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

[Cheetah]

Why is there a different category of officers called non-commissioned officers? I'm really struggling to see the point of it from an organisational or military point of view.

I'm not gonna bother quoting Wikipedia articles for this one, as I'm sure those who can tell me this won't actually need to read them.

Wikipedia: Commissioned officer
Wikipedia: Non-commissioned officer
Wikipedia: Commission (document)
Wikipedia: Commanding officer

No, actually I'm gonna quote some excerpts:

The non-commissioned officer corps is often referred to as "the backbone" of the armed services, as they are the primary and most visible leaders for most military personnel. Additionally, they are the leaders primarily responsible for executing a military organization's mission and for training military personnel so they are prepared to execute their missions. NCO training and education typically includes leadership and management as well as service-specific and combat training.

Senior NCOs are considered the primary link between enlisted personnel and the commissioned officers in a military organization. Their advice and guidance is particularly important for junior officers, who begin their careers in a position of authority but generally lack practical experience.

Non-commissioned officers (NCOs) in positions of authority can be said to have control or charge rather than command per se, although the use of the word "command" to describe any use of authority is widespread and often official.

The commanding officer (CO) is the officer in command of a military unit. Typically, the commanding officer has ultimate authority over the unit, and is usually given wide latitude to run the unit as he sees fit, within the bounds of military law. In this respect, commanding officers have significant responsibilities (for example, the use of force, finances, equipment, the Geneva Conventions), duties (to higher authority, mission effectiveness, duty of care to personnel) and powers (for example, discipline and punishment of personnel within certain limits of military law).

In some countries, commanding officers may be of any commissioned rank; usually there are more officers than command positions available, and time spent in command is generally a key aspect of promotion, so the role of commanding officer is highly valued, and in theory only goes to the best officers. The commanding officer is often assisted by an Executive Officer (XO) or Second-in-Command (2i/c), who handles personnel and day-to-day matters. Larger units may also have staff officers of various responsibilities.

 

[Lovebird]

AFAIK commissioned officers have become officers through formal officer's training. NCOs havent.

 

[Cheetah]

If that is the case, then: What does that matter? If they were found fit enough to become officers, why does the lack of formal education need an entire extra category?

 

[Lovebird]

There's a limit as to how far you can go up without any kind of officer's training. In the USA army I think it's sargeant. The idea is that beyond that point simple experience isnt enough to qualify you to handle all the responsibilities that a command position entails. You need a higher education and advanced knowledge of all sorts of stuff in order to execute those duties. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

[Maniacal]

To separate out the commoners from those who bought their way in?

EDIT: Sergeant isn't a very high rank.

 

[kochman]

The commission comes directly from the Executive Branch... in the USA, the President.
Commissioned officers have more power, and can even arrest people.
NCO's have less power in non-military manners, and aren't "entrusted" with all the powers of the commissioned officer.

Let's not forget there are also warranted officers.

 

[Flying Pig]

You going for interview, Cheetah?

Shameless redcoat speaking: the basics should be the same across the world but details may differ especially across the pond.

Why is there a different category of officers called non-commissioned officers? I'm really struggling to see the point of it from an organisational or military point of view.

Broadly and in an ideal world: officers make plans and NCOs see to it that said plans are executed correctly. Officers command, NCOs control. An officer will rarely raise his voice and when he does so the threat of what he says will be carried by his words; an NCO will shout and scream and physically terrify a poor soldier who irritates him, with what he actually threatens being an added bonus. An officer will understand why a particular tactical decision is made, an NCO will have done it so many times that it's second nature. You keep on the right side of an officer out of fear of the punishment he'll inflict; you keep on the right side of an NCO at least partly out of fear of the man. An officer is a leader and an idol to his men, an NCO is a leader and a role model.

Alternatively; Dick Richards versus Gunny Highway.

AFAIK commissioned officers have become officers through formal officer's training. NCOs havent.

Yes and no. An officer has attended the Commissioning Course (or equivalent) and that's the only training he theoretically needs (apart from specific to arm; PCBC for example) to progress through the ranks. An NCO's promotion is dependant on the courses he attends; to reach Corporal you must attend the SCBC, Sergeant the PSBC, and so on up the ranks, with more focus on management as you rise through the ranks. By the time you reach WO1, the course transfers into a considerable civilian qualification in management. This is all ignoring trade-specific courses which can only help; a no-skill grunt is far less likely to be promoted than a mortar expert.

If that is the case, then: What does that matter? If they were found fit enough to become officers, why does the lack of formal education need an entire extra category?

