Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI

[Carl]

Okay got a question. Been putting together a bunch of trek concepts and amongst those i want to try and check i'm not totally off base on a couple of concepts.

The first is a heavily modified form a Mek'leth, (image of an unmodified one below), rotate the grip 90 degrees or so downward to produce an almost nightstick/police baton grip and just as importantly modify the blade design such that in addition to it's existing cutting and stabbing surfaces it also possess the ability to catch and trap an enemy blade in a similar manner to many polearm designs, granting the same ability to manipulate the enemies weapon to break the weapon, or pull it from their grasp, or force them into an off balance position where a coupe de grace can be delivered. Basic leverage physics and what i know of polearms and nightsticks in action suggests it could work, particularly in the intended employment where their used in pairs with one acting as an advanced form of parrying dagger, the blade gripped so it runs the length of the forearm whilst the offensive grip places the blade with the majority extending forward for offensive work, (much how nightsticks are employed). But i wanted to run the concept passed you lot first. Also note i'm not trying to combined a blade with a nightstick here, it was just when writing this piece it was the only melee weapon i could think of with a similar grip, i hadn't even thought of the similarity till now.

Picture:



The other weapon is another modified trek weapon, this time in the form of a modified Lirpa. I've had no luck finding a decent image sadly, most of them are of fan art and fan made examples that differ considerably in general dimensions from the ones seen on enterprise. Effectively they're quarterstaff's with one end weighted, (presumably a counterweight for the other end), and the other posses a half circle shaped bladed end. Much like an actual quaterstaff both ends are employed, but the bladed end is favored for obvious reasons.

My modified version replaces the existing blade with a very long and broad spear pointed that is intended to be able to stab and slash equally well, with the weighted end becoming a broad fan or half clamshell shape suitable both for bashing when required and as a makeshift shovel. As the later probably implies it's more of a survival weapon intended for use against wildlife and the like than a weapon of war, with the versatility to be set against a heavy charge, or used slashing style against smaller prey, with a combination makeshift shovel and bludgeon for when tripping a target or simply using a less than lethal option is proffered. Naturally i don't expect anyone to be using both ends simultaneously, a la D&D double weapons, more they've got the option of switching from one to the other by changing grip as the situation demands, much like with a traditional quarterstaff switching ends.

Also how practical would it be to make stiletto style melee weaponry that was sufficiently well balanced to be throw-able?

[Yora]

I am not quite sure what you are trying to do, but this might be useful to you to get a clearer idea of how such things might work. He also did a video on the klingon blade.

[Brother Oni]

The first is a heavily modified form a Mek'leth, (image of an unmodified one below), rotate the grip 90 degrees or so downward to produce an almost nightstick/police baton grip and just as importantly modify the blade design such that in addition to it's existing cutting and stabbing surfaces it also possess the ability to catch and trap an enemy blade in a similar manner to many polearm designs, granting the same ability to manipulate the enemies weapon to break the weapon, or pull it from their grasp, or force them into an off balance position where a coupe de grace can be delivered.

So a bladed tonfa?

Also, Holy Run-on Sentence Batman - and I thought I was bad.

The other weapon is another modified trek weapon, this time in the form of a modified Lirpa.

The Lirpa looks much like a Monk's Spade variant, so I don't see why it can't work.

[Carl]

So a bladed tonfa?

Also, Holy Run-on Sentence Batman - and I thought I was bad.

Sort of, like i said i also envisage the weapon as having the ability to catch and manipulate the enemies weapon, i'll try and explain that more below, also thanks on the link to monks spade.

p.s. i'm Dyslexic so run on sentabnces are pretty normal for me.

I am not quite sure what you are trying to do, but this might be useful to you to get a clearer idea of how such things might work. He also did a video on the klingon blade.

I couldn't find his video on the klingon blade sadly :(, but that video was useful, although those blades of riddicks have the grip rotated far more than i was meaning, (i can probably cut up my prior linked picture to put the handle i the right place at an appropriate angle).

