Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
We talk about commanders being over all responsible for their units. However, we know through some very current issues that this is not always the case.... More often than not the NCO's in the chain are fed to the fire to protect the officers.

 

That's more a reflection on how one army does its business, than of the system. I can think of a couple of incidents in GB forces where the CO and RSM were sacked, because of the actions of troops under their command; the troops concerned were disciplined, but it was the bosses who lost their jobs. (In one case, it was the Brigade Comd who got the heave).

 

So the first issue, does having a bachelors degree make you a better military leader and tactician than one who doesnt? Probably not, but it does give you a more "worldly" view. So education is important. However the Army will pay for the majority of that education

 

Again, that reflects the US, not the rest of the world. Over here, education isn't exactly free, but it's nowhere near as expensive as in the US. Certainly the Army pays for the undergraduate education of very few officers.

 

So I would propose this if I was king. You have enlisted ranks up to E-6. Once at E-6 you are then either selected to progress to Officer school (to finish or get your degree) and then you would become a lieutenant. Then move up the ranks on that course. You get rid of platoon sergeant (that could be your senior SSG), no more 1sgt, or CSM. The best people move up and we all have experience to draw from. We would maintain a certain class distinction and prestige of the officer corp, and they truly would have earned it coming up through the ranks.

 

So.... all of this is great for getting grizzled platoon commanders, and perhaps company commanders, but where do your Battalion Commanders come from? You don't want old COs, so how long will they have spent doing their preceding jobs? Let's say they command at 40, but they've gone to college before joining up. That means in the intervening time they have to make it to E-6, and then manage to command at platoon and company levels, with probably a spell as a battalion 2ic. That's E-1 to E-6, O-1 to O-5, in (say) 18 years. So, at most 18 months at each job. A bit hasty, and it defeats the whole point of forcing officers to "have experience before commissioning".

 

Try working it backwards from Lt.Col...

 

Currently, we start our unit commanders at O-1 at age 22, and give them 18 years to cover the four promotions they need to make battalion commander. If you want them to do things your way, you have to show that the 18 months they would spend as an E-3 is more use to that future Lt.Col than a second year spent as a Company Commander, or a second tour as a young platoon commander.

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Their society may be similar, but their military culture is quite different (enlisted men addressing officers by their first names for example). Isn't the lack of professional, long-service NCOs also considered one of the IDF's weaknesses compared to the US or British armies?

 

Not really -- it's just a different way of doing things. Most of the guys who in other armies become long-service NCOs become officers in the IDF. But then the IDF utilizes officers in technical and administrative jobs that other forces use NCOs for. The experience and leadership potential isn't lost -- it's just applied in an alternate fashion.

 

There's nothing magickal about a long-service NCO corps -- it's just one of several relatively efficient ways of approaching the problem of corporate memory. In the 16th and 17th Centuries, before the commissioned/non-commissioned divide, professional soldiers entered at different levels depending upon social status, but only moved up in rank as far as their skills could take them. In the Roman legions, there were no NCOs per se. The formal rank structure of centurions, up to the equivalent of battalion command, was occupied by whatever legionaries had the experience and ability to do the job, while the brigade/division level of leadership was exercised by tribunes, who were members of the equestrian class -- some of them diletantes, some of them more or less professional soldiers.

Posted (edited)
Their society may be similar, but their military culture is quite different (enlisted men addressing officers by their first names for example). Isn't the lack of professional, long-service NCOs also considered one of the IDF's weaknesses compared to the US or British armies?

 

As I have said in previous post...if that is their weakness, I take that in combat any time. To add...how that disregards the long-serving NCOs ?

Edited by Sardaukar
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted

Regarding salutes / forms of address. My cousin, early in his time at Sandhurst, had it explained to him as follows (by the RSM):

"Gentlemen, you will address a corporal as Corporal, a sergeant as Sergeant, a staff sergeant as Staff, and a warrant officer as Sergeant Major. You will be addressed as 'Sir'. You will address me as 'Sir'. The difference is that when you address me, YOU will MEAN it!"

 

Everyone is happy with the manner, and everyone knows where everyone fits in...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...