I've never been in the Army (As in actually a member of it) and even I see that you made a better choice. The however doesn't change the fact that the officership and caste system as you put it is a necessity for the military to operate. It's not a democracy (if it were it would be completely dysfunctional). Officers have bulls eyes on their heads at all times and units at higher levels cannot afford the loss of it's officer. A battalion without it's Colonel is just a disorderly mob with guns. Surely a major can take command but a major is rarely a substitute for a more experienced commander. NOTE: My father was a battalion commander, and I don't ever remember his men being disgruntled when his orders resulted in deaths of men. My father is an officer and never have I ever heard any of his soldiers speak grudgingly of his remaining in the rear (Albeit he is in MI, but he did command recon teams and intelligence gathering units and was not a direct combat unit). He can go up front if he wants but if he's killed his men lose their leader and in the time it takes to transfer the command to his immediate subordinate time is wasted and men die. It is not an officer's job to command from the front it's the non-com's (and from that story it sounds like you did a very good job. You know the difference between blindly following and using your head. Sounds to me like your lieutenant was just being pissy that you had a better idea). Officers organize men and units and assign tasks to be fulfilled. They are the strategic element of unit organization, the enlisted are the tactical. You can mix them if you like but you end up damaging unit cohesion by risking the loss of it's leader and by damaging that leaders ability to communicate with his own commanders and with other members of his unit. Officer's above the rank of a company command are not fighters (and they only start their careers at company command because it's at that level that a more strategic element is needed in lieu of a tactical element: Plus young officers benefit from the close working relationship with more experienced non-coms). Higher ranking officers are responsible for viewing the complete battle and keeping everything organized and in line and they can't do that straight up in the front. Further not every military operates like the US. The Germans operate Mission-Based Tactics and have since the mid 1800's, in which the commanders are regularly at the front lines observing the battle. Notably this does result in a significantly higher casualty rates for the officership than other forms of command hierarchy and many historians would attribute this strategy to the major dysfunction of the German military in the later years of the war. With more experienced officers being killed off the enlisted were stuck with less experienced commanders. You can speak poorly of military organization if you like but you can't expect it to be some equal "we're all the same" situation. The military is a dictatorship and must be so to maintain it's own workability. It's incapable of functioning without the established chain of command. As for pay grades, no one in the military is paid as much as they should (I know my dad has mentioned many times he could make 6x as much in the private sector doing the same thing he does now). And frankly, with privates barely making more than minimum wage, it doesn't seem like enough to get bullets shot at you. The matter is that the more people and the more responsibility that is slapped onto an individual the more they are paid and a officer commanding 800 men has a lot more to deal with than a sergeant commanding 10 to 12. It's the nature of the beast. Maybe I sound like an ass but it's really not like officers have it all nice and cozy while the enlisted are bleeding everywhere. My dad's lost a lot of friends and men (I've never seen him more upset than when he was told one of his old sergeants from when he was a captain was killed) and I've seen my own friends leave after their father's don't come back. It sucks but that's what it is. Without the officer command structure the military can't function and a military force just becomes a mob and that's more deadly than the current system.
What we're really talking about here is morale and respect. Unfortunately, many officers in my day received their commissions simply because they dodged the draft long enough in college to receive a degree. Then, when they finally joined the service, they were automatically anointed as "royalty", complete with all the caste privileges. They had not EARNED respect or the trust of any combat troops. They had NO experience conducting/planning war or leading men into harm's way, yet, as a two tour recon NCO who specialized in black op missions, I was forced to be subservient to those prima donas. I was paid less than half what a first lieutenant received, even after my combat bonus. The military structure is terribly flawed because officer status lacks any basis for respect other than imposed dictatorship. There IS a better way. Officers are supposed to be leaders. Leaders EARN respect. First - ALL officers should come up through the ranks, from private to sergeant, before being granted a commission. (That only takes four years.) By doing so, respect has been earned, not bestowed. I would not make an exception for those members of society who are privileged enough to attend a military academy. Graduating from an academy should get them no more than a one grade enlisted promotion...i.e. start as a Pfc instead of private. Ultimately, officer status should be earned by rolling up one's sleeves and pounding ground as a grunt first. Second - not all men are talented leaders or strategists. Some are much better at getting things done than in planning. Fair enough. At the rank of sergeant, ALL enlisted men should be given a choice to continue in the enlisted path (do'ers) or to attend OCS (Officer Candidate School) and attempt to become an officer (planners). This OCS requirement would be deemed satisfied for Academy graduates and they would automatically receive their commission if they chose to continue as officers. That is a reasonable reward for attending an academy...and getting a free education. Third - ALL officers should be required to perform their first assignment in combat units as opposed to MI, Logistics or other noncombatant role. Put them in a forward fire base or as a platoon leader in an infantry unit. (The assignment must last at least one year.) These three simple steps would dramatically change the current "caste" system of the military. Instead of saluting some inexperienced 1st Lt who gained his status simply by completing a degree in accounting at West Point, saluting an officer would be showing REAL respect