Printable View
Would it be useful if combat officers could only advance from the ranks, not just go to academy? Would mandatory service in the ranks before being allowed to academy be a feasible way to go? Or if one dreads the social implications an expanded cadetship?
ought to be good...
[Ken exits stage right for a refill and to make popcorn...]
Ken, could I get a beer please :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Ken White
I’ve always hated the term ‘Rank Has Its Privileges’ although I have a firm understanding that officers and NCOs serve as team members, and a team should always understand individual strengths and weaknesses in order to accomplish the mission at hand. It’s not so cut and dried regarding intellect and experience; both play major roles together.
The lower ranks often referred to SNCOs as 'petty or tyrants' worried more about spit-shines and haircuts – as if that was our life’s duty. Not at all true. Those merely dismissed discipline and would later realize the necessity.
I’ve observed foreign forces that use this approach of advancing through the ranks, and I’m not all that convinced it works most of the time. My friend in Sub Sahara was a career Corporal in the Canadian military. :confused: He liked his current duties and lack of greater responsibility, and would otherwise serve and subsequently retire at that rank and salary. “No harm done” he told me at the helm of his 113. He was a great M2 operator, but I sincerely doubt he would ever be a manager or officer….just not his thing or style.
The only other military service that made me remotely jealous was Germany's. NCOs flying helicopters – Not some Bravo Sierra course to become a Wobbly One with tons of PT, horrific (ahem) retraining (to remove your NCO grey matter) and 260 hours of flight time.
Have to disagree herein, our system works…we have managers and we have doers, then we have NCOs to keep both in line :cool:
I've noticed that Ken really likes his popcorn...;)Quote:
Okay, Stan, Norfolk, let's make some popcorn, this one ought to be good...
[Ken exits stage right for a refill and to make popcorn...]
I prefer whisky and beef jerky myself...but I am from Southwestern Ontario:D
Quote by Stan:
He was a smart, smart man, Stan. In the Canadian Army, Corporal is the most sought-after promotion of them all, cause you've got rank, no formal responsibility (in '68 they basically renamed Corporals, "Master Corporals" and Lance-Corporals, "Corporals",) - AND almost a DOUBLING in PAY. For forty grand a year and no real responsibility, and not being forced (though strongly encouraged) to take/undergo/endure/survive the 14-weeks of Joy and Bliss that makes up the Infantry Section Commander Course (ISCC - if some wonder why Canadian candidates on the Ranger Course often do better than average, this is one of the reasons why - THEY'VE BASICALLY DONE IT ALREADY), I'd stay a Corporal, too.Quote:
I’ve observed foreign forces that use this approach of advancing through the ranks, and I’m not all that convinced it works most of the time. My friend in Sub Sahara was a career Corporal in the Canadian military. He liked his current duties and lack of greater responsibility, and would otherwise serve and subsequently retire at that rank and salary. “No harm done” he told me at the helm of his 113. He was a great M2 operator, but I sincerely doubt he would ever be a manager or officer….just not his thing or style.
While I have to admit to quite some glee at Distillers' proposal, I would settle for the Australian Way, where each would-be Officer Candidate has to spend his first 3-year contract in the ranks, and then apply for Officer selection. But I would imagine that quite a few of the less desirable sort would not make it through the sort of filter that Distiller proposes, and that has no small amount of merit in and of itself - and I'm quite prepared to lose a few potentially good would-be staff officers in exchange for preventing the accumulation of a great deal of dead-weight in the Combat Arms.
Distiller, don't go anywhere near West Point if you hop over here from across the pond, or Annapolis, or Colorado Springs, or New London, or King's Point - or the Frunze Academy while you're still over there...But good job just the same:D
And I'm going to keep my distance from the Officer's Mess at Wolseley Barracks until this blows over...which might be a while, considering Regiments have long institutional memories.:eek:
You need to make a distinction here. Only advancing from the ranks wastes years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Distiller
In the IDF, if you want to be an officer, you have to go through basic training and then complete NCO school with a very high score. This ensures a very high calibre of officers who only lead from the front as casualty figures show. Coy Commander and even BG Commanders are often amongst the casualties. In Platoon Ops the Platoon Commander goes first, every time. "Ach ahri" - Follow me.
I see this as the only way of ensuring good officers, combat or otherwise. I would also concede that how the Royal Marines trains its officer has particular merit.
IMHO based on my experience, there is no problem with the overall quality of combat commanders in US service. Of course I will limit myself to commenting on the USMC. The officers of Marines are brought in from many various programs, PLC,OCC,NROTC, Degree Completion Program/ MCEP/ECP(Mustangs from the ranks), and the Naval Academy. This wild mixture brings people into the Corps officer ranks from every aspect of American Society and the results have been solid. We have a Officer Candidate School (Naval Academy grds don't go to OCS BUT that is a seperate issue NOT worth the argument) and a 6 month long Officer Basic Course before they move on to their Primary Occupational Specialty school. As a grunt former company commander, I have had all kinds of officers to work for and have work for me, the 2ndLt with a PHD in Physics, the best 81mm Platoon Commander I've every met and one of the best officers, the former enlisted admin clerk and drill instructor who was an outstanding platoon commander and company XO; the Annapolis grad who was the personification of the 'follow me' officer. Our system works. There will be 'wonks and wankers' in every rank from Pvt to General, having all combat leaders come from the ranks is not a panacea for success in battle. Proper training and leadership goes a long way to developing the hard charging junior officers that we need in battle. Officers and senior enlisted who take charge and run to the sound of the guns shouting 'come on you bast*rds you want to live forever' ; that is what is needed and there is no set way to find these. The first step comes in the form of them desiring to serve and demonstrating aptitude through physical and mental ability. A 23 yearold college grad who competed to get a ROTC scholarship, who was mentored by active Marines while attending a 4 year school who then is tested at OCS and trained in the Basic School who then competes for a slot at the Infantry Officer Course is going to have a solid background to lead in combat. One of the reasons is because in his training he will be running alongside Academy Grads and Prior Enlisted sometimes one and the same. They will all have the same focus-to be Leaders of Marines.
