Unit Lifetime Assignments

Just like a sports team, combat units preform better when the personnel have trained, fought, and lived together for long periods of time. What if the Army assigned people to the same unit for a soldiers' whole career? Obviously it wouldn't be perfect, as it wouldn't be possible to stay in the same company for 20 years but how about the same brigade/UOA? Besides combat effectiveness, this would make life on the family much easier.

Now, a couple issues do come up. First, what to do about Germany and Korea? I'm pretty sure no one would want to stay in Korea for 20 years. Next, is there a possibility of cliques forming? Last, could this even work structurally? In other words, isn't there a need to move people around to fill slots?

I even like the idea of regional assignments. I believe the British have this system, but I'm not sure? The soldier would be stationed at the post nearest to his/her hometown for his/her whole career. This may not be possible in the US, but I thought I'd throw this in as well. I sort of like the idea of looking on the wall of the Brigade museum and finding your grandfather or father's picture.

So, what do ya think? Good idea? Bad idea? Not possible?

Bad idea.

In economics, free markets beat state controlled markets at least partially by allowing the best and brightest people / products /services to raise to the top.

Similarly, by controlling individuals by installing lifetime assignments these best and brightest are restricted from advancing into the positions where they can do the most good.

Argh... post deleted.

Furthermore, I bet the benefit coming from a unit serving together is logarithmic in nature. That is, a unit serving together for 6 months is much worse than a unit together for 2 years. But that relative difference is much smaller for between units serving together for 10 years and 20 years respectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ratzel

I even like the idea of regional assignments. I believe the British have this system, but I'm not sure?.....I sort of like the idea of looking on the wall of the Brigade museum and finding your grandfather or father's picture.

So, what do ya think?.....

---

Here's what I think:

Quote:

---

Since the division is now acting more like a corps why not go the final step and organize permanently into big separate brigades commanded by a brigadier? The brigadier could have one or two colonels under him in case something smaller was needed for a specific mission. They could command ad hoc combat commands (or something similar to a Marine Corps MEU designed to fit the Army's needs) of one or two battalions for a specific mission.

Tradition and heraldry could still be maintained. You could still have the 82nd Airborne Brigade, etc. In fact, a lot of historic division shoulder patches that haven't been worn since WWII might have to come back for brigade HQs. The National Guard does that now.

You could also divide the U.S. into brigade districts. This would probably meet our needs for "tribalism" and a sense of primary group somewhat better than the British regimental system. A soldier from a particular region could still serve with his region's combined arms brigade even if he did not want a combat arms MOS. Not so for a single branch regiment drawn from a particular region.

And if you don't like those ideas.....we could always call them legions and subdivide them into cohorts!

Strength and honor!

---

Not sure how long the association with one brigade should be for the U.S. but longer than it usually is now, for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris Albon

Bad idea.

In economics, free markets beat state controlled markets at least partially by allowing the best and brightest people / products /services to raise to the top.

Similarly, by controlling individuals by installing lifetime assignments these best and brightest are restricted from advancing into the positions where they can do the most good.

Argh... post deleted.

Furthermore, I bet the benefit coming from a unit serving together is logarithmic in nature. That is, a unit serving together for 6 months is much worse than a unit together for 2 years. But that relative difference is much smaller for between units serving together for 10 years and 20 years respectively.

---

The Army pretty much sends people where it needs them. During reenlistment, there is some choice in where the soldier wants to go, but this choice is limited. After ten years in service, it becomes totally for the needs of the Army which means there's no choice(Unless you know someone who works at branch assignments).

As far as the free-market analogy, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? The current system gives Officers and Senior NCO's no choice anyway. Most people who make the Army a career are required to do some instructor time (Drill Sgt, OC) and this wouldn't effect that either. Anyone who wishes to try out SF can do that too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ratzel

I even like the idea of regional assignments. I believe the British have this system, but I'm not sure? The soldier would be stationed at the post nearest to his/her hometown for his/her whole career.

