Company commander - captain or major?

Cornishchunky said:
Gentlemen please calm down, I believe that people have a right to air their views without being insulted. I believe that if Germany did not invade to many places at once the Second World War would have been a different result. America were not interested in entering the Second World War, until the incident at Pearl Harbour. I do not expect to be insulted on my remarks.
Click to expand...

you might not be insulted, but you might be greeted with a 'WTF?'

you obviously haven't read the thread, the person who started the insulting has... err... left, with the gracious aid of the Colonels' size nines....

its not our fault if he wasn't very good at insulting people, or indeed that he picked a fight with people much better at insulting people than he was - indeed Sim has one of the better lines in vitriol that its been my good fortune not to be the target of.
 
Last edited:
dave angel said:
i think - and i believe that this is OoE's views as well - that its an accident of the colonial policing role that was the BA's bread and butter for several hundred years. relatively small forces could be responsible for quite large areas in an age where comms are either bad or non-existant, ergo the commander of that unit might need almost plenipotentary powers to make peace and war (particularly as 'divide and rule' is one of the best ways to secure influence when you don't have great numbers), obviously this isn't a job for a twenty-five year old... there are two other reasons that spring to mind, firstly that the US Army was built on a 'Prussian model', one of very strict discipline and a very 'top-down' operational model, whereas the BA has a somewhat different approach of not just allowing initiative at a very junior level, but requiring it - you can imagine that local initiative (and effectively self-sufficiency of command) is a requirement for a rifle company on the North-West frontier where the next level of command might be a weeks march away.
Click to expand...

In fact, the US experienced much the same in "Indian country" where Majors and LCols were in command of company size garrisons. However, the effects of the Civil War is what accounts for much of their command ranking. Just look at the size of engagements. Company level actions mean very little in the scheme of things and hence, the few officers who were able to do battalion and above retained effective operational control.
 
dave angel said:
six different ranks of Sergeant (excluding the Three Seargent Major ranks)
Click to expand...

Here lies the answer to Shek's question!

Basically American and other Prussian-model mid-level NCOs (i.e. the ones instrumental in running the infantry coy) are lot more secure in their positions and share a greater deal of responsibility with their officers. Military law and tradition gives them lot more protection (from officers) but expects them to bear lot more responsibility in return. Strong NCOs means that you can let relatively younger officers try their hand at large commands.

Conversely mid-level NCO appointments in British-style armies were at the discretion of the officers. So first of all the NCOs were reluctant to bear too much responsibility because of liabilities (yes sorr, no sorr, three bags full sorr!), so you needed a stronger and more experienced officer to take up the bigger portion of responsibilities. Then not only was maturity needed to handle the ranks, but also extra maturity was now needed to handle NCOs because the officer could easily make or break NCOs (since many NCO appointments are discretionary). That atleast was how it evolved unti 1940s. As I understand the mid-level NCOs in British Armies became much more assertive in late 1940s (to the point of almost forming a union!), but the legacy of Majors commanding inf coys lives on.

=====

Don't kow how much impact colonial operations had on the this legacy at all: For example the biggest of all colonial armies, the British Indian Army, operated on a completely different system of command. All officers were, by default, Staff Officers. A completely different rung of Indian commanders called "Viceroy's Commissioned Officers" held between NCOs and COs, but unlike WOs held full command (usually upto company level, but sometimes batt. level too). So on and so forth. The British Army tried its best not to pick up anything from the colonial armies unless forced to by developments in Europe (ex. camouflage, staff schools, fixed logistics - all pioneered by the BIA and latd frced upon the BA).

PS: Do WOs hold command in some units?
 
Last edited:
question if i am passing a junior captain how can i tell the differance between a junior captain and a senior captain ,in the SADF Captains had 3 pips ,a junior leutenant had 1 pip he was classified as a 2nd leut and a first leut has 2 pips ,as an infantry soldier we had one rule if it moves salute it if it does,nt paint it
 
If I read question 1 of page 1 of this thread correctly, I believe it was asked if a Lieutenant or a Captain is a COMPANY commander.

In some outfits, companies are also called troops and battalions are called squadrons. I often saw rotations of company commanders where one year it was a Lieutenant and the next year a Captain.

