Poll

The RCN has its old rank titles and executive curl back.  What should be the next step for the CF rank structure?

Nothing.  The current rank system works, so leave it alone.
120 (58.5%)
Complete return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
40 (19.5%)
Complete return to post unification ranks of the 70s and early 80s.
1 (0.5%)
Officers only return to the pre-unification ranks of the 50s and early 60s.
9 (4.4%)
Copy the UK rank system - it is the prototype anyway.
17 (8.3%)
Copy the US rank system - they are the new colonial master.
2 (1%)
Create a whole new Canadian system.
8 (3.9%)
Lobby for standardized NATO rank insignia.
7 (3.4%)
Copy the French rank system - it is the other founding nation's turn
1 (0.5%)

Total Members Voted: 204

Author Topic: "Re-Royalization", "Re-Britification" and the Heritage Transformation  (Read 1983736 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

armyguy916

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #50 on: June 29, 2004, 21:34:16 »
Al,
I see your point very cleary now, and I have to say I do agree with you!
 :fifty:

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #51 on: June 29, 2004, 21:47:06 »
On the Recruiting site it mentions "many qualified recruits will be eligible for incentives such as promotion to the rank of acting corporal immediately after the successful completion of basic training."
Does this apply to specific MOCs or is it based on something else?

Offline Rider Pride

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 29,348
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,811
  • Easy to draw, hard to spell
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #52 on: June 29, 2004, 22:20:10 »
I agree with Al on this.
It is common for medical trades to be prometed to Cpl on completion of Basic, only because they d not require trades training because they have a civilian qualifications. On the Prev Medicine side, usually these are Med Tech Cpls who are promoted to MCpl upon completion of their first course.

But lack of experience as a Pte and a Cpl is a detriment to any leader because they don't have the examples (good or bad) to follow as the situations they face arise. This is precisely why every promotion after Cpl as a 2 yr wait to enter promotion zone in the Reg force.
"Return with your shield, or upon it."

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #53 on: June 29, 2004, 22:50:56 »
Pertaining to the immediate promotion mentioned at the beginning of the thread, I think it refers to some offers of immediate promotion to Corporal in some of the CSS Trades for people who have significant civilian educations in the corresponding civilian industry.   No big deal to me, since they all seem to end up as Warrant Officers anyways.... ;D

As well, the Brits promote their soldiers a wee bit quicker than us.   Their career structure often attempts to put guys in the LCPL (MCPL equivalent) rank after 3 years, making them section 2ic's.   Considering the regs have roughly 4 to Cpl and 2 to Mcpl, we tend to be the ones who promote slower.   The arguments for and against faster or slower promotion are many, but I believe the Brits do it to fit it into their more rigid 22-year career pattern.

As for the Americans, promotion to buck Sergeant (E5) is probably equivalent to our MCpl.   At least in the Infantry, Sergeant is a most junior NCO rank; they are the commanders of the fire teams, two of which make up a squad that is commanded by a Staff Sergeant (E6).   I've heard from the way they do it that switched on guys will be at Sergeant within 3 years, so I guess their promotion rate to the most junior command level is about par with the Brits, and quicker than us.

As for Mr Luomala's rant, I can say that I totally agree.   What is worse with regards to the reserve promotion to Corporal issue is that it is a real gimme.   This resulted from unification, when Hellyer, in all his wisdom, decided that all arms of the military where merely trades and needed to separate among the apprentice and the journeyman level.   Heck, I remember reading one article that stated that Hellyer once advocated changing the name of the ranks to exactly that.   It works for the trades and maybe the Air Force and the Navy, but it doesn't really have a place in the Combat Arms.   I can think of two glaring instances:

1)   The promotion was doled out to six privates before leaving to work-up training so the CO could get them more pay.   Reg Force Cpl0 is a hell of alot more then Reg Force Pte2, I know because I was taking Pte2 pay overseas while guys who finished QL3 the same summer as me were taking Cpl0.

