Should MechWarrior be an officer rank?

[drjones]

Here are links to a couple of previous threads that involved similar discussions.

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=51864.0

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=81160.0

[EPG]

Enjoying this discussion.  To me the rank of a Mechwarrior and their standing as a mechwarrior st two different things.  One of them is their position in the military hierarchy, and the other is their ability.  The parallel with airplane pilots makes this clear.  Pilots come with a variety of different ranks, but to many people the fact that someone is a fighter pilot (assigned that role and actually competent at it) is far more important than their exact rank. 

I see it the same with mech warriors.  Unless they are personally notorious in some way, or well known as a mech commander, their status as a mechwarrior is going to be more important to a LOT of people than their exact military rank.  This is even going to apply to a lot of people IN the armed forces, particularly those who are of much lower or much higher ranks.  The general responsible of a regiment or an invasion doesn’t care overly much about the exact position of their mechwarriors in the org chart all the time - they just want to know if they are available for service and how good they are.  Likewise the repair and support staff don’t particularly care what the rank of the mechwarrior assigned to the war hammer is - their job is to make sure it’s ready for action.  The crew chief for the techs in charge of a lance support team may technically outrank a mechwarrior in that lance , but operationally the mechwarrior is going to get a lot of unofficial say so, because otherwise the unit isn’t going to function very well.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Enjoying this discussion.  To me the rank of a Mechwarrior and their standing as a mechwarrior st two different things.  One of them is their position in the military hierarchy, and the other is their ability.  The parallel with airplane pilots makes this clear.  Pilots come with a variety of different ranks, but to many people the fact that someone is a fighter pilot (assigned that role and actually competent at it) is far more important than their exact rank. 

I see it the same with mech warriors.  Unless they are personally notorious in some way, or well known as a mech commander, their status as a mechwarrior is going to be more important to a LOT of people than their exact military rank.  This is even going to apply to a lot of people IN the armed forces, particularly those who are of much lower or much higher ranks.  The general responsible of a regiment or an invasion doesn’t care overly much about the exact position of their mechwarriors in the org chart all the time - they just want to know if they are available for service and how good they are.  Likewise the repair and support staff don’t particularly care what the rank of the mechwarrior assigned to the war hammer is - their job is to make sure it’s ready for action.  The crew chief for the techs in charge of a lance support team may technically outrank a mechwarrior in that lance , but operationally the mechwarrior is going to get a lot of unofficial say so, because otherwise the unit isn’t going to function very well.

Actually, I would expect that sort of disconnect to impair unit coordination and combat readiness.  *No one* likes to get ordered around by someone they outrank.  We've actually seen that, sort of, in BT, albeit offscreen in the depths of the Third Succession War, where it's usually only mentioned in Sourcebooks:  the Warriors' Cabal that gave the FedSuns so much trouble (including assassinating Prince Peter Davion in 2961).  The Cabal was the direct result of lavishing praise and honor on mechwarriors above all other branches and out of proportion to their station; they became entitled, full of themselves, and began to abuse their power and authority, eventually murdering a Prince and refusing to swear fealty to his son rather than give up their power.

[EPG]

Actually, I would expect that sort of disconnect to impair unit coordination and combat readiness.  *No one* likes to get ordered around by someone they outrank.  We've actually seen that, sort of, in BT, albeit offscreen in the depths of the Third Succession War, where it's usually only mentioned in Sourcebooks:  the Warriors' Cabal that gave the FedSuns so much trouble (including assassinating Prince Peter Davion in 2961).  The Cabal was the direct result of lavishing praise and honor on mechwarriors above all other branches and out of proportion to their station; they became entitled, full of themselves, and began to abuse their power and authority, eventually murdering a Prince and refusing to swear fealty to his son rather than give up their power.

Yes.  It can definately be a source of tension if taken to extremes or not handled properly.  It’s similar to the tension between nobles and non nobles.  Baron lafarge may ‘own’ the planet, but is technically outranked by the commanding general of the house/federal garrison, even though the baron has a larger militia and household guard than the official plantetary gaarrison  If everyone gets along personally, and they each make an effort to avoid stepping on the others toes, everything can work very well.  Under other circumstances it could lead to disaster, unless someone senior to both of them in all ways micromanages the situation.

