Author Topic: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]  (Read 358575 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #50 on: May 01, 2004, 13:36:00 »
Not to be a jerk, but actually, Just a Sig Op, you aren‘t right.

While it would be possible in theory to have 10000 guys under the command of a Cpl, this wouldn‘t happen in real life.  Officers are supposed to take over command duties starting at the Platoon/Troop level.  

Section Commanders are SUPPOSED to be Sgts, with a MCpl as the section 2i/c.

Platoon Commanders are SUPPOSED to be Lts or in some cases Capts.  2 Lts are not SUPPOSED to be really in charge of anything, it‘s intended to be a "learning" rank.  Ideally, they get slotted into a platoon as a 2i/c.  Platoons will also have a WO to advise the officer in charge.

MWOs and CWOs are likewise advisors to higher officer ranks.  MWOs are usually Company Sergeant Majors, for example, and CWOs are Regimental Sergeant Majors.  Pers holding those ranks are not, in theory, supposed to be officially commanding anything themselves, but in practice, they can, and do take over command responsibilities for small sub units when there is a shortage of officers.

Note that everything I‘ve said above is the way it is under "ideal circumstances".  Just a Sig Op probably got the information he posted as a result of seing it done that way, which does happen often.

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,769
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #51 on: May 01, 2004, 13:38:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by Just a Sig Op:
[qb]  
Quote
Originally posted by scm77:
[qb] This is kind unrelated, but no sense starting a new thread.  What is the largest group of people a NCM can command?  Does it go any higher then a section commander? [/qb]
An NCM can command as many people as he‘s assigned...

A section commander is usually a Master-Corpral, with a Sergeant in charge of the platoon, a lieutenant in charge of the sergeant. [/qb]
A section commander is usually a sergeant, actually, with the platoon second in command ranked as a Warrant Officer and called either the Platoon 2 i/c or Platoon Warrant.

On parade, the Company Sergeant Major will "command" his entire company.  In time of war, in the field, it is not unheard of for CSMs to take over entire companies when the officers are all killed or wounded.

Similarly, the RSM will "command" an entire battalion on battalion parades, before the officers turn up.
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #52 on: May 01, 2004, 13:44:00 »
Beat you to the punch.  Ha ha.

Offline Not a Sig Op

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 56,807
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,785
  • I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear.
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #53 on: May 01, 2004, 13:55:00 »
Ok, my mistake, blame it on the reserve world... where you‘re lucky if you can scrounge up the master jacks let alone a sergeant.
Remember troops, the minimum acceptable standard is still an acceptable standard.

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #54 on: May 01, 2004, 23:58:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by willy:
[qb]

MWOs and CWOs are likewise advisors to higher officer ranks.  MWOs are usually Company Sergeant Majors, for example, and CWOs are Regimental Sergeant Majors.   [/qb]
Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always. I have had SSM‘s (Squadron Sgt‘s Major) who were WO‘s. In war, once the feces hit the oscillating cooling device, it wouldn‘t be uncommon for a "mere" Cpl or Sgt to be the CSM after the higher-ups bought the farm (that‘s when you hope the guy higher up in the food chain was paying attention during orders.....).

I was going to throw in my opinions on the difference betwixt an officer and an NCO (don‘t even get me started on the name/policy change from NCO to NCM.....), but if you want my ***honest*** opinion, PM me (this board can be read by anyone, and my PER has already suffered enough lately from my "negative" attitudes regarding CF, Army, Corps, etc policy).

I‘ll give my somewhat PC explanation in the difference of officer and an NCO: an officer should bring to the table: knowledge of tactics, leadership and what is expected to accomplish the Commanders mission. An NCO executes the plan. Plain and simple. The NCO ***should**** have the experience and knowledge neccesary to accomplish this, and the officer ****should*** be able to plan what needs to be done, and explain this.

Too many explanations of this devolve into education (formal, that is...... the University of Life has a very steep learning curve, and tuition is very expensive.... I have never stepped foot into a ‘real‘ institute  of higher learning, but I don‘t for a second feel inferior in real world ‘knowledge‘ to a person who has a BA, PhD, or whatever other alphabet-soup acronyms that they paid $50,000 for (or had the luck and good grace to have the Crown and tax payers of Canada pay for....). Nor should any soldier. Sure, a formal education can teach you all the theories, but without the practical application thereof, that‘s all it remains: a theory. My opinion is this: no person should become an officer without first being a soldier for a minimum of 3 years. Walk a mile in my ankle boots before slipping on the Oxfords.....

It is a great honour to be an NCO, as well as it should be a great honour and priviledge to be an officer. I would hope that all those that have taken the Commission bear that in mind.

I hope that helps, without causing any great grief to the Mandarins (I‘m sure I‘ll hear about it either way....)

Allan

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,769
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2004, 00:11:00 »
Quote
Originally posted by Allan Luomala:
]Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always. I have had SSM‘s (Squadron Sgt‘s Major) who were WO‘s. In war, once the feces hit the oscillating cooling device, it wouldn‘t be uncommon for a "mere" Cpl or Sgt to be the CSM after the higher-ups bought the farm (that‘s when you hope the guy higher up in the food chain was paying attention during orders.....).
Wouldn‘t it?  I‘ve never heard of such a thing.  CSMs and RSMs, as you know, run ammo and food and water up, and prisoners and waters back of the lines in action.  I‘ve not ever read of a company being so badly hit they needed a corporal to take over as CSM - so you‘ll need to forgive me if I ask you for an example of such.

Your other comments are reasonable enough, but would be quite interested in hearing of a case where a corporal was made acting CSM.  I don‘t think CSMs were killed all that often anyway; a look at any "roll of honour" from any Canadian unit in either world war will show the majority of losses were among the junior ranks.

The Calgary Tanks lost exactly one SSM killed during all of WW II, for example, and the Calgary Highlanders exactly two CSMs.  That doesn‘t include wounded, missing or captured.  

I would imagine the CQMS would be likeliest to fill in for a CSM (or SQMS in the case of an SSM).  The odds of both being killed in the same action, along with all the platoon 2 i/cs seem to be extremely remote.  The Essex Scottish at Dieppe, for example, lost one CQMS killed and none of the CSMs.

In all of WW II the 48th Highlanders had one CQMS killed and none of the CSMs.  Again, that doesn‘t include the wounded.

Looking at wounded, captured and killed together, the Calgary Highlanders lost one RQMS, two CQMS, and 10 CSMs (not counting those hit more than once).  That‘s for the whole war.  The dates for the CSMS were (including men hit more than once)

18 Jul 44
19 Jul 44
24 Jul 44
1 Aug 44
8 Aug 44
13 Aug 44
8 Sep 44
22 Sep 44
22 Sep 44
1 Nov 44
20 Dec 45
9 Mar 45

If you have a corporal filling in as CSM, I‘d suggest you have much bigger problems!  ;)
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2004, 00:36:00 »
My point (and I‘m always prone to exageration... ask my wife, she‘ll tell you) is that anyone (Pte‘s included) could be called in to fill in for CSM or RSM, without neccesarily being a MWO or CWO (respectively). Rare, sure, but that‘s why we are always trained to be able to fill in for the next rank/position higher (I was the acting Tp WO for 6 months whilst "only" a MCpl.... manning issues.... ain‘t they a b!tch?!?!)

I know that there are always more than a few Cpl‘s and MCpl‘s hoping that the Sgt and WO‘s mess blows up during a function...... (like we had here in Gagtown tonight....). Wouldn‘t be total loss, in my mind   :evil:  

Al

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2004, 02:38:00 »
"Actually, you have it backwards (sort of). A CSM or RSM could be a Cpl, Pte, Sgt or whatever. CSM and RSM are positions, not ranks. ****Usually*****, a CSM is a MWO, and a RSM is a CWO, but not always."

I know that.  I thought I said that in my post.  I stated specifically that I wasn‘t talking about wild flights of worst case fancy, but rather about the way things are intended to be.  What exactly did I get backwards?