As the long comparison I gave hopefully illustrates, it's very easy to draw an officer and an NCO and point out differences between the two but quite hard ot sum it up in one sentance. The officer needs to be able to understand strategy and the subtleties of command so that he can lead forces of a battalion or larger for an extended period of time - the largest force than an NCO is ever likely to lead is a platoon; 30 men while a battalion may be up to 900. The officer has to be somewhat distant from his men - after all, he's probably the least experienced man in the platoon - and so he needs a high standard of intelligence and education to make sure that he can still have some veneer of invincibility (however much squaddies mock, deep down the OC is a god and if he's scared or unsure of what to do his men will be very nervous) - essentially, the platoon commander can't also be the platoon mong. He is also thrown in at the deep end in that with five minutes' experience he may be expected to command a platoon while a sergeant will not be asked to do so until he has more like 12 years. To be able to command more effectively than the twelve-year soldier - and a good soldier at that, to be given the platoon sergeant's job - takes some character.

There's a limit as to how far you can go up without any kind of officer's training. In the USA army I think it's sargeant. The idea is that beyond that point simple experience isnt enough to qualify you to handle all the responsibilities that a command position entails. You need a higher education and advanced knowledge of all sorts of stuff in order to execute those duties. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

More like Lance Corporal, if you mean command training. Every rank has a course you need to pass to show that you can lead the relevant size of unit in and out of battle - they won't put you in charge of 10 blokes and hope that you understand the subtleties of the attack because you've been kept in the dark about what's going on during 20 of them - you need to know why the corporal went left flanking that time even though there was obvious cover to the right, what to do if the enemy suddenly reveals there's twice as many of them as you thought, and so on... not to mention actually leading the guys in barracks, which isn't just something you can pick up. If you mean actual officer training a sergeant is able to take up a second-lieutenant's job for some time if the latter is killed in battle, but officer training is only given to, well, officers.

EDIT: Sergeant isn't a very high rank.

It's high enough to merit respect - 10-12 years of service and the responsibility for 30 men and a young officer - although not very high to retire on.

The commission comes directly from the Executive Branch... in the USA, the President.
Commissioned officers have more power, and can even arrest people.
NCO's have less power in non-military manners, and aren't "entrusted" with all the powers of the commissioned officer.

Except that the NCO is responsible to an officer and as such his authority still comes from Her Majesty the Queen... distant enough so that he isn't saluted but close enough that you bloody well do as he says

Let's not forget there are also warranted officers.

Which are somewhat different in the Commonwealth; we don't salute them but call them 'sir', and they fill appointments such as sergeant-major at company and regimental level, rather than being saluted 'experts' as they are in the US. The RSM is the man who keeps discipline and tradition in the regiment, instructs them on parade and is generally the face that all soldiers learn to fear coming.

 

[IglooDame]

Typically NCOs derive their authority from experience and being subject matter experts, whereas officers derive their authority from leadership training and having 'the big picture'.

Put simply, it is better for junior officer aboard a ship to develop a relatively shallow but broad knowledge of the ship and it is better for junior enlisted to focus on their field and particularly their own specialty. As both progress their knowledge levels broaden and widen, but the enlisted tends to stop at the boundaries of their field (engineering, navigation, weapon systems) and deepen from there, and officers tend to have their experience and knowledge scope widen more and more and if anything actually get shallower.

 

[Patroklos]

Different career tracts. Officers have a breath of knowledge to allow them to competently manage larger organizational divisions that require integration of many specialties into a cohesive single whole. Officers still specialize but it is not so specific.

NCOs are subject matter experts, focusing exclusively on one scecific thing and thus are not competent outside their speciaty. An officer specializes in generic artillery for instance, an NCO specializes in the 105mm Howitzer.

A lot of people look at senior NCOs and think that officers are not needed. What you have to remember is that NCO took 20 years to grow and is at the end his career, and at that point is still only responisble for/accountible for what a brand new minted officer is. At the same time, most officers at 20 years have held major commands and have at least a masters but closer to docorate level education, somthing NCOs rarely have.

You can't have a seemless line of rank unless you expect your generals to be 70 years old when the finish in one career what we now accomplish in two.

If that is the case, then: What does that matter? If they were found fit enough to become officers, why does the lack of formal education need an entire extra category?

You are getting hung up on the term "officer" when what you should be concerned about is "commissioned."

They both have "officer" in their name but they are not different grades of the same thing. They are completely different entities.

Non commissioned officers who wish be become commissioned officers can do so should they prove themselves capable and there is room for them via many differnet avenues whether it be OCS, LDO, a Warrant Officer program or others.

