Our initial question was, how in an western army a bottom-up approach for leader selection could work.Originally Posted by Fuchs
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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).
... 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:
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...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.
(Then) Maj Watson's paper is well worth a read.
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.
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)
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 ...
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.
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?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks