Initial Officer Selection

[SethB]

NCO Promotion Boards have been known to reject guys who never received an Article 15, like they must be rule-abiding sissies, wimps or something worse. No guts no glory.

I assure you that we (the Army) no longer have that mindset.

As far as mass mobilization, I'm not very worried about having to do it. I think we will fight with what we have, and it will be small enough to not require mobilization, or it will be over before we could set up a draft anyway.

[JMA]

Interesting short article by a journalist who covered an ASOB 30 years after he attended one (and failed).

Donkin on Work - Leadership

I quote:

A popular misconception about the board is that it is looking for future generals. This is not the case. The selection board for the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, is looking for those who have the potential to be a second lieutenant leading a platoon or a troop.

I question this as if all you are looking for is someone to command a platoon most armies have an amazing number competent and experienced NCOs who can do that with ease.

This narrow view and concentration on the first step of the officer ladder may be one of the reasons why officer retention beyond subaltern is becoming a problem in many militaries. We may differ in this view.

[Ken White]

SethB:

As far as mass mobilization, I'm not very worried about having to do it. I think we will fight with what we have, and it will be small enough to not require mobilization, or it will be over before we could set up a draft anyway.

You may or may not be right. FWIW, roughly the same prediction was made by many in the 20s, the late 40s and again in the 50s and 70s. I don't think you are correct but what you or I think is immaterial, The Army and the Nation cannot afford to and will not operate on that premise. Like it or not, we're big and have to be prepared to be far bigger.

JMA:

I question this as if all you are looking for is someone to command a platoon most armies have an amazing number competent and experienced NCOs who can do that with ease.

This narrow view and concentration on the first step of the officer ladder may be one of the reasons why officer retention beyond subaltern is becoming a problem in many militaries. We may differ in this view.

No differing by me for one, I think you're spot on. The French, by tradition have two Lieutenants commanding Platoons and the other two are commanded by NCOs. Seems a sensible way to provide experience for a select few who are being groomed to do Officer stuff at echelons above company...

We say we're training future Commanders and Leaders and then we place most in an environment where they are charged with rote operations of questionable value while their drive and initiative gets trampled by set piece training and operations -- that drives many to depart after five years or so and the Army accepts that because a big war will see them called back.

The selection comments you made above are correct IMO. Pete is also mostly correct on why we do what we do. What we have done to pad the mobilization roster is to significantly 'over Officer' US Forces. We have a veritable horde of Generals; same rough number we had at the end of WW II and in the 80s with an almost 800K Army (and we were over officered than; we still have the same rough numbers with about 250-300k fewer troops). We're not approaching USSR norms yet but we do seem headed that way.

Those charged with selecting and training future Officers are generally doing the best they can with the hand they've been dealt and the products are generally really pretty good (there are always going to be a few less than stellar slip-throughs...) -- the real problem is that our Personnel system does not support the Army, it drives it...

[Red Rat]

There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.

[Pete]

There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

During the 1990s in the U.S. Army having a master's degree seemed to be a prerequisite for being promoted to major. I don't know whether the same thing is true today.

The thing I can't understand about this situation is that there seems to be an inverse relationship between the number of people having advanced degrees in a specialty or profession and the quality of that particular career field in the U.S. today. The quality of American industries and businesses seems to have gotten worse with every MBA that is awarded to an individual who is then hired. Our kids in school seem to get dumber and even more stupider as the number of teachers having master's degrees in education increases.

I don't know, maybe it's just me.

[ganulv]

There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.

During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?

[JMA]

During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?

You probably need to look at West Point.

I suggest that the Brits have fewer routes to a commission than in the US services but this is understandable due to the every shrinking size of the Brit forces. The Brits went from two-year course to one-year some time ago (with a four-month platoon commanders (MoS?) added on afterwards). Reasons anyone?

You may want to consider a four-year commissioning process which includes an academic degree and look into retention beyond the five years.

West Point like Sandhurst are national institutions which are almost impossible to tinker with... say no more.

[ganulv]

You probably need to look at West Point.

I’ve never known any West Point graduates, but having met a couple of Naval Academy alums I have to say that my impression is that U.S. service academies manage to turn a lot of ambitious and promising young men and women’s energies towards arbitrary activities that seem to a non-professional to have no necessary relation to being better at being an officer. Don’t know if RMAS is anything like that, but if it is at least it only lasts for a year. (I get that counting the bristles on your toothbrush or whatever can be important just because, but for four years? )

[Red Rat]

During the run-up to the recent Royal Wedding I was doing background reading and was introduced to the existence of the RMAS. Am I correct in my understanding that an important difference between the U.S. and British systems is the lack of a similar institution in the U.S.?

Yes and No.

The Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) is a bit like the Westpoint and the other military academies in the US in that it is a route (in the UK it is the only route) to commissioning. It differs in that it is not a degree awarding institution. The one year RMAS course is primarily designed to develop firstly robust leadership, and secondly a basic level of professional military knowledge. A large part of the syllabus is spent in the field on tactical exercises as a way of developing leadership (with a side benefit of developing tactical proficiency).

[JMA]

There is no requirement to have a degree in order to get commissioned in the British Armed Forces, although the majority do now have a degree.

What range of degrees? I wonder apart from the added maturity and life skills and generally improved education level how this all helps the young infantry officer comply with his role... which is to close with and kill the enemy?

