Question about army drill

[Rath Darkblade]

I have a question or two about drill in the Army, US or otherwise (in reference to drill commands):

1. Who would give drill commands (such as "fall in" or "quick march")? My guess is that would be a sergeant, but I'm not sure. (It's probably not the Commanding Officer -- am I right?)

2. What command would this person give, if he wants a soldier that's out of position to return to his position? Would it be "fall in"? (I think it may not be, but I'm not sure what it is).

The reason I'm asking is this: I'm writing a scene in a story, where an ancient Roman legion is pursuing some escaped gladiators. However, the gladiators have made a powerful ally (a Sphinx), who one of the legionaries wants to attack and be a "hero". (Think of the glory! etc.) Obviously, this is a stupid (possibly suicidal) thing to do.

So, his centurion (who is rather sharper) barks at him: "LEGIONARY -- attenshun! LEGIONARY -- faaall in!" Then he commands his century (group of 100 soldiers): "Company -- abouuut face! Forwaaard march! After four, we raise our swords! Hup two three four ... hup two three four ..." and they march away.

Is this right? I'd like this to be realistic (notwithstanding the presence of a Sphinx, which is obviously unrealistic).

By the way, there's a definite reason (within the story) for the Sphinx's presence. I've created her a backstory, a goal she wants to achieve, a plan she's following to achieve it etc. Besides, both the ancient Greeks and ancient Romans believed that Sphinxes (as a monster) existed and could arise at any time. So, hopefully it makes more sense why she's there.

Thanks for your help!

[notbobsmith]

I'm hardly an expert, so take everything I say with a grain of salt:

I have a question or two about drill in the Army, US or otherwise (in reference to drill commands):

1. Who would give drill commands (such as "fall in" or "quick march")? My guess is that would be a sergeant, but I'm not sure. (It's probably not the Commanding Officer -- am I right?)

My understanding is that non-commissioned officers (NCOs) like sergeants are the ones who would give commands like this. Sergeants handle the day-to-day functions of dealing with enlisted personnel while the officers have overall command. The officer gives commands to a sergeant, the sergeant makes sure it gets done.

2. What command would this person give, if he wants a soldier that's out of position to return to his position? Would it be "fall in"? (I think it may not be, but I'm not sure what it is).

Again, not an expert, but "fall in" sounds right. Since you are working on historical fiction with fantasy elements, I think you have some freedom to "make things up" anyway. Even different branches of the US military will do things differently. For example, when a senior officer enters a room, Navy and Marine personnel will announce "Attention on deck!". They still use the nautical term whether they are on a ship or not. Obviously, this is something that only a sailor or marine would do, but not a soldier.

So, his centurion (who is rather sharper) barks at him: "LEGIONARY -- attenshun! LEGIONARY -- faaall in!" Then he commands his century (group of 100 soldiers): "Company -- abouuut face! Forwaaard march! After four, we raise our swords! Hup two three four ... hup two three four ..." and they march away.

Is this right? I'd like this to be realistic (notwithstanding the presence of a Sphinx, which is obviously unrealistic).

Since a centurion is in command of 100 soldiers, this would probably make him an officer, probably the equivalent of an army captain. In which case, he would probably not be the one giving the commands directly. Of course, this is just speculation on my part.

[DeadPoolX]

1. Who would give drill commands (such as "fall in" or "quick march")? My guess is that would be a sergeant, but I'm not sure. (It's probably not the Commanding Officer -- am I right?)

Yes, some level of sergeant (often a First Sergeant) would do this, although it's possible a rank as low as Corporal might as well as they're still considered NCOs, not enlisted.

Online you'll see a lot of people confuse rank, grade, and position. They're not the same thing at all.

Rank is your literal rank, so that's easy enough.

Grade is often used to differentiate level of rank (for instance, someone might refer to a Colonel as an "O-6"), but this isn't strictly accurate. Grade just denotes pay grade, but says nothing definite about rank or position.

Here's an example: In the US Army, a First Sergeant and a Master Sergeant are different ranks with different positions and authority; however, they share the same grade of E-8. Why? Because they're on the same pay grade, but that's it.

Grade is further confused by the fact that different branches use different ranks and in different orders. Sure, the officer ranks are generally the same (except for the Navy), but enlisted and NCO ranks can vary a lot. This means very different ranks can be the same grade, and sometimes a rank that would seem lower in one branch can be higher in another, thereby having a higher or lower grade. It gets a little nuts after a while.

In the US Navy and US Coast Guard, grade is referred to as rate for enlisted and NCOs while grade is still used for officers. As always, the USN and USCG feel the need to be "different."

Position is the MOST important thing. Whatever your rank and grade, your position determines your authority. This is especially important in the US Navy (and I imagine other naval forces in the world) where any officer that's in-charge of a ship is referred to as "Captain" regardless of their rank. As the captain of a ship, you have almost unlimited authority on that vessel and can issue orders to anyone of any rank, even if the person you're ordering around far outranks you. That said, flexing that authority to spite a higher-ranking individual on your ship can come back to bite you in the ass, so it's generally not done, if for no other reason, out of pure concern for one's own career.

2. What command would this person give, if he wants a soldier that's out of position to return to his position? Would it be "fall in"? (I think it may not be, but I'm not sure what it is).

"Fall in" sounds right, but since you're writing fantasy (or at least something that's historical that's very different from modern-day military forces), you can probably come up with any term you want. You're using Roman Legionaries so, find out the correct word the Romans would've used.

[Tawmis]

2. What command would this person give, if he wants a soldier that's out of position to return to his position? Would it be "fall in"? (I think it may not be, but I'm not sure what it is).

"Fall in" sounds right, but since you're writing fantasy (or at least something that's historical that's very different from modern-day military forces), you can probably come up with any term you want. You're using Roman Legionaries so, find out the correct word the Romans would've used.

Might I recommend the incredible show that was on HBO called Rome.
Preview on IMDB.

[Rath Darkblade]

Thanks, all. I've already done loads and loads of research about the Roman world -- how they dressed, what they ate, who (and how) they fought, daily life for legionaries (and gladiators) etc. I even found some details about how they washed, their family life, the names they gave each other (and what they meant), etc. etc.

Of course a Roman Centurion would speak in Latin, not English. My only concern is that even if he says something as short like "Legionariis, subsisto!" (i.e. "Legionaries, stop!"), it won't make much sense to an English-speaking reader. For that reason, I prefer to stay away from Latin (except Latin words or phrases that are still common nowadays, or easily understood).

Thanks for the detailed explanation, DPX. Yes, I've read up on ranks and grades before (I worked for a while at one of the local barracks in their finance division), so I'm familiar with the basic ranks.

I never knew that about Position. All right, I understand that a ship's Captain can issue any orders to anyone (but obviously it's advisable to treat people with respect, especially someone as high up as a Commodore or an Admiral of any kind -- whether Vice Admiral, Rear Admiral or what have you). Can a ship's captain order Army personnel around, if they're on his ship?

For that matter, if there's a land battle and sailors/marines are mucking in with soldiers -- can an Army captain (or sergeant, or corporal) command the sailors or marines? If not, how do the different branches cooperate or coordinate with each other?
========================
Thanks, Tawm! Yes, I've watched "Rome" before. It's very good, even if it takes some dramatic licence here and there (but nothing egregious). The careers of Julius Caesar and Augustus (which it dramatises) are very well-known and extensively documented, so it would be stupid to take too many liberties. *G*

[Tawmis]

Thanks, Tawm! Yes, I've watched "Rome" before. It's very good, even if it takes some dramatic licence here and there (but nothing egregious). The careers of Julius Caesar and Augustus (which it dramatises) are very well-known and extensively documented, so it would be stupid to take too many liberties. *G*

Well, I mention it because the first season has a lot of ROMAN battles with one of the main leaders as one of the "commanders" shouting commands.

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm. I'm not sure which one you mean, off the top of my head. I googled "Rome HBO battle scene", and this came up - is that what you mean?

He's shouting in English, though. "Get back in formation, you drunken fool!"

The little tidbit there is definitely true to the way Romans fought battles at the time. Everyone is wearing lorica hamtata (chain-mail) rather than the more famous lorica segmentata (laminar armour), but that's right. Legionaries only wore laminar armour from the 1st century AD to the 4th. Before then (and afterwards), they wore chain-mail.

Since this battle takes place long before the 1st century AD, they're wearing chain-mail. Fair enough. *nods*

Pulo's punishment is also spot on. The Roman state (generally) was merciless to anyone who didn't do what they were told, and The Roman army was especially brutal. Some soldiers, though, were excused some of the hard/nasty work (especially if they were literate -- they were needed as clerks or paymasters).

[notbobsmith]

Pulo's punishment is also spot on. The Roman state (generally) was merciless to anyone who didn't do what they were told, and The Roman army was especially brutal. Some soldiers, though, were excused some of the hard/nasty work (especially if they were literate -- they were needed as clerks or paymasters).

Not to mention the origin of the word "decimation". That said, the British military was still doing this until the mid to late 19th century.

[Tawmis]

Hmm. I'm not sure which one you mean, off the top of my head. I googled "Rome HBO battle scene", and this came up - is that what you mean?
He's shouting in English, though. "Get back in formation, you drunken fool!"

Yeah. I know. I watch the show every 2 months or so.

But I am not sure why you're citing he's yelling in English? Are you not in your example, using English?

But there are a lot of battle scenes that they do in that show, with the Roman Empire.

[DeadPoolX]

Can a ship's captain order Army personnel around, if they're on his ship?

Yes, however the chances of Army personnel being on a Navy ship are slim-to-none. The Marine Corps is a detachment of the Navy (at least in the US), so they handle all ground battles. All Marine Corp personnel know to follow the commands of a ship's CO.

Marines (never "soldier" as that implies the Army and Marines would view this as an major insult) have a Marine Corps commander on an aicraft carrier or amphibious assault ship as well. This Marine in-charge is usually anything from a Major to a Colonel.

Different units usually have division commanders on a large ship, like an aircraft carrier. For instance, a carrier's air wing (comprised of multiple squadrons) is commanding by the Commander Air Wing (CAG). The CAG is usually a Naval aviator who holds the rank of Lieutenant Commander to Captain. Although it's unusual, there have been situations when a Marine Corps pilot has taken the position as well.

You might be wondering, why does Commander Air Wing use CAG as its acronym? It's because the term was originally Commander Air Group back in WW2. In 1963, air groups were retitled air wings, so the term was changed to Commander Air Wing, but because CAW sounds completely ridiculous, the acronym "CAG" remained.

For that matter, if there's a land battle and sailors/marines are mucking in with soldiers -- can an Army captain (or sergeant, or corporal) command the sailors or marines? If not, how do the different branches cooperate or coordinate with each other?

It depends on the mission assignment and who's given authority. In other words, yes, it CAN happen, although it probably won't.

The major exception to this is the person in-charge of the entire operational theatre. In other words, Eisenhower was the Allied Supreme Commander, right? He could give orders to any General or Admiral (or Field Marshal, when dealing with Commonwealth forces) even though he was a General in the Army.

[Rath Darkblade]

Not to mention the origin of the word "decimation". That said, the British military was still doing this until the mid to late 19th century.

I presume you mean punishment by whipping, not decimation. *G* But yes indeed. In fact, the British Royal Navy didn't stop using the cat-o-nine-tails until 1948 -- and in some Commonwealth countries, the cat-o-nine-tails is still used. See Cat-o-nine-tails: modern uses and types in wikipedia.

Any kind of whipping is obviously unpleasant, but the cat-o-nine-tails has a well-deserved reputation as the worst. It can easily kill a man.

But I am not sure why you're citing he's yelling in English? Are you not in your example, using English?

Oh, sorry. I thought you meant that in the show, the centurion is shouting in Latin. So I was a little surprised to hear him shouting in English.

Yes, however the chances of Army personnel being on a Navy ship are slim-to-none. The Marine Corps is a detachment of the Navy (at least in the US), so they handle all ground battles. All Marine Corp personnel know to follow the commands of a ship's CO.

Marines (never "soldier" as that implies the Army and Marines would view this as an major insult) have a Marine Corps commander on an aicraft carrier or amphibious assault ship as well. This Marine in-charge is usually anything from a Major to a Colonel.

Hmm ... if Marines handle ground battles, then what do Army soldiers do? Isn't fighting land battles their job? *confused*

I understand that, in the past, Marines would charge through the surf onto a beach, take and hold a piece of land against enemy fire, and wait until reinforcements arrived or until they could move forward (if, say, enemy pillboxes were destroyed). Do they still do that?

And yes, I know Marines have longer and tougher training, and face tougher challenges, than "ordinary" soldiers. I respect that, of course. Hmm -- just wondering: are US Marines similar to the British Commandos (in terms of tasks they have to do)?

You might be wondering, why does Commander Air Wing use CAG as its acronym? It's because the term was originally Commander Air Group back in WW2. In 1963, air groups were retitled air wings, so the term was changed to Commander Air Wing, but because CAW sounds completely ridiculous, the acronym "CAG" remained.

*laughs* You're right, CAW sounds like something a crow would do. Not remotely appropriate for someone with such a high rank.

The major exception to this is the person in-charge of the entire operational theatre. In other words, Eisenhower was the Allied Supreme Commander, right? He could give orders to any General or Admiral (or Field Marshal, when dealing with Commonwealth forces) even though he was a General in the Army.

Hmm ... yes, I read quite a bit of Eisenhower and the trouble he had, getting other generals to cooperate with him. IIRC, Omar Bradley was willing to cooperate with Eisenhower. But Gen. Patton and Field Marshall Montgomery, especially, seemed to be fighting their own separate war, regardless of what Eisenhower told them to do.

I remember reading that Patton (when the Allies were in Sicily) told one of his commanders to drive as hard as he could to Messina, never mind the Italians. He just wanted to beat Monty to Messina. *shrug* As for Monty, he wanted to beat everyone to Berlin (and so did Patton, IIRC). It doesn't seem like a way to fight a war.

I hope this doesn't come across as a harsh criticism: I understand both Patton and Monty were under enormous pressure. They were also both egocentrics, and wanted to "beat" each other. For that matter, both Hitler and Churchill were egocentrics too (not to mention Stalin...)

[notbobsmith]

Hmm ... if Marines handle ground battles, then what do Army soldiers do? Isn't fighting land battles their job? *confused*

I understand that, in the past, Marines would charge through the surf onto a beach, take and hold a piece of land against enemy fire, and wait until reinforcements arrived or until they could move forward (if, say, enemy pillboxes were destroyed). Do they still do that?

And yes, I know Marines have longer and tougher training, and face tougher challenges, than "ordinary" soldiers. I respect that, of course. Hmm -- just wondering: are US Marines similar to the British Commandos (in terms of tasks they have to do)?

For the most part, the Army and Marines serve the same role: fighting on the ground, although the Marine have their own fighter aircraft and the Army does not. One thing that separates Marines from Army is that the Marines are more streamlined for fighting. "Every Marine a rifleman." Medical personnel and chaplains are provided by the Navy. But in some ways, they are considered redundant. After WWII, the military was undergoing a major restructuring. The idea behind it was "Since we have The Bomb, do we need this many ships in the Navy?" One of the things being considered was disbanding the Marine Corps. One argument against disbanding was that since they were attached to the Navy, they would be responsible for amphibious landings. Except that the Normandy invasion was an amphibious landing... carried out by the Army.

[DeadPoolX]

Hmm ... if Marines handle ground battles, then what do Army soldiers do? Isn't fighting land battles their job? *confused*

Because the Army and the Marine Corps aren't exactly the same. They do similar jobs, but they have different equipment, vehicles, etc. Most of all, the Marine Corps falls under the jurisdiction of the Navy, which means the Navy doesn't need to cooperate with the Army.

None of the military branches like to cooperate with one another. They do it when necessary, but there's a lot of juvenile-like hostility between the branches. It's not serious, in that no branch would actually go so far as to put another branch's units in danger, but they definitely take any and all opportunities to avoid cooperation.

This is why the Army didn't want to give up the Air Force to let them become their own branch. Back in WW2, the USAF was known as the USAAF or United States Army Air Force. In the end, the Army didn't have a choice in the matter.

