gets the word to take a town
>battalion sends word to company to take the town
>company has a pow wow with platoon about the town
>platoon talks to sarge about the town, they frick off to do whatever the O-3 and the E-8 says is probably the right thing to do while O-2 tells the E-6/7 what they already decided back during the pow wow to make a show of it before fricking off to wait on the go ahead
>if O-2 is a natural and E-6/7 good at their job, things go swimmingly when the initial plan invariably falls apart
>O-3 and E-8 take credit
>O-2 fricks off to write the report
Russia doesn't have NCOs on their armed forces (they exist as a concept, but they don't have the same power as responsibilities as western NCOs do), while Ukraine has been developing its own western-styled NCO for several years since 2014 under the tutelage of the US.
In general terms NCOs exist to make an army's chain of command more flexible, giving more power and responsibilities to lower-ranking troops who might be more in touch with the general situation on the ground.
Officers: Macro managing
NCOs: Micro managing
NCMs: being managed.
in order to effectively use maneuver warfare, you have to have elements acting independently, without being micromanaged, towards a central objective. this is why commanders provide intent direction, but it's up to the NCOs to execute that as best they see fit. The commander cannot be in all places decisions must be made at once, and he may not have the specific expertise to make those decisions anyway. That's where NCOs come in.
Imagine your company is assaulting a village from the south, with your support by fire (machine guns) on the southeast and southwest. In a company there are three platoons, each roughly 40 guys. Within each platoon, there are three regular squads of nine, and a weapons squad with the platoon's medium machine guns. Each platoon is commanded by a fresh lieutenant, and the senior NCO for the platoon is the platoon sergeant (PSG -- usually a sergeant first class). The platoon leader will draw up a plan, at the direction of the company commander, for his platoon's role in the assault. The PSG and the squad leaders will advise the PL on the best method of execution for the end state he wants. All of them will usually have been in the infantry for at least six years, most for much longer. They've all done numerous training cycles at every position below them, they understand the specific logistics of managing soldiers and using them tactically (e.g. tie down your NODs and PEQ so they don't fall off, pack enough water, X number of rounds will provide Y level of suppression for Z time, casualty evacuation management, etc.). These are all specific details the officer can't (and shouldn't try to) micromanage.
Attached is a picture of your company's attack. First, you need the support by fire to open up and suppress the enemy forces in the city while second platoon secures a foothold in the first building. But as soon as second platoon breaches the village, you don't want the SBF to be firing at them, so a shift fire command will be called by the CO. When he does that, the two weapons squad leaders -- very experienced NCOs -- who are managing the guns will direct their guns to adjust fire, and call up that the command has been followed so the CO can send second platoon into the building. When second platoon gets into the building, if they take casualties, it'll be the PSG that triages and evacuates them to the company casualty collection point, where the first sergeant will take responsibility for them. All of the movement in the building will be managed by fireteam leaders and squad leaders -- NCOs. Once the building is secured, it'll be NCOs that emplace joes in security positions so they can cover the other platoons' advances to their buildings. It'll be NCOs that take accountability of all their men, equipment, and tally ammo and water. It'll be the PSG that requests resupply from the company XO. It's not practical for officers to try to manage all of these details. Without NCOs acting independently to fix problems, nothing can get done efficiently. All of those actions require specific expertise and experience that an officer doesn't have, because he was never a private.
Redbeard calm down bro.
This is all wrong lmao
how is he wrong
It seems that there is lot of fat here that the more efficient Russian system has managed to trim. Triage step is useless, a natural order of evacuation rises from the pecking order set by hazing (save the people from your village, bullies and people who pay bribes, avoid wieners). You also don't need two teams to suppress, one is better left for barrier duty.
homie where did you get extra guns from? There are 2 guns per platoon. 2. Multiplied by 3 gives me 6 guns. Why does your diagram have 8 med mgs? Don’t feed me that crap about hq having them because that’s not it
an NCO earned their rank. a commissioned officer is some rich kid who went to school to get his command.
This is the reason why the hero of old war movies is always 'Sarge' and why 'the lieutenant' is always a prissy little homosexual kid with a mustache that's too old for his face.
Captain is also a rank that is earned through experience so that's why you hear that one sometimes too.
captain is a time-in-service promotion, and in my battalion alone I've been around to see numerous utterly moronic company commanders
it's also less commonly used in said movies than 'Sarge'. So.
you're a fricking moron whose entire conception of the military seems to come from movies
I was literally describing movies and I was literally just using them to explain the difference between an NCO and a commissioned officer.
You seem like you're probably lots of fun at parties and have probably had sex at least once before.
>Verification not required.
> a commissioned officer is some rich kid who went to school to get his command.
Lmao what year is this 1874? Officers came from all walks of life. It hasn't been restricted to the upper classes since WWII. Even before that there were plenty of West Point cadets from modest means who earned commissions.
Almost every Lt reaches Captain, very few Lts leave the service as 1Lts.
this is what NCO tell themselves to cope with not being real officers
this is what lieutenants tell themselves to cope before they get shot in the back
>M4D4M
yes, captcha, the LT is also a transvestite.
Slippery, tricksy enlisted hands typed this post.
I'm just here to say your question is moronic and suggests you have no understanding of western military structure/thought.
It's not particularly complicated.
Commissioned officers are typically tasked with organizational planning of units, mission goals and more administrative functions.
Non-Commissioned Officers are there to execute tasks, ensure discipline is maintained and to act in advisory body to commissioned officers at the lower levels of command.
