Author Topic: Minimum ranks?  (Read 17593 times)

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #30 on: 28 July 2023, 17:40:02 »
Those could both work, yep! :)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #31 on: 28 July 2023, 20:51:53 »
Hellraiser, I think we all acknowledge that enlisted MechWarriors are part of the canon. I, personally, just refuse to include it in my world-view! If I did, my mighty MechWarriors would be outranked by their technical assistance teams. And that would be plum embarrassing. (Not to mention most infantry squad and platoon leaderships, tank gunners and commanders, company and batallion training NCOs and much staff-shop personnel...like I said, embarrassing. And unsustainable.)

Daryk, yes, but I would still call it a headquarters section fronting three line lances. The headquarters vehicle would be just that: a part of the headquarters section but not supplanting the CO or XO's ride. Think about it: is the company commander climbing up four stories every time he has to field a call on the commo net? Or to check the situation on the planning board?

On sustained operations, not every lance or part of a lance will be on a mission, and the CC certainly will not be on every mission. Even O-3s need to sleep, their attentions or presence may be required elsewhere, and operational tempo and/or taskings from higher echelons will require companies to support more than one mission.

So, the company leadership needs to hang out somewhere when they are not riding their shining metal steeds towards the windmills on the sunset. And that place would be the "headquarters vehicle", which is separate from the "command 'Mech/tank/IFV/etc." which is what the CC rides into a fight.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #32 on: 29 July 2023, 06:05:21 »
It sounds like combined units are the way to go for the CO and XO rides.  As Hellraiser pointed out, it's pretty easy to cram a couple of tons of Communications Equipment into a 'mech.  Attaching a "Command" APC should be easy too.

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #33 on: 29 July 2023, 09:14:22 »
Just to complicate things further in terms of ranks and positions, the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #34 on: 29 July 2023, 09:17:32 »
That could work too. :)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #35 on: 29 July 2023, 09:24:29 »
That is a good point. But BT2E explicitly shows a lance comprised of a lieutenant, sergeant, and two privates.  :undecided:
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

nerd

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2392
  • Nunc Partus-Ready Now
    • Traveller Adventures
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #36 on: 29 July 2023, 10:40:26 »
Just to complicate things further in terms of ranks and positions, the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2.
IIRC, In the old House Steiner Sourcebook, that's mentioned as their set up. It's also what the CCAF does as well.

That is a good point. But BT2E explicitly shows a lance comprised of a lieutenant, sergeant, and two privates.  :undecided:
An older source, and explicitly overruled by later sources where the universe is more developed.
M. T. Thompson
Don of the Starslayer Mafia
Member of the AFFS High Command

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #37 on: 29 July 2023, 12:37:37 »
IIRC, In the old House Steiner Sourcebook, that's mentioned as their set up. It's also what the CCAF does as well.

As does the FWLM and most other Inner Sphere militaries.

An older source, and explicitly overruled by later sources where the universe is more developed.

Not overruled at all.  :huh: Indeed, my response was directly tied to drjones's reply that "the BT universe (or at least early publications) didn't seem to really distinguish between first and second lieutenants; there seemed to be a flavor of one grade of lieutenant (i.e. lance commander). That actually leaves some room for the idea of "all MechWarriors are officers" as it leaves room for "MechWarrior" as O-1 with "lieutenant" as O-2." So, quite germane within that dialogue, thanks. But, it is a good idea and way through things regardless on his part.

So, if we are talking about early sources, then the early sources are clear lower-level enlisted troopers pilot BattleMechs. Many of the second and third generation unit/scenario sourcebooks include sergeants as lance-seconds, and the Warrior Trilogy is perhaps notable in its treatment of AFFS MechWarrior institutionalization.

Now, having said that: is every graduate of a Inner Sphere military academy a commissioned officer? Field Manual: FWL (FASA 1699) explicitly states so in conjunction with the Allison MechWarrior Academy (p. 28) and one assumes this rule carries on through the other academies (and similar institutions in the other major states). Which means that, at least in the 3020s-3050s, there was an additional codified pipeline for MechWarriors (like the Hero Academy or Davions Training Battalions) which would thus become the source of "enlisted MechWarriors". I personally believe so--this is borne out by subsequent RPG fodder--so this question is, in a sense, rhetorical. Taking Rolling Thunder (FASA 1651), for example, into account, we know that sergeants exist in the FWLM MechWarrior arm, and that academy graduates (such as Mikhail Cherenkov and poor Esteban Rodriquez) are subordinate to non-university MechWarriors (such as Lucas McCain)--and that academy graduates themselves can be sergeants (such as Peter Jensen). Vexing, to say the least.

