Army Officer Commercial

[Massengale]

Boy, I do some work for a couple days, actually get internet access and I see all this. (the BCT breakdowns are missing a couple officers btw.)

1. I never said that people not from the coasts were hicks (heck, LI and NJ have a higher-than average percentage of them anyway!). My father is from IA and my mother is from MN (most definitely not a hick state btw). And, heck, UT might be the most well-traveled state in the country. I do think that the statistical distribution by state of passports per capita and the relative rankings of state school systems (ok, is it really news to anyone that the deep south has the worst school systems in the country? is it really controversial that that fact is unfortunate from the military perspective insofar as we prefer better-educated EM and officers?).

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

5. Yes, kids from urban backgrounds aren't as ready for a variety of traditional Army skills that are more woodland based (here's looking at you Ranger School). Nevermind that the world grows more urban every year and it's urban areas that pose the greatest difficulty for us.

6. Ultimately, as I said, we need people from every background. But right now 40% of new officers are from the South and almost 0% from the Northeast. That's my point.

[Massengale]

oh, and I thought Once an Eagle was a pretty poorly written book that displayed some passion in need of an editor.

thus my moniker.

[Kiwigrunt]

Hmmm, these numbers so far are looking a bit embarrassing for us Kiwi’s. Now for the Navy it’s easy to explain; more than half of both of our boats are so small they only need a captain. And for the RNZAF, the three maintenance crew take turns at setting the clock back on the hecilopter (I’m too little to say a big word like flopticopter)

On a slightly more serious note now,

Davidbfpo:

According to figures given to the UK parliament and cited in: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/files...ish_dorman.pdf (Pg.s 15 & 16)

In 2008

Army 1 : 7.1
Navy 1 : 5.1
AirF 1 : 4.4

In 2008 for all three armed services using consolidation of officer ranks to army equivalents, for an all ranks total of 187,100; we have 140 major generals, 350 brigadiers, 1180 colonels, 4070 lieut.colonels, 9600 majors, 11900 captains and 4460 lieut / 2nd lieut. A total of 31,700 officers for 155,300 other ranks.

I was about to state that UK and US are quite similar with the UK army being a nice average between US army and USMC…….until I discovered that the rates that Davidbfpo indicated are not accurate. (I’m a numbers-man more than a words-man. I was checking your link to find the ranks-layout for army only.) You divided the total by the number of officers, instead of the number of ORs by the number of officers. So it should read:

Army 1 : 6.2
Navy 1 : 4.1
RAF 1 : 3.5

In the NZ numbers, officer cadets are included. If we exclude them for the army, the ratio would be 1 : 5.5 (not stating this as a pissing contest, just that, well, I am a numbers-man and sometimes analy so)



Cavguy:

So about 16 officers or so on staff. Five line companies equals another 25-30 or so. (CO CDR, XO, 3-4 PL's) So the low 40's for a BN of officers is standard, and has been for awhile.

You really see staffs growing at BCT levels right now, due to the shift to the BCT of many functions once handled by divisions. You'd be shocked what a BCT has to synchronize on today's battlefield, and it takes a fair number of experienced personnel. BN hasn't grown that much.

Even 82redleg’s brigade numbers show a ratio of around 1 : 11, which is still a far cry from the army average of around 1 : 5/6.
I believe arty (for instance) are a bit higher on their officer ratios, other than that, I think this still applies:

So the 'excess' is to be found where Cavguy and Ken have identified them, above and to the peripherals of the combat units.

Another thing I have noticed, in both UK and NZ army, is the relatively low number of lieutenants. That makes the bottom of the pyramid a lot narrower than I would ever have guessed it.


And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

[82redleg]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

[Cavguy]

Field Artillery is slightly higher than IN in the BCTs- a 44 man FA platoon has a PL and an FDO- a 39 man rifle platoon has only the PL. This evens out when you add the staff, med, CSS, etc.

Fires BDEs FA BNs will have a higher ratio (because MLRS sections are smaller), but they don't have FDOs, either. I'll have to find an MTOE and run the #s.

Echelons above BDE will have a higher ratio, as they are composed of HQs and staffs. Also, the Army sends alot more officers to school longer than enlisted, so, for example, approximately 20% of MAJs are at FT Leavenworth for CGSC/SAMS at any given time. There is also OBC, CCC and War College- the only enlisted comparison is the Sergeant Major Academy, which I think is 600+/- in any given class. All these #s will skew the data.

I used the FKSM 71-8, dated APR 2008. It doesn't exactly match the BCT I came from, or probably any other BCTs MTOE- it allegedly reflects the base TOE. I'd be interested in which you think I missed.

Yeah, MTOE's are rarely standard. Nice use of the statistic from the welcoming remarks the other day ...

My above on officer numbers for a line BN were an off the top of the head calculation, but +/- 10 or so. Most of the lowering of the overall army ratio comes from higher HQ and logistics staffs that in many cases support the joint force. (i.e. theater logistics, or HQs such as MNF-I, which are mostly Army) Whether they are overmanned or needed is an ongoing debate and favorite subject for Ken.