for someone who had walked a mile in your shoes. If you KNEW he had been a grunt, an NCO and performed at least one tour of duty in a combat unit, you could trust his leadership. Under the current system, officer privileges simply reflect social strata/financial status rather than any experience related to combat. Take that general who I got to know in Nam, I would follow his orders to attack Hell without question. Why? He'd been a grunt and I trusted him. As far as your dad thinking all his men respect him, what would you expect? I never showed outright disrespect to any officers out of fear of retaliation through the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) which dictates the subordinate role of enlisted men. I held little or no respect for most officers, so I just played the stupid game. Did you ever hear of "fragging"? It was a term coined in Nam. Meant rolling a fragmentation grenade into an outhouse just as an officer or NCO that you didn't like dropped his drawers and sat down. The term was well known during the VN war because it happened. It's fair to say a lot of resentment built up in some enlisted men, much of it due to the arrogance of the officer who got popped. Doesn't make it right. Just a reality of any caste system where the underprivileged fight back. In today's all-volunteer Army, the incidence of such disrespect is diminished, so I'm not surprised your dad thinks everybody respects him...even if they are just playing the game. Course, MI attracts highly motivated volunteers so he might be right in his "world".
Those who graduate a military academy have as much as 20x the training any enlisted men will receive in their first three years of service. Private First Class is ridiculous in comparison for the training one would receive from the Citadel or West Point (They might as well be enlisted and become a sergeant in the same period of time). Furthermore, it's completely pointless. You don't train cadets at a military academy to be grunts you train them for specialized tasks or general combat infantry leadership. There are countries however that move soldier into commissions from the non-coms (There is no entering the academy right out of high school). Australia is an example and I want to say Switzerland but I'm not sure about that one. I have no idea if it's better or worse. There was an Australian officer I moved out of his house as a side job last year but I didn't talk that much to him about how commissions work in his country. EDIT: I swear this was the move from hell! This guy was cool, but his wife made me move their couch five times to get the flow of the room right. I was working from seven AM to midnight XD. At least I was making $13 an hour . We already do that. I have no idea if they did that back during Nam and won't pretend I do but these days we do that. Just shy of half of all commissioned officers these days started as enlisted and many are put through one of the military academies. A waste of time. You can waste someone's time putting them through standard enlistment doing things they don't need or move them straight to where you want them. You don't tell a field surgeon they have to be a private first it's pointless. Likewise someone in logistics needs no combat experience as it is not something they'll have to deal with. All they do is move things where they're needed. It's pointless to train them for combat. Likewise you don't demand an Intelligence officer to do grunt work because it is not relevant to the task in which they work. Like I said before it's the difference between strategic and tactical levels of warfare. The first needs the second to function as it should but it's not necessary for it to work away a decade as a non-com to reach second lieutenant. It's overkill for many of the more specialized tasks that the standing military operates in and lacks efficiency. It's the non-coms job to bridge these two elements, and it's pointless to train individuals in aspects of warfare that are irrelevant to their duties. Relevant during wartime but in non-wartime when no one is serving combat tours it's completely irrelevant. I won't disagree. If people think that Christians are in the dark ages then the military is in BC. It's about as old fashioned as a group can be as far as it's traditions go. But there is practicality and efficiency to the system. I never said my dad thought his soldiers respected him. I have no idea what he thinks I could ask him and he probably wouldn't answer as he tends not to say things he doesn't now. I have no idea if they respected him. I merely observed that there didn't appear to be an outright dislike for him (I see no reason why anyone would dislike him honestly as he meets all your criteria for combat experience having served in every armed action the US has taken since Panama except for Somalia. He'd been in the army longer than most of his non-coms when he held his battalion command). PS: It's easy to tell the difference between going with the flow and actual respect. If you want to know I'd say the enlisted for the most part seemed indifferent while the non-coms seemed either indifferent or to have a general liking of him. Whether that counts as respect or not I have no idea. The only men who outright didn't were decommissioned for a wide range of infractions that had nothing to do directly with him outside of him putting them up on charges for misusing military equipment and being arrested for assault (they were kind of crazy though. I have no idea ow they made it into the army to begin with). I do see what you mean and I can imagine how it sucks but it's the way militaries have functioned since the dawn of... well I suppose the history of war. If the system was dysfunctional it would be changed but frankly it's not. Maybe it sucks at times but you don't fix what isn't broken. Yes, I have heard of it (But I haven't heard anyone mention it in a long time). My grandfather was a green beret in vietnam and he loved to tell his stories (Only problem is I was too young when he was still with us to remember most of them and my dad doesn't like to talk about him for personal reasons I won't put on the internet). I would attribute that more to the minor shifts in organization during the 80's when my parents were going in. I think vietnam showed some weakness in military organization that the army in particular spent a decade trying to rectify (I think there was an entire book dedicated to the problems at the War College). PSS: Yeah, my mom, dad, grandfather, great grandfather, great-uncle, and two other uncles have been in the military (Four officers, two enlisted). I think I'm the first male in three generations not to enter the service (Ironically my sister is taking an ROTC course to be a nurse).
The good thing about this discussion is that potential writers have just gotten a very detailed look at the military in very different eras. Same rank system. Same goal...kill the enemy. But, the players have changed dramatically. In the 60's, lots of soldiers entered service with a proverbial "gun at their heads" (the draft). When these draftees entered combat, they did not fight for patriotism or any lofty ideals, only for each other. I never wanted to go into Cambodia on secret missions but I believed that every NVA or VC we took out with bombing runs saved a GI somewhere. That was my sole motivation...my fellow grunts. In history, some cultures "drafted" their army or hired mercenaries and the result was poor as was the US experience in Nam...deserters, malcontents, drug abuse, intentional fratricide during combat ("accidental" death by "friendly fire"), unit revolts. On the other hand, countries like Sparta drew volunteer soldiers only from their own population and it resulted in strong armies. Israel is a great example of the most motivated soldiers in modern history. Point is, any writer who engages in a military related plot needs to know a great deal more than just the hierarchy of rank and weapons of the period if he/she hopes to have any believability. Good lesson in this thread.
...yeah, i would add my 2 cents but this thread would go on forever. I would just like to reiterate that it's really important that you add the enlisted ranks in your story. Without them there is no story.
hah? oh no this isn't my thread. I was just agreeing with some of your points, having been enlisted myself through tours in Crapghanistan and Iraq. And you guy's weren't too far off topic.
I see a lot of ranks getting mis-used here and there, but also a lot of fraternization. You'll see some sergeant or corporal just walk right up to a colonel or higher and start talking to him like they're buddies or something. that NEVER happens. I spent 4 years in the Marines also and if anyone has any questions I can also help with anything like locations, ranks, who carries what weapons and armor, aircraft, and different mindsets.
Also I have Iraqi combat experience with any aircraft the Marines or Navy uses, and convoy experience. I also know what happens during wrecks for both since I did Crash Fire Rescue. also any questions about relations with Japan, specifically Okinawa I can help with.
That's something I've always wondered. I've known at least two marines, both were stationed in Okinawa, and now you make a third. What's the deal with that? Is it coincidence, or is it some sort of requirement that you do a stint abroad and Okinawa is the easiest?
Actually Okinawa is, as most people know, one of the islands we conquered on our way through the Pacific. It was known as Ryu Kyu Island up until the 1500's when Japan invaded and took over themselves. It is considerably closer to the equator than the rest of Japan, but oddly enough looking at a map of Okinawa could be mistaken for a map of Japan itself. It is mostly used as a vacation spot for the Japanese as it is an awesome tropical island with 4 of the top 10 spots to snorkel or scuba dive. For the first few years after we won the war Okinawa was in our custody. today they make is sound like we were horrible to them, but aparently not too mean as we allowed them to have the island back as long as we kept our bases. Over the years we have slowly withdrawn, even though I'm pretty sure there is over 2k marines alone on the island still. but the japanese are constantly trying to come up with something to get us off the island even though the marines use it as a base of Ops in the pacific. it is true that Marines could be anywhere in the world in 24 hours because of our satellite bases like Okinawa. There is also a navy base for medical, a extremely large air force base, and a couple recreational spots that the army keeps for some reason. Marines have a large group of bases on the island for different reasons...and even a 14 person satellite operation I was part of but don't remember alot about now that I sobered up. Most low ranking Marines will either get on the east or west coast of the US, as Marines are amphibious by nature. if you are sent 'overseas' they mean Japan, since other services have a large presence in Europe.
very philosophical, and I have to agree with NaCI after my own experiences. I think that conversation is over though. I do wonder about some info though, Naval ships go by different names or classifications like 'frigate', 'cruiser' and so forth. if anyone could point me in the direction of info on how they are classified that would be great. thanks in advance.
They are classified mostly by size but it's hard to generalize how they're used absolutely as it'll vary from one nation to the next. Corvettes: Really tiny. Kind of like bees. They annoy you a lot but usually they don't kill you... unless your allergic. Destroyer: Typically smaller ships often used to defend the fleet from fast attackers like aircraft or submarines. They're the most common kind of surface ship as only a few nations (the super powers) can afford the larger cruisers and carriers. They're your typical fast moving hard hitting warship. Frigate: This will vary from nation and time period. The term can be interchanged with destroyers in some nations (like France). Sometimes they are given the role of anti-submarine warfare, communications, anti-air defense, and most of the stealth ships in development are classified as frigates. They're usually a wee bit bigger than destroyers. Cruiser: The largest kind of combat ship in service in modern navies. Only Russia, and the US operate them (I think Britain and France still have them but I'm not sure). They're pretty much bigger versions of a destroyer serving in similar capacities as combat warships. They've mostly been retired because of their cost-effectiveness these days is lower than that of destroyers and frigates. Battleships are pretty much just floating forts but no one uses them anymore as they're too slow and too pricy. Mostly you can figure these things by size as armament is no longer standardized enough to use it as a criteria for classification. I did find this little page which seems to explain it reasonably well: Here are some bits if you don't want to read the whole thing: Warship Classification (It seems to focus more on US classifications as I know that in France, Frigates and Destroyers are pretty much the same thing). ASW = Anti-Submarine warfare AAW = Anti-aircraft warfare Makes sense since fleets don't met each other in pitched naval combat much as they used too.
awesome. thank you. I would have to say that the days of ships hurling broadsides at each other is over since now you can fire a missile from half the world away and hit something as small as a bus. I have been wondering this question for a while though since I never caught a 'float'.
yeah. But I tell you in Master and Commander, when the sea battles got going, I was like yeah awesome XD! Funny how outdated tactics can seem so romantic (funny how killing can seem so romantic in some of those movies but I suppose it's just a movie telling a story in the end,. Creative license and what not).
So, basically, yes, Okinawa is a nice little tropical island that all the marines want to be stationed at because it's a vacation you're paid to go on...?
yeah pretty much. There is also something called COLA, it's an acronym for something but it means you get extra pay because of the difference in the Japanese Yen and American Dollar. Also it is easy to spend most of your time partying there because that's how a lot of the locals make money. not to mention the tattoos.
Cog...gotta disagree with you on this one. In my opinion, the COLA information IS entirely "on track". The OP mentioned military "terminology" (as shown above), which includes all terms associated with military life. It's not limited to rank structures or weaponry. When I was in Nam, we received "combat pay" and I believe soldiers today receive "hazardous duty pay" for tours inside war zones or hostile territory. If a writer includes dialog between military persons, the realistic conversation could easily include complaints about such things. I remember bitching about the amount of combat pay we got in relation to the dangers we faced. We used to joke that no senators wanted their own kids to fight for the paltry "combat pay" we got. If marines in Okinawa get COLA to deal with currency exchange rates, that's important knowledge for any writer who wants to include realistic dialog using today's marines.
Navy - Fleet Admiral, Admiral, Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral (upper half), Rear Admiral (lower half), Captain, Commander, Lieutenant Commander, Lieutenant JG (Junior Grade), Ensign. Note: There is one rank higher than Fleet Admiral - "Admiral of the Navy" - but it's only ever been given to one person: George Dewey. Marines - Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major, Master Gunnery Sergeant, First Sergeant, Master Sergeant, Gunnery Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Sergeant, Corporal, Lance Corporal, Private First Class, Private. This is the kind of stuff I thrive on. Military and military terminology has always fascinated me.
Okay. Chief Warrant Officer 5, CWO-4, CWO-3, CWO-2. (Navy). Don't think there are warrant officers for the Marines.
Yeah there are. Warrant Officer ranks are pretty much the same for all the branches far as I know with the exception of the Air Force which doesn't have Warrant Officers and of course the Navy as you listed lacks a CWO-1 grade.
