Akhe100 Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 It would be nearly impossible to eliminate officers because either you train ever last man to the degree of special forces which is not in slightest bit practical, or else you have a complete and total inability to maintain any control over a force. Though I do agree that the officers and enlisted men need to be integrated better. Officers that are distanced from their troops are usually bad ones.
T19 Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 So why not have the guys who know all about logistics serve as logistics specialists and not have them wasted by having them fail a command task they're forced into as officers? There are people who would excel at tactical command but should never be allowed anywhere near management, and people who excel at managerial tasks but couldn't command a puppy to save their skin. Instead of losing both types, why not take the benefit of having them do the jobs they're best doing as specialists? Im a Combat Arms Officer in the Armoured Corps. To become a Combat Team commander, a Major, I have to be an expert at the deployment of my trade (Tanks and /or Recce) that includes not only commanding in Offensive and defensive phases of war, but I have to understand the logistics of how to care and feed for an Armoured Sqn. I also have to be a semi expert in the deployment and use of Infantry, Arty, Engineering and Logistics support. To become a LCol you need to not only maintain your expertise in your basic trade, but understand at the expert level the deployment of Infantry Arty, Engineering, Logistic, and other supporting forces. You spend most of your time at Staff College performing in staff roles and working in areas that are not your area of experience. It seems to work. Our commanders understand the the Combined arms power and limitations. It allows Sr officers (at the Col level they no longer wear Armd, Art, Eng ,,,etc distinctive badges) to move from one command task force to another without any problems.
Old Tanker Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 Maybe its different in your Military, but in ours you are saluting the commission not the person That line was used twice in BoB. Yet as an EM one could say " Who in fvck gave that clown a commision ?"However I did see some of the most sorry assed disappear , maybe they ended up in bn. hq. far away from a line platoon.
T19 Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 That line was used twice in BoB. Yet as an EM one could say " Who in fvck gave that clown a commision ?"However I did see some of the most sorry assed disappear , maybe they ended up in bn. hq. far away from a line platoon.mess officer... DLJ officer Dirty Little Jobs officer
FirstOfFoot Posted August 26, 2007 Posted August 26, 2007 mess officer... DLJ officerDirty Little Jobs officer Nope, just sack them. I can think of one 2Lt who achieved legendary status in his screwups - he was sacked from the Army before his first operational deployment, as a result of poor performance on the workup training for Northern Ireland. One of the advantages of the Regimental system, is that it's really not sensible to keep the tossers around, and much easier to discharge them than make them "somebody else's problem".
p620346 Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 QUOTE "The E-2 with 90 days of service (mostly in boot camp and AIT) doesn't have to salute the West Point grad (a 2LT that has lived, eaten and breathed military for four years) because the 2LT is "wet behind the ears?"" By the same token, why should an E-6 or above have to salute an Ensign straight out of OCS with 90 days or less of service. From what I have seen in the USN, most Ensigns, with the possible exception of Annapolis graduates, were absolutely useless or even counterproductive and depended on their cheifs for help and advice. Perhaps the rank order should be something like E-1/E-3. O-1, E-4/E-6, O-2, E-7/E-9, O-3 + to make it more rational
hojutsuka Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Given what has been discussed in this thread, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the German Army of World War II. IIRC, officer candidates served about a year in the ranks before being sent to officer training. Seems to be a reasonable compromise; officer track personnel do not waste too much time working up through EM ranks, but they get to see life from EM's view, especially as the noncoms apparently gave the officer candidates all the dirty jobs! The German Army also made special efforts to break down social barriers between officers and other ranks to reduce chances of a repetition of the breakdowns and mutinies that marked the end of World War I. Sport events and social functions with mixed participation by officers and men were encouraged. This effort was probably helped by the Treaty of Versailles which restricted the Reichswehr to 100,000 men. To get around this, the Reichswehr trained everyone to be able to function two levels above their nominal rank. When Germany repudiated the Treaty of Versailles and expanded the Reichswehr into the Wehrmacht, a large number of noncoms became company level officers in the Wehrmacht, so tending breaking down the separation of officers and other ranks. Hojutsuka
KingSargent Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Something that would be hard to achieve these days is military genius. Most "Great Captains" were quite young when at their prime. Alexander the Great would be one example. Of course Alexander started as Phillip of Macedon's son/prince, so there was no 'working his way up' involved at any level. OTOH, I doubt he had the skills to run a platoon, that takes practice and experience handling people. Now the military works for "corporate genius," which is liking making love by committee. All the training and rotation of field and staff gets people trained to perform in subordinate positions, but where do we get the genius to think outside the box and keep the "regulars" from doing everything by the numbers?
