Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 275

Thread: Initial Officer Selection

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    It's not about choosing in emergencies, but about following who takes the lead.

    Sometime around 1906 (IIRC - memory is tricky) the German army (or Prussian - at that time the institution was divided) decided that their Gefreiter (an experienced enlisted man) had to be proficient enough to take over the job of a NCO.
    This did fit well to one of the requirements for Auftragstaktik (or how that was called at that time); you need to be told and able to understand the mission of your superior (and possibly his superior) - and that requires that you are proficient enough for assuming your direct superior's slot.
    This served well when leader losses (in part because of leading by example / up front) became quite excessive in WW2.

    It's really been done for a century already.
    Our initial question was, how in an western army a bottom-up approach for leader selection could work.

    The German army used for both, officer selection and for NCO selection, a top-down approach. The quality of the selection process was, when we use discharge due to incompetence in war time as metric, very good.

  2. #62
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Send the leader in place into vacation, let his small unit stand in formation and give it a mission, with promise of a small reward for accomplishment (or another source of motivation). Then have senior enlisted men from another unit observe them.

    The problem is of course that this procedure would be known and exploited if it's in widespread use.

  3. #63
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Rank structure in Western armies comes from the old class system in Europe. Centuries ago aristocrats were the officers, lower class guys with a head on their shoulders became sergeants (a word which once had the connation of "servant"), and the rest were enlisted. The word infantry has the same origin as infant, because the "better" classes way back then were mounted.

    In spite of what the Marxists might want to say, I don't believe that during the last 300 years these class lines were as rigid within societies or military organizations as they'd have us believe. Incompetent officers fall by the wayside, talented NCOs move into the officer corps, good enlisted guys become NCOs, and so forth.

    Other factors are at play too -- in a way Robert E. Lee was an aristocrat on a downward slide until he married because his family fortune was gone; though his social and financial status had declined I doubt anyone would criticize his abilities as an officer. Occasionally the fallen nobility make the best officers because they are determined to redeem lost honor.

    To get back to the topic of this thread, today the minimum for being an officer is having a college degree, to an extent having the "good family" thing and having strong letters of recommendation with your application. The system isn't rigid though, and guys of modest origins can and do get in and rise to high places.
    Last edited by Pete; 09-10-2011 at 08:05 PM. Reason: Typo.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    There is an additional problem; leaders are not necessarily trying to lead all the time (or so I think).

    My personal experience is for example that I had rather leadership episodes in my life than a continuous quest for alpha male position. At times I didn't see a need for leadership, other times I preferred to opt-out of group dynamics or oppose existing leadership. And then there were episodes when the system cheated me so badly that I preferred to oppose it by making a fool of it; identifying and exploiting its holes. To lead a pack in a futile effort to oppose the system seemed pointless, and I didn't try it.

    You might end up with false negatives even in great natural leader test regimes.
    Yes strutting and posturing alpha males all over the show can be tedious for sure.

    But here (and we should maybe not restrict ourselves to this) I am looking at the initial pre-course selection of officers which in some cases is made through a 'paper' examination and a single one on one interview to the Brits who seem to have the most time consuming total of six days (in two parts). So yes the people are on show for that period, an hour interview or six days in carefully staged and choreographed circumstances.

    On top of a minimum education level (supported by an acceptable IQ level - or what they test for these days) and a physical condition (able to sustain and maintain the required fitness level and endurance ability) which can be established in a short few hours... IMHO the selection should focus upon selecting for leadership characteristics (at a level required by an officer) while filtering out those with character flaws (as far as possible).

    We know that kids are pretty good at preparing for exams, interviews and the like these days (why there is even a book available to help you pass the AOSB). So during the selection one needs to introduce a little physical stress. (While I hasten to add that I am not current on what transpires during the modern AOSB) for example on completion of a run or at the end of an obstacle course the candidates are immediately subjected to a time limited mental test to ascertain whether they function under pressure and stress. Not too many can put on a show that can't be 'seen through' by attentive Board staff over a period of days.

    The selection quality is largely based upon the Board composition and the ratio of Board members/DS to candidates. The Brits work as follows (and it would be interesting how other nations work):

    The Selection Process

    THE BOARD. Up to 40 candidates may be attending the Main Board at any one time. You will be divided into groups of eight, with men and women working together. It is important to remember that you are not competing against the other candidates. You are all being assessed against a common standard and your success is based entirely on your own performance. Equally, there is no single test by which you pass or fail – this is a series of assessments designed to give us an understanding of your officer potential. The officers assessing you will be interested in your approach to problems and challenges, and your attitude towards other members of the group – both as a team player and as a team leader.