What i meant with the catching and manipulating part refers to a documentary i saw years ago, the name escapes me so I've had no luck digging up a video, but in it a history professor demonstrated several techniques with what he claimed was a halberd, (i can describe the weapon if you wish), in which he used the shape/s of the axe and hammer heads on the business end of the blade to catch the enemy swordsman's blade between the blade/hammer and the haft of the weapon, and then depending on the technique used, twist the blade out of the enemies grasp, break the blade in half, or force it through an arc that moved the enemies center of balance forward or backward, leaving them off balance and unable to effectively respond as he disengaged their blade from his weapon to then deliver a fatal blow. The two examples i remember involved him overbalancing the enemy forward so he finished bent double allowing him to bring the axe blade down on the back of the neck, and another that overbalanced him backward leaving him on his back on the floor where the conical point on the butt of the haft could be brought on the chest armor.

The idea here is to have some similar capability here, but that would require a modified blade design from the traditional mek'leth. Certainly you would lose the extra reach and butt technique capabilities of the weapon described above, but i see that as being compensated for by the ability to keep an enemies blade bound with one weapon while another weapon in the other hand is able to attack. The video's point about martial arts also touches on part of the concept, with the weapon held reversed so the blade runs parallel to the forearm for most of it's length you could use a martial arts forearm blocks to catch weapons, and if the blade can bind you have the option to then use your full body mass with much shorter radi for leverage to manipulate the enemies blade, giving you a significant advantage in doing so. I hadn't actually planned to design the blade shape in detail but i think i'll have a yow for you.

[Talakeal]

Is it possible to swim in armor?

I have seen several people on forums claim that it is not a big problem at all, and others (like my DM) claim that it is flat out impossible and if you fall into the water wearing metal armor you sink like a rock and drown no matter what.

I have personally tried swimming with a 30 pound iron weight belt around my waist, which made it extremely difficult and tiring to swim, but not impossible for short periods of time. But then again that isn't as heavy or as evenly distributed as a full suit or armor, and I am by no means an in-shape person or trained swimmer.

[Carl]

Easy answer, can a modern infantryman swim whilst carrying all his gear? That easily weighs more than plate armour's. Hell even with weaponry added on it would probably be less.

[Brother Oni]

Easy answer, can a modern infantryman swim whilst carrying all his gear? That easily weighs more than plate armour's. Hell even with weaponry added on it would probably be less.

Doing some reading, while modern soldiers do swim in full gear, they make use of their equipment and packs as a floatation device, so it's not as heavy.

I've found a video of someone swimming in nearly full samurai armour (looks like gusoku rather than o-yoroi - if that was properly waterproofed, you'd probably float and be able to swim much like a swan ), which is known as oyogijutsu: link.

Someone's tried it in 50lb western harness and he reckons it's possible if they're strong enough: link.
Later on in the video, he recounts a story where a knight was able to cross a river, walking along the bottom and making the occasional leap for a breath of air.

Note that none of this is very good for the armour - the tester mentioned that his plate harness was oxidising after only 20 minutes due to the chemicals in the pool: link.

I have personally tried swimming with a 30 pound iron weight belt around my waist, which made it extremely difficult and tiring to swim, but not impossible for short periods of time. But then again that isn't as heavy or as evenly distributed as a full suit or armor, and I am by no means an in-shape person or trained swimmer.

The guy mentioned that he couldn't do the breast stroke due to the articulation restrictions of his armour, so that may be something to bear in mind.

One thing typically mentioned with swimming in armour is that with a mail shirt or hauberk, it's possible for a soldier to get it off and swim to the surface before he drowns. Depending on the plate harness and how it's attached, this may not be possible and a sinking soldier may not have the presence of mind to cut his armour away, even if it could be.

[Carl]

Doing some reading, while modern soldiers do swim in full gear, they make use of their equipment and packs as a floatation device, so it's not as heavy.

Fair enough.



Done a bit of GIMP editing of a Mek'Leth image to produce something closer looking to what i envisage. Note however this is very much a chop job and some proportions are probably imperfect from an ideal design PoV, the same chop job issue means the handle is probably longer and has a greater curvature than would be ideal, in fact a curve if it existed would probably be reversed. The Lettered zone's are area's designed to catch an enemy blade, with C being used in the offensive forward grip and A and B in the reverse defensive grip. I'd also assume a sharp edge even if one isn't shown unless it would interfere with effective holding of the blade without cutting yourself. Hopefully this makes the concept a bit clearer for you to evaluate.

[Yora]

I am afraid I still have no idea what you are trying to create there.