[JarodParker]

And for those interested or with nothing better to do (like me at the moment), visit youtube for a NZ army recruitment clip, a NZ army promo (note the reflective safety belt a quarter of the way through) and a NZSAS promo.

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

[Kiwigrunt]

The first recruitment video was mehhh. The second video would've been uber awesome had it been shorter (less chow hall footage) and had better music. The last video, all I'm going to say is "Creed! Really?"

Thanks for sharing.

On the first, concur. And that's one of the better adds on TV. Maybe that's why we're having trouble recruiting!
On the second, concur again, but hey, they had to show a few nice looking chicks
On the third, maybe my English but not sure whether that's pos or neg.

And I think I found out why the RNZAF have so many officers. They are all busy coming up with better TV adds

[CR6]

2. I never said anything about semesters abroad. Affluent people from the coasts travel the world because that's what affluent people from the coasts do. Some of it's just because it's easier to fly to Paris or London from NY than it is to Des Moines from NY, some of it's just because traveling is a way of life. That background, in and of itself, is useful. So are the accompanying language skills.

I guess I misunderstood your reference here:

Why wouldn't cadets who spent the summer of their jr. year traveling in the ME or Africa be more ready?

The reference to cadets and junior year threw me. Mea Culpa.

3. Since we are obviously talking in broad statistical generalizations, I'm not certain why some were bringing up specific individuals and their backgrounds. But if you're going to do that you might as well mention the origins of Petraeus, Odierno and McChrystal. But agreed that's all irrelevant.

I made specific reference to the leadership involved in Abu Grahib in response to your statement regarding lives lost due to retarded prison guards. I stand by my contention that this mess was a direct result of poor training and leadership, therefore I found that the background of the leaders involved was relevant. I referenced alma maters to demonstrate that east coast educations did not prepare these officers to inculcate cultural awareness in the soldiers for whom they were responsible

4. No one addressed a major point. No one. The coasts are filled with millions of first generation immigrants from around the world...places where the Army will end up. They have valuable language skills and cultural knowledge. We ignore the coasts to our detriment. (And I completely disagree with the statement that "cultural sensitivity is unnecessary for COIN." That's so wrong it's not even wrong.)

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

[jmm99]

hasn't changed that much since WWII, except for reduction of riflemen. See attached charts (both from 1 Jan 1945). Inf Coy = 6 O: 187 EM (5 pls; 3 rifle w/ 12-man sqds, 1 weapons, 1 HQ).

Looking back further, the "line" portion of a Roman Legion's century consisted of 3 "officers" (Centurion, 10 x basic pay; Optio, 2 x basic pay; Tesserarius, 1-1/2 x basic pay). So, 3 O: 80 EM; or, to compare with WWII and present, times 2 = 6 O: 160 EM.

To be complete, each "century" had a support unit of 20 men, which were spread among the 10 contubernia (each a 8-man tent team, including its decanus). So, the century was a century including its support group.

The higher Roman legionary officers were mostly "lawyers" (trained in rhetoric & Roman Law) - because the route to becoming a legate included being a magistrate as a tribune and higher offices as a senior tribune and legate.

The military professionals at the top were (from same link):

Praefectus castrorum, Camp Prefect: The Camp Prefect was third in command of the legion. Generally he was a long serving veteran from a lower social status than the tribunii whom he outranked, and who previously had served as primus pilus and finished his 25 years with the legions. However, Camp Prefects were also on occasion appointed from aristocrats, in the same way as tribunes.

and

Primus pilus, literally First File: The Primus Pilus was the commanding centurion of the first cohort and the senior centurion of the entire legion. He was called first file because he also directly commanded the first century of the first cohort. (Unlike other cohorts, the first cohort had only one javelin century, instead of a "front spear" and a "back spear" century). The Primus Pilus had a chance of later becoming a Praefectus Castrorum. When the primus pilus retired he would most likely gain entry into the equestrian class. He was paid 60 times the base wage.

So far as number of company-grade officers is concerned, the number has not changed much in the poor, old infantry.

BTW: the debate between recruitment of "aristocrats", as opposed to officers from the "ranks", also goes back to Roman times. So, this thread is nothing new - if we went back to a Roman legionary staff campfire.

[Schmedlap]

I believe my response was that I did not believe recruiting on college campuses was the best way to reach this demagraphic.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

[Cavguy]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

I decided to join in college, and probably 25% of my commissioning class did. However, I didn't need a values adjust to do it.

That said, we had an outstanding program and some great cadre that really worked hard to bring people in.

[Courtney Massengale]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

Way back when I was in ROTC, we had a lot of people who joined the program at the third year level...

... and most of them were prior service or in the Guard/Reserve. Obviously they had made up their mind about HOW they were going to become and officer prior to going to college (or at least ruled out four years of ROTC).

Perhaps rather than focusing on the "who" they need to relook the "how" and tie that back to recruiting?

[patmc]

I joined sophomore year, did "Basic Camp" at Knox, then did the regular program junior and senior year. Schmedlap, agree that most join early though. I sought out ROTC, they did not find me. My upbringing, values, education, and interests pushed me to the Army. A couple other people from my school joined over the next two years, but only 1 other stuck with it until the end (she is still in as well). Having more of a presence and exposure on campus could get those extra couple people who did not consider or know about their options before starting college, but the costs would be great for minor return. You would also need younger officers to recruit, not senior Captains or Majors, who though knowledgeable, can be ten or more years older than average college student, and can't really "rap with the kids."

