What is the idea behind the difference between Officers and NCOs??

[Hornblower]

As a former Officer (and earlier in my career an NCO) I can tell you that you can debate the differences and minutae for ever. The best way I've found to describe the difference between an Officer and an NCO is to use sporting analogy:

The Officer is the Coach of the football team and ultimate authority:
They have the knowledge and training developed over years of specialist courses and experiences (and in many cases from being a player) to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their team. They know who should be in what position and how best to focus the entire team to accomplish the mission ie. winning the game. They equip the team with a game plan prior to running onto the field and they train them with this plan in mind. The coach also examines the other team to comes up with the strategy to beat them. The coach also looks longer into the future to determine how to keep his team together and liaises with management and external staff who aren't atheletes to keep his team effective. He is in charge and he is held responsible for everything. This is what an Officer does in the most basic of terms.

The NCO is the part of the leadership group on the field:
An NCO is the experienced team member who directs the team when they are on the field actually playing the game. There are a number of NCO's on a football field. Captain of the team, Captain of the backline, Captain of the forwards, vice-captain etc. The guys calling the shots on the field are doing so from a point of experience and have the smarts to be able to carry the coach's instructions onto the field and carry them out. They are also smart enough to adapt them as required. These guys are directing the other team members and on the field their word is gospel. They have developed these skills from years of playing, training and an inherent ability. The rookies, the journeymen and the guys with experience will all take instructions from them because they are the go to guy on the spot whilst doing the work alongside them. The NCO/team captain has a lesser but still significant role off the field by providing advice to the Officer/coach on players and strategies. They have accountability and responsibility but ultimately they don't get the final say.

The Officer does get down and dirty with the men in real life but there is a separation from the Officer's and Men that is necessary from an intellectual and authoritative level. If you are going to command and take men into situations that are beyond the pale then you can't really afford to be too chummy with them. NCO's can.

 

[otago]

As a former Officer (and earlier in my career an NCO) I can tell you that you can debate the differences and minutae for ever. The best way I've found to describe the difference between an Officer and an NCO is to use sporting analogy:

The Officer is the Coach of the football team and ultimate authority:
They have the knowledge and training developed over years of specialist courses and experiences (and in many cases from being a player) to assess the strengths and weaknesses of their team. They know who should be in what position and how best to focus the entire team to accomplish the mission ie. winning the game. They equip the team with a game plan prior to running onto the field and they train them with this plan in mind. The coach also examines the other team to comes up with the strategy to beat them. The coach also looks longer into the future to determine how to keep his team together and liaises with management and external staff who aren't atheletes to keep his team effective. He is in charge and he is held responsible for everything. This is what an Officer does in the most basic of terms.

The NCO is the part of the leadership group on the field:
An NCO is the experienced team member who directs the team when they are on the field actually playing the game. There are a number of NCO's on a football field. Captain of the team, Captain of the backline, Captain of the forwards, vice-captain etc. The guys calling the shots on the field are doing so from a point of experience and have the smarts to be able to carry the coach's instructions onto the field and carry them out. They are also smart enough to adapt them as required. These guys are directing the other team members and on the field their word is gospel. They have developed these skills from years of playing, training and an inherent ability. The rookies, the journeymen and the guys with experience will all take instructions from them because they are the go to guy on the spot whilst doing the work alongside them. The NCO/team captain has a lesser but still significant role off the field by providing advice to the Officer/coach on players and strategies. They have accountability and responsibility but ultimately they don't get the final say.

The Officer does get down and dirty with the men in real life but there is a separation from the Officer's and Men that is necessary from an intellectual and authoritative level. If you are going to command and take men into situations that are beyond the pale then you can't really afford to be too chummy with them. NCO's can.

And if the boss who is a platoon commander stops one the platoon Sergeant/ senior Corporals are not supposed to have the intellectual or authoritative authority to take the platoon over ?
I served with Aussie Nashos who were often far better educated than their platoon commanders in the way of degrees etc.

 

[Hornblower]

And if the boss who is a platoon commander stops one the platoon Sergeant/ senior Corporals are not supposed to have the intellectual or authoritative authority to take the platoon over ?
I served with Aussie Nashos who were often far better educated than their platoon commanders in the way of degrees etc.

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Clarify?
Remember that we are simply answering a question that helps to define the basic difference between an Officer and an NCO.
If you want to debate education within the military I wouldn't be basing it on an experience from the Nasho days in the 60's.

 

[Ramius75]

Officers engage in Politics... while the NCO are there just for the fighting...

they do not need so many people to meddle in "politics".

Soldiers are trained not to "think"

 

[Gogf]

Very interesting thread.

Commissioned officers have more power, and can even arrest people.

Is this true? Can someone elaborate on this? Posse comitatus? Can they arrest other soldiers? Is this just a British thing?

 

[Hornblower]

Very interesting thread.



Is this true? Can someone elaborate on this? Posse comitatus? Can they arrest other soldiers? Is this just a British thing?

Any member of the Australian Defence Force has the powers of arrest and detain on a military establishment of any person for security reasons. No specific rank required for that one.

An Officer can 'charge' any lower rank under the Defence Force Discipline Act but this is not a common occurence barring exceptional circumstances. Normally training establishments utilise this function more than the regular units. Having said that I have in the course of my career charged a few men with discipline and disobedience related offences. The military police do the paperwork and the Commanding Officer hears the charges and makes the determination of guilt/innocence and penalty.

 

[Hornblower]

Officers engage in Politics... while the NCO are there just for the fighting...

they do not need so many people to meddle in "politics".

Soldiers are trained not to "think"

A myth. I blame Hollywood.

All my men were trained to think rather than rely on someone else (ie. Me) to do the thinking for them. We train them to adapt and overcome. That requires them to think no be a mindless automaton of the larger machine. I would argue that for a soldier to be of any value he must be able to think for himself but also know when he must do as he is told. That is not the same as not thinking.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

So if I understand correctly, officers are in charge of theory while the noncoms take care of application?

 

[kochman]

Very interesting thread.



Is this true? Can someone elaborate on this? Posse comitatus? Can they arrest other soldiers? Is this just a British thing?

I was an officer, in the US Army, and this is true.

So if I understand correctly, officers are in charge of theory while the noncoms take care of application?

Somewhat... Officers are bigger picture.
They often call the officers the brains, and the NCOs the spine.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As my "maverick" (entered as an enlisted man and was promoted to an officer) father once said, if you have to serve in the military you don't want to be there as an enlisted man. It is two entirely different worlds.

 

[SuperJay]

As my "maverick" father once said, if you have to serve in the military you don't want to be there as an enlisted man.

You're the son of John McCain?!?11?!1

 

[Formaldehyde]

Wrong kind of maverick. West Point attendees don't really count as previously being enlisted personnel, even if they barely graduate.

 

[Patroklos]

Its not "maverick," its "mustang."

And yes, academy grads or anyone who only has pre comissioning service in the form of academic time only are not considered prior enlisted out in the force, even if their record officially shows enlisted time.

Case in point, when I was going to college I was technically an E-5 in the naval reserve, but I never went to boot camp and besides monthly academic meetings with my recruitment center I did nothing naval related. I was going to school at a military college and attended NROTC classes, but that was not required by the commissioning program I was in (BDCP). My service entry date, however, is when I "enlisted" three years prior to commissioning, I get paid from that date, I acrewed leave during those years, and my retirement date takes that time into account. Despite that I never have and never will claim to be a prior, nor would anyone consider me as such.

 

[Ramius75]

A myth. I blame Hollywood.

All my men were trained to think rather than rely on someone else (ie. Me) to do the thinking for them. We train them to adapt and overcome. That requires them to think no be a mindless automaton of the larger machine. I would argue that for a soldier to be of any value he must be able to think for himself but also know when he must do as he is told. That is not the same as not thinking.

on local level. but you dont choose the target or mission.

 

[IglooDame]

Wrong kind of maverick. West Point attendees don't really count as previously being enlisted personnel, even if they barely graduate.

Ditto regarding mustangs for Annapolis grads, by the way (West Point is Army, Annapolis is Navy).

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

They often call the officers the brains, and the NCOs the spine.

And the grunts are the muscles then. Alright, that makes sense.

 

[Patroklos]

There is no differnece between an NCO and a enlisted person or grunt. NCOs are just enlisted people with rank to include Corporal on up. The majority of enlisted personel are NCOs.

 

[kochman]

There is no differnece between an NCO and a enlisted person or grunt. NCOs are just enlisted people with rank to include Corporal on up. The majority of enlisted personel are NCOs.

That's not true either, actually.
NCOs are no longer pure enlisted.
Once they reach E-7 (US Army Sergeant First Class), they are appointed differently, and cannot be retired early, and some other things.
Also, NCOs can give lawful orders... lower ranks cannot. Disobeying a PFC is not a court martial offense (though you will get punished)... disobeying an NCO is breaking the law.

 

[Flying Pig]

As a former Officer (and earlier in my career an NCO) I can tell you that you can debate the differences and minutae for ever. The best way I've found to describe the difference between an Officer and an NCO is to use sporting analogy:

A very good one. I heard this to explain why Martin Johnson initially made such a bad coach - he was going into an officer's role with an NCO's mindset and so character traits such as unquestioning loyalty and trust in his circle of friends and higher-ups which served him well in playing meant that he was burdened with a team of officials who needed replacing. Once he learned to think like an officer, we picked up somewhat.

I served with Aussie Nashos who were often far better educated than their platoon commanders in the way of degrees etc.

Often happens in units such as the Intelligence Corps which attracts the brightest soldiers and the worst officers. The NCOs however haven't enough training to lead a platoon for an extended period of time and would probably get it badly wrong, not to mention the fact that education does not imply competance or common sense.

Officers engage in Politics... while the NCO are there just for the fighting...

they do not need so many people to meddle in "politics".

Have you never been to a Sergeants' Mess? Real politics - by which I mean discussions with politicians - only routinely occours at the very highest level outside of special forces, but squabbles to crawl up the greasy pole of promotion happen all the time at all ranks.

Soldiers are trained not to "think"

Completely wrong. What happens if Tommy Atkins finds himself cut off from his section, or his corporal is hit? Everyone needs to know what's going on on the battlefield and what his platoon is doing so that he can be effective at all times. 'Every man a link man' is a common phrase; knowledge is power and power means winning battles.

An Officer can 'charge' any lower rank under the Defence Force Discipline Act but this is not a common occurence barring exceptional circumstances. Normally training establishments utilise this function more than the regular units. Having said that I have in the course of my career charged a few men with discipline and disobedience related offences. The military police do the paperwork and the Commanding Officer hears the charges and makes the determination of guilt/innocence and penalty.

I probably should point out that being 'put on a charge' is far less serious than in civilian life; I knew a man who was charged for 'keeping pets' after a fly landed on his shoulder on parade during basic training. A proper 'charge' - ie something serious - is usually decided by teh CO who will ask 'do you accept my award or shall we take it to court-martial?' to which the usual response is 'your award, sir'; normally a fine and a short imprisonment of about ten days.

A myth. I blame Hollywood.

All my men were trained to think rather than rely on someone else (ie. Me) to do the thinking for them. We train them to adapt and overcome. That requires them to think no be a mindless automaton of the larger machine. I would argue that for a soldier to be of any value he must be able to think for himself but also know when he must do as he is told. That is not the same as not thinking.

So if I understand correctly, officers are in charge of theory while the noncoms take care of application?

Broadly, except that officers direct the execution of their orders as well on a platoon and higher level; more accurately an officer can rarely replace his battlefield orders with 'follow me' while an NCO often can.

As my "maverick" (entered as an enlisted man and was promoted to an officer) father once said, if you have to serve in the military you don't want to be there as an enlisted man. It is two entirely different worlds.

Actually, I'd disagree. I would have hated to have started out as an officer; I loved the role of being in the action all the time and being respected for my skill and experience, not because I had a shiny star on my shoulder.

There is no differnece between an NCO and a enlisted person or grunt. NCOs are just enlisted people with rank to include Corporal on up. The majority of enlisted personel are NCOs.

A 'grunt' is traditionally Infantry. In British parlance, an enlisted man is a conscript but an NCO 'enlists' into his regiment; thus 'Private Bloggs was enlisted into the Blankshire Regiment, with whom RSM Lauderdale had enlisted twenty years before'

 

[Patroklos]

That's not true either, actually.
NCOs are no longer pure enlisted.

Yes, they are. They are just higher ranking enlisted.

Once they reach E-7 (US Army Sergeant First Class), they are appointed differently, and cannot be retired early, and some other things.

And at O-4 officers are selected by board, that doesn't make them any less officers. Flag officers require Congressional approval, they are still officers.

Also, NCOs can give lawful orders... lower ranks cannot. Disobeying a PFC is not a court martial offense (though you will get punished)... disobeying an NCO is breaking the law.

Everything but recruit and private is an NCO, the reason recruits and pivates can't give lawful orders is that nobody is below them in rank. However, if given positional authority their orders are as valid and lawfull as an Sergeant Major.

Disobeying orders can be a court martial or NJP offense for anyone, its not whose orders you disobey but the gravity of the orders you disobey that dictates that.

NCOs enjoy no special legal considerations for their orders.