Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Wilf's correct that class and Edwardian attitudes play a part in that (even in the US) but that has also been diluted a great deal by the experience of the World Wars and societal changes since the '60s. NCOs in the British, Canadian and US Armies (as well as in most NATO Armies to one extent or another) today really draw any power to get things done from tactical and technical competence. That competence counts far more in how they are viewed by superiors, peers and subordinates than any other factors
I agree that the British Army NCO gains his status from technical competence, but that in itself is a reflection of the class system and the Yeoman tradition of British soldiering. The Bowman at Agincourt were mostly educated, skilled craftsmen, such as carpenters and blacksmiths.

The main differential today is the level on education on entry into the Army. The exception being the Royal Marines, that, in my experience attracts at disproportionate amount educated and skilled enlisted men.

Again, an object lesson is the IDF, in that it is a generally successful Army with no western NCO culture, though they do have professional and competent NCOs, but not in the way most here would recognise. An IDF platoon or company commander is generally the most skilled and competent man, and has already been an NCO. - to quote an IDF Colonel, I know "why would you choose to do otherwise?"

I would also warn against assuming that there is one type of NCO culture. I believe there are two or three successful models, but they are all dependant on how respect is gained in the varying cultures. The UK model would fall flat on it's face in the IDF and the IDF model would be unwelcome and uncomfortable for the British Army.