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out. The demands of ROTC are significant compared to a normal college schedule, and just the early mornings alone weed a lot of people out. That's good and bad. You don't want people who think its going to be just a job and easy, but it doesn't help draw cadets when you make them change their whole lifestyle. My roommates were proud of me, but they were not getting up and joining me at o dark thirty. Though I fell asleep in my afternoon classes sometimes, the regimen of ROTC was much better for me than what I was doing previously. It still is.

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

[Massengale]

Majority of officers (and SGTs and Soldiers) decide they want the Army and seek it out.

You are way overestimating the exposure that many people have to the Army. When I went in I remember trying to explain it to one friend of mine in NY...her: "I don't know anything about the military. I'm Jewish!" (The reality is that a few people in our social circle had been in the Israeli military...but otherwise, yes, I'm the only person she had ever met who had been in any branch of the American military. And that's pretty standard there.) And the Army doesn't advertise there either. No advertising on the TV programs we watch, no web-ads on the sites we go to. None of that. People do, generally speaking, have to have some exposure to something for them to think of it as an option. Advertising works that way.

[Massengale]

Definitely agree there. I don't know anyone who decided to join ROTC while in college. It was a decision made concurrently - or before - the decision of which college to attend. College seems like a bit late in the game to be reaching the demographic.

If individuals are not drawn to military service, I think it tends to be so for reasons that have more to do with interests, values, and attitudes developed during their first 18 years of life and not likely to be influenced by on-campus recruiting.

oh, ROTC may not be the primary mechanism by which to reach this demographic (though if there was a serious CUNY ROTC program you might be surprised)...my post that started all this was just stating that Army culture in general is an issue. The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

[Schmedlap]

The fact that posters here don't think that both command influence and peer pressure relating to religion and politics isn't an issue in the Army simply shows that you're too used to it and see it as ordinary (I hear and statements which cross the line all the time, from LTs up to three stars).

Or maybe you're just one data point out of many and their experience differs?

[Massengale]

Possibly.

But the few officers that I've met that come from a similar background as myself agree with me (and bring it up themselves)...in private anyway.

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

[Courtney Massengale]

One of the things about having a monoculture is that the few who don't represent that culture are kind of forced to keep silent. And in the Army's case, that monoculture only represents a part of America. (The other services seem to do better.)

I would disagree that there is any one "monoculture".

If you stick around long enough, you see everything come full circle. Religion was a third rail when I first came in; a couple years ago it was a requirement for promotion, now its sliding back down towards standard deviation. There are a couple different axis for Officer temperament and we tend to slip and slide between the two polar opposites from post to post, administration to administration, war to war.

The neat thing is that anytime something approaches monoculture, that means its about ready to tip over and fall flat on its face as the new cool kid monoculture comes up behind it.

[Steve Blair]

BTW, I agree that the Army does a good job advertising its leave policies. It's effective propaganda. Too bad it's pretty misleading. Since weekend days count toward the 30 days of leave we're really just talking about 3 weeks of vacation. No different from other jobs. On the other hand, many units do get a fair amount of three and four day weekends in a garrison environment. But then plenty of private sector jobs are on a four day work week or offer the opportunity to work from home part of the time.
Then throw in the hassle that is involved in actually traveling somewhere (redundant, pro forma safety briefings, POV inspections and having to plan everything way in advance) and I can't say that military vacation policies are actually better than the civilian sector. It's worth it for other reasons, not the vacations.

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

[Massengale]

And how much private sector experience do you have? There aren't that many regular jobs that offer work from home, and the 4/10 schedule is still limited to a few sectors. And if you're in a company or environment that uses a time bank you have to balance any vacation against a possible need for sick leave (since time banks tend to lump all accrued "off hours" into a single pool that's used for both) and possibly any holidays in the bargain (yes...there are some places that make you take your earned hours to get paid for holidays). And if your job requires you to flex out, you have to use those hours to get paid. Last time I checked the military didn't require you to burn leave on a command-designated "down day."

Not saying that the military's policy is necessarily better, but what you read in the "Army Times" about private sector opportunities often doesn't square with the reality. Nor does elite coastal job experience. That's not the norm for folks out here...a point that is often missed.

And as for monoculture...if you think the Army's bad you should try academia sometime.

I have almost a decade's worth of major corporate experience in NY. (Agreed, that doesn't necessarily represent the norm across America.) And I was in academia once upon a time. Gave it up partially because of the monocultural miasma you suggest. Flex time/work from home does seem to be a sharply growing trend across the IT/media/high-tech centers....and I stand by the point that the 30 days (because of the weekends) is really only three weeks off. I don't dispute that the DOD's pass/leave policies are more generous than most private sector jobs (unless you're actually trying to use a pass or leave to actually go anywhere...)...but it's not just academia that offers comparable benefits.

(And, yes, academia is worse when it comes to the monocultural aspect!)