Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gregersen wrote:Eh, no...If one of these officers reaches Colonel in the IG then they have spent quite a bit of time in the field.

Not necessarily. Guard regiments, including their commanding officer, are raised completely at the discretion of their world of origin. And if said world has a strong tradition of nobility (as lots in the Imperium do) then you may very well end up with some young brat who becomes Colonel because he's the second son of the governor. Just as an example of the worst possible case, tho. For most worlds, I imagine it to work kind of like the European militaries in the past centuries, e.g. Napoleonic Wars etc.

Honestly, it isn't very different even in modern militaries. Who you know is still just as important, if not more important, than what you do in the officer system, and it isn't uncommon for promotions at the level of colonel to be based on having the right family.

In the Imperium the problem is obviously exasperated.

Really it would make more sense to be promoted and placed in command on experience instead of commision

Possibly, but that isn't how things work, and haven't worked that way for hundreds of years.

There are arguments in favor of the commission system though. The thought is small unit tactics and interaction is a different skill set than higher level strategy and logistics. Training men, getting them inspired, and personally lead an assault is a very different skill set from being able to say where the assaults should happen and how to keep everyone fed. So, theoretically, officers are groomed for organization, strategy, and logistics early on and improve throughout their career, and enlisted men so the same for fighting and tactics.

That is why NCO's are the ones responsible for setting standards for training and discipline procedures, not Generals.

Modern software corporations like Microsoft often do the same thing, with management and technical career tracks being distinct, but equal in authority, because being a good programmer does not qualify one to make business decisions. For example, I don't have a 'boss', I have a 'manager', to whom I am equal in authority, and there are even engineers I know who technically outrank their managers.

Of course...due to tradition the military leaves out the 'different but equal' part of the equation. Yes, a Sargeant Major should follow the direction of a lieutenant, after all the Lieutenant is responsible for getting them in the right place at the right time, and keeping them supported. But the bowing and scraping, the saluting, and the increased pay grade are a bit much, firmly indicating to the enlisted man that while he is important and useful, his skills are inferior.

But, militaries are ALL about tradition.

riplikash wrote:Possibly, but that isn't how things work, and haven't worked that way for hundreds of years.

There are arguments in favor of the commission system though. The thought is small unit tactics and interaction is a different skill set than higher level strategy and logistics. Training men, getting them inspired, and personally lead an assault is a very different skill set from being able to say where the assaults should happen and how to keep everyone fed. So, theoretically, officers are groomed for organization, strategy, and logistics early on and improve throughout their career, and enlisted men so the same for fighting and tactics.

That is why NCO's are the ones responsible for setting standards for training and discipline procedures, not Generals.

Modern software corporations like Microsoft often do the same thing, with management and technical career tracks being distinct, but equal in authority, because being a good programmer does not qualify one to make business decisions. For example, I don't have a 'boss', I have a 'manager', to whom I am equal in authority, and there are even engineers I know who technically outrank their managers.

Of course...due to tradition the military leaves out the 'different but equal' part of the equation. Yes, a Sargeant Major should follow the direction of a lieutenant, after all the Lieutenant is responsible for getting them in the right place at the right time, and keeping them supported. But the bowing and scraping, the saluting, and the increased pay grade are a bit much, firmly indicating to the enlisted man that while he is important and useful, his skills are inferior.

But, militaries are ALL about tradition.

This is exactly right. I see it from the other side (the management side in business) there are many people underneath me who know a whole hell of alot more about the specific systems we work with than I do, however most of them (not all) either wouldn't be able to/do want to do my job. Hell I'm not even the highest paid compaired to some of them. It works because of respect though, they know that I'm responsable for making sure they still have work, jobs and get paid and I know the company wouldn't function well without them. There are some things that a university education gives you that experience doesn't and vice versa.

I think the average age would differ from regiment to regiment. Obviously high attrition regiments (even by guard standards) like the Death Korps of Krieg would have an a high influx of increasingly young recruits. Even a hive world can't produce billions of young men over the course of centuries, it would eventually cause the population to become run out and produce higher numbers of women or handicapped offspring (we can see this trend during most real wars fought here on Earth).

So I would imagine that, over time, regiments would have to recruit from populations as young as 15 or 16. Give them a year or two in the PDF and they are ready to be shipped off to a warzone somewhere else.

I would also like to point out that Grenadiers don't always have to be elite or veterans. Grenadiers were originally recruited from the largest men in a regiment, to give them a terror factor on the battlefield during the 17th-18th centuries. That tradition carried over well into the 20th century, where grenadier regiments were made up of highly trained, tall, and strong men.

Sure in the 40k universe they will have better equipment and training than your average guardsman, but that doesn't mean they cannot be young. Just means in basic training their superiors noted they had an aptitude for war and did not want to see that wasted in the standard rifleman platoons. Kasrkin Squads aren't always made up of veterans. They can also be recruited from White Shields who showed promise. However, arguably, most everyone on Cadia is a veteran by now.

Slightly off-topic, but isn't 16 the age of majority in the UK? As opposed to 18 years, as it is here in the US? If so, I could see 16 year old PDF/IG recruits, from a BL fluff-writer's perspective. I think it's fairly hinted at in a number of places (BL novels) that adult life begins at or around 16, though that may have been in reference to the specific planet a given character was from, not sure if it was meant to be representative of the Imperial average.

Depends on the world, but certainly there would be many worlds that allow you to join at 16. 16 was considered the age of adulthood for most of human history, so presumably feudal worlds and the like recruit at that age.

Imperial guard = if you can walk hold a gun and fallow orders you are old enough for the Imperial guard

yevix wrote:Imperial guard = if you can walk hold a gun and fallow orders you are old enough for the Imperial guard

Again, no, it depends on the regimen. I wish people would stop making these generalities about the guard. Every world is free to do things how it wants, as long as it provides the requisite tithes.

Well, it's an admittedly simplified and potentially misleading statement - but not incorrect. When the Imperial Guard doesn't say "no", you obviously are old enough. In theory, at least.

The Munitorum does place certain expectations upon the governors, however. If some world starts only sending them child soldiers but keeping older men for itself, this would invite trouble. Not because the Munitorum has any particular morale issue with child soldiers, but because that governor is (a) undermining the Imperial war effort by sending worthless "leftovers", and (b) potentially even planning to secede with the help of the more experienced troops.

One of the few decrees of the Adeptus Munitorum is that the tithed troops need to be able to fight the Emperor's wars, and some 12 year old kid will quite simply not make as much a soldier as an 18 year old.

During a crisis (such as, say, the War for Armageddon), however, I imagine the Munitorum might even recommend raising militias from the younger population, as the Emperor simply requires "boots on the ground".

riplikash wrote:

yevix wrote:Imperial guard = if you can walk hold a gun and fallow orders you are old enough for the Imperial guard

Again, no, it depends on the regimen. I wish people would stop making these generalities about the guard. Every world is free to do things how it wants, as long as it provides the requisite tithes.

You are so serious, its 40k any answer is usually the correct one....yea its up to the regiment but in reality I don't think any regiments says "you are too young to fight" if you are willing and can hold a gun and fallow orders you can be an imperial guardsman...

Dont Cadians have the same recruitment rate as their birth rate....(as soon as you are born you become a guardsman lolz)

The average age of a full guardsman is 15-17 upon enlistment there you go nice straight answer.

yevix wrote:[...] but in reality I don't think any regiments says "you are too young to fight"

Mhm... depends on their quality standards and how badly they need the bodies, I'd say. As long as they could just as well conscript older people, I think they'd prefer that, if only because kids aren't quite as capable, physically speaking.

yevix wrote:Dont Cadians have the same recruitment rate as their birth rate....(as soon as you are born you become a guardsman lolz)

Cadian Youth Army, iirc. Still counts as PDF. I would probably compare it to the Hitler Youth though I'm sure there are lots of other less famous organizations in various countries that would fit.

yevix wrote:its 40k any answer is usually the correct one...

True. It all depends which interpretation one wants to follow.