Cold war military. Should sergeants have status?

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

A long time ago I did a full breakdown of US Military Ranks in GURPS using various references (I think most notably the WWII supplements, but also other mentions of Rank such as Traveller). I placed an E-5 Sergeant is solidly the start of Rank 1. The E-5 Rank is the first rank in the military where you are recognized as having any real authority, which the GURPS definition of having Rank. E-7 Sergeant First Class is Rank 2, and an E-9 First Sergeant is Rank 3.

How many levels of Rank do you posit in that calculation?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

How many levels of Rank do you posit in that calculation?

The chart shows it (this is a hyperlink to the chart); 8 Ranks, though there's a 9th that shows up only in war time (General of the Armies, Admiral of the Navies). Historically this rank has only been issued a few times; once during WWI (Army), once retroactively for the Spanish-American War (Navy) and posthumously to George Washington, so practically speaking Rank 9 doesn't exist.

Enlisted are Rank 0, most NCO's are Rank 1-3, highest level NCO's are Rank 4 (where there's only a handful of each in the combined services) and Officers are Rank 3-8.

[whswhs]

Status 1 is not extraordinarily high. It's certainly not "nobility" or even "gentry." What it amounts to is that the average person in your society will treat you with a little extra respect; and secondary to that, that you probably conduct yourself as someone who expects that little bit of respect as a normal thing. That expectation itself may be visible enough so that other people can spot it as a mark of social standing. (A con artist may have learned how to play the part of someone like that, without actually being entitled to it.)

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

Enlisted are Rank 0, most NCO's are Rank 1-3, highest level NCO's are Rank 4 (where there's only a handful of each in the combined services) and Officers are Rank 3-8.

For what it's worth, I usually overlap sergeant rank and lower commissioned officers: "a sergeant in motion outranks a lieutenant who doesn't know what's going on"

So I generally stick sergeants at rank 2, and the green lieutenants they guide at rank 2, and then go up from there.

The highest level NCO's are an interesting case, because while they are technically outranked by the lowliest lieutenants, they know the colonels and Generals personally.

Which gives sergeants status 1 for free, which sounds just about right.

Of course, you can do your rank system how you see fit.

[mlangsdorf]

GURPS WWII for 3rd edition put lower level NCOs such as Corporals and E-5 sergeants at Rank 1, most other sergeants at Rank 2, and implicitly puts command master sergeants and above at Rank 3[1], same as lieutenants and other junior grade officers. Which feels about right to me, and definitely puts E-5 sergeants at imputed Status 0 from rank.

[1] I would probably put the service senior NCOs at Rank 6, the equivalent of a colonel or Navy captain, but the sergeant major of the Army gets all the courtesies of a general and has the ear of the Chief of Staff of the Army so they have a lot more influence than their mere rank suggests.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

[1] I would probably put the service senior NCOs at Rank 6, the equivalent of a colonel or Navy captain, but the sergeant major of the Army gets all the courtesies of a general and has the ear of the Chief of Staff of the Army so they have a lot more influence than their mere rank suggests.

<shrug>Then their influence comes from something different from formal Rank. Rank is the ability to give a person of lower Rank _orders_ not advice he'd be well-advised to follow.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

<shrug>Then their influence comes from something different from formal Rank. Rank is the ability to give a person of lower Rank _orders_ not advice he'd be well-advised to follow.

On the other hand, they can give orders to a large contingent of men and trust them to be followed. going by "size of men under your command", they absolutely have that rank. A limitation or moderating quirk does sound appropriate though. I don't think its anywhere near as limited as courtesy rank (in fact, it seems rather like the opposite)

[JulianLW]

Originally Posted by ericthered

On the other hand, they can give orders to a large contingent of men and trust them to be followed. going by "size of men under your command", they absolutely have that rank. A limitation or moderating quirk does sound appropriate though. I don't think its anywhere near as limited as courtesy rank (in fact, it seems rather like the opposite)

I think it's totally legit and realistic for sergeants with high levels of personal clout to take higher levels of rank with the Informal -50% modifier from Supers. This is also a good way to differentiate the kind of influence a particular nco might have from Social Regard or Reputation. The limitation would only apply to the levels above their actual rank.

