Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
It seems obvious that you commission them rather than mix say warrant officers with officers.
Why? they're thoroughly mixed currently...
One would need to look at their future utilisation after say a maximum of three years as a platoon commander. Training? Admin? Logistics? How many would make it to company commander?
Nominally about 50%. Far better than the current 80% +.
...because IMHO they have had served their 'apprenticeship' as a platoon commander (preferably in a war).
I'm not at all convinced that being a Platoon Commander is necessary or even all that beneficial. Does it work? Surely. Is it the current norm? Mostly (a very few slip through with little or no Platoon Leader time). The US norm is more nearly one year than three and I believe three would not be acceptable in the US for a number of reasons though I acknowledge it might work elsewhere.
This US business of having a captain command a company with less training/experience/whatever than a major seems strange when compared to the Brit (and probably others systems).
It worked well when we had people being promoted to Captain only after ten or more or more years service. Fairly well when that dropped to six or so years. It doesn't do as well with the Viet Nam and current abbreviated time of two to three years or thereabouts.
I don't think floating officers serve any real purpose nor does the time so served provide any real experience.
That depends entirely on how they are employed. I've seen it work well when units in combat were seriously short of LTs. That being short of them is also a concern in major high intensity conflict. Better to inculcate good practices then to have to do it ad-hoc.
The platoon commanding phase must IMHO mean living with, fighting with and if necessary dying with the platoon. That is the required 'apprenticeship'.
Sounds good but I disagree. It is one method, it worked for you -- has worked for many -- however, I'm unsure what Officer skill it imparts other than a slightly more all encompassing knowledge of how the Troops live and play. It's been my observation that only a few of them take that knowledge beyond Major, even fewer past LT Colonel and only a rare few past Colonel. That, in theory, is (in US usage and with which I disagree) why there are Sergeants Major, to remind those senior souls how the Enlisted Swine believe and feel...
Easy to fix. Make the selection more arduous.
Agree that is the fix; disagree that it is easy. Politicians can take umbrage at the slightest hint of 'unfairness' as they see it. In this politically correct era, worldwide, the slightest hint of the arduousity being 'discriminatory' would kill it.
Excellent officers would be driven out if their careers are being blacked by 'dead wood' blocking their route to command companies, battalions etc for a reasonable length of time (two years). There are also other reason why the retention of officers suffers and those are mainly not service related - wife pressure, chasing higher income etc - and the hidden one which none will admit being not wanting to be exposed to combat again (among those who had a bite of the cherry in Iraq or Afghanistan and found it sour to their taste).
All true, always a problem...
Ditch the surplus... don't accommodate them. *
You and I are in agreement. Unfortunately, the senior leadership of the US Army doesn't agree with us.
Training for whom?
Everyone. Our (US) 'training' succumbs to cost accountants, psychologists who are concerned with extraneous foolishness in some cases and political correctness. It will not be improved unless there is a grassroots swell of large amplitude or an existential war occurs.
* In earlier posts I stated and still believe that young men who have given the best years of their life to the service should be able to exit it with dignity if the service no longer requires there service. This would entail funded study etc etc.
Agree.