Traditionally, a Captain would command a company if its size is 100 or more soldiers. The word "Captain" comes from ancient Roman "Centurian" of which the prefix denoted he was in charge of 100 men. Too often the movies show a Centurian as a solitary elite soldier or with some sort of political influence. In reality, a Centurian was merely a company commander. He still had to report to Legion (Battalion) commander.
 
RustyBattleship said:
If I read question 1 of page 1 of this thread correctly, I believe it was asked if a Lieutenant or a Captain is a COMPANY commander.

In some outfits, companies are also called troops and battalions are called squadrons. I often saw rotations of company commanders where one year it was a Lieutenant and the next year a Captain.

Traditionally, a Captain would command a company if its size is 100 or more soldiers. The word "Captain" comes from ancient Roman "Centurian" of which the prefix denoted he was in charge of 100 men. Too often the movies show a Centurian as a solitary elite soldier or with some sort of political influence. In reality, a Centurian was merely a company commander. He still had to report to Legion (Battalion) commander.
Click to expand...

No, the question is more about differences of having a Captain or a Major as a company commander. Implicitly traditional infantry - no troops, squadrons etc.

An LT commanding a company is usually a sign of officer shortage/unavilability; I know of an instance of a Major commanding a brigade in WWII!

A centurion usually commanded only 80 legionaires, as incidentally did captains during Napoleonic Wars. Movies would somewhat be correct in showing a centurion as a solitary elite soldier because a legionaire rose to rank of a centurion through exceptional, personal bravery in the two ranks in between (optio tempore, optio). Romans believed that leadership is leading from the front - atleast for the lower-classes, who were always a bit semi-tribal. A centurion, because of his extensive experience prior to command, would probably identify himself with Indian JCOs or Western WOs (who have command responsibilities) than with comissioned officers.

The centurions who went up with influential legates and tribunes, no doubt had the enormous political influence - especially when the legions were doing the politics. You need only to look at Third World military dictatorships born just after end of colonial empires to see how much political influence senior NCOs and WOs could pick up (Idi Amin, anyone?).
 
Cactus:
Very good response. Your research on ancient Roman military chain of command is much more detailed and more accurate than mine.

I was only interested in battle formations but the teachers insisted on studying Plato or Socrates. So I missed the "right" books.

However, in the (late) 111th Armored Reconnaisance Battalion, we were made up of 5 companies. Either a Lt. or a Captain would be company commander depending upon command rotations. Later we were redesignated as 3rd Armored Reconnaisance Squadron and the companies were called troops.

Our company was limited to 118 men total but the army would not issue a tank to a company with less than 125 men. We still kept our tank (couldn't find anybody who wanted it?) and our company commander (a Captain) found two tanks in Camp Pendleton used as aggressor tanks. So we would do some of our training on the Marine Base and had three tanks instead of one.
 
soutie said:
question if i am passing a junior captain how can i tell the differance between a junior captain and a senior captain ,in the SADF Captains had 3 pips ,a junior leutenant had 1 pip he was classified as a 2nd leut and a first leut has 2 pips ,as an infantry soldier we had one rule if it moves salute it if it does,nt paint it
Click to expand...

In this instance junior or senior Captain refers to time in grade in order to determine who would be "senior". I believe the Soviet army had junior and senior Captains as separate ranks.

In the SADF most of the time my company commander was a Captain although I did serve under a Lieutenant for a while. My CO was promoted to Major at the same time I promoted to Sergeant. He still retained command of the company but he also assumed another "hat" as assistant commandant of the Sapper school.
 
RustyBattleship said:
I was only interested in battle formations but the teachers insisted on studying Plato or Socrates. So I missed the "right" books.
Click to expand...

Had the same problem in high school. Rome is basically it's army, then engineering, and THEN poetry and art. I told the teacher I wanted to read about Roman conquest, army, logistics, problems in conquered provinces, leadership, you know, the fun stuff.

But no, we were reading about how Orpheus' trip to Hell, the Daedalus vs Aerodynamics case and how Cicero wrote an entire rhetoric to call his political opponent (Antonius) a whore, being a whore himself, having picked up the soap for a safe pass through the Bosporus. 6 years of Latin for nothing.

Edit: it was Caesar who went bareback for naval affairs, not Cicero. Entropy is currently in a state of alcoholic intoxication and all the Roman names sound pretty much the same to him.
 