Sounds like what a jitte is made for, and the Japanese design is very, very simple:

[Carl]

Let me do some more images for you. First an image of what is technically a police nightstick, though the image calls it a tonfu and they're basically the same thing. it should make the grip i mean clear. This grip is very close to what I've been calling the reverse grip, he has it stuck out slightly instead of running parallel to the forearm because his armor is so bulky.

Spoiler: Image 1

Show

The next image is an example of a taekwondo forearm block, (this is the simplest to show, the high block, but in my limited time with it i learned mid and low blocks for blows from a variety of angles) which is an obvious application of the reverse grip.

Spoiler: Image 2

Show

Okay a couple more images using my modified design image, I've put a hand+writ combination in place to make the grip clear as a simple Blue Oblong, the Green rectangle represents and exaggerated sword/axehead/weapon haft/e.t.c.

Spoiler: Images 3-6

Show

Once an enemy blade catches in those slots clockwise or counter clockwise movement will force it to twist, and lateral and vertical movements can force it to move in those directions as well.

Also remember what i said about unnecessary curves in some places and this being very rough.

[Zizka]

Here's an interesting painting by the Flemish artist Sebastien Vrancx (no precise date but presumably from the first half of the seventeenth century) of a defended building being stormed. Note the man on the middle right using a flail.

[Roxxy]

How much can scoliosis inhibit one's ability to engage in medieval combat? We know Richard III did fight, but how severe was his case? If he were a footsoldier instead of a king, would he have had more trouble with his medical condition?

[Yora]

That probably depends a lot on the severity of the condition. Though it's of course much more a problem when actually fighting instead of directing other people fighting. A major question would be how much his men would accept a military leader who can not fight himself. Though given that he was king, there probably wasn't much they could do about it.

--

As I understand it, the modern system of officers and enlisted men is a carry over from when soldiers were devided into nobles and commoners. Which is why we have noncommisioned officers, since nobles wouldn't go directly in tough with the rabble. And if I remember correctly, pretty much all modern militaries are modeled after the European model as a result of 19th and 20th century colonialism. Now nobility is almost nonexistent and rank based on education and training, but the structures are essentually the same.

But are there other models how to organize the hierarchy of an army? I am imagining a highly egalitarian movement that identifies itself strongly by rejecting the notion of elites. Nonfraternization with the troops seems very much out of place there. However, even in civilian organizations, it's generally considered good practice to hire top level leadership from outside rather than promoting staff by seniority, since it just doesn't seem to work so well if you make someone the boss of his long time coworker and friends. Though in a social environment based primarily on kinship groups and clans, leadership because of seniority might be perfectly normal in everyones eyes.

Any useful information you might be able to share?

[GraaEminense]

The British system at least was heavily reformed after the Crimean War in the 1850s. Huge losses and several major screw-ups combined with proper journalism from the front lines finally made it obvious that a system where officer commissions were bought and sold left far too many twits in command. Somewhat rational in a semi-feudal society where rich men raised their own regiments to play soldier and paid for the whole thing, but not after the industrial revolution.

The early Red Army let troops elect their own leaders from the ranks, not sure how far up that went. A rational way to do it in the middle of a messy civil war and could conceivably be a good way to find squad leaders and non-commissioned officers even under normal circumstances, but popularity isn't really a good alternative to a military academy in the long run. Also requires highly motivated troops, or you'll have officers elected because they are the least likely to do anything that will get anyone shot at...

[Brother Oni]

As I understand it, the modern system of officers and enlisted men is a carry over from when soldiers were devided into nobles and commoners. Which is why we have noncommisioned officers, since nobles wouldn't go directly in tough with the rabble. And if I remember correctly, pretty much all modern militaries are modeled after the European model as a result of 19th and 20th century colonialism. Now nobility is almost nonexistent and rank based on education and training, but the structures are essentually the same.

I know the Rifle Regiments during the Napoleonic eras were different in that the officers fought alongside their men with the same equipment, in contrast with other regiments where officers went into combat with a sword and maybe a pistol.

In modern militaries, rank is also (supposedly*) based on ability and aptitude, so it's more of a meritocracy than anything else. In the British army at least, nobility also doesn't have any effect - Prince Harry passed Sandhurst as 2LT as he didn't go to university, thus doesn't have a degree (a university graduate who passes Sandhurst starts off as a lieutenant), so there are fellow Officer Cadets he would have trained with at Sandhurst that he would be obliged to salute and call sir/ma'am.

Also unlike back then, modern militaries like promoting up from the ranks and you can't just buy a commission anymore.

*I've heard enough stories and read enough Terminal Lance to know better.

[Broken Crown]

As I understand it, the modern system of officers and enlisted men is a carry over from when soldiers were devided into nobles and commoners....

But are there other models how to organize the hierarchy of an army? I am imagining a highly egalitarian movement that identifies itself strongly by rejecting the notion of elites. Nonfraternization with the troops seems very much out of place there. However, even in civilian organizations, it's generally considered good practice to hire top level leadership from outside rather than promoting staff by seniority, since it just doesn't seem to work so well if you make someone the boss of his long time coworker and friends. Though in a social environment based primarily on kinship groups and clans, leadership because of seniority might be perfectly normal in everyones eyes.

Any useful information you might be able to share?

The only historical attempts to get away from this model that I can think of were in various revolutionary armies (starting with the French Revolution), where the aristocratic officers were generally seen as enemies of the people. Various alternatives were tried (I think some units experimented with electing their officers), but they all seemed to revert fairly quickly to the model of a professional officer corps. Usually there was a period of the officers being supervised by political commissars, to ensure their loyalty, but again, the authority of the commissars was generally soon reduced to keep them from interfering with the officers' decisions. In practice, competence proved to be a much more important quality in a general than ideology.

I suppose guerilla forces also have a rather different command structure, but I'm not sure you could run a regular army on such a decentralized model.

[Storm Bringer]

I know the Rifle Regiments during the Napoleonic eras were different in that the officers fought alongside their men with the same equipment, in contrast with other regiments where officers went into combat with a sword and maybe a pistol.

In modern militaries, rank is also (supposedly*) based on ability and aptitude, so it's more of a meritocracy than anything else. In the British army at least, nobility also doesn't have any effect - Prince Harry passed Sandhurst as 2LT as he didn't go to university, thus doesn't have a degree (a university graduate who passes Sandhurst starts off as a lieutenant), so there are fellow Officer Cadets he would have trained with at Sandhurst that he would be obliged to salute and call sir/ma'am.

Also unlike back then, modern militaries like promoting up from the ranks and you can't just buy a commission anymore.

*I've heard enough stories and read enough Terminal Lance to know better.

As I understand it, the modern system of officers and enlisted men is a carry over from when soldiers were devided into nobles and commoners. Which is why we have noncommisioned officers, since nobles wouldn't go directly in tough with the rabble

While the Rifles officers made a fetish out of being riflemen and using long arms, I must point out that regular line infantry officers did not stand at the back of the battle ordering thousands to their deaths, but marched alongside and often in front of their own troops, and generally tried to lead by example. if you watch Gettysburg , in particular Picketts Charge, you can see the officers are in front of their men, waving their swords about and being obvious so their men can see them and follow their lead.

majors and colonels were normally on a horse, ahead of their battalion, observing the enemy or delivering orders to someone.



As for an alternative to a professional officer corps, things like elective leaders have been tried, but they tend to revert to traditional methods sooner or later, simply because professionals, are well......pros. I know a lot of units in the US Civil War elected their initial officers, but they were then subject to the normal professional methods, and were promoted, fired etc as if they were career officers.

[Yora]

Guerilla command structures might be something to look into, as that is probably a lot closer to how warriors are organized in the context I am thinking of, than 19th/20th century armies.

[Mike_G]

Professional officers are a good thing, but that's not the same as "nobles" leading and "commoners' following.

Elected officers are popular, but may not be any good. Purchased commissions mean your leaders are wealthy, but not necessarily any good.

If you are setting up an hierarchy, you could say that every soldier begins as a private, and once that solider earns promotion to, let's say, corporal, which means some time served, and being in charge of a small unit, and actually being selected for promotion. Then that soldier is eligible to apply to Officer Candidacy School, where they will be taught about big picture stuff like tactics, strategy, logistics, etc. Things a private doesn't need to know to do his job, but an officer does.

If you do that, your junior officers won't be brand new to the military, and they will have actually done the job of the troops they command, so they will have a better understanding of what the job is.

