How soldiers deal with the job of killing

[JMA]

Dropping the areas of agreement...

The LTs are given peacetime / garrison duties that let them understand the mechanics of the system; they are given field training or exercise missions in temporary command of elements -- A Squad, section ,Platoon or parts thereof assembled for the specific task at hand. Sometimes a platoon plus MGs and /or a mortar or AT weapons, a mix of vehicles / elements for other than walking Infantry -- all sorts of combination. In training, designed for their training value and to develop flexibility and familiarize both the LT and the Troops to working with different approaches and persons. In combat of course the only focus would be to best accomplish the task at hand.

Don't worry about the 'system' get them into the 'firing line' to develop leadership skills and learn what commanding soldiers in war is all about.

Command of a squad/section and a platoon should have taken place on officers course. If not how was the individual's knowledge/understanding and ability to apply minor tactics assessed?

If a 2Lt needs training in squad/section level tactics then send him back to officers school.

Perhaps here we get to the US 'problem' Von Schell identified back in 1930. Too much time on training courses and not enough time practically exercising these skills at unit level. By this I mean company, battalion and higher exercises with supporting arms in all the phases of war.

I tend to agree with your three year spans...

In the war it got down to two years, but I'm told that during peacetime three years was the norm.

If one looks at your Pamphlet 600–3 under Infantry Branch one finds:

(2) Assignments. The typical Infantry lieutenant will be assigned to a Brigade Combat Team as his first unit of assignment. The key assignment during this phase is serving as a platoon leader in an operating force unit. Early experience as a rifle platoon leader is critical, as it provides Infantry lieutenants with the opportunity to gain tactical and technical expertise in their branch while developing leadership skills.

They seem to acknowledge that commanding a platoon is 'the key assignment' but does not state for how long though.

Then on to captains:

(5) Desired experience. The key assignment for an infantry captain is successful service as a company commander. There is no substitute for an operating force company command. It develops an Infantry officer’s leadership and tactical skills and prepares him for future leadership assignments at successively higher levels of responsibility. The goal is to provide each infantry captain 18 months (± 6 months) operating force company command time.

± 6 months ??? That could mean as little as a year. Not good enough quite frankly. Two years is good (especially at war), three years better (in peacetime).

First, because there is NO optimal solution. The issue is to impart knowledge and capability in lieu of experience, so nothing is going to do that too well.

War is the greatest teacher (that is why I continue to suggest that the recent and current 'wars' have provided a wonderful opportunity to blood the young officers. Was the opportunity used to the maximum or was one 'tour' (half as a platoon commander) the order of the day?

In peacetime experience is gained through field exercises. There is no substitute for experience.

Secondly, among all less than optimal solutions IMO the one that develops trust of unknown persons with adequate experience or training level and promotes flexibility in thought and outlook is preferable to one that encourages trust of only the familiar ("I know him so I can trust him...") and which constrains flexibility due to excessive but natural adherence to organizational lines. Pursue those two lines of thought for a bit...

Why would one need to develop the trust of 'unknown persons'? The whole reason for having standing battalions is for them to train together to develop cohesion as a unit and maintain a state of readiness, yes?

Officers cycling through on 2-3 years postings will establish themselves quickly and if competent gain the trust of not only their troops but also their fellow officers.

Thirdly, the "obvious" solution is not obvious, it's just the way we've done it for centuries. that does NOT mean its optimal. Nor does the fact that you and many others were well served in the training and learning processes by your particular experience counter the fact that a good many -- perhaps more -- are not so well served by it.

All I say is that we need to be brutally honest with ourselves as to where the problems lie and if there are solutions, to acknowledge them (even though the 'system' will never allow them to be addressed).

You understand what you -- to use your word from above -- flitted through as an Enlisted guy.

I submit a year as Joe Tentpeg is not enough time to say that one has learned what it's like to be a Private Soldier or, even more important, a junior NCO.

In my case if you count my South African National Service my pre officers course military experience was 18 months. My point was that this experience should be between 1-3 years.

My concern here is that if it were to be three years minimum and add to that the minimum three years for a degree then you have taken six years out of the productive commissioned service of an officer.

In wartime (in my experience) the benefit of prior service before commissioning as opposed to those who had none was quickly made up for where the direct entry officer had an experienced sergeant. In peacetime I would not know.

My opinion is therefore that the 3 years in the ranks is rather a maximum as longer would introduce the age factor which may negatively impact on the career potential of the individual.

That said, 12 months for a new LTs course seems about right -- and serving as an instructor in such a course, which not everyone does, was / is bound to be enormously helpful in learning what makes new LTs tick.

I only served in wartime so my observations relate accordingly.

I served for three years as a Troop/Platoon Commander. Personally I believe I was a better officer serving the full three years as such. Looking back 30 years nothing has changed in that regard.

Secondly I don't know what post a 2Lt can hold other than platoon commander after (your) one year? What? Staff job? No. Training? No. Have stated before that recruit training is best handled by NCos and officers (who have been commissioned when sergeant major). A (direct entry) officer knows next to nothing about what training at that level should entail and of them a 2Lt knows less than nothing. If being a staff officer is mere sticking pins in maps (a corporals job) then maybe. But I still maintain the individual officer's personal development is better served by further time with a platoon.

I would be interested to hear where 2Lts/Lts serve if they generally serve only 6-12 months as a platoon commander?

It is interesting to watch fellow young officers grow and develop over their three years as a platoon commander at war. Then later to be involved in such training. The first course I took was a Nation Service course (six months - so they were 180 day wonders a not of the 90 day variety). Interesting in that they were mostly graduates retuning to do their service. The regular course (1 year) were mostly school leavers of the bright eyed and bushy tailed variety.

All that remained to connect the dots from that experience was hours of contemplation over 30 years normally with bitterly cold beer in hand watching a glorious African sunset.

We're in near agreement. IMO the minimum should be 18 months operational or in-unit service (not counting recruit or initial entry training which I think should be about six months, perhaps more if (as is true in the US army), esoteric, non military but societal 'training' is also included. Three to four years should indeed be about the maximum and service as a junior NCO should be a 'plus' in the selection criteria. However, commissioning of longer serving persons (and not just as Lieutenants...) should be reasonably common. In the US, the Marines do that better than does the Army and the British system of commissioning senior NCOs toward the end of their service for specific and normally limited duties is good. The world is full of late bloomers...

Effectively your 18 months is two years then. I agree with that but would add the 'give or take' condition so as not to exclude a deserving candidate. I would add the maximum condition for this 'window of opportunity' to commissioning. Remember the aim would be to look for those showing exceptional potential. I do accept that under the current mass production of officers those who have already served have had the chance to see if the army suits them (must do or they would not seek a place on an officer course) and the army has a pretty clear view of the person concerned (my concern being that at company level a captain as a company commander and a Lt as 2IC may be a bit 'light' to recognise leadership potential of an individual troopie in the company).

There should indeed be later windows of opportunity for commissioning. Probably at the end of the platoon sergeant cycle where commissions into GD (general duties), training and Q&A should be available. For example posts such as Quartermaster, Transport Officer etc would all have been filled by those commissioned from the ranks (in my world).