Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Unit Lifetime Assignments

  1. #1
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default 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?
    "Politics are too important to leave to the politicians"

  2. #2
    Council Member Chris Albon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    37

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 01-05-2008 at 04:10 AM.
    -----------

    Chris Albon,
    Ph.D. Student / UC Davis
    Blogger / War and Health

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzel View Post
    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:

    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.
    "Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

  4. #4
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Albon View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Ratzel; 01-05-2008 at 05:31 AM.
    "Politics are too important to leave to the politicians"

  5. #5
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ratzel View Post

    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default Pardon my ignorance, but

    Wilf,

    What is the core concept of the Regimental System?

    and

    What are the pitfalls in terms of modern soldiering?

  7. #7
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jones_RE View Post
    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.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    310

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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?

  9. #9
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Attrition...

    Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
    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').
    Last edited by Ken White; 01-05-2008 at 05:45 PM. Reason: Typo

  10. #10
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    The Green Mountains
    Posts
    356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Norfolk; 01-05-2008 at 07:46 PM.

  12. #12
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    26

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Jim Rodgers; 01-05-2008 at 10:56 PM.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    26

    Default

    "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.
    Last edited by Jim Rodgers; 01-05-2008 at 10:25 PM.

  14. #14
    Council Member Ratzel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    81

    Default

    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.
    "Politics are too important to leave to the politicians"

  15. #15
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    717

    Default

    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! (dependent of course, upon the universities meeting the Army half-way).

    Jim wrote:

    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.

  16. #16
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Norfolk View Post
    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.
    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!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Down the Shore NJ
    Posts
    175

    Default

    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?

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Calcutta, India
    Posts
    1,124

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Ray; 02-05-2008 at 05:20 AM.

  20. #20
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default sorry to bump an old post

    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

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
  •