You'd still have trained officers, but now veteran NCOs wouldn't be led by a 21 year old with a college degree and 90 days total time in service.

[Yora]

Moving from the very bottom through the ranks seems a much more logical approach. I believe in some cases NGOs can go through a second training to become officers even if they had not qualified when they first enlisted, but that appears to be the exception rather than the norm.
Aside from tradition, why is it that some people can start their military career at a higher rank than most others can ever achieve even with long and distinguished service?

I see it making sense in World War 2 when you needed lots of troops and you couldn't be picky with selecting only people who bring brainpower in addition to physical fitness. But with modern high-tech armies, isn't there a need for relatively highly educated specialists rather than just raw manpower?
Now that I am thinking of it, I believe all fighter pilots appear to be officers. Has that always been the case, or is that a more recent development?

[Mike_G]

Moving from the very bottom through the ranks seems a much more logical approach. I believe in some cases NGOs can go through a second training to become officers even if they had not qualified when they first enlisted, but that appears to be the exception rather than the norm.
Aside from tradition, why is it that some people can start their military career at a higher rank than most others can ever achieve even with long and distinguished service?

I see it making sense in World War 2 when you needed lots of troops and you couldn't be picky with selecting only people who bring brainpower in addition to physical fitness. But with modern high-tech armies, isn't there a need for relatively highly educated specialists rather than just raw manpower?
Now that I am thinking of it, I believe all fighter pilots appear to be officers. Has that always been the case, or is that a more recent development?

You can be fairly unsophisticated as a thinker and be a decent rifleman. Strong enough to hump your gear, good at taking direction, skilled at basic tasks. You wouldn't say any professional linebacker has the brains to coach in the NFL.

[Storm Bringer]

Moving from the very bottom through the ranks seems a much more logical approach. I believe in some cases NGOs can go through a second training to become officers even if they had not qualified when they first enlisted, but that appears to be the exception rather than the norm.
Aside from tradition, why is it that some people can start their military career at a higher rank than most others can ever achieve even with long and distinguished service?

Short answer, at least in peacetime armies: humans just don't live long enough to work all the way form private to general. You'd just get too old to keep up before you'd get to rank that wasn't involved in front line duties.

in wartime or other periods of massive expansion, it's possible to go all the way, but generally it

I see it making sense in World War 2 when you needed lots of troops and you couldn't be picky with selecting only people who bring brainpower in addition to physical fitness. But with modern high-tech armies, isn't there a need for relatively highly educated specialists rather than just raw manpower?

rule 1: armies are always undermanned and underfunded for what they are doing.

Now that I am thinking of it, I believe all fighter pilots appear to be officers. Has that always been the case, or is that a more recent development?

it's been the case pretty much since the start, but some pilot jobs were done by NCOs, notably gilder pilots in WW2 and some chopper pilots. Piloting is a specialist skill, and so armies tend to give them officer scale pay to keep them.

[Brother Oni]

While the Rifles officers made a fetish out of being riflemen and using long arms, I must point out that regular line infantry officers did not stand at the back of the battle ordering thousands to their deaths, but marched alongside and often in front of their own troops, and generally tried to lead by example. if you watch Gettysburg , in particular Picketts Charge, you can see the officers are in front of their men, waving their swords about and being obvious so their men can see them and follow their lead.

majors and colonels were normally on a horse, ahead of their battalion, observing the enemy or delivering orders to someone.

I never implied otherwise. The French officers exhorted their men very often, which made them favourite targets for enemy sharpshooters.

Moving from the very bottom through the ranks seems a much more logical approach. I believe in some cases NGOs can go through a second training to become officers even if they had not qualified when they first enlisted, but that appears to be the exception rather than the norm.
Aside from tradition, why is it that some people can start their military career at a higher rank than most others can ever achieve even with long and distinguished service?

Put basically, leadership potential.

In the British army, if a basic soldier shows any aptitude for leadership (not just teamworking), they can be put forward into the selection process for officers (it was the RCB when I applied, but I think it's the AOSB these days), like any other officer candidate. Being an enlisted soldier or even a NCO has different requirements to being an officer and some people simply don't have the right personality, mindset or mental ability to be one.

If you had a requirement that only experienced personnel could apply to be an officer, it would make recruiting and maintaining officer numbers very difficult, plus it's harder to mould the new officers into exactly how the regiment wants them.

