What is the idea behind the difference between Officers and NCOs??
- Thread starter Cheetah
- Start date
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
You can disagree all you want, your distictions are imagination. My chief gives direct orders all the time, and my watch captain seamen give other seamen lawful orders all the time based on their positional authority.
As I said, but in reference to you previous comment NCOs are still enlisted from E-1 to E-9.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Maybe they use different terminology in the Navy... I was in the Army, and am quite sure I know what I am talking about in terms of how the Army operates.
All orders are lawful orders. Otherwise, they're unlawful orders, which is silly - that's an order to do something against the law. A direct order is an order given directly from superior to subordinate, in contrast to a general order which is given en masse and all are expected to heed it; a written rule. Hence 'no dogs' is a general order while 'get that dog away' is a direct order.
I'm only going from memory a decade ago, but "NCO" to me does not mean E-1 to E-9. It includes the petty officers (thus the name, really) but doesn't include E-1 to E-3. "NCO"="enlisted" is not a common understanding in the US Navy IMHO (though as a practical matter, 'NCO' is hardly a commonly-used term in the US Navy in the first place).
NetGear
King
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 729
What you're saying is a sterotype. A good one I generally might agree with, but that's not to say there are no gungho, crazy texan, "patton" types. I had one like that as co and he was very annnoying. He was good, but annoying.
of coz, i meant the real politics...but officers are trained to make decision on a macro scale. they will call it "the big picture".
aelf
Ashen One
To me, NCOs are just people that didn't make the cut. And often that's even worse than not being anything, since you're kinda stuck in the middle between the officers and the men. That's why a lot of NCOs are arseholes.
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
I will assume you are trolling or ignorant or both as those comments are really quite insulting for the men and women NCO's out there who have dedicated their lives to to the profession of arms.
aelf
Ashen One
I'm not ignorant, though of course the particulars would differ. And I'm not trolling because that's what I do think, as do many people I know. Different experiences in different places lead to different opinions - who knew?
aelf
Ashen One
Well, I did two years, and will probably have to serve more time every year or so in the future, if I'm not lucky.
It's hard to explain the context in brief and I haven't exactly analysed how the structure of the military gave rise to such an opinion, but I'd guess that the culture of the organisation has a lot to do with it. In a society where nobody likes being second best, it seems quite natural that those who are in the middle of the pecking order would be liable to become 'unsung heroes', so to speak. And because the society is also paternalistic and elitist, the men are very much the responsibility of the leaders. So, as you may imagine, NCOs must keep the men in check, many of whom do not want to be there and had no choice about it, and answer to officers who have their positions almost as some kind of birthright (in the sense that the division in ranks also represent to some extent the class division in the society). Maybe that's why.
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
Not sure of the nationality of these NCO's that are your point of reference but generally the middlemen (as you call them) are in the middle because they show talent and enough skill to merit promotion. The NCO works their way up. You have to do time in each rank and will continue on up the heirachy based on merit. Unless this military that you have experience in is flying in the face of all other conventions... nobody can enter ... in the middle... For you to infer that the people in the middle are not making the cut is completely wrong as they have already made the cut by entering at the bottom and being promoted over others at least once!
aelf
Ashen One
Sure. But so what? They are still in the middle, and they will hardly ever cross over that threshold to the top. That's what's most important there. If you can't be one of the best at something then don't waste time on it.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Alternate Alternatively: Spock versus Scotty.
Hornblower
Cry Havoc!
I started as an enlisted man and was promoted to the 'middle' as you put it but was far from a mediocre underachiever which I feel is what you are intimating NCO's are. I was then Commissioned as an Officer or 'the top' as you have also put it. I can tell you that the experiences that I had as an NCO helped me to shape me as a person and made me a far better Officer than if I'd never been an enlisted man. I was the best I could be when I enlisted. I grew from the experiences gained in the lower decks and was the top of the class in all my promotion and qualification courses. I alos became a more complete and robust individual. Many of my classmates went on to become Chiefs and Warrant Officers and I myself became an Officer. This doesn't make me better than them nor does it make me better than the Corporals(E) that we once were. It is a shame that you appear to have suffered at the hands of one or more NCO's with poor leadership or communication skills but I would caution you that this is not the norm. I think that you will also find that man performs to the best of his ability in his chosen field. To belittle a man's chosen job or position is to belittle yourself.
aelf
Ashen One
Like I suggested, this isn't just my opinion or just me having an unfortunate experience. I'm not saying that you are wrong or that your experiences are the exception and not the norm in general. I don't know anything about the Australian military, so I wouldn't speak for you or for the Australian military. I'm also aware that things are different the American and British militaries. I'm just giving you my perspective, which I feel is somewhat representative of a fairly significant section of people who serve in the military where I come from. I don't know if others share my thoughts on why this opinion exists, but it does exist. You can disagree all you want, but that's just the way it is. I personally have little to say of my own about how things should be, as I care not about the military.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Thats not what I meant. I was saying E1-E9 are all enlisted regardless as to whether some of those rates are NCOs or not.
Ah, sorry for the misinterpretation. I suspect that is also the misunderstanding dividing you and Kochman.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Well, I'm talking about terminology in the US Army... there are differences which are deliniated. Technical jargon.
I know you served in the UK's paras... probably different terminology.
One thing we can be sure of... the military uses way too much specific terminology for anyone to know it all!
It's good to be specific in the military, know your job!
I was an officer. I had the pleasure of working with many NCOs who were WAY more qualified and capable than some of my fellow officers.
To be an officer means you passed college, and you probably did ok in some mediocre difficulty training...
To be an NCO means, you might not have finished college, and you have had to go through a lot of mediocre and/or good training... especially to be in the upper ranks of the enlisted (SFC and above).
