# At the unit awaiting the BMQ - lowest of the low?



## Crush (7 Nov 2006)

My first new posting here, lots of searching but if I missed this info, please delete this:

A friend told me that while parading at the reserve unit prior to (or while) attending the weekend BMQ, I would be required to come to attention for Privates and treat them as if they were a Sergeant ("YES PRIVATE!!!").

Is this true or is it just a local unit thing? I know I will be told all when I get there for my first night, I had just never heard of that extending to Privates.

Thanks in advance for your insight.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Nov 2006)

> Unit: 	32 MP (Reserve)



Can someone from that unit clarify this.

Any other response would only be speculation, and unhelpful.


----------



## Shamrock (7 Nov 2006)

Sheepdog said:
			
		

> A friend told me...



Probably answered your own question there.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Nov 2006)

Yes and no...

     I've noticed that in the reserves different units act differently. When you show up,  they'll tell you what to do, how to do it and when to do it.  The new recruits in my unit don't come to attention unless doing drill - they don't see anyone with a bar on their uniform thicker than a spaghetti strip.  I have to deal with the officers and I don't always come to attention.     Come to think of it ... I've only been coming to attention for drill and saluting.  

     Like I said,  you will be told clearly what is typical for your unit. That is what I've been pleasantly surprised about the CF,  they tell you very clearly what is expected. :warstory:  

     In my humble opinion,  just kick back and enjoy it.  Remember,  this is the fun stuff.


----------



## 241 (8 Nov 2006)

Don't know as to how easy/useful doing something like that would be because they are waiting for there BMQ and therefore have no formal (Correct) training in Drill, GMK, or Rank structure so the most I could see the unit saying (and this is what is done at my unit) would be to sit back watch observe and be respectful...Sounds like there could be a few Pte(b)s. having some fun there...


----------



## xo31@711ret (8 Nov 2006)

Not to be disrespectful, but in battle school (yeah long time ago, '82) our storeman was a one-hooker; may the almighty have mercy on the soul of any recruit who didn't come to attention and address the private if any of the instructing staff were there! (did plenty of push-ups and remedial drill myself until it finally sunk through my thick skull! LOL - ah memories); though might have been the times and/or my regiment.

-gerry


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Nov 2006)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Not to be disrespectful, but in battle school



Oh yea,  when in training it is a good idea to come to attention when you see something moving unless you KNOW it is just another recruit. It was a different story for me when at the reserve unit before training.  They had us wear uniforms without the corn flake so people would know not to be to mean to us if we forgot to salute or come to attention or the such.  Once again,  you'll be told what is appropriate at the time in different contexts.  Watch your surroundings and listen,  chances are you'll be told what is to be done - if you make a mistake likely you'll just be corrected, not berated.  (Different in BMQ/BOTC though)

     And no,  as an untrained private you are not the lowest of the low.  That is reserved for the odd-ball designation Ocdt :blotto:


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Nov 2006)

Sheepdog said:
			
		

> My first new posting here, lots of searching but if I missed this info, please delete this:
> 
> A friend told me that while parading at the reserve unit prior to (or while) attending the weekend BMQ, I would be required to come to attention for Privates and treat them as if they were a Sergeant ("YES PRIVATE!!!").
> 
> ...



This is not ususal. Very odd indeed. If it does happen, you might try insisting on the 'private' at least returning the compliment as is mandatory! Famous story about Chesty Puller, USMC General ....

"When Chesty was a major, he once came upon an interesting scene: a private was standing at Attention, saluting over and over, as a young Butter Bar stood in front of him. Chesty walked up and addressed the El Tee. "What's going on, Old Man?" "This Marine, Sir. He neglected to salute me as we passed, and I've ordered him to salute one hundred times." Chesty said, "You're right, Lieutenant. So right. But you know that an officer must return every salute he receives -- now let me see you get to it, and do your share."


----------



## Crush (8 Nov 2006)

Well, some interesting comments.

Thanks to all! 

I will, of course, listen carefully knowing full well that I will be told everything I need to know when I get there. I fully expect to get yelled at - I'm heading into 'basic' after all. And yes, I will enjoy it.  ushup:

Don't know if there are any OCdt's at the unit... lol

Thanks for your comments!


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> And no,  as an untrained private you are not the lowest of the low.  That is reserved for the odd-ball designation Ocdt :blotto:



I'm not sure where you got this info.

