#ncos

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

- George Orwell

The british army, one of the most conservative institutions in Victorian England, smugly resisted military reforms after the defeat of Napoleon I by the Duke of Wellington in 1815. Not until the crisis of the Crimean War (1854-1856) did England even consider improving her corroded Army which was now struggling desperately to maintain an invasion foothold at Sebastapol in Russia's Crimean Peninsular.

Only then, and under a torrent of public criticism, did the Army initiate improvements that were characteristic of the age of reform. Typical of these reforms were experiments in education that would elevate the status of the lowly enlisted man and raise his degree of literacy.

EVA AH HELLOOOOO!!!!!!! thank you so so much for stopping on by AH!! it means so so much!! :) i hope you’re having a great day so far!! AH THIS CHAPTER OMG!!!! when i tell u...that halfway through writing this chapter it was just me incoherently crying....yeah i’m an emotional mess at this point lmao haha!! but truly i love this chapter a whole lot so thank you for sending it in!!! basically it’s bestie duo natia and george and some deep convos :,) but....that’s a bit spoilery so enjoy some nco chaos!

THE CASUALTY OF ASSUMPTIONS, excerpt

" Did you ask Winters?" Johnny asked Lip, watching as Lip glanced his way. Natia could interpret the look on his face and she suddenly tasted the stale cigarette smoke on her pale and chapped lips.

" Figured I'd try and find Dike myself, I asked Winters plenty the past few days and already had to report on casualties from the shelling previously. Couldn't find Dike either." Lip explained and Natia watched Bull's slightly pissed off facade build from beside Sergeant Pat Christenson's frozen facade.

She hadn't spoken to the Sergeant ever really, not like she had avoided him, there was just never a given time where the two were to cross paths and interact - Natia knew that was her side speaking - she didn't willing incite conversation, only if she needed to.

" Lieutenant Speirs saw him wander through Dog Company," she said quietly," I'd been on my way in search of Lieutenant Dike when I found Lieutenant Peacock already in there. That's when Lieutenant Speirs wandered up - said Lieutenant Dike made way through Dog and then to Division." The NCOs watched her, nibbling on chapped lips, tired and worn eyes sought out among the snow, minds twisting, trying to put the pieces together one by one.

It didn't add up - why would a CO leave his company for Division in war?

I’d like to just clarify a thing: soldiers can only issue commands to people in their own units. I mean, formally speaking. Sometimes higher ups will walk by and tell privates to start cleaning or something and we just have to do it because we don’t want trouble, but no one can just grab soldiers from unrelated units and make them do stuff Because Rank. At least, they aren’t supposed to. So as far as that’s concerned, there’s no rank for that. In a war zone, especially with limited communications, soldiers might team up with people from other units in order to complete their mission. Sometimes someone might fill in for or be sent over to assist your unit; I know we swapped mechanics sometimes if we needed hands. In that case it’s less about rank being important and more about mission necessity. War zones will almost always have some exceptions.But just like. You know. Generally speaking you can’t walk up to some random guy in uniform and be like “you’re working for me now” and expect it to work. One of the first things in the army we learn is that we do not leave our assigned place of duty without the proper authorization, so even if a colonel walked up to me and told me to go with him I’d still track down my NCO first. Anyway that was longer than I intended sorry.Other than lieutenants, officers aren’t typically spending a ton of time doing fields and exercises and such. They usually delegate missions in the field to an NCO and the appropriate sized unit to perform the mission. So especially if your guy regularly goes on field missions, especially to destroy buildings, I’m guessing he’s an NCO. Because it’s clear you’re intending for this person to have more power than the average NCO and yet you want them to actually attend the missions, I think a platoon sergeant E-6/E-7 (staff sergeant/sergeant first class) might be alright. They’d be a platoon sergeant in charge of between 30 - 50 people, which would be in a company consisting of about 100 - 200 people. Above them would be their first sergeant, an E-8, and their company commander, a captain, O-3. A SFC (sergeant first class) is considered a “senior NCO,” implying longevity and experience. They usually delegate down to squad leaders (of whom they’ll usually have three to five) but will often be in the field with their platoon. They might go on missions like you’ve described, although more likely they’d be sending someone else to do the hardest stuff. It’s just a fact of the army that the lower rank you are, the more you’re sent to do because there’s more of you and you’re more expendable. If your facilities are very specially dangerous missions, I probably wouldn’t bat an eye if a SFC went in the line of fire/ assaulting the building as well, whereas with a first sergeant I might give you a side-eye and wonder what he’s doing all the way out here when he’s got a whole ‘nother company to be looking after. Unless, you know, the entire company is there assaulting the same location and he needs to organize it. But usually it’s not that simple and I’m not sure you want to be working with 100-200 soldiers regularly.