The purpose of NCO's is meant to decentralize authority to ensure flexibility and to make calls in situations where getting a commissioned officers approval is either not possible or completely unnecessary.
There is more to it, but that's the basics.
What are WOs for?
It really depends on the country and service branch. They're basically enlisted that are given officer status and responsibilities by warrant rather then commission(those two things are VERY specific terms) and typically are specialists in some form, i.e. flying an aircraft or cyber security.
would it ever be a good idea to bring back and reform the specialist ranks Spc1/2/3/etc? Or is Warrant Officer ranks good enuff?
Also, fricking lol at the Space Force enlisted rank names. Spc1-4? What are military brass trying to imply?
US rank structure is just a fricking mess. I'm surprised there isn't a chief technical senior master sergeant to go with it.
Fricking stripes everywhere, the Britbongs are so clean in comparison.
The U.S. Army has 30 ranks
And the British have more than 18 you moron, so if we only count the two classes you posted in your picture the US Army has 20 only two more.
What happens when that lieutenant get promoted out of the company? And NCO could be promoted 7 times and still be at the company level in the US mil. Eastern style militaries have no institutional memory, because any officer of quality is quickly above the company level. I mean the Roman's had NCO, and it's what allowed them to rapidly replace casualties after entire armies were destroyed something none of their opponents could do.
>spelling Lieutenant correctly
>pronouncing it incorrectly
Weak.
would you have a single rank structure throughout the entire military branches?
way I see it, people tend to conflate rank AND role/mos for some reason.
Even the different branches uses very similar structure and they are all clearly distinct from each other.
>single rank structure for all branches
frick no, only boring countries do that, Israel for instance.
When I think of specialists , I think of technical skills, knowing how things work, and very physical tasks.
So basically engineers/technicians.
When I think of warrant officers, I think of even deeper set of technical skills, knowing how things work AND why they work, and focusing on the bigger picture.
So basically super engineers/technicians + scientist.
Specialists are nerdy technical grunts , and warrant officers are nerdy officers who command said nerdy grunts.
>Specialists are nerdy technical grunts , and warrant officers are nerdy officers who command said nerdy grunts.
No, or at least not in the American system. A WO usually doesn't command so that he can focus entirely on his technical field of expertise - flying a helicopter, understanding air defense networks on a deep, structural level, that kind of thing.
really? so if you had a bunch of nuclear reactor technicians doing maintenance/repairs on a nuclear reactor on a navy aircraft carrier, it wouldn't be a warrant officer who would be commanding them, but it would be a NCO or officer instead?
No, the nuclear techs are themselves the petty officers (navy equivalent to WOs). They aren't gonna let anyone so much as sweep the frickin floor of the reactor room without a degree in physics.
The head of engineering is commissioned. He will delegate to the MCPO (master chief petty officer) who will then delegate to a pair of CPOs (chief petty officer), who are the actual small team leaders in technical pursuits.
In the civilian world people doing the same job would be referred to as experts or specialists and that just carries over as a colloquialism. The actual "Specialist" E3 rank in the Army just means you're worth more to the Army than a private. It's the same pay grade as Corporal, main difference is CPLs are supposed to help sergeants herd the privates whereas specialists are supposed to wholly focus on their specific tasks.
To give an example of difference. In the UK warrant officers are between NCOs & Officers. They are addressed as sir but not saluted. There are two classes WO1 & WO2 but they are always known by their 'apointment' - what it is they do. All warrant officers in the UK came up through the NCO ranks and they are commonly mistaken for NCOs.
To use an infantry unit as an example all ranks between a Colour Sgt (Staff Sgt) and Lt are warrant officers serving in appointments such as Company Sgt Major, Regimental Sgt Major, Quartermaster Sgt and so on. Titles and roles change depending upon area of service. A lot of them are in charge of niche specialities, training centres or serve as senior NCO ranks.
Basically a way of differentiating the very long serving, very component NCOs in critical roles.
Nobody fricking knows. But really they are specialists and it honestly depends on the jobs they are WO for.
Technical expertise and doing jobs that require that expertise without the burden of commanding a unit. Your WO has years or decades of experience on and mastery of specific systems that an NCO doesn't have time to solely focus on due to his duties as a tard wrangler and a commissioned officer will only be able to do for a short time before he gets shunted off to the 3 shop/company command/wherever.
if you havent noticed by now, most people dont want to make any decision at all
without an NCO a group of morons may as well be zombies roaming around waiting to get killed
its not something most people can do either, you actively find people who can actually fulfill this impossible role
if you want to be an NCO then what youre actually looking for is being a desk officer, only the most deranged people have the ability to tolerate being an NCO
It's what replaced punitive rape and beatings as morale supporting systems. You wouldn't understand, Vanya
It’s a good thing thirdies don’t grasp the importance of NCOs or they might not get roflstomped by the Americans when they get out of line
NCOs are just tard wranglers except you're also getting shot at
This. They're really unnecessary. I don't know why we still have them.
Are you a tard? Where is your wrangler why are they letting you on PrepHole.i remember once we had to relabel a bunch of gear from A company to C company. So we set the tards to the task, now these are IT tards capable of deloying complex networks and satellite uplinks. We look outside a few minutes later and wonder hey where are the tards? Welp they decided to spray paint everything inside the storage containers, and where just hot boxing fricking paint. Again these tards can setup OSPF, Vmware, San NaS, metro cluster replication for HA. But God they would kill themselves or starve in a week without NCO.
Why do you need NCO's when modern warfare is just drones flying around dropping grenades on morons still using NCO's?