As an untrained OCdt., you are essentially on the same level as an untrained Private.  

In the regular force, you can have OCdt.'s that have more TI than _Sergeants_ and beyond (CFR etc...) .  Come to think about it, you could have this happen is the PRes. as well.

Put it this way, I am one of those lowly OCdt's, that may have more TI than many Pte.'s or even some Cpl.'s (pushing 4 years now ;D).  So easy what you say about the OCdt's.  It's one of those ranks that you really can't assume the background of the individual.

Cheers

_Edited for Spelling_


----------



## Trinity (8 Nov 2006)

Quag said:
			
		

> In the regular force, you can have OCdt.'s that have more TI than Segeants and beyond (CFR etc...) .  Come to think about it, you could have this happen is the PRes. as well.



Most humbling experience of my life.

10 years.. took CFR .. went from MCpl to OCdt.

The looks of disdain I got from people..... for being a lowly OCdt.
Funny enough.. almost the same looks I got from people as a 2lt.


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

Case in point.

Yes, to me, I see 2Lt. as a training rank.  This is because most people that are 2Lt. are either finishing up their trade training, or just posted to a unit where they will be promoted to Lt. shortly after.

They still hold the Queen's Comission though.


----------



## Dissident (8 Nov 2006)

Quag said:
			
		

> In the regular force, you can have OCdt.'s that have more TI than Segeants[sic] and beyond (CFR etc...) .  Come to think about it, you could have this happen is the PRes. as well.



I'll go easy on you, but let me point out what should be obvious:

CFR stands for "Commissioned From the Rank."  Commission being the operative word here. No one in their right mind would take a CFR if it meant starting as a Ocdt, what would be the point?

But hey, not my monkey, not my zoo.


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

My mistake.

I should have said "From the Ranks".

I know some people that were Sgt.'s and became OCdt.'s.

You have to start somewhere.  I know what you are thinking that they should be starting out at Lt. or whatever, but it depends on what PLQ's they have etc...


----------



## Pte_Martin (8 Nov 2006)

xo31@711ret said:
			
		

> Not to be disrespectful, but in battle school



I used to be res and now I'm reg. When i did res "battle" school they really didn't care that much about ranks other than officers, that's the only time we came to attention. But when i did Reg battle school 24 apr o6 We had to come to attention for all ranks including Pte and address them by ranks.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (8 Nov 2006)

Quag said:
			
		

> So easy what you say about the OCdt's.  It's one of those ranks that you really can't assume the background of the individual.



Sorry if I offended,  I of course meant that for Untrained Ocdts (who are generaly not treated as gingerly  :warstory  
I'm an Ocdt,  I've been informed in a not so subtle way I'm considered beneith untrained ptes by a WO, a few Cpls and one pte.  :warstory:

I wonder if the pte wants me to come to attention when speaking to him.  :blotto:


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

No you didn't offend at all haha.  I'm just sick and tired of seeing OCdt.'s walked over, as some view them as Pte(R)'s, when some have the experience of being Sgt's etc...



			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I'm an Ocdt,  I've been informed in a not so subtle way I'm considered beneith untrained ptes by a WO, a few Cpls and one pte.  :warstory:



I don't understand how you can be? 

It is very unprofessional by the WO, Cpls and Pte to say.  Do they not know rank structure?  I've been involved in a thread about this before, and it was common opinion that a trained OCdt. (now I was talking about myself a Reg.), does not have to come to attention for Cpls, MCpls, etc... (outside of training courses of course)

You may be low on the officer scale, but you are still an officer as OCdt.  If anyone wants to argue this, start reading the CFAO's and QR&O's...

However they have a point with UNTRAINED OCdt's.  Once again though, you are not in any way shape or form beneath untrained Pte's.


----------



## Dissident (8 Nov 2006)

How about to cut and paste the appropriate QR&O's or CFAO's, I don't have time to bother looking this up, it seems very trivial in the end. But I would like to see where it states that Ocdt's are officers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2006)

Dissident said:
			
		

> How about to cut and paste the appropriate QR&O's or CFAO's, I don't have time to bother looking this up, it seems very trivial in the end. But I would like to see where it states that Ocdt's are officers.



You mean this part?:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch003_e.asp#3.01

QR& Volume I
Administrative



> *3.01 – RANKS AND DESIGNATIONS OF RANK*
> 
> (1) The ranks of officers and non-commissioned members shall be as set out in Column I of the Schedule to the National Defence Act, which provides:
> 
> ...



