# Officers/NCO‘s.



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Juno847627709@aol.com* on *Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:26:56 EST*
Ok. That clears things up quite a bit. Everything said makes perfect sense. I 
should mention, however, that never would I dare to correct my officers or 
senior NCO‘s in front of our subordinates. Ever! Hope I didn‘t give the wrong 
impression.
    With all that said, how does one know whether he should be an officer or 
enlisted man? Is it simply a matter of intellect? Or does it have to do with 
leadership, morality....Basically all the ‘intangibles‘ Or is it a combo of 
the two, or something I‘ve missed altogether?
    If one‘s to join the Canada‘s Reg. Force in his lifetime, it‘s my 
understanding he should be fully aware of how he can best serve, and that‘s 
all I‘m endeavouring to do.
    If you have good grades and like the army, does that necessarily mean the 
army wants you for an Officer?
    Thanks in advance,
                        -Matt B.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Sun, 24 Dec 2000 19:19:19 *
I think that, Its not what the army wants you to do, its what you want to do 
in the army. If you like getting your hands dirty and actually being a 
soldier, you go the ncm way, if you like planning and preperation, along 
with leadership in a large role, go officer. Of course its not that easy, 
you have to have certain credentials to be an officer, but thats how you can 
aim for what path to choose. I was recommended to be an officer, but I‘m not 
so sure I like the role of the officerPersonal opinion, not trying to 
offend anyone so I‘m transfering to the RCR as an ncm. It‘s all about your 
personal interests.
Peter
Merry Christmas
>From: Juno847627709@aol.com
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>Subject: Officers/NCO‘s.
>Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:26:56 EST
>
>Ok. That clears things up quite a bit. Everything said makes perfect sense. 
>I
>should mention, however, that never would I dare to correct my officers or
>senior NCO‘s in front of our subordinates. Ever! Hope I didn‘t give the 
>wrong
>impression.
>     With all that said, how does one know whether he should be an officer 
>or
>enlisted man? Is it simply a matter of intellect? Or does it have to do 
>with
>leadership, morality....Basically all the ‘intangibles‘ Or is it a combo 
>of
>the two, or something I‘ve missed altogether?
>     If one‘s to join the Canada‘s Reg. Force in his lifetime, it‘s my
>understanding he should be fully aware of how he can best serve, and that‘s
>all I‘m endeavouring to do.
>     If you have good grades and like the army, does that necessarily mean 
>the
>army wants you for an Officer?
>     Thanks in advance,
>                         -Matt B.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Juno847627709@aol.com* on *Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:43:53 EST*
Peter/All, re: Offr.‘s/NCO‘s
        Peter, yes, I understand what you‘re saying. The thing is, I‘d want 
to participate in the grunt work, to a limited extent, but still think I may 
be able to lead.
My decision can be easily made when I find out what the Plt. 
Cmdr,/Coy.2iC/CoyCmdr does in battle.
    I don‘t want to be, say 35 at the rank of Captain at the Company Field 
Headquarters. I‘d want to be guiding soldiers in the field, with my rifle. 
I‘d like to command, but I‘d want to do it from ground level. If I can 
actually participate in the fightingalbeit to a limited extent and still 
guide the troops, then definitely, I‘d want to be an officer.
    What I‘m surprised to see, is that many of the members of this list are 
enlisted, and from what I was told from sources outside this discussion 
groupoften retirees from the service, but usually not the army, enlisted 
soldiers were supposed to be very ‘simple minded‘. However, it seems that 
there‘s no one on this list who is any less than very intelligent, and 
extrememly capable. I guess in my mind I just glorified the officer. Too many 
old movies, I guess.
    Thanks Peter and all.
                            -Matt B.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Mon, 25 Dec 2000 20:16:29 *
Well,
   If you want to lead directly, you can be an NCO. If you want to do it in 
a more indirect way, be an officer. The NCO‘s are the link between the 
troops and the officers. From your messages I am under the impression that 
you want to be in the Infantry. In the infantry, when you do a platoon 
attack, or a fighting patrolambush, raid, etc... the platoon commander, 
usually a 2Lt or an Lt will lead the patrol, but in the case of a fighting 
patrol, you have different parts, assault, support, security, etc.., in 
those sections the leaders will all be non commisioned. A platoon attack is 
nothing more than organised sections attacks with platoon support weapons 
C6, Carl G 84, mortar covering you. If you want to be in charge of 
organising this and leading the verall platoon, while the sectrions act 
somewhat independanltly, be an officer. If you want to actually give direct 
orders to soldiers and participate in actual duties, be an NCM and work your 
way up to a leadership role.