Offline Cae

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #58 on: July 18, 2004, 12:38:41 »
Just another question: How is the job different if you are an officer instead of a NCM or the other way around.  :cdn:

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 204,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,685
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2004, 20:19:04 »
The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."   This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).

Officers are the senior leaders of the forces.  In the Army they start as troop/platoon commanders and can raise to the hights of general.  Officers will also fill the bulk of staff jobs through various headquaters.

NCMs at the junior level are the workers of the Army.  However, as they progress they also become increasingly involved in leadership & managment.  At the platoon/troop level, the WO (an NCM) overseas much of the managment issues. 

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2004, 04:38:14 »
The CF recruiting site describes officers as "Managers & Leaders" and it describes NCMs as "Technicians & Operators."     This is a rather poor way outline of the differences, and it does not do justice to the senior non-commisioned officers (who are NCMs).

It always bugs me that people want to view the military as a business. "Managers, leaders, technicians, operators" ::) Give me a break. Officer or NCM, everyone's a soldier, and senior NCM's are as much leaders as any officer. It just has to do with the level of the operation that the majority of their attention is focused on; officers are concerned with the overall objective, NCO's take care of the details of working towards the objective (big picture/small picture), and the rest of the NCM's do the work.

As an idealistic overly-simplified example, imagine a group of people currently at point A but heading to point B. They have an officer and an NCO with them. The officer's job is to get the group from point A to point B, while the job of the NCO is to make sure everyone carries their weight and stays with the group. The Jr NCM's move from point A to point B as directed, sometimes ending up at point C if the officer can't work a compass  (in which case the NCO's job becomes tapping the officer on the shoulder and saying "north is THAT way stupi... I mean sir")   :P.

All of the levels are equally important, as without any one of them the whole system grinds to a halt. It basically comes down to what level of a situation you like working at.

Edit:
Whoa...where did you dig this one out from?
Good question.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2004, 04:41:21 by ags281 »

Offline greydak

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2004, 23:58:56 »
Some guys and gals come out of their officer training unfit, sure they might be able to run during PT but come time in the field they suck and believe it or not their history degree is of no use to them.

 :cdn:





Who Dares Wins

Big Happy

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #62 on: August 04, 2004, 22:35:37 »
Cpl = 4 pay incentives, Capt = 10 pay incentives

You do the math! ;)

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,913
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #63 on: August 12, 2004, 14:30:29 »
I recommend that you go ahead and try service in the Reserve. That's how I got started. I spent eight years in the Res as an Inf soldier, then transferred to the Regular Army as an Inf Offr once I decided what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. I have now entered my 30th year of service and I don't regret any of it. Although I entered the officer corps via a program designed to bring in officers without degrees, I later (much later...) went on to complete my degree thanks to the Army education program.

As Mike O'Leary wisely stated, be careful about "assuming" that you will get an education out of the Army just because you want one. Post secondary education for NCOs in the Army is normally provided as a means of developing officer candidates. As an NCO,you must be selected as an officer candidate FIRST, before you would be considered for funded post-secondary education. The emphasis is on producng the leaders, not on giving out "freebie" educations. You can ask all you want, but you will have to demonstrate potential as a leader (as well as performance as a soldier) before selection.

However, while serving in the Reserve you can apply for the Reserve Tuition Reimbursement Program, which will provide reimbursement to serving Res soldiers who complete post-secondary education (Contrary to misinformation, this program has NOT been cancelled-the Commander of the Army wants to save it as an excellent system, which it is.)

When I was an NCO I didn't much like officers and I never really thought of becoming one (they didn't like me much, either...) but a Regular Army Sgt Maj convinced me to try it, so I did. It worked for me, but as another poster pointed out, just being an NCO is not in any way a guarantee that you will be a good officer. I have seen some real disasters who never should have "crossed over". But, on the other hand, consider the fact that both MGen Lew Mackenzie and our last Commander of the Army, LGen Jefferys, started out in the ranks. So, it can work out very well too. It all depends 100% on the person.