---

Not quite true. We have Regiments and move with the regiment. In the old days you could get stuck in Germany for 9 years, apart from some Northern Ireland tours, but generally it was only 5-6 years.

Now the Regimental system means different things to different folks, but the core of the concept is basically sound. The UK actually corrupted it into many things and some not good, but the core idea does make sense.

Basically if 18 year old Dave ####nuts joins 1st Battalion #### Kicker Rifles, (1 SKR) he can some day expect to be a Company Sergeant Major or RSM in 1 SKR. In that 22 or 30 year career, he might even make it to become a long service Major - an invaluable source of expertise and wisdom, and he might have known the CO, since he was a soaking wet platoon commander!!

...but there are serious pitfalls, in terms of modern soldiering which need to be looked at.

Wilf,

What is the core concept of the Regimental System?

and

What are the pitfalls in terms of modern soldiering?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jones_RE

Wilf,

What is the core concept of the Regimental System?

and

What are the pitfalls in terms of modern soldiering?

---

Well the core is a family, and shared experience. You know everyone, and everyone knows you. Who is good and who is not, is catered for. Non-hackers are made to seek life else where, and when it comes to the tough bit, no one wants to let the family down. You fight for the family or your tribe, that you have belonged to since you were 18.

Problem is that a lot of these values are slightly less than ideal and very hard to hold to, if they are applied dogmatically and without reason. EG - You end up the family being more important than the job and self interest overcoming professionalism.

Based on real core values, sound judgement, external oversight/validation and professional standards, it is a very good system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Basically if 18 year old Dave ####nuts joins 1st Battalion #### Kicker Rifles, (1 SKR) he can some day expect to be a Company Sergeant Major or RSM in 1 SKR. In that 22 or 30 year career, he might even make it to become a long service Major - an invaluable source of expertise and wisdom, and he might have known the CO, since he was a soaking wet platoon commander!!

---

What happens to everyone Dave joins up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

What happens to everyone Dave joins up with?

---

About 60% get out early and do not go to 20 to 30 years (generally 22 in the British Army unless one gets selected for the long service commissioning program); some of those will also leave the 1SKR for other units. About 15% are injured or become too ill to continue to serve and another 5% get killed more or less in the line of duty and since Dave was one of about 70 or so who joined the 1SKR that year, that leaves only about 13 other guys, a couple of whom applied for and got a commission, two or three of whom get to to be Company Sgt Majors, three to five S/Sgt or Qm Sgt, about the same number of Corporals and maybe two to four long serving Privates (the British don't do 'up or out'). :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Well the core is a family, and shared experience. You know everyone, and everyone knows you. Who is good and who is not, is catered for. Non-hackers are made to seek life else where, and when it comes to the tough bit, no one wants to let the family down. You fight for the family or your tribe, that you have belonged to since you were 18.

Problem is that a lot of these values are slightly less than ideal and very hard to hold to, if they are applied dogmatically and without reason. EG - You end up the family being more important than the job and self interest overcoming professionalism.

---

Right, even at high command level, witness the parochialism of some past CIGSes/CDSes when it comes to their regiment and budget cuts.

There certainly is the danger of inwardness and insularity, and just like any family, there may be "in" and "out" groups, cliques, and factions. Regimental politics is a fact of Regimental life. And this can have tactical consequences, as any reader of WWII history and some other wars can see. There are mediocre and even bad regiments, but the Regimental system (in Europe and the Commonwealth at least) usually helps to maintain a degree of personnel stability and professional continuity that an individual-system can rarely match, let alone surpass.

In the US Army, the Rangers effectively maintain a de facto Regimental system that approaches the European/Commonwealth one; and the USMC likewise maintains a Regimental system that, while different, still mitigates some of the aspects of the frequent rotation of individuals through Units. And of course, the US Army ran COHORT and related programs in the 80's and early 90's; if anything, they may have exceeded the Regimental system in certain tactical respects, while at the same time helping to filter out some of the deadwood that may still accumulate in a Regimental system.