Try being less lazy.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (8 Nov 2006)

You beat me to it Mr. O'Leary


----------



## Donut (8 Nov 2006)

I'll "consider" the little darlings anyway I want, who the hell are you to tell me otherwise?

Oh, I'll call them Mr and Miss, even let them think they've made a decision or two, but I'll continue to "consider" them below an untrained private.  The Pte (R) at least doesn't think that putting on a uniform and a piece of vermicelli somehow imbues him with the insight of of Rommel or the leadership of Patton.  He KNOWS he's at the bottom of the hill, skill-wise, and doesn't think he's ready to lead the cbt team attack, whereas the OCdt...well, that's another story.



DF


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2006)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I'll "consider" the little darlings anyway I want, who the hell are you to tell me otherwise?
> 
> Oh, I'll call them Mr and Miss, even let them think they've made a decision or two, but I'll continue to "consider" them below an untrained private.  The Pte (R) at least doesn't think that putting on a uniform and a piece of vermicelli somehow imbues him with the insight of of Rommel or the leadership of Patton.  He KNOWS he's at the bottom of the hill, skill-wise, and doesn't think he's ready to lead the cbt team attack, whereas the OCdt...well, that's another story.
> 
> ...



Can you get a wider brush to paint people with?


----------



## Donut (8 Nov 2006)

I'm sure if I tried.  ;D

Just relating my experiences with the little darlings.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2006)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I'm sure if I tried.  ;D
> 
> Just relating my experiences with the little darlings.



And people wonder how we manage to create some officers that never really learn to trust their NCOs.  Perhaps it could be because some NCOs treated them blindly with just such a callous attitude.


----------



## Big Foot (8 Nov 2006)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> I'll "consider" the little darlings anyway I want, who the hell are you to tell me otherwise?
> 
> Oh, I'll call them Mr and Miss, even let them think they've made a decision or two, but I'll continue to "consider" them below an untrained private.  The Pte (R) at least doesn't think that putting on a uniform and a piece of vermicelli somehow imbues him with the insight of of Rommel or the leadership of Patton.  He KNOWS he's at the bottom of the hill, skill-wise, and doesn't think he's ready to lead the cbt team attack, whereas the OCdt...well, that's another story.
> 
> ...


ParaMedTech, all I can say is I'm glad that my CAP staff didn't take your attitude this summer. Your broad strokes cover officer cadets who are Phase III infantry qualified (i.e. qualified to lead an unmounted infantry platoon), officer cadets who used to be NCMs. There are a wide range of people who wear that little vermicelli, don't treat us all like we're fresh off the street.


----------



## Donut (8 Nov 2006)

Oh, I'll concede there are exceptions, and I'll admit I'm not entirely up to speed on the Cbt Arms career progression.  What I am saying, is the OCdts that I have encountered, at the BMQ/SQ/CAP whatever level tended to think of themselves as somewhat more skilled in their chosen vocation then, in fact, was the case.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 Nov 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> I used to be res and now I'm reg. When i did res *"battle"* school they really didn't care that much about ranks other than officers, that's the only time we came to attention. But when i did Reg battle school 24 apr o6 We had to come to attention for all ranks including Pte and address them by ranks.



no need for the quotations.  Res or Reg, it is just Battle School. 

Don't forget your roots, as they say...


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Oh, I'll concede there are exceptions, and I'll admit I'm not entirely up to speed on the Cbt Arms career progression.  What I am saying, is the OCdts that I have encountered, at the BMQ/SQ/CAP whatever level tended to think of themselves as somewhat more skilled in their chosen vocation then, in fact, was the case.



It's called association. Don't do it.  You are going to get all sorts of people in this world that think they are more skilled and more intelligent and more....
It's called reality; get over it.  You are painting all OCdt.'s with your experiences of some.



			
				ParaMedTech said:
			
		

> Just relating my experiences with the little darlings.



Thank you for relating your experiences. :

In regards to this:

_I'll "consider" the little darlings anyway I want, who the hell are you to tell me otherwise?