Now, the Waco Ranger's inclusion of the rank of MechWarrior Sergeant was notable (see The Mercenary's Handbook, FASA 1616, p. 86, 89). For context, the ELH of 3025 did not use the rank of Sergeant for MechWarriors (but did elsewhere for conventional arms, so the omission was not due to a lack of understanding on the author). Little of the fiction/prose provides substantial clarity because it rarely involves the interaction between the various arms at an interpersonal level (and it is written by non-veterans in large part, at least until relatively recently, who might well have had little drive to highlight such an event). Many mercenary outfits use sergeants (Wolf's Dragoons, the Kell Hounds, Northwind Highlanders to name but three prominent ones--see The Fourth Succession Wars Scenarios, Volume 1 (FASA 1654)--as well as the AFFS, LCAF, and DCMS (the latter of which is more sparing--see the rank of Master Sergeant in House Kurita: The Draconis Combine, FASA 1620). The CCAF uses only commissioned officers to pilot 'Mechs (the implication here being akin to drjones's interpretation of the O1/2 split for Sub-Commander/Commander ranks). 

EDIT:  The LCAF does indeed use Leutnant as an interim rank for MechWarriors--it is effectively a cadet-ranking, like midshipman in the Age of Sail--with the actual lieutenants being First Leutnants that would then be in official command of a lance/platoon. But the use of Sergeant has occurred in canon, so it cannot be dismissed outright (see FASA 1654, p. 28 as one example).
« Last Edit: 29 July 2023, 12:56:16 by Failure16 »
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #38 on: 29 July 2023, 12:59:09 »
I think it comes down to "how many C-Bills do you entrust to an individual?"

Tanks seem to be Sergeant level, but Fighters are commissioned officers.  'Mechs are somewhere in between (like helicopters).  Warrant Officers seem perfect for that in my opinion.  TPTB seem to have evolved over time, but the rules are somewhat lagging... 

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #39 on: 29 July 2023, 13:31:27 »
Roger, for me and mine, They Shall Be Accorded Warrants. Canonically, I am down with the midshipman/graduated cadet/etc. notion where the blanket term "MechWarrior" is applied until they pass their field-boards and are presented their full commission. I grudgingly accept that is not how actual canon works (especially in my beloved FWLM), but it is easily sidestepped--and, in real terms, has effectively been just that for the last forty years!
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #40 on: 29 July 2023, 14:52:01 »
And the nice thing about mercenary units is that you can make up your own rank structures without violating canon!

Personally I'm in the mindset that MechWarriors should be officers, either commissioned or warrant.  The comparison is too close to fighter pilots (single unit, single pilot) in my civilian opinion, and it reinforces the Succession Wars-ideal of the noble MechWarrior having the status of a knight in the nobility.  Baron Corporal Shaun de la Muerte just sounds strange to me, while Duke Colonel Morgan Kell feels right.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14472
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #41 on: 29 July 2023, 18:36:37 »
Hellraiser, I think we all acknowledge that enlisted MechWarriors are part of the canon. I, personally, just refuse to include it in my world-view! If I did, my mighty MechWarriors would be outranked by their technical assistance teams. And that would be plum embarrassing. (Not to mention most infantry squad and platoon leaderships, tank gunners and commanders, company and batallion training NCOs and much staff-shop personnel...like I said, embarrassing. And unsustainable.) 

Why would MW be outranked by their Tech Teams or infantry Squads?
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #42 on: 29 July 2023, 21:51:48 »
Um, because my technical assistance teams and infantry squads are not staffed solely by recruits? And a MechWarrior ranked as a private will be outranked by likely half of any normal infantry squad (and tech squads are colloquially assumed to follow the same structure as infantry squads for simplicity's sake--a lead tech, some skilled assistants, and a few laborer apprentices). You know, there was a little hyperbole in my statement, but a MechWarrior Private (or even Sergeant) is still unsustainable for me.