Did you read anything I wrote moron? This is the unit with the drones!!! Drones run over networks, networks these tards specifically deployed. I was MWCS38, the drones are in MACG38, we setup their systems.
Bruh enlisted fly the drones, NCO train them to fly the drones. Unless your in the airforce.
t. Russian military planner
NCOs are the bridge between the wonderland of statistics and big arrows on maps where officers live, and the land of the unwashed masses whose instinct of self-preservation clashes with the intentions of the officers.
NCOs understand what officers and soldiers want, and finds the middle ground where the fantasy of grand operational maneuvers meets bullets entering bodies and there is piss and shit everywhere. They give the "small orders" that keep the frontline moving, and the troops fed and supplied. Also, and this is VERY important, they make sure that the troops are taking care of themselves. The average soldier is a dumb teenager that has never cooked a meal for themselves or separated their whites from the colors, never mind figured out where to dig a latrine, how to set up guard shifts, or that INDIVIDUAL BULLETS need to be cleaned before going into a magazine.
Imagine civilian life without the sort of people that stop children from running into traffic, teach fast food workers how to handle appliances safely, or pass on earned experience in your average desk-bound job.
A military without that sort of people is fricking mess.
>why doesn't the school principal just teach the school?
when i was a 2lt i dindu nuffin literally
my 1lt boss and sfc were doing everything
boss went to more training schools and that's when i dindu not dindu nuffin
18 months later i fully slid into my old boss' job and the new 2lt was doing nuffin
never was harassed or toyed upon unlike /k/'s le butterbar stories
sfc and the rest of the unit were bros and normies who weren't out to get the le ebil junior officer
s-6 we eating good
if a country's military utilizes conscription or relies heavily on part-time National Guardsmen instead of professional troops, then NCOs are pretty crucial for your military.
If your countries military does not have professional NCOs it is not a professional military.
I want to be an NCO and have charisma (:
Someone whose been in a few years and demonstrated they know their shit, can direct and command others, and lead them out in the field. Clever enough to plan things for themselves when given an objective to achieve.
I really get the feeling that alot of people dint get the purpose of NCOs in this thread. Essentially they are supposed to micromanage the troops where the troops are. This is supposed to make troops take initiative and deal with situations that they did not get ordered for originally. Battle of hostomel is a good example of what can happen without this macromanaging and frontline leadership
NCOs are the part that makes an army flexible, responsive and able to pursue strategic objectives in ways that make sense at grassroots level. Basically, officers higher up have a better view of the war in the grand scale, but good NCOs are the ones who actually facilitate that the orders coming from higher up are executed in a way that works at the exact place and situation.
Meanwhile, armies with shit NCOs or NCOs who lack enough autonomy are super slow at responding to surprises of battlefield, because everything has to go through so many loops before anything happens.
>
What the frick even is an NCO? Why are they better than commissioned officers? Why does China seek an NCO system? I searched this shit up and all I see Is that NCOs train other guys, which I don't see why that differs from regular commissioned officers jobs. (OP)
> NCOs are the part that makes an army flexible, responsive and able to pursue strategic objectives in ways that make sense at grassroots level.
There's the saying that no initial plan survives contact with the enemy. In the Russian system the only person who can change plans is an officer who might be many KM away and who knows what kind of information they're getting from the battlefield? This is why you'll see Russians not be very reflexive or reactive to attacks and keep plodding forward. Their coms system is so bad officers need to be way closer to the front as well. Regular soldiers don't understand anything other than orders, and many times don't even have clear ideas where they are or what they're doing.
Meanwhile because everyone understand the goals from the officer to the regular soldier in the American system, an NCO can change plans quickly if the situation changes.
have a nice day, frogBlack person.
1 officer commanding 30 dudes is an absolute shit show. 1 officer commanding 3 experienced NCOs who control 10 dudes each is not a shit show, especially if those NCOs are independent and can take initiative
As well, Officers aren't actually good at or knowledgeable on the actual skills a soldier does, NCO are required to training since they are experts in these skills. Imagine on a construction site, you have the Journeymen (NCO) Apprentices (enlisted) and Construction Manager (Officer)
It's almost as if officers and NCOs are different positions for a very good reason.
The skills, training, and mindset you need to make broad plans and manage a unit as a whole are very different from directly managing a bunch of young morons both in and out of combat
Officers decide what needs to be done based on their mission parameters. NCO's have the job of making that decision a reality.
spoonfeeders need to be shot
NCOs is an /x/ schizo superstition unique to the anglo culture. It's like if chink experts were explaining that such and such military is failing because it doesn't adhere to the feng shui principles. It's hilarious that anglos have no self-awareness about this, but it's a good thing that this meme exists because it allows easy spotting of when an alleged expert is a clueless midwit not worth listening to.
The root of this meme is a centuries-old anglo tradition of having officers be a privileged aristocratic class separate from the low-born rabble that is soldiers. In Napoleonic times, you had to literally pay for an officer position, like a membership fee of a gentlemen's club. This class divide created obvious issues with discipline and morale, so they had to improvise and invent "not-officers" class that did the officers' jobs while having the pleb status relatable to rank-and-file. This is a working solution for a problem, the issue comes from the "commonsensism" fallacy where morons think that their highly exotic and unusual cultural practices are the norm everywhere, when in reality no one else on the planet ever heard of such things. No one in history of warfare had NCOs besides modern-ish anglos (and their bandwagoners) and they're doing fine without it.
(cont.)