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

If Military Rank gives any Status during the Cold War, it's going to be minor. I might give Status 1 at Rank 6+, but more than that seems doubtful. I wouldn't expect that if Admiral William Fetchteler (CNO[1] '51-'53) went into a random nightclub in Richmond, Virginia, that he would get as much or more deference than the mayor of Richmond.

A random sergeant is just a another person to society at large. He might possibly get some people thanking him for his service, but probably not. Depending on what time period in the Cold War, a substantial number of adult males were former military themselves and I doubt they would treat a sergeant as anything special.

Especially the decades immediately after WWII, some flag officers might have reputations that looked like Status, but those were individual reputations. Admirals Fletcher, Turner, and Spruance likely all got very different reactions from the public at large, despite all retiring at close to the same rank.

[1] Chief of Naval Operations - arguably the most senior officer in the US Navy.

I think you may be underrating the Status of the mayor of Richmond, VA. Given that the population of Richmond, VA is 226,000, the mayor would probably rank about Status 4, assuming he's one of the highest status people in the city. Possibly only Status 3 but no lower than that. On that scale, assuming a Rank 3 junior officer has Status 1 and a Rank 6 senior officer has Status 2 seems reasonable.

For those who like pedantic digressions with a little math, I've given an explanation below:

Make the following assumptions:

1. The highest Status person is President Biden at Status 7.

2. He is the only Status 7 individual.

3. Status levels are in constant ratios, i.e., if there are x number of Status 1 individuals for every Status 2 individual, then there are x number of Status 2 individuals (and X^2 Status 1 individuals) for every Status 3 individual and so on.

So, to get the multiple of population of each level of Status, we start with the population of the US and assume that the highest status person is Status 7. Current US population is about 332 million. So to get our ratio:

log(332,000,000)/7 = about 1.2173.

So the ratio of Status is 10^1.2173 or about 16.5. Which is to say there are around 20 million people of at least Status 1 in the United States.

To get the highest status person in a given US sub population, use:

log(population #)/1.2173

For Richmond, VA, that works out to 4.4. So the highest Status individuals specifically of Richmond would be about Status 4 and there would be about 3 of them. Richmond would have around 50 people of Status 3+. I'm not sure the mayor would qualify as one of the 3 highest Status individuals, but he'd certainly make the top 50.

Note if you assume there are a few people in the US who hit Status 7 (perhaps, Obama, Trump & Elon Musk?) the ratio would go down a little. The same would happen with a smaller population. E.g., for King Henry VIII (assuming he's the only Status 7 individual) the ratio would be a little over 8 rather than 16.5.

This is intended as a guideline rather than an absolute - e.g., Wyoming based on population would have top Status around 4 or so but a senior US Senator from Wyoming could plausibly qualify as 5. If he was the Majority Leader, maybe even 6. But the Governor would probably default to 4.

Also, US population was smaller in the Cold War so the ratios would go down a little. However the net outcome is still likely to be that there are a few Status 4 people in Richmond, VA and the mayor is at least Status 3.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Infornific

Make the following assumptions:

1. The highest Status person is President Biden at Status 7.

2. He is the only Status 7 individual.

3. Status levels are in constant ratios, i.e., if there are x number of Status 1 individuals for every Status 2 individual, then there are x number of Status 2 individuals (and X^2 Status 1 individuals) for every Status 3 individual and so on.

I don't quite agree with 1 and 2. I think that the Pope counts as Status 8, and so perhaps does the Dalai Lama. I would expect even the President of the United States to show them a measure of deference.

The head of state of an empire of planetary extent MIGHT be Status 8. That would apply, perhaps, to Victoria in the later part of her reign. It's more debatable for the President of the United States.