But they do exist in the BTU, and that's just the way it is.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

DOC_Agren

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5296
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #43 on: 30 July 2023, 09:20:57 »
I think it depends on your appetite for custom units.  A Heavy APC makes a perfectly functional command vehicle with half the infantry compartment replaced with Communications Equipment.  That simple of a refit should be ubiquitous.  4 tons (equivalent) of Communications Equipment gets you +1 Initiative AND Satellite Uplinks.  The full Monty 7-ton versions (that give +2 Initiative) should be reserved for Regiments and above.  Heck, you can cram two tons of the stuff into a standard 10-ton APC for just the +1 Initiative.

All that is a long way of saying:
7 tons of Communications Equipment (+2 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Regiment and above
4 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative, Satellite Uplinks): Definitely Battalion level
3 tons of Communications Equipment (+1 Initiative): Why not Company level?  Definitely Company plus...
very nice idea.. consider it stolen.

My take has been for years..
Mechwarrior non-officers had to Warrant Officers, much like helicopter pilots. 
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #44 on: 30 July 2023, 11:06:26 »
Consider it given freely, good sir! :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #45 on: 04 August 2023, 12:48:33 »
IFair enough. If LEA rank structures made any sense (or at least the badges associated with the rankings), that is.  :grin:

Well, I don't have enough knowledge of the LEA rank usage to really comment on how appropriate it is, but at least to U.S. ears I think the ranks sound better than the British style ones. :grin:

I think my main takeaway is that the rank of sergeant doesn't always mean the same thing. It's something I try to keep in mind when looking at BT structures, since my understanding is that sergeant meant something somewhat different in medieval rank structures as well. (If I have it right -- and I should research the topic more -- a medieval army was mostly conscripts who were called up to fight only when needed. The term sergeant was applied to the men-at-arms who served the nobles full time; these were the professional soldiers. I think that the link leading to the modern usage of sergeant may be that when the conscripts were called up these professional soldiers served an NCO type function among them.) So, in the BT universe, I wouldn't immediately go with the idea that a MechWarrior sergeant is the same as the current rank. Here's an interesting possibility: if a MechWarrior is a warrant officer, and a lieutenant is an O-2, a MechWarrior sergeant might even effectively be an O-1. Another possibility is that a MechWarrior sergeant is a chief warrant officer; that would help fill in the lack of multiple warrant officer ranks. Neither of these is a great fit from my perspective, but again that might be modern ideas creeping in; a MechWarrior sergeant may be something different that isn't captured by modern military rank structures. Here's a possibility. Going back to LEA structures, my local police department has a rank of Officer 1st Class, which appears to basically recognize experience and capability. I believe some other agencies use a rank of corporal similarly. Also, in the BT context, a MechWarrior sergeant rank formally defines the line of succession if something happens to the lance commander. (This might be important to outside parties, even if the remainder of the lance knows who is most senior; if you accept the idea of a lance being a lieutenant and three MechWarriors, the hierarchy is pretty flat at that level.)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #46 on: 17 August 2023, 09:16:04 »
I picked up a copy of AToW and noted the table on pg. 124, which gives ranks but doesn't really definitively answer the question of MechWarrior rank; it actually gives two different ranks with the title MechWarrior. One is on the enlisted table and apparently corresponds to E5. The other is on the officer table and is one rank junior to an O1, but senior to a cadet. (Incidentally, this table does call out a lance leader as an O1.) Two possibilities I see are that either the AToW writers are acknowledging a split in opinion among players/authors or that (as proposed by others in this thread) different factions in-universe handle ranking of sub-command MechWarriors differently.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #47 on: 17 August 2023, 17:59:34 »
I think it's the latter and am (obviously) in the camp of those that think they're Warrant Officers. :)

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #48 on: 26 August 2023, 09:04:37 »
I favor that take as well. I can see the idea of different handling of MechWarrior rank in-universe too. For example, if I understand correctly, the Imperial Japanese Navy in World War Two (don't know if their army did the same) had petty officer ranked aviators (pilots) and my impression is that this was the norm for that navy, not an experiment or track in very limited use. This contrasts with modern, at least U.S. and European (as far as I know), ideas on aviator rank. I suppose this could lead to a corresponding interpretation for BT: most MechWarriors are warrant officers but one power (or a minority of powers) ranks them differently (as NCOs, E5 according to AToW).

