# Officer/NCO relationship in combat



## demented-tiger (Nov 1, 2015)

In my novel, I have 2 characters who are soldiers in the US Army: a Lieutenant and a Sergeant. The Sergeant is a main character, both in the novel in general, and in his own separate plot thread. Like all good heroes, he has his flaws, but he is generally calm, quick-thinking, and courageous. The Lieutenant is a supporting character. While he has his strengths and virtues, his purpose is to serve as the Sergeant's literary foil - anal, rigid, and easily panicked. He's by no means cowardly or incompetent - just unwilling to do anything any other way than by the book (much to the Sergeant's continued frustration and ire). Over the course of 7 episodes (written over the course of 10 years) throughout the novel, the Sergeant's and Lieutenant's relationship has evolved into something akin to a Platoon Leader/Platoon Sergeant dynamic; both on a personal and a professional level. While working on the 8th episode, I went back to the very beginning of the Sergeant's plot arc to reconcile some recent developments in his personality with what I had originally written; as well as to update the style and plot to sync with other evolutions in the novel (alot can change over 10 years). In doing so, I uncovered a minor, inconveniant detail that threatened to destroy the Sergeant's whole plot thread, and seriously disrupt the the plot arc he was part of.

At the point I introduce the Sergeant into my novel, the United States government has encountered an enemy that can overcome light infantry units and Marines. So they call in more heavily armored mechanized infantry. The Lieutenant is therefore the leader of a mechanized infantry platoon, and the Sergeant was supposed to be his platoon sergeant. However, in a mechanized infantry platoon, both the platoon leader and the platoon sergeant serve as commanders of thier own respective infantry fighting vehicles. They direct the vehicle gunner and driver. Furthermore, only the platoon leader may "dismount" (leave his vehicle) during combat operations to take command of the dismounted footsoldiers, since his vehicle contains a specially designated soldier to cover for his vehicle gunner when the latter assumes command of the vehicle in the platoon leader's absence. Except in certain circumstances (incapacitation of the platoon leader, incapacitation of his vehicle, ect), the platoon sergeant remains in his vehicle to command the other infantry fighting vehicles for fire support and/or on missions of thier own. You can read more about mechanized infantry here, or try and read through a 2010 edition of a real Army Field Manual.

When I first wrote the Sergeant's plot thread in 2005, I did not have access to either of the two sources listed above. Therefore, this is the setup I had developed for the Lieutenant and the Sergeant:


prior to the events in the novel, both men have spent hours riding on patrol in the same vehicle, separated from the men in the infantry fighting vehicles (this was originally a Humvee, with the Lieutenant seated in the back with the radios and maps, while the Sergeant manned a .50 caliber machine gun on the roof. A third man served as driver. I admit this was probably the worst idea for the same reason the Vice President's secure location is not the same as the President's) 
the Sergeant dismounts to fight alongside the dismounted troops. The Lieutenant lingers behind 
the Sergeant has no experience (or need to) commanding an infantry fighting vehicle. He is purely infantry 
the infantry fighting vehicles serve as armed battlefield taxis, whose crews are separate from the infantry platoon 
the Sergeant and the Lieutenant work closely together to command the platoon: the Lieutenant coordinates and formulates tactics and strategy, and the Sergeant adjusts, refines, and salvages them when circumstances make them impractical and/or impossible to execute. 

As you can see, the real world set up knocks this dynamic out of alignment. I have some possible solutions, but would like some input to see which are plausible:


The Lieutenant is indeed incompetent and/or cowardly, and bends the rules in the Field Manual to have his platoon sergeant dismount to lead the dismounted troops. Fits with the Lieutenant's backstory as a spoiled military brat whose only reason for receiving his commission is because he comes from a long line of distinguished officers who have served the United States Army in every major conflict from Desert Storm to the American Revolution - and the colonial militia during the French-Indian War. Does not fit with the Lieutenant's strict adherence to military rules and regulations 
I make it a running gag that in every battle scene featuring the Sergeant that when the fighting starts getting too hot, the Sergeant abandons his post to rally the platoon after the Lieutenant looses his cool and panics when the situation renders his carefully laid plan useless. Afterwards, the Lieutenant hides his shame and embarrassment by beating the Sergeant over the head with the Field Manual, though he's powerless to do more than rage blindly, since the sergeant _did_ accomplish the mission and avoided major casualties. Might get old and predictable after a while 
The Sergeant is not the platoon sergeant, but a regular squad leader, who fights dismounted. He works closely with the Lieutenant in the field, and has assumed the role of defacto platoon sergeant. The actual platoon sergeant is aloof, at best, and even more incompetent than the Lieutenant, at worst. Might work, as it preserves most of the real world operations of the platoon, though it looks to be more trouble to write than it's worth - and certain aspects (such as the platoon sergeant's greatly diminished role) might stand out to military veterans as improbable and questionable 
My preferred solution is to make up my own rules for the version of the US Army that exists in the universe where the novel takes place - mainly that each infantry fighting vehicle possesses its own 3-person crew. The platoon leader and platoon sergeant do not serve as vehicle commanders, but pour their whole energies into leading the dismounted troops who do the bulk of the fighting. The platoon sergeant is usually the one who dismounts first, and he may be joined, on occasion, by the platoon leader, as needed. I'd really appreciate some feedback as to how much suspension of disbelief this option can bear 

I would really like to get on with writing my novel, but I am at a loss as to how to best address this real world detail in a way that does not involve rewriting the Sergeant's plot thread, changing at his character, or reinventing his relationships. Thank you.