Jim Martin Posted August 27, 2007 Author Posted August 27, 2007 Something that would be hard to achieve these days is military genius. Most "Great Captains" were quite young when at their prime. Alexander the Great would be one example. Of course Alexander started as Phillip of Macedon's son/prince, so there was no 'working his way up' involved at any level. OTOH, I doubt he had the skills to run a platoon, that takes practice and experience handling people. Now the military works for "corporate genius," which is liking making love by committee. All the training and rotation of field and staff gets people trained to perform in subordinate positions, but where do we get the genius to think outside the box and keep the "regulars" from doing everything by the numbers? Codfication of organizations and society in general tends to give better-than average results in leadership and management, but tends to also stultify the truly exceptional. For every Alexander, you have a Quintilius Varus or a Crassus. Another example I recall reading years ago is our codified system of justice: once upon a time, when there were no codified laws, you could go to your lord for redress of grievances, he would hear your case, and decide what your recompense should be, or what the punishment should be for the wronging party. Sometimes, you'd get far better results than what you'd get today from our codified system of laws and courts--but frequently, the lord might be an idiot, or be the offending party himself, and then where are you?
Ken Estes Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Given what has been discussed in this thread, I am surprised that no one has mentioned the German Army of World War II. ....No need to go back that far. The Bundeswehr had the same program in 1978, but sometime later went more toward the university system with the BW Uni tied to Uni/Hamburg and since then I am out of the loop. But in 1978, the regt CO decided who would be the cadets, then what Faehnrichen would go forth after the troop time had expired.
JWB Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Joe BrennanThe PLA fought poorly in the later of two wars by most accounts, relative to it numbers. Actually the Chinese fought quite well given the lack of equipment and the poor quality of equipment which did exist. As far as numbers are concerned PLA lost about 25%. The VN losses are not known because Hanoi refuses to admit how many men they actually lost. PLA claims VN losses were 20% higher than PLAs and Hanoi refuses to discuss the matter.
Sardaukar Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) As Exel said, I like the FDF system how suitable candidates for regular service, especially officers, are selected. Usually year is enough time to figure out of someone has poteintial for higher postions..especially when there are 3 selection processes. First, to determine if you are able to serve at all. Secondly, selection to NCO school. Thirdly, selection to Reserve Officer Course. One has to show abilities and willingness during the basic training to be selected. It might be that there are people whose abilities show only later stage of mandatory service, but they do have (at least had few years ago) option to extend their mandatory service to do NCO Course or ROC with next intake. What FDF looks first it the Will to do it. If you don't have Will to do things, no amount of training will help. Then it's the consideration of perceived Ability/Capability. I like the practice and idea that officers share same basic training with their enlisted men who they may have to lead in combat. Nothing bonds as well as common hardships. What I'd change in US military is that everyone should take same branch-based Basic Training together..and after that one could apply to career path of their choosing. No military school entry without, unless specialist career path (docs, engineers etc.). Of course, US and British military (and lot of others..especially French) have doctrine that closer relations between different "classes" (EM/NCO/Officers) should be discouraged (at least that is my perception)...so there might be *lot* of disagreement with that. Since FDF was strongly influenced by leadership-style of German WWI Jaeger units (lot of trained officers and NCOs forming FDF came from Finnish volunteer Imperial Prussian Jaeger Battaillon 27, others from Imperial Russian Army..latter being minority after 20's due to internal conflicts with former). That combination of German combat discipline and leadership-style added with Finnish combat-style worked very well. Things like Auftragstaktik or personal initiative were quite natural to us, German influence just added the appreciation of organization and strict combat discipline into it. Formal discipline in FDF is class-based too..but classes are different. Classes are Conscript and Regular. For example in unit I served, a Private (regular) with whom I had to deal in daily and hourly bases, could and would address me with name and without using "Sir", which is accepted. No Conscript in his/her right mind would behave like that, difference being that former and I did belong to same "Class" compared to latter, despite their ranks being similar. Also, formal discipline among regular NCOs and officers in FDF is left for official occasions or when training conscripts (your mileage may vary in some units, tho..). During the years I served as 1st Lt. in our unit, I could count the occasions I saluted our Major without running out of fingers. You did salute higher rank if you did not know them, because that was customary. But after working with someone a while, it was usually " Sir, I need your permission/input/signature for *insert occasion-suitable words*, thank you, sir..and off I go"..never even having to stand in attention. That is not to be confused with bad discipline or disrespect, just different way of running things. There is big difference between formal discipline and "real discipline". Latter is more of " if you do not obey, you do not want to be here..so you can go", based on voluntary will. It will never work without close knowledge of people who you are working with. Thus, it's not adaptable to US use, using personnel rotation. Edited August 27, 2007 by Sardaukar