2)   The promotion was given to Pte's upon from the time they swore in.   I seen a guy who swore spent some time as an untrained private and received a promotion to Corporal with 4 months in as a trained private.

The all reserve company on ROTO 11 had roughly 10 Privates in a 130 man company.   Seems odd that a rifle company can have 6 officers, 115 NCO's (yes, the rank of Corporal is considered an NCO rank) and 10 private soldiers, doesn't it.   I often remarked on how expensive the reserve company must have been in comparion to the Patricia company down south with regards to payroll.     As well, there were Reserve Corporals in the battle group with 2 years and a comms course while an equivilent reg force private would have 3 years full time and a entire slew of qualifications.   There is a justifiable reason reservists take a cut in rank when they transfer to the Regs; as a firm believer in equalizing the Reg/Reserve divide in skills and qualifications, the reserves should be playing the game on the same level as the regs so we can avoid situations like this.

However, the rank of Corporal can often be very important to reserve units.   Upon returning from tour to my reserve regiment, I was keenly aware that most of the troops were quite new privates.   Many troops who filled out our single rifle company were untrained, having yet to complete their trade course.   Most of the guys wearing two hooks in the unit had a tour at some point, which also means that got access to good courses and training.   Being that we had a bit of a shortage in NCO's, Cpl's were filling in the role as section commander or section 2ic (every 2ic was a Corporal).   Obviously, the rank has some merit to the reserve system with its high rate of friction within the Junior Ranks.  

What I feel is the main problem underlying this issue is that the rank of Corporal is a "gimme" rank, Reg or Reserve.   You get it for just sticking around long enough.   I am sure we can both think of reserve and regular force Corporals we have seen that should never have been promoted (I know I have), they've simply managed to stick around to get the promotion.   What's worse, I've seen that Corporals often like to throw their "rank" around on Privates, when often their is little qualitative difference in both skills and qualifications.

I argue that every promotion should have some form of objective qualification to show for the increase in rank and responsibility.   Time in should provide a rough idea of when to look at promoting a soldier, not what to look for in promoting one.   I think the Army should go back to its pre-Unification system, which can still be found as an authorized system within the QR&Os (I'd have to look for the section).   Private soldiers are precisely that, private soldiers.   Lance Corporal and Corporal are JNCO ranks, providing leadership at the small unit level (section for the infantry).   Sergeant is a platoon/troop level NCO, while Staff Sergeants fill out Staff duties or CQMS.   Warrant Officers are Sergeants Major.   Seems alot more clear cut and simple to me, and ensures that rank is earned rather than given away.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2004, 22:58:31 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #54 on: June 29, 2004, 23:45:02 »
Do we need to go back to the old rank titles to bring about change?   Looking at the STANAG on rank, it seems countries can refer to ranks by all different names, but as long as we know what it means, is there a purpose in changing rank titles from what they are now?

Comparison of selected NATO Army Ranks
Based on STANAG 2116, 1992 (Edition 5)

NATOCanadaUSUKFrance
OR-9CWOSergeant-MajorWarrant Officer Class IMajor
Adjudant-chef
OR-8MWOMaster SergeantWarrant Officer Class IIAdjudant
OR-7WOSergeant First ClassStaff Sergeant*
OR-6SgtStaff SergeantSergeantSergent-chef
OR-5Sgt/MCplSergeantSergeantSergent
OR-4CplCorporalCorporalCaporal-chef
OR-3Pte(T)Private 1st ClassLance CorporalCaporal
OR-2Pte(B)Private E.2PrivateSoldat de 1ère classe
OR-1Pte(R)Private E.1Private (Class 4)Soldat de 2ème classe
* No Equivalent
(1) Each of the US Forces has a senior individual at the OR-9 level who cannot be considered for NATO position coding purposes. This individual is designated as follows in the US ARMY : Sergeant Major of the Army

(2) Canadian Sergeants with less than three years seniority are considered OR-5.