[drjones]

After some time to think, there are probably reasons for considering MechWarrior (MW) itself (i.e. an individual 'mech pilot, not commanding a lance or larger unit) as an officer rank. First, it would fill the O1 gap; traditionally the BT unit structure has a lieutenant (O1 or O2 not clear) commanding a lance and then a captain (presumable O3) commanding a company. This seemed to combine O1 and O2; having MW as O1 leaves the lance commander (lieutenant) as an O2 and thus fills that gap. Second, a MW seems to function as an officer both socially (nobility/knighthood) and functionally (command of at least household support troops).

Per ESG's comment, being a mechwarrior is a special status itself. Having all mechwarriors be officers helps emphasize that distinction by not subdividing the mechwarrior community. Rank within that community (and as seen by the outside world) becomes more positional and less about status.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Draw a real world parallel between MechWarriors and fighter pilots; in the USAF all pilots are officers, even the juniormost pleb in the squadron.  The idea of MWs being O1 rank, lance leaders at O2, and company leaders at O3 fits very nicely.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Draw a real world parallel between MechWarriors and fighter pilots; in the USAF all pilots are officers, even the juniormost pleb in the squadron.  The idea of MWs being O1 rank, lance leaders at O2, and company leaders at O3 fits very nicely.

That was not always the case. Back in WW2 when they were the Army Air Corps, they instituted the Flying Sergeant program because they did not have enough commissioned officers.

And I can definitely see a parallel in BT. BT is wracked by generational conflicts with only a few years in between. Add in the feudal nature, the rate of attrition, and the number of needed mechwarriors will always outstrip the pool that can afford to attend officer training.

[BrianDavion]

Draw a real world parallel between MechWarriors and fighter pilots; in the USAF all pilots are officers, even the juniormost pleb in the squadron.  The idea of MWs being O1 rank, lance leaders at O2, and company leaders at O3 fits very nicely.

So your argument basicly boils down to "it should be this way because the US does it that way with fighter jets?"

seems a pretty weak argument given that the USA has by the 31st century been dead for near a thousand years.

[Arkansas Warrior]

I don’t think the argument is so simplistic as “they should do what the US does.” There are already huge disanalogies to any BT military and the US.  More that the same reasoning applies: battlemechs, like fighters, are expensive and complex pieces of equipment, and being given charge of one implies a certain amount of authority and training, and rank tends to come with that; the military isn’t going to invest years of time and a fortune to train a pilot and then leave him a low-ranking enlisted man.

[BrianDavion]

I don’t think the argument is so simplistic as “they should do what the US does.” There are already huge disanalogies to any BT military and the US.  More that the same reasoning applies: battlemechs, like fighters, are expensive and complex pieces of equipment, and being given charge of one implies a certain amount of authority and training, and rank tends to come with that; the military isn’t going to invest years of time and a fortune to train a pilot and then leave him a low-ranking enlisted man.

at the same time the commander of a US tank is a staff sergent, and an Abrams tank is likewise "an expensive and complex peice of equipment"

[tassa_kay]

at the same time the commander of a US tank is a staff sergent, and an Abrams tank is likewise "an expensive and complex peice of equipment"

Learning to operate a fighter jet or even something like a helicopter is much more complex than learning to operate a tank. Weather conditions are more dangerous for pilots, altitude and speed have to be more carefully managed, they have to think and be aware of things in three dimensions, controls are more complex, and a LOT more things can go wrong in the latter with much more immediate and fatal consequences. At its most basic level, one can learn how to drive a tank in an afternoon. You can't say the same about piloting an aircraft.

[HappyDaze]

Learning to operate a fighter jet or even something like a helicopter is much more complex than learning to operate a tank. Weather conditions are more dangerous for pilots, altitude and speed have to be more carefully managed, they have to think and be aware of things in three dimensions, controls are more complex, and a LOT more things can go wrong in the latter with much more immediate and fatal consequences. At its most basic level, one can learn how to drive a tank in an afternoon. You can't say the same about piloting an aircraft.

This is not an argument for an aircraft pilot needing to be an officer though, just that they require lengthier training. It might even be argued that the aircraft pilot has less time to devote to leadership/administrative skills because of this.