Ukrainians, for example, never had this culture of officer aristocrats. The Zaporozhian Cossacks democratically elected their officers among their peers. The current Ukrainian army is full of volunteer college professors and business owners, so the idea of "social gap" described in picrelated would be completely alien to them. They also have zero need for NCOs anyway, because, like all Soviet-model armies they have... actual officers. If you describe the alleged function of NCOs listed by anglotards in this thread to a Ukrainian serviceman, he'd reply, yeah, we have those things, they're called "lieutenants." Like, Check Lindy's interview with the British volunteer, the guy is utterly baffled by the fact that the Ukranian army has officers' jobs done by officers, and not "off-brand Walmart officers."
Also, anyone claiming that Ukraine has NCOs now thanks to le heckin' NATO training is a delusional moron, those only exist on paper, because again, it's a fix for a problem they don't have, so no one sees any practicality in it.
This is so moronic it HAS to be bait.
Gee, almost like this 'class divide' you speak of through the purchasing of rank hasn't been around for literally hundreds of years.
The actual divide exists because in real wars, not low level conflicts, you need your platoon and company officers to be able to order in dozens, if not a hundred, men to their almost-certain deaths at any point in time. Knowing these men through having to conform to a periodic popularity contest is an utterly midwit take that will only result in hesitancy at the decisive moment of an already high-stress dangerous situation. They are kept separate for a reason, read Jünger's, or even Rommel's memoirs, for reinforcement on this very reason. Also the democratic election of officers is a moronic concept that would result in military coups anywhere except in a third world country as the military could just decide not to listen to the one person they can't elect, the president.
I get what you're saying and there's some truth to it, but what do you suggest?
That you push some babyface lieutenant with little institutional knowledge into micromanaging the enlisted? Or that you put your most hardass experienced soldiers behind desks instead of passing on their experience to the junior soldiers in the field?
Why do you have a babyface LT to begin with? Just promote an experienced enlisted to officer. Done.
It's more about maintaining the status quo instead of promoting the best and the brightest, you dumbfrick.
Besides, warrant officers exist for a reason.
>maintaining the status quo
The West seems to do that a lot. Have they tried innovating? Or would that be too "disruptive"?
>Or would that be too "disruptive"?
I remember how about a decade ago they made a MAJOR change to the PT standards in the Army.
Personally, I thought it was great how you could read the field manual and figure out how to do things the right way instead of just relying on word of mouth from your clueless NCO coworkers.
I swear, female sergeants are the biggest fricking worthless pieces of shit in existence that only existence to shit out babies every 9 months and do no work ever
Because then you’d have to promote rough men to positions where they sit in the same rooms as people with Ivy League degrees. It’d be unthinkable to let the riff raft mix with the gentlemen.
Because the role of a sergeant is to manage the grunts. The role of a junior officer is to manage the grunts, gain combat experience at the sharp end for later higher command and keep an eye on the bigger picture.
That last bit is really important. You need officers round to stop grunts, for example, collecting a "toll" from the locals at checkpoints. A sergeant might not see why that's important and might not realise that keeping the locals onside is important, even though he might be excellent at managing his grunts and keeping them sharp. Or he might not care or consider it as important as keeping his grunts battle ready. Or he might identify too closely with the boys and not want to jeopardize the relationships he has.
That big picture thinking is not easily trained in, it requires someone to be bright and educated to start with. And yes you can get enlisted who can do that, but it's not a required trait for promotion on the NCO track. The NCO has a specific purpose and so does the officer and they are complementary skill sets.
It genuinely baffles me that so many /k/ommandos have difficulty with this concept.
Probably because they are not officer material.
Because you need to get experienced generals. Junior officers are there to develop so you can have experienced colonels later.
[THIS IS WHAT COMMUNISTS ACTUALLY BELIEVE]
Are you Trotsky when he was trying to make the Red Army a military force without a hierachy or ranking system?
Is that the fricking Melty Blood cat? In Ukraine? It's painted OVER the Rust so it must have been painted by the Ukrainians after the battle too.
Why in the hell is this one character from a tiny series such a meme?
It is a little know fact that the North Korean regular active military is a all volunteer force with a 8 year active and 4 year reserve commitment, they exclusively promote Officers from the ranks so your new LT was at a minimum a platoon SGT who decided to reenlist after going to officer school.
This is almost unique in non western armies and everyone in the third world as well as some western nations should copy the basic idea.
Actually, it's fricking stupid because the skills that make you a good enlisted/NCO are completely different from what makes you a good CO unless your military is such a clusterfrick that officers will be on the frontlines. Officers need to be able to push paper, handle logistics and other grand concerns, and schmooze higher ups occasionally, which has no relation on how good they are as a leader of men under fire nor any sort of actual ability to perform the job enlisted do, which is where NCOs shine.
The platoon SGTs and platoon LTs are literally interchangeable and expected to be able to preform each others jobs .Part of becoming a S-6 equivalent is cross training with the LT to ensure that as well as be assessed as a Officer Candidate. New LTs are NOT assigned to platoons, they are the defacto XO. Promotion goes PT SGT, Unit clerk, Officer school, XO, PT LT, Capitan. If you can't hack it as a officer your career kinda dead ends after 8 years and you become a reserve NCO with a apartment in Pyongyang and permission to go to a civilian university as well as party membership.
Remember that these are people who regularly train with bugle signals to counter EW, redundancy is a big deal to them.
The volksturm was voluntary as well, which didn't do much to increase its effectiveness. I know you are proud of your dictatorship, but that doesn't change the fact that the NCM-NCO-WO-CO-Field Marshall-General Staff miltary organization is undeniably the best overall command structure. It is an interesting tidbit that the NK Army uses bugles as EW resistance and would likely provide a minor tactical advantage for a few weeks at the beginning of hostilities. But it makes zero strategic difference and will result in a glass cannon army which is good for exactly one offensive. Their economic desperation due to insane ideology posing as politics has guaranteed that they will lose the only war they will ever fight. Which is why none of your points matter. An army marching to defeat can organize itself anyway it wants and it won't change a thing in the end.