(3) It is emphasized that the UK will appoint Sergeants or Corporals to OR-5 posts, to meet the requirements set out in the job description concerned, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the STANAG.


I argue that every promotion should have some form of objective qualification to show for the increase in rank and responsibility.  
I'll support that.   Here is a thought.   We are told that MCpl is an appointment (not a rank), and that does have some implications administratively but these are invisible to most service personnel.   A soldier has to work to get to MCpl (as we would expect in order to reach any rank).   But what if we switched things up?   What if we made MCpl a rank and turned Cpl into an appointment for a senior Pte?   Would there still be as much concern?

Lets take this a step farther.   Our new MCpl rank can be referred to simply as Cpl.   Our Sr Pte appointment could be known as Lance-Cpl (LCpl), PFC, or Master Pte (MPte).
« Last Edit: December 31, 2004, 00:41:22 by MCG »

Offline portcullisguy

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -205
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 564
  • Border Services Officer
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2004, 01:26:32 »
I don't think that's anything new .. I could swear I read somewhere on this site a while ago that our system used to be exactly that... Pte, then LCpl, then Cpl (as a leadership rank, not a pay progression rank).

Apparently you don't get your Cpl after 2 years' from the date you are sworn in, in the reserves.  At least, not in my unit.  My 2 years' was up on 5 April, and I am still a Pte.  Do I mind?  Not at all.  I have less than 1 full year qualified in my MOC and I do not believe for a moment that I have absorbed all I need to learn as a Pte.  A lot of what I learned last summer on BIQ has already seeped from my rather overflowing little head, and I flip through my notes from last summer every now and then as a refresher.  I could barely remember enough to explain to the Americans we were training with this month about how our section attacks work and how they are different from theirs, although I remembered a bit more than my section 2ic, a Cpl ... ;)

Yeah, the pay raise would be nice, but I only just made IPC 3 as a Pte, and that is $91 per full day now, which isn't too bad.  Besides, I have the personal luxury of not having to do this for the money.  My civvy job pays the equivalent of a senior Major, over $200 a day.  I do this to learn and to give something back.  The money just makes it possible without having to sacrifice my car/house/etc. if I go away longer than a weekend.

My main incentive is that I enjoy doing the job I do, both in the military, and outside of it.  And, in my third year as a reservist, I know I still have much to learn at my level before I would feel comfortable with a promotion.  I've already met people I was on course with and who have been promoted, but in whom I haven't seen an equal rise in their skill, ability, or motivation to do the job.
portcullisguy

non dormiverit gladius meus - dileas gu brath

48 Highrs

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2004, 01:49:37 »
The two years does indeed start from the day you swear in.  Promotions don't just happen though, there's a lot of paperwork that has to be completed before you get your hooks.  I suspect that your unit is probably on minimum manning for the summer, and that if you are in fact qualified to Cpl, you'll probably get your promotion come September.  It will likely be retroactive to the date you qualified for Cpl, and in that case it will come with back pay as well.

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2004, 03:42:06 »
I have a few other thoughts on this as well, mainly pertaining to what Infanteer posted:

Quote
As well, the Brits promote their soldiers a wee bit quicker than us.  Their career structure often attempts to put guys in the LCPL (MCPL equivalent) rank after 3 years, making them section 2ic's.  Considering the regs have roughly 4 to Cpl and 2 to Mcpl, we tend to be the ones who promote slower.  The arguments for and against faster or slower promotion are many, but I believe the Brits do it to fit it into their more rigid 22-year career pattern.

We've discussed this before-- I don't know, maybe this would work out ok for the infantry, but based on my experience in my trade, I think that promotion should be a little slower than this.  Are the promotions that fast in the reg infantry?  In my trade, in the reg force, it's nearly unheard of to get your leaf without at least 10 years in.  I think that one of the things that puts us in good stead, man for man, against some of our allied militaries is the fact that we are often have a bit on them in the professionalism department, and I think that the biggest reason for that is that we promote more slowly than they do.  Now having said that, I don't think that it should really be neccessary to spend 10 years in the military before seeing a leaf.