Oh, I'll call them Mr and Miss, even let them think they've made a decision or two, but I'll continue to "consider" them below an untrained private.  The Pte (R) at least doesn't think that putting on a uniform and a piece of vermicelli somehow imbues him with the insight of of Rommel or the leadership of Patton.  He KNOWS he's at the bottom of the hill, skill-wise, and doesn't think he's ready to lead the cbt team attack, whereas the OCdt...well, that's another story._

Wow...  You must be an excellent NCO.  You will let them think they've made a decision or two, and even call them Mr or Miss, eh?  How nice of you.  

Do you even read what you write before you post?



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> And people wonder how we manage to create some officers that never really learn to trust their NCOs.  Perhaps it could be because some NCOs treated them blindly with just such a callous attitude.



Couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 Nov 2006)

I think everyone knows and Officer Cadet is that rank because of the 2 things they usually don't have alot of...experience and training.  This, of course, is not the case where Jnr NCO and in some cases, Snr NCOs are selected for Officer training from the ranks.

Same as those Pte(R) spoken of here.  Difference?

Not too many Jnr NCOs and up on the NCM side are worried that this Pte(r) may be leading them some day.  With the OCdt's they/we are.

So we watch them closer.   ;D

An OCdt is a higher rank than say....a MWO.  I would love to see a OCdt try to tell a SSM the "where for's and how too's".

SO I guess common sense applies...as it always has...

We are all on the same team....right?


----------



## Klc (8 Nov 2006)

> NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS
> 
> 12. Chief Warrant Officer
> 13. Master Warrant Officer
> ...



See, that's funny to me - I could have sworn that there was something between Sergeant and Corporal...  ;D 

Then again, I'm not exactly an SME on this or anything...  >


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 Nov 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> See, that's funny to me - I could have sworn that there was something between Sergeant and Corporal...  ;D
> 
> Then again, I'm not exactly an SME on this or anything...  >



Nope.

MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.

If you look at the Reg Frce pay tables, you will see there is no MCpl on there.  Only Cpl 5A and Cpl 5B.

Learn something every day don't ya?   ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Nov 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> See, that's funny to me - I could have sworn that there was something between Sergeant and Corporal...  ;D
> 
> Then again, I'm not exactly an SME on this or anything...  >



From the same link:



> 3.08 – MASTER CORPORAL APPOINTMENT
> 
> (1) The Chief of the Defence Staff or such officer as he may designate may appoint a corporal as a master corporal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Conquistador (8 Nov 2006)

> See, that's funny to me - I could have sworn that there was something between Sergeant and Corporal...


MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.


----------



## Quag (8 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> An OCdt is a higher rank than say....a MWO.  I would love to see a OCdt try to tell a SSM the "where for's and how too's".
> 
> _*SO I guess common sense applies...as it always has...
> 
> We are all on the same team....right?  *_



This is what it all boils down to.  I was just challenging the technicality.  I completely agree with you, MRM.  Common sense always prevails!


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (8 Nov 2006)

Well, this IS the army....common sense is always PRESENT...not necessarily APPLIED.

 ;D


----------



## Pte_Martin (8 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.
> 
> ...



Reference   http://www.forces.gc.ca/dgcb/dppd/pay/engraph/2006NCMRegFPay_e.asp?sidesection=3&sidecat=28


----------



## Klc (8 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> MCpl is an appointment, not a rank.
> 
> ...



True that. Of course, that's why I tossed the fine print in there.

Funny that this was never taught in cadets. I'm looking at my reference book, and it states it as an NCM rank under EO 402.03 (IDENTIFY OFFICER AND NCM RANK STRUCTURE IN THE CANADIAN ARMY) Not at all saying whats in my pam is correct, I just find it amusing that it was never taught that way, and not identified as such in reference materials.

As was said, learn somehing new everyday.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (8 Nov 2006)

While legally OCdt is an officer rank, it is also listed as a "subordinate officer", meaning an OCdt is an "officer in training", nothing more.  An OCdt is a member of the Officer's Mess, has certain legal rights as a "superior"...however...  He/she has not been commissioned and is considered "under instruction" during his/her time in rank.  OCdts are not merit listed for promotion (outside the training system) and can do nothing more than OJT with units.

No matter what an OCdt's background, one is not better than the other and there's no pecking order.  All OCdts are in training - full stop - and would be well advised to remember that fact when dealing with people in positions to give them advice and guidance.  I know, for instance, that I learned a hell of a lot from the various _Troopers and Corporals_ who "assisted" me through my first stumbling steps in the Army.

On the flip side, soldiers and Sr NCOs who delight in picking on OCdts should remember that they are going to have to live with the results of their "assistance" some day - for good or ill.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Nov 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> See, that's funny to me - I could have sworn that there was something between Sergeant and Corporal...  ;D
> 
> Then again, I'm not exactly an SME on this or anything...  >



No, there isn't.  MCpl is an appointment, not a rank - but that is advanced pedantry.

As to the OCdt discussion - get over yourselves.  If you are lucky, you will pass training, and be given the awesome honour of command - which should be an even more humbling experience than being an OCdt.  If it isn't, you weren't paying attention during all of that "culturisation" as an OCdt.

Dave

Pte, then OCdt, then Officer - of some years and experience.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Nov 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> True that. Of course, that's why I tossed the fine print in there.
> 
> Funny that this was never taught in cadets. I'm looking at my reference book, and it states it as an NCM rank under EO 402.03 (IDENTIFY OFFICER AND NCM RANK STRUCTURE IN THE CANADIAN ARMY) Not at all saying whats in my pam is correct, I just find it amusing that it was never taught that way, and not identified as such in reference materials.
> 
> As was said, learn somehing new everyday.



Yup.  If you look the the Rank Structure handouts given by the CFRCs....and the MLPs on same..it doesn't point out that MCpl is as Mr O'Leary's ref says...

Odd.  Don't you think?   ;D


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> On the flip side, soldiers and Sr NCOs who delight in picking on OCdts should remember that they are going to have to live with the results of their "assistance" some day - for good or ill.



An excellent point!


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Nov 2006)

I've had the dubious pleasure of being an officer cadet in two different armies, and always wondered why we treated ours with such disdain in comparison (or maybe I just deserved it!). Oh well, all the more incentive to get on with your career quickly ...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Nov 2006)

I dunno.  Maybe it is the "you will be leading me and my/our/the countries soldiers/sailors/airmen and air women and we want to make sure you can handle anything so let's start with your ability to know you know nothing so you can learn to lean on, trust and work with the troops, Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs and WOs we already have" mentality...

I really have no idea.  So..expect this post to be ignored or deleted.

I don't think it really that different from a Pte(R) who has no TI or experience..only...they won't be leading...so...

I hear the Mods again saying "SUM UP MRM".

 ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (9 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> I dunno.  Maybe it is the "you will be leading me and my/our/the countries soldiers/sailors/airmen and air women and we want to make sure you can handle anything so let's start with your ability to know you know nothing so you can learn to lean on, trust and work with the troops, Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs and WOs we already have" mentality...



Oh, now please explain how treating OCdts with disdain teaches them to trust you.  I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV, but is seems to me it would have the opposite effect.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Nov 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> "you will be leading me and my/our/the countries soldiers/sailors/airmen and air women and we want to make sure you can handle anything so let's start with your ability to know you know nothing so you can learn to lean on, trust and work with the troops, Jnr NCOs, Snr NCOs and WOs we already have"



That is not how to treat an OCdt.  Sure, they know "nothing", but someone, somewhere, thinks that they might have "the Right Stuff".  It's not yet proven (that's why they are still OCdts!), and they get trained before they get to command.  If they don't, they wash out (maybe "juarez" out?)  >
Yes, they have to learn to listen to their NCOs and WOs, but in the end, it is they (as 2Lts and up) who will have the final say.  As I've instructed my candidates on Infantry Officer Development Period 1.1 (aka "Phase III" or "Dismounted Platoon Commander"), the Pl Comd and the Pl 2IC are a team.  The Command Team.  If they have disagreements, which they will, they will sort them out in the absence of the Sect Comds and on down, in order to project a unified front.  If not, the effects will be terminal on the platoon, for it is the troops who in the end will suffer.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Nov 2006)

In my humble opinion, there are two disconnects with the treat officer cadets like crap school of thought. The first is that we often find officers cadets and direct entry officers undergoing the same training in the same troop or platoon at the same time. This, of course, means that they are at the same level of competence and knowledge and have the same opportunity to pass or fail. Why should one group be treated differently from the others?

The second is that, magically, one day the officer cadets suddenly are commissioned and are expected to be take charge, competent and confident (inexperienced) young officers. How the heck do we infuse them with these officer-like qualities if they are constantly being told that they are the lowest of the low and treated like scum?


----------



## Quag (9 Nov 2006)

OK OK, I know this thread is just dragging on, so mods feel free to delete.  

But I want to point out something from my experience.

Back when I was doing IAP, I was a fresh, wet behind the ears civvy (almost still am ;D), who was getting an introduction to the military life.

Day in day out, we were given the military routine, which I loved and thrived on.  I was developing an intense love for the military way of life (which I think I have developed now), until one day a MCpl. came into our platoon as a section commander.

He was different than the Sgt.'s, whom were firm but still treated us with respect, and whom I looked up to with the highest respect.  I trusted my Sgt.'s and my WO, no matter how tough the times got, because they were professional, respectable but could still carry on their business.

 It seemed as though the MCpl. had something to prove, he wanted to make sure that we felt like the scum of the earth.  He let us know day in and day out that we were worthless beings, using up the uniform of a Pte(R) he could train.  He reminded us constantly that we did not deserve the food we ate everyday.

It was from this experience I developed a short-lasting "hate" for MCpl.'s.  I met more MCpl.'s as the courses went on, whom seemed to share varying degrees of the same attitude. 

Of course, I outgrew this attitude as I met many, many more MCpl.'s who were courteous and treated everyone with respect.  

The question is, how many OCdt.'s still feel a little resentment?

The Sgt.'s on my course realized the problem, and I think they might have even tried to talk to him in private.  They told us to just wait until we were his boss.

It shouldn't be this way.  We need to start forming tight bonds with our NCO's, as we are nothing without them.  This way of training, and generally regarding them, such as ParaMedTech's attitude, does not allow the fullest development of OCdt.'s.  

I mean, guys, OCdt.'s will be leading some of you shortly. 

Wouldn't you rather treat them nicely now, so they aren't idiots when they become leaders?  

Afterall, monkey see, monkey do.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Nov 2006)

Quag you obviously ran into someone suffering "small man syndrom", this happens sometimes. But to then imply that MCpls were untrustworthy begs the question, "Were the Sgts not once MCpls?"

I have met officers I would follow to the grave and others I wouldn't follow to an outhouse, so EVERY rank has both good and bad within it. One of the best officers I worked for used to say that he would listen to what  WO AND the Sect Comds had to say, but not always implement their ideas, because ultimately the final decision was his to make.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Nov 2006)

Actually the worst beasting of new Second Lt's I ever saw was from my Company Comd!


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Nov 2006)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Actually the worst beasting of new Second Lt's I ever saw was from my Company Comd!


As a 2Lt the worst I got was from my Coy 2IC.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Nov 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Oh, now please explain how treating OCdts with disdain teaches them to trust you.  I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV, but is seems to me it would have the opposite effect.



Thats my point  I think I wrote what I meant to say wrong...I was talking about the good training, where they learn that the NCOs are good guys...did it not come out that way?

I don't, myself, see the value in friggin them around.  I worked on some of the Pz 3 courses and never saw the training value in what some of the DS did/said/thought...


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (9 Nov 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> That is not how to treat an OCdt.  Sure, they know "nothing", but someone, somewhere, thinks that they might have "the Right Stuff".  It's not yet proven (that's why they are still OCdts!), and they get trained before they get to command.  If they don't, they wash out (maybe "juarez" out?)  >
> Yes, they have to learn to listen to their NCOs and WOs, but in the end, it is they (as 2Lts and up) who will have the final say.  As I've instructed my candidates on Infantry Officer Development Period 1.1 (aka "Phase III" or "Dismounted Platoon Commander"), the Pl Comd and the Pl 2IC are a team.  The Command Team.  If they have disagreements, which they will, they will sort them out in the absence of the Sect Comds and on down, in order to project a unified front.  If not, the effects will be terminal on the platoon, for it is the troops who in the end will suffer.



Hey...whoa!  I simply pointed out a mentality I have seen lots of...but not one I necessarily think is the best way, or even agree with for that matter...

My thinks I missed the target on that post...my bad.

I am not saying this is the right way, only pointing out that this mentality does exist.   :-\

Or...atleast I have seen it before.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Nov 2006)

It looks like you guys are in volent agreement with one another. Make safe!

And soem of the worst treatment I got as a 2Lt was from 'senior' 2Lts in the same mess! Egads...


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Nov 2006)

Good old regimental rogue, for interest

http://regimentalrogue.tripod.com/srsub/officer_and_nco.htm


----------