And yes, I know Marines have longer and tougher training, and face tougher challenges, than "ordinary" soldiers. I respect that, of course. Hmm -- just wondering: are US Marines similar to the British Commandos (in terms of tasks they have to do)?

I don't know enough about British Commandos to really say how they might or might not be similar to US Marines. However, one major difference would be that British Commandos were active from 1940-1946, whereas the USMC was established in 1775 and still exists to this day.

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm ... if Marines handle ground battles, then what do Army soldiers do? Isn't fighting land battles their job? *confused*

Because the Army and the Marine Corps aren't exactly the same. They do similar jobs, but they have different equipment, vehicles, etc. Most of all, the Marine Corps falls under the jurisdiction of the Navy, which means the Navy doesn't need to cooperate with the Army.

None of the military branches like to cooperate with one another. They do it when necessary, but there's a lot of juvenile-like hostility between the branches. It's not serious, in that no branch would actually go so far as to put another branch's units in danger, but they definitely take any and all opportunities to avoid cooperation.

Er ... aren't they all part of the Armed Forces? If (hypothetically speaking) a war starts -- and, of course, we all hope and pray such a thing doesn't happen, but if it does ... then isn't it very dangerous not to coordinate your plans with someone else? For instance, suppose that a certain General wants to send his battalions along certain coordinates on a certain day, and the Air Force plans to bomb those coordinates at the same time. (I've read about such things happening in WW2; IIRC, some of Omar Bradley's columns were decimated by USAAF Bombers during Operation 'Cobra' of July 1944. It even became part of the wiki-article for that operation). Surely it makes sense for everyone to know these things and avoid 'friendly fire' incidents.

Never mind a war; the Armed Forces do exercises from time to time (I see edited videos on the news). The same dangers apply, especially with live ammunition.

Of course mistakes happen, and people do get killed or injured in exercises sometimes. It's just ... doesn't it make sense to cooperate, and minimise the risks? *shrug* I just don't understand why the branches are hostile to each other.

[DeadPoolX]

You're looking at the situation logically and thinking that the armed forces should operate as one cohesive unit. That's a great thought, but it's not realistic when you understand the competitive feelings between the branches.

You need to remember that the branches of the military are run by very stubborn, egocentric, prideful, and tribalistic individuals. No branch wants to commit any part of its forces to the command of someone in another branch because it's viewed as weakness. Silly? Maybe, but it's the unfortunate truth.

Like I said, the branches will cooperate if ordered to do so by the Joint Chiefs of Staff or POTUS, and sometimes individual commanders will work together, but most of the time the branches will operate independently of each other.

Sometimes these attitudes can actually be dangerous.

For instance... the A-10 Thunderbolt II.

The A-10 is nearly indestructible to enemy fire from the ground. It can fly with one engine, half a wing blown off, on fire, and can literally take hits that would cause any other plane to explode. Unlike most planes, the A-10's jet engines will chew up anything that gets in its way (so birds, metal, bullets, etc. aren't much of a concern whereas they can down other aircraft) and also has backup systems for its backup systems, and its wheels are designed to let the plane land even if they aren't lowered.

The A-10's job is to take out enemy tanks and armored vehicles while providing aerial support, which it can do for a long time because it can hang around a combat area longer than other aircraft. Its one weakness is that it's not a dogfighter (lacks the same speed and maneuverability other fighters posses), and could be in serious trouble if surrounded by enemy aircraft.

The reason I detailed all of that is because the A-10 is operated ONLY by the USAF, yet its job is to keep Army soldiers and Marines alive on the ground. Many infantry units (from both the US and allied countries) have told stories of how the A-10 has saved their lives.

That sounds nice, right? Like the branches are cooperating, but... the USAF doesn't feel CAS is a particularly important role and for years has fought to decommission the A-10. If Congress hadn't repeatedly intervened they might have done it.

This goes way beyond the military, too. Before 9/11, the FBI and CIA had no obligation whatsoever to cooperate in any shape or form. They regularly hid operations and intelligence data from each other. After 9/11, the FBI and CIA were forced to cooperate, but for decades they only recognized the other if they had absolutely no other option (and even then, both agencies have been strongly suspected of conducting illegal operations in the past where the FBI worked outside the US and the CIA worked within it).