Officers make more money, but I don‘t think anyone joins for the pay. Both 
levels have to be respected and both levels require leaders, but in 
different ways. Its up to you to find out what your interest are and where 
you think you would be most valuable.
Peter
>From: Juno847627709@aol.com
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:43:53 EST
>
>Peter/All, re: Offr.‘s/NCO‘s
>         Peter, yes, I understand what you‘re saying. The thing is, I‘d 
>want
>to participate in the grunt work, to a limited extent, but still think I 
>may
>be able to lead.
>My decision can be easily made when I find out what the Plt.
>Cmdr,/Coy.2iC/CoyCmdr does in battle.
>     I don‘t want to be, say 35 at the rank of Captain at the Company Field
>Headquarters. I‘d want to be guiding soldiers in the field, with my rifle.
>I‘d like to command, but I‘d want to do it from ground level. If I can
>actually participate in the fightingalbeit to a limited extent and still
>guide the troops, then definitely, I‘d want to be an officer.
>     What I‘m surprised to see, is that many of the members of this list 
>are
>enlisted, and from what I was told from sources outside this discussion
>groupoften retirees from the service, but usually not the army, enlisted
>soldiers were supposed to be very ‘simple minded‘. However, it seems that
>there‘s no one on this list who is any less than very intelligent, and
>extrememly capable. I guess in my mind I just glorified the officer. Too 
>many
>old movies, I guess.
>     Thanks Peter and all.
>                             -Matt B.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:21:21 -0500*
No-one who has seen a platoon or company commander leading in operations
would ever accuse them of indirect leadership.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter deVries 
To: 
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 8:16 PM
Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> Well,
>    If you want to lead directly, you can be an NCO. If you want to do it
in
> a more indirect way, be an officer. >
> Peter
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Gow" <jgow@home.com>* on *Mon, 25 Dec 2000 23:40:45 -0500*
Peter does have a bit of a point, Michael....a Company is about as big a
unit as a single officer can have complete command of, without complete
delegation of several control functions like a Bn commander.
Augment a Company, remember the "Combat Team"? and you start running into
problems with being the guy on the spot, calling the shots.
Lord knows its not an easy job, and takes a leader of some exceptional
talent.
So for the soon to be soldiers maybe consider that if you could not do this,
the Officer route is perhaps not yours...there‘s no shame in going the NCM
route....
And, of course, the ability to command a Company does not neccessarily mean
you‘ll get the job, either...
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Oleary" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 12:21 AM
Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> No-one who has seen a platoon or company commander leading in operations
> would ever accuse them of indirect leadership.
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter deVries 
> To: 
> Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 8:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>
>
> > Well,
> >    If you want to lead directly, you can be an NCO. If you want to do it
> in
> > a more indirect way, be an officer. >
> > Peter
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:57:28 *
Mike,
    maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant about indirect orders, is that 
officers don‘t tell the privates what to do, they pass it down the chain of 
command. Thats what I‘ve always been taught and thats what I‘ve always seen. 
Mind you, I‘m only PRes and I have only been in for a year and a half, but 
that has what my experience has shown me. I was taught that orders go up and 
down the chain of command so that there is no confusion within the chain. 
But hey, I could be wrong about that too.
    As the airborne goes, from my interpretation, they were more than just 
jumpers. Also, they were rapidly deployed to Rwanda, not parachuted, but 
flown over.
     I think that we need remember, its a personal opinion an over 
strenghted company or a small battalion of troops that can deploy easily and 
fast. And i think that since we have such a large Arctic that parachuting 
paratrooping could be used in such an area.
     Sorry if I offended any of you,
Peter
>From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: 
>Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:21:21 -0500
>
>No-one who has seen a platoon or company commander leading in operations
>would ever accuse them of indirect leadership.
>
>Mike
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter deVries 
>To: 
>Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 8:16 PM
>Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>
>
> > Well,
> >    If you want to lead directly, you can be an NCO. If you want to do it
>in
> > a more indirect way, be an officer. >
> > Peter
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Randy Johnston" <randicus@home.com>* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:27:23 -0800*
Having a rapid reaction force would be nice, we can probably muster a force
with the assets we have now but I doubt it would be rapid.