Pretty sure comparing little kids and grandpas with 48 hours training to a professional army with a minimum 8 year training period is proof you have no idea what you are talking about.
McNamara stop posting, they fired you 55 years ago. Also how does your coffin have internet?
When push finally comes to shove, your vaunted 8 years of training will look wistfully at the volksturm's successes and wish they were able to share in even a fraction of them.
>Glass cannon anon, they are nothing but a glass cannon.
How big is this only actually functional military part of the North Korean armed forces?
About 1.2 million, prior to the SMO they had about 4X as many active troops as Russia. The troop training inequality has no doubt greatly expanded since instead of 18 months vs 8 years your average Russian today has 8 days of training to the Korean's 8 years.
>North Korea has a highly trained all-volunteer 1.2 million active duty troops
Do you really want me to believe this? Not even China has that. In fact, nobody has that, I think even the US military at any point during the Cold War or WWII had that.
Those numbers are for their entire 'regular' force, all services are technically part of the KPLA and subordinate to them. The 'Standing Army' component is probably around 600-750k.
It is one reason why they are considered a threat, one of the scenarios the US/ROK trains for is a 'kickstart' attack done with zero mobilization just a massive artillery attack and zerg rush.
>600-750k
Well that sounds more realistic, but is that all volunteers? I can see them having less issues with recruiting volunteers in a bizarre feudal-like society where being a volunteer soldier puts you into a priviledged class above the majority of the population that live in miserable squalor with diseases and starvation but that still seems quite large for a all volunteer force.
It is basically the only means of advancement to their version of the middle class, it has huge social and economic advantages. Every defector we have ever asked about it mentions that there are 3-4 applicants for every opening.
An NCO trains his replacement(s). Ideally his entire section becomes interchangeable not just with himself, but with each other eventually. If this lapses or there's too much attrition, you get a bunch of greenhorn tards with no wranglers.
Because NCOs are this guy
NCOs are based and liutenants are cringe, simple as.
Lieutenant is French(read "cringe") for "in lieu of(a real Officer).
Whereas I'm actually down in the pit training my Troopers. The only thing my PL has over me is a college degree and a Ranger Tab, but that's only because I grew up in a trailer with no head and I'm a Cavalry Scout in an Infantry Battalion
Heat*
I will not comment on the amount of head I got, so as not to immaculate any Officers lurking here.
Shit
Emasculate
Aight, my PL is better at grammer and spelling than me too
I suspect the reason you got trucked over to infantry is because the 19C over on recon got sick of your guys b***hing about your antics after you got promoted and took a hit with battalion to get you to frick off.
Nah, back in 2017, the Army decided to switch up the MTOE for Stryker and Armor Brigades, and put Cavalry Scouts into the Infantry Battalion Recon Platoons.
Great in theory, because it's our whole job, and we get a few weeks of familiarity with the Strykers and Bradley's that I've been told the 11B's don't get, and a week on the LRAS, blah blah blah.
The big issue that I have with it is that the Army just frickin sent brand new Privates(myself included, at the time) to what was supposed to be a specialty platoon, instead of having open tryouts from local Cavalry Squadrons
why do vatniks and thridies always project their insecurities to the civilized world?
Reverse cargo cult cope
We used to refer to our officers as "paper b***hes". Officers sign all the paperwork required to get shit done, NCOs actually get it done.
Infantry PLs and Captains are just as much in the fight as anyone else in the platoon or company, you sound like quite the paper b***h yourself.
NCOs focus down while Officers focus up during combat missions. Officers plan the mission and make sure it goes according to the intent laid out by the command, and NCOs utilize the men of the platoon to best achieve that.
>t. an assblasted LT trying to explain why he should be respected as much as the actual men that get shit done.
What don't you get.
Enlisted are associate
Ncos are team leads, sme, or managers.
Officers are executive assistant or C-suite.
But you never had a job so not even that makes sense to you.
While an outside view of the NCO concept finds it embodying the American way of "work your way to the top", recent issues such as extremism in the ranks, and the rise of social media driven disinformation campaigns warrant some consideration.
Research has repeatedly shown that a low educational background is tied to an increased risk for extremism and vulnerability to disinformation, such as notoriously seen about the 2020 election.
The NCO concept should not be a vector for uneducated individuals from the deep south and similar areas, who bypassed college and may not know how to recognize disinformation and hostile narratives. This can lead to disruptive outbursts at the worst possible times, when conspiracy related material they may be consuming in personal time reaches a fever pitch.
While this issue can impact a wide range of personnel besides the NCO community being discussed, it warrants consideration to require some level of college education for future officers. We need to ensure that the democratically elected president remains the commander in chief, not Tucker Carlson.
>extremism
>disinformation
>require college education
you mean people are crying that some NCO's aren't getting the commie bullshit from college classes, don't share their political views, and they want to change that.
Anon critical thinking is actually what you are applying to the college system right now that is the trait anon is advocating for. Accepting what you are told at the outset is the problem. An example would be questioning old methods and adapting to the new. Questioning intelligence or being prepared for a plan going wrong by contingency planning
College doesn't TEACH critical thinking, anon.
That is also something that should and generally IS taught BEFORE college.
The distrust of media, government, and pharmaceutical companies the college shill is slimily whining about isn't related to critical thinking either.