And I'll just add my old plug for the German Divisional system here, where individual officers and soldiers tended to "grow up" within a combined-arms divisional system (albeit within a regiment of said division), with regiments of all arms effectively "brigaded" together both tactically and administratively. The focus of one's professional career and loyalities lay with the Division, and helped to break down Regimental and Corps/Branch parachiolisms. It also promoted a combined-arms mentality and guarded against tactical ossification; this is basically what Rifleman has been plugging for too for a while.

I know little of Colonel Tim Collins, but his book, "Rules of Engagement" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...626689,00.html) , seems to give a reasonable overview of the battle rhythm of a unit under a regimental system - the Royal Irish Rangers, if memory serves. A lot of interesting aspects to it. I found the book while in Halifax, and you probably won't find it in the US, but Amazon has it.

As for how it would work in the US Army - the Brits (and if I'm getting it wrong, I ask that one of the Commonwealth soldiers correct me) train as batts, then form into battlegroups for deployment. We could use the same concept under our ARFORGEN\unit life cycle model. So a brigade battlegroup is formed for a three year cycle (train-deploy-reset). 64th Armor gets tapped for x number of companies plus staffers, 15th infantry for y number plus staffers, 7th Cav for a certain number of cav troops. The MP, Signal, et al Regiments send their guys. Big Army trains and certifies the battlegroup. In the meantime, most of the roles of the branch chiefs fall to the various Colonels of the Regiments. The Regiments would all be CONUS based, with home stations, e.g. 64th Armor calls Fort Stewart (or wherever) home. You could work the cycles different ways, but I have to think that through. If you want to get really clever, you could mix and match - e.g. a heavy battlegroup taps one company from the traditionally light 22nd Infantry to give that regiment heavy force exposure. Or the Guard sends a couple of companies on a majority AC battlegroup, or the AC sends a couple companies on a majority RC battlegroup. Or whatever.

It'd be possible to screw up (I can think of a bunch of ways), but would offer great rewards if done correctly. A bunch of issues come to mind - I'll think them through and add as another post.

"Dave ####nuts" -

It's a good thing I'm not an E-4 anymore - given our velcro nametapes, I might be on the way down to Clothing Sales to have a batch made up.

The Army could also utilize some of the smaller posts around the country in order to spread the regional UOA system around. A while back, Army Times ran a story that showed a map possible UOA locations after the units came back from Germany and Korea. It was a hypothetical map that featured bases I had never even heard of. It had active duty infantry UOA in Michigan and Wisconsin. The more distributed the units are the better. The local unit would be part of the community and I think recruitment would go up too. A lot of times, people don't want to join because they don't want to be too far from home. The war would be closer to the American people too. Dependents would interact more with the community, instead of only knowing the Army Post culture. An Army post would also have a university that it would be connected too. ROTC's would interact more and soldiers would have more opportunities for cultural training.

Ratzel, I think you're very much on to something there; and by tying into the local universities (something I would not have thought of), you could both train your officers and tap into academic expertise and research facilities/opportunities. Great idea!:cool: (dependent of course, upon the universities meeting the Army half-way).

Jim wrote:

Quote:

---

As for how it would work in the US Army - the Brits (and if I'm getting it wrong, I ask that one of the Commonwealth soldiers correct me) train as batts, then form into battlegroups for deployment. We could use the same concept under our ARFORGEN\unit life cycle model. So a brigade battlegroup is formed for a three year cycle (train-deploy-reset). 64th Armor gets tapped for x number of companies plus staffers, 15th infantry for y number plus staffers, 7th Cav for a certain number of cav troops. The MP, Signal, et al Regiments send their guys. Big Army trains and certifies the battlegroup. In the meantime, most of the roles of the branch chiefs fall to the various Colonels of the Regiments. The Regiments would all be CONUS based, with home stations, e.g. 64th Armor calls Fort Stewart (or wherever) home. You could work the cycles different ways, but I have to think that through. If you want to get really clever, you could mix and match - e.g. a heavy battlegroup taps one company from the traditionally light 22nd Infantry to give that regiment heavy force exposure. Or the Guard sends a couple of companies on a majority AC battlegroup, or the AC sends a couple companies on a majority RC battlegroup. Or whatever.

