I remember reading somewhere (“Inside the Red Army” or “How to Make War” maybe?) that it was more of a consequence of having a massive peacetime conscript army and very few professional enlisted men (primarily NCOs). In other words, nobody but officers joined up willingly, so most positions of any kind of responsibility were manned by junior officers.
By contrast, most Western militaries have long had a tradition of professional soldiers (some more than others), and along with that, professional career NCOs, even when peacetime conscription was in effect. So there was never the need to have low ranking officers doing everything responsible for a vast sea of unwilling conscripts.
As for the classist origin, AFAIK, it came from the era in the post-Medieval period when individual noblemen/aristocrats would raise regiments to fight. The Duke of Wherever would raise a regiment, and appoint either his cronies, or sell officer commissions to the highest bidder. Meanwhile, they’d also identify and appoint NCOs from the ranks .
And also, during the US Civil War, many volunteer state units elected their company officers, with the regimental officers appointed by the state. Presumably the state would cough up the actual commissions after the elections. Kind of the opposite of classist, although there was a lot of resistance from professional soldiers to the concept.
That’s not my experience here. In Big Business or in Government. There is no way that a technical person could move into a management track except at entry level. The difference is that it’s not explicitly prohibited.
The lack of explicit prohibition is important in that it is part of the way it works for bringing in outsiders – organisational entry at mid level or higher – but even that isn’t used to bring in non-management track people to management positions. It’s used to bring in management - track people from outside.
As I mentioned, it’s rooted in law. Law comes from Congress. While I do agree that the various study guides have some value, I don’t think they are that authoritative. What is authoritative are the laws and the regulations issued per those laws.
Tech ladder (technical staff)? The larger companies I have worked for had a series of job titles (like Member of Technical Staff, Senior MTS, Fellow, Senior Fellow) for high-value individual contributors who did not want to climb the management ladder. Job grades at each level of the tech ladder have equivalents in the management ladder (something like MTS=Manager, SMTS=Director, Fellow=VP, Senior Fellow=senior VP). I’ve frequently held higher job grades than my direct manager.
I think the distinction between commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers is totally—100%—a relic of the class distinctions that existed when military organisations took their current form in the 19th century. Although there are certain advantages to having this two-tiered structure, the main reasons that it persists are tradition and the vestiges of class distinctions.
I was a Petty Officer (an NCO) in the Royal Navy and I was selected for promotion to officer status and attended BRNC Dartmouth as a midshipman. At that time, most officers did not have a degree (it was actually quite rare) and most of my colleagues as an engineering Petty Officer were educated to a higher level than most of my colleagues at Dartmouth.
It’s a nonsense that a sub-lieutenant outranks a warrant officer and that the latter has to call the former sir and salute him. There’s no way we would design a system like that if we were designing it today.
I think if we were to design the system from scratch we would have more continuity between the lower ranks and higher ranks with an easier route to progress from the very bottom to the very top. For sure, we should provide a fast track to folks with more education but the idea that a new entry in one department outranks someone at the very peak of his career in a different department belongs on the trash heap of history.
However, to be fair, you represent one of the most class-ridden societies, and one of the most class-ridden militaries.
The Australian Army, which also has the artificial distinction between ‘officers’ and ‘NCOs’, with junior officers being disposable elements with minimal training, and is almost entirely based on the English model, still gets flack from English officers for not enforcing enough respect and separation between the officer classes and the enlisted men …
(I’m only disagreeing with the “100%” number, not with the thrust of your argument).
The Israeli military, in which I served, has a similar setup, although there are professional NCOs, of a sort. Basically, there are two clearly-defined classes of NCOs - junior and senior, or mashakim and nagadim The senior NCOs are basically any junior NCOs who re-enlist after their mandatory 2-3 years of service, and aren’t an officer. They’re the professional core of the military - the mechanics, technicians, quartermasters and any other skilled position that doesn’t need to be an officer (although very few of them are in combat positions; combat is left almost exclusively to draftees and officers). While not officers, nagadim receive many of the same benefits as officers. For example, in bases with separate dining rooms, the senior NCOS eat with the officers, while the junior NCOs eat with the enlisted personnel.