Rocky Davis Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 "The E-2 with 90 days of service (mostly in boot camp and AIT) doesn't have to salute the West Point grad (a 2LT that has lived, eaten and breathed military for four years) because the 2LT is "wet behind the ears?"" By the same token, why should an E-6 or above have to salute an Ensign straight out of OCS with 90 days or less of service. From what I have seen in the USN, most Ensigns, with the possible exception of Annapolis graduates, were absolutely useless or even counterproductive and depended on their cheifs for help and advice. Perhaps the rank order should be something like E-1/E-3. O-1, E-4/E-6, O-2, E-7/E-9, O-3 + to make it more rational OK - we'll play the "who rates to salute game" to the extreme: Nobody has to salute any officer for any reason until the officer possesses the following qualifications: Has at least eight years of service, has excellent OERs, is a senior O-3 or above and has attended and passed a mandatory "Why Should People Salute Me?" course given at an Army Post of your choice. Once the candidate has passed the course and meets all of the other requirements, a special red light (resembling the lights atop a police car) will be placed upon that soldier's head gear to warn all that approach to be prepared to salute. Ask yourself this question: If saluting and calling officers "Sir" is so antiquated, then maybe no EM or NCO should have to stand at parade rest while addressing a senior NCO as well, eh? NCOs train officers. They train ROTC cadets, OCS candidates and help train at the Academies, the Citadel, NMMI, etc. An NCO that has prepared a new officer for entry into the Army feels a sense of accomplishment once the bars get pinned on his former student/officer candidate. By the same token, PSGs and Squad Leaders help train their new Platoon Leader, the 1SG helps train his new Company Commander, the PSNCO helps train the new S-1, the Bn. Suply SSGT helps train the new S-4, the CSM helps train the new Bn. Commander. And all of this happens with the more experienced NCO saluting and addressing the younger, less experienced officer as "Sir." What a travesty! What an injustice to humanity! Just thinking about it makes me want to cry in my morning Wheaties.
A2Keltainen Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Formal discipline in FDF is class-based too..but classes are different. Classes are Conscript and Regular. I think it's more accurate to say that there's three classes in the FDF; "young" conscripts, "old" conscripts, and regulars, where the "old" conscripts are the NCOs and RO candidates that started their service a half year (according to the current system) before the "young" conscripts, and who helps to train and command the "young" conscripts. For example, when I did my conscript service, things looked like follows: 1. "Young" conscript in basic training: I always had to "Sir" the conscript NCOs. Strict formal relationship with all regular officers. 2. NCO candidate in the brigade's NCO school: I always had to "Sir" the conscript NCOs who were assistant instructors at the school, and behave towards them in the same way I behaved towards the regular officers. Strict formal relationship with all regular officers. 3. NCO acting as platoon leader and assistant platoon leader: Very informal relationship with my subordinates (both EMs and NCOs), who all had started their service at the same time as I. Rather informal relationship with my direct commanding regular officer (but still "Sir:ing" him), and strict formal relationship with all other regular officers. The "young" conscripts who arrived at the company for basic training behaved towards me in a very formal way, despite me not having any command responsibility over them. 4. NCO acting as assistant instructor at the brigade's NCO school: The NCO candidates had to "Sir" me, and behave towards me and the other conscript assistant instructors in the same way they behaved towards the regular officers. Rather informal relationship with all regular officers at the NCO school and previous direct commanding regular officer at my old company (but still "Sir:ing" them), and strict formal relationship with all other regular officers. NCOs and RO candidates who had started their service at the same time had very informal relationships, even when coming from different companies. The very few RO candidates who tried to "play important" around NCOs who had started their service at the same time, were regarderd as naive idiots by everyone. Despite the often rather formal discipline, there was an informal comrade like undertone, and it was not uncommon for conscripts and regular officers, and "younger" and "older" conscripts, to share jokes and small talk, despite the "Sir:ing" and salutes.
Red 6 Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 There is absolutely nothing wrong with the US Army system of officers and NCO's. Each have a clearly defined role. Officers are responsible for executing missions and NCO's are tactical and technical experts in their specific career fields. It's clear to me that our system has been proven times and again in combat. Why fix something that isn't broken? In regard to saluting, any Soldier that has a problem with popping a sharp salute should ask him self why he's still in the Army. The salute is one of the oldest greetings between warriors and I was always proud to render a sharp salute with the greeting of the day. The PLA wasn't the first to do away with officers. The young Red Army attempted to do without formal officers and even tried to run some units by workers councils in the Civil War. Absolutely failed in practice. The issue here boils down to one thing: Are officers better than NCO's? No, and the Army doesn't think so. The wider population still doesn't get it and that's why they say things like, "Why don't you become an officer?" If you think about conscript armies and how they are formed, then it may (and I write this with hesitancy) to have a larger and more caste defined officer group, esp. since these armies have an in-and-out system for their enlisted ranks. But the US Army is a long-service volunteer force and as I understand it, reenlistment rates have been going through the roof.
Exel Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 NCOs and RO candidates who had started their service at the same time had very informal relationships, even when coming from different companies. The very few RO candidates who tried to "play important" around NCOs who had started their service at the same time, were regarderd as naive idiots by everyone. I'd add to that the case in some branches, namely Armor, where the crews all start at the same time as Privates before some becoming NCOs and ROs. In that no one ever salutes or Sir's those with higher rank, unless in some very formal situation requiring 'parade conduct'. If an RO tried to make any of his subordinates, be they NCOs or Privates, to salute and address him formally in everyday service, he would be considered as a Class A moron and most likely be dismissed with swearing and insults. But that does not mean that the unit would be indisciplined, on the contrary an unusually tight comradeship develops. You just don't pull rank on your comrades. You don't need to have salutes and standing in attention to have discipline. It's a tradition you can have, and it can be a good one at that too, but don't act like it's indispensable for working discipline.
Old Tanker Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 I'd add to that the case in some branches, namely Armor, where the crews all start at the same time as Privates before some becoming NCOs and ROs. In that no one ever salutes or Sir's those with higher rank, unless in some very formal situation requiring 'parade conduct'. The unofficial practice when I served was saluting once aday that being the first contact of that day. That would be in garrison and not in the field , I don't ever recall saluting in the field.
Rocky Davis Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 The unofficial practice when I served was saluting once aday that being the first contact of that day. That would be in garrison and not in the field , I don't ever recall saluting in the field. Yes - that is policy and has been for a long time.
T19 Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Same here, once in the morning and then again at the end of day, while in garrision. In the field, its Sir, or your called by your position... Sunray, OC - Officer Commanding or a Maj, Troopie (Troop Leader- LT), BC... Battle Capt... or CO for the Commanding Officer... LCol. I address my Subordinates by thier proper rank... Lt Smith, WO Newman, Cpl Jones.... in my crew I use Driver, Loader, Gunner... I do not disrespect my subordinates by addressing them with thier first name. That is not to say that away from the troops, I don't address my WO, or SSM or Lt or BC by thier first name, and they by mine. But infront of the troops it is generally semi - formal Generally we only salute Col and above in the field and that is to report Sniper activity Cheers
BP Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 That is not to say that away from the troops, I don't address my WO, or SSM or Lt or BC by thier first name, and they by mine. But infront of the troops it is generally semi - formal In US Army practice, officers usually address their subordinate officers by their first names (usally in office setting and around NCOs), unless it is an official function or in a tactical environment. Around the orderly room it was "Mark, Matt and Steve, come into my office" or "LT Jones gets promoted today company"
Gunguy Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Let's see: 1. The E-2 with 90 days of service (mostly in boot camp and AIT) doesn't have to salute the West Point grad (a 2LT that has lived, eaten and breathed military for four years) because the 2LT is "wet behind the ears?" 2. A Captain is "wet behind the ears," yet has enough rank and time in service to become a Company Commander - responsible for the lives of all under his command and responsible for millions and millions of dollars worth of vehicles and equipment? I know what I went through for years before getting my commission. I earned that first salute and all of those afterwards. So, who gets to decide who is and who is not "wet behind the ears" and deserves a salute? Rocky, I had different time frames in mind. 2 or 3 years for an E-4. Capt would not be wet behind the ears. I was lucky to have both excellent Lt a worthless Lt. I also had great Capts and worthless ones. Back in the ancient days you could not go from Marine Infantry to OCS. Now as many have stated, it is easier, as they have a dire need for it. I would have done it in a heart beat if the chance was offered back then. I was just in at the wrong time. I do like the fact that more options are open to enlisted now. If I was 30 years younger, I'd be back in the military......