[Roxxy]

That probably depends a lot on the severity of the condition. Though it's of course much more a problem when actually fighting instead of directing other people fighting. A major question would be how much his men would accept a military leader who can not fight himself. Though given that he was king, there probably wasn't much they could do about it?

Well, we have accounts that Richard killed at least one knight in his final battle, and he died charging straight at Henry Tudor, so he could fight to some degree. The thing is, although his scoliosis could be concealed with clothing, it had to be effecting his mobility to some degree. Maybe that's manageable on horseback, but what if we was just another foot soldier, maybe a halberdier? What if it were an individual with a more severe case than Richard's? Would I be correct in suggesting that drawing a longbow would have been very difficult for Richard?

[Mike_G]

If you had a requirement that only experienced personnel could apply to be an officer, it would make recruiting and maintaining officer numbers very difficult, plus it's harder to mould the new officers into exactly how the regiment wants them.

I'm willing to live with that.

The joke is the difference between a 2nd lieutenant and a private first class is that the PFC has been promoted once.

The less funny part of that joke is that the 2nd lieutenant can do a lot more damage.

Really specialized jobs like surgeon, pilot, etc can start as officers to attract and retain people, but those aren't generally command positions.

A flight leader will have started as a pilot and moved up, an infantry platoon leader should have been a rifleman at some point.

You can't be a sergeant without having been a private, I don;t see why you can jump right to Lieutenant.

I do see a different track. You'd start as a private, then once you made NCO, you could request a commission, or stay as enlisted. Your request would be subject to testing/selection.

And most 2nd lieutenants are colleges grads, most Corporals (in the US) would be in their early 20s, so the age thing is about the same.

[Lilapop]

Well, we have accounts that Richard killed at least one knight in his final battle, and he died charging straight at Henry Tudor, so he could fight to some degree. The thing is, although his scoliosis could be concealed with clothing, it had to be effecting his mobility to some degree. Maybe that's manageable on horseback, but what if we was just another foot soldier, maybe a halberdier? What if it were an individual with a more severe case than Richard's? Would I be correct in suggesting that drawing a longbow would have been very difficult for Richard?

As others said, it totally depends on severity of the symptoms. If I'm not intentionally slacking in posture, you wouldn't be able to notice my scoliosis. And while my back tends to just hurt "for no reason" from time to time, it doesn't really interfere with what little sports I did in school and the like. An extreme humpback in a medieval society, however, would possibly be an outcast (if not saved by the fact that he is a member of the nobility) and never get drafted at all.

Archery is actually kind of therapeutic for light cases, as it promotes balanced and evenly spread body tension. I didn't get to shoot anything heavier than ~40 lbs, so my assessment might be off the mark for 100 lbs and up. Though I understand that english laws and customs of the time were designed to build up archery skills, including the physique, from an early age, so they'd have a bit of a headstart in that regard.

[Raum]

If you had a requirement that only experienced personnel could apply to be an officer, it would make recruiting and maintaining officer numbers very difficult,

I have to disagree. There are plenty of enlisted personnel as (or even more) potentially capable than second lieutenants. You would lose the pool of officers who are just there to pay for a degree...not necessarily a bad thing.

plus it's harder to mould the new officers into exactly how the regiment wants them.

Why? Training doesn't need to change. Screening could even be more extensive since you can screen active duty candidates by far more criteria than you can HS aged civilians.

Just use Mike G's suggestion to keep a non-command track open for professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. That keeps your niche technical expertise.

[Aedilred]

Well, we have accounts that Richard killed at least one knight in his final battle, and he died charging straight at Henry Tudor, so he could fight to some degree. The thing is, although his scoliosis could be concealed with clothing, it had to be effecting his mobility to some degree. Maybe that's manageable on horseback, but what if we was just another foot soldier, maybe a halberdier? What if it were an individual with a more severe case than Richard's? Would I be correct in suggesting that drawing a longbow would have been very difficult for Richard?

Yeah, Richard was regarded as a capable warrior both in person and in command: he apparently downed two well-regarded knights on his final charge (one of them fatally) and had been one of Edward's top generals, including during the campaign against Scotland in 1482 when he captured Berwick, and at Barnet, where he led the vanguard and was wounded. The extent of his scoliosis isn't entirely clear, though, and it may not have been excessively pronounced, especially since he was still relatively young when he was killed (33).