Last edited:
sappersgt said:
In this instance junior or senior Captain refers to time in grade in order to determine who would be "senior". I believe the Soviet army had junior and senior Captains as separate ranks.
Click to expand...

The rank of captain was only one, sir. There was a junior and senior Lieutenant, as well as an Undercolonel and a Colonel.
 
sappersgt said:
Thank you for the correction and as I used to say, "don't call me Sir, I work for a living!".;) :biggrin:
Click to expand...

There are a bunch of Captains in the Russian/Soviet navy. Captain-Lieuteant, Cpt. 3rd, 2nd, and 1st class.

And you are not the first one asking for me not to call you Sir. Must be bad for the self esteem, when unarmed civilians start to "sir" you.
 
entropy said:
The rank of captain was only one, sir. There was a junior and senior Lieutenant, as well as an Undercolonel and a Colonel.
Click to expand...

I believe in English, the equivalent of Undercolonel or Sub-Colonel (Podpolkovnik), is Lieutenant Colonel. Also sometimes informally known in the Soviet Army as ComBat (Comandir Battaliona--> Battalion Commander). Polk=regiment. Polkovnik=Regimental Commander. Pod=Under/Sub. So Podpolkovnik=commander on one level of organization below regiment, hence battalion commander. There is some terminological entymology for ya people, whether you asked for it or not.:cool:
 
entropy said:
The rank of captain was only one, sir. There was a junior and senior Lieutenant, as well as an Undercolonel and a Colonel.
Click to expand...

We call junior and senior lieutenants 2nd and 1st Lieutenants. 2nd "Louies" are the worst in demanding exact discipline because they want to advance in rank.

Reminds me of a story. It was at night on the Army base and the private wanted to have a cigarette but was out of matches. Another soldier walked by and he said, "Hey Buddy. You got a light?"

The other soldier pulled out his lighter and the private saw two silver stars on the man's collar indicating he was a General. He snapped to attention and said, "I'm sorry Sir. I did not see your rank in the dark."

The General laughed and said, "No problem soldier. Just be glad I wasn't a Second Lieutenant."
 
Rusty,

Those were different times as far as 2LTs go. It has long been an automatic promotion to 1LT unless you screw something up bigtime. Thus, the saying that "rank among lieutenants is like virtue among whores" - it doesn't exist.
 
Shek said:
Rusty,

Those were different times as far as 2LTs go. It has long been an automatic promotion to 1LT unless you screw something up bigtime. Thus, the saying that "rank among lieutenants is like virtue among whores" - it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing me of being an old f**t?

Hmmm. Maybe I am. After all, my time in uniform was over half a century ago.
 
Shek said:
Rusty,

Those were different times as far as 2LTs go. It has long been an automatic promotion to 1LT unless you screw something up bigtime. Thus, the saying that "rank among lieutenants is like virtue among whores" - it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

We called that promotion the Fog The Mirror Promotion...i.e., if you were breathing you got promoted.

The way to tell a senior captain from a junior captain? Easy..the senior captain usually has a coffee mug in his hand and a disgruntled look on his face as he is posting on blogs and ticked off that he has already commanded and has to sit in this stupid staff job while the junior captain has all of the fun and is out with the troops in a combat unit.
 
So at the risk being a Necroposter....our new member Sam mentioned this post so I decided to revisit. Great stroll down memory lane with some former, and sadly, late members.

But I did not see one point that I think needs to be brought up on this subject.

In the British and Commonwealth armies in much of their history, the rank of company commander was a Captain and not a Major.

So what changed, when & why? A result of lesson learned form WW 1? Massive change in doctrine?
 
Somewhat interestingly in this regard the Bundeswehr just finished transitioning all/most company commander posts from Captain to Major as regular paygrade.

The official explanation for that is to give officers "more time to gather experience" before placing them in a command post - there's up to six years difference after all.
The more realistic explanation is that:
a) the Major paygrade in the German Army is reserved for lifetime soldiers, i.e. those officers who committed to serving longer than 12 years.
b) they basically upgraded all levels by one paygrade anyway to find more recruits.
 
For a period of time US Army Aviation companies and ordnance ammunition (special weapons) were commanded by majors because of the increased responsibility. That went away when A) we deployed Aviation Brigades and B) got out of the nuke business
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top