Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Because that's the way it is now means that the right way?
Nope -- but your suggestion just continues what we are now doing.

It works, so will many other methods...
Ever thought why some pilots are officers and other are warrant officers? It makes sense to you?
Yep, it makes sense in that Aviation unit commanders should be officers, mostly but not all. I prefer NCO to the Warrant Officer usage so I'd say most Pilots should be NCOs and not Officers. Most everyone fell into Officers as pilots way back when due to the education variance. Those days are gone. As I've reminded you before, we used to ride to work on Elephants -- we quite and not just because the Parking Lot Attendants got upset...
Thanks like saying a sergeant doesn't need to have served as a troopie.
Not what I said and you know it -- I said it's not necessary for an Officer to serve as a Platoon Leader, not that he should not command troops on a mission basis and live with them for months at a time. We want to put them in the same environment and for some time, we just would do it slightly differently. Personally, I think all of 'em should serve as Troopies for a bit -- but that's another thread...
I'm totally flabbergasted at this comment of yours, to the extent, that being so far apart there is no point in proceeding with the discussion on this point.
Okay
It is how it is now that matters... and it is sub optimal now. It needs to be addressed...But can it be addressed? Probably not...as at company commander level across the military as the demand for rapid advancement leads to competence and experience being sacrificed...That is not the situation at the moment though is it?
Yes, yes, yes, No -- unfortunately.
I can see no point in pushing officers up the line so fast that they gain no practical experience along the way. Look at the career development of a civil engineer. Where does he start and how does he advance - the engineer/foreman/worker structure is similar to the military.
We agree on that, we just do not agree on how things should -- and could be -- done.
That's not my understanding. Perhaps here is an area for study. To see what value general staff place in their time and experienced gained at platoon commander level (with a comparison, say, between the Brits and the yanks).
I can understand your understanding - and I can agree with it from the standpoint of the Commonwealth Armies. From the standpoint of the US Army, time spent as a platoon leader is currently almost superficial, it is a way station and for many not a particularly enjoyable one (which is an absolute pity and an indictment of the way we do things here...). My comments re: the field Grades is based on the US model. I can't speak to SA or Rhodesia but I have worked with, seen and freely acknowledge the Strynes, Canadians and British do a better job -- that's mostly because they use their NCOs, particularly Sergeants Major (Co and higher...), correctly -- we too often do not.
Beyond battalion level that ceases to be that important as it is where the troops are that the finger needs to be kept on the pulse.
In many respects but not totally...
Ok so we accept the system is 'broken' but can't be fixed. Live with it maybe but know that it reduces the efficiency of the military...maybe why capable people don't stay in the service.
Sadly correct...