---

Jim, I think that proposal of yours, if properly handled (and not, as you pointed out might happen, get messed up) would combine many of the best elements of both the Regimental System and past programs like COHORT; it is probably better than either one by itself. And with it all taking place within the context of a Brigade Group, it institutionalizes Combined Arms throughout. I also noticed that you placed the formation of a Brigade Group in a context that is approaching that of Mobilization; very shrewd.:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norfolk

And with it all taking place within the context of a Brigade Group, it institutionalizes Combined Arms throughout. I also noticed that you placed the formation of a Brigade Group in a context that is approaching that of Mobilization; very shrewd.:cool:

---

That might work. The Brigade is the source of IDF cohesion and thus it equates to the very basics of a Regimental type System, except that Israeli military and social culture is so far from US or UK, that it doesn't really translate that well.

EG: Ask a British soldier "who were you with" and he'll say 1st Battalion Matabele Rifles. Ask an Israeli soldier and he'll usually just say armour or infantry or the appropriate description. Even if he was a paratrooper, he may very well just say infantry, or "Fighter" - and more importantly he'll ask why the hell you care!

The Marine Corps attempted in a small way to have a unit begin a 30 month foundation tour when they implemented the transplacement battalion concept in 1959.

The units retained their original battalion history and Regimental designations while being swapped between divisions on the West Coast and the Far East.

Each Battalion Commander built his staff and Company grade officers by selecting outstanding and experienced officers he knew personally or liked what his senior staff officers recommended. No 2nd Lt. need apply!

Senior Staff NCO's were selected in a similar manner dow to including Platoon Sgt's and Right Guides. Squad leaders were detailed to the battalion as E-4 Sgts and E-3 Corporals who were serving on a second, or third enlistment tour as infantrymen.

It created a great identification with the unit by those who served in those few battalions that were tasked for this concept. Training quality in those battalions was as intense as it was positive.

Vietnam effectively put an end to that particular experiment.

I have always wondered if Army and Marine infantry units had been rotated in and out of Vietnam as a unit, would the higher level of expierence and unit cohesion have made a difference inthe final outcome and the perception of our troops by the folks bach home better back in the day?

I'm not sure it's a good idea taking apart the combined weapons formations, or putting them together from portions of regiments (or whatever you call that large single-branch formation) like task groups.

A good point about rotating individuals vs units. That is probably the best single point against lifetime assignments.

The Indian Army is on the “lifetime assignment” system.

Having fought three wars and also COIN, I have found that there are many advantages.

First of all, every person knows the qualities of each other and so they bond better at the unit and sub unit level and have requisite cohesiveness which leads to efficiency and fast responses, even if the IQ levels are different for different individuals. They compensate for each other having known each other for “life”, so to say. Each man gets slotted for the task he is best at in the sub unit or unit response to a given situation.

Even the reinforcement during war that is at the Regimental Centre, are people of the same unit on Extra Regimental Employment. Therefore, these people when they are needed mesh in without any problems and so there is no inefficiency as such, that can be there in case people not conversant with the unit join during war and might cause.

The Regiment generally have troops from the same area of the country and so there is also a common tradition and customs which also acts as a bonding factor.

Our Services unit (combat service support) units have individuals being posted in and out. The bonding and efficiency is not the same as those of the combat units.

Personally, I found the lifetime assignment concept very rewarding in professional satisfaction and the fact that it becomes a bonding for life, which is best felt when the Units have their Reunions at their duty station where the retired people and their families also come for four to five days of festivities. The distance and money for travelling does not matter when viewed against the camaraderie and oneness that one displays for coming for these Reunions

The interesting part is that the soldiers and officers get their sons to join their units. This factor assists in the bonding being cemented further. As also, the people who had served with these newcomer's father make it easier for them to understand the unit functioning with a little more personal interest than otherwise would have been.