>conspiracy theories
keep your /misc/ shit out of here
Russians have been going extra hard after NCO threads lately, also they have been passive aggressively attacking anything to do with China and North Korea no matter how off topic. The last bit started when it was pointed out that both those nations now have larger functional armored forces than Russia and that Russia was begging them for equipment.
All you have to do is point out that the DPRK has soldiers (literally) 4X better trained and experienced than Russia and that their ground equipment is better and they crawl out.
>experienced
What military experience does North Korean troops have? Seriously, I'm curious.
What bullshit newspaper article did you copy and paste and edited to make these bait posts
Just because you're an ESL dunce incapable of writing or thinking at such level doesn't make it copied, or bait.
Sadly, conspiracy theories, or just FOX news spreading bullshit about the president, can have a real world impact on readiness. It's easy to find examples.
Lt Col Stuart Scheller, a Commissioned Officer and college graduate mind you, publicly trashed his own career to score a political point against Biden, during the Afghanistan withdrawal of 2021. It would be delusional to believe that the same conduct would have occurred from the same individual had Trump still been president, or if Cable news outlets were not spreading certain rhetoric about Biden. The public manner in which this was done caused it to bolster narratives on Russian backed propaganda outlets. Incidents like this are done and subsequently amplified with the intention of causing a domino effect where other individuals follow suit. Given that
1. the impact such incidents cause to readiness is tied in an exponential manner to their frequency, since other individuals are more likely to follow a pattern of behavior than an isolated incident
2. Such incidents are linked directly to politicized rhetoric and conspiracy theories (Just see vaccines in 2021, it couldn't be more obvious)
3. The likelihood of an individual taking hostile action against US interests based on politicized rhetoric or conspiracy theories decreases as their educational background increases
It makes sense to require college education in as many instances as is possible to promote a culture of readiness.
I'm starting to wonder if the idea of college campuses as liberal brainwashing centers is actually just a convenient front for the fat admin lady industrial complex.
The "liberal brainwashing centers" meme is a convenient excuse for many, combined with the mentality of crabs in a fisherman's bucket, pulling others down to a common level and clawing back any independent thinkers who try to escape from the bucket.
Many white small town communities ironically embrace the same mentality which they mock and criticize in black communities, where present difficulties are attributed to outside forces - "the man keeping us down". This conveniently removes any responsibility on the part of the coper, but also radically reduces the potential for economic mobility, as apathy as embraced instead.
Tied in with the college subject, this manifests as small town communities believing that an unstoppable liberal force is running the educational institutions, so going to college is pointless. Realizing the benefits of enhanced economic mobility would mean selling your soul to the liberal devil. So, they can remain morally superior by taking the easy/safe route and doing nothing. Such individuals are then incentivized to demoralize younger members of the community seeking education, and to fall for hostile foreign narratives preying on the uneducated who are suspicious of the coastal city dwellers and Washington DC in particular.
All this to say that the NCO Corps should not be a vector for those who bypassed basic education and are more vulnerable to hostile propaganda campaigns to acquire influence over their fellow service members, as the harm we saw during COVID-19 or the Afghanistan withdrawal is the type of harm which is amplified in an exponential manner as the threshold of action is lowered by subsequent individuals engaging in the same outbursts / conduct, and a costly war with China would have disinformation outlets (which prey on the uneducated in particular) running at max capacity seeking to incite disruptive behavior in the armed forces.
>Tied in with the college subject, this manifests as small town communities believing that an unstoppable liberal force is running the educational institutions, so going to college is pointless. Realizing the benefits of enhanced economic mobility would mean selling your soul to the liberal devil. So, they can remain morally superior by taking the easy/safe route and doing nothing. Such individuals are then incentivized to demoralize younger members of the community seeking education, and to fall for hostile foreign narratives preying on the uneducated who are suspicious of the coastal city dwellers and Washington DC in particular.
most people saying "liberal brainwashing centers" have kids who have gone through the education system and in college/graduated with unacceptably degraded ethics
college is absolutely the right decision for economic mobility, but it isn't difficult to observe political skew in academia, it's well studied (ironically by critical theorists) and it is understood to be getting worse, not better, as conservative thought is marginalized & omitted
the argument must go beyond denial of reality and move to productive discourse, i.e. "yes we are oppressing right-wingers, and here's why that's a good thing!" - at least in honesty you could solve problems instead of avoiding them, even if the solution turns out to be doubling down
I am sick of "crypto-" everything, crypto-nazis, crypto-gungrabbers, crypto-commies, just get out of the closet and have real discussions you shitheads
>college is absolutely the right decision for economic mobility
no it isn't
its simply AN option.
there are other options that don't cost as much
not all options are created equally and college pathways for anyone capable of them are easily top percentile choices for utterly average people
there are a lot of ways to frick up getting a degree - wasting scholarships, too many years, changing majors - but commitment and good foundation = 3x+ the lifetime earnings of an average person with no degree
if you are skilled or determined enough to get a trade job, that's great too, but you will cap out at around what you'd get with a Master's degree, so at that point you'd be better served just going for a doctorate if you have the intelligence to match
obviously skilled labor/any working degree (STEM especially) is superior to not doing either, while being born rich and making money off nepotism & a music "degree" is enviable but not attainable for the average person
>don't cost as much
the average total price of a Bachelor's degree at a 4-year public college after scholarships is $3,500/year, some technical schools can get even lower - trade schools tend to cost 2-3 times this, and the years wasted trying to make it big on random scams are priceless
lol.
not true.
cost me far, FAR less than college did to go into a career equivalent to what I was looking to make as a STARTING wage.