It also wouldn’t be that unlikely for a SFC to use soldiers from other platoons. They’re all in the same company, but they’re different units, and platoon sergeants are usually cool enough that they’ll lend each other hands when needed. Plus people from other units would recognize the platoon sergeant and be more likely to fall right in if their leadership has failed. It’d be a little trickier if you went up another level because then a first sergeant would be looking at someone from another company, another beast entirely. Internal affairs within the company are easier. I’d be much more likely to trust and leave with another platoon’s SFC than I would be some random colonel I’ve never been before.I did say it’s reasonable for a lieutenant to frequently be in the field with their platoon, so your character could also be a first or second lieutenant, and the platoon sergeant will probably work closely with them so most of what I’ve said applies to them as well. But that rank implies incompetence and newness, so that might not be the air you’re going for. Up to you.

-Kingsley

The NCO is the backbone of the Army.

- Rudyard Kipling

The 1939 movie, "Gunga Din" is an entertainment classic - the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" of its time. Starring Cary Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., and Victor McLauglin as three British sergeants serving Queen and Country in India, the movie is loosely based on a poem written by Rudyard Kipling, a man who wrote a lot about men of action - especially sergeants.

Kipling was the man who coined one phrase familiar to every soldier: "The NCO is the backbone of the Army."

Kipling first said it in 1895, in a poem called "The 'Eathen." The poem, written in a Cockney accent, contains 19 stanzas. The famous phrase about noncommissioned officers comes at the end of stanza 18:

The 'eathen in 'is blindness bows down to wood an' stone; 'E don't obey no orders unless they is 'is own. The 'eathen in 'is blindness must end where 'e began, But the backbone of the Army is the Non-commissioned Man!

The poem is really a ballad, or story, which emphasizes that discipline and leadership are the keys to military success. The story starts with a description of the hassle endured by trainees.

As the trainees see it:

"The cruel-tyrant-sergeants they watch 'im 'arf a year;"

But then the tale turns to discuss how sergeants care for their men:

An' when it comes to marchin' he'll see their socks are right, An' when it comes to action 'e shows 'em how to fight. 'E knows their ways of thinkin' and just what's in their mind; 'E knows when they are takin' on an' when they've fell be'ind.

Speaking of the bravery of all soldiers:

An' now the ugly bullets come peckin' through the dust, An' no one wants to face 'em, but every beggar must; So, like a man in irons, which isn't glad to go, They moves 'em off by companies uncommon stiff an' slow. Of all 'is five years' schoolin' they don't remember much Excep' the not retreatin', the step an' keepin' touch. It looks like teachin' wasted when they duck an' spread an' 'op. But if 'e 'adn't learned 'em they'd be all about the shop.

About leaders:

'E's just as sick as they are, 'is 'eart is like to split, But 'e works 'em, works 'em, works 'em till he feels 'em take the bit; The rest is 'oldin' steady till the watchful bugles play, An' 'e lifts 'em, lifts 'em, lifts 'em through the charge that wins the day!

The poem ends in a refrain which admonishes:

Keep away from dirtiness - keep away from mess, Don't get into doin' things rather-more-or-less! Let's ha' done with aby-nay, kul, and hawr-ho; [Don't put things off] Mind you keep your rifle an' yourself jus' so!

One reason Kipling was such a popular writer, and the reason his stories have become motion picture hits, is that he was a great story teller. But beyond that, his stories focused on people who lived by values he thought were important: values such as courage, candour and commitment to duty.

It does depend a lot on what country you’re looking at. The U.S. favors M16s and M4s, but a German might use a G36. It depends on the year too. I’d look at what year/location you’re looking at and pick a weapon from a suitable region. It also depends on what kind of war you’re fighting. Guerilla warfare is a lot different from urban warfare for example. Do you need guys who can march for weeks through trap infested jungles or who can dig trenches in snowy forests or who can stake out in nearby buildings and bell towers?The combat training I received was focused more on breach and clear, urban combat sort of things since that’s what relevant right now. Typically we had a broad command from the first sergeant, (secure the village) a localized command from the platoon sergeant, (secure this neighborhood) and then specialized commands from the squad leader (secure this building). Squads, which will be ideally ten to twelve people, are broken down even further into fire teams aka the guys who go in with their guns and secure the thing. I imagine that other forms of warfare maintain a similar pyramid principle. Your guy in charge of thirty people would be in roughly a platoon sergeant position, (participating in firefights but not on fire teams) and he would probably just use an M16/M4, the standard. He MIGHT have a sidearm aka an M9, but those are typically for officers, snipers, and senior NCOs. Soldiers usually can’t carry even personally owned weapons in uniform.I was taught pugils and bayonet drills, but it appears the army is putting less focus on those types of drills. Still, it’s reasonable that your sergeant might be proficient with a bayonet/melee combat with his rifle. Bowie knives are very classic in the Vietnam era but are uncommon nowadays (so are bayonets to be fair, but I mean, we still train with them, so).I mean, this is all based on the formal army. If your guy’s a deserter in an informal army, he may as well use whatever weapon makes him happy, keeping in mind that certain weapons are banned/limited by the Geneva Conventions, and you might consider giving its wiki a read. But strictly speaking he’s not going to want a weapon that’s weighty or requires an assistant, as he needs to be mobile and involved with the team’s progression during a mission and he doesn’t need to be settled in some trench somewhere with an M249 not talking to anybody or spending valuable minutes reloading artillery shells. A regular old service rifle is resilient, light, effective, easy to maintain, easy to reload. If firing his weapon is a piece of cake that gives him that much more time to think about tactics, which is what he needs to be doing if he’s in charge of that many people.

There is indeed, and it’s actually on my Enlisted Ranks Masterlist! You might’ve missed it because it shares a nomenclature with E-8, First Sergeant. In case you don’t want to dig through that huge post, here’s the paragraph on E-8s.E-8: First Sergeant/Master Sergeant“Another dual-rank. First sergeants are the NCO in charge of a company and are usually the highest ranking NCO soldiers will interact with regularly. They run the company alongside the company commander. All NCOs answer to them and most beginning of the day and end of the day formations will be initiated and ended with them. It is only appropriate to refer to a first sergeant as “first sergeant” or “first sergeant (name).” Do not just call them “sergeant.”Master sergeants are E-8s who are not in a first sergeant position. Typically these people wind up working in offices in battalion or brigade. It’s only appropriate to refer to a master sergeant as “master sergeant” or “master sergeant (name).”also known as: 1SG, FSG, (first sergeant only) MSG (master sergeant only)Titles: First Sergeant, Master Sergeant.”

-Kingsley

This is actually a really good question! Thank you for reaching out to me!

 Well, I think everyone wants a different type of leader, so this is just my opinion. But what matters to me, in order, is the following:CompetenceNCOs and officers are in their position for a reason. They're in charge of soldiers while at the same time performing the task the army employed them for. It's not easy work, and very often a leader will falter either in performing their job or caring for their troops, or God forbid both. If an NCO is incompetent at maintaining his soldiers or an officer is incompetent at performing his job, that's a very heavy hit on our morale. One person who can't perform their duties hurts all of us. Furthermore, I'm more than willing to forgive someone for any of the following attributes as long as they're competent. And this competence spans all things. Soldier care, equipment maintenance, and job knowledge/instruction ability. If I’m an E-2 and the E-5 directly in charge of me is my MOS, I should be able to ask them any standard question about my job and they should either know the answer or know where to find the answer. If my NCO doesn’t know shit about what I do, why should I trust them to oversee what I’m doing?AttitudeSoldiers depend on their leadership for a lot of things. Instruction, well being, paperwork, and especially morale. If my NCO is a completely asshat and no one in the platoon likes them, our morale will be low, and we won't care that much about the mission. Now, I'm not saying the leadership has to be soft, because that's a whole 'nother problem, and I'm not saying they can't push us, because that's what they're there for. But it's essential for leadership to build a genuine rapport with their soldiers, or else we'll just wind up resenting them. Personally, the chill factor for me is very important in a leader. Someone who's got a stick up their ass just frustrates me; someone who thinks the only way to run a unit is to yell and punish frustrates me even more. Positive motivation is always superior to negative. OrganizationIs your leadership doing their job? Are they maintaining their paperwork? Are they aware of the current mission? Do they know what we need to be doing? Do we have to stay late because they forgot to tell us to do a task? Do we have to redo a task because they instructed us wrong the first time? Are our promotions and awards delayed indefinitely because they keep forgetting something? Our leaders need to have their shit in order or else everyone below them is going to be out of order. We understand when it's not someone fault, when our superior's superior is the one making a bad call, but there's almost nothing more infuriating to a soldier than leadership that, through their own actions, has no idea what's going on.SoftnessThis encompasses both work ethic and personality. If my NCO is too forgiving, too lenient, too easy, too lazy, I don't want them. There's a big difference between being chill and being soft. NCOs and officers NEED to be able to push us and step up to the plate. They need to know when Enough is Enough and when to put their boots down. Having a leader with no backbone is worse than having no leader at all. Laziness is a disease in leadership as well; they do have to delegate, but they absolutely need to pull their own weight as well, and we can tell the difference between a leader who's skimping on the work by passing it off and who's adequately utilizing their resources by delegating. 

I think these four things are probably the thing I look for most. Softness is the least bothersome trait to me because, due to the nature of Soft leaders, it's easy for someone who does know what they're doing to sorta replace them/nudge them aside and become a de facto leader. How a leader can fail their troops:-not being there during the hard times, and I mean not only combat but during unpleasant conditions like cold, heat, low food and low water. NCOs who hole up in a warm tent while their soldiers are out shivering will earn some resentment. -not ensuring their troops well being. NCOs ensure their troops are fed, watered, and rested the best they can manage. A good NCO will recognize when it's time to give their squad a break, even if it's only for an hour or two. It's true that some dire situations require drastic measures, but great NCOs will replace their soldiers in those circumstances so that they can get an hour or two of sleep or enough time to swallow a cup of coffee. I've known NCOs who were practically ready to fist fight someone to get food for their troops, and you bet we had their backs from then on.-blaming their troops for things that are their fault and taking credit for things their troops have done. NCOs are responsible for everything their troops do, good or bad. If the NCO messed up, that NCO needs to be upfront about how their fuck up resulted in their troops fucking up. -overreacting to failure and under reacting to accomplishment, not to mention uneven treatment. Sometimes all we need is a pat on the back or a handshake and to be told we did good and they're appreciative of our efforts. Sure, other rewards are even nicer, but often I was happy just to know my leadership thought I did a good job. Sometimes the only thing that kept me going was my leadership telling me I was the best at my job and they depended on me. Whether it was true, I don't know; I hope so. But the point is that if our achievements aren't acknowledged, we stop wanting to achieve. Similarly, it's important to punish us if we fuck up, but the punishment has to match the fuck up. We often know the difference between fair punishment and unfair punishment, and trust me, we DEFINITELY know when we're being targeted with harsher punishment than someone else who made the same mistake. Consistency is important. -we hold grudges because the army is literally high school. We remember when someone has wronged us and hadn't made good on it. It takes a lot to regain the trust of soldiers who've already lost their respect for you. Demanding respect because of a rank when it hasn't been earned can turn a number of soldiers against you. But if you fix yourself and start being a good leader again, we can forgive and move on. It sounds like NCOs and officers basically give everything to their troops, and that's exactly how it should be. Your troops will reward you with full strength effort, motivation, and tolerance for the inevitable bullshit. Especially of NCOs, they need to distract their soldiers from the pure bullshit that is the army, because it is pure bullshit, and we're very fucking aware of that. Furthermore, PNN, the private news network, is far reaching. Lower enlisted are not shy about talking shit about a bad leader, and it'll get around. Just the same, a good leader will see PNN return favorable reviews, and often if those favorable reviews get high enough there will be positive rewards from up high. Of course, this is all assuming a perfect world. Very frequently bad NCOs are sneaky and bad officers are asskissers, and they somehow avoid the karma of being a bad leader while good leaders fall wayside. Sometimes good leaders get into trouble and lose their rank, sometimes good leaders are overweight and are treated like shitbags, sometimes good leaders are disabled in some way and people look down on them. In reality, that’s s the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. Equivalently, some lower enlisted are pure ass and don't appreciate or respect even a good leader. A lot of us had very low tolerance for leaders who weren't completely perfect, and were quick to turn on them. I'd really like to say that those people probably had some real shit leaders in the past, and they'll come around if they get to meet a genuinely good leader. Some people are just fucking brats though; fuck them tbh. Ungrateful lower enlisted just breeds aloof and demoralized leaders. It's a two way street. Personally, I have a lot of respect for anyone who can perform their duties as an NCO or officer even 75% of the time. I cannot stress enough that being in a leadership position is not sunshine and roses.

-Spc. Kingsley