I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2004, 03:51:02 »
McG, your comparison list is a bit off.   Most of my examples below will pertain to the infantry, but the general level of responsibility is there.   As you can see, I advocate the current British System because it is the most simple and clear cut and it has some traditional value to our Army, which used it until unification.

If we wanted to do a direct comparison of rank and responsibility, it would look like this

Canada                                                       Britain                                                                    United States
Private/Corporal                                 Private                                                              All ranks of Private, Specialist/Corporal
Master Corporal                                   Lance Corporal                                           Sergeant
Sergeant                                                   Corporal                                                          Staff Sergeant
Warrant Officer                                   Sergeant/Staff Sergeant                   Sergeant First Class
MWO                                                            Warrant Officer 2                                   Master Sergeant/First Sergeant
CWO                                                            Warrant Officer 1                                   Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major/
                                                                                                                                                      Command Sergeant Major of the Army

Here is a more detailed layout.   The Royal Marines are exactly the same as the British Army while the United States Marine Corps is very similar to the US Army, with a few name changes (Gunnery Sergeant).   Again, this pertains to the Infantry, but is mostly accurate for the other arms as well.

Privates:

Canada has three levels of Privates: Pte (R), Pte (U), Pte (T).   These all fall under the rank of Private.   Obviously, Pte(R) is in training, Pte(U) is fresh to a unit, and Pte(T) is awarded his hook (in some units) as a competant soldier.   All three are individual soldiers, with no additional responsibilities.  All three of these levels fall under the single rank of Private, the nomials at the end are designators.

Britain has three classes of Private: Class 3, Class 2, and Class 1.   These would be akin to our IPC codes, with some other qualifying characteristics (ie: in the Armour, a Trooper must have a certain amount of TI and get both his gunner and his driver course to be eligible.)   All these Classes fall under the rank of Private as well.

The US has three seperate ranks of Private: Private (Pv1), Private (Pv2), and Private First Class (PFC).   All three are separate ranks of private and are afforded separate paygrades; E1, E2, and E3 respectively.   PV1 is for soldiers in Basic Training.   I believe PV2 is given to graduates of Basic and PFC is akin to a Private Trained in Canada or Private Class Two in Britain, although I am not 100% sure.

Corporals:

Canada has the rank of Corporal, which is technically the first level of the NCO chain.   However, as previously highlighted, there is no leadership requirement and TI is the real factor in promotion to Corporal.   I understand it is done a bit differently in the Engineers, with Corporals actually needing a leadership course.   Corporals, for the most part, are individual soldiers with no real responsibility.   A glorified private in Canada

For the British, Lance Corporal is the first step into the NCO chain.   I am unsure of whether it is an actual rank or an appointment.   Either way, to become a Lance Corporal, one must pass leadership training and in the Infantry assumes duties as an Infantry section 2ic.

The British Corporal is the next step up in rank.   A Corporal in the British Army undergoes further leadership training and is the true commander of field forces.   In the Infantry, a Corporal is a section commander, commanding his soldiers within a Platoon with the help of his LCpl 2ic.

The Americans have a split at the paygrade of E4 between Corporal and Specialist.   The way I understand it, specialist is akin to our Corporal, a glorified private, while an American Army Corporal is a soldier with basic leadership training that can assume a leadership role if required.

Master Corporal

A uniquely Canadian position, the Master Corporal is an appointment, although it has become a de facto rank.   Master Corporals in the Infantry are section 2ic's and must attend leadership training.   The true bottom rung of the NCO.

Sergeant

In Canada the Sergeant is the first SNCO rank.   In the Infantry, Sergeants are section commanders, who command with the aid of a 2ic (Mcpl).

In Britain, further leadership training can lead to promotion to Sergeant, which is the first SNCO rank in the British Army as well.   A Sergeant acts as the top NCO in an Infantry Platoon/Tank Troop/Engineer Troop.   He provides advice and correls the junior Lieutenants put in command of these units.

In America, the "buck" Sergeant is the first level of command.   An American Sergeant (E5) usually commands an infantry fire team, which 2 or 3 usually make up a squad.

Staff Sergeant

Canada abandoned the rank of Staff Sergeant upon unification.   Warrant Officers will fill out the roles that were covered by this rank.

In Britain, a Staff Sergeant, or a Colour Sergeant in the Infantry, is a staff level NCO.   They often perform the roles as Platoon Sergeants, but can also serve as NCO's in unit staffs as well as taking on the key position of CQMS, running company stores and weapons.

In the United States, a Staff Sergeant (E6) is the Squad Leader, commanding a unit composed of fireteams, which he directs through his Sergeants.   A Staff Sergeant fulfills the duties of a Canadian Sergeant and a British Corporal.

From here on, the ranks take a big diversion among the three militaries, I'll try and sum it up as neatly as possible.

Platoon NCO (Canada and US)

The Canadian Warrant Officer (WO) fulfills the role of Platoon Warrant.   Fulfilled by a Sergeant in the British Army, a Warrant will act as top NCO in a platoon as well as filling out the duties accomplished by a British Staff Sergeant (Staff duties, CQMS)

The American Sergeant First Class (E7) is very similar to the Canadian Warrant Officer, filling out similar duties as Platoon Sergeant.

Company NCO

In Canada, the Master Warrant Officer acts as the Company Sergeant Major, head NCO in the company responsible for the skills, discipline, and dress and deportment of the other ranks in the company.

In Britain, the rank of Warrant Officer 2 (WO2) does the same thing as a MWO, acting as CSM.

In the US, the rank grade of E8 is split between Master Sergeant and First Sergeant.   Both are the same rank level, but have different responsibilities of command, of which I am unsure of how it works.   I do know that First Sergeants are the Company NCO's, often refered to as "Top Kicks" or "First Shirts", they do the same thing as a Canadian MWO in the CSM role.

Higher Level NCO's

In Canada, the Chief Warrant Officer is the highest rank for an NCM.   A CWO can be appointed as a Regimental Sergeant Major, the top NCO in a battalion level formation (called Regiment in the other arms).   As well, CWOs can act as Sergeants Major in larger formations (Brigade), bases, and the right hand man of the Chief of Defence Staff, the Canadian Forces CWO (top NCM in the CF).

Britain has the same roles performed by a Warrant Officer 1 (WO1).

In the US, the highest enlisted pay grade of E9 is divided into three ranks: Sergeant Major, Command Sergeant Major, and Command Sergeant Major of the Army.   I believe Sergeants Major act at battalion level (Canadian RSM), Command Sergeants Major act at Brigade and Division Levels (our formation and base CWO), while the Command Sergeant Major of the Army is the highest enlisted rank in the Army.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 04:00:36 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2004, 03:56:53 »
Quote
I'm actually not unhappy with the Cpl rank being essentially just a position of seniority.  I think having Cpls as "skilled workers" is ok, for my trade, at least.  What does irk me is that it's such a gimme, and that everyone gets it regardless of whether or not they're an idiot.   I'd be happy with about 3-4 years as a base TI requirement for promotion to Cpl, in both the regs, and the reserves.  In addition to that, I think that there should be hard and fast objective skill assessments that one should have to pass in order to get a second hook.  Maybe accelerated promotion to Cpl would be ok, but only in clearly exceptional cases.  From there, I think promotions should be based on qualifications and merit, with TI being a secondary factor at most.  That's just me though.

The Corporal rank as it stands was designed exactly for that reason, to designate "journeyman" level soldiers.  However, I view rank as a symbol of command, not trade competence (which is only one factor) or time in.

I think these problems also exist in the officer corps.  Rank exams were removed and now 2nd Lt - Lt - Captain is a TI thing as well, if I am not mistaken.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #60 on: June 30, 2004, 04:48:29 »
Well, for all ranks after Corporal, I agree with you 100%, but there must be a place for "skilled workers" in the infantry as well, isn't there?  I don't see anything wrong with having a non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers.

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #61 on: June 30, 2004, 05:04:04 »
I also see Cpl as ideally having some command authority. For the "skilled worker" what's wrong with keeping people at single hooks while adding a few IPC's so that a full career as a Pte is financially viable?

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #62 on: June 30, 2004, 05:26:12 »
Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".  In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?  Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.  If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.  I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.  I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.  Who wants a career Pte?

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #63 on: June 30, 2004, 06:01:18 »
Well, I believe that for training and development reasons it's desireable to offer Cpls as many opportunities to undertake leadership tasks as possible, but if we make it part of their official job description then MCpl becomes a redundant "rank".   In that case, why not just go back to the pre unification system, as others have suggested?   Senior Cpls will always end up being used as required as ad hoc det commanders, section 2i/cs, etc, but that isn't what they are intended to do, and I think that if the promotion timetable and requirements were just slightly different than they are now (as per my other post), it would be a pretty reasonable system.
MCpl would not be a redundant rank as you suggest. Cpl would indicate a leader in training (the 2Lt of NCO's if you will), and MCpls would be appointed to indicate that they are a fully qualified/proven/experienced Cpl.
If the Cpl rank wasn't just given away, then it would give quite a bit of prestige to those who got it, and make them feel like they accomplished something worthwhile.   I think that's something to shoot for, and I don't think that would happen by having people stick out their whole careers as Ptes.   I can see having career Cpls, but if my proposed system were to be put in place, and a guy was passed over for Cpl two or three times, then I think he should be kicked out of the military.   Who wants a career Pte?
I think you may be getting caught up too much in titles. Single hooks could be called lance corporal like it used to be. I'm talking about redefining the meaning of single hooks. Rather than indicating a trained Pte, they would indicate the skill set that Cpl currently does, thus creating the "non-NCO rank and pay level that is above the level of private soldiers" that you desire (obviously making it such that the single hooks are not a gimme, so that there is that feeling of accomplishment and respect and not the current problem that exists with Cpl). It seems strange to me to give a "non-NCO" the rank of Cpl, as a Cpl is an NCO by definition of the word.

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 4,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 922
  • Retired WO
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #64 on: June 30, 2004, 07:01:37 »
Interesting topic of discussion.

I wonder why it is that Canada is the only country that has a Corporal, and a Captain rank, that is not a rank, but an indication of time served?  You'll not find this in any other army, and for good reason.  A rank is a position of responsibility, an indication to all that a leader, no matter how junior, is present.

"PFC" and "Senior Private" ranks abound in the world's armies.  Many do an entire career as PFC, just as we have Corporals today.  The difference is that Corporal, and Captain, are an indication of something earned, which in our army, is not the case.  It is automatic, hence it is not a rank at all.

The only true ranks are ones granted for performance, by my definition.  In our army, ranks start at the Master Corporal and the Major level.  I am among those that think that this is a ludicrous situation.  A Private is a Private, not a Corporal.  A Lieutenant is a Lieutenant, not a Captain.

Boy, it's a good thing I'm not in charge, isn't it?
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #65 on: June 30, 2004, 07:29:46 »
Well, ags, I'm not going to argue with you about it too much, because we seem to be talking about similar things, just using different words.   All I'll say is that Cpls already are the "2Lt of NCO's" to a large extent, and MCpls are already appointed on the basis of their proven qualification.   The thing is that as the "2Lt's of the NCOs", Cpls may be given leadership tasks, but not on a permanent basis (usually).   That's the job of the MCpls.   If you make both MCpls and Cpls true NCO's with full time leadership roles, then you have two supervisor ranks doing exactly the same job, which I don't think makes much sense.   I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 08:04:17 by willy »

Offline Willy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 34,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 398
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #66 on: June 30, 2004, 08:00:56 »
Quote
"PFC" and "Senior Private" ranks abound in the world's armies.   Many do an entire career as PFC, just as we have Corporals today

Actually, the American "Specialist" ranks are the ones directly equivalent to our use of the Cpl rank.  Many in the US Army stay as Specialists for a long time, but I don't think they have many long serving PFC's.  They also have an up or out policy in effect, don't they?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2004, 08:17:55 by willy »

Offline Mr. Ted

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 69
  • Pvt Infantry Reserve Ret‘d
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #67 on: June 30, 2004, 08:10:03 »
A couple of comments regarding the last post.

Firstly, however, excellent discussion I have to say.

The rank of master-corporal is not particular to Canada.  Belgium, and I believe France also retain the rank as "Caporal-Chef".  Belgium for sure has it, not too sure about France.  But it's out there, which was a surprise to me as I always assumed it was a neat bit of Canadiana as well.  Not so.

It's odd that the American rank of E-6 Staff Sargent is a squad leader - he has no "staff" responsibilities unilke a more senior NCO - so why the "staff" designation to describe a squad leader/section commander?

Ted
Veritas Omnia Vincit

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #68 on: June 30, 2004, 17:18:29 »
I think it makes more sense to have two groups of workers: skilled (Cpls) and unskilled (Ptes) rather than two groups of front line supervisors.   As for terminology, well, if people want to go back to the British system, I don't really mind, but it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth to rename everything.

Both the Cpl and L/Cpl would be skilled. The difference is that the L/Cpl would be given no leadership responsibility. The Cpl would be, as it is now, a leadership as needed job.

I agree though, we do seem to be getting caught up in details too much, so I'll just leave it at that. Whatever the details, we're in agreement that there needs to be some actual earning of rank here, and that leadership roles should not be given based simply on time in.

Offline Allan Luomala

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • -20
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 637
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #69 on: June 30, 2004, 19:55:52 »
I would love to see (as mentioned by the many wise men above) a system of: Private, Lance Corporal (a career private with no leadership potential or aspirations.... not everyone is cut out to be a leader, so why try to force it???), Corporal, Sergeant, WO, etc...... There is no real need to have the MCpl rank/appointment/whatever if we followed this scheme, and we would please the PC crowd who don't like calling people Master, as though we are slave owners or something.... tree huggers :crybaby:

We need to focus on leadership at the Corporal level, not at the MCpl and above level. As I said before, the time spent as a Cpl is the most important, as you are the direct link between the young soldiers and the powers that be. It's a tough line to straddle, as you are the troops "buddy" and also expected to crack the whip. There's no way that people should cruise through that rank level. When I first joined, it wasn't unusual to see one-hooks or no-hooks on their CLC, and then get promoted to MCpl right after their course. I'm sure there were some good guys that learned quick and did well, but I suspect a lot of the problems that we have now can be traced back to that era, where people didn't learn to be junior leaders. They got their leaf, forgot about looking after the soldiers, and rose to their level of incompetence.

No rank should be automatic, except RSM (retired service member), and that should be like the Brit system: after 22 years (or 25.... close enough) you're done. On to becoming a WalMart "greeter" or a Commisionaire. No point in having 54 year old Corporals (or Sgt's, or WO's for that matter) manning the trenches. Or if the CSS trades don't like that (because they are all so "valuable" that they should be kept in indefinitely.... was my sarcasm very apparent there????) let all the old combat arms types (25 years in) OT over to these invaluable trades. Anyway, that's not gonna happen with this cat, as 25 years (if they give me the option.......) will be plenty for me. I'm starting to think that my BE1 (first 3 year hitch) should have been where I cut the rope, but that's long ago.