I know plenty of people in my field who came in because college costs were a fricking joke and they came from poor backgrounds or immigrated and couldn't find work because their expertise and degrees were not officially recognized.
The only thing you need, besides being of average intelligence, is being willing to learn, wake up and show up without being high, and WORK.
Meanwhile, there are some jobs that don't require ANYTHING from a college that are in high demand, that will allow you to make as much as 70k in a few months.
The catch is you work your ass off, have to be moderately intelligent on top of physically fit, and have the money to afford a few plane tickets.
$3500 is less than I spent and will spend over the course of 3 years while getting paid the entire time to be educated and work.
College? Trade schools?
They are OPTIONS.
And the former in particular should start seeing itself as nothing more than being an OPTION once more.
succeeding in America is easier than nearly anywhere else in the world, but what you are describing is a suboptimal situation and anyone who can feasibly get a high value STEM degree within a reasonable time would still be better served getting one
>Meanwhile, there are some jobs that don't require ANYTHING from a college that are in high demand, that will allow you to make as much as 70k in a few months.
limited supply, specific skillsets, plateau around or only modestly higher
a chemical engineer can cap $200k by the time they have 15 years of work, and accumulate on average 4.5 million USD , skilled labor as a whole tends to accumulate around 3 million USD - again, great compared to morons who can't get a GED or double morons who go for a valueless degree, but the extra million is just sitting there waiting for you if you actually bother with an affordable college, do it the right way, and do it FAST - take summer classes, squeeze in more per semester, etc.
not all options are created equal and "success" isn't either, and it isn't sane to give people suboptimal device when a near guarantee of a happy life is right there - even after the 08 housing crisis, it was the people with at least a bachelors who were likely to still own property, while GEDs suffered
if you are playing blackjack and you could swap a card to change your chance of winning from 48% to 71%, would you call that a "good" move? obviously you can decide not to make that move and still win anyway, but I think most people would agree that it's simply the right choice to do so, based on the odds
thus "college is absolutely the right decision for economic mobility" because for most cases it is, and if you are giving general advice to a wide audience you should obviously advocate the best & most consistent choices and not potentially catastrophic or worse-odds ones
I am one of those people who could feasibly get a stem degree lol.
It is not suboptimal in the slightest.
If I had not gone the college route and went a particular route, I could have made the same amount per year almost RIGHT AWAY.
Or I could have gone a safer route, gotten myself established, and climbed the chain to lower level to mid level management at this point, and pulled in PLENTY.
No loans.
No college.
No school past highschool.
College is an OPTION, and not inherently the most optimal.
There is plenty of skilled labor that is in shortage, that does not conform to colleges.
College has become bloated, overpriced, and catered to trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator while pushing political views.
It is not a guarantee of happiness and you are the biggest shill on this entire board to try to say bullshit like that.
Meanwhile there are routes that will start pulling in money for you HERE AND NOW, that have been around just as long.
Frick off with your college shilling.
the best thing by far about AVOIDING college is that you can go another route, make enough money to be stable, then go back through college and switch to a management or design side of your career's industry...
only now you are not a naive young adult easily conned by bullshit spouted by morons looking to influence you.
Such a shame for them...
There's no point in arguing with coping tradies. Their entire identity revolves around their lack of a formal education.
Where is your $3500 number from?
It's like $15k per year, in state, for me
frick off with your pol shit
if the media and politicans hadn't been getting caught out so often this wouldnt be a problem
college brainwashing to blindly trust won't solve the issue of political polarization
go fricking cry about it on /misc/
>Research has repeatedly shown that a low educational background is tied to an increased risk for extremism and vulnerability to disinformation, such as notoriously seen about the 2020 election
yeah surprise surprise if youre not properly indoctrinated at a young age you tend to have view that dont line up with the accepted narrative
>yeah surprise surprise if youre not properly indoctrinated at a young age you tend to have view that dont line up with the accepted narrative
To be fair, even the people that are SUPPOSED to be indoctrinated, like Black people of color, typically wouldn't even graduate from grade school if it wasn't for severely lowered standards
NCO stands for Non-Commissioned Officer, which is a military rank that exists in most armed forces around the world. NCOs are typically responsible for the day-to-day management and operation of military units, and they act as a link between the officers and the enlisted personnel.
While NCOs are not technically "better" than commissioned officers, they do play a crucial role in the military hierarchy. Commissioned officers are typically responsible for overall mission planning and strategy, while NCOs are responsible for the execution of those plans and for ensuring that the enlisted personnel are properly trained and prepared for their roles.
In some cases, NCOs may be better suited for certain tasks than commissioned officers due to their experience and expertise in a particular area. For example, a senior NCO may have years of experience in a particular field or specialty, and may be better equipped to train and mentor other soldiers in that area than a commissioned officer who may not have the same level of experience.
As for China's interest in an NCO system, I can only speculate. However, it's worth noting that China has historically placed a strong emphasis on military training and discipline, and an NCO system could potentially help to improve the quality and effectiveness of their military personnel. Additionally, an NCO system could help to improve morale and unit cohesion, which are critical factors in any military operation.
The military commission is a remnant from the British Empire. So normally, there’s an officer corps that both leads soldiers and managed military operations. The rich and well-educated didn’t want to do field work, so they would just buy a commission that allowed them to skip the field and go right to the operations management.
It’s worth noting that even the Romans, who more or less bought or inherited entire armies by virtue of aristocratic blood, had to actually lead them in the field. Only the British came up with a system that allowed you to buy your way out of the field entirely.