(You know my position is that it would serve the military better to send the officers with long term potential off to a civilian university around the rank of major to study something of military value (that said I accept that in some of the technical corps earlier study by an officer would be advantageous).

6-10% of British Army officers have now come from the ranks, having served as a soldier or NCO and then applied for a Direct Entry commission (this is in addition to the Late Entry process whereby soldiers who have made it to Warrant Officer Class 1 (Command Segeant Major equiv) can apply for a commission.

It would be interesting to establish the ages and ranks of the 6-10% who enter Sandhurst from the ranks (with 29 years being the cut off I understand).

[Red Rat]

What range of degrees? I wonder apart from the added maturity and life skills and generally improved education level how this all helps the young infantry officer comply with his role... which is to close with and kill the enemy?

All sorts of degrees (mine is in Philosophy ). Apart from the advantages that you elucidate above there is a feeling that there is an adavantage in having a broadly educated officer corps. The main reason however that so many officers have a degree is the amount of social engineering that has happened in the last 15 or so years where the Government stated that they wanted half of all school leavers to have a degree; it is now very hard not to get people with a degree... Add to this the changes to the (Army) career system whereby initial entry is on a short service commission for 4-6 years, then by competitive selection to an Intermediate Regular Commission (12 years) and then Regular Commission (up until the age of 55). Because people cannot join for a full career on application a great many hedge their bets by taking a degreee as well.

Professionally Qualified Officers (PQOs - doctors, nurses, cghaplains and lawyers) arrive with the recognised qualification and com plete a 6 week course at RMAS. Engineers (civil or otherwise) have to complete the full year at RMAS.

In terms of course length, in the 1970s and early 1980s Regular Commission officers conducted 2 years of training at RMAS and Short Service Commission officers completed 12 months training at Mons Officer academy. IIRC that it was felt that 2 years was somewhat extravagent and Mons was shut with all officers completing a 12 month course at RMAS (less graduates who were an exceptional breed in those days and completed only 6 or 9 months training at RMAS).

Most cadets at RMAS are in the 21-28 age bracket. This ties in with most students graduating aged 21 or 22. Apocryphally most officers from the ranks are aged about the same, assuming they joined at 18/19, realised within two years that they wanted to apply for a commission and then it takes up to 2 years to move them through the selection process to RMAS. The Army is trying to shorted the length of time it takes between a soldier expressing an interest in applying for a commission and getting him to RMAS.

[blueblood]

No offense, but the recruitment procedure for officers in UK Army seems a little easy (judging by the two videos). Physical and planning tests looked good but GD and PI were not good enough, no idea about the written test.

I faced a tougher competition in GD and PI for getting admission in my college for a simple bachelor's degree and it wasn't even the best in the city, let alone the state or country.

More than 350,000 applied for the written exams for NDA, and NA this year. This does not include CDS.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-officials-nda

[Pete]

SethB: We have a veritable horde of Generals; same rough number we had at the end of WW II and in the 80s with an almost 800K Army ...

Part of the reason for that is not the personnel guys' fault; rather it is the perverse logic of the TDA Army, in which nobody will treat you seriously unless the CO of your organization is of equivalent rank to that of my CO or my staff-weenie boss in Washington. It turns into "my Dad can beat up your Dad" situations. Thus we have TDA organizations that could be ably commanded by lieutenant colonels which instead have one- or two-stars in charge.

If we ever decide to trim back the Army we should take a serious look at the vast TDA organization empires that have grown up since 1945. Many of them would function more smoothly with less people.

[JMA]

JMA:No differing by me for one, I think you're spot on. The French, by tradition have two Lieutenants commanding Platoons and the other two are commanded by NCOs. Seems a sensible way to provide experience for a select few who are being groomed to do Officer stuff at echelons above company...

Having arrived at the School of Infantry directly off ops it was like entering another world. In that environment there was a disconnect between what was happening on the ground in the war and in that august training establishment. In wartime one tends to address the immediate issues and let the future look after itself (however that turns out). To their credit there was no necessity to lower the standards to get more junior officers into the field as it was understood that where there was no platoon commander (officer) the platoon sergeant would (and could) do the job.

We say we're training future Commanders and Leaders and then we place most in an environment where they are charged with rote operations of questionable value while their drive and initiative gets trampled by set piece training and operations -- that drives many to depart after five years or so and the Army accepts that because a big war will see them called back.

The tend does tend to get lost over time unless ever new idea is tested against the stated aim and intension before being adopted. You are old enough to remember the Peter Principle. What I remember best from it was this as quoted in an artile:

In the chapter `Follower and Leaders', Peter points out the hierarchiological fallacies. He cites the example of the mother of George Washington who, when asked how her son was so accomplished as a General, answered: "I taught him to obey." Peter asks how the ability to lead depends on the ability to follow, as though the ability to float depends on the ability to sink.

We know you can't herd cats so the tendency is to adapt and apply spin to make the crushing of initiative and spirit sound almost noble.

Yes, and the wasted investment when so many leave after five years is justified as you say. They will be available for a future 'big' war through the Reserve. How many people do you think actually believe this?

It takes a pretty mature group of people (or desperate circumstances) for the ‘sacred cows’ to be tackled and revised. Constant review and constant change must be encouraged (unless it will lead to a loss in the annual Army Navy sports competitions that is )