    Board Composition

    The Board consists of the following members:

    PRESIDENT. A Brigadier.
    VICE PRESIDENT. A Colonel.
    DEPUTY PRESIDENT. A Lieutenant Colonel.
    GROUP LEADER. A Captain or Major.
    EDUCATION ADVISER. A commissioned or retired Army Education Officer.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel View Post
    You need time for the bottom-up selection process. Therefore, this worked in societies/groups in which the difference between is and peace was quite small, the potential leader had ample of time to prove himself. For me it is quite obvious that nomades or people who hunt in larger groups can really gain from a buttom-up process, to a certain extend Swiss Reichsläufer or Landsknechte belong to the same group. Modern online gamer have of course the same opportunity.

    Attemps with chosing superiors by the soldiers in armys of societies with large differences between war and peace usually fail (e.g. French revulution, ACW).
    Yes you need time for a bottom-up leader selection process which is why it can't work in a modern military officer selection process where in addition to the leadership skills required there are significant technical and tactical skills required to command a platoon in battle which can't immediately be met by some troopie selected purely on a combination of proven leadership and personal battle skill.

    So what this initial pre-course officer selection process aims at (amongst other things) is to identitfy with accuracy these people with this (charismatic or otherwise) leadership potential.

    How to achive this so as to reduce the attrition rate during the actual officers course. That is the question.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Rank structure in Western armies comes from the old class system in Europe. Centuries ago aristocrats were the officers, lower class guys with a head on their shoulders became sergeants (a word which once had the connation of "servant"), and the rest were enlisted.
    Well the difference today and the only justifiable reason IMHO for direct entry half way up the rank structure is to ensure your generals are young enough and active enough to be able to direct the course of a war.

    To take it from the level of private/rifleman/trooper etc would mean that your generals would all be around 60 years old and getting ready for retirement rather than the next war.

    Hence my contention that during (direct entry) officer selection you are actually selecting for potential generals and not merely company level commanders.

    Hence my contention that before degree courses you attempt to blood your young officers in combat so as to see it they have what it takes in this regard. In the last ten years or so there has been ample opportunity to test officers at all level in combat. A six month tour here ansd a six month tour there does not cut it IMHO.

    Once this (combat) filter has been applied then the military can decide you they are going to invest in in terms of degree level and higher education. I call this putting the horse before the cart.

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    What would you do in long phases of peace without an low intensity conflict which would give the best opportunity for selection? How can we implement something that resembles the "real" thing ??
    Last edited by Ulenspiegel; 09-11-2011 at 06:47 AM.

  8. #68
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post

    In spite of what the Marxists might want to say, I don't believe that during the last 300 years these class lines were as rigid within societies or military organizations as they'd have us believe. Incompetent officers fall by the wayside, talented NCOs move into the officer corps, good enlisted guys become NCOs, and so forth.


    To get back to the topic of this thread, today the minimum for being an officer is having a college degree, to an extent having the "good family" thing and having strong letters of recommendation with your application. The system isn't rigid though, and guys of modest origins can and do get in and rise to high places.
    I know only for the German armies, here the vertical mobility was high in the TYW, became very rigid- now we have separation of NCO and officer corps- between 1700 and 1918, and more flexible again after WW1.

    The requirements for an officer candidate in the Prussian army around 1890 was, that he had the Primareife (finished his 11the grade with success) and he came from a good family, most important he was not workingclass.

    The the regimental commander decided which applicants could join the regiment.

    I do simply not understand as civilian with only 15 month military service as an enlisted man why this work well. Even after 40 years of peace the regimental commanders had a still clear vision what they wanted.

    Or more relevant: Would today a brigade commander be able to select the right men from a pool of applicants?

  9. #69
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    @JMA

    Another concept would be the one found in the Roman army. You have centuriones which cover the ranks of sergeant - Lt. Col and came usually from the ranks, this means you merge the NCO corps with parts of the officer corps.

    Genenerals (legates) had a different carier path.

  10. #70
    Council Member ganulv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Berkshire County, Mass.
    Posts
    896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    To get back to the topic of this thread, today the minimum for being an officer is having a college degree, to an extent having the "good family" thing and having strong letters of recommendation with your application.
    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    Hence my contention that before degree courses you attempt to blood your young officers in combat so as to see it they have what it takes in this regard. In the last ten years or so there has been ample opportunity to test officers at all level in combat. A six month tour here ansd a six month tour there does not cut it IMHO.