[Hellraiser]

Draw a real world parallel between MechWarriors and fighter pilots; in the USAF all pilots are officers, even the juniormost pleb in the squadron.  The idea of MWs being O1 rank, lance leaders at O2, and company leaders at O3 fits very nicely.

Maybe.

You can just as easily look at it another way.

01-Lance Leader
02-Company XO
03-Company Commander

You also are going to have HUGE issues when you look at how quickly LT-1's get promoted to LT-2's.

The issue of "an entire company of LT2s" isn't that far fetched, nor is a lower time in grade Captain as XO at that point.

[Hellraiser]

seems a pretty weak argument given that the USA has by the 31st century been dead for near a thousand years.

Random............. Has it really?

I'm just curious if it actually WAS dead.

We know that all the colonization efforts were often based on certain countries & that the TH was very "American" because they were closest to Terra & earliest colonized & the richest nations did the colonization missions earliest.

So does something actually state that all nations dissolved on Terra at some point?

I recall fluff about Alliances from early fluff but nothing that seemed overly more than "NATO-on-steroids"

[Hellraiser]

and then leave him a low-ranking enlisted man.

Except they don't.
Fresh out of the Academy they get E-5.  (The same rank normally takes 2-4 years to get in the US Army that I served in)
Additional training might result in E-6  (More like 4-8 years)
OCS nets you O-1
Additional training post OCS might result in O-2


Who exactly is ordering an E-5 Mechwarrior around?

Some Infantry Lt from another Regiment?   SSSSUUURREE, I'll bet they overlap in the same circles all the time.
Meanwhile if the Battalion SGTMAJOR that they attached my Mech Lance to support gives me, a LT, an order, do you think I'm NOT going to follow it since it's likely part of the battle plan drawn up by the Battalion/Regimental commander?

I can't recall the # of times some random person from another unit gave me an order.  (Rarely)
   Most of the time it was directly in relation to what they were doing & what I needed to do to be in their "AO".
I sure as hell wouldn't have let them just give me an order that would take me away from what MY Chain of Command has me doing that's for sure.

[Hellraiser]

I also think this discussion & comparison to the US Military isn't quite accurate when you consider how TPTB set up a great deal of their "fluff".

Regiments & Divisions working off the "by 3" force structure for the SLDF was based on WW2 Panzer Divisions IIRC.

"Lances" is a term that came from medieval "Knight" formations.

Sooo, my point is,  why are we assuming it's "Today's" Airforce that it needs to be compared to?

When it was far more likely they were looking at the HISTORICAL forces of the US in WW2,  IE,  the Army Air Corps.
And the AAC had all sorts of Pilots that were Enlisted (MOSTLY SGTS).

[Hellraiser]

This is not an argument for an aircraft pilot needing to be an officer though, just that they require lengthier training. It might even be argued that the aircraft pilot has less time to devote to leadership/administrative skills because of this.

Valid.

I'd also point out that Aircraft Maintainers & Army Medics are not by default all SGTs v/s "Infantry Privates" & they spend a hell of a lot longer in school that Grunts/Tankers do.

[tassa_kay]

Random............. Has it really?

I'm just curious if it actually WAS dead.

Yes. All sovereign nations on Terra came to an end when the Terran Hegemony was established (confirmed in JHS:Terra), and the United States specifically came to a bad end via an insurrection against its leadership, with the last sitting president and several Senators lynched at the White House (which became a memorial).

[Hellraiser]

Yes. All sovereign nations on Terra came to an end before or when the Terran Hegemony was established (confirmed in JHS:Terra) ,

1.  Thanks for the quote.
2.  That said, TH was long after colonization.

It's hard to tell from early fluff what exactly stuff like the "Western Alliance" was.
It talks about Member Countries so it seems more like "Nato-on-steroids" than any sort of "We are all 1 new country".

[tassa_kay]

It's hard to tell from early fluff what exactly stuff like the "Western Alliance" was.
It talks about Member Countries so it seems more like "Nato-on-steroids" than any sort of "We are all 1 new country".

It's not hard to tell at all; the Western Alliance/Terran Alliance is more like "NATO on steroids" than anything else, and was never presented as "we are all one new country". That concept didn't come about until the formation of the Hegemony, when McKenna did away with sovereign nations and turned them into provinces of a single planetary government. Under the Terran Alliance, there was a central governing body, but it was an alliance of existing nations (hence the name) rather than a single cohesive entity. This is all covered quite thoroughly in JHS:Terra and in the Sarna entries for the Western Alliance and Terran Alliance.

[Hellraiser]

It's not hard to tell at all; the Western Alliance/Terran Alliance is more like "NATO on steroids" than anything else, and was never presented as "we are all one new country". That concept didn't come about until the formation of the Hegemony, when McKenna did away with sovereign nations and turned them into provinces of a single planetary government. Under the Terran Alliance, there was a central governing body, but it was an alliance of existing nations (hence the name) rather than a single cohesive entity. This is all covered quite thoroughly in JHS:Terra and in the Sarna entries for the Western Alliance and Terran Alliance.

I don't have that quote about the fall of the USA or JHS:Terra sitting around.

I was trying to see if the part about "1000 years gone" up above was accurate.

Based on Sarna I could see it being 800 years ago, not 1000, OR, possibly still around since many IS worlds have "countries/nations" with their own leaders or lower tier nobles that still serve the "Planetary Representative" IE Duke, at the House level.

[tassa_kay]

I don't have that quote about the fall of the USA or JHS:Terra sitting around.

Sure, but Sarna also covers all of these details as well, like I said: United States, Western Alliance and Terran Alliance.

I was trying to see if the part about "1000 years gone" up above was accurate.

Brian said "near a thousand years", which is accurate. No need to be overly pedantic or nitpicky here, I'd think.

[Vrakzi]

It's a substantial chunk less than a thousand years. The Zoli Affair that precipitated the end of the Alliance and the start of the Hegemony was 2315. So 710 years before 3025.

[tassa_kay]

It's a substantial chunk less than a thousand years. The Zoli Affair that precipitated the end of the Alliance and the start of the Hegemony was 2315. So 710 years before 3025.

The current in-game year is 3152. The start of the Hegemony was 2315. That's 837 years, which is "near a thousand years" (which in turn is what was said by the OP, if people would actually take two seconds to read). 

Why are people picking this stupid hill to die on?

[HappyDaze]

Why are people picking this stupid hill to die on?

Location? Zoning and schools? No HOA? Yeah, that last one gets me to plant feet.

[Hellraiser]

Sure, but Sarna also covers all of these details as well, like I said: United States, Western Alliance and Terran Alliance.

Brian said "near a thousand years", which is accurate. No need to be overly pedantic or nitpicky here, I'd think.

The current in-game year is 3152. The start of the Hegemony was 2315. That's 837 years, which is "near a thousand years" (which in turn is what was said by the OP, if people would actually take two seconds to read). 

Why are people picking this stupid hill to die on?

1.  YOU seem to be the only one that is nitpicking w/ all these responses & hostile nitpicky nature.

2.  I'm so very sorry your holy researchness that I didn't manage to find the quote in USA section of Sarna.
   The WA & TA didn't say anything about it & I missed that there were country links.

3.  I just got curious about the USA being dead & wondered if/when that had happened because I hadn't read that specific line ever before.
I don't really care if it was 700-800-1000 years ago or if its still standing in the RotS. 
I'd just never heard the info at all so I wanted to know where it was from & when it fell.

4.  Jihad-Terra has LOTS of references to all the various countries in it during the invasion, so you'll forgive me if I was wondering how said country could have fallen & yet still be referred to as a Location.  When something is in say Tokyo, Japan, that kind of implies that it's still JAPAN.
Not "The Country formerly known as Japan" but we still call it Japan even if it's not a country.   Insert USA or any other country here.

Either way, thanks, I got my reference & date.

[tassa_kay]

2.  I'm so very sorry your holy researchness that I didn't manage to find the quote in USA section of Sarna.
   The WA & TA didn't say anything about it & I missed that there were country links.

3.  I just got curious about the USA being dead & wondered if/when that had happened because I hadn't read that specific line ever before.
I don't really care if it was 700-800-1000 years ago or if its still standing in the RotS. 
I'd just never heard the info at all so I wanted to know where it was from & when it fell.

Hence why I linked them for you, so you had something to reference. No need for name-calling, either.

4.  Jihad-Terra has LOTS of references to all the various countries in it during the invasion, so you'll forgive me if I was wondering how said country could have fallen & yet still be referred to as a Location.  When something is in say Tokyo, Japan, that kind of implies that it's still JAPAN.
Not "The Country formerly known as Japan" but we still call it Japan even if it's not a country.   Insert USA or any other country here.

They're referred to as locations for two reasons: 1) they're still administrative districts under the Terran government and 2) for the benefit of the reader.

Either way, thanks, I got my reference & date.

You're welcome.

[Arkansas Warrior]

Except they don't.
Fresh out of the Academy they get E-5.  (The same rank normally takes 2-4 years to get in the US Army that I served in)
Additional training might result in E-6  (More like 4-8 years)
OCS nets you O-1
Additional training post OCS might result in O-2


Who exactly is ordering an E-5 Mechwarrior around?

Some Infantry Lt from another Regiment?   SSSSUUURREE, I'll bet they overlap in the same circles all the time.
Meanwhile if the Battalion SGTMAJOR that they attached my Mech Lance to support gives me, a LT, an order, do you think I'm NOT going to follow it since it's likely part of the battle plan drawn up by the Battalion/Regimental commander?

I can't recall the # of times some random person from another unit gave me an order.  (Rarely)
   Most of the time it was directly in relation to what they were doing & what I needed to do to be in their "AO".
I sure as hell wouldn't have let them just give me an order that would take me away from what MY Chain of Command has me doing that's for sure.

You’re applying US rank structure to battletech. Sergeant isn’t E-5 in BT, in part because BT militaries don’t seem to separate rank and grade.  But also, they tend to go Private, Corporal, Sergeant. Maybe a PFC/Lance Corporal, but that’s not always official.  Sergeant is barely above the lowest rank where you get some real responsibility (corporals tend to lead infantry squads or command vehicles).


And yes, I think if a Lieutenant gives a MechWarior Sergeant an order, the said sergeant had best follow it.  Refusing orders from officers is not the way to a long and productive career in the military.  Now, as a mechwarrior he might be able to get away with shrugging off an infantry LT’s order, especially in the height of the neofeudal Succession Wars, but that sort of maverick behavior isn’t the type of thing that gets you promotions and medals and things you want in the military.  But if you like being transferred to the Anjin Muerto CrMM, knock yourself out!  We do see conventional officers deferring to mechwarriors from time to time in the fiction, but they IIRC generally close in rank (a lieutenant colonel letting a major take charge, etc) and it usually comes from the higher-ranked officer deferring, not a lower-ranked officer assuming he can issue orders because he’s a mechwarrior.  Unless the character is meant to be taken as a horse’s ass.  Likewise no, I don’t think Sergeants-Major generally give orders to Lieutenants, unless they’re passing them along from higher.  “Sir, the Colonel wants your lance guarding quadrant A6” is not the SGM giving an order.

[Motpart]

Mechwarrior should be almost always translate to an effective officer rank in almost every Battletech military, NCO or commissioned, in my opinion.

Nothing to do with any particularly specific modern military structure perse. Purely from the fact that every mechwarrior ought to be considered responsible at the very least for the basic management and leadership necessary to keep both themselves and their 'mechs maintained and battle-ready.

Managing or at least liasing with a team of technicians and astechs, or whatever business is necessary to keep themselves and their 'mechs ready to go is the Mechwarrior's responsibility; so with that responsibility comes a level of self-management that would fall within the purview of an officer rank.

They aren't treated like grunts who just need to remember to get out of the right side of the cot in the morning and do what t'officer tells them to do until bedtime again, for the most part. So yeah, I think Mechwarrior should almost always translate to an effective officer rank, unless there's a specific organisational reason that takes decision-making and basic leadership out of their hands as individuals.

[Metallgewitter]

Would that be for all Mecvhwarriors? Or those that finish academy training? For example the Fedsuns have their training batalions and after those you are a qualified Mechwarrior right? Would they then also be sargeant at least? I have seen several noteable pilots with the sargeant rank