[Zizka]

Short answer, at least in peacetime armies: humans just don't live long enough to work all the way form private to general. In wartime or other periods of massive expansion, it's possible to go all the way.

For those who don't recognise him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Wi...n,_1st_Baronet

Robertson was the first and only British Army soldier to rise from private soldier to field marshal.

[Brother Oni]

I'm willing to live with that.

The joke is the difference between a 2nd lieutenant and a private first class is that the PFC has been promoted once.

The less funny part of that joke is that the 2nd lieutenant can do a lot more damage.

Oh indeed. 'As dumb as a Second Lieutenant' is a common saying over here.

I do see the merit in your proposal, but if you're trying to recruit people, limiting access isn't a good thing. There are people who want to be in the military no matter what, but there are some who would make competent officers but aren't willing to do it for an enlisted salary for however long it takes.

Again, I do see that you might not want such people in the military, but for certain positions (logisitics for example), you don't need or want the best and brightest there, who would be more useful in a more important role. As Storm Bringer said, armies generally are undermanned or underfunded for what they're currently doing so often anybody competent (or at least not dangerously incompetent) will do.

Really specialized jobs like surgeon, pilot, etc can start as officers to attract and retain people, but those aren't generally command positions.

We do that here as well under the Professionally Qualified Officers program. They get sent through an abbreviated course at Sandhurst to teach them how to iron their clothes and march in a straight line (known informally as the 'Tarts and Vicars' course), then get sent off to be doctors or whatever in the appropriate regiment.

I am exaggerating a bit, as the PQO course is starting to include more actual combat training to help the OCs adjust to life in a warzone so they don't feel completely out of their depth when they get sent to Afghanistan or other hotspots.

A flight leader will have started as a pilot and moved up, an infantry platoon leader should have been a rifleman at some point.

You can't be a sergeant without having been a private, I don;t see why you can jump right to Lieutenant.

I do see a different track. You'd start as a private, then once you made NCO, you could request a commission, or stay as enlisted. Your request would be subject to testing/selection.

We're heading well into the differences between the militaries now, but all non PQOs are trained up as infantry officers, then post Sandhurst, get sent off to their regiment for further specialised training.
As mentioned earlier, any enlisted with leadership potential often get put forward into the officer selection process and our process is open to other nationalities (there were four other enlisted soldiers on the RCB Briefing with me, one of whom was a Kiwi who we joked was trying to join a proper military).

One entertaining thing I heard, is that enlisted who pass the selection process then get sent on an 'officer enrichment' course where they go to museums, theatres and other such cultural pursuits as there's a minimum level of sophistication expected of a British Army Officer.

And most 2nd lieutenants are colleges grads, most Corporals (in the US) would be in their early 20s, so the age thing is about the same.

As I said earlier, over here, all university graduates start off as Lieutenants in recognition of their degree.

I have to disagree. There are plenty of enlisted personnel as (or even more) potentially capable than second lieutenants. You would lose the pool of officers who are just there to pay for a degree...not necessarily a bad thing.

That's implying that all people who join the ROTC are capable of passing the officer selection process. I don't know the ins and outs of your process, so I can't comment in detail on how it differs.

As Mike G said, if there are enlisted personnel that are capable and are willing, to become officers, then they should be put forward. Making it a requirement to be an enlisted first would be an issue in times of rapid mobilisation (WW2 for example), but then again, rapid promotion is also possible.

Why? Training doesn't need to change. Screening could even be more extensive since you can screen active duty candidates by far more criteria than you can HS aged civilians.

Again this boils down to differences between militaries. Over here, there each regiment tends to have its own personality - a Blues and Royals officer is very different to a Royal Logisitics Corp officer so in the post Sandhurst training, they get inducted into their regimental culture along with their additional role training.
In comparison, I believe someone mentioned that the entire top leadership of a US regiment gets changed every 3-5 years, so there's significantly less continuity.

Just use Mike G's suggestion to keep a non-command track open for professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and engineers. That keeps your niche technical expertise.

Again it depends - you can't have a regiment full of officers and no enlisted (who would do all the actual work? ). For example, the Royal Engineers have enlisted with university degrees - it's just that they don't have the right attributes or desire to be officers, even PQOs.