Like the senior NCOs, all officers also come from the ranks of the junior NCOs. The basic Israeli Army career path is basically, start as a grunt, get sent to a junior NCO course, serve as a junior NCO, and then either (a) finish your 2-3 years and leave the military, (b) take a professional course and become a senior NCO, or (c ) go to officers’ school and become an officer.
Not to nitpick, but while registered nurses are trained to do both of those tasks in practice they’re done by nurse’s aids or personal care assistants who supervised by RNs.
The Soviet Union had universal male conscription in peacetime (& for women during WWII). Young men who were accepted for higher education right out of secondary school could either either defer admission to do their 2-3 years military service, or attend university first while taking ROTCish courses so they could serve as officers after graduation. They had to serve longer if they did that, but as officers they received much better pay & living conditions (& social prestige) than enlisted conscripts.
The name/title of the rank is often a very poor sign of equivalence across differently organized armies. In the US military a Sergeant Major is very senior staff or command adjutant at batallion HQ or higher; in some Commonwealth militaries though you have Company Sergeants Major who are closer to a US First Sergeant (and whose rank title is actually “warrant officer”, “sergeant major” being their position).
Regardless of the names of the ranks and roles in various militaries at various times, the point of the Sandhurst exam question and answer is the same:
That a green officer should largely defer to the tactical judgment and initiative of his much more experienced senior enlisted man. In US football a good quarterback passes or hands off the ball far more than he runs with himself.
In US use (in my era), a rifle company commander is an O-3 with 6+ years experience under his (all “his” then if not now) belt. Not so green as all that. So the question contains something of a contradiction at its core.
Same thing when I was in Navy boot camp – all the CCs (Recruit Company Commanders) and instructors were addressed as sir. I figured it was to geet us recruits used to the idea of addressing senior people properly – there weren’t any officers around, so we practised on the chiefs and first classes who were in charge of us.
Huh, ignorance fought. I’d always heard that it was because the British Army descends from the distinctly non-royal New Model Army of Cromwell. But your post made me look it up and I see it is indeed for the reason you said. Thanks!
Sandhurst is/was the English Officer Training School.
In the English system, the Regiments have/had a high degree of administrative independence: the Sargent Major is/was correspondingly a more important and less relevant role.
I think you may be conflating command authority which for an NCO is assigned or delegated authority, and general military authority which is inherent with rank. My 1SGT can tell me to do some task and that order has the command authority of the Company Commander. My platoon Sgt or Squad Leader(who may only be a PFC) can tell me to do a task and that order has the command authority of the Platoon Leader(usually a Leiutenant). If you remove those people from those positions they can’t tell me to do any task, because they don’t have any command(sometimes called executive) authority. That Master Sergeant or Staff Sergeant or Sergant/Corporal/Private First Class can tell me to tie my boot laces properly so they aren’t hanging out or drop me for not shaving that morning or chastise me for not saluting that officer I just walked past, that’s general military authority, but they can’t assign me to do any specific task.
Now if you mean that there are laws defining what a First Sergeant or Platoon Sergeant or Command Sergeant Major is and does, sure, maybe I guess. I’d call them regulations more than laws, but yes there are sections of the UCMJ that pertain to NCOs and their duties.
Btw, I’d consider a study guide issued by the military to be authoritative.
Eta, there are military regulations, different for each branch, I’m sure, but at the same time very similar, because each branch derives their regulations from the UCMJ. It can be confusing at times.
Ok, maybe I’m not being clear. Command authority for an NCO may be defined by law, maybe, but it is not based in law.
I dunno, I think maybe we’re saying the same thing to each other but just using different perspectives. I spent a lot of time reading those study guides while I was in the Army. (Hey being a 1SG’s driver can be pretty damn boring and they were free and when you’re in the field sometimes you do anything to stave off the boredom) At any rate, I seem to have a more historical perspective than you, so I’m going to leave it at that.