Iterator said:
I’m getting bogged down in terminology soup of my own making…
- 1) many things are called a section and are not necessarily the same size or under someone of the same rank
- 2) many branches do not use the term section at all
- 3) some people not in the infantry still know what an infantry section is, and basically how it is organized
- 4) if someone does not fall under 3) then there is little I can do due to 2) and 3)
OK. Well, lets define section, regardless of branch, as the smallest group of people usually employed to carry out a task. So for a Rifle company, this would normally be a section. For an ammo platoon it would be a warehouse team. These could be broken down further, but then you are talking about a temporary measure.
Iterator said:
And I am not trying to do that. All this stuff about sections and Sgts was to point out that the way it is now is not the way it has always been even though the names of the ranks may be the same.
It all goes back to this quote of yours which may have made some people (or at least me) think you are view this from a very narrow perspective.
This change is about 30 years old now but the wheels didn’t go flying off the system just because the WOs & Sgts mess changed form having platoon 2ics and up, to having section commanders and up. If the new style Sgts could be accommodated couldn’t MCpls?
The only place there was a real change was in the infantry and some other combat arms. As noted a lot of organizations had Sgts as section commanders pre-uni.
Iterator said:
Yes, Thank-you. That is 1 of the 3 options. The others being a mess change in the opposite direction and the 3rd being status-quo.
Going in the opposite direction would be somewhat similar to some US units I have worked with, who did not view US (Army) Sgts as Sr NCOs and they were relegated to corner of the mess while the Canadian Sgts were granted full status. Of course US Sgts usually aren't in that rank too long. It was not viewed as a good thing though, as it made the Sgts feel like a second class citizen. I think that if you have to have a separate place for junior (note not Junior) NCOs then a "MCpls Club" is a better route than a "Sgts corner or room".
As much as I hate to say it, I think the status quo is good. Canadian Sgts are usually quite a bit more mature (older) than US Sgts/SSgts and might not be at ease hanging out with Ptes and Cpls on a regular basis. They usually have just as much TI, often more, and again the age comes up when working with the Brits. This experience makes them accepted by the Brits in the Sgts mess even though they may doing the job of a British Cpl (and again, this generally only applies to Cbt Arms/Inf). As well a Canadian Sgt would be employed in positions that a British Cpl would not be. So the potential employment areas for a Canadian Sgt range from that of a Brit Cpl to a Brit SSgt.
As a slight aside the Brits put a lot of emphasis on rank you hold, not necessarily the duties you perform. I am a Canadian WO, posted into the position of a British SSgt. This around the right level. But because I hold the rank of WO, I carry out the secondary duties normally assigned to WO1/WO2. I cannot be a course sponsor because WOs do not do that, even though my colleagues (all Sgts/SSgts) do. They are quite inflexible on that. It is very similar to the picture painted for me of the pre-uni army buy the old and bold (sometimes retired) when I joined. Your rank (even the name of your rank) determines your duties and expected performance.
Iterator said:
Again, Thank-you. The question though is, based on your experience, why / why not?
The reason inviting JrNCOs in the Sgts mess (and thats what its called here, no WO and Sgts mess) would not work is that experience has shown people where the line is drawn.
It does come down to discipline. MCpls/Cpls can be employed as the first level of leadership. This is where you prove yourself. Once that has been done, you have earned your way in, and are invited into the Sgts mess. Look at it like this. Sgts mess contains the leaders leader's. There is some shades of grey where you have section commanders, but the ranks in the Sgts are those who have the
potential to be the second level or higher of leadership. They are ones who can confirm discipline and help set the tone for discipline in the unit. A certain amount of distance is required for that therefore we have the separate messes.
D
