In a military organisation it is essential to have a chain of command. It is most important to maintain it in the combat arms rather than service, administration or support.
My question is then, Is it better to keep the chain as short as possible by having a limited number of ranks or to have a large number of ranks which reflect time in service or special administrative or technical knowledge? I understand the Desirability of retaining Institutional Knowledge and experiance. How is this best accomplished?
Chain of Command
Stephen J. Smith
Since officers carry the greater burden of command in their units, the chain of command should be as simple as possible: an officer commanding a unit and someone to assist. This has been followed in most modern militaries: platoon is commanded by a lieutenant, assisted by a senior NCO; company is headed by a captain with a lieutenant; major with an assistant, colonel with a lieutenant colonel; and so on. In staff and administrative duties this structure is not as relevant.
With enlisted soldiers there is less need for simplification. Some countries have dozens of ranks for soldiers to signify experience or years of service. The German army is a good example: Several ranks of privates, some ranks of corporals and sergeants and then warrant officers.
In the finnish military, there is not much difference between NCO ranks below corporal (>>). Private and lance-corporal (>) are basically equal, it just shows who is more experienced or trusted.
The chain of command is defined primarily by the doctrine of a military. But it always has a unit leader and his assistant/second. You can have a whole rank grade for the different units or you can have a single rank for a unit (e.g. single or multiple grades of captain, lieutenant, colonel, etc.) As long as there is no ambiguity of the seniority of the ranks in relation to one another, any type of rank system will work. By that I mean that if there are multiple levels of lieutenants and multiple types of captains, captains always outrank lieutenants, but the grade differences between captains applies only under special circumstances (giving an order to someone already following orders of someone more or less of equal rank; defining seniority in a group).
One system could be where you have multiple grades of a rank -where we would use only one- and these grades show seniority in years served or by general experience. Once an officer/soldier attains a certain level of skill or experience, he could move on to the next grade. This could help curb default promotions and promote activity, where une strives to reach the next level with accomplishments. Of course, this would mean tedious exams ever so often, where you determine if an officer/soldier is ready to move on to the next rank and the responsibilities thereof.
With enlisted soldiers there is less need for simplification. Some countries have dozens of ranks for soldiers to signify experience or years of service. The German army is a good example: Several ranks of privates, some ranks of corporals and sergeants and then warrant officers.
In the finnish military, there is not much difference between NCO ranks below corporal (>>). Private and lance-corporal (>) are basically equal, it just shows who is more experienced or trusted.
The chain of command is defined primarily by the doctrine of a military. But it always has a unit leader and his assistant/second. You can have a whole rank grade for the different units or you can have a single rank for a unit (e.g. single or multiple grades of captain, lieutenant, colonel, etc.) As long as there is no ambiguity of the seniority of the ranks in relation to one another, any type of rank system will work. By that I mean that if there are multiple levels of lieutenants and multiple types of captains, captains always outrank lieutenants, but the grade differences between captains applies only under special circumstances (giving an order to someone already following orders of someone more or less of equal rank; defining seniority in a group).
One system could be where you have multiple grades of a rank -where we would use only one- and these grades show seniority in years served or by general experience. Once an officer/soldier attains a certain level of skill or experience, he could move on to the next grade. This could help curb default promotions and promote activity, where une strives to reach the next level with accomplishments. Of course, this would mean tedious exams ever so often, where you determine if an officer/soldier is ready to move on to the next rank and the responsibilities thereof.
-
Medic_in_Uniform
- ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:33 pm
The key here is to differentiate between rank in terms of two aspects: "grade" and "role" -- the number of ranks within the overall paygrade structure does not necessarily have to be translated across to the command structure of ordinary frontline units.
The optimal command structure for a unit should be just enough to achieve effective leadership on the ground and yet remain robust in the face of adverse events.
A service can have a relatively complex layered system of pay/seniority grades that reflect seniority in terms of both service and experience but this is spread across the entire organisation and will take into account a number of specialist roles such as senior advisors and instructors. The US, for example, may effectively have up to ten enlisted grades but that doesn't mean that ALL of them have to appear in the structure of ordinary platoons / companies / battalions...!
The optimal command structure for a unit should be just enough to achieve effective leadership on the ground and yet remain robust in the face of adverse events.
A service can have a relatively complex layered system of pay/seniority grades that reflect seniority in terms of both service and experience but this is spread across the entire organisation and will take into account a number of specialist roles such as senior advisors and instructors. The US, for example, may effectively have up to ten enlisted grades but that doesn't mean that ALL of them have to appear in the structure of ordinary platoons / companies / battalions...!
-
kaldi
- ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:06 pm
- Location: Keflavik - Iceland
- Contact: Website
Hi there
You might want to look at this http://www.army.mil/symbols/armyranks.html
There is a description of ranks and dutyes of US Armed forces personell.
Hope this answers some q´s.
But as we dont have an army here in Iceland then the police structure is simple.
There are ranks denoting status of the wearer but if all of the officers working on the same spot are of the same grade the lowest number is the highest ranking one.
The numbers are a four, and they say when the individual graduated from the police college.
For example if i finished last year the first two digits are 08 but the second two can be from 01 to 99 meaning the first to graduate or the 99th to graduate.
0808 would be graduated 2008 number 8 in the line of graduates.
So if two persons (0808) and (0707) would be of same rank the lower number is senior.
Just to add something new to this subject.
Greetings
Kaldi
You might want to look at this http://www.army.mil/symbols/armyranks.html
There is a description of ranks and dutyes of US Armed forces personell.
Hope this answers some q´s.
But as we dont have an army here in Iceland then the police structure is simple.
There are ranks denoting status of the wearer but if all of the officers working on the same spot are of the same grade the lowest number is the highest ranking one.
The numbers are a four, and they say when the individual graduated from the police college.
For example if i finished last year the first two digits are 08 but the second two can be from 01 to 99 meaning the first to graduate or the 99th to graduate.
0808 would be graduated 2008 number 8 in the line of graduates.
So if two persons (0808) and (0707) would be of same rank the lower number is senior.
Just to add something new to this subject.
Greetings
Kaldi
kaldi
Olafur B Olafsson CEO and owner of Kaldi Security, Explosive specialist, and Rescue Team Member (ICESAR).
Olafur B Olafsson CEO and owner of Kaldi Security, Explosive specialist, and Rescue Team Member (ICESAR).
Return to “GENERAL DISCUSSIONS (Rank comparison, translation issues etc)”