One primary asset that is missing or lacking from the CAF is the ability to
employ large transport assets, by this I mean both sea borne and air
transport.
This weakness is one of the reasons that we are no longer primarily tasked
to protect NATO‘s northern flank via Norway. This was attempted on Ex Caste
Norge in 1987 and it was a failure. Lack of transport assets was also a
factor in the Gulf war, our allies were busy taking care of there own
transport requirements to even contemplate trucking us around.
We currently make use of private companies flying Russian Antanov cargo
planes, you can see these monsters on the tarmac in Trenton all the time, in
times of conflict we would not be able to trust these companies to provide
for us, they will be going to the highest bidder.
The Canadian military is taking steps, small slow ones, to improve it‘s
provision of service to the Canadian people and our NATO partners. We have
basic concerns such as structure, viability, training and manning. It is
quite likely that we will not see major changes to some of our concerns
until the country or our leadership feels a need for a renewed sense of
urgency towards defence.
Just a few small points.....Randy
- snip -
I think that we need remember, its a personal opinion an over
strengthen company or a small battalion of troops that can deploy easily and
fast. And I think that since we have such a large Arctic that parachuting
Para trooping could be used in such an area.
     Sorry if I offended any of you,
Peter
Having a 
rapid reaction
force would be nice, we can probably muster a force with the assets we 
have now
but I doubt it would be rapid.
One primary 
asset that is
missing or lacking from the CAF is the ability to employ large transport 
assets,
by this I mean both sea borne and air transport.
This weakness 
is one of the
reasons that we are no longer primarily tasked to protect NATO‘s 
northern flank
via Norway. This was attempted on Ex Caste Norge in 1987 and it was a 
failure.
Lack of transport assets was also a factor in the Gulf war, our allies 
were busy
taking care of there own transport requirements to even contemplate 
trucking us
around.
We currently 
make use of
private companies flying Russian Antanov cargo planes, you can see these 
monsters on the tarmac in Trenton all the time, in times of conflict we 
would
not be able to trust these companies to provide for us, they will be 
going to
the highest bidder.
The Canadian 
military is
taking steps, small slow ones, to improve it‘s provision of service to 
the
Canadian people and our NATO partners. We have basic concerns such as 
structure,
viability, training and manning. It is quite likely that we will not see 
major
changes to some of our concerns until the country or our leadership 
feels a need
for a renewed sense of urgency towards defence.
Just a few 
small
points.....Randy
- snip -
I think that we need remember, its a personal 
opinion an
overstrengthen company or a small battalion of troops that can 
deploy easily
andfast. And I think that since we have such a large Arctic that
parachutingPara trooping could be used in such an
area. Sorry if I offended any of
you,Peter
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:39:35 -0500*
Peter, keep in mind that exercising direct command over individual soldiers
is the responsibility of section commanders only. Progression beyond that
point means primarily administrative and support roles for NCOs.
Also, do not confuse the specific duties of command with the
responsibilities of leadership. The effects of  leadership extend well
beyond the initial tier of immediate subordinates.
With respect to the arctic - what threat do you envision?
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter deVries 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> Mike,
>     maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant about indirect orders, is
that
> officers don‘t tell the privates what to do, they pass it down the chain
of
> command. Thats what I‘ve always been taught and thats what I‘ve always
seen.
> Mind you, I‘m only PRes and I have only been in for a year and a half, but
> that has what my experience has shown me. I was taught that orders go up
and
> down the chain of command so that there is no confusion within the chain.
> But hey, I could be wrong about that too.
>     As the airborne goes, from my interpretation, they were more than just
> jumpers. Also, they were rapidly deployed to Rwanda, not parachuted, but
> flown over.
>      I think that we need remember, its a personal opinion an over
> strenghted company or a small battalion of troops that can deploy easily
and
> fast. And i think that since we have such a large Arctic that parachuting
> paratrooping could be used in such an area.
>      Sorry if I offended any of you,
> Peter
>
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Peter deVries" <rsm_kes_cc254@hotmail.com>* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:18:06 *
I totally agree with you Mike, its just hard to try and find the right 
language to describe it. I was just tryng to say that section commanders 
have a closer relationship to the troops than platoon commanders.
About the Arctic, it was just an example. In my opinion, if your going to 
defend a country, you might aswell cover all the bases.
DO you know the differences in the roles of light infantry and mechanized 
infantry? If you were to suggest a battalion in the RCR which one would you 
say would be the best one to try to get into. I realize that you can‘t 
always pick what battalion you want to go to, but if you were to recommend 
one, which one would you say?
Thanks,
Peter
>From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary
>Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
>To: 
>Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:39:35 -0500
>
>Peter, keep in mind that exercising direct command over individual soldiers
>is the responsibility of section commanders only. Progression beyond that
>point means primarily administrative and support roles for NCOs.
>
>Also, do not confuse the specific duties of command with the
>responsibilities of leadership. The effects of  leadership extend well
>beyond the initial tier of immediate subordinates.
>
>With respect to the arctic - what threat do you envision?
>
>Mike
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter deVries 
>To: 
>Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:57 PM
>Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
>
>
> > Mike,
> >     maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant about indirect orders, is
>that
> > officers don‘t tell the privates what to do, they pass it down the chain
>of
> > command. Thats what I‘ve always been taught and thats what I‘ve always
>seen.
> > Mind you, I‘m only PRes and I have only been in for a year and a half, 
>but
> > that has what my experience has shown me. I was taught that orders go up
>and
> > down the chain of command so that there is no confusion within the 
>chain.
> > But hey, I could be wrong about that too.
> >     As the airborne goes, from my interpretation, they were more than 
>just
> > jumpers. Also, they were rapidly deployed to Rwanda, not parachuted, but
> > flown over.
> >      I think that we need remember, its a personal opinion an over
> > strenghted company or a small battalion of troops that can deploy easily
>and
> > fast. And i think that since we have such a large Arctic that 
>parachuting
> > paratrooping could be used in such an area.
> >      Sorry if I offended any of you,
> > Peter
> >
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
>NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
>to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
>remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
>message body.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *Juno847627709@aol.com* on *Tue, 26 Dec 2000 17:25:34 EST*
And on top of Peter‘s query, what the ****  is ArmouredHeavy infantry?
Same as mechanised?
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------



## army (22 Sep 2002)

Posted by *"Donald Schepens" <a.schepens@home.com>* on *Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:25:27 -0700*
I think that what many people are saying, is that its not really a problem
to have an airnborne battalion.  The problem is what do you do with a unit
which is so small and how do you support it with combat power or CSS assets.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter deVries 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> Mike,
>     maybe you misunderstood me. What I meant about indirect orders, is
that
> officers don‘t tell the privates what to do, they pass it down the chain
of
> command. Thats what I‘ve always been taught and thats what I‘ve always
seen.
> Mind you, I‘m only PRes and I have only been in for a year and a half, but
> that has what my experience has shown me. I was taught that orders go up
and
> down the chain of command so that there is no confusion within the chain.
> But hey, I could be wrong about that too.
>     As the airborne goes, from my interpretation, they were more than just
> jumpers. Also, they were rapidly deployed to Rwanda, not parachuted, but
> flown over.
>      I think that we need remember, its a personal opinion an over
> strenghted company or a small battalion of troops that can deploy easily
and
> fast. And i think that since we have such a large Arctic that parachuting
> paratrooping could be used in such an area.
>      Sorry if I offended any of you,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: m.oleary@ns.sympatico.ca Mike Oleary
> >Reply-To: army-list@CdnArmy.ca
> >To: 
> >Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> >Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:21:21 -0500
> >
> >No-one who has seen a platoon or company commander leading in operations
> >would ever accuse them of indirect leadership.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Peter deVries 
> >To: 
> >Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 8:16 PM
> >Subject: Re: Officers/NCO‘s.
> >
> >
> > > Well,
> > >    If you want to lead directly, you can be an NCO. If you want to do
it
> >in
> > > a more indirect way, be an officer. >
> > > Peter
> >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> >to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> >remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> >message body.
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at  http://www.hotmail.com. 
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
> to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
> remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
> message body.
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:  To remove yourself from this list, send a message
to majordomo@CdnArmy.ca from the account you wish to
remove, with the line "unsubscribe army-list" in the
message body.


----------

