Need some help on a chain of ranks!

[lordziba]

Hi guys, I was reading the "Star Wars: Force Unleashed," there mentions something called --
"Kota's Militia." [And yes, for those skeptics, it is a sci-fi, therefore u could say that author could take any liberties with interpretation since it work of fiction, but still I would like to know in a logical military world.] So, according to a story -- "...When Jedi Master Rahm Kota was a general in the Clone Wars, he refused to have anything to do with the Clone Army as he never trusted the Clone troopers. Instead, he formed his own unique unit of hardened soldiers which he recruited from local militias..."
I looked at his chain of command/ranks/positions they sort of like Militiaman/Trooper, Corporal, Sergeant, Senior Sergeant/Sergeant-Major. For officers just: Lieutenants -- Junior and Senior, Captain, General, and Commanding General.*

So my question: could a military formation in size of Division, let say about 18,000 to 20,000 people function on those ranks? What about the chain of command?

Thank u for response, Zibster !

* That Rank was reserved for Kota himself.

[Medic_in_Uniform]

I'm sure it could - it depends on the way the Militia operates and how its command systems are structured but a relatively "flat" command structure isn't always a bad thing.

Having a larger number of leaders holding equivalent seniority and leading smaller, independent units tasked with different but equally important missions is a very modern way of doing things. A big, pyramidal management structure can easily become cumbersome and top-heavy. It can be very robust but it can also be inflexible and slow to respond whereas a leaner and more flexible structure with operational leaders empowered to make their own decisions in the face of developing events can respond vvery rapidly. I guess it's all about the independence that senior commanders are prepared to give to unit leaders on the ground.

The other thing to bear in mind is that just because a role carries a title that we are familiar with and think we understand, that may not actually be the case. In the scheme that you describe, the junior Lieutenant role may be a frontline unit leader; the senior Lieutenant may be a more senior group leader (more like a contemporary Captain or Major) and the Captain may hold overall responsibility for a number of groups, more like a contemporary Colonel.

That would leave the Generals in the commanding echelon role with Kota as the overall leader.

What do you think?

[60bill]

Medic has a fair point,
Take colonel for example, a colonel could command a regiment or brigade taking out one level of rank.
Corporal could have a section or company and so one.
Makes sense if you use seniority to hold the nest position {would it be position rather than rank as there would be no rank}.
Example could be the British army's acting unpaid for nco's and brevet for officers, only in this case keeping the lower rank but having the higher position.
Maybe the badges would have a backing like the Italians?
I suppose in the end authors don't have to make sense as long as it's a good read.

[Tounushi]

I think it goes smtn like this:

Corporal commands sections/fireteams of troopers, (four to six troops)
Sergeants command squads made of sections/fireteams (two or three sections)
Junior Ltn commands a platoon made of squads (four or five squads)
Senior Ltn commands a company (two or three platoons), assisted by the Sergeant-Major
Captains command battalions (at least three companies)
Generals command brigades (multiple battalions)
And the Commanding General commands the whole shebang.

This eliminates regiments (usually headed by a colonel), but this would make each brigade either the size of a regiment, or more flexible than the usual brigade-regiment-battalion stricture.

[lordziba]

U know, Tounushi, u might be on something here. Since the end of Clone War's Kota went into hiding, and basically became a guerrilla warfare. And because of this situation there were no regiment units. I think it was the Company/Battalion size units were summoned onto big formation more like on ad-hock action, and disbanded back as soon the combat operation was over.

Zibster !

[60bill]

Haven't read the books, so looking for enlightenment.
If they had to resort to guerrilla warfare then such a system ot command would work quite well.
Also bare in mind for a successful guerrilla campaign the chain of command would not be constant for self preservation.
Only the command would know who was in charge of each section unlike a conventional force.
Preparation of a large offensive [brigade and over] under those conditions would not go unnoticed by the other side, for example it quite easy to move a couple of dozen in and out of position, a brigade is something else.
Movement of such large forces in the future would surly be even harder to do than now, ouless there was a stong power base to launch an attack from, for example the viet cong had North Vietnam.
So did they have large scale attacks?