Unit Lifetime Assignments

[Ratzel]

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?

[Chris Albon]

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.

[Ratzel]

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.

[GMLRS]

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.

Good points all, but......

In the case of certain career specialties, a Soldier could end up stovepiped (i.e. heavy vice light or XM777 vice Paladin). Well-rounded leaders are desperately needed who are adaptive and resourceful. A few "specialists" are always a good thing, but not the status quo.

As for reenlistment options, this next year will reveal just how few left there really are....

[Rifleman]

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.

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Jones_RE]

Wilf,

What is the core concept of the Regimental System?

and

What are the pitfalls in terms of modern soldiering?

[William F. Owen]

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.

[Granite_State]

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.

[Norfolk]

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.

[Presley Cannady]

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?

[Ken White]

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').