    Once this (combat) filter has been applied then the military can decide you they are going to invest in in terms of degree level and higher education. I call this putting the horse before the cart.
    Does anyone know what the stated justification for the expectation of a bachelor’s degree for new officers is in the U.S. branches?* In my experience, a non-professional degree (from a U.S. institution, at least) is pretty hit-or-miss as far as vouching for a holder’s basic capabilities. Apart from the holders of math and math-heavy degrees such as physics, I would guess that few college graduates can match mortarmen in terms of basic math skills, for example. And the holder of a humanities degree from Big State U has spent most of his/her instruction hours in a lecture hall and has had most of his/her assignments marked by a harried professor or an even more harried graduate student and as such received little of the kind of interaction that is effective in improving writing skills.

    *It makes sense to me for direct commissions, since their college experience puts a premium on professional training.
    Last edited by ganulv; 09-11-2011 at 05:04 PM. Reason: typo fix
    If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)

  11. #71
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    In around 1980 I heard that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Field Artillery were vitually tied for which branch had the highest wash-out rate in their Officer Basic Courses. At the time CE narrowly won because FA recycles more of its OBC failures into the next OBC class. CE and FA OBCs are more math- and computationally-intensive than the other OBC schools.

    Enlisted FA and and Infantry mortar guys having fire direction MOSs have high math scores on their AFQT exams (military entrance exams), college degree or no degree. In spite of that many in command at company, battery and battalion levels worry about what their flakier FDC guys might do during live fire situations ...

  12. #72
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Occasionally military organizations need guys with good math skills.

    From a letter by Evelyn Waugh, the British novelist, to his wife in 1943, as quoted in the Oxford Book of Military Anecdotes edited by Max Hastings:

    No. 3 Commando was very anxious to be chums with Lord Glasgow, so they offered to blow up an old tree stump for him and he was very grateful and he said don't spoil the plantation of young trees near it because this is the apple of my eye and they said no of course not we can blow up a tree so it falls down on a sixpence and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are so clever and he asked them all to luncheon for the great explosion. So Col. Durnford-Slater DSO said to his subaltern have you put enough explosive in the tree. Yes sir, 75 lb. Is that enough? Yes sir I worked it out by mathematics it is exactly right. Well better put a bit more. Very good sir.

    So when Col. D Slater DSO had had his port he sent for his subaltern and said subaltern better put more explosive in that tree. I don't want to disappoint Lord Glasgow. Very good sir.

    So they lit the fuse and waited for the explosion and presently the tree, instead of falling sideways, rose 50 feet into the air taking with it 1/2 acre of soil and the whole of the young plantation.

    And the Subaltern said Sir, I made a mistake, it should have been 7 1/2 lb not 75. Lord Glasgow was so upset he walked in dead silence back to his castle and when they came to the turn in his drive in sight of his castle what should they find but that every pane in the glass was broken.

    Lord Glasgow gave a little cry and ran to hide his emotion in the lavatory snd there when he pulled the plug the entire ceiling, loosened by the explosion, fell on his head.

    This is quite true.

    Evelyn Waugh
    Last edited by Pete; 09-11-2011 at 10:08 PM. Reason: Omission.

  13. #73
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel View Post
    What would you do in long phases of peace without an low intensity conflict which would give the best opportunity for selection? How can we implement something that resembles the "real" thing ??
    Well that is really the situation as it stands now. Despite having a war (the US and the Brits certainly) to test and blood their young officers do these countries seize the opportunity to step away from the peacetime assessment and use the war to test their junior officers to validate (or otherwise) the peacetime selection process?

    The question is whether the peacetime selection criteria used throughout the service produce the desired outcomes.
    Last edited by JMA; 09-12-2011 at 04:03 AM.

  14. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulenspiegel View Post
    @JMA

    Another concept would be the one found in the Roman army. You have centuriones which cover the ranks of sergeant - Lt. Col and came usually from the ranks, this means you merge the NCO corps with parts of the officer corps.

    Genenerals (legates) had a different carier path.
    My contention is that the insertion of direct entry officers half way up the rank structure can only be justified if there is a clear assessment that these people have the potential to reach and perform well as senior officers (battalion commanders and above). The initial pre-course selection must (IMHO) focus upon this end. Where such tighter selection criteria are used and results in shortages of company grade officers these should be made up through the promotion from the ranks (which should be done with due care to prevent the senior NCO ranks from being denuded of their brightest and their best and thereby reducing and demeaning the expected quality of company senior NCOs which has historically been the strength and backbone of the infantry).

  15. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default ... and don't forget the yanks

    In case anyone had come to believe that the yanks had faleen asleep behind the wheel on this one their 'best and brightest' officers (on Command and Staff course) periodically produce intelligent comment on this matter... but as they say 'it is extremely difficult to turn a supertanker in high seas'.