Military commissions are done by a lot of different countries, including most continental European countries. The British didn't invent it neither did they make it more popular.
Its just idiots reducing things to either/or situations when they don't need to be.
The NCO comes into their own when they have to put orders into practice. It's their experience on the battlefield that keeps the troops alive. If the orders are to go to X location and complete Y objective but the intel wasn't great and X location is heavily fortified then the NCO has the knowledge and expertise to react to this new information on the fly. It's that "yeah we're gonna have to go about this a different way" moment and they are the ones who have thd tactical nous to get the job done. Quality NCOs are a big problem for countries like China because they aren't battle hardened. You can do all the studying you like and be a masterful General but if the people putting the orders into action aren't up to snuff then you are gonna have problems.
okay, this has been interesting
but
after all the sloppy opsec, etc., in the news,
i come here to read a random thread,
and see relatively small but esoteric items about usa being used for bants and while it
is nice to see such helpfulness on the part of some patch collector, i'm like what the frick.
just zip it. stfu.
at some point you are helping our enemies with interesting bits of info. maybe it doesn't seem big to you, but i hate our enemies and don't want them getting anything but rekt from our direction.
in other news i now know more about command structure, NCOvsCOvsWOvsETC.
thanks
>What the frick even is an NCO?
watch the latest hohol trench video. the nco is the guy who doesn't lose his shit when bullets start flying and prods the grunts into action
>Why are they better than commissioned officers?
Why are apples better than oranges? Fricking mouth breather. Officers do administration and planning. NCOs beat the grunts into shape and get them to actually execute the orders given by the officers.
Can anyone explain the history of an NCO corps? Seems like something that would stem from Napoleon but I’ve also heard the tradition in the US comes from the Minutemen.
they existed during the early modern period already
Sailing ships had warrant and non-com officers basically since forever. Typically they were specialists who understood the needs and quirks of a particular ship or specialized in some vital role that was too narrow to dedicate an RLO to. Officers rotated ship to ship, just like today, so didn't have that level of experience. The noncoms tended to stay on one ship for they majority of their careers. They also led teams of "mates" who were like sub specialists, ratings with some knowledge of the specific task like carpentry or navigation or combat medicine, whatever.
Military needs fricking buzzwords to do anything huh
>Keep people around because experience is valuable
what a SHOCKING and INNOVATIVE concept invented by the US military huh
Man people will complain about the army even when they do shit correctly
So you have a chain of command so even small numbers of units can stay organized when things get bad instead of a moronic situation where if an officer dies suddenly hundreds of troops have no idea what to do anymore, Russia does the latter and it's been a complete fricking disaster
Aside from what others have expounded on already, NCOs act as a liaison between enlisted and officers. Without an NCO corps you have what the Russians are dealing with in Ukraine- trenches filled with guys who don't know where or how to move, receiving orders from a distant brass that is divorced from what is actually happening on the ground.
Your NCOs are there to make snap decisions and keep the chromosome hoarders in line. They are your actual leaders at a squad level, embedded with your dudes. They also have a secondary role of keeping junior officers from being moronic long enough to learn how not to be moronic. Officers on the other hand generally operate at a platoon level and above, and so don't generally have much of a relationship with individual soldiers and aren't necessarily privy to problems such as low morale before it becomes destructive.
>and keep the chromosome hoarders in line
Rank and file soldiers are not loyal to officers way above them, they are much more loyal to their peers. As such, having a person who's not a complete idiot, and has undergone more training, but is still much more close to a peer relationship with their men, but also willing to listen to higher ups is very useful.
It's not a hard concept to grasp, really.
A big component of career NCO's is to partly mitigate the problem of the Peter Principle. Just promoting all of your experienced and capable enlisted to officers runs into two problems. You don't have experienced and capable enlisted to do all the tard wrangling at the low level. And what makes a fantastic platoon sergeant might not translate into a competent captain or Major.
unfortunately that issue still arises with officers...
admiral king was a great example
Have you ever seen an NCO try and give an officer orders (no one cares about lieutenants)?
Think of the military as a slave plantation. The enlisted are the Black folk, the COs are the owners and their white associates. An efficient slave plantation doesn't dirty the hands of the white folks, they don't want to or need to interact with the Black folk directly. That's what overseers are for. And NCOs fill that role. They're buck broke Black folk who are hungry for authority, and eager to feel themselves above the other Black folk. The plantation owner's white workers get them to deal with the Black folk because they understand the Black folk better than the white fellas.
Of course among the Black folk, they talk about dumb shit like "book smarts vs street smarts" but it's just them wanting to think that they've got something whitey doesn't.
NCOs have experience and are in the trenches. Not all officers will have experience and not all experienced officers will have gone through the day to day with the men recently
Russia doesn't have NCOs and look at their military record.
NCOs are the backbone due to the "Auftragstaktik" Tactical decisions made as reactions to things not going as planned by the brass.
If the Russian army hits such an obstacle the problem goes up the chain and the reaction is slow.
Sometimes Russians just get vague order like "Take that village" and you'll see a bunch of conscripts zerg rushing it at a great loss while the CO sits comfortably in the FOB reporting that the attack is ongoing to HQ.
>Russians told to take a village
>turns out there's a bunch of tanks, LMG, and other shit that isn't supposed to be there
>infantry can't change decisions so they keep trying to attack
>like a few hours officer 20km away finds out about this
>then starts to impliment changes to battle tactics
American military:
>same situation
>either decide to back off or regroup since someone screwed up and it's way better defended than they were told
>or they bring anti-tank weapons and attack