 

[IglooDame]

One thing to keep in mind is that (good) senior NCOs also contribute mightily to the molding of (good) junior officers.

 

[Flying Pig]

Put simply, it is better for junior officer aboard a ship to develop a relatively shallow but broad knowledge of the ship and it is better for junior enlisted to focus on their field and particularly their own specialty. As both progress their knowledge levels broaden and widen, but the enlisted tends to stop at the boundaries of their field (engineering, navigation, weapon systems) and deepen from there, and officers tend to have their experience and knowledge scope widen more and more and if anything actually get shallower.

Going further, an officer's training is first and foremost in leadership and management and as such he could theoretically move from the Infantry to the Catering Corps and after a few weeks learning the ropes be just as competant a leader, while an NCO of the Royal Engineers transferring to say the Royal Artillery would find himself in some difficulty.

 

[Patroklos]

It should also be noted that the officer corps accepts OCS type commissionings of superior NCOs becuase the recognize the need for experianced and mature individuals at the junior end of the officer scales.

The problem with that though is that those individuals hit retirement at the 03=04 level for the most part, thus if you want to grow senior officers you can't rely on prior enlisted folks because most will leave the service before then.

It should also be noted that most prior enlisted officers who become LDO (limited duty officers) and Warrant Officers, even though now officers, are still subject matter experts who are limited to certain rolls. An LDO is not going to command a ship, and a combat systems Warrant Officer is not going to operate the engineering plant. In other words they are not useful to growing full ranged senior officers not just because of age, but role as well.

 

[Eat_Up_Martha]

What's the process like for going for a non-commissioned officer to a commissioned one? It's my understanding that recruits for commissioned officers must have a degree of some sort, is that requirement dropped in lieu of actual experience?

 

[Cheetah]

Hm. I see. Your replies have all been very educational. Thanks.

I think Patroklos hit my problem on the head:

You are getting hung up on the term "officer" when what you should be concerned about is "commissioned."

They both have "officer" in their name but they are not different grades of the same thing. They are completely different entities.

Being that they're both called officers, and that from what I could also see, their ranks fit neatly together, I'd assumed that (in theory) it is a straight forward career going from the private soldier up to Marshall.

But from what I gather from the lot of you, the Privates, the NCOs and the Officers are three strongly separate groups, at least career-wise?

The explanations with needing experienced NCOs as well as having officers with time to go through their entire career before retiring, makes a lot of sense.

Also,

You going for interview, Cheetah?

Heh. In the military? Not as far as I've been thinking, no.

Why did you ask?

While I still hold some fascination over being a soldier (NCO, Officer, whatever), it is very unlikely that I'll ever think of enlisting. The Norwegian military is small, but quite good from what I gather, so it could be an interesting job. On the other hand, they have to follow orders from certain chief of staffs and politicians who seem to be actively trying to be their stupidest when it comes to military matters!

No matter if I'd like the thought of working in the military, there's not a chance in hell that I'll serve, potentially kill or risk my life for that bunch of [I'll stop the rant here. I'm not sure if my last infractions have run out yet...]

Actually, I'll post a new thread tomorrow about a certain insane scandal in the Norwegian military, that has been going on for two years because of idiots and arrogance at the top...

 

[Flying Pig]

What's the process like for going for a non-commissioned officer to a commissioned one? It's my understanding that recruits for commissioned officers must have a degree of some sort, is that requirement dropped in lieu of actual experience?

I've done it.

Officer candidates do not require a degree in the British Armed Forces, and in the US and French armies the military academies are also universities and as such all officers are graduates by default upon commissioning. A Direct Entry officer does however need at least 2 A-Levels - which I did possess upon joining the army as a soldier at 19 - and has to pass what used to be called the Regular Commissions Board, while a soldier needs to pass a far less stringent selection process. The officer then attends RMA Sandhurst for 44 weeks and the Platoon Commander's Battle Course, while the soldier attends Phase 1 (general) and Phase 2 (specific to arm) training.

I joined as a soldier because I didn't want to spend my career managing troops from an office; I wanted to be out there, fighting the enemy and leading from the front. Truth be told, I think it was also that when I joined - 1960 - men with strong Gloucestershire accents and a background as miners simply didn't become officers; the boundaries of class helped ensure distance between the chain of command which has been somewhat reduced more recently. The recruiters tried to push me towards the Royal Engineers, on account of my education and experience, but I told them that I'd come to be a paratrooper and I wasn't interested in anything else. So off I went and joined the maroon machine and spent nineteen years with them, soon becoming a signals specialist then commanding first a fire team, then a leading section, then being the senior NCO in a platoon, interspersed by various other roles and a stint with special forces, taking tours to Ireland, Malaya, Aden and Cyprus among others, and rose through the ranks until I found myself as sergeant-major of C Company before the Commanding Officer's desk.

He asked me whether I'd ever considered applying for a commission. Truth be told, I hadn't, but he talked me round (whether he wanted to get rid of me is up for debate!) and so it was that the next year I found myself walking up the steps to RMA Sandhurst for the Late Entrant Commissioning Course. Upon completion of the course I was made Captain and brought back to 2 PARA where I took charge of the reconnaissance platoon. I held command of this platoon - with a gap in the middle to do an exchange with the Royal Marines, commanding the recce troop of 45 Commando - until a few years later when I stepped up to take command of C Company - which I had commanded on the battlefield briefly - and the rank of major. In 1985 I left my beloved regiment for the last time, again to special forces, where I was put in charge of an Air Troop and later a Squadron. By the time the wall came down regimental command had seen fit to transfer me to the job I'd always feared - a Staff Officer working under the Director Special Forces (at the time General Sir Peter de la Billiere, a truly great leader of men and officer) and worked in planning operations and training, reporting to a Lieutenant-Colonel and managing a team of highly skilled and intelligent senior Captains. During the Gulf War my team was sent out to pore over the maps and plan the operations that silenced the Scud missiles and provided long-range recce over the British area of responsibility, working closely with General Sir Peter who was now COMUKFOR and our American partners. I retired in 1993 and settled in Cumbria.

Now the point of all that is to illustrate that there are great opportunities that open up once you commission and which close to you once you leave the ranks. As an officer you will have a huge amount of challenge and do things that stretch you to the limit, but I often missed the feeling of being right up close to the action, especially when in an FOB miles behind the front-line sending out patrols that you couldn't help feel you should be leading. Taking the commission was probably the decision that made my army career really great, but it's possible to have an excellent career and a great time without one.

 

[Cheetah]

The two most awesome things about that post is the entire story - and the fact that you were joining the army in 1960! I go crazy just thinking how different the world was back then.

 

[NetGear]

All the stuff said about ncos apply to ncos at low to mid level (in army that'd be to about e6, staff sergeants).e7 and above it becomes increasingly administrative/management work. They're not really distinguishable from other officers (aside from having a lil more "street cred" towards common soldiers).

 

[Patroklos]

But from what I gather from the lot of you, the Privates, the NCOs and the Officers are three strongly separate groups, at least career-wise?

Privates are just the most juniior rank in the enlisted side of the house. Privates are in the same group as NCOs, NCOs = enlisted personnel with rank. Sort of like how 2LT is the most junior officer.

In the American Navy there is a very distint division between the enlisted sailors at E7, which is the rank of Chief Petty Officer. At that point the uniforms change to show that distinct division, not unlike how flag officers are elevated above other officers. The other branches have this too to some degree, most foriegn militaries I have encountered also have something similar.

 

[Flying Pig]

All the stuff said about ncos apply to ncos at low to mid level (in army that'd be to about e6, staff sergeants).e7 and above it becomes increasingly administrative/management work. They're not really distinguishable from other officers (aside from having a lil more "street cred" towards common soldiers).

Modus operandi. As I said before, an officer will speak softly, and the only time he shouts will be 'SERGEANT-MAJOR! Get this man away!". The RSM... less so. Essentially because officers are supposed to be gentlemen and gentlemen do not shout; thus the officer keeps the mens' respect for his 'class' while the sergeant-major keeps hte mens' respect because of their nightmares about what he's going to do to them with that pace-stick if he gets angry...

In the American Navy there is a very distint division between the enlisted sailors at E7, which is the rank of Chief Petty Officer. At that point the uniforms change to show that distinct division, not unlike how flag officers are elevated above other officers. The other branches have this too to some degree, most foriegn militaries I have encountered also have something similar.

A British Warrant Officer - E(counts on fingers)7,8 and 9 if memory serves - wears a Sam Browne belt in the same way as an officer and may be entitled to different uniform rights; for example wearing a regimental pullover.

 

[Patroklos]

A British Warrant Officer - E(counts on fingers)7,8 and 9 if memory serves - wears a Sam Browne belt in the same way as an officer and may be entitled to different uniform rights; for example wearing a regimental pullover.

What you call Warrant Officers is what we call Chiefs (E7/E8/E9 or Chief Petty Officer, Senior Chief Petty Officer, and Master Chief Petty Officer). Our Warrant Officers are actual officers, albiet the lowest ranking ones.