    American Centurions: Developing U.S. Army Tactical Leadership for the Twenty-first Century

    In this paper Major Timothy F. Watson in his conclusion states:

    ..the U.S. Army should consider instituting a standardized assessment and selection board to screen officer candidates. The assessment and selection board identifies those most likely to succeed in pre-commissioning programs and as future officers thereby preserving the valuable resources dedicated towards developing leaders.
    I agree (FWIW) and hope that this kind of thinking officer (probably by now a full Col or Brig) can figure out how to turn a supertanker in high seas.

    (Then) Maj Watson's paper is well worth a read.

  16. #76
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    My contention is that the insertion of direct entry officers half way up the rank structure can only be justified if there is a clear assessment that these people have the potential to reach and perform well as senior officers (battalion commanders and above). The initial pre-course selection must (IMHO) focus upon this end. Where such tighter selection criteria are used and results in shortages of company grade officers these should be made up through the promotion from the ranks (which should be done with due care to prevent the senior NCO ranks from being denuded of their brightest and their best and thereby reducing and demeaning the expected quality of company senior NCOs which has historically been the strength and backbone of the infantry).
    You're obviously thinking of leading officers, but many(if not most) are rather specialists - either for staffs or for technicalities.

    The German army hires medical doctors, construction engineers (bridge-building expertise for army engineers!) and the like whom it doesn't produce in its own university system (which is more about business, engineering, psychology etc). These fully-educated people could earn 60,000-100,000 € p.a. in civil jobs and need to get at least a respectable rank and associated pay or you'll only get the worst graduates. Afaik these officers entry around captain/major rank and reach LtCol quite easily (medical staff is very high-ranked in Germany). You basically give them a quick entry training about their powers and limits and then you've got a ready officer with a very much needed special proficiency.


    This thread appears to focus on officers for leadership instead of officers for very education-intensive jobs. Maybe the title should be modified.

    By the way, about company and Plt NCOs beign the backbone of an army: There was a time in germany when even Lt Generals in command of a division were competent enough to spot training deficiencies down to lack of navigation skill or skill with emplacing a machine gun on inspections (reminds me also of an American general who lead a platoon in an assault on a building during WW2 in order to teach the Lt how to do it). A very good basic soldiering competency of leading officers (Truppenoffizier) is certainly a great advantage.
    Last edited by Fuchs; 09-14-2011 at 09:55 AM.

  17. #77
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    There was a time when even many high officers earned their Nahkampfspange or Panzervernichtungsabzeichen - close combat clasp and tank destruction badge, this is of course also a sign that something went wrong :-)

    Is for an infantry/tank officer an university education during his/her fist 9 years really a good idea? From an academic POV it does not make sense.
    If an officer decided to leave after 12 years, he/she should attend university during his last 2 or 3 years, then leave with a "fresh" graduation/diploma. If an officer decides to stay he could get an military graduation, i.e. staff officer courses.

  18. #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    You're obviously thinking of leading officers, but many(if not most) are rather specialists - either for staffs or for technicalities.
    Yes, probably mainly 'teeth arm' officers (infantry/armour) than other.

    The German army hires medical doctors, construction engineers (bridge-building expertise for army engineers!) and the like whom it doesn't produce in its own university system (which is more about business, engineering, psychology etc). These fully-educated people could earn 60,000-100,000 € p.a. in civil jobs and need to get at least a respectable rank and associated pay or you'll only get the worst graduates. Afaik these officers entry around captain/major rank and reach LtCol quite easily (medical staff is very high-ranked in Germany). You basically give them a quick entry training about their powers and limits and then you've got a ready officer with a very much needed special proficiency.

    This thread appears to focus on officers for leadership instead of officers for very education-intensive jobs. Maybe the title should be modified.
    Again. yes. Direct entry by qualification is necessary for the likes of medical staff etc and yes there will be times when their pay may well be higher than the equivalent infantry officer of the same rank. For example the medical officer in a battalion can never be more than a major (as the CO is a Lt Col) but he may fall on a totally different pay scale.

    By the way, about company and Plt NCOs beign the backbone of an army: There was a time in germany when even Lt Generals in command of a division were competent enough to spot training deficiencies down to lack of navigation skill or skill with emplacing a machine gun on inspections (reminds me also of an American general who lead a platoon in an assault on a building during WW2 in order to teach the Lt how to do it). A very good basic soldiering competency of leading officers (Truppenoffizier) is certainly a great advantage.
    One certainly hopes that officers will retain their 'eye' for detail as they rise up the ranks.