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #49 on: 26 August 2023, 20:30:22 »
The IJN did indeed rely heavily on their enlisted pilots (the Sōren in colloquial usage), especially as the war went on and their training pipeline's deficiencies began to become insurmountable. By all accounts, their life alongside the commissioned officer students (not to be confused with the enlisted trainees) was a living Hell, but the same could be said for every enlisted serviceman (and even junior officers relatively speaking) in Imperial Japanese service in that era.

They will be warrant officers for me, even allowing for institutional naming differences. But we do know for certain that many BTU factions have enlisted MechWarriors, as has already been elucidated.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #50 on: 01 September 2023, 12:36:04 »
One other reference possibly relevant to the discussion of a 'mech being too much responsibility for a private would be Heinlein's Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). I don't have a copy around to cite, but there's a discourse acknowledging the amount of training that a Mobile Infantry private receives, something like it being equivalent to a master craftsman in other fields. In the book, that private is operating something that by description seems pretty closely equivalent to BT battle armor. Admittedly, you could probably argue a qualitative difference between battle armor and 'mechs from the perspective of whether an officer is required based on responsibility. However, Heinlein's setting does explore a case where a junior enlisted member needs very extensive training and is entrusted with considerable combat capability, stated in the book to be superior to a platoon of tanks (if I recall correctly) so we're talking 'mech level -- or above -- abilities even if the suit's description sounds more like battle armor.

I do fall on the "MechWarriors are at least warrant officers" side of things, but it's an interesting counterargument.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #51 on: 01 September 2023, 14:46:20 »
Heck, I think Heinlein gave his grunts nukes... ;)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #52 on: 01 September 2023, 15:06:14 »
Sub-kiloton ones, but yes, atomics were something carried by the Marauder suits in that novel.  Rico gets his Big Screw Up with one in training.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #53 on: 01 September 2023, 15:07:45 »
Even a sub-kiloton nuke is still a nuke... ;)

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #54 on: 01 September 2023, 17:32:20 »
Heinlein said almost exactly the same thing, actually.

It's not a bad corollary, drjones.
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #55 on: 09 September 2023, 09:48:54 »
Of course, thinking about it a bit more, one of Heinlein's themes that he appeared to advocate in the book was that the modern (in his case, late-mid-20th century) military had too high an officer-to-enlisted ratio. So, that might have influenced his perspective on what level of responsibility to give to who. It would be pretty hard to simultaneously argue for a lower percentage of officers and yet make your standard individual battlefield unit require an officer to operate it.

Daryk

  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40229
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #56 on: 09 September 2023, 09:56:37 »
I think there's a difference between "standard unit" in universe and in game.

Failure16

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2613
  • Better Days
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #57 on: 09 September 2023, 10:42:37 »
Daryk has an intereesting point. We, as players--and assuredly myself for all my distinct love of conventional arms--focus very pointedly on BattleMechs. They are, after all, the point of decision in-universe, and the raison d'être for the game and resulting milieu. So, I feel that our point-of-view is skewed compared to how things are in the actual Inner Sphere. As an example, there has to be a very heavy logistical base for a BattleMech formation that is rarely talked about and almost never seen; a 'Mech regiment is considerably larger than 120+/- combat machines and pilots.

I subscribed very heavily to Heinlein's conceit and driving theme in Starship Troopers. I still do, generally. But, having served in the military, and lucky enough to do what I did and go where I went, I came to gather an intrinsic understanding of commissioned officers, including why they are what they are, do what they do, and inhabit the roles that exist.

But, you know, warrant officers sidestep all of this "head-to-body" ratio. Which is but one reason why I chose them as my go-to for MechWarriors (as well as the aforementioned reasons of relative ranking/responsibility, etc.)
Thought I might get a rocket ride when I was a child.          We are the wild youth,                                And through villages of ether
But it was a lie, that I told myself                                          Chasing visions of our futures.                   Oh, my crucifixion comes
When I needed something good.                                         One day we'll reveal the truth,                    Will you sing my hallelujah?
At 17, I had a better dream; now I'm 33, and it isn't me.      That one will die before he gets there.       Will you tell me when it's done?
But I'd think of something better if I could
                           --E. Tonra                                                      --C. Love
--A. Duritz

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 209
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #58 on: 15 September 2023, 12:39:35 »
I was thinking of Heinlein's powered armor when I mentioned a standard unit; I think he may have boxed himself into a corner there with his thoughts on officer-to-enlisted ratios. My impression was that powered armor was the basic combat unit for the Terrans in the book, with anything else being specialized (admittedly, the narrator, as Mobile Infantry, might have had a biased perspective). BT is a different situation, where the 'mech occupies a privileged position (but Heinlein's musings muddy the water by presenting his powered armor as having 'mech-like capabilities). Within the BT universe, I continue to see warrant officer ranks (or something roughly equivalent, with an easy and routinely exercised but not automatically expected promotion path to commissioned officer ranks) as making the most sense for (non-command) MechWarriors.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 346
Re: Minimum ranks?
« Reply #59 on: 09 October 2023, 19:32:07 »
I know, probably a little late to the game, but the various Field Manuals (the originals) have the information regarding the ranks for the various unit commanders, as well as the minimum ranks for actual Mechwarriors.  FM:Mercenaries is the most generic of them, with probably the closest to the old SLDF style of ranks.

Having gone through all of those manuals, I can tell you this much:
  • There are only 2 military formations (including generic merc units) that actually give command of a single BattleMech to anyone roughly equivalent to a modern-day private:
    • Outworld Alliance's AMC (pre-Snow Raven takeover):  since they have a completely voluntary military, all initial Mechwarriors that exit general training start off as a Defender (E0 to E2), rising to Protector (E3 & E4) after a year of problem-free service, Guardian (E5 & E6) after 2 years of problem-free service, & Preceptor (E7+) after 3 years of problem-free service (& at that point usually considered assistant to the Lance CO).
    • Mercenaries:  not so much that they have a low rank as that they don't have an actual rank.  Although technically based around the old SLDF, they are unlike the SLDF in that Mechwarriors are treated like other specialists (techs, spaceship crew, etc.) & in that unit you're probably starting off somewhere between E0 & E4 (Corporal/E5 is not very likely, as FM:Mercenaries say they are primarily limited to infantry formations).  It's not until you hit Sergeant/E6 or Mechwarrior Sergeant/E7 that you're given any command responsibilities anyway (& then as a Lance XO)
  • CCAF is the only military where all Mechwarriors have officer rank, with Mechwarriors starting at Sao-wei (Commander Squad Leader, O2), equivalent to Lieutenant; Warrior House members have the rank Bang-zhang.  However, until they actually pass OCS, they are not considered actual commanders, as Lances are commanded by Sao-shas (Captain, O3).
  • Of the militaries, 2 make a distinction in rank titles for Mechwarriors:
    • Kungsarme:  Mechwarriors are equivalent to Korprals (E5), but are called Kavellrists (Cavalry Soldier).
    • DCMS:  Mechwarriors that are noble-born or own their own 'Mech are Kashira (Talon Sergeant, E7).  If they are not noble-born & don't own their 'Mech, they are Shujin (Master Sergeant, E6).
  • Unlike in our real world, most of the militaries do not view their military academies as being strictly meant to teach officer candidates.  Although Mechwarrior curriculums are generally limited to the academies (with the exceptions of the Training Battalions for the AFFS & LCAF; I would still classify the CCAF's Warrior Houses as military academies of sorts, they just include a level of personal loyalty to that particular Warrior House, & stand somewhat outside the CCAF's standard command hierarchy), only those Mechwarriors that attend OCS end up having an officer's rank (usually O1 to O2 level).
  • For most of the militaries, the progression in O-levels for the unit COs are pretty standard:  O2/O3 for Lances, O3/O4 for Companies, O4/O5 for Battalions, O6 for Regiments, and O7 for larger units (Brigades, RCTs, Combat Commands, etc.).