Hopefully the people at NDHQ read things like this, steal the great ideas, form a new department (DirNewRkStruc-Mil, or the Directorate of New Rank Structure - Military) so that, because it's a new department, it's like a posting (even though he/she keeps the same cubicle and staff), he/she can get a promotion, and we can waste more money doing studies and surveys to see if it's "synergy and paradigm fit the human resources parameters set out" (whatever that may have meant....), and then cancel it unceremoniously because somebody will say, "But what's the civilian equivalent? We can't do that....". (I gotta stop sniffing Liquid Paper at work....... :blotto:)

Al

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 188,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,431
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #70 on: June 30, 2004, 20:25:28 »
The Corporal rank as it stands was designed exactly for that reason, to designate "journeyman" level soldiers.  However, I view rank as a symbol of command, not trade competence (which is only one factor) or time in.
Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #71 on: June 30, 2004, 20:55:21 »
Quote
No rank should be automatic, except RSM (retired service member), and that should be like the Brit system: after 22 years (or 25.... close enough) you're done. On to becoming a WalMart "greeter" or a Commisionaire. No point in having 54 year old Corporals (or Sgt's, or WO's for that matter) manning the trenches. Or if the CSS trades don't like that (because they are all so "valuable" that they should be kept in indefinitely.... was my sarcasm very apparent there?) let all the old combat arms types (25 years in) OT over to these invaluable trades. Anyway, that's not gonna happen with this cat, as 25 years (if they give me the option.......) will be plenty for me. I'm starting to think that my BE1 (first 3 year hitch) should have been where I cut the rope, but that's long ago.

We are not going to make very many friends with that idea, but I find myself agreeing with you.

Quote
Would you be satisfied if Cpl became an appointment & MCpl became a rank?

I would be satisfied if a private soldier was precisely that, a Private soldier.   I see no need to create two working ranks based on TI, a soldier can be judged on is abilities alone.   For career troopies, I see no problem with the British system of Classes within the Private rank.   A little different then our IPC codes, these usually come when certain qualifications are met (essential courses and TI) and the CO gives his recommendation.   The idea of promotion to a higher rank to me implies greater increase in command and responsibility.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 57,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,198
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #72 on: June 30, 2004, 21:04:01 »
its unfortunate these days that it isn't necessarily your abilities that get you ahead rather then having the course and needing a postion filled.   My current Sgt who is acting CQ couldn't lead a one man rush to the whor.e house on pay day.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,379
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #73 on: July 01, 2004, 00:02:49 »
Same problem exists in the reserves.   Some NCO friends of mine are a bit disapointed with how leadership nomination is done.  When they were troops, they were recommended for leadership training and offered the course by the CoC.   Now, troops are badgered about going on their leadership course (I refused twice) and anyone who puts in their name can pretty much get a spot.   I had a guy on my basic course that spent one year as a trained private, did his JLC/JNCO the next summer, and was a Master Corporal in the fall; 1 year from private to MCpl blew me away.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

ags281

  • Guest
Re: Review of CF NCM Rank Structure?
« Reply #74 on: July 01, 2004, 00:10:48 »
Settle down Al, you're making too much sense.

The only argument I can think of people using for keeping MCpl is to have parallel rank structure to the Navy and Air Force. The thing is, I don't see any reason why MCpl shouldn't be dumped forces-wide. I see it looking something like this:

        Army:                         Air Force:                   Navy:

        Pte                              AC                                   OS
        LCpl                           LAC                                 AS
        -----------------------------------------------
        Cpl                             Cpl                                    LS
        Sgt                             Sgt                                   MS
        SSgt/CSgt             FSgt                                PO2
        WO                           WO                                   PO1
        CWO                        CWO                                CPO

        (line indicates non-NCO/NCO divide)