    In war time with general mobilisation the quality control thing starts to fall apart. But then the last two Brit Lt Cols (Jones and Thorneloe) to be KIA were way to far 'up front' for their rank and died needlessly.

    The value of the NCO structure is making sure the 'blunt instrument' know as the infantry platoon can carry out their mission in unison with many other platoons simultaneously and with control and coherence. One leading officer no matter how proficient or experienced can do this alone.

    Young officers at platoon/troop level have at best three years of platoon commanding (in my war - but it seems less in others these days). The NCOs spend much more time at this level and like with old wine they just get better with age (and experience). My contention is that this (platoon) structure (through which young officers fleetingly pass) must be protected and maintained at all costs.

    (This said about the opportunity to command a platoon in battle should be what every young officer dreams of. I really can't believe that any 'bright eyed and bushytailed' young officer would be satisfied with getting a sniff of combat command for six months and then return to peacetime soldiering at home.)
    Last edited by JMA; 09-14-2011 at 01:30 PM.

  19. #79
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The academic studies aren't just for jobs after the 12-year team or for improved recruiting success among good school graduates.

    It's most relevant for forming thought processes, for opening the mind to learning, science, methodologies, independent work and much more. Studying engineering is for example much, much tougher than the learning in an officer course.

    I believe I remember having read that Petraeus confessed that after many years of military service and military learning his experience at some university was a shock. Suddenly, it wall all very difficult and he couldn't easily convince people any more (command authority makes this much, much easier, apparently...). He had to add a lot to his repertoire for success in such an environment.

    There are furthermore experiences of armies that did not emphasize academic learning for officers and tended to neglect technical and organisational aspects of the military as well as intellectual thought about what combat arms should do and how.


    That being said, I doubt that the German system with special universities for the armed services is a good idea. It would make more sense to expose the students to civilian life more and get a wider choice of specialisations, but that would in turn require that some normal universities introduce trimesters.

  20. #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    The academic studies aren't just for jobs after the 12-year team or for improved recruiting success among good school graduates.

    It's most relevant for forming thought processes, for opening the mind to learning, science, methodologies, independent work and much more. Studying engineering is for example much, much tougher than the learning in an officer course.

    I believe I remember having read that Petraeus confessed that after many years of military service and military learning his experience at some university was a shock. Suddenly, it wall all very difficult and he couldn't easily convince people any more (command authority makes this much, much easier, apparently...). He had to add a lot to his repertoire for success in such an environment.

    There are furthermore experiences of armies that did not emphasize academic learning for officers and tended to neglect technical and organisational aspects of the military as well as intellectual thought about what combat arms should do and how.
    I don't have a problem with education per se.

    I suggest that before the military invests hugely in an individual's higher education it should have a very good idea that he has general staff prospects.

    As I have stated above there are two minimum standards to be set for potential officers and that being his attained education level (with the potential to study further) and physique and fitness level (with the ability to develop both further). Once you have put that stuff aside you will be able to concentrate on identifying the characteristics which are required of an officer.

    The further education aspect can be revisited once he has been selected for training and passed the officer training course. With a bit of luck there may be a war on at the time and one can cycle the new officers through to gauge their combat performance. Thereafter as part of career development they can be sent to universities to do the appropriate courses. As I said put the horse before the cart.

    I can't believe that it is worth the investment to put candidates through university degree before you are (pretty) sure they are likely to succeed. So when a premier military institution grades candidates on the following basis one tends to get a little worried;

    A cadet's class rank, which determines his army branch and assignment upon graduation, is calculated as a combination of academic performance (55%), military leadership performance (30%), and physical fitness and athletic performance (15%)
    Where one might ask is the assessment on leadership ability, tactical skill and understanding etc etc?

    If you select on this basis then I suggest you need to believe that leadership can be taught. Now that's another story.

    That being said, I doubt that the German system with special universities for the armed services is a good idea. It would make more sense to expose the students to civilian life more and get a wider choice of specialisations, but that would in turn require that some normal universities introduce trimesters.
    I suggest we are in agreement on this. I have never been sold on the concept of military education whether high-school or university. These 'specialisations' I suggest should be selected to improve individual performance in the military environment.

Similar Threads

  1. The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL
    By jmm99 in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 166
    Last Post: 07-28-2013, 06:41 PM
  2. Training the Operational Staff
    By Eden in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 07-27-2012, 11:39 AM
  3. Towards a U.S. Army Officer Corps Strategy for Success
    By Shek in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 05-16-2010, 06:27 AM
  4. Officer Retention
    By Patriot in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 360
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 05:47 PM
  5. New US Army Officer training
    By KenDawe in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-06-2005, 08:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •