Point/Counterpoint: Are the Service Academies in Trouble?

[JMA]

I think it is a cultural thing. The system works well enough and therefore there is no over-riding reason to change. I went through the old 'O' type system of Potential Officer Development Course which used to be compulsory for Scottish Division Officers. Basic training at Glencorse, no more then 4 hours sleep a night and a 'blind' programme where we did not know what was going to happen more then 2 hours in advance - those were the days

If you look at the IDF system it appears to be built around their 2 year National Service with the requirement for officers to sign on for another year before being posted to the reserve (this as I read it from the exert from the quoted book). This may be the limitation of the system as it effectively screens out any potential officers who for whatever reason do not want to extend their time on active service another year. It also appears that NCO promotions take place within the first year after recruit training. That is very much a national service thing and would be exceptional within a regular army structure.

It works for them just as it can probably be said by most countries that their system works for them also.

This idea of the need of service before commissioning seems only valid if it is built upon time served as a trained soldier and not merely some sort of egalitarian approach to basic training.

From my personal experience I did 6 months "basic" training in the South Africa as a national servicemen then went on to Rhodesia where i did the whole basic training thing again for 20 weeks. And did First Phase on officers course (was it 12 weeks? out of the 12 month course - can't quite remember) which culminated with "Passing off the square".

There were differences. Important differences. My instructors on recruit course were sgts and cpls while on officers course only c/sgts and WOIIs. Big difference. The recruit training was pitched at preparing one to be a "bayonet" in a rifle platoon while clearly the officers course was all about leadership and even during section battle drills we were involved with the demonstration company (that's all we had) as troops to command.

So quite honestly the basic training itself came nowhere close to the quality of the first phase of the officers training.

It was the time served in an operational subunit which was valuable. The 5 contacts I had as a troopie were valuable. It is this aspect that needs attention. The Sword of Honour on my officers course had attended university first so had a head start yet speaking to him 30 years on he believes that he too would have benefited had he spent some time in the ranks before officers course or being commissioned.

So it really appears that there is a need for practical experience of soldiering prior to taking command of a platoon on active service and not necessarily to be trained with and soldier with basic recruits.

We played with the idea of understudies where new officers would spend time working with a platoon commander who was coming to the end of his 3 year stint as a platoon commander. Not satisfactory. We had op attachments where officer cadets were attached to operational companies (a variation on the understudy theme). Worked quite well except was never long enough.

So if a person was to first do basic training and then a year as a trained soldier how much could you reduce the 12 month officer course by? If the recruit course was 20 weeks then you could probably offset about half of that and bring it down to 9 and a half months. IMHO