Guest aevans Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Ummm...aren't we forgetting that the current system is an outgrowth of the cooption of the European nobility into the military profession by kings that didn't have anything better to do with them? Prior to the 18th Century, the idea of officers as a class apart didn't really exist. Higher ranks were simply occupied by more qualified people. The only reason being a lieutenant or higher became a special "commisioned" existence was because it allowed the newly coopted nobility to protect their social rice bowls by way of keeping the commoners out of the club. There's nothing fundamentally sooper dooper about our overlapping enlisted/officer career tracks -- it really is just a historical artifact. We could just as easily have two points of entry -- one at private for the unskilled and one at lieutenant for the college graduate, and set up the necessary parellism along the technical/leadership divide. How high you go would strictly be a factor of you abilities. Instead of progressing to sergeant major, for example, a person who started out at the bottom might expect to eventually command a company, or maybe even a battalion, depending on innate abilities. Those who in the current system might see themselves eventually becoming senior technicians might become lieutenants and captains along the technical track.
Rocky Davis Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Rocky, I had different time frames in mind. 2 or 3 years for an E-4. Capt would not be wet behind the ears. I was lucky to have both excellent Lt a worthless Lt. I also had great Capts and worthless ones. Back in the ancient days you could not go from Marine Infantry to OCS. Now as many have stated, it is easier, as they have a dire need for it. I would have done it in a heart beat if the chance was offered back then. I was just in at the wrong time. I do like the fact that more options are open to enlisted now. If I was 30 years younger, I'd be back in the military...... I'm not sure of the officer progression rate anymore. In 1976, it was 2 years as 2LT, 2 years as 1LT so a junior Captain would have four years in (for Active Duty). Reserve promotion rates were every three years for LT, so a junior Captain would have at least six years of service. Then, a Captain would have 2-3 years of command time and 2-3 years of Staff time before even being considered for Major. Most Majors (Reserve side) would have at least 12 years of service and then spend 3 years being Bn. S-3 and 3 years being Bn. XO making a junior LTC having 18 years of service. LTCs would command a Bn. for 3 years and then have two Staff positions at Brigade level - S-3 and/or XO. So, junior Colonel would have about 24 years of service. Anyway, I'm sure it's all changed now. Tony - who cares how it all began? It's an institution that will not die in any of our lifetimes. So, you learn to live with it. It is (unchanging) reality.
Guest aevans Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Tony - who cares how it all began? It's an institution that will not die in any of our lifetimes. So, you learn to live with it. It is (unchanging) reality. Actually, I'm with those that think our current parallel track based (for the most part) on skills at entry, and not individual ability, is significantly impacting our effectiveness. Even with the supposed safety valve of OCS and enlisted commissioning education programs, I think we're underutilizing a lot of raw talent by sidetracking it into technical and morale jobs. Understanding the system's origin goes a long way towards understanding that there's nothing fundamentally superior about it.
Rocky Davis Posted August 27, 2007 Posted August 27, 2007 Actually, I'm with those that think our current parallel track based (for the most part) on skills at entry, and not individual ability, is significantly impacting our effectiveness. Even with the supposed safety valve of OCS and enlisted commissioning education programs, I think we're underutilizing a lot of raw talent by sidetracking it into technical and morale jobs. Understanding the system's origin goes a long way towards understanding that there's nothing fundamentally superior about it. It's one thing to say "It's not superior." But it's a whole separate thing to say "Here's how we fix it." I don't think there could ever be any way of improving the system we've got UNLESS we make it so that an officer has to have a minimum of (say) two years enlisted service (including Basic and AIT) in order to even qualify to apply to become an officer. That might make it better, but there are no many alternatives to what we've got now. Regardless of the origins of the current system (IIRC, people could but a commission as an officer if they had enough money or were automatically made an officer if the had royal lineage), I have to think that serious brainstorming of the Officer and NCO Corps paths has happened on more than one occasion in the past 50 years and that system is still in place. Therefore, no seriously challenging alternatives to the current must have been discovered.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now