As far as flying goes, I am not a pilot, so I cannot say BUT again in our system all pilots are Officers, but they come from the same pipelines so some are Mustangs and Some are Academy, some are the College grad who paid his own way and joined the Corps while still maintianing his college loan bills. Again, our pilots are great so the system is working.
I think this is a non-issue. No system is perfect but the one we have is good.
-T
That is what the Germans did during WWII and it seemed to work well for them. What really made the German system work well however, maybe wasn't so much where the officer candidates came from. What probably made it work well was they absolutely refused to lower their officer recruitment standards, no matter how short of junior officers the Army was. They rigidly maintained their standards right up to the end I believe.
It may be key that personnel depts. entreaties to fill slots with bodies be resisted at all costs. They weren't in Vietnam to our sorrow. So have the moral courage to keep your standards up and the exact system may not be that important.
This is the opinion of an always been a civilian who has an interest in these things
in that the present system provides an eclectic mix of officers from all walks of life. Distiller's suggestion would dilute that broad crosscutting of education and experience. The IDF can pull it off because virtually everyone serves.
I do agree with Stan, in this day and age of NCO's holding master's degrees, why aren't some flying spots NCO slots. Maybe the military is not ready to put an enlisted man (OMG! Heresy!) in the hotshot seats (fast movers) but certainly in C-12s, C-130s, Sherpas, etc...
The Japanese used NCOs and Petty Officers to fly their fighters (it was cost effective) and they seemed to do a pretty good job. The officer pilots filled the squadron command billets.
had enlisted pilots for many years -- and that many British Army pilots are enlisted -- there's the issue of service politics and parochialism. The US Army initially wanted enlisted hoptiflopter pilots and the USAF had a conniption fit, causing the Army to have to invent the Warrant Aviator.
Now the Navy has reinvented that wheel; LINK
The USAF is torqued because their Predator and Global Hawk fliers are officers and the US Army uses SPC Heebly to fly Shadows and Predators. Wait for it...
Dumb and dumber.
Outsider thought:
There's something, I think, to be said for opening up flight slots to NCOs...But NCOs with degrees only.
Flying an aircraft in an operational situation, thinks I, requires an intuitive grasp of physics, the ability to think instinctively in three dimensions, and a feel for spatial dynamics that most people don't have. You can figure that out from any reasonably-realistic flight sim, in my experience.
Doesn't mean one needs a degree - but the degree is a useful thinner for the bureaucracy.
The problem becomes, I think - if one were to make the switch, you run into the effect it may well have on morale of the current corps of pilots. The officer status sets them apart, gives them prestige - the flight status only enhances that, because it means you're part of an even smaller group - those few who are both officers, and (in their eyes) officers badass enough to become pilots.
know a large covey of Army WO Aviators, dual rated and to include some former Mohawk drivers and one very talented Test Pilot, who possessed no degrees...
Capability, cost and functionality are the issues.
As I said, sir:
The degrees aren't necessary, but they make the process sane for the bureaucracy.
One could do without the degree requirement entirely, I think, and maybe be better for it - but I just don't see the bureaucracy accepting that.
is not so much possesing a degree. Yes, holding a degree is used as a litmus test for new entrants. But NCO's are not new entrants and are rarely created in a few years; thus they have a different level of maturity, or perhaps better said: seasoning. The services would still send them to flight school and certainly a percentage would wash out, just like the college educated.
Ken, you don't know the half of it. ACC is obssessed with the fear that some pimply faced enlisted person might become, wait for it...
the first 21st Century ace (The HORROR!!!!!)
they'll do what the Corps did with Ken Walsh and others and the Navy did with all their enlisted Aces, make 'em Warrants or Commission them during or after the fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Umar Al-Mokhtār
'Face' is not just an oriental concept. :D
There are real requirements and then there are political and cultural requirements... :wry:
"The bureaucracy" accepts it now though Penta. When I commanded a recruiting company, several individuals with high school diplomas enlisted for the warrant officer flight program. It wouldn't be as hard a sell as you're assuming, in my opinion, if the services need pilots. That's the issue; what's the requirement? Are the services having trouble filling cockpits? The link provided by Ken suggests the USN has identified platforms requiring pilots. If the need for pilots outstrips the available pool, criteria for becoming a pilot will become less restrictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Penta
All that being said, Ken did write, "there are real requirements and then there are political and cultural requirements." Prejudices among decision makers would certainly play a roll in determining how a more "egalitarian" pilot selection process would be implemented.