What does non-commissioned mean? Do these officers go through officer academy like ordinary officers? And why do some analysts say that having a strong NCO class is essential to a well-functioning army (i.e. what can they do that a normal officer can’t?)
Thanks in advance!
In: 790
NCOs are sergeants (or petty officers or whatever). They are enlisted personnel who have lots of experience. This is in contrast to officers, who in most militaries join directly as officers after having undergone some sort of advanced training.
NCOs are important in that they can basically help soldiers learn how to be better soldiers. An officer trying to help an infantryman is like an MBA trying to help a programmer: they can give high-level advice about tactics and motivation and stuff, but can’t give good advice on how to pack things in your backpack for best balance and accessibility in the field, or which field rations taste best, or that the #3 engine needs more oil than the others.
The US bases everything off small unit leadership. We get a task from officers and we carry out those task in the way we see fit.
Many nations don’t utilize an NCO corps Because their training is more abput listening to direct order vs figure it out as you go.
Every NCO in the US is essentially a Cpt. Jack Sparrow.
In general, an officer is a soldier who has authority over other soldiers. In modern militaries, a commissioned officer is an officer who is formally granted that authority by a government.
This document granting such authority is called a commission, as in the officer is literally commissioned by the government to lead. A non commissioned officer is an officer who was not expressly commissioned, but has been promoted to the office.
What this means is that commissioned officers are, usually, trained at an academy, commissioned, then assigned a duty. These officers are generally trained for leadership or specific roles *before* they do them. Non commissioned officers enlist, are assigned a duty, then promoted to leadership as they prove competency/gain seniority.
Commissioned officers are the “educated” academy folks, the ones who are trained to lead, command, or perform specialized jobs such as fly a fighter plane, or command a platoon of tanks. Non commissioned officers are from the common soldiers, the enlisted troops. They start at the bottom, they do the “grunt work,” are the ones “on the ground,” and make up the bulk of the military.
This is with regards to a modern national military. Older militaries were very different in not just organization, but in their function and purpose.
While not part of the original question, anyone interested should read the other posts regarding warrant officers, another important part of military leadership.
To draw a parallel to a school environment: the principal / headmaster is the commanding officer (“general”), the school leadership team are middle ranks (“major” to “colonel”), the classroom teacher is responsible for the class (a “lieutenant” or “captain”). These roles require specific education, as a commissioned officer requires.
But the students in the class also have their own ranks. While the students (the “privates”) make up the majority of the numbers, the class may have designated class captain (the “sergeant”). That’s the NCO. They don’t have the college education that the staff have, but they have responsibilities given to them and their rank.
In a military setting, you need a chain of command. The commissioned officers give the directions, the NCOs make it happen with their unit. A captain doesn’t tell every single soldier in every single platoon what to do. They give orders to the NCOs, who then tell what each squad member what to do. Likewise, the private can’t tell people what to do. He doesn’t get to decide that they need an artillery strike at these coordinates. That request has to go through the platoon leader, who must then seek permission from the next level who is authorised to assign the mission to the artillery team.
The reason why a strong NCO class is vital is because they are the what makes military units function. You can have a lot of skilled generals, but if you don’t have any good NCOs, your top-tier tactics will faceplant because your men don’t know where to point their guns or what to do when they get shot at.
Historically, a “commission” was given to (or bought by) men of the upper class who wanted the prestige of organising a unit. They, themselves, might have little to no military experience, but it was their role to provide the funds and supplies, so they “owned” that unit (and historically, many notable units were named after their commissioned officer). The non-commissioned officers were the career soldiers who did the training and leading in battle.
[removed]
Officers handle the big-picture red-tape stuff and issue orders, while NCOs relay the orders to the troops, supervise, adapt, and accomplish the task in accordance with the commander’s intent.
NCOs are generally much more experienced than officers at ground-level, and are familiar with possible undesirable outcomes for a given plan.
At a company level, it is the unwritten job of the senior NCOs to tell the much more junior officers why their plan is stupid (behind closed doors), and help them amend it in a way that still achieves the intent of the order. The junior NCOs take the finalized plan and direct their men to execute it.
NCOs command more respect and morale from other enlisted personnel because they are just senior members of the same cohort. Brothers.
Normal officers are like a manager at work. You don’t grab drinks with your boss after hours.
From an episode of *Hornblower:* “The Petty Officer’s job is not to do the task — it’s to see the task is done.”
Watch *Band of Brothers* to see how WWII Army responsibilities and authority developed and were assigned.
Speaking very generally, the Officers are assigned a mission and various resources (people, equipment) to perform that mission. The mission may be to operate a supply depot involving hundreds of people and thousands of tons of stuff. The mission may be to occupy a hill top and hold it against enemy action. Obviously, one Officer cannot do this alone, and has subordinates to complete the many tasks involved.
Here’s where the division occurs — the Officers are concerned with the Goal, the NCOs are concerned with the Method of achieving that goal. A good Officer will give clear goals to the NCOs. The NCOs will train the unit personnel on how to reach that goal — weapons training, medical, cammo, transportation, and more. In turn, the NCO tasks the officer to get the material needed for the training.
Once ready and in the field, now the Officer directs the general situation (take that hill) and specifies methods (tactics) to be used (flanking, mortar fire, coordination with other units). The NCOs then act with their teams to carry out the overall plan. The NCOs are on the front line and can react to local situations. The Officers are a bit further back, seeing a wider view (enemy approaching our left flank!) and give orders accordingly.
You trust your NCOs to lead you through situations you can handle (training, resources). You trust your Officers to put you in situations that are worthwhile to risk your life (tactics serving a strategy).
NCOs are Soldiers that are in charge of making stuff happen (carrying out orders). They advise officers on how to do what the officer intends to do. They also train Soldiers (officer and enlisted) to carry out the tasks of war. The best officers are prior NCOs.
>And why do some analysts say that having a strong NCO class is essential to a well-functioning army
NCOs tend to have the most experience and competence. NCOs joins the military at low rank and move up in rank by being promoted for doing well. This usually requires time and experience, requires competence, and usually requires desire.
On the other hand, you can have a corrupt military full of conscripts who only serve the military for a short forced period of time and officers who are politically appointed by leadership because of connections or some dictator who doesn’t want a coup. Compared to NCOs, conscripts and politically appointed generals tend to lack desire, experience, or competence.
And even if some of the generals have those skills, there are only so many of them, compared to NCOs which can be much more numerous in a professional military. NCOs also tend to be closer to the fighting and can lead troops directly.
For example, in Ukraine many Russian generals have been killed because they had to go to the front lines to lead troops because there were too few other officers and NCOs. (And because they didnt encrypt their communications, so Ukrainians knew they were there and attacked them directly.) This would be unheard-of in say, the American military, because their generals now tend to stay in safe places and let other competent officers and NCOs take the lead on the ground.
Latest Answers