I like the regimantal system, I also really like rotational readyness for units since both concepts mean you have units at a true high readiness level unlike the US army units that are in constant flux. I would leave the option open for individuals to CHOOSE to move to other units to gain promotion, leave personality conflicts, experaince new units, locations etc. but this mandatory move every year crap reduces retention and readyness so why keep it? I know the DOA "logic" already, so please do not try and serve me the kool-aid.
Reed

why presume that anyone will try to serve you any kool-aid? If they do, you can always respond but to issue an unnecessary challenge up front just invites a minor flame fight that will accomplish nothing. Most of us are here to discuss and learn, not argue -- there are plenty of places that thrive on that.

All I know is that everytime my orders have come, I was ready to go...I like the system, personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

why presume that anyone will try to serve you any kool-aid? If they do, you can always respond but to issue an unnecessary challenge up front just invites a minor flame fight that will accomplish nothing. Most of us are here to discuss and learn, not argue -- there are plenty of places that thrive on that.

---

common response to any discusion on US Army doctrine is a quick referal to ahem..US Army Policy, as though that makes it all well and right. I guess I am just a little gun shy on that type of response becouse it tends to kill any meaningful discusion and boils topics down to black or white - army is wrong or right. The truth is always a little more grey. not looking to flame or argue, what drew me to this board was the amount of open discusion and apparent level of inteligance of it's members.
Reed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I like the regimantal system.....

---

It's had it's strong points, to be sure. But consider that the British have had to practically abandon some historic single battalion "regiments" in favor of "super-regiments" of several battalions each. That's verging on something really close to brigade districts, except the British don't brigade the battalions together tactically.

I think a plan with brigade districts - something closer to the old German divisional districts, instead of the British regimental system - would be a better option for the US if you want to go with regional recruiting and staying with a unit for an entire career.

...my favorite unit rotational scheme is MacGregors combined w/ some soldier say in staying or leaving at the refit stage only. This allows soldiers to choose to stay or opt out to improve promotion opertunities, get away from personality conflicts, allow spouses to have meaningful carreers, kids stay in good schools, etc etc. Otherwise a soldier is locked in till next cycle. This differs from the regimental system in that a recruit can be assigned wereever the Army needs him, but can then have some say in staying or leaving.
This being said, I feel that a major error of the recent recruiting by the Army is the specific recruitment of families. While I am a family man and still chose to serve, for the most part this business is best for bright single soldiers and that is who I would want the majority of my unit to be. My concern for my family in my abcense or loss will handicap my fighting skill to some degree. Just a thought,
Reed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso

All I know is that everytime my orders have come, I was ready to go...I like the system, personally.

---

I felt the same way.

Now that I've been in the reserve and guard, I can see a lot of negative effects of no PCS. There's a lot of stagnation, "good old boy" networks form and organizational change and adaptation become more difficult.

One thing the USAF was going to move toward when 9/11 came around is a kind of home-basing. Basically, most people could expect to spend about 1/2 their career in one location (not necessarily one command).

More recently the AF has extended all officer tours to a minimum of four years (though PCA's are allowed), but that was simply an effort to save money.

If you're in the right MOS you can get lucky though. For example, the Navy consolidates all of some types of aircraft at one base, so if your job revolves around that aircraft, then you'll spend a lot of time there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's had it's strong points, to be sure. But consider that the British have had to practically abandon some historic single battalion "regiments" in favor of "super-regiments" of several battalions each. That's verging on something really close to brigade districts, except the British don't brigade the battalions together tactically.

I think a plan with brigade districts - something closer to the old German divisional districts, instead of the British regimental system - would be a better option for the US if you want to go with regional recruiting and staying with a unit for an entire career.

---

Can't improve on that.:D

Many of us more seasoned (how's that for a euphamism?) guys have seen more than our fair share of Army personnel experiments. What failed miserably in the past, may, in fact, succeed in the future.