----------



## PhunkyMunky (Nov 2, 2015)

Is this Sargent a Platoon Sargent? The LT's a dead ringer for a Butter Bar. So you have relationships how they work in the movies... It's not necessarily like that. A good, brand new 2nd Lt. will keep his mouth shut and his ears open to his NCO's. Some don't and they will find they have a hard time working with their platoon. Once he's got his feet wet, however, things can loosen up a bit. Not really first name basis but depending on the unit's culture it could be. They will happily use your nickname though. If an LT survives his platoon sergeant, he will usually do pretty well. 

As for the other NCO's, the LT can joke around but it's got to be kept a definite leader/led relationship. He'll take input from his NCO's but most of the time, when not in combat, he's not around. He's busy with company meetings and all that admin stuff nobody likes. The NCO is the backbone of any military and an officer that micromanages is least liked. 

A sergeant-E5 will attend a mission briefing and ask what questions he needs and after that will brief his soldiers. Meanwhile lower enlisted, if they're not playing grabass, will be doing general mission prep like adding a bit more oil to their weapons and doing functions checks, making sure packs are filled with their basic gear (make sure to leave room for anything mission specific), doing pre-maintenance checks on vehicles and gear, all that. 

After this you might do rehearsals for the mission, and attending a company mission brief there will likely be a sand table representation of the map. You'll walk through the mission with this map. 

During the mission he will make the platoon's decisions. Each squad leader and each team leader will make decisions for the squad or team such as adjusting placement of soldiers for cover, etc. but the LT will direct where the whole of the platoon goes based on mission objectives. He may defer to the platoon sergeant if it's needed and a good LT usually does. But while the LT is thinking of the steps he must take to secure an objective, that Plt Sgt is concerned with supply, whether anyone needs medical attention, and a bunch of other logistical things. 

The more a platoon trains and the longer they are on deployment, the tighter that LT will get with his guys and they with him. Unfortunately, a new one will arrive after everyone gets home. Then the process begins all over again. 

You mentioned an Infantry Fighting Vehicle. It DOES have it's own crew. An entire squad is dedicated to the vehicles. They are like your heavy support. Think of a weapons squad, what do they do? They usually carry the "Pigs", the M240/M60 depending on era and are the support for the platoon. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle does much the same. And let me tell you, when the rounds fly NOBODY want's to be anywhere near that vehicle. It's a bullet magnet. A Bradley may be used to breach a heavy door, it may be used to lock down a road, it may be used to collect casualties or deliver supplies, or it may just be used as shade when things are quiet. If we're talking Desert Storm or the initial invasion of Iraqi Freedom they will engage other vehicles and help to suppress or eliminate enemy positions. 

Back to the vehicle crew... You COULD have your infantry be light infantry and working with scouts, armored cavalry, or a mech unit, and that would make it easy to have a vehicle with it's own crew separate from the platoon. It never went that way for us, but it's a possibility and not unheard of. 

In a mechanized unit, usually an E4 or E5 is the gunner, an E5 or E6 is the Track Commander unless it's the platoon sergeant or LT, who likewise command their own track. They RARELY dismount at all. Usually the dismounts will climb up on the vehicle to talk about a specific problem and how to solve it, rather than leadership dismounting. 

It generally goes like this: You have 4 squads. First squad is dedicated to the tracks. 2nd and 3rd are dismounted maneuver elements with 4th being weapons and placed where they are most effective, usually one Gun per dismounted squad, which requires at least one machine gunner and one Assistant. Because of the Bradley you won't have things the same way as it is in a light infantry unit. 

This said, it's not at all unusual for a mech unit to do dismounted missions. And when this is the case, they operate like a light infantry unit. 

I know there's a bit more than you asked for here but I hope it helps.

EDIT: More to add... The only time you'll see the LT not in his own vehicle is in garrison usually. If they are deployed, the LT has his driver, usually the same one that drives the LT's Bradley. The LT won't sit in back. He's the TC (Track Commander) and this applies in wheeled vehicles too. He will sit in the passenger seat because he has to deal with radios and all that. Same as the Platoon Sergeant. It's not impossible to have an E5 driving the LT in a Humvee, but not likely. That job usually falls on a private or specialist. 

And BTW, a platoon sergeant is usually a Sergeant First Class (SFC-E7) and his boot in your posterior will let you know he outranks everybody, even the LT


----------