The Army needs good NCOs and WOs. It also needs good officers. Shoot for what you do best. Good luck. Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 48,800
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,913
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #64 on: August 13, 2004, 00:26:12 »
Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con? Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline devil39

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 585
  • Ex-Army Guy
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #65 on: August 13, 2004, 00:36:15 »
Absolutely.   I believe one gains a valuable perspective from the other side of the fence.   This perspective is difficult to impart as lessons to prospective officers.

Offline alexk

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #66 on: August 13, 2004, 01:36:46 »
I cant remember who im quoting but it was somthing like this

walk a mile in my parade boots before you step into those oxfords



CF104Starfighter

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #67 on: August 13, 2004, 02:12:41 »
Officers work hard too...

Offline hoser

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 325
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #68 on: August 13, 2004, 03:01:07 »
As a soon-to-be officer cadet, I found this idea a little disheartening when I first heard it mentioned.  Is it not possible for me to be a good officer because I've never spent any time in the ranks? Or will I always be treated with contempt because I wasn't ever an NCM?  I wish I would have joined the Reserves when I was in University, but of course, I can't go back in time. 

Now, with that said, I've obviously had no prior experience, so take the rest of my post with a grain of salt.  I won't lie, I have a tendency to stick my nose into discussions in which I probably don't belong, but I find its overall helpful way to learn about things. 

I can understand the benefit of this proposal, but would the benefits be worthwhile?  You'd have to train every officer candidate twice, (depending of course on what is meant by a short stint).  Or is the MOC training similar enough for NCM's that the additional training for an officer would simply build on it?  If you didn't MOC qualify a candidate before commissioning him, then would the time served in the ranks be all that beneficial?  In other words, would spending a year or so in a general duties/training type of atmosphere as a Private really enable the officer candidate to get a realistic perspective of the "other side"?   

Now, the idea in general is to get Officers with a more well developed understanding of the NCM side of things.  At least I think.  Are there not better ways to approach the overall problem?  Any alternative solutions?  In the current system, do Officers misunderstand NCM's so much that a system like this is necessary? 

I guess my overall understanding of this topic can greatly be enhanced with the answer to a fairly basic question.  What specific shortcomings (with examples, if possible) of the Officer corps would a system like this address? 

And, on a much less serious, logically challenged note, what about the flip side?  Make every Pte. do a short stint as an 2Lt. before he/she gets his/her hook? 

Yard Ape

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #69 on: August 13, 2004, 04:03:20 »
Here's a thought: all Army officers should complete recruit training and serve a short stint in the ranks first. What do you think: pro/con?
I don't think it would work at the recruiting centres.  However, I think we should definatly raise the percentage of new officers that come from UTPNCM.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 133,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,663
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #70 on: August 13, 2004, 04:05:37 »
PBI:

I tend in theory to agree with the concept.

I've often seen the argument that the Forces is full of good leaders who never spent any time in the Ranks.   This is completely true, and I wouldn't think of arguing against it; I've seen plenty in my short time.   As well, I've also seen the argument that good NCO's do not always make good Officer's.   I won't argue with that either, I am sure we all understand that an NCO and an Officer are two different things, and some cannot make the transition.   However, for the point of this discussion, I am not dealing with CFR's of NCO's but rather selection of Private soldiers who have displayed the requisite abilities to join the professional body of the military officer, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Much of the what I will put forward is formulated from Maj Donald Vandergriff's The Path to Victory, an interesting book on how armies should be organized to fight.   Although written in the context of the US Army, the core of the ideas are clearly applicable to the our Army as well.   Now, for the advantages of taking one's officers from the ranks.   As stated above, service in the ranks is not a prerequisite for good leadership.   However, can anyone think of any feasible argument that shows it to be detrimental to the abilities of a potential officer?   I would contend that service in the ranks would only benefit a potential officer for numerous reasons, such as:

1)   A greater bond and trust between an officer and his troops due to the fact that they have "walked in the Private's boots".   There would be a common bond from the lowest private to the highest General.

2)   As well, it will eliminate the tradition of the Army of placing green lieutenants, usually the most inexperienced members of their command, in charge of what is probably one of the most vital positions within a fighting force, command of a small unit.   Although novice commanders, prior experience as a troop has allowed an officer first hand evidence of how to fight and lead; he watched his platoon commander when he was a Private.

3)   Due to going through recruit training and becoming indoctrinated into the institution of the Army through time in as a Private, a potential officer entering into leadership training has real experience to build from.   Gone will be the days of marching Officer Cadets around and trying to teach a section attack to someone who cannot master the service rifle;   from the start, Officer Training can immediately focus on rigorous training and exercises to prepare for the leadership of troops on combat.

4)   Service in Rank can act as a "weeding-out" process for those who are unable to perform competently as a Private, let alone a leader (Don't deny the fact that you know there are officers that have squeaked through the system).   A rigorous selection exam combined with evaluations of actual military service will provide a much better criteria for selecting officers then high school marks, volunteer hours, and a good job as Squadron Leader at the RMC.

A possible career pattern for one to become an officer would be something like this.

- A recruit joins up and is sent to recruit training.   He does a three year Basic Engagement (approx. 1 year training, 2 years as a Private Soldier).

- Based on recommendations by C-of-C, evaluations, and course reports, potential officers go before a selection board and are selected following interviews, etc.

- Once selected, a potential officer is given the rank of Officer Cadet and sent to the RMC.   There they undertake a three year degree program that gives them a fundamental military education and prepares them to enter the professional Officer Corps.   At the end they receive a B.A. in Military Studies as well as having the ability to minor in a liberal art or science discipline of their choice.   A fundamental military educated surrounded by ancillary educations in various fields (economics, sociology, physics) can ensure the educated vitality of the professional Officer Corps.

- The Military Education should teach Officer's on how to think and approach the chaotic problems posed to a commander operating within the spectrum of conflict.   Leadership cannot be a system of checklists and PAM's; this only invites inflexibility and operational stagnation.   From the start, bold use of initiative and creative approaches to military problems must be inculcated in our future leaders.

- After completion of the Degree, the Officer Cadet should be thouroughly prepared to face the requirement for entrance into the Officer Corps, a intensive comprehensive exam.   The exam should consist of essays on tactics and theory, tactical decision making scenarios, and technical questions regarding military equipment and weapons, etc.   These exams will place emphasis on creativity and thinking outside of the box rather then schemata and processes.

- Following completion of the comprehensive exam, the Officer Cadets are sent on a 6 month Leadership Course that prepares them for leadership in their respective trades.   Upon completion of the course, he is commissioned as a Lieutenant and given his first command.
---

This system would result in only the best rising to positions of leadership.   It would ensure that all officers receive a thourough military education and that they are given the right tools to lead their units with.   Two potential counterpoints I see are that this will result in an older officer Corps.   I would state that this is not the case, as an Officer who was recruited at 18 would be a Platoon Commander at 25; but the qualitative difference allowed by time in the Ranks as well as a comprehensive military education ensure that the 25 year old is in a much better position to exercise his command.
The more prominant criticism would point to the fact that our current requirements for Officer's could not be supported by this single "funnel" of Officers.   would challenge this argument on two counts:

1) A good leader would make it through any system.   If anything, the Officer Corps benefits from a more stringent winnowing of the "wheat from the chafe"   The case where someone gets accepted to RMC only to wash out of their selected trade only to burden the Forces as a PAFFO (This is a case I can personally recount, I am using it as an example) will not happen, only the best will advance.

2) The percentage of our Army that belong to the Officer Corps is 21%.   I've argued before that this seems excessively high in that we have one leader for every four troops (We could make an entire CMBG out of Commissioned Members).   Perhaps, with the appropriate organizational changes (another discussion....) and a readjustment of this figure, the required annual "uptake" of officers could be supported by the system proposed above.

Well, there's the beans from me.   This structure of the Officer selection seeks to maximize professionalism and excellence within the Officer Corps to the highest possible degree.   As an ideal, we can demand no less; and within this demand is contained the requirement to serve a Basic Engagement within the Ranks of the Army.

Thoughts to chew on,
Infanteer
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Yard Ape

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #71 on: August 13, 2004, 04:07:51 »
If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 133,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,663
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #72 on: August 13, 2004, 04:38:16 »
Quote
If all the best leaders went to become officers @ Cpl & MCpl, what would that do to the quality of our Sr NCOs?

Very valid, we would not want to leave the backbone of the Army, the NCO Corps, deficient of good soldiers.  However, I believe two factors would play in this:

1)  Of course, not all troops would express interest in seeking a commission.  They would be groomed for NCO positions.

2)  As well, there are differing factors in the character and abilities of a soldier that would indicate he would be a better NCO or a better Officer.  We freely admit that "Not all NCO's make good Officers because they can't make the transition...."; this would imply that their is a different skill set and approach to being an Officer as opposed to being an NCO.  These skill sets must be taken into consideration today in the way we groom our future NCO's; otherwise we would simply be CFR'ing everyone of modest ability because "they looked like good leaders." The role of the officer and the NCO are two separate beasts; with this in mind the C-of-C should be responsible for watching its soldiers and grooming both potential officers and junior NCO's and guiding them down the requisite path.  The obvious question is what are the characteristics of a potential NCO (x) and how do they differ from the characteristics of an aspiring Officer (y)?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 923
  • Retired WO
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #73 on: August 13, 2004, 05:15:09 »
Infanteer has made some interesting points, and has offered a valid argument, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

I would add the following:

-No officer would be promoted past the rank of OCdt until all trades training requirements for his trade have been successfully completed, wherupon the candidate would be promoted to 2Lt.

-Promotion to Lt would follow after the officer has completed a minimum of one year employed in his primary trade at a Unit, and a PER of at least "met standard" has been written on him.

-Promotion to the rank of Capt would be strictly merit based, and in no case would more than 80% of eligible Lt be promoted in any one year.  (I would add this last to the rank of Cpl as well).  This may well mean the possibility of career Pte/Lt, which has happened in every army I know of, less ours.
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Comparing the job of Officer vs NCM [MERGED]
« Reply #74 on: August 13, 2004, 05:46:01 »
I had entertained the idea of officers having to serve some time in the ranks a little while ago, but reached the conclusion that it causes more problems than it's worth.

1) Two tiered isn't just a healthcare term. A Pte and a Pte (officer candidate) will not be treated the same. Having a two tiered system among the ranks is bound to lead to problems by dividing what should be a cohesive group.

2) DEO what? Is anyone in their right mind actually going to say "well, I have this engineering degree now, I think my best option is to get paid as a Pte for three years just for a chance that I'll be selected as an officer eventually rather than ending up back where I started but three years older"? Everyone will go for civie jobs, because then at least they know what job they're signing up for.

3) It's all about the bling. University grads make more money in the civilian world than those without a degree. Why would they sign up for Pte pay and no guarantee of moving up to officer pay when they can get far more money civie side? While you could pay a Pte with a degree more than one without to offset this, the problem of division/resentment among the ranks mentioned in point 1 would only get worse.

4) We're recruiting who? If the RMC route was such that they did their time in the ranks right after highschool and were then offered officer training and university education after this (but only if they do well) some would apply. Problem is, how likely is it that the hard workers will join up when they've already been accepted to Waterloo, UBC, U of T, etc with no strings attached and possibly with scholarships? The CF would be blading itself by recruiting primarily from the mediocre down - those that didn't make the cut for university on their own.

I could go on with problems in implementing this plan through all trades/elements forces wide, but I think you get the idea.

There are definitely some changes that could be made in the training of officer candidates. A common initial training phase (basic and indoctrination into your respective element) might be an option, using it as an extended IAP. After the common phase, where everyone would be ranked "recruit", those that aren't showing much promise of officer potential could be given the option of continuing as NCM or CT. Those that do show promise would then continue on to officer training now firmly grounded in basic soldiering/sailing/air forcing (hey, they don't all fly   ;)).

I also like Lance's suggestion about the rank progression. We could do with a bit of rank deflation at all levels (pay issues would have to be sorted out of course, but that's certainly achievable). We'd just have to be careful about lengthy delays in training as I can't see an extra year at OCdt due to course backlog leading to happy personnel.