UK -- What makes their system work may not apply to ours. I spent many years paired w/British regiments and saw things up pretty close. For instance, the Brits didn't (back in the day) have the stringent up or out policy we have. When teamed with 2d Bn, Royal Irish Rangers, I met one Ranger (Pvt) O'Something-or-other (No, not O'Bama, you comedians) -- a first class machine gunner with something like 15 YOS, but who would NEVER become an NCO. He was happy, the unit was happy, and life went on. He could essentially stay w/ the regiment forever. 2RIR rotated out of country w/kith & kin one March. Rotating out-of-cycle, by US standards was the only way the UK system could stay on an even keel. American families would have been up in arms. But when I asked a visiting UK 3-star why they rotated families in the middle of the school year, he stated that only the "other ranks" were effected, as officers' children were boarded out back home. If OR kids fell behind in academics, it was somehow OK because if they got too smart, the wouldn't join the regiment. I am not making this up.

US -- OK, now if current ops is the "new normal", then maybe a regimental/homebase system has more chance of survival than in the past. Mom & kids stay at Camp Swampy (why not Minot?) and Dad takes off for 12 mo out of every 36, 48, or whatever. No overseas PCS's, only o'seas deployments. OBTW, freezin's the reason.

"Back in the day" when the US did use a regimental system (I'm using the post-CW period for the example) there was no such thing as "up or out." Career privates were common, and it wasn't unusual to find a company first sergeant with 15-20 years in, most of that as an NCO. Officer promotion was slow, mainly because it was done based on regimental seniority until the rank of colonel and branch seniority thereafter. Root's reforms (and some work done prior to him) changed the officer promotion system, but the enlisted side remained more or less "as was" until later.

US regiments did not have home areas. Such a concept was discussed in the Cavalry Journal (and other sources) many times (I'm familiar with a couple in the 1880s, but those weren't the only occasions), but was usually struck down as "Prussianism" (a code word for fearing a garrison state) and never went anywhere. Rotations tended to happen every few years (more for a crack regiment...less for one that was not in high demand), and involved moving the entire regiment (or consolidating it, as was the case with the 7th Cavalry prior to the Little Big Horn...two and three company posts were the order of the day back then). Later, moves were still conducted on a regimental basis. You saw this even with Philippine garrison duty; cavalry units would simply leave their horses in place and exchange stations with a regiment already "in country."

Even under this system, a man could transfer to another company within his regiment, or change regiments by enlisting in a different one when his current enlistment expired. Some transfers did take place between regiments, but they weren't overly common. Officers would often refuse promotions if a vacancy came open in a different regiment, although over time this became less common (15 years as a lieutenant was enough to make many want to test new waters).

Downsides could be stagnant development (although this varied greatly depending on the personality of the regimental commander) and the formation of cliques. Plus side could be tremendous loyalty (to first the company, then the regiment) and a continuity of knowledge and experience that might otherwise not have been available.

The Army and all it's wisdom some years ago decided that E-6 and above with 10 or more years have to do an indefinate re-enlistment. My thought on this is to make it an option and in doing so the soldier re-enlists indefinately for that post. Many with 10 years or more in service have families, this would stabilize the family, additionally would set the service members up for retirement. Imagine knowing the last 10 or so years of your career would be in the same location. Move soldiers all over the first half of their career and then allow them to stabilize themselves and their family if they choose to do so. There will be those who want to continue to move and those who will want the stabilization. Just my .02 on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ratzel

The Army pretty much sends people where it needs them. During reenlistment, there is some choice in where the soldier wants to go, but this choice is limited. After ten years in service, it becomes totally for the needs of the Army which means there's no choice(Unless you know someone who works at branch assignments).

As far as the free-market analogy, I'm not sure I understand what you mean? The current system gives Officers and Senior NCO's no choice anyway. Most people who make the Army a career are required to do some instructor time (Drill Sgt, OC) and this wouldn't effect that either. Anyone who wishes to try out SF can do that too.

---

Good points all, but......

In the case of certain career specialties, a Soldier could end up stovepiped (i.e. heavy vice light or XM777 vice Paladin). Well-rounded leaders are desperately needed who are adaptive and resourceful. A few "specialists" are always a good thing, but not the status quo.

As for reenlistment options, this next year will reveal just how few left there really are....